W

Ha! I could smell the alcohol on you from half a pitch away. 'A' for effort, anyway. My top 5 on this list would probably, Forrest, include sitting on our backpack for 5 hours on top of the Andromeda Strain waiting for daybreak so we could find the descent; after 18 hours of climbing, we enjoyed temps in the high teens, light snowfall, and with a refreshing 10-15 mph wind adding to the ambiance. I slept for 17 consecutive hours after getting down that morning, probably a personal best. However, what I am sure remains my most physically demanding day in the mountains is my first time up Liberty Ridge in May of 1994. At the time, it was easily the biggest and steepest route either Joe or I had ever attempted. We started from Carbon River/Ipsut since it was early season, and everything above 4000' was solidly snowed in. After hiking into treeline friday night followed by an arduous day reaching Thumb Rock, Joe and I got up at 3 AM and left camp at 4. Passing the short step just above the camp constituted the first time I had ever swung an ice tool and I placed my first ice screw to go with that. This was followed by 12 hours of horrendous trailbreaking in up to 3 feet of unconsolidated snow, in places overlaying bulletproof ice. For much of the section passing the Black Pyramid, which we chose to do far out to the left with heavy exposure to Willis Wall/Thermogenesis, we were essentially digging a trench uphill. The descent down the Winthrop took us into the fog and endless wandering around trying to find Moraine Park. Reached the car at Ipsut Creek trailhead at 4 AM, hour 24. Reached Seattle at 6 AM, after some strange hallucinations enroute. Arrived at work at 7:15 AM. Slept at desk until 4 PM. In a display of how route conditions, fitness, and experience, can affect a climb, when I ascended the route again two years later, the section from Thumb Rock to Liberty Cap went in 4 1/2 hours, an almost casual day in the mountains.

No, don't worry- no fees. In short, starting next season horses are not allowed on the trails, meaning, climbers will have to pack all their own supplies in and out of Rio Blanco and D'Agostini camps. And, the squalid "cooking shelters" will be removed, and not replaced. The former makes the trip cheaper, really, and makes you more fit. The latter is not a huge loss either- they are gross and leak like sieves- you just need to bring a bigger basecamp tent for cooking and hanging out. New Patagonia Regulations

What a load of bollocks. I worked in SAR for many years and while I've seen many situations where climbers made foolish choices, I've never met anyone who was so supremely ignorant of the consequences of their decisions that your statement advocates. In the context of the recent incident, you seem to suggest that these guys charged headlong up the mountain without a care to anyone or even themselves. That is at best uninformed, speculative hyperbole. Almost every climber realizes fully that decisions in the mountains might be life or death, not only for themselves but for others. At least part of the attraction of climbing is the immediacy of such situations and the level of responsibility one must assume for one's actions. Most climbers are painfully aware of this relationship, but regardless, they are still human and subject to making mistakes; like any segment of our species, some pay the ultimate price for those mistakes. I would suggest that climbers are more in touch with the immediacy of their own lives than most other people; the only other group that might compare is soldiers in combat. In the end, simply being there is a choice; but your assumption is poor and off base.

We climbed Weeping Pillar with the Teardrop finish on saturday. First two pitches were moderate WI5 with excellent, plastic ice from top to bottom. Ice doesn't get any better! 2nd lead is a touch harder due to some lacy mushrooms at the start but returns to deep blue plastic. Final pitch is solid 5+, we snuck the pillar on the left side and behind, then climbed by stemming between the pillar and the next one right before stepping out left onto the Teardrop pillar directly, near the top. Lots of technical, dry ice on the pillars, very steep, but decent rests and good pro keep it from being grade 6. The prow of the pillar direct looked very cool but would be a 'full value experience'. Climbed Oh Le Tabernac on sunday; first half is the crux, can chimney and stem between two pillars for 15 meters but has very steep and technical exit right on overhanging mushrooms. When partners followed, the right hand pillar in the chimney cracked and settled about one inch, and when we got back to the base, the bottom of this pillar had a crack running through it- the pillar may be entirely unsupported, so be careful. In general, Mt. Wilson and the Ghost are having fabulous seasons, there are a lot of rare things in condition this year. The snowpack is big so use some prudence, but this weekend seemed surprisingly stable. Has the potential to change quickly, as always...

