mattp

How come Mormons aren't on your list, Dru?

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Theravada Buddhism (99%) 3. Liberal Quakers (94%) 4. Secular Humanism (91%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%) 6. Mahayana Buddhism (75%) 7. Taoism (71%) 8. Neo-Pagan (68%) 9. Jainism (67%) 10. Nontheist (64%) 11. Bahá'í Faith (55%) 12. Hinduism (54%) 13. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (51%)

I think you hint at an imporant distinction there, Darin. There are environmentalists and environmental groups whose members generally don't visit the wilderness and who see wilderness areas as preserves where the impact of human visitation should be minimal or none, and some of these are well-funded or, if not, some of them make a lot of noise. They certainly provide a lot of fodder for right wingers to banter about how "environmentalists hate people." However, I believe most mainstream environmental groups do not hold such an extreme position that they would support closing off the North Cascades to human visitation, and I don't even think most such organizations support widespread further limits on the number of hikers alowed to enter the North Cascades wilderness. People who actually visit wilderness areas such as backpackers, river rafters, and even climbers are very strong backers and major consituencies in most mainstream environmental groups, I bet, and I think many of these groups realize this and rely upon it. When it comes to road closures or issues like "fixed anchors," there are more situations where our interests as climbers will come in direct conflict with various environmental group agendas but, even here, I have never thought that I as a climber am threatened by any large coalition of environmental groups -- indeed, I worry much more about what industry groups and government land managers are trying to do with respect to climbing access issues than I do about what ALPS or the Sierra Club have to say on these issues.

Take the Sierra Club, for example. As long as I can remember, they have supported the preservation of wild lands and opposed government subsidy of private extractive industry. They have occasionally come out in support of closing a road that I like to use, but their overall stance has supported and even promoted my enjoyment of the kinds of wilderness activities that I pursue. I certainly don't see them as systemically opposed to climbing. After running a short google search, and without actually reading all the links, I find the following: The Sierra Club publicly states they would like to see the vast network of logging roads cut back, as they did in this recent policy statement released in celebration of Lewis and Clark: web page Closer at hand, they have come out in support of preservation of the lower reaches of the Snoqualmie Valley and supported trail development in the Middle Fork, though I am not sure if they have directly come out in favor of closing the Middle Fork Road (I certainly wouldn't put it past them). web page web page They are certainly against what they brand as unstainable logging practices, and they frequently oppose such things as increased helicopter overflights in National Parks and wilderness areas in Hawaii, or the paving of a hiking trail in Texas. web page web page They generally don't like mechanized off-road vehicles, and they are against further development in Yosemite National Park. web page web page web page But on the other hand, the do and always have actively been involved in wilderness outings and climbing, and their minimum impact policies certainly don't seem to imply that they want to keep humans out of the woods. web page web page They say one important purpose of public lands is to maintain opportunities for hunting, hiking and fishing. web page They are against fee demo, and they say that leases of public lands to private business should not interfere with public access or recreation. web page web page Am I a wacko environmentalist? I pretty much agree with all of these positions. (I may not agree with them if they actively supported the Middle Fork road closure, and I might give slightly wider access than they would to mountain bikes.)

Fairweather keeps interjecting in other threads his view that wilderness groups and conservation organizations like the Sierra Club want to close off access and prevent us from climbing. It is certainly true that some of these groups have come out in favor of reducing the network of roads in Washington's Cascades, but are they really so "extreme" in their position that, if they had their way, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Washington's Wilderness?

Thanks, Harry! In my view, Mount Index is a gem. Who among us hasn't driven up highway 2, looked up from that coffee stand just east of the Index Cafe and gaped in awe? Your historical information brings it that much more alive.

Catbird - Like Mr. K, I have almost never felt the need to carry an emergency bolt kit for alpine climbing or subalpine climbing at a place like DTown. However, even when retreating from a failed climb or during bad weather I generally avoid rappelling down big steep walls if I have much doubt about whether there will be anchors available. 99% of the time, you probably don't need the emergency bolt kit and certainly not on most established climbs. Yes, you may leave some gear behind some time but, you know what? I almost never have and I certainly have not had to do so often enough to justify carrying an emergency bolt kit on anything like a regular basis. If you are putting up new routes, there may be more reason for it but even still maybe not -- I have put up some fairly large routes on previously unexplored rock without one. The kits described above would not be bad choices, though.

