mattp

Looking for a reference about Ptor Spricenieks and Trevor Jungen's skiing the North Face of Robson, I stumbled upon this: article with quote

Shawn- I've talked to one of the two guys who skied the North Face. I believe that they actually DID do it. Your fellow who finally made it skied the Kain Face. The Vancouver Sun summed it up this way: Reprint You are the first person I have ever heard to cast doubt on their accomplishment. Do you have any other basis for your statement, other than "it's impossible?" What's your take on the moon landing back in 1969?

I just scanned the text from the debate, and it may have been this excerpt: I remember thinking that he was talking to a teleprompter, but I suppose it could have been that he was tlking to Leher. However, seeing as how he had just scored a direct hit and was definitely taking a pause at that moment, it makes much more senst to me that he was responding to the voice in his ear. I don't know what color the lights were, though, and maybe Lehrer (off camera) signalled him that his time was up.

Sorry, I got all confused and stuff because the same link about the presidential wire was linked in two threads. But during last week's debate there was one point where he paused and said "no, I'm going to answer this" - or something like that - and then he made a statement. I can't remember just what he said but I got the immediate and disctinct impression that he was responding to a teleprompter. Would any of you be surprised by this?

During last week's debate there was one point where he paused and said "no, I'm going to answer this" - or something like that - and then he made a statement. I can't remember just what he said but I got the immediate and disctinct impression that he was responding to a teleprompter.

I'm with you there, Mr. K, but I also think that going out alone and relying solely upon one's own judgment and gumption can contribuite to becoming a proficient climber. Sometimes we will over-estimate a route and other times we will under-estimate one (or our own combineation of skill, energy and confidence on a particular day). The idea is to not get killed and not to have to call for a rescue in the process.

Dru- I'm well aware of the definition of "4th class." It does not mean terrain where some would scramble and others would call for a rope - that is "3rd class." Properly speaking, the term "4th class" was defined as terrain where you use a belay but not intermediate points of protection. I am also aware of the realities on the ground. I believe you are too, and I would be EXTREMELY surprised if there had never been something that the book said was 4th class where the great Dru did not think he wanted a quick belay. And I bet he didn't always go wimpering home and say "I should have lowered my commitment." Blake alreay wrote "Disclaimer to the obvious I know I shouldn't solo it if I'm not confident I can climb it but its nice to have a saftey net." Yours was the off track "remark."

I've climbed a few things ropeless where, at least at some point, I wished I had a rope. I've also done some significant climbs with a self belay, and been happy with the result. "If you need some kind of pro, perhaps you should have chosen a third class route instead" sounds just a tad bit bragadocious to me.

I'm just armchair quarterbacking here, but it has been snowing on and off up there for the last several weeks and The snow level is supposed to bounce back and forth between 5,000 and 10,000 the next several days. Even with some rain up there you are probably not looking at the most optimum conditions for soloing -- particularly if it snows at the 5,000 foot to 7,000 foot level this weekend, and particularly if there is wind with it. You may well face just about the most dangerous conditions for travelling unroped on that glacier that you could choose, with a winning combination of the most possible crevasses and the least substantial snow bridges of the year.

I believe she has been thought divisive and questionnable as an administrator but I don't know about "the dirt." I think, too, that the insurance companies played hardball with her when she was Insurance Commissioner and tried to force some significant changes in health insurance in the State.

I'm with you here, Mr. X. I've seen other commentators make the point that ChucK did, but I think they are wrong. The question asked by Eiffel specifically referred to Cheney's "family situation," and he danced around specific mention of his daughter's status because the REPUBLICAN PARTY has sought to make this a divisive issue in this 2004 campaign year. For Edwards NOT to clarifiy what Cheney's "family situation" was, exactly, would have been to (1) avoid the obvious, (2) cower to the Republicans' manipulative campaign strategy, and (3) allow them to continue to try to have it both ways. I'm not saying the Democrats aren't hypocrites here, too, but the Republicans made this a campaign issue, not Kerry and Edwards.

