mattp

Ken- When you suggest descending the Winthrop to reach the Emmons, are you envisioning that they would descend after reaching Liberty Cap without climbing to Columbia Crest? I have always felt that Liberty Cap was the "climber's summit" as most of the more technical routes on the mountain terminate there, and I consider an ascent of Liberty Ridge complete if one does not go to Columbia Crest, but I bet there are many people out there who feel it is only complete if you actually go to the very summit of the mountain.

OK - so maybe the Sierra Club isn't all bad. How about the Natural Resources Defense Council, or the Audubon Society? I don't believe they are actively trying to keep you from going climbing either, are they? Yes, I am sure they have come down in support of a road closure at some point, but these groups recognize that a large portion of their constituency are parents who want to take thier kids outdoors, or people who just like to go to the mountains themselves - and I don't think they are "extremists" on access issues. If I am right, I've just named what are probably the three most recognizable names in environmental organizations. You acknowledge that your problem lies with "extreme environmentalists," not mainstream ones, but even here I fear that your wartime rhetoric shows how maybe you've gotten a little too into the fight (you don't care about collateral damage?). Again, I will point out that the things you seem most worried about (like road closures) are most often management decisions made by the Forest Service or BLM or somebody for reasons that most often have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns. I believe that in the North Cascades, it was the rangers who started eliminating summit registers. Throughout the American West for at least the last 30 years, the Forest Service has been actively engaged in a program to burn down public shelters with, as far as I can tell, little regard for whether environmentalists want them to do so or not. Yes, the Wilderness Society may have filed lawsuits to close existing access — that is the only real tool they have to promote their agenda. Where appropriate, we as climbers should be filing our own lawsuits or intervening as an opposing party, to preserve our access.

Roark - I agree with you if you are suggesting that Congress is not doing its job.

If you are asking about what I call "Upper Three O'Clock Rock," up and left from the main part of the rock, I don't think anybody has put routes on it. It is south or southeast facing, and steeper than the main part of Three O'Clock Rock.

Here's Chris Greyell on The Troll, 5.10a on the Third Tooth of The Comb (second tooth from the right in AlpinFox's picture).

Roark, you are right of course that other presidents have done bad things. However, you seem not to know what is happening with regard national security. I could be slighly mistaken, but I believe (1) the Clinton admin handed Bush a plan for a Homeland Security effort that was similar to what Ridge is doing and the Bush people tanked it; (2) the Clinton admin also had a plan in the works to take out Bin Laden, and the Bush people tanked that; and (3) the Patriot Act was not written by Congress -- it was drafted in the White House, and rubber stamped by Congress.

I worked up there for six or eight years, and I don't believe there was ever any problem crossing the lake between December and April.

Depending on what you are looking for, the Sulphide may in fact be a much better choice. If it is only two to three extra miles to the trailhead, this will be on a logging road and will take you 45 minutes. Overall, the Sulphide is both safer and easier, so much so that this makes up for the longer distance and I bet it won't actually take you longer to climb that way. The approach to the north side routes can be quite difficult for how short it actually is, due to brush and massive piles of avalanche debris that tower as much as a hundred feet high, and the noth facing snow is almost always going to be deeper and more difficult to beat a trail through. When you get to the moutnain the upper half of the White Salmon Glacier is actually fairly steep - too steep for an intermediate level skier - and also frequently covered with avalanche debris. It can be a great ski run, and if you are looking for powder that is where I wuld go, but I believe that most parties who climb via any of the north side routes in the winter do not summit, whereas I bet most parties who opt for the Sulphide do.

When adding and subtracting. Much better. But you gotta know how...

Many years ago, I made a couple of winter traversses in the Presidential Range (of New Hampshire). For mostly low-angled but icy terrain, instep crampons were just fine - and worked well in conjuction with a soft-soled pac-boot that was very good for snowshoeing below timberline. We used to lace them up so that the straps not only crossed over the top of our foot, as in Dru's drawing, but also behind the ankle. One loop went from the back posts of the instep crampons, up over the heel bulge, all-the-way around the ankle, and then back to the other heel post. This, in combination with the straps over the top of the foot, seemed to hold them more securely in place. We used 1/2" webbing for straps and cut it extra long. When you are truly just walking, as I would imagine to be the case on the Mt. Si trail (I have never done it), I would think instep crampons might well be superior to full on ten pointers.

In really cold weather, your boots and water bottle will freeze in the foot of your sleeping bag if you have a long length bag and put them below your feet. Also a bag that is the proper length will keep your feet warmer, and weigh less for the same overall warmth. I'd go with a bag that fits you. A water bottle and a radio in the bag is generally no problem; a pair of boots or boot liners may make life a little less comfortable. Most bags will have enough room to tuck them behind your knees (mine always have, anyway), but I bet some may not. If you are getting a ~0 degree bag, my guess is that you will be using it most often in temperatures that are not far below freezing. In these conditions, in a tent, your boot liners may not even freeze truly hard if you simply wrap them in your coat and use them in your pillow. Most people insist on some goretex or dryloft covering for their sleeping bag. I currently have one with such a covering (the first I have ever had), and a couple lighter bags without. If you are careful, I think you don't need the dryloft - even if winter camping and sleeping in snowcaves or under a tarp. I used to teach three-week Outward Bound courses with a down bag and a tarp for a shelter, at all times of the year. I did not have a goretex or driloft shell on my bag, and I didn't use a bivvy sack. In eight years, I only once had a wet sleeping bag -- Once! And you know what? It wasn't that cold outside -- that's why it was so wet. (But then again I hiked uphill both ways to and from school in a blizzard, even in July.)

