mattp

Thanks, Mark. I realized that Bigtree was not talking about the manly big bob machines when I saw his post with the picture. With the modern megatools being the "standard," I had not thought that a "simple" cordless drill might actually drill holes in rock. This might be a good compromise between Flintstone technology and the Big Mac when all I want to do is upgrade a belay anchor or something. Thanks, Bigtree. I think I'll follow up on this. The megamachines weight 15 pounds.

Bigtree, you have an unusual drill if you only get 4 holes per battery charge. 40 holes is more like it these days and even the first generation Bulldog would produce 6-8 holes for a 3 1/2" bolt in granite on a single battery charge. As for Flintstone rigs, I hear from a reliable source that there are better units out there than the rockpeck for efficiency, but slightly heavier. Depending on what Jamin has in mind, I'm not sure I'd go for the power drill. For one thing, they come with a hefty price tag. For another, they weigh a lot. If you are not drilling a lot of holes, and especially if you are not climbing on a roadside crag, the old fashioned set up may be preferable. A machine produces a better hole, though. Bigtree is right: practice somewhere benign before you butcher a potential route and spend the money for good hardware rather than junk. If you are going to place a bolt, make it a good one and consider using one of the bolts that is removable rather than a stud. Even if you put all your bolts in great places, someone is going to want to remove them one day - whether they are found unnecessary or require maintenance.

A party of 4 might be helpufl if there is unconsolidated snow on the approach.

I agree that anybody who is new to climbing and has limited background with different styles of climbing should probably not be bolting anything but he's already had that lecture, GSpot. If he wants to read about what an idiot he is and why he should not even think of placing a bolt, he can simply reread his "placing bolts" thread from last year. See here. For some information about bolting, here is one source. camp4.com It starts out with some advice about really considering whether what you plan to do is a good idea in the first place, but it also provides quite a bit of good information. Use a 3/8" bit for a 3/8" bolt hole.

Not really. You clearly have some kind of hard on for Marylou.

All the advice here is quite good but I will say that I've been climbing on double ropes for 25 years and I've taken and seen taken plenty of whippers and where the "proper" procedure of keeping them running through separate carabiners was not employed I have never seen any significant rope damage result from it. Similarly, German Climbers used to use 9mm ropes that were manufactured as "doubles" in the application known as "twins" as standard practice and I don't recall ever hearing that anybody was hurt because they didn't properly absorb a shock. Like I said: you are getting good advice here and I am not advocating that you ignore proper practices. But, as long as your belayer doesn't get mixed up and forget to hold on to the rope, or feeds out slack when they should be taking in the rope, you are pretty much always going to be as safe or safer climbing on double ropes than you might be on a single. And I believe this is true even if you fail to use that extra 'biner or draw to keep them running separately when you clip both ropes to the same gear or if you employ the "unrecommended" practice of using doubles as twins. Learn to do it right, but don't feel you have to freak out when for one reason or another you or your partner "breaks the rules." The biggest "danger" in using double ropes is there is always that potential for a belayer not used to using them to do things wrong and allow extra slack or to get tangled up right when you don't need that kind of problem. There may be some compromise of the ropes' engineered stretch and absorptive qualities if you don't do things right, and even if both parties are quite experienced there is always the potential for some good old fashioned rope salad. Overall, double ropes are great in a lot of different situations and their advantages, even for relatively straight forward cragging, are often overlooked. These include being able to have a tight belay through your last piece as you reach for the next clip, reducing rope drag, being able to leave a high piece for a top rope while retreating from a lead and still having a belay through the lower gear placements, being able to make double rope rappels, belaying two seconds, having an extra rope when something gets fouled up, and the obvious advantage when sharp edges may compromise the lead rope.

Basically you're right, Minx, but I think there is some greater tendency for younger men or women to be naive and I think our general sense of fashion, too, is also tending toward the more risque than in the past. Younger people are more influenced by current pop star dress codes and fashion magazine covers than are older folks, I bet. As to "if you respond in a reasonable fashion you won't be embarassed?" Are you kidding? Everybody around here likes to play "gottcha" and if somebody responds to a troll they are not at all unlikely to be called for it. Maybe it is just a fact of life, but if an apparently male avatar looks for partners there is about 1/10th the likelihood of games to follow.

There is some wisdom there, Muffy, but I think Minx has a point as well. When I saw that thread, I immediately thought: "what if she was NOT a troll? And why do we need to jump on any opportunity to make sex jokes and then pass it off as "they invited it and I'm not responsible for being a jerk?" You're right: a reasonably cautious female person who didn't want to be harassed might not oughtta post the way she did - but some people assume they can be straight forward about who they are and expect not to be treated with sarcasm or cynicism simply for looking to meet people. And I think a lot of younger women these days honestly don't understand that if they run around with almost nothing on or post under the name I'm-a-tease they are likely to find lots of men - juvenile or geriatric - reacting in a certain way they may find offensive.

I like a combination of the electrical tape and paint. Tape doesn't work well on 'biners, in particular, or pitons. And of course you have to change colors every once in a while or your steady partners will change to adopt your color so they can scam your gear, right Hxxxxxx?

You forgot to mention that the threshold is going up and for one year will be eliminated before it reverts to $1 million, and that the $1 million is actually $2 million for a married couple with a minimal amount of estate planning. But, in any case, I don't think the threshold is likely to remain at $1 million after that. Congress will raise it substantially - with bipartisan support.

I have no idea how our capital gains tax or for that matter our tax structure in general really compares with the rest of the world. Doesn't everybody take it for granted that the Euro's pay way more tax than we do? Is it all income tax? I believe I read not long ago that most or maybe even nearly all countries have estate taxes, no?

