mattp

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.

Much the same was the practice under the Moslim empire in such places as Spain, Ratboy, except I don't think they even had to acknowledge the Moslem religion. As long as they paid their taxes, Christians and Jews in the lands they controlled were able to continue their faith and were even allowed to control a surprising amount of their own local politics.

Once upon a time, a very long, long time ago, back in legendary time, before the white man or any other Indian people, there lived in the Sauk-Stillaguamish valleys a strong and handsome Indian man. His name was "Queest Alb." He led a happy life. The land there was beautiful, and still is. There were berries and plants galore to eat. Fish and deer were plentiful.... Our good friend Harry Majors had a hand in renaming the glaciers on Whitehorse and Three FIngers, to reflect local legends.

It is actually called the "Whitehorse Glacier" by most folks, even though somebody did manage to get the USGS to adopt that Queest-Alb name. At this time of year it is indeed rather impressive.

I don't think Argentinian ethics have anything to do with this.

I knew you'd reply with Kosovo, Greg. I'm not surprised. But Somalia and gun control? I'm disappointed. Kosovo: I'm still dumfounded why you and Fairweather keep bringing this up. There are some similarities, perhaps, if you are right that NATO grossly exaggerated the intelligence reports of ongoing atrocities in Kosovo and if Clinton was knowingly complicit in this. There was, however, an ongoing civil war and there were in fact atrocities being committed at that time - not some ten or twenty year old "record of killing his own people" that was trotted out over and over again as if we were referring to yesterdays' events. Also, it was not "our war." Virtually all of our allies agreed that it was time to intervene except Russia. No American soldiers were killed, and I don't believe there was much prospect for ongoing U.S. entanglement, so it was not then, nor is it now, such a big issue in American politics. Did President Clinton go on national TV over and over again repeating lies which, even if he believed what he said at the time (doubtful in Bush's case), he eventually knew to be "inaccuracies?" (And worse, Bush knows that if anybody checks the facts, they will know the truth but he is gambling that folks like you just don't care.) Somalia: What are you talking about? As far as I recall, we got ourselves bogged down in urban combat in Mogadishu and bailed. I don't know the history, and I wouldn't doubt if some bad calls were made, but I don't recall the President lying to take us into a war. Are you saying there was no humanitarian crisis or humanitarian motive? Didn't Papa Bush actually send in the US Forces, at the request of the UN or with their approval or something? Are you saying Clinton lied to get us OUT? Gun Control. If you ever believed that Kerry was your man on second ammendment issues, you are not very astute. Try again. Oh yes. Don't come back with that "if you think the democrats are squeaky clean" B.S. I don't think anybody on this site has ever raised that argument, and I would be the first to admit that most of the Democrats, including Kerry, are spineless slimeballs. But for out and out lies, and for getting a free pass, Bush and Co. are masters.

Yes, Greg, we could go round-and-round. A: Bush's own intelligence people pretty much told him there was no yellow cake uranium purchase, Saddam was weak and posed no imminent threat, and they had no evidence of ongoing nuclear weapons programs. He chose to broadcast not their doubts, but the uncorroborated reports of defectors who told him what he wanted to hear. That is, at the very least, a lie of omission if not an active lie. B: So you agree, that the statement Cheney made at the convention was indeed grossly misleading, if not an outright lie. C: Clinton proposed the Homeland Security effort, and sent the proposal to Bush's desk. Bush tanked it. Clinton actually tried to get Bin Laden. Prior to 9-11, Bush people ignored Bin Laden and Rice didn't even show up to meetings discussing terrorism. Then, after 9-11, Bush took action guaranteed to let him go by stating his invasion plans for six weeks prior to taking action - from the safe distance of 5,000 feet. He's failed to make chemical plants, nuclear plants, harbors, or anything else safer - but he's got my 7-year-old nephew afraid to get on an airplane for fear of having his scissors taken away. Clinton didn't invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, if that is what you call weak on terrorism. Now. You wanna tell me how Kerry and the Democratic leadership has lied about things of such a fundamental nature - on such a daily basis and with similar impunity?

It may be that we don't see many threads ablout free-soloing because some are afraid they will be ridiculed for stating the obvious, but there are plenty of people out there who think free soloing is irresponsible and I do actually recall a thread where someone argued hat it was particularly irresponsible or inconsiderate to do so where there are other climbers around. The difference in the case of helmets, I think, stems from the fact that most of us wear them when riding a bike or roller blading, and it just seems odd that they aren't as consistently worn by climbers. I agree with your basic premise, though, that I wouldn't want to see a "seat belt law" about helmets or ropes.

Instead of replying with a bunch of BS, Greg, how 'bout you answer my challenge? Have the Democrats, and Kerry in particular, lied about such significant matters? Are you going to trot out "Kosovo" again? Whitewater?

RobBob, I haven't really paid much attention to Kerry's Vietnam heroism other than to think, like Off White, it was probably a mistake to try to capitalize off his 33 year old record. I am willing to cede that his service may not have been quite as heroic as they portray. But the main reason we are even talking about this is because the Bush company has worked so hard to smear him, knowing they are vulnerable on this issue. Otherwise everybody would be going, zzzzzzzzzzz. His testimony before Congress about atrocities, as far as I recall, was simply a restatement of what had already been reported elsewhere. I haven't read where he said that MOST of the Americans serving in Vietnam committed atrocities. Can you cite a source? If what you are saying is that he was self serving, and this is something you dissapprove of, I agree. However, isn't the Bush administration the most self-serving administration we've seen in recent memory?

