Bolting a crack to "protect it from pins"....

[RuMR]

Here's another view of the same climb. Looks protectable to me.

 

So, remind the Doctor again what it is about the bolts near the crack that prevent you from still placing your own gear?

 

And Pope is saying he prefers to have a crack bashed out with pins so it has nice, fatty scars to bash bigger pins into, rather than have some 3/8" diameter holes in the rock? OK, whatever you say, there, Mr. Preserver-of-the-rock!

 

its only so poop and dwanus can get their fat piggies into the scars and crank the adventure out...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Here's another view of the same climb. Looks protectable to me.

 

So, remind the Doctor again what it is about the bolts near the crack that prevent you from still placing your own gear?

 

And Pope is saying he prefers to have a crack bashed out with pins so it has nice, fatty scars to bash bigger pins into, rather than have some 3/8" diameter holes in the rock? OK, whatever you say, there, Mr. Preserver-of-the-rock!

 

its only so poop and dwanus can get their fat piggies into the scars and crank the adventure out...

 

[Gary_Yngve]

So Poopie ran away from his own thread? I really wanted to know what he thought of Dana's Arch. btw - AlpineK - that was hilarious.

[crazyjizzy]

 

When Dana's Arch was originally bolted, I did agree with the premise. The pitch was free climbable, and was getting beat to shit.

 

How, in your mind, does the bolting of Dana's Arch compare with the bolting of the Zipper Roof?

 

Good question, good point. Dana's arch was going to get destroyed ala Serenity Crack. Prior to the bolting, Zipper had had, in my estimation, few ascents. Although the guide book refered to it as A1, the start was very hard, with a real bad fall potential. There was one original bolt after a couple of moves. After that, most of the pins are fixed. I would say that the aditional bolt elliminated an A3 ledge-fall move, and then replaced original bolts.

 

Zipper is now easier, where Dana'a Arch was always A1. The bolting on Dana's was to prevent "unwarrented" damage, where the bolting on the Zipper was for a ill-concieved free attempt. Neither upset me, I thought that the Zipper bolting was stupid, and the Dana bolting actually had a purpose. I have seen bolting that did anger and upset me.

[MisterMo]

Like it or not, Dana's arch is thoroughly trashed with or without the bolts, at least from an esthetic point of view.

Placing the bolts may have slowed future damage; it certainly didn't undo any. I'm certainly guilty some of the trashing, even though I never drove anything hard enough to break the flake. I don't know if there was stuff available then that would have enabled a pitonless ascent of that pitch; whether or not there was, the pitonless ethic was not then in full force.

 

It's sad, I guess, because that was such a pretty crack and it is now slutted out for all eternity; in fact it's something I regret having taken part in. A more enlightened point of view might have left it unclimbed for a day when it might be done differently in a less damaging style, but, that level of foresight is pretty difficult to get right........maybe more so when you're young. I was sixteen when I took that photo of Dana and we....both....knew....absolutely... everything.

 

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that maybe the place to fuss and fret, if people are going to engage in such things, is to fuss and fret over the style in which NEW routes are done. Stuff like Dana's arch can only stand as an example of styles and ethics that clearly did not work. Beyond that you cannot put the smoke back in the fire.................

[ScottP]

I can see how Dana's Arch would eventually attain the ugly countenance of Serenity Crack. The bolting on that pitch never really bothered me either due to it being a pretty fun freeclimb.

The Zipper bolts, in my opinion, is another story. That pitch lost some of it's 'charm' with the addition.

(It's still an exciting lead though, getting out of the scoop.)

[EWolfe]

Like it or not, Dana's arch is thoroughly trashed with or without the bolts, at least from an esthetic point of view.

Placing the bolts may have slowed future damage; it certainly didn't undo any. I'm certainly guilty some of the trashing, even though I never drove anything hard enough to break the flake. I don't know if there was stuff available then that would have enabled a pitonless ascent of that pitch; whether or not there was, the pitonless ethic was not then in full force.

 

It's sad, I guess, because that was such a pretty crack and it is now slutted out for all eternity; in fact it's something I regret having taken part in. A more enlightened point of view might have left it unclimbed for a day when it might be done differently in a less damaging style, but, that level of foresight is pretty difficult to get right........maybe more so when you're young. I was sixteen when I took that photo of Dana and we....both....knew....absolutely... everything.

 

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that maybe the place to fuss and fret, if people are going to engage in such things, is to fuss and fret over the style in which NEW routes are done. Stuff like Dana's arch can only stand as an example of styles and ethics that clearly did not work. Beyond that you cannot put the smoke back in the fire.................

 

Well Put, Amigo!

[crazyjizzy]

The Zipper bolts, in my opinion

 

You did it before the re-bolting? It was hard then, right at the start! I thought a person could get real fucked up it the first pin or two popped (so I never did it!).

[archenemy]

Hey lookie here, a bolting debate!

[RuMR]

you don't say?!!!!?

[archenemy]

I do say

[EWolfe]

Well, I never.

[pope]

So, remind the Doctor again what it is about the bolts near the crack that prevent you from still placing your own gear?

