KaskadskyjKozak

just curious (and this is a serious question), but what is the maximum party size you find to be acceptable? is 6 too large?

that's the spirit!!

you're obsessed with homosexuality... that speaks volumes, Rudy. pun intended.

Keep your sick imagination to yourself

More like the inverse. You like pounding on KK?? Didn't realize you and he swung that way! watch out CBS, the thought of you 'swinging the other way' seems to be exciting Rudolf

you're a f**king moron

I know what you mean... like the fat goober hiking down avy gulch in soft snow telling me I should put my crampons on for that grueling approach to Lake Helen

yes it is

my foot work on rock sucks, and I don't own mirrored glasses

show me a link to some literature where that claim is made. people in organizations tend to become attached to the things they work on, and because they have invested effort they think they've done a good job, and don't want to think otherwise, that is true. But that is human nature. You can see the same thing just about anywhere. but I will concede that there are some people who act exactly as you describe; I don't trust people like that Personally, I would never assume "my way" is the safest way. Until I get a few more years under my belt, I assume that I'm making lots of mistakes, and am trying to learn and improve without getting hurt or killed before then.

yourself

shit harry, you're right! What was I thinking. I'll make sure to stay off of every moderate route in WA until I check with the committee! I'll go jump on something that i'm not physically ready to do since i didn't register my climb with the committee. folks, if the committee approves my weekend plans, i'll need at least 8 more for a full gaggle. Please send me a PM with the date and time you completed the 4th climb of your basic course for consideration. look on the bright side - there are plenty of moderate routes that are not approved, and you can go there w/o seeing a single Mountie. Go off the beaten path, and you can easily avoid them.

everything you've seen is probably true, but... I've seen the same types of ridiculous things from GDIs (goddamn independents). For example, when I climbed the Emmons last July, at least 1/2 the people had no f**king busines being there, and I checked - there was no Mountie party there. There was a party who had hauled up FOTH to Schurman and were practicing ice axe arrest on the flats by the hut, for God's sake! And don't get me started on parties who refused to step aside and let other teams pass on the traverse, or those who insisted on passing *above* other teams without even asking first. Then there was the skier I saw, unroped, with no partner in sight, taking a f-ing rest break on a crevasse.

Dostoyevski Melville O. Henry Hemingway Conrad

RUMR, you are pretty ignorant of what actually happens. Let me explain to you how the Seattle branch works a party of six for a basic rock climb consists of: 1 Climb Leader 2 Rope Leads 3 Basic Students A Basic Student has passed fieldtrips on knots and simple anchors, belaying, elementary climbing, ice axe / self-arrest, and escaping the belay. A Rope Lead has passed the Basic Course (done a minimum of three climbs plus fieldtrips), passed a 2-day fieldtrip on gear placement, and passed a 1-day fieldtrip of leading multipitch trad. Rope Leads are encouraged to practice on their own before going with students, but it cannot be enforced. A Climb Leader has done a large number of climbs (including climbs at the Intermediate level), acted as a Mentored Leader (where the real leader backs off and lets the Mentored Leader take charge) on several climbs, and has been approved by the climbing committee. The main problem with CLs is they are "for life," as I understand, so folks who get rusty are still in the system. This could be a problem. But the worse problem is if you make more stringent rules, you lose CLs. Exactly, Gary. All the Mounties "guarantee" about a rope lead or a climbing leader is that they have fulfilled the requirements enumerated above. There is no "guarantee" that CLs are "safer" than those who learn to climb elsewhere, or are "safe" at all. But you do know the minimum baseline that all CLs have met. It seems that the peanut gallery here loves to jump to conclusions and make claims on behalf of the Mounties and attribute those claims to the Mounties with no basis whatsoever. Prove me wrong and post a link to any literature published by the Mounties that proves otherwise. As I recall the Mounties explicitly tell new students that they are not a guide service, and can not guarantee anyone's safety because climbing is inherently dangerous, and you can get hurt and die, even on a field trip.

I like your new sig!!

There's the rub: the real reason you all hate the mounties and blast them non-stop. Hey, that's cool, but be honest about it.

