Fatal accident in Jtree.

Sarah and I wish to extend our sincere sadness and condolences to Tina's family and friends. 

Joshua Tree is a climbing area with perhaps 10,000+ climbs (many fairly obscure, remote and/or infrequently climbed), scattered across hundreds of square miles, much in designated wilderness. As a result, many fixed anchors or rappel set ups may be aged, dangerous, less than ideal, and may not have been maintained in years or decades. 

While many individuals have worked tirelessly to upgrade fixed anchors, it is a huge task and the focus has been first on popular and heavily used routes. This crag is pretty obscure in a fairly less visited area.

Those who suggest that there was some basic failure by the local climbing community, at best, appear to speak without actual knowledge.

The best we can do is extend our sympathy with the understanding that, but for the grace of God, it could have been any of us.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Brad. Soft goods  have  zero  place  in a bolted anchor.  Anyone who advocates the  use of sling or  cord as part ofa bolted anchor is  incompetent and has  no  business  installing fixed anchors. 

So, if one comes upon a two-bolt rappel anchor with old tat, and one doesn't have chain with which to "fix it" right then, soft goods have no place? One should not then leave new webbing to back up old tat with an unknown history?

I'd bet that I've placed as much high quality chain on anchors as your body weighs. But to not use new webbing in such a situation because it has "zero place?" Use your brain, it's your most critical safety device (and yes, I've done exactly what she did and been luckier - but your original comment stated that there were "two" choices where in fact there were at least three).

There’s a clear difference between old anchors with tat that people just haven’t gotten around to upgrading with chains/rings, and routes with anchors where the upgraded Chain/rings aren’t tolerated. The former is just part of the game and we have to deal accordingly. But there are plenty of places where we deal with tat on anchors because we know that upgrading them is futile and some asshat will come along and chop to keep the status quo. Of course it makes sense to put new webbing on these crap anchors either way, but it sure would be nice if it weren't that way because of the latter reason. Old routes where we didn’t know any better are one thing. Continuing to force routes to remain in this style, or worse yet, putting them up that way, just makes no sense most of the time.

Jay Crew wrote:

I think the disappearance of your gear may be more a case of one man's madness than an old school mindset., I believe Tina and crew were on lesser-traveled routes

If it was only a single case I’d generally agree, but this has happened in the main park and Indian Cove in multiple places with mussies/permas I’ve added on bare bolts or rap chains that were worn down. Same goes for others who have installed lowering hardware such as on Banana Cracks, King Otto’s, (the list goes on in countless areas...) that have been chopped. We still have some motivated old school ethic policers in Josh and at this point I personally think it’s a detriment.

Either way, I think the majority agrees that in the end, the climber is responsible for inspecting tat and understanding how to get down and when to leave gear, etc. 

But even as someone who embraces much of the old school ethics, free solos, etc. - ie: I'm not obscenely risk adverse -I do think updating hardware and making descents safer/easier, in general, in a place as busy as Josh, makes a lot of sense.

In the end, a tragic, preventable accident and my thoughts go out to those affected. Rest well, Tina. 

csproul wrote:

There’s a clear difference between old anchors with tat that people just haven’t gotten around to upgrading with chains/rings, and routes with anchors where the upgraded Chain/rings aren’t tolerated. The former is just part of the game and we have to deal accordingly. But there are plenty of places where we deal with tat on anchors because we know that upgrading them is futile and some asshat will come along and chop to keep the status quo. Of course it makes sense to put new webbing on these crap anchors either way, but it sure would be nice if it weren't that way because of the latter reason. Old routes where we didn’t know any better are one thing. Continuing to force routes to remain in this style, or worse yet, putting them up that way, just makes no sense most of the time.

Exactly.

Brad Young wrote:

So, if one comes upon a two-bolt rappel anchor with old tat, and one doesn't have chain with which to "fix it" right then, soft goods have no place? One should not then leave new webbing to back up old tat with an unknown history?

I'd bet that I've placed as much high quality chain on anchors as your body weighs. But to not use new webbing in such a situation because it has "zero place?" Use your brain, it's your most critical safety device (and yes, I've done exactly what she did and been luckier - but your original comment stated that there were "two" choices where in fact there were at least three).

