pope

How hard is that pitch?

In civil society, where rules are agreed upon and where an executive body manages their enforcement, that's true.

Matt, I never said the discussion is weak. I never said moving the bolt is weak. In all caps, you will read the words "ADDITIONAL BOLTS".

Completely reasonable.

Well, if the "community" decides an ADDITIONAL bolt is appropriate, I'm sure within a couple of years somebody is going to then solicit "community" opinion on carving a couple of jugs. Think of it....an even safer climb, even more accessible to an even wider spectrum of climbers, resulting in even more traffic with far fewer chances that the route will ever get dirty again. And by then we'll be upgrading it again, maybe to 5.13! This shit is weak.

Absoutely. My knees hurt just thinking about it.

I've done 30 pitches before lunch. Including Brass Balls, down Canary, up Outer Space, etc. But much less hiking. Not to brag, but you asked.

Where's the 5.9? I must have missed something.

I count about three pitches of 5.8 and a lot of hiking.

The quote of the day:

Yes, but do you really care if they succeed? Do you feel it is your job to carefully prepare for subsequent parties a thoroughly-marked trail with all the rough edges and adventure removed? Should we adhere to some policy that says all run-outs over 15 feet must be tamed with a 1/2-inch bolt? In the current climate, this is a real possibility. There is another possibility. Many see bolts and pins as an aesthetic compromise...especially a bolt, since a bolt can be placed virtually anywhere on the rock. Call it tradition or aesthetics or whatever....climbers have generally accepted the natural limitations and barriers of a cliff as part of the challenge. If the rock is too steep and smooth, we don't chop holds to make it climbable by Joe Average. Similarly, when cracks are sparse and protection is difficult, many climbers see this as an equally important component of the challenge. When elite climbers avoid using bolts, let's respect their willingness/desire to ascend without resorting to perfectly-safe, place-it-anywhere-you-like-on-rappel protection.

One guy wants a bolt, maybe somebody else would wants two. Maybe chopping a jug or two would make it even safer and increase traffic. Where does it stop? Enjoy the top-rope. Or cowboy up.

You're absolutely correct. I don't think we should drive a wedge into what some perceive as a generation gap. Fact is, plenty of questionable bolting can be credited to climbers old enough to know better. The guys responsible for the dirty little secret up in Darrington are probably as old as MattP. Best thing we can do is educate the youngsters. I took a sport climber out for his first bolt-free climbing experience Thursday and he agreed that it was the coolest climbing he'd ever done. Watch for his Gri-Gri to appear on E-Bay.

Right. Each of us has his own set of ethics and I think we can all benefit from a little moralistic flexibility. Just ask this guy:

This thread began with a question about adding a bolt to an existing climb, at a point where previously men have ascended in the absence thereof. Yes, the adjective "wimp" appropriately describes the person who wishes to add such a bolt. Allow me to explain. A wimp is a person who cannot find the courage necessary to perform some task, somebody who avoids hard work, somebody who is lazy, somebody who has no respect for the courageous accomplishments of others, somebody who desires to achieve a goal but who refuses to risk failure, injury or just getting dirty when those who have previously achieved the same goal assumed that risking failure, injury and getting dirty were part of what made the goal a worthy objective. That's my definition of a wimp. No word better describes the selfish bastard who is willing to disrespect the wishes of previous ascenders and essentially neuter and sterilize an existing free climb with the addition of a bolt. Let's suppose there exists a climb that has been free climbed without bolts (or with a minimum of bolts). Suppose there is a section that is difficult to protect and somewhat challenging relative to my free climbing abilities. Remember that others have negotiated this pitch but it is currently out of my comfort range. Here are my options: 1. Top rope the climb and be satisfied. 2. Top rope the climb until familiarity makes the difficult/dangerous section more reasonable. 3. Develop more experience/fitness to meet the challenge. 4. Find a more reasonable challenge. 5. Add a bolt and pretend I'm doing the community a favor. Clearly only one of these options is wimpy. Old number five. I appreciate the moderators who have allowed this conversation to evolve without editing.

