JosephH

Bastard, you would rub that in my face just as I start a round of antibiotics for a bout of bronchitis that won't go away on its own...

I'll second that recommendation. Skip ignorant bliss and climb something real. That's like saying you're going to Red Rocks and only have time to climb prince of darkness. If you have time to climb that abortion you have time to climb any number of great trad climbs throughout the NW.

So Bill, who been climbing out at the Butte for decades that might take such offense at achors out there. Seems pretty damn strange to me.

I rather suspect Bill is doing a great job and service out there. But with regard to a "stable top and base", everyone should be aware that the "top" out Rocky Butte is inherently one of the most dangerous climbing environments you could possibly come across. The soil is incredible slick when even moist regardless of the flatness / topology of ground. Add to that snagging and slick vegitation and it all makes for potentially deadly ground. In fact, Bill almost took a ride over the edge the last time I was out with him and I've done the same once or twice over the years. Now I make sure I'm wearing my harness when I go near the edge to do something and either clip into an anchor or set a piece while I doing any work. Be careful out there...

Climbers tried an owl decoy already and the only person it scared one night was the guy that put it up there. As for how they're doing. They seem to me to either be on track for normal or a bit late. They should be settling into a ledge somewhere by now and I'll be going out tomorrow to do some monitoring and will report back. They're out there though...

No doubt!

John, I don't think the hole is drilled unless someone has a big ass drill with a 5" bit. Take a look at it when you're out - Bill knows the arete I'm talking about...

Again, I didn't lobby for nor particularly care for the Washington state law that mandated climbing management plans be in place and enforced at all state parks - but that is the reality we're stuck with and have been for a decade. If I thought for a minute there was a possibility of repealing that law I would support such an effort. But in general, Parks / Resource management is a much more sophisticated and professional affair in the NW than it was even a decade ago and you can check with the AF, but that is a clock that just isn't going to be turned back and that's the reality we have to either deal with or bitch about - having seen nothing positive come from a decade of bitching, I'm choosing a different path. As for Jim's and Gordon's climb "cleaned the crap out of it" is a gross understatement, the entire face in that area was completely swept clean. As for the style, and we can certainly debate this as well, short bolted sport routes might well be best put up as you suggest, but that has little to do with whether ground up routes (sport or trad) are bold or "safe" or not - that is entirely a matter of the competence of the FA party and what their intent was. We can also debate what "safe" means, but I suggest you get on SuperTopo and complain about how JTree routes are poorly protected, they just had their first big reunion down there so I'm sure everyone from BVB to Largo will be happy to debate the point with you. To be honest, these sorts of discussions clearly separate old and new school relative to what climbing is about and that again goes to the essence of what some of us are trying to preserve out at Beacon. I have no interest at all, in any respect, in making Beacon a less bold place to climb, or on making the routes "safe" beyond the issue of minimizing the prospect of rockfall on people below. I and Jim at least will resist any effort to "sport" Beacon out as Jim has all along. So we each all have a choice, work with the cards that have been dealt and move on or try to keep trying live in a past that doesn't exist any more. Having seen the results of a decade of the latter my choice is clear...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you go look at what got stripped clean it was like a 40 foot wide stretch going up a pitch. I personally never would have supported such wholesale cleaning regardless much less for those two routes. As for "put up on a top rope" - I'll have to check with Jim. But don't confuse your personal sport approach to putting up routes with "how" routes are put up, as that is only "how" some routes get put up - others are still put up ground up, on lead regardless of the condition of the route; particularly multi-pitch trad. And your comment / "big brother" attitude - I'm sorry but I think it is flat out old, tired, and unproductive. The reality is we are the smallest and least visible user community at Beacon. Look at the initial Washington State law sometime that mandated climbing management plans at all State Parks - when implemented it also closed the possibility of climbing in 58 Parks, 6 that had prior climbimg to some degree or another. The Forest Service, Gorge Commission, Heritage Managers, and Tribes all weighed in looking for full environmental, endangered species, heritage, and tribal inventories before any area was allowed to remain open for climbing. The Washington State Parks rebuffed those efforts, but make no mistake - the day climbing is perceived to be more trouble than it's worth out at Beacon we will have an expensive fight on our hands as there is still no shortage of regulatory managers with long memories out there. Mandatory climbing management plans are a matter of state law and we have an opportunity to help shape a rewrite of ours out at Beacon more to our liking, but not by being clueless or simply copping a glib attitude that is never going to fly out there. It might make you feel good, but the last ten years of bad boy / bandito posing hasn't resulted in any positive change out there at all - zip, nada, none. The plan is getting re-done with or without our input and cooperation. Clandestine action might feel good and may be possible for a limited time in some until recently obscure spot, but not for long, and not at all out Beacon - particularly on the NW face as has already been amply demonstrated. If someone gets the urge for some power cleaning out at Beacon I'd suggest volunteering to adopt one of the neglected South face columns when it re-opens this year. Plenty of sterling routes up there in need of some time and muscle. Ditto on the oak around the corner on the West face...

