JosephH

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

They're out now in online stores. Also, it's worth mentioning that not everyone is online so this year it's probably still a good idea if you spot aliens on someone's rack you might mention the recall and double check that they heard about it...

=================== Beacon Rock Update - 4/19/06... =================== Peregrine Monitoring Status The Peregrines are in very high, frantic, and ballistic courtship mode right now with at least one male consistently courting two females on Tuesday. At one point there were four Peregrines [biefly] interacting NW of Beacon - two courting, one nearby, and one to the NW looking interested in the activity. Most of the action is taking place on the near-Westside of Beacon in a narrow North-South band running from the island to the South and ranging quite far to the North. On their repeated returns to Beacon they often end up right above it soaring and gaining lift on the ridge of air Beacon creates. Overall they are generally staying in very close proximity to each other and to Beacon. My total poser guess is they are very close to pair-bonding / mating with nesting and eggs very soon thereafter. Eggs are incubated for about 33 days and the fledge cycle from hatching to fledging is somewhere between 30 and 58 days with the middle being average. So realistically if they settle down to nest this week or next we're most likely looking at a fairly normal opening date. I would suspect from what I'm seeing it might open a week or two early, but probably no more than that if they nest on the South Face. If they nest elsewhere and we can confirm the location than an earlier opening is certainly possible. David Anderson of the WDFW has monitoring staffed up with a small number of non-climbers this year after a training session that was run at the Audobon Society around the new year. He normally only wants a very few committed folks monitoring so as to keep the monitoring notes consistent. Bill Coe and I have a good relationship with David and while contributing to that overall monitoring effort we will be more focusing our monitoring effort on confirming the nest site so we can all have a better understanding of a likely opening date. Again, biologically speaking, things are looking fairly normal at the moment and we are determined to identify the nesting site this year. We'll keep you posted and will probably give a shout to a couple of you who expressed and interest in monitoring, though there is still no immediate rush as they are not nesting as yet. And for those that venture out on your own, it's easy to confuse the Red Tailed Hawks and Peregrines. In general, if the bird is doing a lot of flat flying / soaring without a lot of wing movement, doing wide lazy turns with broader wings, and a fairly decent sized "triangular" or "fan" tail - then it's a Red Tailed. Also note the leading and trailing wing edge profiles are basically reversed between the Red Tailed and the Peregrine. The Red Taileds nest up under the roofs where the big East face roofs start turning downward hard up from the SE corner (by the sign post on the trail) - You can see it either from the upper picnic area or from a spot between the men and women's bathrooms facing South. The nest is, coincidentally, very reddish, fairly large / tall and looks sort of "Tibetan" in its perch and construction. Because of the nest location and type of prey they hang out flying a lot to the East, Southeast, and South, steadily soaring along in order to spot game on the ground. Red Tailed Hawk The Peregrines are a bit smaller, darker, compact and burly. Their tail and wings are narrower, wings more articulated back at the "elbow", and more pointed at the tips. They don't do a lot of flat, slow soaring because they don't hunt for things on the ground but rather are after birds in the sky. They will do the Redtail type soaring but usually only in very close to the rock or directly above Beacon. Otherwise they're generally either chilling on a SE or SW corner ledge somewhere or they have their mojo on and are cutting up the sky swooping about climbing, diving, and booking out in some direction. Again, they often come back to the ridge lift right above Beacon. Some times they do head out to the North a ways or across the river so you have to be patient. The best place to see them right now is from down by the boat launch while looking at Beacon, the ridge lift above it, and in the sky to the N-NW. Once you catch them in a wing-tucked dive a couple of times they become a lot easier to identify on a consistent basis. Again, the key is really more in their flight behavior than their visual appearance; once you have that behavior down you can tell it's them even at a great distance. Peregrine Falcon Worth a trip out as they are really lighting things off right now if you catch them while they're out and about. I caught them on Tuesday, which was a beautiful day, in the afternoon around 3pm. They were out solid for two hours and then disappeared like Cinderella... Joseph Healy Bill Coe Beacon Rock Climbers' Association