You may find some soft snowbridges and a crevasse fall is possible, but I highly doubt that, in May, the Carbon Glacier will be so busted up that it will be extra challenging just to cross it -- at least from the standpoint of crevasses. The possibility of deep snow or breakable crust, or maybe for poor visibility, will likely be greater issues than crevasses as you cross the Carbon.

What are you doing there to set of the trigger mid-crap? If you calmly go about your business, you should have no problem.

The username "Dwayner" is currently on the "disabled" list.

You ever try James Joyce? I thought the book was thoroughly enjoyable, that's all. Great characters, I thought the accident scene was truly spectacular, it was all about NW and stuff, and I actually found it quite gripping.

The Comb has some of the best 3-4 pitch 5.10 climbs at Darrington and the hike up to it is quite nice as well, with lots of ferns and wildflowers, and some very impressive big trees. With the exception of "Baloney Dome," it is probably the shortest access hike of any of the Darrington crags listed in Dave's new book. The Comb has been somewhat neglected, though, because the base area is rather steep and unfriendly and the access routes were never widely known. If you try to thrash over there from Three O'Clock Rock, as I believe is suggested in Smoot, you will be sorry. While the place is a little scrappy even by Darrington standards, routes like The Troll, Over the Rainbow, Tongue in Cheek, etc. are WAY good, though they start with some funky scrambling or a short bit of vertical bushwacking. David Gunstone's climbs are quite good, too, though they have some odd climbing and funk between the good stuff. There is one very spectacular and steep arete climb that looks as if it is probably quite hard and somebody once said their friend thought somebody's cousin put it up and it was 5.12 - I can't remember whether it is listed in Dave's guide but it is to the left of the climb called "Annihilator" and to the right of Skykrider. For a cragging experience, it is a good place because you can easily do three or four climbs in a day and get in quite a few pitches - but be prepared for some bush. Do not; I repeat - DO NOT - try to go there with the old Washington Rock Climbs guide or even the Traveller's Guide. You need Dave's new book for The Comb.

I heard women like them.

A short spell of high freezing levels is not necessarily a bad thing for the backcountry snowpack. If the freezing level goes way high, let's just hope it comes back down again and we're back in business the following week! By the way, Josh, I too have had a good time skiing in the rain before. Just take an umbrella for the lift, and wear your PVC. You'll shoot rooster tails of water, but it's consistent, easy snow on the groomers.

Ehmic, if you didn't get more than 20 pages into it I think you are not qualified to pronounce it as "a bomb." One of my favorite novels of all time, Sometimes a Great Notion, takes about 75 pages of drudgery to get started.

I bet you are quite right about that - even IF my guess about the basis for the urban myth that eating snow dehydrates you is correct, you probably lose more water through breathing, sweating, and elimination than heat production. I'm just wondering if there may be some basis for the old urban myth. (However, wouldn't it be a "wilderness myth," rather than an "urban" one?) P.S. -- If you try that gu and ice trick at the bar, just be sure you are at the right kind of bar and it may be OK.

Indeed, backcountry snow is quite a different thing from groomed runs - and generally more challenging. In addition to powder, you'll have to master muck, slush, breakable crust, avalanche debris, stump jumping, and all kinds of horrors that one never encounters "on piste." When I was learning to telemark I spent a lot of time skiing the chopped up unpacked snow off the edges of the groomed runs. That stuff is quite challenging, and you can learn a lot about fore-aft balance and hone your weight control for initiating turns there.

Experiment with your front-to-back balance while traverssing. Head accross the slope, with one ski in front of the other perhaps a foot or so, and drop slightly as if you were going to make a turn. Move your body forward and backward over your skis till you find the balance point, trying to keep your hips forward and your upper torso more or less vertical, rather than throwing your ass out behind and leaning forward to compensate. Shuffle your skis back and forth a couple of times as if linking turns, then initiate a turn after you have just imprinted the feel of keeping in balance over your skis.

Indeed, working hard and sweating causes you to use up water. You also lose a lot of water through breathing, and I am speculating that you may also use it during the conversion of food or body fat to body heat or muscular energy. Clearly, excess body heat is a frequent bi-product of exertion, and I doubt that eating snow results in a net-loss when you are warm. However, I don't think this guy was producing excess body heat if his core temperature was in the 80's when he was found. If water is indeed used up in the process of metabolism (nobody here seems to know), his situation may not be analogous to that of the sweating athelete and eating snow might in fact have generated a net loss. Biochemistry is not a simple science and "obvious" truths frequently turn out to be incorrect, though, so even if my "guess" is correct about the use of water in metabolism, there may be some other mechanism or factor that would offset this loss.

MrE - In fact it is not as easy as you suggest to "split" threads. It takes a lot of cut and pasting and you frequently have to mess around with UBB code to clean it up after you are done. With that and erratic connection that I am experiencing lately, which seems only to be corrected by logging off and back on again, it might have taken Alex quite a bit of time to do as you suggest. Should he have? Maybe – but just what was so important about an argument over whether catbird was qualified to talk about clinical depression?

The question is, "does it consume water for you to generate body heat?". It looks to me as if you are arguing for the sake of argument. If you want to refute my speculation, hit the books.