Kevin, I want to be really clear about this incident as it was a fairly pivotal one relative to a lot of bad blood and misunderstanding. These routes were put up without notifying the park with the assumptions the NW face had been "turned over to climbers for climbing" and that that meant any bolting and cleaning they (Jim, Larry, and Gordon) wanted to do was ok. That assumption was completely wrong. The 1996 agreement had stated they had six months to do unconstrained development on the NW face before the climbing management plan kicked in. Waiting until 2003 didn't really qualify as falling in that six month window. And even under that plan the NW face was never not considered habitat that needed to be tread across lightly - using rakes and snow shovels to strip a very wide swath of the face was never going to be alright with Lisa Lantz and the other Parks biologists. Gordon in particular was warned four separate times - one where they sat down with him at the office with the climbing management plan - and he still persisted. Hell, even Jim tried to get him to stop, but he wouldn't and only then on the fifth time did John feel compelled to cite Gordon for both violating the CMP and for Habitat destruction. He didn't confiscate his gear, they dropped the CMP violation, talked with him some more, and in general bent over backwards to try to work with him. They felt Jim and Larry were very cooperative by comparison. The BRSP staff wants this faced developed but given the accessibility and visibility to non-climbers safety concerns on several levels are unavoidable. By "several levels" I mean safety relative to protection, to rock fall, and for habitat. We are working on getting route development protocols overhauled, will be trying to conduct a rockfall survey of the top 1/3rd of the face, and get Lisa's crew down for a comprehensive look at the issue again. Also, there has been more rockfall in the vicinity of Jim and Gordon's routes to the tune of some refrigerator size rocks in the past few days; this and the other recent large rockfall nearby just underscores the need to proceed with a bit of caution in general. My primary concern on the NW face is again the possibility of establishing a bunch of shorter climbs that cause there to be significant traffic at the base of the face while someone is above on a loose route attempting to top out. It isn't a pretty scenario. With regard to the West face. It is part of the Peregrine closure and will re-open when the South face does. But the first three columns/routes around the corner from Jensen's Ridge are engulfed in Poison Oak. The BRSP has no problem with us cleaning it out and reclaiming those routes - they just want us to write up a small plan statement laying out what and where and we'll be doing that over the next few days. That will get the ball rolling, but I'm not prepared to go up and do battle with those vines while they've got their foliage. My idea would be to wait until next winter when they drop the leaves, then go up and cut the vines, and mount a removal effort when Beacon opens the following summer and the vines have died. If anyone has a better idea or wants to mount a frontal assault on them this summer please let me know. Once they're cleaned off we can see if they get any traffic and if they do we can take the next step of cleaning the lefthand half and trying to get the face out from under the closure. We also spoke about re-establishing the several old stolen pins and routes that led up through the mossy ramps to restore more reasonable access to the the South face main column routes. That plan will also be written up and submitted, but John didn't think there would be any problems with that work on first hearing about it. And last, John wanted me to convey yet again that if anyone has any questions or complaints they should definitely feel free to just come in and talk with him and I'd really second that folks should take him up on that invitation.

schite.

I was out at RB with Bill Coe last night (RB sandbagger extraordinaire) and see someone has finally spotted an old (circa 1994 or so) project of Marco Fedrizzi's and mine on the arete down and to the right of Blackberry Jam. From the chalk it looks like whomever is doing it, is stemming off the top of the platform boulder to get onto it and I very much recommend going down and doing the two lower roofs as the start. The route goes up those two roofs onto the arete and the crux is using a small side pull out left to complete the transition from the arete onto the face and that is as far as we ever got in our two goes at it. We figured it in the 12.d range. The route features a very unusual 5" diameter vertical bore hole up into the second roof. No idea whatsoever how it could have been formed either naturally or humans - really one of the strangest features I've ever seen on rock. Good on whoever is getting on it - best of luck with it... Also curious, though, if the same folks are the ones that put the bolt in next to the pin high on the face? It's a completely bomber Bugaboo and it is kind of amusing (if a bit sad) for us old guys to see that we are now getting to the point where a good pin can't be recognized as just that. Times they are a-changing no doubt. C'est la vie...

