JosephH

Three parties of free climbers and a few odd aider (give or take a few passings). This panel is definitely a landmark. Somebody should write up an obit. It's not a landmark - it's a possibility. You either value those or you don't...

Mark, not at all, read it again. After having watched Ivan solo the corner several times I did tell him I for one would be a lot less scared about him doing it if he weren't frenching when he was roped as he won't be able to french when soloing. And I've got no problem at all with the fact he likes aid climbing - in fact I love that he gets out and aid climbs. This is just a case where aid and free conflict on a line. I've done more then enough aid climbing to know how much control and say you have over how and in what direction you dangle and how much say you have about leaning against the rock at any given point. You're attempting to infer a whole lot I haven't said. A lot of reasons, I have tried to get on it a couple of times but Marco balked one time and another guy a different time. It's been back on my radar of late for something Shane or you, now that you're here, might be interested in - most people wouldn't be up for it and I get that The differnce is I've only trundled significant rocks that have been absolute death hazard or that are so loose there is no possibility of climbing through / over it safely. I've never in my life deliberately trundled a rock of any significance that was an essential component of a climb. ======================================= P.S. Mark, I'm not ignoring your posts at all, but I can only work and answer this many posts so fast...

Only an idiot would start that pitch from anywhere but the pipeline belay. Some rock would slough down the slope towards those climbs, the odds of any of it making it down to them airborne is slim. What if someone was in the middle of aid climbing free for some and they could not just “go elsewhere for a bit”. Well, being the elitist misanthrope I am and into crowds when I'm doing something out on the edge, I wouldn't be doing it when anyone else was around, but you're seriously kidding yourself if you think someone at the base of FFS would be in any peril from that panel dumping.

Tangen-Foster and I evaluated that for awhile before we headed up the pitch. Essentially the belayer is completely safe and the leader will likely swing free clean of the debris as they fall with it. I've had it happen before out at a route, 'To Air Is Human", that Marco and I put up out at Horsethief on a three-tiered roof at the East end of the main cliff. I pulled on the wrong little stone and the whole wall I was on came down to the tune of about a ton and a half of rock. I swung free and that's what Tangen-Foster and banked on would happen before we did it. I think it's a matter if it isn't a risk you feel you can evaluate and manage then you shouldn't take it - deliberately dumping it for the same reason just seems entirely lame to me.

Only if you belay from the pipeline anchor, what about those on the ground climbing windsurfer/riseup/free for all/free for some? They would all be a risk. In the the end of the day....if its loose and came come off with your hands......bye bye. The pipeline anchor is the belay. Yet another case of not knowing what you talking about - the panel would pose little to no threat to anyone climbing on those other routes if it came down. And if anyone turned up to climb those lines who had half a brain and was concerned about it they'd go elsewhere for a bit.

Pretty arrogant to state it will never go free without this panel. You mean you and I will never free it......I bet some strong MFer could climb it free. The entire cave needs to be RAPPED into and cleaned with a hammer. Of course, this is yet another case where you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and the odds are real damn good you could rap hammer and bolt the shit out of it and you'd still never lay a hand on it...

Ivan, I like you and admire your spirit for getting after stuff, especially obscure stuff like this. But to be honest - and it's not like I haven't mentioned it - I'm endlessly surprised you don't put more into working on free climbing if only for the sake of your free soloing proclivities. And from what I've watched, I wouldn't characterize your climbing as 'delicate' - not an judgment statement, just what I've observed. You're entirely right - the panel could have shifted as Bill suggests over time and a butterfly landing on it could take it off - but I don't believe that's the case because I don't think it would still be up there if it was in that delicate of a condition. So when I say 'clumnsy' I mean aid climbing is inherently clumsy compared to free climbing relative to the limited options for where your hips, legs, and feet go with regard to them bearing pressure against the panel as your get past it - you just don't have a ton of options when you're in aiders, you basically hang where you hang and against what you're against. Look, if you absolutely must climb it you must climb it, if it dumps it dumps; what's especially disconcerting to me is all this completely cavalier talk of deliberately dumping a panel with it's history.

