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.

To remain clear: I am opposed to any law requiring the use of a locator beacons! The USFS, the Sheriff Dept and Portland Mountain Rescue would do well to elevate this discussion and center it more on other known ways to improve the safety of climbers while protecting our public resources. One immediate thought would be a better, more thorough and USEFUL climber registration system. The current USFS system is a joke and virtually useless. At best it satisfies some USFS bean-counters' needs, but it certainly doesn't engage the climber in any sort of useful exchange of information about safety, resource protection, etc. If the USFS intends to manage a world class mountain (and I think Mt. Hood is world class mountain) it needs to step up to the plate and glean what it can from other major climbing areas. I 'personally' appreciate the Lassiez faire attitude of the USFS - but many people (i.e. tax payers who aren't familiar with the the complexities of rescue policy and law and the nuances of climbing) wonder why Mt Hood has such a disproportionate number of high profile incidents when compared to Mount Shasta, Mount Rainier or Mount Baker. I get the libertarian shtick about government involvement, but after watching a military helicopter roll down that mountain and a bi-annual parade of dramatically sad rescues, the public wants to see something change! Having some rescue leader with slick gear and cool patches tell us why locator beacons don’t work isn't the sort of change anyone was hoping to see. As for the cartoon and Portland Mountain Rescue - the cartoon isn't making fun of their actual rescue efforts. It is aiming, however, at the rescuers apparent inability to thoroughly address and admit the value of locator beacons - an argument that pervades on this website. I think climbers are coming off as rabidly opposed to any sort of regulation or critique.

This is in response to the post by Monty on the Oregonian website: Mandating beacons would be poor public policy. Encouraging the public to use them appropriately would be good public policy! I find parts of the post from Portland Mountain Rescue (i.e. Monty) frustrating, anecdotal and unhelpful. What, I think, is enflaming the discussion is the perception that Portland Mountain Rescue is adamantly demonstrating how beacons won't work and aren't useful instead of cultivating a discussion on things that improve the information and resources available to climbers who are attempting Mount Hood. Maybe this is a defensive reaction because of proposed legislation about beacons? Regardless, beacons and/or locator devices can and do work in the mountains and saying they won't doesn't stick. Boaters and pilots have been using similar technology and such devices have saved lives, or, at a minimum, helped rescuer's find wreckage or remains. After watching the news and various posts on the web, you get the impression that Portland Mountain Rescue is dug in on the issue. One of rescue leaders actually told the TV and print media that having a beacon could increase a climber's chance of being caught in an avalanche or rockfall because of its weight?! This comes off as either silly or evasive to a fair question. Instead of contriving every possible reason why a beacon (broadly taken as PLB, MLU or Spot Beacon etc) won't work, it would make more sense if the USFS with Portland Mountain Rescue worked together to educate people on ways these devices work effectively. The technology is rapidly improving and these devices are getting better, more affordable, and user friendly every year. This latest incident, and the 2007 winter incident, strike many as good examples of where and how a locator beacon could have helped the rescuers. In both cases, strong clues indicate that at some point during the climbing trip, there was an accident. And after to that accident, the climbers attempted to save themselves. Given that these climbers attempted self rescue, it seems quite likely that one of the survivors could have alerted a locator beacon - if they had one. And though alerting a beacon may not have allowed rescuers to save the climbers in time, it could have helped the recovery team later. Spot Beacons, for example, send a GPS coordinate - and having seen and used them before, I found them to be "spot-on." As grim as this may sound, a GPS coordinate of an accident site or emergency snow cave is very useful information, but why can't Portland Mountain Rescue acknowledge this? We understand that weather and mountain conditions can prevent active field rescue, and that an avalanche (or an earthquake or a meteor as PMR might point out) could potentially move the bodies if that rescue doesn't happen in time. But come on Portland Mountain Rescue, a known GPS location is useful information for recovery teams and investigators. Also, I don't buy the argument that the public will rely on such devices and therefore start making reckless choices while climbing. This point is actually quite insulting to the public if you think about it too. Similar arguments were made about cell/sat phones, avalanche transceivers, 2-way radios, and other devices and tools as they entered the mainstream market. But cell/sat phones have proven to be very useful during many well publicized rescues on Mount Adams, Rainier, Whitney and even Mount McKinley. Portland Mountain Rescue does some wonderful volunteer work, and I believe that they did the best that anyone could have done to rescue or recover these climbers. Somehow though, they lost their way with the defensive and confusing communication strategy about the appropriate use of the various types of locator beacons.

Me too, but Chad doesn't post here despite what people think. Perhaps Joe will write something up on his web site, http://www.cascadeimages.com/home.htm or for the AAJ. What's odd about this story, is that it doesn't recognize how much of a badass Joe Puryear is. He's da man.

