pope

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could. I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means. Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks. This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control.

Let me spell it out for you. I-F Y-O-U A-R-E G-O-I-N-G T-O A-T-T-A-C-K D-W-A-Y-N-E-R-'-S E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, T-R-Y T-O S-O-U-N-D I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-T. BTW, I see you're chummy with the Spokane Mountaineers. I just visited their Ourdoor Ethics Committee page where I found the following: "Leave What You Find Follow the maxim, "take only pictures, leave only footprints." Leave flowers, rocks and all other natural features undisturbed." They offer classes! Maybe you'd like to participate. "

Ouch! "Who would have guessed...." requires a question mark. And statements are never questions. Glad to see you didn't teach logic. (That comes from his website) That's noble. What do you teach the young whippersnappers about picking up trash? What do you teach the kids about treading lightly in the wilderness?

Couple of comments are in order. Educated folk generally end their questions with....you guessed it, a QUESTION MARK, not a period. Secondly, educated folk generally at some point develop analytical skills that would allow them to infer that pope's bolt placement is not only consistent with the ideals to which he subcribes, but also provides an example of mountaineering excellence to which high_on_rock should aspire. You used to teach high school? Hopefully not a course in logic.

Unless it's an ugly bolt trail established on rappel, especially one in a wilderness area.

I've stood right at the base of this in disbelief that anybody could climb this. I figure if somebody could do such a long route with next to no pro then it's no big deal to make one extra move to a spot with potential gear placements. I agree. You wanna go chop it with me? I don't need that bolt. Every subsequent party will have to complete the crux or get pretty banged up. It's not just a matter of doing a little run-out to get through the crux. You're looking at a ledge fall or a large swing into a dihedral. The gear ain't there. As is, you have a completely natural route but for one bolt. But I really don't care either way, and I'd defend the bolt if I had nothing to do with the climb. Remember, I came out in favor of bolting that belay on Orbit.

Sorry Bill. I've been on a northwall all day (I'm painting my dad's house). To all of you who think you've scored some kind of nifty little victory here, you're invited to answer these questions: 1. Did I ever state that bolts have no place in climbing? 2. Is the single bolt on the route in question inconsistent with views I've advocated since 1985? 3. How many of you putzes have climbed the route on lead? When you do, I think you'll give up on the notion that "pope bolted a crack".

Well, I believe a bolt was a good idea in that case. You're trying to promote this image of me as being "black and white" on the issue, opposed to every bolt. It ain't so. Bolts have a place, a proper place. That bolt on that route is in a proper place. And if you're not too old and fat, you should go do it. Then you'll agree, and you'll probably thank me not only for placing the bolt but for showing such great restraint and wisdom. And then I'll probably ask you to shut up and stick this in your mouth:

This is old news. Most who have climbed it feel the route's single bolt is appropriately placed in a spot where reasonable protection is not available. Without it, you'd have to do the crux and face a big, swinging fall back into a shallow dihedral, or maybe hit a ledge. If bomber gear existed at the crux, there would have been no bolt. The crux is gymnastically much harder than the rest of the route, which means a climber could easily reach the crux and then find himself way over his head. The guidebook incorrectly credits a handful of people for this climb when it was mostly the vision and effort of Scotty Hopkins. The bolt hole was drilled on the lead, but our 3/8" Fixe bolt somehow didn't fit the hole. We then borrowed a rotohammer from Jim Phillips and put in a 1/2" bolt at the crux. Scotty, Jason Mikos and I thought it was about 5.9+, but it went in the book as 5.10b. Feck and others have taunted that if I were a "real bad-ass", I wouldn't have placed a bolt. May I comment that: (1) I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be a "real bad-ass". (2) I could free solo the route if it would make you happy (but I probably won't because I'm a daddy). (3) I'm not an anti-bolt Nazi. Bolts have a place in climbing. ...so let me get this straight...you placed that bolt to protect someone who might arrive at that crux unprepared? Isn't this akin to "protecting" the masses, only slightly ever so slightly less? It sure would be nice if you were consistent (besides the consistently annoying via ferrata cum fratboy-tool photo that crops up incessently) in your logic...cuz right now, i'm having a hard time seeing how you aren't sinking in your quicksand logic... Oh gee guys, you got me! Bullshit. I believe that after clipping the bolt, you make the crux move and then eventually reach into a crack where you can then get gear to protect the finish (or just run it out). Those suggesting "pope bolted a crack" aren't familiar with the route. I don't believe there is so much as a #2 R.P. available before making the crux move. But I'll go check it out just in case I'm wrong (that was years ago) and remove the bolt if appropriate. Remember that we're talking about one bolt on an otherwise completely natural route, a bolt where I believe no good (if any) gear is available, a bolt that protects the crux. Without the bolt, a climber would likely be seriously hurt at that point. Is this a case of "your bolts stink, mine don't"? No it's not. We're not talking abouit grid bolting, excessive bolting, bolting next to cracks, rap bolting, or establishing a climb that is completely bold dependent. We're talking about one bolt. This is a route I easily could have done without the bolt or even without a rope. At the time I routinely free soloed 5.10 climbs and was leading 5.11+. Furthermore, while I participated in this route, the credit goes to Scotty Hopkins. I have no personal investment in the route or the bolt. I'd defend this bolt even if that prick Rudy drilled it!

