mattp

I think the RP's are for that bouldery couple of moves near the end of pitch 3 - didn't you set a couple of small pieces there in a thin-crack in the corner, before making a couple of face moves and then crawling up the corner to the belay? I thought Pitch 5 was probably only 10b if you took the high traverse, perhaps 10 feet above the belay. You step out right on a small slanting flake or ledge and get some kind of undeclingy fingerlock or something and then make one move to reach a vertically oriented crack/corner system with face climbing protected by crack pro. It seemed the sensible way to me, and the difficulty is more in line with the rest of the climb so I never understood why folks would take the low traverse - except it was the "original." Any ideas about this?

As I understand it, you are correct that all of these events has been "somewhat different." I recall that the analysts told Kennedy and Johnson, however, that we were in big trouble in Vietnam long before they acknowledged it, while others were indeed pushing for the use of the atomic bomb and some still maintain that we could have prevailed with the use of overwhelming military power. I belive similar dynamics played out in planning and undertaking subversive interventions in China and Cuba during the '60's -- the (professional) analysts' predictions were better than those of our (elected) governmental leaders. One theme that I believe has been repeated is that our State Deparment analysists and their counterparts in the DOD have been remarkably accurate in predicting the outcome of overt and covert operations, but politics have often dictated that their "warnings" were ignored.

I believe you are correct that this would not be the first time that political considerations have overridden what the analysts, both DOD and State Department, had to say. In fact, didn't they say similar things about Vietnam and perhaps Korea?

I find much of what Zinni has to say convincing. I've been trying every Google search I can think of to try and figure out who it was on the Joint Chief's of Staff, who said essentially the same thing BEFORE the invasion and got sacked for it -- that the war plan did not provide enough troops to secure the area quickly or to secure the aftermath. (Yes, I know this may not be exactly what Zinni has said.) Wasn't there somebody who said this, in the weeks leading up to the war, and who got sacked for saying so?

It looks as if it might have a lot of broken and brushy terrain. Not so?

BD does seem prone to releasing new products before they are fully field-tested, don't they? I bet they will be safe though - and if there's a recall I sure hope you'll be able to trade them in without buying a new one!

How did you like the climb?

There was some celebration of last Fall's washouts in a conservation group newsletter that came out last winter. It specifically mentioned the Mountain Loop Highway, Suiattle River Road, the Whitechuck Road, and Bacon Creek, and the authors wrote that "thanks to the flood, there may now be a transient opportunity to effectively pressure the Forest Service to decommission many of these mostly useless roads." NCCC Newsletter -- see article on Page 6 The motivations here are apparently similar to those for abandoning the road up the Dosewallips River. I understand the conservation objectives related to preserving wilderness areas and reducing impacts on salmon streams, and I understand the police problems associated with a road like the Middle Fork, but I think some of these groups go a little too far. We have vast tracts of wilderness in places like the Olympic National Park and the Glacier Peak region. I believe the public should have access and that there is great value in maintaining major access roads like the Dosewallips, Mountain Loop Highway, Whitechuck, and the Suiattle. So, too, I would hope that they will continue to maintain many of the "smaller" roads to trailheads and popular climbing destinations like the Clear Creek area outside of Darrington.

I'm with you there. The idea of guiding can be appealing but the reality is that it is generally low paying and seasonal work, and it tends to get one used to feeling and acting like a babysitter whenever they go climbing. I suppose people could make similar generalizations about lots of other professions, though.

I saw a guide taking some beginners climbing at Mount Eerie on Saturday. He pissed me off initially because he expressed a slight proprietary attitude and he had his stuff spread out all over the place. He quickly got a clue and consolidated his stuff and, after he saw that I wasn't going to kill my seven-year-old nephew he relaxed and let us climb. The proprietary attitude comes in part from being responsible for other people, I guess. Anyway, I ultimately enjoyed sharing the crag with his group, and not only did he seem to know what he was doing but he seemed to do a fairly good job of encouraging his "clients" to enjoy themselves. I think he worked for Cascade Guides. He was a marked contrast to the loudmouthed jerk I recently saw teaching some kids to climb at Marymoor. Unprofessional, unsafe, and unencouraging. Guides and clubs, even Scott's guides and clubs, can be OK by me.

Don't you guys ever get tired of bashing Scott?

The train trestle at exit 38 is itself a "destination" for small children, and the railroad bed staging area is a good place for them. On any given Saturday morning, there are usually people with their children there; much more rarely at Little Si.

How 'bout today?

