colt45

I'm 6'3; my girlfriend is 5'3. We both climb at basically the same grade for sport, trad, bouldering, and gym climbing. If height was a major determination of climbing ability, wouldn't the top climbers all be 7-8 feet tall??

That sounds like a pretty big generalization. As long as there is enough snow to create a homogenous surface (ie enough snow for skiing to actually be enjoyable), it should be possible to form layers in the snowpack which could fail. Moreover a shallow snowpack is prone to faceting.

With my current rap rope (8mm static) I always rig the "real" rope as the pull cord so I can then lead back up if the ropes get stuck (and in fact I have needed to do this on multiple occasions). I have been thinking of upgrading to 6mm static, which would obviously be more confidence inspiring used as the pull cord (because the knot would jam to keep the weight on the "real" rope, and the skinny cord wouldn't be dragged through the anchor and abraded). But have you had any problems with the "real" rope then getting stuck during the pull and having no way to free it?

I don't ice climb (yet), but for rock/alpine climbing every time I have used a partner's 70m rope I have found it annoying. There is a lot of extra rope to coil and the extra length is rarely useful. In situations where a 70m would allow a two-rope descent to be done with one rope it would definitely be nice, but such route are somewhat unusual (and with double ropes, rappelling isn't going to be a problem anyway). And for cragging, a 70m allows for lowering off long pitches and would be an asset, but you don't seem to be talking about x32/Index style cragging...

Nice pic in Climbing Magazine this month of you on a 2 pitch/turned into 1 pitch climb Jens. Suppose thats you. Didn't seem lame or dumb to me, looked sporting as hell, abiet runout in the pic. Schweet schweet granite! I believe that is the "other" northwest Jens (Jens Holsten).

I bet YOU are getting an ego trip by attracting attention to yourself with these antagonistic posts. After all, you have gotten more replies (including this post from me!) than anyone else in the thread.

Works fine with my 9.4 (Mammut Dominator). My grigri is several years old and is labeled "10-11mm"

My favorite send was getting out trad climbing or ski mountaineering every single weekend of 2006 (January through October anyway). Hoping for the same next year! Climbing=

ROTC really did feel like 11a to me but I did take 1 fall: The lower part went fine but in the finishing slot, after fully shaking out on a nice jam I moved to another handjam--and I inadvertantly let the sling from my cam placement get between the back of my hand and the rock so I slipped out of the jam and fell...I then got back on (without really resting, and well below the slot) and climbed through to finish the pitch. I have only tried the pitch once and haven't hiked back up to get a clean ascent so I guess it is lame for me comment on the grade. But FWIW a friend of mine who did successfully onsight on lead also thought ROTC felt closer to 11a than 11c. But anyway, whatever you call the grade it's an awesome pitch! (photo by Sky)

I think the only thing that is lame is saying one form of climbing is any "better" than another: whether comparing plastic vs alpine, sport vs peak-bagging, or 5.6 vs 5.13.

How many people really think ROTC is as hard as the grade implies? In reality, it is an amazing climb, but to me it never felt that hard. I'd call it 3 or 4 grades lower. Agreed, extremely "soft" for the grade (but still a great pitch!) My picks: trad-the dihedral pitch on Colchuck Balanced Rock W Face sport-Rainy Day Woman

I did read the entire statute. Did you? At the risk of wasting valuable cc.com board space, here is the section which lays out the criteria for extended involuntary commitment: ----------------- RCW 71.05.280 Additional confinement -- Grounds. At the expiration of the fourteen-day period of intensive treatment, a person may be confined for further treatment pursuant to RCW 71.05.320 if: (1) Such person after having been taken into custody for evaluation and treatment has threatened, attempted, or inflicted: (a) Physical harm upon the person of another or himself or herself, or substantial damage upon the property of another, and (b) as a result of mental disorder presents a likelihood of serious harm; or (2) Such person was taken into custody as a result of conduct in which he or she attempted or inflicted physical harm upon the person of another or himself or herself, or substantial damage upon the property of others, and continues to present, as a result of mental disorder, a likelihood of serious harm; or (3) Such person has been determined to be incompetent and criminal charges have been dismissed pursuant to RCW 10.77.090 (4), and has committed acts constituting a felony, and as a result of a mental disorder, presents a substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts. In any proceeding pursuant to this subsection it shall not be necessary to show intent, willfulness, or state of mind as an element of the crime; or (4) Such person is gravely disabled. ---------- Please let me know what I'm missing here

RCW 71.05.150: "When a county designated mental health professional receives information alleging that a person, as a result of a mental disorder: (i) Presents a likelihood of serious harm; or (ii) is gravely disabled; the county designated mental health professional may...file a petition for initial detention..." etc. http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResources/StateLaws/Washingtonstatute.htm

Great photos! And good choice on hitting Hospital Corner, it's probably the best 5.10a pitch I have ever climbed. I met her at the Bugaboos (pretty sure it's the same person). While she was climbing the Kain Route on Bugaboo spire, she left her boots at the base and they disappeared--probably stolen by an animal so she had to hike back to the hut in her rock shoes, borrow a pair of "real" shoes from someone in the hut, hike to the car, drive to Canmore, buy a new pair of boots, drive back, and hike up again!

