mattp

You actually BELIEVE that drivel? That and the Black Hawk helicopter thing? That's straight from the liberal press. Those guys hate freedom.

Catbird, I've been called an apologist in the context of the sport climbing vs trad debates, as well. And I'll take a similar position next week, when we start bitching about horse packers. My point here is that we have to recognize that there are other user groups who want to use the same lands that we do. It does absolutely no good to argue that we are morally superior to the snowmobile crowd. First of all, I think it is flat out wrong -- I think many of the snowmobilers I've talked to are indeed quite responsible and just as moral as you and I. Sure, there are a lot of careless and irresponsible motorheads out there but the problem, I think, is that the technology is just a mess to begin with and that the powerful noisy machines, even if used responsibly, have quite an impact. Also, an irresponsible snowmobiler can do a lot more damage than an irresponsible skier. Any constructive discussion will address questions such as whether or not snowmobiles should be restricted more than they are at present, or such things as how might they be encouraged to adopt 4 stroke technology, or how do we get them to clean up after themselves or do we need a snowmobile patrol in those meadows below the Easton ... and things like that. To argue that "we are better than them" doesn't help; it only makes us look selfish. One other thing about the snowmobile area on Mount Baker: the very existence of their slice of pie on the south side of Mount Baker points out the fact that, when the wilderness area boundaries were drawn, these guys were organized. As climbers and backcountry skiers, we tend to be all righteous about wanting to go anywhere we want, anytime we want, and to complain about user fees. But we have historically been very poor at coming together in any cohesive manner to address these issues. In this respect, I'm not an apologist; I'm downright admiring of the evil motorhead snowmobilers.

I think Ryland Moore is describing Canary, not Midway. I second the idea that if she is worried about sitting at belays on the R&D route, you are not going to find very many multi-pitch routes, andywhere, that she will find comfortable. If you are bent on a multi-pitch outing, I'd say Midway is probably a BETTER choice than Saber. But I'd set it up as three pitches, not two. You can set up on top of Jello Tower so that it is easy to look over the side and talk to her while she's scratching at the crux moves on the first pitch. FOr the second pitch,set up a belay in the corner system 80 feet above the step accross so that you'll be able to have eye contact with her as she hesitates to make the first step, and then again when she is on the crux traverse moves higher on the pitch (after the step accross, do not exit right into the squeeze chimney but climb up another 40 feet before moving right into the corner system above the squeeze). You might consider sticking with one pitch routes, though. Take a trip to Mount Eerie some time.

Catbird, you, Josh and some others here seem to suggest that backcountry skiers are some kind of earth loving stewards of all things natural and snowmobilers are a bunch of thoughtless pigs who think nothing of ripping up the woods and spewing garbage. This is self-indulgent rhetoric. You do see more ripped up bushes and trash from snowmobilers than from backcountry skiers. The reason is that the machines are bigger, heavier, and more powerful than most backcountry skiers and they are powered by an engine that belches oil and smoke. But plenty of backcountry skiers think nothing of ripping branches from trees to open up their favorite glade, or felling a tree to create a bridge over a stream. I've seen this done. Others are prone to leaving wads of duct tape and gu packets behind, and others can be pretty damn unsanitary when it comes to camping and pooping next to a stream. Yes, there are way more clueless idiots that will find their way to any given remote point in the wilderness on a snowmobile than who will find their way to that same location on skis, but this is not a moral difference, either. It is a simple fact that it is easier to get to said location on a snowmobile, though as some of these motorheads have pointed out - it is not completely effortless. Yes, there is a lot to learn about backcountry skiing before you can safely ski up Mount Baker but, you know what? You don't just sit down on the seat and gun the throttle to get there on a snowmobile, either. You have to know just as much about navigation, crevasses, avalanche conditions etc., you have to know how to take care of yourself if you get stuck out there, and you have to know how to fix the damn thing when you burn up a belt or whatever. Snowmobilers don't start at the bunny hill and work their way up to the expert slopes in quite the same manner as skiers, but serious high-mountain snowmobiling is just that: serious. While many people are drawn to backcountry skiing for solitude and quiet, some are ten times the adrenaline junkie of the average snowmobile rider. Backcountry skiers learn ethics and judgment from their elders and snowmobilers do not? Statements like this reveal nothing about what is wrong with snowmobiling, but clearly show part of waht is wrongheaded and selfcentric about some climbers and skiers.

