W

quote: Originally posted by Matt Anderson: Check back issues of Climbing or Rock and Ice (I think R&I) . . . There's an article on the classic .10s of Joshua Tree. It came out just before a trip I took and was fantastic. It also included a good list of sub.10s. Realize that J-tree ratings are stiff, even for old schoool trad places, and the monzonite often requires a mind expanding experience before you realize exactly how weel your shoes can stick to it. As I recall, Bird of Fire was nice, and could probably be TR'd, Solid Gold was nice (bolts, that one). One of hte best single pitch routes there is a right lieaning .10b that I forget the name of, As aI recall, a tough lead for the grade, but the pro is there. TR's would require directionals - It really well known and I think is in Real Hidden Valley - Can some one help me out, here? Finally, its probably stiffer and less protected than what you are looking for [There's a run out to the first bolt (i.e. its hard to see) and the the crux hits you when you're 10 - 15 feet directly left of your last bolt], but if you're feeling really good towards the end of the week, or if you have a rope gun, the end-=all be-all climb at J-tree (imho) is Figure's on a Landscape - It's is one of the finest climbs I have ever been on. Matt Matt,You're referring undoubtedly to Illusion Dwellar in real Hidden Valley. That is without doubt one Joshua Tree's best climbs, and is my favorite climb I've done there. Most of it is actually .9 to .10a, but it's that way for every move. The crux is the last move, which might be .10b, but whether it actually is or not, you're pretty tired by then so it certainly feels it.I haven't done Solid Gold but everyone says the runouts on it are thought provoking even where the climbing isn't that tough.Another good .10b lead is Rollerball, in the Outback. The .10b moves are face moves, and protected by a nicely located bolt, and it is strenuous! Then you have to shake out on a nice rest ledge before tackling a very steep overhang split by a bomber hand crack. Classic! Figures is the beauty of Josh, but both leader and follower have to be solid due to the traverse you describe- at least one person I know whipped there and twisted an ankle.

quote: Originally posted by Yungaburra: If you want to try to clip a couple of bolt on a harder but well protected climb, try papawolsy (spelling?) its in hidden valley, its about 10b/c. I worked it a few times, the falls are not bad at all, very safe way to push yourself. I would also recomend room to shroom. one of my favorates, I may be their in april so maby I'll see you. josh Papa Woolsey...I second that endorsement, it is very well protected and a good confidence builder. For the opposite effect, go around the corner and climb Buissionier- what has to be the world's hardest 5.7. It's doable, but adjust your mind, it's a major sandbag. Oh yes, also- no trip to JTree is complete without doing Geronimo- the world's coolest 5.7. Climb either Double Cross or Dogleg on Old Woman Rock right above the campground, on the opposite side. Then find the big diving board with the wide crack. Climb up to it in a great position and throw over this with a bomber heel hook. Finally, for the world's most humbling experience, go try Bearded Cabbage. 10c, but that doesn't accurately describe what awaits you on this unique climb.

Crackhead: Here are some 5.9's that you should not miss: North Overhang, Intersection Rock- wild, airy step around, more intimidating than hard. Room to Shroom, Wonderland of Rocks- a long and scenic walk to get there, then a laser-cut splitter! Wild Wind (and Sail Away), Real Hidden Valley- classic fingers. Sail Away (5.8)- don't miss it. Get there early for both climbs- very popular. Dazed and Confused, Lenticular Dome- a cerebral but not too runout bolt clip up. Do Mental Physics right next to it while you're there- the best 5.7 in the monument. Overseer, Hemingway Buttress- gets steeper as you go, with well-protected crux finger crack through an overhang. Very cool. Touch and Go, Echo Cove- My favorite JT 5.9. Fingers and laybacking to a hand crack finish. Sustained. Invisibility Lessons, Split Rocks (I think that's where it is). Colorado Crack- Jumbo Rocks. A nice hand crack. Have fun finding your way off the top of the formation (it DOES go, just not obvious; welcome to Jtree! ) If you're solid to 5.9 you'll probably be trying some 10a's at least. So the following 10a's are not to be missed and are well-protected:Tax Man- IRS wall. Sustained crack goes from thin fingers all the way to offwidth.Prepackaged- Hemingway Buttress. This one is tight hands for me and feels hard for the grade. but i have huge hands. A great climb.There's another 10a on the far right end of Hemingway-the name escapes me. It climbs up right of a big roof then traverses out over it. Very cool, and not a giveaway 10a.Ball Bearings- Real Hidden Valley. Two pitches. The second one is a little thin on pro at the start but not too bad, and the anchor is good bolts. Nice face climbing connecting discontinuous crack systems on p1.Have a great trip. Note that my bias is trad, I'm sure someone out there who is more of a bolt clipping master can suggest some good bolted routes. I do know that the Echo Rock has some good and popular ones from 5.9-10c, but they are far from "sport" climbs. Heart and Sole (10a) is a great climb- but I found the first clip to be heady- holding a crimp 20 feet above a spanish-sword Yucca. After that you can enjoy the climbing! There's a 5.9 in the same area called Stick to What that is balancy-palming on smooth dishes- and if you blow the second and I think the third clip also you will hit the deck. Anyway, enjoy!

