Mountain Project Logo

White Rastafarian’s fall zone boulder moved.

Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Marc801 wrote: Moving the boulder seems far more comparable to adding a bolt to a long-standing run-out than it does to chipping a hold.
Except that the boulder isn't part of the route and moving it doesn't alter the route itself. All those you mentioned directly alter the route. R/X typically comes from a height consideration, whether the rocks are sharp as glass or dull as a doorknob, shouldn't and doesn't typically matter. This was also explained earlier by someone in the thread. That a boulder awkwardly rests below a problem doesn't make it an R...

I would def agree though this isn't a good precedent for altering national park space but, when I visited I moved a rock a few feet out from where I wanted to tent for the night... It wouldn't make me more hard core by putting my tent up on it and camping with an awkward hard rock under me, now would it?

I get why ur egos are hurt by moving it... yah you had to worry about falling on it while you were climbing and thus it became part of the route for you. But as JL points out it wasn't part of the route for them... so to all those who cherish this rock being exactly where it was... isn't your ego getting in the way, just a tad?

How about when a large earthquake comes and shakes it one direction or another? What then?
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Morgan Patterson wrote:Except that the boulder isn't part of the route and moving it doesn't alter the route itself.
Except with boulder problems, the landing is definitely part of the route. You're still applying roped climbing ideas to something fundamentally different.

Morgan Patterson wrote:R/X typically comes from a height consideration, whether the rocks are sharp as glass or dull as a doorknob, shouldn't and doesn't typically matter.
Nope - R/X comes from what you can potentially hit. Originally it had to do with what kind of pro was available. Length of fall never really factored into it (although it was a by-product of marginal or no placements).

This is especially evident in the change in aid ratings, where one time it was a combination of the tenuousness of the placements plus the length of the fall. Now there are many A5 pitches where there may be only a 50' fall potential but it's on to a ledge strewn with boulders that can maim and kill.

Morgan Patterson wrote:That a boulder awkwardly rests below a problem doesn't make it an R...
Yet the original rating of WR by the FA-ists included an "R".

Morgan Patterson wrote:...when I visited I moved a rock a few feet out from where I wanted to tent for the night... It wouldn't make me more hard core by putting my tent up on it and camping with an akward hard rock under me, now would it?
That's a false equivalence and you know it!
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Marc801 wrote: Nope - R/X comes from what you can potentially hit. Originally it had to do with what kind of pro was available. Length of fall never really factored into it. Yet the original rating of WR by the FA-ists included an "R".
R/X has typically been height related in bouldering since you can pad out landings. A small sit start in a talus field doesn't gardner R ratings while a HB over a talus field would get an R rating... due to height. That you don't agree doesn't change that, but you're welcome to your own opinion. As someone who as developed hundreds of problems in the Northeast I can speak to how it is here and that its entirely a height thing.

And as JL, noted here in this thread, its wasn't given an R due to the boulder in the landing so that pretty much negates your point. R is typically a dependent on height, but you're free to disagree.

And I don't see the comparison as a false one... I think its spot on. The only difference is scale of the rock and its location in the park.
jondsheldahl · · Cedar Falls, Iowa · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 5
John Long wrote:I didn't do the FA. John Bachar and I did it together - can't remember who went first. It was never a hard problem, just an exciting one, and once you got up a ways, into the 5.11 move, I don't think you could hit that boulder - but maybe I'm not remembering this correctly. I don't see moving that boulder as any big thing. If you were cutting down a tree or something, that might be an issue. But so far as I can tell what's really going on here is people are clearing out the base for aspiring hardmen/women to get a feel for the first moves without crashing and buring on the landing. White Rasta is almost a tourist attraction, and is so far away from being any kind of testpiece that it all seems good to me. Hard to believe that problem went down I think 41 years ago (1974??). Wink, my brother, and you're all old and shit. JL
PREACH!
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Tim Lutz wrote:Rocks from pebble to breadbox get moved all the time, all over the country, NP or not, to put down pads. JT will and has often bulldozed earth, plants, and yes refridgerator sized boulders to pave campsights so fat Merikans can 'camp'. But thats ok, NPS is holy and needs worship and money, like cops. The LNT crowd is saying no to moving this boulder because the v3R experience must be preserved. Builds character and such. So what is the limit then? Is 100lbs too much? 50? Should there be an application process with before and after photos?
Was it necessary to move the boulder? No. People have been climbing over it for a long time just fine.

