W

also, btw, as conditions change on the mountain through the summer, the climbing rangers compile and update a "conditions report" based on reports from independent climbing teams and from the climbing ranger's route patrols, which the past half dozen seasons have covered most of the major routes on the peak. This report is distributed on the park mail system for all ranger information stations to have access. So try and ask someone at one of these stations (Longmire, Carbon, White River, Ohana, if you are not talking to a climbing ranger) if they have a copy of the report. Otherwise, be prepared for speculation. As Gator points out in his earlier post, the rangers really are eager to give information and to help, the trouble is, they don't always really know and sometimes they feel a guess is better than saying they don't know.

Nobody- I'm a former member of Gator's crew (sort of an honorary member these days I guess). I am here to tell you that there is no conspiracy among climbing rangers to mislead the public. The climbing rangers I worked with for a number of years were by and large an honest group of guys and gals who I would consider, even today as a non-NPS, a group of climbers first, rangers second. This status in fact occasionally rankled the NPS brass, that is, until a dangerous rescue occurred and then all of a sudden we were really popular. There have been a few individuals in the group through the years who were perhaps less experienced, or in any case, had different PERSONAL interpretations of route conditions, or else otherwise different attitudes towards providing information. Generally, speaking from experience, a vast majority of people asking us for beta ask questions they shouldn't have to ask, and by mid to late summer, honestly- we start getting into a pattern and getting a little burned out. Granted that is no excuse for reverse sandbagging climbers, but in terms of what happened to you, I think that is better than playing down the difficulty. Try to imagine yourself in the ranger's shoes, and the consequences of a rescue on the mountain. It's our ass on the line when it goes down. I've had people at Muir ask to rope up to me because they said they "didn't really know what they were doing", had a guy (in blue jeans) ask me to help him put his step in crampons onto a pair of Sorels (the only time I have ever actually told someone point blank that they should go down and take some lessons) and on a daily basis we'd get bombarded by foolish attitudes to the point where it is truly hard to not start seeing everyone with suspicion. Sorry you had to deal with that crappy beta. I will also assert that when you ask rangers in Longmire or anyone who is not a climbing ranger you should expect to get a whole garden variety of route information that will likely be subject more to hearsay and the ranger's opinion and misconceptions about climbing, and not on personal experience. Interestingly related to your Kautz story, I once met a guy at Paradise (who to me appeared to be guiding as he was very experienced and had two total gapers with him wearing brand new clothes and everything) going to do the Kautz. His partners nervously asked how steep the route was, I said up to 50 degrees and that several recent reports from climbing teams indicated that there was black ice in the chute and recommended screws and two tools- it was early August and I was not surprised at this report, as I had climbed the route in August years earlier and found the chute to be the same conditions. The leader broke in and insisted that there is NEVER ice in the chute, no one would ever have the need for two tools on that route, and that the angle is never steeper than 40 degrees. To be sure, I asked Gator his opinion later, and he says the angle is 50-55 depending on the season and time of year. I didn't have to ask him about the black ice because it wasn't my imagination that I placed two ice screws in the chute when I climbed it earlier. And I don't think it was off base to suggest two tools to climbers who are not comfortable on that type of terrain, as the two partners obviously were not. That team did not end up summitting, they turned back from Camp Hazard if I remember right. Probably because of the non-existent steep ice? The climbing rangers after awhile get a second sense for reading people; if we start hearing red flags questions, we generally will start sounding a bit more fatalistic. If you don't like it, then go find out the conditions for yourself. Mostly, that's what experienced climbers do.

