mattp

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.

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.