Accuracy in reporting

I was showing some online videos of climbing/skiing trips on Mr. Rainier to my son today.  I was reminded of something that always bothered me a bit.  It’s common for many people to reach the south crater rim of Mt. Rainier and call it good.  I know many of the guide services do just that with their clients, even to ones who pay full price to “summit” the mountain.   This then reminded me of a recent post here.  As a wise man once said “If you turn around short of an objective, please say so ….   But claiming that you reached an objective when you did not in fact do so …is just not right”

That sounds pretty simple to me.  While reaching the crater rim of Mt. Rainier is no easy task and I fully understand saying “screw it, close enough,” it’s not the top!   Unless you’ve slogged across the crater, past the register and up to the tippy-top, you haven’t truly climbed Mt. Rainier.

Are there any other mountains out there where it’s acceptable to lie about reaching the top or is Mt. Rainier unique? (I might have to rethink the list of mountains I’ve climbed.)

I've read about many guides with impressive numbers of summits of Mt Rainier, but I’ve never seen an asterisks after those numbers.

What do you think?
(sorry about any spelling mistakes)

Is 99.99 the same as 100.00? It depends on the tolerance used.

I find it pretty impressive when people forgo a summit because it's not part of the ski descent, it's a waste of time, or they simply don't need it.

I was showing some online videos of climbing/skiing trips on Mr. Rainier to my son today.  I was reminded of something that always bothered me a bit.  It’s common for many people to reach the south crater rim of Mt. Rainier and call it good.  I know many of the guide services do just that with their clients, even to ones who pay full price to “summit” the mountain.   This then reminded me of a recent post here.  As a wise man once said “If you turn around short of an objective, please say so ….   But claiming that you reached an objective when you did not in fact do so …is just not right”

That sounds pretty simple to me.  While reaching the crater rim of Mt. Rainier is no easy task and I fully understand saying “screw it, close enough,” it’s not the top!   Unless you’ve slogged across the crater, past the register and up to the tippy-top, you haven’t truly climbed Mt. Rainier.

Are there any other mountains out there where it’s acceptable to lie about reaching the top or is Mt. Rainier unique? (I might have to rethink the list of mountains I’ve climbed.)

I've read about many guides with impressive numbers of summits of Mt Rainier, but I’ve never seen an asterisks after those numbers.

What do you think?
(sorry about any spelling mistakes)

Are you being a bit "picky".

I'll tell people that I have climbed St. Helens when I actually only made it to the rim.  My wife was waiting back in camp and it wasn't worth taking the time to hike over to the true summit for the same view but only 200ft higher.

I find it pretty impressive when people forgo a summit because it's not part of the ski descent, it's a waste of time, or they simply don't need it.

Call me a traditionalist. When I'm ski mountaineering, I'm mountaineering. For me, skipping the summit because it's not part of the ski descent is like skipping the main course of a meal.

sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.  to cookie's and ac's point, it probably depends on your objective and your audience..

Mt. Rainier is a bad example since it's been climbed and guided by 1 trillion people and its summit is a mile wide crater, not a dramatic spire.


If you're trying to make money and a reputation from your climbs then, yes, 'accuracy' matters.  But this is a skiing site and most here are interested in good ski lines, not peak bagging.  If you asked this question on a climbing or mountaineering site I'm sure the answers would be different...

Who cares? Have you been to the summit of Rainier? Seriously, there's not much to miss there.

Now Liberty Cap, that feels more like a summit. And it still gets monotonous hitting the top of that baby from the Mowich Face, Ptarmigan Ridge, Liberty Ridge, whatever.

Just to twist Lowell's analogy and have some fun, skiing Mt Rainier from somewhere short of the summit, for many routes, would be like NOT putting ketchup on a top quality ribeye cooked rare.

The snow conditions are horrendous off the top more than 90% of the time.

Mt. Rainier is a bad example since it's been climbed and guided by 1 trillion people and its summit is a mile wide crater, not a dramatic spire.

Agreed.

Liberty Cap has become the usual high point for ski descents of the NW side of Rainier, just as the North Shoulder has become the usual high point for descents on the north side of Mt Shuksan. If I was climbing and skiing those peaks every other weekend, I would probably do the same. But I'm not. My trips these days are few and far between, so I want to savor them. And if I manage to do a "first descent" I want it to be as complete as possible. When my brother and I skied the north ridge of Forbidden Peak we climbed to the summit and back. I thought climbing the upper ridge in ski boots added to the challenge. If we had skipped it I would have felt that the ascent and descent was not complete.