Kevin, are we talking about the two routes up the slab in the middle of the NW face? The one on the left by Jim and the one on the right by Gordon? both are actually pretty reasonably put in with Gordon's taking like one or two pieces of pro in addition to the bolts. I thought they ran in the 5.7 range with a few short sections of 5.8 or 5.9. Much better than I thought they would be on first looking up at them, but also not worth all the hassle that ensued from the way they were put up. Also, Gordon went back at some point and extended his with a second pitch up to a higher existing descent rap station and I haven't been on that pitch but I suspect it is a bit better than the first.

Were you on the gymnastics team? Seems to me a bunch of the SIU gymnasts were from that team. Quite the talented crew of tripping stoners and guitarists back in the day anyway. A couple did a bit of climbing, but they thought is was all a bit too unstructured I think...

Where did you guys grow up (I think we talked about both being from Illinois, but I'm getting senile...)...

Where does he live?

Is that where you are from?

I suppose I might as well try to put spray to work... Any lawyers among you who could help with a technology contract dispute between my consulting company and a significantly larger, international corporate client. Thanks. Joseph

I could have it wrong, but I believe the West face is open during the season, but is part of the Peregrine closure - I'll double check that though. The problem is by the time July rolls around you can't get near it without a BSL-4 safety suit and they had a problem with Jim cleaning it. But, I think he was caught cleaning the ivy during the Peregrine closure. Again, let me re-check my facts on it all and get back to every one...

Stewart, I didn't address your East face comments. I actually hesitate a bit to do so here as it is the one really sensitive area for BRSP relative to the amount of interagency hassle such an effort would entail. We might investigate it somewhere down the road, but for now the priority is on the NW and West faces as reasonable candidates. The East face immediately engages WFDW, WSP Biologists, Gorge Commission, and the Tribes in pretty much a total cluster f#ck of hassle for the BRSP Staff and the decision is quickly out of their hands regardless while most of the work is left to them when they're already undermanned and stacked out with work. Let's just say we'll do ourselves no favors pushing for that right now or even the next couple of years. We need to re-establish a track record of good behavior on the South face, good performance on the NW face, sensitivity and tact on in dealings on the West face before turning our attention to the East. Last year we mended the relationships to a large degree and rebuilt the bridges, but we need a lot more legs under us and rushing things when we're just starting to prove ourselves isn't going to get us the results any of us want. It's going to have to be step at a time even if that is somewhat frustrating to a bunch of folks, but we have to establish a track record of good faith in dealing with all these folks before we start playing any big cards...

Ivan, I'm very sorry, this one somehow slipped by me in the posting order... Yes, to a degree it can. Technically development is blocked by a few requirements but the principal one at the moment is the need for a protocol that covers cleaning, fixed protection, and safety(rockfall). This has really come about as a hangover from a particular cleaning and bolting incident that closed down NW face development and that was then subsequently (and repeatedly) re-enforced by one individual continuing to do that development plus bolting the line above the drinking fountain that has now been removed. Again, the change we're seeking is to get a sign-off on proposed lines without having to identify every placement, but rather have that left up to the FA's judgment while operating within the framework of how fixed protection has traditionally been used at Beacon. I personally think so - we aren't talking about "a bunch of hoops", just one - a photo with the line penciled in and some statement of risk of rockfall and an idea of how much fixed pro might likely be required. That will allow them to check out the habitat and rockfall considerations which if we are smart, we'll do on our own first. It should be a relatively painless process and I'd do everything I can to see one is expedited and not lingering for days on end. I might consider taking this approach if it weren't for the regulatory onion I mentioned previously. Any attempt at this approach will be met with a debilitating challenge from the WSP that and they likely wouldn't even have to lift a finger - a court would just start referring the matter up the regulatory ladder with jurisdiction changing from agency to agency and you'd cross a state/federal boundary damn quick and find yourself in federal court which means real money. Between the Gorge Commission, Railroad (federal), State, County, and god knows whom else, you'd be fighting a shadow through revolving courts starting over each time. In the meantime BRSP staff would really start enforcing every rule to the T. Not a winning scenario from my perspective, but if anyone has a few hundred thousand to spare I'm game - otherwise we're better off with our current approach.

