JosephH

Maybe just make that some large chunks of rebar with bent eyeloops on one end.

Bill, let's at least be clear on the record and history of this issue. The history of the issue is that Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted 'extrordinary' rendition and torture by both outsourced and American personnel (CIA and it's contractors). CIA personnel were reluctant and pushed back wanting some form of legal cover, albeit after they started and realized how deep they had gotten themselves in the process. The Bush administration, after ignoring them and pushing back, reluctantly set about manufacturing a "legal" basis for those 'activities'. The task of penning what are now known as the 'torture memos' fell to an eager Jay Bybee and John Yoo. As a backgrounder to the torture memos, though, you have to understand Cheney, Rumsfeld, Roberts, Alito, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and a whole cadre of other Bushies grew-up in their youths in the Nixon and Reagan administrations - all thinking both presidents (and they themselves) got a raw deal relative to the impeachment and Iran-Contra trials. That, and they were solidifying a 'neoconservative' identity and agenda at the time that would only ever be actualized in whole rather than piecemeal. The solution to both the previous slights to the Executive, and how to implement the neocon agenda, was for them to collectively and rigorously advocate for a strong, if not imperial, Executive. We know they found the vehicle to realize all their dreams in a Bush candidacy. The torture memos did, however, dovetail nicely with their overall neocon legal strategy and effort to 'bulk up' Executive and U.S. power once they got in office - even if some viewed them as bringing more light to their efforts than desired, and serving as a distraction to greater goals. In particular, they worked well within, and as an expression of, efforts under way to claim the Executive had the right (some would say the responsibility to) abrogate U.S. treaty obligations because international treaties in general were viewed as usurping the [god-given, natural] authority derived from, and due to, the U.S. as a / THE superpower (especially even the whiff of a 'World Court'). War, torture, rendition, gitmo, suspending habeas, wiretaps, treaties, etc. - all expressions of a 'righteous' and proper exercise of Executive power. Bottom line - there was and is zero real legal basis for the Bush adminstration's use of extrordinary rendition and torture - it was a tail-wagging-the-dog exercise. The only possible way legal cover for them can exist is in the context of the overall view of an 'imperial' Executive prevailing. But so far even Bush's right-leaning, activist-loaded SCOTUS doesn't quite have the stomach for much of that view of the Executive. That, and they intended for such power to be wielded by a "permanent Republican majority". Much of what you see happening with Obama, other than Chicago pragmatism (a city that's no stranger to rendition and torture), is the unwillingness of the Executive to yield new powers. It's in some ways to be expected from Obama and his [Clintonian] crew (who also feel slighted), but am in no way happy about it...

I love choss as much as the next completely desperate addict, but even I have a certain choss-to-rock requirement which Crown Point fails miserably. Plus, I'm not sure it's not more of an art project when you can make all your own holds. Last time I got on something like that I pulled a loose 1/2" x 6" x 3" sharp blade of rock out from under my right hand. Several tons of rock in a 10' diameter circle centered on my naval immediately cut loose. Uggh...

That's why you'd use the 12" - they'd probably stay in a fall even if they didn't stick.

P.S. be sure and secure all your bits and pieces well, and maybe even pick a few of these 1/2" x 12" SS bolts...

That's looks like some serious nasty. Good luck with that and please report back with a TR on how it all goes.

Climbing isn't the only concern managed by an under-staffed and funded BRSP. Ben put the signs up Saturday afternoon because they weren't going to be staffed Sunday morning sufficiently to do it then. "Scooting" was perfectly fine on Saturday afternoon - it no longer is.

Yes.

I'd say whether you're talking the WSP, WDFW, BRSP or Jim, picking your battles counts. Lisa, the WSP SW Resource Steward, explicitly doesn't want the trees involved, but she and Erik also understand LOTLP is a special place, and that the safety line serves a real purpose, so they've been flexible on that in discussions. I personally wouldn't approach Jim on moving the rap, though any of you are welcome to take a run at that.

