mattp

quote: Originally posted by Dan Larson: Really, this bunch will grab any bone and run with it Point well taken. Mike wasn't looking to start a debate over whether the park is properly managed. Should we have a "rule" that when someone wants to spray, no serious point is to be made?

Trask, you are a cheap bastard. It is because of people like you that good perfectly good companies go out of business!

quote: Originally posted by roger johnson: I usually just go and find out for myself, don't need any hand holding. That's a good approach. Now, what about Mike's queery? Should NPS be responsible for screening climbers at all? I think that if they see some total gaper they have an obligation to point out the potential danger but I suppose that beyond that they should let him or her go out and find out for themselves, too.

I've been told that, as a general rule of thumb, a pair of skis is good for three different sets of holes for binding installations and after that you have drilled so many holes that you have seriously weakened the ski. If you want to move the bindings such that you are putting new holes right next to old ones, I'd be concerened even about a second installation but if not, it is probably OK to do as Bronco suggests.

Today, I attended a "potluck" with forest service officials and trails people where there was a discussion of the fee demo program. Forest service people included employees from the Portland regional office and from the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest management in Mountlake Terrace, as well as district office employees from North Bend, Darrington, and Glacier. Several people from the Washington Trails Association and the Mountaineers were there, and there were a few unaffiliated people like myself, who had been invited simply because we have involved ourselves in these matters. The Forest Service people presented a discussion of how their shrinking budgets are impacting their ability to maintain trails, and they talked about what they do with the money they collect through the fee demo program. I'm not sure I believe their accounting, and they didn't change my mind on the topic (I'm against having to pay fees just to walk on public lands - especially when we are subsidizing mining, logging and grazing, and I am prepared to believe that there may be some truth to the Disney conspiracy theory promoted by people like Scott Silver of "Wild Wilderness") but they made one very good point: many people are very vocal about opposing fee demo but they don't support the funding of recreational use of public lands through some other mechanism and they expect the trails to just take care of themselves. Yes, the Forest Service has presided over an atrocious destruction of the lands under their care. And yes, they have been largely unsupportive of my own recreational use of these same lands over the years. However, the trails require maintenance and I believe that the Forest Service people I saw today are genuinely trying to figure out how they are going to pay for it. The next time I write my Congressman to say I oppose fee demo, I will add that I support the maintenance of trails and back-country access and that I believe my tax money should be used to pay for this. I would support a general audit of the Forest Service budget and I remain skeptical about their priorities, but it is important to me that our access to the recreational opportunities on our public lands not be curtailed.

I've had pinched nerve problems on and off for years, but instead of numbness I experience muscle spasms and shooting pain. But there is hope: recently, Wotan of Ballard suggested to me that a contributing factor may be imbalanced muscle development – he related a story to me of how he had been having some similar problems that were cured when he found a physical therapist who advised him that his regular activities were strengthening his abs and quads to the neglect of opposing muscle groups and he started on a corrective exercise routine.

Mike, That DC thing really happened - not to me but to somebody I know. It was may, perhaps ten years ago, and it wasn't the Park Service that was shoveling the trail but it was RMI that was digging switchbacks up above the cleaver. And the climbing rangers at Paradise told the guy there was blue ice up there (blue ice in May???). Another ranger descending while he was just about to reach Camp Muir said the same thing: blue ice above the cleaver – you should try a different route. There was in fact no blue ice anywhere on the route, but there were RMI employees working to prepare the route for the coming climbing season. You make a good point about how a park employee who may just be trying to be helpful can give out bad information. You and Roger make good points about how the Park Service is asked to be all things to all park visitors and I would have to agree that with respect to climbing, they are generally going to be criticized much more loudly when something goes wrong than they are to be applauded when somebody has an enjoyable visit. Matt

Roger - In Rainier Park I've been told rediculous things like that a creek 1 foot deep was "uncrossable," or that Pan Point had an "extreme" avalanche hazard when it hadn't snowed for over two weeks, and this wasn't always coming from someone who didn't know what they were talking about -- sometimes they had some other agenda. A friend of mine was discouraged from climbing the Dissapointment Cleaver one spring, when several different rangers including one who was descending from a summit climb told him that it was solid ice and he should pick a different route. He went up anyway, and it turned out there was no ice in sight but RMI was shovelling a path up there and the rangers had been running interference for Big Lou. You are right that the rangers have a somewhat thankless job, but I treat them with respect and follow the rules (almost always) and I've been misinformed by rangers more often than not over the years. I wonder -- have they really always been informative and honest with you? Are we talking about the same guys?

