JosephH

Again, he was a racist to the bitter end and stole millions from the flock in numerous televanglism and religious theme park scams with the the Bakkers, all the while preaching hate and division. He lied endlessly about his credentials, his financial dealings, and his enemies. The thing to learn from Falwell is just how much damage one man in front of a TV without oversight can do. That he lived as long as he did and continued to do damage until the day he died is the saddest aspect of his life as far as I'm concerned. Were there a god or had justice ever been served on him he would have died in prison.

You can speculate all you want. But when those who preach intolerance and genocide die or when the governments of treasonous felons fall, I can only cheer. Falwell was a racist, a liar, and a thief - he was among the very worst of who we are as a nation. In this particular case, it's like I said before - the deader, the better.

They don't work. They will never work. It is a ridiculous piece of fiction. It was ridiculous fiction in 1985, it was ridiculous fiction in 2005, it will always be fiction. There is no technical basis for it ever working. Countering even a hypothetically 'perfect' system is utterly simple and requires next to no cost compared to an obscene amount of money for a system whose 'operational' capabilities will never be more than an expensive, 'feel good' illusion.

Probably he and Sooze are still hung over from the Sushifest...

I ran up to the start of Steck-Salathe on my way to checking out the west side of the face. The approach is pretty much straight up and steep. And be careful on the upper main approach ramp, especially with a bag. It's sort of like a long, outward/downward sloping sidewalk next to a pink granite wall shedding ball bearings all over the ramp and has basically no pro worth a damn on it. You should send Brutus of Wyde on SuperTopo an email and he can fill you in on the whole affair. Haven't gotten back to do anything, but the word is that descent isn't much fun either. Come to think of it, I believe Brutus or Dingus posted a TR on Supertopo of their last run up it.

I would guess they arrived at that number by calculating what it would cost to outsource all the various tasks performed by a competent stay-at-home parent to someone who would perform them all with an equal level of competence without requiring oversight. No matter how you slice it that is an exceptionally large number.

Exactly what was offensive about it?

An easy 85% of climbers are entirely bolt-enabled and they would not be climbers otherwise.

The perception and the informed assumption of risk is not particularly fine-tuned in human beings to begin with. Risk-taking has a Darwinian imperative associated with it along with Darwinian consequences. No one sets out to die or become injured. Accidents happen due to a cascading chain of complex events which may appear simple on the surface in hindsight, but were probably not at the time if one could playback and examine all the variables and events sequentially. The outcome of the imperative/consequence ratio is all about knowledge, skill, and experience combined environmental factors and even a bit of random luck. The idea behind "making your own luck" plays heavily here - stack the deck in your favor as best you can and pick your battles well. I personally love to do onsight, trad FA's, but I have the experience and skills to do them, accept the risks they entail, and doing them or not is simply less of a question for me than whether I am happy with my seritonin levels today...

Rocky Butte - real rock, real urban.

Screw the bears, in days past the question would have been how to Beckey-proof your cache so you didn't arrive at it to find Fred sitting on it waiting to drag you up god knows what.

