Jump to content

Chris Hopkins

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Chris Hopkins

  • Rank
    journeyman
  1. Fred Beckey book information request

    Sorry dude, I'm more concerned about potential harm to the victims then Mr. Becky's friend and companion's need to write about those victims in a for profit book. If any victim needs to publically tell their story as part of a healing process, there are more appropriate support venues to do so. If there are victims of abuse in this case, and I don't know that there are, the victim's needs are to be our main concern, not the writers needs, and certainly not anyone's need to read a salacious story. But hey that's just my informed opinion coming from a former Wa State certified counselor. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-04-19/the-psychological-impact-of-victim-blaming-and-how-to-stop-it%3Fcontext%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjp8sTPotbaAhXJ5lQKHW-oDW8QFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0SO9eAnnNlbx3lPwUkA55e&ampcf=1 “We are a culture of victim-blamers,” Engel says, adding that those who suffer sexual abuse – from young children to predominantly female students on college campuses – are frequently blamed for what happened to them." sa·la·cious səˈlāSHəs/ adjective (of writing, pictures, or talk) treating sexual matters in an indecent way and typically conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject.
  2. Fred Beckey book information request

    It's a fact that salacious stories sell books, any book. I would not contribute such a story to a book, any book, if I were a victim of harassment or abuse and it somehow benefits the harasser or the friends of the harasser. Nothing personal against this particular writer. From my private communications with Megan Bond she seems like a very nice lady. Sorry can't share those conversations here, you know private conversations and all. And to your question, I read Megan's own words (quoted below) and took those comments as fact as to her expressed opinions. Seems a bit biased, which is completely normal and understandable that she or any one would take a position of support for a friend and companion. Quote from Ms Bond. http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1112250 "To radka, et al: Unless you knew Fred personally and knew how he could treat both women and men equally with sharp words and gruffness, your comments are warrantless. I doubt that within the last twenty years he made a comment to a woman (that was supposedly "witnessed") that was actually misogynistic. Fred found equally annoying men and women, male and female, for various reasons, and was not known to withhold brutal commentary or his opinions and subjective observations; he knew he was often "on stage" being watched, and could deliver words that might either sting those they were directed towards, or sometimes have a comic affect. Fred was anything but a misogynist, nor was he sexist. Especially in his last two decades he was quite pleased for women, to see women make their way even more independently into the mountains, lead climbs, organize expeditions, and do without men. He had a great mental repository of many women's climbing accomplishments throughout history, of which he was quite impressed. He often shared this information and various articles with me and others. Was Fred sexist? He was an incorrigible flirt, but as he was also quite benign over the last two decades, he provided good and fun informal laughs to women who responded to his charms, or sought out his company." End quote. And what about my point that Fred can no longer tell his side of the story (relevant facts) because seems like your descriptor as "all parties deserve a discussion based upon facts" would include him.
  3. Fred Beckey book information request

    Yea, but what does Fred say on the matter? Wouldn't he be included in "all parties"?
  4. Fred Beckey book information request

    I'm challenged with logic? Really, that's your debate point? That sounds sort of condescending, and to use that method as a point in a debate becomes a fallacy*. Let me see if I can clarify my point. If you had been sexually harassed or worse, are saying that you would tell that story to the abuser's writer so that they (abuser, or abuser's heirs and writer etc) could make money on your very personal emotional story? In other words, would you hand money to your abuser? *Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Note: My argument points above in no way implies that the subject in question sexually harassed or abused anyone.
  5. Fred Beckey book information request

    Why would someone who may have had an unpleasant and extremely negative emotional experience want to relay that very personal information to a biographer that will most likely include that information to help sell a book? Just doesn't seem logical to me.
  6. Fred Beckey book information request

    Seems it's the way he was portrayed in the media. http://www.traditionalmountaineering.org/News_Beckey.htm "Fred Beckey is a living traditional mountaineering legend "Icon to some, legendary climber Beckey still obscure to many"
  7. Fred Beckey book information request

    I believe that you are correct in that assertion. Good advice. Below is a Quote, age old words of wisdom from a "witness" who was so easily dismissed by Ms. Bond. "It is always easy to side with the oppressor. All it requires is inaction and silence. There is a strong lure to look the other way and not talk about painful topics. It takes a lot more to stand up to oppression and abuse, even if that might taint our picture of somebody "untouchable", an idol." I would ask, why do so many fear to act with courage, and so easily dismiss those who do?
  8. Washington Pass conditions report

