Fairweather

Dr. Robert Yancee in Gig Harbor WA did my ACL replacement 3 years ago. He is fantastic! I can't even tell there was ever anything wrong with my knee. 100% + of the original. Good luck.

Climbed Shasta via Avalanche Gulch route on Wed, June 19th. Route in good shape with perfect cramponing snow above 10,000 feet. Some rockfall in the afternoon below Red Banks reported by parties earlier in the week. One broken shoulder according to the attendant at Horse Camp. Route is still 99% snow above Oberman's Causeway. The spring at Horse Camp is flowing nicely.

MRNP Super Jon Jarvis wrote a great piece in today's Tacoma News Tribune. http://www.tribnet.com Go to the "opinions" section. (June 11 ed.) This guy is a real breath of fresh air after breathing years of Bill Briggle. He makes the case that climbers are just a small portion of the SAR $$ spent each year. He was well regarded up at Wrangell-St Elias and it is nice to see his even-handedness down here as well. [ 06-11-2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

I don't dispute that the $15 permit is BS. I refuse to pay it to climb any of the volcanoes (except Rainier where the $$ seem to be well spent). My "just drop it" plea was re: snowmobile access.

isn't naptha one of those substances known by the state of California to cause cancer?

Sounds to me like Clare replied to your questions professionally and in good faith. You just didn't like the answers. How about (in this case) we do our part NOT to re-enforce our elitist stereotype in the public's mind....and let this one go.

Sloth, another point worth mentioning would be that NPR is taxpayer subsidized. I don't like my tax $$$ used to promote the anti capitalist drivel I regularly hear on NPR. If they want to slam our system they are free to do so with their own dollars. I don't see this same bias on public TV. Indeed, "Frontline" is one of my favorite shows. I think the NPR bias debate was over a long time ago. (even Erik recognizes it for goodness' sake!) If they are promoting a certain point of view, they should just say so...and pay their own bills like "right wing" radio does. Who is Fred Phelps? [ 06-04-2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[ 06-03-2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

I often wonder about the $$$$ quoted by media sources as the "cost of the rescue". For example, if a figure of $50,000 is quoted, this is generally accepted to be the cost of the helicopter, crew/manhours, NPS personnel involved, etc, etc. My question is this: What percentage of that dollar amount quoted as "cost of rescue" is incedental? After all, most of those paid rescuers involved were "on the clock" anyway weren't they? If the military air personnel involved weren't up rescuing Joe Climber would they not still be collecting a paycheck? Would their Chinook not still be consuming fuel doing training business? Would the NPS rangers involved be training anyway? Are dollar values assigned to volunteers?? Is the value of this hands-on training subtracted from future rescue costs? I don't know how the cost of a rescue is calculated, and I don't know if my questions are valid. But I suspect that when a figure is tossed out by the media like $50,000, the true cost of the rescue is much, much less. [ 06-03-2002, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by slothrop: quote:Originally posted by erik: npr is liberal media, and of course they are going to use the most emotional/less then intelligent sounding people...makes for better news.... Big media is big media. There is no correlation between liberalism and sensationalism (ahem, remember Rush Limbaugh?). Slothrop, Rush Limbaugh readily admits his conservative bias. Additionally, he never claims to be a member of the "news media". His show is purely entertainment and opinion. NPR however denies it has ANY political tilt and passes off its soapbox editorials as "news". I do enjoy some of NPR's programing...if for nothing else than to provide me with balance and keep me abreast of what the "other side" is up to. Wasn't it NPR's Nina Totenberg who wished on-air that Strom Thurmond's children and grandchildren would be stricken with AIDS? ...So much for the "tolerance" of the left.

Heading up Tahoma Glacier in two weeks. The upper route looks great through binoculars. Any recent info or trip reports out there? Also, any generic info on the approach from Kautz Creek/ Indian Henry's/So Tahoma Glacier traverse vs. the more often done (?) Round Pass start?

