Beacon Rock Notice

[Stewart]

We are working with BRSP staff to resolve the development issues and hope to have new development protocols in place sometime this year so we can get back to it. As it stands now no new fixed protection is allowed. Again we will are actively on this one as there is the potential for some nice stuff up there. That said, if it's dry for a couple of days it's still worth exploring if you've never looked at it all...

 

If I remember correctly, I believe there where also discussions of getting the East Face of "Che-che-op-tin"(always like to know the real name, thanks Joseph) open for climbing as well. If I can state my opinion and my concerns. I realize that I may be all alone on this one. I am sure that I would not support opening the East Face for climbing. I believe that opening the NW for development could be dangerous and if not done catiously, and with restraint could get ugly with knuckle heads up there grid bolting like crazy. Myself included. Also if a 'Route Setting Committee' is put together to act as a governing body. I can only imagine the politics that would come along with it. Not that I don't appreciate bolt replacement, I love safe bolts as much as I love rusty pins on the corner, stepping around the corner to the east face and hearing the osprey, wind and the motor of a hammerdrill at full speed. Just give me one no,no two more seasons without sportclimbers and there beta junkie friends. What is a "potato chip crimper" anyways? Just kidding I love sportclimbers, they've traditionally had the best fashion.

 

Peace, Stewart

[JosephH]

Stewart,

 

Thanks for your comments. The NW face is open for climbing, just not development at this time. The odds are good significant routes on the face will need some fixed protection. The protocol in question will likely be the approval of overall lines after a review versus inidividual pieces with the understanding that the priority on the routes be gear, pins, and bolts as a last resort in keeping with Beacon traditions. At this time the BRSP is considering the possibiliy of either they or the BRCA providing the fixed protection required for a route. "Approval of overall lines after a review" will probably entail both identifying what mix of fixed protection is required, and on which stretches of the route, and a survey of objective hazards.

 

Some give and take and disagreements will likely be inevitable relative to the number and spacing of bolts with the BRCA position leaning closer to "stout" than to a "bolt ladder" in an effort to maintain route standards at Beacon. Routes / ascents on the Upper NW Face will in all likelyhood encounter some degree of "environmental" challenges relative to loose rock and / or vegatation either during the climb or attempting to exit off of them. Because of this, some "reasonable level of competency" will need to be displayed by folks on those routes, and the level of protection on routes so described should not be of such a nature as to attract folks unprepared to deal with the realities exhibited on any particular route.

 

That's more or less the party line for the moment. I personally would expect fixed protection on routes that ascend to any height on the NW face to have more in common with the second, rather than the first, pitch of "Young Warriors". Others will have their own opinions and it will just have to get worked out in the wash. But the NW face is not a risk-free environment as you rightfully point out and that has to be weighted realistically as we go along - particularly on the upper bands. The last thing we want is a situation where the base of the NW face is busy with folks doing short, solid easier pitches and the top seeing a lot of activity on routes with significant [and ongoing] rockfall potential. Some route proposals will likely require some study for that potential.

 

Joseph Healy

[JosephH]

===================

Beacon Rock Update - 4/19/06...

===================

 

Peregrine Monitoring Status

 

The Peregrines are in very high, frantic, and ballistic courtship mode right now with at least one male consistently courting two females on Tuesday. At one point there were four Peregrines [biefly] interacting NW of Beacon - two courting, one nearby, and one to the NW looking interested in the activity. Most of the action is taking place on the near-Westside of Beacon in a narrow North-South band running from the island to the South and ranging quite far to the North. On their repeated returns to Beacon they often end up right above it soaring and gaining lift on the ridge of air Beacon creates. Overall they are generally staying in very close proximity to each other and to Beacon.

 

My total poser guess is they are very close to pair-bonding / mating with nesting and eggs very soon thereafter. Eggs are incubated for about 33 days and the fledge cycle from hatching to fledging is somewhere between 30 and 58 days with the middle being average. So realistically if they settle down to nest this week or next we're most likely looking at a fairly normal opening date. I would suspect from what I'm seeing it might open a week or two early, but probably no more than that if they nest on the South Face. If they nest elsewhere and we can confirm the location than an earlier opening is certainly possible.

