knelson

Wow. Quite the grasp of the situation there Molly. At least your spelling was OK and you used the proper form of "their". Many folks here just don't understand the difference. Hats off to you for that aspect of your post.

Wow. I know actors/actresses really go to extreme lengths to get into their part, but that's a little overboard don't you think?

What was that? Jesus is gonna do Thermogenesis? Did he hook up with Arc?

Muffy... are you OK? There wasn't a single misspelling in that. And well put, if I may chime in. While most of the questions I believe are well meant, the constant what-if scenarios are pointless and probably hurtful to actual family members that wander in here. For them, it probably really doesn't matter. For that reason, I really wish folks would think before engaging their fingers on the keyboard in this thread. Accident threads always get ugly at some point with second guessing, but I've never EVER seen anything like this. The real good information sources left this thread eons ago, so to characterize this site and its normal posters by this thread is a real stretch. What real purpose does this non-stop questioning serve at this point other than to give folks something to talk about around the water cooler? There are no lessons to be learned at this point because the facts aren't know yet. I can't fathom that people need to learn from this RIGHT NOW so they can be properly prepared for their winter adventure next weekend! If you want to learn, then wait until next spring or summer and buy "Accidents In North American Mountaineering" published by the American Alpine Club. Search for it on Amazon... you can buy previous year's copies if you need to learn immediately. Next year there will be a thorough analysis of this whole sorry incident for all to learn from. But for now, why not let the folks doing the invesigating figure out what happened, let the families involved grieve, and use your time wisely by caring about, loving, and spending time with the ones closest to you. That would seem to be an appropriate tribute to these three.

Maintain? How hard is it to replace the batteries now and then? Maintain is short hand for practice as well. Well... OK then. I agree that carrying one does no good (to someone else) if you don't know how to use it. But once you understand how to use your specific transceiver - inside and out - it's not like you have to train every other month or something. Once every couple years should be a good enough refresher and a good thing to do with friends on a sucky weather day.

Maintain? How hard is it to replace the batteries now and then? I agree that they're only useful after the fact, and that avoidance/education is the best thing. But you don't have to be directly on the slope itself to get screwed. As someone else mentioned, stuff can be happening high above you and eventually catch up with you. At that point though, with the amount of snow coming down, it's going to be recovery and not rescue, but they way I look at it, at least I'll make it easier for folks to find me and lighten the load on the SAR folks. Oh... and I might just get lucky too. Hard to get lucky if you're not wearing one.

I know of two people, personally, who were dug out alive. Two separate instances. One had a transceiver, the other didn't. If I know personally of two people, I'm sure there are tons of instances where it's happened. Personally, I carry one pretty much all the time during the winter. As mentioned earlier, they're pretty unobtrusive. The only time I might not carry one is if I'm with only one other person, with no one else around. In a group of two, in a remote area, most likely if you're wiped off something by a slide - both will go. But as mentioned earlier, the best safety device is education and avoidance.

I think by the fact that she asked the question, she already answered it.

If it's the airlift I'm thinking of, yes, those are the Pearly Gates. Yes, it's on the south side. And I believe the info about them trying to descend down through them was incorrect from what I remember reading in one of the PMRers post in the other thread. Not sure why you need to "buy" the sherrif's account, but sure... I can see them going back down the way they came up. Yes... Pacific storms come in from the south or southwest and hence north slopes get a lot of windloaded snow. Yes, they're dangerous. BUT... you've got folks that were unfamiliar with the south route. They just came up a route they're now familiar with. They knew exactly what their issues would be on the way down. And in a way, it would be way easier to navigate down the north side in bad weather. Personally, depending on the conditions and location, I'm a big fan of going down the way you came up. I can totally see them doing that. Especially if they thought speed was a major issue due to the health of their friend. If you never want to get hurt, then I advise you to stay home. The south side of Hood is technical, but folks do it with minimal/no gear often. Is it wise? Probably not, but it's a personal choice. The most benign snow conditions up there are probably late June/early July. But weather is the total key. Snow caves are cozy (relatively) in nasty weather, but you get cabin fever just like anywhere else. Personally, if I was in the situation I imagine I'd not necessarily be thinking straight being dehydrated, getting minimal sleep, being mildly hypothermic, etc. and probably not make the same decisions I'd make given different circumstances. Yes... anchors are used to go up or down. The "Y" anchor is a rope looped around a rock. The upper portion of the "Y" is buried under the snow. They could've rappelled down the tail of the "Y" or descended it using mechanical descender/ascender devices or a friction knot arrangement. It's not. It was an accident. You're not a detective, there is no mystery. There will be a formal investigation into all this when all the facts are known and then - maybe - it'll be pieced together what happened. If you really really want to know what happened, go buy "Accidents in North American Mountaineering 2006" next year when it is published by the American Alpine Club. I'm not trying to be irreverent - this was a terrible accident and my heart goes out to the families of everyone involved. But speculating and second guessing based on supposed facts reported by the news (sorry BarkerNews) at this early stage is not a really good use of armchair training time. Snow will hold plenty of weight with a properly driven picket (aluminum anchor). I think his choice of words was probably just fine. If they were truly "dug" into the snow, then the picket was probably placed as a deadman - which means the picket is placed perpendicular to the line of action of your rope and it's buried in a slot in the snow. Snow is then packed down on top of it. You'd probably be hard pressed to pull a good one out with a Suburban.

