Winter

haha! the first time i climbed it i too grabbed a rancid pile of bird shit pulling onto the ledge at the top of the second pitch. i warned my partner, but he grabbed the same pile. luckily neither of us came down with a staph infection.

all you nitpickers are freaking hilarious. i actually asked about the link up from gumby to the top of the second pitch, so technically it would be gumby-zebra-zion! or for gorgeous just gumby zion or maybe i'll just bolt the second pitch diehedral and rename the whole damn thing gumby.

Nice work guys!

Ken - The most well-known spot is Railey/Ton Sai which are located on Pra-Nang, a peninsula in southen Thailand. You can fly to Phuket or Krabi Town and then take a boat or taxi/boat combination to Railay West or East, the beaches where you will find your acommodation in the form of many many villas. Limestone drips from the walls in all directions. I've heard the best diving is in Phuket but can't confirm that myself. Enjoy!

cool thx

Will a 60 m rope get you from the base of Gumby to the top of the second pitch?

a barbed wire approach is WAY harder than moderate you chest-beating wankers!

Haven't you guys picked up the new version of the Watts guide yet?

So I read these posts and thought equalette, what the hell is that? And then plugged it into google and realized Long re-wrote his book and criticizes the cordalette and is now promoting the equalette. News to me. Guess I'm out of the loop. Without having tried it, it looks like a huge pain in the ass that is likely to slow you down without a needed safety advantage unless you've got sketchy pieces. Tie in with the rope or use a cordalette if you're not swining leads. My .02.

I'll offer just a couple of pointers, but you should really get John Long's books and practice building these a lot in a safe environment. In the first photo, it looks like you have used clove hitches on each of the pieces, and you have lots of slack built into the cordellette. The weight is therefore on only one strand of the cordellette and the system is not redundant. So by setting it up this way you're dramatically reducing the strength of the anchor. Its also real messy, which mages it tough to analyze quickly and is likely to get snagged on gear, etc. In the second photo, you repeat the mistake of entrusting the entire system to a single strand of a cordellette. Also, the way you've tied the knot under the top two pieces also weakens the anchor, because it increases the angle between the top two pieces. When the anchor is heavily weighted or shock loaded, I doubt its going to stay equalized - looks like because the angles are messed up the top piece won't be bearing a lot of weight. In this situation, you'ld be way better off and far faster to just clip the cordellete through each piece, pull it tight in the direction of pull, and tie an overhand knot. Before you start moving up to harder routes, you need to get some of these skills nailed down better so that you can build safer anchors more quickly. Keep working at it. Its good that you're looking for feedback.

I just tried these in Kalymnos, and they work incredibly well. They slightly magnify the image, so you can actually see the climber better and they are small enough so that you can see around them as well. Great for sport climbing or if you have neck/back problems.

is there a reason we can't embed pics from outside web sites?

well, she's creative, and semi-famous, but she's also 69 and apparently perpetually stoned. i think I'll pass - maybe she has daughters.

Rob, yeah you have the story right on Eagle Creek. I'm not sure about the Shining Lake campground - if I dig something up I'll let you know.

Yeah, the ebb and flow is a problem. The Bush Admin has been doing away with large chunks of the Northwest Forest Plan over the past eight years and that was supposed to be our long-term blueprint for landscape scale management. We need permanent protection of core habitat areas that are not subject to the whim of individual administrations - permanent reserves of biodiversity. That's a key role for Congressionally designated wilderness. I've heard of the legislative activitiy on the Roadless Rule (thanks to your earler post on the WCC), but I wouldn't bet the wilderness bill on it. What do you think the chances are of passage?

I didn't know Paula Abdul climbed when she was younger.

