chris

I spoke with Martin when I registered. He said only a short amount of time would be spent indoors, the rest outside practicing. Its a one-day clinic, how complicated can the schedule be? I've taken two Level I's and a Level II, and I'm getting ready to take a Level III. I don't work on a ski patrol, and really feel like I never get enough practice. This is a great oppurtunity to practice with experts, and receive expert feedback. You always learn faster with an instructor than a book... For a side note, I was at Jackson Hole Ski Resort when the Ski Patrol there started demo'ing the BCA Tracker. The Patrol Director was so impressed that he replaced all of the Patrol's Pieps with Trackers the next year. For me, I finally replaced my Pieps with a Barryvox. I spend enough days out to justify the cost. Its niiiiicccceeeee........

Just wanted to share with the group that Pro Ski Guide Service is offering an Advanced Transceiver Search Clinic, 24 February, for $85.00. Its intended for those with any level of Avalanche Certification and Intermediate Skiing Ability. I signed up because I thought this was a great way to get practice and professional, constructive feedback. I think anyone who wants to further practive their transceiver search skills could benefit.

I bought a pair of Scarpa Alpha´s (last year´s, pre-thermofit) and I absolutely dig them. I liked them so much I sold my Invernos. I´ll be buying a pair of thermofit liners next week for winter climbing.

I'm ordering the Traverse EXT Shovel from Backcountry Access. Its advertised as the lightest aluminium extendable shovel. Having it be metal and extendable is important to me. Its first purpose is for avie rescue, and hard debris can turn away a lexan blade (you can also light a stove on a metal shovel blade). But having an extendable handle keeps me from breaking my back digging pits.

As I understand it, the billing is for as long as the ski patrol is working the incident. And in defense of it, it isn't profiteering. The billing is for time and expenses having ski patrol work out of the area instead of in bounds where ticket-paying public have paid for them. It starts as soon as patrollers leave the the ski area, and ends when they come back. Of course, if its too busy inbounds (multiple accidents, etc.), or if its deemed to hazardous (high avalanche danger), then ski patrol wont go. This is as I understand it from talking to ski patrollers at Crystal and Stevens over the past few years. If I've got it wrong, please step up and correct me.

There's a similar thread elsewhere, and I've said this there. Crystal and Stevens Pass have a similar OB policy. If someone is determined OB or missing at closing, the Ski Patrol notifies county SAR and also offer to the victim's family to initiate the search and or rescue if necessary. The family is made aware that they will be charged for Ski Patrol Services. County SAR does not charge - Ski Patrol (a pivate service) does.

I think its important to point out that the SKI PATROL charged for the rescue, not the County SAR. That is also the case at Crystal and Stevens PAss: if the victim's family requests ski patrol assistance in the rescue, they agree to pay the Ski Patrol for their rescue services.

In May, there's enough snow to easily cross the Carbon. I was there the first week of June and it looked negotiable. So what about waiting until the White River road is open and run across!

This is great!!! Thanks to griz and dkemp - PM me and we'll figure out how to let me buy you a Cheers!

I'm trying to do some Alaska research, and can't seem to find a website which might list or post thumbnails of Dr. Washburn's aerial survey photos. I once had his email address, but I seem to have lost that as well. All my internet searching has come up with nothing. Can anyone help? Free in return!

Hey guys, Just a small point of clarification. The UIAA does not certify guides. Guiding is certified at a national level by national guiding associations, such as the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides or the American Mountain Guide Association. The Associations are part of an International Federation, called the International Federation of Mountain Guide Associations. Depending on whether you want to speak in english, french, or german (the three document languages), the correct acronym (spelling?) is IFMGA, UIAGM, or IVBV, respectively. UIAGM is the most commonly seen, but with the AMGA's admittance six or seven years ago, IFMGA is becoming more popular in North America. For more information and lots of links, check out the American Mountain Guide Association at www.amga.com

