Checat

The problem with even trying to address your question is that "inherent risk" is so subjective that to try determine what is simply an easygoing athletic affair and what is taking ones life into ones own hands is nearly impossible. There are so many things that an go wrong leading to climbing accidents or death Top-roping! What is proper bolt length distance? Relative to height, relative to the angle of the rock, relative to what a potentially falling climber would be falling into (a ledge, an arete, free space...). That's why its ironic that climbers in Oregon (myself included) identify some areas as "adventure" because of long run-outs, and other areas as "cake-walks" because you can't go a meter without tripping on two bolts. I've mocked and ridiculed Flagstone because of the bolting thats gone on there, but because of the bolt spacing there, the leader has an extremely high probability of Z-clipping. As I said before: all levels of inherent risk in "sport-climbing" is subjective. Bolt-less climbing=zero subjectivity. Every part of the protection system is up to the leader; therefore development within these terms remains completely objective. In terms of where aspiring leaders should go to "progress" to the state of taking on new challenges; take it indoors. I am much more in favor of utilizing artificial climbing surfaces to prepare people for their endeavors than I am turning our outdoor challenges into what breaks down to artificial climbing terrain.

Its kinda funny, between posts I'm printing invitations right now. Like climbing and bolts should be the most pressing thing on my mind, right...I haven't even written my vows, yet I'm willing to waste a bunch off time standing on top of a soapbox...

Its alright he says a lot of things. I say a lot things too, lol... I shouda been charging guiding fees this whole time in reality...

I didn't charge B 80 and if you only knew how unequal the gas fundage distribution has gone over the years you wouldn't talk... Besides, he's gonna be drinking a bunch of free beer at my wedding soon anyway so I can make it up to him then...

You got it. I'm thinking more of a something in person when we do get a chance to get out there though Aside from getting some feedback from apparently some Crux gym climbers that have been developing out there and some more tweaks to the Style and Ethics chapter(LOL) I think you will be pleased with the progress since you saw it last...

Once again (and now in a more positive light) kevbone you are absolutely illustrating the message I'm trying to get out there: There is so much untapped rock in the state of Oregon. Pretty much you can go to any crag around the state and if you look hard enough you will find more and more untouched rock of its same nature within spitting distance. If all you naysayers out there are cool with all future development of these future crags getting bolts, then your right, I'm wrong and I should shut the F up. But I'm hoping there is enough of you out there that see the value in future areas going boltless....

I certainly don't know it all, I'm trying to put this crag into perspective with all the issues your bringing up and more...

Not new. take a look at the register 12/12/04. Know all(subjective) bout Infinite Miss. Have climbed DDD, and spoken to folks involved with the dishman issue. The problems of bolting has occupied my thoughts for far too long my friend. I just have failed to express them previous to this thread. Like I said before, I have focused on these issues in regard to a particular crag very near and dear to me for the sake of protecting said crag from bolts; now i'm starting to believe that letting people know about this area may contribute to a better overall understanding and may serve a better purpose than simply protecting it, and go beyond that to protecting future crags that have yet to see development. I know its pie in the sky but whats the alternative, continue burying head in sand?

oh...my bad...

Yes, trout creek is pertinent to this conversation. Do I think it shouldn't have bolted top anchors? Who cares, its not my place to dictate where bolts go (for now but when I'm Climbing Czar that will all change, {insert evil mad scientist laugh}). My point in all this ranting and raving is that the practices should fit the area. For TC, having no lead bolts and bolted anchors is perfect. For the menagerie having spookily spaced bolts on lead is the fit. For the Lack having no bolts is the bees knees. Now if everybody understood development in this perspective I'd have no reason to have beef with the bosch bulldogs out there, but thats not how it is. Look at how far bolting has gone. Go to Flagstone, go to the Callahans if you don't believe me. Go to areas around Leavenworth (not in Oregon but still relevant) where you have high ball boulders with 10 bolts at the top. If people that value what the Lack has to offer truly understand these issues they would be shouting it from a mountain top because to think that ignorance and secrecy is a protection is absurd...

