Hans_Blix

Don't let my typos get in the way of alternative facts. I still ask, where are the third party timers?

A climber without a white lab named Caddis ascends Mt. Adams in record time. Did it happen? Please discuss. http://komonews.com/news/local/oregon-man-makes-record-ascent-of-mount-st-helens-with-snow-kite

Rod, In the article linked below, there is yet another example of how the additional land protections (Wildness) will be used as an argument to let the shelter go. This is from a notable wilderness and WSR advocate (and writer) - Tim McNulty. Also note that George Nickas from Wilderness Watch agrees in the comment section (and for those unfamiliar, George often, and successfully, sues the Government over such debates in Wilderness). They see 'Wilderness' differently than what YOU may HOPE that they might see it (or THINK they should see it). They see (and use) the Wilderness Act (and I bet a WSR designation too) as an argument and tool to NOT save the chalet. We live in a litigious age of land protection/conservation, where the threats to what we feel is important (maybe a lookout or shelter) may come from any side. Values change - trails and facilities and lookouts could be viewed by some as bad for wilderness. This seems like non-sense to recreation types, but it's real, and it's happening more and more on public land. Perhaps for good reason, but I suspect bedfellows will start fighting when they sit down to talk about subsequent washed out roads, trails, etc... Here is Tim's piece on the Chalet in High Country News... I'm pretty darn sure Tim supports the additional Wilderness and WSR designations. Which makes me ask, is that really want you want Rod? Wilderness Watch and Tim McNulty arguing to remove more park infrastructure? Don't look to the Nat Historic Preservation Act to save you either... http://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-wild-river-usually-claims-right-of-way

Hey Rod, I think you're dismissing this much too easily. If a WSR designation were added to the East Fort of the Quinault, there would be additional planning and legal hurdles that the NPS would have to meet if there were for example, a major flood that impacted park assets. Also, you are referencing NPS POLICY - which also mean - open to interpretation by each land manager - and also means - can be changed with a new administration. Yes, the NPS 'should' manage the 'resource' to the highest protection, but it doesn't always have the resources to do this if it's not protected at a higher level, and it can choose to focus on other priorities. It acknowledges that managers must factor these choices into the management of park assets - meaning: are there available resources, budget, etc, in a world of many competing issues that may have higher (i.e. LEGAL) protections. The rivers in the park simply aren't under threat of dams or any development that would require the additional legal morass of the WSRA. I also disagree with your assertion that it would not change the dialogue about lost or threatened infrastructure. Look at Yosemite Valley as the best example of WSRA gone awry. Nearly 15 years after a major flood - and the park planning is STILL tied up in litigation and political maneuvering and ALL BECAUSE of the Merced River is a designated WSR. I suspect that the bill supporters and sponsors of the Merced's WSR designation never predicted that it would actually entail an extremely lengthy public debate, three major law suits, US House of Rep hearings, and a LOT of political wrangling for nearly 15 years in order to repair the damaged infrastructure to Yosemite Valley from the 1997 flood. In the meantime - the NPS has spent over 20 MILLION dollars planning and defending it's (now 3) different plans to restore/relocate/etc what was lost in the Yosemite in the 97 flood. And what is being fought over - how the NPS manages the quarter mile corridor (i.e. much of Yosemite Valley) that is designated under WSRA law. Meaning - the fight is on (and has been) about parking spots, camping spots, swimming pools at the lodges, stores in the valley, ice skating, bike rentals and other visitors services that the public has enjoyed in Yosemite for nearly a century all because they are within the 1/4 mile boundary of the river. Suddenly, every rock and patch of earth is under debate about how it meets the criteria of WSRA, and if it protects and enhances the "Outstanding and Remarkable Values (ORV'S) of the river. BTW - those ORV's aren't determined by law, but later by land managers and other biologists/planners through a WSRA planning processes (THINK Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy). At Yosemite, two organizations described as 'enviros' didn't like some of that stuff - or at least took issue with how the NPS wanted it, and thus successfully sued... And even today, they're still sorting it out in Yosemite Valley. Additional designations will likely lead to a lot of nuanced legal battles used as proxy wars for larger political debates about access and human impacts and recreation on public lands. And I think the visitor to our public lands and the resource we wish to protect loose when these fights take on larger significance. If some group like wilderness watch or a local enviro that hates the chalet wanted, they could lock stuff up in court debating how thorough etc the NPS does anything. And I'm sorry, the NPS isn't that good at doing these things perfectly. I love the protections, I do. But I've become very cautious about what they actually mean when legally and financially tested in today's world. Not to mention, what differing land managers feel about their interpretation. But for Pete's sake, can we just save the chalet??!! And I'm sure a WSR designation will not help.

