mattp

Bug, I'm not interested in going back over old history from six or eight ears ago. Your facts are not quite correct but, really, I disagree with the whole premise of your argument here. We may have handled Hugh's threat toward you incorrectly but there really is not much unclear about cc.com's policy about threats. I also disagree with the basic suggestion that abuses in bolting threads are dealt with quickly. In large part they have never really been "dealt with" at all.

I learned some time ago that I have nothing to gain by participating in any “who’s the jerk” discussion but, just to be clear, I’ll note that in nine years of this site I remember using two peoples real names in a fashion where they didn’t appreciate it. In both cases I did so as a poster and not with any special knowledge or power as a moderator, and I did so in a forum where I do not have moderator authority. In both cases I felt that these particular posters had long abused any right to privacy. I realize that some disagree and all are free to reach their own conclusions. I have long argued that we wouldn’t see near the level of mud slinging around here if people used their real names. We wouldn’t see near the level of entertainment and probably not near the same level of information exchange, either, but in any event there has never been any move toward eliminating the use of avatars. Is bolting a “special” topic? Yes. First of all, bolting threads probably more than any other climbing related threads around here generate a steady stream of personal attack and posturing, the occasional out and out lie, and just plain ugliness. These are important issues but ion my view are not very well handled on cc.com. Anyone who doubts that I think bolting ethics is an important topic can read my article in the Northwest Mountaineering Journal Link to Article on History of Ethics. As moderators we’ve tended to take a “hands off” approach, and I’m sure some like that, but many do not. Feck has an idea that we can discuss. Oh, and Bug: I did receive an actual and credible death threat once. I handled it as I felt appropriate and the offender was not banned over it. How would banning someone address the potential danger?

I've made a lot of climbs on the Cascade volcano's and, in the Summer, the only one that I think really warrants a full on plastic boot is the Big R, and even on that mountain I think I'd rather go with something lighter - all things considered. Yes, if you take some leather combo-boots you may get them wet on the hike to your camp and then start out with cold feet in the morning, but the klunkiness of any plastics I've ever worn is very significant. To be honest, though, I'd have to say that I have not bought a pair of boots for almost ten years. Maybe they have wonder-boots now. I doubt it.

Don Ryan, of Tacoma (Raindawg, Dwayner, Merv Griffin, etc.): I'm not in favor of removing any routes that I can think of at the moment. As I said, I'm in favor of working toward bringing about what we would like to see in climbing. Matt Perkins

Damn! There are some new ideas brought up here - at least somewhere in the mix. To that extent: right on, folks! I've mostly stayed out of these discussions because we've been over most of this ground before and I've got other things to put my energy into. But it IS an important topic. I am the one who shipped the discussion to spray, so if you have complaints about that you can send them my way. Lest somebody think I am avoiding "the issue," I'll say that I think IB is really not as important as it is often portrayed on cc.com. The "controversy" remains alive on this website but I don't think most climbers, the folks from the Forest Service, or even the organizers at the various wilderness advocacy groups spend near as much time worrying about this climb as they do a myriad of other issues. That is not to say that the issues raised are not significant: the issues related to what we think of large bolted routes, bolting in Wilderness, power drills, etc. remain. And the route is certainly a lightening rod. I climbed 3/4 of the route and I was not looking critically at the bolting but there were a lot of bolts but few places where I noticed readily available natural pro options. I placed a couple of pieces of gear to supplement what was there. My vote would be to leave the route as it is and I'd like to see the cc.com beehive devote our energy toward bringing about more of what we want to see in the future. And me, personally? I've installed bolts on rappel and on lead, by hand and with a power drill. I've replaced old mank and maintained recognized classics. I have also put up some new routes - some with bolts and some alpine rock routes without any bolts. I think that the handful of routes I've established have been OK and I'd welcome feedback though I would be more happy to receive private messages rather than to be the topic of a debate thread on cc.com. I also think that overall there is in fact a great deal more agreement than one might think from reading here about such questions as what is acceptable regarding the establishment of sport vs. trad routes, bolts next to cracks, or what have you. Yes, many if not most climbers don't "think" about these questions as much as they might or probably should. I have done quite a bit to promote discussion and awareness over the years, though I've grown tired of "these threads" on cc.com. By the way: out of respect for our foul-mouthed good friend Lucky, I'll add my name and city. I think these discussions would be better if all participants did so. Matt Perkins, Seattle

What is this reference to "passing" the LSAT? Don't you just "take" the LSAT? Last I looked your score was a factor to be considered in law school admissions but there was no pass or fail.