    This weeks WSDOT report. " Hi all, Bob Hopfield reports a 4 mile gain for week 4 "At the end of day on Thursday, Jim and his Kodiak blower made it to milepost 152 (about a mile shy of Swamp Creek). Snow depth there is 42 inches on the centerline. Temps this week were in the upper 30’s low 40’s. Not much in the way of downed trees, or other issues, but we did find a minor washout that needed repair just east of Granite Creek caused by a plugged culvert pipe. On the east side, the parade of caterpillars, snow cats, snow blowers, graders and loaders continued. The pavement is visible to milepost 163, a gain of 4 miles to the first of the Liberty Bell chutes. The week began near the end of the Cutthroat Ridge avalanche zone with 34 degree temps, it was snowing with 7 feet on the centerline. Lloyds Logging's rented D-8 was Mark Bokken's this week. The County’s rented D-5 was Duane Wolley's, the giant loader was Bill Hoffman's, the grader was Jim Melton's and Jason Newman and Tyler Miller were assigned to the Kodiak snow blowers. (The avalanche crew handles their snow cat with a blade to knock down high spots for the blowers and their snowmobiles to monitor slope stability above the road.) The avalanche crew tried some control blasting but the new snow and cold temperatures in the chutes yielded little. Mike Stanford says they are 40% done with LB1. They only cut one lane up to there, leaving one lane with snow on it in case they need to walk a caterpillar back down to Cutthroad Ridge to clear new debris if those chutes start spilling. In Mike's words, "The good news is, they are almost to the summit" and "The bad news is, they are almost to the summit". "There's real concern with so much snow still up high and we are seeing big releases with this kind of snowpack all the way from Chinook to Alpental to Stevens". Don Becker said “We need warm temperatures to move the snow out of those chutes.” The forecast is for about 3” of new snow tonight to tomorrow morning, then freezing temps until Monday when the forecast calls for dry and some warming through Wednesday. Please check the avalanche conditions before you head up there this weekend."
  9. Washington Pass conditions report

    Went up to the Silver Star col yesterday. Lots of recent solar gain wet slide activity noted on east and west faces, mostly originating from Rocky areas. There was one notable resent slab Avalanche which had a crown just around 3 feet that ripped out below the ridge rock wall deposition Zone ,north face, Lookers left of Silver Star above Varden Creek. Skied some good wind affected powder down the main fall line. Before hitting the basin we climbed back up to a ridge and headed north to a different area called "The Bride" which is a high point around 7030'. The first 800 ft was refrozen solar crust with powder seams in shady areas. We were a little late for hitting this whole area as the rest of the way down was refrozen solar crust. Even very difficult for traversing, except for the snowboarder, in our group of three, who didn't seem to have any trouble with the crust and ripping turns. Sometimes skis just have too many edges. All in all we had to deal with about 2500 feet of crust. Fortunately when we got into the treed, downed logs, bare patches, stub areas for the last 600' or so, the snow was consolidated and soft enough to make turns. It took us 2 hours to get down and out of 'the bride', 8 p.m. at the highway, which is close to 4,000 vert feet to the highway 20. It was in 'The Bride' where we saw the most of the big recent solar inspired avalanches and had to cross debris piles in a few places. One very large solar inspired Avalanche on a west- north- west facing rocky cliff area that deposited large chunks of debris on the slope below and involving surface layers, had occurred sometime that day before we got there.
  10. Washington Pass conditions report

    Did a solo tour up the 'powder cache' (3900 vert) today approximately (8 miles east of Washington Pass) 9 to 10 inches of new at 6600 feet and 17 total down to the last hard crust. Wind at the 6900 foot Ridgetop was producing some surface slab. Top 1500 vert feet was good powder. Then the snow transitioned into wet cotton, then into creamy butter and finally the last 600 vertical feet to the road was slush from rain soaking. Very low cover down low, lots of logs and stubs sticking out. I did a ski Cut just Above the 40 degree roll to the skiers right side of the top gully. Before that roll the terrain runs around 20 degrees. The ski cut produced a propagating crack immediately above the roll in that lesser angle terrain. I probed the crack and it was 2 ft deep down to the crust. Needless to say I didn't ski that steeper line below the roll (known as Joy's Line) and went further skiers right for a safer entry into the tree Glades off the ridge. Saw one natural release at around 5500 feet (guess) that came off a corniced rocky area and it entrained the snow down to a hard Crust which was only a foot deep at that point and ran approximately 200 vertical feet. D1.5 Not looking like corn around up here anytime soon.
  11. Applauding risk acceptance beyond your own limits

    https://www.adventure-journal.com/2016/10/10-common-missteps-of-avalanche-pros/
  12. US Government bans Dru

