mattp

bkb, You can go a long way on the cheap. For example, you do not need goretex or goosedown to climb any of the alpine climbs in Washington and, as you hint, virtually all the classic climbs and damn near all the popular mountain routes were climbed long before modern racks of camming devices and ice screws. You can buy a used pack on line or at the 2nd hand shop, and for the most part you don't need a $400.00 tent. Don't skimp on ropes and boots, though, and good luck on your quest.

Nice! You flew out from Ohio and were lucky enough to climb to the summit of one of these Cascade monsters? In the middle of winter? Fantastic. BTW: There is nothing like standing on top of one of the volcano's, in my opinion. Yes, there are some more serious objectives out there and some "ticks" in the North Cascades might exceed South Sister in terms of badass, but on a good day you can see Shasta and Rainier from the summit of South Sister--pretty good spread, huh?

A bit of thread drift, I know, but the rangers have asked climbers to stay out of the area around Skyline Buttress for the next month or so until they determine where the Peregrines are going to nest this year. WCC Update

For a breathable jacket there are a lot of windbreakers out there that weigh very little and don't cost a fortune. If it is below freezing and you are not spending a lot of time around waterfalls you won't need a waterproof - breathable "hardshell" and my experience has been that, even when spending all day in a wet snowstorm, I've been drier inside my windbreaker than my friends in their waterproof breathables. In warm weather, and if you are day-tripping or weekending it, the weatherman will give you a pretty damn good idea whether you need to worry about getting wet. Unless you are climbing something that is hard to get down from you can safely head out with just a windbreaker for most of the popular climbs in the Cascades.

I had somebody who has never climbed a mountain before asking where to go for gear advice in preparation for next summer's Rainier climb and I suggested Feathered Friends along with a couple of other local shops where she would get good advice. Parrotlet may have had a bad experience and there are other shops he can buy gear from but I doubt he's going to find that any of them are consistently better at providing what he said he was looking for on that particular day: specialty gear and information about how to use it. There are a few other shops I mentioned along side Feathered Friends, but they are certainly an excellent store and Feathered Friends is worthy of our support, among other things, because of all they contribute to local climbing outside their actual retail business. They were the first to get on board with the recent Index fundraising campaign, for example.

Sorry, Jay, but I don't get you. Do you favor funding public funded health efforts, public health programs, or public health care services? Really? (In response to prole's post about how you did not support public health you stated that he didn't know your "motives.")

While I have argued with JayB on a number of points, non stop, over several years, I'll agree with him on one small point made here. The public employee's are a lot stronger of a force than are the uninsured and unemployed. In the interest of balancing budgets, the poor and disabled ARE and WILL be thrown under the bus and, while I don't have any numerical data, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the "savings" to taxpayers that we reap from cutting public assistance do not offset rising employee benefits costs. Do State workers, generally much lower paid than their private counterparts, at least among the ranks of those with advanced degrees or other professional qualification, "deserve" to have their "lavish" pensions cut? Generally not, in my opinion. Jay feels differently. But I will agree that poor and disable people have less of a strident or effective lobby than do public employees.

One other stray thought: When I was there we travelled by thumb quite a bit. Fairly soon into our adventure we were told by a local that we should walk along the roadside, with thumbs out, but back to the oncoming traffic and walking as if we were prepared to walk to our destination. If we stood facing the traffic presenting ourselves as we would in the U.S., we would be perceived as lazy and undeserving of a ride. The local was right. When we started walking down the roadside with our thumbs out but backs to the traffic we actually got rides. It is funny how, in even a British commonwealth country (where I would expect sensibilitles to be relatively familiar), cultural things can be so oddly different. If you ask Kiwis's to tell you about hiking, light alpinism and diving, be prepared for some difficuties in translation. One common translation issue is that they tend to understate things. If they tell you a particular trek is "fairly easy," be careful.

