Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED

Warning: The rappel tree on the top of the Upper Ramp is not safe.

Submitted By: John McNamee on Apr 6, 2006


Add Comment

Edit: A new bolted rappel anchor was installed on 8/21/06 to replace the slings around the tree. See Comment for details. Please use this new anchor for the rappel.

The rappel tree on the top of the upper ramp (that puts you more or less at the base of Vertigo) is NOT stable. I was up there last week in high winds and the entire tree was lifting up out of the ground with each gust. I was sitting on the rocks near the tree and was lifted off the ground each time the tree would move. I left a rap anchor that consisted of three equalized stoppers, but I'm afraid the new anchor will be treated like booty gear. The tree may be fine, but under the circumstances I was not willing to trust my life to, "it's probably okay".

Thanks to Ryan Campbell for letting us know.


Comments on Warning: The rappel tree on the top of the Upper Ramp is not safe. Add Comment
Comments displayed oldest to newestSkip Ahead to the Most Recent Dated Dec 16, 2013
By adam francis
Apr 6, 2006

I had posted this to the discuss mail list a couple of months ago. I was planning on submitting a proposal to the FHRC committee (spring deadline is 4/21) for chains at that spot, so corroboration is helpful. Anybody have specific recommendations for exact placement. At current, the tree is crucial to the downclimb, so a little bit higher might be better, but I also don't want the potential to exist to snag the ropes on the tree. Does anyone know the exact length to the anchors above Song of the Dodo? I don't want people with 50 m ropes to be screwed either. Looking forward to hearing your input. (I've been a little reluctant to go back up there to answer these questions for myself.)
adam

Hi all,
Unfortunately, I'm not peddling internet smut, so this may go ignored. We came down from the Upper Ramp via the Vertigo raps yesterday. The wind was howling, and the tree which serves as the first anchor was really getting tossed around. With each big gust, it would be get pushed so hard that it would tip over far enough that you could see the bottom sides of its roots. The whole ledge was actually moving as the root system acted like a lever underneath the ground. We moved into warp speed and got off that station and the next as quickly as possible. It's probably fine on a calmer day, but yesterday it seemed a little flimsier than I prefer for my rap anchors. I have absolutley no idea how to tell how well rooted it is; the tree is probably 18" thick, but each of its main roots are only about 6" across or so. Someone more qualified than myself should probably check it out and decide if a set of chains might be warranted. Just wanted to toss out the heads up,
adam

By Fred Petersen
Apr 6, 2006

A tree's feeder roots are very small (hairlike in nature), so the wind moving that tree around would rip and tear those small feeder roots. Because those small roots feed the tree, I'd say it is only a matter of time that the tree will perish (nothing's guaranteed )- hopefully alone at the top of the climb not at the bottom connected to a unsuspecting climber. No contest - chains should be installed.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 6, 2006

Sorry, it isn't completely clear which rappel anchor point you are referring to here. There is a big tree on the Red Ledge 160 ft up above the ledge perhaps 50 ft left from the start to Yellow Spur. There is another short tree farther to the right (like 150 ft) of Yellow Spur's start above Mickey Mouse Nailup and left of Vertigo's start. Is this the tree? Isn't there another tree like down & right of that which has slings for rappels, too?

By adam francis
Apr 6, 2006

The one I'm referring to is the first tree of the Vertigo raps. Just up ramp from the top of Vertigo, you pop over the edge of the upper ramp and downclimb 15 feet or so to the tree in question. From there, it is a half rope to the chain anchors at the top of Song of the Dodo/Mickey Mouse Nailup. It's to the left of the top pitch of Vertigo in this picture. www.mountainproject.com/images/4/43/1300443_large_b3a391.jpg

By Josh Janes
Apr 6, 2006

Perhaps if this gets approved, whoever does this service could also replace one of outmoded, square (Mammut?) hangers above Song of the Dodo? And, as I recall, the quicklinks on those chains are pretty worn too...

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 6, 2006

The tree in question is the upper rap in this photo. The rappel from the tree to the chains is 60'; the rappel from the chains to Vertigo Ledge is 80' (to a ledge) and 95' (to the ground).

The upper rap anchor could be moved up to 20' higher and a 50m rope would still work to get to the chains. It would be good to position a new anchor a little to the left of the tree since that's the side you downclimb to get to the tree.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 6, 2006

Josh Janes wrote:
Perhaps if this gets approved, whoever does this service could also replace one of outmoded, square (mammut?) hangers above Song of the Dodo? And, as I recall, the quicklinks on those chains are pretty worn too...

Replacing hangers and quicklinks does not require FHRC approval. Anyone wanting to do this just has to stop at the Visitor Center and get a permit from Steve Muehlhauser.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 10, 2006

I just went down these raps on Sunday night and while there are some points there to consider, anyone who found rapping from this to be a threatening concept probably has not considered the mechanics of the situation carefully.

I am concerned that the situation will deteriorate, as one can see some displaced soil there that was recently running down the face...but I had no concern whatsoever for my present safety there.

Lastly, if someone is going to set anchors (though I am not suggesting that they do), they should be set high. The present downclimb would become quite different without the tree there and the anchors in that place would be inappropriate. They would be more appropriate higher if the tree were not present, but that is not an immediate concern.

By Craig Quincy
Apr 11, 2006

Tony, I can not take your comment seriously given that Adam was up there and saw the tree lifting up and the rock moving. Better safe than sorry.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 11, 2006

Craig,
The pivot point is behind the front edge. The system can of course move about that point. The distributed load of a strong east-ward wind on a 30' tree is likely on the order of thousands of times more torque than rapping off of it downward to the West.

The point about which the tree would have been moving is a set of roots the size of my legs and waist, that extend back into sections of rock. I set my feet solidly on the ledge, then braced my back aganst the lowest branch at it's basal point and pushed as hard as I could. While I was capable of putting a good bend into the branch, I was not capable of making the tree perceptibly move. I can leg press a quarter ton easily, so like I said....

So have you inspected the system, or do you simply have a preferred belief?

By ROC
From: Englewood, CO
Apr 11, 2006

The tree in question in not necessary for the downclimb. You can easily and safely scramble down ledges on the climber's left of the tree. Bolts would be great somewhere on the slab below the tree or on the face above the ledge somewhere.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 11, 2006

You may be right Bob, but I'm inclined to believe that you are just looking for an argument with me. I've just been there to inspect the condition of it, and you have admittedly not. While I am not a tree doctor, I do have a good understanding of mechanics. So your comment on my method of assessing the system is about as worthy as a penny-plug.

Purdue University thought I was qualified to teach statics for mechanical engineers (ME201) and physics to science majors (Ph152,201,202) and my current employer thinks I'm qualified to do failure analysis work, so perhaps I'm right... or perhaps I'm not. But I've inspected it objectively and carefully and that beats the heck out of speculating with no basis.

The situation is deteriorating, but in my opinion not presently dangerous. Maybe someone should get a permit to put bolts in up above the area, but meanwhile I do not believe that the tree is a danger to us, though it should be watched carefully over time. My partner felt the same way.

As for it not being used as a down climb, the wood of the branches that are snapped off are not only worn, but polished slick from people using them as such. I have free-soloed 5.11, but I believe that most climbers, including myself, would rather clip in to an anchor higher if we are going to place one anyway, avoiding the unnecessary down-climb and also staying away from the tree if it ever becomes dangerous. It would be hardest of all do down climb by it but still avoid it.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 12, 2006

Bob D'Antonio wrote:
A fixed anchor seems to be the most logical thing to do for both cases (tree and climber safety).

I invite anyone knowledgeable about the ideal position for a new anchor to submit an application to the Fixed Hardware Review Committee (FHRC) to install it.

The application deadline for the Spring is April 21st; the application deadline for the Fall is August 21st. So there's still time to get the application in for the Spring review (to be held the third week in June).

You can find the FHRC application here

By Rich Farnham
Apr 12, 2006

From the FHRC guidelines: "Applications to install new anchors shall generally be given favorable consideration when the new anchor replaces anchors on trees...."

This seems like a no-brainer to me. If someone is submitting an application, please post that here. If no one does, I will. Those that don't think this anchor is necessary can comment through the FHRC process.

By KCP
From: Eldorado Springs, CO
Apr 12, 2006

Tony Bubb wrote:
You may be right Bob, but I'm inclined to believe that you are just looking for an argument with me. I've just been there to inspect the condition of it, and you have admittedly not. While I am not a tree doctor, I do have a good understanding of mechanics. So your comment on my method of assessing the system is about as worthy as a penny-plug. Purdue University thought I was qualified to teach statics for mechanical engineers (ME201) and physics to science majors (Ph152,201,202) and my current employer thinks I'm qualified to do failure analysis work, so perhaps I'm right... or perhaps I'm not. But I've inspected it objectively and carefully and that beats the heck out of speculating with no basis. The situation is deteriorating, but in my opinion not presently dangerous. Maybe someone should get a permit to put bolts in up above the area, but meanwhile I do not believe that the tree is a danger to us, though it should be watched carefully over time. My partner felt the same way. As for it not being used as a down climb, the wood of the branches that are snapped off are not only worn, but polished slick from people using them as such. I have free-soloed 5.11, but I believe that most climbers, would rather clip in to an anchor higher if we are going to place one anyway, avoiding the unnecessary down-climb and also staying away from the tree if it ever becomes dangerous. It would be hardest of all do down climb by it but still avoid it.