The pitch hasn't been freed, but the arching traverse has. From my earlier inspection of the panel I'm pretty damn sure it never will be if it's dumped. The point is it has been worked as a free pitch and it has been a long standing goal to get back on it. Now Ivan may want to aid those lines, but McGown aided through the panel at least twice and set the precedent for aid as well. That any of you would argue for dumping a panel with that history of ascents is simply beyond me and as I said, incredibly inconsiderate of the free climbing possibilities of the line. And for what? To jug on through and dispose of the panel as an inconvenience? Like I said, pardon me if I think that sucks in the extreme. This has nothing whatsoever with what I think of myself in relationship to Beaon - this is strictly about a single route clash of aid versus free climbing interests. And I have no interest in being any kind of 'overlord' - my sole concern and interest is that Beacon remain a trad area and that it's open every possible day it can be each year. That's where my story with Beacon begins and ends. So far those efforts have yielded a couple of extra months of climbing at Beacon over the past four years. My partner and I both examined the panel in detail when we climbed it. It is actually not at all the big mystery you folks are making it out to be - nothing is 100%, but the odds are real good it will never be free climbed again without it.

Bill, deliberately trundling a dangerous stone that poses a clear hazard on a popular route is one thing. The panel up from Pipeline is in no such location and I at least do not consider it a hazard to climb over as your belayer is entirely sheltered and the odds of being hurt by any of it as you both come off the headwall would be slim. But again, it can and has been climbed over successfully, why put that at risk...?

Mark, that panel has been traveled over by myself and my partner and by McGown & Co. at least twice - that makes six times at a minimum that the panel has been climbed (aid and free) past it without dumping it. Could just be me, but I would think that would set a precedent and standard for travel over the panel. Pardon me if if I think someone going up there and putting at risk or dumping it deliberately is uncool. There's no need for that panel to come down any other way than on its own. Hey, I can't stop anyone from climbing the line, but as I said it is a breathtaking free climb over the arch of the arena to the top of it - it's simply beyond me why anyone would jeopordize that possibility. This is the first time I've had any problems whatsoever with Ivan's aid/french proclivities, but I fail to see on what basis he feels it's fine to go up and deliberately, or through clumbsiness, ruin a spectacular and unique stretch of free climbing.

Geoff, no not at all, I was in LA for a week and then have just been working like a fiend. The "close call" was pretty straightforward and automatic as they go. I wouldn't in any way call it a non-event and it's a good thing it's a big, well-padded shelf up there. I'd like to think anyone would have responded the same, though it did get me wondering if younger folks, who for the most part typically don't have much exposure to or experience with bad or no anchors stanced belays, would know how to react or possess the same reflexes. It certainly had the potential for a bad outcome otherwise. Bad judgment on my part allowing the situation, however, but the only obvious 'canonical' anchor puts the belayer in a less then optimal position relative to the climber. It was a case where I should have gone with the anchor regardless. Again, I completely disagree - I'd say not getting on the line if you can't climb through it without screwing it up is the far better alternative. There's nothing "oh well" about the situation except that folks might take a cavalier attitude towards heading up stuff they aren't equipped to deal with other than in the crudest way and blow it for folks who can. Being one of the few who've been up on and past it I'm pretty sure the free climbing will be substantially fucked if it comes down. To be honest, I can't believe you guys are even be arguing that it's cool to just barrel on through such situation with complete disregard for the history of prior ascents by multiple parties and the reality that what's there is delicate but proven entirely workable. I find it incredibly inconsiderate at best.

Hmmm, believe it or not I missed that one as I've been coding. But it's not an altogether surprising pronouncement as it seems to me about the only explanation for the way OBL's engagements have played in the region since 9/11 and the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. I have yet to see a sustained pattern of operations by Qaeda in Iraq that amounted to anything other than giving a pipeline of recruits experience in [temporarily] controlling local populations (a Taliban specialty) and engaging US and Iraqi troops. I suspect the focus was on Iraq only due the fact that a high-volume recruiting pipeline was far easier to pump through Syria than Pakistan. Now that he likely has a good established base groomed he's probably moving on to bigger things. If that is how it's playing out then the likely net result of the administration's wars in Iraq and Afganistan is that we just invested a trillion dollars in OBL Enterprises, Inc., Pashtun tribes, Iraqi Shiites, Taliban, and Iran. No matter how you slice or dice it - we've generated far more hardened 'terrorists' then we started with. -------------- Now that I do take a few minutes and look, here's another: Now there's some serious wishful thinking and grasping for some sort of accomplishments for an adminstration 'progress' report they've had to make public now that they've briefed Obama.

