Adding a bolt at Midnight Rock

[erikn]

Maybe the title on this thread was inflammatory to y'all. Sorry. I agree with JosephH that "it would be better not to start with an end solution in mind and then set out to ask for folks to support it versus trying to gather the history and facts first and then figuring out what might best be done if anything."

 

I'm not making the decision on whether to add a bolt to this climb. I'm leaving that to Peter Croft. I'm merely trying to gather some information to present to him. So far I have 2 or 3 data points, but I'd like to have more.

 

I certainly won't be adding a bolt next week... I'd wait a year or more to make sure I heard from everyone.

 

I'm not out to make the climbs of the world safer for me. I just saw a great climb (that was dirty and filled with vegetation, so likely not being climbed) with a crap bolting job and I'd like to make the world a little better. I think it is one of the truly great cracks of the Index/Leavenworth area and deserves better (there is an incredible overhanging flaring fingertip layback section). Just my guess, but to me it looks like ancient (buttonhead 1/4 inch) aid bolts placed before the route went free (I will ask Peter if he remembers the history).

 

I just want to know, from people who have done the climb: is the risky start (and awkwardly placed bolts) an important and valuable part of the climb in your experience? Is that why you do this climb? Or is it more about the crack climbing above that short face climbing section?

 

FWIW, Peter Croft clearly remembers that flaring fingertip layback. He said he was pumping out, looking at a certain fall, and just barely managed to get to the hand jam above it. He didn't remember the face climbing start.

 

One more thing: hard and scary I can live with and often do. I can appreciate insecure climbing well above my pro, but not when there is a ledge or boulders below. The way this particular climb is set up just seems dangerous for no good reason. There are already bolts there, so why not place them where they make sense for a free climber?

[RuMR]

ahhh man, another person to smite...

 

sheesh, this is just adding up to too much work...i'm gonna go on vacation!

[bwrts]

If the route was indeed aided on the gear that in now in place, then the extra bolt is not needed. I mean, really since the aiders didn't need a bolt, why should free climbers?

I do think the buttonheads should be upgraded, those are crap and there is apparently no available gear placement.

But, the other bolt, hard or not....just headpoint the bitch!

 

 

Also, I am not that impressed that Peter remembered moves of this particular route. He told me during the one time I met him that he loved climbing in Ltown. However, I do ask... did you say Steven's Pass Motel and he immediately went into his description of the climbing or did you prod the cow, so to speak??? (by no means am I implying croft to be a cow.)

 

EDIT: adding to clarify DC and my argument (in ethics thread) of what I have climbed and not climbed on Castle by the fault, if anyone other than DC cares...

The confusion: Catapult is an extension of the (geologic) and true Fault line. So, the Squeak is to the right. However, in my mention of climbing all routes to the right of the Fault, I was merely referring to the first pitch of the Fault (which many modern guidebooks only show). The rest of the "real" Fault route does not conitnue up via Catapult but turns to the right and climbs up scrappy ledgy bushy rock to the ledge where Squeak and other routes start. Then the Fualt continues around traversing to the right, following the obvious weekness to Loggers Ledge.

 

In my statement about climbing all the routes to the right I was referring to Blood Transfusion, Clean Love, Aids victim, the other yoder route, and Flying Frog...all without re-cleaning or retrobolting....I may have forgotten one other, but really who give a flying pig fuck?

 

So you see Darryl, perhaps even you are guilty of jumping to conclusions and creating turmoil on this so called cascadeclimbers spray site. No where did I claim to have climbed the stupid roof crack of Squeak and now you have Rudy hating more than ever..

 

RumR enough with PM abuse!!!!!!!! YOU FAHQeR!!!!

oh, btw mr rumr, my boss called and he needs those numbers so get to work you lazy ass engineer!

 

 

Edited September 1, 2005 by bwrts

[Dru]

Didn't he solo SPM or just ROTC?

[vwfanatic96]

I haven't done it, but from the description you post it sounds quite likely Peter did it exactly as you find it today as none of the exposure you describe (16-18ft. between points of protection sound like anything he would have been intimidated by. He's the author of more than a few scary starts [, middles, and ends] and hopefully they won't all get bolted just because someone fell on one of them. I sympathize and empathize with taking a dive and getting hurt, but that doesn't in anyway mean it should be bolted.

 

i'm gonna have to agree...it does sound like a bold start, but with a good belayer and a solid leader, not fatal.

