Fairweather

quote: Originally posted by Matt: Why don't you crawl back into your cave of ignorance, Brian Rybolt. Why did you decide to hide behind the avatar of "Fairweather"? I am sick of your bullshit popping up all over this site. Here's something to think about: If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following. There would be: 57 Asians8 Africans21 Europeans14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south52 would be female, 48 would be male70 would be nonwhite, 30 would be white70 would be non-Christian, 30 would be Christian89 would be hetrosexual, 11 would be homosexual6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the U.S.70 would be unable to read50 would suffer from malnutrition1 would have a college education1 would own a computer Brian Rybolt, you are in this village. You have EVERYTHING YOU WANT!!! You are the rich, white Christian hetro educated computer owning American. Why can't you share? We, as Americans, are the richest most successful people on the planet. We have a responsibility to our children to reduce our insatiable consumption of natural resources because we take too much! Our resources are finite! We waste too much! We have a responsibility to help those less fortunate because: (1) we can, (2) it is the right thing to do and (3) because it is in out own self interest to do so-- business operates in a global market. Stop distancing yourself from those people in "poor nations that are overpopulating the planet" and start thinking about them as your neighbor. Try and consider why you should help them. It is called civil society. When you go climbing with a friend and he discovers on the top of the mountain that he forgot his lunch, what do you say? Sorry sucker watch me eat? I'll bet you share it with him. You sound kind of angry. Settle down. By the way; what makes you think I'm white, christian, rich/have everything? Maybe you should look at your own prejudices and bias.

quote: Originally posted by W: 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? W, It may surprise you that I agree with about 98% of what you wrote. I am simply tired of hearing that "the sky is falling" and certain groups using this as justification for their social/political agendas. Every religion seems to cry that "the end is near" and environmentalism is no different. Sad thing is, it just isn't true.

Dosewallips Road is washed out at Mile Post 8.1. As the road end is at 14.5 miles, this leaves 6.4 miles to hike each way. This is Olympic National Forest land. (Not NPS as I satated earlier) Hamma Hamma Road, Lake Cushman Road, and of course the East Fork Quinalt are all washed out too, the later is being considered by the NP for PERMANENT closure. This is the Enchanted Valley access and is quite popular. It will add 13 extra miles to a 26 mile r.t. hike. Public comment is being taken, but I doubt considered.

The Crystal Mountain expansion proposal will dramatically improve the sewage disposal aspect of that operation. Anyone who claims that the proposal is bad for the environment is full of sour grapes. I will agree with the suggestion that poor populations tend to ravage their mountains at a faster pace than developed. Makes me wonder why so many enviros want to move backward instead of forward economically. It is also poor nations that are "overpopulating" the planet. USA population growth is primarily immigration and the offspring thereof. The Sierra Club had a very contentious debate a couple years ago on whether to support an anti-immigration agenda. Anytime a report is released by the UN it seems to be light on science and heavy on left wing agenda, if one takes the time to read the fine print. By the way...The Kyoto Treaty WAS NOT about cutting CO2 emissions; it was about the re-distribution of wealth.

quote: Originally posted by climberbro16: Lake Constance Trail is preety badass. STEEP. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: climberbro16 ] The Dosewallips Road washed out and probably will NOT be repaired in 2002. ONP seems to almost WANT roads and trails to wash out....they sure aren't in any hurry to repair them.

...."Olympics and Cascades"..."increasing pressures from recreational activities such as skiing".... When was the last new ski resort built in the Cascades or Olympics? What other forms of recreation are ravaging our local mountains? Are they talking objective standards of physical environmental degredation, or the subjective "solitude" standard often cited by grumpy hiking guide authors whose names I won't mention? Sounds like this whole story is light on scientific study and heavy on anecdote. I call bullshit on this story.

Oops! That's "Mount Sanford".

I was talking to the "historian" in Wrangell/ St Elias Park a couple of summers ago and he told me a couple of snowmobilers out of Glenallen made it to within 300 feet of the summit of Mount Snaford (16,237')in winter of '99. I guess one of their machines broke down, but they were able to tow it out on their own. As Wrangell has less restrictive rules/regs regarding a number of issues, this activity was perfectly legal. I say "no problem". The 4 stroke snow machine would be easier on the lungs, but I understand the torque generated is substantially less than 2 stroke?? And anyway, the tele-snobs would complain no matter what! Even if snow machines operated on cold fusion, generated zero decibels, left no track behind them, and were emission-free.....the tele-snobs would still bitch. They just don't play well with others.

