Rodchester

I agree....and it can get to smelling really bad. ever smelled dirty nasty wool when it burns? Its bad...long story.

Cavie: Have you tried that classmates.com site? They now have a military part that may help. Good luck.

This whole post is BULLSHIT!!! They are the same mountain and you guys know it.

No, you are not one of the wackos.

It is true that many environmental groups do want to radically reduce or even eliminate access (though certainly not all). That is why sooooo many people hesitate to call themselves environmentalists. The brush of the radicals unfortunately paints the rest. I think if you looked to those people that have environmental concerns and love the wilderness and mother earth, blah, blah, blah, but are realistic, most have no problem with climbing or climbers' access. 2 cents

I have used old style polupro in the past, but no longer. It stinks and shrinks. I now use Pataguci Capilene lightweights and REI midweights. i actually gives fairly high ratings to the REI. n recent years I used Duofold. I was not very impressed by it. Not bad, but I wouldn't buy it given the selection on the market today. It fit odd, and it pilled quickly and way too much. The fabric wasn't that comfortable either.

Nope.....

If you don't call in a rsscue and you don't accpet the rescuer's help, then you don't have to pay.

www.mountainmadness.com

Kiwi: I have seen many use a harness or strap system where it puts the camera in a pouch on you chest that is intergrated with your pack harness. I think LowePro makes various camera pouches of this type. LowePro I usually carry a smaller point and shoot 35 mm and it fits nicely into a small LowePro case that fits nicely on my sternum strap of whatever pack I use, daypack or full pack. In very cold conditions you have to watch it because the battery can freeze.

HRoark: Who fucking knows? I agree. This isn't clear at all and sounds way too much like rumor. I think the lot is actually dual use, as Alpental and as a trailhead. Not sure, but I believe this to be the case. The whole "privatization" of public land cry just sounds too much like the sky is falling based something "heard from an Alpental 'security' guy ... "

"Anyone else ticked off about all this privitization of public lands?!" Maybe I missed your point. I don't se how this is a privatization of public land. Either the USFS wants to close it or it doesn't. I say keep it open.

Maybe they'll use them on little girls wearing scarfs... OK OK I suck....

France has a 200 year old liberal democracy? Check that. Remember that short funny guy with the hat (arguably the father of the modern French NATION i.e. from the latin "natio" meaning the people). Yeah anyway, liberal democracy is not how I would describe much France up to 1815. Sure he insituted many major reforms and took huge steps forward dem,octarically. But not exactly liberal democracy. After 1815 it is my recollection that the Monorchy was reinstalled for some years to come. Democracy was tried, and often failed in 1800 France. Remember, Napolean III was actually elected President (1848-1852) of France and subsequently took power as Emperor (1852-1870). However,your point is well taken. That said for the most part I agree with your post. Fairweather's point on Stalin is very well taken. Let the frogs be frogs. I really could cares less about them. Other than their seat on the Secuity Council, they are nothing. And that was a gift.

Well the paper says "lost" yes lost. I don't hear him telling the paper he wasn't lost. Hmmm doesn't sound supect at all. If you were him and you weren't lost, don't you think you'd be complaining? I think its pretty clear he accepted the help that they rendered...if not they wouldn't have rendered it. I have been in a situation where a rescue was called when it wasn't needed. When contact was made we laughed at them and asked why they had launched a rescue...(long story and a whole lot of error on someone's part, someone not with us)...to make a long story short after we finished laughing, we declined any help and stayed out another four days (as planned). If you don't need to be rescued, why would you accept rescue. Granted, we don't know all that happened. But from what we know, there is nothing suspect. He was lost and cold. "Apparently he had crossed the boundary three times that day." That doesn't mean he wasn't lost at the time they found him.

“Twenty minutes before the mountain closed shop on Saturday, a ski patroller sweeping the west catch line noticed a fresh pair of tracks that crossed the boundary. . .” “Less than an hour after the skier's tracks were spotted, 13 ski patrollers began a search of the area.” “By 7:50 p.m., the skier — whose name Mount Bachelor declined to release — was found . . .” “[H]e got lost and was in deep snow, Johnston said. The stray skier was cold but uninjured.” Yeah....he'd been out there for a couple of hours....the lifts are now closed....its dark....and he's lost. Sounds to me like he needed to be rescued.