Who cares?  Have you been to the summit of Rainier?  Seriously, there's not much to miss there.  

...

The snow conditions are horrendous off the top more than 90% of the time.

Oh, Sky, I miss you!

I guess I've lucked out for getting good ski conditions atop Rainier a lot more than Sky has -- snow conditions have been horrendous off the top much less than 50% of the time for me (and even many of those times, only the first 100 vert or so were horrendous). I've skied beautiful powder or smooth corn in the crater right below Columbia Crest several times now.

That sounds pretty simple to me. While reaching the crater rim of Mt. Rainier is no easy task and I fully understand saying “screw it, close enough,” it’s not the top! Unless you’ve slogged across the crater, past the register and up to the tippy-top, you haven’t truly climbed Mt. Rainier.

Are there any other mountains out there where it’s acceptable to lie about reaching the top or is Mt. Rainier unique? (I might have to rethink the list of mountains I’ve climbed.)

I've read about many guides with impressive numbers of summits of Mt Rainier, but I’ve never seen an asterisks after those numbers.

As far as I know, the standard practice on Mount Rainier (used by guide services, climbing rangers, and most climbers) is to count any ascent which reaches one of the three 14000+ ft peaks (Columbia Crest 14411 ft, Point Success 14158 ft, Liberty Cap 14112 ft), or any part of the two craters' rims, as a "Rainier summit". The lowest point on the crater rims is at about 14180 ft on the SE side of the east crater (which is also the point at which the DC route reaches the rim), and is higher than either of the two satellite summits, so it "makes sense" to count that if the satellites count. But merely exceeding 14000 ft while failing to reach the crater rim is not counted under the accepted standard.

I'm not sure how or when this standard practice arose -- it would be an interesting question to ask Dee Molenaar (who just completed an updated 4th edition of The Challenge of Rainier at the age of 93). Of course, I know a few people who are purists, and only count the times that they have summited Columbia Crest. Good for them, but that is not the standard practice. I choose to follow the standard practice in counting my own Rainier ascents, but if I write a TR, I've always clearly stated what high point was reached. The 3 times (out of 23 ascents) where I have decided not to continue on to Columbia Crest after reaching some part of the crater rim all happen to be documented in TRs on this site. But I always prefer to visit Columbia Crest unless strong winds, incoming weather, or unusual circumstances intervene. I don't think it's "lying" to follow the standard accepted practice, as long you state how high you really went if you choose to publicize your climb online or in print.

However, there is another issue in Rainier summit counting too: guides and climbing rangers often count multiple Rainier summits even when they only descend to Camp Muir or Camp Schurman (or even Ingraham Flats at 11200 ft) between the ascents. That sounds a lot more suspect than merely missing the last 200-300 ft, because saving 4700-5800 ft of vertical by not descending back to the trailhead (while having a relatively cushy building to stay in) makes it much easier to rack up large numbers of Rainier summits. I personally think that any ascent of Rainier should have to start from a trailhead in order to be counted, but standard practice is to count multiple ascents from high camp as separate Rainier summits.


There are many other mountains where standard practice is to count summits without having reached the actual true summit, including several prominent Washington volcanoes: Saint Helens, Adams, and Baker.

Mount Saint Helens post-1980 is the classic example -- I doubt that more than a few % of the skiers or climbers who reach the crater rim on Saint Helens actually reach the true 8365 ft summit. The standard Monitor Ridge route does not go directly to this point, and the Worm Flows winter route reaches the rim even farther east. The true summit is a long way away via an unpleasant often-icy traverse. However, the finest route I've skied on Saint Helens is the SW side via Dryer Glacier , which does lead to the true summit -- but it's a long way from Cougar Sno-Park when the road FR 81 is gated. The route is best skied when the road is deeply snow covered though, since you have to cross a large lava flow at Redrock Pass.

Mount Adams: when snowcovered, almost everyone who summits heads directly to what looks like the highest point -- but is not. It's the snow-covered top of the lookout cabin located at about 12250 ft at the SW end of the summit ridge, about 1/4 mile SW of the true 12276 ft summit (a USGS marker on a small boulder on a flat pumice field). The fire lookout was built in 1918, abandoned a few years later, used by sulfur miners in the 1930s, and then abandoned again, to be filled with solid snow and ice. The outside of the cabin melts out regularly now in late-summer of most years, but the interior does not. When deeply snowcovered, the snow atop the cabin may nearly equal the elevation of the true summit (not sure if it ever exceeds it), but nevertheless it is not the summit. Only a few % of those who "summit" Mount Adams when snowcovered actually go over to the true summit.

