MichaelLane

Hey, Everyone ... It's true this investigation has taken some weeks, but it's been necessary as we've looked at it from every possible angle and have been experimenting with possible solutions from a manufacturing end. However, the report is due this week, in fact, and, as is our policy, we'll respond to the climber (Bradley) before releasing any information to the public. I'll do so, though, when we've done that. However, speaking generally, I think a few things said in this thread are accurate. Link Cams are specialty pieces and have held up well for hundreds or thousands of climbers since we introduced them. They are, however, vulnerable to damage and failure if subjected to torsional loading that requires the relationship of the head/axle and the rock to change much during a fall, especially if the placement is bottoming or loads the lower-end linkages to be stressed over any kind of edge or intrusion. This isn't a surprise,really ... the fact that their lobes consist of hinged components when other cams are made of a single piece of material made this an obvious characteristic from the start. Bottom line is that the technology that provides Link Cams their greatest benefit (range) is also what introduces their clearest limitation (durability during weird loads). We're doing a couple things to address this: 1) We're looking at new link designs that strengthen the hinges to make them stronger. and 2) We'll be rewriting our literature to emphasize proper placement of Link Cams with a clear warning about the potential consequences of placing them in ways they could be subject to damage. Both these changes are in effect now. Link Cams are safe, but they must be placed in direction of pull and in a manner that eliminates the likelihood of the cam rotating during a load. They are ideal pieces, but not necessarily for every placement you come across. Do we like this? Nah. I wish they were as bombproof as the burliest piece of gear you can imagine ... and we're working on how to get as close to that ideal as possible ... but the truth is they'll always be a specialty piece. We've been talking a lot about this, as you might imagine and we're not resting until we can wring out every bit of improvement in the design we can. In the meantime, we welcome your feedback and observations. You can contact me, directly, any time you like if you want to talk more about it. And ... regarding #3 ... we hear you! But to do a #3 with the same range and ratio of the other four would require a trigger pull/length of such a size as to, pretty much, eliminate anyone without King Kong-sized hands. If, however, we changed it up a bit and reduced the overall range/ration to, say, 2:1 (the others are 2.5:1), would that still be of interest to you? Let me know ... I don't know if this violates rc.com's policy about manufacturers doing market research, but I'll throw it out there. Best Regards, --ML _________________________ Michael Lane Omega Pacific 800.360.3990

Hi, Jake ... Give us a call ... we'll give them an inspection and see if they're warranty-covered. Probably are. Call Becky at 800.360.3990 for the Return Authorization number. --ML ______________________ Michael Lane Director of Sales & Marketing Omega Pacific Airway Heights, Washington

Hi, Mark ... I just sent you a PM. Although a fall from the Stovelegs isn't exactly within the design parameters of the Link Cams, there may be something to learn from studying the cam. Can I arrange a swap with you? I'll trade you a good one for the banged up one ... give me a call to arrange the return, please. 800.360.3990. Regards, --ML _______________________ Michael Lane Sales & Marketing Director Omega Pacific 800.360.3990

Hi, Everyone ... We've had serious delays in Link Cam delivery for almost all of 2005. Some of the components of the cams are built for us by oustside companies and we've had big problems with several of them. Back in the summer, we were able to ship a few orders but since then, we've been working hard to get these vendor problems behind us. The good news is that we think we've finally done so. We're due to receive final production parts from a new and reliable supplier in a few weeks and anticipate catching up to demand by early spring. Several stores in Seattle (and throughout the northwest) should be well-stocked by then. If you've had them on order, thanks for sticking with us! They'll be worth the wait. Regards, --ML Michael Lane Sales & Marketing Director Omega Pacific

Hi, Everyone ... Please note the following post. If you have any of these carabiners, please follow the instructions below or on our website: http://www.omegapac.com/op_climbing_notices.html for a replacement. Thanks. --ML ____________________ Michael Lane Sales & Marketing Director Omega Pacific >>>>> Notice of Voluntary Recall September 23, 2005 Airway Heights, WA – In cooperation with the US Consumer Product Safety Commision (CPSC), Omega Pacific is voluntary recalling a small percentage of Five-O Screwgate locking carabiners built between November and December of 2004. Carabiners affected by this recall can be potentially opened under moderate loads even when properly locked and must be returned for replacement. Only carabiners marked with the lot stamp “VT” are affected. The lot number can be found on the backside of the spine and is clearly identified. Do not return any lots other than “VT” as no other lots are subject to this issue. No other models are affected. Only Five-O locking carabiners with the lot stamp “VT” (see our website: http://www.omegapac.com/op_climbing_notices.html for photos and more information) are considered under this action. Please do not return carabiners to retailers. Instead, please ship any affected carabiners directly to Omega Pacific. Please mark all packages with “Attn: Warranty Returns, RA 728.” Be sure to include your name and shipping address where we can deliver a replacement Five-O locking carabiner. All returns or inquiries can be directed to: Omega Pacific Customer Service 11427 W. 21st Avenue Airway Heights, WA 99001 Attn: Warranty Returns, RA 728 If you have any questions, please call us at 800-360-3990 or email at info@omegapac.com We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this may cause. --Omega Pacific, Inc. <<<<<

