Bolted routes that shouldnt have been

[Alex]

I am not so sure that Erikn's intitial posting about a bolt on SPM was really the best thing to do, but in any event the thread has wandered, so I split this off in an attempt to keep Erikn's thread more on topic.

PP

 

 

 

my GOD, all this discussion about one bolt, when just across the way at a crag I visited for the first time this weekend but shall remain nameless, I saw more bolts next to perfectly protectable cracks (all in the name of "route development for the gumby sporto masses") than I ever hope to see anywhere else!

 

If it were the Gunks that shit would have been chopped in seconds (and ratings would be significally more in tune with reality), and some really fantastic trad routes on "damn, this is granite" could have been allowed to flourish.

 

But no, subdue the shit for the masses.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Alex

[RuMR]

the gunks aren't granite...

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Alex]

duh

 

Here's a question: Say the "FA" has bolted a line into submission, placing many bolts next to perfectly protectable features. Not only that, but placing sporto chain anchor 5 feet from the top of a walkoff decent. I come along one day (yesterday, lets say) and easily lead this bolt protected travesty on natural pro.

 

Does that give me the right to chop the route? how about with the FAs approval? How would my action be viewed any differently than a noble RR chopping that evil bolt-spawn Dawn Wall creation of yesteryear?

 

'Cause if you say yes, you can sure as shit bet that by the end of the week there are going to be a few less bolted moderates at a local crag. But maybe I wont wait for your collective decision. Maybe I will realize that my ethics are not the conglomerate of a dozen disparate internet voices? Maybe I will make a decision on my own, just like that "FA", that might affect the future climbing experience (positive or negative) of others.

 

Soliciting input might be noble, but in the end climbing is selfish, no one "owns" the rock (unless its on private property, eh?), and we all have to live with the consequences of our actions much much longer than we initially suspect.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[slothrop]

Well, you better at least post before and after photos so we can all scrutinize your work from our chairs.

 

I don't suppose this'd be Pearly Gates, would it?

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Alex]

I'm not going to play 20 questions, but no, it was not PG.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[billcoe]

duh

 

Here's a question: Say the "FA" has bolted a line into submission, placing many bolts next to perfectly protectable features. Not only that, but placing sporto chain anchor 5 feet from the top of a walkoff decent. I come along one day (yesterday, lets say) and easily lead this bolt protected travesty on natural pro.

 

Does that give me the right to chop the route? how about with the FAs approval? How would my action be viewed any differently than a noble RR chopping that evil bolt-spawn Dawn Wall creation of yesteryear?

 

'Cause if you say yes, you can sure as shit bet that by the end of the week there are going to be a few less bolted moderates at a local crag. But maybe I wont wait for your collective decision. Maybe I will realize that my ethics are not the conglomerate of a dozen disparate internet voices? Maybe I will make a decision on my own, just like that "FA", that might affect the future climbing experience (positive or negative) of others.

 

Soliciting input might be noble, but in the end climbing is selfish, no one "owns" the rock (unless its on private property, eh?), and we all have to live with the consequences of our actions much much longer than we initially suspect.

 

You make some good points.

 

You are saying an easy protectable crack has never been led before?

 

Well hell yes, you have veto power in the form of a crowbar, as we all do, but I think it is incumbent upon us as individuals to excercise restraint and good judgement. If you feel that the original FA did not excercise good judgment, well, there you have the makings for a nice little war of ethics: sort of like what the 80's was all about eh?

 

Good luck

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[RuMR]

jeez alex...your pecs hurt from the beating??

 

whatever, being a vigilante is lame...maybe, since you joke_mods like fucking w/ people's titles you could change yours to the "mighty wanna-be ken"...

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[TrogdortheBurninator]

duh

 

Here's a question: Say the "FA" has bolted a line into submission, placing many bolts next to perfectly protectable features. Not only that, but placing sporto chain anchor 5 feet from the top of a walkoff decent. I come along one day (yesterday, lets say) and easily lead this bolt protected travesty on natural pro.

 

Does that give me the right to chop the route? how about with the FAs approval? How would my action be viewed any differently than a noble RR chopping that evil bolt-spawn Dawn Wall creation of yesteryear?

 

'Cause if you say yes, you can sure as shit bet that by the end of the week there are going to be a few less bolted moderates at a local crag. But maybe I wont wait for your collective decision. Maybe I will realize that my ethics are not the conglomerate of a dozen disparate internet voices? Maybe I will make a decision on my own, just like that "FA", that might affect the future climbing experience (positive or negative) of others.

 

Soliciting input might be noble, but in the end climbing is selfish, no one "owns" the rock (unless its on private property, eh?), and we all have to live with the consequences of our actions much much longer than we initially suspect.

