debate fodder: lots of new climbers

[scott_harpell]

I am against sport crags period. if they are one pitch, TR them. if they are multi-pitch, bolt them more sparingly ie. when there is a ledge present, getting run-out orto prevent likely injury incase of a fall; not because it will make a leader uncomfortable. without all the now antiquated hyperbole, that is what i am saying. bolt only when necessary but this seems a giant stretch from the current ethic.

 

edit: and page tizzy top. that oneis for you cracked.

Edited November 18, 2003 by scott_harpell

[Distel32]

For cracked:

 

Yes Daniel Dulac fell from the crux and broke his ankle. Then right after Tony Lamiche did it. The video that I saw of the Fly looked like a bad landing but nothing terrible. If you blew off the top of some problems in Squamish you would be much worse off: Praying for Mojo, Physics Hyperbole, Chris Arete, etc.

 

Bolts:

 

Pope I have trouble taking your views seriously. Like someone stated on the previous page it is ok to place bolts if you're on lead or there is deathfall?? I'm sorry but those arguments just aren't very strong. Saying your bolts are the only acceptible ones on a dome with many sport climbs?

 

Scott: You said one pitch cragging is worthless but I'm sure you have done a fair amount of it (go team JD).

 

I'm completely with RuMR his arguements I think reflect the majority of all climbers. Put in perspective this whole entire population of climbers and how many people simply climb one pitch cragging stuff.

 

IMHO

[joe_average]

Word, Luke. on.

[pope]

joe_average said:

Pope's hipocricy and your stupidity is quite obvious. I'm off to the gym. Have fun spraying, Chief!

 

Quite obvious. Is they? Consider stopping off at the library on the way down to the gym, so that in your next post you'll be able to spell "hipocricy".

[mattp]

Distel32 said:

I'm completely with RuMR his arguements ...

 

What? You don't like mine?

 

Actually, you bring up a good point and one that has perhaps been underrepresented in this discussion: times HAVE changed. That is the nature of "times." Cassidy's "golden ages" were 1975 but I'd be willing to bet yours weren't. It's kind of like saying nothing in Rock matters after Jimi Hendrix. It's all music, and it is nothing of any greater import than music, really. Jimi kicked ass, and many fans still appreciate what he did, but the world didn't stop there.

 

I think it is good to have somebody like Kassidy stand up and say "hey you guys: think about THIS." But he's pretty much lost it when he says "climbers these days lack morals because they think nothing of altering the environment." Yes, as a climbing community we've come to view bolts differently, but in actual reality there is little if anything inherently more destructive about today's bolting/aiding/protection practices than there was about those of the great golden ages when entire Japanese gardens were stripped from Index Town Wall, bolts were used to engineer a way up teh "blank" portions (later freed) of some climbs like E. Buttress of S. Early Winter Spire, and pins were still used on The Prow in Yosemite.

[joe_average]

pope said:

joe_average said:

Pope's hipocricy and your stupidity is quite obvious. I'm off to the gym. Have fun spraying, Chief!

 

Quite obvious. Is they? Consider stopping off at the library on the way down to the gym, so that in your next post you'll be able to spell "hipocricy".

Sorry Pope, the library is outdated. According to Google, it's spelled "hypocrisy". It's 2003, man, get with it!

[scott_harpell]

Scott: You said one pitch cragging is worthless but I'm sure you have done a fair amount of it (go team JD).

 

you can count the number of sport climbs I have been on with two hands.

[pope]

Distel32 said:

Bolts:

 

Pope I have trouble taking your views seriously. Like someone stated on the previous page it is ok to place bolts if you're on lead or there is deathfall?? I'm sorry but those arguments just aren't very strong. Saying your bolts are the only acceptible ones on a dome with many sport climbs?