Hi, Everyone … It sounds like there is confusion about what The Access Fund’s positions are. For clarity, I’ve reprinted our position statements from our website: http://accessfund.org/whoweare/who_about_pos_responsible.html >>> Where We Stand On: Placing Bolts. The Access Fund recognizes that bolt safety anchors have been used as climbing protection for over sixty years, and believes that bolts should generally be allowed where climbing is permitted. However, the Access Fund recognizes that the use of bolts may impact the natural resource. Collectively such impacts may have a significant effect on natural or social values. For this reason the Access Fund strongly encourages climbers to place bolts legally, discretely, and in a manner appropriate to local climbing tradition. Removing Bolts. The Access Fund believes that once bolts have been placed they should not be removed unless there is consensus among the local climbing community favoring their removal, and/or compelling evidence that the bolts in question have caused or will cause adverse impacts to natural resource values. Chopping a bolted route often results in significant damage to the climbing resource. The Access Fund strongly urges climbers not to take unilateral action on bolt removal without the support of a majority of the local climbing community. Manufacturing Holds. Although chipping is not a widespread practice, the Access Fund vehemently opposes intentional alteration of the rock for the purpose of creating or enhancing holds. We believe such actions degrade the climbing resource and eliminate challenges for future generations of climbers. Conserving natural resources and the climbing environment should be a high priority for all climbers. Our Conclusions: Climbers involved in the placement or removal of fixed anchors have a responsibility to be aware of the implications of their actions on climbing access and the cliff environment. Chopping bolts and chipping holds harm the climbing resource and the climbing experience. The physical acts can permanently scar the rock itself, and often result in division among members of the climbing community. When such division becomes public, it tarnishes the image of climbers to the public at large and to land owners and managers. The vast majority of climbers are responsible individuals committed to cooperative stewardship of the environment, as evidenced by the Access Fund's ten-year history of creation and maintenance of trails, area cleanups, raptor monitoring and support for scientific studies. In any dispute over bolting the Access Fund advocates a balance between climbing opportunities and resource protection, and promotes responsible climbing attitudes and practices. The Access Fund believes climbers should address differences of opinion about where and to what extent bolts should be placed among themselves, rather than encouraging or expecting land managers or politicians to resolve those differences through law or public policy. <<< Pretty clear that we don’t favor bolted cracks, chipping or bolted-on holds and I have never made any statements to the contrary, to anyone. But note the final paragraph … We advocate “a balance between climbing opportunities and resource protection.” This is the part that a few people seem to disregard. To refuse to seek that balance in favor of a strict, binary (black or white, good or evil) position on this issue is to ensure a prolonged and escalating conflict. This is particularly true when tempers and personalities erode the foundation of cooperation. This is all I’ve been saying. We want Dishman to be free of bolted-on holds and chipping. We also want the community as a whole to decide how the area should be bolt-protected. This won’t happen until more good dialogue between all parties occurs and any unnecessary, polarizing influences minimized. As for what Dane is saying about the Access Fund, I don’t understand this at all. I’ve never varied from our stated objectives in my discussions with him. He spoke with my boss and the national policy director about this, as well, and we all said the same thing: we want to work toward removing bolted holds, stop the chipping and to keep it from spreading to other crags. The difference that, perhaps, Dane refuses to accept is that we believe the best way to do this is through education. If you can convince someone to buy into your beliefs, they’ll be your partners. If you force your will over theirs, they’ll be embittered enemies. The process of winning people over can take time, however, and we’re willing to work through that. It was in this context, by the way, that Dane misrepresents my comment that leaving things “as is” might be a consideration while we work this situation out. It was also Dane who came up with the “access at all costs” phrase to describe our position and it is one we’ve refuted time and again. Everyone from The Access Fund he’s spoken with has been extremely clear with him: this is not where we’re coming from. During a conference call with six others (mostly WCC and AF folks), Dane assured us that his presentation to the board of directors was going to be “generic, non-confrontational and non-controversial.” He agreed with us that the worse thing to do was to paint a picture of a group that was at war within itself. Unfortunately, he chose not to follow through on that promise. To the board, he presented a case of climbers run amok and was clear to them that we were bitterly divided over this issue. As I’d suggested to Dane—and what I believe has, largely, caused the rift between him and us—I thought the presentation would be more effective if it had included more input from the Spokane climbing community. I felt that we should have attempted to achieve greater consensus prior to meeting with the board, but Dane was insistent (and made a good argument for it) that making first contact with them to get a sense for what they want was a good idea. Regrettably, the presentation was directed differently and I believe that the board came away very concerned over the actions of what they view as a group of anarchic, unruly climbers. The Access Fund and the Washington Climbers’ Coalition want to help anyone who’s interested in resolving this conflict. And for those who criticize our position on bolts, holds and chipping, you simply aren’t paying attention. Perhaps what you may not understand, is that we want more discussion on the matter before we take any actions that could force the closure of the cliff. It’s that simple. And if it takes some time to accomplish our goals, so be it. The damage to the cliff is done. It cannot be undone. We can go to Dishman today and chop more bolts, but the rock still has holes in it (and, by the way, when removing bolts, it’s better style to cover the holes and conceal the damage; leaving chopped studs is leaving the job less than half-done). We believe that it’s far more pragmatic and longer-lasting to work together to achieve a policy that that we can all live with. We do not want to fight with anyone over this issue. I’ve spoken with climbers on both sides of this issue and I can plainly see resolution in sight … there’s a lot of common ground. Dane, you’ve done good work at this crag for 24 years. From the routes you put up in the eighties to the cleanup you organized last month, your commitment to this area runs deep and wide and it’s honestly appreciated. From the start, you took a leadership role and you’ve, literally, put your money where your mouth is. The cleanup last month absolutely changed that cliff for the better and it’s a good thing that you got everyone talking about the health and future of the crag. The trouble is that you are willing--in fact you appear almost eager--to see the crag closed if things aren't immediately fixed to your satisfaction. I told you then, as I say now, The Access Fund does not view even "temporary" closures as an acceptable result this early in the process of resolving this issue. You've said clearly that you don't really care if Dishman is closed because, as you told me, you've "been there, done that." For clarity, the Access Fund absolutely will endorse a closure of a crag if it's necessary. The difference between our positions, though, is that you appear to have your finger twitching above a hair trigger, waiting intensely for the opportunity to drop the hammer. But that doesn't make me your enemy, just someone who disagrees with a tactic. We all want to keep climbing at Dishman and we’re all willing to work to achieve this. Why can’t we focus on this as a platform for further discussion? Regards, --Lane

