To bolt or not to bolt

[IceIceBaby]

Here it is all the way to Wall Street journal

Wall Street journal

Bolts in Rocks Have Climbers

Screaming From Mountaintops

 

'Trads' Cling to Their Cliffs

With Removable Hardware

By DEAN STARKMAN

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

 

 

Patrick Seurynck was scaling a dangerous 400-foot granite cliff near Aspen, Colo., last June when his partner above yelled down some disturbing news: "The anchors are gone!"

 

The 48-year-old Mr. Seurynck, who has been climbing rocks for 10 years, had just spent weeks drilling and placing numerous stainless-steel bolts for securing ropes. He knew immediately what had happened: A bolt chopper had struck. He climbed down safely, fuming.

 

 

"It was just arrogant audacity," says Mr. Seurynck, still riled.

 

Whether to bolt or not is a smoldering question in rock climbing these days as the sport comes to grips with growing popularity. Once the domain of a scruffy few who embraced an ethic of self-reliance, conservationism and risk, rock climbing is being overrun by a new generation less connected to its daring past. The result: a culture clash on the rocks.

 

Traditional, or "trad," climbers favor passive protective gear -- metal nuts and spring-loaded retractable metal wedges called cams. These are slipped into cracks and then removed by the last climber to make an ascent. Climbers say newcomers put up permanent bolts merely to make hard climbs easier.

 

"They are there entirely and utterly for the convenience of climbers, who, in my view, have just gotten incredibly lazy," says Richard Goldstone, a Poughkeepsie, N.Y., math professor who has argued for fewer bolts at the Mohonk Preserve, a traditional-climbing mecca 80 miles north of New York.

 

 

The less-fastidious new-schoolers, sometimes called "sport climbers," dismiss the critique as elitist. They say bolted routes allow relatively safe climbs on even advanced routes and along lines that otherwise couldn't be climbed at all. Besides, they say, bolts are becoming the norm.

 

"Everywhere there's a cliff, you'll find some bolted routes," Mr. Seurynck says.

 

With at least 450,000 regulars now on the rocks in the U.S., up from about 200,000 a decade ago, land managers fear that bolting is getting out of hand. "All of them are looking to prevent a proliferation," says Randy Coffman, a National Parks Service official.

 

National Policy

 

The bolt controversy now is coming to a head. An interagency panel of federal land managers has agreed to a common, national "fixed anchor" policy for wilderness areas, completing an administrative process that started after the U.S. Forest Service tried to ban new bolts at Idaho's Sawtooth National Forest in 1998. Among the issues: whether bolts should be banned as "installations" -- like bridges and tool sheds -- under the Wilderness Act of 1964; whether to replace older rusting bolts; whether new bolts should be allowed; and who gets to decide, climbers or the government.

 

As a result of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management has drafted a regulation that will require government permits to put up new bolts -- a big change. "It does recognize that climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness," says Jeff Jarvis, a BLM wilderness manager. But, "we have responsibility to manage that use."

 

The nation's main rock-climbing group, the Access Fund, in Boulder, Colo., is probolt and favors leaving it up to climbers to decide when to place them. The group fears bureaucracy, so it is hoping the agencies provide "timely authorizations" for anchors, a spokesman says.

 

But a minority of climbers, including some big names in the sport, believe restrictions are needed. The antibolters echo the position of environmental groups that say permanent bolts degrade rock, look bad and allow climbers to disturb raptor nests.

 

Last September, the bolt question nearly derailed a summit of some of the world's best climbers who assembled in Innsbruck, Austria, to write a climbing code of conduct for the International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation. The fiercely probolt Swiss delegation -- from a country where rock climbing is promoted as safe, tourist-friendly "vertical hiking" -- threatened a walkout if the group adopted an antibolt position.

 

"They're trying to take the danger out of climbing," scoffs an American delegate, John Harlin III, editor of the American Alpine Journal, in Hood River, Ore., who helped craft a compromise in the summit's final report, The Tyrol Declaration, which carefully straddles the issue.

 

Bolt, Unbolt

 

Now, a prominent German climber, Alexander Huber, is soliciting support for an expedition to unbolt a route put up last year by an international group on El Gigante, a 2,500-foot cliff in Basaseachic National Park, Mexico. The route's name, "Logical Progression," particularly annoys traditionalists.

 

"They see us as the old guys who are going to die, and they are the new generation, and they call their style the new style," the 35-year-old Mr. Huber says.

