mattp

In general, I like a variety of route names and there has long been a tradition of naming routes with off-color jokes or profanity. I wasn't impressed with a bunch of names that were given to some climbs at Vantage, however, and I was even LESS impressed when someone drew red lines on a photograph, labelled them with names such as "Menstruating Whale Snatch" and "Smells Like Teen Pussy," and put the photograph up on a bulletin board at a trailhead where people take their kids because it is featured in a popular hiking guide to 50 popular hikes for children. I don't know what Marline and Jim did in the new guide -- are these route names in there?

Did you guys read today's Seattle Times article about how the Canadian government is growing medical marijuana in Flin Flon or some place, but it is no good? They quoted a guy who said "it wasn't fit for human consumption" and wanted his money back.

I said I had to get back to work but I couldn't resist responding to this minor point that is off topic. Wasn't "loggers ledge" logged because the trees were keeping moss and general filth on the rock? Don't even Midway and Saber have both fixed pins and bolts on them? Weren't the cracks gardened out? Do the climbs that we enjoy today resemble the state in which Beckey and Schoening and thier frieinds found them? When they are leading Midway, how many of today's climbers care whether Fred, in 1954, climbed from the ground up or not?

Pope- Do you want a point-by-point rebuttal? (1) I said I believed Darryl when he, who I think probably knows more about the climbs in question than you do, said that some of them could not properly be described as "clean A2 lines." Are you quibbling whether I am incorrect, and only two of your examples are mistaken rather than three or four? You first said "countless aid climbs," then you listed six of them, that list was pared down to two, three or maybe four, and you then stated that you had presented "a list" that Darryl refused to address. He had in fact directly commented on the routes with specific reference to your question; he just hadn't answered the way you wanted him to and, yes, you are right that he hadn't fully answered your question. Could it be that he does not want to offend someone? Might this be acceptable? (2) I already explained what was offensive and annoying about your post. (3) Like I said, Darryl had already responded to your post (see above). To suggest that he completely failed to respond to your question is false, and I don't think it is fair to demand that he accommodate you and answer your specific questions in the manner in which you think an answer is deserved. This is not some abstract political debate where we are all spewing about matters remote from our every day lives or about which our opinions really carry very little weight. If Darryl doesn't want to be cornered into saying that this or that particular bolt should be yanked, what is wrong with that? I have no idea what happened in the famous hammer incident, or in the follow-up meeting at the gym a week later. Get over it. I've said the same thing to Darryl. I didn't participate in your discussion with the DDD guy, so I obviously can't say one way or another what was said there. What I said was that I believe you mischaracterized what they said. I have spoken to both of them about the matter (not about your specific conversation), and I believe you when you report that they said one of the reasons that they did it was so that the climb could be enjoyed by more people. I believe you when you report that they said that more traffic would help it stay cleaner. I don't believe that anything they said could be extrapolated to suggest that one should bolt Outer Space to increase the traffic there without twisting their words to the point of absurdity. Sorry to be a spoil sport. I have to go back to work now and I may not reply to your point-by-point response.

Attitude and Sphinx - Lets see if we can stick to the topic here. This thread is not about whether Erik is just as obnoxious as the next guy, or whether folks are abusing Beck. Do you think we have a huge or a little problem when it comes to bolting cracks? Which statement is closer to the truth:

Where did you grow up, Dwayner? If you stand on the corner in the Hilltop area and loudly call passeres by "niggers" you are going to get arrested for disturbing the peace or something like that. Since you want to take this to the next level of namecalling, I'll ablige you: go back to Kindergarten if you can't figure out that the first amendment does not completely trump civility.

This could be a good discussion, Erik. Being one who has spent many climbing days over the last two years working on a single climb doing what you dismissively describe as "making it safe for the kids," I'll take the bait as if you were directly posting at me. I commend you for your boldness in setting out to climb something in an adventurous fasion. I enjoy the same thing, though I would venture to guess that you guys are tackling harder lines than I do when "adventure climbing." You are climbing in the true spirit of the climbing heroes that most or all of us respect most highly; that brings an element of "traditional climbing" back into the sport of rock climbing which developed, sort of, through the use of small crags as a substitute for mountaineering. However, I believe that the chances are that most of your "lines" are not going to be something that many others will want to follow. Whether you disagree with the certain guidebook author's terminology, however, I'll say that I think his "method" is not only legitimate, but that it is not all that new. In fact many of the "classic" climbs at Index were only rendered into anything like an enjoyable climb after several days of cleaning and fixing gear, jumarring up and rappelling down, even though the original ascent of may have been done from the ground up, digging moss and dirt from the cracks and tying off whatever was available. There is room for, and validity in, a variety of styles, no? Long live "adventure climbing!" Report your climbs for what they are: "first ascents."