Hi, All ... We're now at the point where the fuel for this fire isn't ethics any longer, it’s now become ego ... from both sides of the argument. And when I say "both sides" I'm really referring to, maybe, three or four people who are split to represent the far ends of either side of this issue. Everyone else in the middle may have differing opinions of what's right and what's wrong, but it's only that fractional, little group which refuses to seek compromise, that continues raising the stakes and whipping the entire community into a frenzy over this cliff. I’m the regional coordinator for The Access Fund and we, along with the Washington Climbers’ Coalition are eager to help the majority stuck in the middle to find a common position and to help present a reasonable, measured climbing policy to the landowners. The Access Fund does not support “access at all costs” but we do recognize that every situation may require a unique approach with a long-term perspective. We have a dual mandate to preserve natural resources and to ensure climbers’ access. In order to accomplish this, a balance of ethics and style must often be reached. Sometimes, it takes time for all of this to become clear. The problem with the Dishman situation is that the few people at either end of this situation have rushed headlong into battle over it without any measure of concern for anyone’s desires but their own agendas, whatever they may be. From the start, this whole situation could have been avoided if each side had been willing to discuss positions, values, ideas and intentions. Now we’ve got a bolt war and the land owners are scared to death of the whole situation. Closure is clearly on the table. Better late than never, though, as I, personally, don’t think it’s too late to salvage climbing at Dishman in a style that is acceptable to almost everyone who enjoys this cliff. As I said, the Access Fund and the Washington Climbers Coalition are here to help. If you’re interested in starting fresh, please contact one of us listed below. We believe that a new dialogue and a common vision for climbing at Dishman from the Spokane climbing community as a whole may carry a substantial amount of weight with the land owners. Climb safe. --Michael Lane, Access Fund … afnorthwest[at]yahoo.com --Matt Perkins, Washington Climbers’ Coalition … mattp[at]seanet.com