Tony,

I don't know you, nor do I have any reason to want to disagree with you for the sake of it. That having been said, I am in complete agreement with BobD.

I am not an engineer, although I have been a serious climber for three decades. I am also familiar with the area in question, because I used to teach and guide in that canyon.

Here is my opinion:

The tree is not safe if it is showing signs of weakness and mobility. Whether the tree withstands the weight of three or three hundred more rappels is a moot point, because each person who weights that tree (time bomb) is playing Russian Roulette. With all due respect to your science background, unless you can examine the root structure, you are not qualified to make the analysis that you did.

I am in agreement with a few of the posters in that there are alternative descent routes, but that, per se, will not deter parties from opting for the tree if it is right in front of them. That in conjunction with the fact that it is a high-traffic area leads me, reluctantly, to feel that a bolt anchor is the safest solution.

The ethics of such practices is a constant bone of contention within the climbing community, and I have been on both sides of the fence on different occasions, but here is a fact that we can no longer ignore. This sport has recently become very popular among the masses. Many of the newer participants have been reared in climbing gyms, and they are starting to explore trad climbing. As much as I feel that climbers should be responsible for their own evaluations of danger, this group is at a disadvantage, because they lack the technical training and time in the field. That is exactly why your post is irresponsible and dangerous. How are you going to feel when someone reads your comment and clips into that tree and dies, because he or she took for granted that you were an experienced climber and engineer? Removing or at least amending that post would be the responsible thing to do.

As I said, I am all for personal responsibility and accountability, although I am also a person of compassion and common sense. There are a higher number of gym climbers buying racks of gear because of people like Caldwell, et al, who are bringing trad back into vogue.

The tree is fixed gear, as would be the bolts that would replace it. Any argument to the contrary is inane, because placing those bolts would be a even trade. Moreover, it would only happen by consensus and permit, which would hardly classify it as rampant or indiscriminate bolting, if you will.

One last thing: You admitted that the tree should be watched "carefully" over time. Are you suggesting that you and/or your partner will personally oversee the deterioration of that tree on a daily basis? With all due respect, your comment demonstrates your short-sightedness on the issue.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 12, 2006

I didn't say bolts should be placed and I didn't say they shouldn't. I was not going to respond to Bob's last post because I figured people could read both and make up their own minds, but apparently I have been unclear.

I said exactly this:
"Maybe someone should get a permit to put bolts
in up above the area, but meanwhile I do not
believe that the tree is a danger to us"

What, did I stutter?

What I said was that there was no immediate danger--this should be understood to be saying that there was no reason to have to have bolts there immediately and go 'around the system of the process for the FHRC.'

I also said that the situation is deteriorating--this should be understood to be saying that someday bolts may be necessary.

Lastly I said that the anchors, if placed, should be not near the tree, and the reasons for that are obvious.

As for why I said Bob's speculative opinion is junk, that's because he didn't like my way of assessing the strength of the system in a stress test. But I, sir, was there and performed it and subjected the anchor to a torque of what I would estimate to be about 1700 foot pounds, when a rap would be under 200 foot pounds even for a seriously overweight climber or perhaps a pair simul-rapping. So I guess if you want to take that in context, then perhaps my statement about the immediate viability of the anchor presently makes sense.

I did not INSPECT the root system, I TESTED it. That's the difference between a conclusion and proof. While I didn't draw a conclusion the way Bob would have preferred, to arrive at the uninformed opinion he was predisposed to, I simply PROVED it instead. Somehow I thought that was better--I guess that's the scientist in me.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 12, 2006

Rich Farnham wrote:
From the FHRC guidelines: "Applications to install new anchors shall generally be given favorable consideration when the new anchor replaces anchors on trees..." This seems like a no-brainer to me. If someone is submitting an application, please post that here. If no one does, I will. Those that don't think this anchor is necessary can comment through the FHRC process.

Rich,

You are right; this is a slam dunk. FHRC approval is practically guaranteed, especially given the condition of the tree.

If you go up there:

  • Bring duct tape and mark the proposed position of the bolts.

  • Bring a digital camera and take a photo of proposed position of the bolts.

  • Feel free to use my photo (above) if you want to mark the position of the bolts on that. I can help you do this.

  • Include all photos in your application to the FHRC, which you can email to fhrc@aceeldo.org.

  • If you need a partner to go up there to do this, let me know; I'll be glad to help you out.

Concerns:

  • Alignment of the proposed anchor with the lower bolt-and-chain anchor; don't want the new anchor too far off-line from the lower anchor.

  • Make sure the new anchor is easy to get to without any serious downclimbing.

  • The tree may interfere with the rope pull if the new anchor is placed high. This may warrant placing the new anchor lower, near the level of the tree.

  • Verify that the new anchor is at most 80' from the lower anchor so a 50m rope can be used.

FHRC Application

FHRC Guidelines

By KCP
From: Eldorado Springs, CO
Apr 12, 2006

As I said, Tony, I am not looking for an argument. The tree is not safe if the root system is not firmly intact. There is no need for you to be defensive. All we are trying to do is reconcile what is likely a serious safety issue. Open debate is the best way to bring the various considerations into a clearer view. Your personal experience, as much as the views of others, with experience in that area of the crag, will help toward that end.

Regards,

KC

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 12, 2006

"That is exactly why your post is irresponsible and dangerous."
"Removing or at least amending that post would be the responsible thing to do."
"Any argument to the contrary is inane."
"With all due respect, your comment demonstrates your short-sightedness on the issue."
Lastly,
"I am in complete agreement with BobD."

If the phrases you use to address people you want to 'come to the table' read like this... don't expect company for dinner. No need for me to be defensive, huh?
Ken, exactly NONE of these 5 statements is likely to present an air of neutrality or even-handedness.

Strong Eastward winds will slowly kill this tree. A finite number or raps will not. One causes severe strain, the other only a negligible stress--and no strain. Strain damages the tree, stress does not. (force without movement will not tear the roots loose, but force with movement will)

And if you inspected the system again with a mind on Nate said and what I said, you would realize why they are not exclusive. The tree could withstand many tons in one direction, but not in the other. But I'm over debating the mechanics of the situation, because you and Bob are not educated enough about the present situation to debate them anyway. If you went and looked, you'd see what I meant--this whole argument stems from people that have not seen the situation arguing about the details I posted. I am not disagreeing with the post initially made, and I never have--I would NOT rap off that tree during gale-force winds.

OK, maybe I am being unreasonable. One of my hot-buttons is people arguing over stuff they don't know about. Which is why I kept my trap shut until I went and saw the anchor myself.

By Merk
Apr 12, 2006

I appreciate the nature of Tony's comment on the stability of the tree. One of the best parts about this site is that it is often up to date and can provide for a much more informed outing than just using a guidebook. Of course the original reporter is to be thanked for the update. However, Tony going up and checking out the situation and then sharing his opinion helps to create a more informed view than just one perspective. Nobody should substitute Tony's judgment for his own, nor is Tony telling them to. The point is that information from a variety of individuals who are experienced climbers can better prepare us about what we will be coming across before we have to make the decision for ourselves, and I appreciate that whether I agree with the opinion expressed or not.

By KCP
From: Eldorado Springs, CO
Apr 13, 2006

You're right, Tony. My post came off as overly critical. I am a straight shooter, and my style sometimes doesn't seem to lend itself well to online discussion. I apologize if you were offended by my post, and I want you to know that my criticisms were in no way meant to insult you.

As for the tree, my point was that not everyone who rappels from that tree is a scientist, and many aren't going to know how to evaluate its integrity. They will, however, be inclined to take the word of an experienced climber/engineer, which is why I thought your post presented a risk.

I would like to believe that every person who dons a rack is experienced enough to circumnavigate dangerous situations, although many years in the field has shown me that this just isn't the case. My life has been such that I have learned the reality of survival of the fittest, although I have also learned that people should be able to benefit from the experience of others, and not have to die because they aren't experienced enough to know better.

I stand by my opinion that the tree is a serious risk if it is shifting at the roots. My concern, as it has always been, is that an unwitting party doesn't perish because of a situation that could have been easily reconciled through consensus community action. Eldorado Canyon is a high-traffic climbing area, known for classic routes that do not top out. Consequently, safe anchor access needs to be a viable alternative in special cases like this.

Anyway, I am sorry that my criticisms offended you.

By dain charette
From: South Lake
Apr 13, 2006

I am not usually one to get involved in the debates on this site, especially when involving Bob and Tony. I respect both sides of the argument, but I truly cannot see the harm in placing a couple rap bolts. Generally, I would say keep the bolts away, keep that mess in Boulder Canyon. However, the tree may be stable to rap now, but I think that it is generally agreed that at some point the tree will go. Are ethics about bolting so strong that it is worth risking and maybe sacrificing someone's life before it is decided that the bolts should be installed? I have used this tree many times, and yes it is a matter of convenience, but the East Slabs descent is not the safest way down either.

