JayB

Hey All: I ran across an accident report posted by an English climber who's partner fell to his death while rappelling in Zion. It sounds as though he's sharing his account of the accident in an effort to insure that it is not duplicated elsewhere. While he does not know for certain what caused his partner's death, it appears as though the double figure-eight knot that they had been using to join the ropes failed. Apparently this knot tends to invert (roll over itself and move closer to the end of the rope)quite readily when loaded. I don't use this knot myself for a number of reasons, but thought I'd share the account just in case there's anyone out there who does. It's rather long, but you can easily skip to the portions directly concerned with the accident if you wish to. I've posted the account below if you're interested in reading further: "On May 21st I was descending with my friend Ross from Spaceshot on the Leaning Wall. During the last abseil Ross fell to his death. Ross and I are from the UK and were on a trip visiting various crags in the US. There is a lot of stuff spinning around in my head as I write this, but my main thought is to let people know what (it seems) was the cause of this accident. The main factor in this has surprised a good number of the climbers I have talked to. I know there has been some discussion of this on the web already. Hopefully by telling the whole story - however irrelevant some of it might be - all of the various questions might be answered. I will try to reply to any questions where I can tell you something vaguely useful. %==== The long story [skip ahead for the facts] ====%% On Monday we climbed the first four pitches and returned to the ground, leaving ropes in place to jug the next day. All the anchors we used were fixed, except maybe for the one at the top of the first pitch. Pitch 1 is slightly grotty 5.6 climbing. Pitch 2 is a pretty nice 5.7 flake and ends at the left end of a large sandy ledge. We fixed a 60m rope ("the blue" 60mx10.5mm) to this anchor, having got beta saying this would just reach the ground. Pitch 3 is a mixed bag of sandy 5.5 and ends at the base of a huge smooth clean red wall, the stuff we came to do. We fixed "the green" (55mx10.5mm) to this anchor and chucked it back down to the sandy ledge (top of pitch 2). Pitch 4 is where it gets fun. I lead the pitch (C2 aid) and Ross followed, cleaning the gear. We fixed our 60m lead rope ("the yellow" 60mx10.5mm) to this anchor and abseiled down. Then down the green to the sandy ledge. Then down the blue (carefully checking it reached) back to the ground. It didn't quite reach the dirt, but left us with maybe 20ft of trivial down-shuffling to get back to our bags. We left the 3 ropes in place and headed off for a beer. Tuesday morning we jugged the ropes. Amongst all the other crap you take aid climbing, we had a 9mm rope. We planned to lead on the yellow (the top fixed rope) and take the 9mm to deal with the double-rope abseils on the descent. We would chuck the green down to the big sandy ledge as we went past it, and then could retrieve the green and the blue by jugging just the blue on Wednesday and abseiling down. I set off first, Ross followed. I got to the top of pitch 4 as Ross arrived at the top of pitch 3. Ross had got some two-way radios earlier on the trip and we chatted on the radio: the weather forecast had been slowly deteriorating for the last 3 days, today was 50% chance of afternoon rain, there were a lot of gloomy clouds brewing above us, the sandstone is all bad in the wet, we were not super fast aid climbers...there were a lot of reasons for continuing, mostly that I didn't want to have to lead that C2 pitch again!! A brief spot of rain actually hit us and we decided to bail. I pulled up the 9mm rope, tied it to the yellow, stripped the anchor and descended to the top of pitch 3. Meantime Ross had been untying the green from this anchor and getting ready to set up a double-rope abseil. I got down to him, chucked him the end of the yellow to tie to the green and started pulling the ropes down from above. Ross headed off down to the big sandy ledge as I coiled the 9mm and put it on my back. He radioed me to say "rope free" and I headed down. I arrived on the big sandy ledge about 10-15ft away from the anchor - Ross was off to my left, already clipped into the anchor and sorting out the blue rope, ready to set up the last abseil. I chucked the loose end of the yellow to Ross and started pulling the ropes from above. I was unclipped at this point - being a very bad boy, even though it was a huge ledge. This was actually the only thing that struck me as unsafe about our whole day. As the knot came down, I stopped and untied it to free the yellow, which was now all tangled up in plants and rocks on the ledge. Ross fed it over the edge as I untangled it from everything on the ledge. I started pulling the green down as Ross sorted himself out over at the anchor. I was coiling the green rope as Ross called over to say "see you at the bottom in a few minutes", he saw me coiling the green and offered to carry it, since I had the 9mm already on my back, but he already had our daysack on so I said I was fine taking it down. I turned to just finish up coiling the green and at that moment he fell. I rushed over and there was nothing there - our ropes had gone, Ross had gone, the anchor was fine, untouched. Everything floated for a