JosephH

Yeah, I agree, it's totally frustrating. But with the BLM / FS you're dealing with a mixed bag of personnel of various personal political persuasions and differing experiences dealing with a variety of adversarial and antagonistic user groups. You're also dealing with long institutional histories of federal agencies acting unilaterally without a lot of oversight up until recent decades. Not great as you say, but the choices remain the same regardless - either you, a) learn what you can and work with the hand you're dealt, b) walk away and climb elsewhere during the closure, or c) become a perpetually wailing victim. Personally, I'd recommend either a) or b), but to each his own.

Yeah, there are a lot of people upset over raptor wind farm kills, but then wind energy isn't 'free' in any sense of the word when it comes to bats and raptors. For the NW to produce wind energy there will always be a toll on raptors. So are climbers being asked to pay a 'price' for that? Indirectly, but u-betcha, absolutely. Given the rapid growth of wind farms in OR and WA the number of raptor kills has gone way, way up in total numbers in the NW. To compensate, especially given the range of eagles, those wind farm losses translate to pressure on managers to be diligent in managing protections wherever else they can. It impacts climbers in another way as well. Raptor biologists who would normally be available for monitoring climbing sites are instead now buried up to their ears processing the environmental impact statements (EIS) associated with proposed wind farm applications and running kill and kill abatement studies on existing farms. Because of that, they can't monitor climbing sites with anywhere near the frequency they otherwise would prior to the wind farms. That's further compounded in the federal case simply by the amount of land under BLM and FS management here out west relative to the biologists they have available to do the required work. That's why the Feds are far more likely to do broader blanket, static, and unmonitored raptor closures with the Feb 1st-Aug 31st dates typical in federal closures throughout the west. My guess is in this case they actually had every intent of doing the the studies and analysis, but in the end couldn't line up the requisite resources to actually do them so just moved forward with the closure due to the management pressure from the wind farm kills. The fact western BLM and FS managers are working with limited biology resources is all the more reason to not get adversarial with them, but rather try to establish a working relationship with them and especially their raptor biologists. See if you can get out and go monitoring with them and learn where the traditional eagle nests in the vicinity of Trout are. Build that relationship and you at least have a shot of monitoring the closure and getting early opens if they don't nest, or once the chicks have fledged if they have. It's a raw deal, but given steady climbing out at Trout is a relatively recent, but fast growing, phenom no one should be surprised it's now hit BLM's radar given its proximity to Smith with its climbing and raptor closures. My take on it is if you guys have any relationship with Cassandra at all you should do everything possible to build on that and try to establish your own monitoring out there with whatever folks are willing and available. The BLM out west here isn't known for working closely with climbers outside of a few select locales like Red Rock where they have no choice, but I'd strongly suggest you give working with them a shot because if you take an antagonistic stance with them they'll just lock it up with a static closure and your only recourse will be in federal court and I can guarantee that avenue will go absolutely nowhere in a hurry. Even with the AF fully engaged you're better off not pissing them off as the AF is engaged with the BLM across the west and those BLM managers have email. And who knows, maybe you can set some cooperative precedents with them out at Trout. Bummer the place is out of the closet now, but this sort of thing naturally happens when a crag suddenly becomes as highly publicized and popular as fast as Trout has. That's because 'complainers', who choose to remain deliberately ignorant on the issue, and who adopt highly adversarial, victim-based stances and approaches to 'dealing' with closures are both entirely counterproductive and butt stupid. And hell, steady breaches of the closure, endlessly misrepresenting facts, and relentless shit-talking of agency personnel was a real winner at Beacon. And that was at a state park where access to WSP and WDFW personnel have been entirely open all along. Federal agency personnel aren't nearly so accessible, open, or responsive as the state agencies of record at Beacon and the BLM and FS also have far broader leeway to act as they see fit in the interests of their charters with less effective oversight than state agencies. That's because the recourse through federal courts are expensive, arduous, and largely unproductive for something like climbing, particularly when Audubon drops in to all those federal proceedings. In other words, by all means, you Trout folks can certainly adopt the 'Beacon' approach to dealing with this closure; but then you should just skip the website, organizing, and politics and just move right onto the closure breaches, shit-talking Cassandra & Co., and endless bitching. That way, anyone who comes along later who might want to try to do something about the closure will basically be behind the curve and working against the tide from the onset.

Ouch, that sucks. August 31st is a typical Federal lands open date. August 1st is what it should be at the latest. If folks are interested enough, it would be good to contact Cassandra and find out: * Are there any known nest locations in the area surrounding Trout? * Are there any known nests at Trout itself? * Are there any known nests within 300 yards of either end of Trout? * Will there be any BLM resources monitoring the Golden Eagles in that area during the closure dates? * If yes, who will those resources be? * If yes, what physical locations will they be monitoring from? * If yes, will the BLM be prepared to declare an early open if there is no nesting activity within 300 yards of Trout? * If no, will they allow interested folks to cooperatively monitor in lieu of a BLM resource?