Agreed. Even the slower parties that we may call "bumblies" "belong" on a route just as much as anybody else. The issues here involve how we deal with it when we encounter someone else who is somehow "in our way." About twenty years ago, in Yosemite, I once took a beginning climber up The Nutcracker. Wayne had never been on a real rock climb before, and didn't know how to deal with the gear - so he fumbled a bit. I had climbed the route barefoot just a week before, and I wasn't slow with the leading, but mever-the-less our combined speed was less than the party behind us wanted. They never asked to pass, but accosted me in the parking lot of the Yosemite Lodge that evening. When I pointed out that they had not even bothered to ask if they could pass, they replied that I had no right to take a beginner up that climb in the first place. I said that Wayne and I had just as much of a right to be on that climb as they did.

I don't know what "knowing about them" has to do with it, but this statement is equally true, I think, if turned completely around. Any amount of respect the following party owes the leading one is matched by the same amount of respect, and in fact more care, that the leading party owes the following one. Like I said, though, it all depends on the situation and, for example, I hope you do not take this attitude on longer climbs in an alpine setting. Or, even at Smith Rock, if you are on a "classic" and have a member of your party who is completely over their head so you are taking way longer on a route than is "standard."

Mr. Thrill, I realize that many climbers feel as you do, and I have seen where people have created real problems trying to pass another party in the middle of a climb. However, if the situation is handled properly it is often possible for one party to pass another - even in the middle of a pitch, with no problem. It all depends on the situation and the climbers involved, but I'd be very angry if you took a completely inflexible attitude about this when your party was clogging some classic and crowded climb on a sunny Saturday.

It sounds to me as if they were more than polite. They wanted to climb Karate Crack but asked the other party if they were wanting it first? Then they waited elsewhere? Then they didn't start up it 'till the follower was almost done with it? I'm sorry but it seems to me as if the other party ought to go somewhere else besides the most crowded area in the busiest climbing Park in the State if they can't handle other people sharing a climb with them. Most of us would prefer to have all the ***** routes to ourselves, but the fact is that we don't. If you go somewhere that is crowded, be prepared to be patient and friendly when someone is in your way, or comes too close behind for your own sense of comfort, but we really don't have much to complain about unless they are really being aggressive or dangerous or seriously inconsiderate about it. Allowing someone to go first and then waiting patiently is not being aggressive, dangerous, or seriously inconsiderate.

Two folding chairs and a Marmot long underwear top. Send me a private message if they are yours.

I have two folding chairs, left in the campsite Sunday morning. Send me a private message if one of them is yours.

I've put a couple of pictures on the WCC website here: Washington Climbers Coalition web page

The thing is, too, that there is not all that much that can readily be "fixed" at this point. I didn't rappel their lines, but I think we are going to find that they did indeed remove or chop most of their bolts. I know that they kicked rocks back on their tent platforms and some of their staging areas. I don't think there is any way to clean what sewage they've left behind (the guy I talked to yesterday said they packed it all out but I wouldn't recommend drinking the water up there now) and you can't put the bushes back together. We'll do what we can to help clean it up a little further and time will help heal the rest. The real issue here is just that they had hundreds of people up there and it shows. I don't think large-scale commercial events should take place in that kind of environment, but this is more of a long-term issue that we can better address through focussed efforts based on careful reflection than through any immediate campaign of complaints.

Rad - I really don't think we want Primal Quest to come back and undertake further clean-up efforts at the dome. They actually had quite a large crew working on the clean-up last weekend and they did quite a bit in their slightly hurried rush to leave the place, but they are gone now and I don't want them back. Its a mess, and I am saddened by what they left behind, but I'd much rather we complete any futher cleanup ourselves, using volunteers who care about that place. We've conducted crag clean-ups in the past, and we can do it again. By taking responsibilty in this manner, we would in no way excuse or condone what happened - but we'd take responsibility for solving a problem that has been thrust upon us without demanding any resources from the already strapped Forest Service office in Darrington. If somebody intends to go up there and "check it out," please take a camera and take notes on what you find. Then lets organize our own work parties, as needed, and talk about what we can do to try to prevent this from happening again.