It has been a bit since this was last discussed, but here it is again from 1/10/07: ================================================================ At about roughly 1.5 chicks per nesting pair, "booming" would be descriptively over the top, but the North American recovery program has been having steady successes. The results from the first nationwide monitoring effort to measure the peregrine falcon's recovery in 2006 put the number of nesting pairs in North America at 3,005. This includes estimates of 400 pairs in Canada, 170 pairs in Mexico, approximately 1,000 pairs in Alaska, and the rest (1,435 pairs) distributed among 40 of the lower 48 states. For example, last year in Ohio, 18 nesting pairs of peregrine falcons resulted in the successful hatching and fledging of a record 57 young falcons (with an anticipated loss rate of 65% in the first year). This is a fairly typical recovery chart (not from Ohio); note that a lot of chicks doesn't necessarily translate into a lot of nesting pairs due to a fairly high natural mortality rate of young birds (Great Horned Owls, Coyotes, cars, etc.). And also be aware the stability of the overall population is more a function of adult mortality (we lost a female this year on rte. 14 just west of Beacon) and that the number of nesting pairs and successful nests rises only incrementally regardless of the number of chicks: The estimated historic North American numbers are approximately 4-4,500 pairs so we are roughly 3/4's of the way there and there will be three more post-delisting surveys in 2009, 2012, and 2015. At some point along that time line it is possible some state protections will be lifted - but, even that doesn't necessarily mean individual historic nest sites won't still be protected under some form of state and federal laws or rules. That's because each known-productive, historic [anchor] nest site (like Beacon, Midnight, etc.) only serves a single nesting pair, are a one shot deal each year, and are key in the overall recovery effort. It would be different if sites hosted multiple pairs, but that's just not how they are. Keep in mind this historic recovery is one of the iconic successes of the overall environmental movement from the '70s and has been hard fought for thirty years by small groups of dedicated individuals who will have forty years into it before they are done. This is their legacy and is not all that different than our collective forty year legacy of routes on El Cap or elsewhere. And we are not talking pigeon-like numbers here, these are still relatively spartan numbers due to the size of the ranges of individual pairs. We should very much appreciate what has been accomplished by this dedicated group of folks. These are the fastest, burliest birds alive and fellow cliff-dwellers - if we can't share the vertical realm with them it says volumes about how consumptive, self-centered, and jaded we've become. Anyway, these are the best facts available, and as far as I'm concerned, Beacon wouldn't be Beacon - or half as alive - without the Peregrines (or the trains)... [ And Kevin and Andrew, I agree with many of your comments about the trail and its impact, but that's another story altogether and more one of political and legal realities than of targeting climbers per se as 'scapegoats'. Take it as you will, but I just don't agree that closures are bogus in the context of the overall recovery and sustaining requirements. As you said, Beacon is unique, but unfortunately easily accessible and has a long, convoluted, and storied history stretching back before Lewis and Clark. Far better it were obscure, buried in the forest somewhere and a trek to get to - but then it wouldn't be Beacon. ] =========================================================================== Here's some recovery history and stats from the late '90s that contributed to the Federal ESA delisting... =========================================================================== ALASKA: Surveys conducted between 1966 and 1998 along the upper Yukon River demonstrated increases in the number of occupied nesting territories from a low of 11 known pairs in 1973 to 46 pairs in 1998. Similarly, along the upper Tanana River, the number of occupied nesting territories increased from 2 in 1975 to 33 in 1998. The recovery objective of 28 occupied nesting territories in the two study areas was first achieved in 1988, with 23 nesting territories on the Yukon River and 12 on the Tanana River. PACIFIC STATES: By 1976, no American peregrine falcons were found at 14 historical nest sites in Washington. Oregon had also lost most of its peregrine falcons and only 1 or 2 pairs remained on the California coast. Surveys conducted from 1991 to 1998 indicated a steadily increasing number of American peregrine falcon pairs breeding in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Known pairs in Washington increased from 17 to 45 and in Oregon from 23 to 51. The number of American peregrine falcons in California increased from an estimated low of 5 to 10 breeding pairs in the early 1970s to a minimum of 167 occupied sites in 1998. The increase in California was concurrent with the restriction of DDT and included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons through 1997. ROCKY MOUNTAINS/SOUTHWEST: The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970s when surveys showed no occupied nest sites in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and only a few pairs in Colorado, New Mexico, and the Colorado Plateau, including parts of southern Utah and Arizona. Surveys conducted from 1991 through 1998 indicated that the number of American peregrine falcon pairs in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest area has steadily increased. In 1991, there were 367 known pairs; in 1998 the number of pairs increased to 535. EASTERN STATES: The eastern peregrine population has a unique history and complex status under the Act. Peregrine falcons were extirpated in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada by the mid-1960s. Releases of young captive bred peregrines have reestablished populations throughout much of their former range in the east. In 1998, there were a total of 193 pairs counted in five designated eastern State recovery units. The number of territorial pairs recorded in the eastern peregrine falcon recovery area increased an average of 10% annually between 1992 and 1998. Equally important, the productivity of these pairs during the same 7-year period averaged 1.5 young per pair, demonstrating sustained successful nesting.

