pope

Is that really a fair statement? I don't recall ever stating or even implying that.

Uhhh...what?

Will, Gordon...thanks for the history lesson. You've done a tremendous amount to help me put this into perspective. My opposition to bolt abuse is not motivated by a desire to restore climbing to what it once was. Mountaineering in a wilderness area should be a wilderness experience. One party's interpretation of what a wilderness experience is should not impose artifical additions on the next party. Obviously some exceptions exist, such as when a small number of bolts help link cracks that provide an awesome line, or perhaps when a belay/rap anchor helps to preserve fragile vegetation on the top of a cliff. Oh bullshit. Accept the advances? Bolt trails do not qualify as an advance in the state of climbing. No more than chopping holds or riding a gondola up the cliff would be an advance in the state of climbing. Picking and choosing requires weighing behaviors and practices against an ethic. An ethic is a code of conduct which suggests behaviors that benefit all individuals. Clean climbing, eschewing excessive use of fixed anchors, is such an ethic and I suggest there is nothing hypocritical about analyzing your behaviors under the lens of this ethic. We can evolve past sport-climbing and years from now look on it as a fun but sordid and selfish historical permutation. -Dwayner

Lambone, that was music to my ears. And I really don't think you and I are doing damage to our current access by being vocal here. Anybody from the FS or a citizens action group might just get the impression that only a minority of climbers are behaving irresponsibly and that we are capable of putting pressure on them to correct the behavior. MattP suggests that those responsible for the Infinite Bliss climb have already agreed immediately to stop developing such climbs. This is extremely positive and also likely to help satisfy conservation groups who are concerned. Very encouraging.

Actually, what I want is for those who are creating the current controversy to knock off the alpine sport climbs that are getting us in trouble in the Alpine Lakes. And I would like the people who are suggesting that my comments ("rants") are what will ultimately get us banned...I would like these people to stop kidding themselves. If I'm wrong, it should be easy to produce the name of at least one land manager who has read even one word that I wrote (with the alleged negative impact to access). I'd love to speak with this person/people if in fact such exists. I certainly don't care whether anybody goes away or continues to partcipate or whatever. I don't hate anybody, and I think it is symptomatic of your innability to discuss this issue that has caused you to suggest you know what motivates me. I hate bolt abuse (not every bolt) and I hate the documented access restrictions that have resulted therefrom. You don't know my age relevant because? who I assume hope the mountains will be availabe for our children's enjoyment in the condition we found them 5.2 or 5.12, young or old, novice or veteran, I'm entitled to an opinion. I'm not "cheastbeating" and I have no need for such. There are people (I'm sure some very small number) on this very board who respect some of the very bold climbing I've done. I don't advertise it because I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. At one point I became caught up in the insults and suggestions that I'm a slouch and therefore not entitled to an opinion, and I sent a photograph of some bold climbing I've done to a guidebook author. Now I regret it. I think this statement is something most everyone here, myself included would agree with. How much more pure are you asking the sport to be? I agree with everything here. He could have added that he dislikes restriced access resulting from a land manager's reaction to unrestrained bolting. Finally, it is truly interesting that the most important ethical/access discussions of this decade are allowed to exist only in SPRAY. It is similarly interesting that a photo with BLT sandwiches representing B_LTS gets chopped from my post. What's the harm? Does anybody have a sense of humor anymore?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in chopping Exit 38. Let it serve as an example of all that is pathetic in climbing. And I kind of agree that it has helped disperse the crowds. But at the same time, I think the crowd has grown since clipping bolts came in vogue.

You know, that would be kind of funny ....if it weren't at least half true! "This is a b_lt. This is a gri-gri. When you get tired, just say "take". Any questions? OK, then you graduate and....here's your certificate...says right here that you've been trained in the subtleties of sport climbing at Lambone's School of Mountaineering. Fifty bucks please."

Call 'em what they is: B_LTS.

Somebody say "Sammich"?

Speaking of which, why do you suppose Taft shows up twice in MrE's picture? Taft, BTW, was the last president to keep a milk cow at the White House.

You forgot one.

Where would these guys go? A fixed anchor ban might just be a ban on additional fixed anchors. I could support that in the Alpine Lakes. You speak as though if the use of power drills/bolting in general is banned, climbing will cease to exist. I'm sorry you've become so dependent on bolt trails to mark the way for your adventures. Again, I would return to the examples I've provided...which you seem to want to ignore as you proceed with your "ain't about da bolts" fantasy. Here are two examples of access issues in which bolting IS the central issue. The cave in Oregon (last I read) is now completely sealed off to EVERYBODY...climbers, sport climbers and hikers alike. They didn't get kicked out of the cave for leaving a sling around a tree.

what about it? How should I know? Read your guide book. They? Was this implied? Dude, you're normally pretty sharp. Did you go out last night?

