soulreaper

Replacing the bolts is an excellent idea. Where they are located should depend on the availability of solid rock, as it is a little flaky around the current locations. The actual current bolt spacing makes good sense, however. When I led the climb, my only reservation was the possibility of breaking an edge while clipping the bolt, which could be consequential. However, I don't see how that necessitates an additional bolt; climbing is never without risk and the climb in its current state is certainly not that risky. Those who are uncomfortable with runouts can add/clip a sling to the bottom bolt.

I put a few pieces in (before the crux) and took a lead fall on them before redpointing the thing. A little bit of fiddling is required with the gear but once it's in right, it's good.

"Wow.....are you telling me if you climb without a rope there is chance you could fall? Wow......you play with the bull....you will get the horns...." Check your facts and shut the fuck up, douche-bag. "Mr Reardon had been walking along the top of a cliff at Dohilla when he slipped on some heavy kelp and was unable to regain his footing. He plunged some 75ft into the sea below. The alarm was raised by his fellow climbers." "Moriarty said Reardon had just finished a climb on Friday and was standing on a ledge when he was knocked into the sea by a "rogue wave" and was carried out beyond the surf line. "He vanished from a standing position as opposed to a climbing one," Moriarty said." -http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=252857

As a quasi-non-sequitur, I think "striving for mediocrity" just about sums it up around here both in terms of climbing and of posting.

Shit, Rudy! The kid's climbing harder than 96% of Washingtonians; maybe it's because he's still too young to drink a bunch of malt liqour, go epic on the Tooth, then come back and strut around local slide shows in torn GoreTex and full gaiters! Seriously, that's awesome. And on a crack climb, no less. Oh and hi Chase!

I thought I'd reiterate a key concept from this mess: boldness notwithstanding, bad hardware is bad hardware. 1/4 inchers, pre-rust and other assorted metal fatigues, were pretty strong. Those button-heads weren't pounded in as antiques--they were placed shiny and new on lead using hand-drilling technology of the day. If those same people were placing lead bolts today, even with a hand drill, they would likely be placing 3/8" stainless. As a side note, the only bolt I've removed from any cliff was a rusty old button head--with a light tap of my foot on the hanger. I found the old Leeper hanger that flew off on the ground and kept it as a memento of that experience. It was not at all surprising, given the rust. Clipping bad bolts does not make you a bad-ass; a runout is still a runout with reliable protection.

I should certainly clarify that I'm by no means trying to make a blanket statement regarding first ascentionists. I've climbed many of your (DCramer) and Greg Olsen's (who I've met a few times at Vertical World) routes, as well as those of many other of the prolific ascentionists from that period. It may sound silly, buy I have a profound admiration for you not only because of your work on what I consider to be the best rock I've climbed on, but also for your continued interest in the resource. It's inspiring to those of us looking for an act to follow in Washington as far as climbing goes. Exaggeration? I think not. If it doesn't seem overly obsequious, consider it a complement. Maybe I'm wrong about the trends I posited in my last post (essay--I apologize: I have an English degree): I hope so, because it seems like society at large goes to great lengths to comfortize and in the short time I've been climbing I've seen the reflections-or should I say, 'shadows'-of that trend at various cliffs. I thought the examples I provided were particularly flagrant, the questionable validity of the Centerfold claim notswithstanding. I certainly didn't mean that "everyone" was involved, just a few (or fewer than that?) individuals. I'm willing to admit that the "trend" I referred to is, as you say, extremely localized at Index, at least at this point. In any case I didn't intend to shovel mud; I apologize if that seemed like some kind of general challenge to "those that came before". And I'll take your cue about more worrisome rogue bolts (mank) on the cliff and put some actual work into it this Winter.

