Beacon Rock Notice

[crimper]

phillygoat, thanks for the introspective post. you probably spoke for more than a few people. about 2 years ago i first started posting after 2-3 years of lurking myself, so i relate. i generally only post when i'm concerned about something that i believe starts a bad precedent.

 

i don't usually think my post will have any effect on the person i'm criticizing (usually joseph), but i hope to at least reach the audience and make them aware of the principles and ethical concerns that govern the action i'm criticizing.

 

one concrete concern i have is that the "trad" areas are going to be visited by sport climbers who want to add more fixed gear to the existing lines, or who will start squeezing in lines between the existing lines. this damages the rights of the first ascentionist, and the whole concept of a first ascent being respected, and the character of a crag being preserved.

 

for example, i posted earlier on cc.com about this kid here in bend who bolted a line diagionally across, and then 5 parallel to, an all-trad line at cougar mtn. this was his first route and he was clueless. he just led an existing sport climb to its anchor, then rapbolted the crack - as if he was the first person who ever conceived of doing so!

 

we arrived when he was at the anchor and about to pound the first bolt into the highest hole he'd drilled, and we tried to explain this to him, and i even told him that many people had had the oppotunity to rapbolt the crack, but they realized that 1) it was an existing line and 2) it's wrong to bolt a crack that accepts gear, even if it's unclimbed.

 

so as i say, this kid was ignorant of any of this. he made nice to our faces, then pounded the bolts into the holes he'd already drilled as soon as we left. so this story demonstrates the trend i'm concerned about.

 

crowds: i don't have a big concern about more traffic at beacon due to joseph's posts, or anyone's posts. my concern is that he is being selfish and twisting and perverting ethical concerns in order to get the result he wants, when he should know better.

 

but i will say this about ozone: we kept that place quiet for about 2 years, and it was a great two years. if we'd posted our daily actvities, we wouldn't have been alone for long, and we wouldn't have had the experience we had.

 

so yeah, message board have their place. and kevin and i have been friends forever, which is why we can be bitterly opposed on an issue but still be buds.

 

PS: i led P1 and followed P2 of route 66 in the mugginess on saturday. you and kev did a good job with the rock you were given. i look forward to leading it in cooler temps!

[JosephH]

one concrete concern i have is that the "trad" areas are going to be visited by sport climbers who want to add more fixed gear to the existing lines, or who will start squeezing in lines between the existing lines. this damages the rights of the first ascentionist, and the whole concept of a first ascent being respected, and the character of a crag being preserved.

 

So are you saying you voiced concern or objected to the bolts and anchors (some I'm told were for doing TR rehersals?) Mark and Eric put up out at Beacon, or Olson and that crew? I know Jim objected to much of it, but it still happened anyway...

 

but i will say this about ozone: we kept that place quiet for about 2 years, and it was a great two years. if we'd posted our daily actvities, we wouldn't have been alone for long, and we wouldn't have had the experience we had.

 

So was there a consensus on the degree of bolting it received? Some of your very own compatriots sounded more than a bit bent out of shape over the degree of bolting out there. I know I would have been had I been that interested in the place beyond it's potential for taking some of the traffic off Beacon. Also, the spray that did the O in happened in the gym - not online, but was nevertheless just as effective given the number of cars there...

[Stewart]

 

 

And another quote from the good book Chapter titled "An Apology"

"Most climbers are individuals who love freedom - they climb because it makes them feel free. We may expect then, that having others suggest how they ought to climb will rub wrong. There used to be so few climbers.....there will be more. A simple equation exists between freedom and numbers: the more people the less freedom. If we are to retain the beauties of the sport, the fine edge, the challenge, we must consider our style of climbing; and if we are not to mutilate and destroy the routes, we must eliminate the heavy-handed use of pitons and bolts." RoyalRobbins Basic Rockcraft

 

Your light in the night, Snoop

[JosephH]

"If we are to retain the beauties of the sport, the fine edge, the challenge, we must consider our style of climbing; and if we are not to mutilate and destroy the routes, we must eliminate the heavy-handed use of pitons and bolts." RoyalRobbins Basic Rockcraft

 

Well, if this post was in reference to Beacon where I've installed the only protection bolt I've ever placed I'd reply some one might have considered posting it on the trail down to Ozone two years ago...

