efellis

Nice work up there Orion et al~ This was a huge service to the folks who currently get out there and for those future generations of up and comers looking for accessible sport routes to cut their teeth on. To the detractors...I been have climbing up there since 1995 and the 20 year old "burdo bolts" had to go. They were cheap hardware that saved the installer a few bucks, and chain-link hangers result in shear forces in excess of what the bolts were designed for. Thanks for taking the time to replace not only the bolts on the top end routes, but on all routes that had substandard hardware. On top of the bolts, A LOT of those fixed draws (especially) on Technorigine and Chronic were ticking time bombs. My recollection was that they were draws that folks (including myself) "retired" by leaving them on their warm ups. Substandard gear to start with...Although most pople have no trouble sending all climbs at WW1 putting the draws in, the fixed gear on the popular lines sure is convenient, and saves people's personal gear from getting trashed by the lappers or after work crowd. The climb-tech hardware will be appreciated by anyone who gets on those lines, and will go a long way towards making sure people don't end up in he emergency room. Huge props to the Climb-tech for the discount and to the people who donated the cash!

Matt- I believe of all the dangers Nick listed regarding your helmet, he forgot to mention one. That disco-ball-pornstar helmet of yours is so goddam sexy, it practically makes you irresistable to all the lovely lady kayakers!! A new helmet is in fact a piece of safety equipment for Lily (which should have been mentioned by Nick), to aid her in protecting her hunk-of-burning-man-meat from those, all too willing and impressionable young water loving ladies. Please don't retire it in favor of a "safer", planer, piece of equipment. And if you do, I am more than willing to pay top dollar to take it off your hands. Long live to pornstar-disco-ball helmet!!!!!

In order to gain a better understanding of Washington Sport Climbing Ethics (WSCE) I was hoping to get our community's feedback on what are acceptable and unacceptable practices for altering established routes and midway anchoring. In the past at local climbing areas like Little Si, Index, and Smith Rock midway anchors have been established to create easier more accessible routes out of high quality, more difficult climbs. Case in point: Japanese Gardens, Heinous Cling, and Psychosomatic. These routes were all originally climbed as single pitches and were altered at a later date to allow for climbers to experience the route without the full investment of climbing the more committing and difficult portions. Recently, I bolted and redpointed the first ascent of a sport climb. The entire pitch is approximately 90 feet with a ledge located approximately 35 feet up. The character of the route is such that the first 35 feet is about 5.11- and the remaining portion is significantly harder at 5.12+. The route was not equipped with midway anchors and the first ascent and subsequent attempts have been done as a single pitch to the established anchors. Now as popularity has increased at this climbing area, and a nice 5.11 warmup is needed, a midway anchoring has been proposed. I am not old enough to know what happened historically between the first ascensionists and the midway anchor installers of the more established routes. I was recently told that midway anchoring is an accepted practice in our area and that I should expect this to happen to the route I bolted. It was explained to me that once the route is completed I, as the first ascensionist no longer have a say in what happens to it and in the midway anchorists mind they have freewill to midway anchor away. To avoid a bolt chopping war or endless arguing between the first ascensionists and the midway anchorists I would like to hear our community's thoughts on what is an acceptable alteration and what are the rules for midway anchoring in the climbing community's opinion? Thoughts? Thanks, Erich