moment, slipped sideways and turned unreal - then I started shouting...I knew I had to get down in case by some impossible chance there was something I could do to help him. I was yelling down to the road and got someone's attention, they flagged down one of the shuttle buses and shouted that help was coming. I had the 55m green and the 50mx9mm ropes with me. I couldn't get to the ground in one go but I knew there was another anchor (top of the Alpine Start for those that know it) that I would be able to reach. I set up the double rope abseil and set off down. The ropes tangled around everything - it was a complete shambles. I saw the rangers and the ambulance arrive; the rangers were racing up the hill to Ross. I set up the second abseil, it was all taking so long...as I reached the ground one of the rangers came over to tell me what I already knew. %%==== Some stuff that I do know ====%% Ross was found with the two ropes correctly through his belay device.The ropes extended about 10feet "above" him (the other 190feet being "below" his belay device) and the ends were not tied together. Throughout this trip we had always been tying ropes together using a fig-eight knot (more below). The only other abseil Ross set up that same day (from top of pitch 3 down to the big ledge) he had used the fig-eight knot with no back up knot on the tails. The knot was neat, I don't remember exactly how long the tails were but they didn't cause me a second glance. I could not see exactly what Ross was setting up on that last abseil - he was 10ft or so to my left and was sitting (while clipped in) so that he obscured my view of the anchor. The fig-eight I refer to is tied as follows: The two ends you want to join are held parallel with the ends "pointing" in the same direction. You grab both ropes together and then tie a regular single fig-eight knot in both ropes at once. What we did NOT use: The only other way that might be confused is when you have the ends pointing in opposite directions. Tie a single fig-eight in one rope then follow this through with the other rope - we did NOT do this. %%==== The important bit ====%% Some guys that were helping me out played around in their yard with this fig-eight method, tying it and trying to pull the knot apart. They found some worrying things. -The way the ropes pull on this knot on a double-rope abseil deforms the knot badly. -If the knot is not perfectly "dressed", in particular if there is a single slack loop anywhere on the fig-eight, they could pull the knot through even with 6 INCHES of tails, just pulling the ropes apart as happens naturally on an abseil. 6 inches of tails is NOT ENOUGH. If you use this knot, tie a back up knot and leave LONG tails. It scares me to think that I could have innocently/ignorantly made this same catastrophic mistake. %%==== My thoughts (not facts) ====%% The only plausible explanation of this accident I have come up with is that the knot slipped off the ends. I won't go through all the alternate scenarios and my objections to them here. I hope it doesn't sound contradictory to say that Ross was a safe climber. I never saw him rig a belay that I thought was unsafe, never saw him do anything that made me think "does he realise that's pretty dodgy". We were not in a big rush getting down. We were moving quickly and efficiently but with no sense of panic or anything like that. Ross knew that the last abseil was a long one and we would be a bit tight on rope. I can imagine that would make him want to keep the knot pretty near the ends, but I do not believe he would only leave something ridiculous like one inch of tails. I think he must have tied the knot with something like 6inches of tails, thinking this was plenty (go tie the knot - it looks good with this much rope sticking out of it) and maybe he didn't make it all neat and snug. I think when he set off he was happy with his set-up, not thinking at all that the tails were dangerously short. The first 30feet of this abseil are a little slabby - and with two 60m ropes you do have to feed armfuls through your belay device at the top - the first few feet of such an abseil are always a bit jerky. I guess he fed through a couple of armfuls of rope and hence bounced the knot just a couple of times, which caused it to fail. While I will never know for sure what happened, I do know what any of you can prove to yourselves - that you can get this knot to fail even with 6 inches of tails. I did not know that the necessary margin for safety was so wide for this knot, I am sure Ross did not realise this either. The ropes involved (the blue and yellow) have been sent to one of the testing guys at Black Diamond who is going to run some relevant tests involving this fig-eight knot. I will post anything they find that might be of interest. %%==== Last words ====%% Thoughts of Ross are vividly etched in the minds of almost everyone he met. We miss him terribly. The only other thing I want to say here is that the Rangers at Zion were incredible; the way they dealt with the incident, the diligence of their investigation and the compassion that they showed me...I have only praise for everything they did. I was overwhelmed by the generosity of so many other people in Springdale - it's a small town of wonderful people. Despite everything, I have some very fond memories of Zion and the people I met. It is a beautiful place - you should go there and climb those amazing walls. rc"