I've avoided violating the sanctity of LOTLP during any of my activities - I'll leave that to the official order of the grail. I have a few chopped ropes as well, though, if they are needed either place...

Sybil was that old movie about a woman with multiple personalities. You're not out there drilling on one day and chopping the next are you?

Man, that's just unclean...

Kevin, this will be my last post on the matter. First, there is no "they" and there are no [de-humanized] "authorities" - there is only Erik, Lisa, and David. All are flesh-and-blood, capable of establishing relationships, and I have not heard any of the three utter a single lie or even shade a fact to-date. Part of this whole sad drama is locals continously demonizing and dehumanizing David, Lisa, Erik, and the BRSP staff. It's no different a behavior in any way than BushCo's 'Axis of Evil'. And let's get completely fucking blunt, here - I used to be a photojournalist and took fact-checking my stories dead serious. Guess what? One day I finally got sick of not being able to climb half the year and of all the bitching and decided to get serious doing something about it. So the first thing I did was start digging into all the 'facts, 'events', tales of oppression, and documents around what's gone down since about 1994. Who could have possibly guessed that what I would find is that the only faulty remembrances, deliberate disinformation, convient half-truths, torturous twisting of facts, and even some bald-face lies have been from us climbers. How could that possibly be? Could it have been the ends justified the means? That anything could and should be said to achieve our goals? That facts should shift to suit our beliefs and feelings? Could it possibly be that feelings and emotions got in the way of facts, potential compromises, and legitimate discussions. If I were writing a piece on the history of climbers and this closure it would be a sad one where emotions, grief, and resentment completely overpowered reason poisoning even the possibility of any further constructive dialog. It would be a story of collectively shooting ourselves in the foot out of pure spite. "They" and "authorities" are simply a pathetic devices for not having to actually deal. Hey, I don't know, maybe Bill thinks Erik, Lisa, and David are liars - but that has not once been my experience with them, not once. So, from my perspective - after all the legwork and hassle that I've put into trying to lift the closure, if it comes down to a "you're either one of us, or you're one of them" then sort of deal then my respone is pretty damn simple - fuck you guys and your horses - as I'm sick of this shit. P.S. "Lazy"? "fat"? Maybe if you had even a shred of a relationship or understanding of park operations, you'd realize that the BRSP is grossly under-funded and under-staffed and that the folks who work there are incredibly hard-working in the face of a continuous backlog of work. In fact, they're frantically demo'ing the old trailer park as we speak to take advantage of the few days they have a contractor out to help out with the project. More of the same fucking clueless bullshit as ever...

We do not disagree. The hypocrisy of the situation is in no way lost on me as I keep saying. But your behavior on the matter is counterproductive and simply makes the work of attempting to lift the closure that much more difficult.

It's a bummer whoever is chopping out at the Butte can't manage a single conversation around it. It seems pretty clear to me it must be some older climber who is actively climbing and likely someone Bill knows. Are there no other old guys you folks regularly run across out there? Bill, this isn't one of those Sybil sort of deals is it...

The tourist trail is never going to close. I can't make that blink, animate, or otherwise make it more obvious for you Kevin - but that's the undeniable political and legal reality. And what does that mean aside from the overwhelmingly and painfully obvious? It means there is NOTHING you or I can say about the tourist trail that can help climbers lift the South Face Peregrine closure - NOTHING. There is not a single constructive or productive argument which can be made about the tourist trail that will get you a single additional day of climbing at Beacon. Period. There are no 'facts', lies, echos, or emotions which are going to change that reality. So, you can keep wailing, dening, playing feel-good Never-Never Land games, and wailing against the 'machine' about the horror and injustice of it all. But in the end it's futile and childish exercise that I don't see being effective for anything but hyperventilation and depression. That and it makes climbers look looney and entirely out of touch with reality when it comes to efforts necessary to actually lift the closure. It sucks for all of us, but we have to deal. This many years after the fact, I'd say you might want to consider some grief counseling.

