Greed

[jblakley]

Sorry guys but I am still finding it hard to get worked up over the bolting issue. I do have ethics such as no excessive bolting, no bolting cracks etc. but I'm not with the ban bolts crowd.

I am going to commit a major faux pas here by admitting to sport climbing and actually enjoying it. I also enjoy trad climbing and mountaineering and naked twister (with chicks of course!).

So I guess I am somehow morally bereft and just a general all around wuss eh? It seems as if the mentality around here is 'you're either against sport climbing or you're against us'. Am i reading too much into this?

I know Bryan as an acquantance and happen to think he is just a great human being. I don't think he got into climbing to make money and I have heard that most of what he has made off the books went into paying for the gear he has used to put up routes. If he is making a lot of money it doesn't show in the car he drives.

Has his part in developing routes caused a negative impact on climbing in Washington. Well I guess that depends on what you see as negative.

So explain this to me: why does an individual have to either like trad or sport but not both? I am not an old school climber as I have only been doing this for 8 - 9yrs so maybe I would feel differently if I had started in the 70's. Or maybe I'm just a wuss :-)

[pope]

Is that what life comes down to, enjoyment? Can you think of things that would be enjoyable (think Katie Brown) but that might not be right? How about a gondola up the mighty Mt. Rainier? The wilderness ethic suggests that maximum enjoyment in wild places will be extended to many generations of enthusiasts by keeping things wild.

I don't think you're unusual for enjoying clipping bolts, and it doesn't mean you are a wuss. It means that your desire for enjoyment is stronger than your belief in preserving wilderness. See you in Confessional.

[mattp]

Peter and Pope -

I agree, Exit 38 is an eyesore. I view it as an outdoor gym, and I go there for a workout sometimes, but it is my least favorite among all Washington climbing areas. I agree, too, that I wouldn't want to see that style of climbing "invade" traditional rock climbing areas and I think it unfortunate that there are a lot of climbers who think that an outdoor gym is what climbing is all about. Agreed, thirdly, that the guidebook is a glossy overproduction that contains little more information than the prior six or ten page article published in Rock and Ice. But my point was that I believe the area and the book serve a large group of climbers and that there are a lot of positive things that could be said about them beyond just that they keep the riff-raff away from Index. Chipping and gluing aside, few people putting up climbs and promoting an area have ever worked as hard as Brian did to assure that their efforts would not cause access problems or other bad PR for climbers. And the place is wildly successful if you measure it by how many people are out there having a good time.

I agree with Mr. Blakely that there is room for a variety of approaches to the sport and I don't see Exit 38, in and of itself, as a threat to Index or Washington Pass.

- Matt

[pope]

And all of this from the guy who was revolted to the point of wanting to retro-bolt City Park. Glad to have you aboard, Peter. I knew you felt this way about it the entire time, and I think you've done a splendid job of reiterating what has been said some power of ten times. And yes, DONNA IS HOT!

[Dwayner]

Mr. Puget! A spirited bit of intense commentary! And for your entertainment and enlightment, I am afraid that I must second what Pope has said above.....Damn Donna...she's HOT!!! I just got a phone message from her yesterday...she´s apparently moving on to France, (probably to climb topless in the Calanques, I suppose). Don't know if she's still hanging with Iain the Rat-faced Boy. I doubt it...she goes through temporary climbing partners like Kleenex. Charms 'em, does the routes she wants, and moves on.

By the way, Mr. Puget, I was pleased to see you use the word "hagiography" perhaps for the first time ever on this list. It brought fond memories of a paper I gave at a scientific conference a couple of years ago on the subject of the work of a famous explorer. A reviewer described it as an "unedifying, sycophantic hagiograhy". I'm going to quote that one on my c.v.!

Carry on, passionate rock and bolt debators!

- Dwayner

P.S. Did I mention that she's HOT?!!!!!

