pope

And I'm really sick of your obscene, Whack MC image. Get some class.

How do we know these climbs would be beyond them without sportclimbing as a training tool? Who's to say that climbing in a gym couldn't make them just as strong? Who's to say they couldn't gain skill and strength by trying to free climb the Salathe, or run laps on Astroman? I agree that sport climbing can provide fitness that transfers well on steep alpine rock, but is it worth the cost? If grid bolting is the price we must pay so that a handul of sponsored, world-class athletes can inspire us, is it really worth it? Wasn't Mark Wilford inspiring us already? Was anybody inspired when Peter Croft climbed that 5.13/14 crack in Idaho (can't think of the name...the one that Yaniro bolted), eschewing the bolts for RP protection? Prior to the sport climbing revolution, were there no cutting-edge alpine climbs being put up that inspired us? That some talented, world-class alpinists use sport climbing as a fitness tool does very little to mitigate the mess I see in my back yard.

There is evidence to support this idea, if you operate under the assumption that while practicing mountaineering (and its derivatives), we should strive to leave the challenge similar to the way we found it, so that the next generation can go out there and have a little road-side wilderness.

Here's a thread about how popular the sport has become. In my post I quote a statement which suggests that growing numbers are good for the sport, and I simply express my difficulty in understanding how this can be true. I'm not upset, I just think climbing in its current state fails to live up to the ideals of the clean climbing revolution. Our readiness to follow the Europeans down the sportclimbing path nearly two decades ago has resulted in what we currently observe. I would like for just one person to defend the statement that climbing is now somehow better, given all of the developments that have come with the increased popularity of the sport. Instead, we're hearing the same old, tired-out insults (you're bitter, you're over the hill, you feel threatened, you can't climb, you need to get out, blah blah blah), along with about half a dozen incorrect assertions that I am Dwayner reincarnate. How is climbing better, outside of technical advances in gear? How is it more meaningful, more spiritual, more magical .... now that we embrace grid bolting? What can climbing teach us about ourselves that it couldn't previously?

X agrees with Dwayner => X is Dwayner?

Of course the Gunks are/were crowded. It has not always been that way here in the Cascades, and I think you know it. Do you really think that hundreds, and I mean hundreds of bolted 5.9/5.10 Leavenworth slabs have improved the experience over there? Have examples of wilderness enhancement always existed to accomodate hikers and Sunday picnic enthusiasts (huts, picnic tables, etc.)? Of course, but is that an American mountaineering tradition? What we're discussing here, in case the focus has softened in your mind, is the growth of the climbing crowd and the associated impacts. Yes, I think the goals of many of today's climbers are dubious, although in some cases, harmless. You've brought up some of the early big-wall tactics as being equally dubious. Guess what, things evolved in the 70's toward clean, low-impact, high-adventure climbing. What has happened since the mid 1980's is certainly a step in the wrong direction, and it is the nature of climbing in the very places you mention (Vantage, Exit 38) which attract these great numbers.

I have difficulty pointing out how greater numbers of climbers has been good for the sport, outside of improved gear (which may have happened regardless). Greater numbers of climbers have brought us: 1. Crowds (by definition) and all of the problems associated therewith. 2. A new attitude about wilderness experiences, in which it is acceptable (even desirable) to "enhance" the wilderness to our liking. Bolts, chipped holds, epoxy, quickdraws hanging in place, etc. Really unfortunate stuff. 3. Dubious mountaineering goals for the average participant, in which we focus on small, attainable goals which allow us to operate in a controlled environment. Thus, the ultimate goal for the winter season is climbing a bolt ladder with your crampons on, and the ultimate goal for the summer is pulling a 3-move V7 problem and buying a new bouldering pad. 4. Fees, permits, fees and permits. These were completely unnecessary in the days when climbing was a rough and tumble game practiced by the lunatic fringe. 5. Guided trips on the big E and elsewhere, in which discretionary income, rather than a solid climbing resume, makes you an expeditionary candidate .

