Access warning

[richard_noggin]

This no joke or spray

Government agency's and activist groups are watching this site for beta on areas to close.

I post this in spray , in hopes they do not weed through all posts.

We all know these guys could not hike up Si without a sherpa and supplemental oxygen .

In an effort to lead them astray and to clog down their clout, I suggest sodo posts of false routes on bushwack wilderness peaks

If nothing else watch what you say on this site, arguing amougst ourselves

IB is just the begining those that would deny you access to your love ..climbing... are on the march

BTW groomed trails to crack, sport, bouldering areas are out, an impact study, review and approval is needed for any new trails, this is where we as climber are going to find the most trouble.

[foraker]

As is often said in science: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Where is your documented proof?

[Dru]

fahq dood i just grid bolted the pickets traverse and added flashing neon signs!

[richard_noggin]

As is often said in science: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Where is your documented proof?

Bend over it's coming

As often said in the service of my uncle!

BOHIC

[Dave_Schuldt]

So how do you know this?

[jon]

It's true.

[mattp]

Not only is it true, but it should be obvious. Think about it: if you wanted to find out about cascade clambing atrocities, what would you do? You'd type "Cascade clambing impact" and "Cascade clamb bolt" and "Washington rock clambing" and stuff like that in Google (I misspelled the word "clamb" so those sneaky b*&4tards won't find this thread). What would come up? CC.COM. From then on, they would check the site regularly. If the land managers and activists who are concerned about clambing didn't do this, they wouldn't be doing their job. Even though cc.com doesn't represent Washington clambing as a whole, it is certainly one place they would look.

[whirlwind]

bla bla, and the title of this thread wont get there attention

[foraker]

So, there's still hope that endlessly posting annoying political rants will result in a decimation of the population of cc.com via black helicopters!?! Sweeeeet.

[ashw_justin]

The funny thing is that even though we are completely honest about what we do, there is very little that we could be construed to be guilty of. Just think if this were a snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, four-wheeling, or you-name-your-sport forum. I bet there would be some serious dirt. But I think as climbers were pretty damn, almost pathetically, conformative and law-abiding...

[jon]

wat these goberment @genc!es don't know is u5ing our .SPRAY tech0l0g1es we have infu1tr4t3d th31r cumpu7erZ and b4ught lotZ of HOr5ec0(k wit thier i55ued kR3d1t k4rDz.

 

w00t

[Ratboy]

ur 1ee+

[Dru]

 

Multi-wire clambing

Desirable - allowed - prohibited?

 

Clip Project

 

 

Observing and complying with standards and VDE regulations is of major importance in electrical installation - in everyday practice, however, this is often not easy to abide by.

 

 

A much discussed point, for example, is the so-called "multi-wire clambing". Is it permitted to connect two conductors at one and the same clambing point? In general, it is certainly not sensible, since two conductors at one clambing point make clear identification in the switch cabinet itself and in the corresponding switch diagrams more difficult. Nevertheless, extra connections, operating or control elements often have to be installed during maintenance work, or a forgotten connection added. The space for an extra modular terminal block is missing and this raises the question as to whether a multi-conductor connection is permitted in this case.

 

 

The answer to this question depends of course not on how precarious the particular situation is, but on the relevant standards for modular terminal blocks and clamped connections.

 

In EN 60 999 (Safety requirements for screw-type clambing points and screwless-type clambing points for electrical copper conductors), for example, a difference is made between clambing points with screw-type clambing and screwless-type clambing points, as the title suggests.

 

In section 7.7, special attention is drawn to the fact that each conductor must be clamped individually in the case of screwless-type clambing points. In EN 60 947-7-1 too, (modular terminal blocks for copper conductors) it is written that a multi-conductor connection is only permitted in the case of screw terminal blocks. This, however, is only permitted on condition that the manufacturer states type, size and number of conductors that can be connected simultaneously.

 

 

matt's gonna have all the electrical engineers mad when their web searches for clambing anchors find cc.com

[richard_noggin]

The funny thing is that even though we are completely honest about what we do, there is very little that we could be construed to be guilty of. Just think if this were a snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, four-wheeling, or you-name-your-sport forum. I bet there would be some serious dirt. But I think as climbers were pretty damn, almost pathetically, conformative and law-abiding...

Larry the Tool and his fellow Tools don't think so.

DICK

[EWolfe]

wat these goberment @genc!es don't know is u5ing our .SPRAY tech0l0g1es we have infu1tr4t3d th31r cumpu7erZ and b4ught lotZ of HOr5ec0(k wit thier i55ued kR3d1t k4rDz.

 

w00t

 

In other words, our willingness to spell like Muffy to avoid detection?