Stewart, Thanks for your comments. The NW face is open for climbing, just not development at this time. The odds are good significant routes on the face will need some fixed protection. The protocol in question will likely be the approval of overall lines after a review versus inidividual pieces with the understanding that the priority on the routes be gear, pins, and bolts as a last resort in keeping with Beacon traditions. At this time the BRSP is considering the possibiliy of either they or the BRCA providing the fixed protection required for a route. "Approval of overall lines after a review" will probably entail both identifying what mix of fixed protection is required, and on which stretches of the route, and a survey of objective hazards. Some give and take and disagreements will likely be inevitable relative to the number and spacing of bolts with the BRCA position leaning closer to "stout" than to a "bolt ladder" in an effort to maintain route standards at Beacon. Routes / ascents on the Upper NW Face will in all likelyhood encounter some degree of "environmental" challenges relative to loose rock and / or vegatation either during the climb or attempting to exit off of them. Because of this, some "reasonable level of competency" will need to be displayed by folks on those routes, and the level of protection on routes so described should not be of such a nature as to attract folks unprepared to deal with the realities exhibited on any particular route. That's more or less the party line for the moment. I personally would expect fixed protection on routes that ascend to any height on the NW face to have more in common with the second, rather than the first, pitch of "Young Warriors". Others will have their own opinions and it will just have to get worked out in the wash. But the NW face is not a risk-free environment as you rightfully point out and that has to be weighted realistically as we go along - particularly on the upper bands. The last thing we want is a situation where the base of the NW face is busy with folks doing short, solid easier pitches and the top seeing a lot of activity on routes with significant [and ongoing] rockfall potential. Some route proposals will likely require some study for that potential. Joseph Healy

I like the Mammut Supersafe 10.2 - a very tough, but very supple rope...

Whew - gotta go to sleep, words are blurring together. In this case these two threads were right next to each other and kind of ran scarily together: WTB: Avalanche Probe RE: Uranus Good night...

I'm admittedly old school and despise having stuff hanging from my waist and clanking around my thighs. Racking on the harness is definitely a sport-to-trad new school deal. I personally use one of these and love it. Use it for everything from 1 pitch to 15. I'd switch up to a Yates for a big wall aid route, but for free climbing these babies are great. You can also rig them with a 1 liter bladder and they still take a wallet, keys, cell, and cliff bar.

Mark, No problem and I understand. I think Jim O. and Bill Coe can testify that we have a much better working relationship with all concerned at this point and we did open a bit early last year. I think we there is a good possibility for the same this year. We do need to do a pre-opening cleanup of what is now a ton of loose stuff hanging over the top of the base of the SE corner. That should just be a day or two however, and should be during the same couple of days the BRSP staff uses to get their pre-opening tasks and survey done once they get the ok from WDFW. Will keep everyone posted on that as well as the monitoring.

I'll take him out once Beacon opens. Are the Tuesday Rocky Butte sessions going on still, that would be a good venue to meet folks...

=================== Beacon Rock Update - 4/4/06... =================== Early Opening Rumors Just got off the phone with BRSP staff - climbing on the South face is most definitely not going to be opening this weekend. We are just now cranking up monitoring efforts and will be working with David Anderson of the WDFW and the BRSP to open the South face to climbing at the earliest possible time. Will keep you all posted about both the monitoring and any news of a potential early opening. Joseph Healy Beacon Rock Climbers' Association

Mark, It isn't a matter of whether they are there or not - I have no doubt whatsoever that they are as I've almost never been out and not seen them regardless of the time of year - it's a matter of verifying where exactly they are nesting. David Anderson and the BRSP are fully prepared to open early if we a) verify the Peregrines are nesting somewhere other than the South face or b) have fledged. And monitoring Beacon is a unique challange as a 3D free standing structure; you sometimes have to really hump back and forth between the upper picnic area, the boat ramp, and the tracks back from the SE Corner. It's better to have two folks, one at the upper picnic area and one at the boat ramp so you don't have to shag it around all day long.

Such rumors would be a lot easier to track down if folks would either post up, pm, or email the source. No Beacon is not opening this weekend. I don't know if this coming from my talks with Jim O. about the prospect and process of opening or somewhere else - but again, Beacon only opens after David Anderson of WDFW signs off on it and BRSP has a chance to do a survey, change signage, and handle a couple of other tasks. I spoke with David last week about starting monitoring back up and he didn't say a word about opening given the Peregrines are just now sorting out nesting.

Something Seattle can really call its own...