Mark, I'll try to tackle these... There has always been a regulatory context governing all aspects of use at Beacon but it was enforced to differing degrees by different rangers over the years with more discretionary leeway years ago than they have today. That's because at some point (I forget when) a Washington State Parks law took affect requiring climbing management plans for all parks with climbable features. That roughly coincided with the attempt by WDFW to begin an effort to restore Peregrines to their historic range, a complaint by Native Americans, and the discovery / recognition of endangered plant species at Beacon. From what I've learned over the past two years from talking to everyone, these events all came together in what can only be deemed a "perfect storm" that set the stage for regulation via a newly required climbing management plan. The law and requirement still exists as it does at Smith and most other climbing areas. While a "safety" review would be part of the protocol, the rockfall issue would likely only be of concern on proposed NW face lines. I was scoping lines Tuesday and every one I looked at that topped out would have to deal with the issue. Again, it's primarily only a NW face issue. Trad, aid, and mixed routes have been always been the norm at Beacon - the couple of sport routes that went up are relatively new to Beacon and didn't go in without controversy. I [personally] definitely fall into the ranks of those that don't want to see bolt-only sport routes at Beacon, nor do I want to see overbolted mixed routes there either. Again, PDX has no shortage of sport climbing areas - I don't see any reason why Beacon needs to join their ranks. Jim Opdyke for another is pretty admanant about the point given the history as is the Park Staff and WDFW. Trust me, John has climbed at Beacon and was an alpine climber before a bad rockfall did in his leg. You'd be amazed at how little escapes them relative to climbing - you just don't hear about it unless you go talk to them. They knew all about the routes and anchors you and Eric put up without anyone telling them about it. They live there, not much really ever escapes them. Bottom line is if you don't want to work on opening up the NW face to development or seeing the West face out from under the Peregrine closure then you don't have to care about relations with the BRSP staff and can just pirate away. But we came perilously close to complete bans in the past and they still aren't inconceivable if the Audobon, railroad, or WDFW really made an issue out of it all - or if we did somehow as we have [collectively] in the past. Well, good question, I quess the answer is that we (climbers) haven't done that great of a job in the past of regulating ourselves to anyone's satisfaction but our own - certainly from the WDFW's, BRSP's, Gorge Commission's, or the Audobon's perspective. The visual blight had been increasingly raising hackles for several years, breaches of the closure and whosale cleaning pissing WDFW off, bolting under the East face roofs and on the very NW corner pissing the BRSP off, and sport bolting pissing trad climbers off, etc, etc. It's a perfect world when we only talk among ourselves, but branch out and get into a frank discussion with folks in these agencies with real power and you quickly find out we're trying to emerge from an extended period of some real bad blood and the possibility for worse consequences than we are experiencing now. Mark, you probably make it to Beacon from Bend on a more regular basis than any individual that travels to climb there that I know of. I can imagine the "pirate" days of the past ten years have seemed fine and normal - but dig in and talk to folks, both from agencies and old PDX-local climbers like Jim Opdyke and you find out that there was no shortage of controversy during the past decade both between climbers and agencies and among climbers themselves. Again, we're just trying to weave a path here that will restore and keep the relationships from being poisoned again and such that we can take part in monitoring the Peregrines and have discussions around the NW and West faces...

Dan, Again, the bottom line is they are never going to allow the unrestrained use of fixed protection without oversight on what they consider habitat. The idea that the "rock is ours" is a fantasy that never was and never will be. Let me try to paint the picture we as climbers and the BRSP Staff are facing: The basic problem out at Beacon is it is at the center of a regulatory onion - Federal, State (WDFW), Gorge, RailRoad, County, Local, Park - and the park is the least powerful of the bunch inspite of being part of a state agency. Wash. State Parks basically doesn't want to any flack from any of the "containing" regulatory interests. They basically view it as the local Ranger's job to resolve any and all issues and complaints local and view it dimly when shit gets past them and starts moving uphill or out from the center to other agencies. That impacts us climbers because if the Audobon Society, WDFW (Habitat / Plants / Endangered), Railroad, Native Americans, or anyone else of note starts bitching about climbers or our impact both we and the BRSP staff will start catching flack. That will translate into the BRSP Staff having to consider actions neither thay nor we want to see so it's better we play ball with each other and keep climber related-issues local. Given WDFW - on multiple fronts (Peregrines and Habitat) - consider Beacon key habitat the notion of climbers having complete freedom to do anything they want just isn't realistic. Again, better we compromise a bit with a climber-friendly local staff than get into it with any of these other agencies. The existing rules require a seperate approval for each and every piece of fixed pro - clearly not workable. Again, the effort here is to change the rules to something that is workable. A photo of a proposed line and a brief write up of the prospect for fixed pro and rockfall doesn't seem too high a price to pay for opening up the NW face to development and possibly the West face to climbing down the road. As for providing the pro, that has been discussed, but in the end it's likely to be the BRCA that provides any necessary pins, bolts, hangers, and gear (and hammer/funk and or drill if necessary) needed to develop routes in exchange for folks following the new protocol. Again, perfect? No. But not a bad compromise under the circumstance. And not to be a broken record on the NW rockfall issue, but it is a very real one quite different from the other faces and we'll have to accept that there are some real "safety" issues there.

