Peter_Puget

Capt'n - Not sure if I even want to stop you. I was just making an observation on the behavior of the majority of those wanting to chop bolts.

Sure it matters. Why have only a very few "choppers" over the years been willing to unabashedly publicly take responsibilty for their specific actions?

Ray: which ones and why?

Here's a question: Has any one here who claims to a bolt chopper ever done so? And if they have are they "Trad" enough to admit it under their real names? Just wondering as all this bolt chopping chatter is a bit tedious.

Holly - I remember the pitches like this: p1 5.8+ (DH route) p2 5.9 Chimney p3 5.10 thin crack to roof then A2 across and turning roof (Short) p4 A2/3 Triple roofs - short better than p3. p5 Next pitch short mostly free.(I took the opportunity to let my partner lead the flare) p6 Flare then bolts then I remember cleaning gear and my partner whining on this pitch. p7 Easy and very short. Lambone if people are climbing GD or TC think about rapping Lovin' Arms

Well I am guessing you could do it to join JG on either the second or third pitch. Years ago (and I do mean years) I did swung over to the second just for practice. So use your best judgement. I think if I was to do it again I would try the third BUT I havent been up there since the eighties.

Lambone, I think the ledge you're thinking of (for a bivi) is "Big Honker" not "Smokeout." It's definately the best bivi location, if thats what you are looking for. The only pendo I have heard on TC is to join JG. Although both TC and JG are clean there is a variation first pitch A3?(I think starting in a thin crack off the ground just to the right if DH's first pitch)that has been climbed if you want to do some nailing.

I went to Fossil last winter and was expecting to hate it but actually enjoyed it. The area around Royal Bobbins Wall(?)has some fun routes. The routes aren't great but I had a great time there and am sure I will trip down there next winter again. The bolted-on holds are a @#$%! disgrace which tend to overshadow the few fun routes there.

Specialed - I have only done one long route on Half-Dome (the Reg NW Face) and must say I regret it! First half of the route follows a broad gully with not so great rock, no exposure. I planned on stopping for lunch at the top of pitch 11? and was so grossed out by the crap (literally) that I just kept on going. The only human orifice (incl both sexes!) that didnt have identifiable discharge left on the ledge was earwax. Unbelievably gross. The next few hundred feet above that point are in a big corner system. (no exposure) The Zig Zags are pretty cool but short too. Sorry to seem so down on the route but there are plenty of better routes in the Valley - I was very dissapointed. Peter By the way I lead all the pitches and the one that stays in my mind as one of the most difficult and fun(despite the low rating) was the 5.9 after the tension traverse.

Actually MAtt I think I'll follow your lead as it seems like the best short term response. Perhaps I am naive but I think that little by little as more climbers talk about it the right behavior will tend to dominate.

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.