Yeah, I took pictures of it. Cars and trucks were driving in 9 1/2 lanes where there are normally 4. The cop was so freaked out by the snow and going so slow I honestly thought he wasn't even trying to drive.

I got a ticket for "improper lane usage" on the way to work this morning. he didn't say I was driving unsafe or anything, but using the lanes improperly when there was a cop nearly stopped in the left lane (I thought he must be looking for somebody or something) and I went around him in the right lane on Pacific just west of UW hospital. WTF?

If the White River road is still snow-covered, the Ipsut Creek approach is not a bad way to go. I believe the reason that the White River approach is considered "standard" is not because it is shorther that way in terms of distance and effort spent on the approach, but because most parties do not want to descend the Liberty Ridge but instead want to go down the Emmons. (In terms of distance, the Ipsut Creek approach is only very slightly longer and, later in the Summer, you hike on a trail pretty much all the way to the Carbon Glacier crossing, but Ipsut Creek is lower than White River so there is more elevation gain that way.) The Ipsut Creek road, too, may not be open however - so you'll have to evaluate available info just before you go. I do not think you will ever find thousands of feet of black ice on Liberty Ridge - especially in May. One Spring two or three years ago it was all icy from rain, though. Alex is right - technical difficulty is not the crux of the Liberty Ridge route. Most problems result from the overall size and seriousness of the climb, with potential for a 5,000 foot slip, avalanches and rockfall, whiteout and storm, and alititude illness. It can be a long and dangerous retreat back to timberline if something goes wrong.

Your overall game plan sounds OK. Your rack sounds adequate -- especially if you can comfortably solo WI 3 as well as if you have significant experience on big mountain routes -- but how are you at downclimbing in the event that weather or other factors dictate a retreat from high on the route? The White River may or may not be open by then, it can easily get a lot colder than 20 degrees up on the mountain in May, and the snow can be very deep (soft) at that time of year, so you'll want to get actual up-to-date info about snow conditions and weather forecasts before you go but

JayB- Are those books going to present a credible case that "liberals" (democrats is what I think Fairweather means) rather than conservatives sought to appease Hitler, tried to block out information about Mao's Cultural Revolution, actively ignored or concealed the crimes of our enemies in Central America, the Carribean, and Southeast Asia while pointing out those of our proxies in these regions during the cold war, or tried to ignore what Saddam was up to? I am sure some liberal did turn a blind eye to some atrocity somewhere, and I'm sure I have been blinded by my own enthusiasm for some "progressive" cause to at some point do the same. However, I don't think a credible case can be made that liberals have ignored genocide or opression while conservatives have not - again I ask: the opposite would be closer to the truth, would it not?

Again, maybe I need a history lesson here. Wasn't it our own CIA who investigated the gassing of the kurds and said it was Iran's gas, not Saddam's? Wasn't it BUSH I who promised to aid the rebellion of the Marsh Arabs and stood by when Saddam mowed them down? Didn't Reagan take Saddam off the list of states supporting terrorism in 1982, even though there was ample evidence that this was untrue? Under Reagan, diddn't we send them anthrax, e coli, etc.? Didn't Rumsfeld go over there to tell Saddam we wouldn't let him lose the war with Iraq? And I may have this confused with Iran, but didn't we provide Saddam with a list of people he should detain or kill shortly after he came to power? I'd say the tendency to ignore what was happening at the behest of Mr. Hussein was more rightward leaning than left, and it was the Republican administrations who actually facilitated his genocide, wasn't it? Like they did in Iraq?

Maybe I need a history lesson, Fairweather, but I am not aware of any "lefties" for whom I have any great respect who have expressed any approval for any "exponentially greater crimes and murder comited by socialist/communist systems" the way you have for your right wing heroes, and I don't believe there is a great conspiracy among them to remain silent when great atrocities are being committed by the left. On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers -- that is why they are called "bleading hearts."

