mattp

Good quote. This pretty much describes just about any big climb, whether it be a wall, a big high altitude mountain, or a big alpine route. Yes, I've had actual fun on more than one outing, but the actual "fun" days are usually found on smaller endeavors where dehydration, exhaustion, and overall fear are less. Going out with a bunch of friends to yuk it up on a familiar climb = fun. Stretching my limits and struggling for 22 hours without a break = fun in retrospect more than the actual moment. For me, there have been some shining moments on big climbs where I felt it all came together in some way, but the "fun" part has more often come while sitting in camp or celebrating after the climb was completed.

I admit: I've carried them "purse" style too. It is not manly, but it does offer easy deployment and they don't droop down to trip you up as much as they do hanging vertically. They do, however, get in the way of other racked items if you have pins and qizmo's and ice screws on a normal shoulder sling.

I don't mean to sound snide, but I question where you would want to rack 4 or 5 pickets. I have never ever carried 4 or 5 pickets on a climb anywhere -- and I've climbed "alpine" routes in North America, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand (Europe not really). I have actually brought that many pickets on one or two trips where I planned to use them as tent stakes, but I have never "racked" that many. For the most part, I consider them to be marginal as anchors, although I have (rarely) encountered snow conditions where I trusted them. I've seen insanely steep snow in Alaska, but any terrain where I've actually used pickets was mostly semi-technical where I used them at a belay or carried one or two for a possible crevasse rescue. I don't think I have ever placed one as "protection" in the middle of a pitch. Seriously: I have never carried more than two unless I was planning to use them as tent stakes. In answer to your question: If I want to keep one accessible I usually carry it clipped to a pack strap, with a 'biner clipped to it above mid-point so it hangs vertically but dangles the least possible amount and stays as much as possible out of the way.

There's plenty of tradition behind things like this. Exum Ridge on the Grand is the closest analogy I can think of, but think too of the North Face of Mt. Shuksan (it is not north of the summit, ends at an outlying shoulder, and faces NNE) or for another example of how history and tradition affects things like this consider that the fat that published rating reflected the crux of the original way Lovin' Arms at Index was done even though there was a distinctly easier variation nearby. The "upper" N. Ridge of Stuart was climbed in 1957. The "lower" half later. I don't disagree with the telemarker -- there is some good climbing on the lower portion and in particular at the start -- but if I did the route again I might well do only the upper half.

Damn, Will. You're stooping to Mountie bashing?

The down booties can be slippery and downright dangerous if your camp is in a location where there is potential to slide over the edge of something. I used to know someone who would glue running shoe soles on his booties for this reason.

Right, but Obama was the one who said he was going to be "post-racial" (whatever the fuck that is) and NOT bring race into the race. Yet, he has repeatedly over recent days. Yes, the idea that he could be "post racial" is rather hard to define but McCain's "common sense conservatism" is no better, and we actually DO know what they mean by these phrases - in a general if not specific way. Prole and KK have it right about how complaining that he is "pulling the race card" is mostly just a code phrase that means: "lets not have whatever discussion is timely." This week, McCain's whining about how Obama's playing the race card was really nothing but a dodge with a bit of negative attack add mixed in: he could easily have addressed the question of whether or not he or his supporters have in fact tried to portray Obama as a muslim or as "different" from mainstream America. That, of course, would not have been to McCain's advantage so he chose to play the "anti race card" instead. Obama's proclamation that he is "post racial" may or may not not stem from any great idealism but wouldn't you admit that his campaign has stayed well away from any Jesse Jackson type rhetoric and he's done a remarkable job of minimizing the extent to which he becomes the "black candidate?" This is certainly a lot more meaningful than Bush's "compassionate conservatism" ever was and in my mind a more compelling stance than McCain's complaints that "we've tried racial quotas and preferential treatment is bad for all Americans." Obama's position (or at least his posture) with respect to racial politics in America is refreshing. McCain's? He's simply recycling campaign slogans that have been used since the Reagan years.

I think you'd be doing pretty well to climb anything else in combination with the NE Ridge of Bugaboo in a single day. The route is not huge, but it is long and the descent complex enough that most parties find it a full outing. The standard route on Snowpatch is an excellent climb. Most people will not like the McCarthy route because of the squeeze chimney. Surf's UP is a more popular route these days.

Are you ignoring the obvious again, Fairweather? We've seen a lot more about how Obama is muslim and swore in on the Koran and his wife is not proud of white America than we have about how he's being mistreated on account of his skin color. Clearly, it is those who favor McCain who have been playing the race card the most aggressively.

