mattp

Just for these debates, somebody ought to register the avatar: drug crazed axe weilder!

Yes it did.

The Sun Hogs! Don't forget your golf club.

It has been several years since I've been there, Iain, but the next creek to the north used to provide easier access than the Pole Creek trailhead and I don't think it was quite so prone to the snow blockage that you report. There was kind of sort of something like a trail, mostly on the north side of the creek.

Beck, your post was harmless enough, but it was complete dribble. You and I talked about it last night and admitted that this was probably true, because you were drunk at the time that you wrote it. Simply re-write your brilliant observation and re-post it in a thread where it may have some relation to the topic.

The roads in from Sisters usually open early, and you can often (maybe usually) ski from Pole Creek or the next one to the north before Memorial Day. It is not a difficult ski run from just below the summit pinnacle into the bowl where Early Morning Couloir is. The Colier and Hayden Glaciers are way moderate.

Off, you raise a good question. Yes, his books are full of errors, and we defenders of Fred will point out that so are Nelson's guides and Smoots are even worse -- but one thing that distinguishes Fred, in my mind, is that I think he tries very hard to incorporate feedback from his readers. It is actually pretty cool that you could send him an Email about Fortress and he'd try to put it in there. Whatever you think of him, though, it is clear that someobody else is going to be taking over the reigns at some point. I'd nominate Lowell Skoog.

No kidding. Nice pic.

You got me there.

No, I did not say that and you know I did not say or even imply that. My thread was not about "are Pope and Dwayner mature." However, I'd have to point out that you have created here a thread that is all about the question "Is Dru mature?"

No, my thread was not a deliberate attempt to inflame Dwayner and Pope, nor was it an attempt to incite spray. It was a deliberate attempt to discuss bolting issue, or one small sub-issue actually, in a sensible fashion. It would be great if Pope and Dwayner want to participate in that discussion and they'd be free to say that they think it is indeed a big problem and then to explain why. Indeed, I hoped that they would do so. If it incites Dwayner and Pope that I don't think they should be allowed to deliberately inflame people over an emotional issue, so be it. Why are you so threatened by all of this? Are you afraid that your god-given right to spray all over the board 100 times a day may be curtailed? The argument goes around in circles because you keep dancing the jig.

Dru - I have consistently been against the disruption of legitimate threads with spray, no matter what position the sprayer had on the original topic. For three years. You know that.

Dru- I don't believe it shows any lack of respect for Dwayner to steadily post, for two or three years, that I think he should not be allowed to destroy all bolting topics and then to conclude that asking him to stop it is not working. I simply posed the question: is it perhaps time to start temporary suspending people who refuse to shut up when they are told to stop disrupting legitimate threads? Are you afraid that I might target you for such a suspension next? Is that what this thread is really about? Back to your original premise: can you find a single example of where I have tried to keep somebody out of a discussion because I did not agree with their position on the core issue under discussion?

Dru, I'll answer your question instead of trying to avoid it. I believe that the reason we cannot have a reasonable discussion of bolting practices on this board is because some people do not want there to be one. I don't think it is because everybody hates mattp, and I don't think it is "bogus" to want to explore an emotional topic in a sensible manner. Is it unnatural? Perhaps. But I think it is worth a try. Why are YOU so dead set against it? You argue that nothing good can come of it, so why bother. Why don't you just ignore the discussion then?

'sorry to short change you there, Dru. Your "vile spew" has in fact totaled more than 7,000 posts.

Dru, I'm not sure whether it is a good idea for me to respond to your thread or not but here goes. I did not, and have not ever, suggested banning anybody because I disagree with their ideas, unless their "idea" was that they thought they had a right to prevent other people from having a discussion on this board or that they had a right to threaten people or something like that. I don't think I have ever insulted anybody for their stated position on bolting or on politics or any other topic -- unless you think it is insulting to suggest that what somebody else has posted is laughable. If you think that is the case then at least half of your 7000 posts are hideously insulting and you should probably be banned for life. If you don't want to participate in an attempt to have a thoughtful discussion about a controversial topic, that is fine. Simply ignore any such thread. Here, you have your own thread about how mattp is a sprayer in disguise and he wants to ban anybody who disagrees with him. But let's see if you can walk the walk: Have I ever stepped all over somebody's serious discussion, deliberately setting out to turn it into nothing but one-line insults and other assorted garbage? No. Can you cite a single instance where I have tried to shut somebody out of a discussion because I disagreed with their position on some issue? I think not.

