mattp Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 I am sure somebody could write a better poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Mattp – In theory the poll is nice but what about implementation? For example, I have seen some claims that a crack can be adequately protected with RPs, yet I call BS on those claims. How would cc.com judge such claims and who would judge? Granted some things are obvious others; however are not. I question whether this really the best way for cc.com to broach the subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 Mr. Cramer: I do not intend to suggest that we at cc.com should take it upon ourselves to be the rock police. Perhaps that is a serious flaw in the way I wrote the poll. I should have said, for example, "Bolted cracks are showing up every day and the practice is threatening crack climbing in the State. There should never be any bolts next to cracks at any climbing area, trad or sport" without connecting any remedy to this statement. Obviously, what you call good pro, somebody else may not approve of. RP's can be OK, though -- for example, the crux move of Davis-Holland is protectable only with RP's, isn't it? But you can place six of them if you want to. My point with the poll was to see what people think, and although I admit I need to go back to school on how to write a fair poll, I bet we would find that most climbers are more in agreement with the middle two options rather than an absolute ban on bolted cracks in all conceiveable situations or an absolute free-for-all. You and others are right when they say we are not likely to reach an agreement on these issues through an on-line debate at cc.com, and I certainly don't mean to imply that we could or should be making the decisions for climbers state-wide in THIS forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Mr. Cramer ??? Enough of that talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 mattp said: Bolted cracks are becoming too common. Some systematic corrective measures are needed such as, perhaps, removing all bolts next to cracks that are generally agreed readily protectable without the bolts. You will never get consensus on what is readily protectible. However, I find it ironic and moronic that there are more bolted crack lines in the Icicle than at Smith Rock!!!! mattp said: Bolted cracks are generally a bad thing and we need to make much more of an issue of this; we should try to correct the situation by, perhaps, removing bolts next to cracks at any "trad" climbing area (there may be exceptions); It may be OK to have a few bolted cracks in a sport climbing area. What is the Icicle considered, then? My party climbed several routes in the Icicle this past weekend that were an absolute tragedy, with closely spaced bolts protecting what would be very reasonalbe trad or mixed routes. Case in point, the 5.8 route at Stone's Throw. The 5.9 would go on gear too, or at least mixed after the first two bolts. I'm all for developing an area, and am (somewhat) thankful for all the work that the locals have put into their route development, but some of this shit is way overboard. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimL Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Most of the times these debates seem so silly but I have to admit that portions the development in the Icicle over the last couple of years have been overboard. I would have to admit that bolting in the name of progression of the sport is one thing, but whats going on right now is degrading to the sport. It seems to me that there are places that it is acceptable to grid bolt lines. That’s obviously unacceptable in a traditional area. This is not only a traditional area, but the lines that are being grid bolted are contrived. Its like people are throwing up bolts all over the place, connecting the dots in a unseemingly fashion and then calling it a climb. If it’s a quality line then do it. I’m seeing many routes that look like people just wanted to do a route so they cleaned it then bolted it in a fashion that it would go and called it a route. I like to clip bolts, but there is a time and place for everything. To Alex’s point, I’ve seen more bolts next to cracks at Leavenworth in the last couple of years then at Smith rock. Generally, more bolts on the average new route at Leavenworth then typical Smith rock route. Go figure. Alex – Off the topic but post some pictures of last weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I think many people have indicated here on cc.com that they think the Icicle Creek area has been over-developed, and that the people putting up routes over there put too many bolts next to cracks. I don't think anybody has come on this board to say they thought otherwise. CC.Com may not represent the general climbing community, but it looks as if we think that bolting cracks is a problem in the Icicle. How big of a problem is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 mattp said: How big of a problem is it? 4563.48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 i dont think bolting cracks is a problem at all. you just plug in some gear. hang. drill. then whack in the bolt. whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 I can never seem to get the bolts to stay in the cracks - maybe I'm doing it wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I've climbed Condomorphine, and there were bolts next to cracks. I've been to the Pearly Gates, and there wasn't much of this. I've visited several other of the "new" crags in the canyon, and my impression is that there are a lot of rather repetitive 6-bolt 5.10 face climbs, but I didn't see more than a total of two or three bolts next to a crack anywhere. I'm sure they exist, and I read one discussion (was it last Spring) about how somebody thought it necessary to put bolts next to a crack in some crumbly rock, but others thought it was totally inappropriate. Again I ask: how widespread does this practice appear to be? Just how much of a problem do we have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attitude Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Alex said: mattp said: Bolted cracks are generally a bad thing and we need to make much more of an issue of this; we should try to correct the situation by, perhaps, removing bolts next to cracks at any "trad" climbing area (there may be exceptions); It may be OK to have a few bolted cracks in a sport climbing area. What is the Icicle considered, then? My party climbed several routes in the Icicle this past weekend that were an absolute tragedy, with closely spaced bolts protecting what would be very reasonalbe trad or mixed routes. Case in point, the 5.8 route at Stone's Throw. The 5.9 would go on gear too, or at least mixed after the first two bolts. (Crackbolter's post seemed to have disappeared.) Why should there be any bolted, protectable cracks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I can think of a couple reasons why I might accept a bolt for a "protectable" crack. First, I'd accept a