Oops. Looks like a double post. Check out the same thread above if you're interested. [ 06-17-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Hey SR: Based on what we encountered at the base of Glacier I'd say expect a foot of new, if not more at elevations at 5500' and above. There was a moderate but steady wind Friday night while most of the snow was coming down, which may have added a bit of wind-loading to the lee slopes during the evening. The temps seemed to be getting progressively warmer, and the snow wetter through early afternoon on Saturday. With all of the warm temps and sunshine that we're seeing today, I suspect that most of the slide prone slopes will have released by this afternoon, as there was already some minor slide activity, and quite a bit of sluffing off of rock faces by mid-morning on Saturday. Having said all of that, my hunch is that everything should be in prime shape by early Tuesday morning if the weather holds. All in all I think that Michael Layton was right on in his assesment of the situtation. Lot's o' new snow atop a base of frozen spring snow with a serious warming trend on the way spells bad news. Hopefully the fates have taken the weekend off....

Unfortunately the TR in this posting is short for "Trail Report" rather than "Trip Report" as the conditions up high did not bode well for an ascent. By the time we decided to leave our high camp at the crest of Kennedy Ridge on Saturday afternoon, the slopes at 5500' were loaded with at least a foot of new snow (conveniently positioned atop icy spring snow for avalanche fans)with more on the way. We were relucant to leave after the 10 mile approach the previous day, but it just didn't seem as though the avalanche conditions would abate enough for us to consider a climb this weekend. For those interested in the conditions on the approach, read on.... -Intermittent snow on the trail between 3-4 miles. -Trail almost completely covered by the time the trail nears the Kennedy Hot springs. -Snow level as low as 4200' this weekend, with accumulations on the order of 1' or more above 5000' feet. If it warms up for the next couple of days the route should be in perfect shape. If you're heading out there, enjoy! [ 06-09-2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

I've got many years to go before I have to grapple with this one, I think. But know of at least one four step program that worked for me. It involves the following: 1. Get injured and take a forced vacation from climbing for several months. 2. Get worked on all of the routes that you used to hike. 3. Reclaim your sense of accomplishment when your climbing has returned to its former standard. 4. Repeat as necessary.

http://www.climbing.com/Pages/Techtip_pages/195/images/TT-195-trad-fig03.html

Well - I guess I should have searched first. Found a TR from Loren & Philfort for the standard route - sounds like an epic. Nicely done. It also sounds as though there's a closure somewhere on the access road? Any more info on the state of the road and/or the routes themselves (especially) would still be appreciated. If I can get close enough by car I may head up there and bushwack to the base of the West Peak to take a look later on this week. It's supposedly a grade III 5.5 but reading Phil and Loren's TR seriously makes me wonder...

I don't know how I managed to overlook this series of peaks for so long, but while driving east on I-90 today I noticed a series of rocky peaks with some fairly massive slabs beneath them. As soon as I got home I opened up the atlas and the Beckey guide and identified the formation as Mt. Garfield. Anyhow, after reading through Beckey's description of the mountain as a "hazardous enigma" and taking a look at the routes in the book I couldn't help but wonder why I had never heard anyone mention the peaks before. Seems like a series of peaks with fifth class alpine routes ranging between a grade III 5.5 (West Peak) and a grade V 5.11 that aren't too much further away from Seattle than Mt. Si should at least come up in conversations or on this board once in a while. So what's the deal? It looks like a combination of loose rock and tough routefinding could well account for some of Garfield's lack of popularity, but is the rock THAT loose and the approach/descent THAT heinous? Just curious. Anyone been up there out there and taken a look for themselves and/or hit one of the routes? If so, please share some info and shed some light on the enigma of Mt. Garfield. [ 05-27-2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Fair enough. Statement in the declarative rather than interrogative tense and more weeny-speak coming up: The 8.2kN figure is the maximum force (the impact force) that the rope will generate when holding a climbers fall rather than the maximum tensile strength of the rope. The UIAA and EN regs require a dynamic rope to have an impact force of less than 12kN when holding a factor two fall with an 80kg load in an attempt to limit the forces on the climber, pro, etc. Not sure what the maximum tensile load a typical climbing rope can handle is, but in most high-load falls I've read about it's always been the biners, gear, or runner that fails rather than the rope. Most biners I've seen have a rating between 18 and 25 kN so I'm thinking that the maximum strength of the rope must be at least that high or higher.

[ 05-24-2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

quote: Originally posted by Bronco: If that's true, what is the logic behind the tech tables in my latest BD catalog? Strongest rope is their 9.4 stinger II at 8.2kN Isn't that 8.2kN rating the maximum force that the rope will exert on the system during a fall rather than the maximum tensile strength of the rope?

