Peter_Puget

Don't know much about Hueco. Your right though that many reasons could be used to justify climbing closure (some valid ie bird closures) and that the best defense is for climbers to behave responsibly and with the greater good in mind. I believe it is also neccessary for statewide groups to form at least in a limited sense. Local area specific groups seem more intent on maximising their own benefit perhaps at the expense of the whole. National groups are simply too national. Perhaps the best things climbers can do is to voice their opinions, listen to other opinions and make an effort to simply think more about these issues.

Nope not bad. Maybe even good! I agree that compromise is the solution and tried to suggest that in my last post. I also agree that bolts are often used as a cover issue when really there are other reasons such as your stated trampled vegetation. However, it should be noted that repeatedly bolts have been used as the leveraging issue to restrict climbing activity. Here is an example of how bolting has been used as a critical factor in the formulation of climbing policy. During climber/manager negotiations over J-tree an article appeared (I believe in the LA Times) showing a picture of a single bolt. Letters from non-climber readers sent to the Parks Service decrying such “wilderness vandalism” were shown to climbers and used to help justify a possible radical shift in park policy. I too enjoy some of the discourse on this website and think that somehow underneath the goofiness there is the germ of something worthwhile. I hope that I didn’t give the impression that I was calling anyone full of &%#!.

Matt - I suspect we agree much more than we disagree and I am certain we agree more than I agree with Pope and Dwayner. Certainly I do not express myself as well as I wish I could. I never meant to start a diatribe against a certain area or even certain people but clearly I was speaking out against certain actions. I agree that actions are comitted by people but must say that they can easily be dealt with on a purely action external basis (think Kant!) while ignoring inner motivations. The fact that these exchanges has taken place in the Greedd thread says alot. The frustrating thing about 38/Si is that with several small changes most of the negative effects would have been ameleorated if not eliminated. For example: 1. Leave some routes as top rope and promote them as such. 2. Did you know that some routes were actually completed on the Amazonia cliff that used natural pro along with one bolt. These routes were remade as clip ups with the clip up FA gettign the credit? On the margin had events like these not occurred, we would not be having this "conversation." Remember it's the last three bites of the third burrito that do all the damage - little changes like this would have had a disproportionate impact.

Yeow! Captn I actually agreed for the most part with your comments! But honestly didn't adress them in my short discourse. Your comment was referenced merely because its reference to BB. I wasn't placing you in any camp or or group. And since I clearly stated I like many of the routes at 38, it looks like the Bronco threw you too

The Captn’s comment shows the rub: Brian has by continual grandstanding and playing up to his “cult of personality” become synonymous with 38/Si. It is this close identification that actual works against honest debate and discussion. Any criticism of 38/Si seems like a petty personal attack on Brian. His cult of personality jumps in with a personal defense - “Gee he is a nice guy” or “I like his routes.” You know what? I agree Brian has put up some great routes and some not so great routes. I have even had a great time hanging out with him. What I resent is his constant playing off the media and the continued hyping of 38/Si. These are two sides of the same coin. Incorporating by reference here the recent additions to the “Greed” thread and then adding Brians comments in the newspaper describing 38 as “exemplary”. {Websters: Exemplary 1.a) Serving as a pattern b) Deserving of imitation. While I often get the feeling that using the English language for BB is like riding a bucking bronco, here he hits the nail on the head and means exactly what he says.} Clearly 38/Si aren’t fantastic climbing areas. The majority of posters here and I am sure the majority of those climbing there would agree to that. This isn’t to say that there aren’t fun climbs there. In fact I was there last week; I will be there again next week I am sure. What such propaganda does is create a false impression of climbing and climbing areas amongst the non climbing population, the new climbers, and the view point of land managers. Anyone with a dissenting opinion is somehow sullied by the close identification of BB with the areas – “Look what a petty personal attack he/she is making.” Perceptions have consequences! Facts only do to the extent they agree with our perceptions.