FW, I agree with you on the Iran issue- Iran has been inching toward closer ties with the US for many years, and in one fell swoop Bush has managed to infuriate the entire populace and restoke years-old anger and hatred. Iranian citizens traditionally have looked favorably upon Americans- my dad traveled to Tehran on business in 1974 and 1975 and spoke repeatedly about how warmly received he was by the Iranians. Obviously a lot has changed since then, but it has been through the hands of a violent minority who have had the country in their grip of power since 1979. I have met numerous Iranian-Americans who say that most Iranian citizens they knew while living there were interested in closer ties with us. Certain elements in the Iranian government are certainly not friendly to the US and US interests, but the Iranians as a whole I believe are interested in ending the bad blood. The threatening elements in Iran could so easily have been addressed and subverted through diplomatic dialogues and overtures; instead, Bush came out with his guns blazing and most Iranians must wonder what the hell for? And also, must be wondering and questioning why the hell they should bother to be friends with the US if that is the way we want to deal with them- through threats and intimidation.Saddam has got to go, but Bush Sr. and Clinton did not have the answer or the wherewithall, and I doubt that Bush Jr. will have it either. Invasion of Iraq I think would be a grave mistake on behalf of the whole world.As for North Korea- the stronger our ties with China and South Korea, the sooner North Korea will move towards becoming a human-run government. The cult of Kim-Il-Jong will crumble when he is living on an island in the world. He is not stupid, and he knows that attacking the US militarily will result in annihilation of his country. It is all a big show of aversion and deterrance. I also believe the Chinese see the necessity of changing their ways- it is just that they have to change in their own time and not through force. Asian culture is very different than the west, and in time I do believe that the Koreans and Chinese will see what is needed and do the right thing- but only if we do our part to help this along without abrasive attitudes in our policies. Meanwhile, isolation, and thereby giving Kim no choice but to reach out to the US in the future is our best strategy, not threats of war and antagonistic rhetoric that only cause them to put on more armor and concentrate on resisting us rather than living with us.

Erik, As the patient you have every right to be wary of someone who claims to be experienced. Even if someone insists they are a paramedic or an EMT, you have the right to refuse treatment. If that person is really in fact trained properly, they will do nothing more than suggest that you allow them to treat you, but ultimately, if you refuse treatment that is the last word on the matter. An EMT is actually required by code to obtain permission to treat, doing otherwise is not only unethical from a human standpoint but opens them up to all sorts of liability issues. For others, there is the so-called "good-samaritan" law which means that if you give Joe-schmoe permission to treat you and he screws you up despite his best intentions, it would be very hard for you to obtain damages in court if he is not an EMT or licensed care provider. So ultimately, whether to let someone treat you is your call; having a high degree of training yourself is not only useful for helping others but will help you to determine if someone trying to treat you actually knows what they are doing.

Also, Courtenay, A "wilderness" EMT course is available and is provided in Pitkin, Colorado. The down side is that it is expensive (about $1600) and requires that you go to Colorado for about two or three weeks. However, this course will pretty much dial you in to deal with just about everything imaginable in a remote setting where "911" isn't available, and someone's injuries require immediate medical intervention. I've taken MOFA and also a regular (city) EMT, and also some wilderness oriented 1st responder training; MOFA is a good introductory course but it falls far short of the other options out there. For most, a WFR course is the most practical, affordable and comprehensive option available.

Alasdair, I climbed the West Ridge in late April several years ago. In my experience, and through many stories, after mid May the west ridge snow usually turns poor. It will also depend on the amount of snowfall of the previous winter. It almost seems that the conditions for the route are predetermined at the start of the year- some years it is really good, others terrible. If it is bad, no amount of waiting will work and you should run away. The first section of the route can be extremely dangerous in poor snow conditions, and the cornice climbing will be both difficult and dangerous. In late April we found great conditions- the snow happened to be consolidated due to a mild winter snowpack and recent stable weather, and the cornices were nicely frozen in place- although they still should be given a wide berth. Personally, I would shoot for late April to no later than late May for this route. June is generally too warm in my opinion for routes in the Alaska Range at lower elevations that involve lots of snow climbing. If you want more specific beta send me a PM.

