debate fodder: lots of new climbers

[cracked]

[olyclimber]

Aaaaahh..... Molly Ringworm. This thread is my favorite.

 

 

 

 

[chucK]

JayB said:

Then you are talking about the extent of bolting that's appropriate, which something very different than the:

 

-Bolts are anethema because they modify the rock.

-Bolts on uprotectable lines mar the experience that largely nonexistent climbers would have on sections of unprotectable rock featuring nonexistent routes.

-Bolts neutralize or render trivial all risk in all cases on all routes no matter how infrequently they are placed.

 

...arguments that seem to constitute the gist of people's objections to bolting. These are the sorts of bogus assertions that come up time and time again on this board, and I am both delighted and relieved to learn that you don't personally ascribe to them.

 

Set a strawman up, knock a strawman down, set a strawman up, knock a strawman dow...hey wait you actually just set them up in this post!

 

I think some people on this board have reasonable gripes versus some bolts. This thread was a pretty fun way to talk about them. Making up over-the-top bogus examples to mischaracterize others doesn't help much though. Did anybody talk about escalators up El Cap yet?

 

Once again I see you here as the one that doesn't want to discuss things in a reasonable manner, much more than new and improved JKassidy/Pope/Dwayner.

[chucK]

JayB said:

And to digress for a moment, one thing that has always confused me are the folks that go to an area that is known to have a sport ethic, rack up their draws at the base of a line that obviously features bolts that are X feet apart, may even look at the guidebook and notice that there are Z bolts in Y feet - then proceed to climb the thing and complain that it wasn't adventurous enough for them because the bolts were too close together for their tastes.

 

And Holy CRAP!! Now we're not even allowed to complain about a route we don't like. I brought my example up to counter your bogus assertion that there were no overbolted routes in Washington. Now you imply that I was an idiot for even getting on them in the first place?! Another sound debating tactic.

 

For a while there I was definitely digging the absence of poinltess anti-clean-climbing tirades on this thread.

 

Sorta like intentionally going to a gay bar, looking around, then complaining loudly about the lack of women IMO. If the place doesn't offer what you are looking for, why go there in the first place?

 

Sorry JB, some of us just aren't as good as you at sniffing out those gay bars.

 

 

[mattp]

There there, ChucK. JayB gets a little testy with arguments, perhaps, but so does your pal Kassidy, and so do you and so do I. These are thorny questions.

 

Kassidy proposes to draw the line such that "permanent" alteration of the rock IS NOT OK, and impliedly more temporary alteration such as cleaning IS OK (or else there would be no just about no hard rock climbing of any kind in Western Washington). I think his categorization in this respect fails in part because in his anti-bolting stance he fails to address how it is that a 3/8" x 2" hole in the rock, or the installation of a bolt hanger, is more environmentally damaging than the removal of entire plant colonies for crack pro or how two bolts and some chain are less visually intrusive than a heap of slings around trees and flakes. I also think it completely dismisses what is for most of us a core concern: we want both crack and face climbs, and we want them to be "reasonably" protected (whatever that is). However, there is some logic to his litmus test.

 

JayB attempted to draw the line a different way. He suggests that he is more interested in preserving individual moves over stone than minimizing the intrusion of bolts, and he says protection bolts are OK, chipping holds or similar activities that actually mlake the climbing easier are not. We have discussed how this litmus test fails because it doesn't assess other mpacts like those of cleaning the rock, which can be acceptable or not depending on how aggressively it is carried out, or the degree to which bolting may remove the challenge from a route, and it totally omits any concern for environmental impact.

 

The issues that any bolting policy would need to address should in my view include at least the following:

1. Safety. Is a line going to be safe for one who is climbing at their limit or not? What is considered safe. Do all climbs have to be safe?

 

2. Aesthetic Concerns. Is the line visible from the base of the cliff or from a nearby road or trail? Is it attractive when you are on it? How many bolts are we willing to look at in a given area and under what circumstances?

 

3. Adventure/challenge. Is the line going to provide a sense of adventure or is it to be so closely proteted and well marked that one need not ever fear injury or losing their way - even for a moment? Is the line going to offer a physical challenge or does it even have to do so in order to be worthy?