38/Si is not a model that should be repeated in Wa. Unfortunately BB got involved as a person and this tends to distract from any argument; however, this is a special case because BB has explicitly acted in certain ways as a response to potential profits and has been a self promoter. These actions are indeed inextricably linked to the 38/Si saga and were brought up by your brief hagiography of BB. Certainly knowing BB and those active in the J-tree government-climber talks, I can say unequivocally that more time energy and strategy was put forth in those talks than up here. I think its best to leave BB out of our discussion in the future. The examples in your post are all cases where the land manager in essence commanded climbers limit their activities. The fact that climbers agreed to such limitations seems no more commendable than stopping at a red light. With regard to 38’s location - it was chosen because it was there! Not for any reasons involving parking and impact. I do notice that you did not directly address my one point related to Banks Lake where a clear and unequivocal causal relationship exists between development at 38 and a land manager reacting badly to it. The land manager may in fact be more offended by Vantage my point was that 38 was sited specifically as his motivation. I have never said that 38/Si is an abomination. I never said anything about the enjoy ability of the routes. I never said anything about sport climbers being wusses. I never said anything about the guide. I am stating (probably not as emphatically or cogently as I would like) that the way routes were developed at 38/Si has and will continue to have a negative impact on climbing in WA. By the way, I agreeVantage has contributed to the problem as well. I did not mention it because 38 was our subject but would say that the place names ‘38’ and ‘Vantage’ could be used interchangeably with virtually no impact on the underlying logic. My three rhetorical questions and their implied conclusions remain unrebutted. In fact I do not believe it is possible to successfully do so. Whether the land managers and Brian are the best of buddies is not germane to my argument and I never questioned it. What concerns me is: 1 As the issue with the Banks Lake manager illustrates, with the pattern being set twice only a foolish land manager would not be concerned about climber impact if there is climbing on his/her land. Are we trading a silk purse for a pig’s ear? 2 Si and 38 lead to public acceptance of bolting and a sport ethos divorced from any sort of connection to the rest of climbing. Public acceptance and enjoyment of 38 style routes has been used to justify rebolting of routes at Index and Leavenworth. The creation of over bolted routes in Leavenworth by 38/Si developers (ie bolt at your feet, one at your waist and one that your clipping.) Existing routes at the Fun Forest have been sport bolted. This crag 40ft high has for years been a premier TRing crag and virtually all the routes have been lead via traditional style. Surely such behavior violates your rules describing what constitutes acceptable behavior. 38 and Si have been breeding grounds of such behavior. Finally, what I meant by my final question/comment was to suggest that non climbers will have a much higher probability of being offended by what you consider an eyesore than your average climber and that by not considering this reaction we are opening climbing up to greater regulation and restriction. In short we are being irresponsible. Remember climbing does not exist in a vacuum- there are organized groups actively campaigning against bolts on public lands and individuals such as one Index local who hates climbers and actively campaigns against climbing at the Town Walls. Climbers seem to be giving their antagonists the rope with which they will be hung. As a side bar, Matt isn’t it amazing that we have gone so long without hearing “Donna is hot”? I fully agree with you that the "boom in the sport [has resulted in] access and environmental issues that must be addressed"