The link worked when I tried it. Try again, Mr. Klenke.

This is twice in two days I've agreed with you, Mr. Fairweather. I'm not so sure I support their access to the entirety of Mount Saint Helens, if that is indeed the case, but as I pointed out on the prior page of this thread: the pie shaped slice of the south side of Mount Baker is the only truly alpine mountain where they are allowed in the entire state. If you don't want to share the mountains with them, there are LOTS of other glacier climbs to choose from. It's a matter of the allocation of resources, folks. We want areas designated for our use; so do they. Those of you who complain about their much greater noise and pollution than you should at least recognize the fact that they are limited to a very small portion of the high Cascades -- most of the peaks you hold dear lie within wilderness areas or the North Cascade and Rainier parks where I belive they are excluded entirely.

I thought Pershing was a fairly good outing, but it's been way too long for me to remember anything that would be useful for you.

At the top of the chute, you find yourself in a small bowl, perhaps 50 to 100 yards wide. Head left, up the rise that forms one edge of the bowl, and it flattens out a little. Then head up to the summit, nearby, probably no more than 100 yards off. You know you are there because it drops right down the other side. BIG TIME. Does this sound familiar? (It's been a number of years, but yes: I have been there enough times to talk about it. Fairweather? Does this sound right?)

Our "little bastard" doesn't shit inside. He does sometimes piss on my climbing gear when he sees me getting ready for an expedition, though.

Bamboo is not as hard to contain as most people think - with or without the root barrier (though when I planted it in my yard - even a relatively slow spreading variety - I DID dig a 2 foot trench and line it with the plastic barrier). If you don't have the barrier, you just gotta cut off the rhizomes as they grow. I believe that most bamboo sends out the rhizomes once a year - like in October or something - and if you "root prune" it two or three times in the Fall the outgoing shoots will not survive. If they do go out and get established, well then you may have more of a problem. The stuff draws an emotional reacion, though. My neighbor just cut off my 25 year old bamboo at the knees, going onto our yard to do so. It looks like hell. If the "Great Bamboo Dig" was in Seattle, I'd be there.

Seriously, these "tape is aid" pronouncements seem rather silly to me. Rock climbing is nothing more than a game, and to a certain extent we all make up our own rules. If you don't want to use them - don't. But if you belittle someone else who uses them because they are not something you want to carry around, well, you're commenting on yourself more than on that other person. If you want to discuss a somewhat interesting idea, though, the question of "why is rubber on your hands considered aid when rubber on your feet is not" is a good one. Is the reason, perhaps, that all of us use rock shoes but almost nobody uses hand jammies?

I see Polish Bob has an adherant. Hardcores unite!

If you want to get away from the crowds, it is easy to get off the beaten track on Mount Rainier. 90% of the traffic is on the DC and Emmons routes, and only handful of other routes see much traffic at all (the Kautz Glacier route is one of them). I don't know about the Disappointment Cleaver, but it is probably an OK route in the early season. So is the Tahoma Glacier and the Fuhrer Finger - both without much in the way of technical climbing. Also, look at the Kautz Cleaver and two right-hand routes on the Mowich Face: neither is very hard though they do involve a little bit of technical climbing.

Incorrect, Dru. In fact, I I don't think I had anything to do with any of those bannings. Cry to somebody else.

I think your first post was more on the money, Fern. The idea of carrying around a bouldering pad for those climbs with scary starts strikes me as a rather silly idea though obviosly there ARE places where it might help. But if it is a ground-fall at the start of the route that we are talking about, Catbird ought to consider backing down when he gets ten feet up and starts to sketch -- and in the long term he'd benefit more from learning how to keep a cool head and downclimbing than he would from relying on a guidebook to tell him which routes had scary starts or carrying around a bouldering pad "just in case." The idea that "if you're not flying, you're not trying" has its merits, as you note, but such statements are often flung about as juvenile puffery quite apart from their merit. Yes, we all need to push ourselves in order to get better. Many beginning or even relatively advanced climbers these days are used to sport bolted climbing where there is no routefinding judgment involved, no reliance on sketchy gear, and no runout potential. Consequently, today more than ever some of us need more than a little "push" to get beyond being unwilling to suck it up and climb through some truly challenging or runout bit of climbing, but the idea that you are not worthy or will never improve if you are not taking leader falls is just plain wrong - and I think its an invitation to serious injury. Particularly so if this idea is adopted by climbers who for whatever reason lack judment or common sense.

