mattp

There was some brushing on a route headed around toward the south end of Squire Creek wall about ten years ago, but I wouldn't expect to find much sign of any trail. Stay low as you pass around the buttress that forms the SE corner of Squire Creek Wall, and expect at least a few hours of battle with salmon berry, slide maple, salal, etc. Once you get over there, good luck identifying the "right" rib -- it is not exactly clear from what information is available which one it is and I would guess they may be difficult to distinguish from below. I would take your standard rack for a trad route, with gear up to perhaps 3" or so, lots of long runners, and two ropes. I would also carry a couple of knife blades and lost arrows, and a hammer. Chris is very sparse on the beta, and I know of nobody else who has climbed the route, but I believe you will find no bolts on the route and like all Darrington climbs there will be few if any straight-in cracks. Your pro will mostly go behind flakes or be draped around bushes. The rock is lower in angle around that end of the wall than lots of Darrington rock, so bring the sticky shoes. I haven't been around to the south end of the wall, so I can't tell you much about the descent. Early season may not be a good time to go -- every time I have been any where near Squire Creek Wall before June I have seen very large avalanches and rockfall. If you go, send details to David Whitelaw so he can adde it to his new guide. I cant wait to read your trip report!

I believe that quote is from the Albigensian Crusades - when the church ordered the extermination of the Cathars in like, say, 1200 or 1300 AD in southern France.

Be careful out there, folks. It sounds like a stormy weekend with lots and lots of new snow all over the place!!!

I am sure you would not make this mistake, but one should not confuse the process of walking through the steps to put on a public hearing with actually seeking and considering input. I don't know whether the folks at Mount Rainier would or have done this, but I believe that many agencies who operate under public review processes will hold hearings or solicit written feedback with no intention of listening to whatever feedback they receive. By the way, this discussion is one that belongs in "access issues."

Before sport climbing, and before quickdraws came into common use, it used to be standard practice to clip a bolt hanger with two linked carabiners. I believe the reason for this was that the additional link would add some flexibility, but it may also have had to do with the fear that the rope might get pinched between the biner and the rock in the event of a fall when a single 'biner is clipped directly to rope and bolt and the fall comes on that piece. I still clip bolts this way when I run out of quickdraws on a heavily bolted pitch - don't most of you? I doubt you will find anybody advocating the use of a single biner, though, except when setting up a pendum or a retreat. The fact that a guide would do something while climbing with a client that most of us would not do while climbing with a partner is a different topic. When I have taken beginners or relatively less competent climbers on climbs that were well within my comfort zone, I have many times taken shorcuts that I would not take when climbing anywhere near my limit. I don't know why he chose not to use draws because I can see no reason not to use them, but I would certainly feel "safe" leading a 5.4 bolted sport climb using a single biner for each clip. Maybe his client had been dropping the draws all day and he just decided to minimize the number of pieces that might either get lost or damaged by being dropped.

Bring us some pictures of Grand Ledge so we can see what we're missing!

I don't know the current situation, but in my past experience, the Sedro Wooley station has NOT had the current or complete information that was available by calling the Glacier ranger station or the Marblemount station, and they have also been less helpful when answering these inquiries.

And Bush was elected through a free and fair election?

Johnny- Let me get this straight. You think I should feel comfortable that Bush and Rumsfeld are telling us the truth or that they are not telling us the truth but are never-the-less are making good decisions about our foreign policy when damn near every single specific thing they told us about a terrorism link or a current threat to our security proved inaccurate? Is it more sheeplike to believe them unquestioningly or to call for more information?

Sorry to mislead you, Tom. I did not mean to imply that I think we need to take him out. I said I could understand the argument, not that I agree with it. I was trying to contrast an argument that I can understand (a fear that he is a bad guy so that, if he doesn't threaten us now he certainly will in the future) with one that is based on what is clearly mistruth, exaggeration, or unsubstantiated guesses (he threatens our home security right now and is right now arming terrorists).

Let's hope for more news like that!

The NW Face of Del Campo is a good non-technical climb and makes a good ski-mountaineering objecive. I think the description in the first printing of the Beckey book is better than the "improved" description in the second, but either will get you there. If you play your cards right, you only have to traverse a hundred yards of bad bush in the lower basin: after the trail crosses the river (only a stream at this point), follow an old trail uphill, cross the river, and enter the basin on the left bank (river right), then cut right to pick up the open flood channel along the stream. The upper basin, below the peak, is quite attractive but watch for potential avalanches coming from all sides. Take a bit of rope and an ice axe and maybe some slings for the chimney/gully that leads to the top. You might not want to do it tomorrow, though. It's supposed to rain and snow and blow from various directions tonight into tomorrow.

