JosephH

Here's a description of what I do from a roped soloing thread on RC.com

In some cases that simply isn't possible. Tim Olsen comes to mind, he littered the place with an litany of trash placements and biner-breaking, heavy bronze angle-bracket hangers. He could make your claim - but I do not respect it nor do I respect a number of his routes.

Well said....all of it. Take that purists! We just went down this pathetically weak progression of logic on ST which is the typical represented by sport climbers as: 1) 'Just don't clip them' inanity... 2) 'Bolts vs. Bhopal' scope-shifting... 3) 'Those inconsiderate 5.11 bolters' inhumanity... 4) 'No one climbs it anymore' recycling... Geoff's is a classic attempt at argument #2 - scope shifting, as in: my god how can you worry about bolts after Chenobyl...?!?!?! This is simply weak as arguments go though admittedly a step up from "just don't clip them".

Well Cat, that's exactly what happened in CT - the locals organized against bolting. Then folks who could have climbed elsewhere or simply stayed in their own area deliberately came to CT to bolt to provoke the issue.

Kevin, You always start from a position of a right or entitlement to bolt - none exists. Bolt wars only exists because bolts do - don't bolt where they aren't wanted and no bolt wars will occur. Chopping is never the starting point, placing the bolts where they aren't welcome is always the starting point.

With regard to closure vs. defilement - Dishman was a perfect example of that. Had the cycle of vandalism there continued and the AF didn't back closure in such a situation than in my opinion they would be bankrupt relative to adopting an "access at any cost" mentality. I believe there are definitely circumstances where when all else fails closure should be the option preferred by the community. If we and AF take a stand that can't recognize that then we're really just another interest group exploiting resources and protecting our interests at any cost.

Well, Ken is a bit of a paradox no doubt. I climbed with him a bit during the two years I lived in NH and in fact made off with his young protege Marco Fedrizzi when I left. And let's be clear about a few things - like Ken was fairly eccentric before the bolt wars started - but he was also a incredibly talented climber, put up a string of endless badass routes, and prolifically chronicled CT climbing AAC-published guide for CT. He went way out of his way to put out the word far and wide that bolting wasn't welcome in CT and he wasn't alone in that sentiment by a long shot. The inital war was ignited when Ken was repeatedly provoked by folks coming in from out of state and bolting. Now I'm not going to defend his behavior in response other than to say that folks who knew Ken should have known better than to prod him in such a deliberate manner. Ken being Ken all hell broke loose and in all the clusterf#ck which ensued Ken is far from innocent with regards to failing to communicate, beligerent and violent behavior, and an overreaching response. BUT, he was one person who decided to take an unequivocal stand against unconstrained bolting, and even though I don't agree with many of his methods and behaviors, I have nothing but respect for his intent and motives at that time. What was and is unfortunate is his continuing inability and unwillingness to communicate by any other means than a hammer. There were other means and options, but make no mistake, the insuing twenty years of relentless bolting speak for itself, and while you may consider it progress and or evolution, many of viewed then and still view it as a lowest common denominator activity. And today's prevailing attitude may be that once a bolt makes it into rock it is somehow sacrosanct many - including myself - will never accept such a view regardless of how minority our status has become. There are still circumstances where I would have no compunction whatsoever about chopping, but I would be excrutiatingly clear about communicating my intent and I would ask they be voluntarily removed before acting. Bolt wars are never a one-sided affair and they always start when bolts appear, not when they disappear. P.S. He is also a fair photographer and took what I consider one of the photos that best represented the spirit of the times - of Jim Adair on Maine's sea cliffs. Adair was another brilliant soul who like many others was lost to us far too early.

SFOG - another question if you don't mind. Were you placing pro, clipping, moving through, or resting on a piece when you fell? And was the fall completely unexpected or did you know something was afoot? Just trying to get a better idea of the circumstances. Thanks...

Good to hear from you directly as to what went on and glad to hear you'll mend up alright.

Best wishes for healing all the way around...

Picky, picky, picky... Pink_chalk - will be in N.M. tues night - thurs night. Not sure about getting out before I leave. Will let you know... Iain, my pleasure.

So, got the word today from John. It was a 45yo PDX local who was on the rightside of FFA. He was carried out to the climbers' trailhead, then driven to a field next to a school on a loop road just West of Beacon. He was wearing a helmet and fell on his side. He is not in the ICU and though banged up badly he should recover. Ditto on Kevin's FFA rightside comment above...

Jim said Kyle said it was a fellow from La Grande who had never been out before and fell out of the 5.8 side of the pillar start to ffa. If I picture it right that would have the potential for a fairly nasty fall. Sorry to hear such tidings... Edit: Oops - just saw your post Cobra. Well, there you have it from several folks...