 

David Anderson of the WDFW has monitoring staffed up with a small number of non-climbers this year after a training session that was run at the Audobon Society around the new year. He normally only wants a very few committed folks monitoring so as to keep the monitoring notes consistent. Bill Coe and I have a good relationship with David and while contributing to that overall monitoring effort we will be more focusing our monitoring effort on confirming the nest site so we can all have a better understanding of a likely opening date. Again, biologically speaking, things are looking fairly normal at the moment and we are determined to identify the nesting site this year. We'll keep you posted and will probably give a shout to a couple of you who expressed and interest in monitoring, though there is still no immediate rush as they are not nesting as yet.

 

And for those that venture out on your own, it's easy to confuse the Red Tailed Hawks and Peregrines. In general, if the bird is doing a lot of flat flying / soaring without a lot of wing movement, doing wide lazy turns with broader wings, and a fairly decent sized "triangular" or "fan" tail - then it's a Red Tailed. Also note the leading and trailing wing edge profiles are basically reversed between the Red Tailed and the Peregrine. The Red Taileds nest up under the roofs where the big East face roofs start turning downward hard up from the SE corner (by the sign post on the trail) - You can see it either from the upper picnic area or from a spot between the men and women's bathrooms facing South. The nest is, coincidentally, very reddish, fairly large / tall and looks sort of "Tibetan" in its perch and construction. Because of the nest location and type of prey they hang out flying a lot to the East, Southeast, and South, steadily soaring along in order to spot game on the ground.

 

Red Tailed Hawk

 

 

The Peregrines are a bit smaller, darker, compact and burly. Their tail and wings are narrower, wings more articulated back at the "elbow", and more pointed at the tips. They don't do a lot of flat, slow soaring because they don't hunt for things on the ground but rather are after birds in the sky. They will do the Redtail type soaring but usually only in very close to the rock or directly above Beacon. Otherwise they're generally either chilling on a SE or SW corner ledge somewhere or they have their mojo on and are cutting up the sky swooping about climbing, diving, and booking out in some direction. Again, they often come back to the ridge lift right above Beacon. Some times they do head out to the North a ways or across the river so you have to be patient. The best place to see them right now is from down by the boat launch while looking at Beacon, the ridge lift above it, and in the sky to the N-NW. Once you catch them in a wing-tucked dive a couple of times they become a lot easier to identify on a consistent basis. Again, the key is really more in their flight behavior than their visual appearance; once you have that behavior down you can tell it's them even at a great distance.

 

Peregrine Falcon

 

 

Worth a trip out as they are really lighting things off right now if you catch them while they're out and about. I caught them on Tuesday, which was a beautiful day, in the afternoon around 3pm. They were out solid for two hours and then disappeared like Cinderella...

 

Joseph Healy

Bill Coe

Beacon Rock Climbers' Association

[kevbone]

Joe, once again thanks for monitoring the birds and keeping us informed about the possibility of a early opening.

As far as your comments on possible routes on the upper NW face:

"The protocol in question will likely be the approval of overall lines after a review versus inidividual pieces with the understanding that the priority on the routes be gear, pins, and bolts as a last resort in keeping with Beacon traditions. At this time the BRSP is considering the possibiliy of either they or the BRCA providing the fixed protection required for a route. "Approval of overall lines after a review" will probably entail both identifying what mix of fixed protection is required, and on which stretches of the route, and a survey of objective hazards. "

I think this is what John was talking about, the politics that will go along with someone else deciding whether or not a fall is safe on a route they are not putting up will get crazy! If I or someone else overbolts a route, so be it, its there choice being that they are the ones putting the route up. They may be ridiculed for life for it, but once again its intirely the FA choice, thats how its always been.

So having a comitty making decisions on what is appropriate gear VS bolts is arbitrary. You may think its safe and another person might not. As for the use of pins, I know you are a little bit more old school than I (that is not a burn), but in my opinion pins are not used because we have powers drills and strong bolts now, its not the 70s anymore, we as climbers dont need to use pins anymore. Im not trying to argue with you, its just the thought of having to submit a route request that makes sence to me, only to be denied because the chairperson is old school (that does not mean you)and shoots it down, its crazy. Of course this may be the only way it will be accomplished. Just my thoughts.

[markd]

"Approval of overall lines after a review" will probably entail both identifying what mix of fixed protection is required, and on which stretches of the route, and a survey of objective hazards.

 

 

IMHO, this does not sound good. Too much regulation from government agencies is not a good direction for our sport to move.

 

What has brought this on?

 

Who will decide wether routes go up or not? Who put them in charge?

