mattp

I'd agree with those who agree with Off. But I'd also add that local practices can vary. The last time I went to visit my childhood crag at Grand Ledge, Michigan, the standard "dibbs" system was not in practice due to a concern for cliff-top erosion, and the expectation was that folks would hang their top ropes on the crag (it is all top-roping there) at the beginning of the day and leave them there all day long. If you weren't willing to let everybody and their dog use your rope, you really weren't supposed to even hang one. And everybody would just walk back and forth, using ropes that had been set by somebody else. My point is that, even if there are rules that apparently make sense, you gotta ask around if you aren't sure.

On low angled granite, I've worn out my chalk bag and harness by sitting on them at belays.

Check your p.m.'s

Also, it is not that far and the brush is not all that thick if you set off cross country from Morrison Creek campground, and the road usually opens that far much earlier than it does to Cold Springs.

If the M'pick road system is the one I'm thinking of, I'm looking for a partner to go in there and ski Rahm. It's been on my hit list for several years and I just hadn't wanted to go bash brush for what I assumed would be five miles of overgrown logging road.

I've thought the Zoo was pretty comfortable in the past. The place is pretty large but not all that crowded on Tuseday nights, so I don't think even the most smoke sensitive have had much of a problem and sitting upstairs, we've had plenty of room. Parking can be a problem but it's no worse than, say, the Ballroom. And easy access from I-5.

ChucK is right that most of the climbs at Static Point have had their hardware upgraded while the two that he mentions have not. However, some of the upgrades have not been as good as they could be and On Line (the most popular climb on the crag) has a number of 3/8" bolts that are not fully driven and some of the belay stations look sketchy to climbers who are used to modern chain anchors and stainless steel bolts. It will be difficult to upgrade these bolts without making a mess out of it, though, so I would highly encourage anybody who wants to clean it up to learn as much as possible about it before they go. At Static Point or anywhere, I would also suggest that anyone replacing bolts take the extra time to remove the old ones so new bolts can go in the same holes wherever possible. Also, I think it is worthwhile to spend the extra money for high quality stainless steel bolts and hangers. I like powder coated hangers because the baked on finish lasts longer than any paint job you could do at home. For belay stations, I prefer the Fixe stations (again, powder coated) but there are good arguments for the more standard sport-crag setup. I don't advocate setting up crag climbs with belay (rappel) stations requiring webbing, because the resulting heaps of old webbing make it impossible to clip directly into a bolt hanger, they can be downright scary, and these belay stations are ugly from afar.

Bronco- I think a Mafia stranglehold on a poor Italian neighborhood might be a closer analogy for Saddam and "his people." To be sure, he is terrorizing and exploiting them but there is also a web of family or tribal relationships and a shared cultural heritage that helps facilitate the Iraqi's maintenance of control.

I agree with some of what you said, Ursa, but wouldn't it be at least a little better if they weren't so blatantly spewing propaganda and dstroying our tradition of a supposed "free press?"

Glasgowkiss- One of the things that most disturbs me about this war is that the whole discussion is so permeated by U.S. government lies, and neither the Democrats or the press are willing to address this most disturbing issue. Yes, Saddam is a bad guy and it may well be necessary for us to go in and take him out -- but do we have to shred any U.S. credibility by having our leaders spew forth a steady stream of obvious bullshit? Consider (1) the supposed connections between Iraq and the terrorists they were supposedly arming and harboring have all or nearly all turned out to be mis-stated or completely blown out of proportion; (2) the alleged nuclear program that was supposed to be three months from producing a nuclear bomb did not exist; (3) the aluminum tubes that were said to be for production of nuclear weapons grade material when minimal inquiry would have allowed us to conclude they could not be used for that purpose; (4) the ludicrous denial that this has ANYTHING to do with oil wealth; (5) the constant announcements that we have located a chemical weapons facility or evidence of biological weapons which turns out to be unfounded; (6) the widespread hatred of the Iraqi regime that was going to cause our troops to be invited into the country as liberators and facilitate an easy invasion in a quick war; (7) there was no budget item for the war because they could not even begin to estimate the cost of the war before the Congressional debate but the very next day they were able to announce that they had already spent -- what was it -- 30 billion? -- just to get the troops over there to set up..... etc. etc. Don't get me wrong. I hope we win this war -- and quickly. But in the meantime the Bush administration is destroying our credibility around the world and driving a huge wedge right into the heart of our society here at home. They apparently think the public cannot remember what they say from one week to the next, because they are making a habit of saying whatever they think sounds good at the moment, without any concern for whether they can substantiate it or not, and they then say something completely different when, a day or a week or a month later, it serves their purposes. And they seem to be right: I don't think most people remember that Bush said Saddam was three months from producing a nuclear weapon and then the U.N. reports, which Bush people did not at all refute, concluded that there was no active program. And on and on. Wouldn't it be better for them to understate their case and then have it shown that not only were they right but that they are more than right -- then to continuously overstate their case and then be shown to have exaggerated or lied? Wouldn't it be interesting to see somebody say: "excuse me, Mr. Rumsfeld, but didn't you say "ABC" on February 15 and then "XYZ" was shown to be the case on February 16? When did you learn about "XYZ?" If you didn't know about "XYZ," how can we be confident that you are making well-informed decisions in this matter? Etc.....

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.