Well the simple answer is that you don’t have to either be a sport climber or a trad climber – it’s not an either/or choice. In the past I have actually argued against Pope’s derisive comments regarding sport climbers and his I believe naïve belief in the “Traditional” tradition. I have never argued against sport climbing or bolts in general. Neither did I argue against a “commercial motivation.” I also never claimed BB to be a particularly effective merchant. What I did postulate was that many of BBs actions have been actually and potentially producing negative effects. You say you do not see what the big bolting debate is over? It’s a simple as pie – some people like bolting some find it offensive. Surely you don’t have to fully appreciate each sides position to understand that there is a conflict and that the conflict can be resolved in ways that are detrimental to the sport. Here are a few items that might lead you to conclude that there is a conflict worth taking notice of: 1. Virtually all climbing advocacy groups have written positions regarding bolting. 1. The Federal Government tried to ban bolts in wilderness areas. 1. Bolts are banned in many areas by land managers. 1. The never ending and hot tempered diatribes on this site. Exit 38 and Little Si were in fact late comers to sport climbing in WA. Surely Index had many sport routes put up in the “modern style” since the early 80s. Isn’t Monkey Lip at Castle essentially a sport route? What about Rattlesnake Rock. (Leavenworth) It’s not a question of Sport or Trad. It’s not a question of “How popular it is.” No one has ever questioned Si/38’s popularity. In fact it is this very popularity that is the problem. MattP writes that, and perhaps I am putting words in his mouth, he does not think the rascally behavior at 38 will affect climbing at Index. To that I would simply say that it already has affected the State Parks Department’s response to climbing at Steamboat Rock State Park.(Banks Lake) After seeing what happened along the I90 corridor the Parks Department was actively discouraging route development there and prohibiting it in some areas. From my perspective it is hubris to assume a benign future for regulation at Index. But the problem goes further than Index or Banks Lake: what about that cliff that is going to be discovered 3 years from now? MattP if you as a climber consider 38 an eyesore, then can you imagine how others might view it? And isn’t their viewpoint worthy of consideration when defining what is acceptable behavior?

As much as I hate the personalization of arguments on this bulletin board I feel I must respond to MattPs posting. I do not claim to know BB’s personal motivations and thus cannot say that he has “given of himself” but find the supporting evidence MattP provided equivocal at best and actually counter to his thesis. From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with commercial inspiration for climbing new routes - especially when they benefit us all. I do find BB claims of first ascents when there were clear signs of prior activity including bolts and obviously cleaned sections a bit overboard and his “Rhinotopia deal” self-servingly obnoxious. What can and should be judged is the current and potential impact his “actions” have had or have the potential to have in WA. 1. Will the extensive development of these crags limit development at other areas? 2. Have the practices of bolting (and chipping) anything and everything to create more routes in order to make a more commercially viable area lead to an environmentally destructive ethos to pervade climbing that will lead to problems elsewhere? 3. What is the fallout of underrating routes to make them more attractive to consumers? The answers to all of these questions and clearly and unequivocally negative.

Slappy you refer to a "fine mess" at Index caused by the removal of bolts on Cunning Stunt. Implying strongly that said mess was easily visible by non climbers. Eaxcly where is the mess I have been there several times recently and have missed the "fine mess."

Scott the rarified air you suffered while make the second first ascent of Princely Ambitions must have adled your mind. Simply put most do climb Rainier alpine style. Alpine Tom gets the award for cogency. Scott for sophistry.

Scott - please explain to me how most people ascend Mt. R

Does any one know of a list of fees climbers potentially face for climbing in WA? Ie: Fish & Wildlife & National Forest Service parking permits. National Park Fees. Is there an additional fee to climb Rainier?

Well it depends on the route but it reduces your leads by 33% and on many routes that means you loose out on some good pitches and possibly all the hard ones. With two sometimes its hard to equally distribute hard pitches anyway. For example on Mescalito if you have two and your swinging leads one gets signifcantly more difficult pitches than the other. At least they did a long time ago. Plus the hassle at belays becomes exponentially more a mess. Just my opinion anyway.

I know you didn't ask but...my preference would be to never ever do a wall with three people in the valley. I come to this conclusion from my happy memories of two and pain the rear memories of three.

Here is my 2 cents. When I climbed it about 20 years ago so my brain may be a bit foggy. We drove up from Seattle early and climbed the toe up to the nice bivi ledges and spent the night. Finished early the next morning. My advice would be bivi it's a beautiful place. Big bivi spot with super views.

My view of the Gods An ideal for my living I am cleansed by Lou

Ever stop and consider the possibly that Spray is analogous bolting in the real world? A little is great but too much ruins the fun.

