pope

I see a big difference. On a long climb which follows natural weaknesses, say a classic like DEB of SEWS, a few bolts to bypass a blank section are an unfortunate compromise which allow for an exhilerating experience. One would naturally prefer not to have to put a bolt trail in the middle of a climb like that, but in the case that it is necessary, I think it is far more acceptable than the sort of homogeneous, cookie-cutter sport climbs one sees on walls better suited to top-roping, like in Vantage. Secondly, I have to agree with Scott when he suggests that our behavior should set the example for recreational use of the mountains. I don't care whether or not you believe that the average climber in the "golden age" had a better developed sense of wilderness preservation (and I insist that they did). I'm simply promoting that as climber's we do a much better job of avoiding overbolting. We need an ethic that transcends generational differences and fads.

I'm only suggesting situations in which bolts are seemingly more acceptable. Let's contrast lead vs. rap placed bolts. When somebody places bolts on the lead, he is in the thick of it and drilling in order to save his own butt while actually leading. To the extent that he does a nice job and gets solid bolts at logical stances, I think these bolts (while still ugly and foreign) at least respresent a purer form of mountain climbing, where one attempts to meet the challenge of lead climbing. Greater skill and risk are required for success, and as a consequence, it seems obvious that if we were to play by these rules, far fewer dumbied down, overly bolted pitches would exist, and the pace at which the limited resource of unclimbed rock is developed would be greatly decreased, preserving challenges for many generations. Lead bolting, IMO, would greatly retard the pace of bolting and I think it would nearly eliminate the desire and ability of talentless, unskilled climbers to put up 8-bolt, 40-ft sport climbs at a rate of 5 a month or whatever. Lead bolting would allow for some face climbing to be developed, without the creation of a circus like you see in Vantage. Contrast this with the way rap bolting is practiced currently and I think lead bolting looks like a great alternative. The friggin' Huber brothers could be your role models in this capacity. Now let's talk about this route by Carnival Crack again. I've received a bunch of grief about it, and I understand this to some extent. Many bolt advocates who are irritated with my statements (or my attitude or whatever) are delighted to know that I placed a bolt on that climb. "If Pope is against bolting, and if he placed a bolt, then we can just dismiss everything he promotes since he is a hypocrite." I'm sorry, but you're going to have to think a little harder than that. I have said on many occasions that discrete, logical, responsible bolting is OK. A gear route that needs one bolt to protect a deadly face move (which happens to be the crux move) is an example of an acceptable bolt application. Now, if you want to argue this point, I'm willing to discuss it. That route is kind of fun, but I have no great emotional investment in it. If you have done it, and if you honestly think the single bolt on this climb is way out of line with what I've been promoting, try to convince me. You just might talk me into chopping it. Or, you can just carry on saying, "Pope is against every bolt. Pope placed a bolt. Pope is a hypocrite." You need to know that you're demonstrating your capacity for lazy thinking, but that's your right.

Quite obvious. Is they? Consider stopping off at the library on the way down to the gym, so that in your next post you'll be able to spell "hipocricy".

"We have a right to the resources just like any other user group..." Well, that depends on the extent to which you impact the cliff. Perhaps I would like to go down to Smith and dynamite that Chain Reaction climb, so that I could use the resulting gravel pile as chicken grit. Wouldn't that make me a user? Wouldn't I have the "same right as everybody else"?

As with the discussion of installing bolts, any discussion of removing them must recognize that there are a lot of tradeoffs here, and a lot of different climbing styles, and I think ChucK's prior point that the people engaged in these activities need to maintain some measure of humility is a good one. If you appoint yourself as the rock police, a BIG dosage of humility should come into play, in my view. I think you should add to your considerations: 6. Will the decision to not chop this route signal bolt enthusiasts that it is open season on this once traditional crag? 7. Will the fear of starting a bolt war ultimately result in sport climbers bolting anything and everything they can find?