 

But Luke Laeser, 29, who spent two months last year affixing the route's 380 bolts, says the route is just too dangerous without bolts. "We knew some people wouldn't agree with it," he says. "But there's not one way to do things."

 

Rock climbing -- ascending a sheer rock face, sometimes called "technical climbing" -- branched off from mountaineering around the 1920s. Equipment was crude: hemp rope, moccasins and a few iron pitons. The sport was reserved for the adventurous few. The first climber ascended 150 feet or so with so little protection that the grim maxim of the day was, "the lead climber must not fall."

 

The end of World War II brought advances in gear, including stretchy nylon rope that didn't snap as easily as hemp, and it brought growth. In the late 1960s, Yvon Chouinard, a renowned climber, as well as an equipment maker and the founder of retailer Patagonia Inc., began promoting the more environmentally friendly nuts and cams, which became standard.

 

The sport's boom in the 1980s and 1990s brought climbers with fewer qualms about bolting. Sporting power drills, they bolted routes according to their own tastes. In their "bolt wars," extremist trad climbers yanked them out just as quickly. But thanks to the laissez-faire policies of the National Park Service and other federal agencies, the number of bolts has steadily risen. Yosemite National Park's famed cliffs have hundreds of bolts, while Joshua Tree National Park, east of Los Angeles, has thousands.

 

Purists plead with local land managers for restrictions, but sometimes antibolt vigilantes still take matters into their own hands -- as in the case of Mr. Seurynck.

 

The real-estate broker was so enraged by the Aspen incident that he launched his own investigation. He ultimately determined that Jonathan Thesenga, until recently the editor of Climbing Magazine, had yanked out most of the bolts on his route.

 

Mr. Seurynck's "J'accuse" posting on a climbing Web site last September sent climbers into a tizzy. Mr. Thesenga, in his online reply said he pulled only "blatantly superfluous bolts." The route could have been protected with traditional gear, he maintained. Mr. Seurynck says he has recently rebolted the route.

 

Write to Dean Starkman at dean.starkman@wsj.com

 

Updated June 11, 2003

 

[Bug]

I'm sure it's interesting but I am not subscribed to that capitalist rag.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Hey IceIce please copy and paste the article so we don't have to supcribe. Thanks, Dave

[EWolfe]

Yeah, what Dave the Wave said.

[thelawgoddess]

yeah, whey they said!

[Rodchester]

Ditto

[jjd]

The article is on the front page of today's print edition. It opens with a little story about the "victim" of a bolt chopper. "The 48 year old Mr. Seurynck, who has been climbing rocks for 10 years, had just spent weeks drilling and placing numerous stainless steel bolts for securing ropes. He knew immediately what had happened: A bolt chopper had struck. He climbed down safely, fuming."

The article then describes the basic difference between trad and sport climbing. It gives a couple of arguments for bolting (safety, otherwise "unclimbable" routes) and chopping (blight, tradition, raptor nests).

 

It then discusses briefly the controversy around bolting in National Parks, wilderness areas and BLM land. The Access Fund gets a little print in voicing its concerns about regulation and bureaucracy.

 

Alex Huber wants to unbolt a route in Basaseachic National Park, Mexico. The guy who bolted it says it's too dangerous without bolts.

 

The article even provides a nice definintion of rock climbing; "Rock climbing--ascending a sheer rock face, sometimes called 'technical climbing' branched off from mountaineering in the 1920s. Equipment was crude: hemp rope, moccasins and a few iron pitons..."

 

It then finishes with the conclusion of the opening story. "The real estate broker was so enraged by the Aspen incident that he launched his own investigation. He ultimately determined that Jonathan Thesenga, until recently the editor of Climbing Magazine, has yanked out most of the bolts on his route. Mr Seuryncks "J'accuse" posting on a climbing Web site last September sent climbers into a tizzy. Mr. Thesenga, in his online reply said he pulled only blatantly superfluous bolts. The route could have been protected with traditional gear, he maintained. Mr Seurynck has recently rebolted the route."

 

There really wasn't much to this article, except it does give a little more national publicity to access issues. Unfortunately, for non-climbers I suspect this is somewhat of an arcane argument.

[Bug]

Mr Seuryncks needs the IRA's solution. With his own drill.

[Dru]

what a dumb thing to have on front page

when they could have the mitch merriman LoveBar

[mattp]

jjd said:

Unfortunately, for non-climbers I suspect this is somewhat of an arcane argument.

