JosephH

It's sort of like the old Monty Python line: "I was raped...at first.". Yeah, you're momentarily unaware at first, then you're looking at the cute girl's ass, then you're talking with your scene of friends, next you're getting dressed, eating, texting, and browsing. "Hey, STFU and pay attention" is my response to 'momentarily unaware'. Exactly, and if you aren't capable of keeping them on the rope then I don't want to climb with you.

Dead serious.

Nah, I pretty much explicitly reject the notion of safety being derived from belay devices. If a belay device is providing safety in some way it's by shifting responsibility from the belayer to the device (which is what grigris are all about). You're the belayer and responsible for belaying, not a belay attendant to a device responsible for belaying. It's a distinction that seems to be getting lost year by year to the point where being dropped has become a common experience in climbing. P.S. the best device for teaching belaying was and still is a stitch plate with a spring, which I believe is still made by ABC.

I just disagree with the premise is all. Again, 'extremely useful' is all about convenience to the belayer. Yes, I kind of despise climbing in threesomes, but even when I do it's one follower at a time. The only utility in autoblocking two followers is if they're going to simuclimb and that is an unwise expediency in every respect as far as I'm concerned - a deliberate trade-off of safety for speed. And I just don't buy into any aspect of the safety argument other than the part where it allows you to do a bunch of shit you shouldn't be doing at all. Get dressed, sort out your tie-in length, and whatever before you put someone on belay. It's like saying I could cruise the web or text on my iPhone safer if I'm autoblocking off the anchor.

Lame in every respect you just mentioned would be my response. I don't want my belayer getting dressed, organizing their song playlist, wiping their ass, picking their nose, or anything else, I want them belaying with a modicum of attention. Reprioritizing that for speed climbing is another matter. And please, if I hear the 'hit by a rock' argument I'll get ill. Again, from my perspective the perception that belaying is simply a necessary evil that can or should be dispensed with by delegating to a device is very self-absorbed and grigri.

I don't do alpine and I don't doubt that may be the case. At least it's an honest assessment of what's really going on and offering a rationale for why you might want to accept that reprioritization. In rock climbing I don't buy it at all and find it a really lame behavior.

I don't really get that? Autoblocking works really well. you can belay super fast and organize the rope with ease, all things with make the belay better and safer. There's nothing about it that makes a belay 'safer' - devices don't make belays safer, at best they make them more 'convenient' for belayers (as you also rightfully say) and therein lies my view of them being the height of laziness and disinterest in a second. Basically just a grigri mentality on an anchor and all about the belayer. I don't really think it has much to do with the attributes of this or that particular device so much as the pointlessness of belaying with the wrong size device for the rope you're using.

Oh, quite the contrary Kevin, you never have had an argument of any kind other than that the tourist trail should be closed, and I agree with you. Where you have no argument at all is in there being any rationale which makes the logical leap from that fact to an arguable reason why climbers should be allowed to climb as well. The fact that hikers can't position themselves on the face, and that there is nowhere on the South Face proper from where you can see hikers on the trail, are entirely relavant. Your argument is a purely numerical one and not even a good one there as it ignores line-of-sight issues. The birds do fine with thousands of tourists because those tourists never position on the South Face and never even come close to breaking the plane of the South Face. Figure out how to do that when climbing and I'm guessing you'd get your exception. Again, the closure isn't 'stringent' and is very much in line with the norm applied to such closures around the US. The trail is another matter altogether and is closed to both to keep people out from under the East Face roofs and because everytime a car parks down that end of the lot and they suspect someone, particularly a climber, might be on the trail then they have to insure that individual isn't up under the roofs or climbing. That's due to the history of climbers breaking the closure and it means the rangers then have to hit the boat ramp to check the face and possibly hike the trail as well. Bottom line is they don't have the manpower to be doing it so they closed it after having to chase folks (non-climbers) out from under the East Face and check on folks potentially poaching climbs. Of course, you don't go to Beacon to climb let alone walk the trail or base and I suspect Jim and everyone else will somehow survive such a savage deprivation and insult as well. In the end you can simply chalk it up to the long term cost of folks commonly poaching routes during the closure.

I dislike autoblocking or munters for any use in climbing outside of aid climbing and self-rescue functions. Particularly the munter which I find an entirely disagreeable thing to do to any rope other than goldline. Also don't like climbing in threes or the notion of needing a device to help you manage doing it. The whole 'autolocking' seconds off an anchor deal seems to me to be the very height of laziness and relative disinterest in what's actually going on with a second - never do it and don't care for folks doing it when I'm seconding.

