mattp

Kiwi - YOu could safely do it in the winter but any sane person would tell you to watch out for avalanche conditions on the Aasgard Pass route. Although it was described as "class two," it is a large, moderately steep, snowy slope subject to cross-loading that can be quite deceptive and it is high enough that a lingering hazard may exist long after the last snowfall. If the trail is packed, you should be able to get in and out of the Enchantment Basin and take some pictures in a single day from Seattle, though I think you will find it to be a fairly long day even if you are in good shape. Don't expect to make it all the way up there and back if the trail is not packed. To maximize your chances, I'd wait until it hasn't snowed for a while and a bunch of cc.com posts talk about how great the conditions are on Dragontail -- then just fall in line. And if the route reports talk about boilerplate ice on the Aasgard descent, you can bet the avalanche hazard is relative low there but you may need crampons. In these conditions there hsould be a good trail to Colchuck Lake, at least, and there is relatively little avalanche hazard if you only go that far. You might get lucky and find a firm surface on the trail up Snow Creek after a warm winter rain followed by a cold snap, but this will be more difficult to evaluate from Seattle because you probably won't see a trip report on cc.com. In summer, you can get in and out of the Enchantment basin in a day fairly easily, as noted already.

Fairweather - If the only groups limiting your access are environmental groups, I must assume you never go to popular wilderness areas or National Parks. In places like Boston Basin, the Enchantments, popular routes on Mount Rainier, or the Tetons it can be very hard to come by a permit if you are a non-commercial user. It is not environmental groups who have put in place these restrictions and much of this has been driven by management concerns quite apart from any environmental issues. Further, I believe the WTA and some of these "arch environmentalists" you have complained about have been quite active in resisting such proposals as a permit system and restricted numbers on popular hiking routes along the I-90 corridor. As to public lands, I believe that the number one reason our interests have not always been taken into account is that we are not well organized as a user group. Road closures, trail abandonments, the designation of camping and no-camping areas, parking restrictions, etc. are made with copious amounts of input from other interest groups but scant participation from climbers. The answer, in my view, is not to call your fellow climbers a bunch of commies or to question the motivations of "so called environmentalists," but to work to get our act together.

Eight - You insensitive brute, don't you realize that if they walk extra slow it will take them TEN extra minutes? And maybe after a heavy snow it will take a few more parties of backcountry users before we have a packed trail because the downhill skiers won't be packing it for us? You call them whiners?

What are you talking about? Did anybody say they plowed the trail? I noted that they plow the parking lot, and I think this is correct. They don't plow the trail but they DO drive groomers partway up it sometimes.

I posted this in the thread in the Alpine Lakes forum: The ski area folks will not return my calls, but somebody at the North Bend ranger station did, and she said that the new policy is that backcountry users are to park in the lower lot, by the broken bridge, and start up the trail at the Summer trailhead, just beyond. She indicated that part of the area, and perhaps part of the back parking lots, may be private property owned by the ski area, and she also ventured a guess that this new policy was probably adopted in response to the avalanche accident from a few weeks ago. In any event, we now have two or three different people who are telling us that it will be OK to park at Alpental and head up the Alpental Valley, with the change being that you are now supposed to park in the lower lot which is a couple hundred yards below where most of us used to park, and we are now supposed to travel upstream on the right side, rather than on the ski area's trail on the left side. I think it would be a good idea to make our opinions known and I intend to follow up with letters indicating that I am unhappy with this new restriction, but the reality is that our access is not really limited very much. It will take maybe five minutes longer to get to Chair Peak.