 

It is pretty much a climber's issue, isn't it? Some land managers may care about it too, because recreational management and environmental management may be a part of their job. Would you expect a broader segment of the American public to understand or care? It's not as if what we do on some "dangerous 400 foot cliff near Aspen, Colorado" matters to most people.

 

A similar article (not as well written) appeared in the Seattle papers a few years back.

[Stefan]

I like this line in the article:

 

"But Luke Laeser, 29, who spent two months last year affixing the route's 380 bolts, says the route is just too dangerous without bolts."

 

Hugh? Then why climb it? I thought climbing was dangerous. If I had that attitude, then I would be bolting Beckey class 4 sections. Beckey class 4 is SCARY!

[richard_noggin]

I don't care if they chop all the bolts, I have a rack and know how to use it.

But in that case the cracks will be seeing way too much action , every try to get on Godzilla lately?

[Sphinx]

I'd draw a line. I like sport climbing, but we should lay down some lines. No retrobolting old lines, without the consent of the FA party. No bolts in the mountains. No overbolting (ie Flag). Leave the trad bastions alone, but don't chop all sport crags. This ain't too hard, is it? Oh, and if a rap anchor at trad area preserves trees, etc, leave it be.

[catbirdseat]

Mr Seuryncks needs an old fashioned "attitude adjustment". I'm sure there are plenty of climbers around (who don't like bolted cracks) to do it too.

[mattp]

What I saw in the article was that Mr. Seurynks put up a bolted climb, and Mr. Thesanga chopped it. Seurynks was mad about it, and Thesanga said he had chopped bolts that were blatantly unnecessary. Like the other thread on this topic today, I wonder if anybody has any real information here? Did Seurynks put bolts next to cracks? If he did, were they belay bolts or pro bolts? What is this 400 foot dangerous cliff like? What is the history of the place?

[chucK]

Read the original internet flamewar! The aggrieved Mr. Sewernick is portrayed by himself. Mr. Thesenga goes by the handle "jo momma".

[catbirdseat]

The article said that Mr Seuryncks went back and replaced the bolts. Based on what Mr. Thesenga stated, he was justified in chopping those bolts and should go chop them again until "Mr. Sewernicks" either runs out of bolt money or get's tired of hauling his drill.

 

"Each bolt was drilled within a foot of a simple nut or cam placement that even a day-three novice could safely fish in."

 

It appears that the two agree on the facts, just differ in philosophy. Sewernick thinks that because it is okay with the first ascensionists, a mixed trad climb can be converted into a sport climb. Screw that!

[mattp]

Catbird - I think most climbers on this board probably agree that bolts do not belong within a foot of a nut placement that a three-day novice could safely utilize. Did you know this was what he had done?

 

[catbirdseat]

Actually, Seuryncks in his rebuttal denies that his bolts were that close to gear placements, but doesn't elaborate.

 

"All of the bolts were not placed next to obvious gear placements, as you suggested."

 

JT didn't chop all the bolts either, just the ones next to obvious placements.

[chelle]

I find it interesting that the article is on the front page of the WSJ. Agree with Matt, how is this interesting to the general public? How does it help the image of the sport? Is the Journal trying to get on some trend wave/interest in this sport with incidents like amputations, big accidents and rescues, and deaths from soloing. Weird.

[catbirdseat]

It's conflict. Conflict between those with big egos sells copy. Doesn't really matter what the argument is about. It's emotions.

[Szyjakowski]

i've said it before and i say it again.

Read: Its the media stupid!

easy and fast read

[catbirdseat]

This all happend last September. I can hardly believe it hasn't come up on cc.com before now. I did a search and didn't turn up anything.

[mattp]

Michelle, I didn't mean to suggest that it would be of no interest to the general public, only that I would expect most to be unable to understand the issue and the earlier statement that it might appear "arcane" is merely commenting on what would be expected. Wouldn't we think the same thing about the latest controversy between the bird watchers who get together at a conference to yet again argue about whether the same species or sub-species of warblers should be split into two species or sub-species?

 

I think it's OK to see the issue in print as long as it isn't portrayed to be some kind of out-of-control conflict waged by a bunch of lunatics.

 

In this thread and the other thread I saw what looked to me like there may have been some armchair speculation and uninformed condemnation of what somebody else did 1,000 miles away, based on some unknown third person's suggesting that something MAY have been overbolted or retrobolted.

[lummox]

drilled then got chopped. like bobbitt.