Kevin, We'll be able to develop over there again soon. The BSRP staff and WSP biologists weren't "sensitive" about the moss itself so much as the snow shovel one of our intrepid warriors was (somewhat innocently) using to remove entire slabs of it. There was simply a bit of a miscommunication and misunderstanding. The boys thought they were being told that the NW face was no longer considered "habitat" once it was designated as climbable. That was never true or an interpretation that even entered into the parks folk's mind. The whole of Beacon Rock is considered habitat - albeit, some parts of it more sensitive then other parts - and the explicit interpretation to be taken away from that is this: You can climb, but do so with the least footprint and impact possible - i.e. skip the snow shovels and don't clean entire slabs and faces. We're well on the road to getting the whole affair sorted out and put behind us and we'll keep you and everyone posted on that progress as we have something new to report...

Hanmi, Yes, the NW face between the signs (just West of the parking lot / drinking fountain and East of where the tourist trail hits the rock) is open. There are a couple of short bolted routes that caused enough commotion to shut down development on the NW face a couple of years ago and beyond that most stuff eventually ends up fairly savagely run out as it stands now. We are working with BRSP staff to resolve the development issues and hope to have new development protocols in place sometime this year so we can get back to it. As it stands now no new fixed protection is allowed. Again we will are actively on this one as there is the potential for some nice stuff up there. That said, if it's dry for a couple of days it's still worth exploring if you've never looked at it all...

Beacon Rock Notice - 3/28/2006

=================== Beacon Rock Update - 3/28/06... =================== Early Opening / Peregrine Rumors Just for the record. Peregrine monitoring has not yet begun and will only be formally initiated by David Anderson of the WDFW though we may start up on our own. This year's Peregrine's nesting status - both activity and location - are undetermined at this time. Beacon is NOT opening early as of this time. That status may change if and when we determine the status and location of any Peregrine nesting or lack thereof. If, and that's "if", the Peregrines are proven not to not be nesting on the South face arrangements will be initiated with the necessary agencies to open it to climbing at the earliest opportunity after such a determination by WDFW. For now the South face is closed and will remain so until either July 15th or until the WDFW determines otherwise. Thank you for your understanding, cooperation, and patience in this matter and rest assured we will be working to have the South face open as soon as possible. Joseph Healy Bill Coe Beacon Rock Climbers' Association

Blake, How goes it down there? How about a TR? Shipping it NZ International Parcel w/ Track & Trace for a .25lb/.2kg parcel looks like NZ $9.07

TRANGO RECALL NOTICE #1 MaxCam Batch Numbers: 0605, 0705 27 March 2006 After receiving a defective unit from a climber in the field, in-house inspection and testing has revealed that a small number of our # 1 MaxCams have head axle rivets that do not meet the minimum specified diameter, possibly resulting in failure of the cam assembly. This flaw affects only the red #1 MaxCam with Batch Numbers 0605 and 0705 that were sold in 2005 and 2006. All other cams are unaffected and you can continue to use them with confidence. Please discontinue the use of #1 MaxCams from Batch Numbers 0605 and 0705 from use immediately and return them according to the instructions below. We highly recommend that you use UPS or FedEx so that you have a tracking number. Via UPS/FedEx or other package service: TMI/Trango Freeport Center F-11 Clearfield, UT 84016 Via US Mail (USPS) TMI/Trango PO Box 160470 Clearfield, UT 84016 We will inspect and repair or replace your MaxCams within three business days and return them to you. Mark each cam with a return address, a phone number and an email where we can reach you if we have questions. We are truly sorry for any inconvenience. Please call us at 800/860-3653 or visit our website at www.trango.com if you have any further questions. Climb Safe, Malcolm Daly, Director mdaly@trango.com

I will say that Bill's and others' comments about the dangers posed setting up top ropes out at there are not without merit. Due to the top slope angle and the slick nature of the mud/soil I consider Rocky Butte to be of most dangerous places I've ever encountered in all my 32 years of climbing. And that is just to climbers let alone the proximity / lure factor to non-climbers. With even a hint of moisture out there you have to really pay attention regardless of what the f#ck you are doing. If you are on top you are risk. I'd add to that the risks posed by malicious non-climbers is real enough out there such that I'm wary of setting up top rope anchors back to trees without some form of gear backup at or just over the edge (another dangerous proposition just to setup and not always possible). I would suspect any chopping is likely by climbers though I don't know the history so am in no position to say who might take enough interest to police it. If it were non-climbers I'd expect one or two of the fatalities would have been the choppers...