I've never climbed with a daisy chain and can't recall ever roping-up with anyone who uses them as the stuff I've already got seems to do the job. I do use the clove hitch-though when ice climbing with double ropes - one hitch to a locker on each screw unless the conditions warrant tying into something more complicated. And in my contribution to thread creep/weenyhood... I think that Charlie Fowler probably speaks with authority on any topic related to climbing, but I can swear that I heard that the AMGA was actually in favor of their use as their strength is sufficient for the application and, as an added bonus, they can be adjusted without dismantling the anchor. I've also heard that on a clove hitch in which the non-loading end is attached to something (a harness, for example) and loosens under load it'll eventually cinch-down again when the tension betwenn the loading end and your harness is sufficient. Could be complete crap but that's what I heard and it seems to make sense. Couldn't find anything more substantial out there, but did find this info on Tom Moyer's web-site. I'm not sure what his qualifications are, but here's his site http://www.xmission.com/%7Etmoyer/testing/ and one result of pull-testing a clove hitch to failure: "11/23 Test #6 Pull a clove hitch to failure. The clove hitch was tied around the shackle on the load cell. The other end of the rope was tied with a figure eight on a bight. New 11 mm Blue Water Rope was used. Result: Material failure at the clove hitch at 5110 lbs. Discussion: The clove hitch did not slip! We were all very surprised at this. Before drawing any further conclusions, I would like to test this again - on a carabiner instead of the shackle. I suspect the rough surface of the shackle added extra friction to the knot."

More Of The Same... Boulder outdoor magazines are sold By Matt Branaugh Camera Business Writer Rock & Ice and Trail Runner, two Boulder-based magazines owned by North South Publications, got sold and shipped out of town this week. Duane Raleigh and Quent Williams bought the outdoor-oriented periodicals through Big Stone Publications, a venture they recently formed for the transaction. Terms of the deal, which closed Wednesday, weren't disclosed. Raleigh left his post as editor and publisher of the well-known Climbing Magazine three weeks ago. "Owning a magazine is something I always wanted to do since entering publishing in the late 1980s," Raleigh said. "I missed out on some opportunities, so when the Rock & Ice opportunity came up, I had to. I had an excellent job at Climbing and liked it, but I wanted to do this anyway." Both magazines' assets were moved this week to Carbondale, a town just south of Glenwood Springs, where Raleigh plans to set up shop and go after the publication he once led. Carbondale, an area Raleigh believes draws talented writers, ad representatives and climbing enthusiasts, is also home to the 32-year-old Climbing. Raleigh said the move was needed because Boulder is too expensive for employers and employees. The upcoming issues of both publications produced by North South will still go out to subscribers, and should hit newsstands at such places as Boulder Bookstore and King Soopers in the next few weeks. The fate of the 16 employees at North South is clouded. Raleigh said he'll consider those workers for jobs if they apply. His goals include bumping up the frequency of Rock & Ice — a climbing magazine that prints eight times a year — and growing its circulation from the current 32,500 issues closer to Climbing's 50,000 issues within two years. He hopes to double Trail Runner's circulation from the current 13,000 paid subscriptions this year, and hopes to double it again the next year, he said. He said he plans on adding more coverage in both magazines that relates to equipment, gear and training. Dougald MacDonald, who was North South's publisher and a minority owner, also edited the 18-year-old Rock & Ice. He said Friday he doesn't expect to catch on with the new ownership. When the possibility of a sale sprung up this spring, MacDonald said he opposed the idea. But, as one of eight owners, he said he found himself outnumbered. "I liked what I was doing," he said. "It is hard to sell out to a competitor." He expects to see circulation grow for both Trail Runner and Rock & Ice, but more so for the former. He conceded North South possessed limited capital that hindered its ability to grow either magazine. Brian Metzler, the editor and associate publisher of Trail Runner, said he may apply for a job at Big Stone. The move is sad for the Boulder community, he said, but a step forward for the 3-year-old periodical. "I think it's going to be a good move for Trail Runner magazine, in that it will allow the magazine to grow and thrive," he said. Camera Business Writer Matt Branaugh can be reached at (303) 473-1363 or branaughm@thedailycamera.com. May 18, 2002

