JosephH

I'm out of town working, but can probably dig up a couple of stories once I get home. It's in the right section here - there just isn't a 'Washington - Orphan Crags' section to put it in so its adopted family takes care of it.

Why...? Check it.

Ken, no, I have a client project going on down there so I'm going back and forth quite a bit. But, that does allow me to stop in LV on the way or way back and get in some climbing with Karsten and a few of the old locals. Larry DeAngelo and Karsten Duncan high on Mt. Wilson with LV in the background.

Ken, you were right, I've been in ABQ and wasn't available or I would loved to have gotten out there.

I use an Eddy only for lead roped-soloing, I don't use it for anything else. The direction of the rope feed in the Eddy that makes it so good for lead roped-soloing makes it less than ideal for TR soloing, though that's the mode I use it in for seconding all my solo pitches so it's not that bad. Personally if I were doing the TR thing I'd do double minitraxions deal or just use a regular grigri.

Bummer, you're right, I'll still be in ABQ...

Kevin - I'm not sure how well that 'one woman' deal squares with the history of guitars or crags (and I don't think John Frieh is buying it for a second). It works for me now, but only after many tries and having gotten a late start. It certainly is the 'most dangerous' of the three activities you mention, though.

The assumption then being that the study only included women with waists. In today's society I see fewer and fewer waists every year - it's definite a declining pool of research subjects. PS Mine is beginning to fade as we speak - ah, winter..

Bug, I wasn't thinking you were criticising so much as wanting to say I'm not sure it's even possible to 'disagree' in as much as noone's personal decision really impacts another. 'Solutions' may be different, but they're all perfectly appropriate, at least to the person who makes them.

I think Bill was proposing a solution that worked for him and was offering it up as advice to someone who asked. I don't think there's inherently any big disagreement here - only individual choices based on one's domestic circumstance and personal makeup and outlook on life. I know lots of climbers who don't climb alpine due to the preponderance of objective risks - me for example, and dozens of folks I know. Some of those folks (not me) are world class rock climbers and were world class alpinists who simply decided that - for them - the risks just weren't worth the reward. Some of them made that decision based on having had children, but just as many, myself included, made that call for ourselves long before a spouse and children arrived on the scene. This is definitely a case of to each his or her own - one size does not fit all...

Yes, well said Bill. Many of us are still spinning in the wake of Jim Anglin's death and as Bill said, that happened three steps from completely flat ground at the very beginning of a descent trail. One can be understandably hard pressed to categorize such an accident in the context of a discussion of comparative risk in climbing. What can be said about it, though, is it was a clear example of an entirely subjective risk in that nothing about that spot in the descent trail changed before or since Jim's accidet. This is in contrast to objective risks such as weather, or non-climber-initiated rockfalls or avalanches. As ericb rightly points out, this is a very real differentiator when it comes to comparing the risks different activities pose comes down to those risks you control versus those you do not. Under that comparative rubric - subjective versus objective risk - you are constantly are faced with the twin questions of a) where does the real 'burden of risk' lie - with you, your circumstance, or both? And b) what is the 'quotient' of the combination of an endeavor's subjective and objective risks? By way of example: objectively this afternoon, Mt. Hood is what it is - subjectively, who presents a higher combined risk profile setting out for the summit in an hour: me or Kitty Calhoun? Ok, so that should be easy, but it well illustrates the role subjective personal competency plays in the final analysis regardless of your pursuit of choice. I think we can all agree the combination of a low level of subjective competence and a high level of objective danger is clearly an undesirable state of affairs whether we're talking biking to work or climbing Mt. Hood. But most of us didn't end up here on cc.com to be absolutely 'safe' so in the end, and on any given day staring up, it really comes down to the combined 'risk quotient' of just what game we have in mind to play. What can make things murky, as Bill suggests, is our ability to appropriately perceive and assess risk; in essence, we're generally the real wild card in the deck. This is a conundrum best summed up in 1971 when Harry asked: "you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" Back to the OP's question about the comparative 'safety' of rock vs. mountain climbing, it can sometimes help to scale out to extremes to get an answer and we can do that in this instance as well. Who would you bet your first-born's life on them returning safely - Tommy Caldwell on the Nose Or Steve House on Rupal Face? The the answer can sum up the question because it essentially subtracts subjective competency from both sides of the equation leaving only the objective hazards to be compared. I'm guessing most of us would be betting on Tommy in such a matchup. As to sport vs. trad you need only look at the role of bolts - they remove a whole range of subjective competencies and objective dynamics (placement locations and options) from the equation. Once you eliminate the host of technical and emotional skills associated with protecting a route and statically define the objective points of protection, you've basically narrowed the equation down to the repeating question: "can I pull the moves between point a and b?". Trad climbing 'safely' at the same grade requires a much, much higher level of subjective competence than sport climbing no matter how you slice or dice it. If you do possess the requisite competencies, then 'safety' in trad climbing basically comes down to your ability to match your choice of routes with your capabilities on any given day. As for the question of climbing vs. Family - well, that does say a lot about a person and their choices, to the degree that it's a matter of choice at all for each individual's psyche. I have a family and still risk, but I attempt to do so in circumstances I control and have faith that, thirty three years later, I know when to hit it and when to back off. [ Note 1: Sport climbing on gear, which I see a lot of folks doing these days, is an inheretly risky proposition, especially if you aren't double-checking your gear each and every time you start climbing again after weighting a piece. ] [ Note 2: Ivan is a paradoxical maniac - his thoughts on this subject are simultaneously both wise and suspect.]

