crimper

I ended my last post my asking "if we've come to some kind of understanding here" and Joseph addressed my question above, writing about the need to "sing the same song". And I agree. The reason for the recent "mutiny" and outpouring of criticism/comments about Joseph is that many Beacon climbers don't surf this website or don't post on this website, and they haven't known about what Joseph has done out at Beacon, or what he plans to do. But what's happened is that now those climbers have become aware, and we are having our first true opportunity to post our opinions about the subject. And of course it's only natural that we don't 100% agree on every single decision that Joseph has made. Yet where Bill Coe (who generally is so positive that his last post caught me off guard!) sees a lot of bitching and moaning by malcontents, I see an activated community (many of whom already replace anchors, clean routes, and are generally the "stewards" of Beacon - but just don't use this website) voicing its concerns. Sounds like democracy to me. Also, there's a lot to like about what Joseph has done. What climber wouldn't want increased access, more reliable anchors, or less lichen on the routes? So long as those goals are not achieved at the expense of Beacon's "mysterious" and "historical" character, that is. Joseph deserves credit for his willingness to listen to the voices of dissent, and even reverse his actions, as with the rap slings on the SE corner (thank you again for removing them, and thanks for removing them on the P2 anchor as well - and no, I've never seen anyone rap off of those). But at the same time, when he put himself into the spotlight via his leadership role, it is only fair and just that he should receive feedback on his performance, and that not all of the feedback will be positive. Thanks to all who participated in this conversation, whether online or in conversations that were sparked by this thread. Hopefully the voices of dissent and concern will not only provide criticism, but will also provide illumination and perspective leading to an understanding that Beacon itself does not have to change in order to keep up with us in this digital age.

Joseph, I think we all share most of your goals and appreciate that you are working to increase access via a transparent and open relationship with the rangers. That's hard to argue with. It's also important that you remain open to feedback such as what's been written in just the last few days. We are a community of climbers, and we should be coming together to support you in your goals, as we share them. Just please be selective about what you post and how you post it, and listen to what you hear from the likes of kevbone, markd, stewart, jfricke, cobra commander, bill coe and others who have weighed in on the subject. Are we arriving at some kind of understanding here?

But Joseph, you said that your goal was to I think Cobra Commander (with a little sarcasm, maybe?) and markd cut to the chase of what i've been trying to say: internet broadcasting cuts both ways, and my opinion is that joseph's broadcasting has gone beyond the helpful and entered into the harmful - although it's not late for him to return to the helpful zone. and for all my admittedly very personal criticism of joseph's style, i always want to express my support for the cleaning and anchor replacements he has performed at beacon rock (and his willingness to compromise, as demonstrated by his agreeing to remove the slings off of the tree ledge tree, and instead place a sign on or near it) thank you for listening joseph, and i'm sure we'll all continue to hear how things are going out there.

And Joseph, quit playing up your ties to Opdycke. If anything, it probably embarasses him the way you use his name like it's a privilege or something. You're not the only one to get your history lessons from him.

First off, I just want people to know that BRSP has been made aware of this thread, and our postings. My comment was made to inform people of this, not to bias them in any way (or play "cops and robbers" as you say). I invited BRSP to comment, and maybe they will - though probably it's more fun for them to lurk and laugh at us as we talk in circles. Second, since my whole point is that you should not be posting certain details about Beacon, I am obviously NOT going to mention what I consider unmentionable - got it? Further, I don't consider these "secrets" to be the kinds of things the BRSP would care about, and I don't care whether they know them or not. Rather, these "secrets" concern beta for climbing at and enjoying Beacon that typically is earned by actual time spent climbing there, and which should not be gained just by reading your posts. In other words, please don't destroy the mystery of discovery for other people, and don't dilute what the current climbers enjoy. I'm sure you can appreciate that. Third, you still have not described the "threats" to beacon that you are "protecting" us from. I find it noteworthy that you punted my question on to Bill Coe for some conciliatory support. So I am continuing to ask you to justify your comments about threats to Beacon. If you are going to refer to these threats, and use them to justify your postings and your efforts, I am going to call you out and ask you to name them. Anybody else out there aware of any threats to beacon besides overexposure?

