mattp

For heavy loads, I think the McHale carries it all better than anything else. They are heavy, but I wouldn't worry about an extra pound or two in pack weight when you are planning on carrying monster loads. The waist belt and shoulder straps on his packs are the most comfortable I've ever used - though they don't look like space age technology with rippled foam that self ventilates and matches the color scheme on your x-treme approach mobile. I have a McHale monster that I have never used because it is just plain too big, but if fits I'd sell it for cheap (he charges a lot for the damn things). I'm 5'10, average torso length.

Hey everybody: A general meeting of the Washington Climbers Coalition will be held in room 202 at the Good Shepherd Center, 4649 SUnnyside Avenue North, in Seattle, on Monday evening November 12, 2007. Topics include: Topics for the agenda include: 1. How to get involved with WCC: (we're an all volunteer organization and this means YOU can help) 2. USFS roads maintenance issue / identification of recreational "assets" underway by Rep. Dicks and Senator Cantwell: (many forest roads are going to be abandoned or decommissioned in the coming years and we'd like to be sure those serving areas of interest to us receive adequate consideration) 3. Roadless Area Rule -- a bill that could affect much of WA state North Cascades NP/Ross Lake: (this legislation is proceeding and climbers may be interested in getting involved) 4. Recreation Area planning progress re: Newhalem and Diablo: (update) 5. Static Point/FERC/DNR planning and access concerns: (there is talk of a current proposal to close the road providing access to this unique crag and we're looking into how to best promote or preserve access here) 6. Additional Topics: (over the next few weeks, we'll firm up the agenda a bit more and maybe you have ideas of other things we should discuss) 7. Entertainment: (we're hoping to have a slideshow to provide some entertainment on this dark winter evening)

Even the visionary craftsman is going to make a mistake once in a while and the complete idiot is probably going to do something well sometimes. Really, we're back to the question that is the heart of your post: if by some magic we reach a consensus that the route could be better if altered (or more likely if the climber who takes it upon themself to replace the old bolts decides THEY know what might be better), when might it be OK to alter an existing climb? Are there cases where the FA rule might not best serve us? Could this be one of them? I bet there would be just as many who would say it is OK to add a bolt as there are who would say it is not OK if we took a survey - but does that answer the question? Is there something special about this climb that absolutely demands "preservation as is" or which might warrant an additional or relocated bolt? Does it matter if the climb is special, or how many people actually climb it? Personally, I'm not urging anybody to go out and "fix" it as there are plenty of great climbs in Leavenworth and lots of them on that particular rock already. I'm not sure we "need" to do anything. However, based on the discussion here I think I'd lean toward allowing someobody to move or add a bolt in the area we are discussing if they were to make a serious case that this route was a neglected gem that merits the change. My feeling here is based on the fact that there are a lot of hard routes at Midnight Rock and I have not heard anybody here say that route is particularly unique or special in its current state; the bolt in question was placed there due to a style of ascent (lead with hooks) that virtually nobody today is going to do and I assume that most climbers who are interested in and capable of climbing that route would prefer better pro than ONLY that bolt in question. And, as to the idea of leaving a sling or chain hanging there, I just generally dislike that kind of thing and I'd find an extra bolt less visually obtrusive as well as probably safer. I'm perfectly happy to see the climb preserved "as is," but we really haven't yet had anybody clearly state why that should be done except for a general assertion that no route should be altered and that if we allow a single new bolt the route is going to be gridbolted or that we are next going to see chipped holds appear.

Cairns makes some good points. I believe the FA, climbing in a traditional ground-up style, used hooks. It is not uncommon for bolts to end up not quite optimally situated for subsequent free ascents when a route is established in this fashion. I don't think it was a "mistake" so much as a product of the method employed.

There is a fair amount of history concerning this kind of thing and golf courses HAVE been forced to redesign a hole where the configuration is deemed to "cause" golfers to hit houses or cause other property damage. One thing to consider if you want to sue the City: in Seattle you have to give them notice, in the proper format, in a crazy short period of time or many claims will be barred. I thiink it is 60 days or something. Check with a local attorney.

Yup. We entertained you so much you fell asleep!

Would that be the same guy who called us unfriendly? I guess you gotta know the secret handshake.

Just because somebody from ELLENSBURG shot out your tail light.

It was this guy's first multi-pitch, Saturday afternoon. At the belay below this pitch he remarked: "this is getting kinda high up." Here, with the climbing easing up and the top in sight, I told him to stop and look around. He said "yeah, I know - it is kinda cool." Here's another shot, 20 feet lower down on that same last pitch:

Hot times in Leavenworth. Somehow, the force was with us and we had good weather for showing slides in the great outdoors Saturday night. But wait: there’s more. Rad wanted to see climbing pictures. I teamed up with Kurt Hicks and party for a low stress day on Saturday, and it was SPECTACULAR. Here’s Kurt leading a slab route (I don’t remember the name or it): And here’s Natasha on Castle rock: After a quick breakfast, we headed back out on Sunday, crack of noon. Sunday, more climbing. A great weekend, as always, and I got to meet a bunch of new folks. Thanks, cc.com; thanks, Porter.

