Beacon Rock Notice

[kevbone]

Joe, how did the cleaning go on Reasonable Richard go? Did you end up adding anymore bolts or pitons?

[markd]

we all know how UNreasonable, reasonable richard is, but i hope adding bolts is not considered an option.

 

i cleaned a route just to the right of the route, local access, 3 years ago, that could be an alternate first pitch to reasonable richard. let's look at new options before we start making others work our own.

 

i'm coming up on thursday with bryan and would love to lead the alternate pitch i cleaned. who's belaying me? snoop, kevbone, joseph - let's do it!

[markd]

eric sending excalibur!

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Mark and Kevin,

 

Jim and I cleaned Reasonable Richard and Local Access from the trail to a low point where they naturally fork. Very low (like by the lower tree off the trail), there was a rusty but good Lost Arrow buried and hidden in the the base of a shrub which had loosened it to the point of removing it by hand. It got replaced by a bugaboo close to it's original position. I did put a bolt at junction between Reasonable Richard and Local Access at the point you are forced onto one route or the other and it serves both routes. I also placed a bugaboo high up on Local Access - both the bolt and the pin were placed on lead and are easily removed if that ends up being the consensus. Jim also restored the third pin on the bottom of Fly Dutchman.

 

However, I have put up lots of hard, runout FA's over the years and I do know the difference between runout and free soloing and Reasonable Richard is a free solo up to the old SMC bolt. Now I personally don't have a problem discussing whether it should stay a free solo to the bolt, but no one is going to convince me that it is anything other than that. That's the reason why it sees little traffic. It is also the first protection bolt I have placed in 32 years of climbing and it is not something I did lightly. Local Access just needed a followup cleaning to Mark's and is pretty much set to go. There is also a beautiful small black diherdral that goes up to the base of Flying Swallow right to the lower anchors that should be pushed.

 

Please, do post up on these issues, and Mark, let's sort it out Thursday PM out there or I can probably come out Friday or over at Jim's - it's why I've been bugging you to come up - I want to get all this work done and just get back to climbing. Also, anchors have been replaced on Double Dirty Overhang (top), Excaliber (lower), Grunge Book (both), Borderline (both), Blownout (both), Pirates (top, bare), and Bluebird (top, rap).

 

Great shots (as usual) of Eric, thanks...

 

[ Edit: the bugaboo did not get put in Local Access - it got put in the unclimbed line to the right of it. ]

Edited July 22, 2006 by JosephH

[Stewart]

"A climb is a work of art, a creation of the men who made the first ascent. To make it more difficult by chopping bolts is an insult to those who put it up and to deprive others of the joy of repeating the route as the first party did it..... Better to paint our own pictures and write our own poems....to bring a climb down to one's level by placing bolts ( or pitons on an all-nutclimb) shows an equally lamentable lack of respect for, and degrades the accomplishments of, its creators. If we do not disturbe the route done in a shoddy manner (e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts), it will do no harm, and may provide a good climb for the less capable. And as for the route done in elegant fashion - let it remain as a pinnacle of achievement to which we may aspire. Better that we raise our skill than lower the climb. So let it be." Basic Rockcraft by Royal Robbins.

 

This book may be out dated, but offers me (a newbie) good guidelines by which I may learn to climb with good style and ethics. Jon Stewart (aka Pimp)

[JosephH]

There is nothing outdated about RR's sentiments as expressed in your quote but the phrase "(e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts)" is the question we are discussing as there is no pro or pins available on Reasonable Richard below the SMC bolt. I'm willing to do the route without the bolt, but the issue at hand in my mind is that we need "reasonable" left center and right access to the South face column routes. Reasonable Richard is a free solo to the bolt - it isn't simply a run out and bold route - again, I do know the difference. And in regard to bolting I'd have to add Tim and his various partners made some interesting choices with regards to bolts and boldness out at Beacon and it's unfortunate Reasonable Richard didn't get the same treatment as some other harder routes.