Standard air to ground signal is "Y" for yes. An arrow indicating direction of travel is, well... an arrow " -> " Guess what's more important is what it meant for the folks that left the signal! Prayers to all involved.

Actually, me thinks SpicoliDude was responding to Ivan's question about the shortest route to the mountain right now. I'd guess Mowich Lk Rd for sure, but it's gated at Paul Peak right now. Most likely, you can't get that far due to snow. You could probably get to Evans Creek ORV, and hoof it in from there. You could easily make Mowich Lake in a day from the ORV park. I think Carbon River Road is closed at the Park boundary due to the flood.

From my experience though, the media has their "pet experts" and stick with them. They seem to go for the easy to reach - or better yet, the ones that come to them - as sources and don't even try to seek out sources that can confirm what they're being told. I've had three cases - not climbing related, but work related - where I had first hand information of what was being reported in the news. What was written in the paper was 100% totally off base and it was obvious that they hadn't searched out more sources to confirm/deny the information being given to them. In these cases, it would not have been advantageous for the person being interviewed to tell the reporter the truth. This isn't crime related stuff where you expect misinformation - this had to do with public works projects. They just plain blew it and didn't do their homework. Since then, I've always viewed any news story with extreme skepticism. If they can't get the stuff that I know about right, then why should I expect them to get the stuff that I don't know squat about correct?

Sorry... I thought you were refering to gslater's reference that "they" topped out and wasn't aware of the Oregonian update. Thanks for the additional info.

Previous poster said "they" topped out. I took that to mean the two that were going for help. Don't think anyone has said they "all" topped out, although I didn't hear the actuall news conference myself. Just wanted to nip that possible misinformation in the butt. Prayers go out to all involved...

Bullshit. Gross profit for a business is after the cost of goods have been taken out, along with salaries, etc - just like you educated me. Your salary (I don't believe I ever said "gross" salary,) is just that - your salary - before taxes have been taken out, before you've paid your landlord, before you've paid for food, blah blah blah. Total sales is all the money that comes into a company. No taxes taken out, no cost of goods sold, no nuthin. This is how much money has crossed the books. Correct? I'm not saying this is how much money the company is going to claim taxes on or anything. This is just how much money the company brought in, neglecting all the ugliness of paying your vendors, the IRS, the state, blah blah blah. OK. I'll type slow so you can follow this... Isn't your salary - not takehome pay here, but your actual salary - equivalent to that? If you didn't have to pay taxes, and pay everything it costs to stay alive to earn that salary, you'd actually have all that money in your hand. Same with a business... if they didn't have to pay their taxes, and pay everything it costs to stay in business to earn those sales, they'd actually have all that money in their hands. Maybe I'm just one dumb motherfucker, but by that logic, total sales for a business is equal your salary - both are mythical numbers that you're never going to see, but it's the starting point. I'm ready for the next lesson whenever you are, but I think you're still trying to figure out what book we're in.

I'm not following what your point is. Yeah... those are the financials I'm quoting. And yes, after everything was taken out to run the company and pay taxes, they had 32 million left over that they put away in the piggy bank and increase the retained earnings. My point in bringing up the exact numbers was because the argument that is always used to show how great REI is the ol' "...look at how much money they give to outdoor causes...". I just want to point out that while yes, 2.5 million is a lot of money, it's not a lot when you look at how much money goes over their books. And all of those contributions are probably not as altruistic as you think. Pretty sure the advertising/PR folks get a say in what "grants" are allowed and which aren't. I thought their original mission statement of sorts was on their website, but now can't find it. I know I've got it quoted in a letter I wrote REI several years back... maybe I can find it. But in effect, it basically said that the co-ops purpose was to make high quality mountaineering equipment available to its members. You tell me what's changed. I think the comment was made in reference to the "well they give money back to the community so they can't be all that bad, can they?" attitude. i like your name, and wanted to continue the massive quoting. Thanks!

I'm not following what your point is. Yeah... those are the financials I'm quoting. And yes, after everything was taken out to run the company and pay taxes, they had 32 million left over that they put away in the piggy bank and increase the retained earnings. My point in bringing up the exact numbers was because the argument that is always used to show how great REI is the ol' "...look at how much money they give to outdoor causes...". I just want to point out that while yes, 2.5 million is a lot of money, it's not a lot when you look at how much money goes over their books. And all of those contributions are probably not as altruistic as you think. Pretty sure the advertising/PR folks get a say in what "grants" are allowed and which aren't. I thought their original mission statement of sorts was on their website, but now can't find it. I know I've got it quoted in a letter I wrote REI several years back... maybe I can find it. But in effect, it basically said that the co-ops purpose was to make high quality mountaineering equipment available to its members. You tell me what's changed. I think the comment was made in reference to the "well they give money back to the community so they can't be all that bad, can they?" attitude.

