Mark_Husbands

http://www.mtntools.com/cat/rclimb/biners/dmmrevolvercarabiners.htm pulley biner

i just bought a MS wisp. AAC members get a discount, which made this the bargain bag for me (i think they say 1lb 5oz but i havent weighed it.) used it this weekend in icicle crk, warm enough at around freezing. so far i like it.

the future is a rack of micro-robots that climb ahead of you and place themselves cleanly without harming the rock or delicate cliffside vegetation.

the future is an inflatable down sleeping bag

I dont doubt he's a skilled climber and I take your word for it he's a good guy. but you gotta have a sense of humor about Boulder...and the ML gear prices are very high, come on.

"The Magic Line is owned by Fabrizio Zangrilli and is based in Boulder, Colorado" - from website Boulder = image = marketing = $$$ (e.g Nuptse alpine pack = $315, "m jacket" = $315) maybe fabrizios alfa romeo lease is $315/mo we shall assume these products to be of the highest quality, but will never afford to know

I think the G12s are a good first choice. i have a pair with newmatic bindings that i like for classic mountaineering. because the steel is good and the points pretty long they work on ice also, certainly until you want to invest in a steep ice specific crampon (i have G14 and like them).

martin, you have the mind of a true gear analyst.

they both have their application. coming from the sierra i never used to believe that snowshoes had a purpose, but now i do. the purpose is to slog through timber, or handle variable (bad) snow conditions with a heavy pack. that is, they are better than falling alot on skis. in open bowls skis will almost always rule. the uphill travel is smooth and rythmic, and you slide downhill. but if you have to go over snowy logs and boulders, snowshoes might be better.

Snow conditions above the ledges were perfect stiff snow going up and coming down. Crevasses were no problem at all..stepped over one or two, and over one bergy down on the Cowlitz. The chute was cake going up but nasty slush coming down, the whole ledge area was hot and slushy with airborne pebbles. the chute below the ledges, well, it just looked like more of that 35, 40 degree snow down there...definitely recieves junk from several sources...the Rock and the ice cliffs to the left. if i knew the mountain better, maybe next time, i would come down some other way, Ingraham and Cadaver or Cathedral Gap, not sure. Or i guess a really early start would do it. Our approach was too late to contemplate a truly early start.

Climb: Mt. Rainier-Gib Ledges Date of Climb: 3/21/2004 Trip Report: In '96 I drove up from California with a buddy to "climb Liberty Ridge". It was April. We really had no idea how low snow levels got in Washington, and certainly didn't know that the 410 was gated at the Park boundary. To make a long story short, we hiked, then skied, with huge packs, from the Park boundary at the NE entrance up to Glacier Basin and sat for 10 days or so in snow and rain, or snowy rain. The closest we got to Lib Ridge was somewhere on the lower Curtis overlooking the Carbon. We looked at Lib Ridge, looked at the new snow, and we were scared. Instead we picked one only slightly lowsy day and climbed the Winthrop up to Camp Schurmann, then up the Emmons. We reached what I assume was the crater rim--a rocky point where the winds intensified fourfold. I dont recall even discussing trying to cross the unknown whiteout summit; we just turned around and headed for camp and California. A year and a half ago I moved to Washington, but I haven't climbed as much as I used to. Yesterday I made it back to Rainier yesterday and summited in good weather via Gib Ledges. I'm sort of psyched. Here's the little TR, with no pictures because I left my camera in the car. I had a brunch on Saturday of course, so I couldn't get out of town until after noon. We were permitted and eating pasta in the lot by 5; on the trail at 6. I held up partner Jon, who's younger and fitter than me. We had decided on skis, which I removed on the Snowfield in favor of crampons. Jon persisted on boards, and we were at Muir by 10. We cooked for an hour in the hut while whispering to keep from disturbing the few cocoons in the dark corners. We got four hours of sleep only to rise and light the stoves again at 3. Two hours later we were on our way. Once again, it was obvious I was holding Jon up, but he had no other partner so I was safe from being abandoned. Nonetheless, we made steady if not rapid progress, and soon passed the famous Ledges (firm, icy tracks made travel easy) and made our way up styrofoam windslab to the plateau. We enjoyed perfect view of Adams, St. Helens and Hood. We spent some time pointing at mountains and naming them, to demonstrate our knowledge of our state's geography. Crossing the plateau was a very unappealing prospect, but we felt obligated to make the true tippy top, so off we went. Even on the summit the winds weren't really that bad; it was a great summit day. We were there just before 11, having completed the route from Muir in about 6 hours. Initially, going down was fast and easy. But at the ledges we promptly got off route and cliffed ourselves out on a high ledge. I was tired and irritable by this time, so I yelled "fuck" a few times before backtracking to the lower ledge. A half hour wasted. This time the traverse of the Cowlitz Cleaver seemed an eternity. Why hadn't I noticed its length on the way up? We must have made it to the Hut by 3. I had a headache despite real efforts to hydrate, but since I had Jon along I was able to lie on my back for an hour whle he whipped up some quick grub, with water to chase it. Advil for dessert. I had started much earlier to dread my "ski descent" and really couldn't understand how I had, at the car earlier, believed I would be able to ski 4000 feet in unknown snow conditions with an overnight pack wearing leather boots attached to railed out boards bought in 1993...after climbing and descending Mt. Rainier. I put the skis on, got my pack on, accomplished one traverse and kick turn, then beatered good. I had an immediate temper tantrum. I beat the sastrugi with my ski poles. Cruel gods, I had carried the cursed boards halway to Muir, now I would carry them all the way down. There is surely someone out there that could have skied right down with same gear and conditions, but it isn't me. Jon lasted a bit longer with the benefit of actual tele boots and proper skis, but eventually gave in and suffered the skis on his back as well. We walked down in agony, knowing that our chances to make the gate curfew were growing ever more remote. The path of the vile bootpack led over the "summit" of Alta Vista, a hump we had traversed the previous day on skis. We were back at the car a little after 7 and soon on our way down. Indeed, the gate was locked in Longmire. Would we have to search Longmire for the keyholder? No, our luck was improving. A pickup emerged from behind the Admin building. We flagged it immediately. It was operated by none other than the Snow Ranger. You could tell this by his gaiters, which kept his Koflach Arctis Expeditions from getting snowy inside. He instantly produced an all purpose government key and drew the gate aside. We were free. Fueled by powerful Ashford road coffee, we made it to Seattle without further incident or events worth reporting in this forum. Thank you for enduring this report. Gear Notes: snowshoes Approach Notes: do not use skis

