Restoration

[Sphinx]

:

[Peter_Puget]

Sphinx said:

:

[pope]

Peter_Puget said:

Sphinx said:

:

 

This is.....um......Sphinx and PP matching wits?

[Sphinx]

Pope, nobody really gives a shit what you think. Especially since neither you nor Dwayner ever gives a logical, thought-out method for deciding which bolts are poperly placed and which aren't.

 

Wasn't it Harding who compared your views to a puritan's aversion to and avoidance of sex?

 

Sport climbing is here to stay, no matter what a pair of crusty old farts post on the internet. You're out-dated, get used to it. I'll raise a stink when I see sport routes anywhere other than a sport crag. I'll also raise a stink when sport routes are inappopriately bolted considering what kind of route they are. An example is Flagstone.

 

Spray away, just be aware that nobody cares and nobody will be 'converted' to your religion.

[pope]

Sphinx said:

Pope, nobody really gives a shit what you think. Especially since neither you nor Dwayner ever gives a logical, thought-out method for deciding which bolts are poperly placed and which aren't.

 

Wasn't it Harding who compared your views to a puritan's aversion to and avoidance of sex?

 

Sport climbing is here to stay, no matter what a pair of crusty old farts post on the internet. You're out-dated, get used to it. I'll raise a stink when I see sport routes anywhere other than a sport crag. I'll also raise a stink when sport routes are inappopriately bolted considering what kind of route they are. An example is Flagstone.

 

Spray away, just be aware that nobody cares and nobody will be 'converted' to your religion.

 

Place only 3/8" or larger bolts and place them well. Place them on the lead to save your life and drill by hand. If you can't handle this approach, don't put them in. Wait 'til a bigger stud than you are does it, then be content to clip up later and pretend you're leading. Or top-rope the route. Or go to a piece-of-shit cliff where your weak practices are commonplace.

 

No bolts next to cracks. No new bolts on routes people have been leading or top-roping for years without bolts.

 

There you have it. Logical and "thouht-out". Play by these rules and you'll stop the spread of sport climbing and feel good about your relationship with the environment.

 

Nobody cares that nobody cares 'bout me.

 

 

[Sphinx]

Yup, astoundingly well "thouhgt-out". Yer ethics have been left in the dust sometime in the 80s. I agree with everything in your book of rules EXCEPT that you should only place bolts on lead by hand. Sport routes are legit, and are here to stay. Keep trolling, chuffer!

[pope]

Sphinx said:

Yer ethics have been left in the dust sometime in the 80s.

 

Well, perhaps they're no longer in vogue. However, had we continued to play by these rules, the mess we call Frenchman's Coulee wouldn't exist. Climbers wouldn't even consider retro-bolting at Castle Rock, Leavenworth. Without todays number of bolt-dependent routes and entire climbing areas (like the cave from which 400+ bolts were removed), we wouldn't have the crowds and the impact they bring.

 

You can't refute an argument about the way things should be by simply stating how things currently are. That's not an argument. Furthermore, not every abandoned idea is a bad idea, even if you feel it was "left in the dust".

 

Not much more than a year ago, I walked up to Castle Rock and noted a line of bolts on the arete that forms the Saints dihedral. This "climb" ended at a hanging belay just two feet below the massive ledge that is 40 feet up the Angel route. In an effort to stabilize loose blocks on this "new creation", somebody had pounded wooden wedges into several cracks. The whole thing just looked like shit. Am I supposed to just say, "Well, sport climbing is here to stay so I guess we'll just accept this chicken-shit addition to Castle's cragging."?

[EWolfe]

I thought the "bitch about bolts" forum was awesome - and I bolt, boulder, sport-climb and trad.

 

BRING IT BACK!!!

[chirp]

Obviously most of you are pretty much tunnel vision on this whole topic. Bolting a new line is fine but the thought process needs to be in line with simple respect and quality.

I personally bolted a few NICE routes in Kolob Canyons in Zion in the Mid 80's. I put in enough routes to make it a neat place to climb in an astounding area.

A few discreet routes...thats all.

Just go to Rockclimbing.com and do a search for Kolob Canyons now. Fucking asswipe sportos with no real sense of fucking aesthetics have raped and fucking pillaged an area with the aesthetics of a temple with bolts, rivets, and railroad spikes. Consider the mindless rantings and double speak the the UBER Zion bullshitter Narc Olepsy..."clean climbing ONLY, HAFWEN ONLY", yet the bastard drills pockets and chips crimps in a national park and a State park ( Yes i have climbed with him and helped bust him for some shit up the S face of Timbertop.

Fucking so what if pope is coming from what you feel is an 80's sensibility, hell thats when we learned to climb and that was a fine time to be around, when there still was a sense of climbing as a unique endeavor, not some mindless asswipe "club med" activity.