[mattp]

Mr. Puget -

You suggest that I have elevated Brian Burdo is some kind of Saintly status, but I have clearly indicated in my prior posts that I do in fact share some of the critical views of what has taken place at and with respect to Exit 38 and Little Si. My point is that there were some things that were done well, and I think that Brian put more effort than you recognize into planning for minimum impact and trying to promote a good public image for climbers but, even if all he did was to "obey their commands" with respect to certain issues, he did that. There have been recent situations in Leavenworth and at Vantage, I believe, where this did not happen. No, Mr. Burdo is not a saint. I already said I think Exit 38 is an eyesore. And yes, he is a self-promoter. But his efforts to make something that would reflect well upon the climbing community have, in my view, been under-recognized. And it IS personal: real people take real actions with real consequences and we cannot talk about what was done without at least implicitly talking about the individuals who did it.

I cannot directly comment on the impact of events at Exit 38 or Vantage on a decision by the Banks Lake manager because I don't know much about what has happened at Banks Lake. I will say, however, that my guess is that the "Banks Lake manager" is responding out of genuine concern. While Exit 38 may have been cited as an example in some discussion one day (or even several times, for that matter), I bet the root issue is that where there is a sport climbing area there will be climbers, cars and dogs, and they will want to stay overnight in the area. Mr. Manager would not be doing his job if he didn't worry about the impact of a new sport climbing destination in his (or her) area, and even if Vantage and Exit 38 had never been developed he should have been able to look as far as Smith Rocks to identify the concerns. As to future discussions at Banks Lake or elsewhere, I believe climbers will want to be able to demonstrate that they are willing to work with land managers and neighboring property owners, and I would hope that we can point out the positive as well as the negative aspects of what has taken place in other areas. Perhaps Joshua Tree is the poster child for responsible climbing area development, I don't know.

I agree that sport bolting and the "public" acceptance of it are negative trends in our sport. Yes, the irreversible nature of installing a bolt, and the unsightliness of grid bolting give those opposed to climbing a strong argument to use against us, whether the bolts are the real issue or not. And the hot debates among the climbing community over the retrobolting of a route like DDD at Castle Rock certainly add fuel to some of these fires. But the tide is against those of us who simply want the issue to go away.

I support anybody's campaign to promote traditional climbing values over sport climbing methods. But let's try to be realistic and let's not go on a tirade against sport climbing areas but instead let's focus on how those might be developed and maintained in a manner that will allow all of us to keep on climbing.

 

- Matt

[Peter_Puget]

Matt -

I suspect we agree much more than we disagree and I am certain we agree more than I agree with Pope and Dwayner. Certainly I do not express myself as well as I wish I could. I never meant to start a diatribe against a certain area or even certain people but clearly I was speaking out against certain actions. I agree that actions are comitted by people but must say that they can easily be dealt with on a purely action external basis (think Kant!) while ignoring inner motivations. The fact that these exchanges has taken place in the Greedd thread says alot. The frustrating thing about 38/Si is that with several small changes most of the negative effects would have been ameleorated if not eliminated. For example: 1. Leave some routes as top rope and promote them as such. 2. Did you know that some routes were actually completed on the Amazonia cliff that used natural pro along with one bolt. These routes were remade as clip ups with the clip up FA gettign the credit? On the margin had events like these not occurred, we would not be having this "conversation." Remember it's the last three bites of the third burrito that do all the damage - little changes like this would have had a disproportionate impact.

[jblakley]

First of all I really like the exchange of honest opinions on this site. I'd much rather have somone tell me I'm full of shit to my face rather than to smile and go look for someone to assist in assasinating my character.

That said, I honestly find it hard to get very worked up about quite a few things in life. Bolts in general are one of those things. I do disagree with the frequency or placement of bolts in some areas, but the actual placing of a bolt, treating it as it's own system, does not really bother me. Maybe it boils down to a matter of opinion. I don't think visually they are that instrusive when done right. I've even found it hard to see them when I'm on route sometimes.

Here's a scenario: a new crag is found that no human really would have reason to visit or does for that matter. The hillsides around it have some clearcut going on. Some routes are bolted in relatively good taste and a small trail is created to get to the area. It requires a half hour hike to get back into the area.

question: is this bad and if so why in 25 words or less.

I'm not convinced that legislation has been proposed limiting climbing just because of bolts. There is always some bureaucratic type out there to try and control any group having fun. I really think it's a control issue. If bolts were not even being used other issues such as insurance or rescue costs or trampling vegetation to get to climbs would come into play.