Edited September 1, 2005 by vwfanatic96

[DCramer]

If the route was indeed aided on the gear that in now in place, then the extra bolt is not needed. I mean, really since the aiders didn't need a bolt, why should free climbers?

I do think the buttonheads should be upgraded, those are crap and there is apparently no available gear placement.

But, the other bolt, hard or not....just headpoint the bitch!

 

 

Also, I am not that impressed that Peter remembered moves of this particular route. He told me during the one time I met him that he loved climbing in Ltown. However, I do ask... did you say Steven's Pass Motel and he immediately went into his description of the climbing or did you prod the cow, so to speak??? (by no means am I implying croft to be a cow.)

 

EDIT: adding to clarify DC and my argument (in ethics thread) of what I have climbed and not climbed on Castle by the fault, if anyone other than DC cares...

The confusion: Catapult is an extension of the (geologic) and true Fault line. So, the Squeak is to the right. However, in my mention of climbing all routes to the right of the Fault, I was merely referring to the first pitch of the Fault (which many modern guidebooks only show). The rest of the "real" Fault route does not conitnue up via Catapult but turns to the right and climbs up scrappy ledgy bushy rock to the ledge where Squeak and other routes start. Then the Fualt continues around traversing to the right, following the obvious weekness to Loggers Ledge.

 

In my statement about climbing all the routes to the right I was referring to Blood Transfusion, Clean Love, Aids victim, the other yoder route, and Flying Frog...all without re-cleaning or retrobolting....I may have forgotten one other, but really who give a flying pig fuck?

 

So you see Darryl, perhaps even you are guilty of jumping to conclusions and creating turmoil on this so called cascadeclimbers spray site. No where did I claim to have climbed the stupid roof crack of Squeak and now you have Rudy hating more than ever..

 

RumR enough with PM abuse!!!!!!!! YOU FAHQeR!!!!

oh, btw mr rumr, my boss called and he needs those numbers so get to work you lazy ass engineer!

 

 

mmmm maybe Ben but... We were discussing two routes climbing thru the overhangs on Lower Castle Rock. You then claim that you have climbed all the routes right of the Fault. The upper pitches of the Fault form the right most route I know of on that part of the crag. Thus in that sense every route on the crag is left of most of the Fault – this includes those routes you say you have climbed. (all about ½ rope length slab routes) Squeak is to the left of the majority of the Fault. You call it route above the Fault not to the left, so it seems that you are being inconsistent with your use of the location describing terms. I would note that at any time on Squeak if you were to head directly right you would intersect the Fault. The same thing would happen if you chose to descend. The reverse is true for the route you mention.. Apesville and Monkey Lip, it should be noted, ascend through a layer of roofs that cuts across Lower Castle Rock. They share a approach up and to the left of p1 of the Fault. Brass Balls breaches the roofs by continuing basically straight up from the bottom of the Fault. The routes climbing through the right side roofs (including Squeak) share an approach climbing up and right from the start of the Fault. You said that you climbed every route to the right of the Fault. The entire Fault route has probably gone years without being climbed. I ask several questions with which you reply with inconsistent use of locational terms. I conclude that you are just being an obscurantist. In fact that night I pm’d a mutual friend asking if you were drunk!

 

I would add that in discussing the location of the roof routes the first descripter used would be left or right side. Left and right would be defined by being left or right of the intitial pitch of the Fault.

Edited September 1, 2005 by DCramer

[andyf]

The first time I saw SPM (circa 1987 or 88), there were long fixed slings on the bolts, presumably to make them clipable. I was in the company of climber very active at Midnight from the mid-70s to early 80s who told me that Bob McGown had placed the bolts. He also expressed the opinion that the bolts were placed without regard to whether they were in the "right place" to protect free climbing. Point being, if this is true, the bolts pre-date Croft's ascent and were put in half-assed to begin with.

Edited September 1, 2005 by andyf

[JosephH]

I'll ask Bob about it sometime in the next day or two...

[Geek_the_Greek]

Hey Erik N,

 

It sounds to me like the bolts were put up by some no-good dirtbagger drunk on absinthe looking for something to do with his drill that day. Do we honour his inebriated vision? Nyet! You have my permission to relocate said bolt or add a new one to save your ankles. See, I care more about your ankles than about some arbitrary botch job that happened to be the first visit to that hunk of granite.

 

Lucky for me, my opinion counts just as much as those who have done the climb (or might eventually do it), and nothing in the climbing world happens without a thorough democratic process on cc.com, following the report of the ethics committee, the history board, the environmental brotherhood, and the rock desecration police.