I am from the 80's and damn proud of it, I am only sorry most of you never will get to experience those days again.

 

BTW, if your ever in Red Rocks, look to the arete right of Black Track, some dildo bolted the face 2 feet left of the crack. WTF?

 

1. Hacksaw bolt

2. tap in stud

3. sand/epoxy

4. TYVM

 

[Figger_Eight]

[pope]

chirp said:

 

1. Hacksaw bolt

2. tap in stud

3. sand/epoxy

4. TYVM

 

A formula for restoration success!

[Off_White]

It's harder to take out a bolt aesthetically than it is to place it well, that's for sure.

[chirp]

It may just be time to head back up to Ten Percent and restore that to a bold and proper line. I didnt do it when it was first bolted but FUCK...I think the time is ripe.

 

 

[chirp]

Off_White said:

It's harder to take out a bolt aesthetically than it is to place it well, that's for sure.

 

Yup Yup, but I think one can perfect the technique over time. I am more than willing to embrace it as my new avocation, I am sending a PM to Mark Wilford as we speak.

[mattp]

pope said:

Not much more than a year ago, I walked up to Castle Rock and noted a line of bolts on the arete that forms the Saints dihedral. This "climb" ended at a hanging belay just two feet below the massive ledge that is 40 feet up the Angel route. In an effort to stabilize loose blocks on this "new creation", somebody had pounded wooden wedges into several cracks. The whole thing just looked like shit. Am I supposed to just say, "Well, sport climbing is here to stay so I guess we'll just accept this chicken-shit addition to Castle's cragging."?

 

I agree with you about that thing, Pope, but I believe you have just shown how little you get out. That aesthetic masterpiece has been there for several years, if I am not mistaken.

 

You are right to argue that, just because your proposed rules of ethical bolting are old does not mean that they are no longer relevant. However, the "ground up" ethic is not only outdated, but it is just plain nonsense. And I suspect that you and others who advocate this approach are using it as a cloak for the real point that you hope such a rule would mean fewer routes being put up.

 

 

A thoughtful and responsible routesetter can do a much better, safer, and cleaner job of putting up a route on rappel than they can on lead. They can also take the time to think about setting a route that will serve other people, instead of merely trying not to break their own neck and making their own accomplishment. If, on a given crag, there were going to be a certain number of new routes with a certain number of bolts, I'd much rather see them developed on rappel than on lead.

 

If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style.

[pope]

mattp said:

pope said:

Not much more than a year ago, I walked up to Castle Rock and noted a line of bolts on the arete that forms the Saints dihedral. This "climb" ended at a hanging belay just two feet below the massive ledge that is 40 feet up the Angel route. In an effort to stabilize loose blocks on this "new creation", somebody had pounded wooden wedges into several cracks. The whole thing just looked like shit. Am I supposed to just say, "Well, sport climbing is here to stay so I guess we'll just accept this chicken-shit addition to Castle's cragging."?

 

I agree with you about that thing, Pope, but I believe you have just shown how little you get out. That aesthetic masterpiece has been there for several years, if I am not mistaken.

 

You are right to argue that, just because your proposed rules of ethical bolting are old does not mean that they are no longer relevant. However, the "ground up" ethic is not only outdated, but it is just plain nonsense. And I suspect that you and others who advocate this approach are using it as a cloak for the real point that you hope such a rule would mean fewer routes being put up.

 

 

A thoughtful and responsible routesetter can do a much better, safer, and cleaner job of putting up a route on rappel than they can on lead. They can also take the time to think about setting a route that will serve other people, instead of merely trying not to break their own neck and making their own accomplishment. If, on a given crag, there were going to be a certain number of new routes with a certain number of bolts, I'd much rather see them developed on rappel than on lead.

 

If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style.

 

Careful there, Dad. Maybe I'm getting out more than you think. That aesthetic masterpiece left of Saints has been erased for more than a year now! Maybe you're the guy who needs to get out.

 

You're on to me. I feel that adoption of a ground-up ethic would limit the number of new bolts and that would make me happy. However, I also feel that people who wish to put up bolted routes would feel three times the satisfaction from their projects once they try this. It is manly, it is real. It is leading. WITH SKILL AND EXPERIENCE, ground-up bolting is safe and the results can be very satisfactory for subsequent parties. I can drill a 3/8" hole in Leavenworth rock while hanging on a hook in about 15-20 minutes. I'm not saying that everybody needs to do it my way at every cliff, I just think that at certain cliffs, this should be the standard. The result would be that hardly any new bolts would be added, but also those that are added would be respected.

[mattp]

Touche, Pope! You turn my rhetoric right back at me. I actually have been to Castle Rock this summer, and I walked right past that line, but I did not look at it.

