senseless bolting

[mattp]

Bronco said:

What's the difference between adding belay bolts at a crack "for safety" and bolts at a crack mid pitch "for saftey".

 

It is a matter of style. Many people feel that placing gear on lead is part of the challenge of rock climbing and that you dumb-down the climb if you eliminate the need to place pro, whereas they don't think it is an imporant part of the challenge to be able to set up and manage a gear-only belay. Also, in the case of rap stations at least, some prefer the lower visual impact of bolts and chain whereas others think the less permanent installation of a sling around a tree or threaded through a piton is better.

[mark]

IceIceBaby said:

There is no need to bolt a crack especially when it offers such a good pro…as it seems here it is not a rap station it is a belay station and BTW on cathedral u can walk off or use the abundant rap anchors on the neighboring

routs

 

The picture you call "crack bolt 2" clearly shows 2 rap rings on the bolts that would indicate this is a rappel anchor. Wether or not that justifies it's placement or not, is hard to say.

[cj001f]

mattp said:

I'm sorry you don't like my tone, Bronco, but I just feel rather strongly that there are is a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to bolting ethics.

 

How can there be a "misinformation" about ethics?

[slaphappy]

...

[Dru]

how about some sensuous bolting...

 

[insert picture of nipple ring here]

[Crackbolter]

Bronco said:

What's the difference between adding belay bolts at a crack "for safety" and bolts at a crack mid pitch "for saftey". That's the paradox I guess I don't understand that maybe some of you more experienced or philosophical people can answer.

I think you already answered your question Bronco. The bolts are for safety. You are refering to crag routes that are approached by day hiking. Quit wasting your time debating roadside crags and get out into the mountains. There you won't have to worry nearly as much about bolts. Many times you will wish you had your own hand drill or at least brought your own hammer and pins because the climbers who established the routes were better than you or at least much more bold.

Edited August 7, 2003 by Crackbolter

[mattp]

cj001f said:

How can there be a "misinformation" about ethics?

 

The suggestion that allowing bolted belay/rappel stations leads to bolting cracks for pro is an example of misinformation that is often brought into the bolting debate. I don't think history, in Washington at least, has shown this to be true but people bring this idea up periodically.

 

Another example of what I perceive as "misinformation" is the suggestion that land managers don't want to see bolts in the rock. In general, I think history has shown that most land managers don't care about bolts at all unless they lead to an invasion by hundreds of climbers and their dogs, or unless they lead to some other problem such as, in Boulder Canyon, police problems stemming from bolt wars. Climbers care very deeply about bolts; most land managers really don't.

[cj001f]

mattp said:

Another example of what I perceive as "misinformation" is the suggestion that land managers don't want to see bolts in the rock.

 

In the East at least that's most definitely NOT misinformation. The New York Departmant of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has recently banned all fixed anchors - with particular emphasis on bolts - in the Giant/Dix wilderness (that includes Chapel Pond Slab)http://www.neice.com/Articles/FixedAnchors.htm

 

[mattp]

Does the fact that bolts have been banned in one wilderness area that comes to your mind right away indicate that this is a big issue with land managers in general? You will find some rangers here in the west who dislike bolts, as well, and it IS becoming an issue that is increasingly on their radar screen. However, I still think it is much more of an issue with climbers, and not surprisingly so, because we are so much more intimately involved with the crags. I think it is fair to say that irate climbers have brought the issue to the attention of the land managers more than the other way around.

[IceIceBaby]

mark said:

The picture you call "crack bolt 2" clearly shows 2 rap rings on the bolts that would indicate this is a rappel anchor. Wether or not that justifies it's placement or not, is hard to say.