 

4. Associated Environmental Impacts. Aside from the aesthetic concerns noted above, will the line and others near it draw crowds of climbers, or will it lead to erosion issues, drive off nesting birds, etc.? How much cleaning and trailbuilding will be needed?

 

5. Public Relations. Is the line in an area closed to climbing or where conflicts with other users are likely to arise? Is it in some other climber's personal playground where it will cause conflict within the climbing community? It it on private property?

 

There are a lot of tradeoffs here, and a lot of different climbing styles. I don't think we will ever agree on what is "in" and what is "out" but we may be able to make progress toward defining what we think the tradeoffs are. The bottom line, I think, is as ChucK wrote that:

 

 

I'm not saying that noone should ever make a line more easy to climb. I'm saying that people should realize that everytime they do, they might step on some peoples toes, and thus they should do it with at least a little bit of humility.

 

This applies to bolters and bolt pullers, or to climbers who are involved in local climbing politics and those who are not. With this realization, there may come some measure of tact and restraing. Without it, there will probably not.

 

[chucK]

Holy topic generator Mattman!

 

I think we could discuss each of these individually in the long dreary days ahead. Beats arguing over how we value TR's or other such "CC.com on CC.com" topics. It might be fun and slanderous to rate some existing routes by these criteria too. But perhaps it could wait until Monday .

 

Another topic

6. FA ethic. Does it still prevail? Is it really our only hope in terms of a final arbitration in bolting disputes?

 

mattp said:

The issues that any bolting policy would need to address should in my view include at least the following:

1. Safety. Is a line going to be safe for one who is climbing at their limit or not? What is considered safe. Do all climbs have to be safe?

 

2. Aesthetic Concerns. Is the line visible from the base of the cliff or from a nearby road or trail? Is it attractive when you are on it? How many bolts are we willing to look at in a given area and under what circumstances?

 

3. Adventure/challenge. Is the line going to provide a sense of adventure or is it to be so closely proteted and well marked that one need not ever fear injury or losing their way - even for a moment? Is the line going to offer a physical challenge or does it even have to do so in order to be worthy?

 

4. Associated Environmental Impacts. Aside from the aesthetic concerns noted above, will the line and others near it draw crowds of climbers, or will it lead to erosion issues, drive off nesting birds, etc.? How much cleaning and trailbuilding will be needed?

 

5. Public Relations. Is the line in an area closed to climbing or where conflicts with other users are likely to arise? Is it in some other climber's personal playground where it will cause conflict within the climbing community?

 

[lummox]

chucK said:

Another topic

6. FA ethic. Does it still prevail? Is it really our only hope in terms of a final arbitration in bolting disputes?

it has been said many times. must be true: ethics are for easy climbs.

i do get bummed when i hear about chipping. even if the new route goes at 12 or more. it is just lame imo. who needs another hard sport climb anyhow?

[joe_average]

What's the big fuss about chipping going hand-in-hand with sport climbing. Ask the strongest young (sport) climbers out there. Graham, Sharma, and many of the rest put down chipping and chippers, sometimes quite vehemently. There aren't many climbers who support chipping, and as a community the practice is discouraged. I'm with RuMR, chipping and bolting are two very different ethical considerations.

[Dru]

i chipped deep holds in yo mama last night using a nesting peregrine and she bolted!

[pope]

joe_average said:

What's the big fuss about chipping going hand-in-hand with sport climbing. Ask the strongest young (sport) climbers out there. Graham, Sharma, and many of the rest put down chipping and chippers, sometimes quite vehemently. There aren't many climbers who support chipping, and as a community the practice is discouraged. I'm with RuMR, chipping and bolting are two very different ethical considerations.