[corvallisclimb]

"A climb is a work of art, a creation of the men who made the first ascent. To make it more difficult by chopping bolts is an insult to those who put it up and to deprive others of the joy of repeating the route as the first party did it..... Better to paint our own pictures and write our own poems....to bring a climb down to one's level by placing bolts ( or pitons on an all-nutclimb) shows an equally lamentable lack of respect for, and degrades the accomplishments of, its creators. If we do not disturbe the route done in a shoddy manner (e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts), it will do no harm, and may provide a good climb for the less capable. And as for the route done in elegant fashion - let it remain as a pinnacle of achievement to which we may aspire. Better that we raise our skill than lower the climb. So let it be." Basic Rockcraft by Royal Robbins.

 

did he say that before or after the WEML??

[fheimerd]

I'd put in a bolt, seems like ground fall potential is high if you were to peel off and a bolt might be needed. Off corse if any sortof prtection was available I would be against it but if there is not pro and ground fall potential it just makes common sense.

[Cobra_Commander]

Sometimes I wonder if any climbing goes on at beacon rock, or if there is some kind of roman senate in session out there discussing this stuff

[JosephH]

Actually a lot more climbing has been happening than talking. I'm just down to the last dozen or so anchors and want to get it done and start climbing all the columns and don't want to play the "unreasonable" game every time I want to go work on something on the left side.

 

If what folks are saying is that no one should be on BST, Flying Swallow, and other routes up there unless they are able/willing to free solo 2/3s of the slab then I for one am going to have to disagree. If someone is going to put in fixed pro at all then they are making a community decision. Reasonable Richard is not an exercise in boldness so much as a few guys that were comfortable on .11s, pushing .12s and simply put in a bolt where they themselves needed it at that time. No doubt some of that crew can still do laps on it comfortably and other of them would not be willing to now.

 

Bold trad routes are one thing and not really subject to much in the way of second guessiing to my mind, but fixed pro is a different matter. As I said I've never placed a protection bolt before this one and I don't like seeing bolts out at Beacon at all, but my position is we need "reasonable" left, center, and right access to the all the column routes in order for them to be climbed frequently enough to merit the time it will take to clean them out. Right now the sketching up the slab if the primary obstacle to that as far as I can see...

 

PS mostly I just talk to Emperor Opdycke or Senator Coe...

[markd]

Sometimes I wonder if any climbing goes on at beacon rock, or if there is some kind of roman senate in session out there discussing this stuff

 

cobra, sometimes i wonder the same myself. i can tell you for sure, this senate wasn't elected, and the actions don't speak for many who care.

 

tyler- i'm sure you know this but royal realized he was wrong and stopped altering weml.

[dan_forester]

it's more like a triumvirate, maybe?

 

who's the caesar of beacon?

[billcoe]

Sometimes I wonder if any climbing goes on at beacon rock, or if there is some kind of roman senate in session out there discussing this stuff

 

I'm not in the Senate: my special question is, when are you coming out to do some climbing? My wrist is healed enough that I can get in some easy pitches.

[crimper]

Joseph, regarding your bolting of reasonable richard:

 

First: You wrote: "both the bolt and the pin were placed on lead and are easily removed if that ends up being the consensus." If consensus was your goal, why not seek consensus BEFORE adding the bolt? nobody wants to chop bolts, so why needlessly create that possibility?

 

Second: It is a sucker's game to add or chop bolts by consensus anyway, and you should know that (which is why your reference to "consensus" above is disingenuous). the entire concept of respecting the style of the first ascentionist necessarily means resisting the whims of the majority, and its "consensus". Earlier you agreed with snoop when he quoted royal robbins, and the ethic of not adding fixed pro to climbs that we don't have the skills to lead in their current state - so how come you contradicted yourself by taming this climb down to your level, rather than creating a new climb to the right, or letting someone else create that climb?

