mattp

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.

Last time I saw him my acupuncture guy hooked up wires with alligator clips to transmit energy. It was kind of like the pictures from Abu Ghraib. It didn't do much for that particular condition, but then again neither did six months of drugs that had bad side effects, doctor prescribed physical therapy (made it worse) and three diagnostic scans that each cost over $1,000.

Nice one!!!!!

This is where you do that repeat thing you're so fond of, right? No matter how many times your question is answered, you just keep assssking? Look, I'm glad it works for you--but it has no scientific roots. So I take it the answer is "no." You could save a few keystrokes.

Huh?

Seriously, Fairweather. Do you know ANYTHING about acupuncture?

I have no idea what you are commenting on, Fairweather but, yes, I do have some outrage over Obama's lack of integrity. Unfortunately, he's mired in American politics and I will cut him some slack for selling out to the Defense industry, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other institutions that it appears you support over your own interest. In my analysis, he is better than just about any president I can remember.

I repeat my question. Do you know anything about it?

What? Now you're bashing acupuncture? I once had a beginning student (she was near the end of her first year in acupuncture school) relieve my pain from a torn elbow tendon sustained while rock climbing. I've had other less dramatic and in some cases not even noticeable results -- but over the years my acupuncture experiences have been comparable in effectiveness to my doctor visits, expensive scans, and medicines with side effects when it comes to pain issues. And the cost has been less than 1/10th as much for the same results. Do you know anything about Acupuncture? --- By the way: Joe is a liar. What did he say this time?

Is it more of a cesspool than cc.com over there at craigslist? Maybe. The basic dynamics are the same. Somebody who may or may no know what they are talking about replies to the material that is posted for all to see, and then everyone else sees it. I've seen some crazy stuff at both sites.

I think he's going to be missed here on cc.com, too. I think he was someone who posted some great stuff here and, after reading that great stuff, I feel like a friend.

Coming back from a year of disability, I enjoyed some great days in my home turf at Darrington, climbed a couple of classics elsewhere with some old friends, and spent a couple of days out climbing with partners I met on cc.com. More than that, though, I TALKED about climbing. I'm the Washington Climbers Coalition secretary, and I've done a lot of organizational work in support of a fund-raising effort that is going to preserve the Index Town Wall as a climbing destination. I aided some 5.11. Does that count?

Anybody looked at the ice accross the river from that boy scout camp on highway 410 between Greenwater and the turnoff for Crystal? 3 good pitches, and right there in plain sight but you gotta wade the river (not necessarily that big of a deal but it is a river). I could dig up some old pictures of it but this place has been regularly visited for 30 years and I think it is fairly well documented. There is an old newspaper article about recovering a body after the ice fell down on a climber if anybody wants to look for it. One of the rescuers was quoted as saying that the ongoing falling ice reminded him of heavy fire in Vietnam.

I have one of those tents too. It is good for backpacking in mosquito season and really nice for car camping when I want to set something up without screwing around. I don't think I'd take it on Mt. Rainier, though, and certainly not if windy conditions were predicted. For that you better shell out the $ or dig a snow cave. I've been up there in winter without a tent and I think the snow cave is not a bad option but you do have to know a little about what you're doing (though I guess tent camping in high winds presents parallel, if different, challenges).

Now we are seriously hijacking this thread. But for alpine, dude, I would say that I don't have much use for the bivvy sack unless you are on a grade V or VI technical climb without a good bivvy site. And then I'd prefer a two-person glad bag to the (now) standard individual bivvy bags. If you are camping at the base of a route or at a remotely comfortable campsite in the middle of one, I believe a tent is more efficient and more comfortable than the bivvy bag. For "alpine" climbing (whatever that is) I do use something a little more sophisticated than the salvation army pants. We could talk about situations and scenarios for a long time, I'm sure.