Mountain Project Logo

White Rastafarian’s fall zone boulder moved.

Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Tim Lutz wrote:So Mike, You would leave loose rock on a route as 'part of the experience'?
I have many times and it happens all the time. Have you not ever climbed past or on loose rock and left it in place?

We all have dealt with the dangers of climbing whether it's manky bolts, iffy pro, shitty rock, sun bleached tatter, run outs, bad landings..... The list goes on but thats the deal.
rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0

A fair number of generalizations exist in other comments that make the idea of moving the boulder seem trivial. WR is just past the east spur of hidden valley campground, requires more than one person to move it and most likely with with tools (crow bars, cumalongs). It's neither an easy endeavor nor a low profile one.

In the bigger picture, the question is about how much landscaping should occur for LZ's. If this boulder remains moved, I'd say landscaping will increase considerably. If the park service doesn't like landscaping, we all risk jeopardizing future bouldering in the park. LZ's have always been modified to some degree, but from my experience, it involves moving things that 1, or maybe 2, persons could roll or shove. Some boulders are shifted to be more flat, but in the end, it's pretty minimal.

Regardless if the park service is contacted (because they knew about it beforehand), their response or approach is immaterial. Why? Say they decide to leave it. Then climbers decide to move it back. Consequence? Probably nothing because the park service would't be worried about the initial move... a move that is technically illegal. I can't imagine they'd be peeved by it's return. And even if they are, so what?

If the park service condones the return then they support maintaining continuity with nature to the degree "excessive" landscaping isn't practiced, in other words, they are for preservation. If the park service wasn't contacted, and it was moved back, it's still the same story to them: they know it was moved and afterwards they would know it was moved back. The only thing contacting the park service does, is piss off those that don't want to work with the ps, and those that are anti-enforcement, but it's basically a symbolic measure that has become an ego topic for those that think it's just dumb. Dumb because.... By contacting the park service we are, in the words of RtM, “expressing our disapproval as well as offering our aid in the matter including possible solutions, we not only prove ourselves to be responsible participants, but we also engender their trust.”

I respectfully disagree with John Long in that this specific issue isn't what's at stake. If any problem gets post landscaped, it forces an onus on those that establish problems to decide to conform to others' demands for gym-styled landscaping or risk having their ascents modified afterwards. I agree with others that feel it's consistent with retrobolting proud lines. Bachar-Yerian would be fair game for many more bolts... etc... Bold will no longer be bold, regardless of the grade. For a v3 climber that sends WR, it's bold to that person and that IS what climbing is about for each and every person. If it's supposed to be the current standard then how does that current standard remain relevant as standards progress? They don't, of course, making the argument that it has to be hard to be justified irrelevant.

Climbing is heavily based on courage with a small dose of caution. Removing anything that makes a line courageous is pretty much against the point of bouldering tall or proud or dangerous lines. Remove the danger, remove the soul of that line, as I see it.

I personally feel the "right" thing to do is work within channels if there is indication that said channels maybe be open to working with climbers, specifically because the park service has serious say in what is climbable and what isn't. IF the park service wants to enforce their perimeter standards for anything near archeological sites we'd loose much more bouldering that what is currently off limits. Regardless of one's opinion, in the end, it's up to the ps to decide, and creating a negative or antagonistic atmosphere can't be conducive to our interests as boulderers.

The new superintendent has publicly indicated he wants to work with climbers and not do what his predecessors have done (park or monument). Is he genuine? No idea. But this incident seems to be a good opportunity for the ps to take a stance and either work with or against the climbing community. The hard truth of working with enforcement entities is the fallout that said actions could produce, but if we decide to ignore them and they get pissed off, they have far more control over our desire to climb then I personally care to see enforced. If I chose to assume they are bad, evil or otherwise the enemy, acting on my or our own is only going to enforce that construct, a construct of our minds based on past events. That's a choice every person has to make: ignore the past if indicators seem there is a better way, or perpetuate the past and maintain our guard and belligerence towards the park service.

The reason I posted my words about my argument to the park service is that I wanted the facts of the interaction openly presented. I goal was to show my argument was about preservation. Safety is why there are gyms. If you think I do it because it's some social media masturbation thing, that's your choice. As of now the park service is unofficially on our side, but an official statement waits to be seen.

Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
M Sprague wrote:If looking for those things, wouldn't you go find a line of your own somewhere off the beaten track, not expect or demand it on a trade route? There is a thing called "reasonable"
This is how I filled 90% of my time in Josh but when I did go to do an established line I never thought to change it.

Just to give you some context as to where I am coming from I do not expect or demand anything and I am sure as hell not surprised that this happened. I in all honesty do not think it is truly that big of a deal(except for giving climbers a bad name in the eyes of the NPS, as Rob states they already knew about it), if you went and moved a boulder in the middle of the desert I wouldn't care. I just hate to see people take shortcuts on a path that can be very fruitful. Without walking the full path this kind of behavior leads to much more destructive habits.
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Tim Lutz wrote: Do you climb with a pad, and if so, how many? the 'deal' for me is to climb with as many pads as possible to make as safe as possible and climb again tomorrow. Maybe 'the deal' for you, since you are such a tough guy, would be to climb padless, the way problems like WR where put up.
I'm actually quite sensitive and sentimental, I don't think I can watch the Lion King without crying...seriously. Never meant to put on a front of "toughness" and anyone that knows me would laugh at that statement.

I do climb with a pad, one if I am climbing alone, two or three if I am climbing with two or three people and unless I have had a few beers I am pretty into being low key, so when I climb (sober) I usually have 1-3 pads. Climbing over a foam pit is just not how I approach bouldering. But hey...I like having worthwhile experiences and while climbing IS fun it is also much more.
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Tim Lutz wrote:I see it as my responsibility to minimize the danger of loose rock for climber and belayer.
As someone who has developed extensively and cleaned thousands of thousands of pounds of rock off cliffs and boulders in CT, I couldn't agree more.

The comparisons you guys are bringing up are ludicrous. Altering a route vs moving a rock in a landing area are vastly different things. And the comparisons makes me feel like i'm talking to folks who just stepped out of a gym.
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Morgan Patterson wrote: As someone who has developed extensively and cleaned thousands of thousands of pounds of rock off cliffs and boulders in CT, I couldn't agree more. The comparisons you guys are bringing up are ludicrous. Altering a route vs moving a rock in a landing area are vastly different things. And the comparisons makes me feel like i'm talking to folks who just stepped out of a gym.
Making comparisons between developing bouldering areas vs. routes is a bit of a stretch as well. Bouldering in Josh offers a chance to approach things from the ground up without needing to clear tons of moss,dirt, or loose rock off, there will be 1.5 tons of grain though :).

How did you know, I just cancelled my gym membership and bought a pad. I'm gonna take my boombox and be a real boulderer now!
Tug · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 0

Climbing's not dead it just deserves to die.

Johnny Victor · · Joshua Tree · Joined May 2014 · Points: 2

RTM nails it. The rules in a National Park are different.

"Moving a massive boulder in a National Park, laying beneath one of the most iconic rock climbs on the planet, is absolutely unacceptable!"

M Sprague · · New England · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 5,090

You call that a "massive" boulder? Lynn Hill could probably pick that up and caber toss it herself

Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316

I don't know if massive is the right word but the thing is hefty. Probably around 400-500 lbs.

I can see it now, in another page we will be arguing about what constitutes a massive boulder and when a line becomes a highball :)

Adam Stackhouse · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 13,970
rob mulligan wrote: Remove the danger, remove the soul of that line, as I see it.
That boulder definitely made me think twice before even getting on the thing. It wasn't until much later that I was much stronger that my skill overcame my fear and was able to climb it. I hate shitty landings as much as the next guy or gal, but sometimes we've got to respect the heritage of some climbs.
BigA · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 0

I think a big underlying issue no one has touched on yet is respect, or lack thereof. Whether or not you agree that the boulder should be there it's how the problem was climbed for the last thousand ascents. Now someone disrespected future climbers' privilege of being able to experience that line in a similar manner that ppl did 41 years ago.

And yes, pads and other modern gear take that away too. But at the end of the day you take that home with you and someone still could come experience WR in its padless glory.

Maybe it's a lack of history thing? I know if I knew that a problem had been climbed on for 41 years, I would hesitate to alter it or its surroundings.
New line different story, and that's where Morgan and mark' arguments don't match up. They are speaking of the experience of putting up new routes

Murf · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2002 · Points: 2,154

Too many people look to justify their own actions by aligning them with others they perceive as similar.