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. They could have met the same fate climbing the south side in the middle of summer- it has happened before and will happen again. What "did them in" was likely a series of mistakes and fateful decisions- indeed, being in the wrong place at the wrong time could have been one of them, but to say that "climbing a hard route on Mt. Hood in winter" is the sole cause relies entirely on hindsight. It is entirely possible to safely climb any hard route, anywhere, anytime of year. If your driving on a remote road, and pass a gas station without filling up, then run out of gas 60 miles down the road, what is to blame? Driving on remote roads? Or the decision to not fill up? Look everyone wants a packaged lesson to learn from this. There probably isn't going to be one. As a long time climber I don't see much to learn here. In hindsight every accident was avoidable, climbing or otherwise. People make wise decisions and unwise decisions, the latter being the ones made without insight. This story has spawned yet another debate about "risk taking" and why people climb, focusing on and blaming the activity instead of the mind that is engaged in it. If I've learned one thing in climbing it is that intuition is never wrong, and that when there is insight, there is no risk. That's all I will say on the matter.

Supposedly Colin is writing a feature article. Either way, with the route done in late July, the next two issues (17/18) were probably already in production. Most likely you'll see something in #19...patience, patience!

H.U.V.A. Network- Distances Solar Fields- Reflective Sequences Killer ambient and atmospheric grooves.

Jon, I know exactly what you are saying. However, where do you think slabs form? No, of course they don't form in the steep gully you are climbing. They form on the snow slopes that the some gullies rolls off into, for starters. This shot from the other thread: shows that one of the gullies the climbers might have taken (the left one) ends in a 40+ degree snowbowl hanging over the route...a bowl which faces north/northeast- i.e. the lee side of the prevailing south/southwest winds of this storm. The likelihood of deposition and/or cross loading in that bowl is high to say the least! And with the amount of new snow natural releases are probably occurring as we speak. You do not have to be standing on dangerous snow to die in an avalanche and there are countless examples proving that.

Not ON the route-- how about low angle terrain lying above the route? Huntington Ravine by the way is the scene of more than one avalanche death from slides releasing above the gully.

In high winds, 23" of new snow will feel very much like 10' of new snow while trying to tent camp in the wrong place. A partner and I once spent an entire night near Alta Vista on Mt. Rainier- that's treeline- digging continuously, taking shifts, just trying to keep the tent above the surface. In the morning, outside our walled in tent site, there was "only" about 2 feet of new snow. My point is that 23" of new snow isn't something to pooh-pooh whether it's Alaska or Oregon. For someone who has endured Denali storms, your lack of understanding of this is surprising- especially because I suspect that your "10 feet of snow in one night" is more likely 4 to 5 feet that drifted in your tent site that was probably dug in about the same amount. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the drifts were 10+ feet. No doubt that Alaska snowfalls can approach ridiculous amounts, but 10 feet of measured depth on an unobstructed slope equates to an average of 15" an hour over an 8 hour night. The biggest snowfall I've been in in Alaska involved about 9 feet of new, undrifted, snow which took about 50 hours to fall. Even at that rate, we thought we were going to be buried alive, and there sure as hell wasn't any sleeping going on. Sorry to nitpick your statistics but the amount of experience you seem to have makes your questions and (seeming) accusations all the more perplexing.

First of all,if the freezing level jumped all the way to 7000' after so much new snow, that sounds like a recipe for extreme avy hazards. Moreover, I can tell you that the worst conditions for trying to effect a rescue (or just trying to go climbing...) on peaks like this is leaving from the parking lot in a cold rain and climbing up into high winds and subfreezing conditions. I would vastly prefer that it were snowing at all elevations, even if it were 0 degrees F, than to get soaked in the rain then climb into a blizzard up higher. The conditions on the Cascade volcanoes in winter storms like these are easily enough to put anyone's life in jeopardy, so Jon, while your question is understandable I think you should assume that everyone is doing the best that can be done, and, that the above mentioned adage about not placing undue risk upon rescuers is- rightfully- embedded deep in the minds of all SAR personnel.

