ryland_moore

Got 'em and love 'em.

I have met a lot of climbers from all over the country and it seems that a lot of climbers were either geeky growing up or not very atheletic (ie. stoners). Very few were jocks. I think I may notice this more because I was huge into team sports growing up and playing soccer all the way through college and was a dick to people different than me, which I regret now. Climbing turned me on because it was like wrestling in that you pushed yourself and no one else could be blamed if you failed. Coupled with the fact that my dad took me hiking, hunting, and fishing, which developed my land ethic and wanting to be in beautiful places. I don't think being a jock necessarily makes me a better climber than someone who was not atheletic growing up. I actually think I am a terrible climber compared to how much time and training I've put into it compared to other things I've participated in. As for the jobs thing, I don't necessarily think it has to do with income as most of the best climbers are dumpster diving and living out of their van down by the river. Remember that we are still a minute portion of the population and if you compared high income to what those people do with their money, I guarantee climbing does not make the grade when compared to golf, tennis, skiing, mountain biking, triathlons, bicycling, canoeing, and hiking.

I wish I had the opportunity to climb Rainier at that age, but growing up in Roanoke, Va. I had little opportunity. I actually climbed the Tetons (lived in Jackson during summer breaks from college), Ecuadorian volcanoes, in the Cordillera Blanca, and Aconcagua before I ever set foot on Rainier. But, I've moved out here and don't see myself moving back. Watch out it may happen to you as well! I am sure there are some climbers your age. I am an old man at 29........

It's called Brunswick Stew and can be made with either squirrel or rabbit. It is actually really good, although I've never had it from a citified squirrel, only wild ones. I would pick one or two off occassionally when out hunting grouse back in Virginia. Although, I do not think Clintoris would be as successful as he has if he were shooting at wild squirrels. You will rarely see them walking through the woods when outside urban areas. They are smart, will lie flat on top of tree branches and are quite difficult. I would have shot more while hunting if I could, but you rarely see them. Only occassionally would I catch one on the ground and then watch what branch they would run out to. They would be lying flat, but I would know where they were and into the stew they would go.....

It's not fraud if the parents are acting as the "guardian" of the account. We have two accounts set up for our boy Nicholas, and he turned 3 years old last Sunday. We are the "responsible party" for any "debt" that he may incur. Sobo is right. Since a minor cannot legally sign a contract, they could simply incur the debt and then refuse to pay it, so a guardian is required for this. Plus, I had to have a savings account, which I opened with lawn mowing money and other funds held in trust.

Actually, Sobo is right. And you parents essentially committed fraud. Arch, To hell they committed fraud! Any minor can obtain a credit card with a parent's consent. They did not use the card for their own benefit, just got me a card, which I signed for and applied legally for. I hope you are not a financial advisor or in finance! Go back and get a real MBA. Phoenix online does not count......

Sobo, I will disagree with you that keeping CC open with zero balances will hurt your credit score. As long as you don't have 5 or 6 cards open with zero balances, leaving a cc or 2 open while carrying a zero balance proves to a lender that you have the ability to manage credit and will reflect positively on your score. For example, my parents opened a credit card in my name when I was 10 years old to build my credit so that by the time I was responsible enough to have my own credit card, I would be blessed with a higher credit score and lower interest. They carried a zero balance on it the entire time and my credit score increased during that period of time.

No wonder Crampon is having so much trouble finding a significant other...........

He brought ropes to rappel with and it is quite steep heading to the summit at around 65 degrees. He said that if the snow did melt out it would really suck, so just eye it when you get up there. There is kind of a point of no return and yopu have to come back down the way you go up. Doesn't sound too fun if there is no snow. Still waiting on the pics I viewed.

Crampon, you can't be serious. When have you ever travelled on a glacier slog without coils while actually being tied into a rope? Don't cut your 50 m rope. Just go buy a Beal or BD 30m glacier rope. They are like $50.00. I travel with a 30m with three people max. It still give you about 25-30 ft between climbers and plenty for pulling someone out with your coils.

A buddy of mine climbed N. Ridge of N. Sister solo two weeks ago and saif it was awesome with two tools and perfect cramponing along a a sweet line. He trundled inadvertantly on the way down, but said that that upper section is some of the best snow he's ever played on. He and a friend scouted out the line the day before in a plane to see what kind of condition it was in. I'll see if I can get some of the photos and post them here.

