Bill_Simpkins

I'm still into establishing or exploring for a better route to the crest via Boot Lake Pass. Even if no trail work can be done, at least we can find the best "schwack" way or rediscover some old path from Road 12 to Boot Lake Pass. Didn't have a chance to get up there during the nice weather, but still planning on it. I want to wait until the snow is gone to see what we are really facing.

Darn. Actually for an ATC I like the BD even with thin ropes. It's simple. If you need more friction just clip a biner to you leg loop and go through that too. The Reverso is nice though for belaying from above. Many people I know swear by it, but I'm stubborn. The BD is light and simple. I found the B52 annoying.

Bring a fishing pole. Piper Lake sometimes has an easy catch, or used to. I really enjoy the Chilko Lake area if you can get down there. There are some nice trails too. I agree, go the other way to avoid The Hill. Bear spray? hmmmmm, never needed it or felt insecure without in that area. Maybe up by Skagway.

Patagonia Guide Pants, not the Super Guides which have gators and suspenders either. They are perfect and simple and very comfortable. I wear them all year around. However, they stopped making them for a while but they are bring them back this Fall, with a few improvments, which I've seen and they are actually good improvements, not crap. Also the Patagonia Talus Pant I believe is pretty simple and nice, but I don't know if they have a zipper. The Black Diamonds seem to work good for many people. I'd reccomend not getting softshells with a liner and if you get too thin the wind will go right through them, like the REI Minstral. Also watch for extra matierial in the crotch. You want a good close fit down there else you could chafe! (ewwwwwww). The Patagonias are a good thickness and the zipper goes both directions, so its easy to take a piss with a harness on.

I thought about getting some light weights this year, but I'm just going to stick with tennis shoes or my light gortex hiking boots until further notice.

Munter Hitch

The pad strapped to the outside is partly used for effect. So, when people look at the pictures in the magazines, they say to themselves, "They are going to sleep up there?" -Adds to the hardman image. It's kind of like the carabiner key chain on crack.

I currently use the Montrail Torre GTX. They have done the job so far. Not stiff enough for sustained fron pointing. They are just hiking boots, but the edges are good and they are waterproof and comfortable. You can hike the PCT trail in them or go up Mt. Baker or summer scrambles. Look like this.

.. if your a hardman, that is.

No, they just make you whine about everything.

If my calculations are currect, the Ridge Rest wins for comfort times density. Blue comes in second. So if you take a Ridge Rest and cut off what you don't need ... plus a warmer pad = lighter sleeping bag ... COMFORT and Density. From MEC web site: Blue: 50 cm x190 cm x 1cm = 9500 cm^3 275 g implies 0.0289 g/cm^3 R=1.36 1.36 x 0.0289 = 0.034 Yellow BIVY: 50 cm x 150 cm x0.5cm = 3750 cm^3 175 g 175/3750 = 0.047 R=0.66 0.66 x 0.047 = 0.031 Ridge Rest Short: 51 cm x 119 cm x 1.5 cm = 9103 cm^3 260 g 260/9103 = 0.029g/cm^3 R=2.6 2.6 x 0.029 = 0.075 Basically, you have to more than triple the yellow pad to get the comfort of the ridge rest. However, the yellow is warm enough for rock. My advice, yellow for rock, blue for don't know, ridge rest for snow. Comfort and thickness: Blue is 1 cm thick with R=1.36 1.36/1 = 1.36 Yellow is 0.5 cm thick with R=0.66 0.66/0.5 = 1.32 Ridge Rest is 1.5 cm thick with R=2.6 2.6/1.5=1.73 Who knows, I'm just blabbing.

Wrap a 1/2 of any pad inside your pack. That with removable bivi pad that comes with most packs is more than enough. = no pad on outside. This works with many packs. If the pack is too small for this, the hardman pad on the outside is the way to go because of less bulk and less weight. I have a "blue hardman pad". Does that count?

There should still be a flagged route heading to Lake Wiseman from just North of Elbow Lake. Once at Lake Wiseman, the ridge is easy to get to up a mellow snow slow early season. I've traversed the ridge a little ways, but not more than 1/4 mile W. from Wiseman. Looked fun, but didn't have enough time. One can also approach that ridge from Road 12. About 1/2 mile before Elbow Lake, from Road 12, take a left on the old Pioneer Camp Trail. Follow this ambandoned, but in good shape and serene trail across a creek, up switchbacks and back south. When the trail starts to curve back W. and when you are on the "corner" of the hill, head straight up through the woods (easy brush) for half an hour or so to rock, scrubs and heather. Hike and scramble on this ridge avoiding minor difficulties by passing on the south flanks. After a while, you can see Lake Wiseman below from the ridge crest. You can continue on to a nice point on the ridge and even further to The Sisters Crest proper. The ridge appears to be pretty sharp in areas past the lake view. I'd reccomend a rope, slings, larger stoppers sizes and tricams to the willing adventurer continueing to the Sisters Crest.

