dinomyte

Guys: I'd be down for a one or two-dayer as well. I love Adams, have been up quite a few times, and have a connection down near Husum that would let us camp in the back 40 for a good party after! I've always liked early to mid-July but this year, who the hell knows! I'll keep an eye out, but please include me on any update emails! Love to meet some more of you P-town folks.

I would point out that people generally do North first, so as to avoid attempting the most technical portion of the climb when dead-tired. Though I typically prefer to let folks do the research and make up their own minds, in this case I feel it would be irresponsible of us not to suggest that you first try it in the fashion most often followed. Just my opinion.

Dude: These guys all know what they are talking about. My understanding is that the most common marathon is, in from Pole Creek and up the SE ridge of North Sis, down and up the obvious ridge between North and Middle, cruising down the South side of Middle past Camp Lake and up the North side of South. Throw in Broken Top and or Bachie if you are a glutton. Additionally most marathons are done in, I dunno, August or September, when there is a decent trail on the Traverse of North Sis. As someone who has been on that Traverse in deep snow, and when it was bare, I would recommend waiting till September. In snow, it's steeper than shit, and more than a bit unnerving for a newb! Read some TR's on my site (www.lebre.net), traditional mountaineering, cascadeclimber.com, and this site. All these will give some photos and show you a bit of what to expect. Good luck.

I'd let 'em keep it but I don't think education is important enough.

OK, i'm sure I'm the last person to see this, but I got scared just watching! Wingsuits

Dude! If I had to move somewhere it would be SLC. I get down there at least a couple times a year, but for me it's to visit friends and hit the powder. If I ever get really into rock, then I'd love to meet up with you up in Little Cottonwood. If not, make sure folks have some contact info, we'll grab a beer at the Bayou! BEERVANA!! Good luck my man!

Although a bit of a digression from the original question, I would say this in regard to the "fatherless children" that so many have mentioned. In my opinion, ON AVERAGE, kids are probably better off with both parents. (I'm not getting into the whole "could two women or two men raise a child just as well" thing). But, I grew up with one. I know a lot of people who grew up with one. Many of them (us?) turned out pretty well. Conversely I know many folks raised by both who have not turned out so well. I try to live my life keeping the following in mind: Don't totally sacrifice tomorrow, but live for today. Meaning, I'm not going on vacation for 2 years and blowing all our cash, but we will be going on as many vacations, climbs, snowboarding trips, etc. as time and money allow. And if I do go under the bus (or off the mountain) tomorrow, people will be able to say that I lived life as fully as I could. And, I have confidence that my wife and family could raise my child as well as if I were around. That said, I always try to mitigate all the risks one can, as I'd like to be around a bit longer!

Exactly the type of response that I was hoping for! Well thought out and clearly stated. I'm certain that most feel fine with the dangers that they can "control" so I was trying to think about the objective obstacles. In mountaineering, I always think about weather, people kicking stuff down on me, avis, etc. Not being too familiar with rock (except that which is inconveniently formed into a summit spire) I was interested in hearing others' thoughts. Thanks JosephH.

The things you mention (weather, avy, lots of people) may be out of one's "control" but in many instances can be avoided. I'm not at all arguing with your point and your choice, but I look very carefully at the forecast, avy danger, and where the Mazamas are climbing before any of my trips. Can shit still happen? You bet, but I have never been on a hill in lightning, and I have only been behind a group of 12 Mazamas once!

To me "solo glacier travel" would be more comparable to rock climbing without helmet.....or pro!

I too chose to get married and have a family, but with the full knowledge that these choices would not prevent me from doing all the things that I love to do. I still get do the occasional "guys night out" and a bit of outdoor activities. I guess when I talked about being resentful I meant if someone told me I could not do those things because I had to "think of my family." Although it's not a perfect analogy, I compare it to "staying together for the kids." You might choose to do it, but it's probably more out of a feeling of obligation than a preference. And it is probably not healthy for anyone involved. That doesn't mean that a family should not have an effect on us. Hopefully, it makes us grow, or grow up! Having a wife, let alone a child, has made me take fewer risks, but I personally believe that, with proper preparation, the outdoors things that I do aren't significantly more dangerous than other things. I'm probably more likely to get taken out by a drunk driver on my way home from work than I am by a rock or avy on a mountain.