Thanks for sharing this, actually. When I first visited Slesse in 1995, we went too far up the logging road on the approach and ended up coming to the propeller cairn. I had known about the crash but had thought little about it until then. It became a lot more real when we found a doll, and a toothbrush.

Right you are. But the coup could have solved the problem by removing Allende from power and putting him and his people on trial for violations of the law. They could have then had new elections and let the people decide what's next- given Allende's failing popularity, it's pretty unlikely the leftists would have retained power. This seems to be exactly what is happening in recent, non-violent coups in Thailand and Fiji. Perhaps Allende's supporters would have forcibly resisted, but there are ways to retain law and order without pulling the trigger on everyone. Allende's wrongs, and an intense dislike for the political ideals he stood for, in no way justified what followed. Okay, point taken. I suppose if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose between living under Castro or Pinochet, I'd choose the latter because there's some badass climbing in the south of Chile and I could sneak over the border to climb in Bariloche also. And I don't like the tropics for much longer than a week at a time. Seriously though...I admit it'd be a lot easier to stay under the political radar in 70's Chile than in Cuba. But either way you're still at one level or another living in fear of the leadership. What sort of life is that? More on point, I refuse to make statements like "at least he wasn't a communist" that in some small way diminish the horrors he inflicted on his people. We can talk about which political system we'd choose not to live under all day long, but the fact is that no one in these countries really had a choice in the matter, they got what they were born with, and I doubt the killing and fear meant anything more or less to them than it would anywhere else. The occasion that has prompted this discussion is Pinochet's death, which seems an appropriate time to discuss his legacy. "Why the leftists don't hate leftist dictators just as much" could be a valid discussion point, but really, in the end all this is doing is causing people to flee to their corners and, inadvertantly, the atrocities committed by both rightist and leftist dictators begin to grow justifications. We'd be better off focusing primarily on the things we agree on- like, Big Government Killing Citizens=BAD.

Allende's government was disastrous, repressive, and very unpopular- but it was still an elected government. I'm not sure that a violent overthrow of the government followed by not just a reciprocal suppression of free speech, but a physical purging and extermination of political opponents and anyone suspected of having an opposing viewpoint can be considered "less evil". If Pinochet's coup was truly meant to "save Chile", then an immediate restoring of the constitution, free speech, and an new election would have certainly been the lesser of two evils and might have served justice. Instead, his aims became immediately clear as we have seen. What's the difference? Speak up against a communist regime or a right wing military dictator and either way, you'll have the electrodes hooked up to your nuts in no time. I won't pretend to "prefer" one to the other just because the label is different. This is where it starts. Maybe if our biases were more tempered, we would not as a species continue to allow sympathies to develop for the motives behind the Castro's and Pinochets of the world. Maybe the far left has sympathies for Castro and Che and in some ways forgives them for the murders they committed, because, deep down, they actually still think communism might work. Communism seems noble as an ideal, but it is an utter failure for the same reason- it's an ideal, that has no basis in reality as related to human nature, pretending as it does that individualism can be eliminated. Especially when the very propagation of such an agenda is just another form of individualism in itself. The end game is that everyone becomes either "useful" or "expendable" for one's needs. We're doing injustice if we do not promote full and universal condemnation of such leaders and actions regardless of how our political biases want us to explain them away.

Pinochet and Castro, while miles apart in their political views, are actually very near to one another in their tactics- both spoke to the people in terms that cleverly disguised their blatant grab for consolidated, personal power. Which can be the only way there are so many people in Chile who still think Pinochet was a "hero" who "saved Chile from Communism". And Castro took power under the ruse that he was saving the people from a brutal dictator and creating an "equal society". Both countries exchanged one form of oppression for another in different clothes. That Pinochet supporters can to this day openly excuse the torture and killings of thousands and the suppression of free speech as "necessary" to "save Chile" prove once again that ideologues and nationalists are the most dangerous individuals in any society. Historically, humans are inherently self-serving enough that they will excuse almost any atrocity committed in the name of their own agenda. End justifies the means, yadda yadda. I wonder if, many generations from now, the collective consciousness of humans will ever embrace the means AS the end.

A friend got a spendy ticket there once. His quote afterwards was "I think I just bought the Concrete Police Department a year's supply of inflatable dolls!"

CONCRETE!!!

