White Rastafarian’s fall zone boulder moved.

goatboy wrote: Uh, it's a V0 boulder climb. Your grasp of "the most iconic rock climbs on the planet" is a bit weak.

Yessssssssss, goatboy.

Tell us all about it.

BigA wrote: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

I am certainly not deaf to those arguments and would take them into consideration if I were dealing with a similar situation. I wonder how many who climbed on the route over the 41 years wished they could have moved the rock, only didn't have the knowledge or ability to do so. I am thinking that probably less romanticize risking smashing themselves then you are thinking, though it is clearly a part of climbing for some.

rob mulligan wrote: Clearly your sarcasm is stupid. 3000 miles apparently is dumbing down your sensibilities. Massive is relative...

I was obviously kidding around. I would guesstimate from moving plenty of rocks that it is at least 1000 lbs. I also didn't say anybody could caber toss it, but Lynn Hill ;)

goatboy wrote: Uh, it's a V0 boulder climb. Your grasp of "the most iconic rock climbs on the planet" is a bit weak.

I don't know if I would call it V0 and I don't think Robert was calling is THEE most iconic, I think his words were "one of" which I don't find to be completely off base, of course this is not quantifiable as it is purely subjective.

I also don't see your point about the difficulty factoring into it's iconic status. As an example take Jedi Mind Trick or the SW Arete in Bishop, v3 and 5.9, both are in my opinion very iconic, with the 5.9 probably trumping the former.

To leave the tangent and bring this more closely to the original idea, Jedi has a flake up top that flexes when pulled on, eventually it will pop, should we just go pry it off. That would be the safest thing to do.

Why not just leave the "massive" boulder where it is now, and turn it into a new problem like the ultra classic Little Devil? You can thank me for the idea if one of you gets FA.

Little devil

Are you bouldering to enjoy the climbing? Or because you enjoy falling on rocks? If falling on rocks is the ultimate goal for your experience, there are faster and surer ways to do that. If your doing it for the climbing, who cares about whats on the ground (unless you fall on it).

goatboy wrote: Uh, it's a V0 boulder climb. Your grasp of "the most iconic rock climbs on the planet" is a bit weak.

Dude, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Tronald Dump wrote:Are you bouldering to enjoy the climbing? Or because you enjoy falling on rocks? If falling on rocks is the ultimate goal for your experience, there are faster and surer ways to do that. If your doing it for the climbing, who cares about whats on the ground (unless you fall on it).

Boulder to climb, but accept the objective hazards that climbing offers. It's kinda a mountain climbing thing, so don't work up your neurons too hard in trying to figure it out.

In the context of cleaning up a landing area - its a mother F$%#ng honkin-ass boulder ok!

Easily 1000lb, probably more.

Alerting NPS of climbers doing stupid things- does only one thing: it makes climbers look bad. Regardless of whether they said they were aware or not, what makes you think it is your responsibility to do so. Are you going to start alerting them when people set up dangerous top ropes too?

Tim Lutz wrote: Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]

I choked on my coffee a bit. That was hilarious. Hat's off to you.

This thread is hilarious, in the worst way possible.

Self absorbed morons. You folks need more to do in life if you are really spending your life comparing before and after photos and determining position of rocks.

I was walking in the woods the other day and stepped on a stick, it broke. I hope no one has a "before" photo of the stick. Wait, I hope no boulderers have a before photo.

rob mulligan wrote: Dude, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Nope.
Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Alabama all have more aesthetic boulders at this grade then JT and what WR represents. Just my opinion. If you need to put WR on a pedestal that's your right but more traveled climbers will probable just chuckle,and shake their heads.

SDY wrote: I choked on my coffee a bit. That was hilarious. Hat's off to you. This thread is hilarious, in the worst way possible. Self absorbed morons. You folks need more to do in life if you are really spending your life comparing before and after photos and determining position of rocks. I was walking in the woods the other day and stepped on a stick, it broke. I hope no one has a "before" photo of the stick. Wait, I hope no boulderers have a before photo.

I think this is a little different than being out in the woods. The thing is sitting in a very well traveled area in a very popular National Park.

goatboy wrote: Nope. Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Alabama all have more aesthetic boulders at this grade then JT and what WR represents. Just my opinion. If you need to put WR on a pedestal that's your right but more traveled climbers will probable just chuckle,and shake their heads.

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.

Tim Lutz wrote: Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]

I've heard of stretching shit... but this is giving new meaning to meaningless. Thanks for giving SDY a hardon.

The arguments here remind me of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" where Pirsig discusses "romantic" vs. "classical" understanding. Romantic is riding a curve on a highway and knowing how to do so, classical is understanding how the bike operates.

The debate about preserving old aesthetics and the danger being part of the climb fall into romantic categories. Something like this becomes deeply polarizing and is a no-win for either side, mainly because both sides, given these parameters, end up making equal sense. One wants to preserve a culture and mindset, the other sees no reason why a dangerous sport should be made any more dangerous. Romantic, therefore subjective, and thus an endless circle.