Baltoro - Instead of assuming a bunch of numbers, why don't you look at the profit/loss statement available on the website you seemed keen on quoting. REI gave out 45% of their profit before taxes in dividends. I'm not going to waste my time correcting the rest of the numbers you put out there. Regarding growth - growth is not bad if done for the right reasons and it supports your mission. Right now, you've got a company that has changed their mission because they have to because of their growth. MEC seems to have tiptoed that tightrope well, and maintained their mission - although a few years ago it looked like they were going down the same road. kevbone - looking at that same statement, they have more than that in retained earnings. More like $236 million at the end of 2005. Oh... and the unclaimed dividends? 7.2 million. Including Sally's incentive plans and company provided benefits and pension, she came away with 1.3 million for 2005. They're a business. Nothing wrong with that. They'll eventually end up just like Eddie Bauer, which I heard some investment bankers just bailed out of bankruptcy. Guess REI will have some competition then!

Your math skills are fine, but your logic and comprehension obviously don't follow suit. $40,000 x 0.0025 = $100 REI gave 0.25% of their gross sales. Gross sales are equivalent to your salary - you know... that money you get before taxes are taken out, and you buy food, and you pay the rent, etc etc etc. The 7.5% number I quoted - and you used incorrectly - was their giving based upon their profit after taxes, cost of goods sold, expenses, etc etc etc. As far as I can tell, it's a fair comparison.

It's not a co-op, it's a business in my book, but that's just my opinionated opinion. Regarding that gear certification PR - they're just covering their butts, like any good business would do. They're not pushing for a "higher standard", they're just making sure they have a good defense when someone eventually sues them for selling faulty gear. Yeah yeah yeah... REI gave $2.5 million back to the community in 2005. That is fantastic - don't get me wrong. But let's put that in to perspective. In 2005, REI had over 1 billion (that's with a 'B') in sales. To be exact, they had $1,022,326,000 and probably a few pennies. Their charitable giving amounts to 0.25% of their total sales. No... I didn't get the decimal point in the wrong place - that's a quarter of one percent. Go here and this guy knows what charitable giving means... http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/ I think he knows about outdoor schtuff too. Even if you factor out salaries, cost of goods, land, green power, advertising, blah blah blah, then that 2.5 million still only equates to about 7.5% of their income. Commendable, but not trend setting when it comes to charitable giving by any means. And don't forget that some unknown percentage of that 2.5 million in donations is in the form of gear and clothing. Pretty darn sure those donations are on the books at retail value, and not their cost. I'm not knocking any donation anyone gives to a good cause. Shoot... I'm sure Walmart gives quite a chunk of change back to the "community." I just think we need to put it in perspective. REI's numbers are equal to this: let's say you make $40,000 a year. You gave $100 over the course of the year to a charitable cause - which might include some clothes you didn't want anymore. Do you think this is good enough? REI does.

If you don't think REI is using it's buying clout to dictate to the manufacturers, then you must be using that non-REI bong. When retail stores (not distributors, mind you... just the stores) can have that much sway over what kinds of things make it to market or not, industries are damaged - whether it's Walmart or REI.

My feeble old mind may be failing me, but I believe FF was there first! Seems like they were doing OK before the neighborhood went to hell.

Why... please tell me... why, does a company need to grow? If a company is doing what its mission is, giving its owners/employees a good living, and basically keeping up in their market, why does it need to grow? Oh. Greed. Sorry... I forgot I was in the real world there for a minute. Seriously - think of all the "great" stores you've come across. Are most of them still around? Nope. When did things start going sour for them? When they grew. Growth is good if that's what your goal is in life. But what's wrong with just having the goal of making a good living for you and your employees, treating them well, and giving your customers reasons to keep coming back? This really doesn't apply to REI - they changed course long ago and ain't comin' back. Eventually, they'll "grow" themselves right out of business. I guess I'm just tired of hearing that "you have to grow grow grow" mantra spewed out constantly.

Four or five years ago, real early morning, Mowich side of Knapsack Pass in that little basin before you start heading up again. Came around the corner after crossing a creek and saw something on the grassy hill towards the east, maybe 100 yards from us. The brain immediately thought deer because of the color, but then switched to bear because it didn't look like a deer, then switched to WTF? since it didn't look like either, was moving uphill damn fast, and had a gait like a kitty cat. Before I could get to the camera, it was gone. Pretty sure it was a cougar since we ruled out everything else. I mentioned it to a ranger I ran in to there a few weeks afterwards and he just gave me one of those "you on drugs?" look. (I wasn't.) Needless to say, when I stroll through that area these days (usually solo) my senses are on maximum alert.

Did you do it in an artistic manner, though? Were you able to do it better when you were younger? Or is just easier now?