What does the size matter? What if there were dozens of 25 lb. boulders at the base and they were all moved. Would that not make you say "wow...that was unnecessary"?

The NPS moving boulders for infrastructure is something entirely different. I would love it if there were gravel roads out there and about 1.3 million less visitors a year but that is not the case. Is the NPS infallible, of course not but they are operating under a paradigm of making things safe and accessible for the masses. Do we need to do the same?
jondsheldahl · · Cedar Falls, Iowa · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 5
Tim Lutz wrote:No we dont! And if boulders are an issue, how about that pesky ground. I say that aspiring hardpeople need to climb padless in shoes from the 70s.
Tim, I think you just became my hero
goatboy · · Nederland, CO · Joined Jan 2008 · Points: 30
rob mulligan wrote: Thanks for clarifying your ignorance. And who cares what state you think has nicer boulders. Putting WR on a pedestal? You think? You did just that with boulders from UT, MO, WY, and AL? Slick move... and very irrelevant what other states have.
That is a reference for the guy up thread saying this is one of the most iconic rock climbs of the world.

Just pointing out that it is kinda funny considering the wide world of climbing.

This thread is almost as funny as the guys arguing over what constitutes benighted over in the Madame G thread.
rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0
Morgan Patterson wrote: R/X has typically been height related in bouldering since you can pad out landings. A small sit start in a talus field doesn't gardner R ratings while a HB over a talus field would get an R rating... due to height. That you don't agree doesn't change that, but you're welcome to your own opinion. As someone who as developed hundreds of problems in the Northeast I can speak to how it is here and that its entirely a height thing. And as JL, noted here in this thread, its wasn't given an R due to the boulder in the landing so that pretty much negates your point. R is typically a dependent on height, but you're free to disagree. And I don't see the comparison as a false one... I think its spot on. The only difference is scale of the rock and its location in the park.
I would agree with Marc801 that the boulder is definitely part of the line and the problem. Padding is a construct of modern bouldering and isn't typically factored into problems, or in my opinion shouldn't. We can't assume boulderers will haul X number of pads (also assumed to place them correctly) to maintain an LZ consistent with a rating. The danger rating can be diminished by padding but the point of the danger rating is to alert a boulderer that padding is necessary or that it's simply a taller problem. Problems in boulder fields are notorious for bad or inconsistent landings and again an author can't assume that it will padded sufficiently to garner a safer rating.

I'm unfamiliar with bouldering habits in the NE but in the west, fall zone obstacles are all part of the safe or unsafe reality of a line. An R or X rating is based on what happens if you fall. Period. There are no assumptions about "but if you pad it well, or if you move obstacles first..."

Morgan Patterson wrote: I get why ur egos are hurt by moving it... yah you had to worry about falling on it while you were climbing and thus it became part of the route for you. But as JL points out it wasn't part of the route for them... so to all those who cherish this rock being exactly where it was... isn't your ego getting in the way, just a tad?
This isn't an issue of egos, and I disagree with JL. The boulder is in the fall line regardless of what he says. It's a physical reality. The fundamental issue is to what extent one (or several) can clear a landing. In this case, either in JL's time or now, it's under gov't stewardship as either a monument or park. Anything that requires tools and/or many persons is simply illegal. Making references to simply moving a boulder is a bit ignorant. No one I know can move the boulder. And to do so would go against park regulations, and bouldering ethic (since it was established that way).

The point of climbing outside is to learn to accept what is there and work with nature. In this case, the boulder is very much part of nature. Any argument about the simple reality of moving it to make things safer is missing the whole point of it's legal protection and it's physical characteristics against simply being "moved."

In more modern times the idea of landscaping LZ's is mostly because of gym climbing and the new ethic that safe is the way to go because hard is the purpose of bouldering. This is most likely the main reason the boulder has been moved. But there are examples of excessive landscaping before gyms and Rainbow in socal is a good one. But by and far unless the FAist moved it, the rest of us respects that choice and brings more pads to work around the obstacle (something that can be done today).

