mattp

On overhanging terrain, you pretty much have to be hanging from aid pieces in order to place a bolt on lead (maybe some guy could stand at a kneebar rest and drill a hole). I haven't tried it on overhanging rock, but I have placed a bolt while hanging from a hook on rock that was less than vertical and you know what? The bolt ended up next to a nice hook placement but not exactly where subsequent free climbers might want it. My guess is most of those routes at WW1 at Little Si were not bolted on lead and are the better for that fact. Some of the bolts may still have ended up in poor locations, but (hopefully) anybody who is engaged in this activity takes time to think about what they are doing and does the best they can.

You're right, Geek. Somebody asks: So how do you experienced folks go about doing FA's? Specificially, I'm asking more about sport climbs ... and one guy says "I've never done it but there are lots of different ways to do it while the next poster assumes it is a troll, and the predictable cc.com dogpack follows with a whole slew of posts directly or tangentially suggesting that sport climbers suck or that trad climbing is so much better. They're right of course: sportclimbers are a bunch of total losers and they don't even deserve to kiss the feet of real climbers, but that's not the point. Those poor losers deserve some forum space, too, and the guy (AR) asked what I presume to have been a sincere question.

Yes, cc.com is not the "journal of record" for climbing and many - including your mythical top notch climbers who have passed through the State - do not read it. But if someone reports something that sounds significant people who do read it will think to themselves "didn't I hear that my buddy Peter Puget was exploring up there some years back?" I think you'll get broader circulation that way than the bare inquiry.

A climber who posts here somewhat regularly once told me that sometimes the best method may be to put up a "straw man" and wait for someone to knock it down. If you want to know whether someone may have climbed Supercrack you may not get an answer if you simply ask the question, but you'll likely get a correction if you report a first ascent. Someone who did it 20 years ago when it was stylish not to report all of our ascents may have a hard time resisting offering the correction.

In the one or two posts that actually sought to answer his question, I think he's gotten a decent answer. He's gotten some information that he didn't ask for, too, there is nothing necessarily wrong with a bit of ethical admonishment leaking into a "how to" discussion. In my view, it would be a mistake to discourage all such "how to" discussion - as some have tried to do in the past (I'm not necessarily talking about cc.com, but remembering how, when I wanted such information many years ago, it was not available anywhere). If somebody IS going to take it upon themself to install bolts I'd rather have them be able to get information about the proper harware and methods for planning and undertaking their project than not to have access to that information because there is a considerable amount of complexity to it and the damn things are in fact quite permanent and others will come along and clip into them assuming they are not only "strong" but in a "safe" location and on a "sensible" route.

Dave Schuldt and Michael and two guys from the pool table were also there.

If you can find a way to offer such newbies helpful advice without pissing them off or being perceived as condescending, you might be able to help them out quite a bit. However, I wonder if the situation you described was as dangerous as you seem to suggest: three slings anchored around trees and rocks, joining together at a single locking ‘biner sounds pretty good to me and I often shake my head in wonder at the complicated John Long SRENE setups when the anchors are trees and bolts and whatever at some 30 foot top-rope crag. I learned to climb when I was 13, and my buddy and I read that same pamphlet-type Royal Robbins book Alex refers to and headed to the nearest crag. After we accumulated a vast reservoior of experience, at age 14, we headed to the Tetons and had big adventure on climbs that amount to little more than a scramble. Professional instruction is good, but it is not the only way to learn.

I would agree as to relatively small personal property claims like that we are discussing. However, when it comes to payment of larger sums - like properly fixing your car or paying for ongoing rehab or time lost from work or whatever, I'd say they generally deserve that evil reputations.

Around Seattle, at least, most crags seem to me more often than not to be appropriately fixed with rap anchors: At Little Si, the DNR asked climbers NOT to trample the cliff top and nearly all climbs have rap anchors eliminating the need to top out; At Exit 38, I have not been to all the crags there but I've only seen a couple of routes that have reasonable walk off options, so nearly everything has a rap chain; At Mount Erie, on those crags where walk offs are reasonable, they and fairly standard last I checked; At Index, there is a combination of setups, nearly all established with some thought behind them; At Leavenworth, there is a combination so that (for example) there are no rap routes at Castle Rock, where a good walk-off exists, ditto at Icicle Buttress or Snow Creek Wall (though here there has been an ongoing disagreement about the latter because many climbers feel the walk off is both tedious and dangerous), but at other crags such as on the sandy slopes of Icicle Creek Canyon, where walking off would add to eroded messes, there are rap chains; At Darrington, walking off is pretty much not an option. Rappel anchors are in place; At Vantage, it is a mix but I believe that the DNR has asked for climbers to minimize trampling at the cliff top; At Tieton, those with decent walk-offs are largely walk-offs. --- None of thse areas are managed or maintained exactly as I would have them if I owned them, and at all there are some examples of "unnecessary" rappel anchors. There may be a growing trend toward more of them, but in general it appears to me that the climbers involved have shown some thought about what they are doing.

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?