mattp

What did I do? Tell you to lose the shorts over polypro?

Then you probably don't want to climb with me, Rad, because I will do all of those things at one time or another. Reading this, I think back to the partners who have scared me the most in the last couple of years and it has not been because they took their breaking hand off the belay at some point, but because they just showed bad judgment or were clumsy. Stopping to belay and taking a long time to get a fully equalized triple anchor in a rockfall prone location, choosing routes or evaluating avalanche hazard or making route-finding decisions based only upon guidebook or cc.com information rather than using one's own eyes, or failing to back up the pro when the single piece they have employed sits behind a loose block is a lot more scary (to me) than the things you describe. Again: I'm not advocating unsafe practices. I'm simply saying that different people focus on different matters and hard and fast rules are not as important as good judgment and a willingness to receive and employ information.

The hardest move criteria is what makes the system make sense, ChucK. The fact that it is not applied absolutely consistently and there are some (really very few) routes that are given an extra grade for their sustained nature doesn't change the fact that the system really is defined so as to rate the hardest move. Otherwise, how could you compare a 40 foot climb in Icicle Creek with an alpine rock climb? We use the YDS and a secondary rating for length/commitment factor.

All I assumed, KK, was that you meant what you said when you said you couldn't fathom how "somebody would go out climbing and try to, say, rappel without reading and practicing how to do it first." I'm not advocating anybody fail to learn about or practice what they are doing. It has been my observation, though, that some people are careful to read about or practice everything before trusting themselves to the "real thing" whereas others take a different approach, diving into things and then deciding that it might be a good idea to learn more. You may employ a combination of these approaches. I don't know.

Not everybody approaches the sport the way you do, KK. Mr. Rambo at Exit 38 may not be someone you want to climb with but I can assure you that plenty of people go out and try rappelling without going through a "basic crag" course or asking an "expert" to show them how. I could be wrong, and I may be called names for suggesting this, but my general impression over 35 years of climbing is that newbies who learn on their own are not necessarily more likely to get in accidents than those who carefully read up or take lessons before going out on their own.

Yep. Wow. You appear to more or less agree with my statement (maybe you think the "correct" ratio is only 1:3 or something), yet you call me intellectually lazy for saying I hadn't bothered to look it up. You don't see how reporting an article about France when we are not talking about French drug enforcement policies or French rates of drug use is an act of "intellectual laziness?"

MK, are you for real?

History, Fairweather. In 1965 (under President Johnson) the Drug Abuse Control Amendments were passed, creating the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. (it's interesting to note that from 1965 forward, the national homicide rate began a sharp increase, as did drug use among 12-17 year olds). In 1969, shortly after his inauguration, President Nixon declared a war on drugs and crime. In 1970 the modern "War On Drugs" is born as the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act". Title II (the "Controlled Substances Act" or "CSA") established 5 "schedules" of substances, with schedule "one" prohibiting substances even from medical use (Marijuana was placed in schedule one, despite the recommendations of the task force that marijuana not be criminalized). The CSA affects an absolute prohibition on many substances, and provides for federal law enforcement to act even on an intrastate level. In 1973 Nixon reorganizes the various federal drug law enforcement agencies into the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA. In 1986 Nancy Reagan begins the "Just Say No" campaign. While there is an initial drop in drug use, drug use again rises rapidly within a few years. In 1988 the Office Of National Drug Control Policy (office of the "Drug Czar) is formed. The first Drug Czar is William Bennett (who ironically is a smoker, drinker, and compulsive gambler). And you accuse me of making stuff up? Tell us where you got this information about some lack of law enforcement efforts or a "treatment only" approach in the 60's, 70's and 80's. For more, go to drug war history

Two more who deserve an honorable mention are Bachar and Viesturs. These guys have made some extraordinary accomplishments and inspired many modern climbers. Both seem to be generally decent human beings as well.