I know a guy who did "roped access" work locally, which I think amounted to some kind of maintenance or window cleaning on the side of Seattle skyscrapers. He enjoyed both the work and the compensation, especially because he claimed to be able to perform the routines without having to change his morning rituals (coffee, nicotine, and whatever else). He actually appeared on the cover of a NW careers magazine!

My daughter (3 yrs) went out with us last winter. I put her on my shoulders and hiked her up a bunny slope, then skiied down with her. She loved catching snowflakes in her mouth more than skiing, but by the end of the night, she just wanted to ski more and more. I'm really looking forward to skiing with her this year. I think we're going to put her in a private lesson where her mother and I can ski with her while she gets one-on-one instruction for about an hour. I absolutely agree that the only goal should be that at the end of the day, when it is time to depart, your child wants to return.

The following are authentic quotes from NW climbers: "Come on up. You've got the best damn belay in the Cascades. Just don't fall." "God she's hot, and I think she wants me. I'll pay for your bus ticket back to Seattle, but foget the Tietons. I'm going to Colorado to meet her." "5.10 chimney? My lead? No problem. I did a 10b at the gym just last week." "Ooooooops. You're not going to believe this." -from a Tacoma climber named Jon who, one night in my tent on the Emmons Glacier, crapped on my pad while trying to land one in the blue bag.

Climb! by Bob Godfrey & Dudley Chelton

Obviuosly both cases occur. What I can't understand is why people do not control the stupid little variables which could mean the difference between life and death. On my last trip to Index I saw a guy leading a meandering route by placing only TCU type cams without any extensions. I watched as his rope wiggled these cams up and down and completely out of their original orientations. I watched his partner finish a pitch and belay off of one bolt to which he was connected by a sling with a 'biner on each end. If anything there failed (bolt, 'biner, sling, other 'biner) he would have killed both himself and his buddy. Are these bad habbits the result of poor training? No training? Ignorance? Laziness? All of the above? With the number of mountaineering manuals available at the public library for free, how can anybody be so casual with his own life? Why would his buddy tolerate that kind of crap?

In Meyers old yellow guide (printed in the early 80's I think), he stated that not one free soloist had died in the Valley, even though quite a bit of it was going on at the time. Maybe the reason for this is that only highly skilled climbers were soloing on terrain that was well within their abilities. The same climbers might tie into a rope and try to free an aid pitch that protected with mostly #2 RP's and bottoming cam slots. What's more dangerous? My last leader fall was 25 feet onto a zero TCU. I think cruising along ropeless on a 5.8 hand crack is probably safer, although perhaps less forgiving. Peter, do you think that it shouldn't have been reported when Croft soloed Astroman? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is it that the media has a responsibility to avoid reporting on risky behavior, or is it that they should have avoided idolizing the "mentally ill" solo climbers with which you are familiar?

These days I pretty much agree with you and the general public that all climbing is dangerous. Now that I'm a daddy, I participate in climbing by taking every safety precaution I can. I even own a helmet. I was simply commenting that when Peter pointed out two emotionally unstable solo climbers, he might not have given us a glimpse of the mental state of the average solo climber. I think you can argue that a solo climber is self-absorbed, that he has little respect for the concerns of close family and friends, but I don't think that makes him a nut case. Soloing is definitely a bad choice for me today, but when I did a lot of it, I felt like I was very safe about it. I routinely down-climbed most of the routes I'd solo up, and so I felt like I could work my way out just about any jam. I don't agree that soloing is necessarily more dangerous than other climbers. I'm pretty sure that available stats (like in the old Meyers guide to Yosemite) show that very few soloists die. More accidents happen in mainstream climbing practices by far.