 

Since your "goal" is for there to be fewer new routes and less bolting, let's emphasize that issue and not use the "ground up" ethic as a smokescreen. The practice of hanging on hooks in order to install a bolt is precisely one of those techniques I think should be entirely discontinued. The result - just about every single time this is done, is for there to be a bolt left near an ideal hook move; very rarely is the result that a bolt is left where it can convenientliy be clipped on the lead and efficiently protects a crux move. In the context of crag climbing, I believe it is very selfish to focus on the pleasure and satisfaction of the first ascentionist- I don't think this ethic that you promote is something to be aspired to or promoted.

[pope]

mattp said:

Touche, Pope! You turn my rhetoric right back at me. I actually have been to Castle Rock this summer, and I walked right past that line, but I did not look at it.

 

I was there in July with member Touray and the route was not in place. I got worried for a minute that it was back up.

 

Regarding hooks and bolting....I think if you can get a hook off your rack, place it and stand on it, you can probably clip a bolt in the same location. If you're at a good hooking place and you don't need a bolt, keep moving. If the crux section offers no hooking, you'll just have to be able to handle the grade or go home. Modern style places a bolt in the middle of every crux, and I suppose that's OK. On the other hand, what we get is a generation of climbers who expect this kind of luxury, and so to climb at 5.whatever rock, there's a good chance that they'll have to aid or fall. There's no requirement that you can really climb at that grade. Yet, it is my experience that climbers come back from such an "adventure" with stories of how they climbed 5.whatever.

 

You can tell me the approach is nonsense. Yet some quality climbing has been produced with just such an approach. California is full of such routes. I've experienced bolt-protected climbing around Mt. Rushmore which was established ground up, and it has ample protection with large, solid bolts.

 

Fact is, it can be done this way. Fact is, it is probably a good way to retard the exponentiation of chicken bolts. What is required is vision and leadership among people like yourself, people who establish routes and people to whom many others listen.

 

I continue to agree that high-quality bolt-protected climbing can be and is being established by MattP and others, using top-down methods. I just think that if MattP is doing it, the average guy on the street thinks, "Why can't I?", and the result is a mess of routes the likes of which MattP would never endorse.

 

Pope

[mattp]

Pope, I agree that good routes can and have been put up from the ground up. California does not have a monopoly on the good climbs, and most of the "classics" in this state were put up from the ground up, too. However, for bolt-dependent climbing, I do not advocate ground up installation of crag routes. And as to the use of hooks for installing bolts, I continue to think that there is rarely going to be (and rarely has been) a situation where the bolt ends up in the best place for someone who is going to follow, leading that same pitch, without the hook. Yes, you will get a bolt at a stance where there is at least enough of a purchase to grab a hook from your rack (or maybe from your teeth), but the far more comfortable stance shortly above or below, where there is no good hook move, will be ignored by the leader using hooks to place their bolts.

 

I agree with what you are saying about how modern climbers expect there to be a bolt at every crux move. I'd venture to say that most modern climbers agree with you, too. That is largely why they are generally carefull to distinguish what level they can lead and say "I can lead 5.12 sport; 5.10 trad." Yes, people who only climb closely bolted sport climbs are missing a lot of what climbing has to offer. Those who refuse to climb such climbs are missing out as well.

[pope]

I suppose we could get into an argument about where the best place for a bolt really is. If a stance is really that comfortable (but has no hook placements), it may be possible to drill without a hook. Tough to discuss without an actual piece of rock in front of us, but I know what you're saying. I recall bolting on the lead once where I couldn't get the second bolt in where it would have best protected the crux (steep 5.11). I took a chance and did the crux without a bolt, then got a hook a few feet higher and lowered down a chain of aiders to put the bolt in a place that would be good for the next party. The result was reasonably good and received praise from a sport-climbing friend (nothing but ridicule from the guys on this board in the sport camp).

 

"If you and other "traditionalists" want to control who gets to put up routes and how many bolts they can use, lets have that discussion rather than some outdated and distracting discussion about leadership style. "

 

Let's discuss how to limit bolting in sensitive areas. I'm suggesting adoption of a ground-up ethic but you think that's ridiculous. I'm also a promoter of chopping in certain situations, although I admit I wish there was a better way. What are your ideas (and please don't mention Peter's "new rock climbing forum")?

 

 

[JayB]

As far as restoration is concerned, I can't recall a time when there was ever anything but broad support for the notion that bolts should not be added to existing lines, or chopping those that are.

 

As far as bolting is concerned, has there really been a swarm of bosch-toting gym climbers bolting every bold line in the state into oblivion? How many bold lines have actually been retrobolted in such a manner since the inception of this line? 1? 2? How many of those bolts are still in place?

 

It seems to me that there's pretty broad agreement on these matters, as there is for the notion that sport-bolting should be confined to areas with an established sport-ethic like Exit 38 and Vantage as well. Is there someone putting up bolt-every-six-feet clip ups at Darrington, Static Point, Index, Castle-Rock, WA Pass, the Stuart Range, etc. etc. etc. that I am not aware of?