I think a good way to get to the South End is via Road 12 to Boot Lake Pass. However, I'm doing the traverse in April, and the most straight forward way, I think, is just to hike up the middle fork as usual for the Twin, leave bikes there, and huff the hike on logging roads to the south end, do the complete traverse and ride out. 1st day: hike to south end and gain lower lakes. 2nd day: Traverse to Boot Lake 3rd day, long day, finish traverse. I think in late summer, the whole traverse could easily be done in two days car to car. A one day car to car doesn't seem impossible. I've done the N. Twin car to car from middle fork gate via the South Face and Decended the West Ridge in 5.5 hours, my friend Pat did the W ridge up and down in 4.5 hours and I believe Layton did it even faster and decended the N. Face. Considering that (that a lot of people are in better shape than me), a well fit human could bike the approach, run the roads to the south and scramble like hell the whole traverse all in 24 hours? From what I saw it looks like Colin could pull it off. Who was the guy who did the Tetons in a day? Alex Lowe? That seemed way more involved. The Sisters Range in a day WILL go. hehe

Yeah, we were off route a bit because the conditions made the standard route look sketchy, although looking back, maybe safer than the way we went. There is another route closer to the pass with some really mellow terrain. I found this website: The pictures are on the left I want to try this way next time! probably the way to go with the current conditions. More snow, the route we went, but through the slot would be the easiest, I think.

I'm guessing they took the arial photography from Microsoft terraserver and over layed a digital topographic map and just modeled it that way, automatically. The clearcuts are funny!

Climb: Mt. Sefrit -Southeast Ridge - Attempt Date of Climb: 3/13/2005 Trip Report: Me and Chuck E tried to climb the SE ridge of Sefrit on Sunday. We were aware of the longer, more gentler approach that takes the route closer to Hannegan Pass, but we opted for the appraoch in the Beckey book instead, as it was more direct. At 7:00 am we hiked up the Hannegan Pass trail for a mile or so and hiked down the dried-up streambed to the river. We crossed the river on a good log and headed up for 20 minutes or so on loose boulders and avalanche debris. -We went up the trees and slabs to the right of the slot just right of center. Nachaktsen Peak is on the left. big version of picture We decided not to take the steep-walled slot-col as described in the Beckey book, because the lack of snow would have provided us with sketchy punch-throughs etc... We headed up the trees just right of the slot and left of the slabs. After about half an hour of very steep bushwacking through slide alders we headed out onto the slabs to the right. -Look down to the right onto the slabs. Big Version of Picture The slabs were pretty iced up and provided very little handholds and no protection. it was too late, however, to go back into the trees and we had to commit to going up. We traversed farther right to a schrub and I was able to dig out my rope and a double runner but nothing else. I threw an end up to Chuck before he had to do some 5.6 ish friction moves on the damp/icy slab in his hiking boots. I girth hitched together the different branchs on the bush to try and provide somewhat of a belay. The fall would have been bad. 200-300 fit on a steep slab to moating steep snow. He went up until the rope ran out and provided a somewhat solid hip belay while standing on a handhold. I made it to him witht the rope tied around my wrist and then we scrambled right and were safe on the snow. We should have put on our harnesses down lower, but we got caught off gaurd. The snow was hard so we put on crampons and ascended a snowy gully to the glacier. The glacier was a straight forward mini-slog to the top of the ridge. Our adventure on the slabs took its toll on the time, as it was already noon. -Chuck on the nice snow. Bigger Version. Nice picture The sun was beating down hard on the slopes which showed recent slide activity and we decided to retreat in interest of safety and an engagement at 6:30. -Pretty fresh slides near the ridge crest. bigger version of slides ON the way down we were able to stay in the steep trees and slide alder with one or two class 3-4 sections, but safe. We got to the truck at 4:00. I can post close up pictures of Sefrit if anyone wants to see them. Gear Notes: Crampons, Ice Axe, slings, rope. A picket or two would be nice if going to the summit this time of year. Approach Notes: Either go the longer mellower way, stay in the trees between the slot and the slabs, or take the slot when there is plenty of snow. Watch for slides and cornices high above. Stay off the slabs, especially this time of year. The ridge to the summit looks straight forward. Just stay off the cornices early season.

I never said once I agree with GWB. I hate the bastard. I don't think he gives a crap about the environment. But neither we, if we drive. It's easy to talk, easy to feel, but harder to change. Read closer please.

Governments for the last five-thousand years have made bad choices either for personal gain or just stupidity. I don't think that many of the choices we've made are good ones. That does not have anything to do whether or not they are well informed and that some of the choices they have to make are based on information we don't understand yet. All I know is this descision for AK drilling is partly based on right vs left, but it has been an issue for many administrations. That ought to tell you that something is important here. Companies wanting a profit and our need for rescources are the same thing. Instability in the countries where we get a lot of oil is a big deal for a nation where liberals and right-wingers BOTH drive cars and BOTH use oil. They BOTH complain about high gases prices, yet one of them has no right to complain because they don't want to get oil from a stable source, which is in our own country. If you don't want to drill in our own back yard, stop driving, stop complaining and go to war or kiss ass with countries with large oil reserves(which is what we are doing). In a country that so heavily relies on fossil fuels, there are not many choices if you want to keep it up. Every time you drive your car, democrat or republican, YOU are voting for us to war in the middle east. YOU are voting for oil companies to ruin enthic villages in Central America. To complain about GWB going to war for oil and then getting in your car and basically VOTING for this war by stepping on the gas pedal is hypochracy at it's worse. people complain about the government not working for the people, but they are! They work everyday for what 99% of us do everyday, and that is drive these cars. If we everyday 99% spent most of our time helping others and doing environmental causes, I'm sure the Government would be right there with us. But our everyday actions is a much BIGGER vote than the ballot you punch every four years.

