debate fodder: lots of new climbers

[Figger_Eight]

mattp said:

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

 

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related.

 

And, oh yeah, a "same shit different day":

[mattp]

Dru - I looked up "concise" and "brevity" and they seem to include some reference to actual ideas and content. Unrelated one-line put downs are nowhere in the definition of either.

[Dru]

well you have kept most of your replies in the last 4 pages to one paragraph, see, maybe you are learning!

[mattp]

I'm learning, but are you?

[pope]

mattp said:

jkassidy said:

...maybe mattp can make another 15-paragraph long post and put everyone to sleep

 

Maybe I can actually take a few moments to put some ideas together rather than just spray the first stupid comment that comes to mind.

 

You may credit Dru with that witty quote.

[scott_harpell]

Figger_Eight said:

mattp said:

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

 

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related.

 

exactly. so why not try to minimalize where we can? i do not use chalk ever because of this very reason. every activity has an impact to some extent (especially in nature) and it is our responsibility to minimalize this in every way we can.

[scott_harpell]

hey kids! no name calling! keep the spray in spray!

[Dru]

scott_harpell said:

Figger_Eight said:

mattp said:

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

 

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related.

 

exactly. so why not try to minimalize where we can? i do not use chalk ever because of this very reason. every activity has an impact to some extent (especially in nature) and it is our responsibility to minimalize this in every way we can.

 

i am drinking beer in order to consume less freshwater

[scott_harpell]

Dru said:

scott_harpell said:

Figger_Eight said:

mattp said:

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

 

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related.

 

exactly. so why not try to minimalize where we can? i do not use chalk ever because of this very reason. every activity has an impact to some extent (especially in nature) and it is our responsibility to minimalize this in every way we can.

 

i am drinking beer in order to consume less freshwater

 

keep the power brotha! did you read that west van. residents use more water than anywhere else in the world? i think i will help you save the world on beer at a time. but i only have one more granville island winter ale left

[mattp]

Figger Eight-

I agree with you that visual impact is a big deal. Other impacts associated with modern route development practices are also serious issues - like the way in which modern climbers seem to want to have 50 routes all on top of each other and they want them to be within 50 feet of a trail - preferably within 50 feet of the car. This results in crowding at the base, the areas get ground to the dirt, and we get in the way of other users. You could easily name a lot of other issues. But we are focussed only on the validity of bolts - without any reference to setting or density or safety or anything else - because our friend Cassidy here only has one program and it has crashed.

[pope]

Dru said:

scott_harpell said:

Figger_Eight said:

mattp said:

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

 

Yeah...you can't see bolts from the road - especially if they're powder coated, but you can see the cleaned off rock "trail" and ensuing chalk marks. To me the visual impact of all are related.

 

exactly. so why not try to minimalize where we can? i do not use chalk ever because of this very reason. every activity has an impact to some extent (especially in nature) and it is our responsibility to minimalize this in every way we can.

 

i am drinking beer in order to consume less freshwater

 

Now, let it be known, one of my favorite seasonal beers is again available: Pyramid's Snow Cap Ale....mahogany in color, complex and spicy yet deliciously smooth. And 7%, may I add. Hey, I believe I'll have another.

[scott_harpell]

modern climbers seem to want to have 50 routes all on top of each other and they want them to be within 50 feet of a trail - preferably within 50 feet of the car.

 

matt, i am curious what side of the fence you are chillin on as per climbers impact then and now. you make statements which allude to both sides. the quote above seems to suggest that the 'golden' years did not have such a problem or it was not so prevalent.

[mattp]

Scott-

In the mythical golden years that Cassidy thinks were so cool there was a heavy concentration of routes in places like the Gunks, and nearly every crack line at Index had an aid line if it had not by then been free climbed, but the importance of approaching rock climbs in sandals is definitely a modern fashion and I don't think that when it comes to face climbs there were any routes anywhere in the U.S. as closely packed as your average crag at Vantage and Exit 38. Personally, I like things to be spread out a little bit, and I enjoy longer climbs rather than 80 foot overgrown boulder problems. I also believe that we would have fewer problems with offending other area users or land managers if our climbs were further from trails and roads and generally more out of sight.

[pope]

mattp said:

Figger Eight-

I agree with you that visual impact is a big deal. Other impacts associated with modern route development practices are also serious issues - like the way in which modern climbers seem to want to have 50 routes all on top of each other and they want them to be within 50 feet of a trail - preferably within 50 feet of the car. This results in crowding at the base, the areas get ground to the dirt, and we get in the way of other users. You could easily name a lot of other issues. But we are focussed only on the validity of bolts - without any reference to setting or density or safety or anything else - because our friend Cassidy here only has one program and it has crashed.

