Geek_the_Greek

"Preserve respect for their heritage" blah blah blah. Why do you climb? I climb because it's fun and a good challenge. I bet most people out there feel similarly. Who cares if they live in the suburbs or can't climb 5.10a? If we pretend to care about the outdoors that we enjoy visiting being kept in good shape, we must build support for its protection. The way to do that is to encourage others (or at least not discourage them) to enjoy the outdoors too, so that recreationists have some clout as a user group. This has happened in many places, and if climbers continue to battle pettily over issues like bolting, before we know it, access will really be threatened by changes in land designation, development, etc. that will make bolts seem like yesterday's joke. The fact is that climbing is no longer a fringe activity practiced by a few outcasts with dirty beards. So what if the suburban hordes climb at exit 38? Maybe there'll be some resistance to quarrying away the rock in another I-90 gravel pit or leveling more land to build condos, like in Issaquah. And exit 38 doesn't threaten anybody - it's a pile of short, ugly cliffs right beside the freeway, about as far from wilderness as you can get and still have some natural landscape features. It never was and never will be anything close to a historic, traditional climbing area. And why would people assume that climbing everywhere is going to be the same? Do the top-ropers who go to Barney's rubble (some who know absolutely NOTHING about building safe anchors, I might add) assume that climbing Rainier is going to be the same? Or the NE buttress of Slesse? Of course not. What's the worst that can happen? They go to some trad area, realize there are no bolts and leave in frustration. More likely, they read a guidebook for someplace like Index and then figure out it's not the place for them. Most people putting bolts out there on sport routes are not rank beginners, they're usually people with a lot of experience who just happen to have different ideas about what they want to climb than purist trad types. The few exceptions are usually quickly put in their place. All the better. I say we cut the crap, accept the fact that outdoor activities are on the rise everywhere, and it's part of an increasingly health and nature-conscious populace (a good thing, IMO). People will have different ideas about what activities they want to do, and some will be content with bi-weekly afternoons in the gym with the odd outing to Exit 38 or Vantage. Others are into riding horses or mountain biking or whatever. Still others are into heavy doses of suffering, alpine style. I'm not seeing loads of people out there bolting the hell out of the Index cracks or the classic alpine routes, so what's all the whining about? Even things like Infinite Bliss (which is, after all, a new route, not a retro) are the exception rather than the rule. And the argument about that one seems to be based on whether or not it was in the wilderness, and therefore constitutes an illegal use of power-tools. The fact is, the only thing that's really going on out there that's pissing you people off is that there are more people climbing out there, many at a low level of proficiency and with little knowledge of the context or history of the sport. And logically, new developments are happening in accordance with the increasing numbers, in a totally predictable manner. Well, unless you're an advocate of increasing regulation (quotas and the like for cragging), you're just going to have to live with it. Frankly, trad types should be happy that these folks are sticking to bolted areas. If they knew how, many of them would quickly venture over into the trad routes, swarming over the crack lines, like a raging rash...

I agree that the definition of 'mechanized' transport is contrived beyond belief. I think paragliders are banned in wilderness areas because they are considered mechanized transport. What a crock of shit.

The "shitting" is indeed part of the problem. The power-drills (a valid assumption) is another part. And retro-bolting a common hike/walk-off is a third. I'll grant you that preserving historic precedent can be a valid reason.

But it's just convention, right? I mean there's no law out there that says we have to use 200 ft ropes. For instance, Castle Rock (11worth) is fully topropable. All you need is a 400 ft. rope. 7 mm should be strong enough for TR falls, and that would keep the weight down to a manageable level. Set your anchor, rap down while uncoiling the vast amounts of thin line along the right route, and bingo, a 3-pitch high toprope. Man, that sounds great! Personally, I'd rather lead it.

It's also as much a matter of convenience and convention. If all you want to do is climb, and you don't care about leading, well, theoretically it would be possible to TR El Cap. Hike to the top, set up an anchor with a 3500 ft. low-stretch (static) rope, rig it with piggy-backed pulley systems giving a total mechanical advantage of 200:1 or so, have a dozen of your friends take care of the belaying while you climb, communicating to them via radio all the while. You wouldn't have to clip any pro, bolts or trad... does that sound like fun? No, the fact is that we tend to climb with ropes between 50 and 70 meters. There are reasons for this, weight is one of them, and history is another. Rock climbing (cragging) used to be training for alpine climbing, then somewhere along the way it became an activity in its own right. Why? Probably because - holy shit! - someone figured it was fun. It's been going on for over 50 years, and I hate to break it to you, but leading is as much a part of it as anything, even if you can hike to the top of the crag. If you're going to question the basic premises of crag climbing, then you might as well ask "why climb at all?" My arguments stem from the fact that if you accept that trad leading on single-pitch, easily-accessible crags (as has been going on in many places for decades) is acceptable, sport leading on single-pitch crags is essentially the same thing. Getting hung up on something like the fact that there are bolts there is focusing on minutiae, and much of the so-called "environmental impact" argument (against the bolts, remember, not the climbing) is bunk.