I'm a new father as well. I was just interested in a discussion of the comparative dangers. Of course, we all know you can die doing pretty much anything. My family means a lot to me, but that doesn't mean giving up mountaineering, snowboarding, etc. Does it mean taking fewer risks? Maybe. For me, I think I'd be a worse father for sitting around with the family and resenting them for the fact that I couldn't go out and do my thing than actually going now and again and being the happier for being around them. I can't quantify those things either. I guess my interest was not necessarily in parents giving up their passions for family, though that is an interesting point as well.

I was just reading in the newb forum, and billcoe stated that he "still rock climbs, which is lower risk than mountaineering." I was wondering what people think of that statement. Please note that this not to jump on him, and I totally understand that there are many different variations of "rock climbing" and "mountaineering." Personally, I am more of a mountaineer. Because the two are so different, I have a hard time comparing them. I did have a few thoughts though, and this is just rambling..... - Rock is rarely climbed in horrible weather. - It seems like you have to know a lot more knots and such to rock climb. - To me, it seems like moutaineering could be more forgiving, i.e. you take a fall and self-arrest. But I guess that could be compared to taking a fall on rock and your pro holding. I'm sure that more people die mountaineering than rock climbing, but I think that's probably because people underestimate the difficulty. Seems that the gear required is less as well, which might open it up to more people. Anyway, sorry for the rambling and sorry if this has been discussed before. Thoughts?

I wouldn't question his motivation as I assume his motivation is to share a challenging experience with his son - an experience that at this point his son cannot do on his own. While his son may turn out to be a bad ass and knock these out on his own in the future, there is also the possibility that he will not. While I am not encouraging the climb, as I could not be sure of my self-arrest capabilities with a child on my back (or without), it will not get any safer in the future as the child weighs more. That said, I would personally not take a child (or a dog) up any mountain. I suppose that with this, or any other undertaking, one must compare the risks with the rewards. The reward is an accomplishment that the child may or may not remember. The risk is obvious. Given this, I would not do it at this point. If you do this at all, I would recommend the 2009 date that you mention. This would allow time to fully analyze the undertaking, train, get some experience in lesser ventures, etc. If at that point, Hood is still a goal, at least great pains have been taken to mitigate the risks to the extent possible.

Stick: I think you have an admirable aspiration in getting your son up the hill. I would echo some of the previous comments. A good plan might be to get up to Hood sometime before your actual climb, to do an exploratory hike. A lot of folks do Hood in June, depending on the season. One can get in a decent hike up to the Hogsback typically without getting into too much trouble, and this would give you a feel for the demand. It gets steeper after that point. I would still recommend having someone along for the hike, and of course, knowing what gear you need. Though I haven't seen anyone volunteering to guide you up the hill, I am certain you could find a taker or two for the hike. Best of luck to you.

I think the classic is "All your base are belong to us!" But I just picked up an I-pod travel charger that states, "This optional power adaptor makes your ipod working constantly at home or travel." I think Japan is the best place to spot some good ones, as T-shirts with words written in English often make no sense at all. But while I was there, I was sorely tempted to visit the "Hair Saloon." With a name like that it had to be good. Anybody got any good ones?

I'd like to meat Sherri. Don't know about the rest of the gals, as Sherri is the only one I've seen a photo of (unless you count the close-ups Archie's bruises). On the other side, I'm surprised that no one has said they'd like to meet Jamin.......in a dark alley.

I'm a hippie, my wife is a mime. We're going as Peace and Quiet. (OK, we got it off the web.) I can't use the STFU comment on her though. She'd be pissed.

On first read, I totally agreed with the full text of your post. Re-reading it, I'm not sure about the sentence quoted above. In male-dominated cultures, perhaps the men are satisfied, and 50% is not bad. This has probably changed as women play a greater role, but I bet in parts of Asia a while back the men WERE happy, because women accepted that their role was what it was. I was in Japan a couple years ago. The best meal I have ever had was served by a 55-year old woman at her home (we visited her and her husband for an evening). I said, "You are a wonderful hostess. Do you enjoy cooking and entertaining?" Her response: "No. It's my duty." But she never complained about it. I guess my point is that is possible that there are cultures where 50% of the people are happy (even if it's one gender) at the expense of the other 50%. I'm not sure that 50% of the people in the US are happy. That said, I am happy in my monogamous relationship. But, I think I was happy in college when partners were more varied. I would not want to be single now (in my mid-30s). Anyways, it's a complex subject.

