pope

Dude, put on your thinking cap, or at least let me know when you're kidding around. Everybody knows that routes like that were cleaned, either as a consequence of deliberate cleaning or as a result of steady traffic, or both. But if you're going to call this "engineering", you're definitely stretching the definition of the word. Even among those who object to scrubbing moss off a route, few would consider climbing clean rock to be an experience that out of the ordinary. Few would say that clean rock is an intrusion on the cliff's natural aesthetics in quite the same way that a line of bolts is. And I don't think you believe this either. Furthermore, what is the intent of your statement? Are you suggesting that once a mossy climb is scrubbed, it should no longer be considered natural, and that in that case we should have no reservations about the placement of highly visible, shiny bolts? Are you suggesting further that because Japanese Gardens has been scrubbed, there is no basis for appealing to the "most natural state" ideal when objecting to bolts placed next to a crack? And if this is the case (Lord help us if you're really that far gone), on what grounds would you/could you object to bolting the entire pitch? I think this last question is the most important. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that there are climbers who would advocate bolting the wide 5.10 crack above the belay in question. We're already seen this happening at NW crags. The justification is always convenience. I'm seriously interested to hear how you'd go about objecting in this case. Maybe you wouldn't. Thank goodness that isn't the most clever thing you've contributed in the last few years.

My argument was never that a belay anchor will necessarily lead to bolted cracks or even a via feratta. I simply stated that this particular anchor is not appropriate. The anchor in question soils one of the best crack pitches in Washington. The anchor in question does not define the logical conclusion of any pitch....unless climbing the moves above at a 5.11 standard is not logical. Most of the arguments I've read supporting the anchor fall on the side of utility. Apparently a number of climbers who do not climb 5.11 are provided with a pitch of moderate climbing thereby. Apparently this benefit is worth the price of a pair of bolts not far off the ground, just below where this excellent pitch gets serious. I brought up bolted cracks, chipped holds and the via feratta because they are logically consistent with the arguments presented in favor of this anchor. If we think that the access and convenience provided by a mid-pitch anchor are worth the sacrifice of soiling Japanese Gardens, one must at least speculate about what other "improvements" might be logically justified in the name of access and convenience. There are many examples of bolting cracks in the name of access, convenience and creating traffic that have been discussed in this forum. The arguments offered are remarkably similar to those found in this thread supporting the anchor on Japanese Gardens. That's a pathetic equation. Cleaning cracks and clearing a little loose rock do not impose the degree of engineering and the obvious evidence of human impact that bolts do. Bolts are not only ugly and alien to the natural experience, they also offer an incredibly cheap and lazy solution to finding security. They offer a nearly perfect security that can be achieved with almost no requirement of skill or craft. I provided an example of a climber who thinks these very bolts offer protection (not a belay) that is more convenient than carrying a large cam. There's your example.

I never argued that "a bolt anchor will lead to a via feratta and zip line", but that in a high-use climbing area, more generations of climbers will derive more enjoyment by making every reasonable attempt to preserve rock climbs in their most natural state. My argument was that once fixed anchors are employed, the rock is then vulnerable to a variety of interpretations about which "improvements" are appropriate. Once it is acceptable to place bolts in the middle of a crack pitch, this opens the door for those who might advocate other "improvements". Intermediate anchors, bolting RP-cracks, bolting wide cracks, bolting the whole damn pitch! Or chipping a couple of jugs through the crux (which could be avoided by "purists"). I only brought up the possibility of the via feratta to emphasize the idea that many interpretations exist about how to "improve" the climbing experience once we find it reasonable to impose our "improvements" on the rock and all participants in this game. Well, Matt, here's a guy you know who thinks clipping those bolts for protection is better than carrying one fat cam: There you have it.

I've always wanted to see a tornado...this video makes you feel like you're there (minus all the danger and tragedy). Thanks for posting.

"What we're doing, this little fuck up over here, it's OK because, you see, there's a bigger problem over there." BFD. I soloed Brass Balls. Back to the potty language. Listen, pal, I didn't pull those bolts. Right now I'm probably too out of shape to do the full pitch, so if I were a convenience-oriented, selfish little prick I'd probably promote that anchor, so I'd have a nice little 5.7 climb on the LTW. But guess what? The fact remains that regardless of what atrocities exist elsewhere, regardless of whether there are enough mellow climbs at the LTW, and your juvenile taunts notwithstanding, the fact remains that one of the very best crack climbs in the State of Frickin' Washington is soiled with a completely ridiculous anchor less than 50 feet up. Stupid.

I remember when it was not. Not in its current location and configuration. It can't be much more than 35 feet. Maybe 45 feet? That whole pitch is way short of 50 meters. And I don't agree with your comparison since the GNS anchor you mention coincides with what most people would consider the natural end of the spectacular climbing on that slab. It is also the terminus for at least three routes. The anchor a few feet up Japanese Gardens is similar to what you'd have if you put a two-bolt anchor below the bulge on Thin Fingers, in order to provide a moderate pitch for climbers who wanted to avoid the bulge. Index is what we make it. We're talking about the way things should be, and yet nobody can seem to avoid the "logical" mistake of justifying the existence of the anchor because it exists and because it has existed for X years. Many contributors to this discussion are essentially saying, "This is the way we've always done it." This is parallel to saying, "We're not comfortable with change." It's OK if you think this way, just come out and say it. And regarding respecting people's rights to recreate on their own terms: in a high-use area on a limited resource which is open to the public, all users have a right to voice an opinion. Opinions are always going to differ, but when considering questions about fixed anchors, we should remember that the solution which leaves the cliff in its most natural state is often the best solution. Otherwise the cliff is subject to the whims of currnet popular opinion. One group wants an anchor, next year they want bolts next the crack, maybe some future group wants a via ferrata up to an observation deck and perhaps a zip line back to the parking lot. More generations will derive more pleasure from rock climbing when they avoid excessive convenience bolting and meet the rock on its own terms, leaving it pretty close to the way they found it.