Erik, Yes in fact this shoulder dislocation was anterior, and quite obvious upon visual inspection of the bare shoulder. I'm a former EMT and my protocol told me not to attempt to reduce the dislocation (my EMT was not a wilderness oriented course). I had seen a shoulder dislocation once before, and the guy raised his arm over his head because it gave him comfort- the relaxation it gave him caused his arm to pop back in suddenly. After trying that very gently with this guy, we decided to act no further, immobilize it, and simply get him down to flat ground. It was very fortunate that Wes from Vancouver showed up with his partner Paul. Wes, who did the relocation, very clearly had practiced what he performed, and knew what he was doing. I agree that stuff like this should not be attempted without prior training, which is to say I would highly recommend a WFR or Wilderness EMT course for all climbers. One of my climbing partners is a former wilderness EMT and was trained how to decompress a tension pneumothorax. They essentially tell you- "you shouldn't ever do this to someone in the city, however...if it's your buddy in the middle of nowhere, here's how to save his/her life" and they proceed to show you how to plunge a knife and a hollow pen or tube between ribs #1 and #2 intercostal spaces and let the air out. So there is a great deal of benefit from taking one of these courses. Until I get a chance to renew my EMT and retrain, I will say that if I see this injury again in the middle of nowhere, I would have to at least consider trying it given that I assisted in one already. Meanwhile- I think I may look into taking some more courses in advanced mountain medicine. Believe me, there is nothing worse than facing a serious medical situation when help is nowhere near.

I think it was Nate Beckwith (a very experienced Yosemite wall climber) who discussed grigri soloing on a website I found. He does not recommend sawing off the handle or especially the flap on the grigri, due to the possibilities of creating sharp surfaces. He also discussed chest harnesses and the gist of his message was to not use the chest harness and just let the grigri hang on your belay biner. The trouble I have found with this is what Wallstein brings up- I noticed that the grigri tends to flop part way down the biner creating the potential in a fall to cross load the biner. I have not done the hole-drilling trick to keep it upright, but it seems that this would not be a bad idea with this in mind. As for running the actual rope through a chest harness, my experience is that the grigri is kind of hard to feed either way. If I have to bust a free move out of my aiders, I usually pull out the amount of slack I think I will need and then go for it. And no matter what you do- ALWAYS use a backup knot and never trust your whole existence to the grigri only. I researched the Wren Industries Soloist and Solo-aid and determined that they are essentially not much different than a grigri, functionally. Also, I have heard that the Silent Partner has been known to not catch a fall immediately, causing some whippers, and therefore it is still recommended that you back tie with this device. And the Silent Partner's bearing device tends to freeze up and not work properly in cold weather. That said, this device is said to be the best thing going if you have any appreciable amount of roped-solo free climbing involved in your climb, as it feeds way easier than any of the above devices- according to those I have asked and in various discussions on websites I have researched.

1st pitch of icy bc was kind of hard to protect- Forrest managed a few pieces but largely had to go for it on hooks in technical chandaliers. This pitch has filled in quite a bit since two weeks ago. Second pitch was dripping wet, very plastic, and not very hard. The third pitch sported some heavy chandaliers, and with the best line being in the center of the pitch, it featured a nice long and sustained steep section, but I found bomber screw placements all the way, and was able to really sew it up. Turned plastic near the top, too. Agree- Synchro's days are numbered unless it freezes, and soon. Gotta hand it to the Captain- party all night, climb all day. I'm not in good drinking shape so I don't know how ya do it, my man.

