PLC

Thanks all - great info! Rodchester - where did you hear that dogs were not allowed in the Winds? This is what I found on the Forest Service web page: "Dogs are allowed on forest. They must be physically restricted (leash no longer than 6 foot or caged - seeing eye dog - exception) while in developed recreation sites.( 36CFR261.14 subpart J). In the back country it is suggested that they be either under verbal control or on leash". It sounds to me like I can let them off leash in the backcountry...

So after consulting the weather channel, the wife, baby, two dogs and I are heading to Wyoming for the next two weeks (original plan was Alaska). The wife won't belay me anymore since the baby started taking all her attention - so, can anyone recommend a couple good scramble routes in the Tetons or Wind River range? I'll probably hike in to the Cirque of Towers just to scope the area out for next summer - any class 3/4 routes to the summit there that are worth my bother (including explaining to the wife that she'll have to hang out by the lake for a few hours with the baby and dogs)? Also, I was thinking of doing a one-day climb of the Owen-Spalding route. If I can do Rainier up-and-down in a day, can I do GT? Swell.

Saturday - climbed Rainier Sunday - slept

When?

Caffeine is so, like, 1999. This is a new millenium - try Provigil! Besides, coffee tastes like shit.

Wall Street Journal June 9, 2003 8:15 a.m. EDT IN THE MONEY:US Lumber Woes Grow Despite Tariff On Canada By STEVEN D. JONES A Dow Jones Newswires Column VANCOUVER, Wash. -- Wood products companies fighting off cheap lumber imports from Canada are discovering that the cure they sought a year ago is worse than the disease. Tariffs imposed by the Bush administration in May 2002 designed to stem the flow of Canadian softwood lumber and prop up prices to the benefit of U.S. mills have had the opposite effect. Production is up north of the border and prices are down in the United States, which doesn't bode well for holders of wood products company stocks. Now in its second year, the trade dispute has moved from the headlines to the income statement where it is taking a toll on dozens of companies. Weyerhaeuser Co. (WY) reported a first-quarter loss of $54 million largely because of a $150 million loss in its lumber business. High tariffs and low lumber prices contributed to a $7.6 million first-quarter loss at Pope & Talbot Inc. (POP) even though revenue increased 18% over a year ago thanks to healthy gains in the price of pulp for making paper. Even companies with relatively small lumber operations, such as newsprint manufacturer Bowater Inc. (BOW), aren't enjoying the seasonal boost that lumber production usually adds to earnings. A year ago, lumber prices plunged as the tariffs took effect. This year, a spring rally has fizzled and prices are hovering near $250 per 1,000 board feet, well below the seasonal peaks of nearly $300 the market achieved in 2000 and 2001, or $350 in 1999. Currency fluctuations and a weak economy contribute to the problem, but lumber markets have risen through such difficulty in the past. What's different this time, say executives and economists, is that the tariff structure is spurring output from Canada. "Some of the producers have ramped up production in order to bring down their unit costs at which they are selling at in the United States," said Lois McNabb, director of the economics and trade branch of the British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Companies that can lower production costs by whatever means in comparison with wholesale prices in the states come out ahead. "I hear anecdotal evidence that companies are watching every stick of wood going into the U.S. to make sure it is going in at a price that is above the cost of production," she said. "In a number of cases it has increased production coming out of Canada," said Michael Flannery, chief executive of Pope & Talbot, which operates sawmills on both sides of the border. "That is an unintended consequence of the U.S. tariff." In 2002, Canadian mills increased production 4.6%, according to Random Lengths, an Oregon publication that monitors lumber markets. Most of the gains came late in the year and in the West, says Jon Anderson, publisher. Awash In Wood Statistics for December, the most recent month available, show production in British Columbia surged 30% to 1.03 billion board feet. "We are awash in wood," said Scott Shotwell, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, the 300-member trade group that led the campaign for tariffs. But Shotwell claims the tariffs are not to blame for the mess. "It's not the tariff. It's how Canada responds to the tariff," he says. The U.S. has collected more than $1 billion in tariffs in the year since it was imposed, which the coalition would like to see redistributed to manufacturers harmed by the imports. "It could be distributed, that is the way the law is written," said Shotwell. "Whether it is remains to be seen." A Commerce Department spokesman had no comment. A department policy bulletin on the tariff to be issued this month may or may not deal with the issue. The trade dispute revolves around logging practices in the two countries. Most U.S. timber is cut from private land at market prices often set through bidding. In Canada, the government owns 90% of timberlands and charges "stumpage" for logging. The fee is based on the cost of maintaining and restoring forests, not the market value of the wood. The United States contends that Canada's stumpage is artificially low and amounts to a subsidy that allows Canadian mills to sell wood below market value. This isn't the first time the United States has attempted to prove Canadians subsidize their industry. Three previous attempts to impose limits have had middling success. In 1997, the Canadian's agreed to a tariff-free quota system on exports to the U.S. It expired in 2002 and talks to modify or extend its terms broke down. The U.S. imposed the tariff structure in its place. Timber tariffs are not new, but what is different this time is that the U.S. Department of Commerce is charging that the structure of the Canadian stumpage system enables manufacturers to dump product into the United States below the cost of manufacturing. In May 2002, the U.S. Commerce Department imposed a countervailing duty of 19.3% on Canadian softwood imports to adjust for the alleged supply subsidy. In addition, the agency imposed an anti-dumping duty that averages 8%. Combined, the tariff and duty totals about 27%. But dumping penalties aren't the same for all mills. For example, using U.S. dollars and measurements, say it costs a mill $280 to cut and manufacture 1,000 board feet of lumber that it sold in the U.S. For $250 the company would be dumping wood at 10% below cost. The mill would be subject to the 8% anti-dumping fee. But a mill that could saw the same amount of lumber at a cost of $250 and sell it for $250 would escape the tariff. Applying that analysis to the output of dozens of mills in a corporation creates a wide variation in duties. West Fraser Timber Co.'s (T.WFT) pays an average anti-dumping duty of 2.2%. Canfor Corp. (T.CFP) pays 6%. However, with high fixed investments in plant and equipment, one of the quickest ways a mill can lower its cost of production is to cut more wood. Suppose the first mill in this example could reduce its average production cost to $250 from $280 by adding a shift. The mill could escape the anti-dumping tariff as well. In other words, the anti-dumping portion of the tariff creates a financial incentive for Canadian companies to produce more.

