mattp

I think it has been there for more like ten years, maybe even longer.

Mr. Clyde, long time no see.

Pope, I'm not sure what your point is, calling this discussion "weak," but would you rather: (1) nobody EVER considered adding or moving a bolt even if in fact it turns out that the original placement was such that everyone or most who climb the route agree that the bolt is in the WRONG place? (2) somebody who considers doing so sould skip bringing the topic up on this board because they will only get called names? I don't know any more about the history of the route than has appeared here, and I haven't formulated any strong opinion about adding, moving, replacing, or leaving the bolt alone but where you say that talking about this bolt will lead to chipping holds in the route I don't get it -- has anybody, anywhere in this thread, talked about chipping holds? Weak would be for us to maintain a 20 year old "mistake" (if indeed we end up concluding that was what it was) because you worry that correcting it will lead to chipping it, or some other guy fears that correcting that mistake will lead to the proliferation of grid-bolting everywhere.

I'm not sure anybody ever thinks there will be anything like concensus, Geek, but a discussion like this one CAN offer good information for someone who ponders upgrading or altering a climb -- and this discussion indeed HAS. In my eyes, the opinions of those who actually HAVE climbed the route should receive greater weight, and I often assert that guys (like me) who have been climbing longer than the average bear probably have greater perspective because we are all so wise and stuff like that, but to be honest I'd like to draw a broader base of climbers into these discussions and I note a distinct absence of anybody under, say, 30 and anybody who actually admits they like sport climbing. As some have noted, climbers often take unilatteral action, adding or chopping bolts without consulting anybody else but perhaps their buddies. I see no harm in talking about it in a relatively reasonable fashion.

Getting old is hell. Just the other day I... what was I saying? When your alzheimer's med kicks in, give Bob Mcgowan a call and tell him to chime in here with whatever he may be able to add.

But, Joseph, let me point out: you immediately entered this discussion with the premise that there could be no justification for adding a bolt (moving it has subsequetnly been presented as an option). Within two or three posts at the beginning of this thread, and with no indication that anybody had such expectations, you wrote that "This is the same discussion as ever - when did "safe climbing" suddenly become an expectation and right and why should it be?". I agree with you that the DEFAULT position should be that one would not make any changes in an existing climb. However, here you completely ignored the possiblity that this may have BEEN the default position and I believe the very first post from EricN indicated that he agreed with your default position from the start. The result has been that we have had a discussion based on the premise that this HAS TO be a contentious "issue" rather than a considered discussion. There have been some good points made in this discussion. Lets entertain more of them.

PMS is right on! ErikN finds a bolt that he thinks may have been badly placed, and it is 20 years old and rusty. He wonders about "fixing" the situation and posts here on cc.com asking what others may think of it. Bill Coe made a similar point on page 1 of this thread: ErikN should not be chastized for bringing this question up. Not only that, but I believe that we should all recognize this for what it is: one of the first, if not THE first, times somebody has asked in a public forum in advance of altering a route in Washington. Remember: ErikN has not, and said he is not sure he will, add or move a bolt.

People of every political persuasion are prone to trying to capitalize off of any given news story and this one is no different. As much as I dislike Mr. Bush, I gotta say I wince every time my office mate goes into a rant about how maybe THIS TIME everybody in America will wake up and see how Bush policies led to the New Orleans disaster. It sometimes almost sounds like he's glad to see a disaster like this if it can in any way arguably be even remotely attributed to GWB and friends. However, it is a fair question, is it not, whether Bush tax cuts and a completely optional War led to the diversion of funds and manpower elsewhere when the Army Corps of Engineers was saying they wanted to fix up the levees in New Orleans? Or might it be fair to ask whether, if so many of our National Guardsman were not busy elsewhere, we might have been able to have a quicker and stronger response ot the disaster in New Orleans? The answer may be that the tax cuts and the war were more important, or that the Army Corps' proposed repairs would not have been enough to prevent this disaster, or that the National Guard wouldn't have been any more available, or that one has to be wary of such "what if" scenario's, and those might be fair answers... but the questions are fair, too.

ARE YOU GUYS WORKING ON YOUR CC.COM TEE SHIRT DESIGNS?

Yes, the prospect of being "pulped by a serac avalanche" is a serious deterrent, but I think Alex is right. If you approached it as you might some other serious route in, say Alaska, you might watch reports of conditions on the mountain for a few weeks ahead of your trip and then hike up and camp out on the Carbon Glacier with supplies for a week or two so you could scope the route to try to guage surface conditions and cycles of icefall/quiet. You might also poked about with short forays up the lower bits of Liberty Ridge and Curtis Ridge to "scope it" from a different angle or check what different aspects are like and, if you had a strong parter, you could make a run for it and feel you were minimizing that risk. Willis Wall was a celebrated climb for a brief period in the '70's and I believe there were some climbers who did this. But times have changed and climbers looking for that sort of adventure now go to the Alaska Range. All it would take is for the route to be featured in some "fifty classic alpine routes" book and climbers would be lining up to try it. A very exciting picture of a climber leading up a hanging ice cliff/bulge on the North Face of Mount Fay (in the Canadian Rockies) appeared in Chouinard's "Climbing Ice" book twenty five years ago, and the route drew lots of ascents.

Joseph, you continue to make vivid arguments for how bold climbing is exciting and probably commands more respect than a more timid approach, but note I used the word "probably" here. To the extent that you convey complete disdain for anyone who doesn't want to climb in your style, I'm afraid you will lose the respect of most other climbers because at that point you are largely going to be seen not as any kind of role model or hero but as a showoff or chestbeater. Respect is a two-way street. As a sidetrack, let me note that I think most American climbers in the '70's, including the high priests of the clean climbing movement, DID view it as related to the ecology movement of the day. We all have varying tolerance for risk and runout and a desire to retain adventure was only part of it; the "leave no trace" and "respect the rock" and "the natural art of protection" slogans were first and foremost about ecology, not the bold traditions of our badass forfathers. (By the way, take the swipe at an entire generation out of it and I kind of like the Six Flags quote too.)

The original question was what to do if the first ascensionist is dead and you want to add a bolt. The discussion has wandered, but remained remarkably on track. We've discussed: Question: Whether you love 'em or hate 'em, are bolts the only issue that matters in rock climbing or the most important issue or one of several issues that we should be concerned about? and Question: Is ground-up exploration and establlishment of new routes the only valid means or the best means or one way to do it? and Question: Is the idea of developing or managing a crag for other climbers inherenly wrong or is crag development like every thing else something that can be done well or poorly? and Question: Are there any circnumstances under which it would be valid to add a bolt to an existing climb or is the creation of the FA sacrosanct and, if so, does this apply in reverse so that bolts installed by the FA should not be removed? --- In the past, an inquiry like that which started this thread would have devolved into name calling and irrelevant graphics within ten posts.

Lets see some more tee shirt ideas.

I don't disagree with those who say this looks like a dangerous line. However, lots of us have taken risks in pursuit of some goal that we thought was worthy and equally significant here is the fact that, safe or sensible or supercool or not, most cc.com posters automatically scan anything you post to see if there may be some aspect they disagree or disapprove of and many of them can't resist offering comments based on the results of that scan -- regardless of whatever else they may think. As has already been said: way to go, gents; you can count me out for a second ascent, though! JoBurg is one of the coolest things around, and doubly cool because you can drive right up to the base of it. Yes, the more remote N. Cascade peaks offer their own appeal, but the fact that you can get out of your car and stare that thing in the face is unique. It is the "real thing," right here in our back yard and you don't have to play Daniel Boone to get to it. Congrats on a cool climb.

Whoa, sexy, you're on a roll. Good points, though.

Are there ANY circumstances under which you guys who have voided your opposition to the addition of the proposed bolt would agree that it might be desirable? If there in fact HAD been a long sling hanging down at the time of the FA, so Peter Croft was able to clip right there where Erik N proposes a bolt, would that make any difference? If a hold had broken off, so the move done by Peter Croft to get to the bolt was considerably easier, would that make a difference? If the original first bolt was placed on aid, with the use of a hook or something to make the move that Erik found troubling, and if those who have actually climbed the route agree that the bolt is in the wrong place for free-climbing as a result, would that make a difference?

Just as whether or not he was posting anonymously five pages ago, the question whether two tree ledge has a couple of bushes on it or whether brts has in fact climbed ALL the routes to the right of The Fault is a bit of a distraction here. We were talking about ETHICS, including questions like: Whether you love 'em or hate 'em, are bolts the only issue that matters in rock climbing or the most important issue or one of several issues that we should be concerned about? or Is ground-up exploration and establlishment of new routes the only valid means or the best means or one way to do it? or Is the idea of developing or managing a crag for other climbers inherenly wrong or is crag development like every thing else something that can be done well or poorly? or Are there any circnumstances under which it would be valid to add a bolt to an existing climb or is the creation of the FA sacrosanct and, if so, does this apply in reverse so that bolts installed by the FA should not be removed?

I bet there are plenty of faces in the Saint Elias and Fairweather ranges that are larger and at least as steep as Johannesburg, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were plenty of them in the Coast Range somewhere.

I'll be interested to hear how easily you can find the old holes. Last time I went out looking for a hole that had been left empty, it was quite hard to find even though I knew within three feet where it had been placed! (That was on less steep rock, though. Maybe holes on "phone calls" do not fill in with lichen and dirt as readily 'caus it is kind of steep there.)

Holly Beck is giving a slideshow that will be mostly video footage of climbing on El Capitan, including video proof that despite the rangers claims, Bear 46 does exist! Most of the footage is from immediately after the disasterous storm of last October during a late season climb of "Lost in America". The show is Thursday, Sept 8th at 7 pm at the Mountaineers building in Seattle. Free admission.

Right on, Geek. Bolting is the most divisive thing in climbing today, and those who focus solely on this one issue or cluster of issues often distract us from many many other concerns that are at least equally important when it comes down to ecological, aesthetic, athletic, and even adventure values. Bolting and climbing styles are very important – but so are some other things: vegetation impact erosion wildlife impact parking safety public image police problems etc. It is relatively rare that we have any serious discussions about "ethics" in relationship to these other issues even though they are in general higher on most non-climbers' list of concerns and have long lasting and significant affects on climbing and crags. I don't think they were even mentioned in the recent "ethics issue" of Rock and Ice.

Interesting quote, but once again it sounds to me as if you are holding your own sense of what is right and wrong above others, and I’m afraid this tends to relegate your opinion to – how did somebody put it? – the rantings of the old guard (or something like that)? Do the guys who develop modern sport crags believe they act in an ethical manner? Yes. Are they thinking in their mind that they are merely “surfing the edge?” No. They believe that it is ethical to establish safe climbs that thousands of climbers can enjoy. Many climbers agree – and in fact many climbers believe it is selfish and unethical to establish or jealously defend traditional climbs if that means what they perceive as runout scary climbing. Did Frost and Chouinard and their buddies, when they readily used pitons and even a couple of bolts while they picked the early plums on ElCapitan feel they were being “ethical?” Yes. I know, at least some of them were trying to outdo Warren Harding with some kind of better style but in large part it was "outdo" as in competition, and this included using pitons and bolts and even chipping where that served their immediate goals. (Maybe they did, but I am not aware of any of them starting up the big stone only to rap off because they were going to have to use a couple of bolts in the middle of the NA Wall or something and, as I noted already, I believe they even chipped holds in a flake on that particular climb.) Were they “surfing the edge” when they came out with a clean climbing manifesto after they had picked these plums? Their presentation of the clean climbing message certainly reflected the ecology movement in popular culture at the time. Did they have some epiphany or was it, maybe in Chouinard’s case at least, in part a marketing campaign? I think it was a combinatin of factors, and I have great respect for those climbers and for the clean climbing movement but I don't think they all turned into saints -- and I think some of DCramer's discussion here has been in response to a feeling that you might be portraying them that way -- and that you are saying "I stand with them whereas nearly everybody involved in putting up crag climbs these days does not." The thing about ethics is that, more or less by their very definition, they are highly subjective and involve one’s personal relationship with moral standards that are shared in their peer group. Where you say “some climbers these days have no ethics” or where Pope posts that stupid picture of a via ferratta, discussions like this become even more irrelevant than they already are because it more or less devolves into a big joke – or at least the irrelevant rantings of some old guard. As I asked pages earlier in this thread, I agree with you that times ARE changing. Recognizing the reality of where we are in climbing today, with ever-increasing numbers of climbers shaking their heads in confusion or maybe even contempt when they are confronted with the ethical rantings of some guy who is old enough to be their father or maybe even grandfather (yes, I know – there are some younger climbers who remain “pure” as well but it tends to be us older guys who do the ranting and raving), how do you want to proceed? I believe it is a losing proposition to proclaim that climbers who don’t emulate MY style have “no ethics” or that modern sport climbing is less worthy than “real” climbing as practiced by the great climbers of thirty years ago.

I've got a 1:250,000 scale map that extends from Snoqualmie Pass to the Canadian border, released in about 1972, titled "The North Cascades 1955-1972." It was produced by the USGS. The contour interval is 200 feet and it is roughly 5 miles to the inch. I used to have one that was in meters, and released perhaps ten years later, that went from somewhere maybe a little south of Glacier Peak up a little way into Canada. I can't find it at the moment, but I believe it too was a USGS release. These are great maps to have when you are sitting on a summit somewhere, wondering what that thing in the distance might be.

Folks are forcing their vision upon the rest of the world whether they alter the rock or forbid others from doing so, Joseph. There IS an objective difference between altering the rock and not doing so; it is true that the installation of a bolt or a chipped hold or a pin scar is more permanent than most other impacts we place upon the climbing environment and many of us believe "clean climbing" has tremendous value. However, similar arguments might be made regarding other issues like removing vegetation or causing trouble with property owners, or any number of things -- our actions may have lasting impacts and some of those impacts may be negative. But anytime we say "my way is right and yours is wrong," we are seeking to impose our view on the rest of the world. I understand your criticism of "development" if by that you are saying that you do not approve of the manner in which some climbing areas have been developed. However, I don't see how you can say you are not undertaking route development where you climb a new route and then go back to retrofit it to make it more user-friendly because (presumably) you think it is a good climb that somebody might want to repeat. Is it the fundamental concept of development that is bad oro what you believe to be the predominant or all-to-common guiding vision for development?