quote: Originally posted by erik: up until i crusie up in 01 carrea 4 asking if she would like to drive!!!! then maybe head to hawaii for the eveinng.... granted ladies i am still waiting for the 1st big check to clear, so it will have to be my pickup and a trip to the movie house for now and as far the antichrist goes, not interested i have already sold my soul..... No way, Jose- the "man in uniform" with the ambiguous world view, in full rebellion to his authoritative employer, who is content earning a meager wage for the benefit of his job being totally independent and suited to his lifestyle will defeat the hairsprayed, foo-foo dick in the Porsche anyday! The former of the above has SO MUCH potential for the woman to want to try to CHANGE in him? Get it?!!?

quote: Originally posted by erik: thats not hard 'w', chicks dig the unhindered free alpinist...we have more time to woo them and do not carry loads of regualtions or newbies behind us....we are allowed to express out opinions at any time regardless anti govt or company!!!! true, that is unless the climbing rangers are all secretly anarchist wingnuts...do you think that is possible? quote: Originally posted by erik: and we make a lot more money!!!!! You got me there. money talks i guess. but young, poor, college intern hotties seem to think 12 bucks an hour is pretty decadent, and sexy.

i got one- who do the chicks dig more, climbing rangers or guides?here's another one to think about-if a tree falls in the forest while a guided team is on the DC, does the guided team make a sound? [ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: W ]

quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: W, How do you reply to a post and break out those multiple quotes? Everytime I play with the instant UBB code bars I screw it up! When you press reply, make sure each individual paragraph you wish to respond to has the entirety of the prefix text and suffix text- the QUOTE in brackets and the part that says "originally posted by". For all individual sections. Then just type your responses in between each paragraph. [ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: W ]

quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: W,I think the fact that The Emmons often isn't "in shape" for as much of the season as is DC, plus the fact that DC has two or three "back up" variations (ie: Ingraham Direct early season, DC mid season, and south Emmons late season) is probably why Muir is the chosen route. Plus the fact that White River Campground isn't open early season to accomodate May or some June climbs and parking would be a problem. Depends on what is "in shape"- having worked on both sides multiple years, I always thought the DC to be far more hazardous and "out" in September than the Emmons. The icefall getting on the cleaver in some years particularly gets nasty.You also make a good case by example for getting WR campground open sooner, and/or trying to keep the road at least plowed if not open in the winter. Then again, funding plays into this. quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: I would just as soon see Emmons the preferred route for independents. Also, if RMI was allotted 1/2 of the permits for DC wouldn't that be an increase from the 1/3 they get now? (are my facts wrong here?...I honestly don't know) Yes, RMI gets 35 of the 110 slots. At least when last I worked there, which was 1999. I see what you're getting at here. Any guide service competition that does enter into the mix, which is already happening now and likely to expand (which is why public input is needed before the decisions get made for us) though would invariably require some sort of compromise- which logically makes the Emmons have to play into the whole scheme. I agree with you sentimentally on the Emmons, though, as I stated before- it's way more scenic on that side! The greater crowds on the Muir side notwithstanding, when I got moved over to Muir the thing I missed most were the sunsets from Schurman, the moon rising over Little T, and that sort of aura emanating from so much ice poised around one's location, frozen in motion. Awesome. quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: I am not sure the Emmons is any safer than DC. It is sure more scenic! I believe that Furher Finger in June or early July is the safest way up Rainier. (for a small party, that is) Safety ultimately is up to the climber- but you have to admit the falling debris issue on the DC far outdistances the Emmons for objective danger. Crevassed glacier travel is "objective" I guess, but both routes have it. quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: You are right about the Guide Shack at Muir. What an eye sore! I don't have a problem with huts in general though. Europe and Canadian Rockies/Interior Ranges have done well with them. They tend to concentrate people and help negate "mountain sprawl". I was pissed when Olympic NP started burning down public shelters back in the late 70's....but that is a different subject... Another possible approach I thought about here would be to rebuild and relocate all the buildings at Muir so that they are not so scattered, ugly, and taking up so commanding a presence in the camp. My point in regards to RMI having such an overbearing presence at Muir has greatly to do with the fact that one's arrival at Muir is right into the front door of two large huts. It's debatable about whether the clients should have a hut, but since there is one for the public and the guides, and for the climbing rangers (which at Muir is the size of a fricking closet! ) maybe some new huts could consolidate what is currently there to have less visual impact and provide the existing level of service. The bottom line no matter what is that the Gombu needs to be taken down. [ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: W ]

