Chains at Forks and Overlook?

I think it has been challenging to keep a local group around and active because we have faced so few issues as a community. So far, nobody is raining on our parade. Our crags are open, and the routes runneth over. However I think organizing an action committee to address the erosion issues on a triage basis is something that needs to be done, and I know it would not be hard to find interested people. And I think there are enough public forums available for information transfer. If grant money were available Jacob, I would say we start a fund for the supplies needed for the restoration work. Some short, reinforced basalt retaining walls would go a long ways in certain spots out there, and could be done in a tasteful, and aesthetic way as to blend with the environment. Being able to clean to very tops of certain pitches so that there are more gear placements available would also be a step in the right direction. Focus on the Prow area first and see how it goes. I mean we can try something, or we just let nature do what it it's going to do which is to eventually strip that point of land clean to the column tops. Will that happen in my climbing time? I doubt it, but it is a unique and powerful spot of land, and it would be nice to preserve what is left of its natural integrity. I would certainly lend my hands, back, and creative eye if or when such a project came to the construction phase.

Rather than risk marring the rock, or continuing to damage the tree's, would it not make more sense to put a shed in next to or near the outhouse and keep it stocked with 10 or so old pieces of carpet? It would encourage the practice of protecting your tree-anchor, in addition to keeping the forks as un-bolted as possible. I am aware of the expense, but come one, I have seen these debates pop up several times. How much more expensive would it be to construct a shed for this purpose compared to the expense of bolting anchors and having a purist come along and chop them?

Just put some chili on it.

To protect the tree, we could create a ring of rocks around the tree - garden-like, plant a few prickly pears in there to keep the people from trying to access the trunk. Should look nice
Then of course you will need a better than the tree alternative to anchor to. Russ Whaling's comment sounds like a perfect solution.

30+ years ago a moratorium was placed on using the Prow tree as an anchor point. This was after the forunate few had already stopped using the tree recognizing that it was showing wear with just moderate usage and it's unique position gives it a most spectacular claim to be left alone. I think it was about year two when we agreed to avoid using the Prow tree for anything other than sitting next to and staring down valley.

I believe it was a word of mouth thing which as I've seen from my few trips out there over the years has been spectacularily unsuccessful. Guess you need a neon plaque on the ole jack (or is it a jill) to make the obvious point. However, I think the work the NACC did in the mid to late '80s might have had some more written pertinent points made to the local crowds. But this does nothing for folks who haven't heard.

The only reason you would need a fixed anchor on anything here is either as a rap station (seperate debate, just walk down is my vote) or as a TR anchor. It's plenty easy to lead and set anchors and not use the trees directly on the rim. Plenty of rope to walk back to other anchors. And a lead anchor often does not even load the tree unless your second is falling and your belay is not properly set.

I've advocated for years that the area is not a TR place.
Falls on deaf ears. Realistically, a large majority of people are too impatient to give up the immediate for the long term. That's just human nature. Very few these days will spend two or three seasons working these problems ground up. They want to TR it and lead it within a season of starting to climb. Such is life in this day and age.

But As Larry Coats pointed out some years back, in many instances, putting in TR anchors in the rock isn't going to stop the use of the trees. Many locations would need anchors below the rims.

We're also in a very active eco system. The Column at the base of Sail Away fell over around '81 or so. No one expected that, there was no sign it was going to do that. There's no guarantee that where you might drill anchors today will be there next season (or even tomorrow.)

Regarding the Overlook (and I think this comment probably applies to the Forks just as well), these areas have been falling down since we've been climbing at them. It's what cliffs do.

What's wrong with this picture ? (other than the obvious result of a cheap and fast scan):

Orange Out - Overlook

Need a hint? Look at:
mountainproject.com/v/10629…

If we would take lessons from the old, old days and learn to adapt to our environment rather than adapt it to our needs, we would not impact these unique places nearly as much. If you haven't, take the time to find and read Doug Robinson's article on clean climbing.
This is not a new problem and it's not unique to the forks, it's never going away and probably never going to become easier. Unless of course we can reduce the population burden. That's a real can of worms.

A simple way to protect a tree is to tie the rap line around the tree, but then to redirect the line through a piece of trad gear at the lip of the cliff. The line can be clove hitched into this piece so that the piece is carrying the load on the rope, not the tree. The tree is only there for the unlikely event that the piece fails.

If a bolted station was placed, I would recommend it being placed straight down into the rock back from the lip of the cliff. No rap rings or chains, just hangers. This setup would discourage top roping and lowering.

I don't think a rule should be created. P. Forks has a great history and ethic and I think these situations could be, and deserve to be, dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it is time to deal with the Prow tree... I don't know.

The biggest thing that could be done however is to educate other climbers. Make it a habit to set up your line properly, and if you see someone doing otherwise, say something.

Paul! yes!