 

I think they are different activities with somewhat different results, but in many ways they are equivalent:

 

1. Both a bolt and a chipped hold can be employed to "make a route go" which would otherwise present too great of a challenge. It has been argued by bolt enthusiasts that bolts only reduce danger and the cerebral challenge of leading, whereas chipping may reduce the physical challenge. However, it is not obvious that these elements (physical/mental) are completely separable. With a bolt at your hip, and with the next one just above your head, you can afford to climb with more abandon, you can push to the point of falling off. For a given grade, you can be less fit, less of an athlete and still try to push through on a sport route, whereas on a route where gear is sparse, you must climb with much more physical control, with enough reserve to climb down if you can't make it to the next gear. In short, you've got to be better prepared physically. Put 25 bolts on the Bachar Yerian and a novice 5.11 climber will certainly get the redpoint. In its current state, you should probably be a 5.12 climber to get on that thing. Which is why I haven't. Anyway, bolts do diminish both mental and physical challenge in this way, which makes them seem similar to chipping holds.

 

2. Whether it's a bolt or a chipped hold, the decision to employ it will alter the appearance of the rock, and the change is arguably permanent. A bolt is always a visual intrusion on the wilderness which is noticed by every climber and often by other recreational users; a chipped hold is often a visual intrusion that can be notice by climbers.

 

Not everybody agrees that bolts are unaesthetic intrusions on the wilderness experience, and not everybody agrees that chipped holds are either.

 

3. In order to employ a bolt or a chipped hold, you have to assume that future parties will appreciate your permanent alterations. Otherwise you've got to be willing to say that you don't care what everybody else thinks and carry out your plan. In this case, you're basically stating that the route you're establishing is in some sense your private property.

 

Bolts and chipped holds are certainly different in that currently far more people approve of bolts. My point is that this difference is not based on logic and ethical principle but is merely popular sentiment.

[pope]

Anyway, I thought this thread had evolved into a discussion of......

 

[Off_White]

sure J, but then so are cleaning, scrubbing, using chalk, placing pins, and building trails equivalent activities. If you want to argue that chalk and cleaning are more temporary alterations, then I suggest that your perspective is too anthropocentric.

 

You're somewhat right that the distinction between bolts and chipped holds is one of social convention, but that's true of any of the "rules" around climbing. It's a game humans play. By the same token there is no difference between an ascent of some desperate thin overhanging crack and that of an eight year old who leans over the top and says, "Hey mister, there's a trail up the back." Yes, climbers generally agree as a social convention that bolts are okay and chipped holds are not. Personally, I think that's enough to make a difference between the two practices, and your theory in no way implies that the one leads to the other.

[Off_White]

Oh, and if you wanna do the "chat about Molly" thing, I just saw one of her first films, "Spacehunter: adventures in the forbidden zone" on the big screen in 3D (glasses and all) just last weekend.

 

 

[pope]

Off_White said:

sure J, but then so are cleaning, scrubbing, using chalk, placing pins, and building trails equivalent activities. If you want to argue that chalk and cleaning are more temporary alterations, then I suggest that your perspective is too anthropocentric.

 

You're somewhat right that the distinction between bolts and chipped holds is one of social convention, but that's true of any of the "rules" around climbing. It's a game humans play. By the same token there is no difference between an ascent of some desperate thin overhanging crack and that of an eight year old who leans over the top and says, "Hey mister, there's a trail up the back." Yes, climbers generally agree as a social convention that bolts are okay and chipped holds are not. Personally, I think that's enough to make a difference between the two practices, and your theory in no way implies that the one leads to the other.

 

My theory doesn't imply it, and I don't suggest it. I'm just saying that if we're going to have a discussion about bolts, we should be careful about the reasons we use to advocate their use, since the next generation could easily tell you to open your mind to chipping (dont' look back man), and the logic behind your endorsement of the sport climbing nonethic will come right back atcha, Cleopatra.

 

Now about Molly......

 

[pope]

Off_White said:

Oh, and if you wanna do the "chat about Molly" thing, I just saw one of her first films, "Spacehunter: adventures in the forbidden zone" on the big screen in 3D (glasses and all) just last weekend.

 

 

 

Tell me more! Where would one view this masterpiece?

[JayB]

chucK said:

JayB said:

Then you are talking about the extent of bolting that's appropriate, which something very different than the:

 

-Bolts are anethema because they modify the rock.