US speed climber opens new 20 pitch route at Kichatna Spire http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=429 05:01 pm EDT Jul 26, 2005 Word has reached ExWeb that American speed climber Chad Kellogs with partner Joe Puryear put up a new 20 pitch route on the SE side of Kichatna Spire. The route is rated 5.10, A2 and goes all the way to the true summit. Chad got back to Colorado from the Alaska Range the day before yesterday. "We are very excited about our results. We climbed the route in a 25.5 hour roundtrip push," he told ExWeb. North America's hardest mountain Kichatna Spire is the highest peak in the Kichatnas at 8985 ft. and has been touted as North America's hardest mountain. Only 8 parties have ever reached the true summit including Chad and Joe. This year, one of the Mugs Stump awards went to Sean Isaac and Rob Owens for an attempt on an unclimbed couloir on the North Face of the Spire. On May 1, Roger Strong, Rob Owens and Sean Isaac climbed a new route on the northwest face naming their new line "The Voice of Unreason" (ED2 M7 A1 WI5, 700m). The climb required a 25-hour round trip to complete. The 13-pitch route was terminated at its juncture with the 1966 original route up the north ridge about 200 meters below the summit. US fastest climber Chad is probably the fastest climber in North America today. On June 17th 2003, he broke the speed record for the West Buttress route on Denali with a time of 14 hrs and 22 min. The previous record was 18.5 hrs. Chad’s round trip time was 23 hrs and 55 min. Lisa Roderick (the Base Camp manager at Denali), rangers at 14,000ft and a National Geographic crew witnessed him. That same year, he continued on to win the Khan Tengri speed climb, made a traverse of Khan Tengri, a summit of Peak Pobeda, and an attempt on Lenin. Last year, Chad went straight from climbs in Karakorum to Mount Rainier for a speed record, capitalizing on his acclimatization. Monday, August 9, he broke his own old Mount Rainier record at 4hr 59min 1sec roundtrip! Chad Kellogg is a native of Washington State. He has climbed Ama Dablam, Aconcagua, Denali, and won the speed climb on Khan Tengri in 2003. Longer-range goals include speed ascents on 8,000-meter peaks and alpine style first ascents.

I spent the weekend searching for The Nodder and investigating the avatar thieves! Oh My God.

After searchnig high and low around the Middle East, I have not found The Nodder.

Agreed, let's toast this woman's awesome achievement. Erden, your goal is impressive and bold, I've nothing but the best wishes for you. Thanks for the inspiration.

Does that mean a boat with oars is aid too?

Erden You may want to reconsider your efforst. Forget rowing, call this woman. French windsurfer crosses Pacific Tuesday, November 4, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT) PARIS, France (Reuters) -- A French windsurfer, Raphaela Le Gouvello, has completed the first solo crossing of the Pacific from Peru to Tahiti. The 43-year-old arrived in Papeete on Monday after travelling 4,455 miles in 89 days and seven hours, her Web site reported. She has already completed solo crossings of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. She was escorted into Papeete harbor by a flotilla and met on the quayside by Tahitian local government leader Gaston Flosse. "You have achieved something quite extraordinary," he told Le Gouvello. She followed the route of the famous Kon Tiki expedition made by Thor Heyerdahl in 1947 in a papyrus vessel. Her "home" for three months was a 25.6 foot (7.80 meter) board on which she slept. She contacted her back-up crew in Paris twice a day to report her position. Le Gouvello completed the first crossing of the Atlantic by a woman windsurfer in 2000, taking 58 days to sail from Senegal to Martinique. Two years later she crossed the Mediterranean from Marseille to Sidi Bou Said in 10 days.

THIS IS OFF MOUNTEVEREST.NET. http://www.mounteverest.net/story/MissionaccomplishedAug12003.shtml Mission accomplished 02:57 a.m. EDT Aug 1, 2003 Chad is back and Dave's mission is accomplished: "Aug 1 - 1219 hrs - 1984 = 2003 Absolutely incredible. Chad was in second and caught up just near the bottom of the route to win. We had no idea until we saw his head pop up over the horizon. The Iceland boys were further out on the glacier to congratulate him as he came in. A whole gang of Koreans came by and after cleaning out the camp store of titanium equipment became Chad's biggest fans. Autographs, pictures, posing, you name it. We're all just chillin' at the foot of the glacier waiting for 3,4,5 to come in. Stoked - all we have to say. Listen to the Kellog sound bite." Audio This event turned into an unexpected all-nighter at ExplorersWeb, updates twice hourly, the thrill close to the days of Everest summits when the team lost an average of 10 lbs each running between desktops to publish stories around the clock! Congratulations Chad, and thank you Asia Tours from all of us at ExplorersWeb! This is off another web site: http://www.explorersweb.com/ex018/ Check out the sound clip. Again Chad, we're so, so proud of you. First Rainier, then Denali, now Khan Tengri!!! I'm sure we'll be reading more about Chad Kellogg.