-dain

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 13, 2006

Ken, thank you. Seriously.
I wouldn't have been offended if anything I actually said was criticized. I was offended when the words put in my mouth were criticized and when someone who *has not seen the situation* criticized my method of assessment. So I felt picked on for no reason... probably because I was, though not by you.

So let's focus on where we all agree:
That bolts should be placed for the eventuality for when this tree becomes patently unsafe. Neither I nor anyone else took the position that there should not be bolts there in time.
Someone may have said I said I was against bolts, but re-reading all of my posts, I have confirmed that I have yet to say that.

I did however make the suggestion that since the tree will eventually become unsafe, that any bolts to be placed should be kept away from it. Sounds like I am not against them at all. In fact, I just want to make sure nobody breaks the rules and gets into trouble or avoids the area over the current condition there.

The only debate other than where to put some bolts seems to be over what I actually said versus what others said I said. Since that is all archieved above, I guess that debate can be ended quite quickly.
I have said my last on this subject. I can be no clearer.

By Dale Remsberg
Apr 13, 2006

Hi all-

Just a quick note on possible anchor postions. It is very easy to walk around the little downclimb that puts you on the tree and arrive at the same position. You just walk up the ramp another 50 feet or so and down and around. This would allow for new anchors to be placed to the left (skiers right) of the tree and have very easy access, and no issue with the ropes pulling through the tree.

Please consider placing them at chest level as this would facilitate easier rigs and pulls.

My 2 cents.

Dale

By ROC
From: Englewood, CO
Apr 14, 2006

Has anyone done anything with the bolting application? Just wondering if this is actually moving forward. Thanks to everyone for responding to the initial post. Glad there are others out there that feel the same about the situation.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 15, 2006

Mike Amato and I went up on Friday, April 14 to scout potential locations for a bolted rappel anchor. We found a solid slab of rock about 5' left of the tree where an anchor could be placed. There is a good ledge to stand on. The proposed anchor is far enough left of the tree that the branches should not interfere with the rope pull. The alignment of the proposed anchor is a few feet left of the lower anchor, but this should not be a problem. There is a rock edge below the proposed anchor, at foot level, that may need to be dulled. The proposed bolts are in vertical alignment as recommended in the FHRC guidelines.

We plan to use 1/2" x 3" bolts. Any recommendations on specific hardware are appreciated. I will enlist the aid of an expert to install the bolts.

Here is a photo showing the location of the proposed anchor. See Eldorado Anchor Proposals for more photos. I plan to sumbit an FHRC application for this anchor in the next few days. Comments are welcome.

This is not covered in the FHRC guidelines, but it would be a good idea to install some bolts behind the tree about 8'-10' up and strap the tree to the bolts to prevent further loosening of the roots in a high wind.

By Josh Janes
Apr 19, 2006

The bolt locations look great to me, but I don't agree with this:

Ron Olsen wrote:
There is a rock edge below the proposed anchor, at foot level, that may need to be dulled.


And definitely not this:

Ron Olsen wrote:
This is not covered in the FHRC guidelines, but it would be a good idea to install some bolts behind the tree about 8'-10' up and strap the tree to the bolts to prevent further loosening of the roots in a high wind.

By adam francis
Apr 20, 2006

I'm with you on both counts, Josh.
adam

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 20, 2006

The "strap down the tree" bolts won't work, because the tree is pushed toward the cliff to move, not away from it. The webbing will simply go slack as the roots are pried.

I can't seriously entertain the idea of sledge-hammering down the "sharp edge" below the bolts, and the tree might fall to lean across this location anyway given the nature of its degradation, so I ask again, why not put the bolts elsewhere but higher?

-T.

By ROC
From: Englewood, CO
Apr 20, 2006

I don't necessarily agree with strapping down the tree, but some clarification as to the weakness of the tree may be in order. I was the one to post the warning about said tree and was present to see and feel it coming out of the ground in high winds. It was lifting up as well as out, directly away from the cliff face. The roots extend from each side of the tree making it most stable in a side to side direction. I do not see any danger of the tree falling onto the anchor if it is positioned as is in the photos. I also feel that an anchor at this position will not be interfered with by the tree at all. I built my "fixed" anchor in the crack directly behind the tree at head height and had no problems pulling my ropes (they ran smoothly below the branches).

All in all...anchor position looks good....

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 20, 2006

Thanks for answering that. I appreciate the response.
Specifically, the winds lifting the tree base were going from W to E, right? Because with the position of the system, (and as I tested it) a W-ward force drives the roots down and in and an E-ward force lifts them up and out since the fulcrum of the root mass is east of the base of the trunk.

I was referring to the tree falling on this location as a general area. Rereading my note, I agree that this was not very clear. In detail, what I fear is that the tree will cover part of the downclimb to reach the bolts and make them hard to get to. Whereas if they were at the top of the cliff, one would need not climb through this area to reach them and would also not require hammering down the rock to blunt it.

I should probably go up there and look at the whole situation again before I comment any further or be guilty of arguing a point I have not fully considered- I did not in all honesty assess exactly where the large branches might go in the event of the tree leaning inwards.

By Casey Bernal
From: Arvada, CO
Apr 24, 2006

I was up there 4/22, which was a little breezy, and rapped the West Chimney / Vertigo rappels. The tree would hardly budge with human weight on it, but would certainly move significantly with a gust of wind. The main root system goes to the climber's left and there is very little to the right or straight down securing it to the rock. It essentially pivots on the main root system. Dirt has been washing out from around the tree and is visible on the slabs below. I felt that I certainly couldn't pull the tree down but if just the right gust came then it would be my time to go. Hence I was quick to finish the rappel.

I did NOT like the position of the bolts. If the tree stayed there, then the bolts would be fine because the tree 'protects' the down climb to the ledge. With the tree gone, there would be a low 5th class downclimb with lethal fall potential. This would be easily avoidable by doing a belayed down climb or moving the bolts up.

In my opinion, it would make most sense to place the bolts at the top of the rock, about 15' higher than where they are currently marked. I believe there is enough rope to make it to the next set of bolts at the top of Song of the Dodo, which could also stand to be replaced with the homemade hangers and oldish bolts. Rope lengths should certainly be checked.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 24, 2006

There is an easy approach to the proposed anchor. As you're heading toward the anchor, go around the right side of the slab and traverse left on a good ledge to the anchor. No need to climb to the top of the slab and then downclimb next to the tree.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 24, 2006

What is the technical advantage of placing the anchor here instead of above? The disadvantages are down-climbing, and having to 'dull' the rock edges you have mentioned, as well as potential interference if the tree leans but does not fall.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 24, 2006

The movement of the tree is directly away from the rock face, not toward the proposed anchor.

Advantages of the proposed anchor position:

1. There is no downclimbing required; you can walk around the slab (see above photo).
2. There is a good ledge to stand on while you're setting up.
3. No interference from tree limbs during rope pull.
4. Can toss the rappel rope over the edge of the low-angle slab below the tree, with a straight drop to Song of the Dodo anchor.

Disadvantages of a higher anchor position:

1. Have to climb to top of slab.
2. Do not have a ledge to stand on while you're setting up.
3. Possible interference from tree limbs during rope pull.
4. Possible interference from tree limbs if rappel rope is tossed.
5. Tossed rappel rope will land in a heap on low-angle slab below the tree if it clears the tree.
5. Rappel rope must be manually cleared from low-angle slab if it is lowered gradually.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

To be fair and balanced (not coercive):

Disadvantages to Mr. Olsen's proposed anchor (lower):

1. You may want to dull/chip the rock.
2. There may be interference with tree limbs if tree leans but does not fall.
3. You have to downclimb/downscramble from likely the most popular route on the wall (Vertigo) and routes exiting the top of the Ramp to these anchors.

Advantages to Mr. Bubb's proposed anchor location (higher):

1. You don't want/need to dull/chip the rock.
2. There will likely be no interference with tree limbs.
3. You don't have to downclimb/downscramble from the most popular route on the wall (Vertigo) and routes exiting the top of the Ramp to these anchors.

Full disclosure: I served on ACE's FHRC & Board previously.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 25, 2006

Leo,

Your comment about "interference from tree limbs" on the lower anchor proposal but not the higher anchor proposal is not correct. There likely will be more interference from tree limbs the higher the anchor is placed, with the tree in its current position.

Also, the tree is likely to lean straight out from the rock, and not to the left, as its root system loosens further. Go up there and push on the tree like I did to verify this. There is a 9"-diameter root coming out the left side of the tree that prevents leftward movement. The tree leaning straight out from the rock will not interfere with the lower anchor proposal. The tree leaning to the left will interfere with both the higher and lower anchor proposals, but this is very unlikely.