 

Third: If your answer to the above question is that your sole goal in adding the bolt was to create reasonable access to the upper columns, then why did't you work with mark on creating a new, reasonably protected route, as he suggested earlier, rather than impulsively drilling the bolt and altering an existing climb? i think this question begs to be answered as well. please do.

 

I appreciate your anchor replacement initiative and your efforts to work with the local gov't agencies, but sometimes it seems to me you go too far. You filled the leadership vacuum out at beacon, and i think someone had to, but please don't abuse it.

 

-Bryan

[markd]

on a climbing tip - here's some more pics of beacon. all are of windwalker.

 

 

[Cobra_Commander]

sweet photos and climbing mark, that's hard stuff.

[JosephH]

Bryan,

 

First: Actually, time is my goal. I've got the anchors replaced on all the columns except Flying Circus. I want to stop doing this work and start climbing the South face column routes now that I'm starting to get back in halfway decent shape after seven months off for my shoulder. Again, my motives in all this work has been completely selfish - not about "leadership" or impressing anyone: I hate shit anchors, rocks falling on me, pirate/stealth FA's, not climbing until 7/15 every year, and you can add free soloing up shitty slab routes of basically zip quality to get to some decent climbing (two stars indeed...). And I have the [clean] bolt install/remove thing down at this point so removing the bolt is no big deal - I'm not "chopping bolts" when I remove a bolt I placed. Jim and I went over to sort the column access out after talking about it and just started working and that is what came of it. It wasn't pre-planned in any way. If the consensus is remove it I will, but consensus wasn't my goal. And I didn't do it alone, Jim Opdycke and I did it together.

 

Second: No, in this case I don't think it is necessarily a "sucker's game" to figure out what folks think and there is nothing remotely disingenuous about my intent in that regard. With regard to the Robbin's quote - again, this part of Robbin's quote is in play here:

 

"(e.g. the placement of unnecessary bolts)" - "unnecessary" being the operative word.

 

Again, Reasonable Richard is not runout - it's a free solo to the bolt; I've put up lots of runout FA's and do know the difference. Runout by definition implies runout over something other than the ground. When they put in fixed pro they were styling .11s and working on .12s and put in a single bolt on a 5.9? Only for their immediate convenience - making the decision to put one bolt on a 5.9 they had some obligation to make it climbable by 5.9 climbers, not simply for 5.11 climbers running up some 5.9 terrain to get to other routes. I retro'd pins on to Lost Warriors after folks complained they didn't have Crack'N'Ups and Lowe Balls and didn't want to free climb over aid gear even if they did - not an unreasonable request. Reasonable Richard is the same deal as far as I'm concerned. Again, it's the only protection bolt I've placed in 32 years of climbing and while I can get up it without the bolt most 5.9-.10 climbers who come out to Beacon can't and won't. And the very same crew sure tight-bolted / sewed up absolutely anything that was a challenge for them, that they didn't [unintentially I suspect] think of anyone else when they resorted to fixed pro on Reasonable Richard is simply unfortunate in my book.

 

Third: If the idea is that we should contrive something even further right than Local Access then I disagree relative to the need to have "reasonable" access to the left side columns - that is my principal objective as I plan on climbing or attempting to climb every column on the South face and don't want to dick around with sketching on that slab every time I go out to climb one. Again, the bolt is easily removed if that's the consensus, but not adding it and sketching up something else contrived is no less odious than putting in the bolt as far as I'm concerned.

 

As for my ethics in general - as I said, I've never placed a protection bolt until this one and never having been a sport climber, "not adding bolts to anyone's route" is a bit of a quandry for me, as I've always chosen to not to place bolts period. In my view if someone is going to place fixed pro on a route then they have responsibility to place it appropriate to the grade of the route. I've climbed with a lot of "name" climbers of my generation over the years and like anything else there is good and bad in there - but no one, and I mean no one is more LNT than me - I fought against chalk use way before fighting against bolted lines. Again, I did not place that bolt lightly or without consideration but in my eyes Reasonable Richard and Local Access basically are the two logical lines up to the left side columns and having them monopolize and restrict access to a lot of other great climbs because someone made a dubious fixed pro decision is wholly unreasonable.