I stand my my words, Mr. K., and I meant no offense by them. There would seem to be no entry-level climbing test to post on cc.com and I am merely suggesting the nicole need not be an accomplished climber to participate.

Pope- I responded to your post before it got pulled. Here is what I said: I generally agree with you on the bolting of aid lines to make them go free. I don't know the climbs in question but, knowing your tendency to distort and misrepresent, I am willing to believe that, as Darryl pointed out yesterday, that half of the climbs you listed do not belong on a list of "clean A2 cracks." As to your question, however, I would have to go out an look at Numba Ten and learn more about it before I could say that I believe that a particular bolt that may happen to be next to a crappy rp placement is all-in-all a bad thing. As to you first amendement rights, I noted in my response that even after all the discussion yesterday you were still finding the need to post in a deliberately annoying manner. I said "that is your style and your right, but don't be surprised if somebody, including a moderator, takes offense." I believe that you knowingly mischaracterized Darryl's participation in the earlier discussions of the day, and you also distorted what had been told you you by the evil perpetrator of DDD. You included a slap at me that was out of context in the paragraph where it was included, and your autosig, while quite funny, was also an intentional jab. I don't moderate that forum, and I didn't suggest that your post be pulled. However, for two or three years, you have been carrying on like an ass instead of trying to make your (valid) point. If somebody agrees with me that enough is enough and you should tone it down, I welcome the day. Even on a public sidewalk, the first ammendment does not allow someone to stand on a street corner and deliberately insult passers-by.

E-You are correct to note that this is not Nevada, but I think there is a danger that climbers' infighting might lead us to fail to successfully address issues that are a much greater threat to local climbing areas than these arguments over bolting. Hell, a certain poster here said (today) that he'd prefer Smith Rock State Park had been closed to climbing than to have allowed it to be developed as it has been. Might somebody with this perspective seek to have climbing banned at Leavenworth? I'm asking how much of an issue bolted cracks really are to try to encourage some perspective. Opinions vary as to whether or not there is a bolting "crisis" but, at Leavenworth, I believe we face a much greater threat stemming from the fact that we have a Ranger District that has been vaguely hostile to climbing for thirty years and many climbers are ignoring private landowners' rights so we might end up with the Sheriff against us as well. I could be wrong, but I think property owners and the rangers are much more concerned about parking, vandalism, trash, unsanitary practices, erosion, and other problems generated by climbers than they are about the proliferation of bolts.

Crackbolter - Are you talking about "Stone's Throw?

I can think of a couple reasons why I might accept a bolt for a "protectable" crack. First, I'd accept a bolt if the "pro" would be unsafe (picture a flaring crack in crumbly rock, or an expanding flake or something), on the crux move a climb -- particularly if the rest of the climb was entirely bolt protected. Second, I'd accept a bolt next to a crack if the crack required a #5 Camelot and it was in the middle of a three pitch crag climb that required nothing else bigger than a #1. I also accept the fact that there are a couple of bolted cracks at Little Si, though I am very glad that there are a couple that have NOT been bolted. Fire at will.

I've climbed Condomorphine, and there were bolts next to cracks. I've been to the Pearly Gates, and there wasn't much of this. I've visited several other of the "new" crags in the canyon, and my impression is that there are a lot of rather repetitive 6-bolt 5.10 face climbs, but I didn't see more than a total of two or three bolts next to a crack anywhere. I'm sure they exist, and I read one discussion (was it last Spring) about how somebody thought it necessary to put bolts next to a crack in some crumbly rock, but others thought it was totally inappropriate. Again I ask: how widespread does this practice appear to be? Just how much of a problem do we have?

I think many people have indicated here on cc.com that they think the Icicle Creek area has been over-developed, and that the people putting up routes over there put too many bolts next to cracks. I don't think anybody has come on this board to say they thought otherwise. CC.Com may not represent the general climbing community, but it looks as if we think that bolting cracks is a problem in the Icicle. How big of a problem is it?