One more comment- should the mountain be reduced to having only one "guide route"- and it pains me say this because it (selfishly) has potential to "intrude" on a sentimental area and the place of my first roped climbs and a place that holds some special meaning- the Emmons is way more logical. It is less steep than the DC, WAY SAFER a route, and the terrain is FAR MORE conducive to allowing faster teams to pass slower teams than the DC ever will be. I cannot figure out why everyone flocks to the DC thinking it the easiest way up. It's a choss pile and has both rock and icefall danger that has killed many people. The Emmons has a longer approach and more crevassed terrain but technically and objectively is a no-brainer. A perfect route to guide.

quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: RMI is a first class operation. They not only open the door to many who lack the necessary experience to do the mountain "on their own", they have come to the rescue of many an "experienced" party as well. That said, I believe that a fair and competitive bidding process should reveal only ONE guide service to operate on Rainier. Lou and company have proven themselves time and time again. The Dissapointment Cleaver (with its minor variations) should be the only "guide route". The appointed guide service should not possess more than 1/2 of the available permits for this route. The Emmons, Kautz, Tahoma, Furher Finger, etc. and all of their permits, should be reserved exclusively for independents. At the very least, the climber-to-guide ratio for non-DC routes should not be allowed to exceed 1:1. Disclaimer: I have never been, nor have I ever used the services of a guide and/or guide service. My two cents. Brian While the issue of having one guide service versus allowing competition is debatable in my view, I agree with the rest of your proposal. You do of course realize that RMI would be absolutely livid with such an arrangement- much of it on the principle that it drastically cuts back their current on-mountain presence. Not to say I disagree with it, just that they won't like it.I also think that eyesore of a shelter- the "Gombu", that plywood shack that houses the clients, should be removed and not replaced. It is ugly and it additionally gives the Park concessionaire undue visual/aesthetic/intrusive presence. I can recall that the two most frequent questions I got from climbers at Muir were "what's the weather forecast"?, and, "what time is RMI leaving"? The Camp Schurman Rangers assured me that the IBP (Independent Business Permit) guided climbs over there (AAI, CAG, etc.) by and large completely blended in with other climbers as just another climbing group, whereas at Muir, RMI's 28+ group size(now reduced...), two large shelters, etc., has presented in my personal opinion a gross overbearing presence that causes independent climbing teams to have to plan around them. I might add, plan around them for one of two reasons- either to avoid them, or to "shadow" them because they are inexperienced themselves and want to stay close to the guides and let the guided team dictate their pace and decision to turn around, as well as having some knowledgeable and experienced climbing guides nearby in case they get in trouble.No climbing team, particularly one that is sanctioned by the park service, should command such a loud presence on the mountain. I support the action that has reduced their groups into two 12 person teams, which is also the limit for the general public, and I further support the removal of the client shelter which is not a historic building, and putting the clients in tents. This also, in my opinion, gives the clients a better "mountain" experience if the goal of many of them, as it seems to be, is to go on to bigger mountains like Denali that don't have protected huts to sleep in.All that said, having watched RMI up close in person for a few years, by and large they do their job and do it well. They have been a valuable resource for the NPS on many SARs on the mountain. They know the mountain, and they know how to get people up and down. They aren't perfect, they've made some mistakes, but who's perfect? There's some assholes in the group, but there are in every group. I don't like the past and current arrangement RMI has had with the park, but it's not really about RMI. It wouldn't matter who it was.Fairweather, just a question- Denali NP has six guide services that operate there, and it is working very well. Granted, it is a much larger mountain, but do you think it is impossible or inappropriate to allow competition and parity on Rainier? RMI is very competant, yet so are both AAI's, Rainier Alpine Guides, and CAG. If the NPS is going to sanction guided climbs, don't you think given the nature of climbing that the public should be given a choice of who to hire to teach them and take them up a cold and potentially dangerous mountain like Rainier? With the reduction of RMI presence that you propose- relegating them to the DC- and keeping the other four services as they currently are- one group a week, 9 clients/3 guides, weekdays only, different guide service each week, Emmons Glacier only- I think this works pretty well, and allows a choice to the client. Additionally, it leaves the Emmons (and Tahoma, et.al.) wide open to independent use on weekends. For that matter, on weekdays, the Emmons guide groups take up 12 of the 110 permits at Schurman/Emmons Flats- that's very acceptable, I think. I think the only thing that needs to happen is to tweak RMI's presence at Camp Muir. Something that would even the tables for the other four guide services, who under that arrangement are getting fewer user days on the mountain, might be allowing more lower mountain glacier access for snow schools, along with small (2-4 people maximum) private climbs on more remote routes, perhaps weekdays only. Just my thoughts.