I hate the "not in my backyard" ideology. If we drive, we should be willing to drill on our own land. To think that our land is more important than other peoples is just pride talking.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too? ok Dru. Tell me everything YOU think the government knows? You think they havn't done long termssustainability effects on the world and such? They are probably all over that! They know where all the known resource reserves are blah blah blah. It's just bad politics to talk about it. We just hear what the news tells us they know. People in government usually are people like you and me. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are really smart and some are really dumb. There are hics and intellects. To think that the think tanks don't think about this stuff (nice sentence huh?!) is silly. The government has a record of contracting the top scientists for think tanks all the way back to WWI. Why would that be different now? We criticize them for doing what they do with foreign policy and other things, but we have NO IDEA what information they hold. We really don't know crap. Are you telling me that you know everything they do? Are you that informed? You would make the same decisions you have in your head now possible knowing only1/10 of what they know about a situation? I am making an assumption here, but I think it's pretty reasonable based on the track record of previous Wars, programs, etc...

Talk about tooth faries. You misinterpreted my statement. I hate George Bush and his environmental policies. However, the statement which implied he would only make science based policies when concerning environmental acts is a good statement for a president to make, whether or not he makes good policies or not, whether or not you agree with his policies or not. The statement it self needs to be used more. People in government need to make more decisions based on science and stop appealling so much to the emotions of their voters. Thinking that the world is going to fix itself is worse than believing in the Tooth Fairy.

You forget a human characteristic fundamental to emotion: greed. The oil-based governmantal & industrial engines of this planet will not choose to change to another energy source, however scientifically superior, until econonmic wealth, corporately and individually, is assured. Saw an inventor on Carson's Tonight Show back in the early '80's display an engine that was powered, in a rotary manner, by the opposing poles of many magnets. His device was smaller than a four-cylinder automotive engine. When allowed to run, the "magnet motor" powered a 5KW generator which powered all the lights in the building without a grunt. A brake was required to keep this engine from running non-stop. The only oil this engine required was for its bearings. The inventor told Carson the U.S. patent office refused to give him a patent as they were not awarded for designs of "perpetual-motion" machines. I've never heard of the inventor, nor his invention, again. There is NO such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Conspiracy theorists talk about them etc...but they are all a fraud. If they exist, why can't we re-create them? Science is about repeatable, reliable results. Not, The Johny Carson Show, although it ruled!

Even at current levels, the Earth can't support this population with the current utilization rates. China' laws are marginally effective. Many families still have than one child there. The population is curving in the U.S. for the better, but is it fast enough to compensate for current utilization? We are using more and more resources per year per person. Something has to give. My evidence IS that we are looking more places for resources. If there wasn't a concern about current resources, we wouldn't be so concerned about it, dig? In my opinion, the government isn't as stupid as we think it is. They obviously have had much thought about what they feel needs to be done. This issue has been dragging on for years, through different administrations. It is past politics. The brainiacs informing the decision makers obviously are concerned about resources. i don't like our president, but I do think that the statement saying he will make scienced based policies is a good one. I say this because following the reccomendations based on science, not emotions, will lead to a solution, if there is one. We can't blamed GWB for the destruction of the Earth because WE DRIVE CARS AND EAT AND SHIT EVERYDAY! We HAVE gotten ourselves into a FINE mess. Some problems in life can't be solved easily, sometimes it takes drastic measures, like cutting the rope. The longer we wait, the harder the fall.

Supply and demand. Too many people. Fact is, there are only two solutions, and that is for everone in the world to stop having babies, cold turkey, for the next 50 years, or for utilization to drop with slow population decrease. You can conserve all the land you want, but the business will just take itself somewhere else because the resources to support this many people doesn't come from Santas Claus under the tree every year. If we use oil, we should at least be willing to accept the consequences, which may involve sacrificing our own wilderness. I hate it, but it is a fact that resources have to come from somewhere, and if the trend continues, will eventually come from everywhere it is available on the Earth. There will be no such thing as conservation, just delaying. Complaining about drilling in AK is a huge waste of time. It does nothing to solve the problem. Focusing on population and utilization could show long term results. Let me repeat for all of you: If we don't curve population or utilization, we will have to go EVERYWHERE on the Earth for resources just to survive. It's the old Fox-Squirrel and Rabbit model some of us learned in Differential Equations. All the other stuff is ruled out by the bigger picture. If we don't bring things back to the equilibrium point, the Earth will do it for us. What do you want? That is the choice we are faced with.