"Rock and Ice magazine based in Boulder, Colorado has been sold. For the last five years Dougald MacDonald has been at helm of this increasingly glossy and successful climbing magazine. MacDonald and a group of investors bought the magazine off George Bracksiack, the magazines founder. The buyers? None other than Duane Raleigh, the publisher and Quent Williams the production manager of the Carbondale (Colorado) based Climbing magazine. Both Raleigh and Williams recently resigned from Climbing magazine. The new Rock and Ice magazine will be based in Carbondale, opposite the offices of Climbing magazine and it looks like there will be an exodus of Climbing magazine staff across the road to join their old boss, Duanne Raleigh . The first defection was Tyler Stableford, Climbing's photo-editor who will now be the editor at Rock and Ice. Unfortunately most of the staff at the old Rock and Ice are now unemployed, and the future of Climbing magazine, once owned by climber Michael Kennedy but now owned by the media-giant PrimeMedia is assured, but a little murky." Mick Ryan

Veteran Climber Mike Bearzi Said to Have Perished in Tibet Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News May 15, 2002 Veteran climber Mike Bearzi reportedly fell to his death sometime last week, during an attempt on the unclimbed northeast face of Tibet's remote Gyachung Kang. "The information we have so far is a bit sketchy," said James Balog, a close friend and frequent climbing partner who traveled with Bearzi last year to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for National Geographic Adventure (Expedition to ANWR," November/December 2001). "It's based on a single call from Bruce, who reached a mutual friend in Colorado on Sunday night" Bearzi and climbing partner Bruce Miller were in Tibet to make the first attempt at climbing the remote, northeast face of Gyachung Kang. The towering peak is difficult by any route and is rarely visited. At approximately 26,000 feet (7,952 meters), it's thought to be the 15th highest mountain in the world. Although details are sketchy, the accident occurred while the two climbers were descending a ridge during an acclimatization climb near their base camp. Coming down on relatively easy ground, Bearzi apparently slipped on some snow or ice, and took a very long fall off the ridge. Because of the area's challenging terrain, it took Miller a day and a half to reach a position where he could even view the body with binoculars and confirm that Bearzi had died. Miller then hiked four days to reach Everest Base camp, the nearest location with a telephone. Climbing Alpine Style "Mike had seen Gyachung Kang during an acclimatization hike for one of his Everest climbs," Balog said. "He became really excited about climbing this giant, deep in the more remote reaches of the Himalayan wilderness." The climb, said Balog, epitomized much of what drew Bearzi to mountaineering. "Light, small, focused, and very bold—that's what Mike really enjoyed. He had become disenchanted with large, expedition-style alpinism, and felt it was becoming too commercialized by media and sponsorships. He cherished the aesthetic purity of guys just getting out there and doing climbs." Bearzi and Miller planned to climb the massive 6,000-foot (1,800-meter) rock-and-ice northeast face of the mountain "alpine style," without a support team, fixed camps, or oxygen. The attempt had a scientific component. Mountains hitting the 8000-meter mark are especially coveted by climbers, and there has been speculation that Gyachung Kang might be a "lost" 8000-meter peak. Bearzi and Miller carried a handheld GPS unit, in the hope of reaching the summit and pinpointing the Himalayan giant's true height. The ambitious project attracted much attention in the alpine community, and was supported by the American Alpine Club's Lyman Spitzer grant, a Mugs Stump Grant, and a Polartec Challenge Grant. Part of the reason the climb drew so much support is that it "represented a level of adventurous spirit beyond what most other U.S. expeditions have had in quite some time," said Balog. Mixed Climb Pioneer Bearzi was an accomplished alpinist whose distinguished resume included the first alpine-style free ascent of Patagonia's Cerro Torre, and an attempt on the North Ridge of K2, which was featured on National Geographic Explorer. He had been on Everest three times, including two alpine-style attempts on its treacherous North Face. In the 1980s and early 90s, he helped pioneer mixed climbing, and claimed many first ascents of mixed winter routes in Rocky Mountain National Park. He was instrumental in the invention of the "M system," which has become a widely used standard for ranking the difficulty of mixed climbs. The 49-year-old Bearzi lived in Boulder, Colorado, with his wife Reneé St. Aubin. During off-climbing times, he worked as a carpenter to finance his passion for the mountains. He will be remembered most of all as a man whose love for the outdoors was a driving passion. "Most of the guys I've encountered who are performing at a high level aren't out there for the pure love of the space," said Balog. "They're out there for the technical exercise, and other reasons, but sometimes they're lacking an aesthetic and spiritual love of the place. Mike just loved being out there, enjoying the wild. He could have just as much fun doing a casual climb on the Flatirons near Boulder, on a summer morning, as he could pushing toward the summit of an 8,000 meter peak. That really strikes at the essence of what kind of person he was." [ 05-17-2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Hey Sayjay: I'm with you on the color coding idea. I probably didn't explain that idea clearly enough, but what I meant to suggest was a donor vs. non-donor scheme so you could see which of the frequent posters had made a contribution and who had not - rather than a scheme that told you how much someone had contributed. That would clearly be lame as everyone's circumstances are different. Having said that though, I do think that setting a $5 minumum on contributions or something in that range would be appropriate as odds are that if you're online you can handle shelling out the 5 bucks, and anything less than that might be more of a hassle to collect and deposit than it's worth.

