num1mc

This is always a good read. Talks about how NPS LEO has such a high rate of assault against them in comparison to other Federal agencies. Too bad the other agencies have balls, and don't think that general argumentativeness is assault http://www.jmu.edu/icle/pdf_files/Applied%20Research/Analysis%20of%20Assaults%20on%20National%20Park%20Service%20Rangers.pdf

Camel toe. Maybe John Wayne was a woman

Been waiting for the shut-down to end to receive follow up answers from NOCA:

FW's, numbers are correct. It has been well established that the visitation of NOCA is very small compared to other parks, mainly because of a almost complete lack of visitor amenities. That is one reason for the AALP's proposal, to bring the NRA's numbers into NOCA. Most people who visit the combined North Cascades Complex are driving on Highway 20, and do not use the complex at all. These people are probably not counted, as are the folks on 410 or US 101 in MRNP or ONP respectively. I support FW's numbers, but not his sentiment to remove NOCA from the NP inventory. But the recent removal of bolts in the Cascade Pass area should frighten any climbers who support the expansion of NOCA to the west-side of the Washington Pass area. P 11 has visitation data http://www.americanalps.org/American%20Alps%20Legacy%20Proposal.pdf

I bet the horses weren't the only thing that got rode hard during the filming of "The Undefeated"

What they did was stupid, but no one has an obligation to contact the FA

Then it is time to make them play by their rules. Ask them 1) Due they have the statuary authority to remove anchors 2) If so, isn't there a decision making process that involves more time than a week, and more people than "them". 3) Do they have documentation that these bolts that were removed were recent and placed during the ban?

I doubt that they have any legal standing to remove anchors, and in so doing could open themselves up to liability.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/sep1113a/'>http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/sep1113a/ http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/

You are not required to file a flight plan for a VFR flight. Curious what similarities you see between that and a DUI crash? Because I see none other than maybe the fact it was late a night. Night flying can be extremely pleasant, if I was willing and able, I would not hesitate to take a 2am flight, it's no safer than a 7pm (in the dark) flight, in fact probably safer due to zero traffic. Probably a little too early to speculate there num1mc. You a pilot? My condolences to those lost in the crash. This crash is tragic and i feel terrible for the friends and family of those involved. A lot of conjecture by n1. The owner of the FBO/Flight School that the aircraft was registered to said that he was not aware of the flight but this does not necessarily mean that the flight is unauthorized. Often at FBOs flight instructors or staff at the front desk are able to dispatch an aircraft if they follow the steps that the company has in place. From the information available to us from the media, this flight was completely legal in the eyes of the FAA as well. There are a number of requirements to be able to legally go on a flight and these include currency requirements (landings at night for example). There is no information to lead us to believe that the pilot in command (the flight instructor employed at this FBO) was acting illegally. Many of the services provided by the FAA (Flight Plan filing, Radar Flight Following) are opt in services, especially while in what is called Class G Airspace (Uncontrolled Airspace). There is a completely different story while in say SeaTac airspace (Class B) where flight following and tower communication are mandatory. Flight plans must be filed by all airlines, anyone operating under IFR, and anyone going in or out of the country. The alcohol statement, while possible, is again just a guess. as pilots we have much more stringent requirements about alcohol before flight as compared to drivers. As a pilot, you may not operate an aircraft in any manner with over .04% bac -AND- you may not have had alcohol (technically listerine touching your lips counts as well) within the previous 8 hours. This is something that many pilots are very observant of for obvious reasons and serious consequences. while I'm not saying that you are flat out wrong, i am saying that it is a good idea to not spray off opinion as fact. If you are curious about the reasons for this accident the NTSB will likely have a preliminary accident report within the next couple weeks on its Aviation Accident Database. Looks like I was right: http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/transportation/ntsb-pilot-intoxicated-in-fatal-wash-plane-crash/nWhnn/ The pilot was wasted

Hilti, Simpson, Powers and several other manufacturers all make high quality epoxy anchoring systems for use in concrete. These should all be suitable for your use. As someone who has placed literally thousands of epoxy concrete construction anchors, it is crucial that the hole be clean.

You spammed your own TR Weird

Corgi's rule. Too bad my friend Roy loves to roll around in any kind of poop. The absolute worst was when he covered himself in human feces at the Allen Basin yurt. Why someone couldn't use the outhouse is beyond me.

Does not seem like a finished product what so ever. The old guide opened up and was useable on several computers. This one seems like several files thrown onto a disk. There is no continuity at all, and user ability is very low. I am completely dissatisfied that I spent money on this, and will be returning it ASAP

Because the legislature said they can. Actually, the mission of WDFW is not to supply hiker and climber access. WDFW provides bird habitat and hunter access at Potholes and Frenchmans Coulee's, and at Potholes reservoir, as well as a boat launch at the bottom of the road. This is actually a ton more ammenities than is required of WaDNR land for enforcement of the Discover Pass

Gloves are aid

Absolutely the norm in all aspects. If you took a government employee and looked at their gross cost to their employer as a percentage of their rate of pay, I'm sure in many cases it would exceed 220%. Even in private industry, 200% is not unheard of

There are some who would like you to beleive that this conflict is the fault of the good old USA, and to a lesser extent, the UN for being vauge

That is very hard to believe, especially given that the rules are written down on official UNFS websites for all to read and they very clearly state pets must be leashed. Very few public spaces allow unleashed pets. I have a call in to verify. I will report back when the rangers return my call. All the links so far have been NPS. Most USNF's require "under control". Why do you need to verify? Are you calling me a lier? Are you calling the USFS employee I taklked to a lier?

NPS websites are not the best source of USNF regulations

Just got off the phone with ONF. Dogs are not, repeat not, required to be leashed. They must be under control, which Sasha was not. But those that insist that dogs must be leashed should contact the United States Federal Government.

Not only are you mean to dogs, you also lie about them. There are no leash laws on Mount Elinor

I believe that the parking lot is owned by BNSF. As such, and as they continue to allow parking, a Discovery Pass is not required. There has been some talk of a land swap with the USFS who now owns the rifle (shotgun) range.

First Round upset: Number two seed Duke 70, 15 seed Lehigh 75. The Duke basketball team, their fans, all alumni of Duke University and especially you are: losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers losers

To clarify: The avalanche danger at the time was classified as "considerable", less than "High" or "extreme". Media or inter net claims not withstanding, no one knows if Elyse Saugstad was saved by her avalanche balloon.