Paul T

Let us not forget that the 90s also brought us: More Than Words

"Spraying about how much you care about some silly swing bolts online is not really being proactive, you want to make a statement, go right back up and put em in. But these online shit storms do nothing. Every one bitching is being pretty fucking selfish in my opinion, since none of us are laying in the hospital missing half our teeth. If that was you, or your wife or something, I feel like a lot of people might have different opinions. As Joseph has said climbing gear is not for jumping if you want to jump go do it somewhere safely. Theres a few routes I've wanted to try at Smith, but havent because I feel they are too dangerous to attempt with hikers on the trail all day long, so be it, I won't do em, just like I won't do the swing. I'm not really trying to advocate one way or the other. I'm meerly pointing out that many of you have not noted how someone life is not going to be the same, while we all go about our busieness bitching about bolts online. Have a nice day!" -Corvallisclimber If "these online shit storms do nothing," then why are you continually posting, and why are you calling people "fucking selfish" for not expressing sympathy to the injured? Seems like your empathy would be better spent writing a check to the woman, sending flowers, or any other action more direct than name-calling on a climbing thread. The fact that some individuals want to engage in constructive dialogue--not simply "bitching"--concerning the subsequent actions that transpired after the accident, does not make us apathetic to the woman's current condition. The idea you present with regard to being "proactive," suggesting to "go right back up and put em in," does not really make sense to me. Why would someone waste time and resources on something that another will likely just undo? Sometimes thought precedes action. Currently, thought and dialogue are preceding action, which seems like a healthy order. It seems infinitely dangerous to negate one side of this argument by creating a dichotomy where the voice of dissent is silenced by insinuating that if you disagree with the bolt chopping you are not sympathetic to the injured. Sadly, it reminds me of the rhetoric surrounding the Iraq occupation: "terrorist sympathizers", "freedom haters", etc. Extreme, I know, but the same tactics are being employed. I am glad that Ian sought the opinion of Joel to remove his bolts. This seems like a responsible first step in making a decision of this sort. I will leave one last quote, which was off of Supertopo that I feel encapsulates the real issue, which continues to evade us: "Taking precipitate action in the immediate aftermath of an accident, with the attendant emotion involved, sets up the precedent for how things will go for dealing with climbing related incidents, which will almost always end up being bad for all involved." Ropeswinger or not, think logically please.

One person didn't decide to chop the bolts. The community has spoken, the bolts are gone. Perhaps instead of beating a dead horse on an issue that was really up to the Smith locals to decide, we should be discussing what we as a climbing community can do to help our sister climber who was injured. I was climbing at Smith yesterday and the "community" was not happy about the bolt chopping. And as for the "locals to decide," I am a local, and every other local I have talked to has not been in favor of the bolts being chopped. These facts lead me, as I have stated before, to the belief that this was not a consensual decision representative of the general population here at Smith, but a select few.

we can also reasonably assume that we will not be side-swiped by someone on a rope swing as we clamber on a rock climb. this isn't really a hazard anyone is expecting to encounter, especially the gal injured in this unfortunate incident. it seems rather self-evident (especially given the recent accident) that this rope swing is a direct danger to climbers, and in a way that the climbers really have no control over. having said that, i am stating my opinion only on information presented in this thread. You would be correct in "reasonably" assuming that you would not be "side-swiped" while climbing. Just as a hiker would "reasonably assume" that he will not be peppered by rocks, or clocked by a rack of stoppers that some climber bumbles during a lead above him/her. These things are not the norm, nor do they characterize the mean (average) experience. I agree that this is not a hazard anyone is expecting, but rather an anomaly. To characterize this most unfortunate occurrence as anything but a freak accident caused by a negligent enthusiast seems like a convenient way to assert precedence of one arbitrary activity over another (climbing rocks over swinging on ropes). It seems to me that this has surfaced as the real issue on this thread. I would be quite upset if due to the actions of one negligent climber injuring a hiker, a hiker decided to remove/chop bolts and anchors at Smith. Almost any activity can be performed in a negligent manner, which can result in injury or worse to another. Whether climbing, driving, flying a passenger plane, etc, accidents happen that should not have--had the activity been done responsibly. These anomalies do not seem like sufficient support to discontinue access to these activities. As an avid climber I inevitably favor rock climbing over the other activities performed at Smith, but I do not believe that this passion of mine deserves dominance over any other. All of our trivial pursuits have their place, and it seems dubious to abruptly end one activity by destroying the means/equipment that make it possible. I do not mean to come off as callous or insensitive to the unfortunate plight that the woman has found herself in, due to circumstances out of her control. It does seem important though to engage in pragmatic dialogue concerning the details and implications of bolt chopping as a result to such incidents. I believe that this is in large part why most of us are here.

Removing the bolts used for swinging on the Monkey Face under the premise of reducing accidents opens the door to all kinds of arguments that I'm sure we as climbers would not welcome. If I were to react in a similar fashion every time a climber was injured on a route by chopping the bolts on that route to prevent further injuries/fatalities, I'm sure my actions would be met with a healthy amount of resistance. I understand that we can not assume that everyone is acting at full mental capacity and adhering to all the safety precautions necessary to minimize the risks of each activity, but this is not sufficient justification to attempt to safeguard the world through tactics comparable to those used in this situation. I have known Ian for a long time, and understand that his decision was partially in concern for the safety of individuals, partially for sustaining the public image we have to maintain as climbers, and partially for ulterior motives not as transparent as those disclosed. That said, I strongly disagree with the bolt removal as an answer to either of the initial two concerns. This situation was a most unfortunate set of circumstances resulting in a tragic conclusion. Chopping the bolts does not seem like the proper solution, and in my opinion was hasty, non-consensual, and made in a quasi-dictatorial manor. We as climbers should understand that this sport comes with certain inherent risks. Some of these risks are within our own control, and some are not, such as: rock fall, weather, other climber's mistakes, bad bolts, a faulty cam, etc. It is difficult when an accident occurs to not have someone, or something to attack immediately, but in this case poor decisions were the culprit--not bolts. Taking away the ability to set up the rope swing is no different than taking away the ability to climb the Monkey Face. Both would result in the reduction of accidents at the cost of the activity we love. A better solution is raised awareness, which inevitably occurs when this sort of thing occurs. paul tomlinson