You can always do a 4th class scramble to the left if you can't make it up the couloir and it is a little run-out. Also, on the descent, finding rap anchors (webbing) can be tough as alot of the anchors left by other parties are too high off the current snow level to reach. Look for other area to set anchors or look at coming down the SW side. There is supposed to be another descent option. Maybe E. Ridge as well? Look back from 2003 summer and see what was discussed on this topic.

I am sure it could be done. However, I could only see the lower Winthrop from up high and at an angle. The Winthrop just below camp before disappearing by the Prow lookd really broken up. So, it may actually take longer to come up the Winthrop to camp then head back over St. Elmo's Pass, up the Inter, and over the Prow to Schurman, depending on how much end-running of crevasses you'd have to do. Also, if someone was just planning on doing the Emmons, they may not have the gear required to go through an "icefall" (if you would even call it that) like tools and a few screws. It would be a cool area to explore though!! Also, I am not positive, but do not think that Curtis Ridge has seen an ascent yet. Looks like if it was rimed up well, it could go like a Yocum Ridge type of deal but on a 14k peak. Could be pretty cool!

You are correct. We went through Camp Curtis, not over Curtis Ridge. There was a party that left the parking lot before us and went up the Inter glacier and we beat them to Schurman, so it can be faster. Although, when the Interglacier is in good glissading condition, there is no way it would be faster to descend around Mt. Ruth then glissading Inter glacier. Also, the NPS does not like to send people over Mt. Ruth becasue of some rare alpine plants that can be greatly affeced by increased foot traffic to this area and discourage anyone from going this way unless safety is a factor.

That is the rope I use on all glacier climbs in the NW as long as the route does not require multiple pitches or serious rock. I would not want to take a huge leader fall on this rope alpine climbing, but a glacier fall for sure. It is not really long enough for alpine climbing though, and it may be tough to catch someone using an ATC becasue of how thin the rope is. I just use mine for no more than a team of 3 on glacier slogs in the NW.

Emmons Glacier, Mt. Rainier Headed up for a climb of the Emmons after a solid rec. from Mike on climbing Rainier from this side in August. Went with Desk Jockey, his 14 year-old son, and a sport climbing friend of mine from Redmond. Day 1: Headed up to Sherman via a different approach than I've ever taken. Because the Inter glacier is in such poor condition and the rangers have had to evac several folks off in the last week, we were strongly urged to go to Glacier Basin, then cross White River and head up switchbacks around Mt. Ruth and take a dirt and scree trail up to Curtis Ridge. Also, because the descent down onto the Emmons from Curtis Ridge is so dangerous, we were told to climb up and over the Prow! Last time I did that, I got yelled at by rangers who called it a death trap! Once in Sherman we talked to two guys who came up over Curtis and used the Emmons to get to camp. They both said that it was the scariest thing they've ever done and that they thought they were almost going to fall off the traverse several times. Looking at it, you can see where the descent turns really steep (an area usually covered by snow earlier in the year) and since there are no rocks to hold onto, you are clawing at scree and dirt. Day 2: Hung out in camp and waited for friend from Redmond to show up who hiked in that day. Day 3: We left for the summit around 12:20 pm. The glacier is most broken up right out of camp on the way to the Flats. The corridor is in amazing condition with styrofoam cramponing all the way up. The route takes a long traverse over to the Winthrop Glacier crossing several crevasses (nothing more than large steps) and a few snow bridges that may collapse soon, but you can just go a little further out and cross them in a new area. The route brings you to the saddle between the summit and Liberty Cap, then heads up to the summit. Summitted at 7:30 am. Not too fast, but just right. Some of the best conditions I've seen on the Emmons ever, were one of two parties on the route, and all in all an amazing trip. Only tough thing was not being able to glissade the Inter glacier and hiking the dusty and scree-filled trail back to glacier basin. The area looks so different than when I've been up there in the past in May and June. The weather was stellar and good climbing with friends. Hope to post pics soon. p.s. for the mountaineers who had the fall a few weeks back, we saw your stuff getting flown off by helicopter so it should return to you in the near future.