Mike - I can't tell for sure whether you are inviting a spray fest or a serious conversation. Your post sounds preposterous, but when I went to climb Mt. Rainier in the winter of 1977-78 we had to check in with the rangers at Paradise and they actually inspected our gear to see that we were properly equipped. We got a good laugh out of that one, thinking how if we brought extra warm sleeping bags and tents and a bunch of wands to show the rangers we would get our "permit" but noting that our "gear" didn't have a thing to do with our prospects for a safe and successful climb. Indeed, we passed some guys hauling sleds full of gear who obviously "passed muster" but didn't seem to have a clue. By the way, I've said it before but I agree with Fairweather: tell it like it is and I will believe what you say. In thirty years of climbing, I have rarely heard a park service or forest service ranger to tell the truth about hazards and conditions (let alone political issues) but you have proven a reliable source of information. If you tell me that it is dangerous to go up on Mt. Rainier this week, I will listen. -Mattp

Thanks, Matt. For those of you who don't recognize the peak, it is just outside the boundary and east of the ski area at Stevens Pass. Did you dig any snow pits? See anything interesting? How was the skiing through the woods as you descended toward the highway? Would we need eye protection and a tough coat?

Telemetry info here: http://www.seawfo.noaa.gov/products/OSOPVC

quote: Originally posted by danielpatricksmith: Their tarp thingy is 1/2 pound lighter than the BD Betamid. I don't know if that justifies the extra $ 271.00. A simple rectangular tarp works very well, and sets up with no poles as long as you plan on camping in the trees.

I think the tube is a gimmick. Just about every pack I have ever carried has had loops or straps somewhere on it that would accommodate a tool simply slotted downward (head up) and, if it didn't, I could easily add a strap for that purpose. I simply ram the axe down through the most convenient loops or straps, and clip the leash to something so that I don't lose the axe if it should fall out. I have never lost a tool this way and when I thought it would matter I could always set it up so that I could retrieve my axe without taking the pack off. This works fine for a straight shafted axe, but it might not work as well for a bent shafted tool with leash-less grips (of course, I don't think the tubes will work for such a tool either). Largely, I think the same is true for a crampon patch and the rubber bungy cords they often come with. Every pair of crampons I have ever owned had some kind of straps attached to them even if it was only a pair of ankle leashes, and I simply use one of the straps to hold them together and use the other for securing the crampon to my pack (again just about every pack I have ever carried has extra attachment points somewhere, and many have straps/buckles for two tools in addition to compressor straps and those that secure the top lid). I often use an extra carabiner or even just a piece of cord as a second attachment so that I won't lose my crampons. If you face the points together (don't you?), there really isn't much need for the crampon patch. I'm not saying these features aren't nice. A tool tube or a shovel pocket or a water bladder pocket or whatever it is may be handy and many people swear by one particular feature or another. But in my view, you should pick a pack for its (1) overall size and shape, (2) carrying comfort (3) empty weight and (4) features - in that order.

I believe that most of what has been suggested thus far will be rather snowy in March. You said "nothing too technical" because he is not a climber, and this may or may not be what you had in mind but many years ago I used to take non-climbers up a short multipitch climb near Yosemite Falls and we had a good trip every time. I don't believe the climb is in any guidebook, but if you walk east from the bottom of Yosemite falls, within several hundred yards you will encounter a small buttress on the right side of a gully. On that buttress is a climb of about three or four short pitches (perhaps 100 feet each), that are mostly scrambling but include some fun climbing up to perhaps 5.2. The belays are all on large ledges with tree anchors, and the top of the buttress is a small knob from which you have to rappel to get down (two long rappels down the gully I described above). Mattp

Sorry about the blown quotation, and I apologize in advance if this leads to some rediculous digression, but I want to suggest that there should be no "set" formula with regard how far apart the bolts need to be – even for a sport climb. In my view, if there is a hard move ten feet off the ground, the first bolt should not be two body lengths up -- particularly if there is not a flat landing spot below. If a pitch is going to be bolted for sport climbing, what is the point of forcing everyone to run around with a stick clip? So you can have only 11 bolts instead of 12? Sometimes the first bolt should be reachable before you leave the ground (like some climbs from the ledge on WWI at Little Si), and other times two body lengths up as Pope suggested. For the rest of the pitch, the 2nd, 3rd, etc. bolts should be placed at or near the target interval, but more important is to have the hard moves protected and not to have lots of bolts protecting climbing that is much easier than the rest of the pitch - this should take priority over some formula like "first bolt 15 feet up, second one 25." [ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

quote: Originally posted by pope: make sure the first bolt is at least a few body-lengths up. That way, if you miss the second clip, you're less likely to deck. [ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

