JosephH

So that's how you decided would be a good way to not have things posted online? How about answering these first: - Did you also "call" yourself and Arent "out on it" when you guys did exactly the same thing on the same routes when you established a fixed pin? - Did any one else "call you guys out on it"? - Did you consult with Olson and Nathan before doing it? - How did you two go about establishing a consensus before you did it? - How come it never entered your mind in this very conversation to mention you guys slapped a piece of fixed pro on these routes as well, when that was the exact topic of discussion? Or are you also claiming the "pins aren't fixed pro" defense? Well, I thought the whole to do was ramping down, but I obviously could have been wrong...

Well, if you're going all Windham Hill and all I'd put Alex DeGrassi / Slow Circle [ Windham Hill 1009 / 1979 ] at the very top of that list...

Kevin - read this again from my earlier posting: Second, and as I've explicitly stated before, I don't post the BRCA notices as a journal, because I want to hear myself talk, or to impress anyone - I post them as publically auditable account of the BRCA work so that WDFW, WSP, Gorge Commission, and any other agency personnel can refer to them in their agency reporting. That gives the BRCA standing to take part and have a say in the management of climbing at Beacon Rock. It's a vehicle that, along with backing and reports from the BRSP Staff and David Anderson of the WDFW, means when WSP, WDFW, Skamania County, FS, or the Gorge Commision has questions or issues with climbing at Beacon they come to us first and not a Seattle or National-based climbing organization with more visibility and "credibility". In the end that means Jim Opdycke, Bill Coe, myself, and you get a say in what goes on out there rather than have state-wide edicts laid on the place or decisions made solely in Olympia with the input of climbers who aren't Beacon locals. That is why the BRCA notices are here and why they will continue and are also why you were able to climb out at Beacon for the past month. Also, Jim Opdycke understands exactly why I'm posting these BRCA notices and agrees with it - but as of last night he was at a loss as to why you would even bring up this Reasonable Richard topic online as am I as well. And with regard to everything being "fine" before we reconstituted the BRCA - nothing was fine. There was a decade of acrimonious relationships (even among climbers), Beacon didn't open early, everything had to be done pirate, it was covered with a heavy load of loose rock, covered with a grand assortment shit and / or decaying anchors, and all but a couple of the South face columns had completely grown over from neglect - "fine", you say? Not to my eyes and not when the Climbing Management plan is up for review without any input from local Beacon climbers (a situation that is now turned around 180 degrees - hell, they are asking for input from Jim Opdycke now). It is my position on the issue of BRCA Notice postings and it will not be changing. And I would also encourage all of you to stop by the BRSP and introducing yourself to Erik and John and discuss climbing management issues at Beacon with them as well - they are the first line of responsibility in the matter and you just might be surprised at what you discover.

Mark, I think it's agreed we are all wanting to start tapering this all off and I think it is, it's this years version of the tree discussion... Relative to Arent's pin (and I'm not accusing, just contrasting) and not to further the argument, but pins are by any definition I know fixed pro and always have been along with bolts. I certainly make no distinction between bolts and pins relative to fixed pro other than to say after replacing all those anchors it's a hell of a lot easier to tell the quality of a pin placement versus a bolt placement 10, 15, or 20 years later - I'll take a welded pin out there over a bolt any day. From the Devil's Tower climbing management plan and several climbing glossaries: Fixed protection or fixed anchor - is permanently placed protection left in the rock, typically a bolt or a piton intended to be permanently placed. Fixed protection is usually applied when no "clean" opportunities are available. As far as Stone Rodeo, as best as I can recall it didn't have those bolts, that many bolts, or in all those locations - it may, I believe, have had one or two buttonheads/split shanks and some bad pins as I remember it - which isn't necessarily all that well. I'll have to go look sometime. I have no knowledge of chipping of any kind, though both Jim and I were very cognizant of such activities and given the way the rock changes to that light gray out there I suspect we woulld have commented on any such thing had we noticed it. It was classic Jim - he was a gymnast and did rings in college and still free solos .11s to this day - he never liked pro much so has always run things out comfortably. And given we were all about big roofs I do remember he made the thing look pretty damn casual at the time - he's very irritating that way. The day after that we tried to free a route through the biggest roof on the East face right across from where the trail makes the first sharp bend by the big tree - it was a monumentally stupid and over-reaching epic and probably the most harrowing and educational retreat we ever did anywhere.

Kevin, as I've stated, and for the reasons I've stated, the BRCA Notices will be continuing. But if you notice, outside of those notice postings I only respond to other's Beacon-related posts in this thread - so again, don't post, I won't respond; but if people do post and direct it at or about me or the BRCA notices it should be expected I will respond. And if you look above for the quote in dark red you'll also see the rationale for the systematic anchor replacements.