bolt if the "pro" would be unsafe (picture a flaring crack in crumbly rock, or an expanding flake or something), on the crux move a climb -- particularly if the rest of the climb was entirely bolt protected. Second, I'd accept a bolt next to a crack if the crack required a #5 Camelot and it was in the middle of a three pitch crag climb that required nothing else bigger than a #1. I also accept the fact that there are a couple of bolted cracks at Little Si, though I am very glad that there are a couple that have NOT been bolted. Fire at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackbolter Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Sorry for pulling my last post. My point was moot. I climbed there last year and loved it. I think there are only 4 bolts though. I didn't notice a bolted crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 Crackbolter - Are you talking about "Stone's Throw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackbolter Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Yes, Stone's Throw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 there is a bolted crack on the cover of the new guidebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackbolter Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 No Dru, it is an expanding flake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 that's a crack. it may expand but so do large cams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancegranite Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 this stuff is great! you guys are never going to solve anything!(but,it makes for fun reading) down here in sunny las vegas nv,the "locals" had the same sort of problem..grandstanding,backbiting personal wars...general bullshit. now,here's the funny part... they put together a liason council filled with these folks. add a few access issues and enviromental concerns, the council was too busy waring to notice the 2 camping areas we lost and oh yeah,a total ban on bolting. down here the sun reaches 120 and UV is murder on webbing . I have torn webbing apart with.. MY BARE HANDS. on rappel? your fighting is making the sport look even more dorky. l.granite P.S. see you guys down here in november!(we can spot you ..pale,beard?,5.10a,dogs,subaru) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 lancegranite said: this stuff is great! you guys are never going to solve anything!(but,it makes for fun reading) down here in sunny las vegas nv,the "locals" had the same sort of problem..grandstanding,backbiting personal wars...general bullshit. now,here's the funny part... they put together a liason council filled with these folks. add a few access issues and enviromental concerns, the council was too busy waring to notice the 2 camping areas we lost and oh yeah,a total ban on bolting. down here the sun reaches 120 and UV is murder on webbing . I have torn webbing apart with.. MY BARE HANDS. on rappel? your fighting is making the sport look even more dorky. l.granite P.S. see you guys down here in november!(we can spot you ..pale,beard?,5.10a,dogs,subaru) Lance? A wake-up call? This is not the police state Nevada is. We don't have development infringing upon the very areas we are talking about, nor the hundreds of thousands of visitors per year. This is "cascade" climbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 E-You are correct to note that this is not Nevada, but I think there is a danger that climbers' infighting might lead us to fail to successfully address issues that are a much greater threat to local climbing areas than these arguments over bolting. Hell, a certain poster here said (today) that he'd prefer Smith Rock State Park had been closed to climbing than to have allowed it to be developed as it has been. Might somebody with this perspective seek to have climbing banned at Leavenworth? I'm asking how much of an issue bolted cracks really are to try to encourage some perspective. Opinions vary as to whether or not there is a bolting "crisis" but, at Leavenworth, I believe we face a much greater threat stemming from the fact that we have a Ranger District that has been vaguely hostile to climbing for thirty years and many climbers are ignoring private landowners' rights so we might end up with the Sheriff against us as well. I could be wrong, but I think property owners and the rangers are much more concerned about parking, vandalism, trash, unsanitary practices, erosion, and other problems generated by climbers than they are about the proliferation of bolts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 I think Lance's observation is quite relevant to our corner of the world. Our current big tussle over bolts, about which I tend to agree with Mattp that it doesn't really seem like much of an issue in the real world, may well distract from or actually work counter to more pressing concerns like access itself. Moreover, this is a very public board, and there are lots more lurkers reading than there are people writing, and to be sure some of those watching and making notes are both media representatives and folks from the National Park Service and the Forest Service. People act as if this is all just on the internet and doesn't matter a hill of beans, but in fact its written down in a public forum that's far more durable than any conversation over a pitcher of beer somewhere. While the roosters try to assert their place in the pecking order, the fox may be checking out the henhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figger_Eight Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 I could be wrong, but I think property owners and the rangers are much more concerned about parking, vandalism, trash, unsanitary practices, erosion, and other problems generated by climbers than they are about the proliferation of bolts. No, you're absolutely right Matt. Back in the "cave" thread I mentioned this as a possible reason for the restrictions there - I didn't once mention bolts. It's not bolts they're concerned about, but rather the increasing impact climbers are having as a user group. Where the whole bolting debate is relevant for me is that gyms and sport crags are shifting the climbing culture in a direction that is bad for the environment, meaning bad for access, bad for relationships with land owners and bad for being regulated by The Tool. Learning to climb from a mountaineering/alpine/trad (whatever) perspective meant abiding by low impact, Leave No Trace ethics. I see it all too often now that a new generation of climbers coming from the gyms and learning at sport crags don't have those same ideals. I would just hate for climbers to one day be lumped in the same catagory as snowmobile and dirtbike riders in terms of how we affect whatever areas we choose to recreate in. My 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 warrior wall upper eight mile buttress these two crags have a significatn amount of crack bolting. i was told that the bolts are placed for directionals. please see my new topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.