mattp

I don't believe so. I have indicated my opposition to it every chance I have had and this includes in-person talks with Forest Service staff as well as letters to higher ups. I have only bought one or maybe none of those passes yet. I am simply of the opinion that it will do climbers no good to take their frustration out on the line staff who sell the passes in the ranger station or who may be ticketing cars in a parking lot. These people are not likely to respond to being abused by sending a supportive message to their superiors.

Fair enough, Mr Zonk, and the ranger should be able to understand that and let you go on your way. It may well be "their business" what you are doing and where you're going, though.

You may be right about our "rights," Mr. Builder, but I personally will usually politely answer the ranger's questions and look for an opportunity to end the conversation as soon as possible. My experience has shown that law enforcement personnel do not react well to being challenged. If faced with a rookie, maybe you can stand on your rights and get them to back down, but I've also heard stories of that poor rookie getting on the radio and calling in law enforcement who DID arrest climbers in the Tetons for failing to cooperate. One thing is for sure: you are asking for trouble if you give a fake name. I know that lots of people have done this over the years but it is a crime that you probably don't want to be busted for. A "crime of dishonesty" may be held against you by a subsequent employer or if you want to be appointed to take care of business for an aging parent or something. I'm not suggesting you give up all sense of dignity. When a ranger has lied to me or is being unreasonable I have called them on it and on occasion followed up with a supervisor. But that is a different sort of dynamic than the "20 questions" game that is the topic of this discussion. If a ranger asks me where I'm going, I'll answer their question.

nolanr, where you been? Del Campo's NW face is also pretty good.

Actually, this project was not undertaken with my leadership. I was most definitely a follower. Mark had the vision. I've been talking to the rangers up there for the last 20 years, though, and I have a pretty good impression of the folks in the Darrington District. Today I spoke with somebody at the Forest Service who said they plan to send a crew up there in the next week or two if all goes well with other projects. As you might imagine, they have a huge list of needed repairs this year and as some of you know their budget has been cut hugely over the last couple of years. I asked who we could call to suggest our support for more funding, and the roadway supervisor in the Wooley office told me we could call Rick Larsen, Representative in the Second District, Washington. The Access Fund and Washington Climbers Coalition have been sending periodic messages to his office and those of Cantwell, Norm Dicks, and Jay Inslee because they have been working on related issues. There will still be more to do, however. They are not going to address the avalanche wastage on the road below Exfoliation Dome or the Eightmile Creek Trail (though WTA may target the latter).

Yo Bill, I appreciate the spirit you show here, but I gotta say I disagree with part of your message. Based on a few recent conversations that I have had with Forest Service employees at various levels in the organization over the past few years, it sounds to me as if this program is generally unpopular within the Service just as it is with many of us hikers and climbers. It IS their job to enforce the law, though, so if you get a ticket you are welcome to contest it all you want but try to remember: it is not the poor schmoe who is sent out to Icicle Creek to pass out tickets who is behind all this and they probably don't deserve your abuse (Larry the Tool excepted). For sure, it is more than a little provocative for GSHC to come on here and post that they've shown this to their supervisor and now somebody's gonna get towed but don't you think it was also provocative for Radon to post here about how they are breaking the law and put it as if they are suggesting others do so? The Northwest Forest Pass program sucks, but lets try not to let it destroy our relationship with the line staff who (3 out of 4 of them, anyway) are just trying to do their job. Your typical ranger is not in it for the money. Just like us, many of them value public lands and outdoor recreation.

The roadbed damage one mile up that 49 road is relatively minor and I suspect they will fix it soon. When I called the rangers they said they were waiting for it to stabilize a bit because they didn't want to fix it while it was still slumping. My guess is that with a couple of relatively dry weeks it is probably stabilizing.