This is a very popular route in J tree......there is no way this route was put up on rapel. This was put up on lead. Bravo. I believe you're right. Dick Cilley pointed out to me why Joshua Tree is so much cooler than the City of Rocks: climbers have made an effort to keep it natural. When you top out on Coarse and Buggy you'll find no anchors. It's kind of a hassle as I remember but in the end the experience is very rewarding. When I first visited Joshua Tree we tried to top-rope Baby Apes. I remember having to rig an anchor by using a second rope that stretched far over the dome. Now that wall is cheapened by a mess of bolts on climbs that were probably top-roped for many years, all so that some wanker could pretend he was "leading". What a shame.

I'll concede that many routes have been established on rappel with excellent results. But if you scrutinize the photograph, you'll notice a difference between this (possibly) lead-placed bolt and what you see at Exit 38 or Smith: the bolt in your photo doesn't exist in a grid of bolts. My problem with rappel placed bolts is not the result but the method. Rap bolting is just WAY TOO EASY. One needs zero skill, zero commitment, zero balls, zero ability, zero experience and zero judgement. The result is that anybody with a Bosch can establish a route, and too often when you look at what is getting bolted, one can only conclude that is exactly what happened. Bolted climbs today are sloppy and crowded together. Short "routes" receive far too many bolts, and this mentality spreads into Wilderness areas and to traditional crags. Climbers get used to having a choice of clipping the bolt by their knee, hip or shoulder, and then they expect this sort of artifical experience everywhere they go. Maybe there's a bold lead on Castle Rock that only a few people have managed over the decades. Maybe it's getting a little dirty. Gee, wouldn't it be neat to put some bolts on it so that it's comparable to that route on the east wall at the Redmond Vertical World? And who wants to lug a rack of large cams up the Grand Wall for that undercling above the Sword? Ain't it neat that we can just clip bolts and zip past? The worst thing about rap bolting is the attitude it fosters. So for me, how the bolts go in matters. Sport climbing and rap bolting represent the ultimate disrespect for the traditions of mountaineering, and also absolute laziness and the rejection of a "leave no trace" ethic. Now go back and study your photograph. Imagine that same cliff in Leavenworth. There would be at least five other bolts visible in the neighborhood of the one you've clipped. That's because here in Washington, "It's all good". Makes me wanna puke.

This is old news. Most who have climbed it feel the route's single bolt is appropriately placed in a spot where reasonable protection is not available. Without it, you'd have to do the crux and face a big, swinging fall back into a shallow dihedral, or maybe hit a ledge. If bomber gear existed at the crux, there would have been no bolt. The crux is gymnastically much harder than the rest of the route, which means a climber could easily reach the crux and then find himself way over his head. The guidebook incorrectly credits a handful of people for this climb when it was mostly the vision and effort of Scotty Hopkins. The bolt hole was drilled on the lead, but our 3/8" Fixe bolt somehow didn't fit the hole. We then borrowed a rotohammer from Jim Phillips and put in a 1/2" bolt at the crux. Scotty, Jason Mikos and I thought it was about 5.9+, but it went in the book as 5.10b. Feck and others have taunted that if I were a "real bad-ass", I wouldn't have placed a bolt. May I comment that: (1) I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be a "real bad-ass". (2) I could free solo the route if it would make you happy (but I probably won't because I'm a daddy). (3) I'm not an anti-bolt Nazi. Bolts have a place in climbing.

Hey Porter, if you wanna ban me for writing "Enjoy this!" followed by a photo of a hotdog, be my guest.

Hey Rudy, enjoy this:

"It's all about safety, making the wall safe for the masses." Really? Then explain how/why we need bolted routes on short, top-ropeable walls (Vantage comes to mind). That's what your buddy Kevbone wants. Ain't the top-rope a whole bunch safer? And suppose your project ain't safe without a bunch of bolts. Who says you have climb it? Why do we need so many nearly identical bolted face/slab climbs (Leavenworth comes to mind)? What are you really adding to rock climbing? Answer = another trail of trash. Everybody knows climbing ain't safe. Providing a bunch of clip-ups only encourages mass participation, thereby exposing a whole segment of the population to a dangerous passtime. Wanna make the world a safer place? Introduce all your sport climbing buddies to Nordic walking.