they certainly don't need permission from a business owner to impound a vehicle. they also don't need permission or any probable cause to run a license plate.

if the registered owner had a suspended license, the officer clearly had probable cause to believe the vehicle was being operated by someone with a suspended license. and in fact it was operated by someone with as suspended license, albeit not the same person.

Anyway, I think there's some good arguments that have been made against fees: 1) there are many tax funded programs that benefit select groups and no fee is levied against those groups. On the other hand, there are also many tax funded programs that are supplemented by user or service recipient fees. 2) general funds are the appropriate way to fund public lands because of the essential characteristic of public lands, especially Wilderness, as free, unconfined places. 3) an argument i've made myself, that there isnt a geat track record for fee programs by the agency in questio, USFS. On the other hand, NPS has been charging fees for Park access for years, people seem to believe the fee is worth it, and i havent seen any in this forum suggest free access to Parks is workable. The idea that Forests create a lower cost alternative to Parks is pretty good. i'm still not swayed by the "barrier to the poor" argument. Wilderness users arent poor, preferences seem to matter as much as cost barriers, and the barriers that do exist are primarily from costs apart from fees. i orignally posted to object to the characterization of the $85 Golden eagle upgrade as a new fee, which it is not. i also think that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with user fees for recreation...they have been around, they will be around, and if they are applied to a new area,let us insure that the revenues are used for those locations where they are collected. that was always my point, not to defend the Northwest Forest Pass, but to say that well structured user fees can lead to better management.

worthless analogy. next...

i should have been more cautious with my use of the term "significant". let's substitute large percentage or big part of the cost for the sake of discussion.

So in this example the fee is $5 for parking. i dont know about Wilderness permit fees, i think the "fee" is for reservation? so thats 11% of out of pocket expenses. now consider the money the family of four spent on equipment and the service life of the equipment. It adds up a lot. But even ignoring this that family spent less than a trip to a two hour movie. even with a fee, public lands are an incredible recreation value. The fees we might pay add up to a small percent of what we pay to be wilderness recreationists. Whether you like or hate fees, prefer funding through taxes or fees, i think it is still not true that such small fees create an meaningful economic barrier for those desiring wilderness recreation.

a shortfall in the funds provided for resource management, not fund availability.

remember the $85 pass is not mandatory and is not some minimum fee to access public lands. its just a package deal for places with exisitng fees that would add up to more than $85 if you took enough trips. you can be a discriminating shopper. also, many Parks are designated wilderness (Rainier = 97%). we've paid fees for years to go to those places.