"by the way, i know Erik" oops, too late!

quote: Originally posted by erik: whatca sayin 'w'??? nothing useful. maybe i misunderstood your post.

Another great Harding quote: Media Reporter on top of El Cap after the WEML Climb: "Why do you climb?" Harding: "Because we're insane".

quote: Originally posted by michael_layton: Then at band camp when we were top-roping the sand travers at larabee he raped my girlfriend and shat in her mouth. Wow, he IS an asshole! Now that kind of behavior is where I draw the line.

quote: Originally posted by erik: then the towns that have all the cool stuff must have something going on??? maybe it is what every individual person makes it...... sorry i just had to get my name dropping in for the day...

I may be wrong, but I think a few Bellingham climbing alumni include Steve House, Eli Helmuth, Alan Kearney, Scott DeCapio, and Steve Mascioli. The place must have something worthwhile going on.

I agree that the reservation by site system is unneeded and stifling. An overnight quota, in my view, might be acceptable if, once a permit is obtained, there is no red tape to wade through. But the long term recovery of the meadows I think is a good idea. The ropes are unsightly, but without them, these "way trails" continue to sprout up, get used/abused, eventually the meadows become a big dirty sand lot with little tufts of dead grass, and with no hope of recovery. So which is worse- temporary fixtures, or permanent destruction of the meadow? The hope I'm guessing is that in the long run, if people stay on the intended established trails, that the meadow will recover and these ropes and covers will be removed. It takes a short time to do years of damage. This is the modern reality of roadside wilderness, I'm afraid. People regulation is one thing, resource regulation another. Like the others said, if you don't want to see all that, tighten up your boots and keep hiking up the trail a few more days. It's out there.

"And the park might also consider setting aside two or three weekends when guided climbs are prohibited and Mount Rainier is reserved for amateurs, he said." The rest of the weekends, all those professional clients will be up there...

I hear it snowed in Russia the other day. "SO, how does this affect us here in the northwest??"