Gee, your observations are always so illuminating. I think I get your point. Dog shit never stopped anybody from using a sidewalk.

 

 

And Pope is saying he prefers to have a crack bashed out with pins so it has nice, fatty scars to bash bigger pins into, rather than have some 3/8" diameter holes in the rock? OK, whatever you say, there, Mr. Preserver-of-the-rock!

 

Let's deconstruct Dr. Hangdog Underwhelming's last argument. He suggests that I prefer pin scars to bolts. Actually, I'd prefer to see neither but if I had to compare the two infractions, most pin-damaged cracks I have seen are less offensive than a bolt trail. Not just aesthetically, but also because a pin-damaged crack still requires some degree of alpine skill to climb and protect. Clipping bolts never has and never will.

 

Further, one infers from his writing that there is a choice to be made, that somehow bolts and pin damage are mutually exclusive. The notion that we should accept a trail of bolts because of its tendency to diminish piton damage is dubious. If you read Daryl's post in the Dana's Arch thread, you'll find that he is uncertain that bolting Dana's arch effectively prevented or retarded pin damage. And what a price.

 

 

And now I have to return to this quote:

 

So, remind the Doctor again what it is about the bolts near the crack that prevent you from still placing your own gear?

 

I can't be sure, but it sounds as though you don't have a problem with finding a trail of bolts next to a protectable crack. How do you feel about a gondola being built on the Squamish Chief? Remember that the gondola wouldn't prevent anybody from hiking the trail.

[olyclimber]

I notice you actually dodge the good points that were made and go straight for any weak points. Excellent tactics. Otherwise we might actually get somewhere.

[pope]

I notice you actually dodge the good points.....

 

Or maybe the good points were hiding and I failed to find them. Please summarize these "good points".

[olyclimber]

Like it or not, Dana's arch is thoroughly trashed with or without the bolts, at least from an esthetic point of view.

Placing the bolts may have slowed future damage; it certainly didn't undo any. I'm certainly guilty some of the trashing, even though I never drove anything hard enough to break the flake. I don't know if there was stuff available then that would have enabled a pitonless ascent of that pitch; whether or not there was, the pitonless ethic was not then in full force.

 

It's sad, I guess, because that was such a pretty crack and it is now slutted out for all eternity; in fact it's something I regret having taken part in. A more enlightened point of view might have left it unclimbed for a day when it might be done differently in a less damaging style, but, that level of foresight is pretty difficult to get right........maybe more so when you're young. I was sixteen when I took that photo of Dana and we....both....knew....absolutely... everything.

 

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that maybe the place to fuss and fret, if people are going to engage in such things, is to fuss and fret over the style in which NEW routes are done. Stuff like Dana's arch can only stand as an example of styles and ethics that clearly did not work. Beyond that you cannot put the smoke back in the fire.................

 

read

[pope]

Like it or not, Dana's arch is thoroughly trashed with or without the bolts, at least from an esthetic point of view.

Let's see, already trashed by pin scars, a few bolts didn't make it any worse? Is that one of the good points? Two piles of dog shit is no worse than one?

 

 

Placing the bolts may have slowed future damage; it certainly didn't undo any.

That is a good point!"

 

 

I'm certainly guilty some of the trashing, even though I never drove anything hard enough to break the flake. I don't know if there was stuff available then that would have enabled a pitonless ascent of that pitch; whether or not there was, the pitonless ethic was not then in full force.

Any good points in there I may have missed?

 

 

It's sad, I guess, because that was such a pretty crack and it is now slutted out for all eternity; in fact it's something I regret having taken part in. A more enlightened point of view might have left it unclimbed for a day when it might be done differently in a less damaging style, but, that level of foresight is pretty difficult to get right........maybe more so when you're young. I was sixteen when I took that photo of Dana and we....both....knew....absolutely... everything.

"Gee it's too bad but young folks make mistakes." Certainly true, but a trail of bolts is something that can be mopped up.

 

 

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that maybe the place to fuss and fret, if people are going to engage in such things, is to fuss and fret over the style in which NEW routes are done. Stuff like Dana's arch can only stand as an example of styles and ethics that clearly did not work. Beyond that you cannot put the smoke back in the fire.................

With this point I disagree. Instead of an example of mistakes made, from which we can all learn a lesson and improve our behavior, it is my observation that one trail of bolts tends to give the green light for the next. Take Vantage, for example. A couple of 40-ft faces get bolted and suddently everybody with a roto-hammer sees a line with all of the potential for an 8-bolt "test piece". And when examples of bolted cracks get zero reaction from those who disapprove, the message is that it's "open season" for bolts. Cracks, previously bold face climbs, everything is fair.

[RuMR]

And what a price.

 

OH THE HORROR, THE ABSOLUTE HORROR...SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE FUN IN A DIFFERENT WAY...

[RuMR]

Like it or not, Dana's arch is thoroughly trashed with or without the bolts, at least from an esthetic point of view.

Let's see, already trashed by pin scars, a few bolts didn't make it any worse? Is that one of the good points? Two piles of dog shit is no worse than one?

 

 

Placing the bolts may have slowed future damage; it certainly didn't undo any.

That is a good point!"

