Doggie Deviations 5.9
| 1,450 page views Good page? (1 like)  |
| Type: | Trad, 95 feet |
| Consensus: | 5.9 [details] |
| FA: | Kim Schmitz & Jim Bridwell, 1968 |
| Submitted By: | Sirius on Apr 22, 2007 |
| |
Chuck leading the flake variation 5 feet right of ...
Add Photo Printer View
Fifi Buttress To Close! MORE INFO >>>
The following areas are closed to all visitor use to protect peregrine falcon aeries from March 1 until August 1 of each year or until the young falcons of the current year have fledged: Fifi Buttress Immediately west of Leaning Tower. Closure includes all routes on Fifi Buttress.
This information is a public crowdsourcing effort between the Access Fund,
and Mountain Project. You should confirm closures, restrictions, and/or related dates.
|
|
Keeping climbing areas open and conserving the climbing environment
|
|
Description A good pitch which is in your face right off the ground. Fingers, tight hands, hands, liebacks, body language all required at some point. Crux is low, but the entire first half of the route is sustained at the grade. A proud send, put up by two collosal figures in Yosemite's golden age, when 5.9 was a whole different concept. A variation, also 5.9, takes the thin flake right of the crack. Not sure about quality of pro in this flake.
Location From the boulder field, keep your eyes open for the two obvious, short widecracks, Doggie Do and Doggie Diversions. Doggie Deviations, your climb, is just uphill from these. Fingers to tight-hands off the deck, can't miss it. We were able to rap with one 60, but it was close.
Protection To 2.5"
Pulling the crux early on, merely 10 feet off the ...
| | |
| Comments on Doggie Deviations |
|
By Rodger Raubach Mar 13, 2012
| My GF and I made an attempt on this back in 1982. She led the thin flake portion nicely, and the pro was reasonable using some small wired stoppers and quick-draws. I continued on up a slick lieback above and took a short whipper. She insisted that we go down at that point, since she got jarred catching me. But to answer the implied question, re: protection of the thin flake, it was adequate--probably as good as the flake itself. |
|