mattp

I agree with you in goals, KK. But I fear it will be harder to pry COSTCO out of the monopoly than it would be to wait for a better privatization proposal.

Retarded is believing what has been said publicly in the campaigns for these proposals, KK. I agree that the 10,000 square feet thing is being promoted as a "response" to prior criticisms of the prior initiative. I do not believe that COSTCO is worried about teen drinking or places a higher priority over this concern than its bottom line, however - and I believe the actual facts regarding teen drinking in other states do not indicate that the 10,000 square foot thing will curb teen drinking.

As I understand the proposal, the law would NOT allow smaller stores to sell spirits, unless there is not a 10,000 SF facility in the area. There are now no "specialty stores" except STATE RUN liquor stores. ALL of them will close. I agree that the State should not be our liquor store. But I don't like this particular proposal.

Pete: Have you read the proposal? Liquor will be restricted to stores of 10,000 square feet or more unless, in the case of small communities, there are no large stores in the area. It is not a "negative" that COSTCO supports this bill. It is the intended outcome of this bill that I don't like. Yes, COSTCO and Safeway sell wine. But the small specialty store does too. That cannot occur with liquor under this proposal.

Yup. I hope you voted NO. I think our liquor laws are stupid and the State should not be in the distribution business, but I don't think that restricting the sale of liquor to Costco and 10,000 square foot Safeway stores is the right idea. I grew up in Michigan, where the mini-mart on the corner sells pints, but you can also go to the specialty stores and get really good advice on single malt just like you do on wine here in Washington. While some may not think mini-marts should sell pints, I think the smaller retailers should not be nixed in favor of COSTCO when it comes to the general sale of spirits. Get the State out of it. But do it right.

Benzoin is a good idea but, also, the quality of the tape that you buy may also be a question. When I used to hike for a living I used to go to a medical supply place on First Hill (the "medical district" in Seattle) to get tape that was far superior to the stuff available at most places.

Yup. Colin and "his kind" are bad people. FF woudn't want to be associated with them on any long term basis.

[Note to self: Ivan not invited to Christmas party. Bad energy.]

Yup, eggnog season is nearly upon us. I serve raw eggs and raw milk, with sugar and booze of course, aged 10 days outside the refrigerator. We've been serving it that way in my family for at least 3 generations. I got the "thumbs up" from Lynn Rosetto Casper. You can't screw around with the recipe - as in cutting the booze would be a bad idea if you are going to leave eggs and milk unrefrigerated - but Eggnog, if made correctly, is sublime. It is a vastly improved product if you allow it to "mellow." Here's to 'nogfest.

Anybody have any more information about this proposal?

Yes, and the "figure S" still works. If you know it you can lower someone a rope and tell them how to fashion a bowline on a coil, and then even the monkey hang (tough that is certainly an advanced technique).

Hey Kurt: talk to Hanman. He loves that kind of stuff.

Hey KK: Minimum wage in Washington is $8.67. L&I

Yes, Kurt may be exhibiting that phenomenon that I've observed in the past: in October everybody wants to ski when they are in top climbing shape, there is no snow in the mountains, and the crags are dry; while in April they all want to rock climb when the crags are wet, their ski legs are in prime shape, and the ski hills are full of snow. We have here an excellent picture, though, and I'm thinking of pulling my skis out. Thanks, Kurt.

I do find it amazing. But some of our good friends around here argue that the starve-the-beast and deregulate-so-"they"-can-create-jobs arguments actually have merit. They may disagree but I think JayB and PeterP, and some of our less "civil" brethren have taken these positions. I think Mr. Dionne hit the nail on the head with this little paragraph I quoted above. And what about "debt?" Reagan, BushI and Bush II were WAY ahead of Carter and Clinton when it comes to racking up debt. Our friend "Barry" (as Mr. KK likes to refer to him) may equal Bush but I don't know. Certainly Mr. Obama has not started two wars while cutting taxes. Seriously: I think the Democrats are a bunch of losers but would we be "better off" with more of the Republicans in charge -- Really? Their stated plan is to continue the practices that have led to economic disaster.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/13/the_rise_of_the_reverse_houdinis_111666.html

I understand, Kurt, and I don't mean to sound in any way critical. Thanks for making it safer and thanks for the work!

Yo KK, We understand that you don't like the Park Service. But what do you think about Park Service vs. Forest Service management of the lands in question? With this proposal we are talking about the Ross Lake NRA, which is currently managed by the National Park Service, but the rest of the areas in play are currently Forest Service lands: the highway 20 corridor east of Ross Lake and some "stray bits" in the Cascade River, Baker River, Nooksak, Bacon Creek, "Skagit headwaters" and the Liberty Bell area. Would any of these areas be better served as a designated National Park? Why or why not?

I don't remember the dimensions of the Saber ledge but I think it might be a good idea to add another one, maybe three feet away, to help accommodate multiple parties or large parties. Saber, in particular, draws large parties and that is a belay spot for at least three separate popular routes, right? (I think Cat Burglar is less popular due to a "bouldery" start and there may be another route squeezed in there.)