Graham gives a lot of good advice but I'll add that, depending on your inclination and seasonal variations, other large glaciated peaks may not be out of the question. I climbed Mt. Cook twice in a week in mid February some years ago and walked from the road for both climbs. It was full value: just getting to the huts was equivalant to a fairly large North Cascades peak ascent. Also, Tongariro National Park on the North Island is worth a couple of days' tramping with incredible volcano's and huts to stay in. Lastly, many towns have motor camps which are sort of like a KOA campground here but they are much more friendly. You can get a shower and there are inside facilities for cooking and laundry.

Gonna see any of you folks tomorrow night?

We a have funny ways to talk about risk. I claim that I am a safe climber. I've been climbing for decades and the worst injury that anybody in my party has suffered is a torn tendon or sprained ankle. And, based on my record, climbing is not dangerous, right? Well maybe not. I have had friends die climbing. Even when faced with our friends' deaths, we can make some funny arguments. For example, some climbers argue that riding in a car is the most dangerous part of climbing. I don't think so. I have had more friends die climbing than I have had friends or family die in car accidents. Climbing is dangerous. And then there is the question of danger inherent in rock climbing vs. the danger in alpine climbing. I think rock climbing is relatively safe and, until just a couple of years ago, I could say that of all my friends who have died climbing they all had crampons on their feet when they died (this simple factor was pointed out to me by someone else, but it was an accurate reflection of what I have experienced). I think this is because, as is written in this tread, there is more "objective" danger in alpine climbing than there is in pure rock climbing. I believe that alpine climbing is more dangerous than rock climbing. However, even the relatively safe sport of rock climbing is in fact dangerous. I think it is worth the risk but we should all seek to stack the odds in our favor. Please don't laugh at me if I wear a helmet when sport climbing, and I'll see you in the hut if, when we are about to start an alpine climb, the temperature is rising.

And, another point: on the occasion when we were unable to run the stoves properly without increasing the ventilation we found the lack of oxygen completely undetectable while sitting inside the stove. One occupant expressed worry about it just based on a book-based suspicion and I completely blew him off until he showed me that a lighter fired up outside the cave door would fire properly but one fired up inside the cave would not. CO poisoning is insideous.

Mel, I've fired up stoves in snow caves for over 30 years. I have never noticed a problem except when I had a large party, and by that I mean ten people, in a snow cave with a "standard" vent of just a ski pole (with basket on it) stuck through the roof. On that occasion we were unable to run stoves inside for lack of oxygen until we made a larger vent. Otherwise, it is not crazy to run a stove in a snow cave as long as you keep making sure the vent is working. One other detail that you might consider: if the snow is not fairly settled the roof will sag while the parties are inside. If it IS settled it will still settle but more slowly. In storm-snow (recent accumulation) I have seen a snowcave with 5' of headspace settle to nearly nothing "overhead" overnight. It is creepy to wake up with the roof right in front of your nose.

It seems to me that skiing out of the Enchantments is usually a bitch. I've skied Mountaineers Creek in good snow, once, but I've skied a frozen climbers trail several times. I have not skied Rat Creek, but I've skied out via Toketie, in rotten pack sugar snow, and I've skied out via Snow Creek in breakable crust. Any time you are headed for a trailhead at 1500' in Washington (or, as in Mountaineers Creek a very popular climbers' trailhead) you are likely to run into trouble. Try Cannon Mountain, and you may just run into a ski run.

That is traditional pro for the place, Rudy, for sure. After they got over their shock at seeing two old guys with grey hair the rangers and all the other climbers were quite surprised to see someone interested in rock climbing as opposed to bouldering. I can see why it is known as such a great bouldering area - those hueco's are cool and there are edges all over the place!

There is a mix of mostly face but some crack climbing, and the pro on the routes we did was a combination of rather sparsely placed bolts and trad gear. The routes were rated a little soft but the bolts were far apart and on four out of the five routes we did you don't get pro until at least 25 feet off the ground.

