Bogen

That is a good idea, and an interesting point. I wonder if Bush doesn't appear stupid only to appeal to the middle class. After all, aren't all of his speeches written for him? So, either he never sticks to the speeches (David Frum, a canadian and former Bush speech writer says Bush doesn't stick to the speeches), or he intends to sound like he does. I worked in entertainment for some years, and I had the distinct impression that during the "deer in the headlights" stare during the debate that he was listening to one ear, rather than thinking - something about the tilt of the head maybe. Anyway, conspiracy theory aside, sure looks like he is trying to appeal to the common, if uneducated masses.

got it on the news right now. Choppers are flying right above it! They are calling it a "burp"

Some people think it's FUN! SAVE IT FOR THE SHOWER! RATHER THAN FUCKING UP THE MOUNTAINS GIVE ME A GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD! seriously.

Some people think it's FUN!

calling sport-climbing routes bolt-ladders is an obvious hyperbole intended to exaggerate the lack of courage or confidence of the person leading the thing. Play it like you call it.

Sport-climbing is a very different thing from making "your own safety on a route." The feeling here seems to be that it is inherently wrong, or bad somehow. Even amongst those of us that are pro-sport-climbing, there is agreement that over-bolting is a danger, particularly in wilderness areas as previously discussed. That shouldn't deter us from respecting the desire of people who want to practice some form of climbing, albeit in a safer, more accessable form. So let the wankers top rope you say, no different than leading on bolts. It feels different to most of us. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't feel? Let's break it down. 1) retrobolting? Touchy subject, but it seems that most agree that a local consensus, including the FA'ist, on a bolt by bolt addition or replacement is the way to go. 2) Wilderness bolting? Most of us, as per Lambone's "poll" would take some action to prevent it (amongst those that wouldn't rat, most would have taken other action) 3) Environmental damage. Popular trad areas do just as much damage as popular sport areas. The rock is NOT alive, 'cept for coral and we can all agree never to bolt that. 4) Aesthetic damage. I'm sorry you don't think its pretty. Subjective arguements don't carry much weight without a substantive majority, which the anti-bolters definitely do not have. 5) Grid-bolting/sport-climbing. Wildly popular, slowly encroaching on many popular trad areas. Probably in need of some mitigating action. I agree with the idea that the ethic taken to the rock by people whose sole exposure is sport-climbing leads to rampant hilti-abuse. We need to try to contain this over-bolting, but not by claiming that there should be NO sport-climbing areas (I am making the assumption that sport-climbing areas equal and should equal grid-bolted areas) It is obvious where a line that respects people's different preferences should lie. The anti-bolting thing smacks too much of an ego-trip. For instance, calling sport-climbing routes bolt-ladders is an obvious hyperbole intended to exaggerate the lack of courage or confidence of the person leading the thing. Maybe this is an underhanded personal jab at the bolting mentality, but I think it says more than that about the real issue in the heart of the anti-bolter. The anti-bolter is, at heart, insecure and desparate to appear better than the rest of us. This is probably why they began climbing in the first place, to rise above the multitude. Suddenly, through technical innovation, hordes of people calling themselves climbers are scurrying about every semi-vertical surface within spitting distance of a road. "NOOO those aren't climbers, they're just cowardly, bolt-ladder crawling worms. I am the real climber, me, only meeee....." gosh, that was fun.

Do you think there should be ANY grid-bolted walls?

What "equilibrium?"

Even for those that do nothing but sport climbing, and never expand their frame of reference, so what? It is a perfectly acceptable form of recreation. Perhaps you are (justifiably) worried about these narrow-minded individuals carrying their sport ethic into the back-country. I would agree that is something we have to guard against. But to use that as an arguement against rap-bolted sport climbs in general makes no sense to me.

So... are you saying that because you don't like or understand this form of climbing, no one should be able to do it? Did you have a bad experience as a child? Please explain this unreasonable prejudice.

Scott, do you honestly feel no different- that is to say have no more or less fun leading a bolted route as opposed to top roping it?

No, it is necessity so you don't splat if you fuck up. Aren't bolts necessity so you don't splat on unprotectable faces? Sport leading is more fun than top roping, you seem to be saying that since it is not as dangerous as trad leading, we shouldn't bother. WTF? I say that trad leading on granite is practically sport-climbing compared to Rockies limestone, so we're all pussies compared to the folks in Canmore.

Is trad leading more than "machismo jollies?"

Yes That is a helluva big "should." Can you justify it intelligently?

Are you saying that there should be NO bolted sport climbing routes where a top rope is possible?

So on bolts it's hang-dogging, but on gear it's OK? But isn't that aid climbing? No, wait, aid climbing has bolts... Probably there is the odd person that bolts a line just to "hangdog" up it, but this is hardly a strong enough point to form an entire ethos. I sense this is not about mode of protection, but rather a form of the same old self-righteous anti-sport-climbing nonsense.

if you can't climb 5.9 then you CAN'T climb 5.10! What does mode of protection have to do with it?

Are you trying to be incendiary, or do you have a point?

I think that, in theory anyway, bolts are used for protecting climbing on faces and sections devoid of other means. You are right of course, we place protection because we are not entirely confident we won't fall off. It is not just ability, but loose rock and spiders that might make you fall off. I think having some protection is a fore-gone conclusion for climbing in general and specifically in the bolting debate, but I guess it always good to question one's premises. BTW because/becuase

Disagree. On some routes, ability does not define safety. Take some of the new mixed ice routes in the rockies for example. And lets not forget that the only reason ANY of us can climb above 5.11 is because we were able to train in safe situations.

Not a sticker, but written on a dirty SUV: "I LIKE it dirty!"

We were at Castle Mountain (Banff National Park, not a "designated wilderness area") over the week-end. The hut there is on the lip of a sheer cliff that now has one rap-bolted sport route (5.11 or so, we didn't do it) off the edge, called "rim job." It looks pretty cool, VERRY exposed! What the hell, why not put a line of bolts down the cliff between the hut and the outhouse. I wouldn't say that is outside the accepted local ethic. There is also one shiny bolt and hanger (3/8) at the base of the approach gully, and at the base of the start to Brewer's Buttress, which can serve no purpose except as indicators. Is that going too far? People do seem to have trouble at both these junctures (we started up the wrong gully, but didn't even notice the bolt til we were on the way out), and a bolt is a pretty neat little "this way" sign that is intelligible or even noticable only to climbers. Still seems a little frivolous to me, but it is an area with an established development ethic, so I'm trying to be open-minded. Anyway, having just returned from that, I have a hankering for some distinctly UNdeveloped climbing, and find myself highly in favor of setting some areas aside.

Climbers can "self-regulate" as much as any other members of society. Write a letter, speak your piece, vote.

Well, I imagine (never been there) you can no longer climb the nose in the same condition as Harding found it. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, I am all for progress. I think setting aside a few fairly accessable areas where no development (mechanized or not) is allowed is a good idea. Of course I know there are plenty of spaces with little or no human trace, by accessable I mean near enough that future generations can reasonably get to, or climb it. Can we climb without leaving bolts, or pitons, or tat? We have sport crags and trad crags and alpine routes, lets designate a couple leave-no-trace routes or areas.

Wouldn't the main reason to designate a wilderness area be that we want to set aside a portion of land where generations to come can see and appreciate how things were without mechanized development? Why can't that include climbing?