mattp

Since when have I been unwilling to rebut someone's arguments, Dru? Spewing B.S. and diverting the subject like trying to rebut my argument here with an attack on "moderators" is for sure a sign of weakness. You've had offwhite celebrate the brilliance of your dazzling spray, and I'm not questionning that recognition which you very much deserve -- but don't push it.

CJZ, I'd be willing to bet that most posters here in fact DO NOT know who you are, or who brts, Pope, Dwayner, PP, Rumr, Archenemy, Capt. Caveman, etc. are. Further, I bet MANY regular posters, including some who feel they are "insiders" here, wonder about the identities of most if not all of these individuals. It isn't a legalistic splitting of hairs: there is a fundamental difference between providing your identity or not -- offwhite's self-examination notwithstanding. I agree with offwhite that there are a lot of different colors in the rainbow, and everybody has different reasons for concealing their identity but at least four of the six posters you named have gotten extremely upset whenever anybody brought their real name into a thread. Paradoxically, some of them and several other individuals who conceal their identity engage in personal attacks using their target's real name as a tactic for intimidation. Anonymity is a big part of the charm of cc.com, and indeed it is part of the fun around here, but I believe that some posters abuse it.

Most avatars on cc.com are anonymous. The user name gives no hint of who the poster actually is, and you get no real contact information or identity if you check the user profile. Most posters here seem to think that is a good thing, allowing fun and freedom of expression. On balance that may be so. I don't know. In a thread today, one guy denied that he was not trying to conceal his identity in failing to provide his identification information in his user profile or in his screen name. Others have made similar arguments in past discussions of this topic and, when pressed, they sometimes say "OK - my name is Mr. Smith -- are you happy now" but then they resume posting anonymously knowing that nobody reading their posts except the few who read that thread on that particular day or those who spend all day every day on this site know who they actually are. I'm not arguing for a change in cc.com policy. This site is built around the anonymous avatar. Just don't pretend you are being all up front and taking responsibility for what you are saying when you are not.

Benjamin William Robert Thomas Stanton, putting your actual name in one thread (or ten) does not change the fact that you have chosen not to put real contact info in your user profile and your screen name does not tell anyone who you are so that, on any given day when you want to insult somebody or be "provocative" in some other fashion, you and I and everybody else here knows that only the insiders actually know who you are. Like I said, though, that is OK. Now what about the original questions regarding retrobolting?

bwrts, your avatar name is NOT your name, but an unrecognizable set of letters that means nothing to anybody else. When we check your user profile, we do not get any identifying information whatever. My avatar is my name, my picture appears next to every post, and my user profile provides email contact as well as a home page that has my telephone number and address. I stand behind what I post here and make it very easy for anybody to track me down if they have questions about what I've said. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with being anonymous -- it is cc.com standard practice -- but don't try to pretend you are doing something else. Anyway, though, good post. Bolts are indeed intrusive and permanent or semi-permanent installations that we should all think carefully about.

You could easily get this impression if you talk to climbers at sport crags and ask them what they think about this or that overbolted route. I have gotten dumb stares along with replies like "why would we want fewer bolts?" Assuming they learned in a gym, it is not hard to understand how they might have a different vision for the sport. Where they learned, everything is pre-marked with tape so the sequence is largely something you don't have to figure out on your own, the bolts are laid out to prevent you from ever climbing above your anchor point; bright colors, corporate logo's, hard bodies, and loud music are the dominant aesthetic. In terms of accomplishment or performance, the emphasis is on pure athletic performance rather than any element of adventure, routefinding or appreciation of a semi-natural setting. However, the very fact that many gym-trained climbers head "outside" (a significant and vaguely intimidating step for most of them) shows that they are probably looking for something the gym doesn't offer. In many cases (not all), that includes a greater sense of adventure and a quest to learn "trad" or ultimately to pursue alpine rock climbs. If all they were interested in was the pure athletic performance of crimping on ever smaller edges and mastering the figure four or whatever, they could more easily pursue that by going to the gym three nights a week. If you want to share with them your vision of a more adventurous sport and promote a different aesthetic, it is probably not going to help to tell them how an entire generation of climbers is assbackwards, lacks intelligence, and caters to the "lowest common denominator" -- even if you are confident that you are correct in your assessment. I'm sure you know this. How do you present these ideas when you meet someone at the crag?

bwrts, you post under what is to anybody else a nondescript set of letters and there is no personal information whatsoever in your user profile. In fact, you ARE using an anonymous profile. There's no problem with that - it is perfectly "legit" on cc.com, but you have failed to provide any identity or contact info whatsoever. For anybody who doesn't know who you are based on an obsession with cc.com, you have either actively or passively chosen to be anonymous.

RuMR, I'm with you if what you are suggesting is that you'd like to see a variety of climbing opportunities maintained and, if you are thinking that "worrying about others" means grid bolting everything or whatever, then I'm with you on that point too. However, I think putting up routes at crags is NOT something that one should do just for their own personal satisfaction with no regard for how others may react or what their experience on our climbs may be. And I think this includes consdering what our new masterpiece will add to the area, whether it may cause this or that problem, etc. in addition to the "safety" factor we seem to be focussed on here. If "that guy's" manner that he saw fit was to bolt gym holds on a line at Index Lower Town Wall, I bet you'd be critical, right? Yes, that is an absurd example -- but is it? There are climbers who would think it was OK.

Catbird and duroxmainie on Total Soul:

Catbird on Big Tree:

duroxmaine on Cornucopia:

Here's AlpinK on Jacob's Ladder:

I'm not following you here. I see your post is entered in response to the statement about making routes safe for the masses, but are you saying that every butcher that ever owned a hatchet, hammer and a drill ought go wail away on our crags with no regard for what anybody else might think? Starting as early as 1948, climbers in Washington took it upon themselves to put up new rotues, "develop" crags and undertake trail projects, cleanups and other "service projects" with an eye toward future visitors. Overall, I think we've benefitted from that.

DTown wasn't quite as sparsely attended as you portray, Catbird. I climbed with AlpineK on Saturday, and Dirty Leaf camped with us Friday night after climbing Dreamer with JSHanster on Friday. There were three parties on Blueberry Hill on Saturday, two teams on Dreamer yesterday, and two "other guys" were climbing at Three O'Clock Rock while we were there. Maybe they didn't know the secret handshake but I think they were out there appreciating Darrington.

Its looking good for some DTown climbing this weekend: SATURDAY...SUNNY. FREEZING LEVEL 15000 FEET. AFTERNOON PASS TEMPERATURES IN THE UPPER 70S. WIND IN THE PASSES LIGHT. SATURDAY NIGHT...CLEAR. FREEZING LEVEL 14000 FEET. WIND IN THE PASSES LIGHT. SUNDAY...SUNNY. FREEZING LEVEL 14000 FEET. AFTERNOON PASS TEMPERATURES IN THE UPPER 60S TO MID 70S. WEST WIND IN THE PASSES AROUND 10 MPH.

MattM, I believe the idea that bolts could take the adventure out of climbing was espoused by Messner in the 1970's, and there is a long-forgotten Chouinard article on that subject from 1961. Some of what you say is true -- not all of the run out "classics" were intended to be scary as a statement of values and many who participate in these arguments distort things or may not even know what they are talking about in the first place, but the argument about how modern climbers are using too many bolts out of cowardice is not new.

I agree that Snake Dike is "safe" as is (or as it was when I climbed it). I thought Flash was implying that it may have been retro'd to add the bolts at 75 feet. If so, I think that was probably a good idea -- certainly few have objected that the route is OVERbolted. There has never been any case of the FA being sued or even much blamed for subsequent accidents as far as I know, but that doesn't mean that we don't hold them in some measure responsible for considering the safety of those who follows. For example, if somebody consinstently puts up death-routes, even more so if they repeatedly establish death-routes below their level of competence just to make some kind of statement, most of us will frown upon that. Similarly, if the guy puts a bolt where it does not protect the crux move or takes you out of the way, most of us will complain that the route was badly bolted. As long as we maintain what we call the "first ascent principal, where the FA has some say in subsequent modificaion of their route, I think they have some responsibility to think about others who will follow.

Flash - what is the "history" of Snakedike that you refer to? Has it not remained with a bolt every 75 feet whether you need it or not?

Earlier this year, the Forest Service closed the road to the Darrington climbing area, and we had a phone and letter campaign teling them how important it was to us. They reopened the road. Come on out and enjoy it. Several of us will be out there this weekend, and it looks like there will be opportunities to hook up with some of your fellow cc.com sprayers and explore the area. I plan to camp on the Blueberry Hill road Friday and Saturday nights. I'll have a White Subaru wagon or a red Toyota Corolla unless somebody gives me a ride. I have a partner for Saturday, and tentative one for Sunday, but I think we can probably mix and match. Post here or send a p.m.

OK Everyone. It official (well not quite). If those guys do their job, we'll have the campsite. Dont fret, though because if not there are plenty more. What should be the secret handshake that you gotta know in order to hook up with an official partner?

Somebody sign up with Dirtyleaf. He's been to DTown before and he knows the place .. you'll have a good day. Plus, you can show up early tomorrow morning and reserve the campsite for us.

I'm planning on camping along the Blueberry road and heading out from there. I've got a partner for Jacobs Ladder on Saturday and had a tentative one for Dreamer on Sunday, but there's plenty else of interest up there. Let's see who responds by tomorrow and make some kind of game plan.

At least a couple of folks sound like they will be looking for partners on Sunday. We ought to be able to find something for everyone to do.

I recently went shopping for rock shoes, and checked several shops around Seattle. At other shops, they said "based on what you are describing, you want these" - and they had me try on a pair of shoes. At least two of them had limited selection and sizes available, too. At Second Ascent they had all of the shoes I'd looked at elsewhere and they also had some others. The salesperson said "I think you'd like these, but John - what do you think, oh - John says you might like these other ones. And we have these and these you might like to try on too." I tried on about five different shoes and they had them is my size range and I bought one.