Hey now! Don't be dissin' the OMCG. I like those charcoals...they leave you with a little thinking to do "on your own". Who wants a connect-the-dots type trip anyway? Additionally, this book is a handy size unlike the encyclopedia-like "Cascade Alpine Guides". ( Don't get me wrong! Beckey's books are awesome too! ) I think Olympic Mountain Climber's Guide is perfect. [ 06-03-2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Many people assume that 100% of National Parks are designated Wilderness. This is not the case. I oppose snowmachine use in existing Wilderness Areas. However, use of these beasts in non-wilderness areas of our national parks is, and should be allowed to continue. Yellowstone is a HUGE park. May I suggest that the skiers are the user group with vastly more sruare miles at their disposal. Ditto, MRNP. Why the hell can't snowmachines use hyw 410 when it is closed in the winter? I've never driven, used, been a proponent of snowmobiles.....but we're not talking "new intrusion" here by these folks. We're talking about taking away something from a well established user group. We're talking sour grapes. We're talking elitism. Norman, I can sincerely appreciate your position on this matter. Indeed, I sympathize to a large degree. But re the photo posted above (skier and snowmachines)... what's to keep the skier from being the one kicked out of that scene? After all, he will likely be entering designated wilderness when he leaves the road, and his skis could be considered "mechanical" devices by some fringe/purist user group who could go on to petition the NP to ban these "machines" as well. Ditto snowshoes. I just think we need to live within existing rules and stop trying to torpedo the "other group". As for the impacts on wildlife....I am not well-read on the Yelowstone science, but I suspect that studies could be cited that support both sides of the issue. [ 05-25-2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Thanks Wolfie, I'll use the link you provided to let the "Republicrats" know I SUPPORT continued use of snowmachines in National Parks with reasonable restrictions. ...Why is it you guys think the whole F-ing world sees things through your glasses? (!)

I like dogs. But only when well behaved and over 30 pounds. (Little dogs = cats.) Any dog that snarls at me will have it's muzzle duct-taped and its ribs crushed. However, in my 25 years of hiking/climbing, I have NEVER encountered such a dog. I think some of the bad-dog stories come from those who frequent roadside/car campground areas, or those who are just looking for something to be pissed-off about. I have found that the same hikers and climbers who have an excessive hatred of dogs are the very people who don't like to socialize with other humans just the same. My 2 cint.

I guess my bottom line is this: The vast majority of people who would oppose this ski area expansion, and whom you would count on to support your position, want nothing to do with "monkeywrenching". When you tolerate that kind of talk, or even show tacit approval for that type of activity, you destroy the very support upon which you must rely. Work within the system. Reject those who won't.

Winter, You are reading too much into what I wrote. I did not equate tree-sitting with terrorism. I DID attach that word to "Bug's" single word reply, "monkeywrenching". I never tried to draw a moral equivalent between 9-11 and burning down a ski lodge at Vail, although that act was clearly terrorism. I believe it was I that was trying to keep the thread civil by pointing out a reason why "your side" so regularly loses the debate. You stated that "no one ever gets hurt" by these people. Oh really? Then the Unabomber was a right-wing extremist??? If you are an attorney as your bio states, I am surprised by your sympathies. [ 05-17-2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Given the terrorist tactics used in Vail when ski area expansion foes didn't get their way, the "monkey wrenching" comment was not appropriate in my view. Re: Hayduke Lives... The "eco-warrior" is nothing more than a coward who has placed him/herself above the law. [ 05-17-2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by Bug: Monkeywrench. The above comment is why environmentalists fail to sway public opinion. Indeed, it is why many of you are viewed as kooks. As I stated above, I think this expansion idea is an outrage. But I think anyone who would suggest resorting to "monkeywrenching" (call it what it is... terrorism) needs to get a grip. I think "Winter's" suggestion of using the legal system is a bit more useful.

