Not Cool - Huge boulder dislodged by climbers on Opal Sunday
Firstly, I was not seeking your support or anybody elses here, i was merely explaining the situation was safe and not as assumed. Secondly if you read the account of the trundle you would have seen that I said the forrest is unwalkable ( meaning cannot be walked) and that the trail mentioned was not close to the trundle. The utmost care was taken to ensure a safe trundle and more steps were taken than mentioned in the previoius post but I am not accountable to you or anybody else here. I know we were safe and said so once already but you were blinded and only read what you wanted to. I have a feeling I could have said we had armed militia gaurding the perimeter and you still would have squeaked like a little kitten girl.
Post edited to conform with forum rules
Post edited to conform with forum rules
Hi Jred--
Awesome you (and others?) are working on a new line. As you know there have been some serious close calls within the last while, so I think it's really cool you are posting a sentry on the ground. You said you made some other safety arrangements too-- thanks for that, although I can't tell from your post what they are.
If you want some cleaning help, etc, PM me.
Awesome you (and others?) are working on a new line. As you know there have been some serious close calls within the last while, so I think it's really cool you are posting a sentry on the ground. You said you made some other safety arrangements too-- thanks for that, although I can't tell from your post what they are.
If you want some cleaning help, etc, PM me.
Apparently you are the one who neglects to read, my friend.
You stated in your first message:
"there was a clear view of the trail and we had a person down on the ground walk the steep forrest screaming what we were doing and making sure all was clear"
And then:
"The trail to the unpopular Powakwatsi (sp) was well out of range of rock fall and the forrest which the rock was falling into is steep and un-walkable"
So was a person on the ground walking the steep forest, or was it un-walkable?
And in your second post you state:
"if you read the account of the trundle you would have seen that I said the forrest is unwalkable ( meaning cannot be walked)"
But if, in fact, you'd read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed I stated:
"I've gone ... scrambling about in steep, un-walkable forest"
Are we climbers or aren't we? Don't we spend much of our time on "un-walkable" terrain?
I was not blinded, nor did I read only what I wanted to.
In fact, I read thoroughly, and thought carefully.
You state in your second post "The utmost care was taken to ensure a safe trundle and more steps were taken than mentioned in the previoius post but I am not accountable to you or anybody else here. I know we were safe and said so once already"
In fact, 1) You are accountable to me and everyone else here, as this is everyone's resource and safe access equally.
2) You did not state that you "were safe... once already", you simply said "Our ground person would have prevented any person from entering the danger zone." and seemed to imply that late afternoon is a safe time to trundle. (noone climbing past 3 p.m. these days?)
That kind of statement does not make it sound like a safe trundle. It makes you sound like a petulant (and potentially British) schoolgirl who got caught telling tales out of class. If you did indeed take more measures than previously mentioned, I applaud your efforts, and would like to know more about them, as we may all learn from such effective measures.
This has been my first and only conflict on SC.com in years of posting.
And I even said please!
Again: if you took adequate measures, great, thanks, and thanks for the new route you're developing. If you didn't, please do so in the future, especially in light of all the recent incidents and controversy. (not that it matters much to you, I'm sure, but judging by your vitriol I do indeed believe you did take adequate safety precautions. But as you can tell, we're all a little jumpy right now.)
And again: If you're dropping big sh*t, on purpose, please wait till it's wet, or be damn sure there's nobody in the vicinity (which you say you did, and it sounds like you did, and again, that's great! but I'd still wait for rain - just messing with ya
Post edited to conform with forum rules
You stated in your first message:
"there was a clear view of the trail and we had a person down on the ground walk the steep forrest screaming what we were doing and making sure all was clear"
And then:
"The trail to the unpopular Powakwatsi (sp) was well out of range of rock fall and the forrest which the rock was falling into is steep and un-walkable"
So was a person on the ground walking the steep forest, or was it un-walkable?
And in your second post you state:
"if you read the account of the trundle you would have seen that I said the forrest is unwalkable ( meaning cannot be walked)"
But if, in fact, you'd read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed I stated:
"I've gone ... scrambling about in steep, un-walkable forest"
Are we climbers or aren't we? Don't we spend much of our time on "un-walkable" terrain?
I was not blinded, nor did I read only what I wanted to.
In fact, I read thoroughly, and thought carefully.
You state in your second post "The utmost care was taken to ensure a safe trundle and more steps were taken than mentioned in the previoius post but I am not accountable to you or anybody else here. I know we were safe and said so once already"
In fact, 1) You are accountable to me and everyone else here, as this is everyone's resource and safe access equally.
2) You did not state that you "were safe... once already", you simply said "Our ground person would have prevented any person from entering the danger zone." and seemed to imply that late afternoon is a safe time to trundle. (noone climbing past 3 p.m. these days?)
That kind of statement does not make it sound like a safe trundle. It makes you sound like a petulant (and potentially British) schoolgirl who got caught telling tales out of class. If you did indeed take more measures than previously mentioned, I applaud your efforts, and would like to know more about them, as we may all learn from such effective measures.
This has been my first and only conflict on SC.com in years of posting.
And I even said please!
