pope

Pope behaved poorly, it is true. But MattP, meet the new me!

I believe there is a history (as reported by Bachar from one of his visits) in the Verdon of climbers seeking routes at the current limit (5.13 at that time) and actually creating such lines by chipping holds in blank sections to link climbable sections of rock. Im pretty sure that most chipping occurs when a route pioneer wishes to "make the line go". In other cases, sharp jug holds are rounded down so that somebody's girlfriend can get the purple point. In any case, chipping, gluing, enhancing (and of course bolting) do fall into a single category if you're asking the question, "Has the rock been permanently and visibly modified?" And because of this, I really don't care whether the goal is a hard climb or an easy climb, I just think it's immoral. Last time I hiked up to Exit 38, I noticed a sign which PROMOTED the use of glue. This is how far we've come? This is the thing to which some of you want me to open my mind? (The sign also commented on the removal of "begetation" [sic]).

Isn't that interesting?

It might be more correct to say that you were poking a hole in an assertion that exists only in your imagination. I never wrote those words, nor did I write anything that remotely resembles them. I simply stated that fewer people considered it acceptable to modify permanently or "enhance" the rock to accomodate the safety concerns of their ascent. That nuts were easier to place and allowed for advances in free climbing is certainly true, but your assertion that this was the PRIMARY reason for their popularity is ridiculous. Firstly, you're pretending to know the motivations of thousands of climbers you never met. Secondly, you can hardly explain the clean aid phenomenon as a pragmatist's solution to climbing. Everybody knows that far greater safety can be found when you're willing to smack a few pins, in the majority of situations. Cutting edge climbers of the 70's and 80's worked to eliminate pins from aid routes, and they did this to INCREASE THE CHALLENGE LEVEL OF WALL CLIMBING as well as to preserve the beauty of the rock (according to almost every account I've read by those who pioneered clean wall climbing). The fact is, places like Vantage were being explored and developed long before sport climbing arrived. The fact is, bolts existed and were available then. The fact is, if somebody had put up a collection of rap-placed bolt trails, he would have been widely (and correctly) considered a coward. You just didn't see that kind of mess then, although the capability certainly existed, and although it certainly would have made climbing easier (which, as you recall, is what you consider to be the primary motivation for all human actions). I think this evidence flies in the face of your notion that most/all climbers were primarily motivated by making climbing easier/safer/simpler when they adopted clean climbing practices. You should really consider what I'm saying about chipping, because it's not just a bunch of handwaving. The notion that it is acceptable to modify the rock to make it safer or more climbable through the use of bolts is precisely the mentality that exists among those who chip holds. And they are ethically equivalent practices. Finally, you're an articulate guy who often demonstrates both vision and wisdom. Next time you're considering flinging a bunch of insults my way, you may wish instead to preserve your reputation and respect. You may wish to maintain a little more dignity while you attempt to make your points.

OK, that did it, Mr......Mr. MattyP. I'm not going to respond to your juvenile insults. I know that you and your big, important moderator buddies have this agenda to provoke me into saying something I'll regret (something routinely obscene from any other contributor, but something perhaps just a little out of character for me), so that you guys can call me a "prick" and arbitrarily ban me for some unspecified period of time, just like you did my buddy Dwayner. But I'm not falling for it, Mr. Matt. Nope. I am... like... so through with your horseshit. I'm just going to pretend you're not even there, and I'm going to let those petty insults just bounce right off, right back at 'cha, Cleopatra.

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related. exactly. so why not try to minimalize where we can? i do not use chalk ever because of this very reason. every activity has an impact to some extent (especially in nature) and it is our responsibility to minimalize this in every way we can. i am drinking beer in order to consume less freshwater Now, let it be known, one of my favorite seasonal beers is again available: Pyramid's Snow Cap Ale....mahogany in color, complex and spicy yet deliciously smooth. And 7%, may I add. Hey, I believe I'll have another.

Maybe I can actually take a few moments to put some ideas together rather than just spray the first stupid comment that comes to mind. You may credit Dru with that witty quote.

Yup. That be some of my very favorite bed-side reading.

Yowsa! Dat funny!

Yup. Gotta have the bucks, for the fancy power drill. And the hardware. But say, once you've demonstrated competence by acquiring these items (sarcasm, for the slower readers), then, and only then, by Gum, should you consider yourself a ROUTE PIONEER. Kurt, you've accused me of demonstrating poor logic, given my mathematical training. But, you're also a mathematician. When we gonna get som' dat good logic out of you?

the hole is rock damage a good argument for keeping bolt counts low by placing gear wherever possible i would like to see someone argue now that a route with 6 bolts bolted drilling by hand on lead, is better than the same route put up on rappel - i haven't seen that argument regurgitated pro and con for a while! Yeah...that 3/8 + 1/16 hole...catastrophic damage, yup...earthending annihilation... It's not just the hole. It's the damned shiny metal thing which defiles the aesthetics of a rock wall. They don't kill salmon. Instead, this is known as "visual pollution", and that is precisely the environmental impact bolts impose. Then there's the whole "murder of the impossible" thing, which has nothing to do with environmental considerations, but which questions, "At what point, and after which alterations, will we decide that we've made mountain climbing too easy? Bolts? Chipped holds? Gondolas?"

the hole is rock damage a good argument for keeping bolt counts low by placing gear wherever possible i would like to see someone argue now that a route with 6 bolts bolted drilling by hand on lead, is better than the same route put up on rappel - i haven't seen that argument regurgitated pro and con for a while! Well, it goes like this: Given that any pussy can drill on rappel, those 6 bolt holes get multiplied by the scores of jokers who think that bolting on rap creates a lead. Now instead, if we agree that "leads" must be established on lead, and that bolts must be drilled by hand, just how often are those six holes going to appear? Answer me this, oh clever boy!

