mattp

Here we go again, Peter. In the post immediately above your complaint just now, I believe that I DID honestly address your question about how we judge "good managment." By saying "to date, no answer" I take it you are ignoring my statement that I can't begin to describe the factors or analysis that I apply but that I do it all the time. I bet you do, too. (Don't you say to yourself, on a daily basis, that "this government program is poorly managed but that private business really has its act together?") If you want a correct or clear answer, go talk to somebody in the business school at the U.W. But lack of some detailed checklist and scoring system in no way need prevent us from talking about what we think is good management or bad in general terms, and I've said that among other things I think good management of public resources includes accounting for externalities and engaging in long-term planning as well as providing efficient or cost-effective ways to extract resources for commercial use. In your next post, you complain that I have taken your quote out of context and twisted it. The fact is that I didn't put it in any context. I merely asked what you meant by that particular passage and offered a joke. I really don't know what you meant when yo asserted that I have some obsession about ignoring the benefits.

What are you talking about? I badmouth my neighbors' pursuit of the perfect green lawn?

When it comes to resource management, I believe that public management is likely to be better because the government, by not having the need to make a profit for their shareholders, CAN and ACTUALLY DOES take into account such things as externalities and the "public good." These are vague concepts, yes, and we can spend the next ten days defining them, but the public-run agencies and enterprises actually have staff members whose job it is to address these things. Private businesses almost never do, unless they are subject to specific regulation and government oversight of some kind. And as I've pointed out, I do not accept the anti-government rhetoric about how the government can never do anything right and private operations are always more efficient. When it comes to exploiting opportunity and deliberately externalizing costs, private industry will always do better. When it comes to managing some limited resource for public benefit, I'll place my favor in the government-run operation most of the time (not always). How do we judge "good management?" Here is a question that I can't answer. I make these judgments all the time, but I can't begin to explain to you the factors that I rely upon in forming such opinons, or lay out some clear formula.

Peter- In reply to your "pointing out" how I was using the private industry polluters to show mismanagement by private enterprise, please look at my post immediately above. I specifically acknowledged that you are right: by pointing out that the biggest polluters are private enterprises I have not shown that government-run enterprises would be better.

Peter- There is absolutely nothing absurd about addressing the issue of the tragedy of the commons, or of the externality of the costs of production that come in the form of environmental degredation To take an extreme (would you say absurd?) example, though, let me ask you this: Why did big tobacco continue to produce a toxic product, market it to kids, and even manipulate their product in order to make it more addictive after they KNEW they were killing people? The costs were "external." What are the chances that any government-run agency have done this? We've been using a more day-to-day type example in discussing the hypothetical urban or suburban landowner using chemicals to maintain a green lawn. Indeed, I actually do not like it when my neighbors use a bunch of weed and feed on their lawns. You may think that is absurd, but I think they should not be allowed to do so, or at the very least they should be tightly regulated in their use of such products. Am I an evil socialist?

Good catch there. However, I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Fairweather noted a few specific public works projects in China and the former Soviet Union in an attempt to show how government run operations are environmental disasters, I'm merely resonding to point ouit that, in this country at least, most serious environmental disasters are purely the result of private-run activities. You are right, though. It is not surprising and this does not show that public enterprises could or would be better.

Peter, perhaps I continue to misunderstand you. Maybe my reading comprehension is no good. What are you saying here? That we cannot know the outcome of any given action? How does this apply to the question of the relative merits of public vs private management of any given resource? No, my isolation of the runoff problem is not a dodge. I was talking about externalization of the costs or impacts - a concept which you say that you understand. I'm pointing out that the benefits accrue to our hypothetical "landowner" whereas the runoff does not impact him at all. The pesticide runoff itself is NOT a good thing EVEN IF if we judge the effects to be less costly than the benefits. Your following discussion of the costs/benefits of the use of DDT is more helpful, but the initial statement is confusing at best, and appears to be a dodge.

Infinite Bliss ends at a satellite peak set apart from the West Peak of Mount Garfield by a few hundred yards which might include some nasty scrambling.