Please explain to me how leading a pitch on Ingalls slowly with lots of pro is endangering the follower. Still waiting for an answer to this one. Since when is zipping up an easy route "dangerous" to the follower? The only way I could think of it is if you take so damn long that bad weather rolls in or you have to rappell in the dark.

open your mouth and say you are uncomfortable and want a rope.

that's total bullshit. and there's no difference between a noob deciding whether to climb behind a mountie he knows nothing about or hooking up with random CC-com people he knows nothing about either. it's up to anyone taking up this sport to do due diligence in picking climbing partners and as for the follower putting their life in the hands of the "inexperienced leader" - that cuts two ways - the leader is putting their life in the hands of the inexperienced follower - a much more dangerous proposition. and as for your typical asshole comments, go yourself, dickhead.

Yo dickhead, where in my response did I ever proclaim to be a stud? And as far as “designated” newbie climbs go…Exit 38? Exit 32 perhaps? No need to dumb down and deface easy climbs (or any climb for that matter) like YJT with “chicken” bolts. And as for this quote: I call bullshit. First of all, there is a big fucking difference between climb leaders and TAs. A TA’s failure of explanation/supervision results, generally, in less than the loss of his students’ lives. I was on a Mounties climb once where the “leader” placed no less than 20 pieces of protection on the second pitch of Ingalls Peak—took him over an hour to finish the pitch. The “experienced” leader of the group was already on top of the peak—how do you figure that Mr. “experienced” leader was supervising this poor excuse for a climber? This memory still pisses me off today as my wife was the basic student at the end of this “leaders” rope. As a basic student, you sign up for Mountaineers’ climbs believing you’re sharing a rope with a seasoned climber who has the wisdom and experience to keep you safe—many times nothing could be further from the truth. And please don’t start spraying again about what I stud I think I am; I don’t think less of the leader on Ingalls peak because he wasn’t yet a good climber, I’m just pissed that the Mountaineers dubbed him a “leader” when obviously he was not. I commend folks on their drives to become better climbers, but the time to hone those skills is not when my wife’s life is in your hands! maybe you should have done a little "due diligence" in advance of the climb and asked about the climb leaders - what their prior experience is and their reputation.

I read that now REI's flagship charges customers (paying or not) for parking more than 1 hour.

climbed rainier and applied sunscreen liberally to my face and neck and arms multiple times. BUT I forgot two places - the strip of skin between my gaiter and my shorts (when I took off the zip-off leg bottoms) and my lips (lip balm had no SPF rating). The next day I had a red-strip on my left leg that hurt like it had the skin ripped right off, and my lip swelled up to 3x its normal size, blistered, and was not back to normal for 2 weeks

I'm not widely respected or anything, and I agree with KK about the you can do everything right and still get the chop, but in the Sharksfin incident, the climbers had three folks fully weighing one slung block. At the time, that may have been the best option, but in general that is not the smartest thing to do. my comment was more about YJT. we knew little details and immediately everyone assumes the injured person made a bunch of bad decisions and caused his own accident regarding Sharkfin, someone recently made the comment to me about the idea that the climbers were in the "wrong gulley" and "off route" was total BS. According to him there is "no wrong gulley". Not to say that I agree totally with that, but there is a point to consider there. If you are "off route" it could mean that you just have different objective hazards to consider, different risks, and need to adapt, calling on your training and experience to do what you need to do to minimize risk. On a related note, I believe the mounties Whitehorse Mountain climbing route explicitly states that you should not even attempt the Whitehorse Glacier as it is simply too dangerous. you are supposed to ascent via the Lone Tree pass route. There was just a posting on this board about some folks going up the Whitehorse Glacier, and I know folks who have done it. Different route or "off route" can be subjective.

Sharkfin 7/05 They weren't on a rockclimb when that accident happened. They were off-route in a shitty gully. The Mounties did an extensive review of their practices following the accident and had several widely respected non-Mounties on the review board. The conclusions were that for the most part, the Mounties are doing most everything right. They did identify some areas for improvement and are in the process of implementing them, including smaller party sizes. Good point, Gary. You can do everything "right" and still die in the mountains. It's ridiculous to jump to conclusions about someone based on pure gossip as soon as an accident occurs and blame them for being a novice, or doing something wrong.