I started this thread in an attempt to try to address one tiny sliver of the bolting debate. My thought was that it might be helpful to bring some perspective to the debate if we looked at individual complaints about bolting practices separately: rather than taking the shotgun approach and saying there are "too many" or "not too many" bolts, and "you guys suck" or whatever. I posted a poll, which has drawn some criticism but which I hoped to use as a kickoff for a discussion of just how much of a problem (with regard bolted crack climbs) do we think we have. Alex reported that he climbed some Leavenworth routes last weekend that were an absolute tragedy, and Tim L said that he thinks there are more bolts next to cracks in the Icicle Creek valley than at Smith Rock. In response to a post from Cavey, I noted that last week's discussion of bolted cracks at Index resulted in the identification of about three climbs where protectable cracks may have been bolted, but upon further reflection I recall that about a year ago we discussed one more bolted crack at Index. The point remains, however, that we are probably talking about fewer than 1% of the climbs at Index and at least some people think that those particular cracks were not reasonably protectable without the bolts. Can anybody make a similar calculation for Leavenworth? Are there bolts next to a crack on more than 1% of the climbs there? Does such a number matter? Is there a single climb at Leavenworth that is truly a crack climb that has had a line of bolts installed next to the crack? You could say that a single bolted crack in the entire State would be one too many, and somebldy else might say that we could live with a few, but no more than a few bolted crack climbs at any given area. Somebody else might say that it is really not all that much of a problem (yet) because outside of North Bend and Vantage, there really are not any crack climbs that have been bolted and there aren't very many places where somebody has put bolts that you could actually place good gear anywhere in the state. How much of a problem is it if somebody has put a bolt next to a crack where someone with an aid-climbing background could get a tricam to stick? Do you think that bolting cracks is really a common practice, or is it rare? Is it increasing? "There are too many bolted cracks," we say. Is that all that can be said in answer to "how much of a problem is the bolting of cracks?"

Donkey- I'm not sure glasgowkiss is suggesting that you intend to cheat or ignore the forces of nature. I think he makes a good point, however, and it is one that I first encountered here on cc.com. In avalanche courses and in magazine articles we frequently here a lot about how to survive avalanches by using beacons and avalungs and so on, but we see relatively little disussion of the fact that if you get completely buried in an avalanche, your chances of being dug up alive are very small. If you think I'm being paternalistic or obnoxious, ignore this post. But I'll repeat myself several times more before the season is out because I think this is an important idea worth serious thought. Meanwhile, check into the rip cords and practice using the beacon.

GregW - Have you been to a campground lately? Thousand Trails is running the show. Some of these "campground hosts" can be fairly pleasant, and I certainly think their presence has improved the situation at some campgrounds (an example being the one outside Darrington that use to be occupied by homeless people and partiers all summer) but many of them are rather obnoxioius as Erik pointed out. The push to use concessionaires to provide reacreational services and support on public lands is very definitely part of the current push toward privatization, and Fee Demo is another part of this program. Instead of retired people who drive around in golf carts acting like cops at Cle Elum Campground, the fees should be collected by idealistic college students who are seeking a forestry degree (in other words, somebody who cares about the place).

One of the Seattle papers did a big story on the bolting wars at Vantage some time back, and I thought they did a pretty good job. The story featured Bill Robbins as poster boy for the anti-bolt contingency, and they alluded to his "colorful" reputation within the climbing community but presented him as an anti-bolt warrior who represented not a majority, but a significant number of climbers. Along with a vivid portrait of Bill, the story gave outsiders some pretty good background on the issue. Several years earlier, they did another story on this issue and there I think they used cands.net as one of their sources (they didn't give the URL, though). It noted that bolts were being indiscriminately placed on "Square Creek Wall." Fairweather, I'm with you in thinking it is wacko to close public lands to recreational use, Fairweather. There are a significant number of people who have no interest in hunting, fishing, hiking or climbing and think the mountains should be protected from disturbance from people like us - and as I think you believe, I agree that on this issue our interests may have something in common with snowmobilers and dirt-bike riders. I sure hope NEWSTIPS doesn't do a story about this issue and present some anti-environmentalist as spokesman for climbers who want access, though. There are many of us who support environmental regulations, are willing to pay taxes for the clean up of air and water and the protection of our streams, want to see our public lands managed for long-term sustainability, and still want access.

