mattp

Michelle, I didn't mean to suggest that it would be of no interest to the general public, only that I would expect most to be unable to understand the issue and the earlier statement that it might appear "arcane" is merely commenting on what would be expected. Wouldn't we think the same thing about the latest controversy between the bird watchers who get together at a conference to yet again argue about whether the same species or sub-species of warblers should be split into two species or sub-species? I think it's OK to see the issue in print as long as it isn't portrayed to be some kind of out-of-control conflict waged by a bunch of lunatics. In this thread and the other thread I saw what looked to me like there may have been some armchair speculation and uninformed condemnation of what somebody else did 1,000 miles away, based on some unknown third person's suggesting that something MAY have been overbolted or retrobolted.

Catbird - I think most climbers on this board probably agree that bolts do not belong within a foot of a nut placement that a three-day novice could safely utilize. Did you know this was what he had done?

What I saw in the article was that Mr. Seurynks put up a bolted climb, and Mr. Thesanga chopped it. Seurynks was mad about it, and Thesanga said he had chopped bolts that were blatantly unnecessary. Like the other thread on this topic today, I wonder if anybody has any real information here? Did Seurynks put bolts next to cracks? If he did, were they belay bolts or pro bolts? What is this 400 foot dangerous cliff like? What is the history of the place?

I'm curious what we are talking about here. Is this Flag place in a post industrial wasteland like Exit 38 or is it in some beautiful mountain valley where the deer and the antelope play? It sounds like even Dave Tvedt agrees that there has been some over-bolting there, but how extensive is it? Is the Flag a new climbing area or one that has had a history of ground-up ascents protected only by gear? Is he correct when he says that the initial speculation about Hydrotube being retrobolted was just plain wrong? Are the offensively over-bolted beginner's routes confined to one small crag that is out of the way? I'm not impressed with his debate style where he says "if you pull my bolts I'm going to go back and install glue-in's all over the place," but what has really happened at Flag?

A large flake may have damaged or chopped some bolts on the first two pitches of Dark Rhythm but I looked at it from a distance and couldn't tell.

It is pretty much a climber's issue, isn't it? Some land managers may care about it too, because recreational management and environmental management may be a part of their job. Would you expect a broader segment of the American public to understand or care? It's not as if what we do on some "dangerous 400 foot cliff near Aspen, Colorado" matters to most people. A similar article (not as well written) appeared in the Seattle papers a few years back.

I don't know what to tell you, JayB. Meanwhile, head out there with whatever guidebook you have - Smoot or Traveller's or Nelson or downloads from my web page - and be prepared for reality to differ slightly from what you see depicted there (my drawings are pretty up-to date, though).

Erik's got a good list of climbs, though they are mostly 5.10. In that range, you might take a look at Slesse, as well. For something easier, and JUST PLAIN FUN, I'd take a look at Goode's NE Buttress. If you are the multipitch 5.10 trad/sport leader who solo's up to 5.7, you'll probably solo up and down it but it's still fun. I disagree with Tod about the lower half of the N. Ridge of Stuart. I thought the climbing on the lower part was fine but not great, and I'd do just the upper half of the route if I went back to repeat it. By the way, I don't think you'll find many people around here who would say that the N. Face of the N. Peak of Mt. Index is a classic alpine rock climb, but I would say that the traverse of all three peaks of Mount Index, usually done N to S, is a worthy summer outing.

I agree pretty much with TimL though I think many people will want two pieces in the #3.5 to 4.5 camelot range (a pair of 4's would be just fine). They are not needed, though -- I led both the wide pitches with only one and anybody who has climbed with me will tell you that I am not Mr. Badass when it comes to leading. Also, I didn't think the first 120 feet of that last pitch sucked as bad as Mr. L suggests. Yes, there are some blocks wedged in there, but there is nothing scary about it and it is in a great location. The top-out rocks!

I liked the way Clint Cummins produced his Index guide. I found the topo drawings sufficient to find any climb I ever looked for (though I once had trouble finding the rock called "the lip") and it was in my view surprsingly accurate for how much new material it covered. I liked the simple presentation and his statement that anybody who wanted to do so was free to copy it and share it with their friends. There were no glossy photos, and little history, but the guide did the job for me. Aren't Falcon guides, as a rule, generally poorly done?

Thanks, Mystic. But "I won't show up anyway?" What are we supposed to do with that ?

I am sadly let down. I thought maybe you had promise....

'Don't know about any repeats, but I gotta say: I'd tip my hat to you if you'd repeat it. 5.10 and runout on bolts that are 1/4" and 20 years old; 5.10 climbing where you could hit the deck even if the bolts don't fail; and 4 bolts in 150 feet (I don't think you're going to get any additional pro with "gear"); and .... please don't fall and send us a route report if you try it. (And let me know if you want to go and replace those old bolts.)

What 'cha got against them? (Just curious.)

Walk along the big ledge below OnLine and when it starts to drop down, scramble up to another ledge system. Follow this one and it will drop and you can scramble up onto another. Do it again (a bolt with an oversized hanger will come in handy for a handhold), and you'll end up at the "Lost Charms Tree." From here, you step down a little and then climb out and right (all but the complete badass will require a belay). In most of a rope-length, with maybe a tcu or two as pro, you'll reach the Spaceport, a long and wide ledge at the base of Shock Treatment. From here, it is a relatively easy climb/scramble up to the Old Milwaukee Tree at the base of Fuddhat. It's worth it. Shock Treatment and Fuddhat/Kill de Wabbit are probably, in my opinion, the best routes at Static Point (I haven't done them all and the routes through the roof below the Curious Cube, in particular, look as if they may be pretty good). It is possible to avoid all the scrambling and climbing to get to Spencer's Spaceport and the Old Milwaukee Tree, but it is not really any easier or safer, and the more "standard" traverse I describe is the way to go.