I guess u had to climb there once to see what I’m talking about (allot of time they using the rings in order to create more room for biners to avoid clusterfuck at the belay…otherwise u will see a chain to avoid the American triangle)

BTW pendulum is one of the most esthetic and well protectable line on “Mordor wall” in Cathedral and it goes at 11+

[cj001f]

mattp said:

Does the fact that bolts have been banned in one wilderness area that comes to your mind right away indicate that this is a big issue with land managers in general

 

The NYSDEC runs the Adirondak park. The largest park in the Lower 48 states. With easily a lifetime of climbing. That they're specifically targetting fixed anchors is a big issue.

[mattp]

A rulemaking committee for the US Forest Service also enacted a fixed anchor ban that applied briefly to all National Forests. It IS an important issue. But your average district ranger is more concerned about whether or not his rangers are going to be called in on rescues, or whether they are going to get complaints from other user groups or about other ways in which the use of bolts will directly affect their daily operations than they are about some ethical question of whether or not it is "moral" to permanently alter the rock.

[rbw1966]

TG and I had a conversation about fixed anchors at Beacon Rock with the park Ranger.

 

I seem to recall many many discussions with the Forest Service, BLM, etc about fixed anchors in the wilderness. I'm not sure why Matt thinks its not a big deal (forgive me if I misunderstood you Matt) with land managers because I would argue it most certainly is. Not with the same passion and hyperbole as climbers but its there nonetheless.

[erik]

rbw1966 said:

TG and I had a conversation about fixed anchors at Beacon Rock with the park Ranger.

 

I seem to recall many many discussions with the Forest Service, BLM, etc about fixed anchors in the wilderness. I'm not sure why Matt thinks its not a big deal (forgive me if I misunderstood you Matt) with land managers because I would argue it most certainly is. Not with the same passion and hyperbole as climbers but its there nonetheless.

 

what was the outcome of the discussion with the park ranger? is he for them? against them? what?

 

[j_b]

mattp said:

Bronco said:

What's the difference between adding belay bolts at a crack "for safety" and bolts at a crack mid pitch "for saftey".

 

It is a matter of style. Many people feel that placing gear on lead is part of the challenge of rock climbing and that you dumb-down the climb if you eliminate the need to place pro, whereas they don't think it is an imporant part of the challenge to be able to set up and manage a gear-only belay. Also, in the case of rap stations at least, some prefer the lower visual impact of bolts and chain whereas others think the less permanent installation of a sling around a tree or threaded through a piton is better.

 

the arguments used to justify bolt belays are usually the same as for bolting climbs with natural protection (convenience, save gear for later, safety, ...). i am not necessarily advocating gear belays at all cost but it seems it'd be more consistent with the ethics of clean climbing and it would definitely make a number of climbs more difficult (the 'managing belays is not as important' thing is bogus imo).

[rbw1966]

He was for fixed anchors if the visual impact was low. Our discussion was more oriented to the fact that someone keeps taking chains off the rap stations and that webbing accumulates over the year leaving a bit of an eyesore. He's also concerned someones going to get hurt when webbing fails or that fights will occur over chain removal.

 

In general he seemed to be ok with the bolting ethic at Beacon, i.e. fixed anchors but no bolted cracks.

[erik]

kewl

 

i would think all he has to do (save for the washington beaurucratic machine) was to pass a rule for the park stating such that visual impact must be considedered or something??

 

i wonder if we could get a rider put on the next budget passed by the state legislature?

[rbw1966]

They'd assess a fee for sure.

[Bronco]

Crackbolter said: I think you already answered your question Bronco. The bolts are for safety. You are refering to crag routes that are approached by day hiking. Quit wasting your time debating roadside crags and get out into the mountains. There you won't have to worry nearly as much about bolts. Many times you will wish you had your own hand drill or at least brought your own hammer and pins because the climbers who established the routes were better than you or at least much more bold.

I don't understand your first point that the bolts are for saftey. Are you suggesting that it's ok as long as it makes a climb safer? Why not fix a line and move a jumar up as you climb?

