mattp

Actually, Fairweather, I think that roads were more often built with tax dollas as a subsidy for logging than the other way around.

I bet Fairweather can come up with some of the examples you seek there, Bug. I didn't look at the boundaries carefully but in the Wild Sky area I beleve there were, in fact, areas previously harvested that may not have been "miraculously called old growth," but which will now be considered inappropriate for any trail development as a result of the new Wilderness designation. I'm pretty sure the area includes some places where mountain biking has taken place in the past, as well. There are examples all over the place of former cabins and shelters being burned down - not specifically because of a new Wilderness area designation, perhaps, but certainly such designation has been a factor in these and other similar management decisions. I agree that there is not much low elevation forest or riverland set aside as Wilderness, and I'd support discussion of that issue. However, I am not convinced that Wilderness designation is the only way to protect or properly manage these areas.

I agree with Fairweather and Muff that there is a fairly strong and vocal contingent that wants wilderness areas to be run as preserves, used as little as possible for any recreational purpose no matter how low the impact is, but it is nutty to suggest that all environmentalists, environmental lawyers, or all enforcement of environmental regulations have this as a goal or even that exclusion of recreatioal use is necessarily their net effect. My brother has been a regional officer of the Sierra Club and he has spoken about the debates between those in their membership who view humans as not belonging in natural areas and those who enjoy recreational activities or who feel that a public sense of ownership and access is necessary for any viable politics of stewardship. In Washington, we have a vast tract of formally designated Wilderness stretching nearly uninterrupted from I-90 to the Canadian border. A much larger defacto wilderness around it is getting larger every day, and every time a road washes out conservation groups like the North Cascades Conservation Council and the Alpine Lakes Protection Society cheer for their new "victory" and go to work fighting any efforts to repair it. A few years ago, there was a group in the Mazama area arguing that back country skiing on top of a five foot snowpack placed an unacceptable impact on the land below or interfered with wildlife although even if there is demonstrable impact, the actual level of penetration of such activity into the North Cascades around Mazama is obviously extremely small. We've talked about this before, and perhaps in some locations some of this migiht make sense but not in others. Currently, there is talk of expanding the Alpine Lakes wilderness, and I recently spoke with a representative from the Wilderness Society who was urging the merits of this proposal but I was not convinced of the need for it. I have always supported wilderness area designation and I've never met an environmental law I didn't like, but I asked him: is there really a threat to the land you are seeking to protect, and is Wilderness designation the best way to meet that threat? There are many if not most of the managers in the Forest Service and Park Service and elsewhere who believe that these public lands were set aside for recreational use as much as any strictly preservationist agenda. Some user groups are starting to organize and become more involved in planning processes. There are a lot of environmental lawyers who support access and involvement and a strong basis for them in the very laws that Fairweather decries above - as well as the Wilderness Act itself.

Do as you wish, everybody. In my opinion it is a good idea to keep a low profile around other user groups and I believe that this one could become a hot-button with the Forest Service. Obviously, many tourists will enjoy seeing climbers on the route; others will not. Some may fear their kids will try to follow, and others may fear rockfall. The ranger who is trying to keep folks off the snowfield certainly won't be happy to see you head up there - whether he has a right to disallow it or not. All I'm saying is that, given a choice between a climb that is immediately adjacent to and in full view of a picnic area and one that is not - I'd give preference to climbing the one that is not (other things being equal). Hanman's suggestion that weekdays or other "off hours" might be preferable is sound - in my opinion.

That's kind of my point, Spicoli. I bet there is no specific law banning hanging a rope off a bridge, either. But that doesn't mean it is a good idea. I'm not down on that route - in fact I bet it is pretty good - but I think it would likely be problematic if it were to become popular.

In the case off The Mule, Off, I don't think it is a matter of legality. Of course there is no ban on rock climbing or walking on snow. However, that doesn't mean that we should always "exercise our rights." As it is so close to such a tourist destination, it is easy to see how your mere presence on The Mule might cause consternation and, all things considered, it would probably be a good thing if that route did not become popular. Maybe the rangers or the picnic-ers have no right to get upset (though maybe they actually do), but either way it is predictable that they might. There may be no law against top-roping at the Washington Pass overlook, either, but the rangers do not want you to do this.