 

It seems like were going backwards if routes have to get approved, before we decide to climb them. I doubt Jim O, Bill Coe, Mark Cartier, Jeff Thomas, Wayne Wallace, or anyone else, had to "ask" if they could climb up their chosen line.

 

mark

[ivan]

as it is currently, no new development can occur at all on the north side, given the park's restrictions - can this requirement to get things approved first be viewed then as a compromise (which tradionally are dissatisfing to all involved)? the park'll be content to just keep the whole face in a de facto shutdown forever - is that better than having to jump through a bunch of hoops? more pressure could be applied of course to open up the whole thing w/o restrictions, but do you see any realistic chance of that occuring?

[JosephH]

Kevin and Mark,

 

Good comments, they get to the essence of the issues we'll face going forward. First off, there is and has been a climbing management plan in place since '96 that dictates individual pieces of fixed pro be approved.

 

So Mark, to specifically address your concerns about "approving lines", the intent here is to try to get away from the choice of having to either be "pirate" or get nitpicked to death on each and every placement of fixed pro as the rules require now. It isn't the "route" that's being approved, but an the use of fixed pro on an entire line rather than a seperate approval for each and every piece of pro. The existing rules would mean you'd have to come back down, file for, and get approval everytime you ran into a section that needed a point of fixed pro. That's clearly not realistic and the compromise we're proposing is to basically eyeball a line, take a photo of it and markup the proposed line and sections likely to need fixed pro.

 

Perfect? No. Still somewhat of a pain in the ass? Yes. But it's either that or remain illegal and enough of that's already gone down to no one's satisfaction. And if we want to reopen the NW face to development it's likely going to have to be under these terms. They're never going to allow the unrestrained use of fixed pro with no oversight whatsoever and this seems like a fair compromise. There will be no hope of getting the West face open if you go back to our "pirate" roots on the NW face. Also, on the NW face in particular all folks considering FA's are going to have to take particular note of the rockfall issues which are likely to be significant on some line from what I can see when I scope it for good lines. It could be that you have to make arrangements on your FA to close the base around a route to trundle in the process - who knows how it will go - all I'm saying is loose rock is going to have to get factored in to NW face FA's somehow.

 

Kevin, your comments get fast to the heart of the issues we've been dealing with both as a community nationwide and at Beacon specifically. You bring up two issues that can be contentious: a) spacing of fixed protection and b) pins versus bolts. As for (a) - the spacing on fixed pro - the whole discussion of risk in climbing is way beyond the scope of this thread (we should start another one) but we will have to come to some community consensus on that. Me personally, my opinion is that with the exception of what I consider an overbolted "Young Warriors", Beacon's route grades and risks have always been what I consider pretty spot on as opposed to unnecessarily "stout / sandbagged" or weak. That the "tradition" at Beacon has always been honest grades and routes that require you to step up to a bit of risk. I personally would like to see that remain Beacon's essential character and tradition. There are plenty of sport climbing areas in close proximity to PDX I [again personally] don't want to see Beacon become another one of them.

 

As for (b) - the pins versus bolts issue - the bottom line, for at least myself, Jim Opdyke, and I believe Bill Coe is that Beacon was and is all about real "trad" climbing and we want it to stay that way. And "tradition" at Beacon has always meant "mixed" pro on routes - gear, pins, and bolts - and in that order. That we have power drills that make drilling bolts easy doesn't necessarily make bolts superior in anyway - you're just more familiar with them. Pins weld at Beacon, and after the bolt replacements I've done I'll take a well-set pin over a bolt out there anyday. That you or anyone else hasn't learned how to use them is another deal. As I've said, I have and am offering to show you or anyone else how to use them and to make them available for use as fixed pro out at Beacon. I have a fully burly Hilti TE-6a, but I'll continue to reach for a hammer everytime if cracks are available for good Lost Arrows or Bugaboos. I would suggest you might consider broadening you're climbing experience a bit and have pretty good time in the process. I'm game for a "pin-and-funk" session any time you or anyone else is as would Jim Opdyke.

 

So, this isn't the last word on anything, just a mix of "official" and my personal views on what's in store going forward. Thanks for posting up your concerns and check with Jim Opdyke and Bill Coe as well for their opinion on these issues and I'll see that Jim gets a copy of this thread's recent posts. If he has a response, I'd be happy to be his Internet proxy (Jim gets on the Internet - lions and tigers, oh my!!!!)...