-Bolts on uprotectable lines mar the experience that largely nonexistent climbers would have on sections of unprotectable rock featuring nonexistent routes.

-Bolts neutralize or render trivial all risk in all cases on all routes no matter how infrequently they are placed.

 

...arguments that seem to constitute the gist of people's objections to bolting. These are the sorts of bogus assertions that come up time and time again on this board, and I am both delighted and relieved to learn that you don't personally ascribe to them.

 

Set a strawman up, knock a strawman down, set a strawman up, knock a strawman dow...hey wait you actually just set them up in this post!

 

I think some people on this board have reasonable gripes versus some bolts. This thread was a pretty fun way to talk about them. Making up over-the-top bogus examples to mischaracterize others doesn't help much though. Did anybody talk about escalators up El Cap yet?

 

Once again I see you here as the one that doesn't want to discuss things in a reasonable manner, much more than new and improved JKassidy/Pope/Dwayner.

 

Yeah Chuck, those are caricatures of arguments against bolting that I find both disingenuous and rediculous. Reductio ad Absurdem. It's what happends when you take positions like "bolts are wrong because they modify the rock" to their logical conclusion. You can articulate counterarguments, or you can call them strawmen and walk away.

 

The fact of the matter is that people have argued that bolts are unacceptable because they permanently modify the rock, without making the qualifying statements necessary to render this a sensible basis upon which to discuss when using bolts is reasonable. If permanently modifying the rock in order to render an ascent possible is out of bounds, then there's a whole slew of other practices that will have to be abandoned as well - as well the idea that bolting on lead is okay but bolting on rappel isn't. Not a logically sound proposition if rock modification is the litmus test.

 

Similarly, people have suggested that the addition of bolts to a line automatically diminishes the risk in such a way that the said line no longer presents any significant risk, and no longer retains the adventurous character it would have had otherwise - again without qualification. If we are talking about bolts next to gear placements, or bolts that are unnecessarily close, then I would agree with such statements, but a blanket condemnation of bolting on these grounds isn't persuasive because it just isn't accurate. Yeah - bolts a few feet apart reduce a climb to a purely physical challenge, but so does sewing up an easily protectable trad line with gear every few feet.

 

And as far as bolted sport routes are concerned, with very few exceptions these are lines that no one had ever climbed before the bolts were installed, so I honestly can't understand the "bolts tarnished the experience" argument as without the bolts, the experience in question would not have existed in the first place. Some bolted routes are bolted thoroughly enough to remove all but eliminate the likelihood of injury should the leader fall, some are death routes, most fall somewhere inbetween, with groundfall likely on a significant number of routes if the leader falls before the second or third clip. On those routes where the bolts are close enough together to eliminate the likelikhood of a long fall, any leader who wishes to can simply decline to clip what they deem to be superfluous bolts, or stick to routes that are bolted more to their liking, or decline to climb bolted routes altogether. Why people choose to do otherwise is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain.

 

If you find Pope's position on these matters more to your liking, then I suspect that has quite a bit to do with the fact that it is consistent with some of your long held beliefs, and very little to do with anything that I have said or the validity of the objections that I have raised to his assertions.

 

And finally, spare me the "Some of us don't want to entirely eliminate risk from climbing," business. I'm not sure how one could take that from my comments, but if that's what you think I have been arguing for, you are mistaken. If this is some sort of passive/aggressive variation on the trusty "climbing bolted routes makes you a coward and I am a tough guy" theme, then muster some of the boldness you purport to admire and say so in concrete terms. Last weekend's line will be my first counterargument, but you are welcome to try going down that road if you feel like it will get you somewhere.

[DougGeller]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about on this web site. Mostly not about climbing is about all I can tell.

[Off_White]

DougGeller said:

I have no idea what anyone is talking about on this web site. Mostly not about climbing is about all I can tell.

 

Dude, next time around, paste a big target on your ass, bend over, and post this in spray. This thread actually is about climbing, or at least a portion of the considerations about the sport, so please look both ways before you cross the street.