Of course. But I do wonder where the birds went. Bill, I have no idea how you've come to the conclusion the Peregrines have gone anywhere from what I said. At no point, anywhere in my statement above or in my original post did I say the Peregrines aren't at Beacon Rock. It was entirely devoted to emphasizing the dates of the closure, that the BRSP has been getting some less than cordial calls (which does nothing to contribute to our cause), and that the biologist doesn't have the time to devote to Beacon he might otherwise contribute in the spirit of mutual cooperation. The Wind Power projects have clear and obvious priority at the moment, WDFW has no obligation to do the monitoring for our purposes, and the biologist has only done so in the past out of a desire to see the relationships between all parties improved. In each of the past two years it was repeatedly stated those early opens in no way guaranteed one in subsequent years - each year is an independent event. That is not at all what I said, implied, or meant. At no point have I or anyone else stated "there are no birds". The Peregrines are at Beacon Rock, I was monitoring there both Saturday and Sunday (in fact, I saw more falcons at Beacon yesterday than concerned 'Beacon locals' [though I did pass 15 cars at the PRGO]). And the "Dept of Fish and Wildlife guy" is charged with oversight of a lot of wind projects and EIS work this year and is only one human being - the innuendo that "he can't be bothered" is unwarranted, off-the-mark, and counter-productive. Beacon Rock is closed annually on February 1st so the Peregrines choice of nesting sites is undisturbed and uninfluenced by human activity. This happens because Beacon Rock has been and is a proven productive nest site both prior to their being decimated and after their reintroduction. The Peregrines did nest on Big Ledge in April last year and failed; they then nested elsewhere and succeeded with two chicks. Monitoring (and a lot of it) did not identify where 'elsewhere' was. The standard you are proposing might be a valid one to apply if it can be shown that the Peregrines don't even attempt to nest on the South face for several years running. So far that count is zero. Again, I have no idea whatsoever how you came to this conclusion - not from me or any wording in my original post. The only reason there have been early opens has been an attempt on all sides to re-establish and promote a more productive relationship between climbers and the BRSP, WSP, and WDFW. Climbers calling up and bitching at the staff of the BRSP or simply speculating about the status of Peregrines without the facts does nothing to further anyone's goals - certainly not mine, which is to simply to get back on the rock at the very earliest opportunity possible.

Still there.

Bill, no. BRSP has just been getting calls and some of them fairly impolite and insisting it's opening early when in fact no such discussion has ever taken place. Each year is entirely unique with regard to such decisions. The WDFW Raptor biologist is very busy doing studies for the various Eastern WA wind power projects and so the whole process is fairly resource constrained this year.

See this post in 'Oregon Cascades'...

Beacon Rock closed February 1st and remains closed for Peregrine nesting until July 15th. Early opens have happened in some prior years, but that does not mean there will be one this year. Such openings are driven purely by year-to-year observation, are entirely resource dependent, and only authorized by the Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - no other agencies of record for Beacon Rock has authority to grant an 'early open'.

Where do you get a statement like that? Like anything is "standard procedure". I've been doing this as a "standard procedure" for decades in high wind situations and especially in the Gorge every winter.

You can also knot and take the rope with you either stacked or in a ropebag and feed it out. As another alternative you can throw it without a knot, rap 1/2 - 3/4 of the way, do a leg rap, pull up the ends and knot them, and then proceed.

They juxtaposition of the banalities of your work and your perception of extremes is clearly affecting your judgment.

And wish him well for another year on the stone...

Ultimate tensile strength was just a straight test of the sling itself.

Got the results of the testing of a sampling of my retired three year old Mammut 8mm Dyneema slings. These numbers are down from the two year old test average of about 14kn. These are normally rated 22kn new: # 1) 8 mm Mammut girth hitched to 3/4" Nylon = 11.55 kN. # 2) 3/4" Nylon girth hitched to 8 mm Mammut = 11.76 kN. # 3) 8 mm Mammut girt hitched to 13 mm Dyneema = 8.32 kN. # 4) 8 mm Mammut girth hitched to biner = 12.28 kN. # 5) Ultimate tensile strength = 11.24 kN. # 6) Ultimate tensile strength = 11.9 kN.

And you badly need to drop some even if it is years, if not decades, too late...

Laws delineate the limits and boundaries of behavior. Many people behave badly, but know the laws and how to skirt or surf them quite well. Personal morality, ethics and behavior are essentially all requisite for laws to work en masse. The Bush administration is an excellent example of a group of people whose collective approach to governing has been extra-legal since day one having inherited that mindset from the Reagan administration. It takes months and years for the "law" to catch up with such people and it sometimes never does. I will agree that "right" and "wrong" often have many varied interpretations, but there are also times when things are clearly "wrong" and it's seems to be almost a disease these days that people sadly and endlessly equivocate and rationalize what should be a simple 'judgment' call. In the Imus case one can debate what the appropriate response should be, but anyone defending his statements via any line of argument or rationalization should look hard in the mirror.