Could it also be that Iraq and Afganistan actually works to OBL's advantage in almost every way. His existing close cadre of lieutenants were all winnowed and sifted out of the ranks of folks who proved themselves fighting a superpower (the Russians) in Afganistan. What makes you think he cares about the outcomes in Iraq or Afganistan now beyond their potential for replenishing his ranks? It could just as easily be that he realizes he's fighting a new and broader asymmetric 'war' and at this point doesn't really give a rat's ass about either beyond their role as the perfect training and proving ground for a new generation of jihad fighters loyal to his broader cause. With the neocon's help he gets two different breeding grounds he can rotate his most promising recruits through giving them exposure to very different operating environments and alliances. I would suspect he runs them through the mill there and then moves them to Syria and on to the EU and Indonesia for 'cultural' training and integration testing.

Lance - that was hilarious. Your post was far better than my post even though I didn't read your post at first because you aren't one of us. I'm also glad you don't climb where we climb because then I'd have to try and get at least as creative as you and that would be more difficult then imagining how clever I really am. But, you don't climb where I climb so I don't have to worry about that unless you come to visit. Hopefully you would only visit when I was climbing at my old new place or my new old place. Either way shouldnt' you be starting your own thread instead of posting in this thread where you make our posts look lame just when we were feeling pretty gooud about ourselves.

I now have a partner now for Sunday, will be out Saturday but not on an early start myself.

I'm down for both days so I'd be happy to get out with you sat. and do somthing. I've also got to get up to retreive the half a rack I have up on Menopause at the high anchor if anyone is at all curious about it.

What's on tap for this weekend...?

Just to be clear, I don't purposefully put up scary routes or routes which require aid pieces for free climbing per se. I put up routes where lines incite me to the point of obsession. I then attempt to climb them in a way that has the lowest impact on rock possible. Another way of saying it might be that I attmept to climb in a manner where the rock and I share the burden of the ascent and I think long and hard before I impose my will on the rock in any permanent way. Don't get me wrong, I do impose my will on the rock at times, but every time I do I consider it as somewhat diminishing my overall efforts and result relative to my 'ultimate' vision of the 'perfect' trad climb. This typically doesn't result in 'popular' routes and that would definitely and explicitly fall into the category of a non-goal for me. But again, that's just my approach and what climbing 'is' all about for me.

Kevin, I'd say where you beg trouble is your constant attempt to serve many [conflicting] masters - attempting to look like a 'bad ass' climber, seeking to be a popular 'route setter', and wanting everything entirely safe. You often talk the former, but the latter two undeniably drive your actions once you hit rock. I feel you are getting a bit clearer relative to wanting everything perfectly safe and, by not such a coincidence, that attracts a following all of its own. The problem I, at least, have is when it comes down to it that is just such a lowest common denominator explotation of rock as to drive the discussion back to what climbing 'is' and why we do it. Now I'm adminttedly an old guy so I explicitly started climbing in part at least to escape the very people you seek to attract - risk-averse suburbanites seeking risk-free [social / group] entertainment. I know, I know, I'm an elitist and misanthropic pig in that respect, but I'm also driven by the notions of, and need for, climbing that's a challenge which explicitly includes a requirement to actively assume and manage risk. This is clearly a moribund and tired concept of climbing which, almost by definition, results in 'wasted rock' when one of us poor sots is the first on something. In general, I think there is just an inherent and inescapable mismatch of goals and intent which is driven by an impedance mismatch of our basic needs. This disparity of needs and intent is such that for me, in the end, I can't help but view the net result of views similar to yours on par with the rollout of another mini-mall or Walmart - they use otherwise 'wasted' space, a lot of folks find them convenient, and many or most might shake your hand for building one. But the rest? Well, as you say, you can't please everyone...

