JosephH

Phillip, there you are - good to have your cc name. Jim's reference library is packed up and ready to roll.

Jim is in the process of moving to new digs and could use some help moving. We're renting a U-Haul Wed. evening and we could sure use some help. If we could get a few strong backs we could make quick work of it in two short trips in just a couple of hours. Anyone available to help out???

Nope - turned out to be Frank's grigri and the shoe is a right foot Mad Rock if someone is missing one. Frank said he moved it to the base of the SE Corner from over by Cruisin.

Also, the aliens are four cam vs. three cam units and when push comes to shove you can hang just one side of an alien in a pin scar or similar crack which is something you can't do with a metolius, C3 or C4.

No, I'm saying I don't like the design. I think the axles are too thin a stock and that I don't like the way the cams are attached to them and I never have. Their early U stem versions used to come apart and I've heard a number of antecdotal stories over the years of the last gen coming apart. I don't see any significant changes to the business end of the C4s to give me any more confidence in them. I have and use the larger two of them and I'm always eyeing the Wild Country versions which are way burlier but have a funky cam tip/hand interaction when placing them in tight quarters.

I've had my suspicions about each succeding generation of Camalots and the C4's are no exception - the whole design of the business end of them has always creeped me out as adequate, but in no way burly. All the more reason for Metolius to get off the stick on the medium and large Super Cams and then quickly start on two even larger sizes. I hate having to resort to Camalots at the high end of the size range.

Actually for syklone's (troy's) first time out to Beacon and reasonably new to trad in general he did a pretty damn stout and yeoman job helping me with the Pirates and Bluebird anchors - and with the climbing. Don't let his first association with me put you off, he's a solid climber I'd share a rope with anytime, out there or anywhere else. As to your question, it's not that Beacon is a secret per se, and it's not that anyone is actively discouraging anyone from climbing there, but much of the discussion is around not actively encouraging folks to climb there. Even in my BRCA notice postings I understand and share that concern - hell, I used to tell everyone at the gym how horribly bad the poison oak was every year. But in the case of the BRCA postings what is gained is worth the risk as was demonstrated by this year's early open and ability to do a pre-open work session. That doesn't mean everything should be discussed here; somethings are clearly "family" matters and shouldn't be online and I'd have preferred this particular one hadn't. But once it (or any other topic) was broached I'm all for getting folks' cards out on the table and work through it. Also, just for the curious, the BRCA notices each have had a very consistent 250 views in the first week after posting rapidly dropping off to zero - it's never really ever gone up or down from that number. I'm guessing that means there is a total of about 200-320 folks altogether who have any interest at all in climbing at Beacon (throwing in about 100 non-internet users). Fortunately there are "secret" areas out there that of late have seen a lot of traffic when Beacon is deserted which means they're taking some of the pressure off Beacon. And traffic at Beacon has actually has been amazingly light this year so far inspite of an early open (though you couldn't tell by the chalk load on the corner...).

See the post to Kevin above... What I said is I have selfish motivations in all these actions. As for the bolt specifically - my own personal interest is for direct, straightforward access to left side columns up what I consider to be, currently, one of three mank slab routes worth no stars. As for broader interests, I've agreed with Jim Opdycke that such access is desirable. And when it comes to fixed pro - my take on it is when someone takes that road they have a responsibility to place it appropriate to the grade. That means if you're advertising a two-star 5.9 and are going to place fixed pro on the route then you have an obligation to place it at least somewhat appropriate to what a competent 5.9 climber might expect. Again, one bolt in thirty two years and I'm not feeling too blemished by the record given Beacon's history. And if you've read my posts on ST and RC then you should have a clue about me and and my intent whatever I do out at Beacon and if you are confused about it or don't get something, feel free to post, email, or call and ask about it. Well, now that you bring that topic up as well, I'd say you obviously have me confused with Kevin who has been campaigning non-stop for that p2 bolt. Now that is a situation where he can quite reasonably claim being uncomfortable about being [mildly] runout (above a last piece versus the ground of course). But if I had my way all of the p1, p2, and all but one of the p4 bolts (including at the crux) would simply vanish off Young Warriors. Well, that whole orignal posting was from an email response to Mark in a conversation that I posted and then deleted at Mark's request and the quote above ended up a bit out of context when I reused some of the text of the email to Mark in order to respond to your earlier post. Mark was talking about the trad sensibilities of "your generation" and I was responding that of "my generation" my LNT record stands on its own just fine. And yes, we top roped and took some visciously punishing dives off way overhung roofs rather than bolt them back then and also waged a losing battle against chalk on beautiful colored sandstone cliffs. Again, I don't place fixed pro of any kind lightly or without some serious thought and in this case did it with Jim Opdycke. [ Note: I periodically print these off for Jim and just printed it out up to this post to drop off with him tonight. ]

