"touch'e"
would this word count on scrabble and how many points would it be if the u landed on triple letter?

btw all you need is shop vac to clean the top out

I have topped out and I have rapped off the fixed stuff both before it was upgraded to the current state and after. It all works and remains your choice. As a very popular climb, for good reason, I believe traffic flow would improve if it were one way with everyone topping out.
I believe the current anchor is quite solid and redundant, although on initial inspection I was skeptical. A bolted station is less confusing to noobs and should last longer but I do not think would be any more safe for the time being since it is currently adequate for potential forces of top roping and rapping. That said, please use your own judgement as to whether you want to rap/belay off of it.

Worthrussel,
Unfortunately, I think the intention of the anchor in question, was for a 70m lower off / quick TR setup....for linking the cruxes of both pitches. Julie is definitely correct in saying a 70m is needed for the lower off.

I don't think that was the intention - I'm pretty sure that anchor has existed in some form or other long before 70 meter ropes were reasonably available or common.

Anyone know who originally put it in and why?

I am pretty sure that was the intention when it was reestablished 6 or so years ago.

Its a good climb as two pitches but linked up is fantastic. The anchor is okay as stands for son of easy o rap but not so if someone were to rap down easy o off of those anchors. Sounds stupid I know but I've seen it done and I don't care what anyone says downward as opposed to sidewise force is not good on the the suspect gear. I guess we can argue about it back and forth without end I just figured it's a high traffic moderate that gets alot of use. I thought it would be a good candidate for bolted rappel. Hell if it stays as is I'll keep using it. I just gotta made good on my rosary and attend church more than once a year.

Various iterations of that anchor have been there for at least fifty years; the idea that its presence had anything to do with lowering off is absurd. People belayed there because ropes used to be 120 feet and because communication with the second is very difficult if you go all the way to the top. Although the stance is now primarily used by climbers on Son of Easy O, it originally served parties on Easy O primarily.

If we are going to seriously advance the argument that climbers are incapable of making accurate judgements about the security of in-situ anchors and need bolts in order to save them from their own incompetence, then putting bolts in a position that would encourage lowering with ropes that might not be long enough is utterly indefensible. You can't have your danger cake and eat it too.

In view of the potential for dangerous lowering and the perception that climbing parties cannot determine anchor security and are unable to employ appropriate back-up procedures, it is obvious that the only sensible thing to do would be to clean those anchors entirely.

There does seem to be a problem with the extreme incompetence of so many parties up there. Yes, there are a lot of pebbles at the top. No, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should be knocking any of them off, but if that is the ultimate content of the safety concerns, then I'm with John Okner; the solution to pebbles at the top isn't bolts on the wall---send up a crew with a shop vac and clean the area up.

There doesn't seem to be any end to the demand for ever more convenience coupled with increasing fundamental mountain incompetence. Basically, climbers keep shitting on ledges and then when it's piled up to their eyeballs, they argue that an outhouse is absolutely essential. Since lowering and rappelling accidents are now among the primary dangers facing climbers, and since experience does not seem to be much of a hedge against catastrophe in these situations, anything we can do to decrease top-roping and rappelling will have positive safety consequences beyond what can be achieved by encouraging these practices with ever more bolted anchors.

The whole issue is moot, because, as Julie rightly observes, the Preserve will do what it will do. I think they rushed in to the bolting business without thinking through all of the issues and consequences and are now rather circumspect about adding more. They have put themselves in a position of having to inspect and maintain all their anchors in perpetuity and I don't think they are in a rush to add to that burden.

Certainly placing an anchors where 70m ropes are required at the Gunks is far more a hazard than a generally manky anchor. I don't understand why anyone would even consider of it, and that alone should be enough of an answer to kill any consideration of placing a permanent anchor.

That's exactly right; with any kind of climber-placed anchor (slings, pitons, fixed nuts, etc) I think people do at least question whether they'll need 2 ropes or 1. With fixed bolts, I think it's almost inevitable that people would just clip & lower away without questioning it. Plunk.

--

The two consistent themes I perceive around the contemporary "ethics" or consensus in the Gunks are: consistency, and traffic management. By consistency, I mean both consistent with past and generally accepted practices, and consistency from route to route along the cliff. Notably, I also perceive a desire to *disregard* simple convenience, despite the "convenience anchors" (some of them might not be, but some just plain are) that the Preserve has installed. I think Rich is right in his perception that the Preserve started down a road and soon after, reconsidered that travel.

In terms of consistency, an anchor at 70m just ... isn't. Nothing else along the cliff is set for a 70m toprope or lowering. It doesn't make sense to me to say "well, 70's are the wave of the future" at the Gunks.

Consistency with the past also says: chop this anchor, manage your pebbles and/or TRing uses yourself, then walk off or rap elsewhere.

In terms of traffic management: there's a set of anchors over City Lights that is better management, in terms of seeing what you're throwing a rope over, and in terms of pebbles. There's also the line over Baby. And there's walking off. I don't see the need for an *additional* set of anchors over SoEO for traffic management's sake.

If it's there for TRing convenience, I think the general consensus is against simple convenience here.

These three are the reasons that I think the anchor should go.

And it's not an entirely moot point: while the Preserve does what it will, we as a community also can decide to chop an anchor or replace it with like materials; and to get together & clean up / trundle dangerous stuff.