 

In LW, or any area with rich traditional history and/or quality rock, I feel that ethically speaking the FA should have strived to use protectable features in place of bolts. That said, comfort level is highly subjective, and perhaps the FA wanted to create a route for the masses. If this thing can be sewn up with gear, or at least well protected at the cruxes, the bolts are probably superflous and my gut would be they should be removed with proper consent.

 

I take it this particular crag/route has little historical significance, and the following points merely provide some perspective:

 

You say (maybe hypothetically ) that you lead the route clean. Was the route at your limit? If it were at you're limit, do you think all of the bolts would still have been unnecessary? If it were you're first forray (sp?) in to a new grade, how many bolts would have been unnecessary based on tricky pro etc? I would assume the FA made a judgement on this (possibly a poor one), and deemed the route would offer more as a sport climb.

 

I feel that there is little place for overbolted sport routes at established traditional crags in LW; however, some new sport climbing development on new crags does serve to broaden the available climbing experiences. Take rattlesnake rock for example (I haven't been there). My understanding is the climbing is unique and high quality. I would guess there are occasional features that could be naturally protected, but they are ignored for convenience or safety or whatever.

 

PS, I like to sport climb with some frequency and have never once skipped the convenience of a good bolt in favor of gear.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Alex]

I am not Ken Nichols, Rudy. I understand the role bolts play very well and frankly if you had any idea you'd know me as a very docile accepting climber. I sure happily clip enough bolts without complaint and have drilled a few.

 

But to permit such an intense disregard for rock where anything, and I mean anything goes, is just plain irresponsible. The gym is the gym. There are limits to what should be bolted even in places where bolted climbs are accepted as the norm.

 

Also, since you might not have noticed, I have not been a mod for quite some time, so now I'm just a lemming like you.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[Alex]

In LW, or any area with rich traditional history and/or quality rock, I feel that ethically speaking the FA should have strived to use protectable features in place of bolts.

 

Even in LW, this has hardly been the case the last 5 years. The new route development that I have seen in Leavenworth in recent times has sometimes been either squeeze job, contrived, unethical, or all 3. I have climbed alot of quality routes in Der Worth, but I would say a vast majority of them are in the old guidebook. But I am not complaining 'bout that.

 

You say that you lead the route clean. Was the route at your limit? If it were at you're limit, do you think all of the bolts would still have been unnecessary? If it were you're first forray (sp?) in to a new grade, how many bolts would have been unnecessary based on tricky pro etc? I would assume the FA made a judgement on this (possibly a poor one), and deemed the route would offer more as a sport climb.

 

At the Gunks or Index it would have been 5.5. It was technically no harder than Saber. So no, not at my limit (but one day soon, it might be, wheres my walker??). If it were an out of the way crag that no one ever frequented I might not care (but it isnt). My feeling is that none of the bolts are necessary. For those who are really curious and would like more information, please PM me and I will tell you the name of the route, and you can go climb it and make up your own mind. Oh, except Rudy, who seems to already have made up his mind about this particular issue.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Although I'm a relative newbie, I would agree that new route develpoment in LW has been heavily contrived. Based on your description, it would seem highly appropriate to find/contact the FA and ask what the F*** they were thinking. If their response doesn't jive, ask them about removing some/all of the bolts.

 

It would seem that a route such as this is probably a misplaced application of unsolicited vigilante actions.

 

I'd be interested in knowing what route it is.

[ScottP]

at a crag I visited for the first time this weekend but shall remain nameless

It might help the conversation a bit if the crag was named so there was some context to your argument.

[slaphappy]

My mistake, I was wrong, it all fuckin sucks...

Edited September 7, 2005 by slaphappy

[TrogdortheBurninator]

I didn't mean to imply all of it. All I know about recent development in LW comes from guidebook dates on moderate climbs. I've noticed a lot of 10- bolted slabs in the canyon, many of which lack specific character. Maybe contrived is the wrong word, but I really dont think bolting another one of these slabs is the best direction for the canyon. Obviously living there you have a much better perspective than me and I'd be interested to hear what direction you have seen the icicle going.

[layton]

Although I'm a relative newbie, I would agree that new route develpoment in LW has been heavily contrived.

 

It has? All of it? What routes? What is your definition of contrived?

 

Blanket statements like this suck, my guess is you don't have a clue what has been going on in L-town in the last 5yrs. (or 10 for that matter).

 

Yeah, Leavenworth has a lot going on. especially after 11pm. then the place gets CRAZY!

 

Love,

Mike

[AlpineK]

Although I'm a relative newbie, I would agree that new route develpoment in LW has been heavily contrived.

 

It has? All of it? What routes? What is your definition of contrived?

