Zenolith

What happens if you don't get one? I'm planning to spend 1-2 nights up there and don't think I can get one on short notice. Are there any tricks to avoiding being caught?

This is not a troll for a debate. Just thought people who are interested in glaciers might find this interesting. Giant glacier falls into ocean near New Zealand Friday, May 10, 2002 By Chris Baltimore, Reuters WASHINGTON ? A huge ice shelf 10 times bigger than Manhattan has plummeted into the sea near New Zealand, U.S. government scientists said Thursday, adding urgency to warnings that global temperatures are rising for the worse. The news follows the March collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica in the Weddell Sea near Chile ? which was the size of a small European country. The collapse on the Ross ice shelf in the Ross Sea near the Pacific Ocean and New Zealand is about 41 nautical miles long and 4 nautical miles wide. It was spotted by the National Ice Center in Suitland, Md., which analyzed infrared photos taken May 5 by a military satellite. The collapse likely occurred over the last two weeks, a spokesman for the center said. The Ice Center gathers data for the U.S. Department of Defense, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard. The collapse is a result of so-called calving, as constant motion by polar ice caps fractures the ice into sometimes-large fragments that float loose into the sea. Green groups pointed to the ice shelf collapses as evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global temperatures to rise and the polar ice caps to melt. For meteorological reasons, glaciers are one of the first indicators of rising planetary temperatures, said Kalee Kreider, a global warming expert at the National Environmental Trust. "They're a canary in the coal mine for the global warming trend," Kreider said. Carbon emissions from power plants and factories have been linked to global warming, which scientists warn could lead to massive flooding and rising ocean levels. The United States is the world's largest emitter of so-called greenhouse gases.

http://www.sca-inc.org/ jobs in mt rainier natl pk and n cascades here.

thurs might work for me. i'd go to the columns if its dry. someone please email me if it is on fer shur tho since I seem to be too bored to come read this crap lately. krowell@gladstone.uoregon.edu

my garuda definitely breathes very well. i have used it for up to 4 days at a time and had some frost on the inside but no more than in a bibler. i like it a lot i just don't use it much.

so the 5.5mm spectra cord is a mean joke on climbers? what do you sling hexes with?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1818468051

i have a garuda (dana designs) kaja that i'll sell your for $300 or so. it is brabd new and totally sealed but i don't use it enough to justify keeping it.

i have some old rigid stem friends that all need new slings. i'd send them off to be reslung but they're old (late 80s) and i wonder if its worth it since i could just get some new tech friends or something and spend all this money i got. i've heard that you can use spectra for reslinging. I wonder if you could put half of the double fish on each side of the hole to keep the knot out of the way.

Wallflower seed on the sand and stoneMay the four winds blow you safely home.-GD Now you see this one-eyed midgetShouting the word "NOW"And you say, "For what reason?"And he says, "How?" And you say, "What does this mean?"And he screams back, "You're a cowGive me some milkOr else go home"-bob dylan

oh, don't get me started. i sent my broken ski to atomic and they told me to do something dirty with it.

"Don't get me started" "One time at band camp..." -spraying climbers Knowledge without courage is sterile -Balthasar Gracian 1. Think of what is right and true.2. Practice and cultivate.3. Become aquainted with the arts.4. Know the principles of the crafts.5. Understand the harms and benefits.6. Learn to see accurately.7. Become aware of the non-obvious.8. Be careful even in small matters.9. Do not do anything useless. -Miyamoto Musashi from The Book of Five Rings The "Heavy Stone" paradox is an example of divine trundling. "Above a certain point, the higher another point appears to be, the lower it actually is." - Mark Twain "At this very moment you are directly above[long pause] the center of the earth!" Baba Rum Rasin saying what I think on a summit. Only the half mad are wholly alive. -who said that? Do, or do not... there is no try. -Yoda liek i said, don't get me started.

I AM AVATAR

hey prof, seems a lot of ancient cultures were intersted in cones. calling them "stamps" might limit understanding of the significant shape. the pyramids are roughly conical, so is a church spire, and what of the cone shaped pots that the egyptian bakers used (actually two cone pots joined base to base). and then there are "event (light) cones" and them cones the ancient greeks were so fascinated with. cones rule man. blight you, like dan larson, suck.

Dr. Larson, Thanks for that reply. It may not seem like it in all my posts, but I am definitly on your side. Mostly, my job entails fighting loggers and the USFS rather than climbers though so I feel a bit strange being maligned with a group that you seem to see as harmful to the environment. I wonder, since you said that climbing is a temporary enjoyment (or some such), if you really see this as a clear "climbing against ecosystem" problem? Are you saying that climbing on the Niagra escarpment is not sustainable or is it just that cli mbing has been practiced unsustainably there in the recent past? I know that your professional intersts lie in protecting cliff ecosystems (and thanks for admiting your bias), but do you think that climbers generally cannot be taught to value those as well? There is a dichotomy here; 1)There are not enough cliffs to support the number of climbers in the area. 2)The Niagra Escarpment ecosystem is being harmed by climbing and is an especially protection-worthy area. The question at issue is (if climbing and protection are mutually incompatible): Which is more valuable? You can argue that the ecosystem has been there longer and provides multiple benefits to humanity, etc, and I will agree enthusiastically. What every environmental problem comes down to though is that a) we don't think long-term enough for ecosystems and b) climbing (like logging) is an identity for a lot of climbers and they will fight for it the way a scientist would fight to see that science is not banned. Climbers, like verve, might feel like they can't live in Toronto and still be a climber. Another question; All cliffs are part of an ecosystem. Why is this one so valuable, or are you hoping to stop climbing one cliff at a time? The old trees are great but you pointed out that our macroscopic bias prevents us from seen the bigger picture and its micro subjects. I would bet that all cliffs have lichens, etc. Are they less important? That book of yours looks like a great resource but is a bit out of my price range ($70). Seems like you could help educate climbers if you gave them a discount . Is there a paperback coming out?

good Idea! send that to a publisher!

good grief, a real woman wants to come ?! why sure you can join us!!

The only good reason for a ban in certain areas is the unavoidable prospect of introducing non-natives. You can't even walk through an area without dropping seeds and spores, but the other parts of the HIPPO* accronym can be mostly mitigated. It would be very shocking to me if the climbing community at large did the kind of damage mentioned in the study(ies) after knowing the ecological uniqueness and sensitivity of the area. From what verve says that appears to be what is happening. Bummer. That would not happen where I live on the scale it appears to be happening over there. If the users won't listen to reason I can understand Dr Larson's hostility to us. Relative to the size of the climbing community I would guess that there is a shortage of climbable cliffs over there. (I will actually get the chance to visit that area in the next 2 years.) If I lived over there I would lobby for the creation of a bounded climbing area where measures are taken to limit erosion and other damage. For the other areas (sensitive and "pristine") I would ask for a voluntary climbing ban but set up a process by which potential users could petition the authorities for entry. Closing the area to all non-ecologists is asking for trouble. Looks like I've done an about-face dosen't it? Well, almost. Yep, I'm even going to buy that book on cliff ecology (even though it was written by canucks). *HIPPO lists the factors that cause the decline of ecosystem (or species) health. These factors are interrelated in myriad ways. H-habitat destruction I-invasives P-pollution P-population O-overharvesting

hey, i bash all science equally (especially canadian science). so, ask a psychology professor what they think of an IQ test anyway. as for me, pot will make me drop my ski pole in a deep creek and briefly consider a tyrolean off of rob's bumper to go get it and then decide to circumscise dick's ridge instead. wait [puff] that came out wrong.. heh heh.

the 10th no workie for me. the 11th does tho.