Maybe that would be because you don't feature your triple biner biner acion. I re-played your video and it is not at all obvious. Nice video though. You capture, or at least do the best job I've seen of doing so, that rappel.

Nice video, Tvash. That is probably THE most exciting rappel I can think of - sparing something with crap-for-anchor, perhaps. Your video brings back memories very well.

We all wish you well, Eric. I don't know the industry but do you think the thief could actually unload his haul at a climbing gym or shop? Wouldn't the owner of such enterprise face losing their newly purchased "inventory" through the law enforcement process? On reflection, I do have a little bit of advice although it may not be anything you haven't already thought of. Talk to more than one, and preferably more than three attorneys and give great weight to the average of their recommendations. Attorneys come in all shapes and sizes (and we could divert this thread into ten pages of spirited "discussion" if we were to go down that path) but the one who tells you what you want to hear may not be the one you want. This is particularly true if they are not willing to take your case on a contingency.

Family law is not my specialty, Mark, but you are right: business liability is not either and I have no particular connection with attorneys in Bend.

If you are coming from afar, and opt for Mount Olympus, be sure to set aside a half day before or after to go out and take a walk at Rialto Beach. In my opinion the Olympic National Park has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world.

[video:youtube]

You guys who rail against the religious right in this country have a point but I’d also say that one thing missing from this conversation is a mention of the fact that most Americans who go to church do not preach hatred and intolerance and this may also be true of Islam. Yesterday there was a show on KUOW where the guest was talking about the more modern and moderate tele-evangelists who are preaching against suicide bombings and teaching tolerance and women's rights on TV in Indonesia, on the Arabian Penninsula, and even here in the US. It doesn’t make good TV and this side of Islam may not draw much attention in our media, but the same is probably true of the bulk of religious America. Other than a few feel-good stories around Christmas time, our media rarely focuses on religious institutions' contributions to this country and Christian compassion doesn’t even enter the discussion of health care reform but we talk about abortion and death panels instead.

In January I've had good and bad days at Index, Darrington, Mt. Erie, and Vantage. As noted above, wind can ruin what might otherwise seem like a good bet from the forecast.

Like Mr. Piton, perhaps, I have used the single skinny cord for a variety of general mountaineering outings. I have doubled it for leading short pitches of rock both in the Alpine and even in crag settings, too. I used to like the precursor rope, the 9 mm Stratos, better than the 8.5 mm sharp, though. It was stiffer and generally more solid and had a much better sheath. Piton didn't say he's done this but I've used a single 9 mm rope for leading alpine ice, too. I don't know if "standard practice" has changed but it used to be fairly common for climbers to climb alpine ice with a less than a "full" rope. I think the theory was that the leader had no reason to fall - and damn well better not - while the 2nd could be a little more casual about it with a top-rope belay. As far as I know, the 9mm rope was considered more than adequate to catch a leader falling on an alpine ice sheet, though I'm not exactly clear on why that was said to be OK whereas 10mm or 11mm was thought necessary for rock. Maybe because it wasn't as steep so the leader wouldn't fall as hard? Or there are not likely to be sharp edges?