Doesn't sound "possible" - sounds like definitely loose column...

I typically climb at Beacon whenever it's dry until it closes Feb 1. every year and this year is looking quite dry compared to the same time last year. I was up there Friday and today and while it's early and likely brief, it has been cold up there and it seems as though there isn't enough water running for much more than a glaze on most all of them despite the fact Multnomah Falls appears to be running fairly well. Mist Falls is the most iced up of all the lower falls, but far from climbable. It will be interesting to see how it goes this year.

bump...

I tried to organize a trip to Baffin to get on Asgard in '76, but we didn't quite manage to pull it off. Good thing too, given coming from the hollers of Southern Illinois none of us had ever climbed on granite, done a wall, or anything taller the Yellow Spur for that matter. I was just in love with the idea of it being permanantly light while you were climbing. We were cluelessly ambitious and it would have been a real Beverly Hillbillies gone to Pangnirtung scene we probably wouldn't have survived.

Beacon Rrrrroooocccckkkkk.....!

PM me...

The thought for the day was - bbbuuurrrrlllllllyyyyyy....

Here's a link to an old post I did about the layering / heat pack system I use at Beacon in the winter. I despise being cold so I can guarantee it works out there even on the burliest of days... http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=12&Number=627781&Searchpage=2&Main=47472&Words=turtle&topic=0&Search=true#Post627781

Going to be screaming east winds...

Maybe - probably not thursday, but friday afternoon and saturday

Going out later...?

Starting to get burly down in that thar' gorge. And ya gotta love the SE Corner ridge when it's raging east winds...

That's true, but 'Oregon drivers' is as grand an oxymoron as can be found. The only other state I've witnessed such mass incompetence and inconsiderate behavior was in South Florida where a large percentage of the drivers are ancient and inexperienced New Yorkers. They're just plain mean in Boston, fast in LA, erratic in Atlanta, solid in Chicago - but Oregon, just painfully bad all the way around. And the most painful part is watching them every year as daylight savings and the rain converge on them at once inducing three weeks of mass vehicular hysteria. On topic, everyone is fairly entertaining, but Off as well as the usual handful of trads are the ones I'd probably most want to rope up with whom I haven't yet had the pleasure. There are probably a few others, but my wife might take exception to them.

Darrel, Vivian, and other folks on the BRSP staff busted their asses last week and got the rock cleared, railings restored, and the trail open so we're good to go for this week which looks to be sunny week...