pcg

bump

With the dearth of snow, I'm thinking it is open and drivable for non-4x4. Can anyone confirm?

Hmmm... I'd be interested to hear some comments on this. What is your reasoning for not attempting to compact the snow? When the snow is soft, I've always done my best to compact the snow in a large area in front of where I want to bury a deadman, then bury it and if conditions will allow I'll wait five or ten minutes to give the compacted snow a chance to set up.

I'll take the mitts. PM sent.

+1,000,000

I haven't been to either summit so can't answer your question directly. Rolando Garibotti is very knowledgeable about Patagonia routes and can answer your question. Rolo is as unselfish as they come when it comes to sharing beta and helping other climbers. You can email him at rgaribotti@aol.com. I also know two guides in the Bariloche area that I can put you in touch with if you can't reach him. Both will be happy to help. I have a topo map of Tronador and can send you a scan if you wish, however, it shows almost no detail on the route in question. I had hoped to solo the Argentine summit, but turned around halfway up the glacier from Refugio Otto Meiling when I realized it wasn't as moderate a route as I had hoped for soloing. (My bar is pretty low. For others it would be fine.) I took the photo below from Glacier Castano Overa, on the standard route to the Argentine summit, and it shows Pico Anon, the International summit. The Argentine summit is off to the right. If you look closely you can see a tiny spec visible in the sun on the saddle to the left of the International summit. It's a small shelter so I assume that would be on the route.

I always carry an extra base layer so I can change it periodically for a dry one. Tie the wet one on the outside of your pack and it will dry quickly in most conditions. My base layer is a short-sleeve Smartwool shirt and either I was born with special sweat or there is some truth to what they say about bacteria not liking wool because the shirt never stinks, even after several days.

1) I'm lazy and like to sleep at night. 2) I don't like to climb or ski when avalanche danger is extreme. A very strong warming event is forecast for New Year's Eve. This preceded by a couple days of fresh snow and high winds...

My only concern is the drone. I think the USFS should draw a firm line and enforce the "no mechanized vehicle" in wilderness areas(this is in Mt. Hood Wilderness), otherwise we'll have them everywhere. I agree with you. I doubt the producers were knowingly breaking the law, just ignorance on their part. I'll write them. To clarify my last remark, I have never been in favor of requiring permits for photography on USFS land, even for commercial photography. I think we should regulate ourselves. That is why this event gives me pause - they [apparently] brought a drone into a wilderness area and so were not regulating themselves. When we don't regulate ourselves, even if out of ignorance, then we need regulations.

Some beautiful video shots. The credits imply that an aerial drone was used in a wilderness area. I think this is crossing the line. They certainly didn't need to use a drone, and it doesn't appear they did, to film inside the cave. I'm guessing it was used for the view looking down on Sandy Glacier. Until now I have been opposed to regulation of photography on public lands, something the USFS in currently considering. Now I am starting to change my mind.

Is it really waterproof, as in you could take it on a five day trip in rain and not have to worry about getting your sleeping bag wet? If so, is it still waterproof after a couple years of wear and tear?

These are my dad’s knife blades and pitons from the 40s. I used them occasionally in the 60s and 70s until I drank the koolaid and switched to “chocks”. I’ve never looked back. I can still smell his old hemp rope and am kicking myself for throwing that out, along with my old goldline. I switched to kernmantle rope around 1970 I think. It’s scary how fast your stuff becomes “old school”. One day you set something aside for newer gear and the next day someone thinks it’s an antique and you realize they’re right.

Still have it. Goes on eBay this weekend.

Short of being onsite and examining conditions, you can look at two web sites: http://www.nwac.us/avalanche-forecast/current/mt-hood/ Too early in the year for this site to be up and giving info. Check back in a week or two. http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Hood/forecasts/2500 This one is a weather site and gives info all year long. Note that there is a pretty dramatic temperature spike upward on Sunday. After all the current snow and wind, a transition from below freezing to above is a red flag for me and therefore I would not attempt. If you really want to know the conditions you would have to head up and examine the snow, but with the predicted warming on Sunday and my inclination towards caution and laziness, I say why bother. Many people employ all sorts of techniques for studying snow conditions in an attempt to find safe conditions on marginal days. It is possible that the sun today and tomorrow will break loose any wind slabs and Sunday will be fine. If you were an expert in examining snow you might go up Sunday and check conditions. But even if you were, why play with fire? I err on the side of caution and if one red flag goes up, I'm out. If conditions hardened up again after Sunday's warming then you are probably looking at the beginning of a safe window and it would be worth going up and examining the snow. But... oops... looks like snow and wind are back again on Monday. Be patient and a window will come.

