Jason_Martin

I would pitch that before investing in a 6mm system that you should find someone with one of these systems and climb with them. There are definately people out there who get annoyed by the tangling issues and decide to go with something bigger. Jason

If you're on a Denali type climb or something similar whre you will be flown in and flown out, it's not a bad idea to Cache a couple books at your pick-up and drop-off point along with extra food. This way if you get down and have to sit for three or four days waiting for the weather to clear, you'll have something fresh to read that you didn't haul up the mountain. Jason

I'd like to second the idea of wearing a camelback under a jacket. This works extremely well in cold temperatures. The biggest issue with keeping a camelback deep in your pack is the tube. This is the part that is most likely to freeze up. As such, an additional note to wearing a camelback under a jacket is to allow the tube to go down your sleeve. Then you can pull back your sleeve at the wrist a bit to take a sip. If you want the tube to come out at the neck of your jacket, after taking a sip, you must blow the remaining water out of the tube and back into the camelback. This simply provides less to freeze. I've used this system both in the Alaska range and in the Andes and in both cases it has worked out really well. One note on the melting of snow comment: People might be telling the guy to add something to melted snow because the melt-water tastes bad. If you don't add water to the snow in your pot when melting it, the snow gets a burnt taste from the pot. Jason

I liked it. I thought Angels and Demons and Deception Point were better though. Jason

True, I am a playwright. But in my day job I deal with a lot of climbing related issues. As such in different posts I've dealt with both of the issues that you address in this comment. I think the problem with this entire thread is that there are a number of different things being talked about here. Following is a breakdown of the issues: 1) Where within an anchor is it appropriate to redirect a belay? 2) What kind of weight is put on an anchor as a result of a redirect? 3) What is a 2-to-1 ratio and where might it exist within an anchor? 4) What kind of weight is put onto a piece or an anchor in a fall. The type of fall has not really been distinguished. Lead fall vs. a second falling. The result of all this is that people are dealing with different questions throughout their posts. As such, many are being taken out of context in referance to the element that they are supposed to be addressing. I propose that the issues that are not directly related to redirecting off of a single piece vs. redirecting off the anchor be moved to a new thread. Jason

Hate to be critical, but you're wrong. I'm sure this is in more recent editions of Freedom of the Hills on a different page. But if you have the 5th edition, check out page 330. "The single-pulley gives rescuers a 2-to-1 mechanical advantage." In other words this is a C-pulley system that you are referring to as a 1-to-1 advantage. The reason it seems difficult to pull is because of friction. The C-Pulley definately has a 2-to-1 ratio. You are however right about the idea that belaying off of your harness may take some of the impact off of the anchor and place it into the belayer. The only time I belay off my harness or my body is when I don't think I can build a belay that is solid enough to go directly off of. As such, my body becomes part of the system. Jason

That one was definately mine. Jason

If you're rope is running through the anchor and your belay device is on one end of the rope and the climber is on the other, if the climber falls the weight will be: Your weight + the climber's weight All on the anchor. Which as I stated in a previous post should not be a problem if you're redirecting through the powerpoint or the shelf. Doing this off of a single piece is not a good idea, because the combined weight of the belayer and the climber are placed on a single piece as opposed to an equalized anchor. In additon to this, I didn't notice the post about the screamer before. A screamer really isn't going to do anything in this situation because a Second's fall shouldn't be very dynamic. Regardless of the screamer, the weight on the anchor as the end result will be the same. Jason

If I rembember correctly there is a pitch with some steep unprotected 5.9 moves above a ledge. I think the first gear is about ten feet off the ledge, so there is a little potential to get hurt there... Otherwise the route is really quite good. Jason