The Federal Wilderness Act dates back to the 1960s..I think 1965. It is Federal and controls specifcially designated Wilderness areas in National Forests. That has always been my understanding (I actully did some research on it in law school some years ago). But I can't confirm this 100%. I am curious, because if this is the case then Camp Muir is a violation of the Act. Do you have a cite for the Washington law that you refer to? It's actually all federal law, not state - the U.S. cite is 102 Stat. 3965 (1988). It's kind of a weird deal with Rainier, because the whole thing was created as a National Park in 1893, way before the 1964 Wilderness Act. I think that part of the Wilderness Act required the park service to study existing parks and figure out what portions should be designated and managed as wilderness. They did that, and in 1988 most (but not all) of the park was designated as wilderness. My hunch is that you are right, and Muir is not part of the wilderness portion of the park. Except on Saturday. I spoke with the climbing rangers about this a number of times. One of the issues that must be addressed when evaluating a piece of land for wilderness designation is its historical use. Initially, the standard Muir approach and the Disapointment Cleaver were included in the wilderness designation. That's why RMI had to build that ugle brown box - the law dictated that any structures in a wilderness be "temporary" in construction. The RMI Client Shelter was built in the late 70's. I believe this change was based on the early traffic of 100+ "expeditions" lead by the Mazamas, the permanent, historical structures that exist, and the removed structures, such as the Fire Observatory that used to exist at Anvil Rock. So the Park re-evaluated the "Muir Corridor" and decided to creat a non-wilderness track to the summit. From Paradise, this corridor stretches on the paved trails to the Muir Snowfield, bracketed by the Nisqually Glacier to the west and the Paradise and Cowlitz Glaciers to the east. From Camp Muir, I believe the corridor traverses right from Cadaver Gap to lower Cathedral Gap, then on to the Disapointment Cleaver. From there, essentially it travels up the Ingraham Glacier to the summit, bracketed by Gibraltar Rock and upper Nisqually Glacier to climber's left and Disapointment Cleaver and the upper Emmons Glacier to climber's right. The stone structures at Camp Muir are WPA and CCC projects during the Depression. As part of the new General Management Plant, the Park hopes to remove the "temporary" RMI shelter and the Butler Shelter and replace them with a permanent, multi purpose hut for guided climbing teams, non-guided climbing teams, and rangers. Hope this helps