 

I'm only suggesting situations in which bolts are seemingly more acceptable. Let's contrast lead vs. rap placed bolts. When somebody places bolts on the lead, he is in the thick of it and drilling in order to save his own butt while actually leading. To the extent that he does a nice job and gets solid bolts at logical stances, I think these bolts (while still ugly and foreign) at least respresent a purer form of mountain climbing, where one attempts to meet the challenge of lead climbing. Greater skill and risk are required for success, and as a consequence, it seems obvious that if we were to play by these rules, far fewer dumbied down, overly bolted pitches would exist, and the pace at which the limited resource of unclimbed rock is developed would be greatly decreased, preserving challenges for many generations.

 

Lead bolting, IMO, would greatly retard the pace of bolting and I think it would nearly eliminate the desire and ability of talentless, unskilled climbers to put up 8-bolt, 40-ft sport climbs at a rate of 5 a month or whatever. Lead bolting would allow for some face climbing to be developed, without the creation of a circus like you see in Vantage. Contrast this with the way rap bolting is practiced currently and I think lead bolting looks like a great alternative. The friggin' Huber brothers could be your role models in this capacity.

 

Now let's talk about this route by Carnival Crack again. I've received a bunch of grief about it, and I understand this to some extent. Many bolt advocates who are irritated with my statements (or my attitude or whatever) are delighted to know that I placed a bolt on that climb. "If Pope is against bolting, and if he placed a bolt, then we can just dismiss everything he promotes since he is a hypocrite." I'm sorry, but you're going to have to think a little harder than that. I have said on many occasions that discrete, logical, responsible bolting is OK. A gear route that needs one bolt to protect a deadly face move (which happens to be the crux move) is an example of an acceptable bolt application. Now, if you want to argue this point, I'm willing to discuss it. That route is kind of fun, but I have no great emotional investment in it. If you have done it, and if you honestly think the single bolt on this climb is way out of line with what I've been promoting, try to convince me. You just might talk me into chopping it.

 

Or, you can just carry on saying, "Pope is against every bolt. Pope placed a bolt. Pope is a hypocrite." You need to know that you're demonstrating your capacity for lazy thinking, but that's your right.

[EWolfe]

Many bolts are placed "on lead" by hanging from hooks where hooking is available - not necessarily the best clipping stance, or even on route, and often lacking the consideration of a thoroughly thought out sequence (due to being gripped from bolting on lead). Now which is the better, me foin bucko.

[Distel32]

Yours are excellent as well Matt! But they are long and sometimes I skim

 

I have only been climbing a little over 14 months so I can't speak for 1975, but I do try to stay up to date with how the sport is evolving now. Bolts aren't going to stop, whether you want to chop them or you are standing in line with the Bosch, the bolts are going to start going up more in the US. In Europe and canada long bolted routes are already standard, it is only a matter of time my friends.....

 

Luke

[scott_harpell]

There is nothing i despise more than the "everyone is doing it" and "the general consensus" arguments. I hate to sound like your mother, but "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you?" seriously! I for one dont care abotu general consensus. I think that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. What we know is right after careful analitical dialogue with other climbers and other concerned parties (land managers and other users). The general consensus in Italy is that the U.S. hired a plane to run into the T.T. on 9/11 and the general consensus in the U.S. is that Bush is one fine president. Really makes you think twice about general consensus eh?

[scott_harpell]

Bolts aren't going to stop, whether you want to chop them or you are standing in line with the Bosch, the bolts are going to start going up more in the US.

 

That is exactly the kind of thinking that I was trying to counter with my hyperbole previously.

[mattp]

Pope -

For any given pitch that is to be bolted with a given number of bolts, I'd much rather see it carefully and thoughtfully bolted after toproping and discussion than while "winging it" on the lead. Much rather. There might be fewer routes put up if they all had to be done on lead, but not necessarily better ones.

[pope]

mattp said:

I think it is good to have somebody like Kassidy stand up and say "hey you guys: think about THIS." But he's pretty much lost it when he says "climbers these days lack morals because they think nothing of altering the environment." Yes, as a climbing community we've come to view bolts differently, but in actual reality there is little if anything inherently more destructive about today's bolting and protection practices than there was about those of the great golden ages when entire Japanese gardens were stripped from Index Town Wall, bolts were used to engineer a way up teh "blank" portions (later freed) of some climbs like E. Buttress of S. Early Winter Spire, and pins were still used on The Prow in Yosemite.

