AlpineK

If you draw a good hand and the weather lords don't pull the trump card on you all of a sudden.

Kautz not =, not < Robson. Maybe <<< Robson

Too bad they did't trade mark the rainbow image. [img:center]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S_mbPVG_guc/TXr4xO4HyoI/AAAAAAAAAHg/lXofvxJqgPM/s400/79_down_to_earth.jpg[/img] Deep Purple was an early favorite when I first started listening to Brit bands from that era.

Disclaimer: Take everything I say with a grain of salt since I'm working off memories from 25 years ago and conditions change. the 80s dude I've spent a couple days camped below the North Face a few days in an August. That time it was solid hot weather and slides would kick on when sun hit the face. The face is pretty moderate alpine ice climbing. Running belays are probably all you need. We tried to ascend starting at midnight but couldn't cross the schrund since it was chest deep snow wallowing. We bailed, but a party camped nearby made it on to the face a day later. They bailed after a couple pitches when the avalanche cycle turned on. The Fuhrer Ridge has a similar steepness as the North Face, but you don't start technical climbing, or climbing that isn't a glacier ascent, till a higher altitude. It looks like there is a bit of route finding through rock bands, but not too bad. I did summit via the Wishbone Arete on a second attempt a couple years later. Above the Y in the arete you ascend through gargoyles and look at similar features on the Emperor Ridge. The Alpine ice isn't too bad. Mostly short steep steps. I couldn't tell you what the lower part of the Emperor is like of course. Rock climbing on Robson is, "interesting." Weather holds the trump cards for any ascent of Robson, and the shit can hit the fans without warning. On our first Wishbone attempt we bivied above the yellow bands part way through some of the rock climbing. We woke up with our hair sticking straight out and a vague humming sound. We couldn't run, but we descended rapidly. When we did summit the next year weather looked solid in the morning. After crossing the Y, clouds and wind moved in fast over Kinney Lake. At the summit thick clouds and winds ruled. We scurried down the SE route. If you don't climb Robson head somewhere along the Icefield Parkway. Weather there is quite a bit more predictable. The North Face of Edith Cavell is a good route we climbed it a few days before climbing Robson. Another option is the Tonquin Valley. Of course there isn't much alpine ice, but it's a cool place to go. In general when looking at alpine climbs near the crest of the Canadian Rockies climbs involving quartzite rock are better than those with limestone. Unless you pick limestone near the Banff area. That's my experience, but others might disagree. Stay the fuck away from shale. I don't think anyone will argue that point.

I don't think local tribes kept a written records. You mean white history? because it would make like what- 75 years? When you look at the natural history, these eco systems actually relay of fire, so wtf are you talking about? your mentality is on parr with morons, who build on flood planes and cry foul when they get flooded. Yeppers If you look at historic Whitey photos, the Flatirons above Boulder Colorado had no trees on them till the ridge crest. Now firs and pines forest the slopes below the Flatirons. Why is that? Well whitey moved in with smokey da bear and extinguished fires any time they saw one burning. Risks of small ground level fires moving to canopy level are higher. I can't speak for tribes in the Front Range, but natives near Wenatchee-Leavenworth used to perform controlled burns tactics. Keeping spread out big trees is better for deer populations (meat) than thick or dense forested areas. One thing I can say from professional experience, the plains east of the Rockies (Denver, Colorado Springs) should be grasslands. Sure you would see a Plains Cottonwood near a drainage or creek, but that's about it. Modern residents want trees for shade and wind break, but it takes lots of work-time to maintain trees in locations like that. Grass don't like trees and trees don't like grass. Budgeting most tax dollars for war and war machines sure is-was a great idea.

Vitamins and Minerals are part of a good diet in the right proportion. Of course too much or little can cause problems [img:center]http://www.domvet.com/skeleton.jpg[/img]

After some deliberation weighing pros and cons I come to the following conclusion [video:youtube]

In the world of Kevbone [font:Arial Black]"A Socialist is anybody who isn't or doesn't worship Ron Paul!"[/font]

[video:youtube]

This video was made with you in mind Kev. I dare you to watch the whole thing. [video:youtube]

[video:youtube]

Happy birthday as of 6:35 AM July 8 2012. I ain't got none of that space folden spice. Maybe Sobo can send me an ounce I want to check out the Degenerate Era [video:youtube]

You could use them for strapping skis on the sides of your pack.

I didn't know helicopters got this big. [img:center]http://acidcow.com/content/img/new02/481/06.jpg[/img]

Ummm you chose to enlist. You're surprised your boss is telling you what to do, like it or not?

While within city limits houses close to Joint Base Lewis McChord are in an area I would classify as urban-rural interface. It's not mountain living The boundaries of Colorado Springs include lots of neighborhoods that would fall into the same classification. http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/old/radeloff_etal_ea2005.pdf I'm not trying to argue about responses, government or otherwise, but there are lots of places within city limit that have a lot of rural characteristics.

It depends on seasonal snowpack. I've skied it in early August. All you can do is head up and make an on the spot call after seeing cracks in or near the ski line. Hiking isn't too bad if you can start skiing at Starbow (Glacier Basin). The trail improvements make it better for walking since you don't have to spend as much time boulder hopping near the White River.

Yep, new developments put in underground lines. It's code in a lot of cities. If you live in an older community, tough luck sucka. The utilities can't afford it and don't want to deal with all the homeowners and businesses that have their power cut off during instillation and the web of existing underground utilities. It keeps lots of people employed too Asplundh [img:center]http://www.asplundh.com/graphics/Equipment/SideTrimmers.jpg[/img]

Yep underground lines can fail. Earthquakes are one risk. Joe-bob renting a backhoe for the weekend is another. Utilities spend time figuring out the frequency of disruption along with costs of maintenance. Quite often it comes down to the budget and what they can charge customers for the product. Underground lines often involve jacking utility bills. In a developed area putting in an underground lines is expensive, takes time, and requires maintenance. Overhead lines require maintenance and line clearance or pruning-removing trees. If they can keep odds of failure low then they'll stick with what they've got. Low Risk Does not = No risk

[img:center]https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/528793_458192360858414_1023085308_n.jpg[/img]

I see no problem here. Pay taxes, save your house. Don't pay taxes, burn your house down. What's the old line? Oh yeah

Tons of new homes in the urban rural interface and no fire suppression work either. Of course that fault lies with government, building contractors, and homeowners.

It's the end of the world as we know it [video:youtube]

[img:center]https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599945_10150908653701275_749646363_n.jpg[/img] [font:Arial Black]Vote Ron Paul![/font] [font:Century Gothic]He is the only hope for the USA[/font]

Don't blame Off for that last modification