I never run it out on dangerous terrain where there is a pretty good chance of me falling. My reasoning is simple--I like to go climbing as often as possible, so if I do put myself in dangerous runout situations where there is a good risk of falling, plus a good risk of injury in the event of a fall, then obviously I will eventually fall in this situation and be seriously injured. It seems to me that anyone who routinely runs it out near their limit, either (1) isn't really climbing near their limit because if they were they would have fallen by now or (2) isn't really on dangerous 'runout' terrain because if they were they would have been injured in the inevitable falls?? Not to say I only do climbs with pro every two feet; rather if I do run it out I try to ensure sure that I am "solid" on the moves and comfortable with any potential consequences. You do have a choice--don't climb that far on irreversible, unprotected climbing in the first place! Also it can be extremely valuable to pratice downclimbing. Last year I met someone who onsight free-solos 5.10. I didn't know how he did it (didn't seem like a risk-taker)...until I ran into him at Nevermind and saw him casually climb three consecutive laps, up and down, on a 5.12. Then I understood! At a slideshow a couple years ago, Peter Croft also mentioned that he pratices downclimbing all the time and that he thinks it isn't that much harder than climbing up but that most people aren't good at it because they don't practice.

Agreed, I was just trying to point out the logical extension of Pope's statement "Minx, I would hope every rock climber would cringe at the idea of sticking an anchor a fraction of the way up a crack pitch of ANY difficulty." It's pretty arbitrary to say where a crack pitch begins and ends, unless the crack system itself blanks out or continues to the top of the wall. By Pope's argument, the 'full pitch' anchor would not be ok either because the crack system keeps going! So I guess he cringed upon seeing that anchor too.

So should anchors only be 'allowed' a full rope length up the wall? It seems that this would eliminate ALL of the commonly used anchors at Index. In fact a traditional purist could argue that everyone who climbs at Index should be required to top out on the lower wall and hike down... In any case, with that anchor intact every lower wall route that I know of can be climbed with one 60m rope, and fixed rappel anchors partway down a >30m pitch are generally acceptable, so I certainly would not mind to see it return. (Yes this is just a matter of convenience, but all Index fixed anchors are there for convenience to avoid the necessity of topping out...)

I believe that Clean Crack is completely omitted from the guidebook (although I don't have the book with me at the moment). The topos have a line drawn to indicate the boundary with railroad property, and the text indicates how the routes can be accessed without trespassing (e.g. by rappelling in).

I am referring to the "newest" version of the book (2005?), which has the upper black dyke on the front cover.

The new version of McLane's guidebook indicates routes on the lower malamute which can be accessed without crossing railroad property.

Without that anchor, is it still possible to get down JG with a single 60m rope? Many Index classics are "short" versions of a full pitch. eg model worker, iron horse, saggitarius to the 5.11 roof.

Using two ropes and an auto-blocking belay device is definitely the way to go. The only problem is that rope management can be tricky, especially if you are changing leaders. I think the easiest solution is for each person to also have a daisy chain to clip to the anchor--then after every pitch have everyone untie, switch rope ends as needed, and re-tie (sounds like a hassle but it should take less than a minute).

Yosemite cracks tend to be on steep, smooth rock with few face-holds, and often vary in size within a single pitch from fingers to offwidth. So I think routes there can demand a wider range of techniques than are typically required within a single pitch at local granite crack-climbing areas like Leavenworth, Squamish or Index.

The durability was actually pretty good. I put my speed pack through a lot of abuse--including carrying skis on the side straps, lashing crampons on the back (which created some punctures), and hauling it through chimneys. I had it for two full years and it was still in ok shape with a few holes, but when the zipper blew out on the lid pocket I decided to replace it. The MEC alpinelite 30 really just can't be beat in terms of value and light weight, plus it has a very simple design and a solid system for attaching ice axe + crampons (much better than the flimsy elastic shock-cord ice axe holder on the speed pack). The alpinelite doesn't have a frame or load-lifter straps, but I have found that loading the pack so that most of the weight is in the small of my back eliminates the need for these features.

Probably comes down to the type of routes you climb; it seems to me that many of the "classic" alpine routes in Washington are easily done with one rope.