Nucor produces high quality recycled steel. Even if there was no tariff, companies like Nucor would still exist because we will always have a large, ready supply of steel available for recycling. We're not going to ship it to China to be melted down. So, the strategic argument doesn't hold water for me... There is, obviously, value in diversifying your economy, especially away from the production of commodities which are especially subject to price fluctuations. This has to be done over time, through investments in infrastructure and education, as well as trade enhancement. In some sense, it is easier for developing nations with dictators - a dictator can be good or bad, but a beaurocracy will almost always be corrupt. Having raw material wealth can be a great boon if used to advantage (like Iceland is doing with their hydrogen economy initiative) or it can be a curse, as seen in Saudi Arabia and Russia with oil wealth. The per capita income in OPEC nations has already fallen by 50%; it will continue to fall as populations increase and oil consumption begins to be replaced. If they had invested in education and infrastructure, they could have had a permenant 1st world economy. Instead, they are doomed to return to poverty.

A difference in "cost structures" basically means that it is cheaper to produce lumber in Canada than in the US; I don't know if this is because salaries are lower in Canada, if Canadian firms have invested in newer, more effecient equipement, or what... I just read that Canadian timber firms operate at a significant cost advantage to US firms. This cost advantage allowed the Canadian firms to underprice the US firms and grow their market share. In response, the US firms lobbied congress to impose a tariff. Wood products are a commodity, meaning there is one price in the market, driven by supply and demand. The tariff artificially raised the market price of timber, but not enough to compensate for the Canadian's cost advantage. In response to the tariff, Canadian timber companies increased their output, allowing them to realize further economies of scale (as I recall now, this had something to do with needing to earn a return on their equipement investments). Essentially, because of the particulars of this case, the Canadian companies were able to increase their market share in spite of a tariff. You could say that the tariff was not high enough to be effective, but if it had been much higher, it would have caused a strong economic shock in the construction market in the US.

Chubby and Tubby was a disorganized mess, with unpredictable inventory, a sever lack of parking, a poor location, and low quality crappy merchandise. Does it really shock you that they went out of business? I buy lots of stuff from Home Depot. I don't have a big use for lumber, but I do buy crown molding, carpeting, washer/dryers, fertilizer, plants, etc. OK, so why do you think Home Depot and Walmart are so successful, if they are not providing a superior model for the majority of consumers? It may come as a shock to you, but most people LIKE Walmart-type stores, and PREFER them over "main street" - even if the prices were the same. Walmart has lots of parking, everything is in one brightly lit, well-organized store, aisles are wide. It's just a lot more convienent and effecient to shop there.