Sounds good, Rad. I'd like to socialize this evening, so here's to hoping somebody's still "up" when we get there. I'll be looking to climb easy routes tomorrow, if anybody's interested. I'll bring a rope and a rack. I don't want to climb with Bug because he was rude on the board once (just kidding).

I hope to head over this evening, too. My wife would like to have the car this weekend but presently I'm planning to take it to Leavenworth; if someone wants to share a ride from Seattle, send me a private message.

As to healthcare, I'd much rather have "political bureaucrats" in charge of running a coordinated system of universal medical coverage than insurance company executives whose job is to derive maximum income (premiumns) while minimizing outlay (services).

I agree with that, Jay, but over and over again you have refused to discuss specific shortcomings of a particular policy or proposed piece of litigation without resort to broad brushed attacks against naive liberals who wear birkenstocks. As I said: specific information would be useful here, but do you really think we should assume or even that we really have reason to hope that this Administration is acting in our national interest in how they conduct this "war on terror?" And Congress, too. The fact that something may have bipartisan support does not at all suggest that - in the case of overseeing intelligence gathering for example - a proposal is in anybody's interest except a bunch of Senators who want to tell the electorate that they are tough on terrorism. Airport security ring a bell?

Good questions there, JayB, and certainly this information would be informative here. However, what specific or general reason would ANYBODY believe that the Bushies can be trusted to put our national interest ahead of their own political or monetary agenda? For what specific or general reason would Congress suddenly do its' job in taking responsbility for overseeing what this Administration does by enacting appropriate legislation? The general distrust expressed here is pretty well founded in light of recent history, wouldn't you say? Or do you subscribe to the theory that this benevolent administration has our best interest at heart and is fully loyal?

Fairweather and the rest of the rah rah croud around here told me, back in 2002, that I was believing in fantasy conspiracy theories to say that the Bush administration was misrepresenting the case for invasion. They have repeatedly said any criticism of the motives behind our operation in Afghanistan is sheer over the top paranoia and I haven't seen one of them really complain that we didn't catch Bin Ladin. They have yet to complain about the no-bid contracts granted Halliburton and all the other contractors - including Blackwater. Apart from all the issues related to whether it was a good idea to blow off all our allies and thumb our nose at the U.N., or whether it is a good idea to promote torture, these guys refuse to acknowledge the idea that there could be financial exploitation of the situation and - yes - criminal conspiracy behind any of this. The information is right there in front of us and has been all along. Just what kind of rebuttal would you expect now - but "I don't hear you ... nyah nyah nyah ... naive liberals ... nyah nyah nyah ... hate America ... nyah nyah ..."

Dogs are cool, but cats rule. People who "hate cats" really suck. I bet Archie is just faking it.

Her interview on Al Jazzera was better stated: From Kline Website

I've been impressed by him every time I've encountered anything he's done but I'm still left with the overall impression that he was an excellent immitator.

I've always hated those bastards. Most recently, they chewed on my spark plug wires. They are worse than the terrorists and they'll have us all slaving away to provide backyard peanut feaders filled 24/7 if we don't draw a line in the sand now.

Yes, this is a common at this time of year. Where's our local entomologist to tell us why? I always seem to step on yellow jacket nests in the woods and get stung late in the season as well. A bug man once told me that it is because the nests are at their maximum population just before the colder weather sets in.

projector covered.

Builder, I think you have probably rather accurately described the justification for the permits but one point I wonder about is the idea that they use that information to plan new trails. As far as I am aware, they have built ONE new trail in the North Cascades in the last twenty years. Thunder Knob. CLose to Seattle, they've linked pre-existing logging road with scraps of new trail in the Middle Fork, and they decided to adopt a popular fiserman's trail leading to a lake closer to Snoqualmie Pass. I'm sure there are a few new trails here and there, but building new trails is definitely not a management priority and in fact - due to the grizzly bear rule - quite the opposite. As to your point (a), I think a narrowly defined designated camping area in places like Boston Basin or the Enchantment Lakes would do more to protect the area from damaged from campers than a permit (quota) system. Still, the good people at Marblemount do a great job in my book and I've never (almost never) had a complaint with them.

Pay your bills on time and you shouldn't have too much of a problem. Works better than indignancy. Except when there is a snafu, and a burden of prooving innocence to get it corrected. No kidding. But it is not just the credit agencies - the banking industry is much the same way.