You only find it odd because you're having great difficulty reading through your own intractable views. Hey, neither trail is closed "to protect the birds" - where did you get that idea? I didn't say it, the BRSP didn't say it. The climber's trail got closed due to repeated East Face incursions where there are endangered species and an archeological site. This is exactly the sort of bullshit, made-up misinformation that has been rattling around inside the Beacon echo chamber for 13 years and every time I've follow-up on one of them the facts were substantially different than the rattling story I was told. Again, so far you're relentlessly echoing bullshit and not listening to a single fact - and there isn't a single distinguishing difference between you're behavior here on this issue and the Bush adminstration's drumbeat on WMD's in Iraq. And it's only a "discussion" if you're listening as well as talking. Well, I know this is one of your favorite Libertarian lines - I personally couldn't disagree more and any number of species are only with us because of the ESA. If anything, the EPA's funding should be quadrupled and the agency de-loused of industry and Bush wackjobs. But regardless of our opposite views on the ESA, it's basically irrelevant to the current climber's trail and Peregrine closures. I do respect your opinion on the matter, but it's not helping Kevin absorb any of the basic facts of either closure (not that he's really interested in any of them).

Don't you get it? Are you completely f#cking dense? Do you read without comprehension of any kind? Which part of THE WDFW CANNOT CLOSE THE TRAIL so utterly and completely fails you? And you complain about neocons and rightwingers who are completely impervious to fact, logic, or reality? How is this different in any way? No doubt, but for one of the more brilliant guitarists I've met, you're not giving off the air of the brightest bulb in the bin either. Look, not liking it has nothing whatsoever to do with it - I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER - what exactly does 'not liking it' have to do with relentlessly unproductive wailing?

My only thought is the Butte is the most dangerous climbing area I've climbed at in all of my 35 years of climbing. The combination of nearness, familiarity, innocuousness, and slick-as-snot mud are just nasty - I'm always on high alert out there the moment I step off the pavement.

The WDFW would, but as I keep trying to explain, they do not have the jurisdiction to do it and the WSP doesn't have the legal right to close it except briefly and then only under circumstances where public safety is threatened. I see the apparent unfairness of it, but 'hypocrisy' would require volition and choice on the part of the State of Washington and its agencies. That is explicitly not the case here - the WDFW would close the tourist trail if they could, but they cannot. There is no other operative storyline going on here. I have no interest whatsoever in the tourist or even climber's trails status because they are irrelavant to the status of the Peregrine closure. You want to "go right to the the heart of the matter in Olympia", be my guest. At best you might get the tourist trail closed, for which you'd get many thanks from WDFW - but, there is nothing whatsoever you can do or say in Olympia about the tourist trail which will get the Peregrine closure lifted on that basis. Kevin, absolutely not. The Peregrines have every right to one of their ancestral eyries and to be able to raise their young in peace. There is no aspect of this whole drama that extends beyond the simple fact the State of Washington, along with many others, have decided to value and protect what amounts to a national treasure of a resource in my eyes. How climbers choose to represent themselves in this, or any other matter reflects directly on our collective access to vertical realms - f#ck up, diss private owners and public land managers, show wanton disregard for authority and resources ala Potter and you'll end up with agency personnel unwilling to cooperate with climbers on cleanups, raptor monitoring, early opens, or lifting closures. You'll only end up with more closures and restrictive CMPs. Hey, want to act like children? Guess what, we'll be treated like children in return. To be honest, I don't do my "best to not fall to one side or the other", I'm simply acting out of total self-interest as someone who desperately wants to climb at Beacon every day I can. But I try to do that within ethical and legal constraints, with respect for everyone involved, with a fact-based objectivity, and without undo hyperbole and invective. Well, it does up your post count, but beyond that I'd think getting constructively involved would be far more useful if you wanted more than a momentary relief. I suppose spraying about it here constitutes 'trying', even if a pretty ineffective form of it, but that's certainly your perogative. It just gets annoying and predictable past a certain point - might as well just post links to the previous open or close's rant - or, go to Olympia and plead your case...

