JosephH

In the case of sport climbing at Beacon, no, I don't. I only operate in my own self-interest out there and that boils down to three things: - climbing as many days a year out there as possible - that Beacon tradition prevails intact and sport climbing doesn't happen there - bad fixed belay/rap anchors suck If promoting those three things is 'swaggering' then, yes, I'll definitely be swaggering. Then don't, as nothing is going to change in that regard.

I disagree. It does not set any precedent. Young Warriors? And it does not make their job harder.....why say no when it feels so good to say yes. Well, that's certainly a valid perspective if your trigger finger has just been jonesing for risk-free Beacon sport routes. Have you given up metal and switched to playing soft rock and new age music to go with that?

That's precisely and exactly what I'm saying at Beacon. Beacon is an oasis of trad surrounded by a sea of sport climbing venues - there is ZERO reason for sport climbing at Beacon - go elsewhere if that's what you want. Don't like that? Piss off.

Ivan, my apologies for not making it clear I was talking to Steve and others in this regard - you've absolutely fabulous in this way, I just wish more would show half the initiative on the South Face columns as you have the past few years. True, I was more hoping for a free renaissance rather than an aid one, but outside the disagreement on this route, you have been nothing less than stellar as far as being someone who's picked up more than his fair share of the load in that respect. The BRSP is 'Beacon Rock State Park' not the climbers. In the end the rock is 'owned' by a relatively climber-friendly Lisa Lantz at WSP in Olympia as the SW Regional Resource Steward and administered locally by Head Ranger Karl Hinze and the BRSP staff (w/ ex-Head Ranger Erik Plunkett in Olympia still very much involved in all things Beacon as Karl's new boss and head of the Region). The park and it's staff have been way busy for the past five years to get too involved with climbing on one hand, on the other they've been getting dinged in their annual performance reviews for not having an updated and current CMP in place. Erik is still dedicated to that happening and now that the big projects like the RR bridge, new entrance to the boat launch, and the demo of the trailer park are behind them I suspect they will now be getting to it sooner than later. In the end it will be their call on what goes in once the CMP is in place and, no, I'm not being hysterical - they will have a harder time deflecting sport route requests because those applicants will be able to point to the fixed pro count on this route and the odds are good they'll be under that count with anything they want to do. It flat out sets a lousy precedent, makes their job harder, and just adds to the pressure and risk over the long haul. Sometimes the purer thing is to just walk away. I use fixed pro on occasion (there are three pins on Menopause), but there's no circumstance that would ever find me doing a line with a fraction of that count, but that's me and my FAs and I don't put FAs up for anyone else. Other folks make other decisions, but there's no getting around the entirely retro nature of this line. And, aside from the bad precedent it sets, a big part of all what gets me in all this again comes down to a general unwillingness around here to be as straight up as Miker has been and at least agree to call a spade a spade. Hey, I really do hate being a bummer and it sucks feeling compelled to say I think your 'kid' is ugly. But again, my real concern is strictly around the fixed pro count precedent set. Had McGown put it up in the late 70's or early 80s when things like this were happening it would be a different story and I'd say c'est la vie. But it's a different deal putting something like that up in the park today. Also, you know McGown looked at it long and hard bitd as well - and probably Dod, Caldwell, Schmitz, Tichner, and others did too - that they didn't do it should beg a pause to consider as well. [ P.S. As for the name, I'd suggest 'The Perils of Oprichnina'... ]

He didn't "get to it first", it's been looked at lots of times, but of course most folks were looking at it for free lines, or lines with an absolute minimum of aid, not a retro-aid job. He didn't "find a way", the way was clear - forcing an aid line up it wasn't rocket science, it just took perseverance and hard work. I'm fully aware you've been chomping at the bit to establish safe sport lines on the South Face, no news there, nor that I and others are totally against that. Absolutely, that and this are exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see happening at Beacon exactly because the open the door a little wider to sport bolting on the South Face with guys like you at the front of the line.

No, it's not - please do tell me where it's still happening. Aiding is a vital skill for a lot of spectacular routes, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the need to establish this route and in this manner. You'd have to be living in a 'back to the future' world to believe this is what climbing is about today or even in the recent past.

Smith is a sport climbing area and has been equipped as such. Beacon isn't and I do what I can to try and keep it that way. The Valley dos have all sorts of routes as you describe, but put up awhile ago. Are you trying to claim that if you tried to put up a route with a topo like that today at Smith (say on PLW), Index, the Valley, the Diamond, Eldo, or Cannon it wouldn't be met with howls of derision. Really?