Lets be fair then, Greg. What lies have the Dems told that comes close to A. lying about the fundamental reasons why we invaded Iraq (yellow cake ring a bell? terrorist training camp on Iran border? ongoing weapons programs?) or, more recently, B. lying about Kerry's record of voting against military weapons programs (apparently, none of the programs in quesiton ever came up for a vote, and the votes in question were supported by the Bush company's hawks). C. Repeatedly insinuating as a theme at the National Convention that the Clinton admin was weak on terrorism and Bush was strong on this issue - before 9-11 (Bush's team tanked Clinton's anti-terrism efforts, Condoleeza did not attend any meetings on this topic, and they even complained how the Clintonites were "obsessed" with terrorism) Oh yes. "I did not have sex with that woman."

I don't think you'll make much headway trying to convince anybody of anything by referring to Schachte or any of the others swifties for truth, RobBob. They've changed their own stories a few times, too, and even your post about what Schachte says fails to refute Kerry's earning a purple heart on the night in question -- unless I missed the part where he says that Kerry deliberately hurt himself. It is a very well documented fact that our memories play tricks on us, especially when we are recounting traumatic events, and even more so when we have had time to sift through our memories over and over again. "Honest" accounts will differ, and it is no surprise that there might be different "memories" as to who was at the helm on some night thirty years ago. The bottom line here is that virtually everybody who served with Kerry says he is telling the truth about his record. Contrast that to Bush, where there is not a single person who has come forth to say he was telling the truth about his service. The bottom bottom line is that you will not believe anything good about Kerry's service, no matter what. The repubs have done a wonderful job of convincing their base that Bush represents "good," and anybody who opposes him represents or facilitates "evil." The democrats, instead of calling it for what it is, have really bungled their response to the republican smear campaign. I don't know what their problem is. The Bush people lie lie lie with impunity and, despite the frequent complaints about a liberal media, the Press too has utterly failed to hold Bush and Co. responsible for its constant lying.

I'd say it is pretty obnoxious to remove a long established rap station from an established climb like that, but I gotta say I've always wondered why anybody would rap that gully. It has always looked vaguely dangerous to me (I worry about inexperienced climbers kicking rocks) and I don't see how the rappels could be faster than walking back around the way you came -- unless, in early season, you are timid about descending "steep" snow.

Mt. Eerie is great for what you are describing. The views are great, and the "practice wall" has several climbs about 70 feet high, 5.4 to 5-8 or so. It is just a five minute scramble down from the parking area, with an approach trail that will make a nervous mother uncomfortable but you can spot the little ones accross the one truly sketchy part, and then the staging area is easy to manage.

WTF?

I have a hard time believing that the use of a helmet would ever increase injury, but if some brilliant doctor and the great Mr. Pritchard say so, it must be true. Have they seen those newfangled rock climbing helmets that are not very hard, and have a plastic coating over foam? For rock climbing that is what I use, though for mountaineering I still use a hardshell and I think I'll continue using it notwithstanding this great danger. Its kind of like wearing a seatbelt when you ride in a car: seatbelts DO cause injuries, but everybody knows they make you safer. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would not wear a helmet when rock climbing. Mine have always been so comfortable that I have often walked back to the car still wearing them, forgetting I was wearing one; once I made it all the way to the 7-11 until the clerk looked at me funny and my "partner" broke out in laughter. I don't agree with some of the judgmental statments about how those who don't wear helmets are idiots. As pointed out, climbing is obviously a dangerous activity and the same kind of judgemental statements can be made about the choice to go climbing in the first place, or to ride a bicycle in city traffic, or ... Does everybody do like I do and climb on double ropes instead of singles? It is much safer, lunkheads. And I've heard plenty of people say a cell phone is a crucial piece of equipment on every outing, but I don't even own one. Does that make ME the lunkhead? I wear a helmet, and I DO question anyone who doesn't, but I try to stop short of pronouncing them "irresponsible."

You can interpolate from Gary's table, but the more direct answer to your question is that there is not a linear relationship between pressure and altitude, so I don't think there is any simple equation for the change in pressure for a 100 foot gain. Also, there is some reduction in atmosphere pressure as you get further from the equator (the air is thinner at the poles so 20,000 feet in Alaska is equivalent to a slightly higher elevation in Nepal), so the equation would be different in Alaska as compared to California. To monitor changes in pressure, watch your altimeter when you are at camp, or compare the reading on your ascent and descent past the same location. Also, recalibrate your altimeter when you pass a known elevation point such as a col or a summit, and you can detect relative changes in barometric pressure during the day (was it reading "high" - meaning pressure has dropped slightly?). Realize, however, there is often a daily cycle with slightly reduced barometric pressuring during the middle of the day, and this occurs apart from any changes associated with changes in the weather. Lastly, it has been my general experience that changes in barometric pressure often do not precede changes in the weather but merely accompany those changes. I haven't found the altimeter nearly as useful a tool for predicting the weather as looking around and noting changes in cloud formation, wind direction, etc.