I'm not riled up, just amazed to see 'Beacon climbers' bothering to go to the trouble of putting together a proposal for a partial close and then deliver it to entirely the wrong people. The point is, doing stuff like talking with a wholly unsympathetic Audubon and making proposals to the wrong people just serves to highlight and underscore a continued unwillingness to get real about the closure. And at what point is it all just willful, wishful, and deliberate ignorance? If the AF operated in a similar 'the-world-is-the-way-we-want-it-to-be-dammit' bubble of denial like this they would never have recovered or protected a single climbing area in their entire history. Sure, on the surface it's all a pretty straightforward proposition - just convince the WDFW they should partially or fully lift the closure. Under the hood it's a entirely a different story; you (and they) have to justify any change in some legitimate manner which addresses the various biological, legal, policy, management, resource, and enforcement constraints associated with any change in the closure's status. And that's just within the WDFW; there are a lot of other stakeholders, like Audubon, who would be involved (more like pile on) in the requisite public comment period that would precede any official move to change or lift the closure. The bottom line is that spending year after year wallowing in a lament of fervent belief the 'true' answer lies in finding and convincing the 'right' people just how cruel an injustice it all is may be a great bonding, feel-good activity in an ass-grabbing, pass-the-bong, lets-all-howl-at-the-moon, drum-circle sort of way, but it's an entirely counterproductive approach to dealing with the closure. And in the end it just ushers generation after generation of new kids who don't know any better into a [personality] cult of collective victimhood. I know that's harsh and you hate hearing it, but sorry, that's exactly what's been going on out there for way, way too long now. And, hey, you can be out there all the time, become a social media or TV celebrity, and sleep with people in high places, but in the end it doesn't mean squat to the WDFW or WA / Federal law. And after years of relentless whining and bitching - particularly when resources like Kevbone's wife, Brian, and Geoff who are all attorneys are available to get real answers one way or the other (not to mention Kenny who for god's fucking sake works for the very agency imposing the closure) - it all gets oppressively tiring. You know, how did Kevin put it? A real downer and wet blanket over the whole friggin' place. Maybe it's finally time to instead consider either getting real or moving on and just letting it go (or not I suppose). But then of course, what the fuck, I'm just the crazy one. Right on dudes and c'est la fuckin' vie - works for me any day of week - better crazy than a perpetually clueless victim.

Of course you do! And of course you can detail exactly what you disagree with...

The comments on the closure from my post above were related to a proposal for a Beacon partial-closure which was recently put together and passionately presented to the BRSP (and not posted here of course). All well and good, except the BRSP and WSP have no say whatsoever in the Beacon Peregrine Closure - its management is entirely under the authority of the WDFW and the BRSP only provides local enforcement services relative to it. And it's not like this fact hasn't been gone over again and again and reiterated both here and in person by three successive BRSP head rangers in a row. That such a proposal would go to the BRSP instead of the WDFW this late in the game (and especially when Kenny works for 'the man') speaks to the degree folks still simply aren't 'getting it' relative to the closure. Seems like there is still an absolute refusal to stop living in a victimal alternate reality bubble driven by the overwhelming unfairness of it all. And presenting this proposal to the wrong agency can't really be taken as anything other than a sure sign of a lingering belief that, "if we could just explain it right and make the right people understand, then they'll finally realize just how unfair it all is to us climbers and change the closure." It's the same indignant, self-absorbed thinking that's gone on since '96 to absolutely no avail. And when the WDFW gets this sort of thing in a lateral hand-off from the wrong agency it likely tells them the folks involved didn't bother to figure out the most basic aspects of the closure let alone why it exists, the history of Peregrines and such closures, the biology behind it, what Beacon represents to the effort to restore Peregrines to their natural NW range and breeding pair count, what impact wind power has had on raptors, how the Beacon closure compares to similar closures around the country, what resource demands enforcement and ongoing management entails, and what the AF's position on similar closures are. In short, the odds are good it instead gets interpreted as an emotional plea by folks who are only focused on their own needs and not interested in the bigger picture or context in which the closure operates. In the end, the search for 'sympathetic ears' is pointless as that's not how the laws and management policy around the closure work - if anything - they are explicitly designed to remove such emotional perceptions and appeals from the process. Again, if you are serious about this proposal then you need to make an appointment to present it to the appropriate WDFW representative and start a discussion with the agency. It of course would be helpful if you developed a relationship with them based on mutual respect and trust, have some idea of the scope and scale of the forty year investment they have into the effort, have read the related laws and policy, and understand where their position and viewpoint as well as you understand your own.

ah, well then, got that wrong.

Didn't you work for them at some point?

Thought you worked for SAIF...?

You work for the government, you tell us...

No need to quote it, dude - I wouldn't think of deleting or changing a word of it. Again, and unlike you, when it comes to Beacon, my business is on the up and up, completely public, and out in the open. P.S. And don't worry, you guys will have a whole new season coming up to apologize for lying about me taking Jeff's rope...