As a matter of fact, yes I do. I don't mind taking inexperienced climbers climbing and I frequently climb with people who (gasp) haven't practiced "self rescue," or don't have the ten essentials. Most of my climbing partners are not EMT's. Your safety advice is sound, but in my view a rigid adherence to the principles that you promote here is not going to make you safe, nor is it always necessary.

Thanks for the correction, Lowell. At the time, I thought it surprising to hear you say something about how the "Isolation" was harder than the Pickett Traverse - but I guess I simply misunderstood you. Anyway, here's to cc.com for providing a place where someone can ask questions and get answers from someone who actually has them.

Scottie, I am told you are an OK guy and I had always assumed I wouldn't mind skiing with you some time. Perhaps, however, I was incorrect. I wouldn't want to hear your lecture if my safety attitude didn't exactly correspond with yours or to have to do things your way and your way only. Lighten up on the righteousness and judgment.

CJF, I don't know if "ironic" is the word for Fairweather's views - after all, he wrote on this board that he thought Chile's Pinochet acctually saved lives with his mass extermination of people who included communists who would almost certainly otherwise have gone on to kill more people than he did. His positions seem not so much ironic as explained by a simple formula: "our" guys and Right Wingers: good / "other guys:" bad.

Yes, they would. I would not, however -- and certainly not without a great deal more information. While I have said in the past I don't quite understand the way in which we slam each other all day on this site and then many of us feel the need to hold our hats over our hearts for somebody we never even met, I agree totally with Kurt that a blanket condemnation of the guy for showing poor judgment, based only on the fact that he was skiing alone and did not have camping equipment and an avalanche beacon, shows your limitations and not his.

With over 25 years' experience ski touring and ski mountaineering in Washington, I think I've just been called "inexperienced" and I can infer that I am "stupid" too because I, for one, would go into the backcountry without avalanche gear and beacon on a day like last Wednesday. Ski touring alone can be very enjoyable and while I generally carry a shovel, raincoat, down jacket and pile pants, I do not always do so.

I believe that is what the Skoog's call it, but I haven't heard of anybody else doing it (though they probably have) so I don't think you will find much discussion on this bulletin board. I once heard Lowell say that it was the hardest of the three great N-S traverses (Picket, Inspiration, and Ptarmigan) in terms of it's huge up and down struggles with elevation.

Aha. You and Marylou pointed out my error about the wilderness designation. Like Marylou, I don't understand the reason for designating wilderness areas within previously exisiting National Parks and, like you, I don't like the way they are applying the Wilderness Act, but do you maintain that the restrictions on permits for camping at Muir, Schurman, or Thumb Rock have anything to do with managing for solitude? Do you really think that all the restrictions to our access came about as a result of pressure from groups from ALPS? By the way, in my opinion the Olympic National Park is a textbook example of a park that is thoughtfully managed, with regard to access issues. You can drive your Winnebago right in to the Hoh Rainfores, up to Hurricane Ridge, and out to some of the most beautiful beaches in the universe, but most of the park remains wilderness. The closure/abandonment of the road to the Olympic hot springs twenty years ago was a good move, in my opinion, as has been the attempt to minimize access to the logging roads just outside the boundaries of the coastal wilderness strip. I don't think they manage for "solitude" - they don't really have to - and I have never heard of anybody having any permit problems. Whether you are wheelchair bound, tied to your WInnebago, a marathon trail runner or a peak-bagger, the Olympic National Park has something for you and it is not being run into the ground or developed. The surrounding Olympic National Forest, on the other hand, has almot completely been ravaged by the chainsaw. I wish there HAD been more designated wilderness there.