It is okay to redirect...and until recently most climbers were redirecting most of the time. Dan indicated that you might redirect off of the powerpoint. This would be acceptable. However, the problem is that if you are tied into the powerpoint at a hanging belay, the distance between your hands and the powerpoint is going to be quite small. It will be very difficult to belay off of a redirected ATC if there is no room to do so. Often redirecting takes place off of an area that is just as (SRENE, ERNEST, RENE -- pick your accronym) as the powerpoint. The area I'm referring to is the shelf. The shelf is the point found directly above the knot in your equalized cordellette wherein you may clip through all of the strands with a carabiner. As this is slightly further away from you, redirecting becomes easier. There are three problems with redirecting. The first is that in the event of a fall it doubles the weight on the anchor. This shouldn't be a big deal. The second is that redirection often puts a lot of twists in the rope over a series of pitches. And the third is that it is difficult to make a quick and an effective belay escape when using this system. The advantage is that when swapping leads, it may eliminate a small portion of time during the changeover at a belay station. This is especially true with multi-pitch sport climbs or climbs where there is not a lot of gear to transfer. It may ultimately be "better" to use a autolocking device like a reverso or a GiGi or even a GriGri clipped to your shelf or your powerpoint to bring up your second. However, there is nothing wrong with using a redirect if that is what works in a given situation... The notion that belaying directly off the anchor is the only way to do something is simply incorrect. There are many ways to belay. Some ways work better in some situations. Indeed, there are actually situations wherein it is not feasable to use an autolocking device on the anchor to belay up a second. There are situations where the only way to effectively belay a second is via a redirect. One example of this might be a belay station which is BELOW a traverse pitch. Autolocking devices on the anchor get pulled in weird and potentially dangerous directions in this particular example. (Obviously here, one would have to build a solid and equalized belay of some sort at the end of the traverse which would redirect the belay from the true station.) It is true that redirecting doubles the weight on the anchor. But if your anchor can't handle this, then your anchor is no good. You'd hope that both you and your partner's weight would be okay hanging off of an anchor. If this is not the case, then there are other options, most of which revolve around body belays, not putting weight on a system that can't hold the weight of two people. Jason

I actually used a rock wren inside a 10 degree bag. This works really well, because you really only need to add the second bag at 14 or above. The other cool thing is that you can use both bags in lots of other circumstances, not just on Denali or on big cold expeditions. Jason

Was out in Red Rock this morning watching the accumulation. Had to bail from the park going down the loop road the wrong way. So much for fun in the desert sun! Jason

The actual brand that you buy is going to be more of a personal choice. Are your feet wide or narrow? Do you blister easily? Do you have problems breaking in boots? All of these questions are going to be part of your inital investigations into boots... While trying to decide what to buy, something that you might consider asking about is what has worked for others. In addition to this, it's not a bad idea to find out if people have had problems with older boots they've owned as well. Unfortunately though, because everyone is different it would not be suprising if you get a number of different opinions. However, pay attention to those boots that are disliked by many. And pay attention to those that seem to be loved. On that note, you also indicated that you wanted to use your boots for multiple purposes. Personally I have a set-up that is not very good for a beginner as it is a little pricy, but might be educational. I have four sets of footwear which are applicable to different situations: 1) Plastic Boots These are the cold-weather workhorses. I wear them when I'm going to be in the snow or on the ice most of the time. I wear them for long term expeditions and I wear them when it is cold. They can be worn for ice climbing or limited rock climbing, but their shape and size makes them unweildy on the rock. The advantages to this set-up are that they are easy to dry and they are warm. The disadvantages are that they can be hot and they are not very precise when it comes to moving over rock. They are VERY uncomfortable on long approaches when they are not in the snow. If your primary interests are mountains like Rainier and Baker and the like, then these are probably a good choice for your first boot. 2) Leather Boots This is a step down from Plastics. They are not quite as warm, but they are more precise on both rock and ice. On colder rock climbs -- Washington Pass just after the road opens or the Stuart Range in Winter conditions -- I'm much more likely to wear these boots than a pair of plastics. The advantages include more precision on technical ground and more comfort on approaches. The disadvantages are that sometimes they are not warm enough and if they get wet, it is very difficult to dry them out. One more thing to consider about leathers is that some brands are easier to break-in than others. Ask around about the pairs that you are considering. 3) Sticky Rubber Approach Shoes Once the snow has receeded to a managable level, I will do alpine rock climbs and scrambles with sticky rubber approach shoes. On easier long rock climbs these are far superior to rock shoes and help to eliminate weight. The advantages to these are that they are light and eliminate the need for rock shoes. They are also quite comfortable. Realize that it is easy to get wet and cold in this set-up if the weather craps out and then they will be hard to dry. In addition to this, you probably shouldn't wear approach shoes if you plan to climb at your limit. 4) Rock Shoes Rock shoes are for climbing hard rock climbs. Ideally these are worn in good warm weather, but unfortunately not all weather is good and warm. The advantage to rock shoes is precision. The disadvantages are that you will need another pair of shoes to approach, they are uncomfortable, and they do not insulate your feet when the weather is cold. In any case, that is a basic boot guide that addresses the different types of boots and shoes that you will encounter. That was the easy part. Now finding the right brands that will work for your feet...that's the hard part. Jason