Josh Janes wrote:A simple way to protect a tree is to tie the rap line around the tree, but then to redirect the line through a piece of trad gear at the lip of the cliff. The line can be clove hitched into this piece so that the piece is carrying the load on the rope, not the tree.

+1
very professional setup :)

+1 to Paul and Josh. :)

No dogs? I can’t back that proposition. I have a huge amount of respect for the traditions upon which this area has grown. Certain people, like P. Davidson and his cohorts are responsible for inspiring the respect for the area and its clean ethics, a debt anyone of us who cares about areas like this has to acknowledge. I certainly do. It wouldn’t be as special a place as it is if people like P. Davidson hadn’t shared their love and enthusiasm for it in the way that they have. (I hope my prior comments were not misinterpreted on this. For people like myself, the internet can be a dangerous trap that leads to saying things without thinking them through.) And I don’t think that even with all the great new small gear we have now that I will ever succeed on many of the routes those guys put up without it. Its awesome to climb at a beautiful area like the Forks with routes and walls named after someone who is still around and who still cares. I am not advocating for anything such as permanent bolted anchors unless there is a real consensus that they are a good idea. I don’t know myself. I also understand the need to work with the Forest Service in an area like this given its history and easy access.

all of the landscaping ideas will still need Forest Service involvement/input and approval. They are the ones that can regulate and enforce the rules. good news is, they really are on our side.

+1
Yes, Darren is correct. There is a history of climbing sensitivities with the USFS at the Overlook and a lot of work done in the past to develop a good relationship. The USFS is the Land Manager and has the final say over practices that impact the land. Any plan or action should be run by them ahead of time to avoid unintended negative repurcussions for climbers.

The two basic problems at top down crags are over use and erosion.

You have to limit your time on the rim. No hanging out, no dogs, no raps, no top rope. Stay 100 feet back into the forest.

Can climbers live with that?!?

Make the walk down easy and known.

No need for super squirrel ethics/rules and signs.

if only it were that easy

As an experiment, I started putting anchors on top of some pitches at PF. No bolts, just chock-stones or thread-throughs back in the crack at stances below the rim with a piece of rock-colored rope and a chain link. You can’t see them unless you are standing right in front of them. They allow you to rap the route after you are finished belaying (hopefully from an anchor you have set up with more than just the chock-stone) without ever going up over the top, thus avoiding any erosion, soil compaction or other forms of tree molestation. If you think it’s a bad idea, remove them. I won’t be offended. And, as should be common sense, check the whole set up yourself before you rap off it. Rocks can move if stepped on or grabbed. Rope will age, get cut by rock from above or gnawed by varmints. No safety guarantees, but if I left one, I rapped off it with some bouncing before removing back up gear - and I weigh 170. (Note: you need a tag line for some.) If the damage caused by going over the top is unsustainable, rap anchors are the only way to preserve the area. The problem with the approach described above is always the same, however. People start leaving visible brightly colored webbing and big multiple strands to other chock stones to back things up because they can’t bring themselves to trust a single piece of rope around a single rock wedged in a crack.

Someone left a cam stuck in the Prow that I will remove next time I am there with the tools if it is not already gone. FWIW, I and other people often put time and work into cleaning those things out (along with dangerous rock and annoying dirt) when no one else is around, because we think they are ugly and detract from the quality of the climbing. Sometimes it starts with the hope that the cam will be useable, but more often than not, they are destroyed early in the process which can take a while to complete. I started climbing at age 18 in 1983 and while I have not established many new routes in classic areas like PF, I (and many others) have always put time and sweat into helping maintain the crags behind the scenes.

Paul Davidson wrote:What's wrong with this picture ? (other than the obvious result of a cheap and fast scan): Need a hint? Look at: mountainproject.com/v/10629… If we would take lessons from the old, old days and learn to adapt to our environment rather than adapt it to our needs, we would not impact these unique places nearly as much. If you haven't, take the time to find and read Doug Robinson's article on clean climbing. This is not a new problem and it's not unique to the forks, it's never going away and probably never going to become easier. Unless of course we can reduce the population burden. That's a real can of worms.

It looks like the tree on top of the trinities is about to go any day too, and I see people TR off it all the time... I think I may have a solution, how bout we just plant a tree on top of every climb? We may not live long enough to be able to use them.. but 100, 200 years from now climbers will be thanking us..

Trad ethics; so fuzzy and so often personal (i.e.,there are nearly as many different ethics as there are climbers).

I have thought about these issues for 20 years: 1) If people top rope, and trees are available (and, if it is not safe or available to use gear placements for an anchor), they will use trees, and 2) For rappelling; don't rappel, use the trail to the bottom of the cliff.

It seems unfriendly, and unfair, to ban top-roping. And, most (I should think) would not want fixed hardware for top anchors. So, we appear to be at an impasse (until climbing is banned, and then the solution is obvious; but who wants that?).