Whether this is true or not, I've been informed that Joseph has invited the BRSP - or the Rangers, if that's what is meant by BRSP - to follow our online dialogue, and I want everyone else posting here to be aware of that. Hello, BRSP! Also, Bill Coe wants to know who "we" are, so my name is Bryan Smith, I'm 29, and I've been climbing at Beacon since 2001. We may even have met before! Personally, I have no bone to pick with the BRSP, and since 2001, I have never observed, let alone been a part of, the "drama" that Joseph claims has "threatened" our access to Beacon. It seems to me that Joseph has "manufactured" the drama and the threat in order to be the "savior" at beacon. And don't get me wrong, I've often thought that there was a huge leadership void to be filled at Beacon (I agree that an immature and unfortunate "cops and robbers" mentality has existed), and Joseph has assumed the mantle that none of us would accept, but I never thought that the leadership would look like this! Here is my concern: maybe someone from BRSP could post here and explain precisely what "drama" and what "threat" Joseph is "saving us" from, because I have never see it. Joseph, you talk about your goal of "preserving the traditional character" of Beacon from some "threats" - yet I have never seen any threat to that character until YOU started your obsessive postings, revealing key and secret information, and encouraging more people than ever to climb at Beacon as you inform them of new anchors, traverse possibilities, newly cleaned climbs and other aspects of Beacon THAT I KNOW BETTER THAN TO MENTION HERE. You are the threat. As has been said elsewhere, there was no "controversy" until you started your postings. There is new sport route development in the Portland area and elsewhere in Oregon being done by Beacon climbers - but those climbers are NOT putting sport routes in at beacon, because they respect and understand the trad character at beacon. So what are you "protecting" Beacon from? Where is the controversy? Specifics, please. If there is a specific threat to Beacon, either because BRSP plans to close the rock to climbing, or because you are aware of rap-bolting that has occurred or may occur, please share these threats with us. Otherwise, you remind me of a certain man who took a nation to war over some weapons that just had to be there, but, uh, never were there - yet the war goes on. So, again, what are you protecting Beacon from? To summarize: replacing anchors, cleaning routes, increasing seasonal access and access to other parts of Beacon, and improving relationships with the rangers: these are positive contributions and I thank you for them. It is important to give credit where it is due, and you deserve credit for those efforts of yours. However, revealing climbing "beta" for beacon, thus encouraging increased traffic at beacon by people who maybe shouldn't be there, placing slings on a tree so people will rap of a tree they shouldn't be rapping off of (or even calling attention to the tree in the first place), and incessantly referring to "threats" and "drama" at beacon that don't exist, are simply not helpful to preserving beacon's character. In short, as has been said elsewhere, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't invent problems just you can "solve" them. More information and pure transparency is not always better. I am sure you can find a balance between transparency and restraint. And hey, BRSP: The climbers are the ones who truly respect and protect Beacon. We maintain the trails, we pick up the trash, we support the local economy, and almost all of us abide by the closure rules. Anybody from BRSP want to add any comments?

Joseph: 1) My concern has been confirmed: the opinions of others do not affect you. Like fuel to the fire, you will isolate my sentences and refute them, as you are far too invested in your Beacon Rock "improvements" to ever acknowledge that you could actually be wrong about any of them. Rather, you just think of the best response that will once again validate your past and future actions. It's like talking to a really smart wall. 2) Nobody has seen you at Beacon Rock before the last two years. Who gave you the authority to unilaterally make yourself the spokesperson for an entire climbing area? No, don't answer that question, that's just what you want to do. It's a rhetorical question. That means you ought to think about it, for once. 3) Have you ever even considered that through your admittedly selfish efforts and prolific online commentary you are de-mystifying Beacon, revealing its secrets, and changing its character? Who are you to think you have ALL the answers to a problem YOU have defined? Do you think that you are more important than other climbers? (those are also rhetorical, don't answer them) 4) By the way, MOST OF THE CLIMBERS AT BEACON DO NOT READ THIS WEBSITE. YOU ARE ONLY WRITING FOR YOUR OWN GRATIFICATION, AND SPREADING INFORMATION FORMERLY EARNED BY ACTUALLY CLIMBING AT BEACON. YOU ARE DEGRADING AND CHEAPENING OUR PAST EXPERIENCES, AND THE FUTURE EXPERIENCES OF OTHERS BY SPRAYING ALL OVER THE WEB. (PS they are going to start reading it now, as they become concerned, through word of mouth and that thing called the telephone, of the detrimental impact your actions may be having) 5) WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE AT BEACON? WHY ARE YOU POSTING COMMENTARY AT 3 AM ON A WEEKNIGHT? SERIOUSLY! 6) fyi: the anchors (or parts of them)at the top of dastardly crack, both pitches of blownout, bluebird, pipeline, and blood sweat and smears were all replaced within the last two years without any email commentary and without your help. and you know what? those anchors work, and nobody needed to post about it on the web. 7) You seem to want all the credit for the changes you are creating at Beacon, but are you prepared to accept the blame?

This email is for Joseph. Joseph, I have been following your endeavors this season at Beacon, and I've read all your updates. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and the energy and care you have put forth. Anchor replacement at Beacon is patently a worthy goal. That being said, I have to take exception to your plans for tree ledge. I have to agree with Kevin and Stewart - and in my opinion, the silent majority as well - when I say that it is inappropriate to either add rap slings to the tree, or add a fixed anchor to tree ledge. Adding slings to the tree will only encourage more people to rappel off the tree, and if your "rehabilitation" process does not bear immediate fruit, you may be sending someone to an early demise who would not otherwise have rapped off the tree. Drilling a fixed anchor on that ledge ought to be out of the question. Enough said. I won't be the one to chop it, but we both know it wouldn't last long. And because I sincerely want to keep my message positive, I will offer at least a partial solution, as I appreciate your concern for the tree. I would support a small and tasteful sign stating something like: "tree is unstable; use at own risk." As you elsewhere in your online commentary (which is prolific, to say the least)espouse keeping the risk inherent in climbing alive and well, I think you will appreciate that a fully informed climber who still chooses to use the tree also should accept the consequences. Neither you nor anyone else can or should try to eliminate every single risk out there. Finally, I read your allusion to a pissing match, Joseph, but be aware that you are the one who - however benevolently - is initiating such a match. I hope that my words and those of others will help you understand the mentality of the many, many other Beacon Rock climbers besides yourself so that you can continue to successfully navigate the treacherous terrain of public opinion and private action. Be careful out there, and thanks for your unselfish efforts - Bryan Good luck in your efforts, thank you for them, and please do not equip the treewith slings.