Fairweather, There ARE environmental groups who advocate for road closures and restrictions on backcountry access, to be sure. I'm glad there are, too. Without them, we would probably never have set aside most of our National Parks and wilderness areas, and I'm glad we have these places. Would you rather have had the entire Washington Cascade range run as a tree farm? I wouldn't. Yes, we do lose some access with these road closures, and I pretty much believe that once a road has been put in we may as well keep it open because the damage has by that time already been done. Like you, I too am disappointed to see the West Side road closed, but you know what? We will still have the same roads and trailheads approaching very close to most of the rest of the mountain so maybe it is actually a good thing to have the West side become a little more remote. And without the Middle Fork road there will still be hundreds, maybe thousands, of roads taking you deep into the mountains near Seattle. In a hundred years, people may well look back and be glad for the closure. Yes, there are some silly interpretations of the Wilderness act and I don't support a ban on the use of chainsaws for trailwork or restricting the number of parties allowed to enter an area so somebody can hike on a smooth wide trail maintained with public dollars and have some fantasy that they are in a remote wilderness area when they are only three miles from the highway. But you have some of your facts wrong, I think. The National Parks are NOT managed under the Wilderness Act, are they? And the limits of ten people at Thumb Rock (or whatever it is), and 100 people at Camp Muir (or whatever it is) have very little to do with managing for solitude and I dont' think they were imposed in response to any pressure from "so called environmental organizations." The same is true for the limits on the number of parties allowed to camp in Boston Basin or at, say, the Lower Saddle on the Grand Teton. Even in many wilderness areas the party numbers are not limited for "solitude." These kinds of restrictions often come about for reasons of wanting to control impact, sanitation, police concerns, concerns for safety, and the convenience of the land managers - limiting party numbers is the easiest, cheapest, and most convenient way to address all of these concerns and it just so happens that limiting user numbers also makes life easier for the rangers. TYs there are environmental groups who sue the FS to try to get them to restrict access, but there are other groups suing them to force them to open up the woods. And I don't think it is fair to say that the Access Fund is arguing for "balance." They are not. They are advocating for climbing.

Jason - In my experience, it takes three or four skiers to totally break a trail for following skiers, and about the same for snowshoers. After a trail has been broken by snowshoers, it often doesn't take more than a handful of people to walk on it before it is good for hiking, too, and most of us who head up there for climbing bring snowshoes or skis anyway because the trail is rarely ever firm all the way to where we are going. Given the numbers of backcountry users, particularly the number of folks who travel as far as the "maintained" or "packed" part of the ski trail, I really think that most of the winter we would have a perfectly good and packed trail to follow if we were to follow their nasty horrible unfair dastardly rule and travel on the right side of the creek. Honestly, I think the burden that is being placed upon us has been vastly overstated here but, yes, the first couple of parties up there after a snowstorm may have to work harder than previously. Yes, I don't think there was really much problem with collisions between backcountry travelers and downhill skiers but I gotta say that I have on numerous occasions seen families playing and other groups digging snowcaves (booby traps) in the middle of or immediately next to the ski trail. In addition, snowshoers and others seem prone to stopping in the middle of the trail while they rifle around for a camera of take off their sweater. Perhaps there has been more conflict than you and I realize because we tend to come and go, in a hurry, in the wee hours or late in the day after everybody else has gone home. I really think the burden that is being placed upon us has been way overstated. Yes, it sucks. But are we "taking it in the rear?" Will it really mean you are going to be wallowing in the snow all winter long? Is this going to lead to a bunch of other closures in the Snoqualmie Pass area? I think probably not. Call/write/email the powers to be and tell them that you are disappointed or angered by this new policy. But let's not play chicken little here -- the sky is not falling! And I hope nobody feels the need to adopt a hostile attitude with the ski patrol or the parking lot crew. It won't help.

I agree with you, Catbird, though just to be obnoxious I will point out that you can't see the first rap station on the Beckey route from anywhere except, perhaps, the top of Concord Tower. In general, I think, the visual impact is more of an issue at crag climbing areas than on mountain peaks and sometimes the fact that chains are harder to spot can be a disadvantage, as in the case of the West Slabs (Westward Ho) descent from Exfoliation Dome at Darrington where many parties cannot find the chain anchors and end up following an alternate route marked with sling anchors. Even where the visual impact is not a tremendous concern, I still favor chains because you don't have to mess around with installing or removing extra slings and there are more places to clip.