The best thing to do is to use your equipment properly. In other words, don't mess around with manufacturer recommendations. Use things the way they were designed to be used. Belay off of your belay loop with a belay device and all will be well... Jason

Media Release -- The Banff Centre Polish film director awarded Banff Mountain Film Festival Grand Prize The 36-year story of the Polish film Odwrót, winner of the Grand Prize at the 2004 Banff Mountain Film Festival, takes a new turn as The Banff Centre's Mountain Culture division has awarded the $4,000 (Cdn) prize money to Odwrót director, Jerzy Surdel. Originally entered in the 2004 Festival competition by Alex Bertulis of Seattle, the film was made in 1968 by Surdel at the National College of Theatre and Film in Lódz, Poland, and filmed in black and white in the Tatra Mountains. In submitting the film into competition, Bertulis guaranteed that he owned all right, title and interest to Odwrót, including copyright, intellectual, and distribution rights. He had obtained what he believed was the sole copy of the film in the late 1960s, and had recently restored the film with the intent of exposing it to a wider audience. Though he has always acknowledged the work of the original team of Polish filmmakers, he was not in contact with them. After the Grand Prize was announced at the close of the 2004 Banff Mountain Film Festival on November 7, Surdel was surprised to receive congratulations from friends. He contacted Festival organizers, who have since sent him the $4,000 prize. It is the normal policy of the Banff Mountain Film Festival to award prize money to directors. Mountain Culture at The Banff Centre and the Banff Mountain Film Festival stand behind the choice of Odwrót as 2004 Grand Prize winner, and appreciate the opportunity to bring this beautifully shot and emotional film to a wider public. It follows a climber's desperate retreat to find help for his injured partner. "Impeccable directing and editing create a film of poetic ambiguity," said film festival jury member Liam Lacey. The Festival is in discussion with both Surdel and Bertulis to determine who holds current rights to Odwrót, with the intention of including the film on the 2004 - 2005 Banff Mountain Film Festival World Tour.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned: In the Shadow of Denali by John Waterman. Fantastic read!

He doesn't think there's going to be a tomorrow. This is my favorite line from the preceding article about Bush's use of language: "Thirdly: since the world is passing away the environment is not of great importance. [bush belives] There is no need to worry about issues of sustainability because the world is in its final countdown. Part of the unconcern towards global warming and other ecological crisis is the religious belief that we aren't going to be around in 100 years. We're in the end times now."

That area is suposidly closed to climbing right now. Not many people are fighting for it because it's somewhat obscure in light of Red Rock and J-Tree both being so close. Jason