I'm sorry you're giving up, Tom. How about if I admit that I understand the idea that we are going to have to take him out sooner or later and we might as well get it over with now? In my view, Bush et al should have stuck with that one simple idea, and they might have persuaded more of our regular allies to go along with them. Had they not spewed blatant rhetorical lies and had they not been so arrogant about stating that we do not need Europe or the U.N., they could have forged a true coalition as Bush Sr. did. If we were invading Iraq with U.N. backing, I still wouldn't like it but I'd feel very differently about the whole matter. Would you agree with this, or are you one of those guys who think the U.N. is just a tool of those who want to take our freedom away?

Tom- Here's my rebuttal of your rebuttal: 1. Your article about Iraq's nuclear weapons program is five years old. The weapons inspectors have stated as recently as, like, December or January that there was no active nuclear weapons program, and although I believe Bush had made his statements only a few weeks earlier, the administration failed either to retract their statements or explain the discrepancy. The liberal press that Peter Puget complains of has not bothered to ask them for an explanation so maybe that is why you didn't notice this. 2. The Iraq-terrorist link you are referring to ("revealed" by Powell) revolves around a guy named Zurquawi. He runs a training camp in NE Iraq that is in Kurdish territory outside Iraq's control. His supposed meeting in Baghdad took place when he went there for medical treatment. I don't think it has been shown that there is any link to Saddam. I wouldn't doubt it if Saddam would allow him or someone else to plan attacks against America, but I'm just saying there has not been a single proven example -- and most Americans heard a year of rhetoric from Bush, Rumsfeld et al, did not question any of it even though most of the time absolutely no examples were offered, and concluded that all of this proves Iraq must have been behind 9-11 -- what the ??? 3. The terrorists who have thus far been setting off bombs in Europe or Indonesia and running airplanes into tall buildings are not agents of any nation. That is the problem -- we cannot stop them by targeting a rogue nation. I support the invasion of Afghanistan to the extent that it was necessary to take out terrorist training camps, but I still fail to see how regime change is going to help. I think the flawed logic here is where you indicate that the "shock and awe" campaign in Baghdad is going to deter terrorists that operate with fake identities and work in independent cells scattered around the world. -Matt

Tom- Before I begin my tirade, I should commend you for sticking with it here. You have largely been abandoned by your other pro-war friends on this site. Now for the tirade: You complain that the arguments against the war are "inflammatory" and "Poignant" arguments which are largely inaccurate. Lets look at some of the arguments FOR the war: 1. The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraq had an active nuclear program, and said he was "3 months away from having the bomb" at a time when all experts agreed that there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq. This was not a mistake - but an outright lie. And it is a lie that has been believed by large numbers of the American people because they don't bother reading newspapers and aren't interested in knowing the truth. If anything here, I would say it is the pro-war Americans who cannot think for their selves. 2. The Bush administration repeatedly asserts that Iraq arms and harbors terrorists. They have not shown a single current example of this. The reported meeting between the Iraqi's and al Queda was shown never to have existed. As a result of these repeated and unsubstantiated allegations, recent polls have shown that over half the American people have even concluded that Iraq was behind 9-11. Again, I would say this is an example of how the pro-war Americans are the ones who do not want to consider the facts. 3. Supporters of the war assert that this operation is going to make us safer because it will deter terrorism. Please explain to me how this is going to work? I think you suggested that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq may help reduce support for terrorism in the Middle East, but we sure don't see any progress toward democracy in Afghanistan and I highly doubt we will see it in Iraq. The country is really at least three countries in one and within its borders there is a mini-Kurd nation in the north, and a large Sunni bedouin population in the south, with mostly Shiites in the center and in the larger cities; it has thousands of years of war-torn history and tribal strugggle, characterized by very tight political rule. This is not a stable foundation for democracy and I do not think we are going to see some magical transformation in the near future. If you think we are going to establish a democracy there, you are dreaming. Even if we were somehow able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, please explain to me how invading Iraq is going to pacify militant Islamics who hate the U.S., don't want western values to erase their culture, and believe that we are an evil agressive power. I just don't get it. By the way, Tom, nice cut and past job. Your wel-written post on page 12 came from here: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N11/eaton_col_.11c.html You deride the anti-war folks who repeat what they read elsewhere, but you failed to cite your source here -- reprinted word-for-word. It almost appears that you tried to suggest you wrote all of that yourself. And you complain that people who are against the war simply recycle other's arguments. Stick with it, Tom. Let's hear what you have to say because you make some good points.

Tomcat- I believe that we gain a greater sense of our freedom and where we stand in the world when we travel outside this country and when we actually pay attention to what is going on throughout the world than we could ever gain by being forced to serve in the military for two years or whatever. I know plenty of folks who have been in the military who don't seem to have thought one iota about what it means to live in a free country. Some of them even think it is treasonous to speak one's mind!!!