Again: if you took adequate measures, great, thanks, and thanks for the new route you're developing. If you didn't, please do so in the future, especially in light of all the recent incidents and controversy. (not that it matters much to you, I'm sure, but judging by your vitriol I do indeed believe you did take adequate safety precautions. But as you can tell, we're all a little jumpy right now.)
And again: If you're dropping big sh*t, on purpose, please wait till it's wet, or be damn sure there's nobody in the vicinity (which you say you did, and it sounds like you did, and again, that's great! but I'd still wait for rain - just messing with ya
Post edited to conform with forum rules
anyway...... thanks for the scrubbing offer hari hari and thanks for the comments pinner. The route details will be posted a.s.a.p. probably after Saturday when unless my arms have become rotten flacid cocks we will have sent. The route will be about 5.11 or so and be 8-9 pitches depending on whether you want a link a pitch. The route name is of yet undecided, unfortunately K. Mcclean likes to edit route names he deems unsavory from his guides. Oh and pinner I take the utmost offence at being suspected of being British, i am all man i will have you know.
OOh jred throwing the gauntlet down to the Brits
"Rotten c*ck sandwich" is one of those names like "Exploring Uranus" which IMHO is better in the bar than the guidebook.
Anyway, awesome, good luck with the send...you could do an epic link up: your route to Caramba Terrace, and then 18 pitches of La Gota Fria...
"Rotten c*ck sandwich" is one of those names like "Exploring Uranus" which IMHO is better in the bar than the guidebook.
Anyway, awesome, good luck with the send...you could do an epic link up: your route to Caramba Terrace, and then 18 pitches of La Gota Fria...
The future of free route development is currently in question because of certain poo poo pants (is that okay?). To assume that a route was developed with no regard for human safety and to print such assumptions on a public forum does the cause no good whatsoever.hafilax wrote:To be a route scrubber, is it a requirement to fly off the handle at the slightest hint of criticism?
My reaction although far from flying of the handle was due to the fact that this forum gave fuel to the want to be regulators of route development.
To all those who want to require us to get permits, go through a commitee or any other such bullsh*t i would like to offer up a fermented penis submarine (is that okay?).
Oh, and Halimaxi pad If you think that was me flying off the handle then you need to see what I did to this guy in jail for trying to steal my smokes.
Jred-- it would be worth your while to look at the S.A.S. page and read the docs on there. The future-- whether or not any of us like it-- is going to include some kind of formal policy, developed by climbers and enforced by PC Parks, which will include regulation of new routing. The good news is that BC Parks has been VERY cool indeed and is asking US, climbers, to develop the policy. You (and everybody else who new-routes, or climbs others' routes) are going to have plenty of opportunities to have input into that policy.The future of free route development is currently in question because of certain poo poo pants (is that okay?). To assume that a route was developed with no regard for human safety and to print such assumptions on a public forum does the cause no good whatsoever.
My reaction although far from flying of the handle was due to the fact that this forum gave fuel to the want to be regulators of route development.
To all those who want to require us to get permits, go through a commitee or any other such bullsh*t i would like to offer up a fermented penis submarine (is that okay?).
Oh, and Halimaxi pad If you think that was me flying off the handle then you need to see what I did to this guy in jail for trying to steal my smokes.
The "bad" news is that the good old days of find a line, and do what you want, are de facto over. In the 1980s, there were maybe 60 people/day climbing the Chief-- the number now is closer to 250, and there have been similar massive gains in # of hikers, etc. The fact of the sheer # of climbers & hikers in Squamish, the fact that there have been a # of near-death calls recently by route cleaners and developers, the fact that there is significant controversy about the impact of cleaning (e.g. Europa, Milk Road) on both park users and older routes, etc, means that some kind of clear framework is going to emerge.
This is not a criticism of you, or anybody else (I've done my share of stupid stuff with my new route...not that I am saying you have done anything stupid), it's just a fact of life: if new routing continues as is, we are eventually going to cause enough problems with BC Parks that they WILL step in and do what they see fit. If you look at the SAS's RC Strategy Report, something like 250,000 user days/year are hikers on the Chief, while climbing days clock in at ~120,000. Like it or not, we are the lower half of the recreational totem pole, and if climbers do things that destroy routes, or create major discomfort fore other users, or kill somebody, trust me, there WILL be hell to pay.
One thing all of us should do is this: ask yourself "what would the Minister of Parks do if s/he heard that a rock climber developing a new route in Squamish trundled a rock (or whatever) that killed or seriously injured someone?" My guess is, they would impose an immediate moratorium on new routing, and they would create their own policy about new routing (assuming they ever lifted the moratorium)...a policy which would almost certainly not be developed by or even for climbers. This is why the CRAG committee was created: so we cliimbers would have input into the coming regulation.
Anyway, Jred, I'm not trying to go off on you specifically...this is just stuff we all need to think about. Congrats on your new route..psyched to see the topo![/i]
Jred-- congrats, that sounds awesome! Thanks for all your hard work. Next year I'm gonan climb your route, then mine...for an epic, bottom-to-top 26 pitch 5.11 day!jred wrote:yes the route is done, it is eight pitches of 5.11 climbing up to 11c. Steep and over hanging corners would describe it well, gear to six. Unfortunately the route is all corners and is slow to dry, looks like it is over for this year. We will post topos as soon as they are ready.
chris
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