You guys can keep lying about Jeff's rope, but I didn't take it. Sure I took it...that must be why, when I heard I'd taken "Geoff's rope", I immediately tracked down Geoff Silverman to try and figure out what it was all about. Had I taken Jeff Thomas' rope down he'd have it back and you'd have known about it because I would have posted it up here. I don't sneak around doing shit like cutting down trees and destroying route variations - I do what I do out in the open and post up about it here. So no, I didn't take the rope, didn't destroy the trail, but did complain about some fucking moron cutting down the Jimney tree and did vehemently comment on the deliberate rape and destruction of the YW p2 variation by some total pinheads intent on bolting it. Look, you can remain a clueless, lying idiot, or - if you want to lift or modify the closure - get a moderate grip on reality, try to find a modicum of integrity, stop making shit up and lying through your teeth, and learn something about how the closure works and who you'd have to have an honest relationship with in order to attempt to do anything about it.

No one has an argument with wet panteeeeeeezzzz but, like anything else you might want in life, you have to understand how they operate in order get them removed.

Just a note that the WSP did without 90% of it's general revenue funding last year and is going to eat the final 10% this year making it wholly dependent on the Discovery Pass funds. As a result they've had to implement another slashing round of cuts. Those cuts amount to about 40% of employee hours with a shitload of folks being bumped from fulltime to seasonal employees. At Beacon that has meant Breanne has been bumped back to part time and Ben has been bumped down to a 5-month seasonal ranger. He can't support a family on that and mid next month will be his last day. After that he'll be looking for full-time work if anyone knows of any. He can go back for 5 months later in the spring, but hopefully he'll be able to find a job before then. Vivian missed the axe by two bodies and basically anyone hired from 2003 on got whacked. Also, Erik's job up in Olympia as SW Regional Finance and Personnel Director was eliminated in a spate of deep WSP headquarters staff cuts, but he fortunately has enough seniority to pull down a ranger job in Grays Harbor. Bummer all the way around given the BRSP rangers and staff were already overtaxed before this round of cuts; now they'll be way under the gun over the summer. If they end up short of funds from the Discovery Passes then the next round will start closing parks. P.S. I'd have thought after seven years of back and forth posts on the topic you guys might have a basic clue and at least bothered to look into the most fundamental aspects of the closure, but apparently not. So to the point - and for about the millionth time - THE WSP/BRSP ONLY ENFORCES THE CLOSURE, THEY HAVE NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN ITS MANAGEMENT. You want to talk with someone about the closure? Then you have to talk with David Anderson and the 'man' over at WDFW (you know, the guys Kenny works for...). All Karl and the BRSP can do is look at your shit, nodd their heads empathetically, and then pass it on to David. It's utterly and completely pointless talking to the Audubon, the BRSP, your state senator, each other or anyone else. You want to talk turkey about Peregrines? Then just head over to WDFW and talk to David.

Again, there is no way to tension a line while it's nose hooked, can't happen - set one up and try it.

Are you serious or do you just not know anything about slacklines and tightropes? It's phyically impossible to tension a slackline where one of the biners is in a hooked nose configuration.

Just go down to the dam, the zip lines up the gorge walls are already in place.

I don't need to have been there to know that no one got on a slackline with a hooked nose - you can't tension a slackline with it in a hooked nose configuration. And if the biner was sold by those guys then I don't care what shape it is or what's stamped on it - I wouldn't trust it as a key chain.

I'm going with it's a total piece of shit biner which failed for exactly that reason. Buy their shoes if you must, but hardware? From those guys? Never...

Only an idiot would get on one without checking the rig so nose hooked on setup is incredibly unlikely. And after they are set up and tensioned they don't "shift" in the way you are thinking.

Once setup and under tension, how would the nose get hooked?

Hard to imagine a hooked nose scenario on a line someone is walking. I'm going with Tvash's scenario for the gate opening or it just being a shit biner and the gate popping out of lock.

Wait, you mean after reading a bunch of spray here you've actually come away thinking opinions are somehow necessary? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15060310

Either it somehow wasn't closed completely, or the closure keyhole lock failed from being a cheap piece of trash, or the gate opened under some unknown circumstance. I have seen a couple of strange, hard-to-account-for results with carabiners over the years. Once took a lead fall in CT on a steep overhang and the Chouinard 'D' biner on the piece below the one I fell on instantly shot out into space about twenty yards completely detached from both the rope AND the piece in the rock. I had double checked that placement and knew the biner was on good with the gate closed and oriented properly so go figure. Shit does occasionally happen which defies expectations, reason and logic if you didn't actually watch it happen.

Gotta love the logic here: bolts can go in for almost any reason, but there's almost no reason for which they can be removed. Just what is this vaunted "standard of destruction", anyway? I can't seem to get rid of the vision of Slim Pickens riding that particular pig to the ground.