You're right on Max...Tele skiers are big-time snobs. Snow shoes rule the backcountry! I'd personally rather have a conversation with a snowmobiler that a tele-snob. Isn't there something kind of sick when the tele-snobs right here in this room start talking about sniping/killing snowmobilers? It says something about their self proclaimed "tolerence". CharlesEvans...Can you actually own a .308cal rifle in SW BC?

One category I left out, due to it's insignificance are the "snowblade" skiers. I've been looking at getting a pair of those little boards. They would fit real nice on the sides of my Bora 40 and they'd also attach to my mountaineering boots. They look like they would be a blast coming down from Muir or the top of St Helens. 2400g per pair! Anyone tried these out with Mtn boots??

MattP No disrespect intended. Just some general observations/stereotype re-enforcement. Actually, when I see tele's in the backcountry (I'm on snowshoes there) they're OK. At a ski resort they seem to become pricks. Maybe they just want to make sure all of the "lesser skiers" know who's "more spiritual", as you say.

SNOWBOARDERS = idiots who lack control and ruin moguls. Just plain dumb. Avalanche fodder. TELE SKIERS = asshole snobs who think they're somehow "above" the rest of us. What the fuck are they doing on groomed slopes anyway? Get your asses into the backcountry and take your snobbiness with you. I'll be peelin' that "free the heel" bumper sticker off your car while you're there. Free the heel??? WHY, I ask! RONDONEE SKIERS = They are awsome...they "earn their turns" without the attitude of the tele's. ALPINE SKIERS = Nice, friendly, always (almost) in control of their descent, they spend too much $$$ on their gear and clothes though. ....and that is how I feel.

Kevin, Thanks for the info! Your Goldie River trip looks fantastic. I'm doing some research on that one. Have you ever traversed from Hayden Pass to Anderson Pass over Flypaper Pass? This is another trip I'm looking at for the summer of 2002. (this might soon be the easiest way up Mt Anderson with all of the proposed road closures and ONP's stalling on the High Bridge repair) Not really an off trail route, but I'd like to take my son (12) on the Skyline Trail. Maybe include a climb of Christie, Seattle, Noyes, Kimta, etc from Low Divide. Are Martin Lakes as beautiful as described? I've been through Deception Basin, but it was snow covered. My brother and I did a one day trip to Upper Lena, then along the Stone Ponds Route to St Peters Gate and down to Lk of the Angels and then down via Putvin Trail. Traverse was mostly snow covered. 11 hours total.

quote: Originally posted by max: Zenolith: Lucky, this seems to be a reasonable thing to assume. There have never been any communists, at best progressive soscialists. The incorrect tags communist, commie, etc. could best be justified as descriptions of their ultimate objective. Whatever you want to call 'em, they're SOB's and they are responsible for more death and misery in the 20th century than any other religon or ideal. Stalin=20million dead, Mao=6million+? dead, Pal Pot=2million dead. These were citizens who were murdered/starved/shot/worked to death because they wouldn't submit to the "hive" mentality of communism. Sad thing is, there are still commie followers and revisers-of-commie history right here in the good 'ole USA. Wow,heavy shit like that makes a mylar baloon flapping around at 10,000 feet on Little T kind of unimportant.... just put the remnants of the baloon in your pack and throw it away when you get back into town. It's no big deal.

Hiking up The Dungeness toward Boulder Shelter (now obliterated?) can usually be done at least a full month before the snow melts out of other areas of comparable altitude in the Olympics. There are PINE trees on the hike in! Royal Basin is also in the rain shadow. I've seen it about 75% snow free in early May.

15,000,000,000

Wow, this is one of those "screw 'em both" stories. Kind of like the .50cal Makaw(sp?) Indian Whale Harpooners versus the Kooky Sea Shepard group....hmmmm....whom to hate the most? Better to just let them "have at" eachother. The psycho lady has a point about free speech though. I'm so fuckin' tired of hearing the thought police say, "even free speech has limits".They sound like big bro to me.