? Then how do you explain away the thousands of offensive based missiles China has been installing, adding too and still increasing in numbers on the straight across from Taiwan. Maybe they are not as smart as you? I think Bug is speaking in the larger context. China's older leadership wants Taiwan back in their lifetimes which are drawing rapidly to an end. Timing's now on their side and they will call our bluff if and when they make their move. They know because we are over-extended in the ME that we can't realistically respond in Taiwan in any sustained manner and that the American public in reality has no stomach for supporting or risking our nation over what is essentially a civil war among the Chinese. We can only hope the risk of large-scale capital flight keeps the Chinese on a political track, even if a high power and pressure one. To some extent I think the relevance of the whole Taiwan question is more a vestige of the Cold War in a post-Hong Kong / Walmart era, though it all does make Vietnamese, Malays, and Singaporeans a bit nervous.

In a strategic sense I agree, we're all pretty much societally doomed in a large-scale clash of powers at this point. Most of the action now is asymmetric and / or largely a matter of friction between spheres of influence not unlike the Cold War. Still, when things heat up, it behooves us to prevail decisively whenever we exert our military might. And by 'prevail', I mean the final, long-term outcomes on the ground in the aftermath of a conflict contribute to our overall regional and strategic advantage - that's the having a clue, the will, and a plan part before reaching for a gun.

I think once again we're roughly in synch with one another. The principal threat I see with China is the level of their nationalism. They have many of the same internal problems as Russia and thousands of years of history of their 'nation' being badly managed by competing internal and external forces - simply maintaining a 'state' has always been a challenge for them. But they now have a strong rising tide of nationalism driven by a new nouveau-rich class and a retiring older generation which wants Taiwan re-assimilated in their lifetime. If their ambitions over Taiwan or Gulf oil turn military then I see the risk more in posturing, miscommunication, and things just generally getting out of hand. The problem for our Navy is that the average depth of the Taiwan Strait runs from 60m (a rope length) to about 100m. It's basically a soup bowl we can't engage in; we instead have to stand off on the other side of the island. A decidedly unsatisfactory arrangement from a naval perspective, and one that pretty much forces our hand to heavier measures and tactical nukes if we were serious, as once the Chinese commit, they'll fill the Strait with their own bodies to march across if they have to. And I think in Afganistan (particularly our dependence on warlords at Tora Bora), Iraq, at the WTC site (still not rebuilt), and New Orleans we've demonstrated we as a society don't have the collective will to endure pain anywhere near the level necessary to take on China over a breakaway province. And that was the real flaw in the neocon's 'strategy' that we could (or should) impose our will in the ME on the cheap. Now, both the various interests in the ME and the Chinese have picked up on our low pain threshold as our primary weakness. For example, I think standing off with Predators in Pakistan simply begs derision from the Pashtun and breeds a lack of respect from them. In a similar manner, not crushing any and all oppostion we encounter in the ME with overwhelming force speaks volumes to the Chinese for whom it's all about enduring pain. Pretty much all our foes have been emboldened by our current misadventures.

They've figured out we threw chump-change at Afganistan. At this point we're locked down in Kabul, Kandahar, and couple of other spots, but otherwise it's Taliban vs. Warlords all over again - same as it ever was. Possibly, the guys from Texas were all posers when it came down to it. Obama won't go to war telling the American people they should ignore it and go shopping - he'll tell them every day at war is going to hurt. I've been saying all along that China is the strategic threat and that Iraq has been nothing but a distraction. I also think most everything happening with Russia is - as it almost always is - mostly for internal consumption and a matter of them trying to regroup, consolidate, and reestablishing effective command and control both within their borders and sphere of influence. That, and restore a little pride and luster. Not so much different than all the neocons of the administration using Iraq to try and to reclaim the [imaginary] 'glory' of their Reaganite youths (and firmly establish America as the pre-eminent 'superpower'). To be honest, I don't worry all that much about the Russians - they have a ton of oil, a largely cash economy, and cheap labor right next door. They're also surrounded by people who don't like them much. All in all, Iraq has very much been all about taking our eyes of what matters to pursue a fantasy that doesn't...

Depends where you are at homey. Vietnam > killed 58,217 wounded 153,452 > x2.6 Iraq..... > killed _4,190 wounded _30,774 > x7.3 At Vietnam's casualty survival rates we'd have 11,836 dead in Iraq instead 4,190...

Who cares what they think of someone drawing a picture of Beacon. Why would they care? Well, if it were just a drawing it would be far less of an issue. As it is he's conveying quite a bit more than just the drawing and the BRSP-related info should have been verified with them. But as it was, Olson couldn't be bothered to check in with them.