dmuja

As it stands, youre at the mercy of a private land owner, the Oregon state legislature , a sheriff, and or the US ForestRY Sevice - which isn't necessarily obliged to protect its land. I'll take the NPS over that any day.

...But youre not AS skeptical about "managers" who's sole motivation may be to make money?

Hood is not protected right now. The ski resort for example could potentially ban climbers (unlikely right now I know but then there is Mt. Bachelor example) and unless Im mistaken its not the job of the forest service to provide climbing rangers. If you want protection - including the protection of your climbing "rights" and sound management - if you want climbing rangers, wx and route condition briefs, permit checks and crowd/impact management you should want Hood to become a national park which would insure climbing access for generations to come.

The BEST solution for Mount Hood is to MAKE IT A NATIONAL PARK . As it is right now, the mountain and those who want to climb it in the future are at the mercy of all sorts of crazy "management" whim$.

well there's this -> YUPPIE 911

A MUST read as well---> A Summit Technology Can’t Reach By JIM WHITTAKER Published: March 9, 2007 .

Just for tha record - I OPPOSE any further regulating of climbers in general - but I also recognize that we are about to be hit by a tsunami of idiocy in that regard. Seems like Europe has come to accept something of a compromise in that climbing "tragedies" are not such a surprising "media/tax payer" shit storm as here - but then, they also don't call climbers "dirt bags" while standing in line to get Messner's autograph. There are some admirable things about the European mind set after all. A final thought.. Why Hood? Hood = Big Alpine Crag (who can resist?) 1) quick approach slog with no highcamp necessary 2) Much steep technical terrain In other words it's a serious mountain with a "not-so" serious approach

The way I see it now (for better or worse and yes, I think it's worse) is that if access is to continue in the US in this age of "CNN-FOX-MEDIAHYPERBULLSHIT" a majority of the people (both climbers and non) are sooner or later going to have to accept that... a) climbers occasionally will die as long as there are still climbers b) rescuing climbers is a worthwhile use of governmental resources and c) that in light of the first 2 facts, certain regulations/requirements will be imposed on climbers Right now, some accept a & b but oppose c. Others support c without understanding or accepting a & b. Eventually the 2 minds will have to meet or someone is going to get their feewings hurt. 2 cents

For some reason this got moved to another thread so I'll try a repost here.. For Anthony, Katie, Luke and all friends and family: We are now - Im told for you supposed to grieve yet because of what you've done indeed the gifts you gave we might find this a little strange We know you don't demand that all should understand that all could be so fortunate to have lived your beautiful life and taken into hand such moments which so inspired and through you others too such deep appreciation such a deep sense of gratitude for this precious life we have we know, you just had to share far more than a want it was your need to care to give to others what you have felt where you've stood what you have seen in those distant valleys from these tallest peaks You would not trade though for some it's hard to understand even a whole life of security for but a single moment of the timeless silent beauty nor this - the simple peaceful heart of a climber who has known and touched just a bit of eternity PS- From one climber to all others thank you for inspiring and showing the way Climb on.. D

Ok, it may well be old news - I know the "warrior diet" uses a related concept for one example - but anyway in this case its more about "endurance thru glycogen depletion." Please discuss yr thoughts and or experiences on this.. "The theory is that depleting glycogen during specific (Low Intensity Long Duration) exercise (training) bouts allows the body to become more efficient at utilizing fat (during performance/events)..." http://www.trifuel.com/training/health-nutrition/low-carbohydrate-training In other words, you eat a ultra low carb diet for endurance training, eat a higher carb diet for intensity/strength training, then when the big day comes you will perform better because you use your relatively massive fat stores rather than your precious glycogen stores for fuel. Of coarse Ive been taught and have mostly followed the usual theory that "sport is fueled by carbohydrate" - typically recommended at 60-70% for athletes. But in the past year I was determined to get my weight (fat) down with all the performance benefits that entails. One benefit I did NOT foresee (got me curious) was that endurance levels were not only NOT harmed but actually increased on this lower carb "higher" protein diet. When I switched to a 50/25/25 diet (50% carb, 25% prot, 25% fat), stepped up my LILD cardio to 1.25 hrs X 4 days/wk, and dropped my calories to 1900 per day I not only lost significant weight but my stamina increased as well (granted however, this could be due as much to less weight I am carrying as it might be to the increased utilization of fat stores). And related to this... I read recently that Peter Croft (aka superman) was known to eat 500-600 calories per day while moving for days at a time - during training. My guess (duh) is that this helped develop his ability to use fat stores for energy in line with the theory above. So does anyone here starve themselves or practice glycogen depletion (ketogenic) diets durring training?