The ski area folks will not return my calls, but somebody at the North Bend ranger station did, and she said that the new policy is that backcountry users are to park in the lower lot, by the broken bridge, and start up the trail at the Summer trailhead, just beyond. She indicated that part of the area, and perhaps part of the back parking lots, may be private property owned by the ski area, and she also ventured a guess that this new policy was probably adopted in response to the avalanche accident from a few weeks ago. In any event, we now have two or three different people who are telling us that it will be OK to park at Alpental and head up the Alpental Valley, with the change being that you are now supposed to park in the lower lot which is a couple hundred yards below where most of us used to park, and we are now supposed to travel upstream on the right side, rather than on the ski area's trail on the left side. I think it would be a good idea to make our opinions known and I intend to follow up with letters indicating that I am unhappy with this new restriction, but the reality is that our access is not really limited very much. It will take maybe five minutes longer to get to Chair Peak.

As I understand it from reading this board (I have not been there recently nor have I talked to anybody who actually knows what is going on so I may be completely wrong), they are wanting to use the parking lots THEY plow for THEIR customers and they are not required to provide parking for backcountry users. However, I also understand that they are willing to allow backcountry users to use the parking lots THEY plow, but they are asking us to use one that is a couple hundred yards further from the trailhead - the lot in front of the broken bridge. With regard to the trail in the first part of the Alpental valley, I understand they want to separate traffic so that skiers don't share a trail with snowshoers and skiers skinning up the hill and people just walking. Again, I don't know what the situation really is but if the situation is as I surmise, I see little point beating your cheast about how you are going to stand up to "the man" over which side of the creek you have to travel on and whether or not you have to walk an additional two hundred yards. In my view, that kind of self righteousness is not only a waste of energy but it is counterproductive. I'll call the ski area and find out what they have to say about this, though, and if or when I get an answer I'll post it here. Do you know for a fact that they are giving it to us in the rear? How so?

Why not? After the first two or three people break trail it'll be perfectly good on the other side of the creek and there is no need to stir up conflict with the ski patrol or the ski area management, who just might be able to find a way to be LESS accomodating if they decide that climbers/snowshoers/others are a pain in the ass. What do you want to bet there is nothing in their lease agreement that requires them to allow ANY access over their lease area - that is, the parking lots. Any time the climbs will be in shape (that is any time there is not a major snowstorm in progress), you will probably find a perfectly good trail without going out of your way.

I'm not famililar with the products you mention, but my guess is that the $85.00 wonder gloves aren't going to do all that you describe. I don't think you will find any gloves that will allow you to pick up a coin from the floor and also keep your hands warm on cold winter climbs and I'd be surprised if there is anything sold as a liner gove that will withstand "a few season's worth of rappels" unless you don't rappel very much. I think you'll be better off getting a few different pairs for different conditions, and if you are concerned with cost there are some cheap alternatives out there. Many will say my system is "totally inadequate" but most of the time I use a wool liner that costs less than $10.00 and leather shell mitts are easy to come by at a bargain price. For ice climbing, I'm thinking of trying the vinyl love, and for cold weather nothing beats Dachstein mittens. Even on a single day's outing you may want more than one option: while skiing or snowshoeing uphill, your hands will be sweating in any glove warm enough for standing around in the cold and if you sweat them out on the approach, you'll have cold hands on the climb.

Yes and no. Pretty much any time the hazard is rated "low," you can safely head for Snow Lakes or whatever though I suppose you might sometimes still find an odd windslab in some high, exposed location like the south face of Granite Mountain. For climbing, these "low" level hazard ratings often occur during periods of easy travel and good weather, such as after it rains up to 9,000 feet and then freezes again and stays clear (this probably happens on average at least once a year). It is when the avalanche hazard is rated moderate or high (which is most of the time) that you have to use more judgment, as last year's accidents during periods of "moderate" hazard demonstrate.

I agree with you about the usefulness of a stove-board, Beck. If you want to travel light, it is an extra item as Alpine K implies and a shovel will work - sort of. However, I find a piece of wood (NOT metal) vastly superior for cooking on and a small piece of the thinnest plywood or panelling that I can find does not weigh much and costs nothing. I once insulted two esteemed members of cc.com by suggesting that their MSR Trillium was a silly piece of gear, but in my opinion any metal stove platform is inferior to a wood one and it is also a waste of money.