Matt - Yeah, logging on the Mt. Hood and wilderness. So part of the proposed wilderness is in the Clackamas River watershed. Don't know if you will remember this, but back in the late 90s/early 2000s, a Forest Service plan to log old-growth in the Eagle Creek area generated tremendous controversy/tree sits/public outcry etc etc. Those areas were not logged because of the public outcry but were certainly threatened and are now included in the bill. That's just one example, but the bigger picture is that the Mt. Hood is still proposing to log old-growth, much of it in the Clack, and the wilderness bill includes areas that are both potentially threatened and of critical ecological importance for the watershed. If you're interested in the nitty gritty details of the Mt. Hood's logging program, check out the on-line database of all current and recent timber sales. Are existing laws and policies adequate to protect the remaining old-growth we have on the landscape? Whew - so I don't have time for a dissertation, but the short answer is no. We currently have no mandated protections for old-growth on westside forests, and yes they are being logged. So what are the solutions? The Roadless Rule would provide protections for old-growth within inventoried roadless areas, but who knows what will come of it - and in any event its just a rule and could be changed at the whim of the next admin. Under the ESA, FWS and NOAA Fisheries can and routinely do issue incidental take permits/biops to the Forest Service to log old-growth despite the presence of listed species. The Northwest Forest Plan does not prohibit the Forest Service from logging old-growth. So yeah, at least from my perspective if the goal is to permanently protect some of the last reamining old-growth and to ensure that certain high quality core habitat areas are protected so that they can recover and develop back into late-successional habitat, then we need more wilderness on the landscape. So that's a long-winded answer to what could be an even longer dissertation on forest law and policy. Ugghh. Gripping prose right? Btw, I appreciate the props, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to take that kind of credit, because of the all the other people involved.

Is there a way to add in a spell check function?

The map Joseph posted is somewhat misleading regarding the Tilly Jane area. Here is the up to date map. TJ is a central piece of the proposal. Background on the dispute at Cooper Spur and the role of the Wilderness bill as part of the proposed solution. Testimony submitted to House Subcommittee by Local Hood River County Families. This bill is a win-win for the climbing community - permanent protection for the wild North side of Mt. Hood without interfering with current access. I appreciate everyone's concerns, and they've largely been addressed during a five-year long collaborative process that has included many climbing and backcountry recreational interests, including the Mazamas, the Ptarmigans, the American Alpine Club, the Friends of Tilly Jane (which manages the A-Frame), the Oregon Nordic Club and many many other groups. They are all in unanimous and enthusiastic support of the proposal. If there is a concern about access to a specific crag or recreational resource, then we should definintely address that issue (let's go out and get some turns!). But a general fear of use restrictions without reference to specific places included in the bill should not stand in the way of a proposal that has been fully vetted with the organized climbing community for many years. Its a complicated issue, and I appreciate the concern. I don't want to get locked out either. But this is a solid proposal that protects the watersheds of Mt. Hood, preserves the best remaining wild places for backcountry skiers and climbers, and protects the rural agricultural economy in the Hood River Valley. That's why conservation groups, recreation groups, and rural family farmers have all come together around a common proposal with bi-partisan support. I'm admittedly biased because I've been wrapped up in it since 2001 and love this place, but its a pretty unique story.

Both the Cloud Cap Road and the Cooper Spur Ski Area have intentionally been left outside the boundaries of the proposed Wilderness and would not be affected. Seems to me like having outside interests drawing arbitrary lines in the sand without regard to what local people want for their communities is a pretty extreme position. The fact is that this bill is heavily supported by the rural communities of Mt. Hood - hence the support of Oregon's Republican politicians. Why should those communities be held hostage by the political agendas of outside interests? FW, your position conflicts with what I thought you would stand for - bi-partisan collaboration, support for rural communities, and innovative problem solving. You would throw that all away simply because you do not like wilderness? I think that's an extremist's approach. MattP - Mt. Hood Meadows proposed a large-scale expansion of the Cooper Spur Ski Area in the Tilly Jane area on the North Side of Mt. Hood. The Wilderness Bill would protect that area from extensive commercial development and results in part from years of mediation between Mt. Hood Meadows and the people that live in the Upper Hood River Valley.

If folks have concerns about access to particular areas that will be impacted by the Wilderness Bill, let's talk about it. All I've heard so far is a general paranoia about government regulation, which is no reason to reject a bill that resulted from years of collaboration and bi-partisan compromise. The access issues have been heavily negotiated with user groups during the process, which is why the bill includes some land as a National Rec Area and not Wilderness. The Wilderness Bill also offers permanent protection for the Tilly Jane area and the Crystal Springs watershed that serves 1/4 of Hood River County. The County backs the bill as do a large majority of the people that live there. The alternative may be a large ski area, 450 units of hotels and codos, golf courses and strip malls on the North Side of Mt. Hood.

This is just one more step in a long journey to a better permanent legacy for the people of Oregon. This bill has broad bi-partisan support from all members of Oregon's Congressional delegation as well as the Bush Whitehouse. It will pass.

nothin better for booty than climbing after a rain storm. nice TR! makes me jones for climbing time.