The only controvery about free trade comes from ignorant xenophones (like Pat Buchanan) or from labor unions and indistries which would like protection from international competition. The problem with World Bank and IMF plans is not that they favor free trade - it is that they favor taking on large debts and they inevitably lead to graft. You really can't expect a beaurocracy to run a country. Trade barriers exist because a vocal minority will extract large personal benefits from the vast majority. If we banned the import of, say, cherries, the orchard owners in Washington would recieve a huge winfall, where-as the consumers would notice that the price of cherries went up by a couple bucks. The benefits are concentrated, while the costs are distributed. That does not make the costs any less real or important. The only "good" reason for a tariff that I can think of is to protect a strategic industry. This is the rationale behind the steel tariffs. Supposedly, if we stopped producing steel and went to war, we'd be at the mercy of the Chinese (world's low cost steel producer). This theory is wrong, for a variety of reasons (see Nucor Steel), but at least it is defensible. The "alternative method", in fact, the only method of developing an economy is to focus on the production of goods and services in which your nation has a relative competitive advantage. For instance, while the US may be able to produce sugar for less cost than any other nation, it is not really to our advantage, since those sugar workers can be put to more productive use in this country, where-as in some nations sugar production may be to their relative advantage. There are now quite a few countries which have emerged from 3rd world misery to wealth, some of which are now amongst the richest nations in the world. They all did it the same way - by promoting trade, reducing barriers, encouraging foreign investment, and investing in education.

Yes, tariffs hurt the country which imposes the tariff both by driving up the cost of goods (effectively reducing income) and by causing a misallocation of productive resources (which also reduces income). In the case of the lumber trade with Canada, when we impose a tariff, all we're doing is increasing the price of lumber in the US. The relative disparity between the US and Canadian cost structures also lead to an INCREASE in the volume of lumber coming from Canada. Since the price of lumber went up, Canadian firms were able to bring on-line less effecient machinery and hire less effecient workers at a profit. So, market share for US lumber firms fell, the cost of lumber for consumers in the US went up, and the tariff funds were essentially transferred to Canada. Direct Subsidies are also poor strategy (in most cases, excluding things like basic research) - when Canada was subsidizing their lumber companies, they were essentially tranferring wealth directly from Canadian taxpayers to US consumers.

Chubby&Tubby? That was the worst store in the world. Is anyone surprised they went out of business. And, I love Home Depot. And Costco. Don't assume that everyone else associated a negative experience with shopping at these chains - from the sales volume, you're obviously in the minority. Also, economists don't just focus on income and consumption - these are easy to measure and solid indicators, but the ideal metric is "utility". You have to measure it indirectly by tracking behaviors. For instance, when a Walmart locates in town and a bunch of store go out of business, you can observe that consumer utility increased - if it did not, why would consumers have chosen to shop there?

Actually, it is the floor staff which is making more than they are worth, since their salary is artificially inflated by the minimum wage. The "corporate types" are paid what they are worth. If REI systematically overpaid HQ staff, they would be unable to compete with other retailers.

slothrop said: I did study economics. In fact, I am an economist. And I can assure you that Protectionism has LESS evidentiary support than Creationism. It is a settled fact that free trade leads to prosperity for all parties involved. This is not disputed by economists. Trade barriers have a long history of leading to poverty and misery. There is no history of trade barriers leading to development.

Actually, anti-trust is mostly just used as means of blackmailing successful companies into contributing to political parties. That is not to say that capitalism would work well without a proper legal system (to secure private property, for instance), just that the positive impacts of A/T have been vastly overblown. Big monopolies inevitably fail, because there are very few true monopolies (there are none in the long term) and because size and market power lead to beaurocracy and stagnation. If you look at the history of retail, you'll see that Walmart has maybe 10 more years before the decline starts. In 20 years, they'll be K-mart.

It sounds like there are two seperate issues that people have with Walmart: a.) Walmart destroys small towns - this belief is simply false and demonstrates a stunning lack of basic economics comprehension b.) Walmart mistreats their employees and/or engages in other specific unethical business practices - this appears to be at least somewhat accurate; although, if it was really as bad as implied, I doubt if they could keep any employees. In general, if I have to choose between believing a bunch of union activitists and lawyers or a corporation, I'll take the corporation. However, in this instance, it appears that the complaints may be valid. So, if it bothers your conscience to shop at Walmart, just head to Costco or Target; don't needlessly pay extra for the same stuff at some outdated Mom&Pop.