The thing on Secret Dome is...I don't know....ten years old or so. I don't really think I ruined the place, given all of the completely bolt-dependent routes already on the dome. My variation used only two bolts, and I put the bolts in on the lead which, in my way of thinking, makes them the only legitimate bolts on the dome. It is ran-out and 5.11, which adds something to the monotone of 5.10 slab climbing one finds there. I'm happy to help you chop it if you're disgusted by it, and I hope you'll help me chop a few bolts while you're at it. I didn't bolt any cracks by Carnival Crack. I put up (with Scotty Hopkins, not Dave Bale) a crack route which uses one bolt for pro, right at the face climbing crux. This move is by far the hardest on the route. Without the bolt, the fall would probably be fatal. If you didn't recognize this, you probably haven't climbed the route. I could have easily climbed through. The 5.9+ grade is something I can handle with or without a bolt, but I thought that it would be responsible to have a solid bolt on that move. Please don't spread the rumor that I put up a sport climb in Leavenworth, or that I bolted next to a crack. It just isn't true. And MattP, when I make a mistake, I'll be the first to admit it; I don't need your help. The climb by Carnival Crack completely complies with what I have so many times outlined to be the reasonable and responsible application of bolts. Those of you who think it is ridiculous to say "every bolt is a crime" are absolutely correct, and I have never said that. I have pointed out that discrete bolting can add to the climbing experience without seriously compromising the aesthetics of a cliff. THE PROBLEM IS, TOO MANY CLIMBERS JUST DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT DISCRETE BOLTING IS ALL ABOUT.

Arrogance or ignorance, take your pick. What motivates somebody to take a little road-side wilderness (where bolting is mostly absent) and "enhance" it with those tacky, shiny, alien looking devices? It has to be either arrogance or ignorance. There's an assumption that an alpine meadow, a snowy peak or an ancient piece of granite that has been carved by the advance of glaciers....these things are all about as aesthetic as they can be, and they are best appreciated by generation after generation if we keep them in their natural state. They offer unblemished beauty and undiminished challenge. That the way we find 'em, that the way we should leave 'em. Mentioning arrogance, and mentioning "enhancement", it seems that even rap bolters are not completely tolerant of creative expressions that are left behind at our cliffs. Our CC.com Index historians might be able to comment on the correctness of my facts, but I'm pretty sure the first chopping episode at Index resulted in the removal of zero bolts, and I think the chopping was performed by a sport climber who is reported to possess great vision and maintain an open mind. I believe that in response to the creative improvements going on in the early days of Index rap bolting, a couple of boys decided that in addition to a string of bolts enhancing the aesthetics of the cliff, a rotting pig carcass would make a great conversation piece and further improve on what mother nature had so inadequately created in the Sky Valley. The bolts remained, the pig was removed, but not without the comment, "I didn't chop your rap-placed bolts. Why are you removing my lead-placed pig?" I'm pretty sure we could live without both additions.

I can't speak for every bolt puller, as to what motivates them or whether they felt like crusaders or whatever. The only time I was involved in restoration, I felt like an enforcer I suppose, but I felt no pride or arrogance during nor subsequent to the act. I only hoped it would discourage the next party from putting up a bolt trail at Castle Rock. I do feel a responsibility to do my part in preventing the Vantage syndrome from spreading, and I don't think of myself as imposing my belief on everybody else. Again, we're talking about an increasingly limited resource: sunny, granite climbing in Washington which has many classic, nut protected climbs, and where arguably unaesthetic bolt trails have been absent for generations. I'm willing to risk being called a rock cop in order to preserve what many agree should be preserved but are perhaps unwilling to actually do something about. I wish there were a better way.

I don't think it is an indicator of arrogance when one believes that a cliff should remain somewhat true to its natural state, so that many generations of climbers can experience that feeling of pioneering, of using skill and judgement not only to ascend but also to safeguard their ascent through rigging protection. If we allow one climber to put up a low-adventure, highly bolted sport route.....if we allow that he should have the right to make these alterations, then what do we say to the guy who wants to chop holds? Perhaps a rock hound would like to chop out a few specimen crystsals for his collection, or maybe a developer would like to erect a gondola ride and collect fees from tourists..what grounds do we have protesting these uses of our vertical resource, once we allow bolting and/or chipping? I don't think it's a manifestation of arrogance when climbers feel so passionate about this "wilderness ethic" (even if the cliff in question is a 5-minute walk off of Hwy 2) that they are willing to do something about it. I certainly don't speak for everybody who has pulled a bolt, but I think most of them are not interested in attacking an individual or his work. I think most bolt pullers just don't know what else to do to stop the increase in bolt use. I personally feel that at an area that has a long tradition of bolt-free climbing, chopping a sport route MUST be performed because of the message not chopping sends out to those who would love to develop sport routes. I agree with you to some extent. I personally think the outdoor gym environment of Exit 32 is a joke, but it would be arrogant of me or anybody else to walk in there and try to disrupt that circus by pulling bolts. I don't think anybody is doing this. What is happening is that sport climbers are coming to traditionally bolt-free areas and placing bolts (in the form of new sport climbs, retrobolting formerly bold climbs, and bolting clean aid lines to produce free clims). MattP, we agree on a bunch of things. I'm not saying that every bolt is a crime, and I think you agree that bolting excesses exist. The question is what to do about it. Molly says, "I'd pay cold cash if Dwayner were allowed to comment in this forum. How long's it been now, two months? I miss that hunk of burnin' love and his sassy bolt talk."