Kevin, First off, THE only reason we've had this little discussion is because of you - don't ask the question, I won't answer it. But this thread is where I'm posting BRCA notices, if anyone asks a question about Beacon I'm not going to ignore it, evade it, or lie about it - you ask a question, you'll get a straight up answer from me every time. Don't want to talk online about an issue I didn't raise online? Then don't post about yourself. And to be honest, you of all people talking about me spray? Dude, let's be honest, on or off the Internet I don't hold a candle to your spraylord status, so calling me on it is pretty much a quintessential exercise in the pot calling the kettle black... 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). Third: Consensus is a useful construct for many things and this issue is quite similar to the issue of slings and dirt on the SE Corner Tree - I put the slings up for a specific reason, we discussed it to a consensus to take them down, I took them down. It worked fine then and it will work fine here again. But I'd say go out and get on it, or at least look at it, and we'll sort it out. But, your extrapolating from my comments on consensus about this bolt to some consenus about posting the BRCA notices is a different affair for the reasons I just stated above. And also, given you're quoting Jim Opdycke here, he's been advocating for a bolt in that exact locale all along so that there would be reasonable access to the left side columns and was belaying me when I put it in. So in the future, if you don't want something discussed here that I didn't post about - then don't post about it yourself...

bump...

Bryan, First: Actually, time is my goal. I've got the anchors replaced on all the columns except Flying Circus. I want to stop doing this work and start climbing the South face column routes now that I'm starting to get back in halfway decent shape after seven months off for my shoulder. Again, my motives in all this work has been completely selfish - not about "leadership" or impressing anyone: I hate shit anchors, rocks falling on me, pirate/stealth FA's, not climbing until 7/15 every year, and you can add free soloing up shitty slab routes of basically zip quality to get to some decent climbing (two stars indeed...). And I have the [clean] bolt install/remove thing down at this point so removing the bolt is no big deal - I'm not "chopping bolts" when I remove a bolt I placed. Jim and I went over to sort the column access out after talking about it and just started working and that is what came of it. It wasn't pre-planned in any way. If the consensus is remove it I will, but consensus wasn't my goal. And I didn't do it alone, Jim Opdycke and I did it together. Second: No, in this case I don't think it is necessarily a "sucker's game" to figure out what folks think and there is nothing remotely disingenuous about my intent in that regard. With regard to the Robbin's quote - again, this part of Robbin's quote is in play here: "(e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts)" - "unnecessary" being the operative word. Again, Reasonable Richard is not runout - it's a free solo to the bolt; I've put up lots of runout FA's and do know the difference. Runout by definition implies runout over something other than the ground. When they put in fixed pro they were styling .11s and working on .12s and put in a single bolt on a 5.9? Only for their immediate convenience - making the decision to put one bolt on a 5.9 they had some obligation to make it climbable by 5.9 climbers, not simply for 5.11 climbers running up some 5.9 terrain to get to other routes. I retro'd pins on to Lost Warriors after folks complained they didn't have Crack'N'Ups and Lowe Balls and didn't want to free climb over aid gear even if they did - not an unreasonable request. Reasonable Richard is the same deal as far as I'm concerned. Again, it's the only protection bolt I've placed in 32 years of climbing and while I can get up it without the bolt most 5.9-.10 climbers who come out to Beacon can't and won't. And the very same crew sure tight-bolted / sewed up absolutely anything that was a challenge for them, that they didn't [unintentially I suspect] think of anyone else when they resorted to fixed pro on Reasonable Richard is simply unfortunate in my book. Third: If the idea is that we should contrive something even further right than Local Access then I disagree relative to the need to have "reasonable" access to the left side columns - that is my principal objective as I plan on climbing or attempting to climb every column on the South face and don't want to dick around with sketching on that slab every time I go out to climb one. Again, the bolt is easily removed if that's the consensus, but not adding it and sketching up something else contrived is no less odious than putting in the bolt as far as I'm concerned. As for my ethics in general - as I said, I've never placed a protection bolt until this one and never having been a sport climber, "not adding bolts to anyone's route" is a bit of a quandry for me, as I've always chosen to not to place bolts period. In my view if someone is going to place fixed pro on a route then they have responsibility to place it appropriate to the grade of the route. I've climbed with a lot of "name" climbers of my generation over the years and like anything else there is good and bad in there - but no one, and I mean no one is more LNT than me - I fought against chalk use way before fighting against bolted lines. Again, I did not place that bolt lightly or without consideration but in my eyes Reasonable Richard and Local Access basically are the two logical lines up to the left side columns and having them monopolize and restrict access to a lot of other great climbs because someone made a dubious fixed pro decision is wholly unreasonable. As far as going too far - was anyone complaining when the same crew bolted up column after column, hung bizarre trash and bad anchors all over the place, and generally abused the place outside of their actual climbing? What about Young Warriors? Was there outrage about heavily overbolting it? Or the routes around and to the right of tunnel #1? Actually I think I've shown a lot of restraint in not chopping a lot of bolts out there...

