Access warning

[cracked]

warning!

[pope]

And this will somehow be more productive for them than say buying a copy of the advertised online CD/guide book "A historical record of who blted what with pwer drlls in the wildrnss area outside of Daringtn" or a recent copy of Rock&Ice proudly displaying the longest blted sprt climb in the world?

 

Exactly what beta will they be looking for? Best I can tell is that they will find that a vocal minority here is not impressed with engineering of blted climbs in what have tradionally been wild areas.

 

In fact that might be considered a good thing if they realize not all climbers are running around with Bosch in hand, or support such activity.

 

So exactly what is being said here that is so harmful to climbers?

 

What he said.

 

Your not getting it,it's not about blts

it's about trails accessing climbs

and the mention of any climbs blts or gear or pads is leading them down the path of denied access

so just keep blaming the other guy and we will all wind up in the same pile of$#!t

 

No, I don't think you get it. What is destructive/concerning is meadow trampling from the crowds that congregate around sport climbs and boulders. That no land manager is concerned about permanently altering the visual appearance of rock faces with fixed anchors.....that seems like a dubious assertion. But even if this were true, even if land managers weren't offended by bolt trails, IT IS THIS APPROACH TO "MOUNTAINEERING" THAT IS ATTRACTING LARGE NUMBERS OF CLIMBERS.

 

Many participants on this site have objected to my "ranting" about the virtues of bold climbing and how today's bolt-reliant ascents have cheapened the sport, made it too accessible and artificial. And yet it is precisely this "dumbing down" of mountaineering that is drawing crowds to peaks and walls which used to see only a handful of ascents, and it is precisely the resulting increase in traffic that is the cause of concern.

 

Don't tell me "it's not about bolts". We weren't having these discussions until the introduction of "modern" clip-up climbing on Garfield. "It's not about bolts!" ...I remember hearing this after over 400 bolts were yanked out of a cave in Oregon and the entrance sealed. The ironic thing is, the behavior of pad people and alpine bolt chasers may result in denied access to the small handful of "has beens" who used to leave very little trace and climb under the radar. Even more ironically, it is suggested that discussion of bolting and access on this site should receive the blame when/if access is denied. Insane.

 

Oh...one more thing:

 

it's not about blts..........and the mention of any climbs blts or gear or pads is leading them down the path of denied access

 

Wait a minute. If it's not about "blts", why are you trying to throw off somebody's search (presumably some land manager's search)?

Edited June 8, 2004 by pope

[johndavidjr]

The original poster here may benefit from recent pharmacological developments, or more likely is half-way pulling our leg(s), but subsequent posts in this thread are more, or less, rational. Pope: I may be misinterpreting your remarks, but try coming to the Shawangunks; climbing quality is incredible, crowds are mind-boggeling, but as you may know, bolts are forbidden except, recently, for rap stations installed by land managers. So on that basis, anyway, one can't say that bolts in themselves draw crowds. Actually the few sport-climbs in the outlying areas of NYC are of low-quality, illegal and practically unknown to Gunks crowd.

Edited June 8, 2004 by johndavidjr

[pope]

The original poster here may benefit from recent pharmacological developments, or more likely is half-way pulling our leg(s), but subsequent posts in this thread are more, or less, rational. Pope: I may be misinterpreting your remarks, but try coming to the Shawangunks; climbing quality is incredible, crowds are mind-boggeling, but as you may know, bolts are forbidden except, recently, for rap stations installed by land managers. So on that basis, anyway, one can't say that bolts in themselves draw crowds. Actually the few sport-climbs in the outlying areas of NYC are of low-quality, illegal and practically unknown to Gunks crowd.

 

Two points. We don't live within a stone's throw of NYC. I would imagine that even a dung heap with flag on top would attract a large number of enthusiasts near a town of that size. And yes, I've been to the gunks(20 years ago?) and they were crowded even then. (They had a great mural/photo of Mt. Index in Rock & Snow).

 

Secondly, you have provided an example of land managers who are concerned about bolting.

[EWolfe]

Besides, the Gunks is a different issue. There are very strong climbing coalitions in the state of New York regarding these issues. We just started the first one here, reminder.

 

[marylou]

Apparently the fact that Infinite Bliss was obviously bolted with a power drill is a far larger issue than the trail. The land managers know the difference, and it has been noted.

 

I was as surprised as you may be.

[richard_noggin]

POPE

It's not about blts, it's about natural progression, this has has happened in many other sports when more people are taking up outdoor activities.

