Winter

STAY AWAY FROM PORTLAND!! The beer sucks, the clibers are assholes and the mountains are for pussys. Move to Seattle and buy a new press board house in Issaquah.

[ 07-31-2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

Aw man, can't the good quck find somewhere else to troll after the tragic demise of crag.com?

I've lived in Tahoe, Seattle, Portland, SF and the East Coast as well as the Midwest, and Portland's my favorite. The city itself is by far the best urban environment I've seen outside of Bangkok. People tend to complain like children about the rock arond here, but that's ridiculous. There is plenty of quality rock to keep you busy, and there is TONS of amazing mountaineering in these parts. People that get bored of the mountains in Oregon don't love the mountains. That said, don't move here. There's too many transplants already.

I climbed the South Side today with my buddy's 11 year old kid. The 'schrund was easily passible but there was some super sketchy rockfall coming back down through the not so pearly gates. The kid did great even with the 50+ mph winds we had for the first three or four hours. I thought he was gonna get blown into the White River. Anyways, I'm sure it gets a lot younger, but does anyone know the youngest kid to climb Hood on his/her own power?

quote: Originally posted by Roger: technically, portland int'l airport, but for some reason it has become shorthand for the whole city... which is kind of weird if you think about it. I mean, nobody calls Los Angeles "LAX". Wait, what came first, seatac the airport or seatac the town? weird and quircky is what this city is all about. take that away and all ya got is Pittsburgh in the cascades without the Steelers.

Aw this is a great thread. I shouldn't open my mouth on this stuff, 'cause Fairweather always sticks his foot in it. But I see he has made friends with Alpine K this time. My two cents: 1. Humans are contributing to the problem. 2. We don't need scientific certainty to change the status quo. 3. We can, as a society, make the break from fossil fuels, and I think we can do it over the next twenty years. How long did it take for the auto industry to phase out leaded gas? It can happen quickly. 4. Until that time, don't condemn everyone who asks for change because they drive a gas guzzler. If you silenced all but those who somehow manage to drop off the grid then there wouldn't be anyone left to speak in a voice of dissent. FW - fire at will with your broad generalizations regarding our deepest motivations and agendas.

Hope y'all get nice and toasted. Maybe I'll make it next time. mwills - I'll be on Lib. Ridge. Hope the weather clears.

I have no idea who any of you are, but I'll drink beer. Has to be Sat. or later. On Rainier Wed-Fri. Much prefer the East side.

