mattp

To each his own: I vastly preferred the stiffer previous model sold by Edelweiss: the Stratos. My Sharpes tangle up constantly and the sheath is not attached to the core. I thought the Stratos was a much better rope and I wish they still made them. It was a little heavier because an 8.5 now replaces the 9mm, but I'm willing to carry the extra weight for a rope I like better. As to the question of whether it is "OK" to climb with two different ropes, I think the hazard of mismatched ropes is probably a bit overstated in Max's post. I suppose it depends what you are going to try to do with them but for general cragging and normal alpine rock climbs I don't think you are that much more likely to see two mismatched ropes shread each other than two matched ones that may cross each other or run over an edge or whatever as is likely to happen even if you try to be careful about it. I'm sure it has happened that two mismatched ropes have contributed to a scary or even disastrous incident, and I'd rather climb on a matched pair. I would not back away from a pitch or even really do very much different based on the fact that the ropes were mismatched alone. Be careful rapelling with mis-matched ropes, though. If one stretches more than the other, they can saw on a the anchor and that can be a particularly bad thing if it is sling witout a rap ring.

I agree that there is are aspects to these protests that one could find naïve, arrogant, clumsy, misdirected or worse, and I think throwing bricks and trashcans around was probably not a good idea – either from a strategic or political point of view. However, on balance it looks to me like what happened there was that those who planned and participated in these demonstrations engaged in non-violent protest and accomplished something: a minor change in policy. Who was masturbating here: the folks who actually showed up in the flesh and accomplished something or the keyboard critic on cc.com? Unlike some naysayer who criticizes them on an Internet bulletin board that nobody pays any attention to anyway, or the armchair intellectual who shows us daily how clever he is in putting everyone else down, or the zealous cc.com spraylord, these people stood up for what they believed in – if in reality only in a fairly small way. (Note: I include myself among those who waste their time blowing smoke here on cc.com.) I hope the Olympia protestors are proud of what they did and that they'll continue to look for ways to make their voice heard.

It IS coming time for a holiday gathering and maybe we can pose for a photo to send as an e-card to those cc.com orphans in distant lands or the shy patrons who sit at the end of distant modems but are reticent to meet us for a holiday toast. CC has been a great source of entertainment, a waste of time, and once in a while good information or great connections for many of us, and the Pub Club gatehrings have certainly been more of the same. If you are talking about the place on Leary Way, it was the site of the very first cc.com pubclub ever: holy ground! Let the angels sing.

One of the items that we discussed at last week's meeting of the Washington Climbers Coalition was the ongoing schism between those persons in the environmental community who view public lands and in particular wilderness areas as a place where recreational visitors should be extremely restricted or even excluded because human presence is inherently harmful and those who believe that human recreation is one of the important purposes for the preservation of wild places. Today's Post Intelligencer has an article by Joel Connelly on this very topic. He portrays it as largely a "democrat vs republican" issue, but expresses ideas along the lines of what we discussed last week: Post Intelligencer November 19 [Edited to add correct URL provided by Blake]

I agree with Mark. Let 'em have their fun. The noise is disturbing but not out of line with those g'damn trains and the proposal is that they'd be operating two days a week. I don't think that we as a user group want to argue that our activity is good and others that may tengentially impact us are bad. Is there any reason to argue against this other than simply the fact that we don't want to hear them?

That's only one part of what I posted. Yes, I think we often hide our "true reasoning/motivations," but we also often present only part of the picture in order to make a point, or when we are undertaking the intellectual exercise of composing a post we may neglect the emotional subtext. Also, in an Internet forum like this one where bait and bash is the norm there is little motivation to discuss anything in a personal manner where some other schmoe is going to be able to take a hart-hitting shot at us so we tend to avoid introspection. That, and sometimes we can even fool ourselves. So: no. That is not what I said at all. We only hit the surface on a discussion of "go cat go," and we don't discuss the personal issues, but it is not necessarily because people are deliberately "hiding" their motivations. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Go cats go.

