tvashtarkatena

The mission statement of CCA is "We Prescribe Joy". Joy is good, but the charity does not fund cancer research nor subsidize treatment. After Live Strong, its hard not to be more skeptical about today's huge field of cancer charities and what they actually do.

Although I gotta say I've witnessed the Big Man do some wild-assed shit that got us through.

I go one better - I have my buddy do that while I finish my fatty. Me when you need something like this Cliff Clavenized, Keenwesh when you want to actually get up the pitch, Ivan when things suck and you need to witness something suffering more than you.

This does leave me wondering why someone wouldn't just donate directly to the charity in question rather than filter it through this or any other 'climb for…' project. I do a fair bit of fundraising for a large non-profit, but I must confess I never really understood the advantage of donating indirectly in this manner. The PR value of climbing peaks that have been well trampled seems minimal. I can see the value of 'fun runs' where donors pay to participate in an event, and some of that goes to charity - those tend to be big celebrations that can make a splash, particularly if they become well-known annual events. Our fund raising model is a bit simpler - we point to our track record and ask for the money. The donor gets nothing other than the knowledge that we'll take that money and efficiently do what we say we're gonna do with it, and they helped make that happen.

I've also assumed the leader doesn't just burn a fatty and float past the pendi on his way to awesome land.

Incorrect. If R is the max horizontal distance from pendi fulcrum to leader/belayer as well as the max pendulum length, assuming the leader/belayer is level with the fulcrum, then the follower when fully lowered out will be at a 45 degree angle from the leader/belayer, therefore Rope Length L = 2R + R*SQRT (2) (draw it to see WTF I'm talkin bout) If L = 60m, then max R = L/(2+SQRT (2)) = 60/(2+1.414) =17m this is the max horizontal distance from leader/belayer to fulcrum, as well as the max pendulum length for leader and follower. This is best case - if the follower has to 'wind up' in the opposite direction to make the pendi happen, max R is even shorter. I've also assumed knot length is accounted for by rope stretch.

There is excellent (and strenuous) road cycling and trail running in the hills to the W and S. It's a huge area with a very low population density. I lived in Saratoga for a summer - loved it.

Cuuzzz its super light? Is this a trick question? One man's ruined is another man's Tenacious Tape job. I get about 4 years out of my Montbell UL down jackets, and I kick the living shit out of them. That UL stuff is SO DAMN COMFY. And its way cheaper than midweight stuff of comparable quality, so there's that. I always carry TT and apply it right away when there's a core breach, however. And I've learned not to wear it around a campfire. FF does last (4 bags in my lifetime quiver) - and its heavier and more expensive than UL gear from WM, Montbell, etc. Having a situation specific quiver of bags, jackets, etc will greatly increase the life of your more delicate items.

I don't think anyone mentioned the river after seeing that photo cuz it spoke for itself, no? Has anyone seen those giant concrete jacks (as in the kind kids play with) that are going to shore up Hwy 20 along the Skagit near the blueberry farm? Google 'Core-loc' images. Weird and cool! Just airlift a few of those into ONP with an as-yet-to-be-invented giant rocket powered helo. Problem solved. If you're gonna get sued anyway, you may as well go HUGE.

I'd say number 1 is better characterized as dealing with competing priorities with limited resources, 2 is definitely accurate, and 3 probably doesn't apply to many, if any, land managers in WA. Washingtonians love our historic structures, and land managers respond in kind - or lead the charge, both individually and in trying to fulfill their stewardship responsibilities. If you want a real (tough) project - take on the High Rock Lookout. Washington's most trashed. Go figure - it's a short, easy walk from a road. Good for restoration work, bad for keeping that work from getting destroyed by the hairless monkey. Sad, because the viewpoint is spectacular.

People may relentlessly refer to me as the town pump, and I'll admit I do like the occasional massage, but I assure you there's plenty Left of the American brain. Pretty much most of the known universe. Yours, Tv

The Act basically says 'don't do it (motorized equipment) unless you really need to meet the minimum requirements for the purpose...ie, less is more. It's not a bad formula for preserving wilderness character as defined - which, after all, is the whole point of the Act. Removing the 'necessary' or 'minimum' wording could produce unintended consequences that could damage that wilderness character - more elaborate structures, higher impact and longer term construction projects, temporary roads, etc. I don't know, the act works pretty damn well the way it is, even if we all don't get exactly what we want every time. The nature of litigation may change, but the number of suits may not. American wilderness management serves as a pretty decent model for the rest of the world, even if there are fewer places to keep out of the rain than, say, Canada or New Zealand.