As one who has climbed with a variety of pick up partners and cimbing shop bulletin board partners and cc.com partners over the years, I'll say that I agree with those who suggest that prudence is in order. On the other hand, I'll tell you that I have done some of the biggest climbs of my career with pick-up partners. On average, I'd say that you are probably better off going to your target crag or range and looking for someone who is there and actually appears qualified than answering a bulletin board or Internet post - but I've had excellent results with either - and very bad. and I'm talking about destinations ranging from the Himalayas to Exit 38. As to the question of whether you have an obligation to report the "unqualified disaster" of a partner who you climbed with in South America or Exit 38? I'm not so sure about that. Yes, we'd all want to be spared of the "negative" or even "potentially disasterous" experience you had, but your "friend" may or may not prove to be such a disaster on future trips. If anyone asks whether you would recommend so and so as a partner your obvious answer would be "no." But do you have an obligation to "report" them? Is that what cc.com or any other bulletin board should be -- a place for people's reputations to be trashed based on one poster's negative experience? Just as prudence may be in order when climbing with somebody you don't know, I think it may also be in order when posting on the Internet about somebody you may not really know. And if you actually know them, well then there are different issues to consider ...

I'm curious here. When I was a kid we used sleds that had steel runners on them and looked like the sled in "Citizen Kane." These things really flew over frozen ground with minimal snow on it like what we had in Michigan when I was growing up. Yes, I went to the emergency room every winter when I hit a bump and bashed my teeth through my chin or hit a tree and broke a rib or whatever but it was all good fun. These things went fast and you had real steering capability (even if my track record suggests that steering and judgment may not have been executed perfectly). My question is this: Is it really "sledding" to slide down a hill in some plastic tub "sled" that we here on the West Coast recognize as a sled? They don't go nearly as fast and they aren't really a sled. They are more like the cafeteria trays that the "bad" kids from the nearby university used to show up with when I was a kid. I mean no disrespect for anyone who wants to head up to the pass and have some fun. I'm just curious about nomenclature. Don't "sleds" have runners? (Runners would be useless in deep snowpack, I know.) Isn't what we do up at the Pass really "sliding" and not "sledding?" (By the way: when I was a kid we had Siberian Husky's and did a bunch of dogsledding, too. Dogsleds have runners. And we didn't say "mush" when we wanted them to go. Maybe it was a "style" thing, but we were not "mushers." We were "dogsledding." And let me tell you: those dogs could go REALLY fast. I don't think it would have been nearly as cool to hook them up to one of the tub type "sleds" that we call sleds around here -- and certainly not as controllable.) I don't mean to hijack Gene's thread. I'd like to hear more roadside options for snowplay because I want to head up there whatever you want to call it. I just thought a little side-discussion might be interesting. Where do you guys go, anyway?

Actually, yes I think it was once different. Once or twice. For much of the history of this site the political debates have been rather cartoonish to be sure but there have been times when we've seen real discussion here. (the fourth or sixth humanoid, aguing the same thing once again)

I don't want to start an on-line argument with somebody who has read the books and is "in fact" "right" but I'll say I agree with Monty to a significant extent: the fact is, you CAN probably use most halves as twins, and twins as halves. We've been over this ground before and I know it is just plain wrong but when I first started using the skinny cords I don't think there was a distinction and, even if you do the ultimate no-no and run two ropes through the same 'biner after first clipping them separately I think tests will show that the likliehood that this will cause rope failure in event of a fall is WAY small and, even if in the 1 out of 1000 falls (you tell me the number) where this might occur it would only cause one rope to fail and not both. Don't get me wrong: I DO read the labels and the technical manuals and I certainly recommend climbers pay attention to the recommended use of each product - whether it be a rope or a stove or a climbing helmet or whatever. But I will occasionally use a rope "wrong," I've used a stove to heat my engine block when it was -30, and I sometimes sit on my helmet and even climbed in one that was cracked.

Blake, with some exceptions I think you are probably preaching to the choir around here. On balance I favor re routing the road back to the earlier alignment and improving access there but I certainly see the merit in Faster_Than_You's argument that this particular road is only high on the list of priorities for a relatively small number of users who have a special interest in the Stehekin area as compared to west side access roads or even east side roads that don't require an expensive and rather "inconvenient" ferry trip. Even if we were to accept the idea that the Park Service budget is separate from the Forest Service, do we still conclude there is no "competition" for funding between, say, the Stehekin Road and the Cascade River Road? North Cascades and Rainier? The ardent conservations generally seem to argue that virtually all access roads should be eliminated where it is feasible and ardent access promoters would like most of them maintained, but certainly a lot more users would be served by keeping the Cascade River Road or the West Side Road at Rainier than they would be served by rebuilding the Stehekin road extension - if we had to choose between them.