Peter, Give a shout the next time you're going to be down, would love to meet you. As to the substance of your comments, there are WA residents in the BRCA and my use of "Seattle" was fairly arbitrary and I believe I also used Colorado and New York. There have been several runs at opening Beacon to sport climbing and some sport routes got put in during those attempts. "Local" in my eyes has nothing to do with "those who agree with JH" so much as those who climb there on a very regular basis and are committed/bonded to the place. Of those folks, many do happen to agree with myself, Jim Opdycke, Bill Coe, and other longstanding Beacon climbers (along with the BRSP), that trad climbing was, is, and should remain what climbing is about at Beacon Rock. Again, there is no shortage of sport venues in both OR and WA and "we" feel there is no need to alter the traditions of climbing at Beacon to accomodate it there. In the end this will be another case where some or even many folks won't be happy with that, but that is a primary imperative for the BRCA.

I'm not claiming anything, just saying that it is quite possible, or that was Jim Opdycke's assessment on my mentioning it to him in passing that Tangen-Foster and I did it in early '87.

If it was a lost arrow it was still there. What was Arent's rationale for the pin at that time? I'm guessing it was the same as mine. I replaced it slightly to the side with a bugaboo as the shrub had pressured out that spot. Yes, McGown is listed as the FFA of Stone Rodeo in Olson's book but Jim and I did it in May '87 (I'll have to check with Jim on the date, pretty sure it was May however which would put it between Bob's FA and FFA dates...). Once Jim saw it walking down the trail that was as far as we got. It was the same day we freed from the Pipeline anchor out left to the top center of the Arena of Terror intent on freeing the center column before the girls called the whole thing off due to encroaching darkness, and mainly because they wanted to get something to eat and were sick and tired of watching us climb by that point.

Yep, the UHAUL truck is lined up and ready to go though any other trucks will make it happen that much quicker. Jim even went over today to make sure the new digs will accomodate his state library (it's going to be close he says). Bryan and Mark, swing by if you're up and finished climbing...

Total agreement Kev with everything you just said. God this is so much better than all the drama and acrimony. I even asked on CC.com about putting in anchors on NEW routes I was doing at the Butte for the same reasons. To try and include folks in the process. As far as I know they haven't been chopped yet, although some fat old dumbass I didn't know pointed right at them after I'd put some in and told me they would be chopped. (Not by him, but by someone else). Still there. I think a lot of folks issues and anger are this: it's all about THE PROCESS. My opinion: I'm pretty sure if JH and anyone or everyone were to meet up on the "office" ledge up on Beacon and discuss these issues, none of this yammering and anger would be happening. I suspect that the outcome/end result would be similar or identical to what is is now as well. I accept the truce and agree that to a large extent the problem is THE PROCESS. A big part of the problem for me personally is relative to merging A PROCESS and accomplishing THE WORK - that as folks grew up and/or moved away there is essentially no more functioning "office". And when Jim tells that story it is not like there weren't exactly this type of acrimony going on then either. Things still got done that some folks disagreed with and in some cases most folks disagreed with. About as close to it as I've experienced was the other day when Jim and I went over to look at the left column situation. Pretty much everyone but Bryan and Mark were sitting there, and I brought up the topic saying just that, "everyone is here except Mark who can't get up here and we should go take a look at the situation over there [at the left side columns]..." Everyone else but Jim and I appeared to have other agendas and so we were the only ones to wander over and take a look at things - it wasn't any secret even that day, everyone was free to come over and participate. (And I've repeatedly told Mark how much easier all this would be if he lived here which I understand he will be in the fall - good news as far as I'm concerned). But given folks are out of town, and no one wants to use this forum for such topics, it sets up a dynamic where it is difficult to both schedule and accomplish all the tasks associated with Beacon and make sense of everyone's varied opinions. And believe me, I get a lot of online comments and in-person private comments, pm's, emails, and phone calls that make it abundantly clear there is a wide spectrum of opinions on all these matters - even among your various partners and friends - and clear consensus' are often not evident. I also have to factor in the BRSP mandates, requirements, and agreements. In the end, and given I also run a fairly hectic and more than full time consultancy, the need to simply be able to do work on the fly and on an ad hoc schedule either solo or with whomever says they are available the night before ends up trumping/driving what looks to be a more autocratic style in some of these matters. I apologize for that and will put more effort in getting opinions further afield than I have. It's also possible I overly rely on Jim Opdycke's and Bill Coe's memories and opinions at times, but such has been my inclination given my relationship with and respect for them - and in particulary Jim's sense of the history and traditions. I did talk to Daryl and Mark, and even Dean Caldwell, on some of these issues but alas - they also claim stale memories when it comes to the details. Such is the course of aging... And to some extent I think it is unfortunate we don't feel comfortable using this forum. Yes, it is not wholly without risks, but the reality in terms of the BRCA posts over time, is that the level of readership and interest in Beacon is dead flat. And inspite of posting here and an early open, total traffic to-date at Beacon has been considerably down for the first month after opening compared to the past several years. But again, I'll put more effort into getting ahold of folks by other means when things like this come up. With regard to this specific leftside column issue I spoke with Jim Opdycke and he said he now thinks Arent put in the lower Lost Arrow pin I found buried and loosened in the shrub on Reasonable Richard and Local Access (above and right of the tree off the trail about six to eight feet and somewhat below where I put the bolt on the slab just before you have to start onto one or the other of the routes.) Is that the case? It looked quite old but you never can tell. Also, there is a bronze 45 degree euro pin low at the left side of RR/LA/BSS anchor above, anyone know where that one came from, or when it went in? Thanks. And as I said, the bolt can come out in all of about two minutes, but how about everyone getting on it or at least taking a look at it and getting back to me or Jim or Bill. Thanks... Joseph