The degree to which you think somebody involved in extreme climbing practices (free soloing or hard alpine) is mentally unstable seems to be influenced by your vantage point. When you were younger, maybe you looked up to climbers who cheated death, and maybe now you're wise enough to realize they were just crazy, that they didn't respect their own lives, that only lunacy could compel them to behave like that. But remember, the general public thinks YOU are crazy to climb, no matter what risks you think you're accepting or controlling. They don't care whether you're sport climbing, trad climbing or top roping, they just think you're nuts to be strapped to the side of a cliff. And maybe they're right. Most of us want to find our limits in climbing, both physically and mentally. The sport climber who decides 5.12 is only attainable if he climbs with a smaller diameter rope and super-light 'biners is essentially playing the same game as the trad climber who wants to link three grade V climbs in the Valley and decides to try it solo. The primary difference is that the sport climber will likely rely on his gear. Only one close friend of mine has ever been injured severely in a climbing accident. In his case, the anchor failed while he was top roping. He arguably would have been safer without a rope since soloing produces a focus and a tenacity that just can't be duplicated while on belay. I've met many climbers who enjoy soloing and not one of them seemed mentally ill. The solo climber walking up a hand crack is in some ways more secure than sport climber who routinely falls on his 9.8 mm rope and blindly trusts that it will catch him two seasons after he purchases it. At another time in my life soloing seemed completely reasonable to me as well, first as a means to move quickly in the mountain environment, then eventually as an exhilerating pursuit that required no purpose.

Well now, that's easy. The few remaining trad climbs tend to be up at elevation where lazy power drillers don't like to go.

No way man. I won't go "in there". Stuff disappears just as fast as I type it. Petey P....he don't like me. Now, what is it that you would like to know 'bout trad climbin'?

The New Rock Climbing Forum is decidedly a sport climbing forum, free of spray, sanitized of all insults that sport climbers and advocates for restrained bolting seem to hurl at each other. Petey P has worked hard to make sure those who post there are in agreement on the bolting issue. Why not change the name to the Sport Climbing Forum or just Petey's Corner, then invite Dwayner back (maybe Pope too) under the condition that they stay out of the Sport Climbing Forum?

Erik, listen up. I AIN'T DWAYNER! But I did a nice hike and took a Sauna Sausage with him just yesterday, and I interviewed him for his opinions on some of the nonsense one encounters on this site recently. He informed me that he had altogether stopped posting before he was banned. The notion that he logs on under some other name or "avatar" is mistaken. He hasn't logged on under another name in over a year, and he has no desire to do so. He said he would consider participating if he were invited back. I personally feel that it isn't very classy when some of our moderators (not naming names 'cause I don't want Erik and Matt getting upset) suggest that Dwayner is logging on under some other mysterious name, just because the participant happens to agree with Dwayner (such as I do)....or when the contributor pays Dwayner a compliment (such as Chirp did). It is certainly less than classy when our moderators allow Dwayner to continually be attacked (by Cracked et al.) even though he hasn't had the opportunity to defend himself. Guys, do your jobs. Get some class while you're at it.

This is hilarious. Bring back Dwayner!

I'm aware of a secret cave that's got some bats............and about 400 bolt holes!

Great story. But this is a rock climbing forum. I come here to get advice on how to climb 5.13, not listen to your war stories. Monitors, could we move this thread to Spray?

It would seem that a responsible climber would first ask, "In what way would a new sport route actually improve the climbing and aesthetics of this crag?" You might then follow this with, "How will other climbers (or other recreational users of the area) react to establishing a sport route here?" When considering this question, one should also research the line to ascertain whether it has been climbed previously without bolts, either as a bold lead or perhaps as an established toprope problem. I don't think we are responding adequately to the original question in this thread. The question was not, "How do I place a bolt?" Rather, it appears that a climber who hasn't actively developed sport routes is curious about the ENTIRE process. I can't believe that not one person on this site has suggested that the very decision to establish a sport route must be carefully scrutinized prior to drilling.

Oh, how I long to bugger a furry little Bill in the heather.