Perhaps it is a gentle reminder that we're all headed to Tacoma this week.

You're showing yourself to have hung out with a conservative crowd, Mitch. They caught on real fast in Yosemite and all the kids were using them.

Having never met Mitch, I can't vouch for his age. However, as far as I can recall, "cams" were first available in about 1978 or '79 when Jardine was selling/trading them for ropes in The Valley.

It was an idea that had promise, but I think that in reality it turned out to be mostly impractical. I have drilled holes and then gone back a couple months later to install a bolt in them and had a very difficult time finding the hole -- even when I stood on exactly the same footholds that I used when I drilled the hole! It might not happen on overhanging rock, but otherwise an empty hole can fill with debris and disappear very quickly unless the outside edges of the hole were chipped to make a larger scar. In overhanging rock, most of us would be a little leary of the expanding/removable anchors.

I'm sort of with you, there JayB. As I said before, I think it is irresponsible to deliberately set dangerous routes but if someone were to go to, say, exit 38 and set a route where there were 4 or 5 bolts in 80 feet rather than the usual 10 or 12, it might be OK provided that one could clearly see this from the ground and could therefore make their own decision as to whether they were up for it. Better might be to bolt it so that it had bolts closely spaced at the start and they got wider toward the top so that if one fell off they might take a big whipper and not hit anything. This would probably take a few more bolts. The potential value I see in this might lie in demonstrating that there are other alternatives besides body-length bolt spacing and it might provide an exciting experience for some climbers. Conversely, I am NOT suggesting this AT ALL but if there were one climb at Static Point with close bolt spacing, well away from the main ledge somewhere, it might be acceptable even there. It might allow somebody new to slab climbing an opportunity to find out that those sticky shoes actually do stick.

Interesting. What was Mr. Kemple trying to do, exactly? Did it say?

Again, it has been noted that there is a difference between scary and dangerous and I think inconvenient or awkward is yet another thing. Yes, it may be a "contrivance" to deliberately put a bolt low or off to the side instead of right in front of a hard move, but that doesn't make the move any more dangerous unless the result is that you are creating an unnecessary potential to hit something during a fall. I pretty much agree with you, JayB, that to deliberately rap-bolt something so as to be dangerous would be irresponsible, at best, but I've never heard of anyone trying to do this or advocating that anybody else do so. Sometimes, even with a great amount of care and effort, bolted pitches come out funny whether they were established on lead or on rappel, however. I could be wrong, but I don't think the awkward placements on Kill da Wabbit were done so deliberately so much as they were trying to somewhat minimize the number of placements and that is how it came out (and notwithstanding the fact that I think it is oddly bolted, I think it is one of the better pitches on Static Point).

With your gift for diplomacy and tact, I can see why you find it all so boring. (That and the fact that we don't seem to see very many new points being made, I suppose.) I've climbed the Davis Holland/Lovin Arms route three times, and never properly climbed that last pitch. Ran out of steam at the top of the 5th pitch once, sleazed off to the left once, and my partner led the seam to the right of the proper 6th pitch the third time I was there. Right now I wouldn't make it up the first five pitches so I'm not yet ready to grapple with that last one, but one of these days ...

Its OK, Dwayner. Sphinx is just sore about not being invited to give the keynote address at the Rockfest Alternative. Calm down, and make some space on your program, and everything will be OK. Like LBJ said, you'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in.

Good points, JayB and ChucK. What it boils down to, I think, is a few relatively simple points that lend themselves to complex thinking when applied: 1. Bolts are ugly. Their mere presence on the rock should be minimized for aesthetic reasons. 2. Bolting causes environmental impacts associated with not only the hole and the metal in that hole, but the increased traffic that bolted routes usually generate. This is another reason to minimize bolt usage. 3. Most people want to feel safe when they are climbing crags, but everyone has different comfort levels when it comes to leading and some people prefer to climb routes with some or even a high degree of scare to them. If there is room for sport bolted routes in some locations, it does not follow that every climb should be bolted that way and indeed the opposite is true: if sport climbs exist in some locations, that is specifically a reason why other crags or other routes on the same crags should NOT be bolted that way. 4. The person who puts up a route, whether a ground-up first ascent or top-down engineered sport climb, should think about what they are doing and consider what they are leaving behind for other climbers. The impacts are very different (see above) but it is equally self-indulgent to go out and make a statement about how bad-ass we are by leading a bunch of run-out horror shows and expecting everybody else to honor that as it is to build a sport climbing area and expect everyone else to value that "creation." 5. The person who takes it upon theirself to alter a route, whether replacing old bolts or adding or removing bolts, has an even greater obligation to consider their impact on other climbers than does the first ascensionist. Whether you think the historical rights or deference we give to first ascensionists are sensible or not, we as a climbing community have generally accept the idea that those who put up a route DO have certain authority that others do not when it comes to subsequent alterations. And in the case of removing bolts that one may feel have been wrongly added by someone other than the first ascent party, the "correction" may in some cases cause as much harm (physical or political) as the prior "wrong." In my way of thinking, much of it boils down to the need to protect diversity. I like the fact that we have crags with so many different personalities within an easy day-trip of Seattle: North Bend, Leavenworth, Index, Darrington, Static Point and others.... If you can't find a crag that you like, and climbs that you like, you just don't like rock climbing.