Yes it does. I expect to climb a crack route without having to be constantly reminded of how pathetic this sport has become.

That climb gave me zero trouble. And I'm climbing this weekend. Shows what you know. BTW, we're all impressed that you managed to write a paragraph without dropping the F-bomb.

Just to add a little balance here....I won't miss it. I'm happy to buy beers for the perp. We need somebody to fight the tide of grid bolting. What was the justification for an anchor 35 feet up the middle of an established crack climb? Just 'cause the climb starts out kind of easy? Guys, the first 15 feet of Iron Horse would make a nice little moderate climb. Maybe we need an anchor up there below that undercling. Come to think of it, I can free climb the last 30 feet of City Park. Maybe we could stick an anchor there so that I'd have a nice place to transition to free climbing mode. Increased traffic, convenience, moderate climbing made available where none existed. And don't forget safety. These justifications will one day be applied to the bolting of every crack at Index.

Didn't some French climbers take a crap down El Matador when you working there? I seem to remember they were making a statement about the lack of bolts.

When some little pussy shoots a paint ball at my home.

Hang 'em high. Pathetic.

Mountain Earring: Raw Climbing: Any questions?

I think you'd enjoy the regular route on Careno Crag. Take your time to protect the crux first pitch. This climb is one of the warmer "long" routes. The older, classic routes on Castle in the 5.7--5.9 range are spectacular but probably more like 5.8--5.10 when compared to Exit 38. At Castle I recommend Catapult to Logger's Ledge, followed by a climb of Jello Tower (S. Face or Damnation), then run to the summit on Midway Direct. A thrilling but challenging 5.8 is Canary (this catches sun earlier than other interesting 5.8 climbs on Castle such as Saints and Angel). If damp weather forces you to the Pinnacles, check out Vertigo and Empire State.

It's also worth mentioning that today's "low-end" components are probably better than high-end components from just a few years ago. A mt. bike equipped with Shimano LX components will be significantly less expensive than a bike with XT gear, but today's LX line is pretty darn bomb-proof. Less expensive bikes tend to be heavy but often come with pretty good components (by good I mean functional and reliable). After finding the bike you want at the local shop, start looking on line and also second-hand. With the money you'll save on a used bike, you'll be able to upgrade/repair components.

Damn it. Where's the justice in this world? I hope your friend is in a better place.

What's your point?

What's Dru have in common with a kid on spring break? NO CLASS!

Thanks, MisterE! That was one helluva party.

Gee Bill, did you see any variability in that testing? At least some of the slings tested failed at forces typical of "sport climbing falls". How do you know the next fixed draw you clip isn't sitting near the lower end of those data? Do you really wish to gamble on the results of tests performed by some anonymous wieners you encountered in cyberspace? Do you really clip fixed draws or are you just talking out your ass? Bottom line: climbing is dangerous enough in perfect conditions with new gear, gear that you own and the history of which is well understood by you. If you want to trust your butt to some mystery gear that's been pounded by multiple falls and exposed to who knows how many days of brilliant sunshine, be my guest. I think you're a fool. Again, the folks who leave this crap hanging give every other interested party two choices: trust it, or make exaggerated efforts first to remove it before climbing. That's bullshit. I suppose a third option is to pick a different climb, but then doesn't that present some kind of monopoly on a limited resource? What we have is a mentality that is perfectly consistent with sport climbing. Joe Quickdraw feels he has the right to equip a rock face with bolts exactly where he thinks they should go, without regarding the aspirations of somebody who might actually have the balls to try bolting it on lead. Maybe he'll chip a couple of holds so he can further diminish the challenge to something manageable and saccharine. He essentially monopolizes the resource and denies more capable and principled climbers the chance for a real, ground-up first ascent.

Mike Adamson has a Nomad for sale. Contact him at ascensionist.com, but first check out this bad boy. I promise it won't slow you down:

Erik, how'd you get talked into attending an H-mo convention?

I have no interest in "projecting" or whatever the kids are calling a practice for which we, back in the day, had another (dirty) word: sieging. And nevermind the draws, the bolts are garbage as well. But even if you don't share my opinion of the circus called "sport climbing", you must admit that Maxtrax nails the problem squarely. I never trust webbing that's been sitting around in the elements, and I don't trust 'biners I find on climbs or at the base of a climb. I don't know their history, don't know if the owner has been careful to avoid dropping or cross-loading the 'biners. Anybody with an interest in avoiding appearing in the headlines of the nightly news should be similarly suspicious. When you leave your gear hanging off of fixed protection, you give other climbers two choices: either climb the route trusting the quick draws you left hanging from the bolts, or make exaggerated efforts to first remove the gear prior to their ascent. Neither option is fair to other climbers, and so ultimately we get back to why climbers should approach their sport the way educated backpackers do, by assuming that subsequent adventure seekers DO NOT wish to experience anything more than a minimum of evidence that previous parties were there.

Gotta be the quote of the year. High five, brother Joey.