White Rastafarian’s fall zone boulder moved.

Morgan Patterson wrote: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?

Regarding the R rating, that is, as far as I know, a choice made by the guidebook author. JL and JB climbed it, but I don't understand what their FA has to do with the safety rating. The reason I don't "conveniently" address it is it's not important and irrelevant to the main topic.

Regarding the possibility of an earthquake, that's a non-issue. An earthquake that can move that boulder sitting in the ground would most likely change many other things far more destructively than worrying about that boulder in question.

I don't understand statements like "daring feats" because we ARE talking about climbing, right? The objective dangers in outside climbing are not uncommon, so to define a case as "daring" seems a bit naive.

In order for me, or anyone else, to address the relevance of the boulder, is to first clarify that the boulder won't move by typical means of establishing a boulder problem. This isn't a case of removing a small stone from the drive way. It's been there for 40 years. Every ascent up to now has climbed it or tried it with that objective danger as part of the landscape. To argue that removing the boulder is OK, means serious landscaping (independent of the legal issues of landscaping in a park) will most likely become more common place, and retro-cleaning will become more acceptable. And If you want something to jeopardize bouldering access, that is a good place to start.

You speak as if you either have no experience with this problem or you don't deal with a national park, so to convey to you the impact and the seriousness, the historical significance or respect for FA style, or respect for nature seems like a daunting task... as if I'm trying to convince a Libertarian to switch teams and embrace marxism. If you don't get it, that's fine, but trivializing it seems immature and condescending. Nothing personal but your attitude is as if you're a gym climber confused why climbing is dangerous.

And to say: "...as JL points out it wasn't part of the route for them." Think about that for a second. How is it not part of climbing for them? It's under their ass as it is for anyone else. The injuries testify to that! What JL is talking about, as I see it, is they're in a soloing mindset. This was typical in those days. Because there's no pads, it was bouldering to a safe height or soloing... meaning no falls. The context is figurative, not literal. But the boulder helps establish that mindset. Please John, correct me if I'm wrong.

rob mulligan wrote: You speak as if you either have no experience with this problem or you don't deal with a national park, so to convey to you the impact and the seriousness, the historical significance or respect for FA style, or respect for nature seems like a daunting task... as if I'm trying to convince a Libertarian to switch teams and embrace marxism. If you don't get it, that's fine, but trivializing it seems immature and condescending. Nothing personal but your attitude is as if you're a gym climber confused why climbing is dangerous.

I love the gym climber insult!

Praise Jesus boys, holding boulderers to your trad ethics is similar to expecting to see Ken Nichols drilling up a new line on Ragged Mtn.

I suggest going to boulder areas and handing out pamphlets on ethics, that should help.

Amen JQ... and Rob ya no NP here but as i said I get the precedent thang but its hard to see this as anything other then an ego issue maybe my opinion will change in time. And I stopped climbing in a gym years ago... They're bad places full of really bad people lol.

M Sprague wrote:Plant a stick in your butt if you want to increase the danger.

this

Tim Lutz wrote:So Mike, You would leave loose rock on a route as 'part of the experience'?

Absolutely, that way the early ascents get a taste.

Bringing the portable winch this weekend, gonna make it right as rain.

Back in my day we used to boulder over hot coals, broken glass, dirty syringes infected with various pathogens, you name it. You kids today are softer than a bag of kitten fur. Truth is brah,.. if you aint cranking v34+ over an 800lb pissed off grizzly, you aint sheet. Put the boulder back dood.. else endanger the egos of dozens of tried and true hardmen worldwide (literally dozens!).

What's the over/under on how long the chest thumping can go on?

I'm betting its good for at least another weeks worth of entertainment.

You all need to get over your egos and go out and climb something.

rob mulligan wrote: Rainbow in socal is a good one.

That brought back a lot of memories. Did you boulder with Jonny Gipson up there?

Moving something that big is clearly over the lameness threshold, from an ecological perspective. From a climbing perspective, I don't think any reasonable person should care--a good self-test in case you were wondering whether you are reasonable or not. Complaining to NPS about defacing the landscape? OK, seems marginal in this case, but if you feel it, do it. Complaining to NPS that somebody made a historical problem less dangerous? That is some weird, self-involved shit.

(Re RTM's speculation about 1,000 lbs: as a recent purchaser of a 1300 lb piece of granite, I'd guess that boulder weighs a lot more than 2000 lb. Somebody(s) clearly got way out of hand on a rest day.)

Maybe someone just took a shit and used the boulder to cover it.

Mike Brady wrote: Thanks Tim. Now this is going to turn into a CO vs. CA thing and we all know how dumb that argument is.

Take a wild guess who jgill is and try again.

Richard Shore wrote: On this note, please, Mike Brady, tell us more about why you boldly ticked Joshua Tree's Fistful of Walnuts boulder problem in July of this year after it had been closed for over 2 years by the NPS for cultural reasons, with noticeable signage AND warnings on MP? Remember, Santa knows what you've done..

If you take a look at the dates you will notice that a lot of the dates don't make sense. This is because I just click on the whatever the current date is, I think at one point I was doing the year. To remember and fill in the date is way to tedious for me. I did Fist Full around 8 years ago and have not repeated it since.

goatboy wrote: Take a wild guess who jgill is and try again.

Huh? What does John Gill have to do with this?

Adam Stackhouse wrote: That brought back a lot of memories. Did you boulder with Jonny Gipson up there?

no... would have liked to. We did connect in josh one afternoon.

I guess the park service has decided to move it back. Hopefully no more dumb-dumbs touch it. Almost bummed they didn't shut it down just to nip it in the bud.

Lesson learned: Next time split it up and remove the pieces, lol.

M Sprague wrote:Lesson learned: Next time split it up and remove the pieces, lol

definitely, I have always wanted to included some sort of explosive into the quiver of climbing gear :)

Mike Brady wrote:I guess the park service has decided to move it back. Hopefully no more dumb-dumbs touch it. Almost bummed they didn't shut it down just to nip it in the bud.

Be pretty funny if someone falls and sues them for moving it back...

That would not surprise me in the least. It would go hand in hand with the mentality of moving it in the first place.

Actually if something is done anonymously the NPS would be protected from frivolous suits. That they intentionally and publicly move or will move it back makes them liable.

In my work with the Access Fund, it is often advocated that climbers replace hardware anonymously so as to reduce liability. If a particular organization replaces the gear they then become liable. And I would suspect the same rules would be at play here.