Nick is talking about route development choices, not the climber’s choices. What I think Nick is trying to say is that to choose to develop routes in this day/age, purposely forcing to use either soft goods (new or tat) or a 5.5 downclimb is unacceptable. In the context of cragging, I largely agree. 

I've been to J Tree several times for 6 or 7 days at a time. I get the charm and appeal of J Tree routes that are often only 60-90 feet tall yet require you to scramble on top of the route once the actual climbing is over and then build your own anchor, find the walk off, then perform the often sketchy walk off. In a way it's cool to have a short single pitch feel like an adventure. 

But given the number of deaths due to anchor failures and walk-off falls, is there a compelling reason why j tree climbs can't simply have bolted anchors where the vertical/harder part of the route ends, and before the scramble to the true summit?? There are bolts and bolted anchors all over J Tree, so there can't possibly be a ban on bolts, so why can't single pitch routes end a bit sooner at dedicated anchors? (True believers can skip the anchors, of course)

If the true summit is in many cases only like 70-80 feet up it doesn't seem like a huge loss to put an anchor at the 60-70 foot mark before the easy scramble to sling a block. Or, we can keep on accepting unnecessary deaths due to tat failure on obscure routes because most people don't start up single pitch routes with new webbing on their harness just in case the anchor is nothing but old tat.

I appreciate everyone's feelings about the current anchor situation in Joshua Tree.

Tina was skilled and knew better, and made an error in judgement. While I'm definitely of the mind that Joshua Tree has many issues in regards to fixed protection, Tina was an alpinist and trad climber and was often in terrain much more tenuous than can be found in sheeps pass. Until we can make every anchor foolproof, it's a healthy reminder of the ever-changing environment of outdoor rock climbing and the vast variables found therein.

bryans wrote:

, is there a compelling reason why j tree climbs can't simply have bolted anchors where the vertical/harder part of the route ends, and before the low angle scramble to the true summit??

It's akin to the classic political philosophy dilemma of liberty/autonomy vs. security. We can enact legislation that will ostensibly keep people more secure (Patriot Act, anyone?) but at the expense of personal freedom. That analogy may not be quite salient here but it makes sense to me.

It's generally understood that J-Tree is not a sport climbing crag. Anchor inspection and the willingness to replace tat is prerequisite to trad climbing anywhere.

With that said, new routes need to have modern hardware, and anyone who objects to replacing existing old tat anchors with modern hardware is anathema.

Condolences to her family and friends. Please stay vigilant out there, everyone.

F r i t z wrote:

It's akin to the classic political philosophy dilemma of liberty/autonomy vs. security. We can enact legislation that will ostensibly keep people more secure (Patriot Act, anyone?) but at the expense of personal freedom. That analogy may not be quite salient here but it makes sense to me.

It's generally understood that J-Tree is not a sport climbing crag. Anchor inspection and the willingness to replace tat is prerequisite to trad climbing anywhere.

With that said, new routes need to have modern hardware, and anyone who objects to replacing existing old tat anchors with modern hardware is anathema.

Condolences to her family and friends. Please stay vigilant out there, everyone.

Hi Fritz. I like your posts in general. And I generally knee-jerk react on the side of "we have the right to die if we want to, not all routes need to be safe, personal responsibility can't be abdicated, etc."

But please tell me, when you reflect for a moment, what liberty and autonomy someone sacrifices when they clip a 2 bolt anchor and lower or rap off, instead of building an anchor and walking off? (Which you have done I'm sure thousands of times before, likely in J Tree as well)

I'm not suggesting there be a rule/statute/law in place, just the local community putting legit anchors on some of the older routes, one by one. Seems the least that can be done.

bryans wrote:

I'm not suggesting there be a rule/statute/law in place, just the local community putting legit anchors on some of the older routes, one by one. Seems the least that can be done.

You can. Anybody there that day could have. Nobody is stopping you. The route already has anchor bolts, you could go there today and put 2 quicklinks on each bolt. Maybe they'll stay, maybe they'll go, but they'll probably stay given the obscurity of the place. I carry quicklinks and extra webbing/cord in my pack (and as my chalkbag belt) for this exact purpose. 

This general expectation that the "local organizations" or governmental agencies are responsible for our safety is problematic if we want to be free to climb as we have in the past. I'm always happy when the ASCA or other organization fixes anchors, but to expect or rely on it is another story. 

bryans wrote:

But please tell me, when you reflect for a moment, what liberty and autonomy someone sacrifices when they clip a 2 bolt anchor and lower or rap off, instead of building an anchor and walking off? (Which you have done I'm sure thousands of times before, likely in J Tree as well)

If it's an exact anchor replacement, as in dropping some hardware at the spot where you would normally build and then walk off? I have no problem with that. Problem is, those spots aren't generally the most conducive to lowering or rapping.

It sounded to me like you were advocating for adding lowering anchors far below those spots, which would totally change the character of the line, not to mention the visual effects. That's what I would have more of a problem with. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

Perhaps this is a slippery slope analogy, but it's like adding 60m lowering anchors to a route that's meant for a 70m or two ropes in the Creek, which I'm also against.

Seems like the most efficient and long-lasting impact would be educating future Josh climbers on inspecting and beefing up anchors as necessary rather than adding an abundance of hardware in new locations.

And I reiterate, new development needs bomber modern gear. After a miscommunication near-miss in a riverside crag in SW Colorado, I bought steel lowering biners for the entire crag. Just for perspective -- I would like to think that I'm old school but within reason.

Marc, tat is totally  appropriate for  piton anchors, gear anchors and slung natural anchors.  If however you are equipping  bolts with  tat you should  forfeit your drill  and go sit in the corner. 

Tradiban wrote:

It was tat tied through two bolts with hangers, rap ring on the tat. 

thanks for the explanation, wasn't piecing it together for a proper mental picture. Also, Matt, thank you for chiming in despite the recency of her passing. From what i've seen, she'll clearly be remembered well. Hopefully her passing can be a wake-up/reminder to be uber vigilant about these sorts of anchors - I know I'm guilty of rapping off some sketchy stuff in my past. 

FWIW, this gave me the impetus to replace the tat anchor on a valley trade route b/c of this, even though I think it's bomber... 

Tat =question, stainless chain & rings = much less question (still should inspect both, of course).

requiescat in pace, Tina - sounds like you were one good egg, to understate it mildly.

F r i t z wrote:

If it's an exact anchor replacement, as in dropping some hardware at the spot where you would normally build and then walk off? I have no problem with that. Problem is, those spots aren't generally the most conducive to lowering or rapping.

It sounded to me like you were advocating for adding lowering anchors far below those spots, which would totally change the character of the line, not to mention the visual effects. That's what I would have more of a problem with. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

Perhaps this is a slippery slope analogy, but it's like adding 60m lowering anchors to a route that's meant for a 70m or two ropes in the Creek, which I'm also against.

Seems like the most efficient and long-lasting impact would be educating future Josh climbers on inspecting and beefing up anchors as necessary rather than adding an abundance of hardware in new locations.

I have a great memory of leading Hobbit Roof, then sitting next to my 3 cam anchor and watching my buddy fall a few times onto my anchor, feeling not surprised but weirdly pleased that my cams didn't budge a millimeter. I'm all for there being no anchors on historic and easy walkoffs, it's part of what makes j tree unique. I just don't see the value of having a tat only anchor that fails when a standard 2 bolt anchor would in this case have saved a life.  

I guess I am saying drop 2 bolts where the 5.9 turns to 5.2, even if that means a lower anchor below those trad anchor spots, and yes you'd see them from the road - just like you'd see the road, the sprinter vans, the hammocks, the tents, the hula hoops, the rest of it. I don't think the visual impact of 2 bolts are really the issue here, and I think you agree.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Marc, tat is totally  appropriate for  piton anchors, gear anchors and slung natural anchors.  If however you are equipping  bolts with  tat you should  forfeit your drill  and go sit in the corner. 

