Fairweather

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/aspartame-0916.html

Don't be ridiculous, Sky! Their health care is FREE

PLEASE tell me you didn't show them how to use fire!

???? Is somebody dissin' The Bible?

I believe it's being used as a USFS jobs program. And no, I don't believe it's a very large percentage of their budget. The "volunteer" groups you talk about have agenda's of their own. WTA supported the closing of the upper Middle Fork Road.

Because the amount of land that is in wilderness already is a very tiny percentage of the forest and it consists mainly of the rocky ridges and high elevations which does not create a cohesive natural eco-system where diverse form of wildlife can thrive. If they are countering extremist developers who are spending millions of dollars to lobby our law-makers to use our tax dollars to destroy pristine areas that are vital to wildlife, YES. It costs more to maintain roads than trails and motorized travel has a far greater potential for negatively impacting wildlife. Example? Example? Example? When I worked for the Forest Service, the amount of dollars spent on timber harvesting was greater than the amount of money spent on all recreation combined by a factor of over 100. That was 20 years ago and that factor has radically increased. To counter the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually by developmental extremists to destroy wildlife habitat and limit our access to natural areas. 1) Not a "tiny" percentage, but rather substantial. I agree there should be more...but under a new set of rules as yet to be defined. I am a big fan of the "National Recreation Area" concept, but that might be taking things a bit too far. 2) Define "developers". The timber rapists are only a small fraction of their former selves. Maybe mining? I'm not up to date on any recent controversy vs PNW wilderness. 3) Your reply didn't even attempt to address the point. 4) Wild Sky Wilderness. 5) Every single wilderness area created in this state during the past 30 years! * Boulder River * The Brothers * Buckhorn * Clearwater * Colonel Bob * Glacier Peak * Glacier View * Goat Rocks * Henry M. Jackson * Indian Heaven * Lake Chelan-Sawtooth * Mount Adams * Mount Baker * Mount Skokomish * Noisy-Diobsud * Norse Peak * Pasayten * Salmo-Priest * San Juan WA * Mt. Skokomish * Trapper Creek * Washington Islands WA * Wenaha-Tucannon * William O. Douglas * Wonder Mountain 6) Back in the 1970's and 80's an arson campaign to eradicate all "man made structures" (public/trailside shelters) on The Olympic Penninsula within the boundaries of ONP was undertaken by a new breed of wilderness zealots bent on setting things right with nature under the protection of the WA of 1964. Only with the public outcries of good people like Dick Pargeter (of Pargeter's Maps fame) were these jihadists forced to stop their nonsense. 7) Again, you don't address the point in any way. Trails and roads were subsidized by logging back then. Now that that funding has dried up the USFS needs to change its mandate to recreation that is balanced and meets the needs of diverse user groups. I need to believe that my Trail Park Pass is helping to fund my activities and not paying for the newly installed gate and sign that reads Road Closed.

Why would we want to create More wilderness areas? So extremist environmental attorneys can file more lawsuits? So we can be locked out of our favorite trailhead because a washed out road grade can't be moved 20 feet? So more magnificent valley roads like Snoqualmie or Stehekin can be locked up? So former clear cuts can miraculously be called old growth? So mountain bikes can be kicked out of their well established haunts? So 50 year old rustic public use shelters can be torn down or torched by public servants? So limited USFS dollars can be stretched yet thinner? Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

I'm curious if she hollered out for joy...or quietly hid the "winning" ticket in her dresser drawer and prepared her husband a nice dinner laced with some cardio-stopping substance.

Wow! The grand tour!! Great pictures too. That picture looking toward Sagittarius and into the galactic center is stunning. I've never tried my hand at night photography, but your photos are inspiring me to try. CC.com TR of the summer so far, IMO. Looks like your parents had a good trip too! Hmmm: SA Age = (2007-1980)??

Amazing video!! Future Viagra candidate.