Ah, the fine whine of petulant outrage - vintage no less. Da man be oppress'in me all d' live long day ober da bird. Where is we suppoze to do ours group azz-slapping? 'cause we's be men o' dee sort dat loves to grope at d' an anchor. Got's to go south to Yosmite where's wez can be men again. Tragedy, tragedy, tragedy 'cauze o' dem birds all ourz chilrenz will be sufferin' whiners too...

Well, aside from the fact the existing one was forced on them, the trail basically just grazes overlooking the South Face and no one from the trail can establish themselves out on the face or approach the nest. Climbers on the otherhand, can and do establish themselves on the face proper and are capable of approaching the nest. It's a big distinction between the two and why another exception isn't going to happen.

Until September. Ugh.

Wait - you're the biologist - the month-by-mating / behavioral cycles of the Peregrines is the most well known part of the science around raptors. On what basis would you say "three months"? Do you know or can you tell folks here why the closures [behaviorly] start and stop when they do (and many around the country don't end until August 1st or 15th)? There are good reasons why the closures run when they do, it isn't in any way arbitrary.

True enough, but the fact that they won't close the tourist trail (the proper action) doesn't mean they're going to grant climbers a second exception to the rule. Our numbers as a 'user group' are wholly irrelevant outside of the injustice of your emotional tumult.

It's not really an 'IMO' sort of deal - the South Face is small relative to closure boundary recommendations which are widely accepted by climbers elsewhere and by the Access Fund.

Chalk left from climbers merely means the routes have been climbed. I think what you guys all eternally hope for is some acknowledgement that climber disturbances DON'T ALWAYS result in abandoned nests. But I'm pretty sure raptor biologists would agree with you on that point today. The problem is that climber disturbances do always stress the birds whether they abandon the nest or not. The reason for the closures is to eliminate that particular class of human stressors. What you are essentially asking / hoping for is for raptor biologists to 'gamble' with the level of stress to some degree short of full closures which preclude it altogether. And they do that many times, with closures that go 'from this route to that route' - but, that only applies to much larger cliffs faces / structures / groups than Madrone or the South Face of Beacon which are both well within typical minimum closure recommendations / sizes. The problem is, unfortunately, we live in a place with small local crags as opposed to somewhere like Gunks, Bend, Boulder, or Chattanooga where there are still other open sections or walls during the closures. It's a bummer, but to be honest I just don't think biologists are inclined to that kind of gambling on small crags.

Absolutely not, neither Kanders nor Armor made any vests prior to August 2, 2005 - the day they acquired the vest company. Read the last sentence in the body of this link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_(body_armor)?wasRedirected=true

Yes, but they didn't own the vest maker then, Armor inhereted the obligation to pay the fine when they bought the vest company. Are you really not getting how that works?

It isn't - it's the Gulf Marsh Peregrine's fault. They would have been drilling in shallower water if it weren't for the Marsh Peregrine closure which forced them offshore

I'm telling you I saw one out of the corner of my eye just before I lost it.

Nope. Turned a dismount from an untethered highline over the McKenzie River into a failed high bar Flyaway and ended with being flung up onto the cliff alongside the highline and then dropped into the river - i.e. your typcial Peregrine attack.

If there are chicks there now you chould be fine to get back to things after July 1st. Give them until July 15th to be absolutely positive there aren't any issues at all.

To quote the Gipper - "now there you go again" - what you got right there is some classic olde school victimal thinking. Hell, thinking like that will make you an honorary local - it's another life ruined by the Peregrines!!! Swooped right down and blew him off the rock they did. I'm sure I saw it happen, there was two or three of them tag teaming him until he came off, gunning for him they were. I know I broke my L5 a ways back and I'm pretty sure that was the Peregrine's fault too. P.S. I don't think Pink is going to like you calling that part of Beacon 'very dangerous'...

Hmmm, that's a bit of a reading comprehension problem you have going there. Armor didn't buy the company that made the bad vests until after the fact - i.e. Armor didn't have anything to do with making the bad vests and from 1998-2005 wasn't in the vest business.

Here you go boys - your very own thread to finally free Beacon from the tyranny of the Peregrine closure once and for all. I know you have lots of great reasons why it should be open and even better ideas for how to go about it that are going to get 'the man' quivering with at least as much sympathy, empathy, and respect as you have for them. And hey, I'll stay completely out of it here so no worries there. Looking forward to it not closing next year.