I remember backpacking in the 60s in Sierra Nevada Mountains and watching a team getting ready to climb Banner Peak. To my eyes that was an amazing goal and I knew right then that I wanted to climb mountains. Later hiking at the Pinnacles Nat Mon. I realized I was only half right at the base of Banner, I wanted to rock climb not be a mountaineer. I also distinctly remember drinking water directly out of some streams without worry. My parents came to the West Coast after my father first saw the Sierra Mountains before being shipped off to the South Pacific during WWII. Those who hiked in the Cascades and Sierra Mtns in the 30s and 40 thought “damn all these new imports after WWII have wrecked the isolation and beauty of the mountains.” I remember going to Smith Rocks on a sunny May weekend and being the only climbing party there. Last time I went there I counted 27 people at the Morning Glory Wall. I thought all these people have wrecked MY Smith Rock experience. Maybe in 20 years they’ll be thinking the same thing. But at that time at the Morning Glory Wall these people were having the time of their lives. What crasser from of parochialism could there be than to claim that climbing or the climbing experience has been corrupted or cheapened due to its increased popularity or commercialization. Sure climbing has changed but saying that is a far cry from reasonably asserting that it has become defective. While I can’t bivi along the Icicle like I use to, I can do an amazing number of routes that are directly the result of the nature of modern climbing. While Index may be packed on the weekends, I can run out to Little Si or Exit 38 after work. While the ambiance at the popular cliffs has changed, those desiring solitude and the chance to explore have a phenomenal number of easy opportunities here in the NW. The thing that drives me crazy about the magazines is not that there are too many people at the cliffs but that the magazines promote change and conflict. Every issue has to have some breakthrough - some selling point. I open a magazine now and all I read about is some young teen did this, some woman did that. How hard is hard? How high is high? The experience of climbing seems only to be defined by some standard outside of itself. Some time ago Pope wrote about the experience he had belaying someone on the Edge. That experience at a climb rated so low as to be almost unmentionable in Rock N Ice or Climbing was evidently a great experience for him. One of my most intense experiences was the Good Book a mere 5.6 in Yosemite. I wonder how many times each weekend other climbers are having similarly memorable experiences even on those routes over bolted “Girlfriend” routes. I remember an article years ago in Climbing about some 50 foot cliff somewhere in the Midwest. The cliff was nothing, the routes were nothing but the writer was so excited about climbing there that his enthusiasm made the article one to be remembered. Where are articles like that today?

Well then help me improve my train of thought and correct my facts.

Pope - I didn’t mean to imply you were sexist. In fact, I believe that if I was to remove the word "woman" from my last post it would not change the logic. My error was putting that word near the "girl friend route " comments. What I was getting at was not that a woman climbed it but that I believe any worthwhile argument against bolting doesn't rest on a personal experience anyone may or may not have had with a route. Excuse my idiocy but the argument still seems to be:“We bold traditional climbers with higher standards have better values than you wimpy sport climbers not able to suck it up.” I simply find this approach itself arrogant and not very effective despite the fact that I am sympathetic to it. Your right that many are not offended by what Vantage has become. My guess is that they view the world differently than you and me (at least with regard to this issue) My guess also is that since they do not share your vision many will see your position as only a reflection of your values – values they do not share. Values not intrinsically superior or inferior to their own. I am merely saying that if they do not share your values appealing to your values to change another’s behavior can only be considered vain arrogance from their viewpoint. Sure it might be possible to cow and intimidate them in to submission but then again it might not. In other areas this has lead to an escalation of conflict sometimes ending in “I am not getting my way so I am going to the Land Manager!” And is that truly the best way? (How many time does the word value appear in this paragraph?!) Why isn’t there a discourse regarding Vantage, Si and Exit 38. Is it because they are not valued by “trad” advocates as much as say Leavenworth or Wa Pass? (One climber once told me that chipping at Index didn’t matter because Index was compared to some other areas (say Yosemite) an inferior location.) Is that why there is silence regarding these other areas? If so, this silence reinforces the position that “trad” advocates are merely asserting their own views and values via a selfish “not in my backyard mentality.” In earlier posts I suggested ways to avoid this conflict of vision problem. Thanks for spelling your views out twice and again I apologize for my spelling as I cannot seem to spell out what I am meaning even once! And just to be clear I agree the bolting of DDD is a bad thing! Alpine - It’s true I am suggesting constructive engagement but also must admit that sometimes a peer pressure is needed. Perhaps in the form of “Choppng” a route. I would not be adverse to the new bolts on DDD being removed. By the way I have even chopped some bolts myself and have come to the conclusion that if you make a big mess chopping them you are really doing something wrong! When the bolts on Cunning Stunt at Index were removed I received several phone calls and emails asking if I did it? I did not, but just mention this so that my position is clarified. Just remember that the ‘our” in “our resources” includes everyone.