Also, saying that Vertigo is the "most popular" route using this anchor isn't correct either. This anchor can be used to descend from Yellow Spur, Upper Ruper, and any other route that uses the Chockstone Chimney rappel (EL 100, Body Tremors, Italian Arete, Alice in Bucketland, ...). It's an easy walk around the right side of the slab to get to the lower proposed anchor from the base of Chockstone Chimney. The lower anchor would also serve as a better anchor for the second pitch of Mickey Mouse Nailup than the higher anchor.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, I was merely trying to balance the unbalanced depiction above. You are incorrect to say my statement is "not correct." It all depends on the location of the upper anchor which has not been specified on this website. Further, no one knows which way the tree will go, so your concluding that I am incorrect is a leap. You have your opinions, which I will respect as your opinions. Other climbers, at least one whom you seem to respect, have already criticized the push test/inspection conclusions (postscript: which are based upon evidence) on this thread. You misrepresent my statement when you write that I wrote that "Vertigo is the 'most popular' route using this anchor." Please reread the above comment. Incidentally, in my observations, many folks use other lines for descent when topping out Redgarden Wall. I considered the Vertigo rappel descent suspect for years.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 25, 2006

The upper anchor cannot be placed significantly farther left than the lower anchor without becoming too far off line from the anchor atop the first pitch of Mickey Mouse Nailup/Song of the Dodo. The current tree anchor is actually in the best alignment. So the upper anchor WILL have more interference from tree limbs, given the present position of the tree, and the undesirability of moving the upper anchor farther left.

Also, the comments from a climber I respect (Bob D'Antonio) were about using a push test to verify the safety of the tree in its current state, not the direction the tree would lean in event of further root loosening. You may consider it my opinion that the tree will lean away from the rock and not to the left, but it is an opinion based on evidence, not mere conjecture.

Just because you considered the Vertigo rappel descent "suspect for years" doesn't mean that others do. Several experienced climbers say that the Chockstone Chimney/Vertigo rappels are the best way to descend from Yellow Spur; go to that page and read the comments from Charles Vernon and Joe Collins.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

Mr. Olsen, again with all due respect, why does it have to align with the [Song of the Dodo] anchor, placed around 1997? Why isn't reasonable to also consider having the anchor in the "best" location with a tag to indicate you need 2 ropes to rappel (e.g. Third Flatiron's 3rd Eastern rappel)? Or is this a convenience issue for those who like to only climb with 1 60m rope? I'm sure you are aware of this, but there used to be a well-used rappel line just to the left on Pigeon crack with 2 x 25m rappels.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 25, 2006

Changing this anchor from a single-rope rappel to a double-rope rappel is a VERY BAD idea. Doing this would likely result in a significant increase in rappel accidents. Few people climb in Eldorado with two ropes. Most climb with one 60m rope, although 70m ropes are becoming more popular.

The anchor atop the first pitch of Song of the Dodo is at the lip of a roof. The stance at this anchor only extends a few feet to its left and right; there is no other good stance at the lip of the roof. This is the reason that the new anchor should be aligned as close as possible to the current tree anchor and not too far left.

Anyone rappelling well to the left with one rope would have to swing to the right to get to the Song of the Dodo anchor before going below the roof, or they would be screwed, hanging in space, well off the deck, wishing they had brought prusiks with them.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, this rappel in that area used to be a 2 x 25m rappel just to the left on Pigeon Crack. It is your opinion that changing this would be "a VERY BAD idea." Many people who plan on rappeling used to and still do climb in Eldorado with two ropes. Those seeking convenience may opt for 1 rope. I do this at times, too. The above mentioned rappel has only become used in the last 8-9 years.

The stance you describe as Mickey Mouse Nailup's belay was really used with the creation of Song of the Dodo (c. 1998), long after Mickey Mouse Nailup was established back in 1960. Mickey Mouse Nailup's 1st belay is really about 20-30 ft up and slightly right. To call it Mickey Mouse Nailup's anchor appears to misrepresent so as to persuade others by confusion.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 25, 2006

No Leo, it's not just my OPINION that changing this to a double-rope rappel is a VERY BAD IDEA, it's a FACT.

These rappels are DOCUMENTED in Rossiter's guidebook as a 70' rappel from the tree followed by an 80' rappel from Song of the Dodo. See p. 268 and the topo on p. 269.

If you believe that it's OK to change this to a double-rope rappel, contradicting the information in the current guidebook to Eldorado, you need to re-examine your logic.

And no, "tagging" the anchor as needing two ropes is not the answer. Climbers are not going to read tags when they are in a hurry due to bad weather or darkness. There have been many rappel accidents on the Third Flatiron due to climbers ignoring the tags on the anchors telling them they need two ropes to rap south, but only one rope to rap west.

Whether the anchor at the lip of the roof is solely on Song of the Dodo or is shared by Mickey Mouse Nailup is irrelevant to the discussion. My partners and I have used this anchor as the end of the first pitch of Mickey Mouse Nailup as long as I have been doing the climb. This anchor is described as the end of the first pitch of Mickey Mouse Nailup on this site: see Mickey Mouse Nailup.

I have no idea what you mean by "persuade others by confusion".

Why do you continue to argue with me when the position you are espousing (double-rope rappel) has absolutely no merit?

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, you do seem to believe your opinions are "FACT." You don't appear to tolerate opinions different from your opinions. In my experience, many different opinions can be simultaneously valid.

Many people have different ways to descend off the top of the Redgarden Wall, in particular the Yellow Spur to Ruper area. The ones I've done include: 1) go up to the top of Redgarden Wall and find the descent gully (4th to low 5th class); 2) go to Swanson's & rappel (2 ropes); 3) go to Dirty Deed & rappel (best with 2 ropes); 3) rappel Chockstone Chimney and down the Vertigo rappel +/- Song of the Dodo rappel (1 or 2 60m or 2 x 50m ropes); 4) rappel Chockstone Chimney to Pigeon Crack rappel (2 ropes); 5) rappel Chockstone Chimney, down climb upper Meadows to the Naked Edge/T2 rappels (2 ropes); 6) downclimb/scramble the East Slabs descent.

With regard to the belay for Mickey Mouse Nailup, just because something is described by a contributor on this site, doesn't make it correct. I'm sure you've by now consulted your 1989 Boulder Climbs South p. 207 topo showing the belay for Mickey Mouse Nailup and the lack of the bolts you describe. There are many ways people will do the same route.

With regard to logic, you presume you know what I am thinking...hazardous.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 25, 2006

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, when you write "why do you continue to argue with me when the position you are espousing (double-rope rappel) has absolutely no merit?", I see that trying to balance the unbalanced opinions described above has little hope with an individual unwilling to be open-minded. Unfortunately, we've had discussions like this previously.

To explain "I have no idea what you mean by "persuade others by confusion," I was referring to your description of the anchor as Mickey Mouse Nailup's anchor (and my repeated correcting it to [Song of the Dodo] anchor) when it did not exist for 4/5's of its current existence. To call it Mickey Mouse Nailup's anchor subtlely implies its been there a long time when in reality the single rope rappel on Pigeon Crack had been in existence far longer.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 25, 2006

Leo,

Let's cut all the discussion about irrelevant side issues such as where the original belay was on Mickey Mouse Nailup, what are the alternative ways of descending from Redgarden Wall, whether or not some people climb in Eldo with two ropes, etc., etc. and focus on the main issue: changing two rappels that are documented in the current guidebook as needing one rope into a single rappel that needs two ropes is extremely dangerous, and will very likely result in someone needing to be rescued or getting killed.

If you don't see that, and want to continue arguing peripheral issues, then I have nothing further to say.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

So, for clarity's sake, how high could the anchor still be and still reach to the anchor?
My ropes are always "WAYYYY long" and hang very significantly below the roof when I have long since stopped a the Song Of the Dodo anchors. Then again, I have been climbing on a single 70M for about 7 years.
I find the single rope argument compelling, as I see most folks climbing in Eldo with single lines. I have not had doubles in Eldo for the last decade. I also find the argument to maintain a straight line compelling. These are both good ideas.
I however find the idea of blunting down edges anathematic and likely to be a nasty task that get worse once you realize you just create more of the same, below. It is not *tantamount* to chipping, it is chipping.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 26, 2006

Mr. Olsen & Mr. D'Antonio, I see now you ask for my best suggestion. I will respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Olsen, that these issues above are irrelevant to the community at large. Further, I was not arguing but rather trying to balance the presentation when you took issue with my initial comment. Mr. D'Antonio, I suspect there are multiple viable options, and I will respect that you feel it makes sense to keep it in line with the Song of the Dodo anchor. Note, the current rappel situation created in 1998 was a change from the then-current guidebook description.

Nonetheless, the two ideas above with an anchor above & below but in line with the Song of the Dodo anchor have advantages as outlined above. Now, I will suggest that we have seen by Mr. Olsen's comments that there are disadvantages to an upper anchor point in line with the Song of the Dodo bolt anchor below. I will also suggest that from Mr. Janes, Casey Bernal's, Mr. Bubb's, ROC's comments that there are disadvantages to Mr. Olsen's proposed anchor as depicted in the photograph above.

Historically, a 2 x 25m rappel line was in place for years just to the left along the Pigeon Crack. Nests of slings have been cleaned somewhat from this rappel line more recently. While, there are disadvantages to moving this rappel line back to its historical location just about 30 ft to the left (less knowledge of this given the differences in the 1989 & 2000 guidebooks, a less convenient/near-hanging intermediate anchor for those choosing to climb with only 1 rope, 4 bolts instead of 2 or 3), this line could be equipped with 4 bolts & chains with some advantages (no rock chipping/dulling req'd, no issues from branches from this tree, it cleans up some slings, no downclimbing req'd).

I see all 3 of these as viable options. Each has its advantages & disadvantages. No one is the obvious choice. Each should be considered before jumping to the conclusion that any one is more meritous than another.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

Tony Bubb wrote:
So, for clarity's sake, how high could the anchor still be and still reach to the anchor?

