mattp

Down-boy, Cracked. In this instance he wasn't attacking YOU. Get ahold of yourself.

Yes, bouldering is guilt-free because there are no bolts (though some whoescale slaugher is involved in modifying the landing zones and scrubbing moss from those filthy western Washington boulders, isn't it?). Just out of curiosity, what is the "state of the sport." I keep hearing about the troops of the pad people, but I've never run into them. Are the numbers increasing? Is there a bouldering area near Seattle where there are bunches of climbers like there are at Exit 38?

I don't quite understand all of that postmodernism and need to conquer stuff, Scott, but the fact is that climbing is a pretty worthless activity and it is also dangerous. Yes, we are driven -- and we can be pretty self-absorbed about it -- but "a destructive deeply seated need to conquer anything and everything just because [we] can?" You're suffering some serious angst, my man.

If you really need a spray thread on Molly Ringwald, why don't you start one. It is not as if there isn't room on this board for spray and non-spray threads. Do you spray masters always have to bring your spew to these serious and dignified threads, thereby bringing everyone DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL? Can't we have some adventure here -- take a risk -- state your true position on the subject? Is debating bolt practices a dead art, known only to those great posters of the golden ages of cc.com or can we move the board forward into the NEW GOLDEN AGES? Back in my day, "real" climbers knew how to debate the issues of the day. Good people debate; bad people spray. It takes not talent to spray -- all I gotta do is to jettison all sense of moderation and I could spray with the best of you in no time. If you don't like discussion, don't discuss.

I don't think it is total spray yet, Off, because there is enough inherent interest in the underlying topic that we keep returning to it, but we could probably take it to hyper-spray without too much trouble.

Pope- Your bolt-pulling arguments sound eeriliy similar: "If you don't like it, climb some other place." "Don't impose your beliefs on me." "The damage caused by my actions are miniscule compared to other climbing practices." "Climbing must move forward to something more noble." "Just as you did, I'm entitled to alter the rock as per my vision." But not: "There's room for every style or crag: Sport, trad, alpine, ...it's all good." "The best climbers don't need your stinking bolts." "Climbing without bolts is called adventgure. Ever hear of adventure?" "You should tolerate my pulling these bolts. It's not like there is a group of bolt pullers waiting to erase Smith Rock." "You guys who don't climb without bolts are just weak hearted. You feel threatened by the genuine technical competence." "Sure pulling bolts is altering the climb, but the rock was already already altered when they went in. What's the big deal? I'm just restoring a little more naturalness to the crag." But lastly, you rest it all on this assertion: "I may be out of tune with 90% of today's climbers, but I tell you I'm right and all of you are wrong ." How could you defend your practices with arguments that sound like they could be used to defend such a vile practice as chipping?

Just to clarify, I want to point out that Thinker is full of you-know-what where he implies that you will only make a mess out of your first couple of belays. Maybe I'm an idiot and only climb with idiots, but my partners and I still manage to still screw it up sometimes after over 30 years of practice! You shouldn't have too much problem at a bolted sport-belay, though.

This is cool, Oly. Situation ethics? Integrated ethics? I feel young - just like I'm back in philosophy 101 in college once again. We can debate about the Middle East at pubclub tonight but meanwhile we have these "great issues" to pursue....

Scott- There is nothing "ethical" about trying to impose your ideas of style and aesthetics upon others who are doing nothing to harm you, anybody else, or the environment. You may try to argue that it is harming the environment to put up and utilize that sport crag at exit 38, but nobody else but you and possibly Pope will ever accept that argument. There is nothing about true "situation ethics" that says they only apply when they are not in your way. That is the thing about "ethics" they almost only apply when they ARE in your way --- otherwise we're just talking about rules of convenience. In this sense, I say your blanket "bolted routes are wrong" pseudo-ethic is actually more of a rule of convenience than an ethic - because you have told us you think those bolted routes suck and you don't want to climb them anyway. It is a convenient way for you to put down other climbers, but has nothing to do with ethics.

According to some, it is OK to murder if you are murdering Islamic terrorists before they murder you.

There is another phrase for situational ethics: common sense. To reject common sense in favor of some black and white rules is the practice of someone who doesn't want to live in a thinking, conscous world. Go find yourself a nice totalitarian state where you and the other bolt bigots can make yourself at home. Free the bolts. Free the bolts. Free the bolts and we're all free to have fun at last!

Like Kurt said - what is wrong with you, Scott? Nobody here has ever advocated grid-bolting Index. Yes, those evil doers have added some sport climbs there over the years -- face climbs that are well away from the cracks -- but even though they haven't been chopped, there is no gang of rappel bolters getting ready to rush in and destroy the place.

You may think Pope's statement is kind of silly in how he dismisses an entire genre, but he has made a statement that I at least in part agree with: too many sport climbs DO end up lacking in adventure and aesthetics (of course thre are plenty of trad climbs that lack these attributes as well, and there are plenty of sport climbs that in my estimation have both adventure and aesthetic appeal). But if one complains that any climb is too low-challenge, they simply don't know how to read a guidebook rating or they aren't pushing themself. Pope may say sport climbing doesn't offer (him) the challenge that he wants, but he can't claim it doesn't offer a challenge.

Good times!! It's a god damned clearcut! [pollstart] [polltitle=good times?] [polloption=recreational opportunity] [polloption=moral outrage ] [pollstop]

That would seem like a reasonable possibility, Oly, but the thing is that these guys are aruging that Exit 38 is a tragedy. If they aren't willing to consent to sport climbing there, I don't think there is any place in the State where they'd be willing to agree to it.

Oh...OK. I have a problem with logging at the base of a cliff. I should have put an equal effort into protesting this commong practice, since we see so much of this. So climbing destroys....what kind of plant life? Lichen? Moss? Do we have any problem getting moss to grow back on an Index climb that hasn't been climbed in a season? My biggest gripe is certainly with bolts. How many times have I said that they don't kill salmon, that my protest is motivated by aesthetic concerns, rather than environmental concerns? Bolts are visual pollution. They look really alien, far more alien than a little rock scar that results from a flake popping off under a climber's foot, and they are quite permanent. Outside of aesthetics, there is the issue of challenge reduction, of the tendency of sport climbers to avoid pioneering thought-provoking, adventurous lines (witness the Exit 38 photos). You put all of this together, you weigh up the pros and cons, you ask whether we could have any fun without bolts, and then you just figure it out: bolts is evil. Let's put the brakes on this runaway train. There you go, Pope. You've answered the question - sort of - but you seem to say that it boils down to aesthetics and style - personal matters the "answer" to which is going to vary from one individual to the next. It is perfectly fine to preach about the excitement of long runouts and the beauty of bolt-free expanses of stone, but instead you are constantly asserting that there is something that makes you "absolutely" or "objectively" right while 90 % of today's climbers are wrong. Worse, you to try to back up your assertions with hyperbole like about hos there are all these climbers hiding in the woods with their power drills, waiting to pounce on Castle Rock the minute you turn your back. Yes, most of us agree that there are some over-bolted crags and climbs out there and yes, I for one have actually gone out and pulled litter bolts out of a crag, but if you want to spread the faith you've gotta start talking at least a little bit of sense.

Pope, you might be right about the fact that few climbs would go up if everybody had to lead them, but in fact just about all of what I think are the true atrocities in Darrington were all done on the lead. There are probably a dozen climbs that feature virtual bolt ladders right off the ground on terrain that is no more than 5.10, several of which don't really go anywhere. I offered to take you and Dwayner to climb at Three O'Clock Rock, so you could sample a rap-bolted route and compare it wo one of these old "classics," but you declined.

Some places might be top-roped, but of course we've already talked about how you and Pope don't think sport climbing is any different from top-roping in terms of challenge although just about everybody else in the world disagrees with you. And then you also have to consider more practical rather than emotional issues: at Little Si the state asked climbers NOT to utilize the top of the cliffs, and at Vantage it is actually deadly to top out on many of the climbs -- especially the crack climbs. Yes, there are entire climbing areas where routes are excluslively top-roped, but that is not going to answer any debate here.

Yo Pope: wanna take a stab at "the question?"

Weren't they made as AT skis in the first place? I have a pair, mounted with telemark bindings, and I have no problem with the float or the turning. I guess I'm one of those old skool hardmen who grouse about not understanding why everybody needs to buy new skis every year.

Allright, you got me there. I look back at that picture and it does kind of look like that. There is one climb that has three bolts in six feet and maybe there is another one at Newhalem. It must be that, with my affection for the shiny little guys, I just don't see what the world is coming to. Bolts are taking over our roadcuts and I can't even see it. I need help.

Scott - Can you name any climbs that have three bolts in six feet - apart from a belay station? You are worse than Pope when it comes to rediculous rhetoric.

Uh, climbing?

Little Si is a great example of a sport crag, RuMr. It had been poked at by "trad" climbers for years, but nobody thought it worthy (well, maybe a couple of guys did). Because it was not even remotely popular, a friend of mine used it for his private playground where he used to take kids groups for rappelling and rope-challenge events -- on the weekends -- and he never had any conflicts with other users. Then it was developed as a sport crag and the developers honored the request from the State wildlife people not to set the routes so they would reach the top of the crag (apparently there are some rare plants up there). Climbers groups have built the trail and because of the popularity with climbers, there is a nice new parking lot that serves climbers and families who want to take their children for a walk. The climbers staging areas are all off the hiking trail. The irresponsible younger generation so despised by Pope is out there getting fit, having fun, and harming nobody. The whole thing takes place in an area that is a recovering clearcut.

Though this particular "gem" was pruned from the thread, we could scroll back and find other equally insulting rhetoric that was not. Like I said: quit your name calling and quit your whining.