Norman_Clyde

I was just down in PDX to carry my masochism to new heights . I should have called you. Despite the flat terrain, I encountered some highs and lows-- and I learned that where masochism is concerned, I am but an amateur.

Check it out

Nice Work! Now that you've gone over Low Divide, you might want to take a look at other Olympic traverses. Quinault to Dosewallips over Anderson Pass, Elwha to Dosewallips, Elwha to Dungeness-- A host of variations await you. I haven't done any of them myself but I might be so inclined in the spring.

I was up at Spray Park on 8/29, at which time it appeared that the Flett was still snow covered for the most part. Regarding the approach, snow patches begin at the WT high point around 6400 feet. This is probably the easiest place to begin off-trail travel, though I've never hiked to Observation Rock so don't know if there is a better way. The approach certainly looks straightforward from the trail.

Way to go, Kurt.

I guess I can no longer boast about my round trip time. What did you do for nourishment? Did you bring a water filter or drink it straight?

If it's public land and there are no actual laws governing the issue, then then bolters and choppers have exactly the same legal "rights". IMO it is ridiculous to say that trundling, cleaning, etc. is somehow "constructive" yet chopping is "destructive". Likewise, the bolt chopper does not automatically own the moral high ground. The rock doesn't mind being bolted. Environmental impact of bolting is negligible compared to impact of the human presence. The act of bolting, however, by lowering the stakes of a particular climb, leads inevitably to greater environmental degradation of the bolted area, by opening the routes to a larger number of climbers. For people who associate climbing with a "wilderness" experience, this is a problem; not so for people who see climbing as no different from any other sport. Bolting leads to increased human impact because lots of human beings today are willing to climb at a difficult grade with minor risk (as bolts have allowed), but fewer are willing take on the risk which is a part of putting up difficult routes from below. Bolts have become so pervasive that they have severed the connection between degree of climbing difficulty and degree of climbing risk. IMO the original connection between these two (willingness to push climbing limits, willingness to assume risk in the process) was once so strong that this connection came to form part of the identity, the character, of the climber. Some 21st century climbers still see this connection, and IMO this is what the fight is really about. Bolting has facilitated technically difficult climbs by larger numbers of persons. I don't sport climb myself, but I suspect there is some range of opinions among bolt clippers. Some, no doubt, feel a little ashamed every time they clip a bolt, but they have fun nevertheless, and can also appreciate trad routes without wanting to bolt everything they climb. Others, I imagine, have no respect, not even any awareness, of how the act of putting up a new route on lead was once a completely different test of character than bolted sport climbing is now. If the crag in question is private property, then presumably the owner is free to prohibit bolts, to mandate grid bolting, or to turn the whole place into a quarry or a strip mine, and no person but the owner has any legal right to bolt/chop/strip mine without the owner's consent.

Did you speed read it cover to cover on the summit? That should have impressed her. Woody Allen speed-read War and Peace. He said, "It concerns Russia."

These guys had some fun there last week

Deception has the only class 2 route I know of from which people have fallen to their deaths. That alone is reason enough to up the rating IMO, just so newbies don't get the wrong idea.

"At three in the afternoon, they arrived at the outskirts of Stromness Station. They had traveled for thirty-six hours without rest. Their bearded faces were black with blubber smoke, and their matted hair, clotted with salt, hung almost to their shoulders. Their filthy clothes were in tatters; in vain Worsley had tried to pin together the seat of his trousers, shredded in their glissade down the mountain. Close to the station they encountered the first humans outside their own party they had set eyes on in nearly eighteen months--two small children, who ran from them in fright." You have glissaded in the mighty company of Shackleton and his men.

Love that Yos high country scenery.

No way, man. Too much weight. Pebbles will whiz past your cranium like bullets, but what are the odds they'll actually hit you?

Area Forecast For: Olympics Issued: June 08, 2007 15:52:24 PDT Tonight: Cloudy. Freezing level above 8000 feet. Saturday: Rain. Snow level above 8000 feet. Saturday night: Rain in the evening...then showers after midnight. Snow level above 8000 feet. South Brother Summit Elevation: 6866 feet.

It was hard to imagine a cooler Rainier trip than last year's Kautz Headwall ski. But this one takes the cake. Or does it put the icing on the cake? Powder on the ice? A solo evening descent down to the wild west side. What a true adventure.

As of 6 days ago, the climb was completely nontechnical except for the main chute. Here, the well trodden boot path is covered over with hard water ice. It appears that liquid water pours over this area in the heat of the day, then refreezes. The result is hard ice, but with steps in it, also very well picked at with crampons and axes. If you have any experience, you will probably feel fine with crampons and a single tool.