[kevbone]

Truce (white flag):

Joe, to perfectly honest the feedback I have gotten it the bolt is a good idea, I think most peoples frustration is the style it which is was put it. With that being said may I give a suggestion as to fixing this problem for the future? If you or anybody wants to add bolts to an existing route (that most likely needs it): first, contact the FFA or die trying: Second, put it out there in the climbing community and lets all discuss it. Then you would hear what people have to say about it before it happens, which could say a lot of heartache.

 

I wanted to put two bolts on a long standing top rope at Broughtons so we could lead it. Well I asked about it on CC.com and the reaction I received was it would not be a good idea. So I did not.

I personally don’t like arguing about my church (beacon). And we all enjoy it to its fullest. And we/you can not please everyone.

 

This, of course is merely a suggestion.

[billcoe]

Truce (white flag):

Joe, to perfectly honest the feedback I have gotten it the bolt is a good idea, I think most peoples frustration is the style it which is was put it. With that being said may I give a suggestion as to fixing this problem for the future? If you or anybody wants to add bolts to an existing route (that most likely needs it): first, contact the FFA or die trying: Second, put it out there in the climbing community and lets all discuss it. Then you would hear what people have to say about it before it happens, which could say a lot of heartache.

 

I wanted to put two bolts on a long standing top rope at Broughtons so we could lead it. Well I asked about it on CC.com and the reaction I received was it would not be a good idea. So I did not.

I personally don’t like arguing about my church (beacon). And we all enjoy it to its fullest. And we/you can not please everyone.

 

This, of course is merely a suggestion.

 

Total agreement Kev with everything you just said. God this is so much better than all the drama and acrimony.

 

I even asked on CC.com about putting in anchors on NEW routes I was doing at the Butte for the same reasons. To try and include folks in the process. As far as I know they haven't been chopped yet, although some fat old dumbass I didn't know pointed right at them after I'd put some in and told me they would be chopped. (Not by him, but by someone else). Still there.

 

I think a lot of folks issues and anger are this: it's all about THE PROCESS.

 

My opinion: I'm pretty sure if JH and anyone or everyone were to meet up on the "office" ledge up on Beacon and discuss these issues, none of this yammering and anger would be happening. I suspect that the outcome/end result would be similar or identical to what is is now as well.

[phillygoat]

Kevbone wrote:

"I wanted to put two bolts on a long standing top rope at Broughtons so we could lead it. Well I asked about it on CC.com and the reaction I received was it would not be a good idea. So I did not."

 

 

Get a crash pad,you big baby! Mr. Bentley is, like, 15' tall!!

 

Didn't you say that Stone Rodeo had some junk hardware on it though?

Edited July 25, 2006 by phillygoat

[kevbone]

Phillip, I would like to see you solo Mr. Bentley. I will even spot you.

 

Stone Rodeo does have mank on it, and is run by today standards. Has anybody out there climbed it? Is it a good route worth working on?

[Peter_Puget]

I first climbed at Beacon back when the first Thomas guide was new. Climbed there on average several times a year since then. Sometimes years would go by with no climbing other times I’d go a bunch.

 

All this locals only talk makes me wonder just what is a local? Seems like the easiest definition as far as these discussions go is: A local is someone who wants everyone else to climb somewhere else.

 

One theme Jh keeps bringing up is that there was an issue with control from “Seattle.” I think that this is simply another way to say: “My Beach.” In others words I call BS on this.

 

Add up the times I have climbed at Beacon. (Thomas guide came out late 70s) Any group representing "climbers "should represent people like me as well.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Peter_Puget

[billcoe]

As I understand the old rules of the Beacon Rock Climbing Association as Opdycke explained them to me Saturday, you are currently an inactive member Peter. Like me most of the time.

 

To be an active member, you needed to have climbed 3000 vertical feet at Beacon in the previous month.

 

Any business needed to be done, like all of the acrimonious issues here recently, would be hashed out up on the "office" (ledge) at Beacon by active members. At least that was the old way anyway.

[kevbone]

If thats the criteria for being a member. Then come March-July there is no BRCA.

[Mr_D]

Joseph,

 

Are there plans to replace the anchors on right gull (I think that is the name)? I am referring to the anchors at the top of the pillar and the climb continues up to the right past 2 fixed piton (5.7 AO or 5.10a).