Peter: I agree that definitions are hepful, but I believe your call for me to define the word "cooperation" was a dodge and that you just didn't want to answer the question. It was pretty much a yes or no question, calling for a statement of your general impression rather than some technical analysis or complex consideration. By the way, in case you are unclear what the word means, you can look up "cooperarion" in your Webster's dictionary. Again today, I believe you are seeking to avoid or dilude comments with a call for definitions. Are you suggesting that if we define it differently, we might conclude that pesticide runoff is a "good" thing? Maybe there's a job for you in the Bush Administration. Where did I ever say that government was or ever could be expected to be perfect?

If I said government owned resources are always going to be better managed I misspoke. (Scroll up and check if you'd like.) Clearly, we all know that government owned resources can be mismanaged and I believe I cited the National Forest services' management of timeberlands as an example of exactly where that has happened. Fairweather, you cite examples of mismanagement of public resources in Russia and China, apparently to suggest that these show how the U.S. government also cannot manage public resources as well as a large private corporation would. I don't think your examples prove anything, except that there were some disastrous public works projects in Russia and China. I'd be more impressed if you would talk about similar disasters in the U.S., such as the management of timber lands in the West, or completely irresponsible and short-sighted resource management projects like the irrigation of the central California valley. In my view, the driving force behind these disasters has been an effort to provide government support (welfare) for private corporations, and they are good examples of how our government has been co-opted by special interests. Even still, I don't think these examples prove or even tend to prove that private management of public resources or resources in general is desireable. When it comes to resource management, I think there is a consistent pattern of private enterprises completely mismanaging resources in the interest of short term profits. Pretty much all the big single source polluters except some particular facilities associated with the power industry are all private enterprises, aren't they? As to the non-source pollution, isn't it private business practices that are responsilble for just about all of this, too? Pretty much all of the big mining messes throughout the nation were made by private business, weren't they? Aside from a tree farm where I don't even think it is accurate to say that private business will do a better job than government (but at least we could have an argument here), exactly what resources would private business better manage than the government? I don't understand the anti-government arguments very well. Didn't the U.S. government lead us to victory in world war II? Didn't they eliminate Polio? Didn't they put a man on the moon? Aren't these examples of massive coordination and focus? Would private enterprise have done any of these things?

Lest you think I'm doing the same thing of which I accuse you, let me comment on this. If, as you suggest, timber companies are less likely to take care of public lands when they harvest timber on them, it is because the timber sales are being mis-managed by the public land managers. And I'd have to 'cede that much of the National Forest lands I've seen have been completely raped with very poor or no long term planning involved. The Forest Service has indeed been extremely irresponsible in their management of timber lands. That's not necessarly an argument for privatizing the public lands, though, as much as its a clear argument for insisting upon responsible public agency land management practices.

Fox - that is about all I know. There are some anchors on the back side of the summit formation. Do not rappel that way because I am told that they don't get you anywhere. Oh yes, to "elaborate:" I DO know two guys who have actually descended that way -- my friends David Whitelaw and Chris Greyell climbed this same face without any bolts, about twenty five years ago (I think they bypassed the shoulder that is the top of I.B., and climbed to the West Peak, a few hundred yards away). They descended off the back and perhaps they missed "the obvious descent gully" but they said it was one of the worse and scarriest descents either one of them has ever made in their life. Until somebody goes and brings back a report to the contrary, I'd tend to believe what I've been told.

Peter- I really don't care to run down your link here if you aren't going to bother to make your argument yourself, but you apparently argue that government agencies are inefficient or some such thing. One "conceptual problem" we have here is that you fail to say what your argument is but another is that you don't want to respond to the arguments sent your way. There was no mystery about what I meant by the word "cooperation" the other day, and no nuance to what I meant when I asked you if it was "cooperative" to refuse to comply with the expressed wishes of nearly every single one of (if not all of) our allies. Had you wanted to say, it was uncooperative but cooperation was not justified, or something like that, I might have been interested in continuing the discussion. Where you wanted to talk in circles to avoid the question, I lost interest. Today, among other things we were discussing a simple idea from the source that you brought forth: private management of resources will always be better than public. My own reply, echoing those of others, contained two equally simple ideas: the idea that future expectations are severely discounted in standard business accounting, and the idea that the actual costs or impacts associated with one's economic activity may be external and left completely out of the balance sheet. You dismiss both concepts, without discussing either.