This has been a really stunning little conversation to observe.... I'd say that more than a few of you need to invest some time in a remedial economics course. You sound just like the luddites who worried about all the displaced blacksmiths and buggy producers when cars started becoming more popular. If Walmart can serve the retail needs of a community at a net loss of retail jobs in that community, then that is a GOOD thing. The displaced workers will suffer in the short run, but the economy as a whole will benefit. In fact, it is the capacity to accept just this type of displacement which has enabled all economic growth and development, throughout history. Walmart has found a more effecient means of delivering goods to consumers, perminantly lowering prices for the majority while temporarily displacing a minority. It's called PROGRESS, folks - you might want to hop on board...

I did a road trip to Hueco Tanks and New Mexico six or seven years ago, and we hit the major areas. Cochita Mesa is just fantastically beautiful - the rock is great, red sandstone I think, with lots of pockets, and the view is amazing. Access is strictly by 4x4; you have to drive through a couple streams, although they might be dry washes late in summer. This is a sport climbing area, with mostly steep, harder end routes. Enchanted Rock is pretty cool, also. There's free camping, including a lifetime of firewood. It's on BLM land I believe, which some ranchers graze so watch out for the cow pies. There are some short moderate routes and a bunch of overhanging harder routes. Mostly steep climbs with huge "hueco-type" holds. Pretty fun sport climbing.

Sounds like the "alternative" is the better option. I ran up Snowking following the normal route 3 weekends ago with a couple of my hounds. The road is washed out a mile or two before the end, the "trail" went straight up muddy slopes (it was raining) with lots of bushy vegetation and spider webs, there were no views (maybe there are without the clouds?) for the first several miles, the trail got obscured by snow and I just had to keep walking in the general direction. It was a long uphill walk in the woods for far too long to make it a worthwhile day hike. Maybe I screwed up though - the guidebooks show the trail on the right side of the stream but I couldn't find one and stayed to the left.... and I forgot my GPS on the roof of my truck. My compass stopped working (every direction is now East), and a map in the woods without a compass, a view, a trail, or a GPS is somewhat limited. Also, the trail is too dry for a St. Bernard.

There were two significant streams, both easier in the morning, obviously. The first is passible with care; the second you might get by in the morning, but afternoon, you will get water in your boots. At least if the weather stays anything like this....

Did Coleman-Demming. Left car around 8am. Back to car around 7pm. Snow could not have been better for walking. Trail is pretty much snow free all the way to the turn off for the "hogback moraine". Great skiing and/or glissading. A few very thin crevasses to cross, many climbers did not wear ropes. All the north side routes looked good to me.

Works OK for altitude. You need to be taking it pretty much every day for a while, and the impacts will not be fantastic. It doesn't work anything at all like normal gingseng.

By "lock off" I only meant that you need to be in a secure position - secure enough to have one hand reaching for gear, finding the right piece, and placing it. In my experience, this tends to take a lot longer with gear than with quickdraws... As for my "lack of strategy" - I'll freely admit that I've always depended mostly on my light weight and resultingly high endurance more than any real good climbing technique. All the high end climbs I've done have been long roof problems or long overhanding face climbs - basically, endurance fests. Maybe the fact that I don't weigh much of anything is one of the reasons a rack seems to make a big difference to me....

It's not really "apples vs. oranges" - trad is simply much, much harder than sport. You need to carry the extra weight of all your gear, you need to know how to properly place gear, you need to climb confidently above gear you've placed, and you need to be able to lock-off long enough to place the gear. Plus, trad climbs do tend to be rated harder than sport climbs, for a variety of reasons. I've done 5.13 sport routes that were less intimidating - and less difficult - than most 5.10 trad climbs.

Hey, I'm going to be taking a complete newbie up the south side route on Hood in a couple weeks (probably May 31st or June 1st). I was wondering if we really need to leave before dawn; ie, is rockfall a serious consideration on this route? I'd much rather leave later in the day to avoid the crowds if at all possible. For reference, I took this newbie on his first hike ever last weekend up St. Helens; we left the trailhead around 12:30pm and were back in the car by 7pm. On a day when about 200 people summited, we had the entire mountain to ourselves for the last 3 hours of the climb.