  13. Article: Complexity Decreases Situation Awareness, Increases Human Error

    @BCMATT Quote: "Multiple industries recognize this language as something that is very dangerous and training the general public in this language starts with their first avalanche course. " This is exactly the point of why my friend and I were discussing the use of the term low probability. I don't think that we are at odds with what Karl states so eloquently. So how do we get everyone on the same page? What are the challenges? I have some ideas. I'll give one but most likely it will be controversial and I'll get accused of promoting a granny state and be banned from the planet , but here goes. I wrote a letter to the Forest Service where I proposed a permit system for winter time Backcountry access to publically owned land. In order to receive a permit some sort of educational or experience standard would be required. Education is where I believe that commercial guides play a big role. But that requires full disclosure and analysis of safety records, transparency, and accountability in order to encourage trust. It's time to stop playing games where Public Safety is concerned. A permit system is not so far fetched as far as safety concerns go because many Industries and associations require a certification standard. For example I was required to become a certified diver before I could purchase compressed air to fill my scuba tanks. There was a lot of course time involved in order to receive that certification, way more than an Avy 1 course. It's not just the individual who's at risk when bad safety habits are practiced. Individuals or group decisions, including commercially guided trips, often can have a negitive impact upon risk exposure experienced by other groups. I have other ideas but would like to hear other input on this issue. For example in the rock climbing world, how do you keep climbers from dropping rocks on each other's heads. Once again thanks for having this civil discussion here because I believe that communication is key to understanding. issw-2000-037-045.pdf
  14. Mt Adams approach this spring

    If you make it to the Morrison Creek trailhead, just head North from there instead of going up the road to the South climb trailhead. You'll still be able to connect with the South climb. May want to take a GPS with you though because it's easy to drop too low heading heading back to the Morrison Creek trailhead.
  15. Article: Complexity Decreases Situation Awareness, Increases Human Error

    Quote from BCMatt. "Low probability high consequence is not down playing the problem, it is making clear how dangerous they are despite the difficulty in triggering them" My friend, a former mountain guide and well known within the climbing community (although he doesn't promote himself), and I were having this discussion why the use of the word "low probability" downplays the risk hazard simply because it leads to confusion as to what the actual risk of triggering that avalanche problem is from a human perception point of view. Here's an example that may lead to confusion especially to the uninformed risk taker. https://www.nwac.us/blog/2017/03/26/ruby-mountain-low-probability-high-consequence/ "It is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to human trigger such an avalanche. It takes something massive (rapid snow or wind loading, huge amounts of rain, large cornice fall) to trigger such a Deep Slab" Does the use of the word, "low probability" lead people to believe that it's nearly impossible for a skier to trigger such an avalanche so therefore why not take the risk? What about a snowmobiler or a group of 2 or more skiers on the same slope? What's the probability now? (We all know that a snowmobile and closely spaced skiers or even someone Landing a big jump transfers more energy to the snowpack and makes triggering an avalanche more likely.) Also the probability of that low probability trigger event increases with recent additional loading, so how is that probability now stated. Low probability with increased probability for trigger? And then there's what I call the domino effect trigger on a shallow slab that provides enough energy to trigger a deeper slab. I believe the statement creates confusion, especially among the uninformed Risk Takers, that it's nearly impossible for a skier to a deep slab instability (greater than 3 feet) yet it happens.The literature is clear that deep and persistent slab Avalanches can be triggered from shallow areas within the snowpack such as on or near rocky Terrain features. My understanding of risk probability is that odds increase with the number of Trials. More and more people are exposing themselves to this Avalanche problem as is demonstrated in that Ruby Mountain close call. Ten years from now will we still be considering deep slab instabilities to be a low probability human triggered avalanche occurance? This link to a skier trigger Avalanche incident a pic below. http://avalanche.state.co.us/forecasts/help/avalanche-problems/deep-persistent-slab/ "A snowboarder triggered this Deep Persistent Slab near treeline, well down in the path." But maybe I'm missing something and value your input. additional reading https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12169021/analysis-of-the-durrand-glacier-avalanche-accident/20 http://nationalpost.com/how-a-massive-avalanche-changed-b-c-s-backcountry-culture-and-shattered-one-guides-life http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/issw-2006-491-497.pdf I really like the way that K. Klassen presents information in an easy and understandable way linked below. http://www.avalanche.ca/blogs/novemberfacetsmarchlphccycle
×