mattp

PP - ChucK thought we might talk about this topic without going back to the earlier debate over whether they lied in the first place, but you apparently cannot. Is it not a lie to say that they were purchasing aluminum tubes that can be used for production of enriched fuels when virtually every scientist who had looked at those tubes told them that the tubes could not be used for that purpose? ( I say "virtually every one" because there may have been somebody who said "well, maybe if ..." but I believe it has been reported over and over again and that it has not been refuted anywhere that the overwhelming if not 100% agreement was that the tubes were not for centrifuge's as reported by Bush and Co. and that this 95% or 100% agreement was known to them or at least would have been known to them if they bothered to read their own intelligence reports and alalysis.) Is it not a lie to say that Saddam tried to purchase enriched Uranium in Niger where the intelligence community, for over a year if I remember correctly, had been telling the White House staff that the evidence in support of that story was fake and it was probably untrue? Is it not a lie for various members of the Bush administration to have kept hammering away on the connection between Iraq and al Queda, promoting the public's general perception that Saddam was behind 911, without ever correcting that misunderstanding? (And don't try to tell me they didn't know they were being "misunderstood" on this pont - that ‘s absurd.) In my view, the discussion we should have had before going to Iraq would have been something like this: he's a bad guy, he's not coming around, and we're still messing around with sanctions after over ten years with little apparent progress and with bad side-affects. Isn't it time we just take him out? But instead, they DID lie and exaggerate and promote fear. ChucK asks: do you justify that and if so, HOW do you justify that?

I think the reason you'd go down that way is largely the same as the reason you might find it easiest to go up that way: it is the most direct route, and pretty mujch all the steep ground is on south facing slopes that will genearlly be more firm than N or NE facing ones. I've descended that way once, and yes - there were stones falling. I didn't want to stand still, but it wasn't really that big of a deal. On another occasion, when we feared stonefall, we simply continued down that "exit gully" and it seems to me that were down on nearly flat terrain within about 15 or 20 miniutes of leaving the top of Gibralter Rock.

I think he is correct that telemark gear is just as heavy as AT these days and, in my view, the telemark fad is largely a historical accident. It does have its advantages (and disadvantages) for backcountry skiing, though. Advantages: 1. telemark bindings make it easier to lift the tail of ski when touring, and stepping over logs and sidestepping around tree-wells and such, 2. telemark bindings are slightly better on rolling terrain and for touring (in my view the "drag" against heal lift is over-emphasized as a drawback by many AT propagandists) 3. telemark boots are slightly more comfortable for hiking 4. the telemark turn yields greater performance in certain types of terrain/snow (largely where slow-speed turns are useful, but also in certain slop and breakable crust conditions) disadvantages 1. telemark gear is not as releaseable and even with release plates it is not as safe in falls and maye not in avalanches 2. a telemark set-up yields lesser performance in almost all technical skiing situations (see above) 3. AT boots are better for technical climbing 4. telemark skiing is more strenuous We've debated telemark v AT on this site at least two or three times before -- run a search to find it.

The avalanche debris in the woods just past 3:00 Rock is gone, but I don't think that is a good way to get to Squire Creek Wall. Even with the big washout, it is miles shorter and avoids an unnecessary climb up and over Squire Creek Pass to approach SQW via Squire Creek.

The simplicity and ease of putting on/off of the bod harnesses is great, and many of them come without any padded waist or gear loops, so they are good when worn in conjunction with a pack. I like a lightweight "bod" type harness for general mountaineering, where I don't plan on spending much hang time, but I pretty much always use something else for rock climbing.

That "craggy" bit on the SE ridge of Mastiff is what I was referring to when I said it took three tries to find a "reasonable" way to climb Mastiff from the east. I've been up there with ski buddies who are not into technical mountain climbing, but twice we were turned back there by snow-plastered rocky scrambling in an exposed setting (we did not have ice axes or crampons or rope).

Nason Ridge is a cool feature because it stands 4,000 feet above the valey next to it and has no close neighbors so it provides a wide view. It is sub-alpine, and has a slightly higher feel then many of the other Stevens Pass area peaks. I haven't looked at the new (5 years old?) edition of Burgdorfer's book, but in the first edition he suggested Nason Ridge as a good ridge tour, but neglected to mention that there are several points where the crest is much more complex and or unfriendly than the map might suggest. From the East, it took, me three trips to find a reasonable way up Mount Mastiff, which requires a very steep traverse over to Lost Lake and then a climb up a bushy slope north from the lake, and then an avalanche-prone east facing slope to the summit. From the west, I know several parties who have tried to traverse from Rainy Pass and found it very unpleasant going in tight trees on steep side-hills. For the central part, I've been up both Howard and Rock Mountain several times and they are good day-trip objectives from Highway 2, but neither is straight-forward and there is a lot of work involved. The traverse between Howard and Rock Mountain will prove slightly complicated, I believe, and it may be necessary to drop fairly low around the SE ridge of a peak a half mile NE of Rock Mountain. I've also looked at the ridge from the air, and the north slope of Howard looks potentially more interesting than Rock.