The distance from the tree to the bolt anchor on Song of the Dodo is about 60 to 70 feet.

If you want to be able to use a 50m (165') rope to reach the Song of the Dodo anchor, you could move the anchor up about 10 to 20 feet above the tree.

If you want to be able to reach the Song of the Dodo anchor with a 60m (200') rope, you could move the anchor up about 30 to 40 feet above the tree. This would likely allow the anchor to be placed at the very top of the slab.

I know most people climb with 60m (or 70m) ropes these days, but I'm hesitant to change a rappel that used to work with a 50m rope into one that requires a 60m rope if it's not necessary.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

Bob D'Antonio wrote:
With all due respect...the anchor needs to go in before the tree blows and some poor schmuck dies.

The public meeting to discuss spring FHRC applications is during the third week in June. Following standard procedures, a bolt anchor could be placed no sooner than this.

I have been in contact with Steve Muehlhauser, the climbing ranger in Eldorado Canyon State Park. He is willing to expedite the application for this anchor if the FHRC is willing to approve it before the scheduled meeting.

However, there is disagreement about the location of the anchor (near the tree or higher up). There is no consensus about this in the climbing community. Given this situation, I feel there is no choice but to wait for the public comment period and the June meeting and put the anchor in after that time.

Let's hope the tree survives that long.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 26, 2006

Minor point: the Song of the Dodo rappel is longer than 25m (from the 2000 Eldorado Canyon guidebook p 269 (postscript: which indicates 100' next to the bolts) & personal experience), so moving the distance of the upper anchor up may be less of an issue.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

From p. 268 of Rossiter's Eldorado Canyon guidebook: "Rap 70 feet [from the tree] to a bolted anchor at the top of Song of the Dodo, then 80 feet/25 meters to the ground."

I have closely inspected the Song of the Dodo rappel. You need a 60m rope to get all the way down. However, it is possible to rappel to a ledge 20' off the ground with a 50m rope and downclimb from there.

This is similar to the Chockstone Chimney rappel: a 60m rope gets you all the way down, but a 50m gets you to a ledge where you can downclimb.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

Leo Paik wrote:
I will also suggest that from Mr. Janes, Casey Bernal's, Mr. Bubb's, ROC's comments that there are disadvantages to Mr. Olsen's proposed anchor as depicted in the photograph above.


ROC wrote:
The roots extend from each side of the tree making it most stable in a side to side direction. I do not see any danger of the tree falling onto the anchor if it is positioned as is in the photos. I also feel that an anchor at this position will not be interfered with by the tree at all. I built my "fixed" anchor in the crack directly behind the tree at head height and had no problems pulling my ropes (they ran smoothly below the branches). All in all...anchor position looks good...

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 26, 2006

Mr. Olsen, I see you were not clear to what I was referring. For this, I am dreadfully sorry. No offense was intended. To clarify, ROC wrote "I don't necessarily agree with strapping down the tree."

I understood his remark to refer to "this is not covered in the FHRC guidelines, but it would be a good idea to install some bolts behind the tree about 8'-10' up and strap the tree to the bolts to prevent further loosening of the roots in a high wind."

Perhaps, this will clarify the comment. Perhaps, we should focus on the key issues as you suggested.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

Leo Paik wrote:
I will also suggest that from Mr. Janes, Casey Bernal's, Mr. Bubb's, ROC's comments that there are disadvantages to Mr. Olsen's proposed anchor as depicted in the photograph above.


Josh Janes wrote:
The bolt locations look great to me

Josh was disagreeing with dulling the rock edge and strapping down the tree, not the location of the proposed anchor "as depicted in the photograph above."

Please be more careful in your choice of words, Leo. You have misrepresented both ROC's and Josh Janes' position. Both ROC and Josh Janes favor the location of the proposed anchor as depicted in the photograph, but disagree with dulling the rock edge and strapping down the tree. These are separate issues.

Note: Josh Janes has subsequently changed his position, and now favors the higher anchor.

So far, we have:

Favoring a lower anchor position (as depicted in the photograph):

Ron Olsen
Mike Amato
ROC
Mark Nelson
Bob D'Antonio
Steve Levin
Kirk Woerner

Favoring a higher anchor position (closer to the top of the slab):

Tony Bubb
Casey Bernal
Josh Janes

Fellow climbers: if you have an opinion on this, please state it here.

By Buff Johnson
Apr 26, 2006

Ron, I favor the lower -- as depicted in your photograph.

By Josh Janes
Apr 26, 2006

I would like to clarify that I am in support of an anchor being put in for this rappel. I'd like to see a proposal, like Ron's, for a higher anchor, so the two could be considered against each other more accurately (Ron, you're really good at this kind of thing, why don't you do it -- an added benefit would be that your views would seem more balanced, too). I would do it, but I can't climb just quite yet.

By Brock Rockman
Apr 26, 2006

With all due respect to the tree, I see no reason not to have a big bonfire up on that ledge some night. That tree is on the way out anyway, this way it can go out in style. Then, without worrying about those fool limbs, we can put the bolts wherever the hell we want, which as we all know is how it should be anyway. Maybe bring some 'shrooms up for the festivities and let the visions guide our drills.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 26, 2006

Josh Janes wrote:
would like to clarify that I am in support of an anchor being put in for this rappel. I'd like to see a proposal, like Ron's, for a higher anchor, so the two could be considered against each other more accurately (Ron, you're really good at this kind of thing, why don't you do it -- an added benefit would be that your views would seem more balanced, too). I would do it, but I can't climb just quite yet.

Josh,

Mike Amato and I looked around quite a bit when we were up there to find the best anchor location. We looked at the area near the top of the slab but didn't see a good stance at which to place an anchor. We also were concerned about the rope pull; a high anchor seemed to have an increased chance of the rope getting caught in the tree limbs after it was pulled. We also were concerned that a higher anchor location might prevent the use of a 50m rope for the rappel.

Another concern with a higher anchor location was the initial deployment of the rappel rope. A thrown rope would have a good chance of getting hung up in the tree branches. A rope being gradually spilled would land in a pile on the ledge by the proposed lower anchor. There is a low-angle slab below the tree and then a vertical dropoff. The pile of rope would then have to be cleared over the low-angle slab before it would run free to the Song of the Dodo rap anchor.

We also looked at how far left we could place an anchor and not be too far off line from the Song of the Dodo anchor. We looked to see where there was a solid piece of rock to place an anchor. We also looked at placing the anchor on the slab below the tree, but rejected that since there weren't any good ledges to stand on.

In the end, we felt that the anchor proposed in the photo was the best choice. It isn't too far off line from the Song of the Dodo anchor, it is in a solid piece of rock, there is a good ledge to stand on, it is easy to get to without climbing up or down the slab above, there isn't any interference from tree limbs when the rope is pulled, the initial deployment of the rappel rope is simpler, and a 50m rope can still be used.

The deadline for spring FHRC applications has passed. For better or for worse, the climbing community is going to have to vote yes or no on the current proposal. If the majority of the climbing community is against the proposal, then the application will likely be rejected by the FHRC, and an application for a higher anchor location could be submitted for the fall FHRC session.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 27, 2006

For my own part, I wonder if someone will die more surely than not trying to get down to those anchors when the tree falls whilst the poor guy uses it to down-climb to them? People do and will use that tree. If you don't believe me, please explain the not only broken, but POLISHED branches on it. This is in part a rhetorical question intended to point out that when you make arguments to support a predisposition, that they can also be turned around on you.

Ron, I saw you moved Josh's 'allegiance' to your camp, but I see Josh moved it back to having a higher anchor. I also found it curious in your vote count why you did not list Leo at all? He was pretty obviously disagreeing with you.

More abstractly, but certainly relevant, I had a long conversation with Bruce Hildenbrand, who as you probably all know is a prominent anchor-replacer here and in the Needles. This conversation occurred on a few days when I was helping him replace anchors on a few local routes he did not want to lead...

In this conversation we were discussing his obsessive/compulsive drive to replace anchors. I am sure Bruce will not be insulted by this reference, since he has acknowledged it.
Anyway, the conversation turned to other people with compulsions and obsessions about bolts. My eventual and acknowledged conclusion was that "It's just like any other religion" god, abortion, politics, seatbelt laws, public education, supporting the troops, etc."
- Facts get confused with opinions.
- Some people are always right.
- People claiming that others agree with them (but who don't.)
- People talk shit about stuff they have not studied first hand.
- There is always a 'value' or an 'agenda' that is superlative and trumps all competing arguments.
- A holy and self-righteous attitude that shows when competing ideologies meet.
- I could keep going, but you folks can have fun inserting your own instead.

Anyway, people have basic and primal needs to express and fulfill ideologies and show loyalty to others or to the ideals. These can also be expressed in vengeful ways, where winning is not as important as knowing that someone else lost, for having challenged you. Reread the whole thread with this post in mind and then re-analyze the whole situation. It is interesting to consider.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 27, 2006

Tony Bubb wrote:
For my own part, I wonder if someone will die more surely than not trying to get down to those anchors when the tree falls whilst the poor guy uses it to down-climb to them? People do and will use that tree. If you don't believe me, please explain the not only broken, but POLISHED branches on it. This is in part a rhetorical question intended to point out that when you make arguments to support a predisposition, that they can also be turned around on you.

