Bronco

If you haven't already, you might check for partners here as well: www.montanaice.com

Partners that exhibit careless behavior need to be made aware of it. My best partners have helped me become a better and safer climber/partner by offering constructive criticism. Have a talk with them and if they are unwilling to acknowledge the issue and address it you might look for someone else to climb with. That being said, if someone is abrasive and overly critical, they're not much fun to climb with either.

Fairweather, I don't have a clue who told you that but I'd seriously question their judgement. Yeah, Greg LeMond of the Tour de France. Didn't meet him but he's got a cool mountain estate over there. Here's a pic showing the house and cabin we built. Logging/skidding the trees out was probably the funnest part. Peeling bark with a draw knife and pounding rebar spikes with a 5 lb hammer was obviously the toughest. I have days where I miss it but this time of year usually consisted of 18-20 hours of hauling ass around trying to finish projects, lay up some fire wood and get some meat in the freezer before the winter set in. Not "fun" in the traditional sense but we always slept soundly and had purpose to get out of bed before sun-up. I don't have many photos on this computer, maybe I'll load up some others when I get a few minutes on my old lap top.

Judith Mountains, Central Montana see here: http://www.prairiewindarch.com/award.html I worked on this one a bit for Greg Lemond in the Yellowstone Club which is kind of the antonym for small houses... [img:right]http://www.explorebigsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/firetower.jpg'>http://www.explorebigsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/firetower.jpg[/img] http://www.explorebigsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/firetower.jpg

Great 2nd post and TR. Like the aside about Yom Kippur and barfing. Regarding your question on the Grade IV climbing, there is a "UIAA" grading system that Grade IV equates to YDS 5.5, pretty close to what you describe. Hope that helps.

Jason and Matt, sorry about losing your buddies, it's easy for me poke fun at statistics in an article since none of the numbers represent my close friends. Anyway, it looks like the forecast is for dropping freezing levels and precip next week. Maybe we should be planning some "centerpunching" excursions to compile more data. All in the name of science, of course.

The person who compiled the information needs to find someone else to go Alpine Mountaineering with...

Great TR, what a memorable experience for your boys!

Another nice chossdawg FSA ascent. I wonder if the Satanic goat had something to do with the rockfall?

What kind of jeans does Mike wear in the training photos? Are those Lulu Lemon?

Now I'm fired up about this, look at this article from here: http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/09/sneaky-sneaky-congress-quietly-tries-to-add-widespread-user-fees-for-public-lands/ Sneaky, Sneaky: Congress Quietly Tries to Add Widespread User Fees for Public Lands In a classic bit of stealth lawmaking, House Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, last month opened the door for more widespread recreation day use fees on federal lands. Without a committee hearing, Hastings sent HR 5204 (The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014) to the floor of the House, where it could, according to critics, become law without any public hearing at all as a rider to a budget bill. Federal land agencies introduced recreation fees during the reinventing government era of the late 1990s. The program, initially known as Rec Fee Demo, was used to charge parking fees at trailheads and day use areas that had previously been free. The revenues were meant to be used to improve the areas where they were collected. The program was tweaked by subsequent legislation that spelled out very specifically where fees are authorized and which areas should remain free. The Forest Service tried to expand the definition of fee areas, but activists pushed back to limit charges, resulting in a series of court decisions that limited the agency’s ability to charge fees for undeveloped areas. The latest version could result in many more widespread fees, both at highly developed recreation sites and those that are completely undeveloped like wilderness areas, according to the Colorado-based Western Slope No Fee Coalition. “HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue,” the group writes, “such as fees for developed campgrounds and national park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters.” The bill is written in piecemeal manner, with amendments, additions, and deletions, and can be hard to understand (by design?). Here are some of its key changes: • It would remove the ban on Forest Service and BLM charging for parking, picnicking along roads or trailsides, general access, dispersed areas with low or no investment, driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through federal recreational lands and waters without using facilities and services, camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide minimum facilities, and use of overlooks or scenic pullouts. The bill replaces them with a single prohibition on fees “For any site, area, or activity, except as specifically authorized under this section.” The coalition says, “Since ‘this section’ authorizes fees for anything, that prohibition is meaningless.” • The Forest Service and BLM would be allowed to charge day fees for entry to national conservation areas, national volcanic monuments, visitor centers, and anywhere that has a toilet within a half mile. • Interagency passes, currently $80, would automatically go up in price every three years. “Mr. Bishop’s bill lacks any overarching vision or framework of our public lands being spaces where we all are welcome and have access,” said coalition president Kitty Benzar. “It would be a major change in policy, accomplished without public hearings or debate,” she said. Benzar urged people who oppose the bill to contact their congressional delegation without delay, because Congress is expected to act within a week, before it adjourns for the election recess. According to Benzar, it’s likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, if attached as an appropriations rider it will likely pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, because appropriations bills are considered “must pass” in order to avoid a government shutdown. The way Benzar reads the bill, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters, only setting a requirement that there be some kind of restroom facility within half a mile of the site. The bill would authorize permit fees in “special areas,” without defining what those special areas are, giving land managers complete discretion to designate those areas.