Don't think SCW or LBG are immune

Pope I fully understand your line of thinking .

Every time I have to share the quite of the outdoors with a dirt bike ( yeah I use to ride them cross country) snowmobile( yeah tried that too ). The trail with a dang horseback rider (tried that too)or Mountain Bike ( still do that) day glow hunters in the woods around my crag ( I still hunt )or what really burns my ass is when I make endurance slog up a mountain and when I summit some dude whips on his board and floats down the hill, what will take me hours

I just want these other people to go home and get fat like the rest of america.

I have learned that even though I may not like, understand, or agree with some of these activities I tolerate and share my space.

Pope you have all the right in the world to your dickhead DICK opinion just try not to bring $#!t down on the rest of us .

I love all climbing and I don't want to give up any portion of it.

Hang in there Pope we need a couple of old crusties around here just to stir the pot.

DICK

[J_Fisher]

As I understand it, the bolting ban in the Gunks was based as much on the wishes of a plurality of the climbing community as anything else. In any event, the Gunks are private property so the relevance of the attitudes of those "land managers" is moot since we're talking public lands here.

 

I've never done one of these "alpine sport climbs" that pope seems to think are taking over the mountains (unless you count the DEB of S. Early winter Spire, bolted by that notorious sporto Beckey back in, what, the 50s?), but I've done a lot of traditional routes in the mountains with totally trashed and eroded climbers tracks to the base. This noise about bolted climbs being the cause of crowds in the hills and messed up trails is a bit silly.

 

Climbers impact in the hills is an issue, but railing against bolts is a total red herring and not productive. There have been examples in the past where a militant anti-bolt minority have agitated the powers that be into pushing policies that were anti-climbing (or at least anti-climbing as practiced by 98% of the community). (Proposed bans on fixed anchors in Josh and Sawtooths in the 90s come to mind). I'd hate to see that happen here.

[pope]

There have been examples in the past where a militant anti-bolt minority have agitated the powers that be into pushing policies that were anti-climbing (or at least anti-climbing as practiced by 98% of the community). (Proposed bans on fixed anchors in Josh and Sawtooths in the 90s come to mind). I'd hate to see that happen here.

 

When 400 bolts were removed from a cave in Oregon, it was not "noise" on a website that resulted in denied access. It was the abusive practices of the "climbers" involved. They littered the place with bolts and to 98% of nonclimbers (just to throw an invented stat right back atcha), this amounts to vandalism.

 

Forgive me for being upset that a celebrated sport climb on Garfield may result in my access being denied. The aesthetic compromise of sport climbing is bad enough, but to suggest that discussing the problem (rather than the problem itself) is more likely to result in denied access....dude, you're delusional.

 

Somehow, given the recent discussions on Garfield, I do not think a fixed anchor ban would qualify as "anti climbing". I could live with such a ban in the Alpine Lakes. And I still think that a tremendous amount of climbing would occur. What the heck did climbers do before sport climbing? If anything is "anti climbing" it is denied access, where no climbing activity is allowed. Are we willing to risk this just so that developers of sport routes can put up bolt trails in the Alpine Lakes?

[Dru]

You mean like the bolt ladder on the flagpole? who put that one up, beckey? schoening? wont they have to chop those historical bolts if they put a fixed anchor ban on the alpine lakes?

 

or is it ok to create a bolt ladder for aid climbing but not free climbing?

 

[pope]

You mean like the bolt ladder on the flagpole?

what about it?

 

who put that one up, beckey? schoening?

How should I know? Read your guide book.

 

 

wont they have to chop those historical bolts if they put a fixed anchor ban on the alpine lakes?

They?

 

 

or is it ok to create a bolt ladder for aid climbing but not free climbing?

 

Was this implied?

 

Dude, you're normally pretty sharp. Did you go out last night?

[Dru]

that bolt ladder and many others predate sport climbing

[J_Fisher]

Forgive me for being upset that a celebrated sport climb on Garfield may result in my access being denied. The aesthetic compromise of sport climbing is bad enough, but to suggest that discussing the problem (rather than the problem itself) is more likely to result in denied access....dude, you're delusional.

 

Somehow, given the recent discussions on Garfield, I do not think a fixed anchor ban would qualify as "anti climbing". I could live with such a ban in the Alpine Lakes. And I still think that a tremendous amount of climbing would occur. What the heck did climbers do before sport climbing? If anything is "anti climbing" it is denied access, where no climbing activity is allowed. Are we willing to risk this just so that developers of sport routes can put up bolt trails in the Alpine Lakes?