The only difference there is the difference between the trad/sport divide and different histories with bolt wars. Within each camp the variations are minor. The "small sample" is the guys who put it up and other members of the clan - so yeah, they are ok with it.

The Corner and YW are classic, wandering 'lines of least resistance', though the first pitch of YW is fabulously overbolted for all the wrong reasons, but that decision was made long ago, not today. Again, you're not the first person to look at that line in earnest - lots of us have both in the past and fairly recently - the difference is none of us were willing to apply that much fixed pro to realize a 'route' up it. In that respect 'Stone Soup' is appropriate as you started with no line and only realized one with a community pooling of fixed gear to force one into existence. Only time will tell. But this is a serious chink in the wall as it makes it that more difficult for the BRSP to justify turning down someone else's request for a high fixed pro count (sport) line anywhere on the rock, i.e. the South Face. I know, I was referring to the of-late party/group activity/fun-to-do and 'we need a winter place to play' aspect of it all.

IMO - then different standards might apply. The same standards do not apply to the Gunks, Smith, Index, or Rummy, for instance. I'm not a local, but as usual, I think that history and majority rule is the norm. With minor variations - but what they all have in common is this route wouldn't be acceptable at any of them.

No, it didn't. If I'm not mistaken this is the same Jim who chopped two bolts on a free climb at DZ last year. In this case a retro-renaissance - no one anywhere else would even think about putting up a route like this. Think only for and about 'ourselves' is exactly why you won't get anything done at the Park. Well, having redone all the anchors, checked all the fixed pro, and cleaned some out those routes on the south face without seeing any uptake on people volunteering to adopt and clean any of the columns you'll forgive me if it all sounds pretty rah-rah - which route are you going to take responsibility for to really clean it out and keep it clean? The 'climbers lot' will only improve once their heads are out of their collective asses and start thinking about more than about how set upon and victimized they are and focus on more than just what they want. [ Note: Off_White - if this response is 'inappropriate' then you should either remove or move Steve's post as well. ]

And the part about if it had been anywhere else?

No, Beacon isn't the Valley or Smith - it's closer than both and a very special and unique resource that shouldn't be abused in this way for the sake of anyone's entertainment and amusement - it shouldn't be turned into a locals' Six Flags. I don't care how you guys arrived at the decision, it was a bad one that sets some utterly lousy precedents. If you guys can't even simply acknowledge the fact that this is a full on retro 1975 pound up of a line that didn't really exist without a application of a huge quantity of fixed pro then it's pretty damn hard to have an honest conversation around the motivation and rationale for doing it. And if you were being honest, you'd admit you got into some circular thinking around needing a new group project and wouldn't this be grand entertainment that kept on giving. But hey, there is nothing about this line that moves climbing forward at Beacon or anywhere else. You all seem totally unwilling if not incapable of acknowledging that if this line went up at Smith, Index, the Diamond, the Captain, on Cannon, or at the Leap you'd get an immediate and intense negative reaction. And that's because the day of putting up routes like these is long, long past. You want to do climb lines like these? Enjoy the ones that were put up when this was acceptable and we didn't know better - putting one up today? Weak and there's simply no way around that. The only place it's apparently still acceptable is inside the bubble of the Beacon distortion reality field. Personally, I think you've guys have treated the stone badly for your own entertainment value. Having a good group time together digging out and putting up lines out DZ or Cothedral? Priceless. But that sort of fun shouldn't have then been directed at and applied at Beacon just because it's close and it's winter - sorry, it deserves way more respect than that.

Right after they go over to Smith and do the same over there.

That coming out of the insular Beacon distortion field where everything goes I suppose I should take it as a compliment and find some comfort in the fact I'm lodged firmly outside the Zardoz dome of insiders who live in a special world that's any way they want or need it to be. all evidence to the contrary How would anyone be able to say without knowing the details? Does someone falling on a route now make it R rated? Not if you guys drill up the Oracle roof as planned, though it would seem you now have the desired practice aid line. Or are you guys going to head to Smith next and put up something similar on the Picnic Lunch Wall? God knows you'll need something new after this one, and what will you do when the West side is raining? I'm sure those guys will understand your winter plight and be completely understanding with why it's necessary.