Solid Gold- not a good choice when your finger pads are already cracked and bleeding A couple more less talked about but great ones: Left and Right Mel Cracks The Bruiser Womans Work is Never Done Ball Bearings Baskerville Crack Friendly Hands

My new favorite is Coarse and Buggy. One of the few difficult crack climbs in Josh that is actually a crack climb and not hard runout face climbing leading to a 5.9 crack. Some old favorites: Tax Man Geronimo Rollerball Head Over Heels O'Kelleys Crack The Flake too many to list indeed

Pretty classic Joshua Tree stuff...runout face to reach the crack. Semi-Tough (nearby) is another one of those routes that got a 10d rating because someone just didn't want to call it 5.11. Short, but relentless.

I think it's also worth noting that removing Saddam has had the unforeseen (?...it's important to always have an enemy, apparently) consequence of increasing Iran's regional power and influence. Saddam was a major check on Iran and also made Iraq a formidable geographic boundary from bridging Shia Iran to Shia Syria. Iran likely sees today's Iraq as a golden opportunity to create a expansive Shiite sphere of influence- the resulting posturing and perception of "threat" (depending on who you believe) is of course causing the US government's grand plans for the region to backfire completely, not to mention, makes the Sunni/Wahabi Muslim Middle East countries very agitated.

Fairweather- Just to be clear, I left the NPS 7 years ago. I worked as a climbing ranger on Rainier from 95-99, and I never have worked NPS in Alaska or anywhere else. Although I might have some insight into the workings of the system that others might not, I don't consider myself a spokesman for the NPS anymore than the next person. The reason I believe that the Parks should continue to be held and administrated solely by the government is simple- the parks are a national treasure that are part of our heritage and something with which we can all collectively identify. While government institutions have proven to be inherently flawed, our government is also the only real agency that is at least in theory supposed to represent the collective interest. Private interests work for the individual and no matter how well intentioned, I don't believe will put the land and the public as the top priority. The government is composed of a collection of the same self-serving individuals therefore is not immune, but at least we have the ability to scrutinize the government and hold it accountable. Yep. No doubt about it. All air taxis are currently concessioned and pay the NPS a healthy fee for being able to land in the park. Landing is the key word. The airspace is free and therefore the NPS cannot charge air taxis for scenic flights that do not land on glaciers, although many of those do. But this allows air taxis from other places like Anchorage, Willow, Cantwell, etc. to do McKinley scenic flights w/o paying a fee. The hot button issue of late has become the noise generated by all these planes. Personally I find it conflicting to try to choose sides- when I've been climbing in the Ruth in June or July, the airplane noise is really- really- annoying. Yosemite seems more peaceful some days. About the time I start thinking they should somehow limit this, I remember that I flew in there on one of those planes too. It's a double edged sword. The NPS is monitoring the noise now with sound meters and observers taking field obs. While the NPS may have no real way to limit flights, the factor that can't be ignored is the air traffic safety issues- the number of planes in the air at any one time is often downright frightening. While the Talkeetna pilots all communicate with known checkpoints and agree on common directions to travel through narrow passes, other aircraft from outside Talkeetna do come into the mountains and don't always follow the same protocol or know how to call their checkpoints. I'd have no problem with this either, but given the level of use and traffic on the west buttress, that will never happen. It's a new world. To be honest, Denali would be utterly trashed if the rangers were not up there doing what they do, and in the long run, that alone makes it worthwhile. There might be no way around a mountaineering fee, but no doubt about it, that price is absolutely absurd, especially when it is essentially trying to fill a shortfall of costs associated with other park operations that don't seem to involve the climbing program. Hundreds of thousands of people visit the north side of the park each year and aren't being asked to bear any of these costs. I tell you what I would rather see- I'd rather see the Denali NP entrance fee go up to $50 for every user, scrap the special use fees, and have all the park's current services remain intact and funded by the entrance fee and any additional government funding required, with oversight on park spending budgets that will ensure that the park isn't paying for pork. If only all users were this conscious, but sadly, what I've seen some users doing on Denali and Rainier, and elsewhere, makes it clear why some level of official stewardship is necessary in high use places.