This post generated two pages of discussion, at least half of which was jokes, deliberate misinformation, and name-calling that added nothing to any real discussion. The ever brilliant Mark McJizzy observed that “there is a lot of supposition going on here.” He said it is more likely that this is preparation for a mapping effort that may or may not have anything to do with any major management or development proposal. Further, he pointed out, the housing economy and history of nearby Crescent Bar suggests that a major development in this area is unlikely. Somebody said climbers should get involved, and Peter Puget agreed: he offered the following: Here is a link the WDF site: http://wdfw.wa.gov/ Here is a link the WCC info page for Vantage: http://www.washingtonclimbers.org/Climbing/vantage.htm Puget wrote that the Frenchman Coulee Climbers' Coalition was a group active a few years ago. They have (had?) a Yahoo Group set-up. He wasn't sure if they are still alive or not. Builder206 provided a link for the Yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FrenchmanCouleeClimbers/ Sobo offered some history and noted that the FCC arranged and paid for the porta-lets to be brought upon the property and were (for a while, at least) maintained by them.. He suggested the group may now be defunct, or at least not very well funded, which might explain why "the shitters are in such disrepair. Mebbe they just got tired of replacing them after the Gorge Bois fucked them up and/or threw them over the cliff across the road after every concert." Lucky entered the discussion to say that the cc.com joke squad was not serving climbers well by taking a topic that is of interest to many and insulting the guy who brought information to cc.com while turning the whole thing into a circus sideshow. I agreed. I received helpful reminders in the form of personal messages complaining that I was too critical of the brilliant contributions of cc.com’s finest jokesters who would never ever consider being insulting in any fashion, and I was told I took all of this too seriously. Carry on. Discussion and information might be helpful.

Try to follow along here, Scott. We're talking about a new bridge here - and how to pay for it. Remember? The question that those complaining about the toll seem unwilling to address?

Umm, Scott: we're talking about a toll. Yes, there has been some talk of imposing tolls on existing roads, and they could impose a toll on 520 before beginning construction, but that is not the basis of KK's original objection. Pretty much everybody agrees that we DO have to build a new 520 bridge and the major questions are how much capacity and whether to build the new interchange on top of the Arboretum or the climbing rock and how to pay for it all.

But Bill: these folks want * no urban planning because that is "inefficient government intervention that kills the economy" and * no traffic jams because "that sucks" and * the State to pay for a new bridge on five miles of roadway that will take 5% of a year's annual operating budget of the entire State because they think they are so overtaxed already and why the hell should they pay any toll? and * the free market (that is, everybody else) to absorb the cost of any externalities such as increased automobile traffic, pollution, greenhouse gas If faced with the obvious suggestion that the numbers don't add up: the State which they argue is irresponsible can't afford to spend that much on such a tiny bit of roadway, KK says he would accept a toll set at a rate that was based on a different project that was completed in a different economic and environmental climate when - 40 years ago? What are you smoking, Bill? DO you actually WANT those evil government bastards telling you how to make your community a better place to live?

Any different ideas on this topic?

You seem to have time to discuss things here on cc.com. Think how much better this world would be if you'd go out and tree sit some time. You cold bring your deer rifle and a flask and make a point about how "the man" can't tell a "real man" how to hunt.

Hey Panos: While you are there, ask Jim about the rescue operation alluded to briefly in the first post. The quote I remember is: "Don't worry, Mr. Nelson, we have the mountain surrounded."

waxing prophetic? Ha ha. You got me there Dechristo. Perhaps that was a Freudian slip reflecting a substantial cynicism on my part. I'd still like to see broader participation in our democracy and I think we'd benefit if more people actually paid attention to politics, though.

I have quite a few Heliums on my rack and I like them a lot. They are light, easy to handle, and the lack of a sharp hook where the gate closes is a real plus in getting them on and off the rack or using them to rack wired stoppers. I don't do much aid climbing and I don't remember struggling with them when hanging on gear mid pitch or at a belay. The biggest draw back with the Heliums I have found is that, as with all wiregates and bent gate 'biners I have used, they unclip themselves more readily than a traditional carabiner. They do so less than some other wiregates I have used, though. They also do not work well for a carabiner break (for rapelling) and the belayer cannot hear a "click" when the leader clips the gear they've just placed.

Wow, Clavote. I'm sure you are right about most of this or all of it, but missing is a little perspective me thinks. Young people might actually smoke weed and socialize while they are protesting? Certainly not unique to "hippies." Self centered and self righteous? Not very special either. Unclean? This probably is more on the mark as a byproduct of some hippy ideals but when flung about as an insult it IS just an insult - used to dismiss or disgrace the accused. I agree that there are more important things to protest over than a grove of oak trees and youthful idealism may be misguided or self important. I realize, too, that Berkeley is known for some pretty stupid stuff in the name of political correctness. But I don't see any big harm in this and the disdain that you express would be better reserved for those blind sheep who see the powers to be screwing us every day and selling our future to the Chinese without saying anything about it because they are too busy worrying about their stock portfolio or whether there is a new scratch on their beamer. We need MORE people who care about trees or turtles or war. I think our nation would be better off if it were not just "dirty hippies" who were willing to take to the streets, and if more would take to the airwaves or organize for the ballot box... or actually get involved at ANY level in our national political narrative.

