mattp

4 miles of road hiking or road skiing is not much extra effort if you are up for Dragontail. Don't worry about needing a snowmobile (I've done it with and without and I'd say the effort to haul a snow machine over there when, in Spring, the road is easily walkable or skinable, is of dubious utility even if you already have a sled and trailer).

It is not at all surprising that people who take avalanche courses may be more likely to die in avalanches than those who don't. They take these courses and dig those pits precisely because they enjoy skiing or otherwise traveling in what they presume to be dangerous terrain. At the same time, there is no conflict between that idea and the notion that those who take avalanche courses actually learn to be MORE cautious. That has certainly been my friends' and my own experience. I had a good friend killed in an avalanche before all of this pit and beacon thing became the rage. I have not had one killed that way since. And I've done a lot of back-country skiing, as have my friends, in the intervening years.

I don't think volcano vs. non-volcano is where I'd draw the danger line. I also don't think it is even a question of "technical" vs. "nontechnical." A couple of very experienced friends of mine died on "nontechnical" terrain recently and I have known experienced climbers to die on volcano's. For a new climber I'd recommend reading such things as "Accidents in North American Mountaineering," textbooks like "Freedom of the Hills," and taking any and all classes or other instruction available. I'd still say "go out there and have fun," but I'd offer the caution: "be careful; people die."

Allright, Pete. Here's a video for you. Meanwhile, sip coffee and watch the morning come on instead of hurrying to beat the crowds. Take your wife up something comfortable, and maybe after she has had a few good experiences take her up something comfortable with a couple of other friends on a trip where she can feel like she is the "experienced" climber. Even a spouse or girlfriend who may never think she wants to become a "climber" can enjoy a good time.

If it is mountain climbing and not rock climbing that you seek, I'd suggest considering some easy peak-climbing objectives. An overnight on Mt. Ellinor's summit was a memorable trip for me some years back.

I have been contacted by the editor of Accidents in North American Mountaineering, seeking a report about a 60-foot fall at North Bend last June. I think I remember seeing something about it here, but don't find it with a search. Can somebody put me in touch with the people involved?

At present, the closure at Tieton is just downstream of The Bend but it may be moved if the birds do not nest in the same spot as last year. The Bend and other Tieton crags remain open.

I don't know what happened on Hood but I would say that everyone, whether a climber or not, probably appreciates what Mtn. Rescue people do. As to those who may have offered gear, all of us realize the it might be WE that is being carted off the mountain next time.

One unusual feature of tieton is that cracks "undulate" as Mark put it and are often wider inside than on the surface. This is a good place to bring your hex's, or borrow some from a friend. In many placements they are more secure than cams.

http://www.cetneva.spb.ru/en_choiu.htm

I don't mean to dampen anybody's enthusiasm and it is true that climbers with relatively little experience can be successful on Cho Oyu but it is, for sure, a serious mountain -- even by the "dog route." On mountains as high as Cho Oyu, people die just because they are there. Literally. Ignorance, inexperience or genuine accident are not needed to die at 25,000 feet.

Axis bold as love. Jonnie Cash at San Quentin Angels and Demons at Play Wild smile

I used to carry a pair of pile pants (capri length with separable zippers on the legs). Along with a down jacket, and a shovel and, if the weather was inclement, shell gear, I always figured I could make it through a night and the warm clothing would be handy if somebody got hurt, even if an overnight was not necessary. Never tested it though, and eventually stopped carrying the pile.

The Gunks are like Seneca - I think they are the same rock - but better. The bedding angle is incut, as opposed to straight up. I have not been to New River Gorge, so my sampling is incomplete. But I think these are the best ever crags. Maybe second to Verdon, in France. The Gunks rule.

Wait a sec. Are you going to school in New York? There are some ice climbs at Chapel Pond and Poco Moonshine, but the best rock climbing crag in the nation is at New Paltz. It might not be nice THIS week, but you gotta go climbing at the Schawangunks at your first opportunity. Index is really good, but the Gunks is really really good.