Mount Baker: many parties ascending via Coleman-Deming and Easton-Squak arrive atop the summit dome and forgo the long traverse east to the true summit, Grant Peak 10781 ft, but still count it as a Baker summit. The summit dome is a thick plug of glacial ice filling the summit crater of Mount Baker (geologists call this Carmelo Crater), which has a highest map contour of 10760 ft and the top of which is usually about the same elevation as Grant Peak, roughly 10780 ft. It may be higher or lower depending on snowpack.


So the standard practice on Rainier is not so unusual, even just among its Washington siblings.

Unless you’ve slogged across the crater, past the register and up to the tippy-top, you haven’t truly climbed Mt. Rainier.

I disagree. I climbed Rainier and I stopped short of the highest point at the crater rim.... I still climbed the mountain and to me I summited. But in defense of your point I do not lie about the altitude I reached. it also depends on your definition of "summit" but to me the summit does not have to be the highest physical point at the top. Even more so on mountains shaped with a rim at the summit like Rainier.

In the Himalayas some mountaineers have stopped short of the actual summit.. a few meters below... in order to respect some off the Buddhist beliefs regarding the summit being the home of some deity they worship. It 's generally accepted in those cases that they are entitled to claim the summit.

I think it depends on the context.
If its a first ascent or first ski descent of a mountain then that's history and accuracy is important in that context.


The rest of the time...who cares..it's up to the individual and their own personal context.

Piscator...seems strange this is your first post.... has people wondering if you are actually an alias... wonder why? Please clarify if you would be so kind.

I guess Piscator was successful in his trolling, he's quite the angler.

It doesn't count unless you carry all your own gear, from your house, on a bike - Goran Kropp style.

Once I have reached a summit once it becomes a lot less of a goal on return trips for me. I have never been an ambitious sort but after having tagged Adams once, the more memorable time there was the great nap I took in the sun atop the SW chutes while the rest of the group bagged the last few hundy feet of blue rime.

I guess Piscator was successful in his trolling, he's quite the angler.

Seems to me he went with an alias so they could post a question and then answer it later in the post using their normal avatar ....could be wrong but it looks that way. Hate that!

If it is his first post and not an alias.....nice catch... a Skoog and a Sky.....that there's good fishing!

There's a good thread about bagging summits like Amar stated in the 14ers website. Their golden rule is 2,000ft of gain/loss between the summits = a new summit. So, in the instance of this, going to the Flats/Emmons/Muir would count as a new summit, but if you camped at 13k, went down and back up, in this spot it wouldn't count.

And also, it depends on where you count the 'trail head' at. I would consider Muir a good starting point for a trail head. It's 3ish miles to the summit, with 4k+ feet gained. That's a pretty big gain regardless of what mountain you're on.

My attempts on Rainier out of the 6 times i've climbed it, I've made the "summit" 3x and the CC 2x out of those with 1 being a complete white out and didn't want to risk getting disoriented on top of the mountain.

Personally, who cares what other people say, as long as you know what 'they' mean by a summit. If their definition of a summit is the crater, then cool, just make sure you know what they're talking about. If someone says they can climb a 5.13c sport route, but it's TR'd with 100+ takes, then make note of that. Each person has their own way to identify something.

Personally, I haven't climbed Liberty Ridge (though I want to this year), but I would almost consider the top there a summit vs the HUGE walk across the saddle to the CC,

Though I think on Rainier personally I wouldn't call it a true summit unless weather or white out permited me to get to the CC. But I'd have to reach the crater or 1 of the 3 major peaks to count it.

On a side note, 117 days until I move to Seattle from Austin!

Depends. If your objective is the recognition of the summit by others, then it would be advisable to make the high point. If its for personal satisfaction, then who cares. It's up to you!

If you are reporting, accuracy is important. If you are doing the trip for personal satisfaction, reporting is unnecessary. Simple.

If you are reporting, accuracy is important.  If you are doing the trip for personal satisfaction, reporting is unnecessary.  Simple.

Yes, perhaps that's what I meant, too...

Reporting sounds like serious stuff...

... kind of like up-scale bragging?

Awkward silence.....

Good...

....night

Moon...