Like what I think Off assumed, I have "accepted" that a repair of the Westside Road was not even a possibility. I understand the attraction of having the west side of Mt. Rainier being more difficult to access and thus more of a wilderness but I'd support restoring that road for sure. There were some terrific outings there and my guess is that it wouldn't take all THAT much to reopen the road. I haven't really looked at the cost estimates or balance sheets but I do believe that the new bridge over the Sauk River, maybe 5 miles out of Darrington, must have cost an absolute FORTUNE in comparison, and there are ongoing projects and maintenance on Park Service lands that probably dwarf what it would cost to restore that Westside Road. With the Carbon River entrance cut back and the WestSide Road closed, the entire west half of Mt. Rainier has become much more difficult to access with the exception of Ptarmigan Ridge, perhaps. Back to the original topic: how expensive might be the Stehekin Road repair compared to others mentioned here?

Josh, I don't really want to start some kind of argument but I think you may underestimate or understate the hazards of New England's Presidential Range. You can check the conditions on Washington before you leave home, yes. But I don't carry a satellite phone and won't have access to current information when I'm at one of the cabins over on Mt. Adams, preparing for a traverse and summit climb the next day (can a simple cell phone reach a signal? I don't know but I don't have one of those either). And, weather conditions aside, I took one of the scariest falls of my entire climbing career on Mt. Jefferson. It was an unroped fall where I bungled self arrest and could have gone for a thousand feet but hit the only little Charlie Brown Christmas Tree that could have saved me instead of going over the edge. Yes, a 5,000' bump in New Hampshire is not K-2. But it can still be treacherous, and maybe even more so because it is so very much easier to get to. In many respects, the local hill that is an attractive nuisance (like Mt. Rainier in our case)is a lot more of a danger than Nanga Parbat or the the N. Face of the Eiger (both of which used to be considered the most dangerous of objectives because over 30 people died attempting their first ascents).

Good work Don. I'm not surprised Rainer is more deadly than Washington in terms of numbers of deaths or deaths per climbs. Mt. Washington is different, though, in the sense that one can simply walk to the summit without any special boots or crampons or even snow. In that sense, the danger is more insidious. Maybe it can be seen as more "deadly" in that respect - that it may be more of a killer of the unsuspecting. I've been on Mount Adams, five miles from Washington, when it was so windy that we were getting bumped accross the surface while simply sitting down. We literally had to dig in with an ice axe to stay still. I have not experienced that on Mt. Rainier.

I'd be surprised if Annapurna or Nanga Parbat have killed more climbers than Everest (I'm pretty sure Nanga Parbat killed more prior to the first ascent, though). I suppose it could be that total deaths on Nanga Parbat have exceeded those on Everest but I'd be surprised. Seeing as I'd bet over 10 x the number of climbers (and maybe 100x) have attempted Everest, that would make Everest a SAFE mountain by comparison.

Where in the world did you get that idea? You know full well as I have told you more than once that the doctor you referred me to got me on the right track and nowhere did I state that the accupuncturist was able to help with my present issues -- in fact quite the opposite: I wrote that the most recent guy I saw did some silly things and was unable to help. I've had some pretty good results with accupuncture a couple of times, though. The point of my post was that I've had mixed experiences with doctors and with alternative providers. For assistance with a torn tendon recovery and a whiplash injury I actually think I was helped more by the alternative treatments - accupuncture, accupressure and even massage. For back pain I used to have a great chiropractor who could fix me right up with a single crack, as opposed to limping along for a week with pain killers and muscle relaxers and only then being able to ease back into regular activity. Sadly, Mr. Magic died 20 years ago and I've never found anybody who can do what he did since then. For treatment of injuries, the steroid injections and MRI scans ordered by MD's never really did much for me and the physical therapy program I had at Group Health was a complete joke. Similarly, the first doctor I saw for my present issues -- a doctor who was highly recommended and clearly "successful" as she billed a whole bunch -- was unable to help and in fact ordered physical therapy that made things worse.