I'll eat the occasional steak or any whole-muscle beef, but until Canada and the United States start taking that nasty little prion more seriously, I won't eat any ground beef - especially since 35% of samples tested had brain/spinal tissues included in the mix. skull Whirlwind has some great points too. Other than the "old" carbon used by trucks that ship beef to market, we're talking "new" so-called greenhouse gasses, ie: methane. The fact that this is not mentioned in the "study" wreaks of an agenda and invalidates the work, IMO.

"I WASTED HALF MY LIFE ON CascadeClimbers.com AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT"

Even a righty can appreciate fine art. Those are some magnificent pieces, Off. The picture of the good police captain offering up a cup of joe to his new VC friend is a bit over the top though.

What happened??????? Hey; did you get to hear Senator Byrd's speech on the Senate floor? I'll try to find it on YouTube...absolutely stunning. And, BTW, does the bill actually call for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq? No. So why you gettin' so excited, Crux?

...4 pages later - I guess not. Try to stay on task, Matt. Who's slandering Reid? The Wa Post? I don't get it. Are you giving Reid a pass on this one? Take your meds. I found this quote from your article interesting: "Cheney and Lundquist also met with Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of "The Prize," a history of the oil industry. Yergin recalls discussing energy efficiency and natural gas data, which were then showing that increased drilling had for the first time not raised U.S. production." ...all this time you've been propagating the lie that Cheney never met with naysayers like Yergin - only those evil oil execs. What's up? And please spare me the reading comprehension bit...I've seen "The Prize", and Yergin is no friend of Big Oil.

In case your fellow willing dupes don't know ..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html

Isn't Harry busy with a Nevada land deal this evening? Or was that his son?

I can't wait to hear idiots such as i like spunk next year as they relay to us all the conjured up conspiracies about George W Bush suspending the '08 election, dissolving congress, or declaring marshal law. I predict the left wing kook-fringe hysteria here will reach all-time highs! I can't wait to see the freak show.

Running and biking in Tacoma with ya lately....you never bothered to tell me you were celebrity material! I'll watch the show.

Fairweather, apart from muzzling the personal views of park employees and discriminating for government employment based on the applicant's socio-political views, I would hope that you don't also propose this purge as a first step towards removing all oversight of NPS policy as related to environmental issues. While I don't know a thing about PEER, given your intense mistrust and dislike of the government, I would otherwise assume you would applaud an effort to hold the government accountable; or is accountability not so important when it comes to protecting the park resource measured against keeping the road open at all costs and keeping money flowing? I'm not trivializing the latter issues but I am saying that both have to be considered with equal weight. Government agencies shouldn't be given absolute trust with anything- including protection of the resource. Pulling a page from your own book, I'd also ask if you would suggest that any park staff who own businesses in Ashford or surrounding communities, or who hold membership or stake in any pro-development lobbies, be terminated as well, for similar reasons of conflict of interest in unfairly influencing park policy from within? Good points, all. The answer to your last question is a resounding yes. Just as private enterprise holds employees accountable re conflict of interest or non-compete clauses, the NPS should have every right to stipulate the same - especially if those interests are geographically close at hand and involve $$$. I have never heard of this being a problem at any Washington State National Park. As for "PEER", it looks like a clear case of the crew trying to gain a means by which they can bypass the officers and run the ship themselves. Congress, current administration/interior, park superintendents all have a hand in making big decisions. Allowing a group of underlings to subvert a stringent review process or make policy - that does allow for the extraordinary contingencies of last November's floods - is madness. I remain convinced that a hard-core minority of park employees are committed to an agenda that will eventually lead to a public lockout from our national parks. If they wish to hold these beliefs at a personal level, fine. But if they want to form a quasi-union to force their agenda from within they should be show to the gate - just as an employee of a private sector company likely would. BTW: Nice Climb!

Any park staff who hold membership in "PEER" should be asked to immediately seek other employment. Yes; fired.

I've wanted to do that hike along the Napali Coast of Kauai. When we sailed along it a few years back there were naked women hikers sunbathing on the more secluded beaches.

Not really, but if you've got kids along a short rope wouldn't hurt.

I did it a couple years back. Nice trip, with just some minor route-finding skills required. The last 30 feet to the top is moderately exposed. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/472772/page/5#Post472772