Semore, Actually, listening to you over several threads, it seems like you don't have that much experience yourself. I am not "ripping you a new one" and it is always good to be over- rather than under-cautious, but asking if people ever bring crampons without an ice axe leads me to believe you haven't done much alpine climbing and that you stick to glacier slogs. What about the traverse over to Triumph for the NE Ridge? What about the traverse to the upper N. Ridge of Stuart? What about heading up to Sahale Peak up the dog route? S. Side of Adams? I would take a whippet on all of these climbs with aluminum crampons and never think of taking an axe unless it seemed like really icy conditions. Also, regarding your poll, there is not category for me as I climbed in the Tetons, Winds, and S. America on big volcanoes before ever setting foot in the PacNW, yet I had not done 100s of glacier or alpine climbs and still would never consider myself a "jedi". I would assume there are many other "transplants" out there with a similar experience to me. I think you need to relax a little and be less concerned with others and more concerned with yourself. It is good to play devil's advocate and represent someone's good conscience from time to time, but every time you post, you are passing judgement on someone else's ability. Yeah, so you had a bad experience on Rainier. I've had them too on Hood with crowds. I even wrote an article about it in CLimbing Rag one time, but have changed my tune and pretty much looked after myself and my well-being. Is it truly your responsibility to tell everyone who has less ability than you what they are doing wrong? I used to think so, but now I don't anymore. They have just as much of a right to be there as you, regardless of skill, and they are responsible for taking on the inherent dangers that are involved in climbing. You also have to take those on, but just make sure that your worrying about someone else doesn't distract from your own ability to keep you and your partners safe.

Ogre, 30m should be fine for two people. As long as you don't need to pitch anything outthat is serious and carry enough of a coil between the two of you, you should be fine. I use a 30m 8mm rope. That being said, you better be able to arrest fairly quickly as it is just a party of two. I wouldn't leave any slack in the line, but a 30m rope should be plenty. Just put 40 feet between you and each carry 30 ft. of coil.

Not yet. Planning on getting in a late afternoon climb next Monday though.

Shapp, the area you speak of for 2 pitch climbs is th Dihedrals. Also, I believe TG and Carsten got on House's route. Not sure if they ever finished the crux 5.10+ roof or not. I'll be out there on the 25th and August 1st for work, so I'll ask about other places if he doesn't respond. I talked to TG yesterday amd said he has been really busy with work and the new addition to the brewery.

I placed pickets (1) in this section twice when it was steep but found patches of firm snow to get one in (not all the way and tied off) and once with an ice screw in the night on the way up (17cm). No idea if it would have held but may provide enough of a grab to take some of the pull off the rest of a team in case of a fall.

Dru, I think you are missing the point. Using your example, a coal company over pollutes (ie. exceeds its quota by a factor of 2) while another coal company sees a windfall by selling pollution credits because they produced less pollution (also by a factor of 2). All you have done is maintained the same level of pollution and not reduced anything. You have not gained more pollution, but you have also not reduced pollution from what was originally allowed by the EPA. Using the SUV, there is no quota on them, but you are still not reducing the amount of pollution with more SUVs on the road daily, but you may encourage more SUV driving to occur or to be justified, relating in no net loss of CO2 emissions. The only way this system could really work is to penalize those companies who pollute by setting up a system that works similar to this. For every company that exceeds its pollution quota by a factor of 1, it must purchase 10 factors (used only as an example) worth of pollution credits, so that the net result is a reduction in emissions. The question would remain whether or not there would be enough credits available to meet the needs of the over-polluters. On the other side of the coin, those that reduce their pollution by x number of factors can only sell each factor at face value (ie. no incentives other than the credit payment for reduction in pollution). The govt. has used this method with some slight success for wetlands mitigation, where for every acre of wetland destroyed you must permanently protect four acres, however, there is still a net loss in acres of wetlands overall.

knelson, Agreed. I've actually placed pro to do a running belay on that section several times over the last several years. Sorry, didn't read the article closely enough to see that was the issue and that they were that high up. Glad they were able to arrest on that section!!!

Mike or others in the know, what route were they on? Emmons? Also, if it is that late in the day, sounds like the slip may have occurred from snow balling rather than ice, but that is just a guess being that late in the afternoon. I guess the climber could have been tired and tripped just as well. As for aluminum crampons, how did this even get brought up? I didn't see the article mention they were wearing aluminum crampons. Anyone wanna fill in the blanks? Glad they made it off o.k.