 

The one on the left is loose and the right has a tin foil style hanger.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr_D

[JosephH]

Phillip, I would like to see you solo Mr. Bentley. I will even spot you.

 

Stone Rodeo does have mank on it, and is run by today standards. Has anybody out there climbed it? Is it a good route worth working on?

 

Kevin and Phillip,

 

Not sure what "run" means above - possibly "runout" - but I remember it being a good route and it's possible my partner Jim Tangen-Foster (with me in tow as second) has the true FFA on it back in '87 and long before it was retro bolted. It was very different and bold lead then - even the fixed pro sucked. Who retro-bolted it to its currently state? Also, when we did it back in '87 the small tree in the roof wasn't there and should definitely be removed if someone takes a renewed interest in the route.

[JosephH]

All this locals only talk makes me wonder just what is a local? Seems like the easiest definition as far as these discussions go is: A local is someone who wants everyone else to climb somewhere else.

 

One theme Jh keeps bringing up is that there was an issue with control from “Seattle.” I think that this is simply another way to say: “My Beach.” In others words I call BS on this.

 

Add up the times I have climbed at Beacon. (Thomas guide came out late 70s) Any group representing "climbers "should represent people like me as well.

 

Peter,

 

To be blunt and honest, the concern and issue has been and is that Beacon remain a trad climbing area in the face of strong [general] pressure for sport routes within today's overall climbing population. While bolts have been traditionally used at Beacon for aid, anchors, and sparingly on mixed routes - climbing at Beacon (with the exception of a few guerilla attacks and early attempts at concessions) has always been trad. There are no shortage of sport venues in the PDX area and Smith without altering this essential characteristic of climbing at Beacon. Representation of non-locals is certainly appropriate - but, again, the concern is not so much representation as control. And even in the midst of a fairly acrimonious family discussion I think I can safely speak for "us" (BRCA and at least a fair proportion of us locals) and state we would not like to see the "control" of climbing at Beacon lost to non-locals who would make another attempt at opening Beacon to sport climbing. This is precisely what got me to take a serious look at the overall situation two years ago and start to take action. This particular threat is greatest when we are in disarray, routes look neglected, and we are at odds with the relevant land managers and agencies of record.

[JosephH]

Joseph,

 

Are there plans to replace the anchors on right gull (I think that is the name)? I am referring to the anchors at the top of the pillar and the climb continues up to the right past 2 fixed piton (5.7 AO or 5.10a).

 

The one on the left is loose and the right has a tin foil style hanger.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr_D

 

Yes, these last couple of anchors between Bluebird and Little Wing are among the final few anchors to be done and that along with camoing/painting the bolts on the Idiot and Old Warriors and a pin replacement on Rookie Nookie is the last of this bout of work until the fall when we'll be swapping out the powerbolts for the 316 SS bolts on the first few anchors that were replaced.

[ivan]

To be an active member, you needed to have climbed 3000 vertical feet at Beacon in the previous month.

word. and that's an easy price of admission - 6 laps solo on the corner can be done in a long lazy afternoon - alas climbing w/ homonids today kept me to a mere 1000

[JosephH]

Truce (white flag):

Joe, to perfectly honest the feedback I have gotten it the bolt is a good idea, I think most peoples frustration is the style it which is was put it. With that being said may I give a suggestion as to fixing this problem for the future? If you or anybody wants to add bolts to an existing route (that most likely needs it): first, contact the FFA or die trying: Second, put it out there in the climbing community and lets all discuss it. Then you would hear what people have to say about it before it happens, which could say a lot of heartache.

 

I wanted to put two bolts on a long standing top rope at Broughtons so we could lead it. Well I asked about it on CC.com and the reaction I received was it would not be a good idea. So I did not.

I personally don’t like arguing about my church (beacon). And we all enjoy it to its fullest. And we/you can not please everyone.

 

This, of course is merely a suggestion.

 

Total agreement Kev with everything you just said. God this is so much better than all the drama and acrimony.

 

I even asked on CC.com about putting in anchors on NEW routes I was doing at the Butte for the same reasons. To try and include folks in the process. As far as I know they haven't been chopped yet, although some fat old dumbass I didn't know pointed right at them after I'd put some in and told me they would be chopped. (Not by him, but by someone else). Still there.