Tony,

I am well aware that people use the tree to downclimb; I have done it myself many times. However, it isn't necessary. An easy walk down around the right side of the slab and a traverse left on a good ledge gets you to the same spot. This approach to the lower anchor is very easy with no downclimbing required, and could be marked with cairns to guide climbers in that direction.

Regarding Josh Janes' position on the anchor: at the time of my previous post, he had said he was in favor of the lower anchor. He subsequently made another post in which he backtracked on that position. I have removed him from the "favoring the lower anchor" category.

Regarding Leo Paik's position on the anchor, he has said the following about the lower anchor, higher anchor, and Pigeon Crack: "I see all 3 of these as viable options. Each has its advantages & disadvantages. No one is the obvious choice. Each should be considered before jumping to the conclusion that any one is more meritous than another."

Regarding predisposition, etc: Mike and I made a concerted effort to examine all the options and come up with what we felt was the best anchor position. We did consider a higher anchor, but felt a lower anchor was better for the reasons I stated.

You and others are certainly entitled to disagree. However, I hope you can get up there personally to evaluate a higher anchor position and come up with a proposal for one since you feel that is the best option.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 27, 2006

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, I did not misrepresent anyone's statements. Sometimes, in the midst of a perceived argument, passionate individuals may become too emotional to read dispassionately.

Also, historically-speaking, the FHRC has not been so rigid to only consider the exact route or anchor proposed. For example, (odd coincidence) an applicant placed a proposal for Song of the Dodo right of Mickey Mouse Nailup but a different proposal passed after discussion at a meeting. Another pair of examples include (not that I personally support this) anchors approved without the exact location specified at the top of Washington Irving & The Unsaid.

Since it appears some may want my opinion, (not yet displayed on this thread - Mr. Olsen appears again to be presuming to know what I am thinking...hazardous), I will give it. Personally, I am in favor of choosing the best location for bolt anchor(s) to facilitate rappel descent from this area. Based upon some of the excellent points made above, I do not think Mr. Olsen's proposal is the best one at this time. I strongly disagree with dulling/chipping the rock for a convenience rappel anchor and disagree with bolting the tree to the rock. So, at this time, I'd favor a higher anchor position over the lower anchor position especially given that Mr. Olsen felt it was best to dull/chip the rock & bolt a tree down. Note, I was hoping to go up there yesterday before work to re-evaluate the Pigeon Crack rappels (which I haven't used in years), but my partner was ill.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
Apr 27, 2006

Ron, you said:
"I am well aware that people use the tree to downclimb; I have done it myself many times. However, it isn't necessary. An easy walk down around the right side of the slab and a traverse left on a good ledge gets you to the same spot. This approach to the lower anchor is very easy with no downclimbing required, and could be marked with cairns to guide climbers in that direction."

Ron, if your fear is that someone will rap off the tree without the sense to know it is unsafe, then won't they also downclimb it with that same lack of sense? One would be as deadly as the other if the tree goes with you hanging onto or in it, if or not you are tied to it.

By that argument, keeping people AWAY from it is the only answer.

I think you've made some valid points, but I think they do not outweigh the need to keep people away from the tree if it is dangerous. Also, if the situation deteriorates, and you KNOW the park will entertain an 'emergency' bolt application, and this particular position is voted down, then you know that this can be voted down, but another one passed via the 'emergency processes' overnight if the community expresses this in the meeting.

For reference, I will be against it and will be sure to mobilize 50+ like minded people to the meeting if it requires chipping. There will need to be a different alternative, so I will go to the area Sunday and try to put in some more constructive and less critical inputs. I sincerely hope that all involved are willing to consider EACH position proposed and willing to advocate consideration of EACH proposition at the meeting.

It does occur to me that it is possible that some individuals (not anyone specifically) will be so stuck on their ideas that they'll intentionally make it "their way or no way," but I hope not.

And I sure hope that anyone willing to vote on this will go check the anchors situation THEMSELVES with an open and critical mind on each proposal here, instead of talk schmack about stuff from second hand info.

So, Bob, Leo, Ron, Mike...
Please go look at all alternatives.
Josh, I know you're still all crip'ed up. You get the only exemption from responsibility on this. Since you've been to that very belay with me not less than 3 times last year, I know it's fresh in your mind. Heal (heel?) well, my friend.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 27, 2006

Leo and Tony:

The lower bolt anchor does not require the tree to be bolted down; that is entirely independent of the anchor position. It was merely an idea to extend the life of the tree, regardless of where a bolt anchor was placed. So please do not consider that a part of the lower anchor proposal; it could equally apply to a higher anchor proposal. Since there is so much sentiment against it, I will drop the proposal to anchor the tree, and let the tree fall and die when it will.

Therefore "bolting down the tree" should not be considered as a factor against a lower anchor proposal.

Regarding dulling a rock edge at foot level: again, it was merely a suggestion. I merely felt it might be worthwhile. I don't even know if the rope will hit that edge from the lower anchor position. But this too seems to have raise a hornet's nest of opposition, so I will drop that proposal too. The lower anchor rappel will be fine without any rock modification.

Therefore "dulling a rock edge" should not be considered as a factor against a lower anchor proposal.

So it appears that the real objection to a lower anchor is that people will continue to use one or two tree branches to downclimb to the lower anchor, and that will become increasingly unsafe as the tree roots continue to loosen. I agree that this is a valid concern.

However, there is a safe alternative to get to the lower anchor that does not require use of the tree: walking around the right side of the slab. Cairns can be placed to mark this alternate path. When I descend unfamiliar terrain, I usually follow cairns (if they exist) since they usually show the easiest path. I see no reason the situation here should be any different.

And Leo, as far as presuming to know what you think: I merely quoted your own words; I was making no presumptions.

And Tony, as far as looking at the alternatives: Mike and I have looked at the alternatives, first hand, with an open mind. It's our judgment that the lower anchor is the best option.

Perhaps a solution that will satisfy everybody: put in a lower anchor and a higher anchor. Climbers will then be free to choose whichever one suits them.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 27, 2006

Thanks, Bob.

Mr. Olsen, with all due respect, it was you who wrote "there is a rock edge below the proposed anchor, at foot level, that may need to be dulled" and "it would be a good idea to install some bolts behind the tree about 8'-10' up and strap the tree to the bolts to prevent further loosening of the roots in a high wind" as part of your above description of your proposal above.

Your ideas and your choice of words triggered responses. If you retract those parts (which you appear to be doing now), my guess is you will have far less opposition. Those words appeared to me to be the points of "real objection." If you change your proposal to exclude those statements, then my opinion of the difference of the lower & higher anchor locations is far smaller.

As far as quoting my words, respectfully, please do not represent me and/or my comments.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 27, 2006

Leo Paik wrote:
As far as quoting my words, respectfully, please do not represent me and/or my comments.

I don't know what you mean by this, Leo. Do you object to my quoting the above comment of yours? Do you object to me quoting other comments of yours? I am not representing you; I am quoting you. What's your problem?

It is common practice in forums to quote what others have said. You quoted what I said in your previous post. You are not representing me; you are quoting me. I stand by my words; you can quote them all you like.

And Mr. Paik, with all due respect, please discontinue use of the phrase "Mr. Olsen, with all due respect." It's getting tedious. I prefer that you refer to me as "Ron" if you feel the need to use my name.

By Josh Janes
Apr 28, 2006

I'd like to comment on the suggestion of placing cairns to encourage people to avoid using the tree to reach the anchor. Cairns - ie loose stacked rocks - at the very top of the Upper Ramp (and also above a few west facing climbs and a major descent route)? I think this is a bad idea.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 28, 2006

Josh,

I'm not passionate about the lower anchor; I simply believe it's the best alternative for the reasons I've stated. Mike and I went up there with an open mind to evaluate all the possibilities. We evaluated a higher anchor position, a lower anchor position, and an anchor position on the slab below the tree. Our considered judgment was that the lower anchor position was the best choice. This conclusion was reached after considering all three alternatives.

Arguments raised in this forum favoring a higher anchor position are not persuasive, in my opinion.

Let me expand on two of my reasons for favoring a lower anchor:

1. The first advantage of a lower anchor: deploying the rappel rope. Anyone who has climbed at Red Rock knows what a pain in the ass it is when you have a low-angle slab below a rappel anchor. That's exactly what you have below the tree. From the lower anchor, you have a good chance of tossing the rope over the edge of the slab and have it drop free to the Song of the Dodo anchor. From a higher anchor, the rope will either a) get hung up in the tree when you toss it; or b) land in a heap on the low-angle slab and have to be manually cleared over the edge. If you lower the rope gradually from a higher anchor, it will form a pile on the ledge by the lower anchor, and still have to be manually cleared over the low-angle slab below the tree.

2. The second advantage of a lower anchor: retrieving the rappel rope. Most experienced climbers dread having a tree below a rappel anchor that's almost in line with the rope pull. Murphy's Law takes over, and the falling rope gets caught and whipped around a tree branch. I've seen this happen more than once. The upper anchor, 10 to 30 feet above the tree, can only be placed slightly left of the tree and still have it in line with the Song of the Dodo anchor. There is a real possibility that a rope falling from the upper anchor could get wrapped around a tree branch and be impossible to retrieve.