DO you guys jumping on me for "making up" a statistic where I clearly acknowledged it was just a guess have any different numbers? Do you believe the number of drug addicts is comparable to that of alcoholics, or that the social costs compare? Do you, Fairweather, have any factual basis for your assertion that as a nation we have employed a liberal approach in the drug war or that liberal ideas have driven the drug war or substantially prevented it from working somehow -- proving that liberal ideas are yet again a failure?

A lot of the traditional Washington crags were rated stiff. Outer Space was 5.8 or 5.8+ in the early guidebooks. Midway is way hard for 5.5. Even though it is only hard for a couple of moves, Libra is 5.10a. In more recent times, maybe folks are traveling more or maybe it is just grade inflation at work, but I don't think these climbs would be rated the same today. That is not "sandbagging," though. It is just local variation in ratings. Sandbagging is where somebody rates something "light" in thinking later climbers will be impressed at how they must have been a master because they thought it was "only 5.9." (OK, I realize that no "master" would admit to even climbing a 5.9. It is really sandbagging when they say it is "only 5.12b.")

I think you are on safe ground suggesting that alcohol does more damage to society than meth, Builder. It may not be clear what that says about the drug war or drunk driving enforcement, but I bet there are a lot more alcoholics (x 100? 10,000?) than meth addicts in this country and the real costs are almost certainly vastly greater. (I use the "hedge" words "I think" and "almost certainly" to acknowledge I don't have a factual basis, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.)

Isn't that kind of like what they are saying about the Pratt River area, proposed for an expansion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness? Aren't you really just saying it is either A)wilderness designation or B)logging? You note no actual proposal except that "it is inevitable." For sure, logging industry representatives will pursue their interests wherever they can and I don't disagree with you overall. I DO think we should be protecting public and for that matter private lands -- especially old growth -- but I also think we should be looking at recreational interests and broader management priorities. --- In areas close to urban centers, should we be saying there will be no mountain bike riding? Should hiking even on established trails close to the road be restricted to a set number of parties to protect "solitude?" (Think about places like the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest near Snoqualmie Pass or the Mt. Hood National Forest.) Should we disallow the use of chain saws for trail maintenance or (for rock climbers) power drills for even the replacement of existing and rusting rock climbing anchors that have been there in some cases for decades - or for that matter should we ban all pitons and slings on trees as was the rule just a few years ago? Meanwhile, should we say that Federally protected "Wilderness Areas" are subject to case-by-case exceptions for float planes, boy scouts, and campgrounds? Should they normally include old clearcuts? In general, I think Wilderness Area designation should be reserved for large areas of wilderness that can be and should be surrounded by more recreation oriented areas that are managed for preservation of habitat and scenery. Wilderness is the core, not the fringe. --- Let's strengthen the roadless area rule through a Congressional mandate so that Conservation people don't have to rely upon Wilderness designation - even if it involves compromise of the core value of Wilderness - as their only hope.

There are three pretty friendly 5.8 crack climbs at the Pearly Gates (Leavenworth) that will take as much pro as you want to place.

Whitehorse is a good choice and I bet Pugh would be good. I bet it is a long way to Mt. Daniel right now. There are a lot of good peaks off Highway 20, too.

Yup. In the period, say, 10 - 25 years following replanting, most regrowth areas are darn near impenetrable and, if left unplanted, it is not much better. Given time it tends to develop more diverse forest and look more like the real thing. For example" back east, where the logging took place over 100 years ago, places like the Pemigewasset Wilderness actually "feel" like wild and pristine landscape. I suppose if there were any "real" forest left I might not say that, but still I think the second growth around here will also look more like a natural forest in 100 years. (This, of course, might be an argument in favor of imposing long term protection for areas where wilderness area designation is not now appropriate or desirable for recreation management or other reasons.)