Good stuff, Mr. Simpkins, but you have a system that may not suit everybody. For example, few of us want to carry a frameless pack as we find the extra weight of two small wands in the back of the pack is worth it. And in my book, tents do not suck. A light tent weighs little more than two bivvy bags, and is far preferable. Your leave it all home and carry the tiniest pack approach is not bad, but not necessarily the model that I think inexperienced climbers should shoot for. The key is to figure out what gear you really want as opposed to stuff that you only think you want because it was sold to you or appears on some "newbie alpine climber checklist" and thinking about where you may want heavy duty as opposed to light weight. If you are going to be doing sitting glissades, for example, the light and fast wonderpants are probably a bad idea. If you are going to be bushwacking in the dark, those super small led headlamps are not adequate. If you are going to hike a trail to a basecamp, there is nothing wrong with a bulky pack or having extra items like maybe a beach chair strapped on the outside. Etc. As for a "tip" rather than a reaction to someone else's advice, I'd say that new climbers should not overlook some of the non-technical skills and consider off trail backpacking and scrambling objectives worthwhile along with the tick list peaks in Jim Nelson's guidebook. Set a top rope on a steep snow bank, and learn to climb up and down without using an ice axe and crampons. Practice plunge step on steep slopes with a good runout at the bottom. Climb a messy gully somewhere and spend time talking with your partners about how to manage it so that you are not exposing your buddies to rockfall - looking to traverse back and forth so nobody is below anybody else, bunching up where this can't be done, and taking advantage of sheltered places to stop and wait.

The Clear Creek road is more or less open now. This is the logging road that serves the Darrington climbing area (Road 2060). At about two miles from the Mountain Loop Highway there is some roadbed damage and some snow remains on what is left of the road itself but a Ford Focus made it over that rough spot today and we got stuck coming out but it is doable with 4x4 for sure. Higher clearance than a station wagon would be recommended. Today our hero sawed his way in there, removing probably 100 trees blocking the road, so it is passable at least to the fork about a half mile before the Eightmile Creek trailhead. I stood by and watched (clipboard in hand), while our friend Mr. Builder helped clear the debris. There were an amazing number of blowdowns and some avalanche paths where we have not seen them for at least 20 years. One, on the road below Exfoliation Dome, had a tree at least 3 feet in diameter broken off amid the wreckage. The road needs more saw work and some roadbed work as well but the Darrington rangers tell me they are busy with other higher priority roads for now. Don't head up there in your brand new sports car or you'll regret it.

I HAVE encountered rangers asking those sorts of questions as "trick questions." Most of my dealings with rangers have been pretty good, and it seems that in general I have fewer and fewer complaints as the years go by but as recently as four or five years ago there was a particularly obnoxious ranger in the Leavenworth District who would play 20 question, looking for a ticket angle. I don't know an easy answer to the original question. If you start saying "I don't want to answer that" or "I want to discontinue this conversation," it is probably not going to go well if you happen to have run into a ranger who may be a little too into law enforcement. You probably have some fundamental Constitutional rights, but that is not really what dictates how you want to respond to a ranger who is making you uncomfortable.

Is is going to be an interesting election if the Republican fanatics are going to claim that McCain is more likely to support alternative energy development than Obama, Obama tries to promote himself as the candidate of faith and family values, and folks suggest that conservatives who have voted against every possible welfare or headstart or blah blah blah program and promote notions of social Darwinism actually care more about poor people than liberals.

I bet Jacob's Ladder is dry right now. There may still be some seepage on the last pitch of Dark Rhythm and Rainman. See you up there.

I referred to that "ilk" because that is Fairweather and KK's favaorite word to bandy about when they are accusing liberals of being divisive. As far as donating goes, I have seen it argued that conservatives donate more to charity or some such thing - or at least they report more on their tax returns - but I'm not so sure that such claims have been made when it comes to working in relief organizations. As to politics (and we are talking about presidential candidates here, you are a whack job if you think the republicans stand for "compassionate conservatism." Is that like the Klu Klux Klan approach to racial harmony? We've already had that discussion. OH: and as far as government action vs inaction? Doing something in Iraq was clearly worse than doing nothing would have been. In the case of our oil economy even your buddy KK seems to support some form of "government action" and not just a free market solution. I heartily disapprove of many actions our government has taken over the last 7 1/2 years as well you may also. Its a matter of perspective, no?

'Hope to see you up there this weekend. Bring a chainsaw and some knowledge of how not to get hurt with it and lets see what we can do.

The pumpkins were OK, I thought, though their lead singer was certainly psycho!

Just curious: do you guys really have a problem with substantive discussion? KK was going to explain to me how McCain is so much more about alternative energy development than Obama and now you've scared him off. I really wanna know because maybe I shouldn't overlook the guy.