Blake - Down low in the canyon, in the Sam Hill area, Ski Tracks Crack (5.9 trad) is near don't forget Arete (5.9 sport); both are excellent short climbs. Giveler's Dome, 5.8 is another trad favorite (though as some note here, it is a lot of hike for what you get). Jazzy Document (5.9 sport but I think you need gear) is also good. Right above the campground, Bathtub Dome has plenty of stuff in your target zone, as well. If you want to range slightly farther afield, Castle Rock in Tumwater Canyon has a bunch of moderates that are absolutely classic (Saints, Canary, Catapult and Jello Tower, S. Face, are all 5.8 trad) and so does Peshastin Pinnacles (check out Martian Diagonal Direct (5.8 trad)). If you want a longer climb, check out Orbit (5.8 trad) on Snow Creek Wall.

I believe we DO have a pretty good relationship with them, Marylou. I think our problem lies mostly with Subaru Primal Quest and not with the Forest Service. We can speculate about what the rangers might or should or could have done when CBS and Subaru Primal Quest came along with their proposal, but I don't see how they would or could have consulted with some climbers' group about it - if that is what you are suggesting. I also don't know if we can or ever will be able to expect that they'd say "no" to an event like this, or what level of supervision or oversight they could have provided given their budget. As we learn more about this thing, we may want to propose that such event sponsors be required to complete an environmental assessment or something, and we may have some basis for this. First, I say, let's set to work on evaluating just how much of a mess we really have, and talk about some clean up, and take some time to consider what kind of campaign may help prevent this from happening in the future. Lets focus on these tasks before we start raising hell in the Darrington office or pointing fingers among ourselves, saying "I told you so" or whatever. ScottP touches on a significant point: the impacts they've had are not unlike those of climbers. However, there is a fundamental difference in my view: they've probably had as much impact in two weeks as we might be able to create in several years, and theirs was a hit and run sh*^storm that persumably generated a huge profit for them, but was left for us to clean up.

Exfoliation Dome does not lie within any wilderness area. It has a wilderness "feel" to it, but it is not within the boundary.

NOLS and Slop make some good suggestions about what we'd like to see here, and I'd urge further reflection on these things. Let me just focus on one point, but I could make similar "arguments" about some of their others. Slop says he'd like to see Primal Quest remove any leftover bolts - at their own expense. This sounds like a "no brainer," but I saw a 1/2 " chopped bolt on the Granite Sidewalk that looked as if it may have been simply been beaten back and forth until it broke. In any event, it had a cone of rock chipped away from the edge of the hole, and the broken bolt end was flush with the rock surface. They broke or chiseled it off and sprinkled powdered granite on it to try to conceal the hole. This is NOT the kind of bolt removal effort I'd like to see. I think I'd rather we clean it up ourselves than ask THEM to do it. And I think I'd rather see it done by volunteers than by somebody who is on anybody's time clock. In thinking about how we want to "hold them accountable," or "prevent future acts," or whatever else, too, we should talk about exactly what these things might look like. Meanwhile, I encourage DBerdinka and GregW and others who want to assess and document the situation.

In the overview photo posted by Will, the "main event" took place on the main wall facing the camera, right of center and just right of a swath of lighter rock that sweeps up the face. The jug lines ran from two tiny patches of trees, visible not far off the ground, to a top station just below another tiny patch of trees visible below and right of the summit. Once again, before everybody starts firing off angry letters to Subaru or to the Forest Service or to anybody else, I would hope we can take some time to figure out what we want out of this. The damage is done. Shouldn't we take our time to decide, for example, whether we want to declare war on the rangers over this?