I’m usually pretty quite around here. But I just sent in my comments for the Commercial Services Plan (CSP) 2003 for Mount Rainier National Park. And I want to weigh in here as well. I am in favor of increased competition, specifically, in two or three concessionaires being awarded to guide. I am in favor of the individual, single year Commercial Use Authorizations (CUAs). I am even in favor of limiting guiding on certain routes to certain weekdays. Of course, the devil is in the details. And I don’t like many of the details as described in the CSP. For the three anticipated concessionaires, I do foresee a difficult introduction. To coordinate the logistics at Camp Muir, Camp Schurman, and on the “upper mountain”, will require pro-active planning and meetings. I think it would be wise for the Park Service to mandate and moderate these meetings. I am absolutely against decreasing the number of guided climbers. RMI refers to this as the “guided public”, and it’s a good way to think of it. Why decrease? The guide services are the only organizations that can be held accountable for non-LNT practices. LNT training is an industry standard. And the last thing guides want to do is impact negatively the very mountains they make their living on. Also, the number the park service uses are in conflict. In one section, they say the guided public makes up only 33% of the climbers on Mt. Rainier, yet in another section, they say that the guided public made up over 4100 people out of 10,000 climbers. That’s 40%, and a significant deviation. I would argue to determine the total number of climbers that the park would like to see on a given day or in a given season, and determine the number of guided climbers from that statistic instead. Decreasing to 4000 is arbitrary and without any factual basis. I disagree with the park service requiring a 1:4 guide: client minimum ratio. This is contrary to the national and international techniques taught by the American Mountain Guide Association (AMGA) and other members of the International Association of Mountain Guide Associations (IFMGA/UIAGM). If the Park Service wishes to limit the maximum group size, it should do so based on resource management. Professional guides should be allowed to use their judgment in determining the minimum safe number to climb with. Do independent climbers want the Park to tell us that we must climb in a group no smaller than five on a rope? I would like to see the individual CUAs implemented differently. This is described as a method to encourage IFMGA/UIAGM certified guides to gain access, increase competition, and encourage a wider variety of services. Yet the Cue’s described are arbitrarily set to 18 and the number of CUA user days is at 90. Also, the concessionaires are allowed to apply for the individual CUAs as well. Why? I would rather see the individual CUAs be used to encourage small group, short visit, single-trip guiding. Concessionaires should not be allowed to apply for these. Allowing them to do so defeats the stated purpose of the CUAs existence. I would also like to see the number of Cue’s be given out freely, until all the user days are taken. This would mean that some years there might be 18 CUAs, and other years there might be 36, but regardless, only 90 or 100 user days. Finally, I am also against closing certain routes to guiding. First, doing so would simply create a market for “pirate-guiding” these routes. Also, routes like Liberty Ridge, Tahoma Glacier, and the Mowich Face are classics. It is blatant discrimination to keep guided climbers from having access. It can be managed. I think by limiting guiding to small groups (smaller than the 1:4 ratio discussed above), allowing only one guided team on the route at any time, and restricting the guided group to week days would address many of the management concerns. And other routes should also be limited to weekday guiding only. Specifically, technical routes with bottlenecks that can increase objective hazard; routes that come to mind are Liberty Ridge, Kautz Glacier, and Furher Finger. Many people here appear to believe that guiding is inferior to independent climbing. Why? Guided parties accomplished many first ascents all over the world. Without doing any research, immediately coming to mind is Mt. Robson in Canada, Mt. Kennedy in Alaska/Yukon, and our very own Mount Rainier. The first ascent of Mount Rainier took place on 17 August 1870, when Philemon Van Trump guided General Stevens Hazard to the summit. John Muir was guided for the fourth ascent. In the early decades of the 1900’s, the Mazamas were having Mt. Rainier Expeditions with over 100 people in the party (safety was in numbers). Guiding is a legitimate method of climbing. My father was an excellent marksman and fisherman, but he wasn’t above hiring a guide. Why? He could only take a limited amount of time off from work, and wanted to make sure that his odds of having a successful trip be as great as possible. Of course RMI is fighting hard for its future. What kind of management would this company have if it weren’t? It’s not putting a “spin” on anything. The concerns it raised in its official letter and at the public commentary meetings are legitimate, and the park service should address them. Sure RMI has a good chance of being awarded one of the three concession contracts in Preferred Alternative 3. RMI is one of the oldest guide services in the country, and one of the largest, despite only guiding on Denali and Rainier. If Alternative 3 is chosen, RMI will have no choice but to start competing internationally as well. Before that happens, they will have to lay off a significant number of guides and office staff. Meanwhile, the guides from RMI, Alpine Ascents International, American Alpine Institute, Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides, and Cascade Alpine Guides provide a valuable service to their clients and the non-guided climbers. They augment the rescue services of the Park and more often than not are the first people to initiate a rescue. Countless people have reached the summit via the Ingraham Headwall or the Disappointment Cleaver only because of the work done by RMI to make the route fast and efficient. The fixed lines, nice traverse paths, and bridges are built, maintained, and removed when no longer necessary by the guide services, not the park. In conclusion, while Preferred Alternative 3 seems to be the best, I would like to see significant changes to many of the points within it. I’ll come out of the closet too. I am a professional guide, and because of restrictions that exist and like some proposed above I have to work for four different companies in order to barely make $20k a year. One of the very reason’s I’m working so hard on my AMGA/IFMGA certification is to leave the United States and live in Canada or Europe where guiding is paid a living wage. Any move to open guiding to competition and impose fewer restrictions could potentially improve my work and living conditions. Thanks for reading this through and taking time to consider it. Feel free to post or PM any responses. I'm going for a

Snoboy, Canada is not a good example. Instead of giving out individual concessions in each park, National Parks Canada has given a nation wide management permit to the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides. The ACMG was the sponsoring association that assisted the American Mountain Guide Association develop its program and join the International Federation of Mountain Guide Associations (IFMGA/UIAGM). Our Federal Government isn't ready to manage guided climbing at a national level, and perhaps never will be.