So, the clean climbing revolution had NOTHING to do with a change in the way climbers approached wilderness and the preservation thereof? You're telling me that nuts caught on ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EASY TO USE AND MADE CLIMBS EASIER FOR JOE AVERAGE? "If it's practical, I'll do it. If it helps me get up the cliff, shoot.....IT'S ALL GOOD!" May I summarize your approach to climbing ethics in the previous pseudo-quote? Is this what really motivates you? Just so long as it makes the climb easy, anything goes? Because, my friend, when you begin to allow for permanent alterations to the rock (bolts) in order to facilitate an easier ascent, and when you're Hell-bent on affirming the latest fad for fear of being accused of living in the past, YOU MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY TELLING THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLIMBERS (WHO WISH TO MAKE THINGS EVEN EASIER BY, SAY, CHIPPING A LINE OF BUCKETS) THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS OF THE CLIFF INSTEAD OF MURDERING THE IMPOSSIBLE. Bolts and chipping? U-N-R-E-L-A-T-E-D! Its a far stretch to say that bolts lead to chipping...a very far stretch... Murdering the impossible?? You can't even climb 90% of limestone w/o fixed gear CUZ THERE AINT EVEN A PLACE FOR A THREAD, much less some piece of gear... Elbsandstein, one of the boldest traditional areas around relies on fixed gear...there are rules about placing them, but they are there nonetheless... I don't think bolting leads to chipping. I think that they are ethically commensurate. If you can justify one, then you can justify the other. (And I predict, if guys like Offwhite are still around in 10 years, he'll be composing the pro-chip essays. I mean, let's make sure we're looking forward, gentlemen!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Well, I'll be hog-tied and dipped in honey. And I thought you'd have to PM our "esteemed and ethical" moderators in order to ascertain my identity, which I so obviously wished would remain private. Kurt, you suggest that Dwayner is a prick. Well you've just demonstrated your capacity for being lower than a snake's butt in a wagon track.

Now I fully expect RuMr, Erik, Cracked and various and assorted zombies to immediately reply to this post and accuse you, Mr. Harpell, of being just another one of Dwayner's avatars. I mean, let's face it, there's no way in Hell that more than one person can possibly feel like wilderness is worth preserving! (That was sarcasm, for the slower readers among you.) Rock on, my friend! It's been kind of lonely around here, now that Dwayner has been rather arbitrarily banned.

So, the clean climbing revolution had NOTHING to do with a change in the way climbers approached wilderness and the preservation thereof? You're telling me that nuts caught on ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EASY TO USE AND MADE CLIMBS EASIER FOR JOE AVERAGE? "If it's practical, I'll do it. If it helps me get up the cliff, shoot.....IT'S ALL GOOD!" May I summarize your approach to climbing ethics in the previous pseudo-quote? Is this what really motivates you? Just so long as it makes the climb easy, anything goes? Because, my friend, when you begin to allow for permanent alterations to the rock (bolts) in order to facilitate an easier ascent, and when you're Hell-bent on affirming the latest fad for fear of being accused of living in the past, YOU MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY TELLING THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLIMBERS (WHO WISH TO MAKE THINGS EVEN EASIER BY, SAY, CHIPPING A LINE OF BUCKETS) THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS OF THE CLIFF INSTEAD OF MURDERING THE IMPOSSIBLE.

By whom?

Back when I was young people who made such statements about the cowardice of others were not afraid to use their real names while doing so. Golden Age indeed. If it weren't for the juvenile language and obscene images of perverted toads one encounters on this site, I could probably post from my workplace using my real name and not feel embarassed about it. So then, how do you feel about incessant Richard Simmons postings, and Sport climbers are gay posting. This is very offensive in a two-fold manner: 1.) you are insinuating that something is wrong w/ being a homosexual, and 2.) you are then using that little "factoid" to then slam sportclimbing You are a hypocrite if you are who i think you are. Your previous postings point to the fact that you can get right down to the level of JayB and others...So don't play that weak card... You are insinuating that I am Dwayner? I am not. Dwayner has not posted here since he was arbitrarily banned. I know this for a fact. I challenge you to find one statement (made by Dwayner) that sport climbers are gay. I don't think you'll find it. No...i'm insinuating that you are Pope... Oh, you see, I got the impression that you were insinuating that I'm Dwayner since you mentioned the posts featuring Richard Simmons photos, of which Dwayner posted many and I posted zero. Also, many have accused Dwayner of posting "sport climbers are gay" material, and that's another reason I thought you were confusing me for Dwayner. By the way, that's a terrible thing of which to accuse Dwayner! Were you able to find any of these "sport climbers are gay" posts that Dwayner supposedly posted? Finally, I would say that "RuMr" is every bit as anonymous as my current "avatar". I post anonymously for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I do not wish to expose my family to the lunatic element that is potentially reading this crap. There's a good chance that you've figured out who I am, and if you're right, you must know that I'd be happy to tell anybody in person the same opinions I express on this BB.