This just in... ________________________________________________________ NOVEMBER 23rd 2004 OHIO CONGRESSMAN RAMS PUBLIC LAND ACCESS FEES THROUGH CONGRESS Western Senators Try But Fail to Stop Controversial Measure An Ohio congressman with no public lands in his district has forced a measure through Congress to implement permanent access fees for recreation on all land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. Ralph Regula (R-OH), the original architect of the unpopular Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), succeeded in attaching his bill as a rider to the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill recently enacted in the lame duck session of Congress. The bill was never passed by the House and was never introduced, given a hearing, or voted upon in the Senate. Omnibus bills are considered “must pass” legislation because of the potential for a government shutdown. Some members of Congress use riders attached to them as a way of getting funding for pet projects often referred to as “pork.” Regula’s bill, HR 3283, allows the federal land management agencies to charge access fees for recreational use of public lands by the general public. The bill has been highly controversial and is opposed by hundreds of organizations, state legislatures, county governments and rural Americans. HR 3283 passed the House Committee on Resources in September under strong pressure from Regula, who is expected to become the next Chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. His bill is a radical change in the way public lands are funded and stands in contrast to a more moderate competing bill passed by the Senate. There, Senator Thomas (R-WY) sponsored S.1107 that would let the National Park Service retain their entrance fees for local use but would allow access fees to expire in the other agencies. Thomas’s bill passed the Senate in May by unanimous consent but never had a hearing in the House. Early in last week’s lame duck session, Regula’s attempts to attach his rider were strongly rejected by the Chairmen of all four pertinent Senate committees. Senator Thomas of the National Parks Subcommittee, Senator Domenici (R-NM) at Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Craig (R-ID) of the Public Lands Subcommittee, and Senator Burns (R-MT), Chair of the Interior Appropriations Committee, all westerners, succeeded in forcing Regula to remove his rider on Tuesday. By Thursday, however, Regula had reneged on the agreement. He went over the heads of the Senate’s public lands chairmen and struck a deal with Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Regula reportedly agreed to give Stevens funding for a road in a remote community in Alaska in exchange for allowing Regula’s bill to be reattached. That left the four Senators who had negotiated the original deal hopping mad and disappointed millions of fee opponents who expected that such a seismic shift in policy would receive public hearings, not be done behind closed doors “This was a victory of pork over principle,” said Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, which has worked to oppose the Fee Demo program. “Ralph Regula is responsible for the first tax increase of the Bush administration. He and Senator Stevens have sold out America’s heritage of public lands for the price of a road.” The Regula bill will go into effect when Fee Demo expires at the beginning of fiscal year 2005 unless the new congress acts to derail it. Its key provisions include permanent recreation fee authority for all National Forests and BLM land as well as all land managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Park Service. Failure to pay the fees will be a criminal offense punishable by up to $5,000 and/or 6 months in jail. Drivers, owners, and occupants of vehicles not displaying either a daily or annual pass will be presumed guilty of failure to pay and can all be charged, without obligation by the government to prove their guilt. The measure encourages agencies to contract with private companies and other non-governmental entities to manage public lands and to enforce fee collection. The bill also establishes a national, interagency annual pass called the America the Beautiful Pass, expected to cost $85-$100 initially. These provisions have encountered strong opposition in the west and in rural areas nationwide. The program is considered a double tax by many and puts the burden of funding the management agencies on the backs of rural Americans. Regula’s bill failed to attract a single western sponsor but was co-sponsored by seven eastern congressmen. “This is an abuse of position by Congressman Regula” according to Funkhouser. “Changing public land policy in the middle of the night via a rider is despicable. Once again the Congressman has proven to be hostile to rural and western values and will stop at nothing to push his agenda”. The provisions in HR 3283 are intended to replace the former Fee Demo program, also created by Regula. Fee Demo was similarly passed as a rider on an Omnibus Appropriations bill in 1996. Originally a two-year demonstration, it was repeatedly extended and is now in its eighth year. Fee Demo has sparked protests nationwide and widespread non-compliance. Hundreds of organized groups, as well as four state legislatures and dozens of counties, opposed the program. Contacts: Senator Thomas’s office – 202-224-6441 Congressman Regula’s office – 202-225-3876 Senator Stevens’s office – 202-224-3004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- November 30, 2004 OK, fellow Public Lands accessors! We may have proof of Divine existence here. There seems to be one last chance to defeat Fee Demo after all. A few days ago it seemed a done deal, then that Ohio Senator pulled his underhanded last minute sneak play, adding Fee Demo to the money bill. The House passed the bill unread, but the Senate objected, and we have a chance. If you never make another political call, make this one! Please read the notice and help! Doug Green, RMCC Conservation ACTION ALERT! PERMANENT FEES CAN STILL BE PULLED FROM REGULA’S OMNIBUS BILL An unexpected delay in final passage of the massive omnibus Appropriations bill has given public lands fee opponents ANOTHER CHANCE to defeat Ralph Regula's scheme to legislate permanent public lands fees behind closed doors using a parliamentary sleight of hand, without debate or public hearings. You may have heard in the news that a clause offensive to privacy Rights advocates (it would allow certain members of Congress and their staffs To view previously off-limits IRS tax returns) was discovered in the Spending bill. The bill, with the offending clause, had already received House approval. The Senate deleted the IRS clause before they voted. The House and Senate versions are therefore different, and so final approval has not yet been achieved and the bill has not yet been sent to the President for signature The Congress has been called back for a second lame duck session beginning December 6 to settle the issues. At that time, House leadership can also make any other changes they like to the bill, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF CONGRESSMAN REGULA’S UNAMERICAN PERMANENT FEE BILL, HR 3283. HELP PULL FEES OUT OF THE OMNIBUS BILL. I am sending the following letter to Leadership of both the House and Senate: Dear Sirs: The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition respectfully requests that you move immediately to delete HR 3283 from the omnibus spending bill currently under consideration by the U.S. House. This bill is substantive legislation, including criminal penalties, that fundamentally changes the way America's public lands are funded and managed. Yet it has never been approved by the full House and has never been introduced, had hearings, or been voted upon in the Senate. HR 3283 would allow the federal land management agencies to charge access fees for recreational use of public lands by the general public. It would replace the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) which began in 1996 (via an appropriations rider) as a two-year demonstration and has been extended (as a rider) every year since then, with a permanent fee program. Fee Demo has been highly controversial and is opposed by hundreds of organizations, state legislatures, and county governments and by millions of rural Americans. These fees are a double tax that puts the burden of funding the management agencies on the backs of rural Americans. HR 3283 would constitute the first tax increase of the Bush administration. The attempt to slip such a controversial measure into the omnibus has ignited a firestorm in the West. Fee Demo is even more intensely unpopular now than it was when it was originally implemented, and this bill would be unlikely to pass on its own merits. To tack it on as an appropriations rider is an abuse of legislative power. House leadership should take this opportunity to right the wrong that is about to be perpetrated on the American people. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Funkhouser, President, Western Slope No-Fee Coalition HERES WHAT YOU CAN DO: THIS WEEK, before December 3rd, contact the key congressional leaders Listed below, by phone or fax. Also call or fax your own Representative and both of your Senators. A massive outpouring of opposition, not only to the bill itself but to its method of passage, WILL have a major impact! SAMPLE LETTER OR PHONE CALL: Please remove HR 3283 as a rider on the omnibus spending bill. Substantive legislation, especially with criminal penalties involved, should go through a full legislative procedure of public hearings and debate. I am outraged at this abuse of the appropriations process HR 3283 should not be passed without ever seeing the light of day. (please vary the wording) Here is who to contact: Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House Phone: 202/225-2976 Fax: 202/225-0697 Tom Delay, House Majority Leader Phone: 202/225-5951 Fax: 202/225-5241 Rep. Ralph Regula Phone: 202/225-3876 Fax: 202/225-3059 Bill Young, Chair, House Appropriation Committee Phone: 202/225-5961 Fax: 202/225-9764 Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader Phone: 202/224-3344 Fax: 202/228-1264 Ted Stevens, Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee Phone: 202/224-3004 Fax: 202/224-2354 Thank you again for your support! Robert Funkhouser

