JosephH

sure - i can't imagine freeing the line but then i am very silly - the first 1/3 is wicked steep and thin - the OW is weatherable i reckon though, and if you can get through that then the traverse to the anchors probably will go too - would love to see it happen! I did free it up to that damn bush, but never got back to clean it out. Also never did hear who cleaned the nut I left at the bottom of the OW (not that it matters). Will have to get up there and give it another go once my hand heals.

That's the one. And is there still a fair chunk of dubiously attached rocks up by, I believe, larry's old pins.

The choice between having healthcare run by government incompetents or corporate felons seems like an easy one to me.

Hey, did you clean that shrub out of the top of the wide section off the ledge?

How about FONP - fantasy of no plan / fantasy of no peregrines

How about skip the bolt and just rename it to 'You and Richard Are Dying', should solve any misconceptions about the route.

Yes. Lisa Lantz and Erik care about every bolt or pin that goes into the rock and every plant that comes off of it. And even if they didn't, other climbers including myself also care. Dave, you don't have to agree with me, but if other opinions and voices want to count then folks in the local crew are going to have to figure out someway to become constructively engaged. That, or more organized, non-locals will be the ones filling the void and ruling the roost as it were; then locals won't be rebelling against 'the man', but rather other climbers.

Now was that really the first thing on the mind of whoever sank those bolts?

That anyone in the U.S. would need to start a thread with 'health insurance' in the title says about everything you need to know about the issue. It isn't an issue of individual, state, or constitutional rights, but rather of comparative advantage among industrialized nations.

From my perspective it's the last third of the slab that is the issue and where I see people all but hurl themselves to the trail in desperation given I suspect they feel they can't back down out of a bad situation; the rest of the route isn't a giveaway, but the pro is there. My reasoning had nothing to do with access to the routes above, but rather just with the guidebook/paper appeal of the route.

I'm sorry, fixed pro application? Is there really such a thing? Huh... does my cam need to be documented since it is now a permenant fixture on the 2nd pitch of the corner? Screw that! Just don't tell anyone you're doing it. Better yet, DON'T POST ABOUT IT HERE!!! Hmmm, I'm always a bit confused by your attitude in such matters given you are part and parcel of the regulatory fabric that shuts down climbing every year and demands Climbing/Resource/Habitat management plans for places like Beacon - you're as responsible for it all as anyone else in the WA state government. "Screw that!"? How about just stop being THE MAN if that's what you really think? Or again, how about you head up such matters given you have the inside track? But either way, the bottom line is that WA state law mandates climbing at Beacon be governed by a Climbing Management Plan [CMP] (however dated it may be) and it is. It's a different story that staff churn and budget crisis have long-delayed the overhaul and enforcement of the CMP, but make no mistake, now that budget crisis is handled and Ben is onboard Erik is absolutely determined to get that long-standing BRSP management shortfall corrected. And yes, there is now a very workable [per route as opposed to per pieced] Fixed Protection protocol and application that is way better than the old per piece approval protocol. With the old protocol every piece you might install required a separate application. With the new one you can submit a single application for either a new piece or pieces of fixed protection or for a new route that may include fixed pro. Just provide a digital photo marked up with where you think fixed pro will be required and on completing the route ammend it with where the pro ended up. That's so the dates the pro goes in gets documented so that stuff can be maintained. Menopause and all of Shane's new NW face routes have been done with fixed protection applications and the process is entirely painless and doesn't take long to get approval. As of this year I'll be using it for all remaining anchor and bolt replacement activities I'm doing. At the moment, the applications are reviewed by the BRSP staff and Lisa Lantz the SW Region Resource Steward. But, they are also supposed to be reviewed by a Climbers Advisory Committee which hasn't existed for a number of years. Once the CMP is reviewed and revised over the next year or two that will change and CAC will be reconstituted and then we're back to the same old problem - who serves on it? Last time the topic was visited it was quite clear some organizations were opposed to it being dominated by Beacon locals, instead all but demanding it be "broadly representative of the greater Oregon and Washington climbing communities" - not a great idea from my point of view. So yeah, none of this stuff has been very visible or much in effect due to a number of reasons, but trust me, Erik has been looking for the chance to move this off the back-burner for several years as the BRSP gets dinged in its performance review every year it doesn't get handled. Just because we haven't seen it in operation lately is a lousy reason to think it can be safely ignored going forward - it can't. It especially can't if we want to have the possibility of early opens, reclaim the SW Face from the oak and Peregrine closure, or ever have a shot at lifting the Peregrine closure either in any given year or permanently. Do locals want a say in how climbing at Beacon will be managed when the BRSP gets back ontrack with revising the CMP? If so, at some point someone will have to participate in the process (Kenny? Bryan? Bill? Who?). But do the status quo - and you'll get the status quo, or more likely, worse.

Not everyone, but it certainly seemed to be about a 3 or possibly a 4 cow situation for sure. Had you filled out the fixed pro application which you mention on the other Beacon thread (LINK HERE) first? No, a new, broader and more workable protocol for fixed protection approval and the resulting fixed protection application form didn't yet exist at that point beyond discussions and proposals. I was operating under a authorization from John allowing us to restore access to the [existing] column routes through the slabs via long neglected lines. It's the same authorization under which I've recently been cleaning and reclaiming sections of the slabs. I had discussed the unique risks posed by this route with him prior to installing the bolt as well as discussed it at length with Opdycke who had been advocating for it, and he was in fact belaying me when it went in. Determining where those old lines through the slabs and working with Jim to look for where fixed pro was also how the whole "Third Rail" deal came about, from trying to locate the pin you eventually found on the line to the right of it. I believe working with the BRSP to develop a Fixed Protection Application started in earnest that fall and continued through that winter and spring.