Actually a lot more climbing has been happening than talking. I'm just down to the last dozen or so anchors and want to get it done and start climbing all the columns and don't want to play the "unreasonable" game every time I want to go work on something on the left side. If what folks are saying is that no one should be on BST, Flying Swallow, and other routes up there unless they are able/willing to free solo 2/3s of the slab then I for one am going to have to disagree. If someone is going to put in fixed pro at all then they are making a community decision. Reasonable Richard is not an exercise in boldness so much as a few guys that were comfortable on .11s, pushing .12s and simply put in a bolt where they themselves needed it at that time. No doubt some of that crew can still do laps on it comfortably and other of them would not be willing to now. Bold trad routes are one thing and not really subject to much in the way of second guessiing to my mind, but fixed pro is a different matter. As I said I've never placed a protection bolt before this one and I don't like seeing bolts out at Beacon at all, but my position is we need "reasonable" left, center, and right access to the all the column routes in order for them to be climbed frequently enough to merit the time it will take to clean them out. Right now the sketching up the slab if the primary obstacle to that as far as I can see... PS mostly I just talk to Emperor Opdycke or Senator Coe...

There is nothing outdated about RR's sentiments as expressed in your quote but the phrase "(e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts)" is the question we are discussing as there is no pro or pins available on Reasonable Richard below the SMC bolt. I'm willing to do the route without the bolt, but the issue at hand in my mind is that we need "reasonable" left center and right access to the South face column routes. Reasonable Richard is a free solo to the bolt - it isn't simply a run out and bold route - again, I do know the difference. And in regard to bolting I'd have to add Tim and his various partners made some interesting choices with regards to bolts and boldness out at Beacon and it's unfortunate Reasonable Richard didn't get the same treatment as some other harder routes.

For Beacon two sets of HB aluminum offsets are hard to beat. They are what I always grab for first out there.

Mark and Kevin, Jim and I cleaned Reasonable Richard and Local Access from the trail to a low point where they naturally fork. Very low (like by the lower tree off the trail), there was a rusty but good Lost Arrow buried and hidden in the the base of a shrub which had loosened it to the point of removing it by hand. It got replaced by a bugaboo close to it's original position. I did put a bolt at junction between Reasonable Richard and Local Access at the point you are forced onto one route or the other and it serves both routes. I also placed a bugaboo high up on Local Access - both the bolt and the pin were placed on lead and are easily removed if that ends up being the consensus. Jim also restored the third pin on the bottom of Fly Dutchman. However, I have put up lots of hard, runout FA's over the years and I do know the difference between runout and free soloing and Reasonable Richard is a free solo up to the old SMC bolt. Now I personally don't have a problem discussing whether it should stay a free solo to the bolt, but no one is going to convince me that it is anything other than that. That's the reason why it sees little traffic. It is also the first protection bolt I have placed in 32 years of climbing and it is not something I did lightly. Local Access just needed a followup cleaning to Mark's and is pretty much set to go. There is also a beautiful small black diherdral that goes up to the base of Flying Swallow right to the lower anchors that should be pushed. Please, do post up on these issues, and Mark, let's sort it out Thursday PM out there or I can probably come out Friday or over at Jim's - it's why I've been bugging you to come up - I want to get all this work done and just get back to climbing. Also, anchors have been replaced on Double Dirty Overhang (top), Excaliber (lower), Grunge Book (both), Borderline (both), Blownout (both), Pirates (top, bare), and Bluebird (top, rap). Great shots (as usual) of Eric, thanks... [ Edit: the bugaboo did not get put in Local Access - it got put in the unclimbed line to the right of it. ]

Would be happy to...

I'll be out with my wife Rhoda on Saturday and up for yardage on moderates both days this weekend. Also will be taking Gabe Bailey of the BRSP staff up the corner for his first climb...

Turns out there are at least two young Peregrines and possibly three. The parents train the young by passing them things in mid-air. Of late we've seen them use a fish and a gull wing for training. I've seen one of the young flying across the South face with a gull wing obviously pleased with itself and letting the world know it (or at least that was my lay interpretation). I suppose it's possible you were watching three young ones squabbling or two parents training a young one. Not sure but I'll pass your observation on to David Anderson and see what he has to say...

I'll be out friday...

PM me... Joseph

I believe THE classic breakup solo would be Charlie Fowler's solo of the Diamond...

Well, the question isn't exactly black and white. My main partner over the years recently broke four ribs roped soloing in Devil's Lake on a route that, had he been free soloing, he would have flashed no problem. He's been soloing fairly rampantly at a consistent 5.11 onsight level for just about 30 years and what got him was climbing up and downclimbing several times through the crux to try to get in another piece. Had he been soloing it as he had the other three routes earlier that day working up to this one he would have had no problem at all. But he's getting older and knows he won't be able to free solo forever and has been focusing on roped soloing again and unfortunately got caught by a route with a low crux and less than obvious pro above it. Neither the question nor the answers are necessarily simple all the time...

I'll be posting a list soon of South face columns that need cleaning. If all you hard men and women would each sign up to clean just one of them we'd have them all ready for whippers in no time. They all have new anchors so they're completely safe to clean and I have a dialed suite of cleaning tools available for folks to use. I'll be attacking a couple of the real hard cases that basically have bushes all the way up them like "Takes Fists", but there will still be plenty to go around...

No, and it hasn't forgotten me either. Ivan, I'll be out Friday...

Gak!!! Cleaning at the Butte? Goddamn it. Tangen-Foster blows his ribs, Bud laid his new bike down on his foot, and now you with the wrist. What the hell is going on around here...?