 

OK, that did it, Mr......Mr. MattyP. I'm not going to respond to your juvenile insults. I know that you and your big, important moderator buddies have this agenda to provoke me into saying something I'll regret (something routinely obscene from any other contributor, but something perhaps just a little out of character for me), so that you guys can call me a "prick" and arbitrarily ban me for some unspecified period of time, just like you did my buddy Dwayner.

 

But I'm not falling for it, Mr. Matt. Nope. I am... like... so through with your horseshit. I'm just going to pretend you're not even there, and I'm going to let those petty insults just bounce right off, right back at 'cha, Cleopatra.

Edited November 14, 2003 by jkassidy

[Dru]

I only have one winter ale left too --->

 

Now or later

 

I read today that Kelowna uses even more than West Van. Must be to put out all those fires

[scott_harpell]

mattp said:

Scott-

In the mythical golden years that Cassidy thinks were so cool there was a heavy concentration of routes in places like the Gunks, and nearly every crack line at Index had an aid line if it had not by then been free climbed, but the importance of approaching rock climbs in sandals is definitely a modern fashion and I don't think that when it comes to face climbs there were any routes anywhere in the U.S. as closely packed as your average crag at Vantage and Exit 38.

 

so bolting does seem to be getting progressively worse? perhaps kassidy's predictions are not too far off. you have quoted europe as a place where bolts and hikers co-exist because of aesthitic relativity, but there are also post WWII via ferrata routes in europe. this is the same phenomenon that kassidy predicted. as you have admitted, bolting is becomming more and more problematic as we dumb down the rock to our level. when will this degredation of the rock and of our sense of duty to nature cease? when we have wheelchair access shitter at the top of every former grade VI that is now a 4 hour 'cable' route?

[mattp]

WTF, Scott? I think it is RuMr who has been waxing eloquent about European rock climbing, not me. I have climbed in Europe, and I think it was pretty cool and in fact after I had grown bored by rock climbing around here, I found renewed excitement for the sport on the bolted limestone a thousand feet off the deck in the Verdon Gorge, but I don't think I have been spraying about that in this thread. Yes, I "admit" that bolting is becoming more problematic. I don't think I ever denied it. I just don't think that the end of the world is approaching - or at least I don't think that Armagheddon lies at Exit 38.

[scott_harpell]

I just don't think that the end of the world is approaching.

 

nor do i, but it seems with each generation, ethics are being watered down more and more. i just see the pattern and i do not like what i see. i dont like the idea of bolts period, but the extrapolation i see is that it is getting out of control. it is ludicrous at 38. how long until it hit other areas with more tradition. we have already seen this started with the repeated bolting of Dan's Dreadful Direct and other arguably historic climbs, or climbs in areas with strong low bolt or anti-bolt ethic.

[cracked]

Talk about deja vu.....we just happily go round and round and round, never get anywhere, but we're all happy to regurgitate the same arguments and spew the same shit over and over and over. Nothing ever changes.

 

Good God, people, get a life.

 

Oh, and BTW, Scott, take a look at ethics in alpine climbing over the past fifty years...you might be surprised....

[scott_harpell]

cracked said:

Talk about deja vu.....we just happily go round and round and round, never get anywhere, but we're all happy to regurgitate the same arguments and spew the same shit over and over and over. Nothing ever changes.

 

Good God, people, get a life.

 

get laid punter.

[snoboy]

OK, this is the thing that dragged me in to this debate.

 

I have seen a large increase in the number of climbers, way overfilled camping areas, and more, all in Squamish... not exactly a bastion of sport climbing. How do you explain that?

 

jkassidy said:Bolts, crowds, crowded campgrounds.....they seem to conspicuously coexist, almost symbiotically. When we take the macho aspect out of climbing, when we make climbing something that becomes about as dangerous and adventurous as playing volleyball without a helmet....of course it will have greater appeal. When leading difficult rock (something that used to require guts, skill and great judgment) is demystified by a trail of bolts, and when we let today's climbers feel as though they're really doing something that is parallel to the old, heroic 5th-class leading, then new climbers will inundate our cliffs in search of that heroic, sharp-end feeling. It's just one, big happy illusion.....and I'm all for Quixotic fantasies, just not when the result is crowding and ugly bolt trails.

 

We're discussing the increased number of climbers which were reported at the beginning of this thread. I think mentioning the impact sportclimbing has on this increase is valid.

[scott_harpell]

snoboy said:

OK, this is the thing that dragged me in to this debate.

