faster_than_you

Love the city too, but that Sting song accompanying the cool images sucks!

I'm waiting for her cc.com trip report? Backpacker.com article on Palin's climbing prowess

If a climber breaks a record and there aren't any third party timers, does a tree in the forest get chopped down while debating the merits?

Oh come on FW... are you hinting at your closet?

To hell with increased enforcement of bike, pedestrian and auto rules/regs... It's enough of a police state now! And no registration for bikes either!

If a rock falls and there aren't third party witnesses, did it really fall?

If a rock falls in the mountains and no climbers are around to witness it, how many pages will it consume on cc.com?

I can't make the hearing, but I did just call Rep Liias's office and they sent me the following information (nothing really new.) I sent back a response with a few questions. If anyone goes to the hearing, please post a trip report. The Leg Aid's note begins: Here are some links about the issue. I have also attached an press release. At the bottom is an email response we have sent out explaining Rep. Liias’ position on the bill. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Story in the Sandy Post regarding the Mt. Hood locator/beacon issue (http://www.sandypost.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=126334956046933000.) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2619&year=2009 The PLB Rentals, LLC PLB information document: http://www.plbrentals.com/PLBInfo1007.pdf A good opinion piece with good reader feedback http://www.sandypost.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=126092816929688000 Portland Mountain Rescue's position statement against requiring PLBs http://www.pmru.org/pressroom/headlines/20091213PMRStatementRegardingMissions.html Another very interesting article with both sides of the argument and names http://airamerica.com/breakingnews/14614/ “I am glad to hear that word is getting out about HB 2619, because I do think that public safety is an important issue. As you well know, thousands of people enjoy Washington’s beautiful mountain terrain every year, and each season, there are well-publicized cases where individuals are killed or seriously injured due to the dangers inherent in this type of recreation. Just a few weeks ago, there was a story from Mt. Hood in Oregon, where a group of hikers was lost for several days. The search and rescue efforts in these cases can cost thousands of dollars, and I want to make sure that we are using these resources efficiently. Kevin Stoltz, a local small business owner, shared with me a bill that was considered in the Oregon Legislature in 2007 that would help address this situation by requiring climbers in the most dangerous conditions to take along an emergency locator device. These devices are small and easy to carry, and in an emergency, they can help searchers pinpoint emergency situations immediately. They are also cost-effective, simple models can be rented for a few dollars a day, and they can be purchased online from dozens of retailers for around $100. So, since this seemed like a smarter use of public resources at minor cost to those people that are out enjoying our beautiful scenery, I decided to copy the Oregon bill and propose it here. I am not an expert on mountain climbing, but there will be a lengthy public process to vet this bill, and see if it is the best way to tackle this challenge. As for the conspiracy theories surrounding the bill, I have often gotten good ideas from local business owners and residents, this bill is no different. I will not personally profit from this proposal, I just think it’s a creative way to keep the public safe, and I think it deserves to be considered.”

Seems like a good cartoon!

Heinrich Well I can't argue with you on that. I want to see the Dosewallips Road in the Olympics and Mount Rainier's Westside Road fixed. I wish someone 'connected' would make those a priority! We should start a list of roads that can be reasonably fixed and send it to our electeds like Doc Hastings and Norm Dicks.

For those who want to see this road replaced I'm curious - are you willing to let other USFS and NPS roads remain closed so that this particular road gets a higher priority? As stated in the NPS testimony, to replace this road means that funds for other projects will be diverted. That could mean a wide range of things, but generally, it means something (usually services) will be cut elsewhere, unless there is a special earmark. This is an expensive road repair (with unknown long term costs) that benefits a very small population of people (roughly 90 permanent residents at Stehekin). And the correlation to fire management (above) is largely non-sense and will not result in any savings. Also, the claim that public access decreased doesn't hold up - and that should be part of the discussion. The NPS visitor stats show that access initially dropped after the flood, but then stabilized and increased despite the washout. Currently, there are more people accessing that end of the road (I’d post the NPS stats, but I don’t know how to post a graph here). The type of use may have changed, but it did not decrease. I'm trying to walk a fine line here with an eye toward fiscal responsibility. In general, I like to see roads that are washed out repaired! But given the number of USFS and NPS roads throughout the state and region that suffer the same fate, I would prefer to see roads that that provide substantially more access to a greater population repaired over the ones like the Stehekin Road that benefit a very small community. BTW, don’t let this bill get you too excited. It’s an AUTHORIZING bill, meaning, in this case that it moves a Wilderness boundary but does not provide funds or specific direction. There is more than one option on how to repair the road - and at what places. This bill does not get into the variety of options (or costs). Note the final paragraph. Here is the text – (I cut the findings) H.R.2806 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park in order to allow the rebuilding of a road outside of the floodplain while ensuring that there is no net loss of acreage to the Park or the Wilderness, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1 FINDINGS SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS. The Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-668) is amended by inserting after section 206 the following: `SEC. 207. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROAD. `(a) In General- The Secretary may adjust the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park and the Stephen Mather Wilderness in order to provide a corridor of not more than 100 feet in width along which the Stehekin Valley Road may be rebuilt-- `(1) outside of the floodplain between milepost 12.9 and milepost 22.8; `(2) within one mile of the route, on the date of the enactment of this section, of the Stehekin Valley Road; `(3) within the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park; and `(4) outside of the boundaries of the Stephen Mather Wilderness. `(b) No Net Loss of Lands- `(1) IN GENERAL- The boundary adjustments made under this section shall be such that equal amounts of federally owned acreage are exchanged between the Stephen Mather Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park, resulting in no net loss of acreage to either the Stephen Mather Wilderness or the North Cascades National Park. `(2) STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD LANDS- The newly designated wilderness shall include the lands along the route of the Stehekin Valley Road that are replaced by the reconstruction. `(3) EQUALIZATION OF LAND- If the lands described in paragraph (2) contain fewer acres than the corridor described in subsection (a), the Secretary may designate additional Federal lands in the North Cascades National Park as wilderness, but such designation may not exceed the amount needed to equalize the exchange and these additional lands must be selected from lands that qualify as wilderness under section 2© of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131©). `© No Sale or Acquisition Authorized- Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale or acquisition of any land or interest in land. `(d) No Priority Required- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to give this project precedence over the construction or repair of other similarly damaged roads in units of the National Park System.'

Hey Steve, You seem pretty sneaky, I bet you can figure something out. BTW, the video is weird.

It was 5th grade. He was a bully, though I generally got along fine with him. Actually, he didn't beat me up. He was shoving and making a scene. He pulled other nasty stunts on other folks. But I still think he deserves health-care!

:nurd:I was beat-up on the bus once - by Bobby Michaeler. He was the fat kid rumored to to have drank bong water.

good question. Arch, what do you do for work? Most occupations don't require a test... I work in IT. But because I am often in places that are "sensitive" (Airport, Seaport, other Gov't shit), I get an FBI background test, piss test, etc. I am okay with all the other shit, but the Piss test just gets me angry. I agree. Piss tests are insulting and invasive. From the little bit I know of IT work, completely unnecessary for you.