Jason, I am not a moderator of this forum, so I can't "take care of it" if things here get out of hand. However, I would like to see discussions of important issues like this one go well, and I will do what I can to keep it civil and informative. This is an important topic. I think my pals on the moderator board agree, and I expect they will intervene if this discussion deteriorates to a cesspool. As to misinformation and personal attacks, cascadeclimbers.com sees plenty of this and my complaint about that phenomenon lead the site owners to appoint me as a moderator of certain forums. They have set forth policies of a "liberal" acceptance of divergent views and divergent views of decorum, but there are some definite limits. I don't see personal attack and misinformation as issues in this thread so far. My impression is that the Legacy project has been presented with a lot of broad-brush information but many of us would like more information even if we are, at this point, "doubtful." If anybody wants to correct any complaint about past management practices or speculation about possible future events they are free to do so. If they do not do so, there is nothing cc.com can do about that. I think most if not nearly all climbers would welcome the information or ideas that might be provided by all but the most extreme fringe. Representative Pombo, for example, might meet with disfavor around here (I'm just speculating, but he was involved in an effort to suggest mining activity should be allowed or expanded in National Parks a few years ago and I bet most of our posters do not think this is a good idea and many would have a hard time "biting their tongue" and not saying what they think). I'm trying to keep an open mind on this Park expansion proposal. I think all of us should. The proposal is in the early stages of development and, even if not quite yet a good idea, it may become a good idea if we get involved and help shape it.

I couldn't agree more. And I'd raise you one. You don't need fishhet and zippers and vents to stay warm and dry if you are knowledgeable and paying attention. Garbage bags and army surplus wool jackets will perform better than goretex and the latest fleece jacket if you are paying attention, but if you simply wear goretex or other breathable shells and assume they are "waterproof and breathable" without otherwise paying attention, and if you don't know how to use your gear, you will not stay dry and warm. On this point, I may agree with the frequently maligned JohnDavidJr, a regular poster on this site who says you can get a good tent at Wallmart. But I have been on a lot of outings where my partners wore their "standard" gear, while skinning uphill in a snowstorm, and swetting. I thought it was time to take the shell off. Even if it was snowing,but they didn't see it that way. When we stopped for a rest, I pulled my down sweater from my pack and stood there warm. They stood cold in their wet insulation. If you are paying attention, the thoughtful use of the latest innovations may surpass the garbage bags and wool, but I have been on a lot of outings where people wearing very expensive breathable waterproof gear were colder and wetter than those who wore "caveman" gear. I don't mean to sound rude, critical or superior but I fear that my remarks might be seen as such or I wouldn't say this. My point is that I think lots of climbers and skiers and hikers assume that "waterproof breathable" means what it says and don't necessarily focus on the important questions of (1) "is my clothing making we sweat" or (2) "is my clothing leaking water that is degrading my insulation." If you are working hard and sweatting, you don't want a shell even in light rain; if your are standing or even climbing in hard rain you don't want breathable because it will not breath and only may seep moisture more than completely waterproof fabric (breathable fabric, coated with water, is not breathable). If you are standing in a waterfall, you don't want breathable or even "waterproof"-you want water not even touching (an umbrella would be a good idea). In fact, I think a cheap umbrella and no rainshell is a good idea even when walking in rain, if you are not exposed to wind. As to the original poster's question? I'd recommend carrying two shells: a completely waterproof one (depending on weight considerations I've used industrial guage gear for this purpose) and a windshell (windshirts are a little flimsy in my opinion but there are a lot of wind breakers available with features varying from a jogging jacket to a mountaineering workhorse).

Happy Birthday, Jon. I've wasted over ten years on this site and it hasn't made me any smarter nor can I climb better. Can I have my money back?

Num1, I've always been curious about those mining areas back there over Harts Pass. Have you ever been there? Do you have any information as to whether National Park status would change what is happening there or how it would change any prospect for future mining there? As to Cascade Pass, I doubt there is any prospect for a tram. If past experience is any indicator, the main proponents behind this project would rather see the road in the North Fork closed than remain open and there is no way they'd support any action that might lead to the construction of a tram. And, the politics of the parties involved aside, I don't think there is any way someone could get such a facility built in an area that is designated wilderness within a National Park.

Kurt, Have you looked at how a change from FS to NPS management at Washington Pass might affect guiding there?

I really can't see where there is much threat of resource extraction or commercial development for most if not all of the area involved. There may be some valuable timber in low-lying areas that could become threatened if our political system and environmental community did a 180 degree reversal at some point but, really: is there any significant concern that the we're going to see logging or mining in the Ross Lake Recreation Area or along that highway 20 corridor east of the R.A. up toward Rainy Pass and Washington Pass? I think not. Might there be some possibility of timber harvest in Bacon Creek, or the lower Cascade River road? Maybe but even here too I think Congress has pretty well removed that threat barring a huge shift in paradigm. Recreational use, on the other hand, is increasingly subject to threat. For us, back country permits are becoming generally harder to get whether on Park Service or Forest Service land, but I'm worried that it'll probably be more difficult under Park Service management - at least at places like Black Peak and Washington Pass. We are seeing roadway access lost due to a lack of funds and flooding events where, even if there is money to perform the repairs, such efforts are blocked by environmental groups that see easy access as a threat to wild lands (Suiattle and Mountain Loop Highway are recent examples). At Rainier Park, the Park Service has let the West Side Road and the Carbon River Road go, and if you want a wilderness experience in the meadows below the Tahoma Glacier this is a good thing but if you used to like to take your kids up Mt. Wow or hike with Aunt Betty to the toe of the Carbon Glacier it is not. I think the Park Service may be less friendly in this respect than the Forest Service though I'm not entirely sure. Parking would almost certainly be more restricted if the Highway 20 corridor east of Ross Lake were to become National Park. Climbing, too, would likely be subject to increased regulation. I'm still trying to learn more about this park expansion proposal but I fear that we as climbers stand to lose more than we'll gain from it. The legacy project people propose to add more visitor center facilities and what they describe as short easy hiking trails that will help children and families bond with nature. In the short run, then, wouldn't we see MORE development along highway 20 if this proposal is adopted?