At the lower anchor, the tree is directly to the right of the anchor. There is very little likelihood that the falling rope will get caught up in a tree branch. This has been verified by ROC when he pulled the rope from his gear anchor placed in the crack next to the tree.

In my opinion, the main disadvantage of a lower anchor is that some people may be enticed to downclimb to it using a tree branch or two, and this will become increasingly risky as the tree roots continue to loosen.

Regarding cairns: two cairns, in non-exposed places, would be all that are needed to show climbers the easiest route to the lower anchor. None of these cairns would be dangerously close to an edge where they could be knocked over and cause a problem. One could be placed at the right side of the slab in a huge flat area with no exposure and no danger of rockfall. A second could be placed partway along the right side of the slab, again in a flat area with no danger of rockfall. When you are healthy, go up there yourself and take a look and you'll see what I mean. I think your concerns about the dangers of cairns in this area are unfounded.

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Apr 28, 2006

The rap route in question has been a safe, efficient, and popular ESTABLISHED rap route for years now. It is quick, the rope toss and pull are easy, the stations manageable, no loose rock, etc. I see no reason at all to change the location of the upper anchor. If indeed the tree is no good, place a bolted anchor in the immediate vicinity of the tree. Very simple. Climbers can deal with scrambling to this point with or without the tree (they have for years), and they can also deal with tree branches while setting that top rap. The rap route should remain usable for climbers with a single rope (so nix the double rope idea), it should be in a straight plumb line, no new anchors should be drilled at the midway point (the Dodo anchors work perfectly), no edges should be dulled, no cairns placed. Keep it simple.

Just an opinion though.

By Leo Paik
Administrator
From: Westminster, Colorado
Apr 28, 2006

Okay, Ron. I addressed you formally and respectfully since I don't know you and you seem to disagree with me, repeatedly.

My issue is that you have repeatedly misrepresented me and/or my comments by your reading & quoting, as evidenced in this thread. Individuals can quote things but can misrepresent with this practice, as repeatedly evidenced by the general news media. So, given the above retractions, I am willing to end this interchange.

Again, once the above issues of dulling/chipping rock & bolting the tree are removed, the differences in advantages and disadvantages in my mind are much smaller. Having 2 sets of anchors above and below may satisfy most of the issues.

By Kirk Woerner
Apr 29, 2006

I'm for the lower anchors with one worry. I haven't done the down-climb shown in the other picture, and I suspect few other than the proposers have either. I know the down-climb using the tree is ONLY reasonable because the tree is there. It would be vertical AND exposed if it weren't.

The question for me really becomes "Is the downclimb to the left considerably easier than the one by the tree?" If that downclimb were PERFECTLY EASY, then I see no advantage, and some disadvantage, to a higher anchor placement. So really, do I trust that the people who checked it out really believe that the downclimb to the left is appropriate not just for them but for others as well. I know Mike, and if he vouches, that's easily good enough.

BTW, I also would generally be against smoothing out the rock. If that means the anchor can't be used, then the plan needs to change IMO. Strapping the tree down I'm not against though if it's possible. We've already all screwed with the tree to its detriment, why can't we do so to help it?

By ROC
From: Englewood, CO
Apr 30, 2006

The downclimb to the left is MUCH easier and MUCH less exposed than the route down the tree. (Left if you are facing the cliff...climbers left). Simply scramble down a series of ledges with positive hand holds, then traverse over on the ledge to the tree or new set of anchors (hopefully coming soon). I would even feel reasonably comfortable doing this downclimb in the rain. This, however, is simply my opinion and should be taken as such. There's only one real way to find out if said downclimb is suitable...go try it for yourself.

For those proposing a higher position for the anchors...where would you like to see them placed. All I have heard is "higher", but with no specific location mentioned. Just wondering how this higher anchor will work. Would you place them near the lip? Would you have to reach over the edge to thread the rope? Just curious...and wanting to get a better feel for the situation.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
May 1, 2006

I went to Eldo on Saturday and Sunday both. I checked the area out on Saturday, had an evening to think about it, and then checked it out again on Sunday.

1) Pigeon Crack:
My task on Sunday also included climbing Pigeon Crack, which I did, and checked out the anchor potential there. YUCK! The Pigeon Crack is not a good option for the rap. Let's allow that wallow of bad rock with the slings under the huge leaning (propped, but not locked) chockstone to live in obscurity. This is the worst of the options. People will be 'bombing' the ledge and Each other from this rap and the lengths are not convenient anyway, nor are the best spots obvious or easy to find. I'm 'over it' with this one. Decent climb though, if you don't mind one disconcerting anchor and some runouts on questionable rock...

2) The lower, proposed anchor:
Well, I've now climbed up and down twice the way Ron describes. I climbed UP it first, then back down the first time, because where to go down was so non-obvious from up top until I'd gone up it. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the area, and not blind or entirely stupid, so I guess my question remains on how it is you expect everyone to know to go over there so long as the tree and the tradition are to the right. The climb up is a little easier than the existing one, then you traverse a ledge toward the tree- remarkably, this is the very ledge that people are so concerned about the massive (10' thick/wide) roots of the tree pulling out of, eminently. When they are "1/2" out, this traverse could get interesting. As luck would have it, it was sprinkling just slightly when I climbed this on Sunday, and it was a bit 'nervous' for me. I on-sight Eldo 5.11 most of the time, but the big slopers here had me well into in the same agitated 'careful mode' that I'd be in any other time I was free-solo in good gusts with a potential death-fall below me. It was easier to climb up than down, admittedly, and easier to climb down the second time. If the tree goes, this whole party over here may change. And how will people know how to get to it. Aside, no rock chipping (dulling) is required to install this anchor and the chipping part of the former proposal should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

3) A higher anchor:
Well, up to the top of the ridge and 3-4 meters South of the tree. This is to the 'climbers right' of the tree and more or less contiguous with it's top, located just far enough on the top that the 'slab' is bent to face slightly south. I don't have an image of this, but any fool could figure out where I meant if they stood presently there with this description. A single 60M rope makes it easy to hit, and a single 50 measures to be approximately in that range, although I regret to report that it would be close, and I do not have one to make the measurement. This proposed anchor is ~7 Meters above and right the present location, which is presently about 19 meters above the Song of the Dodo anchors. This would be about 26 meters- a meter too long, not considering rope stretch, actual rope length, or the fact that you should not rap off of the end of your rope. Someone with a 50M should go measure it. If nobody has a 50M, I guess it is irrelevant because hey, nobody uses them... A 50M does not reach the ground from the Song of the Dodo anchors anyway, which are presently 28 meters. off of the deck (though you can scramble down from a higher ledge after going off to the left on rap.) The tree would be out of the way, the rope would not pull through them, etc... Aside, this position is well in line with the 'Song of the Dodo' anchors and actually makes the spooky step-down off of the slab easier since it is less of a bulge-roof.
The biggest concerns remaining with this anchor are if a 50M reaches, and of course, HOW PEOPLE WILL KNOW IT IS THERE? Lastly, you may have to work "over the edge" to clip the anchor. Obviously, best to leave both anchors for a while until the word spreads. The tree is still presently good.

Since 4 other active MP.com members were there with me, Dave, Rich, Hamish and Rich's partner (sorry, I am not good always good with names) perhaps they'd care to comment?

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
May 1, 2006

Here is a photo showing the locations of the lower anchor proposal, the access path to the lower anchor, Tony's higher anchor proposal, and the Song of the Dodo anchor. Tony, let me know if the location of the higher anchor proposal is not correct in the photo.

The lower anchor proposal is about 2m left and 1.5m above the current tree anchor on a good ledge. Access to this anchor is via a gully that starts near the EL 100 tree.

The higher anchor proposal is about 3-4m right and 7m above the current tree anchor at the top of the ridge.

Click on the photo to see an enlarged image.

By Steve "Crusher" Bartlett
May 2, 2006

Just so everyone knows, the spring deadline for applications is April 1st, not April 21st. Fall deadline is September 1st, not September 21st. The correct dates are on the pdf of the FHRC Guidelines available at the ACE website. The ACE website unfortunately still quotes the wrong dates in a couple places. Sorry for any misunderstanding here. If anyone wants to submit an application for this proposal, please remember to get it to ACE by September 1st.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
May 2, 2006

Crusher,

I submitted an FHRC application for the lower anchor position to Steve Muehlhauser, Eldorado Canyon State Park Assistant Manager and climbing ranger, via paper copy and email, on April 18th.

The application form on the ACE website said the deadline was April 21st, and to submit the application to Eldorado Canyon State Park, not to ACE.

I hope that the FHRC will consider this application as part of the spring review and not delay it to the fall session.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
May 2, 2006

Ron,
Thanks for putting that proposal into the mix as well. I take that as a gesture of open-mindedness and consideration. I am hoping that prior to coming to a vote someone with a 50m rope can hang the rope out and do the measurement. I am also hoping that a few folks will go up and see what they think of that proposal relative to the ease of working over the edge.