Fairweather,The facts are that there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the issue, and neither side realistically can or should, entirely, get their way. There must be something else that offers a better solution. I would be more open to the idea of the shuttle system if I knew that existing overnight quotas were to remain in place, and additionally, a daily quota were implemented. I am surprised to hear you express support for quotas, but that's a good step; actually I loathe the idea of quotas but in terms of preserving both the resource and the visitor experience in this heavily populated world of ours, quotas may be a necessary evil. As an aside, I remember one July evening about six years ago at Camp Schurman when we had- no lie- 227 people camped there.It was hell for everyone, particularly climbing the next day. It was before there was a quota, and I must have had at least 30 or 40 people demand to know why there wasn't a limit. My response was- 1) write to the park, and 2)if a quota gets implemented, and it will- don't complain if/when you get denied a permit and have to go somewhere else.I am curious as to what you define as "real, physical, environmental damage"? We need not split hairs on this, but I will say that in my view, sub-alpine meadows criss-crossed by social trails, fire rings burned into the ground and on the rocks, trees and the ground stripped of branches and deadfall for firewood, erosion, polluted water, and garbage are at the very least "impacts". I am not suggesting that overnighters do less damage than day users, but rather that the law of percentages allows for more such impacts with the introduction of higher numbers of people. Compare Paradise to Indian Henry's and you see what I'm talking about.This is straying into a debatable area- but I also feel that the wildlife issue should not be ignored or dismissed. There is a reason that the westside is teeming with wildlife- they have fled from the more crowded areas. I think that a careful balance of visitor use and the wildlife population should at least be considered, would you agree? I like your suggestion about odd/even shuttle days, etc., but there are other problems with the shuttle idea in general, in that people coming out of the backcountry at days/hours when the shuttle isn't operating are stranded- in an emergency this creates greater problems if they are relying on a ride out that they used to get in there. Another legitimate problem I pointed out before, that has nothing to do with wilderness aesthetics, is that the road is in a hazardous place. Go check out the Tahoma Creek picnic area...or what remains of it, to see what happens every couple of years in there. I agree, FW, that the Carbon/Mowich situation is going to make things worse. I am surprised that they have decided to kill the Carbon Road next time it floods. If anything, I would advocate that money be spent to improve the existing road into Carbon- the washouts there occur from a different type of situation than the west side-Falls Creek- a much smaller stream perpendicular to the road, and not from the main drain in the valley going on a rampaging death flood. A bridge/culvert/channel combination would be costly but might be able to preserve this crucial park access. The westside road does exist, yes, but the Carbon also exists and has been open much of the last 15 years- unlike the westside road. I would say keep it open, AND improve access and capacity at Mowich Lake and in other areas in the park that already have well-established visitor use. I think the precedent counts. And I honestly feel the benefits of spreading the impacts out to the west side and taking heat off other areas, while well-intentioned, will be more than offset by the negatives. Keep in mind, as I stated above, that opening the westside road will bring with it additional bureaucratic control and overseeing, which is something I imagine you would oppose. Just to make something clear-I did formerly work for the NPS, but ask anyone- I am far from a spokesperson for the NPS line, or that of any bureaucratic group. I have a great deal of gripes with the system, but I also believe in the basic principles of the foundation of the park system, given the unrestricted development and resource consumption and destruction that occurs almost everywhere else.Finally, I might add that I don't have a stigma about having to talk to or see people in the mountains. Quite the opposite, actually. But when I worked at Camp Muir I used to comfort myself as I waded through throngs of people trampling the fragile vegetation around Alta Vista, trying to put on my blinders, with the thought that places like Paradise exist so that the mainstream can have a beautiful place to hike and congregate, and so that places like the westside can simultaneously be there for those seeking something off the beaten path, something away from the crowds. And it allows Rainier to offer something for everyone. Is this unrealistic? If the road wasn't there, I assume that you wouldn't advocate building one. The road exists, but is unsafe, and given the controversy over crowds and wilderness aesthetics, would our energies be better served to improve facilities and access elsewhere, thus providing and preserving the right to a good experience for all users? [ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: W ]

Sweet troll, there, Payaso.

Did Walt have anything to do with the old "Silver Skis" race (I think that was the name of it...) race on Mt. Rainier way way back? It was a race from Muir to Paradise, the participants did a full-on banzai charge down the snowfield. At least one person got killed in this thing, crashing into fog shrouded rocks near McClure. It eventually got banned by Uncle Sugar due to safety concerns, or something. But it was great history.

Thanks, Peter, for illuminating the issue in a non-personal-agenda light. As Erik pointed out, Fairweather and I both failed to do this despite us both making some credible points. Well done. I might also add that opening the west side road and thereby increasing visitor use and impact to these areas will without question bring into being a problem that typical access advocates will abhor: More rangers, more restrictions, more quotas, more patrols, more maintenance===> all of which means more government regulations,more fees, more control. There will be a price to pay in many ways. Not to mention the cost and risk associated with the road washing out every year and the danger to visitors being trapped behind washouts and/or caught in them. MORA doesn't have the budget to cover backcountry patrols as it stands right now. With the added stress in this area, you can bet that they will find the money somehow- because "protecting the resource" is the Park's number one stated priority. which means the money will be siphoned away from visitor services that benefit a greater majority of park visitors- in the purpose of policing the wilderness. My father is THE backcountry on the west side of the park, by the way. The area is uncrowded enough now that they only employ one person to cover the whole place. And he spends most of his energy helping improve existing campsites, trails, and utilities, instead of having to play tree cop, which he tries to avoid anyway.