Folks often say "there is an objective line and this climb is over that line," but they rarely say, as Troggy might say were we to take it to "the next level," that "I had a particular experience with this climb and I am responding to that experience as much as I am following or urging an objective standard." I'm putting words in his mouth, and he might say something entirely different, but my point is that all of our positions on this "ethics" question are colored by our own experiences with the particular climb or with climbing in general yet most of the time we try to suggest that there is some objective and hence unassailable "standard" that should be upheld. If we've led a climb and felt OK about it - maybe even proud of our lead - we tend to say "the new bolts are not necessary." If we've backed off afraid or led it while freaking out, we tend to say "it is unsafe" (here, though, Trog doesnt say that but instead he suggests he somehow established a successful lead of this climb as a personal goal). If we think the first ascensionist is not going to come back and add bolts, many who don't like bolts will say "only the first ascensionist has the right to add bolts." If they do so, some will say "the fact that they established the route doesn't give them the right to change it now." In all these cases, we are at least in significant part talking about our own emotional response to this situation yet most of the time we present it as some kind of objective standard that has nothing to do with us but is somehow "right" almost as if our own position is endorsed by god or something.

I’ve never laid eyes on Go Cat Go so you can take or leave my comments but it is my impression that at least some folks here are trying to suggest there is some objective standard in play when really there may not be. Folks complain about this “sad trend toward bolting cracks” when they read the reports here on cc.com, but many will gladly use or even call for anchor bolts next to a perfectly good crack or a pro bolt next to a hollow flake or a bolt instead of a tie-off horn that would have been considered perfectly good pro 25 years ago. Others might accept a bolt next to a 8” crack somewhere because they don’t carry a big bro. I don't think I've seen it in this thread but quite often the strongest objections are raised by some who never expect to climb the route under discussion. One guy has written “it is a wrongly bolted crack” while on one of my routes he has suggested I add additional bolts next to cracks where the pro was not secure enough for him even though the climb has seen dozens of ascents in its present state - over the last five years. Is this a bad example of someone’s descent onto the slippery slope of "lets bolt all the cracks at Vantage?" Is that really where you think we're headed if you don't raise an objection to this particular bolted crack? I don’t know but what really is the nature of this crack that takes perfectly good pro and what is the reality here. Trogdor may not have the opportunity to lead the climb in its former state, but I know the guy and I suspect the fact that he backed off it before means it is NOT a secure lead without at least some additional bolts. However, the fact that some here have led the climb without the additional bolts is cited as “proof” that they are not needed. Either way, we’re back to the subjective standard again. Does that matter? Thumbs up to those interested in the discussion but lets see if we can take it to the next level and discuss our own relationship to this climb how that affects our position here. This is more interesting that simply suggesting there is some black and white line without even discussing the nuances of where that line is drawn.

I tried Rainier over Thanksgiving weekend once. We went up to Muir and attempted the standard route. We got up to Ingraham Flats on a scouting walk the day we headed up to Muir, but the next day the weather really sucked and we ended up bailing. It was pretty cool to be high up on the mountain that time of year and I still count that trip as one of my more memorable trips on the mountain. I think you'd have a real sense of being in the wild over there in the Carbon Glacier cirque this time of year but I wouldn't count on a successful climb and certainly not if you are planning a three or even a four day trip that is schdulled in advance rather than dashing up there based on a favorable chain of weather events. Plan for unconsolidated snow, poorly bridged crevasses, and high winds even if it is not forecast to be "stormy."

OK. Just for you, we'll be sure to talk about nutritional food groupings first. Meat & Potatoes = business before play.

By the way, Fairweather: To the extent it is a Dems. vs Reps issue, it is the Democrats who are currently pushing for funding of roads serving climbing areas and mountains where we like to climb. In the House, Norm Dicks sponsored the current funding legislation though he had bi-partisan support. Source. In the Senate, the Wilderness society reports, "Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), along with Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), has prepared a letter to the Chair of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to support LRRI. Senator Cantwell is looking for fellow senators to join her letter to Chairwoman Feinstein. Please encourage your senators to sign on to Senator Cantwell's letter in support of the LRRI. This initiative will protect water supplies, wildlife habitats, and recreational opportunities, including fishing and hunting." Source. I'm not sure if you're in the sixth or not, but you should call Norm Dicks' office, say you are from his district, and give him the thumbs up. Cantwell too. They are your new heros.