Heli-Skiing Threatens Quiet Backcountry in Washington PLEASE COMMENT BY May 27, 2002 By Matt Firth North Cascades Backcountry Skiers The Methow Valley is located in North Central Washington on the east slope of the North Cascades and is blessed with some of the finest backcountry skiing to be found . Local backcountry skiers have long been congratulating themselves on how lucky they are to have such an incredible area all to themselves ( well we do share it with the heli-skiers. ) Highway 20 accesses much of the best terrain in this area. Closed in the winter, it is the main and best access for winter backcountry skiing. The local heli-skiing outfit, North Cascades Heli-skiing (NCHS ), began operating in the late 80's, heli-skiers and backcountry skiers have been using the Highway 20 corridor during the winter months with few direct conflicts since then. This was largely due to the fact that backcountry skier numbers during the winter months were very low and the fact that the heli-skiers operated from mid January to mid March. Backcountry skiers and the number of user days they represent, have increased at least seven-fold over the past 5-6 years and are now starting to compete among themselves for terrain. Backcountry skiers have in the past, and still do, avoid a substantial amount of the premier terrain in order to avoid the noise generated by the helicopter and the tracked powder of the heli-skiers. North Cascades Heli-skiing has a large permit area of over 300,000 acres but uses a relatively small amount of that, concentrated almost exclusively in the highway corridor. NCHS has flown an average of about 550 people per year using one helicopter, though their permit had no restrictions on the number of helicopters it could use. In October 2001 the Methow Valley Ranger District issued a 5-year permit for NCHS to increase their total user days to 1050 and to specifically allow the use of two helicopters, basically doubling the capacity of the permit. There were a few other additions such as a new yurt and expanded use of the present yurt that backcountry skiers have no problem with. A small group of local backcountry skiers, North Cascades Backcountry Skiers, and an environmental group, The Kettle Range Coalition, appealed that decision. The appeal stressed the fact that backcountry skiers don't want to see heli-skiing eliminated, but growth should progress at a more reasonable rate. The appeal was successful, but only on procedural errors, and was returned to the ranger district for further work . It is felt that having two helicopters operating simultaneously in the highway corridor is unacceptable because it shatters the quiet experience people go into the winter backcountry to find. Backcountry skiers already put up with a considerable amount of noise intrusion and terrain avoidance and a second helicopter would greatly exacerbate the situation. Currently it is possible that if the helicopter is flying in one section of the highway corridor a group of backcountry skiers might be lucky enough to find themselves in an a unused area. With two helicopters that possibility would be virtually nonexistent. In midwinter 2002 backcountry skiers met with the forest service and the heli-skiing operators to outline their concerns and offer suggestions for reaching an acceptable solution. The skiers maintained that a reasonable increase in user days was okay but that if there absolutely had to be two helicopters, one had to operate outside the highway corridor so as to minimize the impact on backcountry skiers. The revised Environmental Assessment (EA) came out in early May 2002. In the EA the preferred alternative, Alternative 2, gives NCHS what they want without addressing the backcountry skiers concerns in any substantive way. This alternative allows 1050 skier days and the option of using a second helicopter for exclusive use by a private group, filming projects, avalanche control work, and special projects. These “special projects” do not seem to be restricted. There are no restrictions on where they could fly the second helicopter. The overriding issue here is the fact that the forest service is promoting commercial use regardless of the impact on the public. The one measure included to appease non-motorized users is that NCHS would not increase their total skiers per day, that is, 20 clients per 5 guides, even if they were flying two machines. NCHS plans to accommodate additional skier days by extending their season on either end. We think this is unacceptable as one of the things that has made heli-skiing tolerable has been the fact that they have historically flown only from mid January to mid March. Additionally, two helicopters have the same noise impact regardless of the number of people in them. By extending the flying season and adding another helicopter there will be significant negative impacts to backcountry skiers. Backcountry skiers would like to see comments directed to keeping the highway corridor restricted to one helicopter (or keeping the permit restricted to one helicopter), and requiring that additional use be dispersed throughout the substantial amount of permit area that is currently being under used. Additional comments about the forest services own guidelines requiring a fair and balanced decision would be appropriate. The forest service has given us no good choices here. Alternative 3 allows NCHS to operate in their historical manner, one helicopter, 550 skier days, but allows no growth. Modifying alternative 3 by allowing 750 skier days and a second helicopter outside the highway corridor would allow NCHS to grow and address some of the concerns of backcountry skiers. If you can only write a short note ask the Forest Service to select alternative 3 instead of alternative 2. The Environmental Assessment is supposed to be on the website http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka. Comments can be e-mailed to Jennifer Zbyszewski jzbyszewski@fs.fed.us Or comments can be mailed to Jennifer Zbyszewski, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop Office, 24 W. Chewuch Rd., Winthrop, WA 99862 . Jennifer can be reached at 509-996-4021. Please include your name and mailing address on all correspondence. Comments are accepted until May 27, 2002. Further questions can be directed to Matt Firth, 509.997.9707 or mattfirth@methow.com

The North Side was beautiful, but we got snowed off. Rob, did you see our registration? We went up Sat. night, bivied on the Elliot and woke up with about 6-8 inches of fresh snow and about 50 yards of visibility. Oh well, gotta' be there in case its good, but I'm glad I bailed on the 6+ mile approach to Jeff. Glad to hear you got out this weekend. Looked like a complete zoo on Saturday morning. As for the rest of this thread, I've been pretty consistent. 1. Tresitters are not "terrorists." 2. Equating the burning of buildings with murder is flat out wrong. I'll stick by those principles. I never have and still don't condone arson or destruction of private property. That ain't my gig. As y'all say, I work within the system, and I'll discourage that type of activity up at Cooper Spur. But I'll speak up every single time when someone implies or explicitly states that these folks are the same as or equivalent to the Hamas or Al Quaeda or any of those other murdering fanatics. That ain't right, and that's the kind of narrow-minded thinking that leads to restrictons on civil liberties and personal freedoms. Ya wanna build public support in this town? Keep it real folks, because the people in Portland and the Pacific Northwest see through the bullshit.