Over the holiday I visited family in New Mexico and my brother and I were able to slip away for a couple days' climbing. This included a half day at Hueco Tanks and I was amazed to find climbs up to about 300' high. The rock at Hueco Tanks is absolutely amazing! It is not a big area for what the locals refer to as "roped climbing" and it is a pain in the neck just to get into the place but it is worth a visit if you are in the area.

Question for Jay: does the guy in the ferry booth earn $18+ an hour or is this like your bus driver example? I really don't know, but I'd be surprised (and agree with you that it is excessive) if that is the prevailing wage for toll booth attendants.

Anybody watching? There's a slice taken out of the moon right now.

What is this, Jay? "The mere mention of GWB?" If you want to talk about characterizations we could speculate about whether you are the type of guy who likes to take completely unfounded jabs at "liberals" just for fun or whether it is because you are a rude son of a bitch. But lets stick to the discussion, OK? If you are referring to my exchange with Fairweather, I think it was and is perfectly appropriate to ask him how he could call a statement made by our current President "thuggish" when he's been defending that bunch of crooks and liars for the entire time cc.com has been live. Back to the discussion: I don't think anyone here would argue that we should try to prevent Bill Gates from getting better care than a disabled coal miner. The question is whether the taxpayer or the general fund should pay for the higher level of care provided Gates. I did not mean to imply that I think we should make it illegal for Bill Gates to pay for extraordinary care. As to the system we now provide the poor? I agree that the rates of reimbursement are discouraging for providers, and that the system is not what it should be. I would favor revisiting the entire thing, and if higher taxes were required I would support that, too (I'm pretty sure they are if we are to cover everybody). I'd also suport a REAL discussion of the deficit, whiile we are at it.

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price and the old stories of rats in the national hospital are out of date. I haven't looked in to it recently, but I think that is what you'd find. Single (government) payor is probably, in my opinion, a better bet than having private insurance companies whose job it is to deny coverage in charge of anything related to health care. As to your other ideas, I couldn't for a minute agree that the more you make the more you should be cared for. That is just plain wrong. And, as to "third party payors," I'd have to agree that you are probably right that if we are not individually responsible for payment there will be at least some people who like attention or just like going to the doctor or who are hypocondriacs who will over-consume. I don't think that would pose a bigger problem than the current distortions, though.

Fairweather, I still disagree that it was "thuggish" to criticize a political institution in a political speech, and I'd also say that he actually voiced criticism for only that one decision though a much broader criticism of the court might actually have been warranted. Feel free not to respond any time you want but feel equally free to tell us how it was thuggish for Mr. O to do as he did and maybe you can fill us in on how the current leaders of the Republican party or the former president you don't like to talk about are not "thuggish."

JayB: I'm with you in thinking that a Congressional mandate for you and I to invest in private insurance is dubious at best. Would you think it better if Obama care had included a public option? I think the single payor model would have been best, but certainly there should be a public option, no? And what about the payment model? I think that the current "payment for procedure" way of doing business encourages fluff and waste. Do you agree?

Fairweather, I am (once again) disappointed that you refuse to talk about the issues but prefer personal attack. You brought the charge: Obama was thuggish in criticizing a Supreme Court opinion. Then you refused to stand by that charge. You said his criticism threatened the separate of powers doctrine. I stated that I disagreed. But the real point is this: Obama has been centrist and conciliatory toward the opposition. Even if you disagree with this statement, it is very hard to find any basis for calling Obama "thuggish." If you don't want to talk about your boy Bush, how about Boehner and McConnell, who have repeatedly stated that their highest priority was to defeat Obama and deny him any defeatable accomplishment rather than to actually try to do what was right on any given issue? A little bit "thuggish," no? How is it that you would label OBAMA as thuggish given the fact that his predecessor (who you defended at every turn) and the current opposition guys make him look like a lamb?

Fairweather, I answered your question straight on. You gonna tell us how you could support and defend Bush's "you're either with us or against us," his team's intimidation tactics, their promotion of domestic eavesdropping, torture, and all the rest of it but now think it is "thuggish" for a President to have criticized a Supreme Court ruling?