Yikes! It kills me that all the people advocating limiting bolts all have such a terrible attitude that it make sme want to be against their position just because they seem so self righteous! I agree completely that bolts are over used now but fail to see much in of the way of analysis that will convince anyone who thinks otherwise of that fact. For example the cases stated in this post are either factually wrong or inconsistant with the conclusions drawn from them. Surely this post is a troll trying to incite a series of flames. I respond only because this is a serious issue which should be dealt with in a more responsible manner as the impact of future regulation will be serious indeed. Peter

Yeow! My spelling is terible!

This is about as sporting as shooting fish in a barrel. Wrong with attitude - I essentially agree with you and yet I am so repulsed by the tone of your message that I feel like bolting City Park. Whats with disparaging others who you do not even know with insults as to their motivations and so on. Surely you have heard the old adage its easier to catch a fly with honey than with vinegar. Your attitude limits others from seeing that you may have a valid point of view. Argue against oneself - ""Numba-10", an old aid line that now takes RP's and other assorted small items. I know you can place pieces in the crack every few feet but I guess it's a lot easier to clip bolts and hang then to try it the bold way. " Notice the words "now takes". At the time the bolts were place your admit that the placements wern't there. Thus to lead it the bold way mean free solo! Not factual - "It can be led on aid using cam-hooks and small stuff, but someone, in the name of "preserving the crack" from additional piton damage or whatever left an obnoxious line of bolts so that it could "free-climbed"; an arrogant event that has probably caused more permanent damage to the surrounding rock than a herd of aid climbers." This time it must be ignorance on your part. The initial arch was first lead free at 5.12. It is now 5.10+. When first bolted it was 5.11+. This route was significantly changed by pins and cam hooks subsequent to the first ascent and subsequent to the bolting. Also bolts have been added to this pitch since it was first bolted. Unquestionably the intial bolts in no way caused more perm damage to the surrounding rock than the herd of climbers that followed. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie or patent ignorance. Indiscriminat bolting would be ugly but even the use of the term is dirisive - I am sure the bolters wanted those bolts where they placed them. I first went to Vantage about 20 years ago and agree its become pretty disgusting but so has Little Si, Exit 38 and many other places. What is irritating is that the posters here often pick specific routes that caused them anguish and then they try to bring in an authority outside of their aurgument. Why mention Index when the post is about DDD? 1970s almost freeing of City Park. Pope - does it really matter to your augument that you watched a woman sport climber climb that route on the Wart Wall? If you hadnt would the retro bolting be ok?It seems that the logic supporting your position should be unattached to any particular route or experience but the posts always degenerate into: "dont turn my routes into gf routes", "don't dumb down climbing". Certainly those posters if they are serious about their position should demand better of themselves.

And Mer is almost right. Almost because it was named after the dead boys not PJ. But wasnt the questionabout the block in reference to a route on the Great Northern Slab not Princely Ambitions?

oops should have been a reply to the music thread not a start of a new one!