[dan_forester]

I'm not sure I understand this "approval of overall lines after a review" deal. Does Beacon Rock State Park actually want to get involved on this level, even providing the fixed pro? Seems like they would want to stay away from this just given the liability issues. And from the climbers' perspective...doesn't the idea of a line being approved or rejected by a governmental outfit just seem totally antithetical to the spirit of doing an adventurous or bold first ascent?

 

Or am I misunderstanding this proposed "protocol"?

[John Frieh]

Kinda sounds like city of rocks/castle rock state park to me

[JosephH]

Dan,

 

Again, the bottom line is they are never going to allow the unrestrained use of fixed protection without oversight on what they consider habitat. The idea that the "rock is ours" is a fantasy that never was and never will be. Let me try to paint the picture we as climbers and the BRSP Staff are facing:

 

The basic problem out at Beacon is it is at the center of a regulatory onion - Federal, State (WDFW), Gorge, RailRoad, County, Local, Park - and the park is the least powerful of the bunch inspite of being part of a state agency. Wash. State Parks basically doesn't want to any flack from any of the "containing" regulatory interests. They basically view it as the local Ranger's job to resolve any and all issues and complaints local and view it dimly when shit gets past them and starts moving uphill or out from the center to other agencies. That impacts us climbers because if the Audobon Society, WDFW (Habitat / Plants / Endangered), Railroad, Native Americans, or anyone else of note starts bitching about climbers or our impact both we and the BRSP staff will start catching flack. That will translate into the BRSP Staff having to consider actions neither thay nor we want to see so it's better we play ball with each other and keep climber related-issues local. Given WDFW - on multiple fronts (Peregrines and Habitat) - consider Beacon key habitat the notion of climbers having complete freedom to do anything they want just isn't realistic. Again, better we compromise a bit with a climber-friendly local staff than get into it with any of these other agencies.

 

The existing rules require a seperate approval for each and every piece of fixed pro - clearly not workable. Again, the effort here is to change the rules to something that is workable. A photo of a proposed line and a brief write up of the prospect for fixed pro and rockfall doesn't seem too high a price to pay for opening up the NW face to development and possibly the West face to climbing down the road. As for providing the pro, that has been discussed, but in the end it's likely to be the BRCA that provides any necessary pins, bolts, hangers, and gear (and hammer/funk and or drill if necessary) needed to develop routes in exchange for folks following the new protocol. Again, perfect? No. But not a bad compromise under the circumstance. And not to be a broken record on the NW rockfall issue, but it is a very real one quite different from the other faces and we'll have to accept that there are some real "safety" issues there.

[dan_forester]

Kinda sounds like city of rocks/castle rock state park to me

 

What's the deal at those places? Is there a precedent for this level of official oversight?

[markd]

what made this regulation happen at beacon?

 

i understand the concern with the nw face, as rockfall can be a hazard. but, why does this effect the south face, where this isn't an issue?

 

routes have been going up at beacon, in all styles, for years.(aid, trad, mixed and sport).

 

how do the rangers know what routes are or aren't there? as far as i know, none of them climb beacon rock or ever have. there's routes all over the place that aren't in the guide. what they don't know, won't kill them.

 

why bother them with the burden, when we're(climbers) already doing a good job regulating ourselves?

Edited April 21, 2006 by markd

[JosephH]

Mark,

 

I'll try to tackle these...

 

what made this regulation happen at beacon?

 

There has always been a regulatory context governing all aspects of use at Beacon but it was enforced to differing degrees by different rangers over the years with more discretionary leeway years ago than they have today. That's because at some point (I forget when) a Washington State Parks law took affect requiring climbing management plans for all parks with climbable features. That roughly coincided with the attempt by WDFW to begin an effort to restore Peregrines to their historic range, a complaint by Native Americans, and the discovery / recognition of endangered plant species at Beacon. From what I've learned over the past two years from talking to everyone, these events all came together in what can only be deemed a "perfect storm" that set the stage for regulation via a newly required climbing management plan. The law and requirement still exists as it does at Smith and most other climbing areas.

 

i understand the concern with the nw face, as rockfall can be a hazard. but, why does this effect the south face, where this isn't an issue?

 

While a "safety" review would be part of the protocol, the rockfall issue would likely only be of concern on proposed NW face lines. I was scoping lines Tuesday and every one I looked at that topped out would have to deal with the issue. Again, it's primarily only a NW face issue.

 

routes have been going up at beacon, in all styles, for years.(aid, trad, mixed and sport).