The sanctity of FAist behavior is at question here. Following that line of reason, it can be applied to trad climbing equally. And in that vein, adding a bolt is a good analogy. But the FAist established the base line of "courage," if I may. If we want to repeat it we "find the courage" and do so. Any argument to move this boulder or to leave it moved is basically driven by the ego that safer is acceptable, and therefore it's rationalization not a legitimate argument. Remember, no one has to climb it. It's a choice, but we all have to decide if that choice will respect the FA style.
rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0
Tim Lutz wrote:Rocks from pebble to breadbox get moved all the time, all over the country, NP or not, to put down pads. JT will and has often bulldozed earth, plants, and yes refridgerator sized boulders to pave campsights so fat Merikans can 'camp'. But thats ok, NPS is holy and needs worship and money, like cops. The LNT crowd is saying no to moving this boulder because the v3R experience must be preserved. Builds character and such. So what is the limit then? Is 100lbs too much? 50? Should there be an application process with before and after photos?
Your first statement is irrelevant because not only was the boulder not moved for 40 years, but the problem was established that way, and, the boulder IS NOT something can be just moved.

What the park service does is irrelevant, so bringing it up is an excuse based on "tit for tat." If the park service does X we can do Y, etc. It's just you emotionally going off against the park service, but it's still irrelevant.

Why is it that you spin the ego thing the opposite way? Can't one say that making a choice NOT to climb the line because they are humbled and don't want to risk it an OK thing? Why is that since the boulder is now moved, it's just egos that want to keep that boulder in it's original place? Your argument begs for every trad line that's run out to get retrobolted... I assume you advocate this, right?
rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0
Tim Lutz wrote:Merely climbing over a scary boulder isnt style enough for my sac. My sac needs to shrivel at the sight of bare ground, no spotter, and ratty EBs between me and ground, otherwise Ill just stay in the gym with the rest of. The posers.
Your lack of appreciate for bouldering is obvious. Climbing WR has nothing to do per se with "Merely climbing over a scary boulder" as you put it. It's climbing the line as it exists in nature.

Making references to your sac and a style from the past is odd, but I hope at least you've actually lived it as I and others have. We've evolved to accept pads, and more modern rubber, but we also respect nature, the FA style, and know that what "excessive" landscaping is is because our sac is having an issue with reality.

You are correct that it's time to go to the gym if that boulder isn't your thing. My heart goes out to all the future LZ's that your crow bar and mind will one day creatively landscape.

I've personally assumed that climbing is inherently dangerous, demands respect for nature, and appreciation and respect for the FA style, and when I can't accept that, I've personally decided that climbing in nature is no longer my thing. It's time to move on... as you've decided by hanging with the "posers." But putting down gym climbers as "posers" is your ego denigrating others. Gym climbers are just that... gym climbers, and they are ONLY posers when they act like one.
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945

Rob - very well thought out response. Appreciate it... My point was it's the height of a problem that gives it an R. One could def argue its a combination of height and landing. But it's really a height thing ;-).... if you disagree, name me a low ball problem that's got an R rating!

A point you and marc conveniently don't address, the R wasn't given based on the boulder per JL. So why is having this boulder there important to you guys?

And what if an earthquake comes and moved it out of the way? For the sake of reenacting your previous daring feats would you guys ask that it be moved back? Or the reality that a problem or route is fluid in history despite our 'mantra' of preserving the style of the FA?

rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0
Tim Lutz wrote:Wow, thanks Rob you have me all figured out! I can save that $60 for my weekly therapy session, and I can buy some Androgel and hope to be as big a man as you.
Oh Tim, you are so welcome.

BTW, why were bouldering pads invented? It was to mitigate poor landings and to save our knees to boulder more often. The pad was a way to work with nature. The crow bar was already invented but wasn't in the tool kit of boulderers until now.

If you think I'm a big man, wait until you see yourself in the mirror.
Clif Clap · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2013 · Points: 862
Morgan Patterson wrote: I would def agree though this isn't a good precedent for altering national park space but, when I visited I moved a rock a few feet out from where I wanted to tent for the night... It wouldn't make me more hard core by putting my tent up on it and camping with an awkward hard rock under me, now would it?
I'll direct this comment to something I said from my earlier post.

-If one person picks up a cheatstone-sized rock from the base of a climb and places it down in the dirt outside of the landing zone, that is not landscaping. Using tools and multiple people to shift the position of an otherwise unmovable rock is landscaping. So, this is objectively not just "moving a rock out of the way."
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Tim Lutz wrote:Pads are for pussies and destroy the very earth we walk on. Anyone using a pad isnt respecting the FA and is a ground chipper. From ST where the real hardmen are: jgill Boulder climber Colorado Dec 8, 2014 - 11:35am PT What a strange world bouldering has become. To preserve the natural environment of the landing zone one should leave deadly boulders in place, but it's perfectly acceptable to stack pads a foot deep. A consistent position would be to leave the boulder where it is and not use pads. Too old school for modern taste I suspect.
Thanks Tim. Now this is going to turn into a CO vs. CA thing and we all know how dumb that argument is.
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Clif Clap wrote:Using tools and multiple people to shift the position of an otherwise unmovable rock is landscaping. So, this is objectively not just "moving a rock out of the way."