Some notes regarding more classical, or objective, lines of thought:

-This line was graded a V2 R. The "R" denotes a heightened degree of danger and in removing an obstacle that gave it an R, one is effectively altering the grade. If someone chipped a positive slot in the face to assist with the crux, making it a V0, this would basically be the same thing. Altering any part of a climb to change the grade is objectively fucked up.

-Joshua Tree is a national park and altering the landscape is illegal. People who moved the boulder broke the law. That is objectively not a positive move.

-There are places that can be landscaped for landings, but national parks are not among them. Legal or otherwise, the point of a national park is that is kind of like a natural museum. Making dramatic changes to it are reserved for people who are appointed to do so by an organization called the Park Service. It's not an amateur's job or right to make critical changes, however small they may appear to be, to an area of the park. That is not objectively debatable.

-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."

In conclusion, moving the rock is the wrong thing to do.

First we need to determine if the rock moved itself or if someone moved the rock. Rocks have been known to move themselves. To whit the "Race Track" at near by Death Valley and the sliding stones. Perhaps the JT rocks wanted to studied like those at Death Valley have been and have started to move. Have there been any other reports of moving rocks around JT?

Rocks have even been known to move spontaneously. Perhaps the rock was tired of poser climbers falling on it. Though short in geological terms that after nearly 40 years the rock decided that enough was enough so that after each fall the rock used the poser's energy to move it just a bit. After all this did occur around T-Day when the number of posers would have been at the their peak. So while no one noticed the small changes those who not had been there in a while would obviously notice.

I definitely think it was wise to alert the NPS over this incident. A mass movement may be in progress. JT could change. Leave no stone unturned I say, search them out. Find out their moving motivation. Perhaps the White Rastafarian’s incident is just the start to a mass stoning of poser stone masters. Be careful out there - don't take that rock for granite.

Lots of big words in Cliff Clap's post. Too bad they employ a straw man. While both the difficulty and danger rating are grading methods, saying chipping to decrease the difficulty grade is effectively he same as changing the danger rating is using a straw man. Changing the difficulty rating by chipping is making the climb easier. I think most people would agree easier and harder climbs are not inherently better or worse (and if people do feel grade causes merit, usually the harder grade receives more merit as the difficulty causes a feeling of accomplishment). And to make the grade easier by permanently altering the rock is therefore bad because the climb is not significantly better or worse but it is now permanently altered. However to say that a more dangerous climb is better is quite a different statement and really what everyone is talking about. Personally I enjoy climbing for the climbing and not so much for the danger. Can danger be exciting? Yes. But I prefer not because I can use my superego and realize that the minor enjoyment of succeeding despite danger is not worth the risk of becoming brain dead or dead or permanently injured and unable to climb.

And as far as the law goes, some laws are meant to be broken in some cases. There are many cases of the park service turning a blind eye when they know a law is better off broken. In fact in some cases the park service by me will remove hazards of their own accord. In this case the law is to prevent vandalism and similar damaging alterations. Is the ecosystem any different now that the boulder is moved a few feet? No. Does the park service wish they didn't have to deal with hearing about this? Probably.

In any case there is quite a precedent of a FA permitting lowering of danger rating. Park service is known to permit things like the FA removing a sapling that will eventually grow to produce a hazard to safety. Or an FA may allow bolts to be added to better protect a dangerous climb. Moving of this boulder is even less damaging than bolts. People should respect John Long's feelings on the matter.

Pontoon wrote:Lots of big words in Cliff Clap's post. Too bad they employ a straw man. While both the difficulty and danger rating are grading methods, saying chipping to decrease the difficulty grade is effectively he same as changing the danger rating is using a straw man. Changing the difficulty rating by chipping is making the climb easier. I think most people would agree easier and harder climbs are not inherently better or worse (and if people do feel grade causes merit, usually the harder grade receives more merit as the difficulty causes a feeling of accomplishment). And to make the grade easier by permanently altering the rock is therefore bad because the climb is not significantly better or worse but it is now permanently altered. However to say that a more dangerous climb is better is quite a different statement and really what everyone is talking about. Personally I enjoy climbing for the climbing and not so much for the danger. Can danger be exciting? Yes. But I prefer not because I can use my superego and realize that the minor enjoyment of succeeding despite danger is not worth the risk of becoming brain dead or dead or permanently injured and unable to climb.

Moving the boulder seems far more comparable to adding a bolt to a long-standing run-out than it does to chipping a hold. If we feel that adding bolts to an established roped climb "dumbs down" (a term I've seen here and in other forums) the route, the making the LZ safer for a well established boulder problem is the same dumbing down.

Glad to see that this has returned to a discussion. Thank you to clif, allen and pontoon. Somewhat opposing viewpoints but displayed with civility.

I like the idea of the boulder moving itself, maybe in another forty years enough positive energy will move it back :)