Lammy's right, extended stays were prohibited in Camp IV when I first went there in 1979, though enforcement was not all that efficient and I think it may have been a 14-day limit. I think the nub of the issue is largely as Bug stated it: there is increasing recreational pressure being placed on shrinking available lands, both public and private. At the same time, there are shrinking public funds to operate public lands for recreational purposes, and this is part of the reason why I think overall recreation planning is often poorly coordinated with other resource management and preservation priorities.

I too knew Rodchester through his participation on this website and some exchanges of private messages following discussions here. I knew him to be thoughtful, knowledgeable, and a real contributor to our sport. Like everyone else here, I will miss him.

I mostly agree, Fenderfour, but where I have a comfortable ledge, particularly one which may be incut or where there are places to brace my feet or something so I'm pretty sure I won't be pulled off -- I sometimes DO sit on a ledge with my anchor at or below my butt, and belay a follower. When they pass me and lead the next pitch, I'm hoping they get gear in early so that I am then anchored from the expected line of pull in the event of a fall. I do this more in trad climbing and mountainclimbing situations where the anchor is sometimes a crack behind the ledge I am sitting on or some extension of it. It also happens where I am sitting on a bush or something.

In my mind, this is cyclical and not something we can change... Dude: You're hardcore! Even Bush's scientists admit we're causing climate change and CAN change it. I'm not sure this is a "great issue" for climbing in particular, though.

Fee demo is a lousy program, to be sure. The issue of shrinking budgets is the real problem, in my opinion, and I think that the rangers would be happy to see the Fee Demo program ended if they were given adequate funding from other sources. I think Congress and the government land management agencies should be directed to operate public lands with a more honest/balanced/forward-looking treatment of recreational/preservation/resource extraction priorities and to me, the abolition of Fee Demo is just a part of it. Points # 1 through 3 on my list are more about what I see as the "greeat issues" facing public lands and "Fee Demo" is in my mind more of a symptom.

1. Increasing recreational pressures are being placed on shrinking undeveloped lands. 2. Endangered species and other environmental regulations require governmental responses that include, in some instances, limiting climbers' access unless other viable alternative ways to comply with federal mandates are found. 3. Government land managers face shrinking budgets as they struggle to maintain roads and trails and they are forced to spend increasing amounts on environmental and legal procedures; in some cases, the most practical solution may be an area closure. 4. Many climbing areas suffer from unsightly erosion and plant destruction on the approaches and at the cliff edge or cliff base. 5. Visual impact from intensive removal or pruning of vegetation or the installation of brightly colored rappel slings is ugly and can disturb other visitors and land managers. 6. Climbers sometimes ignore crag closures, camp illegally, ignore wilderness regulations, engage in behavior offensive to other area visitors, let their dogs run unleashed, or cause other "police" problems. 7. Climbers are often unaware of, and in some cases ignore private property rights because they think their presence is not harmful. 8. Parking can be a problem, with climbers' cars getting in the way on narrow roadsides or tearing up sensitive roadside areas. 9. Despite State law and legal precedent that land owners or managers are not liable in the event of a climbing accident, liability concerns remain. 10. Bolting practices are an ongoing area of controversy.

In that case I'll concede that Kerry is a turd.

Greg: are you saing that BUSH lied about why we went in there, or just what are you saying here? Are you saying Clinton lied about the reasons for the eventual "mission creep?" Even so, can you point to where he lied in his State of the Union speeches on this topic, had his top guys give false testimony to the U.N., and the Press ignored these "transgressions?" Clinton lied about the Aspirin factory just how? Are you saying he deliberately bombed a medical facility? Or that he KNEW it had no connection with Osama? Does this compare with the Bush Administration's statements - repeatedly - that Saddam was arming and harboring terrorists? They have made these statements directly and indirectly at every turn, and the press seems largely to ignore the obvious mistruth here.

If you use the reverso to belay off an anchor, you just yard each rope through the device at whatever rate you want. If you let go, it locks. I've used the "keep a finger in-between and let the one you aren't pulling in slide" method with the ATC before, and I've thought it was fairly safe, but the Reverso is definitely better in this respect. However, when you have a climber haning on the rope, it is harder to feed slack with the reverso.

Yo Greg: I still don't understand what you meant by "Somalia."

You can do the same thing with your attachment. Add it as an attachment when you enter your post, then go back and "open up" the attachment. Copy the URL, and then edit your message to insert the [img} [/img] tags using the "Image" option. Its a bit clumsy but it works.

I often use the hip belay on easy terrain, usually low angle, where I know that my partner is going to follow quickly. It is much easier to keep up than using my ATC. I don't so often use it for belaying a leader.