"Never doubt what we don't really know about." Willy Wonka

Now if you decide to try to suck out the cork, consider letting our boy Cracked have a crack at it. I'm pretty sure he could do it ('cause he thinks Molly Ringwald is ugly).

Your bolting stance seems about as central and politically milk-toast as they come. I agree with (nearly) every item in your code, but I'm curious about how you'd suggest we deal with other, more controversial questions. About that Molly.....

Come back when you've got something to say.

Back to the subject boys....

Tell me more! Where would one view this masterpiece?

My theory doesn't imply it, and I don't suggest it. I'm just saying that if we're going to have a discussion about bolts, we should be careful about the reasons we use to advocate their use, since the next generation could easily tell you to open your mind to chipping (dont' look back man), and the logic behind your endorsement of the sport climbing nonethic will come right back atcha, Cleopatra. Now about Molly......

Anyway, I thought this thread had evolved into a discussion of......

I think they are different activities with somewhat different results, but in many ways they are equivalent: 1. Both a bolt and a chipped hold can be employed to "make a route go" which would otherwise present too great of a challenge. It has been argued by bolt enthusiasts that bolts only reduce danger and the cerebral challenge of leading, whereas chipping may reduce the physical challenge. However, it is not obvious that these elements (physical/mental) are completely separable. With a bolt at your hip, and with the next one just above your head, you can afford to climb with more abandon, you can push to the point of falling off. For a given grade, you can be less fit, less of an athlete and still try to push through on a sport route, whereas on a route where gear is sparse, you must climb with much more physical control, with enough reserve to climb down if you can't make it to the next gear. In short, you've got to be better prepared physically. Put 25 bolts on the Bachar Yerian and a novice 5.11 climber will certainly get the redpoint. In its current state, you should probably be a 5.12 climber to get on that thing. Which is why I haven't. Anyway, bolts do diminish both mental and physical challenge in this way, which makes them seem similar to chipping holds. 2. Whether it's a bolt or a chipped hold, the decision to employ it will alter the appearance of the rock, and the change is arguably permanent. A bolt is always a visual intrusion on the wilderness which is noticed by every climber and often by other recreational users; a chipped hold is often a visual intrusion that can be notice by climbers. Not everybody agrees that bolts are unaesthetic intrusions on the wilderness experience, and not everybody agrees that chipped holds are either. 3. In order to employ a bolt or a chipped hold, you have to assume that future parties will appreciate your permanent alterations. Otherwise you've got to be willing to say that you don't care what everybody else thinks and carry out your plan. In this case, you're basically stating that the route you're establishing is in some sense your private property. Bolts and chipped holds are certainly different in that currently far more people approve of bolts. My point is that this difference is not based on logic and ethical principle but is merely popular sentiment.

Then... And now.....

I don't post over there any more. Too much editing, deleted posts, familiar avatars just disappearing in the night. No man, that forum is kind of weird.

Two questions: 1. Just who is promoting pin scars? Is this a conversation you actually had with somebody or have you been hearing voices? 2. A string of bolts diminishes the challenge, both physically and mentally. How did you decide these two aspects of climbing are so separable? There's no way you're going to hang dog your way up a 2-bolt horror pitch, no way to cheat and work out the moves for that eventual pink point. If you're going to lead it, you'd better be ready, you'd better be fit, you'd better have the skill and experience necessary to keep a cool head. If the Bachar-Yerian had 18 bolts on it, it would be both physically and many times mentally less of a challenge. In many, many cases, if it is absoute safety you desire, you could achieve your goals with a top-rope. If you think clipping a bunch of bolts makes it more thrilling or more challenging (but your not prepared to try to get these bolts in on the lead), then I suppose you could top-rope the pitch with about 2.8 feet of slack to simulate a burly Vantage pitch.

Could be that he's lost his way. I haven't climbed in Europe, although I certainly hope to. You don't have to travel that far to find examples of chipping. Right?