mattp

There are a couple, though I think maybe most predominantly one, bluffs along that road. I don't think they look like something you really need to pursue, though I've had a couple of friends who have tried climbing there.

An easy way to prevent that problem on the second pitch is to stop and belay right there. This is rarely done but, when you get yourself in trouble by not doing so you would probably have saved time if you'd just stopped there in the first place. If you and your partner are very careful, you can avoid placing pro after that downward flake on less than a very long runner and then flick the rope above the thing when you start climbing more upward again, but then your partner really has to watch to give you enought slack so you can move but not so much that it falls back into the jaws.

I use that #4 in the "blue crack," and if my memory is correct, you'll still have to "run it out" slightly by modern standards even with the #4(it is maybe 10-15 feet from the highest #4 place to the anchor but it is only 5.5). I tink the #3 will fit maybe 6-8 feet below that. The rope drag problems on those pitches can easily be solved by breaking them up. I once suggested moving the belays because they are in poor locations from a rope-management standpoint, but if you are careful you can get by how it is, or you can simply break up the pitches. If you stop and belay at the bottom of the Blue Crack, and then pass by the next hanging belay but stop and belay after the next undercling, you'll eliminate most of the potential problem.

Much of the climb is bolt-protected, but you should bring one piece of every size up to 4", and on the first of the two 5.9 overlap pitches you should hoard you bigger pieces like the #1 - 4 camelots for the "blue crack" (a gold flake). If not, you'll likely use the #1 and #2 lower on that pitch, but you can just as easily use smaller gear if you know to do so. I'd carry five or six stoppers to 3/4" and cams from tiny TCU or Aliens to Camelot #4, but no doubles. Bring at least a couple long runners, and favor trippled up shoulder-lengths over quick-draws. If you plan to rappel the route (most people do), you'll definitely need two ropes.

I don't know what your anchors look like, but if the difference between self-equalized slings and the American Death Triangle is what it takes to make your station "safe," I think I'd rather do a different climb. Obviously, all things considered, it is better to have the anchors equalized than not - but I always find it amusing to see how people go to such lengths to make sure all eight rappel slings are involved in the system and that the GIANT quick link is backed up. You'll often see this on some pair of piece-of-crap anchors when there is a good solid tree not ten feet away.

On the first ascent, Foraker, they used the tree not only to place pro, but actually to climb the route. I believe it was done that way for years and, if memory serves me correct, it was Julie Brugger and Carla Firey who first climbed it without using the tree.

I might have run into you if I'd taken my eight year old nephew up the Granite Sidewalk as I had planned. I had thought he might enjoy a scramble up to that "frog pond" 3/4 the way up. Instead, we went over to 3:00 rock and he did a couple of 5.5 pitches right off the ground.

Sounds pretty good. I'm sorry I didn't make it!

Saturday was way too hot up there. Sunday was much better and yesterday even better. You guys did well to stick with it -- most partiest roast off the thing on a day like Saturday.

I skied that way once and there was only a minimal crevasse problem up at the schrund. I'd be very surprised if you had to do any ice climbing.

For backpacking with someone who may not be into mountain climbing and stuff like that, I think the coastal hikes out on the penninsula are very hard to beat. They get popular in the summer, so I wouldn't expect to find privacy out there over, say, July 4 weekend, but in the Spring or Fall you'll be on your own. It is damn nice kayaking out there, too. See if you can hike it opposite another party who does one of the two major hikes (Ozette-Rialto or LaPush-Hoh) from the other direction and trade car keys in the middle somewhere. Both make a great two-day trip, with lots of seafood to be harvested from the tidepools. (The Gooseneck Barnacles, considered a delicacy in Portugal, are my favorite.) You'll want to drive out there the night before, 'cause it is a fairly long drive. The northern strip is rockier and a little tougher overall, while the southern has a couple of creek crossings that can be troublesome in rainy weather. For a single overnight, without the car-shuttle, I'd just go to Rialto and hike north.

In fact, the road is much better than Hanman's post would suggest. They did a fantastic job with the repair and, at least as far as the Blueberry Hill or 3:00 Rock trailheads, it is smoother than it was last year. See you up there.

I wear cotton on all climbs, big or small. I never subscribed to the "cotton kills" mantra.

That's good camping up on the bench you describe, Timmy, but there is also a magnificant knoll about a mile before the lake that makes an excellent campspot with a panoramic view. It is marked "6450" on the 7.5 minute map, and is just north of Corral Lake. If your dogs are hauling folding chairs and other bulky luggage up there, it is a little easier trip. I think it may also be more convenient to the standard S. Side route on S. Sister, though there is an excellent route up the E. flank of the peak from just beyond the far end of Green Lake where you get three good long runs with some short climbing traversses between them for the descent.