I somewhat agree with the general premise of the thread but I certainly wouldn't agree with a blanket statement that "shitty pins" would be better replaced with bolts. For example, as Al PIne's troll pointed out, I wouldn't say that a bolt should be installed any place where there is now a poor pin placement on a climb that is at least sometimes aided. Or as Dru and somebody else pointed out (Fern?) - tiny tcu's go into old pin placements and we don't need a bolt if there is a reasonable tcu placement, or if there is a poor one but some good pro is not too far below. On some obscure adventure climb, I'd leave the poor pin placement alone but on a popular crag route, I'd be more likely to agree with putting a bolt where there is a marginal pin that is being removed and reinstalled frequently, so that the rock is being degraded and climbers are repeatedly exposed to unnecessary risk. Perhaps it is obvious, but these decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis -- don't they? RuMR may be implying the converse of what he said, however: it is not always the case that nobody should place a bolt if a pin can possibly be placed nearby. In other words, sometimes a bolt is appropriate even if a poor piton may be placed nearby. Most of us would agree with that statement.

Michele, one would expect that to be the case, but it really is not. The people who have been bolting cracks around here, in just about EVERY case, are very experienced climbers (though perhaps not alpinists), and they DO care. But in each particular situation they decide that their actions are justified: the pro was sketchy RP's or gear that would have had to be placed behind an expanding flake or something; or they think it is stupid to have an entirely bolted climb require a single cam; or the crack in question is on a sport climbing crag so they think: what is the problem? There are a couple of guys who put up sport climbs without these "extenuating circumstances," and most posters here would agree that these are probably the most serious offenders, but these guys, too, care a great deal and they work very hard at trying to do what they think is a good job of putting up their climbs. I'm sure it has happened, but I have not heard of a single case where somebody who bolted a crack in Washington was a person who did not care or who was inexperienced. That is part of what drives the bolt-haters up the wall. They ask: if these "so-called responsible" guys can talk themselves into bolting our cracks, where's the reason for hope that anything can change? The entire world is soon going to be overtaken.

...

Cavey, I didn't read anybody to be defending the practice of rap-bolting cracks, but perhaps I missed something. There was a discussion where it was said that this had been done at Index, and then it was countered that in fact the examples given were not completely accurate. I think the general result was that there had in fact been some RP aidable cracks that had bolts added for pro (I'm not clear just how many - but it sounds like this happend in a couple of places (3?) and that some anchors had been installed next to a crack somewhere else. I didn't see anybody assert that this was a good thing and that they were going to continue doing it so much as I think the argument was that yes, it happend and here's why, and maybe it is not so bad as was suggested. It is fine if you don't care to know why, when, or who may be doing these things - or what actually happened. But I would hpe that you would take these factors into account should you decide to complain about it or to try to do something about it. Note: in my mind, the identity of "who did it" is probably the least important of these factors. You are right, though, that the course of history is probably not going to be changed by this or any other thread on cc.com.

In fact, I DO believe that this site has had an impact upon my own and some other climbers' bolting practices. In other cases it has simply caused the "offenders" to go underground. As to Mitch, I cannot say whether he is ever likely to listen to other opinions that may be expressed on this site or elsewhere, but I think what is said here DOES impact what some prospective bolt choppers are likely to do. I also believe this site could become MORE influential in these matters if the participants here were willing to retrain themselves a little bit, engaging in less posturing and spray so that there could be a freer exchange of more divergent ideas. There is no doubt that this site has helped get some anti-bolt rock cops together; how about letting it have some other impact on the matter? Nobody is forcing you to participate in this discussion.