Second growth generally doesn't sound to me like "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man" and I for one enjoy seeing the big trees that you find in old growth forest. It is a whole different setting than a Douglas Fir plantation with weed species like Hemlock starting up or Slide Maple or Alders taking over in areas where the fir doesn't dominate. I think, however, the question of "human pleasure" is not the defining factor for many people who advocate on wilderness issues.

That was my initial reaction, Rat, but then again I didn't want to get in an argument over who knows the most about metal chop saws.

When you see something scary, all you can do is to offer some advice or assistance. Sometimes they will take you up on such an offer and sometimes not. And sometimes the assistance offered is not very helpful or may come from someone who really isn't much more knowledgeable or is just plain wrong. Such is the nature of climbing in popular areas and these issues are not exclusive to beginners crags but tend to come up at such places a lot.

Mr.Family, there are tons of places you can go climbing and see nobody. Just look at "select climbs" and five star crags close to the parking lot as places to avoid. Or go early in the morning or when the weather is marginal.

Aren't We did Rock and GNS actually exactly where you'd WANT to see people who don't know what they are doing? Yes, its a good thing nobody got hurt, perhaps, but unless we went through some really unusual instruction and apprenticeship any of us with any initiative have gone out and done stupid things or gotten in the way of more "qualified" climbers at some point or other. Guy at 38 will probably not do that again, eh? And he might actually decide to pursue some basic knowledge or take up a different hobby. Guy on GNS' biggest problem sounds as if he may have embarassed himself. If you don't want to be around this kind of stuff, don't go to a popular and famous beginner's crag on the weekend.

Builder: I have heard some suggestions that tougher DUI enforcement is having some beneficial impact on rates of drunk driving. Clearly there are a lot of drivers who have had their licenses suspended and been ordered into treatment - both actions that we would assume would help address the danger posed by drunk drivers - but we also read about how those damn drunks drive anyway and treatment is rarely effective in the long term. Do you know if there has been a comprehensive and scientific assessment of how effective our approach has been? If we determined the present programs have not been effective, would you support more active intervention - say roadblocks throughout the City or putting all drunk drivers in jail for extended sentences?

Not only did he misunderstand your post, but Fairweather is misconstruing the most basic argument raised by those who say the drug war is failing. And ignoring the history of our efforts. Yes, those generally on the right tend to scoff at notions of any "disease model" for drug or alcohol or drug treatment and prevention measures and urge more jail and tighter law enforcement rather than some "kid gloves" approach. However, whether you think the graph I linked on the prior page is flawed or not, you must believe the war on drugs is not working if you are convinced that the meth epidemic rages on in the face of how many task forces and special blah blah blah units, and "zero tolerance" grandstanding from everyone from the dog catcher and local pastor to the governor and the president's "drug czar" over the last 15 years? If you think we need MORE enforcement and LESS tolerlance after 25 years of mandatory sentencing and "DARE" programs, just what should be next? Dope dogs in every high school and vigilante law enforcement on rural roads? Forced antabuse dosages? Meanwhile, we have the highest rate of incarceration of just about any country - if not the highest rate period. We have the toughest drug sentencing laws of any nation that we consider "civilized." We have the biggest international drug enforcement program in the world by a factor of what - 100? Drug addicts and alcoholics are shunned from society and generally considered pariahs who will never "contribute" to society and who should be given minimal services if any along with minimal civil rights. Somehow, Fairweather still claims "our" side (the misguided liberal segment of society) has rammed some kind of liberal approach down the throat of this poor nation and it has been a failure? Say what? It looks like the failure here has been the drug war's "we're going to impose a cure on our society through unprecedented government intervention and massive cash expenditures" approach. Nobody is arguing that meth is a good thing. Few except maybe our friend from Portland who participated in a recent thread would argue that Heroine is OK and that is not really what he said, either. I haven't heard anybody come out in support of encouraging alcoholism.

Was there any concrete threat that the area that has been incorporated into the Wild Sky Wilderness was going to be logged? Were there any actual proposals or preparations for a timber sale any time soon?

www.drug-war.us