All,
Considering the nature of the notification date mix-up and that it has been accepted, I believe that all was followed in good faith. I see no reason for objection to a discussion regarding this anchor to occur at the meeting and for an 'emergency proposal' to be approved thereafter, based on the consensus of the discussion. I believe that the spirit of rule of law will have been satisfied.

Crusher,
Thanks for pointing out the error. Hopefully this will be fixed so the public is more correctly informed.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
May 2, 2006

There have been a lot of applications for new routes and anchor replacements for the spring FHRC session, and the FHRC is feeling a bit overloaded. The latest proposal from the FHRC is that applications submitted by the public after April 1st but before April 21st will be honored and processed in the spring session, but applications submitted by ACE/FHRC members after April 1st but before April 21st (that includes this anchor proposal) will be deferred to the fall session.

I'm fine with that as long as the consensus is that the tree will be viable as a rap anchor until sometime this fall.

Let me summarize my opinions about the higher and lower anchor proposals:

Advantages of a higher anchor:

1. It is quick to get to without having to downclimb.
2. It appears to be in a good place to toss and retrieve the rappel rope without interference from the tree.

Disadvantages of a higher anchor:

1. It is not documented in the guidebook, and is not visible from the approach, so very few climbers will know that it's there without prior knowledge.
2. It does not have a stance below it, and it must be threaded while "working over the edge", as Tony put it. Getting on rappel will be a bit more work.
3. It is 3-4m right of the tree, meaning that it's 3-4m right of the Song of the Dodo anchor.
4. It might not be viable with a 50m rope.
5. If the tree falls over, the tree could get in the way of the rope line below the anchor.

Of all of these disadvantages, #1 is by far the most important.

Advantages of a lower anchor:

1. It is close to the existing anchor, so there's no problem about anyone knowing where it is.
2. There's a good ledge to stand on while setting up the rappel.
3. The rope toss and retrieval are simple.
4. It is only 2m offline from the Song of the Dodo anchor.
5. There is an easy downclimb to get there without using the tree.
6. A 50m rope can be used.

Disadvantages of a lower anchor:

1. It's more involved to get to the lower anchor than to a higher anchor.
2. Few people know about the easy approach, and many will continue to downclimb to it using the tree, which is likely to become increasingly risky. This could be mitigated by cairns, but some have expressed opposition to using them.
3. If the tree falls over, the root system pulling out could impact the ledge in the vicinity of the anchor, and the tree could get in the way of the anchor or the rope line below the anchor.

Personally, I'm coming to the view that the best solution may be to install both a higher and lower anchor. Maybe the best thing to do is to submit a revised proposal for the fall FHRC session for both anchors.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
May 2, 2006

Ron Said:
"3. It is 3-4m right of the tree, meaning that it's 3-4m right of the Song of the Dodo anchor."

No. the Song of the Dodo is about 2M right of the tree, as you have acknowledged and is about 2M right of your proposal, and that is 2M left of mine. This is quite clear in the picture you have attached. It's also good math. Math I am good with... spelling, ehhh, not so much.

The difference is that yours requires some trickiness to get below the roof, and mine is slab the whole way. Other than that, there is no major change in laterial movement, other than direction.

Also, the total distance along the direct line from the tree base to the anchor I proposed is greater than the height of the tree by about 1 meter. The tree will not block the anchor I have propsed in a fall. It may fall across the rope-line, but given the root positions, that exact same fall would completely block the ledge and the anchor you have proposed, so I would consider this an advantage, not a disadvantage.

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
May 2, 2006

Dunno, Tony. Always seemed to me that it was a straight shot from the tree down to the Song of the Dodo anchor, but I could be mistaken. Probably depends on the exact rope line. Anyway, let's say that there's no significant advantage or disadvantage to either anchor proposal in terms of lateral position getting to the Song of the Dodo anchor.

If the tree falls over, it could interfere with the rope line for either anchor, depending on exactly how it fell. If that happens, the best thing to do might be to cut the tree off near its base (or cut off the tree branches) and let it fall all the way to the ground.

A fallen tree near the bottom of the East Slabs descent had some of its branches cut off a few years ago so it no longer interfered with the descent route, so this wouldn't be setting a new precedent.

By Tony B
From: Around Boulder, CO
May 3, 2006

For my own part, I have no issue at all with removing a tree in part or wholly once it has fallen. I've done similar things on my own and without consensus or a permit in certain circumstances because it was so obvious to do. Just be sure nobody is below...

By CheyenneWills
May 24, 2006

A couple of things...

1) if someone would like to borrow a retired 50m rope to perform a measurement, I have one

2) and just to add or re-enforce some thoughts on the high/low set of anchors.

While having the anchor set up high might be the "better" choice, there are some valid arguments for having the anchor next to the existing tree. Say that the high anchors are set. Would that stop people from using the tree? -- I believe no. Because:

  • It's documented in guide books
  • It's been established in people's minds as the rap station
  • The tree serves as a landmark and appears to be a valid rap station

If the tree was gone, then the high anchors might make sense.

If the high anchors are placed, I would like to suggest that a tag be placed on the tree that 1) informs that the tree is starting to be insecure and should be regarded as potentially unsafe and 2) points back to where the rap anchors are. It might also make sense to place, at the point one downclimbs to the tree, a temporary sign that points to the rap anchors. Once a "path" has been established to the new anchors, then the sign could be removed.

By Chris Weber
From: Boulder, CO
Sep 10, 2006

Wow. Can anyone provide an update on the placement of these bolts? Has it been approved? If not, when might it be?
Thanks,
Chris

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Sep 10, 2006

A new bolted rappel anchor was installed at the top of the Upper Ramp on Monday, August 21, 2006. Thanks to Greg Hand for being the drill master, and to Bob D'Antonio for the use of his Bosch.

The anchor was approved by the Eldorado Fixed Hardware Review Committee in its meeting on June 29, 2006. Results of the meeting were as follows:

  • Public vote on the ACE website: 31-0 in favor (12 favored lower anchor, 0 favored upper anchor, 19 expressed no preference)

  • Public vote at the meeting: 3-0 in favor (3 favored lower anchor, 0 favored upper anchor)

  • Vote of the FHRC: 6-0 in favor (6 favored lower anchor, 0 favored upper anchor)

The anchor consists of a Fixe Traditional Rap anchor (Stainless steel, Tan #037-T) and two Rawl-Powers 5-piece stainless-steel bolts, 3/8" x 3.5". The $50 cost of of the hardware and paint is my donation to safer climbing in Eldorado.

The anchor is located just left of the old tree anchor on a good ledge. The anchor is about 4' above the ledge so it is easy to use.

The rope pull is clean and has little friction.

The easiest approach to the anchor is by downclimbing and traversing in from the rappeller's left. This avoids having to use the tree to downclimb to the anchor.

Photos of the new anchor can be found here: Photo, Photo, Photo.

By M.Morley
Administrator
From: Sacramento, CA
Sep 11, 2006

Looks like a nice, clean job, Ron. Thanks to you, Greg, and Bob for your time, money, and effort.

By Chris Weber
From: Boulder, CO
Sep 11, 2006

Nice job camo-ing the bolts...my partner and I glanced around down there about a week and a half ago and didn't see them! Arggh..them we descended the upper ramp to the Edge raps. At least now we know...
Thanks for putting them in!
Chris

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 10, 2007

ATTENTION!

The tree in question was blown down over the weekend and is now perched upside-down hanging from its roots, blocking the first rappel.

Park volunteers will be removing the tree tomorrow morning 9am Tuesday July 11.

The West Redgarden Trail will be temporarily closed while this is being done. Trail crew will be present on the ground to hold climber hiking traffic during this process.

Sorry in advance if this delays your plans.

Should be a good trundle....

By Greg Hand
From: Golden, CO
Jul 10, 2007

I guess that settles the question about if the tree was unsafe!
Somebody should video the trundel and post it.

By Craig Quincy
Jul 10, 2007

Heh, I guess mother nature gets the final say on this one. I'm glad common sense prevailed and the anchor was approved and installed before disaster struck.

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 11, 2007

We removed the tree this morning. Thanks to Dan Hickstein for joining me, and the Eldo trail crew for monitoring the trails..and shooting a short video clip. I'll try to post the video soon. Top Ten trundle, for sure!

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 11, 2007

Good job, Steve!

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 11, 2007

I posted a photo of Dan riding the tree...look under Destinations/EldoradoCanyonSP/Redgarden Wall (couldn't figure out how to post the photo in this thread...but would like to).

By Ron Olsen
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 11, 2007

Steve Levin wrote:
I posted a photo of Dan riding the tree...look under Destinations/EldoradoCanyonSP/Redgarden Wall (couldn't figure out how to post the photo in this thread...but would like to).


Here's Steve's photo:

No it's not Slim Pickens from Dr. Strangelove, but Dan Hickstein riding the Vertigo Rappel tree before the trundle. <br />Photo by Steve Levin
No it's not Slim Pickens from Dr. Strangelove, but Dan Hickstein riding the Vertigo Rappel tree before the trundle.
Photo by Steve Levin

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Jul 12, 2007

Thanks, Ron!

By Steve Levin
From: Boulder, CO
Dec 16, 2013

Finally getting around to posting this video of trundling the tree at the top of the Vertigo raps.



youtu.be/0vXrY3lZN7s