[dberdinka]

This no joke or spray

Government agency's and activist groups are watching this site for beta on areas to close.

 

And this will somehow be more productive for them than say looking at guidebooks or a recent copy of Rock&Ice proudly displaying the longest blted sprt climb in the world?

 

Exactly what beta will they be looking for? Best I can tell is that they will find that a vocal minority here is not impressed with engineering of blted climbs in what have tradionally been wild areas.

 

In fact that might be considered a good thing if they realize not all climbers are running around with Bosch in hand, or support such activity.

 

So exactly what is being said here that is so harmful to climbers?

Edited June 8, 2004 by Off_White

[richard_noggin]

Your not getting it,it's not about blts

it's about trails accessing climbs

and the mention of any climbs blts or gear or pads is leading them down the path of denied access

so just keep blaming the other guy and we will all wind up in the same pile of$#!t

[nothing]

they may both be watching (gov. and activist groups), but it is not the gov. agencies looking for places to close. it is the environmental activists that are driving this (they are pro environment as long as it's their definition and suits their needs). be careful, although most of us are environmentally conscious or trying to be, the environmental activists have some hidden agenda's that wouldn't make a lot of you/us happy. there is a lot of hypocrisy. On a slight tangent - I even wonder about the WTA, they promote a wilderness environment (which is good), but then they want a trail on every inch of the earth - my example is their restoration promotion of trails that are over grown and have disappeared. like, the west side of sloan (their website lists many others). climbers don't have a problem getting in there. we don't need a staircase or pavement on every trail. wouldn't the wildlife appreciate some trail-less portions of the earth - isn't that a better way of promoting wilderness than getting thousands of city dwellers to drive their vehicles to the mountains and swarm the forests. harvey manning is another great example of hypocrisy as slams others for their actions while he sells millions of hiking guides that lead every city dweller to the mountains. other than that, i really don't have an opinion.

[marylou]

Nothing, I have to disagree with your assertion that the activists are looking for Wilderness violations that "suit their needs." There is a moratorium on new trail building, and with new routes come new trails. Also, the ALPS and others view the W'ness Act as something that creates a living legacy, and if we can't be good stewards of that, then maybe we don't even deserve to get to use it. When I say "we" I mean all users, not just climbers.

 

I agree with others here who think the real issue is the new trails (and IMO the erosion at the base of climbs, which can be really bad) rather than the new rootes themselves.

 

Far as your take on WTA, well, it's my thinking that you're oversimplifying their agenda.

[Dru]

Isnt it a little bit disingenuous to be down on erosion but also down on trails? A well built trail will prevent erosion, while a climb without a dedicated trail to the base will have greater erosion - sort of like Smith Rocks before all the trail work.

 

 

also a climbers trail will have in general much less traffic and less erosion than a hikers trail, because it doesn't "go anywhere" except to the base of a climb. Stawamus Chief backside trail - lots of hikers and erosion. Stawamus chief Greand Wall trail - lots of climbers, no hikers, minimal erosion.

[nothing]

what constitutes a new trail? is a new trail something that is built with the intention of making a trail or does it come about from traffic to an area of interest - climbers path. i agree - you shouldn't be able to go build a trail anywhere you like. and, i don't think that is the what has happened here. nobody has ever complained about the TRAIL? that people use to do the standard route on Garfield's main peak (it is a trail) or the thousands of approach paths to climbs all over the Cascades (UNTIL NOW). so, we're we not being good stewards because we want to climb garfield, eldorado, bear, forbidden, the tooth, stuart ......? If this group had it's way, every climbing approach (that has now become a trail from popularity) that fred used on his first ascents, is illegal and a violation and makes us irresponsible. must we first have our approach reviewed for compliance. i agree, erosion is one of the many issues that we all need to be concerned with and we should be conscientious even with approach paths. however, i think alps is way "over the top" on this one. i've been on the trail that spurred this debate, and i don't see a problem with it. climbing popularity has surely grown and with it there is a lot of impact. hopefully, these discussions will raise awareness and help us to act accordingly. maybe i am oversimplifying the WTA's agenda when i say they want established "hiking only" trails everywhere, but that is what their website conveys. ok, that's all for me on this one.

 

peace.

[marylou]

If you are referring to me, I'm merely stating what I think the big issues might be. Anchors are permitted in the Wilderness, but new trails are not. Erosion at the base of climbs can be a real eyesore, especially to a non-climber.

 

I'm pretty conflicted about the whole sitchmo and am disinclined to speak strongly in favor or against the current access issue.

[EWolfe]

 

[cj001f]

nothing-

don't tell them about the goats, deer, etc! Damn game, always making trails....

[eric8]

Infiltrate and conquer, who will volunteer to be our leader