I be goin too. I'm rollin' the Caddie to mile oh. ya On the descent from synchro Crack was increasingly concerned about the state of his Crack... Better bring more shit tickets this time

quote: Originally posted by roger johnson: W You stated "To understand something is to be infinitely capable of dealing with it rightly and with finality"Isn't that the crux of the climb? To Understand...Anything and everything is open to interpretation. It is hard enoug to get two people to agree on some things let alone two nations or two religions or two economic classes. I find it very educational to rad newspapers from other parts of the world to get new prespectives on the USA and our place in the world. Even the BBC gives a new angle to our world posture. DW tv out of Berlin has another slant. How to know and undestand? Excellent questions, Roger. You've hit on one thing for sure- getting two nations or religious groups to agree on something is difficult at best, impossible at worst. Perhaps these identifications are the very things that need closer examination and questioning. How to understand? While reading other people's views is important and informative, I would say that ultimately understanding is not solely a matter of an informed personal decision. In all of the reading and studying of other people's views, and views here at home, out of all of that- one should notice a common thread with all people. And that is that most people form their actions and attitudes towards the world based on their religions, nationalities, and economic status. In other words, by and large it is according to whatever group with which they identify and with whatever expresses and promotes their own personal agenda. Does this not perpetuate divisive and antagonistic attitudes? Is life really a problem? Are any of these identifications and attachments so significant that it should lead humans to engage in wars and killing and to enact economic policies that cause some to feast and others to starve? Is there any reality to any of this, beyond the ambiguous assertions of the various pundits and zealots? If one can fully notice the very same processes of identification and conditioned responses occurring in oneself, one will see for themselves what is false and thus break free of all forms of external conditioning- understanding of anything becomes a constant, dynamic action, an ongoing part of life, as does the ability to relate to all on the most simple, yet vital, basis. Yes it is the crux, but we cannot "back off" from it. Like any climbing crux, when you actually are clear and commit to it, it is no longer really a "problem"- you quit thinking your way out of it and just do it. Oh yeah, Dru- pucker up, baby.

FW, Good post. We should be questioning not only the media, but our government and all authority, regardless of what their political alignment might be. Even in a seemingly urgent situation as this, now more than ever is the time to question our own actions, and that of the government. Not "oppose"...question. Question, for example, Bush when he cries out that "ANWR is VITAL to our national security!" ANWR might be vital for a lot of things, but that to me is nothing more than a very clever and opportunistic use of fear, in a time of great public anxiety, to ram through a controversial agenda that has raised a contentious debate. People on the margin will vote for it out of fear rather than voting from what they feel is right. Ruthlessness at its worst. We have got to be sharp!

1

Roger, My intent is not to judge or condemn, although I understand that might be the way it appears- at first glance. Can we look beyond circumstances for a moment and just look directly at the problem? In terms of past conflicts, yes- people have done what they felt they had to do and what was apparently needed. The response to the Nazis was the only available one given direct aggression by them. I am not suggesting that people who are being violent be allowed to continue to do so. Likewise, I support, not as an American, but as a person with concern for all people, action to bring an end to al-qaida and terrorism. But if we are really concerned about the problem of war and violence that have had no end in human history, doesn't it seem necessary to look directly at what is really going- starting with our own actions? If we merely consult history on how to deal with a current situation- which is what we almost always do- we are doomed to live in the past and perpetuate our problems. Pointing to past "successes" has no significance if the "success" was short lived. WW2 was a relative success- the Nazis were eliminated (or were they, some still carry their cause...?), but people were certain that it was going to be the last war. Over 100 million people died in wars the last century, many of those after WW2. So, what I am saying here has no value if one is simply content to live with war as a fact of life and say "that's the way it is". Let me be clear- I am not suggesting that we pursue ideals of some utopian peace or some non-reality. I am pointing out that if we are serious about "living in peace"- which everyone seems to talk about, wish for- then true "seriousness" will manifest itself in looking at our individual problems right NOW, today, in terms of what IS, without the prejudices and egocentric motives that always say "MY CAUSE IS JUST!". Looking at the approach another way- we need to look at ourselves as we actually ARE, and not as we wish or imagine ourselves to be. Judgement- condemnation or affirmation- has no place in this looking. The current conflict, for most, I would suggest is not a unified war and a total action- it is actually a collection of millions of private, personal wars made public. If one were to go have conversations with Arab fighters, and question their actions, it would be the same responses in different clothes. It can and will solve the immediate problem, but it is already breeding animosity in other circles and so will rise again another day, in another arena. So, what is "beyond good and evil?" If we refuse to consider the problem outside of this scope, then our response to the problem will do nothing more than keep the wheel spinning. Almost everyone misconstrues this message as advocating a judgemental self-inquistion and as a suggestion that we condemn and attack our own country and values. Not at all! We are trained to judge everything first, then evaluate- to start from a conclusion. Understanding and going beyond the problem cannot involve judgement. Looking with fresh eyes to absorb all that is, is to be free of all judging and is to enable a far higher level of energy to observe and to act. To understand something is to be infinitely capable of dealing with it rightly and with finality.