[chucK]

JayB said:

On those routes where the bolts are close enough together to eliminate the likelikhood of a long fall, any leader who wishes to can simply decline to clip what they deem to be superfluous bolts, or stick to routes that are bolted more to their liking, or decline to climb bolted routes altogether. Why people choose to do otherwise is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain.

 

This is the biggest piece of shit argument that pro-bolters throw around. It's particularly dangerous because it can be used to justify ANY bolt anywhere.

 

"Just skip the clip, dude" misses the whole point. It demonstrates that the user of this maxim has no idea of what he is taking away from climbers when he places a bolt. (This, by the way, is the main reason I am arguing with you. I think you are advocating taking something away from some climbers, but you don't even understand what you are taking away.)

 

Here is why "just skip the clips" is a non-starter. A route is bold because it is committing. If someone admires a route because it is bold, the committment is probably what they are admiring. If bolts are placed on such a route, it will lose it boldness, because just telling yourself you won't clip the bolts does not remove the committment. At any point, no matter what you told yourself before you started, you may wuss out and clip the bolt. You have the option. You are NOT committed. Thus the route is no longer bold.

Does this make sense?

 

And finally, spare me the "Some of us don't want to entirely eliminate risk from climbing," business. I'm not sure how one could take that from my comments, but if that's what you think I have been arguing for, you are mistaken.

 

Did I write that? I don't think I did. Your comments disparaging toproping versus leading demonstrate that you value at least some risk.

 

If this is some sort of passive/aggressive variation on the trusty "climbing bolted routes makes you a coward and I am a tough guy" theme, then muster some of the boldness you purport to admire and say so in concrete terms. Last weekend's line will be my first counterargument, but you are welcome to try going down that road if you feel like it will get you somewhere.

 

Where is this coming from? I never said I was bold. I never said you were a coward. I do get the impression from your comments that among the things you value in a particular climb, commitment/risk are not are not at the top of the list.

 

Do you think a bolt or two should be added to your line on Shuksan?

[mtn_mouse]

DougGeller said:

I have no idea what anyone is talking about on this web site. Mostly not about climbing is about all I can tell.

Well maybe you should limit your posting to: aqueousgeochemist.com

[pope]

Back to the subject boys....

 

[joe_average]

chucK said:

JayB said:

On those routes where the bolts are close enough together to eliminate the likelikhood of a long fall, any leader who wishes to can simply decline to clip what they deem to be superfluous bolts, or stick to routes that are bolted more to their liking, or decline to climb bolted routes altogether. Why people choose to do otherwise is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain.

 

This is the biggest piece of shit argument that pro-bolters throw around. It's particularly dangerous because it can be used to justify ANY bolt anywhere.

I have to agree with ChucK here. This is the argument used by some people to justify the rampant overbolting at Flagstone, OR. If bolts are two feet apart, this argument holds true, even though most people would agree that the route is way overbolted. Hence the flaw in the argument.

[olyclimber]

[JayB]

This is the biggest piece of shit argument that pro-bolters throw around. It's particularly dangerous because it can be used to justify ANY bolt anywhere.

 

"Just skip the clip, dude" misses the whole point. It demonstrates that the user of this maxim has no idea of what he is taking away from climbers when he places a bolt. (This, by the way, is the main reason I am arguing with you. I think you are advocating taking something away from some climbers, but you don't even understand what you are taking away.)

 

Here is why "just skip the clips" is a non-starter. A route is bold because it is committing. If someone admires a route because it is bold, the committment is probably what they are admiring. If bolts are placed on such a route, it will lose it boldness, because just telling yourself you won't clip the bolts does not remove the committment. At any point, no matter what you told yourself before you started, you may wuss out and clip the bolt. You have the option. You are NOT committed. Thus the route is no longer bold.

Does this make sense?

 

Yeah - a route with a bolt every 3 feet isn't bold. No news there. I am not arguing on behalf of this sort of route, but the mere fact that a few of them exist doesn't bother me either.