In a serious response to this subject, I was going to say pretty much what Mythos said, before I read her response. It is our ability to reason that separates us. Having sex is much like taking drugs - to maintain the same level of excitement or high, it takes more and more, or different drugs. Thus the urge to have sex with other partners. I guess the key would be to do things in the monogamous relationship to maintain that excitement - helpful, but of course that doesn't eliminate the urges. Still, there are plenty of repercussions to consider.

I agree with Archie. It's not natural. Take any semi-attractive men and women, put them together for long enough, and you'll have some hook-ups. If you don't believe me, just join my wife in watching MTV's the Real World, or countless other reality shows. That said, I suppose we would need to distinguish between monogamy, serial monogamy, etc. Maybe a serial monogamist can have a different partner each day?

I haven't read the entire thread, but....how many things to our taxes go to that we don't get any direct benefit from or don't agree with? My property taxes go to schools, but I don't have any kids in school. People who pay to send their kids to private schools still pay for public schools. I guess our reward is that educated people are better for society? Taxes go to fund the war. I'm guessing there are a couple people on here who don't agree with that one. I'm sure that you folks can add many more things that taxes pay for that you don't like. Money for uninsured folks is just one more.

It'll just expose more of the nice choss that keeps you Washingtonians out of Oregon!

Geologists: Collier Glacier is shrinking 1 hour, 36 minutes ago BEND, Ore. - Between the North Sister and Middle Sister in Oregon's Cascade Range, Collier Glacier has advanced and receded for hundreds of thousands of years. But like many glaciers, it is headed in one direction these days: backward. It is in serious peril, says geologist Ellen Morris Bishop of the Fossil-based Oregon Paleo Lands Institute. "We have basically a really sad picture of Collier Glacier today." Geologists blame among other things a warming climate, altering the landscape and perhaps the availability of water to high-elevation ecosystems. Collier is shrinking faster than most of the 35 glaciers in the state. "Now everything is just in a chaotic shrink," Bishop said. This summer she led a climate change-themed tour of the Central Oregon Cascades, starting from McKenzie Pass and heading south. Volcanic activity built the Cascades, but over eons the glaciers have worn them down. At the glacier's base is a moraine, or a ridge of rocks, deposited by the slowly moving glacier when it was bigger. Today an empty valley fills the space between the ridge and the glacial edge. "This was a full valley in 1906," Bishop said. Since then it has retreated more than a mile. The ice sheet has visibly shrunk since she first visited the glacier in the 1980s, Bishop said. "We're in trouble," said David Eddleston, of Bend and a participant in the field trip. "It's right there in front of our eyes." The shrinking of the glacier started about the same time carbon dioxide emissions started rising, Bishop said. "It's all tied to climate change, said Peter Clark, a geosciences professor at Oregon State University. In the late 19th century, many glaciers started to retreat, he said. That shrinking was probably due to natural fluctuations in the atmospheric temperature. But in the last 20 to 30 years, all of the Cascades' glaciers have been shrinking, he said. Collier is reflective of glaciers all along the Cascades, Clark said. And because the actions of glaciers reflect temperatures from two decades ago, even if warming trends were to stop today, glaciers would still be shrinking for at least 20 years to come, he said. With warming predicted to rise between 3 and 5 degrees by the end of the century, temperature will likely be the main factor that causes glaciers' decline. "Most people would say that by the turn of the century there will be very little ice left on the mountains," Clark said. Glaciers store water in the winter and then release it throughout the year, Clark said, spreading out the time when water is flowing. Without the glaciers, many streams will rely more on springtime runoff. "It will affect the water balance of the mountainous regions," he said. "At some point, they're going to be so small that they're not going to pump out that water," said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University. And when that happens, lands at higher elevations will be much drier and subject to droughts, Fountain said. Stream flow will probably decrease, which means that plant life along those waterways would diminish. Some lakes previously fed by glaciers would become clearer because there would be no sediment but they could also start to evaporate and become smaller. But while glaciers might shrink, that doesn't mean the ice on mountains will disappear completely, he said. "It's actually tough to get rid of a glacier," Fountain said. As glaciers retreat, they do so by inching up to higher mountain elevations, where the air is colder. "But it's the difference," Fountain said, "between the Collier Glacier today and a little ice patch that might be 100 yards long."

My dog Rufus is part goat: