pope

It is absolutely valid and thank you for having a little vision, for being an example and leaving little/no trace. I think that you should report the routes. Why? In the future, these lines (with very little information) can be enjoyed in their original condition, much the way some of the routes on Castle are to this very day. Eventually, with traffic, they may become clean. Wouldn't it be refreshing to open the Leavenworth guide and find new routes that provide a nearly equal amount of adventure for subsequent parties? I take back anything nasty I said about you. Here's to brother Erik!

Just so we're clear, First Amendment rights do not extend to a private forum--and as much as you may think this is a public forum, its not. Its privately owned, privately maintained and privately funded. Therefore, the owners of this forum are welcome to censor whatever speach they desire--regardless of your perceived freedoms. An analogy might be if you walk into WalMart and start spewing epithets. They'll jack yer ass out of there just like the moderators here can do. That the board is privately controlled is entirely obvious; that the free exchange of ideas is a goal of this site is increasingly less obvious. '..... knowing your tendency to distort and misrepresent, I am willing to believe that, as Darryl pointed out yesterday, that half of the climbs you listed do not belong on a list of "clean A2 cracks."' In fact most of them do aid cleanly and were previously aid climbs. "As to you first amendement rights, I noted in my response that even after all the discussion yesterday you were still finding the need to post in a deliberately annoying manner." We all get annoyed with other contributors. I have no monopoly here. The question is, since you were able to read the post that got pulled, what was so offensive and annoying about it? Ask Peter to resurrect it and please pick it apart for me. I'd like to learn how to be more civil. "I believe that you knowingly mischaracterized Darryl's participation in the earlier discussions of the day, and you also distorted what had been told you you by the evil perpetrator of DDD." Absolutely false. Please elaborate on your accusations. I didn't distort or misrepresent anything (except when I carelessly used the word "countless" to describe the number of bolted former aid routes at Index). I simply asked Daryl where he stands on this issue (or anybody else who cares to comment). I can read a guidebook. I know Daryl didn't have anything to do with some of the climbs I mentioned. He, however, suggested I was "aiding with a hammer" (simply not true, I never even touched it) and that he heard "tap tap tap", which is a recent addition to his rendering of the facts. He claims that I stated he had physically threatened me, which I never stated. I said that in the gym, Daryl revealed that he had been very close to punching Dwayner previously. My story ain't changing....he's trying to change my story. And what do you know about the conversation I had with a DDD bolter? He argued that bolting the route would increase traffic and "rescue it", help to clean it up. I agreed that this would happen but still thought it was a poor idea. My conversation with him was infinitely more civil than what I have to endure every time you log on, Matt. How did I misrepresent or distort the conversation THAT YOU NEVER HEARD? I'm getting really confused here, sir. "You included a slap at me that was out of context in the paragraph where it was included, and your autosig, while quite funny, was also an intentional jab." Guilty. Sorry dad.

Matt....Peter......help! Sphinx is attempting to get this serious and civil post pulled by interjecting his routine four-letter, two-cent comments. This is just the kind of garbage that is going to get us in trouble with land managers. Please DELETE SPHINX'S RESPONSE NOW!

Hey......is it just my imagination or did my post get yanked today? Who's the spray cop with the heavy hand? Is there some rationale for this? Is MattP just tired of the 1st Amendment? Is the moderatorial board camped out on one side of the bolting issue? What's the justification for pulling the post? I asked some serious questions in a most civil manner. Again, I'd like to hear from those who have opinions on the issue of bolting clean aid routes. I've produced a list of Index climbs which fall into this category, altough I must admit that this list is not exhaustive. MattP's survey reveals that more than half of the respondents think there exists a serious problem with crack bolting. Why then must a post in which this issue is discussed be pulled?

From an earlier post in this thread: I started this thread with the hope that it would be a good starting place for discussion if not debate. I endeavor to be honest and fair in my comments. I do not think that has been the case for others here on cc.com. There is no reason for these debates to be accusatory and acrimonious. Yet they are. That is the true “nonsense”. Cracked ask yourself why others putting up FAs don’t post here? The answer is simply the BS and outright lies they have to put up with. Look at the goofy “Rock Police” thread. Kind of amazing isn’t it! The last several years cc.com has grown dramatically. Back when the RP thread was posted I told Jon that the site was going to be great in time and encouraged others to post here. I absolutely hate these bolting issues but finally decided I should say something. I start otu with a list of transgressions and end with "hey I wasn't accsuing you.." Let's move on. There is a difference between "a list of your transgressions" and "your list of transgressions". When you started the thread, you listed a number of facts about the current state of bolting. That is "your list of transgressions". They are not your transgressions, just your list. Get it?

Boy, where do I begin? I never said you bolted all of those cracks. You asked for a list of bolted aid cracks at Index. I produced. I threw in a couple of retro-bolted free climbs that I find offensive as well. I'm not accusing you of being involved in these climbs or supporting their development, I'm just offering examples of what I feel are offensive climbs that really don't fall into the sport-climbing category. "the normally fiesty pope" was stammering in the gym? I suppose I was out of breath (training for my project dude). BTW, I was the guy "aiding with a hammer". The hammer never once came into my grasp but instead hung from my harness throughout the ascent. You heard a tap-tap? Wasn't me. I often carry a hammer while aiding for back cleaning nuts that I've weighted. Back at the gym.....if I brought up the fact that my buddy is a scholar, this was probably in response to your questioning about who he was. You didn't threaten violence against me and I never claimed you did. You're welcome to retract that statement, in fact. What you said to me in the gym is that you came close to punching my buddy, and that I should inform him that you want to talk to him. That is all. Now we've established that a number of bolted free climbs exist at the Lower Wall, and that many of these go on clean aid. And we've established that I'm not saying you're responsible for them. The question is, if everybody is so opposed to bolting cracks....if this should have been obvious to me by now, as MattP says....then where do you stand on the issue, on these routes?

Disagree. It is a problem when "virtually everybody" is against it and it happens anyway, front and center stage on the lower wall. Mentioning broken records, how many times are we going to hear that Pope and Dwayner are interrupting the conversation? If you ain't noticed, my friend, you're interrupting the conversation by continually shouting (robotically and nonresponsively) instead of joing in. Come on, Matt, I know you have more to say.

Well, as we all know, statistics and ratios can be formed to support almost any argument. Hell, you can find a positive relation between shoe size and beer consumption. But for a more interesting computation, why not compare (divide) the number of free climbs which feature bolted cracks to the number of remaining clean aid pitches? Also, what point could you possibly be trying to make, by suggesting (not demonstrating) that bolting of clean aid cracks happens only on a small scale? Is it acceptable? No? Can something be done about it? Just tryin' to be civil!

Dana's Arch: I'm sure you meant well, but what you now have is a bolted crack. Ditto on #10. Implicit in your discussion is the idea that a new free climb with bolts is somehow better than an old aid climb that can be aided on nuts. I'm sure pleasure is to be found through either pursuit, but with the second practice......what you have is a bolted crack. * #10 * 10 Percent * Wipe * Cunning Stunt (or did it get chopped) * Dana's Arch (certainly makes the list) * Some obscure pitch below the Narrow Arrow (remember, the one where Dwayner got a visit from the rock police?) * A belay in the middle of pitch 1 of Japanese Gardens Hey, what do you know? Maybe we can count the number of high-profile routes which are easily encountered by strolling down the lower wall path. I'm sure there are others.

And the third question must certainly be, "What the hell is a mudracker?" I don't see the potential for a handful of climbers who participate in these electronic discussions to come to any kind of consensus, and the notion that their discussions will in some way impact the broader spectrum of Washington climbers seems dubious. So far, what we're hearing from you (that this site has potential and that uncivil discourse has a negative impact on climbing and access )also sounds like a broken record, as do your admonishments to the anti-bolt side to "knock off the nonsense." Some of the most vile and threatening language we've heard has come from bolting advocates (as Figger8 points out) and it's been this way since the first discussion. Let's just take one viewpoint that at first sounds like it might be common to many of us: no bolting next to cracks. Now take a look at the countless aid climbs at Index which were safe enough at C2 or so but which now sport bolts near reasonable RP placements. As weak as I think the sport-climbers' approach to ascending cliffs like Exit 38 is, I have an even greater problem with what amounts to bolting cracks at Index. We don't even have a grip on this problem, so how are we ever going to retard the pace of sport routes on blank/crackless walls? I know it sounds gloomy, but I think bolt infestation is here to stay and to grow. The notion that rap-bolting is an acceptable means of route establishment, the recognition that comes from "pioneering" such routes and seeing your name in the guidebook, the simplicity with which one can scrub and drill on rap.....and finally, the sort of democratic nature of this practice, whereby anybody with a drill and fresh batteries can let their energies go crazy......all of these aspects of modern climbing suggest to me that bolting is like a machine, like a disease which can't be remedied. All I can do is climb in good style, be a good example to younger climbers, and try to protect cliffs like Castle Rock from today's insanity. While you may be annoyed about the way Dwayner ridicules sport climbers, you must admit that your list of transgressions would exist regardless of Dwayner's electronic opinions. That is all they amount to and you're welcome to ignore them. You probably won't catch me insulting sport climbers on this site. I don't have the time. Having said all of this, I'm eager to hear some of this civil and serious discussion.

"What/where are the sensitive areas? Once located/defined, how do we limit bolt proliferation in these areas?" Good questions. I might add, "Who will do the locating/defining of the sensitive areas, and ultimately the police work there?" These complex questions might be pursued on-line. Assuming everybody could be polite, and assuming some answers then emerged, what fraction of the climbing public would then adopt the results as guidelines to their behavior? Even more interesting would be discussions on areas like Index, where once bold aid climbs are routinely transformed into modern sport climbs. I'm not optimistic that such a discussion could achieve what I would like to see. The extent of bolting in places like Vantage is so disgusting to me I'd be happy to see it closed.

Fact is, they do exist. And they do get erased. As a family man who doesn't get to climb as much as he wishes, it's a pain in the arse to spend a day doing restoration. I spent a day with Retro doing this kind of work and it required all day just to clean up two routes. I'd much rather be climbing. Restoration (the forum that will never exist, due to predispositions of some of our moderators) could certainly include discussion on upgrading old fixed anchors. Good idea.

Who made a fuss? Climbers? I'm aware that my recreation is visual polution to other nonclimbers. I just feel guilty about leaving traces of my passage for others to experience, especially when climbing in an area frequented by hikers. I've felt this way since, as an adolescent, I was kicked out of my favorite bouldering area by the property owner, a man who had tolerated my visits for more than a year until one day he found us placing bolts for a top-rope anchor and said, "Enough." I have plenty of adventure while attempting to pursue my "leave-only-footprints" attitude.

I suppose we could get into an argument about where the best place for a bolt really is. If a stance is really that comfortable (but has no hook placements), it may be possible to drill without a hook. Tough to discuss without an actual piece of rock in front of us, but I know what you're saying. I recall bolting on the lead once where I couldn't get the second bolt in where it would have best protected the crux (steep 5.11). I took a chance and did the crux without a bolt, then got a hook a few feet higher and lowered down a chain of aiders to put the bolt in a place that would be good for the next party. The result was reasonably good and received praise from a sport-climbing friend (nothing but ridicule from the guys on this board in the sport camp). "If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style. " Let's discuss how to limit bolting in sensitive areas. I'm suggesting adoption of a ground-up ethic but you think that's ridiculous. I'm also a promoter of chopping in certain situations, although I admit I wish there was a better way. What are your ideas (and please don't mention Peter's "new rock climbing forum")?

Yes, Dwayner is guilty....and I AM GUILTY of stirring a bucket of shit. It is not, however, my fault, nor is it Dwayner's fault, that the bucket of shit exists in the first place! And you are forced by a vaguely humanoid power up in the sky (ie God) to stir that shit? In order that, by the grace of God, we may find our esteemed moderator's suppository.

Yes, Dwayner is guilty....and I AM GUILTY of stirring a bucket of shit. It is not, however, my fault, nor is it Dwayner's fault, that the bucket of shit exists in the first place!

I was there in July with member Touray and the route was not in place. I got worried for a minute that it was back up. Regarding hooks and bolting....I think if you can get a hook off your rack, place it and stand on it, you can probably clip a bolt in the same location. If you're at a good hooking place and you don't need a bolt, keep moving. If the crux section offers no hooking, you'll just have to be able to handle the grade or go home. Modern style places a bolt in the middle of every crux, and I suppose that's OK. On the other hand, what we get is a generation of climbers who expect this kind of luxury, and so to climb at 5.whatever rock, there's a good chance that they'll have to aid or fall. There's no requirement that you can really climb at that grade. Yet, it is my experience that climbers come back from such an "adventure" with stories of how they climbed 5.whatever. You can tell me the approach is nonsense. Yet some quality climbing has been produced with just such an approach. California is full of such routes. I've experienced bolt-protected climbing around Mt. Rushmore which was established ground up, and it has ample protection with large, solid bolts. Fact is, it can be done this way. Fact is, it is probably a good way to retard the exponentiation of chicken bolts. What is required is vision and leadership among people like yourself, people who establish routes and people to whom many others listen. I continue to agree that high-quality bolt-protected climbing can be and is being established by MattP and others, using top-down methods. I just think that if MattP is doing it, the average guy on the street thinks, "Why can't I?", and the result is a mess of routes the likes of which MattP would never endorse. Pope

And then we have, "Pathetic. Dwayner, you suck. " This, I assume, is the style of discussion to which Dwayner should have been aspiring for three years, in order to be considered a serious contributor to bolt discussions, in order that his comments might be viewed as something other than interruptions? Joke.

Is he held to a higher standard than anyone else on this board? Or is it the content of the discussion that governs how people should behave? It seems to me that all topics here are fair game for any sort of "debating style", EXCEPT for bolting. On any other topic it's okay to fling the shit without restraint, but is this topic CC.Com's golden cow? As soon as the "bolting" topic comes up, staunch ethicists have to play nicey-nice while everyone else gets to tell them to pretty much "shut the fuck up" and "stick it up their ass"? Can he be abrasive? Absolutely, but no more so (and much less than) many of the other regulars. I have not once heard him make reference to anyone's mother, wife or girlfriend, tell anyone to "fuck off and die", nor has he physically threatened anyone. If you apply the same standards to the rest of these characters as you do to Dwayner, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people left here - and it would be a much more boring place. My dos centavos. Excellent observations, my friend. There is no basis for banning Dwayner, just a group of bolt clippers who feel guilty when Dwayner ridicules their behavior.

Hey, that was fun. Dirty Tom Flint.

How many? I know of two, one of which made it to the cover of Reader's Digest. We had a close call on the descent, just before stepping onto the glacier. I watched a softball-sized rock rocket down a steep chute and come within two feet of killing my friend (group of Mounties above), but outside of that we thought the route was kind of fun. You can easily descend with a single 50m rope.

Ah, face it dude. You got your butt kicked. So did I. I don't think it was 5.12. It felt like A1 to me.

Been teaching my daughter some jokes. Here's an old standard: A. Knock knock. B. Who dere? A. Interrupting cow. B. Interrupting cow wh.... A. (Before B finishes) Mooooooo! Here's an updated version: A. Knock knock. B. Who dere? A. Interrupting chicken with an identity crisis. B. Interrupting chicken wh... A. (Before B finishes) Mooooooo! Then here's one I made up that I tried on my wife (hope my daughter doesn't take it to school): A. Knock knock. B. Who dere? A. Help, I'm on fire. B. Help, I'm on fire wh....... A. (Before B finishes, A throws a glass of water at B!)

Hear about the new pirate movie? It's rated RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!