Are you holding out for another swiftboat attack?

That's right. The Buckeyes suck!!!!

1969, Crag Camp, Randolph New Hampshire. At a hut just below timberline on Mount Adams I was as a young lad treated to Bob Dylan's "Nashville Skyline" on a hand crank record player - one of those with the big trumpet coming right outta the tone arm. Hut keeper Tad Pfeif was quite a character.

You are right that the word "decommission" usually means the kind of effort you are describing, Builder, but in the context of the original post I don't think that is what we are really talking about. Relatively few roads have been or will be decommissioned in that fashion whereas hundreds of roads are simply being "let go" or gated (if you count all the spur roads, it is probably thousands). Fairweather's hit one nail squarely on the head, to be sure. I think there is more to it than that however. Not only may closing roads shut out many deserving recreational users and possibly erode support for the preservation of public lands, but simply abandoning roads in place can lead to serious habitat destruction in terms of stream damage and it may also interfere with sensible resource management concerning other issues. For example, some areas may appropriately see fire suppression, motorized recreational access and even some well-managed timber harvest. Unstructured camping is a traditional activity that is a plus for many users though perhaps not a good idea in the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River, and fisherman, boaters, berry pickers and hunters deserve access just as much as hikers and climbers. Climbers as a whole are a pretty green bunch and I doubt even the most strident access nut would say that all or even most of the current roads and spurs should be maintained. Hell, I bet even Fairweather could be talked into agreeing that what was formerly a main trunk road somewhere would be appropriate for closure if he was invoilved in a comprehensive discussion of recreation and resource priorities and he thought the discussion might lead to what he perceived as a "balanced" plan. It is easy to take a hard core "anti-closure" stance when looking at the last few decades' ad hoc closure of road after road with what seems to be a one-way ratchet (almost never has an abandoned road ever been rehabilitated). It is also a nataural reaction to some of the preservationist tirades from hard core environmentalists. However, it is similarly easy to take a hard core "close everything we can" stance when looking at the last century's destruction of much that was once wild and the ongoing impact of recreational use that is in many areas inadequately managed. A big problem, in my opinion, is that we are not seeing enough comprehensive evaluation of resource and recreation management issues or long term management plan for the region as a whole. Some may have hoped the something like the Grizzly Bear recovery plan or the Northwest Forest Plan could have offered such an opportunity, but I don't think they really have.

Builder, I think there is some reality in the blanket statement that land managers as a group want to decommission or at least close roads. Clearly not all roads and not all land managers, but a simple and cheap steel gate solves a lot of problems when when a land manager is faced with budget constraints, environmental concerns, police problems, manpower shortages, and numerous other challenges we could think of. This one reason why we, as a user group, need to participate in recreation and resource management discussions in a way that not only promotes our interest in being able to get to the crags and mountains that we enjoy but which also recognizes the balance and trade-offs necessary so that we are perceived as "reasonable."

Goat, that is more or less what I'm saying. I'd certainly recommend any new climber read FOTH, John Long, and whatever other resource materials are available, and I'd also support anybody's inclination to sign up with the Mounties or hire a guide for a one-on-one intensive or whatever. But it is a mistake to confuse learning specific techniques - such as the scripted protocol for escaping the belay - for fundamental knowledge that will enable one to respond to getting stuck (for example, what if you've left that specific cord you were carrying for escaping the belay at your last station as part of the anchor or it got chewed by a snaffle - in such a case you can't follow the script). It is also a mistake to assume that a checklist or protocol will keep you safe. Remembering what the acronym SRENE stands for is a lot less helpful than simply being able to evaluate a cam placement. I've had more than one friend "graduate" from a club climbing course only to have to be "deprogrammed" by their peers so we could actually go climbing with them without carrying the ten essentials on a 3-pitch rock climb or enjoy a romp up the West Ridge of North Twin without turning it into a grade V or so that, heaven forbid, we could ski the Sulfide Glacier without roping up. My general impression is that those who have learned in a more unstructured manner (that may or may not have involved a lot of serious "trial and error") are likely to be weaker in some of the specific technical skills but more comfortable with relying on their own judgment and understanding that there is more than one formula for a safe belay anchor.