Rescue at CoR Saturday?

Saw life flight circling looking for a place to land. Heard from park rangers it was an accident on Parking lot rock involving a broken leg. Anyone in the vicinity saw what happened? I hope all is well and no other major injuries occured. Stay safe out there. 

Didn't see it but we were leaving right as emergency personell were arriving. A lady told us someone fell off rappel from about 30ft.

Assumed something related to rappelling or lowering, considering the long routes in the area and the severity of the injury. Tie off your ends. 

Best wishes to the climbers who were involved.

Hope all are well.  When 50 meter ropes were the standard, the City saw lots of rappelling and lowering accidents.  Probably 60m ropes still are close on a lot of routes. 

a 70 is worth the weight. my opinion.

I spoke with rangers about this one. If it was the same accident, it was on Delay of Game on Parking Lot Rock. Unsure whether it was rappelling or lowering, but it was apparently caused by
1) un-knotted rope end (s) and and either rappelling or lowering off end of rope
2) inadequate rope length for reaching the belay ledge
3) inattention or unawareness of this issue on this route.
 I have been told, but cannot confirm, that this is not the first such accident on this route. Even a 70 meter rope does not ensure a safe rappel/lower on this route if one does not know
the best way to reach “down climbable terrain.”
 The hordes of competent indoor, but inexperienced outdoor climbers now hitting the crags makes for interesting ethical issues, at least for me. Should we add an intermediate rappel
station on certain climbs, such as this one?
What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents and/or modifying a climb’s belay/descent options?

Peter Lenz wrote: I spoke with rangers about this one. If it was the same accident, it was on Delay of Game on Parking Lot Rock. Unsure whether it was rappelling or lowering, but it was apparently caused by
1) un-knotted rope end (s) and and either rappelling or lowering off end of rope
2) inadequate rope length for reaching the belay ledge
3) inattention or unawareness of this issue on this route.
 I have been told, but cannot confirm, that this is not the first such accident on this route. Even a 70 meter rope does not ensure a safe rappel/lower on this route if one does not know
the best way to reach “down climbable terrain.”
 The hordes of competent indoor, but inexperienced outdoor climbers now hitting the crags makes for interesting ethical issues, at least for me. Should we add an intermediate rappel
station on certain climbs, such as this one?
What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents and/or modifying a climb’s belay/descent options?

Sheesh. If you're going to climb at COR, buy Bingham's (excellent!) guidebook and READ the effing thing. If you are entirely illiterate, and/or too cheap to spend that small amount on your safety, and/or expect climbing to be "safe" in spite of every bit of equipment you are using AND perhaps a gym waiver saying otherwise, and /or too lazy? Stay home and knit. 

Best wishes for a speedy recovery to whomever parted ways with their rope, truly. Even experienced climbers can mess up something that simple. All of us need to remember that.

As to the "should we...." part, there is a small group that has worked very hard for years (decades, in some cases) to keep City going, including repeatedly negotiating the really complicated and ever changing access issues. This involves multiple land owners and stakeholders, not just climbers. We are all hugely in their debt.

Best, Helen

There is no moral or ethical dilemma Peter.  No, you cannot effect a perfect world.  In your attempt to do so, you will make outdoor climbing locations like the City resemble security check points at airports (or more than likely just be closed to climbing).  Trying to police climbing safety would be inefficient  at best and would not yield the quality of the experience most seek.  Humans die.  Humans get hurt. Riding skate boards, whatever.  The great idea about outdoor sports is that it is your own fault or your own decision/risk assessment that fails you outside of say trundling by someone not in your party.  You could bolt the entire wall if you want, but it won't bring you the result you are looking for.

That's a very hard no to rebolting the world so new climbers can forgo closing their system and only need a 60m rope for everything. Rope stretching pitches, needing 2 ropes to get down, and people going outside before their ready isn't a reason for more bolts, even if you can happen to get away with a 70m and shenanigans.

CoR is not a gym, has a rich history, and long mixed routes. It's not a place for people just transitioning outside, and it doesn't need to be made that. If you spend 15 minutes reading about the place you're going climbing, it's easy to tell at CoR you need a 70, AND you need to be on your toes about closing your system, that's good enough. 

That's a shame.  I can confirm that that's an awkward lower even with a 70--the belayer needs to walk up the slab a ways to get the climber into the chimney on the right, and then it's still a bit of a down climb (12-15 feet or so).  I even end up wedging myself into the back of the chimney and untying to get down the rest of the way and free up the belayer.  An intermediate rappel station could work, but it would also slow down all the traffic a bit, and that's a rather popular route.  Some people bring a second rope for the rap; that clearly makes it easier to deal with.  The route description page seems to recommend two ropes or an 80, perhaps that could be emphasized more?  If you try it with a 70, you definitely need a knot in the end and to be smart about it, otherwise you will get either stuck or injured.  

Peter Lenz wrote: I spoke with rangers about this one. If it was the same accident, it was on Delay of Game on Parking Lot Rock. Unsure whether it was rappelling or lowering, but it was apparently caused by
1) un-knotted rope end (s) and and either rappelling or lowering off end of rope
2) inadequate rope length for reaching the belay ledge
3) inattention or unawareness of this issue on this route.
 I have been told, but cannot confirm, that this is not the first such accident on this route. Even a 70 meter rope does not ensure a safe rappel/lower on this route if one does not know
the best way to reach “down climbable terrain.”
 The hordes of competent indoor, but inexperienced outdoor climbers now hitting the crags makes for interesting ethical issues, at least for me. Should we add an intermediate rappel
station on certain climbs, such as this one?
What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents and/or modifying a climb’s belay/descent options?