Lame attempt to sidestep the discussion. Roads = thieving? Dude, walk away from the pipe and lets keep on track here will ya? Lame attempt to side-step discussion of inappropriate bolting: impact of bolts < impact of roads.

Bolts next to cracks, adding bolts to bold leads, rappel-placed bolts, power drills in wilderness areas, bolts on easily top-roped walls, bolts in areas popular with hikers. Lame.

By comparing roads to thieving and stealing, you are you saying roads are bad things. But they are not in and of themselves bad. Try and not drive at all next week, or use any roads for that matter: either to work or shopping, or to the hospital. Roads are not bad and there are mega millions of miles of it in the US alone I'd suspect. Roads CAN be a bad thing, but are not necessarily so. That is the comparison Pope. Well, I suppsoe stealing and thieving can be bad, but "are not in and of themselves bad". I'm sure you can apply situational ethics to justify just about anything. Perhaps you don't necessarily have a problem with this creation:

Yes, it all starts with this:

How many of those bolts were placed on rappel? How completely bolt-dependent routes were there in 1972? How many 40-foot wide walls in the Dihedrals had three sport routes with a bolted arete for an endpiece? I'm glad you brought this up. I imagine there exists a large number of young climbers who believe the bolts at Smith have always been there, perhaps as a result of strange geologic forces (maybe they evolved from Obsidian). When these issues come up (Gee read the forums here for several high-profile examples, some of which are still being discussed), the "leadership" in groups that claim to represent climbers' interests have not condemned the route/bolts in question. In fact, one gentleman from the WCC called and pleaded with me (for most of an hour) to cease discussing bolting on this site (think I was banned shortly thereafter). He was pretty sure that unable to police the problem, land managers would be left with no other choice than to lock the very gate to Darrington! What would have been refreshing would have been to hear, "We're aware of the problem and are working to have to illegal bolts removed." What would have been nice is a phone call inviting me to attend the secret Infinite Bliss meetings, so that more than one perspective could have been presented. Anyway, there's your leadership. I'd really love never to have to read this argument again. Allow me to illustrate how ridiculous it is by extrapolating its logic. This argument essentially says, "Our little problem over here, what we're doing, is quite OK, 'cause there's something worse going on over there." How convenient! Let's suppose a thief robs my neighbor's house. Then, by your logic, that makes it OK for me to walk out of the convenience store with a 6-pack of beer hiding in my pants.

Climbing existed at Smith, Vantage and North Bend long before this nonsense commenced. Clearly the problem is communication...and leadership. When bolts go in next to cracks, when old-school leads get retro bolted, when big "alpine sport climbs" and power-drilled routes go up in Wilderness areas, every single climber...and especially groups pretending to represent Washington climbers, should not only denounce such activities, these groups should organize efforts to erase the "creations". Instead, the AF and the WCC, as well as nearly every sport climber on this site, organize to defend virtually every bolt put in by every a-hole who owns a Bosch (probably because some of the brass in these groups are responsible for wilderness-area bolting, and because they're attempting to create the illusion that climbers are united on this topic and all of us love the B_LT's).

Probably not. link

1) This may be survival. 2) You don't know. 3) What, driving home from work? Uhhh, come on be real. Nice end run. The aroma of your efforts suggests maybe you attended clown school with JayB. BTW the image comes from the website of a fellow who enjoys recreational off-road travel, and we can assume that is the purpose of his travels in this photograph. So....you're invited to answer the questions.

Now that is a five star essay! Gee, trogdon, why be so exclusive? You want bikers, hikers and sport climbers to establish trails and grid-bolt walls so that large numbers of enthusiasts can come enjoy the great outdoors. My suggestion is that if you can't enjoy the outdoors without clipping up a line of bolts, maybe you don't really enjoy the outdoors. Because your same line of logic ("let's encourage the crowds to get out there by first 'improving' the outdoors") must mean there's room for our ORV buddies to rip through those alpine meadows and toss a couple of beer cans, then get back home to write e-mails to Al Gore about what a swell time they had. By another line of logic promoted in this thread, whoever gets there first should be able to do just about whatever they want. We're supposed to respect that and call it "art". Now, look at the following image and tell me: (1) Is this art, if this fellow got there first? (2) Shouldn't we be thrilled that he's enjoying the mountains, if it means he's going to fight development and sprawl (part of the "big picture" you described above)? (3) In what way is this any different than sport climbing?

Now that's a five-star essay.