Yes, these last couple of anchors between Bluebird and Little Wing are among the final few anchors to be done and that along with camoing/painting the bolts on the Idiot and Old Warriors and a pin replacement on Rookie Nookie is the last of this bout of work until the fall when we'll be swapping out the powerbolts for the 316 SS bolts on the first few anchors that were replaced.

Peter, To be blunt and honest, the concern and issue has been and is that Beacon remain a trad climbing area in the face of strong [general] pressure for sport routes within today's overall climbing population. While bolts have been traditionally used at Beacon for aid, anchors, and sparingly on mixed routes - climbing at Beacon (with the exception of a few guerilla attacks and early attempts at concessions) has always been trad. There are no shortage of sport venues in the PDX area and Smith without altering this essential characteristic of climbing at Beacon. Representation of non-locals is certainly appropriate - but, again, the concern is not so much representation as control. And even in the midst of a fairly acrimonious family discussion I think I can safely speak for "us" (BRCA and at least a fair proportion of us locals) and state we would not like to see the "control" of climbing at Beacon lost to non-locals who would make another attempt at opening Beacon to sport climbing. This is precisely what got me to take a serious look at the overall situation two years ago and start to take action. This particular threat is greatest when we are in disarray, routes look neglected, and we are at odds with the relevant land managers and agencies of record.

Kevin and Phillip, Not sure what "run" means above - possibly "runout" - but I remember it being a good route and it's possible my partner Jim Tangen-Foster (with me in tow as second) has the true FFA on it back in '87 and long before it was retro bolted. It was very different and bold lead then - even the fixed pro sucked. Who retro-bolted it to its currently state? Also, when we did it back in '87 the small tree in the roof wasn't there and should definitely be removed if someone takes a renewed interest in the route.

Well, if this post was in reference to Beacon where I've installed the only protection bolt I've ever placed I'd reply some one might have considered posting it on the trail down to Ozone two years ago...

Any more volunteers for helping to move Jim Wed. night (but we can't let Bill buy all the beer)?

So are you saying you voiced concern or objected to the bolts and anchors (some I'm told were for doing TR rehersals?) Mark and Eric put up out at Beacon, or Olson and that crew? I know Jim objected to much of it, but it still happened anyway... So was there a consensus on the degree of bolting it received? Some of your very own compatriots sounded more than a bit bent out of shape over the degree of bolting out there. I know I would have been had I been that interested in the place beyond it's potential for taking some of the traffic off Beacon. Also, the spray that did the O in happened in the gym - not online, but was nevertheless just as effective given the number of cars there...

On adding the dirt, as WSP SW Resource Steward Lisa Lantz's word is final. But my action in removing the anchor were solely due to the consensus of climbers here and had nothing whatsoever to do with my interactions with "the officials".