I'll share a couple of ideas that came to mind agter reading through this thread. While I think that while Will's sentiments concering donations are largely correct, there are measures that can be taken to encourage them. The first is recognition. While it'd be nice to think that everyone would donate just as much money regardless of whether or not they'd been recognized for it, that's rarely the case in practice. It'd be up to you guys to determine how to go about doing that, but one idea would be to recognize those who had kicked in a donation to keep the site going by simply changing their name on the "Who's Online" board to a different color. Not only will the donor's be recognized, but I imagine the folks who have paid up would direct some healthy spray to the heavy users who hadn't chipped in. Another means of encouraging donations which might also enhance the feeling of community by users of this site is sharing some data about the costs you incur to run it and the quantity of dough you'd like to see come in to help offset them. Perhaps you could even list this data in a separate forum, and have something like a PBS Pledge Drive type display measuring the progress that the community was making towards covering the site's expenses. E.g. "We're 10% away from covering the cost of our server this quarter." While some might object to these measures for a variety of reasons, I think that they'd only enhance the site because anyone who invests in this site will want to take care of it and see it thrive. And it would provide those who claim to value the site a chance to put their money where there mouth is. Just a couple of ideas, and thanks again for keeping this site going in the meantime.

Wow - That's an oblique request for beta if I've ever seen one - who knows maybe you're just into irony* - but assuming that you're really looking for useful information from this site you can try something really unconventional and...post a request for specific beta in the "North Cascades" forum. It's a bit of a stretch but who knows, it just might work. *Denouncing drivel/useless posts by means of the very same thing.

quote: Originally posted by pope: quote:Originally posted by Lambone: So here is a question Mr. "bolts are bad for the environment," What kinda trail is this your talkin about? Is it established? Switchbacks? Or is it just another climber's scar leading from point A to point B in the shortest time possible? Just curious, thanks in advance for the clarification. Firstly, thanks but no thanks for attibuting that quote to me. What I said is, bolts are ugly and alien to the mountain environment.... Some of the Ayatollah’s posts concerning bolting and the environment: “I suspect people won't join my cause, but a significant number of people have similar feelings. My point is that enjoyment per se is not justification for permanently damaging a public resource, and that those who would engage in this are valuing their personal gratification over wilderness preservation, over respecting a limited resource and those who wish to keep it natural. Again, I don't expect people to come join "my" cause, but I would like people to think before taking this construction-zone approach to "traditional" cliffs. That's what would seem to make sense for everybody on either side of this argument” “I could have a good time doing all kinds of things: firing a gun within city limits, messin'around with your wife, beating up nice girls at a Mardi Gras celebration downtown, driving my motorcycle down the sidewalk,etc. Enjoyment is not justification when other factors must be considered, like the fact that cliffs are PUBLIC space and, therefore, should be used in such a way that doesn't step on others' toes. Like the fact that bolts damage rock and do so permanently. To you, enjoyment is enough motivation to bolt up a sport route, or to endorse this practice by clipping those bolts. Your enjoyment comes at a cost to me, however, and that's why we need to get back to the idea that cliffs are a limited, public resource which should be preserved.” “It's just an opinion, and it's not just my opinion, and it's not the opinion that's so special, it's the wilderness. In the city, I accept certain evils as part of our culture, but I try to minimize my impact. When I go to the hills, I try to escape that stuff. Peace out bro.” More of the same can be found here: http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000522 Just having some fun here – and I think Lambone has a point. Launching into tirades about how bolts desecrate the environment and then bragging about the new convenience trail that you’ve blazed up instead of taking the existing trail is the literal definition of “glaring contradiction.” Hopefully we’ll be spared the “I condemn bolting because I am the epitome of the environmentally conscious climber” line from now on.