I may be misinterpreting Tomcat's remarks, but I think he said that those who have served in the military have more right to comment on the horrors of war than those who have not. I say that is bullshit. If you have served in combat, you know first hand what it is like in a way that I can not. But that does not give you any greater right to comment on whether this or any other war is a good idea. Remember, nobody here is arguing that Iraq is not in violation. I don't think anybody here is rooting for Saddam. The question at hand is not whether we support the troops, but whether this invasion is a good idea at this juncture. I don't buy the argument that nobody should criticize the war until it is over. As citizens of a free country with a relatively free media and with democratically elected leaders we have a civic duty to think and talk about what our leaders are doing in our names. If we believe the government is not acting morally, and if we believe that we might even in some small way be able to influence events by expressing that belief, we have a moral duty to display our objection to what is being done in our names.

RobBob, I share your support of and respect for our troops. I do not agree, however, if you think that it shows a lack of support or respect for out troops to criticize the policies of our President, who I believe did not have to and should not have led us to this point. Aside from a few misguided and generally young idealists, I don't see many Americans burning flags or spitting on soldiers -- but I see a lot of Americans who are hoping and praying that our national leaders can be driven to choose a new path away from the stated policy of world domination. We are all hoping that this invasion can end in success and that it can end with a minimum of death and destruction.

eric8- We don't have to go in there to prove that he probably has banned weapons or that he is violating U.N. resolutions. We already know that, and I don't even think the French or the German's debate these points. The question is whether these things justify the current invasion at this time. The gassing of the Kurds supposedly happened in 1988. I say supposedly, because there are some who argue that it did not take place as reported. I would have to agree that it is despicable that he would promote a policy of paying the families of suicide bombers, but my guess is that this is much more of a bellicose bit of rhetoric than it is an inducement for the bombings. George W. Bush keeps telling us that Saddam "arms and harbors terrorists" but I don't think he hast been able to come with a single recent example.

Roger that, Colonel. Much of the debate in American political life is rather like that which takes place here on cc.com -- folks are just talking to hear themselves speak and so they can feel good about themselves. However, I'd generally rather see even a pointless discussion than no discussion at all.

Uhh, guys.... I think it is hard to argue with most of what Necro stated: 1. It is morally wrong to kill. We are waging a war to disarm a regime that we say has weapons that nobody can find. We have argued that has a nuclear program, for example, that all knowlegable experts have agreed DOES NOT EXIST. It's not that Saddam wouldn't like to have such a program, but the fact seems to be that he does not now have one. Similary, we have said that Iraq supports terrorism, but our government has not provided any evidence that he has done this in recent years -- and indeed has put forth some "examples" that have proven to be exaggerated or perhaps downright false. 2. In the coming days and weeks, innocent people ARE going to die in large numbers. Both Iraqis and Americans. As a direct result of this war, Americans will die not only over there but also over here -- if al Queda or any other rogue who dislikes what is happening can pull it off -- and I don't see why they couldn't. 3. Bush has made choices that had a lot to do with taking us from relative peace and prosperity toward war, uncertainty, and continued economic slump. 4. The Bush administration is attacking Federal funding for public education, and is putting in place policies that reduce funding for various State programs while increasing certain mandates that they spend on things like, for example, homeland security. 5. In the name of national security, there has been an increase in surveillance of American citizens, detention of aliens, and "trials" without the Constitutional protections such as the right to confront one's accuser, the right to an attorney, the right to timely prosecution, etc. We can only expect that such practices will increase because our government is telling us that this is necessary for our security. 6. This administration, led by our president, has stated that they will pursue a policy based in the U.S. fundamental right to act as it deems fit without being accountable under a whole host of international treaties and agreements, and without being accountable to the U.N.; and that this fundamental right is based only on the fact that we are the sole superpower and deserve to remain that way so the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to us. 7. We are a nation of sheep. YOU CAN JUSTIFY ALL OF THIS, PERHAPS, BUT I BELIEVE MOST OF IT IS TRUE. I understand the idea that Saddam presents such a lingering hazard that he has to go -- and that it is better to take him out now than to wait any longer. I don't agree, but I understand the argument. I understand the argument that this is a crisis which justifies some suspension of some of the Constitutional protections that we have enjoyed in the past, or the argument that tax breaks for large and powerful corporations are going to benefit the average American citizen. But to me the outbreak of this war shows the failure of our administration's diplomatic efforts at least as much as it shows what a bastard Saddam is. I don't agree with Necro that all of our freedoms are illusions, I don't agree with him (if this is what he is saying) that it is George W. Bush's fault that millions of people are starving on our streets, and I don't agree that the start of this economic slump was George W. Bush's fault. But these are sad times. Let's hope that this Iraq business is concluded with a minimum of death and destruction.

If you read last year's discussion, you know that the ice is northeast facing, at about 5500 feet, and it is usually "in" all winter. There are some smaller sheets that can be top-roped, but the top of the main ice curtain is a little more difficult to reach without leading it.

I think another reason is because the interior ranges just plain get more snow, not only safer snow.

If nobody volunteers, bus 17 heads along Westlake and stops right in front of the Sloop, or damn near. I bet you'll be able to get somebody to give you a ride home, at least.

Lately, 7:30 has been a better bet if you don't want to have to down the first three pitchers by yourself.