The same thing is happening with mountaineering and rescues. I'm not saying that my opinion on this won't change. I am also not for wanton bolting on anything hard and vertical (no not you Big Lou). My point is that like it or not compromise is in order. Sport climbing is here to stay. What the older or more experienced climbers could do though is gently steer a given trend into a better direction. If one tries to change the direction or speed of a large ship too quickly for instance the ship will break and sink.

I really don't think any extreme tactics or opinions are going to do anything but create divided camps. my 1/50th of a buck.

Jim

[Peter_Puget]

Nope not bad. Maybe even good!

I agree that compromise is the solution and tried to suggest that in my last post. I also agree that bolts are often used as a cover issue when really there are other reasons such as your stated trampled vegetation. However, it should be noted that repeatedly bolts have been used as the leveraging issue to restrict climbing activity. Here is an example of how bolting has been used as a critical factor in the formulation of climbing policy. During climber/manager negotiations over J-tree an article appeared (I believe in the LA Times) showing a picture of a single bolt. Letters from non-climber readers sent to the Parks Service decrying such “wilderness vandalism” were shown to climbers and used to help justify a possible radical shift in park policy.

I too enjoy some of the discourse on this website and think that somehow underneath the goofiness there is the germ of something worthwhile. I hope that I didn’t give the impression that I was calling anyone full of &%#!.

 

[jblakley]

Peter,

No I wasn't referring to you about the "full of shit" reference. Just illustrating how I usually prefer straight shooting. I must admit I am ignorant of the politics of climbing and your reference to the Joshua Tree scenario is eye opening. What about the closures at Hueco were as I understand it the issue is not bolting. Couldn't pretty much any reason be cooked up to close down an area? This is what scares me. If we can somehow unite under a common, acceptable ethos won't we better be able to deal with any potential closure legislation? Of course a lot of what I'm saying is a little idealistic at best as there will always be differences of opinion. I will do my best to keep an open mind to some of the very good opinions being expressed here.

[Peter_Puget]

Don't know much about Hueco.

Your right though that many reasons could be used to justify climbing closure (some valid ie bird closures) and that the best defense is for climbers to behave responsibly and with the greater good in mind. I believe it is also neccessary for statewide groups to form at least in a limited sense. Local area specific groups seem more intent on maximising their own benefit perhaps at the expense of the whole. National groups are simply too national. Perhaps the best things climbers can do is to voice their opinions, listen to other opinions and make an effort to simply think more about these issues.

[mattp]

If I thought it would really work, I'd be for further discussion on this bulletin board and in some kind of in-person town meeting type forum, with the goal to be the airing of opinions and formulation of some common ground rules for developing and maintaining climbs. We'd really have to have some expert moderator, however, or this would only degenerate into a mudfest. Also, we'd have to have some kind of policing to enforce any ground rules or there would continue to be some people who would ignore "public" opinion and do what the hell they want. So for now, I'll just try to voice my opinions when given the opportunity, listen to others when confronted with a different idea, and urge everyone to take responsibility for their actions and try to behave in such a way that reflects well upon the sport. This is vague, bland, insubstantial and romantic drivel, I know, but what can a guy do?

[Peter_Puget]

Actually MAtt I think I'll follow your lead as it seems like the best short term response. Perhaps I am naive but I think that little by little as more climbers talk about it the right behavior will tend to dominate.

[pope]

Gentlemen, don't forget that your persuasive arguments are read by many, many people, and while most of the people posting may have made up their minds about what constitutes ethical fixed protection and restrained use of alpine playgrounds, a number of youngsters discovering the joys of mountain climbing would benefit from hearing how older guys think. When I started, I was fortunate to hook up with some mentors who not only taught me to double-check knots and "x" my 'biners, but who also gave me a sense of respect for preserving a rock face in the same way I'd respect a fragile meadow or a beautiful piece of hand-crafted furniture. I also read many of the bolt-war debates presented in mountaineering journals back in the 1980's, and I mean to tell you that youngsters read this shit and formulate their opinions based on passionately presented but logically grounded arguments.

Sad thing is, most young climbers are introduced through gym climbing and the sport-cliff environment, where bolting is a huge part of the game. If you want to shape the future, if you want to see a generation of climbers who do give a shit, I think reaching these kids is the answer, and this forum is not a bad place to start.