mattp

Sorry to offend you, Mr. Pope. Notwithstanding whether or not you made a "mistake," my point still stands: nobody around here is perfect.

Actually, Dave, if you look back at the thread you will see that there has been a lot of real discussion here with good points made all around (well, errh, "chief" Scott notwithstanding ).

I think that with all this "take that, chief" we have lost track of any kind of a sensible discussion here. Scott may not feel this way, but the vast majority of climbers these days are willing to accept there being a sport climbing area at Exit 38, even if they think it sucks, and I do not know of a single sport climber who thinks there should not be a bunch of unbolted crack climbs at Index. Whether or not Scott is an idiot, chief, is amusing for a moment perhaps, but the interesting questions come when we look at newly developing areas or at the reality or the potential for sport climbing to intrude on previously traditional areas.

Actually, I believe YOU are wrong, Mr. Mox. As far as I know, the fixed anchor ban for wilderness areas was thrown out by a judge. Further, the bolt chopping that I am aware of in Washington has taken place exclusively in non-wilderness areas. Even so, I am confident that the Leavenworth Ranger District has not deputized those who are chopping bolts over there, nor has the State of Washington deputized those who have chopped bolts at Vantage or Index or ....

Erik - he can post his own defense, I'm sure, but I'm not sure one need have completely clean hands in order to have an opinion on these matters. All of us make mistakes sometimes. Maybe he has just "seen the light."

Scott has also lost tract of the fact that there is no law against bolts and that the bolt-choppers will sometimes chop bolts that have the approval of many if not most other climbers. Further, my guess is that the majority of Washington climbers would NOT approve the appointment of most of these anti-bolt rock cops -- they are if anything much more the "outlaws" (vigilante's, actually) in this situation. I was trying to be fair about it in listing the criteria I set forth above, but when faced with rhetoric like Scott's, I sometimes wonder if it is a good idea to show the antibolt warriors any respect at all.

Asside from the question of who is more arrogant, I think bolt chopping should be viewed with the same criteria that I listed above for thinking about installing bolts. As with the discussion of installing bolts, any discussion of removing them must recognize that there are a lot of tradeoffs here, and a lot of different climbing styles, and I think ChucK's prior point that the people engaged in these activities need to maintain some measure of humility is a good one. If you appoint yourself as the rock police, a BIG dosage of humility should come into play, in my view.

Kassidy- I agree that IF you think the retro bolters are ruining all of the traditional climbing areas, you may well be acting not only within your rights but responsibly to "do something about it." However, I have questions about what should be done about it and how should you seek to spread your message. I was commenting on attitude because you have complained of the arrogance of the evil rap-bolters while you commend the stewardship of those who remove the offending bolts. To quote somebody quite famous around here, I say "Bulllshit private Pyle." Is the epitomy of arrogance to decide that you are the Rock Police who get to decide whether or not bolts are going to be allowed on Castle Rock or wherever -- and to then go enforce your policy with a crowbar. I approve of some bolt-pulling exploits and not others but, almost by definition, the arrogance and brevado that is required to go on a restoration mission FAR exceeds that associated with putting up a line of bolts. The bolt chopper sees themself a crusader and an enforcer; the bolt driller sees themself more as a pioneer or an engineer.

Kassidy - One of your criticism's for those who may inappropriately bolt a climb or chip a hold is that they are altering the rock and making decisions for everybody else and therefore acting as if they own the cliff. Isn't it the same way when you go and remove bolts from a climb? You might try to make a rhetorical distinction that you are "restoring" the cliff rather than altering it, but that would be just plain B.S.: the guy who is out there pulling bolts is actually MORE arrogant in stating to the world that he knows what is best for everybody else. The bolt-puller is directly attacking somebody else's work and his clear statement is "I am the judge of what is acceptable on this cliff." The guy who bolts a new line at may be arrogant in some respects, but nobody sets out to bolt something that they think should not be bolted so we can only conclude that the bolter thinks they are opening up a previously unappreciated bit of stone or, in the case of retrobolting, they are re-opening an underappreciated one. Whether you think modern bolters are misguided or not, they are not trying to combat somebody else the way the bolt-puller is. By the way, I agree with some of what you have said here about the potential for chipping to become acceptable (though I think the potential is more related to the fact that modern climbers learn to climb in an entirely manufactured environment than it is to the fact that bolts have become more acceptable), and I agree with you that the first ascentionist principal is not necessarily a good one (because the first ascentionist may not be objective or show good taste or judgment) , and I have on previous pages said I agree with some of your other ideas -- just what the hell is going on here?