 

The only thing delusional is thinking that banning bolts is going to magically make all the climbers go away. There were fixed anchors, including bolt ladders, in the mountains for as long as there have been climbs. The vast majority of climber impacts in the mountains are not from the tiny handful of routes that rely on extensive fixed pro. A fixed anchor ban is not a ban on sport climbs, it's a ban on any route without a walkoff or natural rap ancors. A sling on a tree or a fixed pin is as much a fixed anchor a bolt. The fact that you can't grasp these simple distinctions or understand the implications of what you advocate shows why it would be better if you just shut up and left this to the non-zealots.

[Dru]

these here bolt trails, or blts, or maybe blot trials, they might be a little bit like chemtrails.

 

just in case they are herre is an ingenious device which will work well with tin foil hat to keep you safe and sane.

 

[willstrickland]

Courtesy of Greg Barnes, ASCA:

 

Approximately AD 1300

 

Prehistoric Anasazis in the southwest United States drilled holes for posts and carved steps up sheer rock walls in Chaco Canyon and elsewhere, and also pounded logs into cracks to form ladders. The surviving examples are clearly in locations for use as trails. However, since the Chaco Canyon culture and others were highly advanced, it’s quite possible that even 5th class spires were ascended for recreation or religious purposes, and that the intervening centuries have erased any traces. Rock art examples are frequently found in places requiring modern 5.0-5.6 climbing to access.

 

1875

 

The hugely popular trail up Half Dome ascends a steep slab at the top, and modern hikers use large cables secured by giant bolts and steel posts. The entire dome was deemed “perfectly inaccessible” by Josiah Whitney, but in 1875 George Anderson, a trail builder from Scotland, drilled holes, pounded spikes in them, stood on them, and repeated, gaining the top in a bold feat of mountaineering (he was alone as well – no partners!). Here was the first famous case of the use of “bolts” for climbing in the U.S., in this case as points of aid as well as protection by having the rope tied into the spike below him as he went. George Anderson also did a route on Yosemite's Mt. Starr King where he used at least one protection bolt.

 

1911

 

John Otto pounded and carved his way to the top of the 350’ Independence Monument in Colorado National Monument after living at its base for five years. Installing pipes in holes and chopping holds in the soft sandstone, he made his way to the top on July 4th. Otto labored for years to attract tourists and publicize the Monument, saying “I want to see this scenery opened up to all people.” His labors paid off, and the Monument was declared and the land protected in 1911. No climber would today justify carving a vertical trail up the rock, but Otto’s achievement was amazing, and the times and ethics were quite different from today.

 

1933-1934

 

At Pinnacles National Monument, south of San Francisco, bolts were used in modern climbing for possibly the first time in the United States by David Brower, along with Hervey Voge and George Rockwood, in the first ascents of the North and South summits of Condor Crags at Pinnacles National Monument (November 1933). A year later, Brower, his brother Ralph, and Dick Leonard established the Regular Route on Tuff Dome. This route set another first, as two bolts were placed specifically to protect 5.6 free climbing. Also in 1934, the first ascent of Lower Cathedral Spire in Yosemite involved the carving of artificial holds up the edge of a flake. Unremarkable at the time, such an act would today be far more controversial than the use of bolts, and with justification, as bolts can normally be erased to the point where even a climber can not find them, while a notched flake will last until the destruction of the flake, and cannot be reversed.

 

1939

 

The first ascent of the spectacular desert monolith Shiprock is often cited as the first use of modern climbing bolts. Again, David Brower, who would in later decades become perhaps the single most influential environmentalist and conservationist in the world, was involved, and the team used bolts for belay and rappel on the desperately loose, poor quality rock. They were aware of the inherently controversial nature of bolting and hammering, and referred to themselves as “rock engineers,” a derisive term used by eastern mountaineers opposed to the new techniques being used in the West.

 

 

An immense amount of information is available on the last half century of climbing in the United States, and I’ll summarize the 40s-70s very quickly, because to do justice to this period would require way too much space. Bolts have always been controversial. They were rarely used, but even when used were questioned and debated. Bolts were used for aid and to protect free climbing. Debates raged when more and more bolts were used on big walls. The debates sometimes included chopping of “excess” bolts by better climbers on subsequent ascents (later to be reversed greatly through the addition of “chicken” bolts by worse climbers). Leaving the bolt kit behind on ascents of the established big walls was the highest statement of ethics (and dangerous!); if the team was not capable of the difficult pitoncraft or free climbing of the first ascent team, they would not reach the top. Warren Harding became known for forcing aid routes up blank faces through bolts, but he had been the first to summit El Capitan, so criticism was limited. Free climbing generally had little debate since bolts were almost universally placed from stance on lead; even the addition of a few bolts to the classic Snakedike, done with permission of the first ascent team, was seen as simply allowing the amazing route to be done (somewhat) safely by others. Some tightly-bolted routes caused stirs, especially on the rare occasions when bolts were used for aid while placing the next bolt, then the route free climbed once it had been aided. A huge debate surrounded the large numbers of bolts used on the first ascent of the Dawn Wall (aka Wall of Early Morning Light) on El Capitan; for the first time, a major route was (partially)“erased,” or chopped, by the second ascent team. But, generally, all free climbing routes were done ground-up from stance, and the inherent limitations on climbing by that method produced routes which were bold, run-out, and mentally challenging.

 

A major debate, and big bolt battles within the climbing community, occurred in the 1980s and to some extent continues to this day. Two changes brought this about: rappel bolting began, which allowed the pioneers to put up routes stretching the difficulty limits to new heights; and the advent of motorized drills allowed the immense time to drill a bolt to be cut by a factor of 50 (and effort by a nearly infinite factor). In a short time, these two developments also allowed less experienced and less advanced climbers to bolt routes, often drilling on rappel where advanced climbers could drill on lead. It also lowered the commitment level – instead of days of drilling and sore elbows and hands, a few hours produced a new route. Huge ethical battles, bolt chopping, fist-fights, and arguments raged. The very fact that bolts could so easily be installed by anyone in great quantity almost pre-determined that rappel-bolted sport climbing would win by sheer quantity.

 

By the ‘90s, large numbers of well-bolted climbs reduced the psychological component of climbing and increased the physical component in many locations. Today many climbers routinely climb at levels that they would never conceive of on traditionally bolted face climbs, and many areas have seen wave after wave of bolting consuming nearly every available section of rock. Traditionally protected testpiece face climbs of the 1980s have often never seen a second ascent. The climbing community changed in composition, and climbers began to expect that well-protected face climbs were the rule instead of the exception. Indoor gyms appeared on the scene, and the number of climbers who had no clue at all about the seriousness and danger level on traditional routes skyrocketed. The rating system grew largely meaningless as nearly no components describing seriousness, type of climbing, and commitment were used. Today many climbers are used to thinking of themselves as“5.11 climbers,” when in fact they are not even slightly prepared for the seriousness and difficulty encountered on 5.8 climbs outside. Some routes at the 5.9 and 5.10a level in Yosemite, such as Steck/Salathé, Lost Arrow Chimney, and the Crack of Doom, are more difficult and dangerous by far than the “hardest” routes in the world, currently 5.15. Since all of the latter have lots of closely spaced bolts, there is little danger commitment required - instead, ferocious power, technical skill, and perseverance are required.

 

However, bolt chopping continues to this day, as tightly bolted routes and new rappel stations where downclimbing was the previous norm are chopped. Debates still rage, and many climbers rappel bolt routes only to come to a later realization that they should not have done so. A tiny minority of first ascensionists continue with tradition and establish bold new routes on lead with only occasional use of bolts.

 

Now, the pendulum may be swinging back, as more climbers turn to no-rope bouldering, and a resurging interest in ground-up traditional climbing may be occurring. It is difficult to say however, as the simple fact is that sport climbing is much safer, and even those who carry on the traditional methods often climb sport climbs on “psychological days off.” Very few climbers are capable of bold climbing at high levels, and fewer still are capable of doing so routinely. The popularity of routes has many factors, but good protection is primary, overshadowed only by rating and perhaps accessibility. Like it or not, well-protected sport climbs draw crowds, and thus land managers concentrating on bolts do so with some reason. However, Joshua Tree demonstrates that a good 5.7 crack sees endless traffic, while a tightly-bolted 5.13 never even has the grass at its base disturbed by a single footprint.

 

The most ominous sign for climbers is that the surging popularity of climbing has brought land management agencies into the onerous task of trying to regulate climbing, as they were forced to do with hiking and backpacking a generation ago. One obvious method is to prohibit the use of bolts. The U.S. Forest Service announced that it would do just that in 1998, and retracted that announcement under the massive protests of climbers and the climbing industry. However, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was formed, and it could not agree on a compromise, so the Forest Service will shortly issue its new policy, which could entirely ban bolts, pitons, slings, and any other fixed climbing gear.

 

It is important to remember what David Brower said in 1999 - that bolts are tiny and easily removed, and that the land managers have no business telling climbers what to do with bolts when they routinely allow and encourage logging, mining, grazing, oil drilling, and paving the parks for RVs and tour buses. Some environmentalists claiming to hold the moral high ground while attacking the use of bolts by climbers should look in the mirror and deal with real issues like pollution, global warming, stopping development, wilderness preservation, etc. Many climbers, from John Muir to David Brower to today, are among the strongest and most vocal environmentalists. The issue of climbing anchors is a meaningless one in the overall environment, and little climbing bolts can be removed trivially easily. Having "hikers" attack "climbers" over little bolts that no one can spot without detailed directions is an obvious divide and conquer tactic by those wishing to weaken the conservation movement.

 

Greg Barnes

[pope]

The only thing delusional is thinking that banning bolts is going to magically make all the climbers go away.

Where would these guys go?

 

 

 

 

A fixed anchor ban is not a ban on sport climbs, it's a ban on any route without a walkoff or natural rap ancors. A sling on a tree or a fixed pin is as much a fixed anchor a bolt. The fact that you can't grasp these simple distinctions or understand the implications of what you advocate shows why it would be better if you just shut up and left this to the non-zealots.

 

A fixed anchor ban might just be a ban on additional fixed anchors. I could support that in the Alpine Lakes. You speak as though if the use of power drills/bolting in general is banned, climbing will cease to exist. I'm sorry you've become so dependent on bolt trails to mark the way for your adventures.

 

Again, I would return to the examples I've provided...which you seem to want to ignore as you proceed with your "ain't about da bolts" fantasy. Here are two examples of access issues in which bolting IS the central issue. The cave in Oregon (last I read) is now completely sealed off to EVERYBODY...climbers, sport climbers and hikers alike. They didn't get kicked out of the cave for leaving a sling around a tree.

[willstrickland]

That picture is hilarious! Where is that chos..I mean crag?

 

3 bolts in 6 feet, justbe careful not to accidentally reach over and clip the bolts on the adjacent route, that's "off, brah".

[johndavidjr]

Has anybody climbed in Bow Valley? All limestone. Few opportunities to place gear. Lots of bolts (a highly relative phrase) & lots of run-out climbs. Don't know if it's controversial there, but the climbing scene seems pretty well-controlled by consensus (as one might expect in Canada). Speaking of social consensus, my German friend is an Alps nutcase (though more in terms of skiing), but won't even consider trad gear. Meanwhile, at the Gunks, bolted rap stations, which came along in 1990s, were suggested as a means of crowd control, saving the top of the crag from getting trashed by crowds of climbers walking down, saving trees from getting killed by slings & also discouraging rappers from descending popular routes. It's been only a partial success, continues slightly controversial, & bolts are only placed after consideration by a committee approved by the land owner.

------

[richard_noggin]

Let me see if bolted climbs where removed. I would grab my rack and trad climb only.

G crack in levenslab would be a non stop white highway,

OS access would be shut down, P peak would have a five year waiting list .

Keep it up!

have you ever heard the expression...shoot yourself in the foot.

Yeah! this is how it started... helmet laws on road bikes, first we gave concessions to keep lidless than after the man had everthing he wanted they still passed a law, mandatory brain bucket.

So my own brother riders gave away my freedom of choice, to ride free wind in my hair or a hot ass brain bucket... ever have a phuk'n bee up your helmet at high speed

same$#!t dif activity

PHUK IM GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE UP BIRD WATCHING OR WORSE GOLF. Do I have to were those dorky shorts?

[Off_White]

PHUK IM GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE UP BIRD WATCHING OR WORSE GOLF. Do I have to were those dorky shorts?

 

Oh, if you do, please post a TR, I'm certain it would be very entertaining. Hell, I'm already laughing.

[AlpineK]

I think it's silly to be so anti, "sport," climbing like Pope is. I remember a time when places like Castle Rock were a zoo on the weekends and today there are way more climbers then there were in the late 70s. Sure if all the, "sport," climbs got chopped some climbers would quit, but like Dick said there would be giant line ups on a lot of, "trad," routes. Furthermore Pope's whole reasoning breaks down when you start looking at old bolt ladders like Town Crier or the EB of SEWS. If we're chopping bolts shouldn't we chop those routes an teach that, "murderer of the possible," Fred a lesson?

 

On the other hand there has been a lot of abuse by some route setters. I recently did a route on Duty Dome that had at least 5 bolts placed right next to cracks that anyone with a reasonable rack and experience could easily protect.

 

For me it boils down to this.

 

I don't give a shit whether a bolt is placed on lead or rappel.

 

I like

 

Solid bolts that are placed to provide a decent amout of protection for a route and where the clips are at natural spots for someone climbing the route.

 

I dislike

 

Bolts next to cracks

Excessive bolting

Bolts placed at unnatural spots on a climb

Shitty drilling and placement

Bolted routes that are obvious squeeze jobs.

 

I think we as climbers should try and practice minimal impact but not zero impact. Possibly if this WCC gets going they could come out with guidlines for new routes and possibly some kind of approval process for new routes.

[jja]

For me it boils down to this.

 

I don't give a shit whether a bolt is placed on lead or rappel.

 

I like

 

Solid bolts that are placed to provide a decent amout of protection for a route and where the clips are at natural spots for someone climbing the route.

 

I dislike

 

Bolts next to cracks

Excessive bolting

Bolts placed at unnatural spots on a climb

Shitty drilling and placement

Bolted routes that are obvious squeeze jobs.

 

 

That picture is hilarious! Where is that chos..I mean crag?

 

3 bolts in 6 feet, justbe careful not to accidentally reach over and clip the bolts on the adjacent route, that's "off, brah".

 

If I'm not mistaken that's the exit 38 area just underneath the iron horse trail. On the right side of the pic you'll notice a concrete abutment for the trail (old rail grade). There's a climb even more noteworthy there - it's a "crack" climb formed where the natural rock meets the concrete abutment. It's even got a name, bolts, a grade, and a FA party

[MervGriffin]

Some brief observations:

 

a) what pope said.

 

b) I hope that this attempt to thwart a Google-search with "blt"=bolt and clambing=climbing is truly a joke because if it isn't, you're either paranoid or you feel that you have something to hide.

 

c) meetings about access seemed to be kept, at least initially, within the domain of a select few who were believed to have the "proper" uniform and uninflammatory attitude. They were probably afraid that the likes of Dwayner and pope might show up and give the impression that there isn't a consensus about this stuff in the climbing "community". Guess what. There is no consensus and some of us wouldn't mind seeing that Garfield route go away.

 

d) it's not about the bolts???? A large number of today's climbers are attracted to the ease and convenience of sport climbs like flies to dung. I would venture to say that the short learning curve to achieve satisfaction is quite appealing. And I would guess that given a bolting ban, that a large number of these sporto's would bother to invest in the time and equipment to climb trad and clean on the rock or in the mountains. No wonder there has been a dramatic increase of traffic on Mt. Garfield. Clip and go!

 

e) the "leave few traces" ethic that the hiking/backpacking community has embraced over the last few decades has surprisingly not had the same impact on some climbers, who install and leave their metallic waste on the rock, or in the mountains, sometimes closely spaced and occasionally next to cracks.

 

f) "Dwayner" was banned for vociferously advocating these viewpoints and predicted that this would become an issue. There IS dissension in the ranks and stifling "unpleasant" viewpoints will not make it go away. I think, for example, that the bolting ban in Joshua Tree was a step in the right direction and a ban on additional bolted routes in the mountains would not bother me one bit.

 

g) climbers gotta clean up their act or The Man is going to do it for them in The Man's own way. Bolts are an issue, and pretending that it isn't so, doesn't make it not so.

 

h) it's a shame that I am apparently unwelcome to discuss ethical topics unless it is placed in the department of "Spray". Based on previous experience, serious and vociferous commentary on this subject posted in other arenas here will likely get you banned or censored. Ethics = Spray?

 

- Merv/Dwayner

 

P.S. Read This and Think

[ScottP]

 

If I'm not mistaken that's the exit 38 area just underneath the iron horse trail. On the right side of the pic you'll notice a concrete abutment for the trail (old rail grade). There's a climb even more noteworthy there - it's a "crack" climb formed where the natural rock meets the concrete abutment. It's even got a name, bolts, a grade, and a FA party

 

I climbed that concrete/rock crack in the rain with cams not long after Brian first opened E 38. Now it's got "a name, bolts, a grade, and a FA party"? What a riot!

[pope]

it's not about blts

 

 

Somebody say "Sammich"?