They're not at a no hands stance. I mentioned this before; the OLD anchor was at a no hands stance below. The "new" one that we've been discussing is about 8 feet above the ledge that forms the stance. Since we're beating around the bush, the specific issue is the removal of the hanger, nut and chain from one of bolts on the first anchor of Japanese Gardens. Stealing fixed gear is dumb. If the intention was to clean the anchor itself, the job was exceptionally poor, as there is still a stud left without a hanger. More generally, bolting at Index is a concern to me because the trend has moved towards retrobolting. Some of this has been more tasteful than other of it, in my opinion. Some of the more lame examples include: -Black Cat Bone at the Blues Cliff (perfect parallel finger crack--retroed) -Angora Grotto, which I haven't seen but understand it's a similar situation -The more recent alleged strange appearance of bolts on Centerfold P.4 (luckily taken care of) The reason I care is that I'm interested in cleaning and climbing "old" routes at Index. In this context, just because the first ascentionist thinks it's ok to either bolt or retrobolt a climb where natural protection is fine doesn't mean it's ok. That just shows me that the people involved are no longer behaving responsibly toward a resource that they themselves have enjoyed. Instead, they're removing the challenge and adventure for all of us "young" ones who are now enjoying their legacy. A first ascent does not imply ownership over a route in the sense that all ethical decisions default to being acceptable "as long as they're made by the first ascentionist(s)". If he or she decided it was ok to break out the chisel, what then? A different case would be if the person in question chose to reduce an obvious danger, such as a runout; if protection is available, however, it doesn't make sense to add fixed pro. I guess in the end it's hard to draw a line anywhere because of a plethora of different factors, but the preservation of both challenge and adventure should be of paramount concern in new routing and in the upkeep of old routes (I.E., bolt replacement--if it's going to be there it shouldn't be mank). Giving carte blanche to every whim of everyone who puts up a route is tantamount to not caring about the cliff, because there will obviously be cases that are clear ethical violations (I.E., chipping). And "violation" indeed suggests that a "code of ethics" of some sort exists--which I believe is true at least in a very general sense. As for the Japanese Gardens anchor: I would be happy if someone either removed and patched the stud or replaced the hanger, nut and chain. If the stud is removed, the chain should be removed from the other bolt to prevent one bolt rappels which aren't particularly safe. It seems like enough people feel (more) strongly (than I do) about this particular anchor, so I'm sure something will happen one way or the other.

Of course; I'm by no means an elitist in that sense. I agree, although I'm pretty psyched; again, not an elitist in this sense either. Well, it's not my choice whether it exists or not (I'm not making it my choice), but I question whether it NEEDS to exist, since without it one is forced to adventure a little further... I very, very strongly agree. And yes, I have lived with the intermediate anchors since I started climbing there. My concern is more about future Index "ethics". But of course, it's important to take all sides into account whether or not they affect my final opinion...

Godzilla is a 30m rap, while with Princely Ambitions a doubled 60m will barely reach that railroad bolt thing on the left, which is one reason that other sling anchor is there. You're right, Yngve, that bolts in over-abundance are by no means the only mank sullying the various cliffs at which we climb; ancient tats, wierd fixed cams and nuts, archaic pins--they are human refuse and should be dealt with as such. In a way, I think the "short" pitches at Index are like the 'interleaved' rappel routes of which you speak, excessive in the sense that they cater only to convenience and in some sense the lowering of standards. So, in the case of Japanese Gardens, the anchors in question are there because people want to climb 5.10a instead of 5.10a C1(-). Convenience, yes? It sounds like they've been there for some 30-odd years in one form or another. But the problem is, as you say, with people and their opinions: I, for instance, love all aspects of climbing including bolted face climbing. I recognize the need for fixed gear on the routes I love. However, there's always someone else who staunchly opposes any fixed gear, without exception. While their view on ethics might be said to be more pure than mine, since mine makes allowances for wanting to climb at higher gymnastic difficulty, there isn't a third person who is arbiter of such things and thus there won't ever be a "correct" view on this issue. It's true that reality naturally falls somewhere in between prohibition and excess, depending on one's definition of excess. There are some who think adding a 4th sling to a rappel mankpile is fine, while some would sooner remove the mank and put in new slings and rings. Yet another person would add chains and quicklinks. Someone else would pull the bolts and climb the 50ft. of vegetated 5.4 to a walkoff. Without all of these methods, we wouldn't have the plethora of climbs that we have today. This iteration of the fixed gear argument stemmed from indignance at the removal of a chain and hanger that many people relied on to truncate Japanese Gardens P.1 into a four star .10a. Even though I still believe that this type of theft without discussion, as it were, is dumb, I still can't say it hurts my feelings. As my first lead of the full pitch involved C1 "french freeing", I can vouch for the quality of the aid climbing if one cannot free the moves. That was about 4 years ago. Since then, I've worked very hard and with an extreme amount of enjoyment to bring myself to a level at which I can contend with, among other things, the difficulty of Index climbing. If every pitch had an easier "version", I doubt as many people would be forced to venture into tougher territory, thereby challenging themselves and, possibly, pulling on a few pieces until they could free the moves. Now, as for the four (!) anchors on Iron Horse/Sagittarius...well, we could probably fill a book with the spray and opinions towards those!