The only person who is an owner of Mt. Rainier Alpine Guides and International Mountain Guides is Eric Simonson. And he put his name on that email for a reason - he backs up what he says.

Drove up to the Silverton area on Friday to recon the alpine ice and found out that the Mountain Loop Highway is washed out and closed 3.5 miles towards Darrington from Barlowe Pass. Of course, not many people drive the pass for an aproach, but the information might be good to know. Also, several sections of the road between Granite Falls and Silverton have been severely undercut and narrowed down into one lane with multiple stop signs. I'd be surprised if this is on the fast track to get repaired, so be careful driving!

This issue is several years old, as Glen moved on from being a Ranger on Mt. Hood in 2000 (he's on Rainier now). I don't remember all the details, but the fellow who typed this up against Glen was busted multiple times, by Glen and other Rangers, for guiding on Mt. Hood without a permit. I have a definite bias - Glen is a friend of mine.

I can't speak for Stone Gardens, but at VW: 1. As long as you pass the ATC test, they will show you how to work with a Gri-Gri. You only need to have prior experience with an ATC or other tube belay device. They use an ATC to test because it is the most common in the climbing community. 2. All of the Gri-Gri's in VW are rigged to floor anchors and pre threaded. Instruction during your belay test and ample signage about the gym say that only gym staff should re-thread the Gri-Gri, preventing someone from screwing up. There you have it as best as I know it.

Yate's has a great deal of information about screamers at their website. Check out www.yatesgear.com.

OK, I'm a screwup (Mom was right) ChrisS had his info right on, and I had my head up my cork. Sorry 'bought that. I'm going to go have another Cheers

Lanex Ropes SUCK!!! I have two friends who have tried them out. One fellow bought a single and the rope was so stiff and funky after a half-dozen climbs that he threw it away. Second fellow purchased a twin pair of 60 meters, and had to turn them into 50 meters after rapelling on them for the first time. Both of these guys are excellent climbers, and I don't believe it was operator error!

I was looking up some stats today to compare two 10mm, 60m ropes from different companies. I'm afraid Chriss has his information backwards. Dynamic load, in this case, was 7.1% versus 8%. Static load, however, was 30%. To me, this makes sense. To determine static load elongation, they simple keep pulling at the rope until it fails, versus a shock load.

Try the South Arete on South Early Winter Spire. Only the first pitch or pitch and a half is the crux. I carried 200' of 7mm cord for rappelling back down. Its a fun morning out.

You should check out Beal's website. Their theory is that the lowest possible impact force is best. A low impact force=lower forces on climber, belayer, anchor, and gear. A longer stretch is the trade off. Mark Twight advocates this as well, in the his instructional book.

In the end, it comes down to this. You will get what you pay for. You want to learn for free? Then count on it taking a lot of time (years) and a lot of mistakes. Depending on those mistakes, the learning curve can be sharp. And dangerous. An analogy is learning to ski or snowboard. You CAN learn on your own. But with instruction you learn faster. With personal instruction you'll learn even faster. RMI is the second oldest guide service in the country (after Exum in Jackson, Wyoming) and the largest. They were the first to offer expedition seminars, and their model was copied by many other guide services. But keep in mind - RMI operates on Mt. Rainier and Denali. That's it. But their guides have also climbed in every range in the world, for work and for fun. So for glacier travel and high altitude, you can't go wrong with RMI. Another Guide service I'd like to provide free advertising for: Northwest Mountain School. Located in Leavenworth, NMS offers group rock and alpine courses for teenagers. But over half of their business is providing private or custom adult trips. The owner is AMGA Rock Certified, one of the Program Directors is AMGA Rock and Alpine Certified, and several other guides are working towards certification as well. You can find them on the web at www.mountainschool.com. Cheers!