Yes, I've seen some of the same statements of position. But I remain unsure of how much the logging industry remains a threat to the proposed North Cascades National Park expansion area and I also am unclear on how the reconstruction of the Green Mountain lookout poses a threat to the integrity of the region as a recreational or biological preserve.

Yes, but I don't hear much about the green party candidates. Even if I thought I supported Mr. Anderson, he isn't much contributing to the national dialogue as my liberal and conservative friends never heard of him. I'm not saying that is a good thing; my posts above have already indicated I favor a more robust public discussion. But we have what we have. And the ideas that we should not be pursuing endless wars that we cannot win, or that killing people without any legal process is a bad idea, are not part of our national dialogue.

??? Based on limited discussion thus far I think that there WAS "similar" opposition by industry and user groups when the North Cascades Park was created. The debate evolves as do the issues of concern. The "industry" (logging, mining, and tourism) are different now as their immediate and long-term threat to the area is different. Also, the various factions of the "user groups" have changed (we didn't have mountain bikers, for example, and I think that hikers, climbers, fishers, and hunters - not to mention motorized users - all find themselves in different positions).

So, and I mean this in all respect: Does a dislike for Paul mean you and my friends both left and right should not or can not discuss the idea that we shouldn't be killing people with no trial or starting wars based on our business interests if these positions are identified with Ron Paul? I've indicated above that I don't support Paul as a candidate for anything. But he is the only main player in our national debate who is talking about these things and all the rest of the stage can do is dismiss these as areas of discussion not worth talking about.

I have not noticed any wane in advocacy for preservation. There does seem to have been a recent significant discussion of a recognition that vast preserves that restrict or impair public access may not receive vast public support. The discussion I have noticed has to do with what the Wilderness or other publicly protected lands are for -- not whether we want to preserve landscape in the first place.

It looks like he's doing pretty well today. In my sampling of liberal and conservative voters over the past few days the reactions have been 100% as the author I quoted above indicated: complete disdain and maybe even attack for Ron Paul but not a single person willing to discuss the positions that I say I agree with after I note they are positions held by Paul. What's up with that? I realize he is rather odious but hey: what is really to respect about the political dialog as we have focused it? Don't even the "responsible" or "respectable" politicians advocate or passively support policies most of us find reprehensible?

I don't think it unlikely that they'll shoot him dead. Personally, I don't share the desire to see this guy shot like an animal, though.

I'm not sure where you are coming from there, Rob. If they haven't come out for outright abolishment, I think many in the House and candidates Gingrich, Perry, and Bachman all said things pretty close to advocating the end of the EPA or at least leashing it to the point of non-effectiveness. In any event, I kind of like Paul because he is at least mixing things up a little bit. I wouldn't vote for him but I hope he sticks around a while. I don't think he'll get much traction on the gold standard but it'd be nice to see us as a nation of voters talk about whether it is a good idea for us to continue to find reasons to start a war every year or two. It wouldn't hurt, either, for there to be a little more discussion about how Obama has continued so many Bush policies that I for one feel are abhorrent.

Blake posted a link to a pretty good article on Ron Paul. Check it out: Salon The article is long winded but it points out that Paul is the only major candidate talking about our war mongering ways, the disaster of our war on drugs, domestic spying and warrantless arrests, and our blind support of Israel. He points out that Paul is bringing up issues that, in the past, Liberals have said were important issues. He writes:

This is a better-than-not tool for avalanche response, but not great. It'll work well in soft snow or the immediate deposition from a soft snow avalanche (maybe not 20 minutes later and maybe not even right away if it is a hard slab avalanche) but if you are trying to dig through older snowpack or snowpack with raincrust it will not perform well and it is less than ideal for digging a snowcave even in new snow. For digging a snow cave this will not be nearly as efficient as a real shovel, and the carry-friendly shovels will not be as good as an old fashioned #10 grain scoop. (A real snow shovel will be better than the plastic scoop you propose but be careful even with a real snow shovel as it is easy to break it if you pry blocks of snow out of your cave -- but that is a different thread and the two-handled flexible shovel will not do this in the first place so you're left chipping and carving away rather than pulling out blocks.)