quote: Originally posted by jkrueger: quote:Originally posted by rbw1966: Sadly, there really isnt a lot of trad in the Portland area. And there's even less in Eugene! Why is it that CA and WA got the good rock, and OR is full of choss? Because CA and WA got all the yahoos.

I should be out drinking beer but instead I'm allowing myself to get sucked into this debate before leaving tomorrow morning for Hood. FW, alls I said was, let's be clear. Iain said tree sitting, you said terrorism, and I wanted to make it clear that treesitters aren't terrorists. As for the unabomber comment, you have got to be kidding. That guy was a loony living in a shack in the woods mailing bombs to people. To equate him with the ELF/ALF vail-burning folks is totally inappropriate. That's graspnig for straws, my friend. Once again, in order to have a real discussion about this you have to distinguish between killing folks and burning shit. If you know much about the history of forest protection, you'll know its the people fighting to save the tress that get blown up and have trees dropped on 'em. And as for the attorney comment, last time I checked there wasn't a requirement that you be a conservative corporate droid in order to get admitted to the bar.

Gandalf's Grip at Broughton's Bluff is a classic. The crux is protected by bolts, but the first-half of the first pitch and the whole second pitch are super nice 5.8 cracks. Also check out Classic Crack, which is a sweet 5.9 hand crack. Beacon is cool but won't be open for a couple of months.

Let's be really clear here. There is a BIG difference between non-violent civil disobedience like sitting in trees to protect them from the axe vs. burning buildings. Treesitters are in no way terrorists ... they place a lot on the line to save the trees and the only folks in harm's way are those that voluntarily choose to go get them in the hopes of cutting down the trees. I do not condone burning buildings. But my own opinion is that the word terrorism is misplaced. To equate destruction of property (NOBODY has ever been injured by these folks) with the random targeting and elimination of human lives on the scale of 9-11 is misleading. If you want to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of violent disobedience you have to at least recognize that the violence is targeted at things and money and not people. Trees, water and air are things as well. WE own them, and they have a very real economic value. Perhaps the corporate timber and mining interests are the real terrorists.

Hey folks - Here's a letter written by a friends of mine. Send one in if you're pissed off. Forest Supervisor Gifford Pinchot National Forest 10600 NE 51st Circle Vancouver, WA 98682 Monument Staff Mt. St. Helens National Monument 42218 NE Yale Bridge Rd. Amboy, WA 98601 RE: Snowmobiles on Mt. St. Helens & Recreation User Fees Dear Forest Service and Mt. St. Helens Monument Staff: I am writing to complain about the disturbing proliferation of: 1) snowmobiles on the upper reaches of Mt. St. Helens, and 2) recreational user fees, including fees which do not appear designed to protect the resource. Snowmobiles are loud, polluting (especially when equipped with two-stroke engines), motor vehicles which do not belong in an area that should be managed for its scenic and wilderness qualities. As a mountain climber and skier, I am also concerned that snowmobilers may be more likely to trigger avalanches when ridden on the upper reaches of the mountain. I hiked and skied Mt. St. Helens last Saturday and generally found it to be a wonderful experience -- except for the presence of half a dozen snowmobiles on different approaches to the summit and at the summit itself, including the summit site used by climbers and skiers. While I support various uses of our public lands, some are clearly more intrusive and damaging to the resource and other peoples’ experiences, and need to be restricted to appropriate sites. I also resent being forced to purchase multiple, expensive permits to use my own public forest and mountain lands -- especially when these monies are not even being used to protect the resource. To simply walk up Mt. St. Helens, I am expected to pay a total of $20 to $81 (see below). What are the climbing fees and Northwest Forest Pass being used for, if not to protect the resource? To build gigantic trailhead parking lots or fancy visitor centers? The last thing Mt. St. Helens needs is development that facilitates even greater numbers of people on and around the mountain -- the level of use is already excessive. Unlike hikers and climbers, it does not appear that snowmobilers are required to purchase an additional permit to ride on the upper slopes of Mt. St. Helens. This is simply inequitable. Of course the public shouldn’t be charged large fees to simply walk or ski its own lands in the first place. But it is especially infuriating to be charged these fees, and then watch other users degrade your experience. As a citizen and native of the region, I consider it my birthright to be able to exist on our public lands in a manner which is non-commercial, non-consumptive, compatible with maintaining the resource for future generations, and non-dependent upon excessive development. And if paying my taxes doesn’t further earn me the right to exist on my own public lands, what does? In conclusion, I ask that you: 1) prohibit the use of snowmobiles on the upper reaches of Mt. St. Helens, 2) eliminate general purpose recreation user fees, and 3) provide a detailed accounting of how existing recreation user fees in the Gifford Pinchot NF are being used. Thanks for listening to my concerns. I look forward to hearing back. Sincerely yours, (NAME AND ADDRESS) CC. Senator Patty Murray Senator Maria Cantwell Senator Ron Wyden Representative Earl Blumenauer The Mountaineers The Mazamas Addendum: To simply walk up Mt. St. Helens, one is expected to pay the following: Northwest Forest Pass: $5/day; $30/year Mt. St. Helens Climbing Permit: $15/day; $30/season Additional Snowpark Permit in winter months: $9/day; $21/season