[RuMR]

 

you left out bwrts hoppin around making the statement "pigs flying" come true...

[bwrts]

for the most part, No one owns any of the rock so if you so desire go bolt the fucker into submission you tweakers. Afterall, the president wants all to be safe!

 

Rumr stfu before I send my army of darkness to make your life hell. OR ask my office to get more calcs from you so you will never leave your PC again...

 

BTW, Darryl, I have climbed the entire Fault route twice in the last two years but I did not scrub it to make a path to salvation so perhaps it looks unclimbed still. Sorry.

[RuMR]

slapped any triple integrals on a chunk o' mud lately?

 

So, just how do you punkasses actually come up with these bullshit numbers you force us to use???

 

clownz...

[bwrts]

i dont do any of that boring computer bullsheit. I am a field geologist that gets to sit outside and watch people work or collect the samples for the numbers.

the numbers come from years and years of experience. ask the engineers how carefully they need to calculate all the factors together to make our life safe. oh wait, aren't you an engineer. ask yourself then.

[pms]

Being a little bit familiar with the climb (top-rope), replacing the bolt, or moving the bolt, or whatever makes sense, sounds good to me. Right on to erikn for asking others opinion. I wonder how many of the anti bolt folks know the climb and the bolt in question? There are some killer climbs at Midnight, so it benifits everyone I think to be discussing the issue. Hey peterpuget or anyone else, do you know of any super crack ascents?

[mattp]

Right on to erikn for asking others opinion.

 

PMS is right on! ErikN finds a bolt that he thinks may have been badly placed, and it is 20 years old and rusty. He wonders about "fixing" the situation and posts here on cc.com asking what others may think of it.

 

Bill Coe made a similar point on page 1 of this thread: ErikN should not be chastized for bringing this question up. Not only that, but I believe that we should all recognize this for what it is:

 

one of the first, if not THE first, times somebody has asked in a public forum in advance of altering a route in Washington.

 

Remember: ErikN has not, and said he is not sure he will, add or move a bolt.

[JosephH]

As I said early on in the conversation, Erik is doing absolutely the right thing calling Peter and asking everyone here and out at the crag. But again, asking shouldn't be automatically receiving, it should begin a quest for the history and facts to determine if the a change is warranted. The default starting position should always be no change until facts (did Peter do it with a long sling, etc.) and or circumstances (such as broken key hold, etc.) dictate otherwise. Again, Erik is definitely to be commended for not retrobolting unilaterally...

[mattp]

But, Joseph, let me point out: you immediately entered this discussion with the premise that there could be no justification for adding a bolt (moving it has subsequetnly been presented as an option). Within two or three posts at the beginning of this thread, and with no indication that anybody had such expectations, you wrote that "This is the same discussion as ever - when did "safe climbing" suddenly become an expectation and right and why should it be?".

 

I agree with you that the DEFAULT position should be that one would not make any changes in an existing climb. However, here you completely ignored the possiblity that this may have BEEN the default position and I believe the very first post from EricN indicated that he agreed with your default position from the start. The result has been that we have had a discussion based on the premise that this HAS TO be a contentious "issue" rather than a considered discussion.

 

There have been some good points made in this discussion. Lets entertain more of them.

[billcoe]

Right on to erikn for asking others opinion.

 

Bill Coe made a similar point on page 1 of this thread: ErikN should not be chastized for bringing this question up. Not only that, but I believe that we should all recognize this for what it is:

 

one of the first, if not THE first, times somebody has asked in a public forum in advance of altering a route in Washington.

 

Remember: ErikN has not, and said he is not sure he will, add or move a bolt.

 

You sir, Mr Matt: UNDOUBEDLY have superior intellect and compassion to have finally recognised the one true truth! A scholar of the highest order no doubt!

 

It appears that the bolt will not be needed or placed in this single circumstance. Like you, I thank Erik for asking nicely. Nice job Erik. The community has now spoken and is discussing still. It's all good. I believe, had the bolt gone in anyway after the discussion, it would not have been a good thing, yet the world would have continued on it's usual rotation. I could be wrong, it has been noted that on another occasion I was incorrect previously. Last year, for instance, I incorrectly bet $100 that Al Kadia would attack a stragic supply point of petrolium like the Samref Exxon Aramco refining complex at Yanbu- thus raising the pump price to $3.00 somewhere in Oregon (think the Alvord dessert somewhere). I was incorrect in my timeing. I just payed $3.00 for my last tank full, still $100 poorer.