Well, either they rescued you, or they didn't. If you are in the BC and they ski or skin up to you and ask if you need a rescue, you just say no. They can't charge you. You don't even need to tell them who you are...assuming it is ski patrollers from the private ski area. This is especially true if you are not skiing lifts and are just touring in the BC and they try to “rescue” you.

Just thinking out loud... There could be a difference between a private ski area charging for services rather than a public entity (County, city, state, Federal). I think this is one that I don't have a problem with charging for rescue on. Haven't thought it all the way through just yet, but I do see some differnces. The Ski area may ARGUABLY incur some liability if they don't rescue, they do not have governmental immunity like the others. However, because you are by contract (read the fine print) supposed to stay in bounds, and becuase they posted warnings that a fee could be charged, I think charging simply to recoup costs has a valid basis. Remember, this is not a BC skier operating on public land. Just some initial thoughts.

I believe that governments should be agnostic, not atheist. Secularism, when approached from an atheist standpoint almost becomes its own religion. Better to allow individuals to worship and not get involved, unless the worship negatively effects others. How does wearing a small cross, or a star, or a crescent around one's neck negatively effect others? How does a scarf negatively effect others? Typical Frogs

I don't get it. Just because they say it should have and could have been prevented, how is that Bush's failure? There are systemic problems identified by the report that go way back. They are, as I stated systemic, not based on the administration. These have to do with systems that have been in place, many since WWII. Not that I'm a Republican or anything, but this is being misintrepreted by most in the media. Do you blame FDR for Pearl Harbor?

Thought this was interesting: Ropes Single, Half, and Twin Ropes A single rope must sustain on one strand a minimum of 5 test falls with a drop weight of 80 kg without breaking. Single ropes are recommended whenever a fall on a single strand can occur. They are safe in the event of a fall and are used in situations with potentially high fall factors. Half ropes must also sustain 5 test falls on a single strand with a drop weight of 55 kg. They can be used as a single rope when the fall factor is less than 1. In the event of a serious fall, the necessary safety factors can only be achieved when the rope is used double. The double-rope technique is where each strand is clipped separately through different runners, giving two distinct very light single ropes. The greatest advantage of this technique is it provides less risk of total rope system failure. Twin ropes are tested with a drop weight of 80 kg on two strands together and must survive 12 test falls. The twin-rope technique, when used correctly, provides the highest safety margin in event of a fall. In this technique both ropes are clipped together through the same karabiners where they act as a stronger, safe single rope. So half ropes(Doubles) are only tested to 55. Best explanation I've found so far...

Rope systems I'm just here for the beer....

Twin ropes you are supposed to clip both into each piece of protection, screw, rock gear, whatever. With double ropes I have always been taught, and always do, clip only one rope into each piece of protection. It has always been my understanding (don't quote me though, ask the rope manufacturer) that double ropes are basically thin single ropes, meaning that they are made/tested/rated individually to take a certain amount of leader falls (not as many as an actual single rope though). While twin ropes are made/tested/rated to sustain a fall only with the two ropes working together. One might assume that clipping both double ropes into the same protection doubles the rope strength, thus making you safer. Now, I'm no physics guy, but my understanding is that a fall on two double ropes clipped into a single piece of protection will increase the force created on the protection. Not necessarliy by 2 times, but something like 1.5 times. The net effect is that you are putting more force on the protection than required and that the additional force created cause a piece of protection to fail. I'm sure that I have not explained it very well. And maybe may ass is just plain wrong. But this is what I have always understood. Anyone know better? Jim Nelson says....

I'm no bleeding heart, that's for sure....but I'm not a Republican either. I truely think that this is a good thing. I think too many bilers ruin winter in Yellowstone. As my wife says, let them ski in if they don't want to ride in a snow coach. I guess I could accept a limited number on guided tours...but grooming 180 miles of trails is just too much. I say give the park a rest. Too bad about business being negatively effected in West Yellowstone. That does suck. But get over it.

Good Deal on Shrikes I have them and I like them.