Sphinx and Jopa sounds they should take sociology classes. Here's the syllabus: read The Naked Ape (Desmond Moris arguing that people are inherently combative and violent) or So Human an Animal (Rene Dubois arguing that we are essentially non-violent in our basic nature), then come back and tell us what you think. Meanwhile, back to the program already in progress....

That would tend to skew the process a little, wouldn't it? Of course, I doubt that David or anybody else on that committee would have approved putting so many bolts so close together on the Nevermind Wall that you can't tell one route from another without the topo, and then squeezing another one inbetween it all - or did they? I don't want to start a debate over that particular wall, but my guess is that this is a clear example of how the committee did not or could not control that particular event, but I would guess that there were other proposals that they did in fact successfully control. Does anybody know? And does anybody know if the existence or actions of that committee had any positive or negative effect on any management decision made by the State?

I agree with both of these statements, Cavey. Flamewars and bolt chopping DO help sometimes. I would put it even stronger: they may be absolutely necessary sometimes. But they are not necessarily the ONLY answer to the issue. It is a world of insanity, to be sure. Why else are we all trading insults on the internet instead of celebrating all of our uniquely individual inner peace and beauty and celebrating the beautiful endeavor that we have come to know as rock climbing?

There is no doubt that, for the most part, participating in these types of committees has been a nightmare. However, even if you attended and were angered by what took place at, say, a Frenchmen's Coulee Climber's Coalition meeting, you will never know what might have happened had there not been such meetings. The question "can these committees succeed" is a slightly different one from the question as to whether, on balance, these committees do more good than harm. I really don't have much direct experience with any group like this but, for example, how many people know that there is such a committee for North Bend? Has it helped at all?

Mr. Cramer: I do not intend to suggest that we at cc.com should take it upon ourselves to be the rock police. Perhaps that is a serious flaw in the way I wrote the poll. I should have said, for example, "Bolted cracks are showing up every day and the practice is threatening crack climbing in the State. There should never be any bolts next to cracks at any climbing area, trad or sport" without connecting any remedy to this statement. Obviously, what you call good pro, somebody else may not approve of. RP's can be OK, though -- for example, the crux move of Davis-Holland is protectable only with RP's, isn't it? But you can place six of them if you want to. My point with the poll was to see what people think, and although I admit I need to go back to school on how to write a fair poll, I bet we would find that most climbers are more in agreement with the middle two options rather than an absolute ban on bolted cracks in all conceiveable situations or an absolute free-for-all. You and others are right when they say we are not likely to reach an agreement on these issues through an on-line debate at cc.com, and I certainly don't mean to imply that we could or should be making the decisions for climbers state-wide in THIS forum.

Cavey- You must not be reading very carefully. I have stated, several times in the last two days, that I think Dwayner and Pope have valid points to make. And you know what? I actually agree with some of what they say. Yes, I am attacking them. Personally. I believe they go out of their way to insult people instead of simply saying where they disagree. They haven't answered this, but I'll ask you: do you think that they invite honest or thoughtful debate when they go out of their way to insult people?

Bring back reality.* I agree. I have ALWAYS said that EVERYBODY has a valid opinion on these matters, whether they have been climbing for 30 days or 30 years. I have NEVER said I have any particular expertise when it comes to ethics. I DO NOT maintain that Pope and Dwayner should not be able to say what they think, but only that they should not be allowed to carry on in a way that appears intended to stop others from doing so. I ENCOURAGE others to express their opinions and to engage in debates on this site. *A famous song by either Snakefinger or the Residents. Good stuff!

I am sure somebody could write a better poll.

JayB wrote:

Daler wrote:

If there is to be some effort to put some thoughtful discussion into actual bolting issues, I would suggest that this thread be broken out into a couple of sub-threads. Take the "is there or is there not a problem with bolting cracks" posts, and send them to a new thread. Or Daler's mention that he has in fact seen a successful oversite committee that was set up to manage bolting in Eldorado Canyon -- what a great accomplishment! I'd be interested in talking about why it may have worked there and whether or not this may be something we could try here. But I don't think these discussions start off very well by being mixed up in a thread where we are arguing about whether Pope and Dwayner are devisive, whether Cracked is old enough to participate, whether Mattp is willing to tolerate opposing views, or whether Darryl Cramer saw Pope or Dwayner use a hammer.