There there, ChucK. JayB gets a little testy with arguments, perhaps, but so does your pal Kassidy, and so do you and so do I. These are thorny questions. Kassidy proposes to draw the line such that "permanent" alteration of the rock IS NOT OK, and impliedly more temporary alteration such as cleaning IS OK (or else there would be no just about no hard rock climbing of any kind in Western Washington). I think his categorization in this respect fails in part because in his anti-bolting stance he fails to address how it is that a 3/8" x 2" hole in the rock, or the installation of a bolt hanger, is more environmentally damaging than the removal of entire plant colonies for crack pro or how two bolts and some chain are less visually intrusive than a heap of slings around trees and flakes. I also think it completely dismisses what is for most of us a core concern: we want both crack and face climbs, and we want them to be "reasonably" protected (whatever that is). However, there is some logic to his litmus test. JayB attempted to draw the line a different way. He suggests that he is more interested in preserving individual moves over stone than minimizing the intrusion of bolts, and he says protection bolts are OK, chipping holds or similar activities that actually mlake the climbing easier are not. We have discussed how this litmus test fails because it doesn't assess other mpacts like those of cleaning the rock, which can be acceptable or not depending on how aggressively it is carried out, or the degree to which bolting may remove the challenge from a route, and it totally omits any concern for environmental impact. The issues that any bolting policy would need to address should in my view include at least the following: 1. Safety. Is a line going to be safe for one who is climbing at their limit or not? What is considered safe. Do all climbs have to be safe? 2. Aesthetic Concerns. Is the line visible from the base of the cliff or from a nearby road or trail? Is it attractive when you are on it? How many bolts are we willing to look at in a given area and under what circumstances? 3. Adventure/challenge. Is the line going to provide a sense of adventure or is it to be so closely proteted and well marked that one need not ever fear injury or losing their way - even for a moment? Is the line going to offer a physical challenge or does it even have to do so in order to be worthy? 4. Associated Environmental Impacts. Aside from the aesthetic concerns noted above, will the line and others near it draw crowds of climbers, or will it lead to erosion issues, drive off nesting birds, etc.? How much cleaning and trailbuilding will be needed? 5. Public Relations. Is the line in an area closed to climbing or where conflicts with other users are likely to arise? Is it in some other climber's personal playground where it will cause conflict within the climbing community? It it on private property? There are a lot of tradeoffs here, and a lot of different climbing styles. I don't think we will ever agree on what is "in" and what is "out" but we may be able to make progress toward defining what we think the tradeoffs are. The bottom line, I think, is as ChucK wrote that: This applies to bolters and bolt pullers, or to climbers who are involved in local climbing politics and those who are not. With this realization, there may come some measure of tact and restraing. Without it, there will probably not.

Sorry guys, but although I agree with Alpine K that it may be nice to get back on skis after month's off, skiing in November is like rock climbing in March: you might get a decent day - even a great one - but it's definitely the wrong time of year for it. You guys who are all hot to trot with your skis this time of year are largely the same group who has no interest in the Spring, when it is the best its going to get (not Mr. K, though - he is a real skier who'll stick with it). (By the way - I agree with you, Cracked, good skiing can be (1) scary and (2) uncomfortable, though it is usually (3) fun.)

Alpine K: Skiing usually doesn't rule in November. Come January, I'll be out there with you, though.

Cracked - you actually had a good point two posts above. There is room in this world for climbing areas with different development strategies. Meanwhile, if you don't want to participate in this thread, nobody is making you but let the rest of us internet junkies at least PRETEND we're making progress, huh?

We're all full of bogus arguments, though, JayB - such as when you say you've never climbed a bolted line that would have been anything but a free-solo without the bolts. I find it hard to believe you have never climbed a line that didn't have a bolt next to a crack somewhere, or a flake or knob that could have been tied off, or a skanky bush. Maybe you HAVE managed to avoid all cimbs that were bolted and which would have had a few pieces of crappy pro without the bolts, but I don't think it is fair to suggest that such climbs don't exist ... But your basic point has some merit, I think.

I'm not quite sure I read you there, AlPine. Are you saying that the relative impact of adding a bolt vs. a pin vs removing a flake doesn't matter? Cause in my book the impacts of our actions certainly DO matter when we are trying to decide if a particular action is OK or not. Where you suggest that a bolt may diminish someone's experience, I would suggest you'd also have to acknowledge that it may enhance somebody else's. Maybe that is your point - I can't tell. Just about any time we scrub lichen or remove loose rock or clean a crack or install a bolt we are making the climb easier -- are we not?

A hard body plastic kid's sled is a great item for melting snow at a basecamp on the glacier. Even in relatively cool temperatures in Alaska, I've been able to generate quite a bit of water by shovelling snow into one of those things and rotating it so it was tilted directly toward the sun all day long.

Yup, he's right K. Back wherever that was - page three? - we got sidetracked on issues related to visual impact and whether bolting on lead is the way to go. Remember? It's not like I said: hey Kassidy - don't answer K's quetion.

Kassidy - Again, you lapse into debating little bits of ones statement like JayB's supposed suggestion that pin scars are OK, while sidestepping the argument here. Yes, he suggested that he thought you had indicated that pins are OK whereas bolts are not, but the point he was making is that many climbing practices other than bolting alter the rock. Just climbing on a new piece of rock will alter it in Darrington - even if you use a toprope - because you'll likely huck off a flake somewhere and leave a bright white scar where it used to be grey. Cleaning cracks for your low-impact nuts and cams is visually and biologically much more invasive than placing a bolt, and the establisment of new climbs anywhere in Western Washington has always involved quite a bit of biomass removal. The point here is that "altering the rock" may not be a viable standard.

Last I heard, Cassidy, you had a grand total of one post that had been removed from the Rock Climbing forum. Did I miss something? Stick with us here - it is a new forum with a new moderator and maybe there are some "bugs" to work out.

I agree that cleaning a crack or removing trees/bushes/other flora can be far more invasive than installing a bolt and I think you are onto something as far as trying to make the disctinction between modifying the rock to make it easier and doing so for protection in the event of a fall, JayB, but I'm not sure that your litmus test is going to hold up. Bolts are indeed added to make the route easier to ascend in places where most of us would consider them acceptable: blank bits of rock that are surmounted with a point of aid (for an example that most will find way "inside" the line, consider the original 10 or 12 bolt ladder - the only bolts installed - on the Salathe Wall on the Captain). On the other hand, pro bolts may or may not be acceptable, depending on your idea of whether the pro was necessary in the first place. I think it is probably always going to boil down to some kind of "situation ethics" where the rules - whatever they are - can serve as useful guidelines but they have to be applied with common sense and any specific call is likely to involve a host of factors not accounted for in the general rule. All of us know a bolting atrocity when we see one, but few of us will completely agree on exactly which routes are atrocities.

Those disgusting people are called "local color," JoshK. Did they get in the way of your speed ascent or something? I agree that the springs were not one of Washington's finest, but I didn't see much harm in the fact that some people thought it was worth the five mile hike to soak in dirty brown luke warm water and camp somewhere where I had no interest in camping in the first place. On a couple of Spring ski trips, I actually found the springs clean enough (or apparently so) that I took a dip.

I disagree with the idea that route reports need to be well written. An article in Rock and Ice magazine should be well written, but somebody's report that they climbed The Tooth and found snow plastered all over the rock need not be. I enjoy reading well-written route reports but the fact that somebody doesn't have time to edit their writing for three days - or maybe lacks the skill of an English professor - need not and should not prevent the sharing of information or the celebration of a good or not so good day in the mountains. To put someone down because they didn't meet your standard, whether your technical rock climbing standard or your standard for "good writing," is lame.

You are right, RuMR, that Cassidy has not relied on much in the way of personally insulting rhetoric in this thread -- and if you look back about eight pages I think you will see where I criticized someone else for attacking him personally. And, Cassidy, if you are truly "the new me" and we might actually have an honest debate here, I'd welcome the day. However, where you say something that sounds pretty close to a blanket statement that modern climbers have no shame or whatever, it is indeed insulting. Similarly, where you cut and paste someone's arguments to twist what they said so you can try to make them look stupid or to rebut something they never said in the first place, and where you insist on your twisted cut and paste in the face of clear responses about how you have misconstrued things, you are annoying to say the least (though you might think that "insulting" is the wrong word). Like I said, I think you have some good points: with the growth in the popularity of sport climbing, we HAVE come to expect climbs to be better protected on average and most climbers probably DO have less interest in learning to risk their necks by running it out. It is also true, I think, that many of the more crowded climbing areas that suffer from erosion and other environmental damage, or conflicts with other user groups, ARE sport climbing areas -- but many are not. I also agree that the development of relatively safe gym and sport climbing has brought many new climbers into the sport so that, just by virtue of our numbers, we are seeing some new problems. And etc. Lets talk about actual issues rather than stick to tired old ideas like the assertion that today's climbers pursue dubious objectives that are clearly much more so than those of our forefathers in the golden ages of the '60's or '70's.

Good morning, Mr. Kassidy. I suggest you heed some of your own advice: you can be an articulate guy and you actually have some good points. You need not resort to the use of unsupportable blanket statements and insulting rhetoric. Tone it down a bit and engage in a genuine discussion of the real issues and you might be able to salvage a little dignity here.

Actually, I'd say there is most often very little "art" to it. You simply post something a little provocative and then sit back to see what response you get. Artistic quality lies in the degree to which someone can make good points in a discussion or keep us laughing with their clever quips or whatever, but "trolling" is generally speaking no high art. Occasionally we see someone pretty clever with a good hook, but much more often we see posts that are just plain stupid or offensive passed off as an "artful troll."