 

On your second point regarding the mountains, I strongly disagree. If a route is established and typically climbed without fixed protection, (Alpine or Crag), who am I to put a bolt in and "dumb it down" for the next, stronger climber than I am. I'll back off before I put a bolt in to compensate for my lack of ability to repeat a route and climb something easier.

 

Maybe I'm just being nieve and my opinion will change with more experience. But, right now I don't see the line between why certain bolts next to cracks are acceptable and some aren't so I'm satisfied just listen and learn. I guess it's not all black and white, just pastey and gray like my belly.

Edited August 7, 2003 by Bronco

[Dru]

i will bolt any cracks i feel like and chop any bolts i feel like and if you don't like it tough

[Dru]

word is Dan - just bought a crowbar and bought Fido a Bosch

[Fence_Sitter]

well without knowing the area well... assuming what i hear about the hiek out and easy rappels nearby... why would you need another rap station??? the gear there was uber bomber... pointless in my opinion, but i guess others disagree...

[Peter_Puget]

rbw1966 said:

He was for fixed anchors if the visual impact was low. Our discussion was more oriented to the fact that someone keeps taking chains off the rap stations and that webbing accumulates over the year leaving a bit of an eyesore. He's also concerned someones going to get hurt when webbing fails or that fights will occur over chain removal.

 

In general he seemed to be ok with the bolting ethic at Beacon, i.e. fixed anchors but no bolted cracks.

 

The concern over conflict between climbers is quite real. I am sure almost everyone surfing this site is not for the bolting of cracks. I am even more certain that those who view it as ok are not going to have their minds changed by any debate on this site. As a side bar I would note that in several areas land managers have asked climbers to install rap anchors so that easy walk off are not used in order to reduce erosion.

 

 

PP

 

[chucK]

What an interesting and cordial discussion of bolting. You guys are the best. Let me please step in here and take a couple jabs.

 

I think it is interesting that North Bend and Vantage are being used as examples of places that bolts didn't ruin . Seems like using that argument is kinda shooting yourself in the foot if you ask me.

 

The mention of bolts on the Canary ledge intrigued me too. Though I don't advocate chopping them like Thinker did ( ), they do seem pretty unnecessary and stupid. You don't need 'em to rapell. They are big fat 1/2" pieces of convenience. They probably help speed up the trains of people climbing up Canary and Saber, so that's probably a good thing. But a lot closer to 'convenience' than 'necessary' or even 'useful'.

 

Hell for convenience, I think it'd be pretty convenient if someone went and bolted just one more pitch on Total Soul so you wouldn't have to carry all those heavy cams up that brutal Three O'Clock Rock trail.

 

Oh, and I'm totally for bolted belays with chains wherever that belay is going to be often rappeled from.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Bronco said:

Crackbolter said: I think you already answered your question Bronco. The bolts are for safety. You are refering to crag routes that are approached by day hiking. Quit wasting your time debating roadside crags and get out into the mountains. There you won't have to worry nearly as much about bolts. Many times you will wish you had your own hand drill or at least brought your own hammer and pins because the climbers who established the routes were better than you or at least much more bold.

I don't understand your first point that the bolts are for saftey. Are you suggesting that it's ok as long as it makes a climb safer? Why not fix a line and move a jumar up as you climb?

 

On your second point regarding the mountains, I strongly disagree. If a route is established and typically climbed without fixed protection, (Alpine or Crag), who am I to put a bolt in and "dumb it down" for the next, stronger climber than I am. I'll back off before I put a bolt in to compensate for my lack of ability to repeat a route and climb something easier.

 

Maybe I'm just being nieve and my opinion will change with more experience. But, right now I don't see the line between why certain bolts next to cracks are acceptable and some aren't so I'm satisfied just listen and learn. I guess it's not all black and white, just pastey and gray like my belly.

 

Quit pickin on the fat kids.

 

The only responses seem to be - You aint climbed this or that or enough or very long. It doesn't take long for some people to form their own opinions.