Kevin, The problem is it's about way more than the BRSP rangers. Beacon Rock sits in the center of a regulatory onion that looks sort of like this: Beacon > BRSP > WSP > WDFW > Tribe Councils > Skamania County > Forest Service > Gorge Commission > Railroad with each successive agency potentially having more power than the previous depending on the context one is looking at Beacon from. And while these are the primary agencies of record for Beacon the list doesn't include any number of agencies with relavant interests in Beacon such as the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (relative with regards to the East face and maintenance of park structures such as the buildings and the trail). No agency would allow us to post on their site and they all potentially need access to the BRCA postings in order to verify we exist and are involved in some recognizable way with the management of climbing at Beacon Rock. Otherwise the WSP, BRSP and WDFW staffs and others can't really legitamize "working" with us in the context of the Climbing, Preservation, or Peregrine Management Plans. The BRCA notices (versus my personal, non-BRCA-labeled postings) are an important vehicle to allow those of us that consider ourselves locals to have a say in what goes down out there. I've very much tried to avoid putting up a dedicated BRCA website by posting BRCA notices here and the WCC site. But seems it's slowly coming down to that I think, but that is definitely not a direction I prefer to go in. [ Edit: And in the scheme of things in the regulatory onion presented above - everyone needs to know the BRSP Staff are Beacon climbers' best friends and allies. They intercede on our behalf with other agencies and interest groups far more often than anyone realizes. There no shortage of folks and groups out there who would just as soon see no climbing at all at Beacon. ]

He's talking about Raquel who was here a year ago for the same conference - unfortunately she has a boyfriend now that will be coming in Wed.

Well, on the SE Corner tree rap anchor discussion - I did change course and remove them and after we checked with Lisa Lantz, the WSP SW Resource Steward, the decision was made not to add more gravel to the tree base and so we didn't. An odd person to quote in this context I would think - Edward Abbey was a lot of things, but a master of consensus or particularly mellow words wasn't one of them. And if that's the quote of relevance, then you and Kevin are certainly going out of your way to make me someone to be less wary of...

Again, we disagree - the BRCA posting are quite good for Beacon. A decade of clueless, petty squabbling between climbers and between climbers and land managers was bad for Beacon - very bad. The regular postings of BRCA work relative to the anchor replacement project will be continuing as will other periodic notices at the very least until a the new climbing management plan is in place. Thereafter there will less frequent postings relative to opening dates, pre-opening work sessions, ad hoc temporary closures, emergency safety notices, and the like. Sorry that doesn't work for you, but they are in fact necessary for us to have a saying managing climbing at Beacon Rock. If you (or Bryan) simply bothered to go talk to the BRSP staff sometime you'd have a far better understanding of the issues involved. Also, they aren't even unique to climbing at Beacon - Steve Roti and the Oregon Hang/Paragliding organization are going through exactly the same process and experience relative to their [long tradition of] flying off Hamilton, which is currently closed/banned - it could just have easily been us and climbing...

Bill, no doubt, but I don't belive there are any combinations of facts, words or writing styles that would make the slightest difference with to Kevin or Bryan - so be it...