 

Trad, aid, and mixed routes have been always been the norm at Beacon - the couple of sport routes that went up are relatively new to Beacon and didn't go in without controversy. I [personally] definitely fall into the ranks of those that don't want to see bolt-only sport routes at Beacon, nor do I want to see overbolted mixed routes there either. Again, PDX has no shortage of sport climbing areas - I don't see any reason why Beacon needs to join their ranks. Jim Opdyke for another is pretty admanant about the point given the history as is the Park Staff and WDFW.

 

how do the rangers know what routes are or aren't there? as far as i know, none of them climb beacon rock or ever have. there's routes all over the place that aren't in the guide. what they don't know, won't kill them.

 

Trust me, John has climbed at Beacon and was an alpine climber before a bad rockfall did in his leg. You'd be amazed at how little escapes them relative to climbing - you just don't hear about it unless you go talk to them. They knew all about the routes and anchors you and Eric put up without anyone telling them about it. They live there, not much really ever escapes them. Bottom line is if you don't want to work on opening up the NW face to development or seeing the West face out from under the Peregrine closure then you don't have to care about relations with the BRSP staff and can just pirate away. But we came perilously close to complete bans in the past and they still aren't inconceivable if the Audobon, railroad, or WDFW really made an issue out of it all - or if we did somehow as we have [collectively] in the past.

 

why bother them with the burden, when we're(climbers) already doing a good job regulating ourselves?

 

Well, good question, I quess the answer is that we (climbers) haven't done that great of a job in the past of regulating ourselves to anyone's satisfaction but our own - certainly from the WDFW's, BRSP's, Gorge Commission's, or the Audobon's perspective. The visual blight had been increasingly raising hackles for several years, breaches of the closure and whosale cleaning pissing WDFW off, bolting under the East face roofs and on the very NW corner pissing the BRSP off, and sport bolting pissing trad climbers off, etc, etc. It's a perfect world when we only talk among ourselves, but branch out and get into a frank discussion with folks in these agencies with real power and you quickly find out we're trying to emerge from an extended period of some real bad blood and the possibility for worse consequences than we are experiencing now.

 

Mark, you probably make it to Beacon from Bend on a more regular basis than any individual that travels to climb there that I know of. I can imagine the "pirate" days of the past ten years have seemed fine and normal - but dig in and talk to folks, both from agencies and old PDX-local climbers like Jim Opdyke and you find out that there was no shortage of controversy during the past decade both between climbers and agencies and among climbers themselves. Again, we're just trying to weave a path here that will restore and keep the relationships from being poisoned again and such that we can take part in monitoring the Peregrines and have discussions around the NW and West faces...

[JosephH]

Ivan, I'm very sorry, this one somehow slipped by me in the posting order...

 

as it is currently, no new development can occur at all on the north side, given the park's restrictions - can this requirement to get things approved first be viewed then as a compromise (which tradionally are dissatisfing to all involved)?

 

Yes, to a degree it can. Technically development is blocked by a few requirements but the principal one at the moment is the need for a protocol that covers cleaning, fixed protection, and safety(rockfall). This has really come about as a hangover from a particular cleaning and bolting incident that closed down NW face development and that was then subsequently (and repeatedly) re-enforced by one individual continuing to do that development plus bolting the line above the drinking fountain that has now been removed. Again, the change we're seeking is to get a sign-off on proposed lines without having to identify every placement, but rather have that left up to the FA's judgment while operating within the framework of how fixed protection has traditionally been used at Beacon.

 

the park'll be content to just keep the whole face in a de facto shutdown forever - is that better than having to jump through a bunch of hoops?

 

I personally think so - we aren't talking about "a bunch of hoops", just one - a photo with the line penciled in and some statement of risk of rockfall and an idea of how much fixed pro might likely be required. That will allow them to check out the habitat and rockfall considerations which if we are smart, we'll do on our own first. It should be a relatively painless process and I'd do everything I can to see one is expedited and not lingering for days on end.

 

more pressure could be applied of course to open up the whole thing w/o restrictions, but do you see any realistic chance of that occuring?