Tim, I did actually put in a bolt about 2/3s of the way up the ramp mainly because you gave the line stars as a 5.9 and I've seen more than a couple of parties, guidebook in hand, get on it and freak out in a decking situation. It's pretty much the only such route out there with that convergence of rating, stars, and a ramp to suck them into a bad situation. I wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't been for stars, but everyone had a friggin' cow over it so I yanked it a few days later.

We can insure binge drinkers, the obese-by-choice, and smokers - but god forbid you go climbing...

YW has already substantially and steadily changed over the years as loosening rock has been trundled and will continue to do so. Change happens. And the 'before' photo here on the left is itself an 'after' photo due to the late night launch, just a few months earlier, of the large stone that was in front of those. The ones you see here that were trundled are what now make up the foundation of the new base of the climb. It's a new base because that bottom-most rock in the 'before' picture filled the dihedral for about twelve feet and, when dropped, sliced through the old base on it's way cartwheeling over the trail and down the hill.

Whether put in by hand or with a drill, if bolts aren't installed perpendicular to the rock or with similar metals, the result will always less than desirable. The reality is the anchors replaced on YW p1 and p2 were in the worst shape of all the 66 anchors sets replaced. And your latter statement is not true, in the last CMP a deliberate effort was mounted to allow power drilling and that effort succeeded. So your statement "as ALL bolts on the South side are supposed to be..." is sadly not the case at all and that's just one of many reasons why being involved when the BRSP revises the CMP is so important. I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Jim. You're doing the misquoting here; I said my opinions and perspectives are rooted in a my understanding of, and affinity for, the route - not that they're special in any way. During every discussion of YW - here on cc, at Beacon, and many with Jim at his place - I've explicitly said I don't intend to change anything on my own. What I have done, is attempt to make a case for moving an anchor that is as useless as tits on a boar since we trundled several tons of rock at the top of p1. Beyond that I've only responded to Kevin's numerous requests for a bolt immediately below the butthole which I disagree with and also stated I consider the route, and particularly p1, to be overbolted and stand by that statement. None of this is news to Jim, but feel free to repeat any of the above at your next audience.

Good job guys. Not sure about that 'one headlamp' business with a 10am start, but sounds like you were pretty set with the full moon on white stone.

Nate, good job and thanks for clearing it out again. Several of the bushes just can't be killed as they are rooted way back in the crack. Most of it got chiseled out two years ago, but you're absolutely right that they need people to get on them every year. Ivan, did you do FT this year? If so what was the state of it?

Probably some of both from last year's initial cleaning sessions. Anything any of you guys can pull on the way up, down, or while hanging out is good. The cleaning will get finished this fall from Double Dirty Overhang over to a left-leaning line angling up to the p1 Flying Swallow anchor. As Ivan said, there are still plenty of free routes to be done and aid lines to be freed. Good TR, but it would probably be a good idea to put in a fixed pro application with the BRSP if you're going to be posting FA TRs of any line that includes new points of fixed pro (if this one does). It's ok to do it after the fact saying you only figured out during the climb that fixed pro was needed (if any was, for protection or anchors).

That's only because there is no betamax video tape version of YW.

Adam, we know Jim put up the climb and is passionate about it. And while he may have put a lot of thought into things being the way they are, some of us clearly have a different perspective on many of the decisions that were made, and in my case at least, those differing opinions are rooted in a deep familarity and strong connection with the line. YW is what it is, and I don't intend to 'fuck with' it beyond replacing bad bolts, but the idea that every decision that was made was 'perfect' is a bit over the top. Such differing opinions and perspectives may be inconsequential to the very necessary status quo of the route, but they are every bit as valid as the ones made when it was put up. Also, any notion that the current bolts are 'fine' or somehow good into perpetuity - particularly the mixed metals ones - well, the state of the original p1 & p2 anchor bolts and just looking at the rest of them tells a very different story, and recent events at Index should serve as a cautionary tale for any route as heavily trafficked as YW.

p1 - I do it solely on pro all the time; no bolts are needed; the first pin is not so great - it might hold a fall; the second pin is only there because they didn't have funk when they put in the bolt which wasn't necessary. p2 - No bolts needed; the belay angle is way bomb. p3 - The pins are bomb; I have no particular problem with them and only clip the top one, but there is gear at the same level to the left and it would be a pretty ugly fall with or without the pins. p4 - First bolt isn't necessary; the first pin might hold a fall, but isn't necessary at all; I never clip the second pin, but would if the crux bolt weren't there which I think should be the case given there is a good pin below it and a good pin instantly above it (it's a single move boulder problem with fixed pro before it, on it, and after it all in the span of about 10-12'). p5 - Is pretty innocuous, I have no particular problem with it.

We're in violent agreement here.

As I said, I'm not going to do it on my own. I will be replacing bad bolts on it this fall, but not removing, adding, or moving anything.

Jim knows my opinion on it. It was a semi-arguable place for an anchor before the dihedral of rocks got trundled, it's been an orphaned anchor ever since. I'm certainly not moving it on my own, but don't buy the logic I've heard to-date as to why it should stay where it is; I get the idea, but it seems like a needlessly contrived / manufactured point of danger to me and not one that was well thought out beyond that three inch ledge being nice to hang out. Oh well...