Kevin, the WSP doesn't close anything, the WDFW has complete jurisdiction and policy control over the closure in it's entirety - BRSP personnel simply hang and remove signs each year and enforce the closure - they have no say whatsoever in policy relating to it or in how it's implemented, i.e. they have no authority to change dates or any other aspect of the closure. Look, I understand the whole deal is a bummer, but am not sure which part of "it's not in WSP or WDFW's power to close the trail" gets by you every time I write it twice per year. I'm sure the WDFW would love to have some contractual/constitutional help to give them some legal basis for closing the tourist trail. But hey, it's pointless to keep saying "close the tourist trail!" - if it bothers you that much then go home, get together with Maggie and figure out a legal basis by which the State of Washington and WDFW could close the trail - but know they can't close it on their own. How popular even the attempt at such a move would make climbers with politicians and the public is way beyond my scope and more a matter for AF policy wonks and politicos. I appreciate that. Every minute and dime I spend out there has been, and is, devoted solely towards [legally and scientifically] getting the closure lifted for every hour, day, week, or whatever is possible each year so we (but being a selfish bastard, mainly I) can climb. It occupies enough of my time each spring when I could and should be getting back in shape such that I have to focus on just that - I don't have the bandwidth to worry about the philosophy or injustice involved with the tourist or climber's trails being open or closed.

What Bill has said here. The Peregrines have tried to use the Big Ledge scrape (nest) at the start of each of the past four years and we are pretty sure failed each time only to succeed somewhere nearby for three of those four years, and failing one of them. From the fall before last through this entire past season the Peregrines and their chicks have shown great affinity for the East Face and I believe they may have nested on the left side of the high tower as you look up from the parking lot - essentially just around the corner out-of-sight from the left skyline. Neither I nor David know why they have not been successful on Big Ledge, but year after year that is where they always try to nest first. To be honest it's a mystery, as it would seem perfect for them. Could be Owls, could be almost anything - that's the way the science goes though - as Bill said, sometimes you just don't end up knowing. Ranger Ben was all onboard for learning to do the monitoring when I spoke with him about it today, he wants it open to climb as well. Like I said, who knows, maybe the stars will line up this year. Until then I'd say climb elsewhere or if you must be at Beacon then get some binoculars and learn to monitor (it's not easy as it sounds).

Correct - it is bullshit, the tourist trail should be closed as well. But that's not in WSP or WDFW's control as explained endlessly twice a year for four or five years. Incorrect - they are no longer listed on the ESL, which means they are now judged to be no longer in danger of extinction. That does not mean they are not 'endangered' across much of their current range. They are also probably out to 2015-17 before recovering their natural range, though our new fondness for wind farms aren't helping that recovery as I understand it (though I have a request into David for Peregrine fatality rates at the wind farms he's done EIS's for). Incorrect - "nest on most of the skyscrapers in downtown" - you're kidding right? Do a little research on Peregrine territoriality and rethink that one. I'll check on the number of nesting pairs downtown, but I'd be amazed to find out it was more than two or three tops. And while they get seeded in many boxes in downtowns across the nation - the mortality rate of any resulting chicks is very high in all urban areas. Incorrect - Beacon has likely been a Peregrine eyrie longer than humans have been in the Gorge and long before climbing. Beacon has been a steady performer relative to breeding pairs being successful there. You clearly couldn't give a rats ass about the Peregrines and you've made it endlessly clear you'd be just as happy if there were no Peregrines there. I personally think that prospect would be a drag. Correct - except for that year climbers destroyed the eggs / nest... Incorrect - this is the same old relentless venom of a lost youth that has obstructed even the possibility of ever lifting the closure. Kevin...for a guy who claims to be incredibly liberal, you are one conservative bro in terms of the environment when it happens to impact your sandbox. And for a guy married to a lawyer you seem incredibly impervious to how things work. You can remain blinded and ineffective by old emotions, even though it really contributes nothing beyond upping your post count, or you can take risks and attempt to change things. Hell, you're married to way more legal resources than I've ever had at my disposal.

That's a total bummer.