I think there was an accident on Temple Ridge where it was thought that a rappel anchor sling failed just a couple of years ago. I don't remember if the sling broke or the knot came untied or what. That is the ONLY time I have ever heard of such a thing, though. I think Forrest is right: anchor failure, rapelling off the end of the rope, and just plain losing control are far more common. One comment on Catbird's method of putting the knot against the sling when using ropes of different diameters: this is not fool proof. If you momentarily uneweight the rope, or even perhaps if you do not, the know may slip past the sling and thereafter you're facing the sawing that Matt's prior post mentioned.

Josh, I don't know if you are an asshole or not. I just offer food for thought. Carry on.

I'd modify Josh's arguments slightly. Yes, ownership and investment TEND to increase the likelihood that the resource will be managed with care but they certainly DO NOT guarantee it. And because of how long-term accounting and planning is done, the government-owned resource is very likely to be BETTER managed because the future is so severely discounted in any business accounting routine that I have ever heard of. Yes, Georgia Pacific operates its lands in a way to produce a timber crop 30 years from now, but they do not value planning and preservation of the resource for the next several crop cycles at all if it costs them even a penny to do so -- an expected return on investment, 60 or 80 years from now, even if tremendous, just isn't worth a thing on today's balance sheet. Second, I say Josh is right on about the environmental damage associated with keeping the lawn, Peter, and that YOU missed the point. THe point is that all those costs - all the runoff, trash volume, and mower emissions - are externalized from the homeowner's point of view. A government lawn-mowing agency that shares budgetting and rulemaking duties with the pollution control agencies and garbage utility would be much more likely to take into account these "other" costs or impacts associated with maintaining a green lawn.

I didn't say it was "disallowed." In fact, I have twice stated pretty much the opposite. Let me make it clear for you one more time: you have in fact been allowed to talk shit about Annabelle and you've been allowed to put down other posters and make your jabs not only in Spray but in the climbing forums as well (there have been some limits here, but no absolute ban on shit-talking or put-downs, though we try to maintain such a ban in the Newbies forum, at least). I am merely pointing out that this reflects on you, not only those who you put down. I could be wrong, but I believe that if we were to run some searches I could find literally hundreds of posts where you were dismissive of somebody else's climb or route report, or made some snide retort when they asked a question or gave some advice about some climb or technique or piece of gear. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have carefully steered the line and you haven't actually put down somebody's climb, but I doubt it.

Actually, we have and we will. I'd say at least one out of every four posts you have ever added on this bulletin board contain some slap at somebody else - though you've toned it down a little bit in the last several months. You're right, though: Anabelle is fair game.

Talk shit all you want, JoshK. Hell, I even agree with what you just wrote so I'm not arguing with you but your argument is really nothing new. However, consider the possibility that the main point you are making here is that JoshK is a shit-talker. On this matter, I think you make a good point.

As a general rule on cc.com, those who bag on [anything] have never tried [whatever it is] or are not very good at [whatever it is]. Take this thread, for example: how many of the "baggers" have even been on even one expedition to a real peak in the Himalaya? Plenty of climbers around here HAVE been on expeditions over there, by the way.

Better, Mike?