From where did you get the impression that I am outraged about being confused for Dwayner, or that I'm pretending to be outraged? This makes absolutely no sense. After a number of people insinuated that I am he, I simply pointed out that they were not correct. I feel no need to identify myself. This is the internet for crying out loud, and since I present unpopular opinions, and since I have no idea what kind of cretins are reading this crap, I think it is wise to remain anonymous. Why anybody would care about my identity is beyond me, but it isn't hard to figure out. Anybody who cares may simply send a PM to one of our esteemed and ethical moderators; I'm certain he will spill the beans.

Back when I was young people who made such statements about the cowardice of others were not afraid to use their real names while doing so. Golden Age indeed. If it weren't for the juvenile language and obscene images of perverted toads one encounters on this site, I could probably post from my workplace using my real name and not feel embarassed about it. So then, how do you feel about incessant Richard Simmons postings, and Sport climbers are gay posting. This is very offensive in a two-fold manner: 1.) you are insinuating that something is wrong w/ being a homosexual, and 2.) you are then using that little "factoid" to then slam sportclimbing You are a hypocrite if you are who i think you are. Your previous postings point to the fact that you can get right down to the level of JayB and others...So don't play that weak card... You are insinuating that I am Dwayner? I am not. Dwayner has not posted here since he was arbitrarily banned. I know this for a fact. I challenge you to find one statement (made by Dwayner) that sport climbers are gay. I don't think you'll find it.

Not everybody was bold, but many more people (compared to today) respected the idea that you deal with the cards you're dealt. If the wall doesn't have sufficient pro for your likings, you walk away and don't leave a mess. I have equal respect for the 5.5 limber and the 5.12 climber, whether or not they choose to do bold lines, and whether or not they get in over their heads now and then. I RESPECT CLIMBERS WHO ATTEMPT TO CLIMB IN GOOD STYLE AT WHATEVER LEVEL, WITHOUT LEAVING A MESS.

In addition to suffering from myopia, is reading comprehension a problem for you, too? I noted that I think Indext Town Wall is probably less crowded now than in 1985 or whatever, nowhere did I argue that "climbing areas/camping areas are probably less crowded than they were and that we are currently dealing with a less restrictive permit system." If you want to make any kind of argument that has any meaning at all, you gotta do better than that. I mean it Matt, you did it. You offered some convincing evidence to support those ideas. It went something like this: Permits and Fees? As long as I've been climbing, these were a part of the climbing experience. The Tetons had climbing permit requirements by the 1960's, I think, and it was even more difficult to get a permit to climb Mount Rainier in the winter in the '70's than it is now -- you had to show up during office hours so they could inspect your gear. The Enchantments permits started when - late ‘70's? Park entrance fees have been collected as long as I can remember. And who could forget: .....crowds have always been a part of climbing as long as I can remember. Parking at the Gunks was a big problem in 1970. The Climber's Ranch in the Tetons was probably more crowded in the mid '70's than now. Camp 4 in the Valley was also a busy place by the mid ‘70's and you had to "take a number" and wait three days to get onto the Nose route. You see? The genius, the wealth of experience that defines the man, MattP.

Back when I was young people who made such statements about the cowardice of others were not afraid to use their real names while doing so. Golden Age indeed. If it weren't for the juvenile language and obscene images of perverted toads one encounters on this site, I could probably post from my workplace using my real name and not feel embarassed about it.

Bolts, crowds, crowded campgrounds.....they seem to conspicuously coexist, almost symbiotically. When we take the macho aspect out of climbing, when we make climbing something that becomes about as dangerous and adventurous as playing volleyball without a helmet....of course it will have greater appeal. When leading difficult rock (something that used to require guts, skill and great judgment) is demystified by a trail of bolts, and when we let today's climbers feel as though they're really doing something that is parallel to the old, heroic 5th-class leading, then new climbers will inundate our cliffs in search of that heroic, sharp-end feeling. It's just one, big happy illusion.....and I'm all for Quixotic fantasies, just not when the result is crowding and ugly bolt trails. We're discussing the increased number of climbers which were reported at the beginning of this thread. I think mentioning the impact sportclimbing has on this increase is valid.

This is the real issue. Back in the golden age you could go where you wanted to without crouds and without the man making you pay fees and restricting your camping options. I would direct you to MattP's post (above) in which he challenges this notion and categorically proves that, indeed, climbing areas/camping areas are probably less crowded than they were and that we are currently dealing with a less restrictive permit system. Good one, huh?