I'm sorry to see a generally good natured guy revert to name calling to enhance his argument, but the fact remains that even if you remove any mention of bolts, the content of your quotes below (in which you claim to be an advocate of wilderness preservation) + taking a convenience trail to the base of a popular cliff instead of following the established trail (blatant disregard for preservation) = contradiction. Try if you wish, but you simply cannot insult your way out of this conclusion. quote: Originally posted by pope: My point is that enjoyment per se is not justification for permanently damaging a public resource, and that those who would engage in this are valuing their personal gratification over wilderness preservation, over respecting a limited resource and those who wish to keep it natural. “I could have a good time doing all kinds of things: firing a gun within city limits, messin'around with your wife, beating up nice girls at a Mardi Gras celebration downtown, driving my motorcycle down the sidewalk,etc. Enjoyment is not justification when other factors must be considered, like the fact that cliffs are PUBLIC space and, therefore, should be used in such a way that doesn't step on others' toes. Your enjoyment comes at a cost to me, however, and that's why we need to get back to the idea that cliffs are a limited, public resource which should be preserved.”

The word from the internet rumor mill (rec.climbing http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&threadm=abbduc%24kh%242%40reader1.panix.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drec.climbing%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch )is that the recent editorial had its genesis when quite a few specialty retailers and US manufacturers threw a tantrum when Climbing and/or Rock and Ice ran an ad from a Dutch website in their last issue that actually listed the prices for the goods that they were selling. I guess so long as Barrabes restricted its add copy to “Check Prices” it was okay (?). Supposedly (“It’s on the internet so it must be true”) the specialty retailers sent back their entire shipments of the magazines, and a few manufacturers called and threatened to pull their advertising and voila – we have an editorial asking consumers to stop buying their goods from European retailers and continue paying over twice as much in the US instead. In my opinion, a magazine dedicated to climbers would have better served its readership by demanding that US manufacturers, distributors, and retailers explain why it is that American consumers should continue to pay twice as much as their European counterparts for the very same goods instead of going to bat for a system that is currently working in the interest of everyone except the consumer. See rant below if imprisoned, terminally bored, etc… In my opinion, they (the folks in the outdoor biz here in the US ) have quite a bit of explaining to do as it’s not: -Tarrifs: The current tarriff levied on climbing equipment is 4%. -Production costs: Production costs in Europe are comparable to, if not slightly higher than in America. -Distribution costs: Commercial shipping on containers and semi-trailers probably adds 2 to 4 percent to the cost of any imported consumer item, tops. -The exchange rate: The current exchange rate gives US consumers about 10% more purchasing power when we’re buying goods denominated in Euros. -Retailing expenses: There’s no evidence to suggest that they’re higher in Europe than in the US either. -The size of the market: It may be true that a greater percentage of European public climbs than in America, but it’s hardly a sport for the masses over there. Even if a greater fraction of the European public participates than in the US, a fractionally higher rate of participation does not translate into goods that can be sold at a profit for around half of the retail price that we’re paying. -The size of the market, again: I’ve heard some speculation that because the market for climbing gear is limited, manufacturers and retailers have no incentive to lower their prices because that won’t translate into greater sales. Therefore – why not charge as much as you can for each unit and maximize your profits. This argument simply does not hold up because the reality is that the market for EVERY good is limited by demand, be it concrete, crude oil, or automobiles – or ice tools. Therefore, it does not follow that having a finite market leads to high/fixed prices – the only thing that can do that is eliminating competition. If any manufacturer is selling a good within finite market and can increase their market share by offering an equivalent product for a lower price, they can expand their sales and their profits at the expense of their competitors even if the size of the overall market stays fixed. It’s just a matter of calculating how many additional units you have to sell in order to compensate for the lower profit margin per-unit. At that point the manufacturers who are being undercut can either lower their prices or hope that consumers will be willing to pay a premium for what they have to offer. The fact that manufacturers and retailers can sell their goods at a profit in Europe for less than half of what they are charging here is about as clear a refutation of the notion that the size of the market dictates that we have to pay $235 for ice tools, $140 for rock shoes, etc. Taking a look as US produced goods on sale in Europe is especially revealing. It’s very often cheaper to buy US goods overseas and pay to have them shipped across the Atlantic twice –once at retail rates !- than to buy locally. And on a related topic – if you as a consumer are willing to pay twice as much at a shop for the expertise, hands on inspection, etc – you are certainly free to do so. I just don’t think that those of us who do not value those services should be forced to pay for them if we don’t value or want them. If anyone out there actually has some factual information to share about the situation, I’d love to hear it. I’d be especially interested in hearing about the US distribution system and/or the contractual obligations (price range) that retailers have to abide by if they wish to sell a particular product.

The Clover Leaf sounds pretty cool. I think I remember older folks raving about the pizza there during while growing up in Lakewood. As for the Java Jive - just joking about that one but I'll have to drop in there eventually.