Josh hosts multitudes of climbers of all types. Bouldering has surged, and the impacts have been seen by the park service and others. It is a National Park and as such, is a type of closed system.

Lets say you walked deep into the Mojave and found the identical problem. You then cleaned the base, raked it and made it smooth as silk and sent the problem. I supposed that is your choice and in the grand scheme of things not earth shattering.

But this problem, in this place, with its history, such modifications are a real problem. A minute minority of climbers in Joshua Tree continue to express their selfishness creating situations like these that impact access in the park.

If you haven't had to deal with these types of issue in your own climbing and climbing areas, you are lucky.

If you want to attack the local stewards by impugning their bouldering bonifides, whether how hard they climb or how many FA's, that lacks substance. They are stewards because they are active and care about access locally (as well as nationally I suspect ). Although as an aside, all those that have posted have impressive resumes in both categories.

In the end, we can do nothing but express our own opinions and perform our own actions.

If another person is needed to put things back to the way it was, I'm willing to help.

Murf

Tony Yeary · · Arcadia, Califoria · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 730

I kinda agree with John, however, my concern is , that if nothing is said, it puts us on a slippery slope. Will we soon be saying it's OK to remove an offending boulder whenever we want? How about a dead Yucca, or a live Yucca? Where does it end? I bet the NPS will have something to say. In my opinion, it puts climbers in a bad light. This should not be ignored nor blown out of proportion, but mitigated and discouraged. My two cents.
Tony Yeary

Brian Prince · · reno · Joined Mar 2010 · Points: 2,727

Access and slippery slope aside, I think White Rastafarian is a particularly interesting case as it is just the one boulder on an otherwise perfectly flat and sandy landing. I'm personally surprised it took so long for someone to move it.

Nick Votto · · CO, CT, IT · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 320
Jonathan Cunha wrote:John Long's comment should pretty much end this thread..but it won't.
Fully agree, argument over after that
D. Evans · · Tustin, California · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 215

John Long is not god.

rob mulligan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 0
M Sprague wrote:You call that a "massive" boulder? Lynn Hill could probably pick that up and caber toss it herself
Clearly your sarcasm is stupid. 3000 miles apparently is dumbing down your sensibilities. Massive is relative. It's obviously not as big as the boulder one is climbing on and not as small that someone could "caber toss" it.

Here is a comment made on my blog post from someone that can truly appreciate the original position of the boulder:

"For what it’s worth, coming from someone who fell from around the crux and landed straight leg on the “skull cracker”, suffering a horrendous open fracture/dusted ankle- In my humble opinion the boulder should clearly NOT have been moved. To state the obvious, we as climbers accept (and if not-should) the risks inherent to climbing outside. Especially highballing. I for one cannot wait for my opportunity to return to WR for a proper send- and it would be great to find the problem, and all its elements, in its original state." --Camel Fathoms

I wish him the best of success.
ze dirtbag · · Tahoe · Joined Jun 2012 · Points: 50

Final Solution: Move the boulder back and have the infamous Ivan Greene take a break from the Gunks and come chip that bad boy down a bit

goatboy · · Nederland, CO · Joined Jan 2008 · Points: 30
RTM wrote:Man, are you people for real? Moving a massive boulder in a National Park, laying beneath one of the most iconic rock climbs on the planet, is absolutely unacceptable! White Rastafarian was FA'd approximately 40 years ago by Stonemaster John Long, it has since seen ten of thousands of ascents, possibly hundreds of thousands. This goes well beyond just moving "A" rock. It exposes a serious emerging flaw within the new rock climbing demograph - a complete lack of knowledge or awareness of ethics and climbing etiquette. People are being introduced to climbing in climbing gyms, in drogues, without any mentors or experienced climbers to teach them ethics or appropriate behavior at the crags. The only recourse we climbers have to protect our climbs and also our freedoms is to weed out these poseurs and to expose them and their ignorant actions for all the world to see. Turning the other cheek, or expecting the climbing community to handle it "inhouse" is a complete copout!
Uh, it's a V0 boulder climb.
Your grasp of "the most iconic rock climbs on the planet" is a bit weak.
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.