I appreciate and respect both sets of advice (billcoe, shapp) but if you ask me "Why bring it up?" the answer is in your post "...an ethic that is lost forever in Oregon as a whole...". I've been humbly climbing there for years. There is no example set in mere participation. If I was resigned to the idea that this ethic is truly lost forever, then yes, I'd shut up and quit taking shots from these yahoos. But I don't think this ethic is lost. For as many people that have piped in on this thread about "wow, bolts are cool", there has been a number of people expressing that bolt-less climbing does have value and should be embraced. If I wanted to stoke my own ego I'd put more effort towards developing trip reports and spraying about my exploits. I'm not, I'm trying to make people aware that there are alternatives to climbing with bolts.

You can be equally as productive at moolack as any other area in the state. That is kind of given to the ideal tree anchors that are there, which you can't expect of every crag. That's not to say all lines set up that way though. There are certainly are set-ups more akin to what somebody was talking about in regard to crags in Minnesota, where 100', 200' static lines are necessary, but in those instances, you don't have anchor lines roughing up bushes and foliage. These are all semantics specific to this particular area. My aim is to look at future development of other areas. Everyone will have different views towards what is Sustainable in regard to climbing crags, and really that is the task of this nations future Climbing Czar...like that position will ever really exist right...

I don't know who this JosephH is but theres only one person that can appoint a climbing czar and I doubt Barack and Michelle have CC.com in there bookmarks... Moolack mtn used to be called Elk mountain, but because there were so many elk mtn's throughout the state the powers that be changed it to the chinook jargon Moolack for "elk". It has nothing to do with the "lack" of bolts...

To say that I have come off a in my OP as extreme is acceptable to me. If you folks have paid attention: there are a ton of overbolted areas here in Oregon. In my mind even sport climbing should involve some amount of risk, and it was never intended for small children to be lead climbing. This is of course my opinion, but am a wrong? Is that what should be the norm, bolts every three feet so when my childs old enough to crawl we can get em on the sharp end? What does that say about the modern state of area development in Oregon? Do you really think I don't ever clip bolts? Of course I clip bolts sometimes...I climb in Oregon. I am taking an extreme stance on this issue because the balance has tipped so far towards the extreme "Disneyfication" that someone has to take the alternative stance. There are still a ton of climbing areas yet to be discovered and in my mind there is a severe lack of understanding a variety of development practices. Just like you would want people to bolt on lead where the rock permits this style, I want to see no bolts at all where permitted. Under the current climate this is the furthest thing from reality.

Its not my aim or place to "out" or "not out" moolack. i don't think talking about it on the web, or even putting it in print will change the number of people who go there. Other aspects of the area (distance, approach, gear require. etc...) keep the traffic out anyway. The point I am trying to make is that Moolack can set a precedent for other future crags. What if the people that had been developing Spring Mtn. had known about boltless climbing? That would make two places in our great state that didn't require bolting, what a novel concept. Wouldn't you like to think that people finding untouched rock similar to the formations at the Menagerie would look at the practices that have taken place there, and adopt those practices resulting in more "adventure-like" bolted lines? THey wouldn't do it because someone had a gun to there head, saying "You must bolt on lead," they'd adopt those practices because they had a model to operate off of... I'm done feeling like Moolack has to be some "secret crag" to preserve the place from bolts. I think it has the ability to act as a model for other future crag development. Is anyone picking up what I'm throwin down here? Very early on in my climbing career I visited the Peak District, so for me that history is a part of our climbing heritage. Not everyone has that advantage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be something that all climbers at least identify as an option within climbing. Variety is the spice of life, but the bolt-less variety in Oregon is severely lacking and I have a hard time understanding why climbers of any experience level within climbing don't see the value of developing that ideal.

But if my "lofty ideal" is to make people at least consider that some climbing areas don't need bolts, and I don't want to keep that to myself but actually express that to others how am I being an elitist? If you pick up what I'm throwing down you'll notice that I am promoting the area because of the great things that it offers. The only reason there is a bit of the "secret crag" language in how i've posted and responded is due to some irrational and outdated respect to those that developed routes there before I started developing there. I want to publish a guide on the area, I obviously have gotten over trying to keep it to myself... Why are there so few people out there even willing to consider the notion of boltless climbing? Have climbers gotten that soft?

btw, what is so elitist about saying that not all climbing areas should see bolts?