Matt, you make some good points (as does the Dr). You ask, "If some archeological wonder were discovered in North Bend somewhere, wouldn?t climbers respect a closure of the area if the closure was narrowly drawn and clearly intended to preserve that specific site? What if there was a very rare three-toed black-necked pigeon colony found on the cliffs at Fugs Wall in Frenchmen?s Coulee and the State came out and said: OK to climb in other areas, but leave this one alone? Wouldn?t even the most strident combatants over there most likely recognize that they should accept this?" Yes, most of us would respect such closures. But there are people out there who shoot spotted owls and throw rocks at raptor nests and I think the reason they do it is because they feel cut out of the process, disempowered, etc. I am suggesting that recomendations need not always be for a ban right from the start, especially without comment from all user groups. (BTW, I am a working environmentalist and I do have some experience with this. In my experience an outright ban does not work as well as many other options.) "In what I have seen in this thread so far, it appears you have little to disagree with about what Professor Larson wrote, yet you seem bent on an argument." Do I need to disagree by a certain factor in order not to raise your ire? I disagree enough to want to voice it, so what? "Your last quote from him shows that they identified and cataloged a unique habitat that may not have been previously identified and inventoried." No, they didn't, or at least that's not in the full report. They made a comparative study of the climbed and non-climbed areas (as well as studies of the presence and behavior of flora and fauna, which I have no gripe with) and decided to recomend a ban based on the "news" that climbed areas have a less vital ecological community. "In the initial post it was stated that he recommended banning climbing in certain ?protected? areas along the escarpment. I saw nothing recommending closure of popular and already-existing climbing areas, and no indication that even a large portion of the escarpment should be closed." In the full report they mention that unclimbed areas are unclimbed because they are not of interest to climbers. I can't imagine that they would close undamaged areas that they don't feel are at risk. In the full report I read there is no ban recomended, but they do say this, "The analysis of damage to trees caused by climbers showed that 10x more wounds of various types on cliffs exposed to climbers than cliffs that are not used for climbing. Nearly 30% of large individuals and nearly 40% of saplings showed signs of damage on climbed cliffs as opposed to around 4% for the unclimbed cliffs. What is worse, these estimates do not include trees simply removed by climbers. If the tree density data are combined with the inventory of damage, it becomes clear that cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment that are exposed to climbing disturbance will eventually become useless from the point of view of environmental research and monitoring." All I am asking is, "Does a ban follow from that?" I mean, here is proof that some climbers are idiots, but if you called a meeting of climbers and other users and showed them what a rare place this is and asked for their help in encouraging people not to cut limbs and rap off of trees, build trails and use them, etc. I bet you would do more for the place (and environmentalism) in the long run. Also, some people are going to read this claim --> ("cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment that are exposed to climbing disturbance will eventually become useless from the point of view of environmental research and monitoring") and think the scientists just want a neato research area all to themselves. Does the phrase "federal land grab" ring any bells? I'm all in favor of the feds grabbing all they can but I know that it pisses people off when they are denied access. "Do you think that someone who has spent twenty years studying ecology wants to get involved in a discussion of whether or not dolphins have it made because they can play and fuck more than humans?" No, and he doesn't have to. He can respond without using high school mock trial tricks to establish authority and ignore those things he is not interested in. "Are you sure he would want to debate science with people who are hostile to his ideas before they even know what he really has to say?" Yes, I think since he came on this site of his own free will, he must. And I think his science is impeccable, nothing to debate there, it is the gereralized ban mentioned in the first post that I thing should be debated. "If Professor Larson is willing to participate in a discussion here, can we discuss and perhaps debate real issues and leave the rhetoric aside?" That was exactly my recomendation to him that you took offense to.

I read Dr Larson's whole paper and this is the paragraph that should have been in the first post (mtngoat didn't have it yet though); "In samples obtained by the random positioning of plots, age distributions from all sites were similar (Figure 4.2). Most cliffs had the inverse J shape to the age distributions for ring counts and estimate ages that one would expect for [Figure 4.2] presettlement forest. At two southern sites (Rock Chapel and Grimsby) no current recruitment was found. Expect for this, recruitment was very apparent and old trees were found at all sites. Trees to 1032 years were reported in Larson and Kelly (1991) but since that time maximum ages of 1653 years have been reported (Larson et al 1994; Larson and Kelly 1995). The results clearly showed that cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment, including sites near Milton, (and in agreement with earlier studies on the Milton outlier) had a completely unexpected character: namely that the least-disturbed and most ancient forest ecosystem east of the Rocky Mountains was present on the exposed cliffs. These results had broad implications not only for the future management of the escarpment, but also for the interpretation of the other components of the flora and fauna. If the forest tree cover of the cliffs is presettlement (and more or less uniformly so from south to north) then, all of the understory and underlying geomorphological processes that operate on the cliffs are largely controlled by natural rather than by human influences. In other words, the results suggested that the entire escarpment represented a complete presettlement forest, not just old trees." Those are some very old trees and this is truly a unique forest. I would not climb on these cliffs if I was told about this first. I KNOW that if you banned climbing there however, that some of my less reverent bretheren would rap in there at night and carve their initials on those trees. Seems like a study of the anarchic nature of climbers might be a good supplementary study (you did profess an interdisciplinary approach didn't you Dr.?).

OK Professor, here's some questions to start with. First, you showed that climbing harms cliff ecosystems based on the fact that this activity decreases biomass and possibly biodiversity. That seems obvious to all of us and some of us resent that your study implies that this is unique. Most of us seem to agree that if a certain cliff ecosystem (or its key organisms) is (are) threatened that we as climbers should voluntarily back off. As you know, walking across the desert or more so, building a road so that you can get to the cliff to make your study, is even more damaging to an ecosystem. So, what does your study show that is NOT already obvious? Second, are you basing your recomendation to ban climbing at the studied cliff based only on the ecological dynamics of it? Did you consider the impacts to other areas if this area is closed down? Did you think about the harm you might do to the environmental movement as a whole if you declare that climbing is at odds with the environment and recomend a ban rather that recomending that the authorities work with climbers to lower their impact? Lastly, acting like you need to wait for us to cool down before you respond and mentioning how "pissed off" some of us are is a juvenile rhetorical tool and I am calling bullshit. Establishing yourself as the voice of reason and we as the irrational neanderthalic climbers is not going to work with most of us. Quite a few of us are academics, a few are environmentalists, and some of us are smart anyway. Know your audience.

I got a little freaked out when Fairweather agreed with me -had to check myself. Lest anyone think I'm not a rabid greenie allow me to qualify. First, I believe in the Endangered Species Act but I think it is poorly written because it cops out by not making any judgement over what to save first (we can't save them all unfortunately). It is supposed to protect ecosystems but does nothing close because it does not give any preference to key species and does not mandate study of what species are most vital. Second, my understanding of humans as natural creatures tells me that we need to believe in what we're doing in regards to the environment in order to make our efforts successful in the long run. In my personal experience climbers are environmentally inclined (even if they subscribe to another ideology on the surface). Perhaps the biggest driver of environmental opinion and action comes from our aesthetic ideals for nature. Climbing is part of that or we would not stand in awe of a mountain or rock face. Therefore, if we place climbers at odds with the environment (as this study does) we risk changing climber's (and the public's) perception of climbing from one of respect for nature to a haughty abhorrence of it. Third, I think too many people, right and left, subscribe blindly to an ideology and would follow it off a cliff if it led there. These scientists illustrate how environmentalists tend to do that by saying (or at least insinuating) "Climbing is harming lichen, so maybe they should ban it". Hearing Cheney say that it is not reasonable to base a national energy policy on conservation is just as narrowminded. The fallacy in both statements is that neither one asks what serves the greater good of people AND the rest of nature. You can't fight for one over the other because the sound of one hand clapping is....

DUDES!! This was meant to be a serious thread about my hero Mark Twight and you guys made it degenerate into spray. I am furieux!! I just got back from my sleep deprivation training and I am more than a little grumpy. I think I will go call "1-800-GET-DRUNK". Hee-Hee, Mark Twight is so funny. Yo, Be Extreme!