 

There's a wide spectrum of bolted routes out there, some of which are death routes, some of which are essentially riskless clipfests, most are somewhere in the middle. Yeah - a route with lots of bolts will dissapoint the person looking for long runouts, but by the same token a death route will take something away from the person who's primary interest is in the physical challenge. I think there's room for both, and easily enough routes out there to keep each camp happy. The solution for each camp is to restrict their climbing to routes that are consistent with their personal objectives. Easy enough. Just for the record - let me clarify what I consider reasonable guidelines for bolting.

 

1. No additional bolts on established routes without the FA's consent.

 

2. No bolts next to gear placements.

 

3. The best compromise when establishing new routes is to bolt them in such a manner that a leader who is competent at the grade can do so without a catastrophic outcome in the event of a fall on ground that is near the upper level of the difficulty they will encounter on the route. In practice this means that if you are putting up a 5.6 route there should be enough protection available for a 5.6 leader to do so without a catastrophic outcome in the event of a fall. If you are putting up a 5.10 route then an entire 5.6 pitch with no pro whatsoever is fine, as a competent 5.10 leader will not have any problem with that pitch.

 

4. Areas with a longstanding bolt-free ethic should stay that way and be spared the drill. Bolts in sport areas should be spared the chop unless rules guidelines 1 or 2 are violated. In short - local ethics should prevail. Static is Static, Exit 38 is Exit 38, etc, etc, etc.

 

And to revisit a now familiar theme - what is up with this 'You don't understand what you are taking away" business? I've lead enough runout trad routes, slabs, alpine routes and frozen waterfalls to know a thing or two about risk and commitment - thanks - and hardly think I need a lesson in this matter from you. Sometimes I am looking for that kind of climbing you are paying rhetorical homage to, sometimes I am not - and I choose my lines accordingly. Not sure why anyone would do otherwise.

 

As far as bolts being added to the route on Shuksan is concerned, I don't really have strong feelings about the matter either way, but would gladly defer to Paco if he did. I think that the odds of that happening are quite low given it's remoteness and the fact that taking the time to drill would eat up quite a bit of valuable daylight that would be much better spent getting up and off of the route.

 

 

 

[pope]

Your bolting stance seems about as central and politically milk-toast as they come. I agree with (nearly) every item in your code, but I'm curious about how you'd suggest we deal with other, more controversial questions.

 

JayB said:

Just for the record - let me clarify what I consider reasonable guidelines for bolting.

 

1. No additional bolts on established routes without the FA's consent.

 

Now suppose the first ascent party of a previously bold line agrees to retro bolting even though the pitch has been climbed on lead by many other parties who oppose additional fixed gear. What is appropriate in this case?

 

2. No bolts next to gear placements.

 

Next to bomber gear placements? What about a pretty damn good #3 RP placement?

 

3. The best compromise when establishing new routes is to bolt them in such a manner that a leader who is competent at the grade can do so without a catastrophic outcome in the event of a fall on ground that is near the upper level of the difficulty they will encounter on the route. In practice this means that if you are putting up a 5.6 route there should be enough protection available for a 5.6 leader to do so without a catastrophic outcome in the event of a fall. If you are putting up a 5.10 route then an entire 5.6 pitch with no pro whatsoever is fine, as a competent 5.10 leader will not have any problem with that pitch.

 

I agree with this entire premise, although I would expect a 5.10 climber establishing a bolted route to equip even a 5.6 pitch with at least a few bolts.

 

4. Areas with a longstanding bolt-free ethic should stay that way and be spared the drill. Bolts in sport areas should be spared the chop unless rules guidelines 1 or 2 are violated. In short - local ethics should prevail. Static is Static, Exit 38 is Exit 38, etc, etc, etc.

 

Should sport climbs that show up at "trad cliffs" be chopped? Take Castle Rock in Leavenworth for example. And if not, then how would you go about discouraging the spread of sport climbing to a cliff like this. What would you say to somebody who wishes to put up a sport route there?

 

Or consider the example of Vantage, a number of years ago when the first sport climbs began to appear. How many sport climbs need there be at a cliff before you say, "OK, sport climbing is NOW part of the local (non)ethic, so anybody who wants to add 25 more of these 40 foot, 7-bolt climbs, just go right ahead."

 

About that Molly.....