 

As far as going too far - was anyone complaining when the same crew bolted up column after column, hung bizarre trash and bad anchors all over the place, and generally abused the place outside of their actual climbing? What about Young Warriors? Was there outrage about heavily overbolting it? Or the routes around and to the right of tunnel #1? Actually I think I've shown a lot of restraint in not chopping a lot of bolts out there...

[kevbone]

Joe, you openly state you would pull the bolt is that is the consensus of the climbers, well if you stand behind your words, then I ask you by your own standards to stop posting on this web site every time you do anything out at beacon. I have asked you openly along with other people to stop spraying and posting on CC.com about Beacon. And you have openly refused, well you state you would pull a bolt if that is the will of the people, I comend you for that attitude. Well, its time to live up to your own standards. Please stop posting on this web site, for this is the will of the locals (including Jim) who climb there regularly.

 

You state you post only to document the work that has been done. I say BS. you could easyly document it on your own computer. Well, will you stop posting or not?

Edited July 21, 2006 by kevbone

[crimper]

For what it is worth, I also think the consensus of the locals is that Joseph should refrain from posting every bit of trivia about his activities at Beacon, and so I have to second Kevbone and agree with him.

 

If Joseph's sole goal is to document the history of his activities, then that's what a diary is for. In Joseph's last post he clearly stated that he had purely selfish motives in mind when he placed the bolt on Reasonable Richard. That really surprised me, as this action seems to fly in the face of the "trad" standards he loves to intimidate younger climbers with when he posts on cc.com. (and also supertopo, he's posted some gems there, though they always seem to relate to toproping roof problems in southern illinois in the seventies)

 

So if pure selfishness becomes the rationale for adding bolts to existing lines, where does it stop? Why not add yet another bolt on pitch 2 of young warriors for the purely selfish reason that I'm spooked by the butthole crack? And why stop there, why not add another bolt above the piton on the third pitch, so I'll feel even more secure when I leave the crack?

 

But then again, Joseph already wrote that "I've climbed with a lot of "name" climbers of my generation over the years and like anything else there is good and bad in there - but no one, and I mean no one is more LNT than me"

 

I guess we're all helpless against that kind of V10 spray! How can you argue with a man who is the most leavingest no trace on the planet? possibly in the universe! I'm sure he road bikes to beacon every time, a 60 pound pack on his back, just to avoid burning fossil fuels!

[billcoe]

Kevin asked first:

Joe, how did the cleaning go on Reasonable Richard go? Did you end up adding anymore bolts or pitons?

 

Then Joe answers. blah blah blah

 

 

Then Kevin responds, after JH replied to his first post:

Joe, you openly state you would pull the bolt is that is the consensus of the climbers, well if you stand behind your words, then I ask you by your own standards to stop posting on this web site every time you do anything out at beacon. I have asked you openly along with other people to stop spraying and posting on CC.com about Beacon. And you have openly refused, well you state you would pull a bolt if that is the will of the people, I comend you for that attitude. Well, its time to live up to your own standards. Please stop posting on this web site, for this is the will of the locals (including Jim) who climb there regularly.

 

You state you post only to document the work that has been done. I say BS. you could easyly document it on your own computer. Well, will you stop posting or not?

 

Well if posting here is such an issue for you Kev, why did you ask him on this forum? Did you expect him to not post a reply and then call you up personally?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmmmmmmmmm

 

 

[billcoe]

i'm coming up on thursday with bryan and would love to lead the alternate pitch i cleaned. who's belaying me? snoop, kevbone, joseph - let's do it!