A lot of people argue that a combination of intelligence and infiltration by the Special Forces could have more or less accomplished the same objectives we have thus far attained, in displacing the Taliban and breaking apart the al-Qaida stronghold and camps in Afghanistan. And that such tactics would have avoided most of the many civilian casualities. Hard to say for sure. But it seems to me that our actions here are incomplete and reactive rather than whole. Unfortunately, the US gov't wanted as Matt says to satisfy the foaming bloodlust of the masses and do something dramatic to make people feel secure. There obviously still exists little in the way of security, however, for people around the country are talking fearfully and irrationally. Many will argue that civilian casualties are "an unfortunate necessity" of war. In that statement there is obviously no regard for anyone at all. The person making such a statement would not likely or willingly sacrifice their friends and family for this, so what it boils down to is that other people, even fellow countrymen, are looked upon in their minds as either: useful for my purposes, or expendable for my purposes. The mind is in survival mode and has no real concern for anyone at all. Either way, it is all about ME and getting what I want. Both sides, in any and every war in history, inevitably find a way to categorize their actions as "defending ourselves" and that the action is "the only choice". No one, on either side, ever acknowledges or wants to talk about killing, much less has questioned the whole process to the very end, before acting. Killing is a choice made without regard for anyone but the self. This dying and killing for a "cause" or a "country" or "God" or "for the good of others" is nonsense. It's for "me" and "mine" only. When there is clarity, there is no choice, and when the self is not, there is regard for all living things.

RURP- If you go to Der Booben Graben ze Schnitzel Haus on Friday night, just bring your favorite lucky big wall piton and you'll get a free couch dance- this friday only. Shlangesshlonger says he might even let you into the "Peeps" area again despite what you apparently did last time.

quote: Originally posted by vegetablebelay: Where's sexual cocoa puff? This discussion is right up his alley! hey veggie- gimme a minute to shift gears. I'll set up a political version of WWF smackdown later to entertain you. i'll haul out the aggro W if you like. I aims to please!

either that or more like Tucker Tech when the dumpster divin' hasn't been so fruitful...

No I don't climb with shoes- it disrupts my ability to be one with the rock and degrooves my earth mofo. I use my toenails for crampons.

I don't do motorcycles.

oh god... I used to work on the upper mountain for the NPS. How long ago was this incident? I have a very distinct idea in my mind who the ranger you met was.

Nice, Dwayner! Actually, I think you like and need liberals. With whom would you argue if not them?