Joshua Tree has a long history of topping out, bringing your partner up, and walking off (sometimes 4th/low 5th class). Sometimes bolts are there only because no other gear is available. It's very likely that the tat was never meant to be there by whoever put the route up, and was just added for the convenience of some prior party. Just because you find some tat (or a cairn or bolts for that matter) doesn't mean it's the best way down. 

Tat is often found on anchors not commonly used as descents. When rapping multi pitch we see em all the time. Doesn’t mean it was equipped with them, or that it is a standard descent - though it may be. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Marc, tat is totally  appropriate for  piton anchors, gear anchors and slung natural anchors.  If however you are equipping  bolts with  tat you should  forfeit your drill  and go sit in the corner. 

That’s great. But I think you entirely missed the point of what Brad was saying. I think he was saying that if you come to a sketchy tat anchor, a possible short-term solution is to replace the tat with some cordalette or sling from your personal kit.

Dave Kosmal wrote:

Wrong. There is no blame, and you are doing a disservice to community by making baseless accusations. Your post is ridiculously misinformed, and it is troubling that so many have chosen to “like” it.

It appears that you and several others here do not understand how LCCs work. Do you really think there is anyone to fire, or that there is a waitlist standing by to replace LCC “employees”?

The Local Climbing Coalition in Joshua tree is a group of volunteers that works tirelessly with limited resources to help maintain the thousands of routes in the park. No one gets paid and there is no one to fire. They do what they can to replace old hardware but do not guarantee that every route in the park has fixed gear to support a safe or convenient descent. There is no organization with that responsibility.

There is no evidence that any LCC, or anyone at all, was negligent in any way. There are no reports of hardware being removed.

The firsthand report that we do have is that the climber trusted a piece of equipment that failed due to age. This equipment was never intended to be permanent. It is and always will be the climber’s responsibility to assess the equipment they use.

Anyone that climbs in Joshua Tree should be grateful for the work done by the LCC. We are all much safer because of the volunteer work that they do. But ultimately no organization can ensure absolute safety.

Condolences to the family and friends of Tina. I never met her, but she was well-known in the community as wonderful person. This is a tragic loss but there is no one to blame.

The point of my post was that the powers that be have allowed vandalism and thievery of hardware, and this has led to it being common place for riff raff to steal components of the fixed gear.... which in turn creates fear of leaving anything worth being stolen, making it common place for a new router to leave soft goods instead of proper gear.

And yes, there are tons of people to blame, besides the party itself, you can blame the person who installed the bolts originally, if they didn't leave quicklinks on the hangers. If there were links originally, then you can blame the thief that stole them after the fact, and in general, you can blame the community for allowing old knuckle heads who haven't gotten the message that their single pitch sport area is far worse off after tampering with the anchors and stealing components necessary for a solid, safe, long term installation. Theres so many to blame, which makes this epically tragic, and those who wield even a tiny bit of power there should have never allowed the removal of any components of fixed hardware in any part of the park.

 Maybe this route never had links, so the original installer is partly to blame for this too. Generally, the LCC should take a public stance against tampering with any hardware on property, which they should have done years ago, and they should pursue charges against anyone who is caught, including Snyder. This game is too dangerous for people to mess with anchors that others will be counting on in the future. 

And to clarify, im not saying anyone is liable, all I'm getting at is the attitude of the climbers in the area is dictated by those in charge, and this is almost always a top down thing.

This is so heartbreaking.  

I will keep her in my heart on future climbs and I’ll be ever vigilant of old tat, whether in crags or in the alpine.

Can someone explain to me why someone would chop a mussy hook that someone installed to make lowering off a climb safer? Certainly there must be a well thought out logic behind that.

Is it one or two people? Or is there a large group of people?  

Are there people on this thread who make a habit of going around chopping mussy hooks? I’d love to hear your perspective and promise to be curious and non-judgmental. Probably best to have that conversation privately, so pleas PM me and let’s have a virtual beer. 

I’ve never climbed at J Tree so I truly don’t know and am open to hearing perspectives I might have never considered.