 

I think a lot of folks issues and anger are this: it's all about THE PROCESS.

 

My opinion: I'm pretty sure if JH and anyone or everyone were to meet up on the "office" ledge up on Beacon and discuss these issues, none of this yammering and anger would be happening. I suspect that the outcome/end result would be similar or identical to what is is now as well.

 

I accept the truce and agree that to a large extent the problem is THE PROCESS. A big part of the problem for me personally is relative to merging A PROCESS and accomplishing THE WORK - that as folks grew up and/or moved away there is essentially no more functioning "office". And when Jim tells that story it is not like there weren't exactly this type of acrimony going on then either. Things still got done that some folks disagreed with and in some cases most folks disagreed with. About as close to it as I've experienced was the other day when Jim and I went over to look at the left column situation. Pretty much everyone but Bryan and Mark were sitting there, and I brought up the topic saying just that, "everyone is here except Mark who can't get up here and we should go take a look at the situation over there [at the left side columns]..." Everyone else but Jim and I appeared to have other agendas and so we were the only ones to wander over and take a look at things - it wasn't any secret even that day, everyone was free to come over and participate. (And I've repeatedly told Mark how much easier all this would be if he lived here which I understand he will be in the fall - good news as far as I'm concerned).

 

But given folks are out of town, and no one wants to use this forum for such topics, it sets up a dynamic where it is difficult to both schedule and accomplish all the tasks associated with Beacon and make sense of everyone's varied opinions. And believe me, I get a lot of online comments and in-person private comments, pm's, emails, and phone calls that make it abundantly clear there is a wide spectrum of opinions on all these matters - even among your various partners and friends - and clear consensus' are often not evident. I also have to factor in the BRSP mandates, requirements, and agreements. In the end, and given I also run a fairly hectic and more than full time consultancy, the need to simply be able to do work on the fly and on an ad hoc schedule either solo or with whomever says they are available the night before ends up trumping/driving what looks to be a more autocratic style in some of these matters. I apologize for that and will put more effort in getting opinions further afield than I have. It's also possible I overly rely on Jim Opdycke's and Bill Coe's memories and opinions at times, but such has been my inclination given my relationship with and respect for them - and in particulary Jim's sense of the history and traditions. I did talk to Daryl and Mark, and even Dean Caldwell, on some of these issues but alas - they also claim stale memories when it comes to the details. Such is the course of aging...

 

And to some extent I think it is unfortunate we don't feel comfortable using this forum. Yes, it is not wholly without risks, but the reality in terms of the BRCA posts over time, is that the level of readership and interest in Beacon is dead flat. And inspite of posting here and an early open, total traffic to-date at Beacon has been considerably down for the first month after opening compared to the past several years. But again, I'll put more effort into getting ahold of folks by other means when things like this come up.

 

With regard to this specific leftside column issue I spoke with Jim Opdycke and he said he now thinks Arent put in the lower Lost Arrow pin I found buried and loosened in the shrub on Reasonable Richard and Local Access (above and right of the tree off the trail about six to eight feet and somewhat below where I put the bolt on the slab just before you have to start onto one or the other of the routes.) Is that the case? It looked quite old but you never can tell. Also, there is a bronze 45 degree euro pin low at the left side of RR/LA/BSS anchor above, anyone know where that one came from, or when it went in? Thanks. And as I said, the bolt can come out in all of about two minutes, but how about everyone getting on it or at least taking a look at it and getting back to me or Jim or Bill. Thanks...

 

Joseph

[kevbone]

Arent put in piton about 8 or 9 years ago and it was about 35 feet up, just before you get your first crappy piece in. I know I belayed him, it was done on lead. I believe it has been removed.

 

 

To my understanding Robert Mcgownin has the first FFA on Stone Rodeo.

[JosephH]

If it was a lost arrow it was still there. What was Arent's rationale for the pin at that time? I'm guessing it was the same as mine. I replaced it slightly to the side with a bugaboo as the shrub had pressured out that spot.

 

Yes, McGown is listed as the FFA of Stone Rodeo in Olson's book but Jim and I did it in May '87 (I'll have to check with Jim on the date, pretty sure it was May however which would put it between Bob's FA and FFA dates...). Once Jim saw it walking down the trail that was as far as we got. It was the same day we freed from the Pipeline anchor out left to the top center of the Arena of Terror intent on freeing the center column before the girls called the whole thing off due to encroaching darkness, and mainly because they wanted to get something to eat and were sick and tired of watching us climb by that point.