I just visited the "Powdermag.com" website and the format there looks suspiciously like the one here. Are the CC gods moonlighting?

quote: Originally posted by Dwayner: Back in the day...they used to call the Mountaineers, "The Hardy Queers", but I 'spose that ain't so nice. I've got a number of stories about encounters with them characters but I'll only bore you with a couple. Dwayner used to do quite a bit of unroped solo climbing. Once I did a little alpine ridge route and I paused on a ledge a couple hundred feet up to have a snack and enjoy the view. Meanwhile down below, I watched as a group of Mountaineers were organizing something. It turned out that they were going to send two of their best up there to rescue me! It took them a good while to reach me and then they informed me how everything was going to be O.K. and that climbing without a rope wasn't a smart thing to do. I packed up, continued my climb, and told them to piss off AND have a nice day. On another occasion, I had soloed a rock route and had returned to my pack. A stern looking Mountaineer with a red cross on his helmet approached me: "I'm on the Mountaineers First Aid Committee and for a minute there we thought we were going to have a little practice." I told him to piss off AND have a nice day. And speaking of "reserving the glacier", I've had Mountaineers "instructors" in Leavenworth tell me on a Saturday morning that we couldn't climb in a particular area because they were "using it for the entire weekend." Needless to say, I appeared on the site an hour earlier the next morning with my ropes and students while the Mounties paced nervously waiting for us to finish. "They're on our rock!" I heard one of them cry in anguish. Apparently they had spent Saturday rehearsing their short 5.2 lead and there wouldn't be enough time for all of them to get their little rock lead requirement checked off if they didn't start early. We used the rock until we were finished and then packed up to leave. Before our ropes even hit the ground, 50 Mounties ran out of the bushes with harnesses on and ropes ready to go. Now that's desperation! Gee whiz! makes me wanna drink! - Dwayner Ya' should have given that mountie leader a golden shower for his efforts before you continued up.

Climbed Little T in winter 1983 from Paradise. This is an easy 2 days. Camped below Anvil Rock. The lower Cowlitz is heavily crevassed and just below you is one of the biggest icefalls on Rainier....don't drop too low if it socks in! The Ingraham isn't as bad and the notch up onto The Whitman Glacier is easy. Watch for avalanche danger on the upper Whitman. Easy gullies lead to the spectacular summit ridge (which was corniced and icy). The final block is 3/4th class in summer, but coated with rime ice in winter. Takes a little nerve. Lot's of exposure here. This is a cool climb in winter!

While I agree with much of what you write I must point out....You mention California's "progressive" state parks system that actually lowered park fees. Unfortunately, a large percentage of State Park campsites are not available for use by the general public as they are set aside for the homeless....and it aint' pretty, much less sanitary. ( Don't believe me? Go down to Dash Point State Park right here is good old WA State.) While I don't have a major problem with this as a stop-gap solution, the great state of California has made it somewhat of a permanent thing. I think it is wrong to charge exorbitant fees to use public lands. I think nominal fees CAN create a greater sense of ownership and silence tax-paying critics who view OUR persuits as elitist. Unfortunately, any $$$ raised will only be deducted from a would-have-been budget. I don't believe there is a conspiracy by GW or his associates to gouge us. I think he has more important things to think about right now...

I climbed Warrior back in early spring 1994. The view from this summit of Constance' north face is incredible. It was plastered with snow at the time and looked incredibly alpine. There is a fair sized glacier at its base that leads up to Crystal Pass. Inner Constance looks great from this vantage too. I think you are right. This would be a great trip and I think it could be done in one long day if the temptation to climb any peaks could be resisted. [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Here it is the middle of winter and I'm thinking about wide open, sub alpine meadows, glaciated peaks and remote basins. I've done a few off trail routes in The Olympic Mtns, but am looking at a few choices to in summer 2002. Anyone climbed over Mt Christie, Dellabarre, and on to Muncaster Basin? How about The Valhallas? Skyline Trail? Queets Basin to Glacier Meadows? I'd love to hear some Olympic XC stories.

I've got no gripe with The Mountaineers. They certainly have every right to be in the mountains! It does seem that a large % of their class instructors are incredibly arrogant, but then there is no law against that either. Indeed, it is The Mountaineers that seem to think they own the mountains. "Reserving" the Nisqually Glacier???? Another point, they are not really a "club" but rather a corporation. Books $$$, membership $$$, lobbying (some good, some bad). So far they seem to be on the right side of the access issue, as opposed to some local groups like WTA that want to lock hikers and climbers out of the mountains.

A friend of mine was teaching a group of Explorers crevasse rescue on the lower Nisqually a few years back when a huge group of Mountaineers arrived and told them they would have to leave because their club had "reserved" the glacier that day. Once when rapping off the last pitch on Ingalls Peak South Ridge I came upon a group of 12 Mountaineers going up. As my partner started down the rope from up above...the majority of which lay in a heap at the base of the climb, their instructor told me in a very loud, animated and condesending tone, "Hey pal, why don't you do your friend a favor and tie a couple knots in the end on your rope." This seemed intended to impress his charges. I replied, "Hey pal, why don't you do us both a favor and mind your own fuckin' business." His students were all laughing as the guy was apparently a real prick.