 

Blanket statements like this suck, my guess is you don't have a clue what has been going on in L-town in the last 5yrs. (or 10 for that matter).

 

Go climb Solid Gold. there are a bunch of bolts next to easily protectable cracks.

 

Condormorpine is a fucking joke.

 

I forget the route at Pearly Gates, some 5.10 slab thing, but there's an obviously drilled out pocket for a hold. The route next to it has 1 bolt 2' above a crack.

 

Give me some time and I'll come up with a long list.

 

There is some new good stuff, but there sure is a lot of bullshit in Der.

[pope]

whatever, being a vigilante is lame

 

In civil society, where rules are agreed upon and where an executive body manages their enforcement, that's true.

[JosephH]

When it comes down to bolts next to protectable features and chains on a walkoff you probably should ask the FA to remove them, but if they don't I would have no compunction in removing them at all or in announcing my intent here. In fact, I'm somewhat stunned no one from one of the organized groups in Washington hasn't have brought the matter up and initiated a cleanup...

[chris]

I agree, no bolts should be installed where natural protection could be placed, and I'd have no complaints if some were removed from some routes because they were inappropriate. But do the bolts (at the anchor your speaking of) protect a tree from being slinged to death? I've witnessed at some crags here in California where there has been some real damage done to trees being used as protection and top-rope anchors.

[JosephH]

MtnFreak,

 

Thanks for that addition, I should have qualified my statement better relative to the top anchor. If it is protecting a tree, leave it, if it is simply so someone doesn't have to top out and walk off, pull it. This is another farly sad hangover from gyms which have no top outs. Several of us have been commenting lately that that is beginning to evidence itself in a rise in accidents and near accidents related to just being around the tops of routes and crags as folks simply don't get that exposure or experience indoors. Preventitive top anchoring of routes with walkoffs to compensate for a lack of experience and self-awareness is not the answer.

[Drederek]

Bolts near easily protectable features = lame. Rap chains in an area like Leavenworth where trails are in a constant state of erosion are often a good thing. The length and complexity of any walkoff as well as solidness of the terrain are factors to consider. The whole climbing world does not have a paved trail down from the top.

[mec]

some of the climbs in Zion do have a paved trail. Weirdest topout you can imagine. Prodigal Sun, Moonlight buttress and others topout right next to a 4 foot wide paved trail swarming with tourists. You are enjoying the climb,then all of a sudden you are surrounded by folks taking your picture, asking if you climbed the face, and other annoying habits.

[mattp]

Around Seattle, at least, most crags seem to me more often than not to be appropriately fixed with rap anchors:

 

 

 

At Little Si, the DNR asked climbers NOT to trample the cliff top and nearly all climbs have rap anchors eliminating the need to top out;

 

At Exit 38, I have not been to all the crags there but I've only seen a couple of routes that have reasonable walk off options, so nearly everything has a rap chain;

 

At Mount Erie, on those crags where walk offs are reasonable, they and fairly standard last I checked;

 

At Index, there is a combination of setups, nearly all established with some thought behind them;

 

At Leavenworth, there is a combination so that (for example) there are no rap routes at Castle Rock, where a good walk-off exists, ditto at Icicle Buttress or Snow Creek Wall (though here there has been an ongoing disagreement about the latter because many climbers feel the walk off is both tedious and dangerous), but at other crags such as on the sandy slopes of Icicle Creek Canyon, where walking off would add to eroded messes, there are rap chains;

 

At Darrington, walking off is pretty much not an option. Rappel anchors are in place;

 

At Vantage, it is a mix but I believe that the DNR has asked for climbers to minimize trampling at the cliff top;

 

At Tieton, those with decent walk-offs are largely walk-offs.

 

 

 

---

 

None of thse areas are managed or maintained exactly as I would have them if I owned them, and at all there are some examples of "unnecessary" rappel anchors. There may be a growing trend toward more of them, but in general it appears to me that the climbers involved have shown some thought about what they are doing.

[Alex]

good points, i can understand the rap anchor setup to prevent hordes from trampling the surrounding area getting down. in those cases i would much rather have 2 inconspicuous chains than a big donkey trail down from the top.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[TimL]

jeez alex...your pecs hurt from the beating??

 

whatever, being a vigilante is lame...maybe, since you joke_mods like fucking w/ people's titles you could change yours to the "mighty wanna-be ken"...

 

I´ve climbed enough with Alex to know that he is not a vigilante looking for a bolt war. Something was bolted really bad to get a response from him. I know of routes in LW that are grid bolted, forced lines that have no place being on the rock. As for Condomorphine, I think its a good route. It has a few to many bolts for my taste, but its a good route. I think it would be better as a mixed route, but thats just my opinion.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget