JosephH

And "no climbers within 300 feet of the nest" is completely consistent with all the AF-accepted closures around the country. Got another one that has a prayer of flying that the AF or a lawyer would buy into? How about you Steve? How about answering my question above Kevin? What does Maggie say?

Kevin, your wife Maggie is a lawyer, I listed other climber attorneys - how is it all these years you've whined and wailed inconsolably and yet have never once mentioned a legal recourse to the issue? Why is that? What exactly does Maggie say on the issue? One of your best friends, Bryan, is a climbing environmental attorney. What exactly does he say on the issue? LCK is a Beacon climber who WORKS FOR THE WDFW - what exactly (and officially) has he found out about the issue?

I keep asking you to name a single ground for opening a section of the rock that is based on a sound scientific, legal or policy basis - you haven't come up with one yet, how about right now? I not the slightest bit negative on the issue. I'm simply informed on the science, law and policy - something you and others within the Beacon distortion reality field simply take as negative. From my perspective I'm the only optimist among Beacon local climbers given none of you aside from Justin have done a damn thing to even look into the matter. I do no public slandering, I simply respond to public personal attacks, distortions of fact, and outright lies from people like you who can't be bothered to verify facts and fourteen years of whining without doing anything about it like Kevin.

Bottom line on the size of the closure is the South face is a relatively small rock so the closure is in every respect consistent with AF-accepted closures around the country.

no Ivan, since their reintroduction in the 70's Beacon has been a steadily successful site. In several recent years the traditional scrape itself may not have been successful but subsequent attempts in those years elsewhere on the rock (location unknown) were. There is some debate as to the success of the 2008 season with David thinking they weren't successful and myself believing there was one fledge.

Just trying to figure out exactly what his complaint on the bolt locations is, but maybe it's just how many there are that's the problem.

Well, for someone that expressed a strong opinion that they were in the wrong place I assumed you knew exactly where the right place should be, so yes. On what other basis do you conclude those guys got it wrong with the existing locations?

So you're on a fourteen year whine and obsession to get the tourist trail closed? Because that is the only possible outcome, the climbing closure is not going to be changed.

The line of sight issue is in no way hollow from the perspective of the level of disturbance. It's just that you focus on numerical distance as if every point on the hiking trail broke the plane of the cliff and every point had line of sight to the scrape. At best you would only succeed in closing the tourist trail - you will not change the climbing closure so what's the point? Your wife is an attorney, Bryan is an environmental attorney, Darryl Nakahira is an attorney, Geoff is an attorney. Give up your fourteen year whine and seek either legal or victims' psychology help.

The reason has to do with the original deeding of the land to the WSP and of politics between the WSP and WDFW. If Dave, the biologist, could close the tourist trail he would, but neither he nor WDFW has the ability to force such a closure upon WSP or one of their landmark tourist sites.

The climbers have already been pissed off, the issue is that the closure doesn't include the [concrete] trail tourists (yellow) take to the top. Yellow circles are where switchbacks get closest to the plane of the South face, the scrape location is marked in red.

This factor in isolation is what tortures Kevin, however. And at Beacon in the end it makes all the difference. For much of the entire distance to the top tourists are either on the West face or are in the trees as they approach the South face (where the scrape is). They only emerge from them at two spots where they get anywhere near the plane of the cliff. They are never within line-of-sight of the nest or common perches.

Kevin, so where is it you think those bolts should be?

In that case you are correct, the rock in the entire rock bands at and above the YW bolt in question suck, and while that bolt is in the best rock on that small slab, that ain't saying a whole lot as the whole slab is relatively hollow. The rock to the right isn't all that better and nothing above the mantle is any good. If you don't like that bolt and want pro then figure out the placement just above the bolt and get the bomb #10 HB offset on the left side once you're up.

This is the one Kevin can't quite grasp, that hikers at Beacon never break the plane of the cliff and only get vaguely close to doing so at two points. You should consider elaborating on that remark.

There are two pins which is what I was going up to look at but it given I started up it at 4:30 in the rain, I didn't make it up to them before I had to split. Will probably hit it again Wed.

Bill, I think maybe you meant that for the bacon thread...

I doubt you'll find closures were 'carefully documented' except in areas where there was active monitoring resources which is likely a small percentage of closures. Given all the closures were of at least some minimum size (say 300m), I don't suspect you'd find much in the data other than overall closures work.

And your point given it's never, ever going to happen?

Yep, lots of times.

I think pink is volunteering.

I believe I replaced it already.

What park? State and federal closures are fairly consistent in the length of closures, but the size of closures do vary widely based on the resources available, if any, for monitoring. Where there are few of no resouces closures will likely be longer and wider in coverage than in areas with dedicated monitoring resources. Seems to me that Federal closures overall are quite often more wider and rigid than state ones, particularly in western states. I think you'll find climbers are the only ones who think "additional work is needed to understand the affect of climbers on raptors". Raptor biologists and policy makers don't feel that way at all from what I can tell. About the only thing that might change the current situation is the results of the 15year monitoring program in a couple of years.

Dumping, but I made it down the trail and under SR during a lull. Interesting aiding up it with water pouring out of the crack.

Dude, checked your post count lately?