Well, good of you for finally posting up if that's what you think... Bryan, if you read the post above you would see that the decision wasn't mine to make. You fix something on Beacon and it becomes the immediate property of the BRSP. Period. The disposition of the removed anchors is entirely up to them. As I said - and relayed to Mark - he'd get his anchors back when we're done and everything is documented to the BRSP's satisfaction. Well, again, clearly I'm not really writing this stuff for you. My "loyalty" is to my own climbing interests and to ensure that when any agency has a problem or issue with climbing at Beacon Rock that we are who they turn to first - not someone in Seattle, or in Colorado, or in New York - but us. If you were actually around you might have bothered to look into it yourself. Talk to Jim or Bill if you want to know if your perceptions are correct - or someone else that's actually been around lately and bothered to inform themselves on the issues. And as I said, consensus is a useful construct in many situations, but not all and with regard to BRCA actions and work there are folks who are simply never going to agree - but then I don't agree with much of what has gone on out there over the years as well. Just how much consensus went into the bolting and hanging a lot of that crap up on Beacon to begin with? How about a consensus on whether folks liked being able to climb before July 15th this year? I've worked with Jim Opdycke relative to leaving "historically significant" anchors, hangers, and fixed pro in place just so folks can see what was previously there. So lots of stuff has remained for folks to see. But, if you consider rusted, '93 plated SMC hangers, industrial mank, or thin 2003 chains historic then we simply part company. Also, as I've said, chains were coming down as part of the deal as was painting or camo'ing any bright hangers. Leaving the existing anchors would have created a real blight, been functionally impossible, and the BRSP's clear objective was to minimize the visual presence of our hardware on the rock, not enhance it. As to ending up systematically replacing the anchors - here is an excerpt of an email I sent to Mark as part of our off-line conversation: "I did start out replacing specific anchors and after no time at all I discovered every anchor I replaced was in terrible shape. Further, it was impossible to tell from the outside what the real condition of the anchor was. Most of the anchors placed in the late 80's and 90's have been the very worst both in corrosion and in quality of the placement (relative to how perpendicular, how far in or out, or what they were even made of). For instance, the Young Warriors p1 and p2 anchor bolts were among the very worst shape of all from a corrosion perspective - who would have guessed? Of the 34 anchors I ended up replacing last year, on 33 of them both bolts were spinners and 28 had significant corrosion in both bolts as well. A very real problem out there has been the fact that anchors have gone in over 50 years with a variety of materials and short of pulling them it is factually impossible to tell the current state / quality of the anchor by its outward appearance. Once I discovered that about 12 anchors into it I set out to systematically replace the anchors with Metolius rap hangers and very high quality stainless steel bolts. You can see the demarc where this change took place by looking at the intial anchors and the subsequent ones (the early ones will be redone in SS in the fall). The point being that going forward folks will know what the anchors are comprised of and when they were put in. That may not mean much now, but in twenty years, knowing that all the bolts were SS and replaced in either 2005 or 2006 will be a great help to whomever ends up looking after the place whenever they start needing to be replaced. It will eliminate the guess work." [Note: Everyone should extend a warm thank you to Bill Coe for supplying very high quality 316 Stainless Steel bolts ] You can disagree with that if you want, but that's the rationale. And as for not being a "LOCAL" because you or anyone else didn't know me or because I didn't know the route names until recently? I've been climbing out there longer than you by a long shot in years, hours, or yardage but for 17 of the past 19 years it was mostly midweek soloing or roped soloing due to work / travel constraints. The difference though is really cultural - I originally come from a climbing area where everything we touched was an FA by necessity if we wanted to climb. And the rock there doesn't have cracks so the routes are not obvious but rather a puzzle to just see. Those combined in that world to make us all grow to dislike guidebooks, any beta, pre-cleaning, pre-viewing or knowing anything (even names) about a route before climbing it. We highly prize and guard that "deliberate ignorance" which is why the only reason I've recently even learned the names of the routes out at Beacon is to be able to communicate with Jim, Bill, and others relative to anchor replacements. The most regrettable part of replacing the anchors has been the necessity of looking at the South face column routes in advance of climbing some of them to do it. I'd much prefer I hadn't seen them and still didn't know their names. Again, it's a cultural thing. Quite a statement for someone that's never tried emailing me but well, again, you can't please everyone - c'est la vie...

Well, then someone else should get some spine and post up, pm, email, or call me and you should source your comments or at least say they didn't come from you...

No, I didn't ask Olson about it, or Nathan as the bolt is at the confluence of both routes. My object was and is access, not the routes per se. Again, in my view you have some responsibility to fix pro appropriate to the grade if you are going to use it - the combination of the need for access and the fact that you are free soloing off the deck - not runout - led to the decision which was not mine alone but Jim Opdycke's as well. And to be honest, Olson's use of bolts in general (and hangers that broach the bizarre) left me little inclined to consult with him on the matter. As far as your hand and drill goes, if the number of bolts next to protectable or pinnable cracks go out at Ozone, I have little doubt but left to your own devices you'd be following in Olson's wake and bolting all the columns out at Beacon. I'll stack my record of one protection bolt in 32 years against yours any day. Actually, I've been climbing there since '80 and relatively steady since '87, two years ago after putting up Lost Warriors in stealth mode is when I got sick of the totally lame situation out there. Well, Kevin, I'm certainly not going to convince everyone and have no expectations whatsoever about convincing you. But the truth of the matter is as I stated - the BRCA posts, the work, and the efforts to mend relationships long broken are the only thing giving us, Beacon locals, any saying in the current or future management of climbing out at Beacon. I'd simply encourage you and anyone else here to speak with the BRSP staff or David Anderson of the WDFW if they have any doubts about this statement. I couldn't care less about posting for myself - that's exactly why you never heard from me from '87 to two years ago. Again, things were not "fine" they were completely snafu'd. Again, I'm posting BRCA notices so I can climb before 7/15 some years (like this one), on decent anchors, and without rocks falling on me. Ah, now replacing anchors is theft - that is some novel spray. As to my replacing "BRAND NEW anchors", so far I've replaced a couple of new-ish anchors, but you're really referring to Eric's and Mark's chain anchors. Part of the deal the BRCA struck with the BRSP relative to anchors was to remove all the chain anchors and to paint or replace any "bright" hangers with camo versions. That is what has been happening. As for Eric's thin chain anchors in particular, though only about two years old, they were deteriorating rapidly - the carabiners didn't work on some, or were missing on others(Blownout). As to why I haven't returned Mark's anchors yet? As far as the BRSP is concerned, all the removed anchors are theirs. I've personally petitioned them to be allowed to return Mark's anchors to him once we've completed the Anchor Replacement Project and cataloged, photographed, and weighted the resulting tat and debris that came off.