The official answer will probably have something to do with the high traffic, heavy user impact, and resulting environmental degradation (if you have ever seen the 17K camp no explanation is needed...). On the other hand, it would be quite interesting if we could accurately quantify the change in climber numbers on Denali if the NPS were not on the mountain at all- some have postulated that many wouldn't otherwise attempt it knowing that SAR personnel and a medical camp wasn't relatively close by. Then again, being one of the good old 7 summits, I'm not sure the numbers would drop as much as we would hope.

There is no defined "crux" on this route- it is mostly walking on a broad ridge with a couple of narrow sections, and navigating some well concealed crevasses splitting the ridgecrest. The cornices that do exist are very easy to get around. There is nothing even close to 55 degrees. On the section between 12,400 and Foraker you will traverse some sidehill slopes up to maybe 35-40 degrees, and on the final 5000 feet up to the summit it does not exceed 40 degrees. Crosson might have the steepest climbing of the entire route, but not much steeper than the above.

Fairweather, Some of the very same people who are the driving force for increasing Denali mountaineering fees are working hard to provide additional "access" to the park, at no extra cost to those users- From the 2001 AAC newsletter: "As a result of legislation passed by Congress at the urging of Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski, Denali National Park and Preserve is investigating three primary issues: 1) whether it is feasible to charge mountaineers for rescues on Mt. McKinley, 2) whether it is feasible to require climbers to show proof of medical insurance before being issued a climbing permit, and 3) whether any adjustments need to be made to the fee structure for mountaineering permits." Murkowski has been trying very hard to open the south side to full access for snowmachines for many years, as well as pushing for a major new road and railroad to be built into the north side of the park. While the above article reference is several years old and doesn't speak about the current fee increase proposal, Alaska's entrenched conservative delegate has not so far lodged any objection to it. I don't doubt that some of the "environmental elitists" are applauding any effort to keep humans out of wilderness areas, but can you specifically cite any source that such groups have had a direct involvement in the creation of these policies in the NPS? Because in the years I worked for the NPS and with my continued friendships with a number of the Denali and Rainier managers, my impression is that the fees are the result of not only a stifling bureaucracy and inefficient spending, but most of all, a systematic, decades long, bipartisan neglect of the National Park Service as a budget priority. Demonizing park employees as elitists bent on keeping the park to themselves is inaccurate at best. The problem is far more complex. Perhaps this warrants a further discussion of what the future purpose and role of our National Park Service should be? The NPS was founded on the principle of providing access and enjoyment to the land while preserving the land in its original, unspoiled state "for future generations to enjoy". The NPS was not founded simply to provide unbridled access. Regardless of its purpose, the fact is that the Parks are vastly underfunded by Congress. This is my mind doesn't therefore justify open ended increases in special use fees that will keep us all from affording them, but I think the public should demand that the Parks again become a priority. I have a suspicion that the end goal has been to bankrupt the parks to the point where they will be able to justify a large sell off to private interests for the administration of the park lands. In my view that would be not only the worst possible turn of events for the care of the land, but also would only guarantee a further increase in costs to you and I for using it. If you decry the NPS using public access as a cash cow under cover of the government, why would we feel any better if it were private citizens getting rich off public land? Fairweather I know you have a deep distrust of anything related to government (who doesn't?)...but I feel very strongly that the NPS is one government institute that, although in vast need of restructure and reprioritizing, should remain in the domain of government control; provided that full public accountability and oversight into operating budgets and wasteful spending can be achieved (can it?), this is what in the long run will be best for the land and for continued, affordable, future access for the public. I am very strongly against the Denali (and Rainier, etc.) Fee in the first place, and even moreso against the increase of it. I am not justifying them, but such fees are becoming popular because the parks otherwise do not have the budgets to provide for proper visitor management and access services, much less for things like road and building maintenance. While many would be happy to see the NPS mountaineering ranger programs dismantled entirely, as a long time user of both Denali and Rainier, it is hard to deny that the volume of visitor use on these peaks demands it and the presence of the rangers has made a positive impact on both safety and mountain cleanliness. The new age of visitor use includes mountaineering on a heavy scale, and in my view, the federal government should be providing the parks with the money they require (and not a penny more) to accomodate this- not pushing the cost off on the public a second time.