 

Mark, I'd be honored to belay you (or take a shot) if you haven't cranked it yet. If you haven't - call me at 503-869-5772 and lets get it done sat early before the heat, I'd prefer to be ass-deep in the river or lounging at Skamania with a 16 oz cold one by 1pm-2pm when it hits 104 degrees.

 

BTW, righteous pictures BTW. Thanks for sharing.

[kevbone]

Bill, Bill, Bill: missed you at the party!

 

 

Of course he will reply, in fact im counting on it. But the reality is, this site, or anysite is bad for Beacon. Beacon was doing just fine before self appointed Beacon Stwerard Joe showed up. I have asked him in person, on personal email, and this site to stop posting every time does anything out there. Im just calling him out on his own words, he cleary states he would do what the concensous is.

 

Ask Jim what he thinks about posting on the web about Beacon.

[fheimerd]

Look what fundamentalism brings people on a daily basis in the middle east right now.

 

I looked at the route yesterday and the bolt.

 

There first thing I noticed was a shit load of moss, then i saw a shallow dihedral with various clumps of grass and flowers growing out of it. Then i saw the bolt in question. I could see if peopl were freaking out about putting a bolt on a classic line that that has something to say to the climbing community but when I see reasonable richard I don;t think classic line and I don't think the bolt is destroying the wonderfull flavor of this moss and grasschocked approach route. Maybe if it were climbed and cleaned it taken care of it might be worth climbing but the current state of negect it has fallen into makes it a less than diserable experience.

[JosephH]

Kevin,

 

First off, THE only reason we've had this little discussion is because of you - don't ask the question, I won't answer it. But this thread is where I'm posting BRCA notices, if anyone asks a question about Beacon I'm not going to ignore it, evade it, or lie about it - you ask a question, you'll get a straight up answer from me every time. Don't want to talk online about an issue I didn't raise online? Then don't post about yourself. And to be honest, you of all people talking about me spray? Dude, let's be honest, on or off the Internet I don't hold a candle to your spraylord status, so calling me on it is pretty much a quintessential exercise in the pot calling the kettle black...

 

Second, and as I've explicitly stated before, I don't post the BRCA notices as a journal, because I want to hear myself talk, or to impress anyone - I post them as publically auditable account of the BRCA work so that WDFW, WSP, Gorge Commission, and any other agency personnel can refer to them in their agency reporting. That gives the BRCA standing to take part and have a say in the management of climbing at Beacon Rock. It's a vehicle that, along with backing and reports from the BRSP Staff and David Anderson of the WDFW, means when WSP, WDFW, Skamania County, FS, or the Gorge Commision has questions or issues with climbing at Beacon they come to us first and not a Seattle or National-based climbing organization with more visibility and "credibility". In the end that means Jim Opdycke, Bill Coe, myself, and you get a say in what goes on out there rather than have state-wide edicts laid on the place or decisions made solely in Olympia with the input of climbers who aren't Beacon locals. That is why the BRCA notices are here and why they will continue and are also why you were able to climb out at Beacon for the past month. Also, Jim Opdycke understands exactly why I'm posting these BRCA notices and agrees with it - but as of last night he was at a loss as to why you would even bring up this Reasonable Richard topic online as am I as well. And with regard to everything being "fine" before we reconstituted the BRCA - nothing was fine. There was a decade of acrimonious relationships (even among climbers), Beacon didn't open early, everything had to be done pirate, it was covered with a heavy load of loose rock, covered with a grand assortment shit and / or decaying anchors, and all but a couple of the South face columns had completely grown over from neglect - "fine", you say? Not to my eyes and not when the Climbing Management plan is up for review without any input from local Beacon climbers (a situation that is now turned around 180 degrees - hell, they are asking for input from Jim Opdycke now).