Java Jive?

quote: Originally posted by Dwayner: Dudes: I'm surprised that there isn't more talk of top-roping. Virtually everything at Vantage can be top roped (except maybe a couple of them free-standing "Feathers".) Such an approach would have saved that place from becoming the bolted atrocity that it is. No disrespect to Professor Dwayner here - judging by his posts I think he is a cool guy - but when he and Pope post on bolting issues it often provides me the opportunity to voice a contrary opinion. While it is certainly true that most of the routes over at Vantage could be toproped, and the entire area restricted to toprope climbing, I for one am certainly glad that's not the case. Most of the rock at the top of the entablature is decidedly less than sound, which at least to my mind makes it unsuitable for establishing any sort of permanent anchor that you'll be entrusting your life to. Not to mention the fact that having lots of folks milling about at the top of the mesa would present quite a rockfall hazard for the climbers below. And further, more traffic on the mesa-tops means more damage to the landscape up there that we're all supposed to be concerned about preserving in order to maintain our access to that crag. Perhaps there is an exception or two out there, but it's generally not the bolts, but rather the impact on the landscape around the crags that imperils access. More bolts generally bring more climbers, but that's certainly not always the case. Eldorado Canyon is hardly a sporto-area but probably gets more climber days per year than any other area in the country. Thankfully the climbing community there has taken an active role in mitigating the the impact that they have on the park, and are no longer fretting about access to the crags contained within it. And lastly - on a side note - the opinion that toproping is equivalent to leading (be it sport, trad, ice, etc) while worth about as much as my own is not one that I'd encountered prior to logging on to this forum. An interesting perspective, but one that I would venture to say is restricted to a rather small pool of vocal advocates and not consistent with the views held by the overwhelming majority of climbers out there, and as such perhaps not the most constructive perspective when it comes to questions of new route development. quote: ...Also, them old scary routes...if you add additional bolts to "make it safer", than you destroy the character of the route. Hey - here's a point of agreement! Retro-bolting sucks and should not be tolerated. However, replacing old, mank fixed hardware is the shiznit and should be encouraged. If the route restoration posse that's forming on this site ever gets through chopping bolts and turns their attention to replacing questionable fixed gear, I'd be happy to contribute to their efforts. Hopefully the members of the self-anointed old-school will at least concede that it's okay to replace rotting 1/4" bolts with solid hardware. Believe it or not, I actually ran into a guy once who was vehemently opposed to replacing the ultra-mank, fatigued, and corroded baby-angles that proliferate in the Garden of the Gods with reliable, modern hardware. In interesting perspective, to be sure, and while one can rightly salute is zeal and machismo, I would contest that his opinion is not one that the rest of us should be olbiged to cater to. And finally - to the actual question about bolts. I think that mattp pretty much had it right. In general, I think that if the section of rock is unprotectable by other means then a bolt is the right solution. The only other caveat I would add is that one should consider local traditions and ethics before doing so. To use two polar opposites the point, at a place like Shelf Road its a safe bet that you could put a bolt anywhere you like (on a new route) and not offend anyone, while at Turkey Rocks or other areas nearby a new bolt anywhere would be viewed as an abomination, the old-school alarm claxons would ring throughout the front range, and the bolt would be and chopped within a week, if not sooner. Just as an example of considering local ethics/traditions - at a crag near my former home in Colorado Springs, there was a small, obscure crag with a belay-station that seemed like a good candidate for a permanent anchor. Several lines converged there and many of them were frequently top-roped, with the anchor generally being accesed by means of an exposed traverse. If you led the routes, it'd be much safer and more convenient to rap off, not to mention the fact that you'd be on and off the route much more quickly, allowing more groups to access the routes during any given day. However, I noted the general paucity of bolts at the crag and the fact that folks had been climbing there for quite a while without such an anchor and decided against it. A good solution might have been to set up a swaged stainless-steel and chain "runner" to serve in the place of the rat's nest of corroding nylon that often collected there - a more or less permanent but non-bolted anchor. Seems like a good compromise that might work elsewhere. [ 04-24-2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: JayB ]

I've in and out of town travelling for a while and haven't had the opportunity to check on this site as much as I did latley. Good to see that that His Holiness can still troll with the best of them. Seriously - if all this is about is removing bolts on lines that take natural pro or those that have been established at toprope problems I doubt that anyone will be too upset about that. Sounds like you guys have the expertise and the tools to do the job without damaging the rock any further. Good luck. Hopefully you'l be just as active in your efforts to preserve the land around the crags as well when someone organizes an effort along those lines.