However, we are still paying taxes, but now its not free. If there is a shortfall in funding it is up to the legislature to gather taxes. I'm not opposed to expanding general fund allocation. it would be fine with me to continue to fund all forest based recreation with general funds, but i would acknowledge it as a windfall, not an entitlement. my take is that some fee applications are an acceptable way to deal with the reality that there is a shortfall and the legislature does not appear to be willing to fix it. Again, we still pay taxes, the politicians have just used the same money that would support the FS and put it toward PORK, because the users will pay. I dont know, Rod, I think the PORK problem may be separate issue. In effect the users are being taxed double. Right, and non-users are single taxed. Further, and just as bad, is that it is slowly creeping up to the point where “public lands” (parks are another issue) are becoming for those that can afford the fees. This is beginning to leave out a good portion of the public and is only getting worse. We still pay taxes and now they want user fees also. This is not like a “sin tax.” This is historically non-fee public land with a long history of public use for recreation. i dont buy this. There is no fee ever used or contemplated that adds up to a significant percentage of the cost (individual) of visiting public lands. Low income people are denied access due to cost, but not cost of fees, but cost of gas and other travel expenses. And these groups prefernces may matteemore than cost...studies show that many low income people prefer facilities we associate more with municipal and county park systems. Climbers and wilderness users are wealthier and better educated than the US average. And they spend enormous amounts on recreation, far in excess of the cost of fees. I currently buy a $50 Parks pass every year. last year i bought the $35 NW Forest Pass (plus a couple $5 day passes because i forgot my Annual). I'm pretty poor these days(grad student), but even i have to admit i spend a lot more every year on gear, as well as gas, truck, and everything else that adds up during a trip to the mountains. Small fees will not reduce demand for this type of recreation to a meaningful degree. Personally, I dont like the NWFP because I think the money never went to the areas where the fees were collected. That's a bad fee. But not all fees need to be this way. Paying to get into, and use, the Parks is different. You are paying for the facilities. The Parks are financed differently through the Dept. of Interior. This has been the long standing tradition. If you cant afford the parks you can go to the Forests. Oh, no you cant, not anymore. The NPS is in the DOI and USFS in DOA. But both are funded by general fund (among other) appropriations. There is a USFS tradition of free access, but let us consider that the USFS doesnt get the timber receipts it used to. i'm OK with that. But it also means that they cant piggyback recreation on extractive activites anymore. If the USFS is going to put the emphasis I would like on recreation rather than resource extraction, it will need to think more like NPS.

You mention maintenance, and I say what maintenance? Volunteers already do almost all the trailwork currently I don't believe this to be true, though its more true with Wilderness trailwork all the time. But it will never be true for the person who operates the grader, plows snow, or the contracter whos hired to rebuild a bridge. This thing will barely cover the cost of enforcement. If you have a popular trailhead on a weekend day in the Summer, and have say 50 cars parked, revenue at best will be $5 (daily fee) x 50 = $250. How much money do you think it costs to hire the FS Ranger, pay for signs, provide the Ranger with a Good Vehicle, provide the Ranger with all the other benefits associated with the job (health / life / disability insurance, retirement plan, etc), not to mention the cost of following up on citations, etc. The cost could easily = $250 if not more. Keep in mind that that revenue would be for a BUSY WEEKEND DAY! This is a valid crticism and concern about fee prgrams in my opinion. As I said before, if the transaction costs are too high, the fee doesnt make sense. My understanding is that this is a basic problem with the NW Forest Pass. I dont think all fees are fatally flawed in this way. Its context specific, and has to do with costs of issuance and enforcement.

burgersling, just be clear, i think your argument has merit. it would be impossible to create a fee system for all public services. in the case of recreation i think you often can, and it is a good way to insure we get the services we want.

there are lots of cases of tax revenues going to benefit specific groups. and where the transaction cost for isolating and charging that group is high, there is no justifiable reason to do so. but with many recreation cases, the cost of identifying users and the services they receive is low. it might be a better solution than to let our services and infrastructure deteriorate because the general funds just arent being delivered. many other recreation groups do pay fees for their services and when they come to the bargaining table, they are entitled to expectations for services. ina any case, this thread was opened on the premise that the $85 golden eagle upgrade was an insidious plot to deprive us of our money. in fact all it is is a multi-site pass for areas that have long used fees, e.g. state and national parks. in fact most national park visitors claim high satisfaction with their experience in the parks and say the fee is worth it. people pony up for this stuff all the time, but for some reason climbers and wilderness users refuse to pony up for forest service land access and claim it is on principle. the only principle i see is wallet protection. i'll mention again that i dont think fees can or should be the sole source of funding for public land management. but it is an appropriate way to fund services clearly linked to an identifiable user group.

Agreed. We should accept the reality that fees will be one (but not the only) mechanism to pay for recreation costs, and concentrate on 1) transparent use of funds and clear links to costs, 2) low transaction cost, 3) equitable application of fees across users types.

what's your take?