 

 

I'm certainly guilty some of the trashing, even though I never drove anything hard enough to break the flake. I don't know if there was stuff available then that would have enabled a pitonless ascent of that pitch; whether or not there was, the pitonless ethic was not then in full force.

Any good points in there I may have missed?

 

 

It's sad, I guess, because that was such a pretty crack and it is now slutted out for all eternity; in fact it's something I regret having taken part in. A more enlightened point of view might have left it unclimbed for a day when it might be done differently in a less damaging style, but, that level of foresight is pretty difficult to get right........maybe more so when you're young. I was sixteen when I took that photo of Dana and we....both....knew....absolutely... everything.

"Gee it's too bad but young folks make mistakes." Certainly true, but a trail of bolts is something that can be mopped up.

 

 

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that maybe the place to fuss and fret, if people are going to engage in such things, is to fuss and fret over the style in which NEW routes are done. Stuff like Dana's arch can only stand as an example of styles and ethics that clearly did not work. Beyond that you cannot put the smoke back in the fire.................

With this point I disagree. Instead of an example of mistakes made, from which we can all learn a lesson and improve our behavior, it is my observation that one trail of bolts tends to give the green light for the next. Take Vantage, for example. A couple of 40-ft faces get bolted and suddently everybody with a roto-hammer sees a line with all of the potential for an 8-bolt "test piece". And when examples of bolted cracks get zero reaction from those who disapprove, the message is that it's "open season" for bolts. Cracks, previously bold face climbs, everything is fair.

 

Pope...you are a blithering fool of an old fart...and that is coming from one himself...

 

Listen dumbass, its just too much damn work to actually bolt every crack around for these lazy fucks...give it a rest already...gear protected cracks will not disappear...jeezus you are the absolute master of hyperbole...do they teach you that in RichardSimmon's "How to be an annoying fuck class"???? you dumb

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Gee, your observations are always so illuminating. I think I get your point.

 

No shit, pal. And it's about time you managed to grasp something besides your aiders.

 

 

Let's deconstruct Dr. Hangdog Underwhelming's last argument. He suggests that I prefer pin scars to bolts. Actually, I'd prefer to see neither but if I had to compare the two infractions, most pin-damaged cracks I have seen are less offensive than a bolt trail. Not just aesthetically, but also because a pin-damaged crack still requires some degree of alpine skill to climb and protect. Clipping bolts never has and never will.

 

Further, one infers from his writing that there is a choice to be made, that somehow bolts and pin damage are mutually exclusive. The notion that we should accept a trail of bolts because of its tendency to diminish piton damage is dubious.

 

"Dr. Hangdog Underwhelming." Not bad, chuffer.

 

So, the degree of damage to the rock is not the issue for you, but rather how hard or easy it is to clip the pro? Talk about dubious, and talk about myopic.

 

And yes, Pope, there is (clearly) a choice to be made--is that not at the heart of this debate? Whether 'tis better to install fixed pro than to continue to bash great slots into the rock? How you can decry bolts and chipping but endorse the continued, progressive abuse of the rock with pins because it is somehow more alpine-hard trad-style is beyond this Doctor's grasp--as are your aiders.

[johnkelley]

Bolted cracks suck! Why haven't they been chopped? That's the only way to stop it.

[sexual_chocolate]

As I was ideating over a few things, the following thoughts came up:

 

Was Dana's Arch protectable, or aidable clean before the bolts were added?

 

It seems to me that promoting a clean aid ethic does more to protect the integrity of the rock (and route) than simply slamming bolts next to a crack.

And if the crack doesn't protect well enough for a particular climber's free ascent aspirations, perhaps that climber needs to discuss his plans with the most qualified and skilled climbers to get some feedback on the climb's do-ability before simply getting the power tool out.

 

I personally do feel that there are some climbs out there, very protectable, that could have some misguidedly placed bolts removed. Will I do it? Nah, too lazy, and generally I don't see over-bolting as a huge problem within areas in washington that matter.

[archenemy]

It's always fun reading the well thought out arguements against bolting. They sound very logical and scientific. They are built up carefully and unwrapped just right.

 

 

Am I the only one who just likes climbing a route that hasn't been bolted just because it seems to feel better? Tell me someone else out there knows what I mean.

[sexual_chocolate]

if i am to consider your statement above as a serious reply, free of subtle innuendo and camouflaged sarcasm(?), i would note that i am not "anti-bolt" per se, but i certainly advocate a judicious approach, perhaps erring on the side of restraint (I very much appreciate the existence of locales such as the Needles, SD, and grit in England etc. it's a different game, and damn interesting).

 

i can imagine i know what you mean. but without knowing what you mean, it's hard to tell.

[catbirdseat]

It's always fun reading the well thought out arguements against bolting. They sound very logical and scientific. They are built up carefully and unwrapped just right.

 

 

Am I the only one who just likes climbing a route that hasn't been bolted just because it seems to feel better? Tell me someone else out there knows what I mean.

You argument is the aesthetic one. Every crack is different and each crack can be protected in any number of ways. It puts an element of variety and a sense of discovery into each climb. Now bolts...well a bolt is a bolt is a bolt.