Nope, never done it. The West face dumps you into Snowy Creek, draining north, though. Have you seen the North face from somewhere? Does it look good?

The West Face of Rock Mountain is a good ski run, visible on the left, is a good ski run.

Cracked: There has been some past discussion of this point, and I'm not sure whether anybody "won" the ensuing argument. However, if you look at Thinker's drawing, you'd realize that the "screamer" we are talking about in this discussion is the primal scream death fall or the full-ropelength "screamer."

I went up there on skis once, and on that occasion we could not drive more than a mile (certainly less than two miles) from the main line. Even then, in March, we made it up to the hut with sufficient daylight left that we were able to take a ski run before dinner. It is an attractive area, and the hut itself is cute, though I didn't see anything truly amazing in the short time that we were up there (we did, as you say, spend most the weekend travelling to and fro). What will you be doing up there?

That is a practical solution, Catbird, but I wonder a little bit just how serious the concern is in the first place. We trust bar tacked sewn runners even for the dreaded factor 2 leader fall and, while I realize that the bar tacks between the loops on a daisy are not as strong as th ose on a runner, and I'm sure you'll call up some statistic about how x% of the time they fail at .01KN or something. But the fact is I don't seem to fall of the belay ledge very often (never in 30 years of climbing). If I were to fall off, and fell 12 inches onto my daisy that was clipped what most of us would find uncomfortably long in the first place, how much shock would that generate? And I've caught a lot of falls, but the number times even then that I've put anything like a shock load on the anchors is very small. I belay from my waist so I tend to remember these events. Lastly, I know nobody who stands around on belay anchored only by the daisy. It is always backed up except that folks do it when making multiple rappels - but how could you put a shock load on your teather while standing at a rappel station? Like I said, you've got a good solution to the problem -- and I can think of no reason not to do as you suggest. Maybe I'll even go down in the basement and tie my daisy in a knot right now. I'm just thinking the problem may be slightly overstated.

I thought the first generation pumps were the best. If you opened them up too wide they sprayed fuel all over the place but hey: everything has its drawbacks, right? I think these (yellow ones) were BEFORE they started having O'ring problems and they were definitely BEFORE they had the pop-out plunger issue. The original GK stove rocked, too. The Whisperlite seems to do OK as long as you use expensive fuel, but it does seem to foul easily and it is a mess to take it apart and try to clean it in the field. An engine combustion guy once told me that the spreader design is appropriate for preasurized gas, but apparently not for liquid fuel.

W. Face, Snowpatch Spire (left), Pidgeon (right):

Post deleted by mattp because the cat walking on the keyboard caused distraction, leading to operator error and quip from Dru who was so fast he sprayed before I had time to fix it.

Snowpatch:

I don't think its complicated. If there is one twist or more between the two points of clippage, I believe you are "safe" from that standpoint (though if it is twisted and twisted back again, with the same number of wraps each direction, not). You're doing the right thing by just clipping once, though, because it is a good habit and you don't even have to check it.

Pidgeon Spire, also in the Bugaboos:

And then the reverse: Bugaboo from Snowpatch: The point is, you gotta go there next summer!

For the new Snowpatch forum, here's another shot of that view from the top of Bugaboo toward Snowpatch:

Here:

Thinker, are you saying this because if you clip two loops of the daisy without a twist between them, the biner will not be clipped in if you rip out all the bar tacks inbetween? Depending on your situation (for example if you may be belaying off the same anchor that you are clipped to via the daisy with maybe a rope back-up as has been suggested above) the advantage of having the tail of the daisy kept out of the way may offset the danger of using the daisy incorretly. Good call on the double-clipping, though -- its something to be aware of.

Hood rime ice can be photogenic.

Downclimbing the route is a heck of a good option for Goode. Yokum Ridge IS in the second edition of Volume 1.

Here's a couple photo's that I have taken on trips that all came about through contacts I've made on cc.com: