Access warning

[EWolfe]

TRESPASSING, TRAIL-TRAMPLING

[pope]

Lambone, that was music to my ears. And I really don't think you and I are doing damage to our current access by being vocal here. Anybody from the FS or a citizens action group might just get the impression that only a minority of climbers are behaving irresponsibly and that we are capable of putting pressure on them to correct the behavior. MattP suggests that those responsible for the Infinite Bliss climb have already agreed immediately to stop developing such climbs. This is extremely positive and also likely to help satisfy conservation groups who are concerned. Very encouraging.

[willstrickland]

Don't mistake my sentiment here, but I need to point out:

 

The old dads in the 50s to mid 60s weren't bolting with hand drills because of some ethical issue or prohibition under the law. The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. Those cats were using hand drills because that was all they had.

[Gordonb]

100 years ago they wern't using cars to get to the mountains either. So to be "True" to the spirit of the first explorers you shouln't be using cars to get to the mountains. Plus synthentic ropes are out. The also are not in the "Spirit". Oh and climbing shoes definitly out. Forget SLCD's or modern nuts.

 

You anti bolt fanatics are so full of shit. If you want to be like the first climbers, you need to climb like the first climbers. Either accept the advances or live without all of them. Picking and choosing is hypocritical.

[slothrop]

Infinite Bliss' route developers likely didn't know that their route was in the Wilderness, since the USGS map of the area incorrectly depicts the wilderness boundary line, showing the route outside the wilderness area.

 

Opponents of climbing in wilderness areas will be sure to do the research to find the true boundary, so perhaps, in these delicate times, route developers should do the proper research, too.

[Lambone]

uhuh, sure...did they bother to ask the FS?

 

and to gordons statement, and pope,

 

I got nothing against bolts or power drills. I do have something against selfish bastards that threaten the entire climbing community and our future access by ignoring policy. I feel the same way about people carrying their shit down off El Cap or Camp Muir, same difference really, people that are to lazy to deserve the CHOP!

[Lambone]

Why don't you out those guys in the "other" state too? Could it be because it is closer to where you live and you'd rather only stir up trouble for climbers in Washington?

 

I don't know who did it, only the route...and if you go back to page one or two you can see that I did out the route allready...thanks. Anyway, it's not like I'm the one who let the cat-out-of-the-bag here, I just picked up on all this yesterday and this discussion has been going on for almost a week.

[willstrickland]

You anti bolt fanatics are so full of shit. If you want to be like the first climbers, you need to climb like the first climbers. Either accept the advances or live without all of them. Picking and choosing is hypocritical.

 

I think you've seriously misunderstoof the motivation behind those who want to limit (not prohibt) the use of bolts. It's not about climbing like the old dudes. If you don't get it, I doubt I can convey it.

[Off_White]

I feel the same way about people carrying their shit down off El Cap or Camp Muir, same difference really, people that are to lazy to deserve the CHOP!

 

Am I misreading you, or are you advocating that people who crap in a crevasse deserve the death penalty?

[pope]

100 years ago they wern't using cars to get to the mountains either. So to be "True" to the spirit of the first explorers you shouln't be using cars to get to the mountains. Plus synthentic ropes are out. The also are not in the "Spirit". Oh and climbing shoes definitly out. Forget SLCD's or modern nuts.

 

You anti bolt fanatics are so full of shit. If you want to be like the first climbers, you need to climb like the first climbers. Either accept the advances or live without all of them. Picking and choosing is hypocritical.

 

Will, Gordon...thanks for the history lesson. You've done a tremendous amount to help me put this into perspective.

 

My opposition to bolt abuse is not motivated by a desire to restore climbing to what it once was. Mountaineering in a wilderness area should be a wilderness experience. One party's interpretation of what a wilderness experience is should not impose artifical additions on the next party. Obviously some exceptions exist, such as when a small number of bolts help link cracks that provide an awesome line, or perhaps when a belay/rap anchor helps to preserve fragile vegetation on the top of a cliff.

 

You anti bolt fanatics are so full of shit. If you want to be like the first climbers, you need to climb like the first climbers. Either accept the advances or live without all of them. Picking and choosing is hypocritical.

 

Oh bullshit. Accept the advances? Bolt trails do not qualify as an advance in the state of climbing. No more than chopping holds or riding a gondola up the cliff would be an advance in the state of climbing. Picking and choosing requires weighing behaviors and practices against an ethic. An ethic is a code of conduct which suggests behaviors that benefit all individuals. Clean climbing, eschewing excessive use of fixed anchors, is such an ethic and I suggest there is nothing hypocritical about analyzing your behaviors under the lens of this ethic.

 

We can evolve past sport-climbing and years from now look on it as a fun but sordid and selfish historical permutation. -Dwayner

[Lambone]

Don't mistake my sentiment here, but I need to point out:

 

The old dads in the 50s to mid 60s weren't bolting with hand drills because of some ethical issue or prohibition under the law. The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. Those cats were using hand drills because that was all they had.

 

Still, lota routes put up on El Cap (for example) with a hand drill since the advent of the Bosch...am I right?

[Gordonb]

I am willing to listen, but every anti-bolt fanatic comes back to a version of "that is now how the route was established".

 

I will admit that some places are over bolted. But pulling bolts at Smith? That is already a bolt garden. It is not a pristine wilderness area, if you don't want to clip the bolts, don't. Same thing at Vantage.

 

What would you rather see in the wilderness? Slings from every belay or repel point, or some bolts and hangers. It is hard to see bolts and hangers from any distance, especially if they are painted so they aren't shiney.

 

Whenever I have been climbing in whilderness areas the belay points have been slung with webbing making it look like a christmas tree, because you don't want to put in nice hidden bolts. Not low impact.

 

Not putting in bolts in the interest of keeping people out of the area is a really stupid idea. If you want to keep bolt clippers out of the wilderness put up more bolted areas. Exit 38, Vantage, Smith, put up more routes to satisfy the crowds and they will draw the bolt clippers and keep the other areas clear.

 

What is your real motivation? Keeping the "unwashed masses" out of your playground? That is the way I have been reading this thread. People have rushed to climbing. If you don't accomodate them they will overrun the traditional areas. Banning bolts will just make more people take up trad climbing and the destruction of the apporach and base areas will make bolts look like nothing. You can't pretend it is 1950 anymore.

 

How are you going to accomodate them? Banning bolts is not the solution. It is a short term bandaid.

[Gordonb]

Ok Pope, I understand your argument, but you have the "unwashed masses" invading our playground. I am old enough to remember when the back country was pristine and you could go weeks without seeing anyone. Bolt trails are not the answer, I agree. Bolts need to be limited, but they need to be accepted.

 

How are we going to accomodate the crowds? They are comming, you can either accept it and manage it, or have it destroy what has been built. Ignoring it is not a viable option.

[Lambone]

Gordon, I think you need to make a distinction here.

 

There are people who are anti-bolt altogether, like pope for example.

 

Then ther are people who are against the drilling of bolts in designated Wilderness with power drills.

 

It really comes down to the fundemental principles of why Wilderness Areas were developed in the first place(of which I admit to only know the basics of). But one of these primary principles: no mechanized equipment or vehicles. Right?

 

Power Drill...doesn't belong in a Wilderness area, period. Neither do alot of things. Mt Bikes (which is a bummer, but I can deal), Motorcycles/ATVs, chainsaws...etc, the list goes on and on. For some reason helicopters are excluded, for which I'm not sure why...

 

So you have some people out there, maybe 1/2 of 1 percent of the total recreational user population who thinks that it is ok to break those rules, that they can get away with it, hell no buddy is back there anyway right? Yeah, well, it's not long till somebody finds out...through a web site, a friend, a magazine, a guide book...whats the difference, people find out about it. Then everyone has to pay the price, especialy when those responsible for the wrong doing do not fess up to their actions.

[Gordonb]

The Wilderness rules are already broken with the Rangers explicit permission already! The trail crews take chain saws into the wilderness to cut trails. My dad is on trail crew and those old farts haul the chain saws and get helicopter support all the time to create trails. That is much more damaging that someone drilling some bolts.