That's the first open, straight-up, and honest statement I've read about this line so far in either thread. I don't know the circumstances or the details of the fall - that someone fell doesn't tell me anything about the rating on the route without knowing the details. Could be an off day, bad luck, or bad placement, or could be radically burly - but I can't say at the moment. Did the bolts go in on the pitch before or after the accident? What role did that accident play in the overall fixed pro count? And I would say what's weather or winter got to do with it, but Mike's comment above answers that question. I can bitch about it because: a) There wasn't a line there. b) It took draconian amounts of fixed pro to realize one. c) It had nothing to do with state of the art aid or free climbing and was a totally retro affair done strictly so aid climbers would have some entertainment in the winter. d) It sets a really bad and lousy precedent for when some sport climber rolls into town and wonders, "Where's mine? The aid guys got theirs!" e) It would be a full on uproar if this went in at Smith or the Valley, but in the insular we-all-agree-with-each-other Beacon clan it's anything goes. f) It never would have flown with the BRSP and WSP, or open community comment. g) It's hypocritical in the extreme in the face of DZ bolt chopping on free lines. h) It's so far from "KEEPING IT REAL" that maybe the phrase should be retired entirely. And it would be way more helpful if it had been and was talked about honestly like Mike is and if a spade were being called a spade versus trying to make it out to be something it isn't, defending it by attacking me, or attempting to minimize the fixed pro count and precedent. From my perspective it simply a matter of your little neo-aid tribe deciding you needed a winter pastime and that was it, screw what anyone else thinks. Ok, but it's a bummer you can't at least be upfront about it.

That's one of the first open, straight-up, and honest statements I've read about this line so far in either thread.

Clearly not you having only rarely seen a bolt you didn't like.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi

Hmmm, love all the uber-attempts at minimizing a fixed pro count that would raise howls and hackles if this just went up on the Captain. You're really giving O'Reilly and Beck a run for their money with that kind of reality distortion (and as if Beacon needs yet more reality distortion). And the casting of any questioning of the 'route' as the provence of a 'troubled few' is equally lame. Overall it's pretty weak in every respect as an honest response on the issue goes. And "route safety"? Routes aren't 'safe' - climbers competent to and comfortable with the endeavor at hand are 'safe', not routes. If you want 'safe' and risk-free head to the gym or Six Flags, no need to turn Beacon into yet another 'safe' play zone. At that fixed pro count I'd say some R-rated and A3/4 climbing might have been the better call, or abandoning the whole affair as impractical and inappropriate. In this case it's clear Ivan's "ground-to-summit" vision overrode all other concerns.

Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it. sounds like double-talk to me - you're for it, but only under conditions that make it impossible, so really you're not for it It's not. It's clear talk saying I'm not for 'routes' that require mass application of fixed gear. I'd say if a contemplated FA requires that kind of outfitting then you really don't have a route, you have an idea that can only exist with a draconian application of fixed pro. And that comes through loud and clear as what was driving this deal. Do you think you're the only one who's looked at that stretch of rock and envisioned a line there? I have, sure others have to and I did try to rap it once but in the summer and got beat back by the oak. It's clearly an appealing idea. The difference and catch is in the second phrase of your quote above "w/ as little bolting as required". You clearly had no upper limit of fixed pro that would sway you from your "ground-to-summit" quest/vision, whereas I and likely others do and had. Trust me, I love the vision, but the cost to realize it just doesn't work out for me given the issues it poses and the precedents it sets. Again, there's nothing about the 'line' I need to climb or rap to understand - I get the 'vision thing' relative to "ground-to-summit" - I just don't agree with the at-any-cost way it ended up happening. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on establish routes like that out there - I'm not supportive of that at all. But don't worry, I'll probably head up it at some point to see it in all it's glory.

It's pretty clear that "ground-to-summit" was the driving vision in this FA and that while from the parking lot or road it appears to be a 'line' due to the visual span of relatively 'clean' rock - the fixed pro count speaks heavily to the contrary. You can argue that a "ground-to-summit" route by any means is valid using the argument that the 'anything should go' on the north side. But when 'anything' goes means a fixed pro count like that it calls into question if the quest for a "ground-to-summit" line didn't end up overriding a lot of other valid concerns around 'is there really a line', drilling precedent, and retro-aid lines in general. Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it.

Why? It's one of my more flattering angles. Was lucky to have happened upon those guys and able to catch a ride on it while they had a rope up.

Oh, do tell - if there is more to 'the story' that makes the topo and fixed pro count somehow not discussion-worthy I'd sure love to hear exactly what that is.

I think in the years I've been posting on cc I've sent out less than a half dozen pm's on forum topics to folks I don't know. In probably only half of those was the subject the same - either make fucking point or STFU - contribute or piss off. It would have been 'inappropriate' had you made a point prior to receiving it, but as it was up til that point you hadn't. No contol issues or conspiracies required, just spit it out if you have something to say next time.