Me brother Mark came out from Minnesnowta a couple weeks back and we (Mark, Doug and Jeff S.) did some cragging in L-town, some scrambling in the Tatoosh, and a climb up Da Mighty Toof. He (Mark M.) took most of the pics this trip (I think I took 5) so he gets the credit. I haven't got to labeling them yet but I hope you like.. LINK TO PIC FOLDER

Your right, Im not "neutral" (meaning "I couldn't give a fuck"), Im pretty pissed at the IDF, at Israel and its supporters at the moment - slaughtered women and children tends to get me a little worked up. I also know that similar things have been done against Israel as well and of coarse the rocket attacks, so I understand the arguments behind their current actions. But if slaughtering 4 year old girls is wrong then it is ALWAYS wrong! If you can look at the pics and videos and not intensely feel and know immediately that there is something deeply wrong about what Israel did then I think you've lost something inside yourself. Israel CHOOSES to deliberately target dozens of defenseless women and children just to kill 1 or 2 guys with a mortar if you believe their own claims. So be it, I believe THAT is morally, ethically, and strategically wrong and counter productive if you really are after "peace". I "don't take sides in this" means I believe its not right for either side to attack the other again, again, and again. More and more violence and killing is absolutely NOT going to help either side in the longer run. What Israel is presently doing may reduce rocket attacks temporarily but it is simultaneously making MORE "TERRORIST". There is no doubt to me that what the IDF has accomplished tactically has come at the cost of Israels strategy and Israels "self defense" interests. Not only that, but the U.S. being the biggest backer of Israel means that AL Qaeda gets gifted with more empathy and more recruits because of Israels actions. They have already exploited the situation and if you follow some of the suff being said around the WWweb its clear that Al Qaeda is getting a lot of (verbal anyway) support from people all over the world. This bodes bad for you and me personally. I'll just touch on one other point for now - Israel has a very powerful military, support from the U.S. and in many many obvious ways the Palestinians are not even close to being on equal terms with Israel. Because of this I believe the onus is on Israel to shift their position and do more (constructive things) for the Palestinians. How about invading the strip next time and improving their meager infrastructure instead of slaughtering more people yet again? Of coarse this is impractical but its time to think out of the box.

And there's this.. Israeli forces moved 110 Palestinians to house then shelled it Brian I empathize, and although I am tempted to pull the "endless link post" game I am trying pretty hard to remain non-partisan in this case - so I'll post just the one. My reasoning is that both sides can produce a long list of "legitimate" grievances and neither side can legitimately claim the moral high ground anymore- absolutely and unarguably NEITHER SIDE DESERVES PRAISE or kudos or anything good said about them. But their kids deserve a chance at a different future. Eventually someone has to try another approach. Of coarse that would be qualified by the need for a common goal -something like "peace" for example. Often I have doubts that either side really wants even this much. It's such a fucked up convoluted and totally exploited situation! Hopefully someone will take a risk and offer something new. That is the only way anything will change. It probably won't happen while the fighting is going though. Having said that, a child is a child is a child, and not one deserves what is happening to them right now.

If you read some of the accounts from those who are there (the ones getting thru Israeli censorship) it becomes clear that Israel is not really "targeting" anyone specifically so much as just blasting everyone they feel like blasting. Stay in your house and they blow it up, flee and they blow you up for "fleeing". Sounds like history repeating itself only the Jews get to be the Nazi's this time. Interested parties should seek out indy media sources on teh web eg http://electronicintifada.net/v2/diaries.shtml