I just noticed this thread, and thought I should add one thing. Poles are a super-important part of xc skiing, both skating or classic, way more of a "technical" item than for downhill or tele skiing. They are sized really big. Back when I was racing in high school, they told us chin height for classic, forehead height for skating (measured on dry ground, I think, not planted in the snow). This seems huge, but trust me, it helps immensely with keeping momentum.

This is what bugs me about the whole bolting debate, labeled under the guise of "environmental impact". The thing about rocks is that they're already dead. So "defacing" them by placing bolts is the equivalent of stirring around a bunch of gravel. It is an aesthetic impact, which may be a potentially worthwile issue, but to call it an environmental impact, on the scale of destroying habitat, killing trees/birds/soil microorganisms etc., or pouring your engine oil into Lake Washington is overstating the case big time. Yes, there are many environmental impacts associated with rock climbing that are well-documented. Gardening cracks around here (whether done on the FA or over the years by subsequent climbers - it doesn't make a difference) ranks pretty high on the list, as does trampling ledges (nesting habitat), scrubbing faces (lichen, moss, often takes hundreds of years for them to establish, more in desert areas), and building approach trails. Simply increasing the number of people in an area, with their noise, piss, and smells, will keep a whole bunch of "wilderness-requiring" organisms well at bay (grizzlies, most weasels, etc.). So as for bolts, they are the symptom not the cause. If bolting a route brings crowds (which it certainly can), then obviously it will have a true environmental (ecological) impact. But if the area is already popular without said bolts, there will be no change whatsoever other than aesthetics (like DDD). You can argue the case on aesthetics alone, but that is only a the smallest part of what environmental impact is all about. A good example of what I'm getting at - Burgers and Fries (Squamish, trad cragging/toproping mecca) and the Substation/Write-off rock (Exit 38, sport cragging/toproping mecca) are basically equivalent in terms of environmental impact from climbers (although there are more trees alive at X38). The fact that there are tons of bolts at X38 and not at B&F doesn't change a thing other than from the point of view of aesthetics.

Yeah, PoD is great fun, and indeed, a set of small-medium nuts will do just fine to complement the bolts in a couple of places. Bring lots of draws (16? I can't remember). It's a nice sustained face, well-endowed with edges and knobs, although your toes will be more sore than your fingers by the end. Every anchor has chains, I think, although you probably need 2 ropes to rap off.

Ah, the glory of Squeamish squishiness. Yes, we'll have to head back there soon. This time, in your car!

Sunny B

Agreed. Probably a foot or so of fresh on the north side of Forbidden yesterday. Nice for morning cramponing, I'd say, but probably a pain for placing ice pro.

I just remembered - when Sloth and I were up there a couple of weeks ago, the summit register was totally full (like, back cover and everything), so we took it. If you're going up there and you care about such things, you could always contact the Mounties and get a new register (or just bring a little pad of paper) to stick in the can.

Shit, Droo, how many years and you still haven't learned to ski? How can someone enjoy something as obscure and contrived as canyoneering and not be into skiing?!

Chrizntchz shows it better than any of us can say it.

Man, that sounds like shit! Or at least, alpine climbing in winter (except for the plants bit). I'd add that once in a while (depending on your patience for good weather and whatnot) you just get out there and run up something under the clear blue sky, moving smoooove like butta, with your shit totally together feeling like nothing could stop you. The climbing is killer, the views are grand, the company is rad, and there's just no place better in the whole world. Those days are what will probably bring you back more than anything else. But yeah, you can expect some suffering before you get there. If you climb mostly in the summer and wait for decent weather reports, expect much less suffering, but also considerably less climbing (around here, anyway).

...the many faces of the Cavester...

Yeah, but they obviously realized it. So the elitist spray and finger wagging was totally unnecessary.

What's your point, spliff? That doing things that are dangerous is a bad thing? That's obvious to some extent, but it's all relative, because no one can argue that we wouldn't all be safer staying in bed every day than doing any climbing at all. And as for "experienced climbers" being immortal or something, that's a load of crap. If you look at the compiled data from 50 years of Accidents in N. A. Mtng, accident and death stats are pretty much equal across ability levels. Sure, newbies make more avoidable mistakes, but veterans counter it by pushing things more - and either "getting lucky", or not. Experience level is not what it's all about, it's more like personal preference for varying danger levels. E.g. Twight et al. on something like Reality Bath. Or that nut Jim Beyer and his solo A5 route up on Baffin. Very experienced, doing something many considered insanely dangerous. They got away with it. All the better for them. It was perfectly obvious from the SA TR that the party knew they had made certain mistakes and learned from it. Why are you wanking on and on about needing to punish them for it?