 

-Back on task-

 

Frankly, I THINK, (that's "I think" which is differenciated from "I KNOW") a new bolt went into one of Josephs fav. trad routes. I pointed this out to him, however, given our respective ages, neither of us was sure (despite doing this particular route a total combine time between the 2 of us of ohhh, maybe a 100 times give or take 75 times - and JH many of those times solo) if the bolt was new, or old.

 

The conundrum was solved in this instance to our mutual satisfaction by meerly clipping said bolt and continuing on.

 

The world, surprisingly, kept spinning.

 

Warm regards to all, like to make Levenworth if possible:

 

 

Bill

 

edited to add that I need to type faster, there have been 2 posts since I started typing! Yikes!

 

Edited to add one more time: I have abolutely NO (thats NO) knowldege of this route, and will leave that discussion to those who do, trusting that in a full discussion, the correct decsion will be made.

Edited September 3, 2005 by billcoe

[RuMR]

...now...back to pigs flying...

[billcoe]

...now...back to pigs flying...

 

Not quite yet:

 

BTW: From Rockclimbing.com, Richard Goldstone (well know Gunks climber- climbing for 47 years) says on a thread about better gear taht he likes the new stuff (as do we all), but:

 

 

Here's my one beef: the increased level of safety from better gear and the influence of the methods of sport climbing exert a growing pressure to "sanitize" all climbs by bringing them up to some perceived universal standard of safety. Climbs that are poorly protected somehow "need" bolts, because some climbers have discovered a "right" to climb them "safely," no matter how the rock was designed by nature to begin with. This sense of entitlement is something new to the sport, and I find it antithetical to the spirit of exploration which, even in crowded times, is still the fundamental ingredient of trad climbing.

 

But I'm a relic, and all this is just muttering in my Geritol. Carry on, lads...

 

This is Josephs point as well, and I agree and understand it totally. I have no knowledge if that is what this route/bolt question is presenting: however, it doesn't appear to be the case to me.

 

Bolt comments

[JosephH]

Bill, what mystery bolt are we talking about now? I am getting too damn old...

[mattp]

Getting old is hell. Just the other day I... what was I saying?

 

When your alzheimer's med kicks in, give Bob Mcgowan a call and tell him to chime in here with whatever he may be able to add.

[Geek_the_Greek]

So none of this discussion actually addresses the real question: given all the back-patting that Erik N is getting for asking the question, how is the apparent opinion of "the climbing community" to be deduced?

 

A question was asked about placing a bolt. Certain individuals were clearly anti-bolt from the beginning, others were clearly pro-bolt (or indifferent to adding a bolt) from the beginning, and other folks asked for more information. Some more information was presented, and more pontificating ensued, along with unhelpful sarcasm, side debates regarding dwarf tossing, questions on who should have permission to offer opinions, arguments about what side of 'the fault' certain climbs were located (or was that in another thread?), etc.

 

So, do we take a vote? Who votes? Do people who climb harder get more votes (a meritocracy)? Do people who have climbed for longer get more votes (a gerontocracy)? Do we just shut up and go climbing?

 

Climbing ethics by community consensus: a guaranteed good time!

[mattp]

I'm not sure anybody ever thinks there will be anything like concensus, Geek, but a discussion like this one CAN offer good information for someone who ponders upgrading or altering a climb -- and this discussion indeed HAS.

 

In my eyes, the opinions of those who actually HAVE climbed the route should receive greater weight, and I often assert that guys (like me) who have been climbing longer than the average bear probably have greater perspective because we are all so wise and stuff like that, but to be honest I'd like to draw a broader base of climbers into these discussions and I note a distinct absence of anybody under, say, 30 and anybody who actually admits they like sport climbing.

 

As some have noted, climbers often take unilatteral action, adding or chopping bolts without consulting anybody else but perhaps their buddies. I see no harm in talking about it in a relatively reasonable fashion.

[pope]

Well, if the "community" decides an ADDITIONAL bolt is appropriate, I'm sure within a couple of years somebody is going to then solicit "community" opinion on carving a couple of jugs. Think of it....an even safer climb, even more accessible to an even wider spectrum of climbers, resulting in even more traffic with far fewer chances that the route will ever get dirty again. And by then we'll be upgrading it again, maybe to 5.13!

 

This shit is weak.