I make no such suggestion. I don't think the present 15% for capital gains is "fair." I'm not sure what it should be, but that is too low when you compare it to income tax rates.

WTF? Have I failed to acknowledge that we have philosophical differences? About the "death tax" label: if it is the time that these taxes are triggered that causes you concern (it is not necessarily when they are collected), how about we eliminate the step up in basis for capital gains? Then the tax would only be triggered when the asset is sold for monetary distribution or reinvestment by the heirs.

There you go again, with the same BS argument. You work all your life and save your paychecks and amass well over $4 million and therefore your heirs pay an estate tax? Estate tax is overwhelmingly applied to long term capital gains. Furthermore, Gary's argument about double taxation applies: property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. may all be argued to be double taxation.

Yup. The story that I heard was that not long ago some Republicans were arguing in Congress that the Estate Tax was putting family farms out of business and the Democrats challenged them to come up with a single example of where this had happened. As I recall, they could not. This point is made here: link.

Yes, we've covered this before. The threshold for estate taxes is $2 million, and $4 million for a couple. In the vast majority of cases this is a capital gains tax on growth that has not been taxed. How many people save their paychecks and build up a $4 million estate?

I like it. If there are some active threads I'm following, it is a good quick way to see whether there's anything new. I find it handy to have "past 24" (w/out spray) and "past 48" (with).

I stuck one in a crack in Darrington once, only to find the inside was much more way wider than the mouth than I thought (I purposely chose the largest cam I thought I could get in there). I ended up with a garbage placement for a belay anchor, but that wasn't the worst of it. I wasn't able to contract it and remove it, either. My partner and I both messed with it for a half hour and couldn't remove it even though we could retract the cams and even turn it around sideways inside the hole.

What I'm wondering is this: have they changed the requirements for Wilderness areas? I thought an area that had previously been logged or had roads was not supposed to "qualify" yet the Wild Sky Wilderness contains areas that have been at least selectively logged, I believe, and here is one that has at least one road and campground.

That Roaring River piece looks pretty large and it has some pretty low elevation land it it. Cool. But looking at Topozone, it appears that it may have a road and a campground in the middle of it. Am I reading this correctly? Is Shining Lake campground in the area proposed for new wilderness? http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=45.19926&lon=-122.03349&s=200&size=l&u=4&datum=nad83&layer=DRG100

I understand that the Roadless Area legislation is stalled for now, but Cantwell and Inslee have been working on it (these two have recently been working on funding for roadway repair and decommissioning with a strong environmental emphasis and fairly broad support as well).

It SHOULD generate tremendous public outcry if they propose to log in some place like Eagle Creek. There may be some parts of the Forest where I'd approve of some cutting that might even include some old growth if I knew more about the situation, but I doubt that is one of them. Is this something that you think will be subject to ebb and flow with every successive change in Presidential administrations? By the way: isn't there current legislative activity afoot which is intended to strengthen the Roadless Area Rule? Is that, in your opinion, of no reliable value?

Winter, Don't misunderstand me: good on you for pulling this thing together. In your last post, you at least answered one part of my question - as to the Tilly Jane area anyway: there was apparently a real proposal to log and some old growth groves would be protected by the proposed wilderness expansion. But although it is perhaps of greater interest to climbers than many of the other areas to be included, Tilly Jane is a tiny part of the land at issue. It is not clear from the materials you produce just how broadly there is a logging threat to all of the areas being included, or whether strengthening of the Roadless Area rule, various applications of the Endangered Species Act, or other pertinent law is sufficient to address such threat. However, you certainly deserve thanks from the climbing community for working to preserve the flanks of Mt. Hood and I bet you won't get many complaints about protecting some of the surrounding watershed areas as well. Are you uninterested in discussing wilderness management policies and the politics behind current efforts to expand wilderness other than to list the groups who have indicated agreement here?

Winter, I think there are probably few regular or even occasional posters to this board who would want to see a grossly expanded ski resort in the Tilly Jane area, though there may be some. Looking at the map that Joseph liinked, is that the area shown as “potential wilderness" or "unprotected wilderness” as opposed to areas potentially to be included in the expanded wilderness? If so, might the protection you report come from agreements made in consideration of but perhaps not specifically within the new wilderness? As for broader watershed and wild lands protection, I bet similarly there are not that many posters on this board who would support any logging of old growth forests anywhere in the Mount Hood area, but on the other hand I bet there is little real threat of such. I recently attended a summit including rangers from the Mount Hood National Forest and we talked about wilderness management issues with some of the key land managers involved. They spoke about recreation management issues and in particular the creation of a new plan for the management of motorized recreation throughout the National Forest and about the management of designated Wilderness. It wasn't on the agenda, but I didn't hear anything about threats of roadbuilding, mining or large scale logging. I don’t agree with Fairweather’s “line in the sand,” but there certainly ARE grounds for concern over what may happen with recreational access in wilderness areas. Not many years ago, for example, there was the fixed anchor ban that disallowed even the placement of rappel slings. The solitude provisions that I believe were central to the challenges brought by Wilderness Watch at Mount Hood, too, are subject to interpretation that may include severe limitation of even the most benign recreational use such as hiking on already established and maintained trails. I’m not posting against the proposed expansion of the Mount Hood Wilderness but to what extent is wilderness designation about recreation management as opposed to logging and road building?

I'd be interested to know what this proposal might really mean to recreational users or potential recreational users and to commercial interests and in particular those I see as particularly destructive like mining and logging. Are the areas to be added to the wilderness REALLY likely to be logged? If they are declared wilderness, will there be a different management approach when it comes to non-motorized recreation? I think you're a little overstated, Joseph, if you are suggesting that these areas must be declared wilderness or they are going to have chairlifts, roads, and new clearcuts.