mattp

I just did some googling on dehydration and eating snow, and the references that come back talk about just what I already said, i.e., using up body heat/energy. From that, I would conclude that eating snow in lieu of drinking water could lead to excessive expenditure of body heat/energy to warm the snow to liquid, which in turn could lower body core temp, leading to hypothermia. I think if you look at how we produce body heat through metabolism, you may well find that water is used in that process. If by eating snow to drink water you have to use up X number of calories to melt the snow, and if you in fact use more water processing X number of calories, you would have a net loss. It has been 25 years since I read anything about biochemistry, so at this point I am just making this up, but I bet therein lies your answer.

Chicken- I can't quite tell what you meant, but if you are implying that you think it nuts to go on an avalanche-prone slope to dig a pit to evaluate the avalanche hazard, you may be correct but that is pretty much what you have to do if you are going to evaluate the hazard on that particular slope. You can't dig a pit in the trees and expect it to be representative of that open avalanche slope nearby. Frequently, we try to pick a slope of similar aspect and steepness that may be representative of that big nasty avalanche slope nearby but not quite as dangerous because it is smaller or it may not be perched over a cliff, but even in this case we must realize that our "sample" may not be the same as the other slope. Indeed, quite often we DO in fact cautiously venture onto the slope in question in order to dig a pit. Nuts?

Accross the street from the parking lot, Sunday January 5: The ice on this thing (Alpental Falls?) was somewhat thin and rotten where lower angle, and the vertical bit shown here was detached.

Sorry there, Doctor B, but you are full of you-know-what. If you want to spray the word "cunt" all about, you are free to start up your own website. Here, it has been made clear for over a year now that it is not a favored term and you bandy it about at peril of having your post deleted or changed. Yes, there have been some clumsy edits and the moderators cannot always tell what you intended or who may think your brilliant gem is witty rather than offensive, but there is no question: if you put the word "cunt" into your post, there is a significant chance it will be removed. Personally, I think the sensitivity over that particular word is overdone. But you know what? It doesn't matter. The fact that some people are deeply offended by it and that it will likely draw a moderator's attention has been made abundantly clear. As to moderating in general, I am sure all of us would agree that there have been some clumsy edits. However, Minx is right on: you guys are a bunch of whiners. Marylou complaining that a word she has so often complained about was not removed properly? Catbird who frequently posts what he hopes will provoke an off-topic argument complains when one is removed from a thread about somebody being upset by witnessing a death? Trask, who starts threads with the sole premise being for all the participants to call each other a cum sucking shit eater thinks moderating is too heavy-handed? Dotor B thinks the site sucks because he can't write "cunt" whenever he wants? C'mon, folks. Overall, this is a pretty loose site and you can carry on like a bunch of idiots late into the night if you want. That's why most of you who are now whining about the moderators post here - because you aren't nearly as free to do so in any other climber's bulletin board. As a result, there are some blurry lines and, yes, we can be arbitrary at times. Minx is right. If you don't like how some particular thread was moderated, feel free to ask questions about it or to start up a new thread in Spray and see if your brilliant diatribe is accepted there rather than in the middle of somebody's attempt to discuss something else. However, don't be surprised if your complaint falls on deaf ears when you complain that you called somebody a cunt and it got deleted.

Anytime is a good time to dig a pit, and for the next few days the conditions are likely to be quite variable and with blustery weather and likely shifting winds, I wouldn't be surprised to see different structures in the upper-level snowpack from one slope to the next. While I'm not sure you are going to see a more interesting profile now than any other time, this is a time when I would be likely to dig pits and make some decisions based on what I found.

tomtom - I think he is talking about the fact that you can very easily break off a bolt when you over-tighten the nut and it takes surprisingly little force. I don't think lubrication will help prevent this.

I note several comments about how he should not have been there alone both here and in the press. Is there some reason to think that if there were two skiers, both of whom were unable to tell which way was which and didn't know the terrain (two matters we are speculating about), they would more likely have found their way back to the highway? Similarly, it was argued here that he was an idiot for failing to bring avalanche gear. There was no avalanche burial, so an avalanche beacon would not have made any differences, but perhaps an avalanche shovel would have been useful to help him get better shelter - though this too would probably not have resulted in his rescue any sooner, would it? And then there are those who have criticized him for not have a map and compass. How many people who ski out of bounds at Alpental carry a map and compass? I bet some of us who have gone to climb Chair Peak or The Tooth have even thought these unnecessary upon occasion. This is a fascinating story and I'm interested in learning what actually happened - or at least laerning more about what happened, but as we speculate about this and that scenario I wonder what others may have to say about these "fundamental mistakes" that have been said to demonstrate a profound lack of experience or judgment.

Ramsey- Go back and reread above and you will see that I did NOT suggest that it would be necessary for one to be able to solo WI 3 in order to be either comfortable or safe on Liberty Ridge -- he had cited that ability as an indication of his skill level and, in the post that you refer to, I said "if you can solo WI 3 AS WELL AS if you have significant experience on big mountain routes" and then I noted the importance of being able to downclimb steep terrain. In my subsequent post, I specifically stated that technical difficulties are not the crux of the route. In my opinion, your competence on big mountain routes and your ability to descend steep terrain would be much more important than any ability to climb water ice. You are correct in thinking you will not find sustained 70-80 degree water ice on Liberty Ridge and even an ability to solo WI 2 is not necessary. In this and in just about every other thread on the topic I have tried to indicate that technical ability is NOT what counts on Liberty Ridge. Indeed, I believe that over the last 25 years since "that book" came out, many many climbers have gone up there thinking that it won't be challenging because they have greater technical mastery than the given technical rating, and they go up there to find out they are totally unprepared for the big mountain experience of Liberty Ridge.

Maybe so. I notice it was a forecast for Wednesday January 7, and it was posted here on this board at 10:00 pm on the 7th, and the message from Fairweather was that it is going to be bad out there "for a while." With fluctuating freezing levels and additional rain and snow predicted for the next several days, I am sure conditions will change and this current avalanche warning may be removed while Fairweather goes out there and pulls the first ascent of the century behind our backs! That *&%$ must have paid off the staff at NWAC, and maybe the higher ups at NOAA as well as the owners of this site. Seriously, a warning of extreme hazard on Wednesday, when heavy snow is falling over deep and uncosolidated light snow on top of an old crust, is not at all surprising. But these kinds of cycles tend to pass quickly around here. Watch ongoing forecasts before you conclude you have to stay home this weekend.

But Dru, aren't you sitting on the golden tablets? I thought Moroni or whoever it was came from Chilliwack.

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.