[kevbone]

Are you claiming the FFA?

[JosephH]

I'm not claiming anything, just saying that it is quite possible, or that was Jim Opdycke's assessment on my mentioning it to him in passing that Tangen-Foster and I did it in early '87.

[Peter_Puget]

I brought up several points. Admittedly some were brought up in an oblique manner.

 

First, it appears that you are making a claim that proximity is the defining factor of being local. On some simple level I agree but I a more meaningful sense this argument is BS that simply dissolves into a “surf nazi” mentality. I have been to Beacon 2x year (on average) since the first Thomas guide - ~60 trips. I bet I will continue to go there for years to come. Assuming an average season of 7/15-10/31, a “local” would have to go every weekend during the season for over four years to have gone as much as I have. To me it is nonsense to believe that the “Local” has anymore “right” to control Beacon than say me. It seems that everyone has an equal right to be involved, whether they have any influence is simply a matter of how they are organized and how much effort the put forth. Local in your eyes seems to be “those who agree with JH”.

 

Second, I can care less about sport climbing issues. But you do seem to again make the claim that non-locals (Seattle?) making an attempt at opening Beacon to sport climbing. I am not aware of any attempt by Seattlites to turn Beacon into anything. It’s a Wa State Park. I would think the Parks Department would agree that Wa residents should have input into how their parks are run. That the BRCA filled primarily with Oregon residents actively discourages input from “non-local” WA residents is something I find interesting about the whole affair. Go ahead fight the good fight but so much of the fight seems to be simply tilting at windmills.

 

Third and perhaps most importantly I believe that BRCA has a responsibility to broadcast its activities and goals throughout the climbing community which includes the use of the web. You have been doing this. I was inspired to post in an effort to encourage you not to stop when Kevbone was asking you to. I have no desire to get involved with all the petty arguments going on at Beacon. I appreciate the clean-ups and bolt replacement.

 

I wonder if reduced activity levels at Beacon this year might be the result of people being turned off by the tone of the postings. By the way I have been to Beacon once this year.

[JosephH]

Peter,

 

Give a shout the next time you're going to be down, would love to meet you.

 

As to the substance of your comments, there are WA residents in the BRCA and my use of "Seattle" was fairly arbitrary and I believe I also used Colorado and New York. There have been several runs at opening Beacon to sport climbing and some sport routes got put in during those attempts. "Local" in my eyes has nothing to do with "those who agree with JH" so much as those who climb there on a very regular basis and are committed/bonded to the place. Of those folks, many do happen to agree with myself, Jim Opdycke, Bill Coe, and other longstanding Beacon climbers (along with the BRSP), that trad climbing was, is, and should remain what climbing is about at Beacon Rock. Again, there is no shortage of sport venues in both OR and WA and "we" feel there is no need to alter the traditions of climbing at Beacon to accomodate it there. In the end this will be another case where some or even many folks won't be happy with that, but that is a primary imperative for the BRCA.

[kevbone]

OK, I think everyone appreciates the anchor replacements (even if some did not need to be replaced), but as far as posting about Beacon on the web:

 

The proof is in the pudding!

 

I scanned/read through almost the entire 16 pages of Beacon Rock posting/squabbling last night. I would say almost 98% of the folks clearly stated it was BAD idea to post about Beacon. This stat is not my opinion. A fact is a fact, read it yourself.

 

So Joe, if you are concerned there is not a consensus to stop, please take the time to really read back and look at all the requests to stop posting on THIS site.

 

Another idea would be that fact that you are always defending yourself as to why you won’t stop. This would be an indication as to the atmosphere surrounding your posts.

 

Once again, I appreciate the work, you know that

[JosephH]

Kevin, as I've stated, and for the reasons I've stated, the BRCA Notices will be continuing. But if you notice, outside of those notice postings I only respond to other's Beacon-related posts in this thread - so again, don't post, I won't respond; but if people do post and direct it at or about me or the BRCA notices it should be expected I will respond. And if you look above for the quote in dark red you'll also see the rationale for the systematic anchor replacements.