| Name | Vote | Comments |
|---|
| | Y | Downclimb to the current anchors is not trivial and the anchors cannot be seen easily from the top. Relocation up would make a good improvement. |
| | Y | The exposed downclimb is not necessary, especially on a popular descent option. |
| | Y | Yeah, without the tree there, this makes sense. It will save time, effort, and possibly accidents on a very frequently used rappel. The only arguments against that I've seen is for guides who need a convenience anchor.
Caveat: As long as the rope will still pull easily (and not get stuck) from the higher location. |
| | N | The existing anchors are located on a nice ledge and only require an easy fourth class downclimb to access. Parties will always have trouble following some routes or finding some anchors, thats just part of climbing. |
| | N | I have already voted so don't consider the vote count a couple other things to consider are-
If these anchors do get moved please leave the other ones as they are much better for personal and guided climbing-
Also consider if you are moving these anchors it opens a lot of doors- Getting to this anchor is easier than getting off the Bastille so eventually folks will consider this the standard and start to compare it to other down climbs and want to place descent bolt on many other routes- A can of worms Eldo does not need to see opened-
Cheers,
Dale |
| | Y | Since the trees gone- I agree to relocate the anchor. |
| | N | No need to move the anchor, it is easy to find if you have eyes and a pulse. |
| | Y | |
| | N | |
| | N | existing anchor works well with a great stance for setup. a bit hard to find but new location won't be much easier without great stance. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Might see fewer Dirty Deed raps, which is a good thing |
| | Y | tree gone,need new anchor. |
| | N | I voted yes for this earlier but after thinking about it a little more I'm voting no. The current anchor really is in the perfect place (great stance for multiple people and easy to start the rappel). As others have indicated, the path of least resistance to get to the current anchor is not where the tree used to be. The downclimb is quite manageable and if you're worried about it, you can always rope up and belay one another.
|
| | N |
The anchors are already in place. The down climb (skiers right)is easy but exposed and very manageable with a rope. Rigging rappels and staging multiple people is safest from the current stance. |
| | Y | |
| | N | I was interrupted the last time I was in the middle of this and do not recall if I had a chance to submit my vote opposing this top rappel anchor; so this may be a second vote. I just want to be sure I am not accused of any voting fraud here:)
I oppose it on an historical note, and vote to leave conditions as they currently are. Thank you. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | With the tree gone I am inclined to want to relocate. Yet as others have stated, the application is unclear and vague about the exact location which needs to be addressed. If there is a good higher stance with an excellent anchor location... simply do it right and most all will be in favor. Please address the specifics in the FHRC meeting. |
| | N | The down climb is very easy- If one climbs down where the tree used to be then it is harder but a very easy way is there to the right- By going down this road of convenience anchors a huge can of worms will be opened- Even while the tree was there the down climb to the right was easier so if ease of access(because the tree is gone) is the issue the argument is poor-
Cheers,
Dale |
| | Y | Absolutely |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | I never understood why the anchors were placed so low in the first place forcing and exposed downclimb over the top of Vertigo. This is a resounding yes for me |
| | Y | |
| | N | No. the exact location of the anchor is vague and I think the proposed anchor is unnecessary. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | N | Not Necessary. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Uhhh. You know, we just had this whole conversation a year ago and there were a whole bunch of arguements against the location I proposed at the time (which was this one).
Your on-line archieves only go to 2004, and are not updated to 2005/2006 when this happened.
Anyway, researching that might give some insight as to why people wanted it where it was. Not me, mind you, but others. |
| | Y | Yes, please do it. This change is imperative, before there is an accident. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | lets make the initial downclimb to the anchors even simpler/safer. |
| | Y | With the tree now gone, it makes sense to move the rap anchor up higher thus eliminating an exposed and tricky to protect downclimb/traverse. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | N | This seems unnecessary and the applicant is vague about the exact proposed placement of the new anchors. The difficulty of the downclimb is overrated by the applicant. Moreover, I think the anchors to be replaced are only a couple of years old. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | That anchor is hard to find the first time! |
| | Y | In favor if the rap has a stance and you can still reach the bottom wit doubles. |
| | N | Like where it is , great spot for pre rigging folks as a guide. |
| | Y | makes sense. After not doing this rap for a while, it took me a minute to find the existing anchors. |
| | Y | The application is vague about the exact location of the proposed anchor.
It would have been better if the applicant had done some scouting to find the best location for the proposed anchor and let us know if there is a decent stance there or not. Will the rappel have to be set up from over the top?
I hope the applicant will address this issue before the FHRC meeting. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Will two 60 meter ropes still reach the ledge and therefore require only one rappel if you have two ropes? If not I oppose, if so I approve. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Makes sense now that the tree is gone. |
| | Y | Makes sense |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