Seeing as there is a fair number of people in this state that take an extreme view towards bolting the shit out of every chunk of rock, I don't mind being the only one out there willing to take an extreme view towards not. It doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to bolt climbs but it requires a bit more for someone to show discretion and have some sense about developing climbing routes. You guys can keep bagging on me cause I'm pointing out that bolting practices in Oregon has gotten excessive because it only makes me realize more and more how much more it takes (knowledge, skill, experience and brass cahones) to climb at a place like moolack, and a sheer lack of all these things to frequent sport climbing venues... I'm disappointed that corvallisclimb, after all these years, still wants to call me out for my views towards moolack because I think the way in which he develops routes at the menagerie sets a positive trend in bolting (on-lead or not), one more akin to the way routes were bolted at a better period of this states development history, one in which inherent risk was still part of the equation...

I am just joking about the czar thing. kevbone's been accusing me of taking this thread too seriously. Don't go start taking everything I say so seriously...

any and all above. Some routes have sketchy pro, both big and small(big bros down to peckers and ballnutz) some can be sewn up. Most have been cleaned (meticulously would be impossible). Some have been sized up lead, true pure onsights have occurred. Within a no-bolt ethic, personal choices about style have still been just that: personal to the developer/FAist. next question...

I think it has more to do with your comment about setting out to bolt an untouched crag just to ruffle my feathers....

I just think that you fail to acknowledge that we as climbers evolve. We progress and as we progress we have a responsibility to rise to the level of the rock we aspire to climb, not sanitize down to make it as comfortable and convenient as possible. If it was up to you more and more crags would be going through the kind of "Disneyfication" that sport climbing promotes. Isn't the whole point to conquer the challenge, not make the challenge manageable?

The fact that you disagree with that houlding quote confirms for me how diametrically opposed you and I are as climbers. Please never come to Moolack, don't ever get on my routes, because I wouldn't want you to understand what Grade A, high-quality, bolt-less crack-climbing is all about.

hemp22, your point about top-roping lines that would otherwise see bolts directly attests to why this OP even brings this kind of talking point to a website like CC.com. Because developing routes with no bolts leaves no trace of an initial ascent it leaves future visitors no clue to whether a climb has been led or not. I guess its kind of one of those "if a tree falls in a forest..." sort of dilemmas because who really cares right?... But as someone who develops routes there, I am as guilty as the next developer when it comes to taking ownership to that route, after all it was my blood, sweat and tears that led to its ascent and we as humans want whatever satisfaction from our efforts as we can get. So naturally this has led me to the development of a guidebook to the area. Along the way it occurred to me that a.) more areas like the lack should exist, and it is only through the promotion of this ethics that we can expect that concept to spread and other bolt free crags to come about and b.) the only way to really protect the area from future bolting is to establish that: yes there are routes there and, yes, they don't require bolts. Unfortunately, the OG's (original gangstas) of the place do not agree with my efforts in developing a guidebook. As far as they're concerned its protection from bolts relies on word of mouth and secrecy and what boils down to "only promoting the area to those select few deemed responsible enough to understand zero-bolt development." As much as I want to have faith in the idea that word of mouth is enough to protect the area from bolting, I don't. And based on the feedback of this web-thread: Any faith in the place remaining bolt free is completely lost. And beyond that, I don't think any climbing area should receive that sort of elitist disclosure. Its fair to say that keeping the number of users to an extremely fragile area is a noble cause, but isn't it just as noble to share with people an area that completely breaks the mold of your typical Oregon climbing crag?

No panties in bunch. Just trying to play along. If we weren't passionate about climbing, what would we have right? Your right, I don't know you from Adam, but obviously I don't hold any real ill will towards you. its just webchat after all... That being said I will still ban you from all climbing areas when Obama appoints me climbing Czar...