 

Many Wilderness areas also have roads leading into the boundries of the park.

 

Wilderness areas need to be truely wilderness areas. Banning a bolts then paving a road into the park is bullshit. Bolted routes are lower impact than most trails let alone roads.

[Lambone]

I don't think bolts are banned in wilderness areas, although they tried with the "Fixed Anchor Ban,"

 

Just power drills.

[Gordonb]

they use chain saws to create trails that are far more damaging to the wilderness than power drills are to the rocks.

 

You can say they are not allowed, but they are at least completly ignored by the land managers.

[willstrickland]

The ACT itself states (this is a small excerpt, but the relevant part to our discussion):

---------------------------------------------------

Section 4, Part C

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

 

 

© Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

 

Sec4, Part D

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

 

 

(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:

 

(1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.

-------------------------------------------------------

Empasis added. The fixed anchor ban was based on a superintendent's interpretation of the term "installation" as applying to fixed anchors.

[Lambone]

they use chain saws to create trails that are far more damaging to the wilderness than power drills are to the rocks.

 

You can say they are not allowed, but they are at least completly ignored by the land managers.

 

ummmm...you haven't been paying attention to whats been going on around here in the past week or so have you? you may wnat to browse through the Access forum, or at least read this thread from the begining.

[Gordonb]

I KNOW THE ACT! It is being regularly ignored.

 

If they want to enforce the drilled anchor ban then we need to call bulshit on their use of power equipment to create trails for pedistrians.

[Gordonb]

I KNOW THE ACT! It is being regularly ignored.

 

If they want to enforce the drilled anchor ban then we need to call bulshit on their use of power equipment to create trails for pedistrians. The creation of trail by the use of power equipment is justified by the ACT. But that doesn't stop them. They are placating the trail crews who don't want to do everything by hand.

[Lambone]

I don't understand, are you condoning that it be ignored? Why even have Wilderness are as in the first place then? Why not just have all National Deforistation Service and BLM designation, that way the govt and private companies could go in and pilage it as well...from you post it sounds like you think they might as well...

[pope]

The creation of trail by the use of power equipment is justified by the ACT. But that doesn't stop them.

 

Uhhh...what?

[pope]

There are people who are anti-bolt altogether, like pope for example.

 

Is that really a fair statement? I don't recall ever stating or even implying that.

[MervGriffin]

Gordon B. say:

"Wilderness areas need to be truely wilderness areas. Banning a bolts then paving a road into the park is bullshit. Bolted routes are lower impact than most trails let alone roads."

 

Get a grip, man. That kind of specious argument don't cut it. It's like the old saw that gets passed around that says: why should we bitch about those lame bolts which support mixed pitches up at Snoqualmie when there are major ski areas nearby? The fact is, the paved roads, the ski areas AND the bolts are controversial. As climbers, the bolts are definitely within our domain of concern. You can say it's a matter of scale, but that doesn't absolve climbers from their behavior, and not everyone sees this issue at the same resolution.

 

Gordon B says more: "I will admit that some places are over bolted. But pulling bolts at Smith? That is already a bolt garden. It is not a pristine wilderness area, if you don't want to clip the bolts, don't. Same thing at Vantage."

 

Maybe most of those bolts don't belong there and there existence now doesn't necessarily justify their future. There are ample natural lines at Vantage without the plethora of stupid bolted routes there and Smith Rocks is just a plain embarassment. I remember that place before Alan Watts and the sport-climbing pseudo-"revolution" plastered the dihedrals with their metallic litter. Many of the routes there (with some exceptions) required that you step up to the plate and lead them naturally as they were or otherwise enjoy a nice hike around those beautiful crags.

 

Gordon B. again speaks: "People have rushed to climbing. If you don't accomodate them they will overrun the traditional areas. Banning bolts will just make more people take up trad climbing and the destruction of the apporach and base areas will make bolts look like nothing."

 

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT. Sport climbing requires little training and little commitment. I suspect that the majority of folks, if deprived of the convenience, ease, and safety of sport climbing, would NOT make the bold step to trad climbing which requires a great deal more training, commitment and gear than a two hour gri-gri lesson and a fist-full of quickdraws.