Meanwhile, I've checked some of your comments with the route setters, and here are a few specifics: 1. Infinite Bliss is in some ways two separate climbs. Pitches 1-14 offer mostly fairly well protected climbing and relatively little in the way of route-finding problems. The first bolt may be a little hard to spot, and there are a few places along the way where you may scratch your head, but the real problems start at pitch 15. Further, a descent from above pitch 14 is much more difficult. Consider it a good day's climbing and a "success" to reach the top of pitch 14. 2. If you want to continue, take note of the comments higher in this thread. The route jogs rightward a little more than a half ropelength and then resumes upward climbing. It is MORE than a ropelength from the chains at the top of pitch 14 to the next chains. The top nine pitches of the route are more serious than the lower pitches: the first three of them are entirely unprotected except with the use of tiny stoppers and cams behind loose flakes and blocks, and the last five contain the technical crux of the route. On a descent of this upper portion, be prepared to leave some gear behind or belay your way down, late in the day, possibly in bad weather or when you are exhausted or cold or sunburned or .... 3. Rocks will be rolling if there is anybody at all above you on the climb. Even your partner is a serious hazard to your health on this route. Wear a helmet and consider another climb if there is anybody else on it when you get there. Really. 4. The descent off the back is probably not a good option, despite apparent rappel anchors that would indicate a possible route that way. The last time somebody went down there, they described it as an absolute nightmare. It is much safer to retreat way you came. 5. To answer the concerns about getting lost on Pitch 15, there is a proposal to laminate a small plastic tag and hang it on the anchor, with written instructions noting how the route jogs rightward. Perhaps this will eliminate some of the confusion. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT A SPORT CLIMB. IT IS NOT LIKE CLIMBING 23 PITCHES AT EXIT 38 IN ONE DAY. BE PREPARED FOR DANGEROUS ROCK, HIGH MOUNTAIN EXPOSURE AND WEATHER HAZARDS, ROUTEFINDING DIFFICULTY, AND JUST PLAIN SERIOUS CLIMBING. EVEN IF YOU CLIMB 5.12 AND SCOFF AT THE 5.10b RATING.

Adventurewagon- You make some valid points here, but the overall tone and some of the specifics of what you say are inflammatory and, I think, irresponsible. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote that maybe you should have waited until you calmed down before posting to cc.com. To begin with, I would agree that Infinite Bliss is a dangerous climb. I can think of no 3,000 foot wall in the State of Washington that isn't. If anybody reads a ten-line blurb in Rock and Ice and is fooled into thinking they can climb a 3,000 foot wall in the Washington Cascades and it is going to be like running up 23 sport pitches at ground level, they are seriously mistaken and it is THEIR judgment I would question much more than that of the route setters. I'm not meaning to imply that you lack experience or judgment but seriously: how many climbs of that size on a Cascade peak have you done where there weren't routefinding issues, choss, rappel complications and any number of other nightmares en route? Should they have installed a trail of bolts on that low angled terrain so that you could find your way without a topo? Maybe, but wouldn't you then be complaining that there are way too many bolts on easy terrain (or if not you, wouldn't somebody else)? Do they owe it to you or to anybody else to come forth on cc.com and publish a topo so you can find your way without a trail of bolts? No. Nearly every time somebody posts something about a new "sport climb" on this website they get nothing but insult and ridicule -- and questions about their manhood and their motivations. Your posts are little different in this regard. Further, if the route setters were to post a topo, the route would only be MORE dangerous as it would surely become an overcrowded nightmare. Should you or anybody else take it upon themselves to go up there and "fix" it? Absolutely not. Don't even joke about taking a can of spraypaint and a bolt drill up there to "make it right." Should the guys who set the route go "fix it" according to your specifications or anybody else's? Lets wait and see. The route is not a death trap for anyone with the basic good sense to judge for themselves whether or not they are comfortable and the time is right to proceed beyond the point where they may have to place their own anchors on rappel, and you know nothing of the issues involved because you haven't talked to the guys involved. I've addressed these somewhat rhetorical comments at you, but I should perhaps be directing them at everyone.

I think its a "weird metallurgical reason." Anyway, it is not new news. 'Don't mean to be insulting, but if you didn't know about it, you havn't really been paying a lot of attention. Ed Leeper probably first announced his concerns over his bolt hangers over ten years ago, though he has now apparently renewed his campaign to get the word out.

O.H. Bonney's Field Guide to the Wind River Range tells you how to cut up dead animals AND how to climb Pingora.