Maybe the issue is that climbers are unable to convert 160 feet into meters and multiply by two? If the issue is gym climbers going to crags and not tying knots at the end of the rope, adding intermediate anchors won't solve the problem for said climbers. This might be an easy solution for people that know how to transitions from on rap to another, but for a gym climber that cannot understand the length of the route and the equipment needed for such routes, adding another step (rappel station in this case) will not solve the problem.

No need for condescension. I am not suggesting any “fix,” at all, nor any particular course of action. Please read my last sentence carefully. It is not a suggested course of action; it is a question.
 The question I posed is, “ What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents...”
 If you think that repeated accidents and evacuations (in a small park with a limited budget and limited rescue personnel) never threaten access, you are naive. We are about to see a tidal wave of inexperienced climbers hitting the crags. 
The implications are as yet unknown, but we need to start thinking about them.

We made great use of a Beal Escaper last week at the Comp Rock East (Continental Crust) at the City. As with any new gadget, practice with it first, back up everyone but the last person and tug, tug, tug away.

Old lady H wrote:

Sheesh. If you're going to climb at COR, buy Bingham's (excellent!) guidebook and READ the effing thing. If you are entirely illiterate, and/or too cheap to spend that small amount on your safety, and/or expect climbing to be "safe" in spite of every bit of equipment you are using AND perhaps a gym waiver saying otherwise, and /or too lazy? Stay home and knit. 

Best wishes for a speedy recovery to whomever parted ways with their rope, truly. Even experienced climbers can mess up something that simple. All of us need to remember that.

As to the "should we...." part, there is a small group that has worked very hard for years (decades, in some cases) to keep City going, including repeatedly negotiating the really complicated and ever changing access issues. This involves multiple land owners and stakeholders, not just climbers. We are all hugely in their debt.

Best, Helen

Damn Helen, waking up with the fire in the belly this morning. 

Peter Lenz wrote: No need to get your knickers in a twist. No need for condescension. I am not suggesting any “fix,” at all, nor any particular course of action. Please read my last sentence carefully. It is not a suggested course of action; it is a question.
 The question I posed is, “ What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents...”
 If you think that repeated accidents and evacuations (in a small park with a limited budget and limited rescue personnel) never threaten access, you are naive. We are about to see a tidal wave of inexperienced climbers hitting the crags. 
The implications are as yet unknown, but we need to start thinking about them. By the way, I have been climbing safely at the City of Rocks since 1986, and have never placed a single bolt anywhere in Idaho.  I have no plans to change that.

I apologize Peter, I got carried away with my own opinion and forgot to answer your question (rapping off the ends of the rope is a soft spot for me as I have lost a friend this way). But yes, I agree that an increase in accidents that can be prevented by knowledge of the area (route lengths, descent/gear/rounout beta, etc) will affect climbing access in the future. I for sure would not want people to get hurt within my property, even if I give them access to recreate in my property. Your question is something that I would rather discuss in person during an approach to a climb or after a climb, instead of here hijacking this thread. I'm not much of a computer person and would rather have an open discussions in person (I'm just on MP during downtimes at work).

Peter Lenz wrote: No need to get your knickers in a twist. No need for condescension. I am not suggesting any “fix,” at all, nor any particular course of action. Please read my last sentence carefully. It is not a suggested course of action; it is a question.
 The question I posed is, “ What are the access and ethical implications of repeated lowering/rappelling accidents...”
 If you think that repeated accidents and evacuations (in a small park with a limited budget and limited rescue personnel) never threaten access, you are naive. We are about to see a tidal wave of inexperienced climbers hitting the crags. 
The implications are as yet unknown, but we need to start thinking about them. By the way, I have been climbing safely at the City of Rocks since 1986, and have never placed a single bolt anywhere in Idaho.  I have no plans to change that.

No condescension meant on my part. You highlight in this post, what I was highlighting in mine. If you go to City, you need to do your homework. I climb at an area that is also "old school" and learned from almost day one that "easy" and "suitable for beginners" are not synonymous. I agree the implications will only grow dramatically, and we all need to think about our areas, going forward.

I understand.
 One thing to remember about City of Rocks, is that we already face significant climbing access restrictions; perhaps more so at the City of Rocks than in any public land climbing area in the USA.
 I will refrain from opining as to why these restrictions occurred, but I believe that we need to think very carefully about our impact, right now, and in the very near future. Our impact extends far beyond the bolts, webbing and chalk. Repeated rescues in a small park with  limited personnel and budget are not going to work in anyone’s favor. I do not have answers; I have questions.

Person decks, gets a copter ride and now the thread is about the ethical dilema of gymbots ruining the crags... Tomorrow we'll find out it was Honnold getting dropped by his girlfriend again...

Fernando Cal wrote:

Maybe the issue is that climbers are unable to convert 160 feet into meters and multiply by two? 

I do find it humorous that ropes are measured supplied and measured in meters but route lengths are given in feet.  Surely it would make sense for guide books and rope manufacturers to give you the number in both units rather than have everybody do calculations in their head.

I have no problem with doing the calculation.  But possibly some people do.  I pretty much solely use the metric system unless I'm communicating with somebody who doesn't.
Oh and I'm still waiting:
Metric Conversion Act of 1975

Of course the real issue isn't figuring out lengths.  It is not paying attention and/or providing a backup in case your rope is too short.

There's more to this sport than sport climbing, and that's a good thing. 
Not Ok in my book to mod some else's route without FA's permission.
Get hold of Dan Spurlock if you want to discuss your idea.
Have worked as a ranger at COR - pretty sure reponders were or included volunteer EMT's from Almo.