Sounds like another misguided attempt to generate revenue that will probably result in a negative cash-flow after enforcement costs are tallied. Cue the drones.

Hydra's are great and my most waterproof breathable glove, love it for biking in the cold rain. Only problem is that on the pair I have is that the thumb is really long, like an extra 1/2" which is really annoying and makes it difficult to perform those delicate things like turn the crank on an ice screw.

Too bad about the rescue but great balls of fire, 75 pound pack for 11 days! That sounds terrible, good job!

It seems this person is intentionally vague in his questions. Maybe a fisherman as well.

If you guys look at his other posts, the OP has been talking about various roofing and tree stand safety applications. Not climbing.

I had to look up a Lark's Foot which is referred to as a Girth Hitch by most climbing nomenclature. Regardless, any knot is considered the weak link of the rope. There has been a lot of testing and internet reporting of how much each knot actually weakens the system if you're interested. Hope that helps.

I picked this pack up and have used it a fair amount this summer. I really like the tool attachment, the fabric kept the contents dry when I fell in a creek and was submerged momentarily, overstuffs surprisingly well despite the unconventional closure, it carries great, comfortable suspension, light weight and relatively cheap when applying the AAC 20% discount. Cons: frame is not real easy to re-insert, no port for bladder hose but neither of these are deal breakers. It's not made in the US which could be a deal breaker, but pricing is a significant consideration for me. I was looking at HMG and Cilo packs and thought the Patagonia pack offered a good compromise in price and weight.

I have a Kode 38 for long days in the BC, it is heavy but has the features I wanted (hip pocket, back panel access, drink tube sleeve built into the shoulder strap, wet pocket for shovel, tools & skins, helmet carry dealio, multiple ski carry options, no top lid) It's treated me pretty good for one season. Admittedly, I've turned into a bit of a gear hoarder the last few years and picked up whatever the smallest Kode is for resort skiing and side country excursions. It's also just fine for what it is and was pretty inexpensive, like $50. Both seem to be well constructed and durable but they've only been lightly used so far. That being said, some of my ski buds appear to only own one alpine style pack for all of their climbing, skiing and hiking, which they do a lot more frequently than me. Something like an older BD Speed 30 or other manufacturer's equivalent.

Having climbed and hiked some near Yellowstone you just become accustomed to being careful with your food, carrying a can of bear spray on the approach and be intentional to make some noise so you don't surprise them. That's probably more important than the bear spray as it seems that most bear attacks are the result of a surprise interaction. Mountain Lions are much scarier to me than Grizzlies, they are a lot harder to see coming.

I'm in agreement that these are a niche item and not replace your full crampon. There have certainly been some times where I cramponed down through dicey spots where I might ski if the snow were better. I guess you'd just be committed to face in, front pointing down if that were the case. That being said, most of the routes I've skied down 95% of the cramponing on the ascent was French, (flat footed), and not on my front points. They might be nice for Volcano routes where you're not sure if you'll need crampons and these could hang on the harness pretty efficiently for quick deployment. It'll be interesting to see if they catch on or more refined versions become available.

Just saw these on Pro Ski's Facebook feed. Check them out here: http://www.proguiding.com/proski/2015-ski-gear/tech-crampon.html Seems like an interesting idea but definitely some limitations. Anyone tried them? Maybe something to take if you're not planning to need crampons?

Wow, that's a great trip, thanks for sharing!

Sounds terrible, great job!

I cringe every time I watch it as well, I just felt compelled to share. The video reminded me of an old saying my my Grandpa frequently told me, "if you're going to be dumb, you'd better be tough".