Rafael, I understand your point- that, given the way the world is set up right now, protection by regulation is better than allowing business and exploitative interests to run roughshod over the environment. I feel the same way, actually. Yet even with regulations things continue to slowly go down hill. Resources are still disappearing, untrodden land is becoming more and more difficult to find. We are not solving the problem at all. In fact, we already are- doing nothing about it, really. I think it is clear that what we are and have been doing as a culture is not working, and more importantly, doesn't make any sense. You are correct in pointing out that there is no one and no guide to help one understand one's self. In fact- you are more correct than you know- you have to be your own guide. If someone else gives you a blueprint for understanding yourself, it is not about you at all, but it is about them. We have things like this already- they are called organized religions. The trouble is, humans the world over are conditioned to seek the answers to truth, life, and understanding themselves by looking to another person to tell them; to seek out a method, system, or rigid formula or path in order to "arrive". In fact authority, methods and systems have no place in these matters, for the method is where one's attention focuses and the end- truth- is forgotten, forever postponed as something to be attained later. Truth becomes an idea, and never is actualized. So truth, freedom, is actually the first step. The insight is an immediate occurrance when one's attention is proper and right. So in effect, if you state that because no one else "is doing it", no one else is making the effort to understand, and the world is just the way it is, then you have capitulated to the culture and are effectively stating that you are satisfied with the way things are; in other words, you say the process of understanding yourself is too arduous and therefore you find it more satisfying to immerse and conform to the circle and process of conflict in which we have been embroiled since time began. The state of "non-action" you speak of, in reality, is not "doing nothing". Bruce Lee wrote of the difference between "having no form", which is the opposite of the forms he felt were false, and which means lacking any ability to act on anything at all- and having "no-form", which is a state that is FREE of all rigid forms and structures- and their OPPOSITES, and which is a state that allows the individual to explode from the center outwards, with limitless possibilities for action and self-discovery. Do you see the difference? In terms of action, most people think that to not act on conflicts and aggression and violence and all the rest of our problems is to do nothing at all and just vegetate and let people run over you. That is because they have not formulated the insight into this enclosed, limited thinking in terms of opposites. The state of true "non-action" is entirely outside of action and it's opposite, and allows for infinite creatively and energy for action to meet any situation in life. But if one doesn't see it, all that remains is speculation and idea that exists and is born within the box one has created and in which one operates. It is extraordinarily important to understand these distinctions. Unfortunately, it also is I admit extraordinarily difficult and arduous to accomplish this while living in this culture, for the culture discourages independent thinking and questioning of our values- that may in fact be false. It teaches us to think to oppose and not to understand, and this carries right to our ability to recognize a problem- in this case, the environment, and yet we are really in fact doing nothing about it. Because we don't really know what to do, we find a fragmentary outlook created within the culture that suits our individual preferences and views and we take a stand on it and content ourselves with things as they are- we content ourselves with having problems we are not actually serious about solving. If people can begin to recognize the expanding impact of their actions upon the world, they will be able to instantly see and feel the urgent importance of understanding themselves. When there is regard for all, there is no "one" who, when faced with the truth of the causes of our problems, asks "what will happen to me?" Meanwhile, imposing regulations and disempowering the destroyers of the environment has even more power if those doing the imposing and disempowering are doing it for the RIGHT reasons, and not for their OWN reasons. Yes it is tough to see...but it is absolutely all that is needed. It's been right in front of us from the very beginning.

Exactly, Dru. That's why statement's like Fairweather's blaming poor countries for doing more harm to the environment are dualistic. Indeed, the poor countries are doing a great deal of environmental damage- but ever ask why? Is it in part because of voracious consumerism in wealthy countries is demanding more resources of them? or because these countries economies are at the mercy of what happens elsewhere? It is no surprise that countries like Brazil are tearing down the rainforest. These people are desperate to keep afloat in the world. We create a dog-eat-dog world at home, and it breeds the same thing elsewhere. If everyone has to be out for themselves in order to survive, surely the environment will not be of importance at all. Overpopulation ain't the problem. The problem is the same one humans have had from the beginning- lack of understanding of the self.