 

The fact of the matter is that there aren't, and if there were, there would be almost no opposition to chopping them. All of which makes me wonder why the two of you are still bothering with the anti-bolting Jeremiads at this date.

 

As far as restoration is concerned, I wouldn't mind seeing a list of routes in need of restoration myself. In this case, though, it would be a list of routes sporting rusty 1/4"ers that could use replacing and a way to track which of these routes have been taken care of.

[pope]

JayB said:

 

It seems to me that there's pretty broad agreement on these matters, as there is for the notion that sport-bolting should be confined to areas with an established sport-ethic like Exit 38 and Vantage as well. Is there someone putting up bolt-every-six-feet clip ups at Darrington, Static Point, Index, Castle-Rock, WA Pass, the Stuart Range, etc. etc. etc. that I am not aware of?

 

The fact of the matter is that there aren't, and if there were, there would be almost no opposition to chopping them. All of which makes me wonder why the two of you are still bothering with the anti-bolting Jeremiads at this date.

 

As far as restoration is concerned, I wouldn't mind seeing a list of routes in need of restoration myself. In this case, though, it would be a list of routes sporting rusty 1/4"ers that could use replacing and a way to track which of these routes have been taken care of.

 

Fact is, they do exist. And they do get erased. As a family man who doesn't get to climb as much as he wishes, it's a pain in the arse to spend a day doing restoration. I spent a day with Retro doing this kind of work and it required all day just to clean up two routes. I'd much rather be climbing.

 

Restoration (the forum that will never exist, due to predispositions of some of our moderators) could certainly include discussion on upgrading old fixed anchors. Good idea.

[mattp]

How do we seek to limit bolting in sensitive areas? I don't know. First of all, I suppose, we have to find some general agreement on just what areas ARE sensitive. If you try to tell a whole generation of climbers that the entire state of Washington is an inappriate place for sport climbing, they are going to blow you off and go about their way. If you then start pulling bolts out of their favorite climbs at Little Si or Vantage, you are just going to generate a bolt war and even if you succeed in getting them to stop installing bolts at those particular areas, they are still going to move on and start in on other crags. So I think part of the answer to your question lies in trying to figure out a way to identify where sport climbing should be allowed and where it should not be.

 

Once you have identified crags where sport climbing is OK, or for that matter others where it is not, there will probably be greater difficulty in figuring out how to limit the proliferation of bolts. There have been some efforts to set up climbing oversite groups at various crags around the country and I think they have, at best, achieved mixed results. On balance, I think they have probably been more effective at chanelling climbing development than have land-manager shut downs and bolt-wars, though, because when a given area gets too contentious or it is closed, for whatever reason, the climbers just move on to somewhere else and resume "business as usual."

 

Whatever may be the answer, I believe that changes in attitude and behavior are probably best sought through the respectful exchange of ideas and information. You don't make progress by ridiculing climbers who, as you say, expect a bolt in the middle of every hard move. If you aren't interested in trying to bring climbers together for reasonable discussions, I think you are left with two choices: chop bolts or promote area closures. In my view, bolt wars and climbing area shut-downs have brought attention to the issue but have utterly failed to solve anything. The proliferation of bolts and the frequency with which crags are developed without much thought for environmental impact or other related issues is, if anything, increasing rather than diminishing.

 

THE NEW ROCK CLIMBING FORUM could be a very useful place to exchange information and discuss how we might come together as a user group to address these important issues. However, most people (on all sides of this issue) think I am naive to think anything good could come from any discussion on cc.com. What do you think? Might it ever be possible to have an on-line discussion where we could discuss these issues without having to resort to insulting rhetoric and personal attack?

[mattp]

As this is thte "restoration" thread, I should add a comment to your report that you recently spent a day helping Mitch restore (erase) a couple of bolted climbs. I hope you chose the target climbs well. I would see it as a sign of great progress if we were able to have an open discussion of the climbs, and of yours and Mitch's goals in erasing them, without having to engage in personal attack. I may be dreaming, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

[pope]

"What/where are the sensitive areas? Once located/defined, how do we limit bolt proliferation in these areas?"

 

Good questions. I might add, "Who will do the locating/defining of the sensitive areas, and ultimately the police work there?"

 

These complex questions might be pursued on-line. Assuming everybody could be polite, and assuming some answers then emerged, what fraction of the climbing public would then adopt the results as guidelines to their behavior? Even more interesting would be discussions on areas like Index, where once bold aid climbs are routinely transformed into modern sport climbs.

 

I'm not optimistic that such a discussion could achieve what I would like to see. The extent of bolting in places like Vantage is so disgusting to me I'd be happy to see it closed.