We're a parody of ourselves, allright. You, for example, can't pass up a chance to take a swipe at Catbird. He wrote that "it felt like .10+ ... I must have been having a brain fade on that traverse." They guy simply offers an honest opinion, and one which he knows he may be slammed for, and Szy says his ego must be inflated and you come on acting all indignant that he could post such a thing. I think Szy has it closer to the mark when he says it is 5.9 greasy, though. The footholds are rather polished from having so much traffic over the years and the handholds can be sweaty. Whatever the rating, you can completely sew it up and, as noted, there are plenty of resting stances throughout the traverse if you trust your feet and allow yourself to chill.

Big Time Brewery & Alehouse 4133 University Way NE, Seattle 7:30 pm tonight

The Big Time is closer to I-5 for those who may come from afar. Magnolia is half way to Mongolia.

Maybe he'd show if we went to the Roadhouse. He certainly isn't likely to show up if you respond to his suggestion that way! Personally, I don't really like the BigTime but I'll be there if that is where it is to be. I might even have some cool pictures for show and tell. Anybody else got anything?

That's an excellent climb, and the ski descent is pretty good too, no?

You can climb Outer Space on a sunny weekend in October without crowds, but at this time of year you should expect a lineup. Because the route is relatively moderate, has good belay ledges and is so well known, lots of people use that climb as an opportunity to "get the kinks out" of their system and if there are any parties in front of you there is a great chance that at least one of them is going to be "slower than average." Passing in the middle of the route may or may not be a good idea but, whatever you do, you should be prepared to spend a lot of time waiting around and you should also be ready to be gracious about it when the "other guy" does something you don't approve of. Anybody not willing to share the route with parties either faster or slower than them, or just lots of other parties, should climb something else.

The Klipchuck campground is several miles down the east side of the pass, but it is on a semi-sunny south facing slope and in a forest of Ponderosa Pines. As long as you don't mind camping next to family groups and such, in my opinion it is a much more pleasant place to camp than anywhere up on the pass.

Fair enough, Stonehead, but read the Friedman editorial in the New York Times today: Instead of trying to dodge and evade responsibility for what we are doing by attacking the "liberal media" and blaming it all on some rogue little guy when the problems are obviously systemic and our leaders have actually encouraged this kind of thing in statement after statement about how this is war and the Geneva Conventions don't apply, our leaders should be apologizing for what our boys have done and actually taking steps to correct this situation. Simutaneously, when we see some orchestrated rioting, or a campaign for suicide bombing or whatever it is, we should call a spade a spade and hold the religous and political leaders in Saudia Arabia and other "friendly" countries accountable for encouraging what is clearly unholy slaughter, no matter which book you adhere to. The problem is, we've got ourselves into a mess and our leaders just want to avoid taking responsibility for it.

That's no jive, Fairweather. For example, go to the NCCC websit and look at their winter 2003-2004 newsletter, page 6, where the guy celebrates what a great opportunity they have to get roads cut back in the wake of the washouts two years ago and says that they may even want to block repairs to even main roads like the Mountain Loop Highway. I'd have to say that I agree with their basic argument that road building SHOULD be undertaken with proper environmental analysis and careful consideration of construction impacts, and I also agree that there are lots of roads that we could probably do without, but a friend of mine on their board says that it remains true that many of their members are in fact against providing recreational access and use these "issues" as a tool toward that agenda. He actually encouraged me to suggest that some of my more recreation-oriented friends joint their group to offer a different perspective. Obviously, it is a question of balance. Even we recreational junkies have to acknowledge that at least one portion of the Mountain Loop Highway that was wiped out is right in or immediately alongside the flood plain and they should be very careful about undertaking re-construction there. In addition, we have to face the reality that their funding is being severely cut back and they can't afford to maintain all the roads that everybody would like. Maybe Congress should allocate more money for recreational access, but they are heading in quite the opposite direction.

PP, I'm not falling for that one. If you read the thread, and if you've read the newspaper, you'll see that we're talking about a Newsweek report that an interrogator flushed a Koran down the toilet in an attempt to rile a prisoner. As you already know, the "retraction" was rather vague, and as I've pointed out (I think twice already), nobody in the Military or in the Administration denies that a Koran ever got flushed down the toilet. What they say is that "we've heard these complaints several times before, and we find no proof that it ever happened." You'd have me chasing my own tail, debating the "facts" when we really don't have any "facts" except these: 1. Newsweek prepares a story that contains lots of information along with a short reference to a line in an upcoming report about Koran being flushed down the toilet. 2. Newsweek names an "unnamed military source" as confirming this. 3. Newsweek sends the article to the Military for comment or correction. 4. The Military does not comment on or correct this item. 5. Roitting occurs in Afghanistan. 6. The Administration blames the riots on the Newsweek piece even though the military commanders in Afghanistan clearly say the riots were NOT caused by a reaction to that piece. 7. The Administration beats their drum about how everybody should rally against Newsweek. 8. Newsweek offers the "retraction," in effect falling on their sword - albiet a weak retraction, but a damaging one never-the-less. 9. Peter Puget and others on cascadeclimbers.com are confused by all of this and somehow think that the story here is about Newsweek'd violation of journalistic standards.