This is an interesting topic and one that I feel is something that is talked about in not only in ski mountaineering but also in alpine climbing as well. My opinion is that it's all about the objective of the respective party. For some climbing or skiing the route and its technical difficulties is the true objective and the summit doesn't matter. I look at examples of the Cassin speed record on Denali that got set this past spring in which the party didn't tag the summit but climbed the route. The same can be said for the Moonflower Buttress on Mt. Hunter which has the "technical" climbing end a good ways beneath the true summit. To some climbing the whole route to the summit is what matters and to others climbing the technical difficulties is what matters.

In terms of skiing on Rainier, one of the issues is that to ski off of Columbia Crest just doesn't make sense if your skiing routes on Rainier that are accessed off of Lib Cap or Point Success. An example is skiing the Success Couloirs off of Point Success. In order to ski off of CC you'd have to ski off for a couple hundred feet and than climb up to the top of point success where you'd deskin or put the skis back on and start the descent again. Same can be said for all the lines off of Liberty Cap. For me a line like the Mowich Face begins at the top of Lib Cap where a continuous descent can be had. But again I think it comes down to the objective of the trip. Is it to summit or ski the Mowich Face. Personally when skiing the South Tahoma Headwall or any of the lines off of Lib Cap the beauty is in skiing the line not skiing off the top. Yet the question was about reporting and documenting these descents. I feel like at the crux of the issue is where these ski lines start. What a about a line like Cj's on J Burg. Does that line start at the summit even though its not skiable off the top. Or does the line start at the top of couloir. Same thing with Shuksan, should all the descents start off the pin down the south side to access routes on the north?

A lot of interesting responses, thank you all.  I consider myself a climber first and aspiring ski mountaineer second - I’ve been climbing much longer than I’ve been skiing.

I posted this question here to see if a skier’s response would be different from that of a climbers.   I’ve had this conversation with many climbers, while I can’t speak for the entire climbing community; I generally think that climbers believe that one needs to reach the top of the hill before it can be claimed.  As a climber I personally believe “the top is the top, nothing else counts.”  Yet as a skier, I've skied most of the volcanoes around here but never from the top.  Yet I’ve always had a great time.  So yeah, It comes down to a personal perspective.

I am not a troll.  My name is Lennard Jordan; live in Yakima; am a member of Central Washington Mountain Rescue; and have been a long time lurker of this board.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting some of you, hope to meet many more.  See you in the hills.

Lennard

If it's a first (ascent, descent) the details matter, other wise it's just a conditions and "fun level" report. Crater rim is close enough for a good report on the summit of Rainier. IMHO.

Piscators post got me thinking. Are Summit claims really that important that it’s worth all the bickering that the mountaineering community likes to engage in?

Overall I'd say mountaineers are pretty interested in history. Look at all the books that have been published on the subject. But plenty of them don't care one way or the other.

How do we really know who was first on the summit? Or a ski line? For example, the cascade miners certainly bagged a few for the view when they were digging holes all over the mountains.

We "know" by researching, by talking to old timers, by learning the general history of a place, by understanding the development of skills, and by making educated guesses. And if we're wrong, we hope that somebody will correct us (or point out why we could not possibly know). And then the burden of proof will be on the critic. That's the way it works in any field of human knowledge. Between not knowing anything and pretending to know everything is a huge amount of territory. It would be a shame--and a disservice to those who came before us--not to dive into it.

Last Question. Are skiers who skin up a mountain for turns considered ski mountaineers or is there some other criteria?

The criteria changes. I got a kick out of Rob Newcomb's statement at NSAS yesterday. He said that when he and his friends went skiing in the hills in the 1950s and 1960s, they called it "ski mountaineering." Today, we would call it "backcountry skiing." Newcomb said that in the old days if you had told him you were going backcountry skiing he would have thought you were looking for avalanche slopes to ski.

Ski mountaineering is what they called it in the old days, and to retroactively change the definition is something we shouldn't do without thinking carefully about it.

---
BTW: My original post about wanting to tag the summit was a statement of my personal goals. I don't pay much attention to what other people do unless they're making some sort of historical claim.

Ski season offers relief from the endless style/ethics babble that festers in the climbing world. Just when you can't take any more of the whining about someone tainting their ascent of the left side of the right buttress of the middle ridge of the northern cliff of Mt. Blackfly by bringing bug dope instead of being chewed alive like the first ascent party, the snow falls and a simpler fun wipes the mind clean...