Fairweather- When you say "enviro" in the derisive sense of the word, are you referring to the EARTH FIRST! camp of eco-terrorists, and similar kind? Or is it, as I increasingly notice seems to be the case, a term that is used to describe anyone who does not agree 100% with the Cheney...I mean Bush...Administration's "environmental" policy? The way I see it, both sides are equally self-serving. I agree that many of the outspoken environmental organizations are tainted by political propaganda and personal self-serving control trips by liberal do-gooders, who are convinced that their way is the way for all, and will stop at nothing to impose their values upon others through regulations and bureaucratic red tape. On the other hand, since your view seems to mimic that of the current government's, the question I have for you is: Is it any improvement to put the future of our natural recreation places, and the health and cleanliness of our watersheds and our natural resources, in the hands of businesses whose chief aim is growth and profits? Surely you cannot be suggesting that any business, no matter their stated intentions, can put the interest of human betterment and right relationship above all else? That interest may and often does lie within their motives, but most often it is heavily subverted, very secondary to the bottom line of: the business comes first (read: "I" come first). So any action on the part of such a business is bound to be fragmentary- it benefits a group of segregated individuals (of one side or another, it doesn't matter which one), and if it benefits the whole it is often by circumstance and not by chief intent. The problem, then, is not businesses or corporate America, per se; the problem lies in the human trait of "me" and the propagation of the self through the running of businesses by individuals, and in it's interactions with society and the world- and the environment. There are two "I"'s dealing with the environment-keep in mind the following is, for illustration, a look at the extreme end of both: the business (right wing usually) "I" which seeks to profit from the environment, all the while justifying the usage and gross exploitation of the earth in the name of human needs; indeed there are human needs for our resources, but the culture we have created, from the top down, has resulted in one which plunders and recklessly uses these resources like there is no tomorrow- mainly, because there is no day like to today to make money. And it is in response to the base culture which encourages, in almost every facet, immediate gratification and self-promotion and assertion of our values and our lifestyles. The other "I" is the one that claims to "represent" the environment (left wing usually). This person's actions are wholly devoted to coming into conflict with anyone who disagrees with their stated and finalized, unbending stance on what is "right". Extreme activists in particular spend their energy sponsoring exclusory legislation which seeks to shape the actions, or non-actions, and personal freedoms of others through intimidation, stifling regulations, and laws. While some of this legislation does indeed "protect" the environment, the very enaction of it and the means in which "truth" has been imposed has shattered relationships and breeds further conflicts and opposition. These people do not actually do physical harm to the environment, and their actions have in many cases benefitted the environment, but in large part, they are not in fact at all concered with the environment in themselves. Their views are merely a public display of "me", and to ruthlessly propagate them upon the world is the same exact psychological process that the person who is devoted to money, and the art of making it, is undertaking. In all of this, there is regard for neither human relationship nor for the environment. There is merely an ongoing battle of ideologies and egos. So, sorry to digress, but Fairweather, your comments about sour grapes contains merit and absurdity all at once. Merit, in that many who are crying foul are indeed just mad that they are not getting their way. Absurdity, in that it presupposes that any business expansion and "improvements" are being done chiefly with the interest of bettering the lives of all. What I say might sound negative to you. Well, I say that one has to be able to identify false values before the individual, untainted discovery of true values can begin. The unfortunate impact in the meantime is that wild spaces are disappearing, and these places are not something that only a few people need. In fact, the connection with nature is something that a great majority of people have utterly lost, having been raised in the cities and having no conception at all of what undeveloped land looks like. The culture is all we see, and it shapes all that we are, and we are no longer living simply. Having a relationship with nature and recognizing that fundamental need in myself- I have to go away to wild places periodically. It is the only way I know how to prepare for meeting the crazy situations I encounter in the cities. We have developed our land to the exclusion of this relationship. Additionally, the developments in mountain areas are increasingly reflecting the false societal values- the skiing industry certainly does not cater to folks with lower or even middle level incomes. Building golf courses in the mountains? That would be fine, except that golfing also caters and appeals to a certain income level person. Yosemite Park is going out of its way to make it very difficult to go there are not spend any money (i.e.- go climbing there). The Access Fund is one of the few groups that I truly believe in- for they are a group of people who seem to be able to concern themselves with community, to deal with issues in a non-partisan and open minded forum that seeks to listen to understand rather than to assert. Until we can move beyond our own individual personal control trips in our relationships with one another, the environment will merely become an indicating factor of our health as a species. The whole world is basically at war, both abroad and at home. Why should the fact that wild places are disappearing come as any surprise?