Meadows bought the permit, but they have plans to expand the permit area into the Tilly Jane Historic district ... i.e. directly overhead the Cloud Cap road and up to Cloud Cap. They need this area in order to put in a decent ski area, because the snow is so shitty on that side of the mountain that they need to get up pretty high. The mid-mountain lift will be within 400-500 vertical feet of the A-frame, and the top lift will be just below the Cloud Cap inn. The mid-mountain restaurant will be right on the Tilly Jane trail, and Meadows has told folks that the new "climbers trail" will be a cat track used to move around heavy machinery. But, we'll all love it because it will be so well maintained.

Amen brother. Ain't no need for it on the North side. Check out the Off Piste website and call Kim Titus to tell her so. Kudos to Dave Wagg, author of Oregon Descents and editor of Off Piste on a job well done. Spread the word. [ 05-14-2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

Aw man, I almost don't want to get into this because it fires me up. They want to put a lift up to the wilderness boundary and remove the Tilly Jane trail, not to mention the amphitheater and "up scale" shopping amenities plus the 450 units of condos, houses, clearcuts for ski trails, etc. Conservation issues tend to solicit crazy spray on this site, but if anyone wants more info. or wants to do something let me know. [ 05-24-2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Winter ]

Yeah, it sounds like they have been pretty slow getting the road cleared this year. I think we're looking at an approach of about 6 miles to Whitewater Creek ... we'll probably take three days.

I'm headed to Jefferson Park Glacier this weekend. I'll buy someone a pitcher if they have any good info on current conditions.

I was there on saturday with about 350 of my closest friends, five dogs, at least a half dozen 'bilers on the summit rim and NO bikinis. WTF? Great conditions but what a zoo. [ 05-12-2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

I ain't no pyshicistist either, but isnt' it: Force = Mass * Velocity Velocity = Acceleration * Time Acceleration under the influence of gravity is contstant unless you've got some funky wieght to area ratio like a parachute. If you fall from 20 feet vs. 5 feet, your acceleration is the same, your velocity when your weight hits the bolt is greater, the force is greater and you'll likely pull the manky ole' spinner and deck out.

I just started to do a bit of reasearch on this for a trip over Memorial Day. Snowgrass Flats and North Tieton River Road to McCall Basin are the two routes I've been given information on. Apparently, the McCall Basin route is supposed to be a shorter approach this time of year, but I still need to check on the status of the road into Chambers Lake. I've been given a number for the Packwood Ranger Dist. of the GP: (360)494-5515. Haven't hade a chance to confirm the number or follow up yet. Let me know if you get any other useful information.

Free men do the best ass wiping then.