Hardly. Here's a summary of Jay's post in Jay's own words: Jay is misrepresenting those protesting retrobolting and sport climbing in general. It is not the inadequacies of the current generation that I'm protesting, it's the mess they leave. Jay suggests that everything from sticky rubber to nylon ropes to bolts are merely technological advances which allow for climbing at higher and higher standards, and as each generation arrives with its technological edge over the old guard, yesterday's climbers are eager to dismiss the latest achievements as being made entirely possible by these technologies....I believe that is the essence of Jay's essay. It is true that bolts, pitons, stickky rubber, nylon ropes, cams and light-weight gear have allowed for bigger, harder climbs. But Jay fails to mention that bolts and pitons alter (diminish) the challenge for every subsequent party and leave what many consider to be an ugly mess. That puts bolts and pitons in an entirely different class than nylon ropes. My objection to bolts has nothing to do with how hard the kids are climbing, whether bolts make this possible and how my climbing standards measure up. I've conversed with many climbers who have reservations about modern bolting practices; most really don't care about whether the kids today are climbing 5.8 or 5.14, it's the mess they leave that bothers us. To be fair, many young climbers come straight out of a gym and onto the walls of Exit 38 where one might arrive at the conclusion that the bolts just grow out of the wall. These kids don't know any better, and it's not their fault. "Climbers" my age (and older) introduced sport climbing and rap bolting. Having said all of that, I do think clipping your way up a bolt trail makes climbers lazy, and I don't buy the argument that sport climbing is preparing a generation of more capable climbers. Ever compare 5.10 climbs at Exit 38 with those in Yosemite? You get the picture.

That looks outstanding. But it appears protection is available near that bolt. Comments?

You don't know what I do. BTW, you seem to think only climbers with impressive resumes can comment on these issues (ironically we hear plenty from you). Anway, did you ever ask Fred Beckey what he thinks about rap-placed bolts in the mountains? I hear he has a bitchin' resume.

My mistake. I generally disregard Rumr's posts. He seems to have nothing to say.

No, I appealed to a broad standard that leaves very little room for interpretation. A bolt may be appropriate on a route that offers no other reasonable protection provided that the route has not received an ascent without bolts.

You jerk! I was just climbing onto a tall chair with a noose around my neck when I read that this whole thing was a hoax.

Define nearby a crack. That bolt is not one in a series of bolts placed next to a c1/c2 aid crack. As far as I know, the climb was previously without ascent. I believe that bolt (the only bolt) protects a move for which no other gear is readily available. That move happens to be the crux and falling without pro there would result in serious injury. I didn't need the bolt, but a bolt was entirely appropriate. This is the kind of nuance that doesn't smell like bullshit. Your moderator buddies might disagree, but the bullshit they're smelling is probably found on their own boots.

How can you restate this when I just blew holes in every point you made to support this notion? Now let's juxtapose: How do you feel about the via ferrata? Oh, but isn't it true that you have a crag on your property to which you've bolted a handhold? Now I see what you mean by being capable of allowing for "nuance" in your mountaineering ethics. You may call it nuance, I call it bullshit. And while I never suggested that the bolts on Numbah Ten were in any way equivalent to the via ferrata in the pasted photograph, I did point out five ways in which they are incredibly similar. You haven't yet addressed my points and I challenge you to argue how they are significantly different.

Swami Gauribala says, "I have contacted the deceased climber with whom you wish to confer, and I can promise you that he would be upset with additional fixed gear on his test piece."

THAT is the lesson to be learned. However, I think BC Rail should endure an unparalleled negative publicity campaign. Isn't that a tourist route, from Vancouver up to Squamish? Vancouver news media may just sell some papers with a story that exposes the way BC Rail degrades the natural beauty of Howe Sound when it is because of this beauty that tourists make the journey. Anyway, I'm depressed. Loved the climbs down there. Caboose was one of my first 5.10 leads. I will not forget how incredibly pumped that made me. Clean Crack? That must have been one of the best finger cracks ever. Anybody hear the story of Snickers falling off the crux on a solo attempt, only to jump right back on and complete it?