It's entirely situational and unique to every anchor, especially ones in shitty terrain - but common sense ideas around pro and movable features basically revolve around stabilizing or stopping such movements. For example, in the case of something that moves and also has a crack in the direction of the movement then it's unlikely you'll stabilize it with a cam on one or both sides because cams will allow the feature to keep moving enough for one then the other cam to pull. In such an instance you're better off with a stopper / hex on the side it's trying to move to, or even a rock or stick - anything solid to keep it from moving in that direction. The problem with cams in an anchor in any such feature is they basically require constant. equal pressure to stick which is hard to guarantee when you are shifting around in a hanging belay. Behind fixed, but expanding flakes the idea is generally to either tread incredibly likely and hope all your shit doesn't simply fall out or to force the expansion (pre-expand) to some [theoretical] limit where you can then gingerly place gear hoping the flake's expansion really has stopped or paused. Both situations essentially suck as anchor components, but I'd rather use something I could chock on both sides than just one if it came down to it. But again, if there was any way to stop short or climb further for a better anchor you'd be better off doing that 9 times out of 10.

Cat - good advice on the egss and expando flakes, but: Works just as well in the reverse - This sort of preferencing is just what I'm referring to above - fairly peculiar at best. When you get to an anchor you should eyeball the next pitch and let what you see or beta you know in advance or from previous ascents determine what you should attempt to reserve for climbing it.

In general, preset preferences for either active or passive gear in just about any situation is misguided thinking at best - they're both simply tools and the best tool for any given task at hand is what should be used. Ditto for "favorite" sizes of gear which is hopefully saying either you like to climb certain size cracks or the rock where you climb exhibits that size of placement more often than not - otherwise it amounts to a peculiar association with a specific size of gear. That all said, the distinquishing attribute of the scenario you propose is "hanging", which implies you'll likely be unavoidably moving around on this anchor to some degree. In such circumstances you want to be careful any cams used in the anchor aren't going to walk as a result of those movements or from being [partially] weighted and unweighted. Other than that, the combination of individual placements and the basic task at hand should dictate what pro is used, not preconcieved preferences for gear. Many young climbers today are what I describe as "cam-happy" and first try to use a cam at every placement. It's odd, if not painful, behavior to watch at times. There are as many times when a stopper is the obvious choice as there are ones where cams fit that bill. And keep in mind that for a lot of older folks, all the things that make cams wonderful (springs and moving parts) also often make them quite often suspect in some placements as well - it typically doesn't get much more brain-dead simple than a chunk of aluminum in a constriction. Develop the skills and eye for both active and passive pro and such preferences tend to disappear fairly quickly. [ Note: Also, don't get in the habit of not slinging cams when a placement calls for it - cams being cams does not obviate the need to sling adequately... ]

Uhmmm, now I'm confused. You're saying you want the anchors to go or to stay? I'm personally hesitant to pull anchors which have been around a long time and that folks are used to using - particularly on the various mainstay SW and SE routes everyone does. I know a lot of folks just like to go up to the perch on ffa and rap - I do it all the time roped soloing when I'm pressed for time.

Is there a problem? I was not aware of a problem. Only if you are one of the folks who have a problem with the mid-ffs anchor... One of each. P.S. Gone til this evening...

Mark, people don't rap to the tree or the perch - they bail at those spots. Not everyone is prepared to deal with the off-width/stem section or the Dodd's crux; many, many people bail at both those points or they simply can't get up those stretches of rock and retreat. I'm not sure we want have anchors everywhere folks bail - but on the otherhand I don't think we can assume everyone gets up everything. It's a bit of a dilemma in that regard.

It's behind the tree, with about 3 inches of webbing and rings sneaking out between a tiny slot between the tree and the wall. I think the perch/mid-ffs pair are the problem, rather than just the mid-ffs anchor alone. It's the perch anchor that sets the stage for rapping to the mid-ffs anchor. If you really wanted to solve the problem then I think you'd want to pull the pair of them.

One of the recent climbing or R&I issues had a big elbow write up. Whatever it is isn't normal; you probably need to ease up a bit and sort it out. PM Layton or maybe he'll wade in here...

Henry Barber complained about this anchor long ago when he visited, so folks aren't alone in not liking it. The [only] problem with pulling it from my perspective is folks have long used it for rappelling and still do. Lots of folks change their mind about going up to the Dodd's tree and rap off the little perch and end up at the FFS anchor to complete their rap. Some folks just like going up to the little perch and doing those two raps. It would be a big change for a lot of folks and some would be unpleasantly surprised by such a change if they haven't been for awhile or don't read this forum. I'm pretty neutral on this anchor, but a lot of foks do rap through it.

When standing at the base I tend to think of a big wall as more or less going up from that point as opposed to out and away from me. I also can tell by how warm and wet my left leg gets when contemplating the whole idea of it. Elevating IB to a 'classic' seems a stretch; elevating it to a 'big wall' is probably a bit more reaching than you did on the route - 'wall' being the operative noun in this case. No doubt about it, you did a sh#tload of climbing, but I don't think you're going to find much consensus for such a designation.

So, if I hear you right, this 'classic' is basically a choss walkup with one or two acceptably decent pitches on it, is a loose rock chute, and the descent sucks. Kudos for you and Ben for going up and doing it, but unless I'm missing something I've yet to hear (in this or any IB TR) anything that sounds particularly classic about it...

Actually, four big blocks are missing from where you used to step around from one anchor to the other (two on that level, one above, and a really big one below). Personally I find p2 a much, much cleaner and interesting line in its current form than it ever was previously. It makes it far nicer to run p1 and p2 into a single pitch, the new dihedral is more interesting, and the mantle is now more pure. To each his own I guess.