 

I might consider taking this approach if it weren't for the regulatory onion I mentioned previously. Any attempt at this approach will be met with a debilitating challenge from the WSP that and they likely wouldn't even have to lift a finger - a court would just start referring the matter up the regulatory ladder with jurisdiction changing from agency to agency and you'd cross a state/federal boundary damn quick and find yourself in federal court which means real money. Between the Gorge Commission, Railroad (federal), State, County, and god knows whom else, you'd be fighting a shadow through revolving courts starting over each time. In the meantime BRSP staff would really start enforcing every rule to the T. Not a winning scenario from my perspective, but if anyone has a few hundred thousand to spare I'm game - otherwise we're better off with our current approach.

[billcoe]

If I remember correctly, I believe there where also discussions of getting the East Face of "Che-che-op-tin"(always like to know the real name, thanks Joseph) open for climbing as well. If I can state my opinion and my concerns. I realize that I may be all alone on this one. I am sure that I would not support opening the East Face for climbing.

 

Stewart, why not? There's some great stuff there. I believe the next gen would be cranking some of those amazing roofs. BTW, Gary Rall, Bob McMahon and I did a route 1/4 of the way up the east side called the Alan Lester Memorial Hiking Trail. There is one fixed pin on it which I slammed in to the eye - a Leeper about 30" up. Not all the routes over there need bolts.

 

I believe that opening the NW for development could be dangerous and if not done catiously,

 

There does look like some ugly loose rock up high that could seriously bean somebody down low, but nobody goes there now.

 

...........and with restraint could get ugly with knuckle heads up there grid bolting like crazy. Myself included. Also if a 'Route Setting Committee' is put together to act as a governing body. I can only imagine the politics that would come along with it. Not that I don't appreciate bolt replacement, I love safe bolts as much as I love rusty pins on the corner, stepping around the corner to the east face and hearing the osprey, wind and the motor of a hammerdrill at full speed. Just give me one no,no two more seasons without sportclimbers and there beta junkie friends. What is a "potato chip crimper" anyways? Just kidding I love sportclimbers, they've traditionally had the best fashion.

 

Peace, Stewart

 

Bolts have their place, the NW face would be one such place IMO. I think there would be very few sport climbers, they are all headed another place I suspect......as you are aware. But thats me.

 

I fondly remember the days when there were no rangers on site. Well, at least you didn't see anybody... like - ever. The overriding question and differences of opinion are how to proceed from here? It doesn't seem like that long ago when Dave, bob and I chunked some bolts into what we thought was a FA of a second direct pitch on Young WArriors only to learn 2 things.

 

1st) There was evidently some kind of climber committee already in place to approve fixed gear. (I wasn't on it or had even heard of it - DOOH!) I think that might have been one of the things Jim O had negotiated earlier but I really don't know that for a fact. Ask him about that.

 

2nd) That pitch had been done not long before without the bolts, there-by arousing the ire of the FA who proceeded to chop them!

 

 

Leaving: The overriding question and differences of opinion are how to proceed from here?

 

The West face looks sweet. I mean awesome crack lines (ignoring the poison oak). Unclimbed pretty much.

[JosephH]

Stewart,

 

I didn't address your East face comments. I actually hesitate a bit to do so here as it is the one really sensitive area for BRSP relative to the amount of interagency hassle such an effort would entail. We might investigate it somewhere down the road, but for now the priority is on the NW and West faces as reasonable candidates. The East face immediately engages WFDW, WSP Biologists, Gorge Commission, and the Tribes in pretty much a total cluster f#ck of hassle for the BRSP Staff and the decision is quickly out of their hands regardless while most of the work is left to them when they're already undermanned and stacked out with work.

 

Let's just say we'll do ourselves no favors pushing for that right now or even the next couple of years. We need to re-establish a track record of good behavior on the South face, good performance on the NW face, sensitivity and tact on in dealings on the West face before turning our attention to the East. Last year we mended the relationships to a large degree and rebuilt the bridges, but we need a lot more legs under us and rushing things when we're just starting to prove ourselves isn't going to get us the results any of us want. It's going to have to be step at a time even if that is somewhat frustrating to a bunch of folks, but we have to establish a track record of good faith in dealing with all these folks before we start playing any big cards...

[ivan]

Ivan, I'm very sorry, this one somehow slipped by me in the posting order...

no worries - me questions were rhetorical though - i've yet to see anything in yer analysis 'ive much disagreed w/

[markd]

 

The West face looks sweet. I mean awesome crack lines (ignoring the poison oak). Unclimbed pretty much.

 

now here is something i completely agree with! (finally)

 

i've looked at that face for years, though it's covered in oak. does anyone know why this face is closed year round? when you approach the face, there is a sign stating, no climbing allowed.