Don Brooks will be showing slides of the second clean ascent of The Nose and Jesse Huey will show pictures of a more modern speed ascent. For more local interest, we'll be looking at current harder crag climbs and bouldering around Washington.

Yesterday, Representative Reichert introduded a bill to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the Pratt River Area, near Snoqualmie Pass. The Wilderness Society has contacted board members of the Washington Climbers Coalition, seeking our formal support. This, among other things, will be on the agenda for Monday. Dave Reichert Press Release

I disagree, ChucK, if you are suggesting every prisoner of war should be entitled to the exact same civil rights and civil procedure as a suspect in a domestic criminal proceeding. You wrote that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard applied - though I'm not clear you meant it should be the standard for simply holding prisoners or perhaps the standard for applying torture. Anyway, there can and almost certainly should be different procedural protections in different contexts. I think it is clear, though, that what we've seen in pictures or verified reports from Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib, or what we are told has taken place at the secret prisons, is wrong. As to effectiveness, you say that GW says it worked in three cases but it doesn't prove very much where Chief Chimpy says torture has worked three times. He'll say just about anything if he thinks it sounds good at the time and most of what he says is a lie or twisted oversimplification. I may have overstated the case when I said I don't think a single expert has said torture works -- and I'm sure it probably HAS worked once or twice -- but the experts both civilian and military have been overwhelmingly against it and very clear that it generally doesn't yield high value intelligence.

I cannot believe how this administration has managed to make an "issue" out of the grey area of whether or not waterboarding is torture. This is a technique that has been defined as torture for 50 years! Our own military people are saying it is torture and we've court marshalled our own soldiers for doing it. And we certainly don't want to suggest that somebody else should do it to OUR guys once they are captured. The question as to whether torture is effective, too seems pretty clear cut: ChucK points out that somebody must think it works but in all of the debate over the last couple of years since the Abu Ghraib scandal was on our newscreen I don't recall seeing a single interrogation expert state that torture is either effective or necessary. What's up with this discussion?

I was skinning up Ipsoot some years back and a helicopter came over the ridge. We were just a hundred yards from the summit and, instead of landing there, the pilot turned abruptly as soon as he saw us and they landed a couple hundred yards below. Out popped a group of Japanese tourists, and a ski guide (and his assistant) who had them all ski in tight allignment (they were farming the snow, saving "fresh tracks" for the next run or the next group, and they were also scouting for crevasses on this run down an active glacier with some real holes). I was most impressed. They clearly tried to avoid us and the guides were taking care of their clients. We didn't see where they went for their next run but we skied the north side of the mountain while they skied the northwest, a completely different side of the peak, and we enjoyed the rest of our day without further contact. I've skied in numerous areas where there was helicopter-served skiing nearby and only heard the occasional wind-and-fog-drifted noise of the nearby operation. In the Adamants, tour groups regularly ski from the Fairy Meadows hut while commercial helicopter skiing operators "do their thing" right over the ridge with relatively little conflict. Might it not be OK if the east end of the Duffy area is open for this purpose? I'm a little dismayed that the boundaries of the helicopter area look pretty close to the basin around the Wendy Thompson Hut, but the most interesting area - that with all the glaciers - is well outside what I see designated on the map. Is any notion of helicopter skiing in that area bad, or might the boundaries be tweaked a bit? [Over in the Pemberton Icefield area, I agree that snowmobile usage up Rutherford or other main access routes is or has probably been in the past rather extreme (though I say this based on what I've seen at the roadside rather than what I've actually encountered in the back country), but this thread is about heli-skiing on the Duffey.]

I've been to high altitude twice. On the first trip, I did no training and didn't worry about smoking even on the approach. I was dancing at 21,000'. The second time I refrained from smoking AND trained by running with a pack for six months before I went on the trip. On that trip I never properly adjusted to even basecamp altitude and I was DEFINITELY NOT dancing at anywhere near 21,000'. This must mean that exercise is bad for you, and smoking is healthy.

I was there too, and walked around with Washington Climbers Coalition fliers in my hand. Didn't spot you. I had a snack with Teleross and his friend.

OK then. I hope they have something other than corned beef.

I have done quite a few big serious climbs, including the most technical wall route I ever did and one of the biggest technical ice climbs I've ever done with people I'd never met before. Perhaps that influences my "take" on this discussion.