 

Third: Consensus is a useful construct for many things and this issue is quite similar to the issue of slings and dirt on the SE Corner Tree - I put the slings up for a specific reason, we discussed it to a consensus to take them down, I took them down. It worked fine then and it will work fine here again. But I'd say go out and get on it, or at least look at it, and we'll sort it out. But, your extrapolating from my comments on consensus about this bolt to some consenus about posting the BRCA notices is a different affair for the reasons I just stated above. And also, given you're quoting Jim Opdycke here, he's been advocating for a bolt in that exact locale all along so that there would be reasonable access to the left side columns and was belaying me when I put it in.

 

So in the future, if you don't want something discussed here that I didn't post about - then don't post about it yourself...

[JosephH]

For what it is worth, I also think the consensus of the locals is that Joseph should refrain from posting every bit of trivia about his activities at Beacon, and so I have to second Kevbone and agree with him.

 

If Joseph's sole goal is to document the history of his activities, then that's what a diary is for.

 

See the post to Kevin above...

 

In Joseph's last post he clearly stated that he had purely selfish motives in mind when he placed the bolt on Reasonable Richard. That really surprised me, as this action seems to fly in the face of the "trad" standards he loves to intimidate younger climbers with when he posts on cc.com. (and also supertopo, he's posted some gems there, though they always seem to relate to toproping roof problems in southern illinois in the seventies)

 

What I said is I have selfish motivations in all these actions. As for the bolt specifically - my own personal interest is for direct, straightforward access to left side columns up what I consider to be, currently, one of three mank slab routes worth no stars. As for broader interests, I've agreed with Jim Opdycke that such access is desirable. And when it comes to fixed pro - my take on it is when someone takes that road they have a responsibility to place it appropriate to the grade. That means if you're advertising a two-star 5.9 and are going to place fixed pro on the route then you have an obligation to place it at least somewhat appropriate to what a competent 5.9 climber might expect. Again, one bolt in thirty two years and I'm not feeling too blemished by the record given Beacon's history. And if you've read my posts on ST and RC then you should have a clue about me and and my intent whatever I do out at Beacon and if you are confused about it or don't get something, feel free to post, email, or call and ask about it.

 

So if pure selfishness becomes the rationale for adding bolts to existing lines, where does it stop? Why not add yet another bolt on pitch 2 of young warriors for the purely selfish reason that I'm spooked by the butthole crack? And why stop there, why not add another bolt above the piton on the third pitch, so I'll feel even more secure when I leave the crack?

 

Well, now that you bring that topic up as well, I'd say you obviously have me confused with Kevin who has been campaigning non-stop for that p2 bolt. Now that is a situation where he can quite reasonably claim being uncomfortable about being [mildly] runout (above a last piece versus the ground of course). But if I had my way all of the p1, p2, and all but one of the p4 bolts (including at the crux) would simply vanish off Young Warriors.

 

But then again, Joseph already wrote that "I've climbed with a lot of "name" climbers of my generation over the years and like anything else there is good and bad in there - but no one, and I mean no one is more LNT than me"

 

I guess we're all helpless against that kind of V10 spray! How can you argue with a man who is the most leavingest no trace on the planet? possibly in the universe! I'm sure he road bikes to beacon every time, a 60 pound pack on his back, just to avoid burning fossil fuels!

 

Well, that whole orignal posting was from an email response to Mark in a conversation that I posted and then deleted at Mark's request and the quote above ended up a bit out of context when I reused some of the text of the email to Mark in order to respond to your earlier post. Mark was talking about the trad sensibilities of "your generation" and I was responding that of "my generation" my LNT record stands on its own just fine. And yes, we top roped and took some visciously punishing dives off way overhung roofs rather than bolt them back then and also waged a losing battle against chalk on beautiful colored sandstone cliffs. Again, I don't place fixed pro of any kind lightly or without some serious thought and in this case did it with Jim Opdycke.

 

[ Note: I periodically print these off for Jim and just printed it out up to this post to drop off with him tonight. ]