It depends on relative difficulty and ability of the climber; if the sport route is, say, a rap-bolted 5.13 and contains a dangerous 5.10 runout, the 5.13 leader can reasonably be expected to handle the runout and the section doesn't need a bolt. It might be different if it were scary 5.10 friction slab, but also it might not. Rap bolting doesn't imply creating an aidable bolt ladder; rather it (ideally) implies pre-placing bolts AS NEEDED for protection. The best rap-bolted routes that I've climbed have been reasonably protected at cruxes, were free of bolts where natural gear was available and featured fewer bolts higher off the ground as long as no ledge feature was in play. Remember that "dangerous" and "runout" are highly subjective terms, as for some the same section will be a playground.

A couple of clarifications: the anchor in question is NOT at a no-hands stance; the old anchor previously referred to likely involved the archaic pin on the ledge about 5 or 6 feet below the "new" anchor. The anchor that has been robbed of a hanger is, quite frankly, in a fairly absurd location (bolted onto a flake, albeit a large one that comprises multiple pitches including Sagittarius P.1, TPMV P.1 and Japanese Gardens P.1). Also, I don't recall needing a 70m rope to lower off the first pitch. I could be mistaken, but I think a 60m just barely reaches. The aforementioned bolts to the right of Stern Farmer are hangerless studs on a blank face, the viability of which as a free climb is highly questionable. Indeed, these bolts are offensive as well, but I think the larger issue may be the sheer number of anchors on the cliff as a whole. The real question of what constitutes a well-placed bolt or anchor seems forever lost in the flotsam and jetsam of the ongoing ethics discussion. Continuing the oceanic metaphor, if that discussion was to be characterized as particularly "tidal", then the input of these forums could be represented by "those pieces of styrofoam that float offensively around in the water and later festoon the beach as refuse". Oh and Darryl, this certainly wasn't targeted as a reply to your message even though it's indicated as such; I was just skimming through the more substantive answers and happened to stop at yours.

Black Cat Bone is/was a victim of the classic "I don't want to have to carry gear to a crag that is otherwise all sport [save one climb that is an overgrown 12a R]." I will echo the concept that first ascentionists DO NOT have the right to add bolts next to cracks. The only possible motive would be laziness and indifference towards both the rock and the adventure quotient of any future ascents; this does not sit well with me, nor should it with anyone else who cares about the state of the rock. In any case, those bolts on Centerfold are coming out. Whoever does the job: make sure you figure out what kind they are and use the correct method to remove them and patch the holes. If whoever added them is reading: put away your drill and learn to place really good, solid pro which is available in that section. Idiot.