This seems very similar to the wetlands mitigation banking system here in the US. Protect wetlands in one place so that they can be developed in other places. There is no net gain in wetlands, but they are depleted. That being said, it does seem to be a good concept, just that it will be interesting to see if it has any real effect. I mean, big polluters purchasing mitigation credits from those that do not exceed emissions standards does not necessarily make the world a cleaner place and does not necessarily reduce CO2 emissions, nor reduce the effect of global warming. It only allows there to be continued pollution. The point is to reduce CO2 pollution and mitigation projects do not necessarily accomplish this feat. To truly reduce CO2, I feel that the only way is to set standards and goals similar to the Kyoto agreement if not the exact same, and actually make everyone reduce. I am skeptical that this program or others would actually accomplish that feat without fines and restrictions in place to punish those that do not meet these requirements. With the G8 summit occurring, and global warming a hot topic right now, the NY Times released an article on July 3rd showing that Portland has accomplished exactly what President Bush has stated would be too costly for the US economy, by reducing CO2 emissions to below 1990 level. NY Times article below (It was not free so I am posting it here. Sorry for taking up so much space.) A Livable Shade of Green Nicholas D. Kristof July 3, 2005 PORTLAND, Ore. When President Bush travels to the Group of 8 summit meeting this week, he'll stiff Tony Blair and other leaders who are appealing for firm action on global warming. "Kyoto would have wrecked our economy," Mr. Bush told a Danish interviewer recently, referring to the accord to curb carbon emissions. Maybe that was a plausible argument a few years ago, but now the city of Portland is proving it flat wrong. Newly released data show that Portland, America's environmental laboratory, has achieved stunning reductions in carbon emissions. It has reduced emissions below the levels of 1990, the benchmark for the Kyoto accord, while booming economically. What's more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide. "People have looked at it the wrong way, as a drain," said Mayor Tom Potter, who himself drives a Prius hybrid. "Actually it's something that attracts people. It's economical; it makes sense in dollars." I've been torn about what to do about global warming. But the evidence is growing that climate change is a real threat: I was bowled over when I visited the Arctic and talked to Eskimos who described sea ice disappearing, permafrost melting and visits by robins, for which they have no word in the local language. In the past, economic models tended to discourage aggressive action on greenhouse gases, because they indicated that the cost of curbing carbon emissions could be extraordinarily high, amounting to perhaps 3 percent of G.N.P. That's where Portland's experience is so crucial. It confirms the suggestions of some economists that we can take initial steps against global warming without economic disruptions. Then in a decade or two, we can decide whether to proceed with other, costlier steps. In 1993, Portland became the first local government in the United States to adopt a strategy to deal with climate change. The latest data, released a few weeks ago, show the results: Greenhouse gas emissions last year in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, dropped below the level of 1990, and per capita emissions were down 13 percent. This was achieved partly by a major increase in public transit, including two light rail lines and a streetcar system. The city has also built 750 miles of bicycle paths, and the number of people commuting by foot or on bicycle has increased 10 percent. Portland offers all city employees either a $25-per-month bus pass or car pool parking. Private businesses are told that if they provide employees with subsidized parking, they should also subsidize bus commutes. The city has also offered financial incentives and technical assistance to anyone constructing a "green building" with built-in energy efficiency. Then there are innumerable little steps, such as encouraging people to weatherize their homes. Portland also replaced the bulbs in the city's traffic lights with light-emitting diodes, which reduce electricity use by 80 percent and save the city almost $500,000 a year. "Portland's efforts refute the thesis that you can't make progress without huge economic harm," says Erik Sten, a city commissioner. "It actually goes all the other way -- to the extent Portland has been successful, the things that we were doing that happened to reduce emissions were the things that made our city livable and hence desirable." Mr. Sten added that Portland's officials were able to curb carbon emissions only because the steps they took were intrinsically popular and cheap, serving other purposes like reducing traffic congestion or saving on electrical costs. "I haven't seen that much willingness even among our environmentalists," he said, "to do huge masochistic things to save the planet." So as he heads to the summit meeting, Mr. Bush should get a briefing on Portland's experience (a full report is at www.sustainableportland.org) and accept that we don't need to surrender to global warming. Perhaps eventually we will face hard trade-offs. But for now Portland shows that we can help our planet without "wrecking" our economy -- indeed, at no significant cost at all. At the Group of 8, that should be a no-brainer. Only when we sign on to the Kyoto agreement will a reduction in CO2 occur and as the NY Times points out, Portland seems to be the only city in the U.S. who is doing this successfully.