PP: Our own intelligence guys told Bush's guys NOT to use that "fact" because they said it was almost certainly incorrect. In hindsite, they are trying to find wiggle room that really doesn't exist, except in the minds of somebody (like you apparently) who just doesn't want to believe that Bush would mislead them. You may argue that it is OK for him to manipiulate information, but it just doesn't fly to try to tell us that they aren't doing so.

It is certainly true that one who knows about avalanches and how to avoid them can more safely travel through dangerous terrain than one who lacks that knowledge. It is also true that "extreme" terrain is generally going to be steeper and less likely to build up a dangerous slab in the first place, so this would also add support to your statement. However, I'd have to point out that those who study the matter generally do so because they plan to put themselves in harm's way on a regular basis. Also, even the "extreme" mixed route probably has some lower angle open terrain on the approach and deproach (the most common slope angle for triggering avalanches is something like 30 degrees I think). My point is, don't think that you can get training and experience and then you'll be one of those "experts" who can ski and climb safely. I believe it used to be the case (may still be) that avalanche deaths were most common among backcountry skiers who were technically strong skiers and had studied avalanche conditions.

I'd say McDermott didn't sound very good in that radio interview, and whenever he says something like that on a day when everybody's waiving the flag, lots of folks including some here are going to go berserk so he may not be showing good common sense either. But would it be any surprise if he is right, given the Administration's manipulation of the facts and their blatant lies ever since the beginning of this thing? Remember the aluminum tubes that experts agreed could not be used for centrifuges, the African uranium purchase that our own intelligence guys told the president had never happened, the terrorist training camp that didn't exist at all, Jessica Lynch, the faked shot of the President on the aircraft carrier with a sock stuffed in his drawers, .... Yeah, congrats are in order and I'm glad they got him. I hope Roark is right that this brings us one step closer to resolving this thing but, pardon me, I wouldn't doubt for one minute that they would manipulate the timing or circumstances of the capture for politcal advantage.

I believe it is a fact that, within not many more than a "few" years, the entire central California valley will be infertile. The plain fact, recognized since the times of Mesopotamia, is that irrigation causes salinization of the soil. As a direct result of current irrigation practices, pretty much the entire central California valley will be a desert. And we're growing crops there that we could grow elsewhere, like back (south) east (cotton, rice, oranges, etc.)

Sounds If I didn't already have friends (I mean plans), I'd join you!

There was a thread on this in the "Access Issues" forum.

Toast- Did you descend directly off the summit, or first follow the ridge to a sub-peak perhaps a quarter mile to the south? I looked at it from a commercial jet once, and I think there may be a good ski run there (though cliffy at the bottom).

No RobBob, my post did include some sarcasm but I genuinely do think, like you perhaps, that it is unfortunate that word has taken such a negative connotation. The fact is, however, if you look up dictionary definitions of lots of words you will see very clear descriptions of not only the literal meaning of the word but the connotations it carries. That is part of language. I haven't kept track whether you ever called anybody that or any other vulgar name. This thread is not about Rob Bob, but about this board.

RobBob - Since when did I accuse you of calling anybody a vulgar name? I said that is what I like to do. In the future, please do me a favor and read my post.

I feel your pain, RobBob. I too would like to be able to use that word because it is such a rich and wonderful part of our lexicon and because it is so much fun to call people "names." I have gotten nowhere when I've argued that it should not be seen for the offensive term that it is, though. For now, I'm afraid you'll just have to learn to live with the fact that many people, mostly women, have a deep-seated reaction to it.

Sorry. I've been a little too busy to closely follow the spray part of the board lately.

Anybody read the article in yesterday's New York Times about the accusation that Messner abandoned his brother on top of Nanga Parbat in 1970 in order to promote his own climbing career? And that he came back to lie about it and then steal the expedition leader's wife? I don't have the NYT cite, but you can read all about it here: http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200311/200311_buried_1.html

To get off old wax, I hang them up against a board and hit 'em with the plumbing torch and a broad knife. The stuff comes right off, real quick and clean. I haven't lit them on fire yet.