I don't know, I think when contemplating an old bolt you have to think about why it was placed there. Was it to create art? Were the first ascentionists trying to express themselves or make a creative statement? I think a fair assumption is that most of the time, they were scared or concerned enough about a fall that they wanted some pro. For us to view bolts as anything other than protection is missing the point. If a bolt has outlived its safe (useful) life, it's no longer serving its purpose. I say don't paint them pink, but don't camouflage them either. On granite, where the rock is a black and white mosaic of shadows, it's often hard enough to see bolts as it is without artificially making it more difficult. For those who seek it, there's plenty of opportunity to hurt oneself on lead-bolted alpine routes without resorting to purposely leaving shitty bolts. If someone's thinking about replacing rusty quarter-inchers, I say to them. "Changes aren't permanent, but change is."

Uh, no. This is a discussion board, designed so that Cascade climbers could discuss issues pertaining to climbing - such as a TR of a poorly-thought out climb. It does sound like you had some valid points to make, but your vitriolic post above certainly gives the impression that your criciticm was anything but constructive. I'd suggest that it's still a shame it was deleted, but then I didn't read your post.

The point is that we obviously do know certain things (a great many, as it happens) about humans. It's obviously not a perfect analogy. But the fact is there are many fields of science where we are trying to understand processes that move at time scales far slower than our lives allow us to study directly. Try astronomy, for one. I presume you're not arrogant enough to try to arge that all astronomy is bunk? Geology? Continental drift? I study trees, many of which live far longer than humans, and therefore the field shares some of the same problems. There are plenty of analysis techniques you can use when you can't directly study a process. Substituting space for time is one, making empirical models is another, and making process-based (mechanistic) models is another. Or sometimes you are forced to just look at the rough evidence that you do have (fossils, craters, e.g.) and come up with a qualitative idea of what happened. The point is that I'm guessing you're not a climate scientist. Neither am I. So maybe we should just leave the climate science to photomatt and the other climate scientists, and trust them, just like we trust engineers to build us fast cars that won't spontaneously self-destruct, or we trust doctors (within reason) to mend and rehabilitate our broken bones. The pop-skepticism is pretty silly.

My goodness, Bushwacker, you're right. In fact, even we humans have been around evolving and fluctuating for about one MILLION years. That's a thousand thousand. So considering that each of us is only around for a century or so, it's obvious that we can never know anything about humans either. Obviously, the only solution to finding happiness is prayer. All together now, let's "pray for our great nation".

Graphite is a solid (powder), so I would assume that the spray is a suspension of the powder in an alcohol-based liquid, which then evaporates, leaving the powder to the work its magic. Please tell me if I'm off-base with this. Graphite lube is great precisely because it's not a liquid, and therefore the cleanest stuff to use. Otherwise, yeah, you don't want the cams dripping wet when you place them, but otherwise it's not an issue. It depends on the rock somewhat, but mostly cams bite into the crystal texture rather than relying on absolute friction. A reasonable wipe down of the cams' toothed surface should take care of the shiz that's still present. It's more a matter of them picking up additional dirt (undermining your cleaning efforts entirely) if you don't wipe off the extra lube.

Mea culpa. The correct reference would be 'Hyped up Mystique' (gotterdamerung, 2004).

It's a fine line between getting where you are trying to get, and developing a new trail or route through the woods. If you're just trying to get somewhere yourself and find your way out easily, then yeah, clean up your trash on the way out. But if it's anything close to a popular area, especially near treeline, then having one established route (trail, path, whatev) will cut down on environmental impact immensely. And I'm not talking about the aesthetics-only impacts of the trail(s), but rather in terms of effects on vegetation, lichen, soils, etc., which are usually VERY sensitive high up. Deserts are also really sensitive - one footprint off trail somewhere like J-Tree can kill the soil for hundreds of years. I agree with Cavey on this - forget the so-called "mystique" of trying to pretend that you're the first one ever to visit the valley. You're following a guidebook description, for crying out loud. All the better if you don't have to choke down facefulls of devil's club by following some flagging tape, and can save some wildflowers along the way for the next party to see. And obviously along logging areas and roads there's all sorts of flagging that has nothing to do with climbers. It definitely looks like shit, and all the better if someone out there is into picking it up.