I have to admit I have not seen it in Seattle. But in Las Vegas, it's quite clear that the Banff people have selected the films. Jason

Mountaineers have nothing to do with which films are shown at a given performance. The agency which brings the film festival really doesn't do much aside from provide the space and do the advertising... Jason

They didn't edit it out of our book. In fact nobody at mountaineers ever even questioned it... Jason

Bertulis is far more at fault than the film festival -- at least initially. The BMFF cannot be expected to research the orgins of every entry made to their festival. There is a level of trust there for those who submit films. On the other hand, the fact that Bertulis did not do his homework here is somewhat unforgivable. As was stated above, I don't think this was a malicious thing that Bertulis did. Instead, it was an ignorant thing. Not confirming the filmmaker's death and taking the prize money is not excusable. I believe that if the BMFF doesn't make amends with the original filmmaker, then it is up to Bertulis. On that note, though I don't believe that the BMFF is responsible for this oversight. I do believe that they should apologize and possibly even take the award back. Though it may have been an oversight, it's still wrong. Jason

Butterfly knots tend to work better between the climbers than other knots. This is because the butterfly knot is on both sides of the rope, whereas the overhand or the eight knot is only on one side of the rope. The butterfly knot is far more likely to catch on the lip of the crevasse than pretty much any other knot because of its shape. The number one problem with knots in between climbers is extraction. Prusiking past knots or creating a hauling system with knots in the rope are both problematic situations. In either case you must pass a knot. The only way to do this effectively is to have your crevasse rescue techniques down cold. Miller recommended a guide for instruction of this technique. I completely concur. Most people practice their crevasse rescue once or twice a year, if that. Guides practice and teach these techniques all summer. As such you are more likely to learn an efficient way to pull someone out quickly from a guide than from a friend who practices every once in awhile. Jason

A bit of snow in Red Rock today too. Jason