quote: Originally posted by payaso: W- Take another Bong hit and go back to bed. It's not like Fairweather is speaking for Gail Norton and advocating an 8 lane, raised drivearound highway to be built around the park or anything. P Puget is right in that this irrational spew only divides the environmental community when united, we would probably get most of what we want. Big $ developers are hoping that your incoherent ass shows up at public meetings because it makes the whole environmental community look like a bunch of dreadlocked hippies. Save your hatred for someone who deserves it [ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: payaso ] Constructive post. Thanks for clearing things up. "...get what we want". Who is this "we"? Does there need to be a united "environmental community" who all thinks alike and fights others who think differently, or does there need to be an integration of all people, who have regard for each other as well as the environment? I suggest compromise and communication, and you accuse me of hatred? Please explain. Fairweather suggests that perhaps if one wants remote wilderness one should go somewhere else- I call him on this and say that is absurd, and you accuse me of dividing the environmental community? Nice insults. This isn't a Yahoo chat room so mellow out.

quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: W- Your earlier comments now strike me as a veneer of civility betrayed by your attack on FW. An attack extended to the point of goofiness that you brought in the West Bank conflict. So much for mutual respect. I say just come out and attack; the pretense of civility is wearing poorly. Honestly I think that a west side isn’t such a bad idea but I am willing to say “hey why not leave one sector of the park relatively undeveloped.” The fact that you value such a outcome is important to me only in so far as you hold it. I completely disagree with much of your thought process yet the fact of my disagreement does not enter into my calculation with regard to west side road. The fact that I believe you honestly highly value the effects of “no road” is enough. Whether you value it because of some sense of spirituality or because of some malignant misanthropy matters not. I say if you want to ruminate over a fuzzy subject think about what number of people must hold an opinion before those holding a different one must compromise. For example let say there were two groups one development the other antidevelopment. If the ratio between the two was 50-50 we’d all agree compromise was fair what if the relative positions change At what point do compromise not have to be made. I say providing heartfelt guidance on this question rather than making references to a spiritual plane will prove far more helpful in the long run. First of all Peter, my last post was not intended as a personal attack on Fairweather- apologies to all if it comes off that way. And I didn't mean to drag an element of "spirituality" into it, yet I think that is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of my intent. Fairweather seems to have made the assumption in his post that the desire to keep the road closed and have uncrowded wilderness areas has something to do with "social issues"- by that I assume he means that it is a matter of one being anti-social towards others. For me it is something altogether different. I was trying to illustrate my values beyond merely declaring my position, as a means to provide a clearer understanding of it's importance; perhaps as you state that is unnecessary and off base and misses the point? After all, one's values are also reflective of one's spirituality so to speak? I agree that introducing this into a discussion can be decreasingly useful especially if not worded correctly, yet some part of expressing one's truth, for both sides, does carry some weight- if at base there is mutual regard for one another and hence a willingness to understand. Maybe I missed the mark, but I was attempting to bridge the gap between our different needs and to insist upon the mutual importance of BOTH person's needs.My attempts at "civility", Peter, are not fake. But conflicts are inevitable, and they must be addressed. I sincerely wish to share the land with Fairweather, you, and everyone else, but when someone like FW reduces the issue to stating in essence that one should "go elsewhere", I think that deserves an aggressive response-you can call it a personal attack, but that was not my intent. yes, my analogy to the West Bank was goofy and not exactly parallel, but elements of that extreme are similar in the way many problems- small or large- are addressed and approached by people. I think making light of it allows- if taken in the proper context for what it is- one to step back from the "go elsewhere" response and see the unreasonable-ness and silliness of that response. Maybe we can calm down now a little and stop telling each other to just "go away". And Peter, while I can agree that analyzing the numbers has some merit, I don't think a decision made on percentages is to be so cut and dried in regards to developing land. These are largely irreversible decisions when we choose to cut down trees and pave over land. Additionally, the very premise of the creation of the National Parks was to "preserve the land in its original state". People go to such places in order to see natural scenery, it is just that people use this land in different ways. There already have been compromises, Peter. Having roads in the park, even trails if taken to the extreme, are compromises in some respect. So the question is really- how much access is "enough"? In order to answer that, both sides need to express their needs and values, and both sides must listen to each other- as the WORD section in Cc.com says- not to respond, but to understand. Sorry that you feel my good intentions are just a facade, Peter, but I assure you that it ain't so. I think there is room for all, but both sides have to validate each other's values before any progress can be made. thanks.