Is Mizuki Takahashi the same person as cc.com's Pochi?

Or you could take a Sunset Tour

Anybody tried this stuff? Linky: fast, light and wired

As of today I've made the final step to leave my sleep-deprived working life behind. Among the anticipated results: more nights in my own bed, more total sleep, AND more memorable sleep-deprived sick descents.

Snowshoes are a good idea in May, but only if you can't bring skis instead.

JayB: I'd like to see you address one of the more specific and troublesome issues in this argument, which up to this point has been referred to only obliquely. This is the fact that, in selling modified, non-reproducing seed stock to farmers, corporations create (or seek to create) a cycle of economic dependence, tied to their products, that may be very difficult for the farmer/community/state/nation to escape, even if in the future they find themselves worse off and regret their decision . Surely you realize that a decision like which seeds to buy, whether to invest in a fertilizer-dependent system, etc. is not such a simple economic transaction as deciding which soft shell to buy at REI. I don't believe Monsanto has a lifetime refund policy. A farmer, or farming community, or nation, could be struggling to feed itself, be unsure what is the most prudent option for the future, cast its lot with Monsanto, and in the process lose a big portion of their autonomy and self-determination, something that Monsanto will be very eager to possess for the indefinite future. The bigger the corporation, the grander the business strategy when it comes to exerting whatever leverage they can over as many people as they can, plus over the governments, organizations, and individuals that make policy. This is why tobacco companies have tweaked the amount of nicotine in their cigarettes. This, I suspect, is behind the long term strategy of Merck in coming out with the chicken pox vaccine. Yes, on the short term the vaccine saves lives. However, when this vaccine first began to be marketed, even a non-researcher like myself could see that use of this vaccine could worsen the public health in the long term in two ways: by increasing the vulnerability of adults to chicken pox, and by increasing the frequency of herpes zoster (shingles) in older adults. This second outcome has in fact come to pass. What do you suppose Merck's solution is? Give the vaccine to more people more often. Merck can grandstand as a humanitarian protector of the public health, promoting the vaccine as even more useful than previously imagined-- when, in actual fact, the vaccine has contributed to the public health problem it now professes to solve. Your posts don't explore corporate behavior any more deeply than to imply that, like the farmer, they're just simple folks trying to make a living; some of your posts in their tone suggest you may even believe that corporations like Monsanto are morally superior to the average farmer because they use their power and wealth to save people from starvation. I beg to differ. I know how much drug companies are willing to invest just to shift my prescribing practices a fraction of an inch. I have not one seed of doubt that, in the boardrooms of Merck, there were meetings during which the long term implications of the chicken pox vaccine were discussed; the anticipated worsening of shingles was anticipated; it was recognized that the corporation could reap further profits from this adverse event, by marketing the vaccine to the elderly as well as children; that the corporation's long term financial projections considered this probability. One last thing I wish to point out here is that thanks to the vaccine, everyone not just the vaccine recipient, is at greater risk for shingles in adulthood, and most are also probably at greater risk for adult chicken pox. My awareness of this and similar marketing strategies on the part of drug companies makes me see them as no different from Philip Morris (excuse me, Altria). I see Monsanto displaying a similar business strategy. I do not believe that making farmers better off on the long term is part of Monsanto's global strategy. If the farmer's lot can be improved without Monsanto sacrificing profit, all the better; but if greater profits can be projected by making the farmer better off for one season, worse off on the long term, and economically tied to the corporation indefinitely-- which option is Monsanto likely to choose?

Now that you've seen how many aspects of this basin remain to be sampled, I'm sure you will have to return.

The road up to White River won't open until Chinook Pass opens. This is not likely to happen as early as May 6th this year, though if it keeps raining maybe the deep snowpack will get melted down faster than expected. See previous opening dates Here .

When I climbed it in Sept. 2002 the lower Blue was hard ice, but completely flat and easily traversed with instep crampons. In the ablation zone there are no deep crevasses, but there are some very scary bottomless moulins (a fascinating glacier phenomenon, one I haven't seen elsewhere in the Cascades; crossing the lower Blue late in season certainly increased my understanding of glaciers and made the trip more interesting). There were two places where the late season could have been problematic: a narrow passage through Crystal Pass crossing to the S. side of the massif, and a large moat to be crossed to gain the summit block. You could probably find a place to cross the moat, but might have to traverse some exposed steep alpine ice at Crystal Pass. But if I were you I'd go for it. Even if you're turned back shy of the summit you will have had a great climbing experience.