quote: Originally posted by Winter: Aw man, I almost don't want to get into this because it fires me up. They want to put a lift up to the wilderness boundary and remove the Tilly Jane trail, not to mention the amphitheater and "up scale" shopping amenities plus the 450 units of condos, houses, clearcuts for ski trails, etc. Conservation issues tend to solicit crazy spray on this site, but if anyone wants more info. or wants to do something let me know, because I'm either suing or thinking about suing just about everyone involved. Winter, You can count me as an ally in this matter. I've climbed Mount Hood close to 50 times and I've always looked at this mountain as a place where "man and nature meet", the south and southeast sides providing enjoyment for skiers with the north and west sides providing a more "natural" experience for hikers and climbers. This plan, as described, will upset that balance. Let's face it. Mount Hood and surrounding environs' are not "deep wilderness" by any definition. But this plan is a desecration. I've always stated my support for maintaining EXISTING wilderness access roads and trails, but this plan in a NEW encroachment. ...And while the MHNF ponders limiting access for climbers on this wonderful mountain based on subjuctive criteria like "solitude", they appear more than willing to permit physical environmental damage with this plan. What's next? A chairlift up Cooper Spur to the summit? Brian

Dick Gephart (D) gave an environmental speech about 3 months ago in which he chided the Republicans for their lack of support re: tougher CAFE standards. He then drove off in a large black Chevy Suburban. As for the stickering....what a bunch of knit hat, whispy bearded, skinny, sandal wearing, WTO protesting, dreadlocked, freaks. The vehicles they are stickering probably pump less soot and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than the VW Microbus or 1973 Subaru that they themselves drive.

Hey Z. Always happy to engage.... Are you saying that you now support more CO2-free power production? Good! Lets get to building more nuke plants. ... and more hydro projects too. Also; the Global Surveyor spacecraft now orbiting Mars has sent back data indicating that planet's icecaps are also in retreat. www.nature.com/nsu/011213/011213-1.html Shall we accept the blame for that too? Could a solar cycle be at work here? Earth's climate is in constant flux. We're just ridin' the wave. (?) But wait! YOU might be right. (Seriously) How much $$$$$ should we spend to counter? How much freedom should we sacrifice? If our nation spends say, one trillion dollars on Kyoto-like deals and our economy collapses, will current environmental safeguards get thrown out the window so we can claw our way back to national economic viability? Will democracy survive? (do environmentalists care?) I'm not trying to hammer or mock you, but these issues aren't as simple as some would like them to be. [ 05-12-2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

quote: Originally posted by Lowell Skoog: Going back to the original letter from Maria Cantwell, I'm surprised that so many people think she didn't say anything. Here it is again: quote: I am concerned, however, by studies showing that the fees result in reduced access to public lands, and I am also interested in learning if the program has led to reduced federal appropriations for maintenance. I am also worried that over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised. Finally, and most critically, if the program is to continue, coordination of the fee system between lands owned by different agencies must be improved. These are all reasons for her to vote against the program. Can you imagine George Bush or any of the House Republican leadership saying this? I don't think so. We should flood her with letters hammering on these points. My biggest concern is Cantwell's second sentence, "That over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." That's exactly what the backers of the program want. They want to manage the forests as a recreational money maker, for Uncle Sam and his private "partners." Lowell, I believe that Republicans were among the first to oppose (Chenowith, Idaho?) this program which was imposed under Bill Clinton. Your attempts to portray Democrats as our allies is way off base. This issue crosses all traditional political idealogies. Nice try. Republicans generally won't tackle the issue because (overall) hikers are not big "R" supporters. Democrats won't help kill the fee because they never met a tax/fee they did not like. I think these fees will be with us for a while. Like I said earlier, I 'll reluctantly pay the "Trail Park" fee, but I WILL NOT pay $15 to climb St Helens, Adams, or Baker as I view this as pure extortion. Additionally, my grudging acceptance of the trail park will fade quickly if some of these washed out trail access roads don't get repaired soon or if popular access roads like Middle Fork Snoqualmie are shut down. [ 05-07-2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

The Fee Demo is supposed to help maintain trails and access?? Why are roads and trails being left unrepaired when they wash out? I wonder what % of the $$ go to enforcement of said fee? Is the fee demo just a federal jobs program? I'll pay for trail maintainance and access, but not for a $400,000 (+?) outhouse at Washington Pass. Gas taxes ought to pay for state highway facilities. Go figure.