Gorgeous shots Luke! What ridge is that in #1 and #9 and what time of year?

Did you wear the overboots while skiing? The CCF footbed and overboot sole didn't mess with boot/binding fit?

I'm curious to know if the HLP lookout is actually level. I've only seen it looking up from the bottom of the cliff and it looks like it's about ready to tip over and go over the edge. It doesn't look like a place I'd want to be in during a winter storm.

Thank you!

Still available...

Like new - no tags - I'm selling for $132 in PDX area only. I don't want to hassle with shipping. I bought this jacket from a Campsaver sale in September. Got it for $132.48 because it was "very lightly used" so I assume it was a return. I wore it indoors for all of two minutes. It is absolutely "like new", but it's too small for me. I'm 5'11" and 150#. It actually fits me perfect if you like a slim cut, but I don't. I like a loose fit, but I had heard Rab sizes were on the large size so I ordered medium. It is listed as a "Rab Microlight Alpine Jacket - Men's-Beluga-Medium". It has a hood, black outside and orange inside - exactly like this... http://www.backcountryedge.com/rab-mens-microlight-alpine-jacket-2013.aspx?utm_source=GoogleMerch&utm_medium=dfm&gclid=CMvW1aHTj8ECFQWUfgodRIoAKQ

Good point. Well... the guide can certainly more easily afford it. Yes, that's right. When a guide takes a group into the wilderness he is immediately getting paid for that venture. It's a commercial venture. It may or may not be for the landscape photographer. He is throwing the dice for every trip. First he hopes to get a decent photo. Then he hopes to sell it. Another difference, while a photographer's decision to sell or not to sell has no impact on the wilderness, his feet do. He brings just one pair with him. When the guide decides to bring paying customers, he brings along additional pairs with additional impact. Still, if guides have to buy a permit, then maybe landscape photographers should also. The problem is, how do you determine a reasonable cost. Most make far less than guides and most are hobbyists who only hope to make a small dent in their costs. They lose money on a regular basis. A hefty permit fee is not an option.

I don’t mind paying reasonable permits when there is reasonable justification, as in the examples stated by Coldfinger. However, the original statements by the NFS were vague and raised concerns that don’t fall into the same category as those examples. They invited comment and they got a strong reaction, as they should. They have since made clarifying statements that have largely addressed the feedback they received. Here is why so many people (many of whom are landscape photographers that sell prints) were justifiably alarmed. From the Notice of Proposed Directive… “The Forest Service proposes to incorporate interim directive (ID) 2709.11-2013.1 into Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapter 40 to make permanent guidance for the evaluation of proposals for still photography and commercial filming on National Forest System Lands…” The excerpts from the Proposed Directive itself that raised concern for me... “A special use permit may be issued (when required by sections 45.1a and 45.2a) to authorize the use of National Forest System lands for still photography or commercial filming when the proposed activity: 5. Meets the following additional criteria… other than noncommercial still photography… would be in a congressionally designated wilderness area (and): a. Has a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness c. Is wilderness-dependent, for example, a location within a wilderness area is identified for the proposed activity and there are no suitable locations outside of a wilderness area” Here is what I objected to: Some people take photographs inside wilderness areas that they may then hope to sell, either to offset some of the costs of an expensive hobby, or to perhaps make a net income. This can reasonably be construed as “commercial still photography” and thus would be subject to the aforementioned permit and review process. 1) I don’t believe that I should have to pay a permit if I desire to sell a print of a photograph I took on our land. My decision to sell or not to sell has no impact on wilderness and is nobody’s business, but mine. If I earn enough income from that activity I’m happy to do my part and pay an income tax. 2) I don’t like the government deciding if my photos meet their criteria. The NFS, for whatever reason (lack of foresight, poor communication, or perhaps bad intention) left the door open to an interpretation that many quickly objected to. There were other objections as well (free press issues, etc.), but I think those were due to a misreading of the NFS statements. I am grateful that their subsequent clarifying statements indicate that their intent is not to fetter commercial landscape photographers with either a permit or a review process, both of which could have been intended within the wording of their broad original statement.

So I guess if Ansel Adams were alive and working today he would need to pony up $1500 a year to take photos, or is "further clarification" still needed.

I think in North Korea they also insist on approving any photos you've taken.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"... Thomas Jefferson Photographers aren't affected unless they sell their work. I think the government has figured out that most photographers don't make enough income to even pay taxes, so an annual $1500 permit is the best way to squeeze money out of a turnip. Oh yes, the photos must be approved by the Forest Service!??? Here's the proposed directive. You have until Nov. 3 to comment... https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration