mattp

There has been lots of literature recommending the slow ascent at 1000' or even 500' per day as a way to avoid alititude illness. I believe the most successful (in terms of getting clients to the top) guide service on Mount McKinley used to approximate something like that (maybe still does - I don't know) but, yes, very few people are going to have nine days to get from Pardise to the summit of Mount Rainier. However, I think more time is better and I have heard Mike Gautier say that parties who plan for an extra night at the high camp - that is "resting" for a full 24-hours-plus before they start the summit climb - have a greater rate of success than those who do not. For sure, though, you want to start early on the first day if you are heading up for the two day weekend. This will allow maximum time to rehydrate and rest before starting the summit climb. I know in my case the most enjoyable climbs of Mount Rainier all were on a three or four day itinerary (even five) rather than a two day. There are some who advocate a one-day push to get up and down Mount Rainier quickly and feel this minimzes exposure to altitude in the first place, thereby reducing symptoms. I guess I'm just not that much of a marathon runner. Also, I think the mountain is pretty cool and I don't mind spending time on its flanks. You can easily make intermediate camps if you are so inclined, or simply hike up to a standard high camp and spend a day poking around.

Shoeller and hard shells are not mutually exclusive. For lots of winter climbs, I'll wear the Shoeller pants and pull on some "hard shell" over it when it really turns crappy, cold, or when I'm going to be sitting in the snow a lot. For a Rainer climb, you might want to have both if the weather was predicted unstable.

For more discussion, go to the Freshiez forum here.

Minx the trashtalking moderator: how about Woodland Park after work? You and Archenemy can MC.

Plark: One very simple idea I don't think you will find in your crevasse rescue book or be told in a workshop is this: If you are travelling in a party of two, the fancy self-rescue system you practiced over and over again will very likely not work. If you are travelling in a party of five or more and soembody falls in, as long as they didn't fall in unroped and end up wedged between ice walls you are almost certainly going to have sufficient strength/rope/etc. to pull them out no matter how little you have practiced any technical rescue skills. There is plenty to learn, but no matter how much you learn, these general rules will probably apply.

Tonight, after work.

Take your pick at Mazama next weekend:

The guzzler? You a friend of "the guzzler?"

I might agree, but please explain. (My inclination is to think that the evil corporations and our dastardly government have done it to us but maybe you are right: maybe it is "our" fault. And maybe the real price of gas, if you figure in all the military and political cost, is even more than we are currently paying!)

It looks as if we may have a movie, too.

Sorry, KK, but it sure looked to me like you were taking a shot at me when you wrote that not everybody should aspire to be as "great" as I am. I swear I could see the html code [snear] [/snear] bracketing what you wrote. But perhaps you meant no sarcasm. I sure thought you were saying that self-teaching is dangerous and even perhaps irresponsible. Maybe that isn't what you said either.

KK, I dont see anybody here arguing that you have to climb grade IV or V routes to enjoy climbing. I don't see anybody arguing that your way of approaching learning about the sport is wrong, either. What I see is you saying that somebody else's approach is "WRONG." And you take a cheap shot at me just because - what - I pursued the sport more aggressively at a younger age than you did? You don't see me putting down anybody for being a peak-bagger or a newbie and I don't put you down for being dedicated to promoting the Mountaineers. How 'bout you agree not to put the rest of us down if we don't agree with you?

I led non-technical climbs in the Sierra at age 13, bought Mountaineering: the freedom of the hills when I was 14, and by age 16 or 17 I was climbing grade IV's and V's in the Tetons and the Bugaboos. I bet if I had taken a Mountaineers course I wouldn't have dared do any of that. Again: I'm not down on getting good instruction. I'm simply saying the argument that it is essential is just plain wrong. And I'm quite happy I never ran into someone who told me I wasn't safe to go climbing in the Tetons when none of us had passed any formal test. I'm sure glad you didn't call my parents to warn them of the danger, either. We had a blast!

I don't see anybody suggesting "trial and error," KJK - at least not if you mean making the whole system up on their own and throwing themself off a cliff to see if it works. In my case, we got Mountaineering: the Freedom of the Hills and read it very carefully.

That an understandable concern, KJK, but I bet if you look back at the old Accidents in North American Mountaineering you won't find that climbers who self-teach using books and other materials are any less prone to accidents than are those who have graduated form the Mountaineers basic or even Intermediate course. I'm not down on organized instruction as some seem to be here, but I do believe there are multiple paths to mountain climbing and I have not observed that my mountaineers-trained friends are any more competent than are those who were more self-taught. They have tended toward being more conservative in their approach to climbing, but this has not necessarily translated to safer that I have observed.

It's looking pretty good for a picnic tomorrow. THURSDAY...SUNNY. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 60S TO MID 70S. NORTH WIND TO 10 MPH. THURSDAY NIGHT...MOSTLY CLEAR. LOWS IN THE 40S. LIGHT WIND. There are several grills there. Who has the big grillmeister hats and extra long spatulas? Half a cow in your freezer?

Without even checking the links, I am willing to guess you are right that somebody with a political agenda made some incorrect predictions. But misguided or even delusional communists are old news. The same derisive criticism could be applied to those who said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and if we didn't stop him [now] or [very soon} (you pick), we might find "proof" in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. No?

Yes, I remember reading about his "Packing" the Court and I am aware some (mostly fairly far right, I believe) still regard him as a terrible President. I believe the more "average" view of his Presidency is more postive, however. But what does this have to do with how Bush is expanding the powers of the President today?

It was a fine post -- and he's welcome to repost it without the jab.

Yes, it is all in context. FDR certainly expanded the role of the Federal government - and as far as I know his programs have generally been regarded as part of our recovery from the Great Depression though I realize that some people dislike the legacy of welfare and "big government," but did FDR actually argue that the president as a single individual should be given broad power that prior presidents had not enjoyed? I don't remember reading that in my history book.

The same would be the topic of our various private messages and emails. It is only here in Spray that we like to make fools of ourselves this way.

What are you saying here, Peter? Have not both presidents Nixon and Bush taken the most expansive view of their presidential powers of any president in memory? Would YOU know which of them said those words if you didn't google it to find out? (And, by the way, let's not repeat the Plame thread -- let's discuss POLITICS.)

These regional forums are for posting trip reports and discussing climbs and the like. If you want to make jokes about someone's death or fight a flame war, please take it to Spray.