[billcoe]

 

now here is something i completely agree with! (finally)

 

Wow, first, I don't know why the West Face is closed. I think it might have started because of some climbing above the trail and went from there. A couple of those lines on that side have been done before.

 

I bet we might have lots to agree with. I wonder if part of the separation some of us feel, might involve how to "work" (or not work) with the authorities going forward.

 

My personal inclination (ie, the way I naturally am) is to avoid all contact with authorities. I want to be left alone. That tends to be a poor way to proceed generally, cause they can easily chop you off at the knees if you remain anonomys, but tend to be on your side or work with you if you look them in the eye occasionally, say hi, and work with them on what they want to achieve and address.

 

At least that's what I've seen throughout my life in other situations.

 

Might not apply here though.

 

Using Smith Rocks as a model of what a State park can evolve into for climbers is an example. I (me) liked it better before all the rules, people, bridge and authorities showed up....but, it's not bad over there given the amount of people vs the amount of space. The state didn't just change that area in a vacumn, there was climber and park user input, and plenty of volenteers still are showing up for trail work and various discussion's and ideas that have turned it into what it is. I think everyone would agree that it's still a great place to climb despite all the changes and bird closures and other stuff.

 

Beacon will never be Smith for a number of reasons. Overall it's a smaller area, it gets less stable weather, it has minimal easy routes and almost all routes need gear placements and a high skill level.

 

But the question on how to proceed remains. If the game is "Deal" or "No deal". I think my natural tendencies of avoidance and not discussing may lead to a "No Deal" and just hoping things go our way could be the worse choice.

 

For instance: I currently have a short section that I'd like to uncover the moss, dirt and loose rock on when it opens, and wonder if I should. What are the rules? How much moss and dirt is OK? Should I ask and do it, not ask and do it, or do what I'm thinking is the best choice now and just ignore the whole question and go elsewhere? I could ground up it with minimal disturbance and hope others show up and eventuall it gets cleaned off with mimimal loss of life. I've started up the thing twice solo and backed off cause it's so chossy, and had started some cleaning top down 1 time previously. Climbing with a belayer ground up like it currently is is out of the question as you'd most likely kill the person with loose rock. I would expect that climbing solo may wind up chopping the rope, assuming you don't kill some poor unsuspecting soul just walking on the trail. When cleaning top down, you can easily look around and see people coming on the trail and just stop knocking rocks off, climbing ground up....you're too busy with what's above you, like the loose rock and dirt, to see anyone walking below.

 

Tsk Tsk Tsk: Whats a mother to do?

 

 

I think like the folks who work there, we all love that place. Just being out there, by itself, really will warm my heart. At least 5-6 times this winter I've just gone out and sat on the ledge 15 feet up Boardwalk, hiked to the top via the trail or walked the south face base in the rain...........just cause it feels so...............right.

Edited April 29, 2006 by billcoe

[JosephH]

I could have it wrong, but I believe the West face is open during the season, but is part of the Peregrine closure - I'll double check that though. The problem is by the time July rolls around you can't get near it without a BSL-4 safety suit and they had a problem with Jim cleaning it. But, I think he was caught cleaning the ivy during the Peregrine closure. Again, let me re-check my facts on it all and get back to every one...

[kevbone]

I believe that part of the rock is open all year round. You are not able to clean anything, so the opening is a little arbitrary. The existing routes need cleaning and the routes that are ready to be put up need cleaning, so the park is kind of laughing at us. Ha ha!! We will give them this part of the rock to climb on knowing we cant do anything with it without cleaning it properly. Otherwise we are kind of bushwacking! All for some senitive moss that grows all over the entire rock! I just think it is a shame.

If you did open it to whoever, only the bold and few would tackle such a huge job of putting routes up on the west face. I help Jim clean Genesis, what a chore that was!

[markd]

[markd]

kevin, i think your talking about the nw face, which is open year round.

 

what i'm referring to is the west face and the sw face.(south of hiking trail) when you approach both these faces, there are signs that say, "no rock climbing". these signs are up year round.

[billcoe]

Jim did clean a route on the west face, I'm thinking Kevin (who says he's immune from poison oak) must have helped with that.

 

I'm out of here now, last cup of coffee, it's set to rain in 3 hours, got to go do something.

 

Take care:

 

B

[kevbone]

I have entered the relm of not being immune to poision oak anymore. I got it on my arms a couple of weeks ago. First time for everything.