Under the Wilderness Act, use of motorized equipment is prohibited 'except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act' (including emergencies). The public purpose(s) referred to include recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. What is 'necessary' and what constitutes meeting 'the minimum requirements' were points of disagreement during both the Green Mountain Lookout and ONP structure lawsuits. Neither suit argued that the structures themselves violated the act - both pre-dated wilderness designation and served historical and recreational purposes, and so were allowed under the Act. Rather, both lawsuits focused on the use of helicopters to perform the restoration/replacement work. Both chainsaws and helicopters are used to maintain wilderness areas. Old growth blow downs and the transport of bridge stringers arguably make them 'necessary' - few would argue that trails are not an important and allowed way to fulfill the 'recreational' purpose of the Act. Structures, and particularly shelters, are more controversial, at least in the litigation sense, in that they have a greater impact on wilderness character and are less necessary for recreation than trails. Shelters also tend to require more motorized equipment use for maintenance and restoration - the Green Mountain project involved 65 chopper flights, for example. More extensive use of larger equipment for structures deemed less necessary attracts more attention from watchdog groups. ONP might arguably have squeeked by had it discreetly used chain saws to replace the two collapsed shelters in question. Plaintiffs would have had a weaker case at least. Choppering in pre-fab structures apparently created a bit too much of a splash for both its critics and the judge, however.

I'm sorry you wasted so much time in your reply, but the 'half' statement was purely figurative - meant to illustrate the competing pressures that land managers face. I thought the rest of message made that pretty clear. Guess not. Re: the restoration comment, I mistook the structures shutters for plywood (ie, boarded up - as was the Mebee Lookout). Caught it at second glance, but didn't think it warranted another post. Quite a few volunteer hours did go into both the Green Mountain and Mebee structures, of course - the principle I was attempting to put forth. Again, sorry for wasting your valuable time. Feel free to beat up other historical preservation supporters, ie, allies, as you see fit.

NWAC accident report

Damn. I just read that article and realized it was Frank. He was a force of nature who loved the mountains and the many people who shared his numerous alpine explorations - and that love came through strong and clear at his Bulger party presentation in November. He knew our mountains as few are lucky enough to. RIP, Frank.

2 recent climax avalanches - 6' crown - in Sibley Creek basin (trail to Hidden Lake Peak). It's kind of rare not to see one there, given that its a steep tefturf farm in there. Lots of windloading, some cornices, but no other significant slides uba ubabserved. It's damn warm up there. Not that I'm complaining - the skiing was actually pretty good above a certain skittering altitude and the weather was stunning.

They did. They became less and less honest.

On the D side, I'm wondering if, at 68, Hilz is gonna run. She's pretty fried these days, and that's pretty damn old for an 8 year stint.

It's not about the traffic, really - it's about a petty bully who's dragging a long trail of vindictive action, with disregard for the public good he was elected give a rip about, against anyone who failed to support his personal ambitions. Standard procedure for certain politicians, perhaps, but in the end, its a choice we get to make. Or probably not, in his case. Make no mistake, this guy's been a lying fucko from day 1. We just got to find out about it earlier than later so we could preemptively tap the flush handle. Grab the plunger, though. Wide load. Now, he may well float back up on a flood of stupidity. Witness the erudite discussions blaming chickification and the endangered status of the 'man's man' currently splashing the shithouse floor.

somebody said it somewhere sometime

The idea that homo sapiens have somehow stopped evolving is, of course, as ludicrous as it is unsupported.

Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric aside, ONP lost a lawsuit in 2005 brought on by Wilderness Watch and two other groups when it attempted to airlift prefab structures to replace 2 original adirondacks that had collapsed. The suit was undoubtedly expensive and resource consuming, as suits usually are - it may have left ONP park managers more circumspect about preserving other structures in the park. This structure is much larger than an adirondack - restoring it without power equipment would be a daunting, expensive, and resource consuming task. The use of power equipment would invite another suit. While its fun to poke at wilderness managers from a keyboard, its a little more difficult to put yourself in their shoes, given the competing pressures and resource limitations they face. Half of users want shelters - the other half not. Either way, many want well managed national parks on the cheap. Myself and others are currently planning some maintenance/restoration work on another lookout - which fortunately lies just outside a wilderness area. Compare the Green Mountain Lookout restoration (inside a wilderness area) with the recent Mebee Lookout Restoration (outside a wilderness area). The latter was light years easier from a bureaucratic and legal standpoint, even if the actual structures were very similar. We are lucky that our project will be more like the latter than the former. This may come as a surprise for some, but the Forest Service has been and continues to be very helpful and generous in its support of such historical restoration and maintenance efforts - but such agencies are now understandably gun shy in locations covered by the Wilderness Act. Until some volunteer group (hint hint) organizes to restore this structure - the hard way, without power equipment, it will likely continue to go back to nature. If nothing else, treat your historical structures kindly when you visit them. Take your 9/10ths empty fuel canisters, mostly empty whiskey bottles, and crappy leftover food back down with you. If there is a wood burning stove - clean it out after use and dispose of the ash properly. Close the shutters and doors properly. Leave the place cleaner than when you found it. If someone else left trash, remove it. This often doesn't happen. In short, what would backcountry Jesus do?

This is giving me a hankerin' for some mountain beaver

We have another living fossil right in our own backyard: Mountain Beaver Weird critter. They eat their own poo, climb trees, and don't hibernate. And they're not real beavers, either - more closely related to squirrels. Anyone ever seen one? I haven't.