I'd go along with that one if that was the case. Not just a few climbers moving it by hand... Tools kinda change the game...
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Morgan Patterson wrote:And what if an earthquake comes and moved it out of the way? For the sake of reenacting your previous daring feats would you guys ask that it be moved back? Or the reality that a problem or route is fluid in history despite our 'mantra' of preserving the style of the FA?
You can't possibly be serious.
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Marc801 wrote: You can't possibly be serious.
Hypothetically absolutely... what would you say should be done? Move it back because you can or leave it be?
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Morgan Patterson wrote: Hypothetically absolutely... what would you say should be done? Move it back because you can or leave it be?
This whole discussion is about human impacts and alteration. Climbs change and evolve over time - blocks fall out, overhangs fall off, holds break - sometimes precisely because a human was yarding on them at the time, other times entirely natural. We accept those things as part of the game. Nor are we talking about placing bolts or trenching copperheads. In this case the landscape was intentionally altered in a non-trivial manner which has the net effect of altering the route. There is not agreement on how much nor the appropriateness, however as climbers we should not be particularly eager about changing something that has been climbed in its prior and original state for decades. I really do see it as an ego issue - if the boulder's (original) position makes you hesitant about doing the route you can:
1. move or demolish the boulder
2. get a bunch of friends and smother it in pads
3. walk away and do another problem

It seems that option #3 is being exercised less and less. Due to ego? Entitlement? Cluelessness? Something else? Again, we're talking about a well established problem, not a new discovery.
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Gunks Jesse wrote:A few days ago some "punk kids" moved a rock in the middle of the desert so they could climb on a larger piece of rock. They were scared of falling on the little rock, but were maybe from a gym and had maybe never climbed outside but definitely don't care about conservation or nature or rocks or anybody. Many moons ago it was raining in the desert and some California gold prospectors wanted to get out of the rain. They found a nice overhanging piece of rock that could keep them dry, but nowhere to sit. They saw a largish boulder a few feet away, but well outside the dry area, so they moved it from where they found it to sit under the overhanging rock and stay dry. They just wanted to stay dry, not die, and hopefully get rich. Several centuries prior to that, it was sitting on top of the overhanging piece of rock until a hungry man saw his dinner below the overhanging rock and pushed said largish stone off the overhang to kill his dinner. It rolled to where the prospectors found it. He was just hungry and the rock was a convenient weapon. Before that it was lodged in a much larger rock. An earthquake broke it free. It was too awkward to continue to be cradled. I know, hateful words about this post are coming. I have no interest in this debate because, like Morgan, I'm from the east coast. I wouldn't move it - too lazy. If I thought it was a threat i just wouldn't climb there - too scared. I like leaving things the way I found them (unless I'm wet and want to be dry, or hungry and want to be not hungry).
No hateful words from me and I appreciate the lightness of your post while still effectively expressing your opinion. These are all good points and highlight the ridiculousness of arguing about a rock being moved in the desert but unfortunately the rock that was moved was not in some isolated part of the desert moved by a single person not connected to a larger group.

Is it that big of a deal? No, unless there are ramifications. Was it unnecessary and selfish? Yes. Does it have potential to paint climbers as a whole in a poor light and set precedents that will further that image? Yes.
J Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 50

Last night I had a dream. There were truckers and overweight rednecks having a monster car rally. The Monster truckers thought that because they believed in traditional Jesus, did what their preachers said, and were tough, that they had moral authority on the world and should get their way. They decried Muhammad, called on angels, and called hippies just that. One mentioned that the only reason they went was to see someone get hurt, and they did, so it was a really good rally, especially for those who had the faith.

Then I woke up and realized: decrepit tards who called on the angels of climbers past, while interpreting their wishes and puffing their chests, was akin to rednecks wearing no fear shirts and quoting religion to prove their righteousness.

Lets be honest, this is a simple argument; it is tradition and ego vs. reason and modern safety interests, and of course, more ego.

We, climbers, continue to be own worst enemies. It's not even an issue till a redneck with an ego complex starts quoting Jesus, then, heck, it's a damn religious war. Yeehaw. In god we trust.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern California
Post a Reply to "White Rastafarian’s fall zone boulder moved."

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.