On one occasion, a hiker at the Ice Caves became very upset about climbers being on that route. He felt that their presence there placed the hikers in danger due to the possibility that the climbers might dislodge rocks from the route. If looking for something in the shade, check out the Tower One Route. If you bash your way through the ferns and crawl up some steep moss to find the start of it, the first five pitches make an excellent climb. thread

Does anybody else find it interesting that Fairweather, who has been defending the Bush administration nearly uninterrupted for six years while presenting a scathing dismissal of liberals as willing dupes links the above-cited article but overlooked this one? Here's an article published today, addressing the way the Bush administratin makes decisions, as opposed to one from last Fall personally criticizing or perhaps slandering Reid Where does Fairweather get his talking points?

Awesome. I showed up about 7:30, and found Sky and his buddy Dan lurking in the parking lot. I stopped to ask where was our party and Dan, looking at my white shirt and tie, couldn't believe I was part of the group. "Can I help you sir?" he asked. Over at the picnic table, I came upon this scene. Tales of Yosemite and Bear Mountain, labs and Georgetown bars, and of course: the Tacoma Narrows bridge. The folks next to us ran out of appetite, but had plenty of grub left. They asked if we were hungry and you shudda seen the swarm! Colin went back for thirds: he must be stocking up on body fat for his coming trip to high altitude. See you next time.

We took forever and a half day, but I'm guessing 2-4 hours is probably more standard. It is a ways up there.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Dawg. I agree that this may not be the best thread for discussing bolt ethics, but you insert that argument into many threads where that is not the topic either. Maybe that is part of his point. Anyway, congrats on the film, and I'm sorry I missed it.

Dave is right, however, that we have consistently seen people unable to find other pub clubbers when they show up at a pub or the park. If you don't want to wear helmets with your names on them, it would not be a bad idea to at least say "we'll be at one of the picnic tables along the entry road," or "we'll be out at the end of the trail from the parking lot past the duck pond" or whatever.

Wear gaitors.

Blake's description is all you need for Paisano but I'll add a little bit anyway. The "first/obvious/only notch" where the route starts is a relatively small notch, but it is just above where a chimney slices through the ridge, a prominent feature when viewed from the normal Burgundy Col approach. From the notch, you climb up through a couple of trees and then step right. There's some sketchy kitty litter over rock if you stay too high (as we did), trying not to drop below the destination notch while you approach it. It looks as if it'd be easier but you might fill your shoes with pea gravel taking the likley friendlier line of approach a bit lower.

Doh! The twins. Yes, nice to see them.

The flake pitch has a fair amount of crack climbing and a few lieback sections, along with a short bit that you might climb as a body off-width. As suggested, it protects very well - as long as you bring the big gear. I thought it was a little harder than "one 5.9 move and otherwise 5.8 and below" makes it sound.

I more or less agree with you there, Kevbone, but our attempt with the tighter trip report guidelines has been to maintain a kind of clear distinction as to which threads are for more tangential discussion and which are not. Thread drift and spray and arguing about semantics or ethics or technical whoop dee doo is certainly a part of cc.com, but there are a significant number of users who are not interested in such "distraction". Also, there are lots of potential trip report authors who are dissuaded from posting by having their report of a climb buried in discussion of their attire, their climbing style, the original route developer, or whatever else some cc.com critic wants to jump on. So we're doing what we can to make sense of when the discussion should wander and when not. By having one mod say "hey there: This is thread is not for spraying on," and then another say "its all good so carry on the agument" we've really helped make it clear, I know, but hey: we're doing the best we can, OK?

I don't know if asking about the lack of anchors was in fact intended as an invitation to discussing whether this route is the biggest crime since the crucifixion but whats a little ethics among friends? (All other things being equal, I DO think we ought to try to maintain some distinction between route reports and discussion threads that is not based on inference or assumptions about the motives of the original poster - maybe by posting without the "TR" tags?)

Siberians can be good pets but only if you have a decent sized fenced yard so they can run around outside at least a little bit every day. Otherwise, they'll chew everything you own. They are smart dogs and very trainable, but they'll retain that independent streak, too, so that if you are out for a walk and you think it is time for them to jump back in the car they may just decide to screw with you and run around out of your reach. They are friendly dogs, good with kids, and they generally don't bark or threaten your friends. Most of the problems with Huskies stem from the fact that they were bread as working dogs, and they want to get out there and go. Let 'em loose, and they'll just as likely end up lost, 20 miles from home.

Where were yhou, Wayne? I walked around the whole park twice and eventually found Sky about 7:30 - he set up just north of the Volleyball games.

If you are approaching from the north, I'd descend the Sherpa Glacier.

This picture doesn't show the thermometer, but it was plenty hot: And here are a few shots of Mr. Fox, high on the route: As always, a good time was had by all and it was great to get up high and look around. Thanks, Fox.