I'm not sure I follow all that, Fairweather, but I agree that the point is not that republicans vs democrats is good vs bad. Lets actually look at the candidates, for once, and talk about what we do or don't like about their policy proposals or how we think they might run the country. If I have mistakenly said McCain favors drilling ANWAR when he wants to drill our coasts, my point remains the same: a gas tax holiday and "let's tap our domestic supply" are both poor solutions to anything for the reasons I already described. Oh: and if it is not useful to talk about democrats good and republicans bad, or vice versa, why do you keep talking about "the left supports this..." and "lefties' quash dissent." Not only do you continue to do what you condemn, but you are wrong. It is not "the left" who supports a big industry of corn-based ethanol production. Yes, some greenies have urged more ethanol and the cappacinno crowd you oh so abhor seem to like to run biodiesel in their Volvo's, but the greens care about the price of food on the world market and impacts on the poor WAY more than those of "your ilk" and more than anything else the whole thing is benefiting business interests and is pushed by farm lobbies. Second of all, the Republican party in particular and the right in general has been a lot more effective at quashing dissent over the years. To the extent that "political correctness" has become a joke, it should be. But dissent? It is those on the right who said that we couldn't afford to have treasonous Americans undermining our President's march toward war when he was obviously lying about it. And even now, it is the right who lines up behind an obvious failure of a president, lashing out at those who would dare to criticize him even while admitting in private that he is indeed a failure. Looking at our situation in the Middle East and saying that whatever we do we can't talk about leaving Iraq or even moving in that direction because this would dishonor those who we sent to die is just plain stupid. Arguing that there is no clear agreement on global warming when it is clear to all but an ostrich with their head in the sand is well, I don't want to be offensive but it's just dumb. Just who is "hell-bent on preserving their orthodoxy?"

I agree that Obama is not going to be able to magically get us out of Iraq right away. I agree that we should be looking at nuclear power.

NO, Bush is not running. But McCain has certainly indicated that he plans on continuing a foreign policy and energy policy MUCH more like Bush than our good friend Obama is promising. And what of Armitage? Clearly it is too early to say how cabinet appointments may come out, but doesn't it concern you AT ALL that one of the guys behind the Iraq war debacle is one of McCain's close advisors on these matters?

I'm not changing the subject, KK. I agree with you that we should be seeking a switch toward an energy economy not so dependent on oil and coal (maybe you don't agree about the coal). I believe that the government can and should use our tax dollars to help fund it as well I think we should hope for regulations and both foreign and domestic policy initiatives that will encourage this as well. For a minute there I thought you were saying that government could help with this, and it might not just be left up to the free market.

And talk about waste: our entire economy and morale has suffered the results of Bush's wasting our human resources and treasury on unproductive (to say the least) enterprises. If Armitage is to be the next Secretary of the Defense, wouldn't we be likely to see MORE OF THE SAME?

OK so what you are saying is that it is not socialism if we are not talking about social policies?

I'm with you as far as encouraging research and development, KK, but I'd venture a guess that Obama is much more likely to do this than McCain. And don't forget: if the government funds it or adopts regulations promoting it we're talking about tax and spend socialism. As to the gimmick? Clearly your contest is an easy proposal to make and sounds good, but it is not in any way indicative of a commitment to actually pursuing any significant changes in our energy consumption. I call that a gimmick. To suggest that this is going to help us "turn the corner" may not be quite a misleading as suggesting that the gas tax holiday is going to help Americans suffering from high gas prices, but it is not far behind.

You have to admit, a car battery contest IS a gimmick, right KK? Or are you for real, suggesting that such a bright idea is the basis for proclaiming that McCain has a better handle on energy issues?

If that is how you see it, ak, I suppose you may as well just give up. It seems to me, however, that times DO change and it actually matters who sits in the Oval Office. For example, do you honestly think that had 911 happened on Gore's watch he would have bungled the response as badly as the Bushies? Seriously? Do you think he would have deliberately let Bin Laden go and spent all his energy invading Iraq while ignoring his military commander's advice as to how to go about it? I agree to the extent you may be saying that they are both politicians and much of what goes on now is going to continue, though.