[Obnoxious post by mister Whirlwind noted. Grow up.]

I think my picture may have been April 2000. The first several hundred feet, up to the place where the vale is split by that infamous cliff outcrop, was all avalanche debris.

I believe I took that shot in late April of what I think was a relatively average snow year. Now, Sarah better find your trail, but it shouldn't be too hard --- should it?

Your right, Martlett. I should apologize -- for wasting my time. You obviously do not care to engage on ideas but just want to keep repeating your assertions. Again, I will point out that by showing how Hilary Clinton said Saddam posed a threat you have in no way refuted my statement that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington." In case you don't remember this line, run a Google search and see who said that.

Actually, HE didn't say that the BIG lies came from Bush and the Conservative press, I did. And by pointing out that Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle said that Saddam had weapons in 1998, or even that Hilary said so in 2002, you have done nothing to refute my statement. Mr. Bush said in his STATE OF THE UNION address that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium in Africa - after his own intelligence guys had told his own staff that it was probably untrue. Mr. Powell described the uranium tubes that were supposedly for Uranium enrichment centrifuges in his briefing to the U.N. - again when their own intelligence staff told them this was extremely unlikely or just plain incorrect. Point to where he said Iraq was responsible for 911? You are probably right that nobody in the Bush administration probably said, on tape, that Saddam was behind 911. They are smarter than that. However, they've clearly tried to link Saddam and 911 in the minds of the American public and every poll that has come out on this subject has shown that it has worked! Further, those who watch your beloved "fair and accurate" FOX news are the most consistently misinformed on this point. By far. Has anybody in the Administration put any real effort into clearing up this misconception? I think not. Rather, they STILL tell us we went into Iraq as part of the war on terrorism in response to the 911 attacks and nearly every day they are calling Saddam a terrorist and telling us how much safer from terrorism we are now that they've occupied Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld told us the Iraqi's were going to welcome us as liberators and they sacked the general who warned them that they would find occupation more difficult than they were anticipating. Maybe this wasn't a lie, maybe they actually believed that guy Chalabi and his friends on this point. If so, they are complete idiots -- they believed and repeated a stupid lie. And what about Freedom? Do you really believe that horse manure about how we are in Iraq fighting the good fight so the people in the middle east can live in freedom? We could continue the point by point here: liberals have made some stupid statements at times but it is not the liberals who made blatantly false statements as to the basic circumstances of this war in order to shape the public debate. You're trying to argue that liberals base their opinions on lies? Get a grip, Martlett!

WHAT????????????????????? That fair priced hell hole with plenty of space, ample parking, plenty of games, I-5 access, and a more central location than West Ballard? How could you agree to such a place??????????????????

Martlet, your blind ignorance and unwillingness to read the news is showing pretty badly here. You accuse the liberal moonbots of basing their opinions on untruths, yet the big lies about this war -- all of them -- have come from the BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONSERVATIVE PRESS. It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we might find the proof of this is the form of a mushroom cloud over Washington. It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam was linked to the 911 attacks. It wasn't the liberals who said the Iraqi people were going to greet us with open arms and we wouldn't need a strong military presence to keep the peace after the mission was accomplished. Get a grip.

The more I learn about this war, the more my moonbat opinions are confirmed. Based on what I know, even considering your stunning revelations about how miserably uninformed I am, my guess is that the facts will show that the folks higher up in the chain of command are concerned with public relations first, and doing the right thing second. This is pure speculation on my part, but I don't expect anybody in any position of power to do more throw a few scapegoats to the dogs and try to tell us how unusual this apparently NOT unusual practice is.

Where do you get this attitude, Martlet? I clearly stated that I DID NOT have all the information. I'm sorry I don't keep up on the do. You must think it helps your argument to be a jerk.

No liberal idiot tried to manufacture news. The original post, and pretty much all those which follow, are based primarily on speculation and nobody is concealing that fact. To me, however, it IS B.S. if CentCom knew what was going on January 13 or earlier, and only now that it has become a big issue do they make what as far as I know is the first arrest and only now, perhaps, they are intervening at all -- and mostly out of a desire to do damage control it seems. I understand that war is ugly, and notwithstanding the heartfelt objections raised by the "liberal idiots" in this thread, there may even be a place for this kind of conduct (though I don't think it sounds like this will turn out to have been even close to justified). But the whole thing looks pretty hypocritical to me.