It's obvious that the popularity of the route has made it a good focal point for a discussion of this sort, but it might also be useful to dig up, once again, the spectre of ethics in general at Index. Bolts and anchors are EVERYWHERE and no one person is an absolute authority on which are necessary and which are pure concessions to convenience. The pitch one anchor is, certainly, one such concession. The complication is that it has been in place for long enough to become a tradition and, as such, there is an expectation: Japanese Gardens has a truncated 1st pitch, as do several other pitches at Index. I don't think there should be "short" pitches, ESPECIALLY not to facilitate more use by the masses. Index is challenging for a reason and we should be doing all we can to preserve the challenge. Those of us who climb harder routes there have worked HARD to do so. That said, the hardware has been in place on that pitch for a long time. I think it's idiotic to pilfer hardware to make a point, as I think the point is better made via a discussion. Unfortunately, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to have a useful dialogue about this type of thing. In this case, I think the hardware should be replaced. Stealing should be heavily discouraged. As peripheral issues: replacement of manky hardware; reassessing the need for multiple rappel anchors within mere feet of each other, each containing one or two "good" bolts and 3 or four old 1/4 inch studs protruding from the rock; retrobolting next to perfectly viable natural gear placements, which certainly still occurs. We've got some issues on our hands and I believe the best way to tackle them, for those of us who care, IS through dialogue, not independent action. As I wrote in a different thread, education is sometimes helpful. John Middendorf has a website at bigwalls.net that has some great insights as well as technical materials. ASCA has a wealth of up-to-date bolting information. But, whoever took the chain should just put it back. Make your point by doing laps on the first pitch without clipping the bolt: maybe others will follow by improving upon their climbing abilities.

Is this thread about Index or Squamish? I'd be REALLY surprised if it's about Index; bolting that pitch would be an extremely flagrant abuse even considering the sloppy ethics (or lack thereof) in place at Index already. As for discussion, the only grey area I see is a first ascentionist of an AID pitch adding fixed gear (bolts, pins) to facilitate free climbing on lead. This, along with a first ascentionist adding a bolt to lessen an extreme runout on other climbs, seems at times reasonable. Aid cragging at Index might still occur but in my experience free-climbing is certainly more popular these days. That said, it is still a GREY area. A good opinion piece on the subject can be found on bigwalls.net; John Middendorf certainly has a point that this generation of climbers has the distinct ability to push boldness into new realms, while our tendency in reality is to lessen the boldness factor via bolting and retrobolting. However, NO-ONE has the so-called right to bolt where gear is available. A first ascentionist retro-bolts a perfect parallel-sided crack to facilitate carrying less gear to the crag (and there are examples of this at Index)? Wrong! He/she is setting the poorest example possible for everyone else, second only to chipping a route. Even if the angst has settled down and more "seasoned" climbers lose the impassioned response that some of us experience in these situations that doesn't give them carte-blanche to destroy the resource for those of us who still have the desire to protect it. If it's the Centrefold at Index we're talking about, those bolts are coming out. I can live with the handful of retrobolted A3-turned-free climbs, but even that should be looked at with extreme suspicion. Also, whoever is into "chopping" bolts should read up on how to do it on Middendorf's page and on the American Safe Climbing Association's website. Taking them out can scar the rock worse than leaving them if you don't know what you're doing. Above all, laziness and indifference are the biggest enemies here; if no one wants to carry the gear, or to learn how to bolt/unbolt correctly, or to spend the time getting good enough at both climbing and placing gear to minimize bolt placement in the first place, then we're all going to be wading through the results of non-existent ethics.

As far as I know, Klaus Van Bulow is climbably clean at this point. There may be some dirt at the bottom and I may be wrong, but I remember it looking so. Yet another (similar) alternative pitch is the 3rd pitch of Japanese Gardens, which is one of the routes that has recently been scrubbed. It is just left of Klaus and is an 11a flared fingercrack with a roof.

I'll be the first to assert that Ben didn't "clean" (a.k.a., STEAL) any hardware. I don't see why this needs to turn into yet another frivolous (online) argument. That hardware could have been stolen by literally anyone with a rope and a pair of vice grips. We all know the cliff has tons of anchors; the best things we can do are to maintain existing hardware properly and to avoid placing unnecessary hardware in the future. As far as stealing goes, we all know it's bullshit and that it shouldn't happen. Theft necessitates the placement of (more expensive) cold shuts that are semi-permanent and difficult to remove/replace. Even if we're not putting up new routes (most of the wall has been "routed" already) we still are aware of both the implications and the maintenance concerns of fixed anchors. Most of the development at this point is "retro" cleaning and rebolting anyway. I think the recent action at Index has been awesome and I don't think I had to be around in the early 90's to validate my opinion (I had other responsibilities like elementary school). I wish we could all partake in this without all the petty squabbling because it's just more fun that way.