When 400 bolts were removed from a cave in Oregon, it was not "noise" on a website that resulted in denied access. It was the abusive practices of the "climbers" involved. They littered the place with bolts and to 98% of nonclimbers (just to throw an invented stat right back atcha), this amounts to vandalism. Forgive me for being upset that a celebrated sport climb on Garfield may result in my access being denied. The aesthetic compromise of sport climbing is bad enough, but to suggest that discussing the problem (rather than the problem itself) is more likely to result in denied access....dude, you're delusional. Somehow, given the recent discussions on Garfield, I do not think a fixed anchor ban would qualify as "anti climbing". I could live with such a ban in the Alpine Lakes. And I still think that a tremendous amount of climbing would occur. What the heck did climbers do before sport climbing? If anything is "anti climbing" it is denied access, where no climbing activity is allowed. Are we willing to risk this just so that developers of sport routes can put up bolt trails in the Alpine Lakes?

We agree. A progressive man and a friend of Muir.

Enough with all of the negative shite. Who, in your opinion, exhibited competence and character in leading our nation to greatness?

Did Janet land on a aircraft carrier and proclaim "Mission Accomplished" 1/4 of the way through the affair? Hmm, yet Hillary managed to find something. Ahh yes, "take" Iraq. I suppose that occurs when armed resitance ceases? Still waiting. Will, that be some high-quality shit. Bra-fucking-vo.

Two points. We don't live within a stone's throw of NYC. I would imagine that even a dung heap with flag on top would attract a large number of enthusiasts near a town of that size. And yes, I've been to the gunks(20 years ago?) and they were crowded even then. (They had a great mural/photo of Mt. Index in Rock & Snow). Secondly, you have provided an example of land managers who are concerned about bolting.

What he said. No, I don't think you get it. What is destructive/concerning is meadow trampling from the crowds that congregate around sport climbs and boulders. That no land manager is concerned about permanently altering the visual appearance of rock faces with fixed anchors.....that seems like a dubious assertion. But even if this were true, even if land managers weren't offended by bolt trails, IT IS THIS APPROACH TO "MOUNTAINEERING" THAT IS ATTRACTING LARGE NUMBERS OF CLIMBERS. Many participants on this site have objected to my "ranting" about the virtues of bold climbing and how today's bolt-reliant ascents have cheapened the sport, made it too accessible and artificial. And yet it is precisely this "dumbing down" of mountaineering that is drawing crowds to peaks and walls which used to see only a handful of ascents, and it is precisely the resulting increase in traffic that is the cause of concern. Don't tell me "it's not about bolts". We weren't having these discussions until the introduction of "modern" clip-up climbing on Garfield. "It's not about bolts!" ...I remember hearing this after over 400 bolts were yanked out of a cave in Oregon and the entrance sealed. The ironic thing is, the behavior of pad people and alpine bolt chasers may result in denied access to the small handful of "has beens" who used to leave very little trace and climb under the radar. Even more ironically, it is suggested that discussion of bolting and access on this site should receive the blame when/if access is denied. Insane. Oh...one more thing: Wait a minute. If it's not about "blts", why are you trying to throw off somebody's search (presumably some land manager's search)?

That's your summary, those are your interpretations. We should expect that those who will lead us into war understand its serious nature, first-hand preferably.

White-trash cliché. He was thirty years old for crying out loud. This kind of RECKLESS BEHAVIOR is not what I'm looking for in one who is to lead the world's greatest nation through dangerous times. His "decisive action" in Iraq provides another example of recklessness. I think he has good intentions, I just think he's not smart enough to chiefly command the armed forces.

I care. Inhaling an illegal drug, while really stupid, is a personal choice. There is very little potential for direct harm to another person. Driving under the influence is entirely different. It was in the late '70's that my my wife was riding in the car with her mother when a drunk crossed the center line on Christmas Eve, leaving my wife without a mother. My wife was unconscious for two weeks and still lives with the physical and psychological scars. To anybody who has experienced this, there is a huge difference between the actions of Clinton and George W.

Amazing what you can find on the web: Does this not bother anybody?

Good question. Did he really deserve that 3rd metal? One thing that is not in question is whether anybody has ever received three, two...or even one metal for bravely climbing into a reclining dental chair in Texas knowing full well that he faced the certain removal of a calculus from his enamel. OMFG!

In the butt, in the mouth, in the pussy....but hey, no rough stuff! I'm curious. Do you think if GWB threw his dental records over the White House wall...do yo think anybody would give a shit?