I've done a fair amount of work replacing bolts and I've put up a few routes and talked with lots of folks out there who do this. I'd have to say that, while it IS a lot of work and it often seems unfair or may be unpleasant to read the criticism's of someone like Martin, we do it mostly for the fact that it is somehow personally rewarding and I don't think Martin "owes" it to anybody to refrain from comment just because they happen to do a lot of hard work. That said, there DOES seem to be something a little out of whack about attacking Jim and Marlene on cc.com. Some will say that this is the only forum we have, but these threads do not seem to be really helping much no matter what your perspective on the issues may be and I'd be quite surprised to see Jim and Marlene show up for Kangaroo Court. I call it this because I can't remember the last time somebody came on here to say "I am the guy who put that bolt next to a crack that you are complaining about and here's why..." and the reason is obvious: on cc.com that could only lead to an obnoxious flame war or worse and there is nothing in it for that poor schmoe. I'm happier to see where Martin says he's sent a private message or e-mail and looks forward to receiving a response. Who knows, maybe we could have an informative discussion of the decision-making that went into this particular effort.

I absolutely agree with you there Kevbone, but do you REALLY stop and go over audotory signals every time you are going to belay or be belayed by a new partner?

Forgive me for "cherry picking" your post and responding to only a single point, but this one is particularly nutty. You suggest that unions attempt to "secure above market compensation for their members via legislation that passes these additional costs onto consumers via subsidies, tarriffs, and laws that make certain employers off limits to non-union workers?" Isn't it AT LEAST IF NOT NORE true to say that "large employers seek to institutionalize below market compensation for their employees via legislation that passes ancillary costs onto taxpayers via welfare, military intervention, and other social subsidies as well as laws that make certain employers off limits to union negotiations?" Clearly, you've lost a bit of credibility here, JayB. As with the legal liability "system," we've built a mechanism for society that is in significant part built around a dichotomy that may not always be efficient (plaintiff vs. defendant or employer vs union), but this is in fact OUR system and anybody who looks at or supports only one side of the dichotomy is not in support of "the system." The alternative, in legal liability as well as employment law, is MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. If unions can't look out for workers' rights, we'll need greater legislation and law enforcement. Surely you'd rather have the United Automobile Workers fighting for pensions and healthcare benefits than a nationwide law, eh?

Maybe I'm just a mountaineer at heart (never joined but I do sometimes wear shorts and polypro and I used to have my initials on my helmet). However, just about anybody (in the U.S.) I have ever climbed with who did not come from a gym or sport climbing background used the same "old fashioned" signals. I have traveled around a bit and climbed with "pick up" partners at a variety of areas and this sample includes climbers from east, west, north and south. It certainly isn't a big deal to stumble over belay signals for a pitch or two until you get it figured out, and I've adapted to the latest gym rat lingo or the staunch "old fashioned" practices and guteral grunts of a German who I could barely talk to, but on the other hand it is also easier if you don't have to. And it is not a bad thing if, in a moment of anxiety, you don't have to remember that if you yell "rope" the guy is going to feed you a bunch of slack instead of taking it in. I think that as we are seeing the sport become much more specialized, so that many climbers ONLY climb at a gym - one gym in many cases - or where they get intensely focussed on the scene at a single area, or they only pursue overhanging sport, or maybe they are a big wall speed climbing guy or whatever - certain practices can easily seem universal even if nobody outside the local area or their specialty ever heard of them. There have always been climbers local to specific areas, but it used to be said that "every climber in the U.S. sooner or later goes to the Tetons." I don't think there is a modern equivalent; we have segmented much more. Even if you don't plan to travel or climb with unknown partners, what is the advantage in having a bunch of different lexicons? As I said above, it is not that big of a deal to work things out over the course of a pitch or two, but how is it really a plus to have to do so? If not tugs on the rope, what system do you use when you can neither see nor hear the other climber? Radio?

Yes. And I heartily disagree. People want to do things the latest way, I understand, but I see no reason to think a new set of auditory signals - at least any new set that I've heard so far - is any improvement over the old. And there is real potential for confusion just because somebody in a gym in Oklahoma City decided that they wanted to make up their own system. Did you not read what I wrote?