If any more anchors get placed on that wall they are going to start reproducing. This may have already happened on Sagittarius. Also: Unless I'm mistaken, the Japanese Gardens "short" anchor was not always there; it was originally, I believe, a single bolt protecting the traverse on the TMPV 11+ linkup variation. That aside, stealing hardware is still irresponsible.

The "second" pitch through the slot/roof is actually the full free version and as such should ONLY be done clean. The slot leading to the roof is very protectable (C1/2) and I think the roof is at least protectable while free climbing, maybe C2? Someone else might have a better answer to that one. The pitch is pretty long, too, maybe even >35-40 metres...

Nice job Mike. I heard you were about to send and wondered whether it had happened or not. By modern standards, that's the line's first free redpoint. Proud, proud, proud. Hope to see you back around here after your adventures elsewhere. (An)drew

Steel Monkey is excellent and now even a little more consistently difficult after the large blocky jug fell off. Actually I think you, Jens and I were out there before it fell off, Tim.

Not the place, obviously, to receive even a remotely useful answer. However, I will attempt: Mos: the best idea would be to get a second opinion on how protectable the climbing is with gear. No one can issue an opinion here without seeing the rock. Also, no one can tell you not to establish routes in a place with no "established" ethic, obviously; you'll have to use your judgement about where to bolt or how many comprise a "safe" line. A 20 foot runout on easy ground, for instance, is "safe" for some and not for others, depending on many factors. Ken4ord: if you're serious, check out the ASCA website (www.safeclimbing.org) and the EDUCATION section. They recommend Hilti HSL (sleeve expansion anchors; 12mm, so not compatible with your 3/8 setup) and another Hilti 3/8" wedge bolt. Not sure about the grade (I'm assuming stainless steel, regardless), but I'm sure you can find answers on there. Length of bolt will depend on rock type, as will the style of the bolt (wedge, sleeve, etc.). Now watch as everyone tries to flame me down for offering an honest opinion.

The hardest moves weren't V16 when people were "bouldering" 100+ years ago...but they were still doing the hardest moves. To clarify I guess that would be the "top end" of bouldering. In general it's about alot of things, including the freedom of gymnastic movement without all the trappings. There, I took the bait.

Ben Moon's site has a wealth of training information that actually makes sense, especially given the fact that it has been paying off for someone who is doing some of the hardest moves on rock (Ben Moon). Also, it is presented in an unpretentious fashion that does not assume that you wish to climb 5.14+, but rather that you want to increase your ability in SOME way. Thanks for the link; I found it extremely informative and useful. P.S. Bouldering is about doing the hardest moves on rock and about exploring possibility in the seemingly impossible. In this way it has resonance with other forms of climbing, but generally most comparisons have been close-minded and amount to simple value judgements. For me the "best"-or at least the most inspiring-climbers are those who are well-rounded and who seem to enjoy all aspects of climbing.

Answering a "troll" post seems stupid, but I'll take the bait. Presented with an extreme example, like bolts/pins next to viable clean gear, the answer is, or should be, obvious. But what about the obvious contradiction surrounding the issue of "rock damage" and pin placement versus bolts? How would we free climb/protect certain thin cracks without them having pin scars from nailing? Modern "clean" gear offers so much more possibility for placement, the point being to use this advantage to minimize fixed placements of any kind. I think there are places where pins would work better than bolts as fixed gear and vice versa. While the sentimentality for rusty old buttonhead/leeper combos and rusty FP's can be understood, it doesn't really make sense in the context of their original placement; the certainty of their strength was much greater. In the end, closemindedness on the issue--I.E. a "moral opposition" to even the most tasteful, enjoyable, and well-conceived bolted climbs--will only dictate what sort of climbing you participate in; all other types will continue to have some sort of place in the spectrum, regardless of the state of your sensibility and, unfortunately at times, of the environment and adventure that we cherish.