Zenolith-I think I agree with just about everything you stated in this most recent post. (1) it is immoral to kill innocents, (2) it is worse to lie about it, (3) I don't think a government should act on rage or bloodlust, and (4) such a reaction is as indicative of a "fundamentalist" worldview as the destruction of the towers. But what is the basis for your statement that (5) No, it [the killing] hasn't –they may not be Americans dying, but they are humans? Are you referring to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld pledge to keep on with the fight, and what you expect to be our future actions overseas? Or perhaps you are referring to our destruction of the infrastructure of Afghanistan and how that is almost certainly a direct or indirect factor in the starving of Afghani citizens this winter? Or maybe you are just referring to "things in general?" Like you, I don't trust Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld (I gather that you don't like them). But what I am saying is that while I don't approve of how they handled it, we should appreciate the fact that they could have done worse over the past few months (obviously, we don't really know yet how it "turned out"). And I do think that, to a great extent, they had their backs against the wall. - Matt

I'm not twenty five, but I'd gladly buy some beers and spend an hour or two with any eighty year old climber who continues to climb technical rock and ice and alpine routes at that age.

Assuming you have perfectly good scotch to begin with, why would you want to ruin it?

Thank you Z. You point out a side of the "war against terrorism" that most of us would rather ignore. I agree with you that the American press cannot be trusted/is not allowed to give us the truth, and I also believe that our "victory" over Afghanistan doesn't appear as clean or as laudable, as some would argue. But just what the hell were we supposed to do? Politically, our government had to do something dramatic, both so that they could tell the voters that they had some control over the situation and so that we could say to the world that you can't just destroy the trade towers without some consequences. Even if you think that there has been little showing that Afghanistan had anything to do with September 11 and if you feel that wreaking havoc upon a suffering primitive country is itself a crime against humanity, we DID erase documented training camps for terrorists, the killing has at least for now stopped, and so far it hasn't sparked a broader war. Like you, I don't believe our government has handled this matter very well and I cringe when I hear Bush talk about the "Axis of Evil." But what were we supposed to do? You might argue that Vietnam was none of our business, but I don't think the same could have been said about Afghanistan.

Listen to your alpine buddy ChucK - he's speaking the truth. A few practice falls in a very controlled situation might not hurt, but I've known people to get pretty banged up even in relatively short falls and a few successful falls will help your head, of course, but I'm not sure that more than a few "simulated falls" is worth the risk. I'd rather log my air time when I'm actually trying something that I want to lead.

The following is from a website maintained by Jonathan Carr, in New Zealand: The 2000m South-east Caroline face of Mt Cook. The summit on the left is the low peak, the summit on the right is the middle peak. The high peak lies beyond. The Caroline face is difficult because of its length and the high level of objective danger - ice falls seem to continue throughout the day and night. I'm happy to look at it from a safe distance. The classic East ridge ascends the right skyline ridge to the middle peak. The jaggered south ridge, leading towards us from the low peak, was first climbed by Ed Hillary and his mentor Harry Ayres prior to his ascent of Everest in 1953. [ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: I don't like Popes idea. I mean drinking at home alone with your computer on. Can you say loser [ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: AlpineK ] Yeah, but if we can get him to come to a series of Tuesday night planning meetings, then we'd be getting somewhere.

Maybe you guys need Judge Judy. Caveman: I believe Dwayner did in fact "call it first" and he has infact shown up in Seattle more than you have shown up in Tacoma. Dwayner: "I called it first?" sounds kind of like when we were kids, arguing over who got to ride shotgun, and I would have to point out that you have probably selected the venue more than anyone else here (has anybody else chosen the location for four-or maybe five- pubnights?). The last time we had a mixup over venue, there were three of us in Monroe -- probably the lowest turnout yet. You guys figure it out but I may have something else to do tomorrow night.

Pope: good plan, but maybe we better meet in person to discuss how to set it up. And I'm sorry - I didn't pick the day - but there is only one day in the week and its Tuesday. You gotta get a Tuesday out of the house.