 

I see a big difference. On a long climb which follows natural weaknesses, say a classic like DEB of SEWS, a few bolts to bypass a blank section are an unfortunate compromise which allow for an exhilerating experience. One would naturally prefer not to have to put a bolt trail in the middle of a climb like that, but in the case that it is necessary, I think it is far more acceptable than the sort of homogeneous, cookie-cutter sport climbs one sees on walls better suited to top-roping, like in Vantage.

 

Secondly, I have to agree with Scott when he suggests that our behavior should set the example for recreational use of the mountains. I don't care whether or not you believe that the average climber in the "golden age" had a better developed sense of wilderness preservation (and I insist that they did). I'm simply promoting that as climber's we do a much better job of avoiding overbolting. We need an ethic that transcends generational differences and fads.

[scott_harpell]

We need an ethic that transcends generational differences and fads.

 

[mattp]

Pope-

You are showing your "golden age" blinders here. The Direct East Buttress route does not follow any line of natural weaknesses, and the bolt ladders are not in the middle of the route. The route starts up a system of corners and cracks, then it veers rightward to access what is one of the coolest looking pieces of rock up there - a high exposed face that appears to lead directly to the summit when you view the peak from the east. But after two pitches that are mostly bolt ladder (and again, I'll note, subsequently free climbed), the climbing is then pretty much over. The attraction of route lies in the fact that it ascends such a cool piece of rock architecture and that the climbing is fun -- it has little to do with the fact that it follows natural weaknesses that would have led anywhere but that cool, high, exposed face.

 

It seems to me that your blinders are preventing you from evaluating environmental practices, too. In the '70's is when most of the vegetation was stripped from Lower Town Wall and the alder forest at the base of the cliff was clearcut by climbers, the new trail and hut was built in the Bugaboos, most of the "classic" big wall routes (with lots of pitons and bolts) and (bolted) rappel routes were established in Yosemite, the junk pile of oxygen bottles and other trash started appearing at the south col on Everest, and the Enchantments Lakes first started to see mass numbers of invaders stomping trails all around the meadows and building campfires from the wood of thousand year old snags. Yes, we build "landing zones" and "staging areas" at the base of crags like Vantage and Exit 38 these days, and yes we use a lot of bolts. But we're not washing our pots and pans in the stream, throwing our shit off El Capitan in brown lunch bags, or building campfires in the Alpine Lakes. Instead of setting up routes so that everybody will leave heaps of sling on some gnarly old tree that is barely clinging to the cliff and is going to die from the abuse suffered at the hands of climbers, we set a chain anchor and rings and stay the hell away from the fragile vegetation. Instead of clearing and eroding the cliff-top and building a descent trail through the ferns and flowers along the edge of the crag, we rappel off. Our numbers are increasing and therfore our over-use impact is increasing as well, but our environmental practices are not entirely worse - and in many respects quite a bit better.

Edited November 18, 2003 by mattp

[scott_harpell]

I don't care whether or not you believe that the average climber in the "golden age" had a better developed sense of wilderness preservation (and I insist that they did). I'm simply promoting that as climber's we do a much better job of avoiding overbolting. We need an ethic that transcends generational differences and fads.

[scott_harpell]

we can transcend all this crap. if we are better than the "golden age" who cares? why dont wetry to be the best stewards we can be regardless of who came before us?

[pope]

mattp said:

Pope-

You are showing your "golden age" blinders here. The Direct East Buttress route does not follow any line of natural weaknesses, and the bolt ladders are not in the middle of the route. The route starts up a system of corners and cracks, then it veers rightward to access what is one of the coolest looking pieces of rock up there - a high exposed face that appears to lead directly to the summit when you view the peak from the east. But after two pitches that are mostly bolt ladder, the climbing is then pretty much over. The attraction of route lies in the fact that it ascends such a cool piece of rock architecture and that the climbing is fun -- it has little to do with the fact that it follows natural weaknesses that would have led anywhere but that cool, high, exposed face.