I have to say that your statement isn't accurate. The Wild Olypics Campaign/proposal ABSOLUTELY does propose additional designations of WSR in ONP. See the link below of proposed rivers. Don't kid yourself, making the entire East Fork of the Quinault a WSR sounds awesome on face value but is actually totally unneeded. Instead, it would give groups (say like Wilderness Watch) and others a formable tool to slow or prevent any restoration or repairs of structures within a quarter mile of the river (think roads-trails-bridges-CHALETS). And BTW, that depends on the current administration that's running the NPS/park. As an example, some parks w/ WRS designations allowing boating. Some don't. Some parks w/ Wilderness designations allow bolting, others remove them. Suddenly, land managers are fighting THESE battles w/ user groups or historic preservation types INSTEAD of working with them for common sense and financially more viable solutions! Proposed WSR designations in ONP: http://www.wildolympics.org/forest_and_river_watersheds/wild_and_scenic_rivers

Wow... First off, thanks for posting everyone. I lived in that chalet for a summer in the 80's and am a better person for it! Like Fairweather, I camped there on my first backpack trip into the Olympics. The place is beyond awesome as everyone describes! A few points. The building was available for emergency use as a shelter in the 80's, but you're right, the rangers were basically taught to discourage its use unless dire... All the talk of Wilderness and Historic Preservation is good.... but... it seems to me that what matters MOST is political advocacy and $. That is what will get it protected in this tight budget environment we live in. Things that don't have these two things, get neglected. I bet the NPS wants to see this saved, and I'd also bet that they don't have the resources to save it (and do the NEPA and other compliance). Who knows, maybe this will bubble up and warrant an emergency response from the NPS??? It needs a campaign... Which reminds.. I've just noticed this Wild Olympic Campaign... A number of my friends like it (to my chagrin) on face value. I would seriously seriously caution any support for further layers of protection like this on any lands within ONP or the National Forest (or any other National Park). I greatly appreciate and enjoy the wilderness and WSR designations - but my experience working w/ federal managers is that these laws can greatly (if not impossibly) complicate land management in areas that are for the most, ALREADY PROTECTED. WSR and Wilderness laws will complicate, in negative ways, the management of public areas in parks like ONP - particularly as they are applied over historic buildings, trails and/or operations and modern uses. They create legal hurdles that are exceptionally challenging for the feds to plan for, and defend, particularly given the litigious and polarized environment we live in. Essentially, they will freeze agencies into inaction. So who loses - us. Adding WSR and Wilderness designations will require endless monitoring studies and limitless (i.e. virtually un-closeable) loopholes prime for law suit by anyone who doesn't like the management decision. They will not help the overall goals of protecting these areas while also providing access. It will lock everyone up in planning and study. Of course this CHALET should be saved. It's not rocket science. MOVE IT! The Olympians and other volunteer orgs with the support and encouragement of ONP could get this done - I know it. But with all of the hand wringing and second guessing, this may wash down stream like our Dose and Westside Roads.... This shelter is a good example - if this were a WSR designated on this river, any possible saving of the shelter would basically be impossible. There is only going to be more and more and more of this as the climate change impacts hit our access roads, trails and other buildings. We need flexibility. Not more rigidness.

I'm back to let others know that ski trips or climbs do not exist without third party timers.

This is how the rangers roll in Reno... http://www.break.com/index/dont-do-it-in-the-park-2058540

I am here to investigate and moderate any and all discussions regarding speed ascents. Do we have a list of the third party timers?

Baseball players talk like climbers... [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Dn0hs-CM8

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roB8Pl2EeJ4&feature=PlayList&p=57E81317C089AF06&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45

Now for a different sort of dance party... [video:youtube]TKHWUYT_c3g

Don't post his name. I think it's lame and you should have done your homework on this guy (i.e. climbed with him) beforehand. Actually, I would suggest that you're somewhat responsible for this if you think about it. Furthermore, it's not your job to be the idiot police on SP or CC.COM. I'm with Atriedes on this one - you should have taken a proactive role while on the mouintain and dumped him or had a serious ass heart to heart. That is also part of the deal with climbing, IMO. It sounds like you had the clues, but choose to let something, perhaps your summit fever or lack of your own confidence, taint your ability to address a real issue? Regardless, sometimes it doesn't pay to be the nice guy. All this said, I can't even imagine going on a three week climbing trip (shit, three days) and NOT celebrating or buying my partners drinks.