Kevin and Mark, Good comments, they get to the essence of the issues we'll face going forward. First off, there is and has been a climbing management plan in place since '96 that dictates individual pieces of fixed pro be approved. So Mark, to specifically address your concerns about "approving lines", the intent here is to try to get away from the choice of having to either be "pirate" or get nitpicked to death on each and every placement of fixed pro as the rules require now. It isn't the "route" that's being approved, but an the use of fixed pro on an entire line rather than a seperate approval for each and every piece of pro. The existing rules would mean you'd have to come back down, file for, and get approval everytime you ran into a section that needed a point of fixed pro. That's clearly not realistic and the compromise we're proposing is to basically eyeball a line, take a photo of it and markup the proposed line and sections likely to need fixed pro. Perfect? No. Still somewhat of a pain in the ass? Yes. But it's either that or remain illegal and enough of that's already gone down to no one's satisfaction. And if we want to reopen the NW face to development it's likely going to have to be under these terms. They're never going to allow the unrestrained use of fixed pro with no oversight whatsoever and this seems like a fair compromise. There will be no hope of getting the West face open if you go back to our "pirate" roots on the NW face. Also, on the NW face in particular all folks considering FA's are going to have to take particular note of the rockfall issues which are likely to be significant on some line from what I can see when I scope it for good lines. It could be that you have to make arrangements on your FA to close the base around a route to trundle in the process - who knows how it will go - all I'm saying is loose rock is going to have to get factored in to NW face FA's somehow. Kevin, your comments get fast to the heart of the issues we've been dealing with both as a community nationwide and at Beacon specifically. You bring up two issues that can be contentious: a) spacing of fixed protection and b) pins versus bolts. As for (a) - the spacing on fixed pro - the whole discussion of risk in climbing is way beyond the scope of this thread (we should start another one) but we will have to come to some community consensus on that. Me personally, my opinion is that with the exception of what I consider an overbolted "Young Warriors", Beacon's route grades and risks have always been what I consider pretty spot on as opposed to unnecessarily "stout / sandbagged" or weak. That the "tradition" at Beacon has always been honest grades and routes that require you to step up to a bit of risk. I personally would like to see that remain Beacon's essential character and tradition. There are plenty of sport climbing areas in close proximity to PDX I [again personally] don't want to see Beacon become another one of them. As for (b) - the pins versus bolts issue - the bottom line, for at least myself, Jim Opdyke, and I believe Bill Coe is that Beacon was and is all about real "trad" climbing and we want it to stay that way. And "tradition" at Beacon has always meant "mixed" pro on routes - gear, pins, and bolts - and in that order. That we have power drills that make drilling bolts easy doesn't necessarily make bolts superior in anyway - you're just more familiar with them. Pins weld at Beacon, and after the bolt replacements I've done I'll take a well-set pin over a bolt out there anyday. That you or anyone else hasn't learned how to use them is another deal. As I've said, I have and am offering to show you or anyone else how to use them and to make them available for use as fixed pro out at Beacon. I have a fully burly Hilti TE-6a, but I'll continue to reach for a hammer everytime if cracks are available for good Lost Arrows or Bugaboos. I would suggest you might consider broadening you're climbing experience a bit and have pretty good time in the process. I'm game for a "pin-and-funk" session any time you or anyone else is as would Jim Opdyke. So, this isn't the last word on anything, just a mix of "official" and my personal views on what's in store going forward. Thanks for posting up your concerns and check with Jim Opdyke and Bill Coe as well for their opinion on these issues and I'll see that Jim gets a copy of this thread's recent posts. If he has a response, I'd be happy to be his Internet proxy (Jim gets on the Internet - lions and tigers, oh my!!!!)...

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/565676/Main/480262/#Post565676