 

I kind of agree with you on this example (DEB). I recall thinking the first (or 2nd?) 5.9 corner pitch was dynamite, but after that it was one big clip up. I only mentioned that example because you seemed to want to justify sport climbing by saying that "dirty" climbing practices have always been around, and you mentioned DEB, which, through the use of bolts, cleary offers more than your average Exit 38 climb. A better example of what I 'm talking about would be the E. Buttress on Middle Cathedral, which has a short bolted section that links outstanding, natural climbing. Again, I think the application of bolts in such a case is far more justifiable than what we see in Vantage, where numerous, nearly indistinguishable 40-ft sport climbs seem to offer nothing that top-roping could not offer (except the obnoxious gleam of anodized hangers).

 

It seems to me that your blinders are preventing you from evaluating environmental practices, too. In the '70's is when most of the vegetation was stripped from Lower Town Wall, the alder forest at the base of the cliff was clearcut by climbers, the new trail and hut was built in the Bugaboos, most of the "classic" big wall routes and (bolted) rappel routes were established in Yosemite, the junk pile of oxygen bottles and other trash started appearing at the south col on Everest, and the Enchantments Lakes first started to see mass numbers of invaders stomping trails all around the meadows and building campfires from the wood of thousand year old snags. Yes, we build "landing zones" and "staging areas" at the base of crags like Vantage and Exit 38 these days, and yes we use a lot of bolts. But we're not washing our pots and pans in the stream, throwing our shit off El Capitan in brown lunch bags, or building campfires in the Alpine Lakes. Instead of setting up routes so that everybody will leave heaps of sling on some gnarly old tree that is barely clinging to the cliff and is going to die from the abuse suffered at the hands of climbers, we set a chain anchor and rings. Instead of building a descent trail through the ferns and flowers along the edge of the crag, we rappel off. Our numbers are increasing and therfore our over impact is increasing as well, but ourenvironmental practices are not entirely worse.

 

In some cases, we are better informed and we do have more environmentally friendly practices. Why not take it to the next level and improve on our ironically near-sighted fixed anchor ethics?

 

[pope]

OK, time for a little Molly time.

 

[joe_average]

Lecherous stalker.

[scott_harpell]

 

Mmmm...

[mattp]

Pope -

This will be something like the tenth time in this thread that I, Alpine K and others have asked: what is this "thing" you have about bolts? How is the placement of a pair of bolts and a ring worse than setting a route so that it ends at a tree that will surely die if subjected to repeated beating by climbers or forcing them to walk down a gully, ripping out ferns and flowers? How is a bolted face route any more environmentally damaging than crack that has to be gardened out, and stripped of the natural vegetation? Now that you've gotten to know the wonders of the "love bar," how can you say that bolts are not removeable more easily than the vegetation in a crack is replaceable? Just what is wrong with taking an old railroad cut next to I-90 and making it into a recreation area? Did a bolt mistreat you when you were still a tender child?

[scott_harpell]

precendece...

[joe_average]

mattp said:

Pope -

This will be something like the tenth time in this thread that I, Alpine K and others have asked: what is this "thing" you have about bolts? How is the placement of a pair of bolts and a ring worse than setting a route so that it ends at a tree that will surely die if subjected to repeated beating by climbers? How is a bolted face route any more environmentally damaging than crack that has to be gardened out, and stripped of the natural vegetation? Now that you've gotten to know the wonders of the "love bar," how can you say that bolts are not removeable more easily than the vegetation in a crack is replaceable? Just what is wrong with taking an old railroad cut next to I-90 and making it into a recreation area? Did a bolt mistreat you when you were still a tender child?

Matt, it's like a Puritan's aversion to sex. Illogical. Just pray that you'll never be his lawyer.