mattp

There's nothing wrong with the annual bitchfest, RuMR. In being repetitive, it is no different than the 107th "I hate Fee Demo" thread.

Scott- you have nothing to complain about when it comes to name calling. Quit your name calling and quit your whining, too.

Mr. Pope- Once again (eleven times now?) you sidestep the question. Why do you single out bolts out as the object of your obsessive disdain? You spray a lot of B.S. about how climbers in the old days were so much more environmentally conscious, about how everyone who climbed back in "your day" was so brave, or about how if you don't pry the bolts out of a short and peripheral sport climb that existed on Castle Rock for four or five years the entire crag is going to be perceived as "open season" and somebody is going to go up there and make Midway into a sport climb. But when asked to explain how the placement of bolts is so much more of an environmental disaster than so many other climbing practices that actually displace plants and animals, you can't or won't tell us.

Pope - This will be something like the tenth time in this thread that I, Alpine K and others have asked: what is this "thing" you have about bolts? How is the placement of a pair of bolts and a ring worse than setting a route so that it ends at a tree that will surely die if subjected to repeated beating by climbers or forcing them to walk down a gully, ripping out ferns and flowers? How is a bolted face route any more environmentally damaging than crack that has to be gardened out, and stripped of the natural vegetation? Now that you've gotten to know the wonders of the "love bar," how can you say that bolts are not removeable more easily than the vegetation in a crack is replaceable? Just what is wrong with taking an old railroad cut next to I-90 and making it into a recreation area? Did a bolt mistreat you when you were still a tender child?

Pope- You are showing your "golden age" blinders here. The Direct East Buttress route does not follow any line of natural weaknesses, and the bolt ladders are not in the middle of the route. The route starts up a system of corners and cracks, then it veers rightward to access what is one of the coolest looking pieces of rock up there - a high exposed face that appears to lead directly to the summit when you view the peak from the east. But after two pitches that are mostly bolt ladder (and again, I'll note, subsequently free climbed), the climbing is then pretty much over. The attraction of route lies in the fact that it ascends such a cool piece of rock architecture and that the climbing is fun -- it has little to do with the fact that it follows natural weaknesses that would have led anywhere but that cool, high, exposed face. It seems to me that your blinders are preventing you from evaluating environmental practices, too. In the '70's is when most of the vegetation was stripped from Lower Town Wall and the alder forest at the base of the cliff was clearcut by climbers, the new trail and hut was built in the Bugaboos, most of the "classic" big wall routes (with lots of pitons and bolts) and (bolted) rappel routes were established in Yosemite, the junk pile of oxygen bottles and other trash started appearing at the south col on Everest, and the Enchantments Lakes first started to see mass numbers of invaders stomping trails all around the meadows and building campfires from the wood of thousand year old snags. Yes, we build "landing zones" and "staging areas" at the base of crags like Vantage and Exit 38 these days, and yes we use a lot of bolts. But we're not washing our pots and pans in the stream, throwing our shit off El Capitan in brown lunch bags, or building campfires in the Alpine Lakes. Instead of setting up routes so that everybody will leave heaps of sling on some gnarly old tree that is barely clinging to the cliff and is going to die from the abuse suffered at the hands of climbers, we set a chain anchor and rings and stay the hell away from the fragile vegetation. Instead of clearing and eroding the cliff-top and building a descent trail through the ferns and flowers along the edge of the crag, we rappel off. Our numbers are increasing and therfore our over-use impact is increasing as well, but our environmental practices are not entirely worse - and in many respects quite a bit better.

Pope - For any given pitch that is to be bolted with a given number of bolts, I'd much rather see it carefully and thoughtfully bolted after toproping and discussion than while "winging it" on the lead. Much rather. There might be fewer routes put up if they all had to be done on lead, but not necessarily better ones.

What? You don't like mine? Actually, you bring up a good point and one that has perhaps been underrepresented in this discussion: times HAVE changed. That is the nature of "times." Cassidy's "golden ages" were 1975 but I'd be willing to bet yours weren't. It's kind of like saying nothing in Rock matters after Jimi Hendrix. It's all music, and it is nothing of any greater import than music, really. Jimi kicked ass, and many fans still appreciate what he did, but the world didn't stop there. I think it is good to have somebody like Kassidy stand up and say "hey you guys: think about THIS." But he's pretty much lost it when he says "climbers these days lack morals because they think nothing of altering the environment." Yes, as a climbing community we've come to view bolts differently, but in actual reality there is little if anything inherently more destructive about today's bolting/aiding/protection practices than there was about those of the great golden ages when entire Japanese gardens were stripped from Index Town Wall, bolts were used to engineer a way up teh "blank" portions (later freed) of some climbs like E. Buttress of S. Early Winter Spire, and pins were still used on The Prow in Yosemite.

No, I would not argue with your statement that most so-called "traditional" crags are not bolted as closely as a typical climb at Exit 38 or some other sport-crag -- it is the closeness of the bolts that pretty much "defines" sport climbing; I'm saying only that your "simple" rules break down when you actually apply them to the borderline cases - even some climbs at Darrington - and it is these borderline cases that we are arguing about. Nobody here has much question about the pure crack-climbing classics or the grid-bolted wall at a sport crag where, in some cases, you need a topo to figure out which bolts are intended to be linked with which others. (In actual fact, I think even the grid bolts are acceptable though not commendable at some place like Exit 38 - but that is not what we are talking about here because even most ardent sport climbers will probably admit that the truly grid-bolted walls are overbolted - the only real argument might be whether or not we want some self-appointed rock police to head up there with a crowbar.) But when it comes to the variety of climbs available in our region, I like some sport climbs and not others; I like some crack climbs and not others; I like some crag settings and not others. As you note - in the end, it boils down to taste and judgment, and I think climbers have been accusing each other of lacking taste and judgment since the beginning of time. What is your point if it is not an attempt to draw a simple line - your own line - so that you can say everything over this line sucks?

Scott, I think that in attempting to reduce rock climbing to a simple definition (following the natural weaknesses) and applying simple rules (bolts are only OK to link other protectable features), you miss the mark. (1) Rock climbing is not about taking the easy way or following natural weaknesses. When our forefathers left the gullies behind and started out onto the faces, they abandoned that path in favor of seeking the hard way and embracing greater and great challenges. Though crack climbs and some face routes follow obvious features, there is nothing "natural" or "following the weakensses" about such classic routes as Diretissima or the South Face of Jello Tower or DDD at Castle Rock. (2) Perhaps you think mixed routes are OK but purely bolted routes are not, but here too I think you are missing the point. Go climb Silent Running in Darrington, and you will probably only use gear on the first and last pitches of a seven pitch route. It is actually rather contrived for it NOT to be bolted on those pitches as well. And thanks for the vote of confidence, but given your description of "Scott's Rules" I am a rock butcher to be sure and think just about any route established in Darrington since about 1978 is a bolted abomination: they all weave in and out, deliberately avoiding natural protection (readily available in bushy seams) in favor of bolted face climbing.

These already fit within my brilliant organizational scheme, but they are fair questions. I'd say that I have not seen a single route that, had it not been chopped, would have signalled to all the waiting rap-bolters that a traditional crag was "open season," and I don't think that these evil rap bolters plan to or could bolt everything they could find, though I'd agree with you that sometimes us evildoers seem to lack some discretion.....

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?