???? really geez didn't the shale for the gunks form 400 million years ago, so wouldn't those stones be collecting on top and falling off a little bit longer then 71 years. I'm sure by now your after photo no way looks the same to the present. Those were not sarcastic cracks Rich it was just more idiotic suggestions as to the one of cleaning off the top. I hope you weren't serious on water bar.

you're always right though just like the time of rapping into nesting peregrine chicks to take photos that ended up Not surviving.

1. The Gunks aren't shale. That layer is underneath, and so is not capable of creating stones at the top.

2. The geological birthday of the Gunks is irrelevant. The 71 years represents 71 years of human erosion, which is the source of the problem, otherwise there would be stones at the top of every route.

3. On the other hand, if it really did take 400 million years for those particular stones to get there, then the cleanup would be essentially permanent.

1. Oh excuse me the quartz conglomerate was an overlay to the shale during the Ordovician age.

2. well thank you for that and literally paving the way.

3. maybe so in a vacuum

There's always the national park service approach:

Loose rocks, stones, till etc. along the top of the cliff will be the work of the last glacial period about 10,000 years back, give or take, plus some natural erosion.

Why not rope off the walk-off before it erodes away the soil layer so that vegetation can reclaim the gully?

An "Area closed for re-vegetation" sign has been used in other disturbed areas in the Gunks.

That's a good idea, but there's a problem with someone topping out. According to the stories of rocks dropped on people's heads, there are people who top out on EO/SEO/Hether. What is a climber supposed to do when the way back from the lip is blocked by yellow tape?

The "area closed for re-vegetation" sign would have to be at the base of the cliff. Maybe that would work...

I'm saddened that John feels the need to attack me personally. He does raise an interesting question, suggesting that the cleanup would be very short-lived: "I'm sure by now your after photo no way looks the same to the present."

So I went up and had a look. It has been 11 weeks since Rob and I went up there. There have been a few rather severe rainfalls, including one last Monday, I think, when two and half inches of rain fell in 45 minutes---a perfect erosion enhancer. As it happened, there was a party topping out too, so it does seem that people are going to the top.

In order to have everything in one place, here is the original before and after with the present 11 weeks after.

Before:


Immediately after:


Eleven weeks after:


I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions about this. In addition to the lighting, please note that the framing is a little different---be sure to compare comparable parts. Whatever your personal conclusions, I think it is worth noting a few facts. Rob and I did not vacuum up the small stuff. We removed large loose rocks, many of which would kill someone if they were kicked over the edge. It is fairly clear in the original shot how many of the larger rocks there were, and here is what our pile looked like after the cleaning:



After eleven weeks with some very heavy rains, not even a single rock of the larger size has appeared. I'd say the place has been orders of magnitude safer over the summer, and it seems fairly certain to me that it will last through the Fall. Will it last through the Winter into next Spring? I suspect it will, but only time will tell.

Was it worth doing?

I might add, it took Rich and I about an hour and fifteen minutes, (and 2 PBR's) to do that work. It seems perfectly reasonable for two people to go up there and clean up future loose rocks once a year, for the benefit we gained. I lot less brain power, cost, and effort than replacing the anchor.

To Rich and Rob:

Well, I for one appreciate (and posted in favor of) your efforts. And while I can certainly understand a debate about the desirability or efficacy of cleaning the stones on top versus other (unspecified and/or unworkable, it seems to me) approaches, I have a pretty hard time understanding why anyone would want to personally attack two climbers who volunteered their time and efforts in an attempt to benefit the community, not themselves. In fact, it's pretty clear that Rich was not so much personally in favor of this approach, but did it because others (myself included) thought it was a potential safety issue.

I might expect that kind of crap from someone over at RC.com, but it's disappointing to see it here.