 

I have seen a large increase in the number of climbers, way overfilled camping areas, and more, all in Squamish... not exactly a bastion of sport climbing. How do you explain that?

 

jkassidy said:Bolts, crowds, crowded campgrounds.....they seem to conspicuously coexist, almost symbiotically. When we take the macho aspect out of climbing, when we make climbing something that becomes about as dangerous and adventurous as playing volleyball without a helmet....of course it will have greater appeal. When leading difficult rock (something that used to require guts, skill and great judgment) is demystified by a trail of bolts, and when we let today's climbers feel as though they're really doing something that is parallel to the old, heroic 5th-class leading, then new climbers will inundate our cliffs in search of that heroic, sharp-end feeling. It's just one, big happy illusion.....and I'm all for Quixotic fantasies, just not when the result is crowding and ugly bolt trails.

 

We're discussing the increased number of climbers which were reported at the beginning of this thread. I think mentioning the impact sportclimbing has on this increase is valid.

 

top-roping.

[cracked]

No, it's those goddamn boulderers! They all have Boschs in their closet! They're going to ruin the world when they grow up! We should all be paranoid.

 

Remember: There Is No Bolt!

 

Free your mind, JCassidy.....

[Off_White]

jkassidy said:

RuMR said:

AlpineK said:

Allow me to insinuate

 

jkassidy=pope=eric mohler.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Well, I'll be hog-tied and dipped in honey. And I thought you'd have to PM our "esteemed and ethical" moderators in order to ascertain my identity, which I so obviously wished would remain private. Kurt, you suggest that Dwayner is a prick. Well you've just demonstrated your capacity for being lower than a snake's butt in a wagon track.

 

Kurt only has access to IP address data in the Freshiez forum that he moderates, so his conclusion does not come from either the avatar identity unravelling that the unique address you are posting from can reveal, or a discussion in the moderator forum. I'd assume he used the same information and skills that Rudy had available.

[Off_White]

jkassidy said:

Off_White said:

I think the whole cant about how bold the oldies were and how pure and ideal the development of clean climbing was is fundamentalist history revision. Despite impassioned pleas in Chouinard Catalogs, the reason nuts caught on was not because pin scars were so abhorent, but because they were easier, faster, and safer. I could hang from one hand and place a nut, hell, even do it left handed, but dangle and set a pin? Clean climbing brought the sport down to a level that average folks could do more routes.

 

So, the clean climbing revolution had NOTHING to do with a change in the way climbers approached wilderness and the preservation thereof? You're telling me that nuts caught on ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EASY TO USE AND MADE CLIMBS EASIER FOR JOE AVERAGE?

 

"If it's practical, I'll do it. If it helps me get up the cliff, shoot.....IT'S ALL GOOD!" May I summarize your approach to climbing ethics in the previous pseudo-quote?

 

Is this what really motivates you? Just so long as it makes the climb easy, anything goes? Because, my friend, when you begin to allow for permanent alterations to the rock (bolts) in order to facilitate an easier ascent, and when you're Hell-bent on affirming the latest fad for fear of being accused of living in the past, YOU MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY TELLING THE NEXT GENERATION OF CLIMBERS (WHO WISH TO MAKE THINGS EVEN EASIER BY, SAY, CHIPPING A LINE OF BUCKETS) THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS OF THE CLIFF INSTEAD OF MURDERING THE IMPOSSIBLE.

 

You either have the reading comprehension abilities of the average ten year old or you're a devotee of malevolent obfuscation. I was not discussing my approach to climbing ethics, but poking a hole in your fatuous assertion that the noble giants of yesteryear who lived through the clean climbing revolution were ethical purists of the first water who acted against self interest for the sake of the environment. It's like arguing that the Civil War was only about freeing the slaves, or that we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein murdered those women and children whose graves we've recently uncovered. It's a simple fact of history and psychology that humans generally act out of self interest. Are you trying to argue that nuts would have taken over if they were more difficult, slower, and more dangerous to use? Did you ever lead a hard free route with a rack of pins? Odds are you're one of those whose access to climbing was enabled by the proliferation of the new technology. Yes, the real reason clean climbing caught on was because it made climbing easier and safer, and it did lead to a large increase in the number of climbers. The fact that it had less impact on the rock just let you feel good about doing the easy thing.

 

Your histrionic blather about chipping is just more handwaving to distract from the issue at hand. This self serving revision of history to imbue the forefathers (which you count yourself one of) with glory only serves to convince folks like Scott Harpell that ethics really are in decline, and that people in this debased decadent era really are less worthy than they used to be. It's the same tired load of bullshit that elders have fed to their younger successors since the dawn of time.