Jap Gardens P1 Short Anchors

[TeleRoss]

Nobody would of thought twice about the route neither the anchor if someone hadn't taken it.

 

You're probably right...but...it still makes for good internet forum fodder.

[chucK]

I totally agree with your sentiment, but I don't think that it prevails in the climbing community as a whole.

 

It is not recognized by many that the practice of making climbs more accessible for more climbers often removes value for other climbers.

 

Just look at the number of people who use the "if the don't like it, skip it" argument. This line of reasoning asserts that you can have it both ways. That, depending on users choices, a line can be both easy to climb and hard. But it just ain't so.

 

At a place like Index, there are limited resources. Unfortunately there are differing attitudes on what comprises a fun day at the crags. These divergent interests are going to occasionally clash, witness Jap. Gardens P1 Short Anchors.

 

Fortunately, there is much hulabaloo over a single climb. While we debate what should be done with this lone cherry in the cocktail, the majority of climbs are being left alone.

 

With respect to this one climb my opinion is that Index does not have an overabundance of moderate climbs. Jap. Gardens P1 gave the moderate climbers one more asset. Furthermore, due to the facts that:

1) the anchors in question are at a no hands stance,

and ironically,

2) since there is good pro nearby,

an argument that these anchors are somehow removing a challenge for the harder climbers would be baseless.

 

So I would vote to keep the anchors there.

[Mr_Phil]

And 'Jap' is *still* a racial slur.

 

You guys suck.

[chucK]

I was careful to include a "." to make it an abbreviation, but your formulation Jpn is better.

[cman]

I don't have a problem with removing that anchor, although i have climbed and enjoyed it many times.

 

My real questions is why they removed only one!! If it was an effort improve the purity of the climb then why leave a bolt right next to a protectable crack? I am assuming that hard guys still clip that bolt. or are hard climbers just trying to shut out the easier ones?

[chucK]

Good point.

 

Here I (we) am/are waxing all philosophical about climb aesthetics and such; but the reality is, is that this was probably just a thief who wanted a hanger, or a selfish hardman wanting to keep gumbies away, or both.

[mattp]

TimL writes:

 

This is not a question of making JG more accessible. If we are talking access we would remove all fixed anchors and make people climb up and over the LTW and walk off. This is just a question of replacing an established fixed anchor.

 

I'm not following you here. Doesn't the availability of a rappel anchor make this initial bit of Japanese Gardens an easily climbed/returned-to-the-ground option for those looking for 5.10-?

 

How is that not making that bit of rock "accessible?"

 

How would removing all fixed anchors promote "access?"

 

I probably don't disagree with you, but I'm unclear on these points.

[soulreaper]

1) the anchors in question are at a no hands stance,

 

They're not at a no hands stance. I mentioned this before; the OLD anchor was at a no hands stance below. The "new" one that we've been discussing is about 8 feet above the ledge that forms the stance.

 

Since we're beating around the bush, the specific issue is the removal of the hanger, nut and chain from one of bolts on the first anchor of Japanese Gardens. Stealing fixed gear is dumb. If the intention was to clean the anchor itself, the job was exceptionally poor, as there is still a stud left without a hanger.

 

More generally, bolting at Index is a concern to me because the trend has moved towards retrobolting. Some of this has been more tasteful than other of it, in my opinion. Some of the more lame examples include:

 

-Black Cat Bone at the Blues Cliff (perfect parallel finger crack--retroed)

-Angora Grotto, which I haven't seen but understand it's a similar situation

-The more recent alleged strange appearance of bolts on Centerfold P.4 (luckily taken care of)

 

The reason I care is that I'm interested in cleaning and climbing "old" routes at Index. In this context, just because the first ascentionist thinks it's ok to either bolt or retrobolt a climb where natural protection is fine doesn't mean it's ok. That just shows me that the people involved are no longer behaving responsibly toward a resource that they themselves have enjoyed. Instead, they're removing the challenge and adventure for all of us "young" ones who are now enjoying their legacy.

A first ascent does not imply ownership over a route in the sense that all ethical decisions default to being acceptable "as long as they're made by the first ascentionist(s)". If he or she decided it was ok to break out the chisel, what then? A different case would be if the person in question chose to reduce an obvious danger, such as a runout; if protection is available, however, it doesn't make sense to add fixed pro.

I guess in the end it's hard to draw a line anywhere because of a plethora of different factors, but the preservation of both challenge and adventure should be of paramount concern in new routing and in the upkeep of old routes (I.E., bolt replacement--if it's going to be there it shouldn't be mank). Giving carte blanche to every whim of everyone who puts up a route is tantamount to not caring about the cliff, because there will obviously be cases that are clear ethical violations (I.E., chipping). And "violation" indeed suggests that a "code of ethics" of some sort exists--which I believe is true at least in a very general sense.

As for the Japanese Gardens anchor: I would be happy if someone either removed and patched the stud or replaced the hanger, nut and chain. If the stud is removed, the chain should be removed from the other bolt to prevent one bolt rappels which aren't particularly safe. It seems like enough people feel (more) strongly (than I do) about this particular anchor, so I'm sure something will happen one way or the other.

[TimL]

TimL writes:

 

This is not a question of making JG more accessible. If we are talking access we would remove all fixed anchors and make people climb up and over the LTW and walk off. This is just a question of replacing an established fixed anchor.

 

I'm not following you here. Doesn't the availability of a rappel anchor make this initial bit of Japanese Gardens an easily climbed/returned-to-the-ground option for those looking for 5.10-?

 

How is that not making that bit of rock "accessible?"

 

How would removing all fixed anchors promote "access?"

 

I probably don't disagree with you, but I'm unclear on these points.

 

Its kind of a "all or nothing" statement. There are so many anchors providing access at Index that the anchors on Jap Gardens really don't make that big of a difference. Really, I don't think I have ever had to set up a natural belay at Index.

 

Soulreaper is right, the stance at the anchor is not a "no hands stance....or maybe it is if you are eight feet tall.

 

I really wish I didn't post this topic...but I did. Gotta learn to keep my big mouth shut.

 

I believe bolting has a place. If people are having issues with JG, they should open their eyes and look a little bit to the right or left. Then I think they would have something to talk about, and there are some climbs that I think should be returned to their natural state, but this is not the place for that discussion.

[hawkeye69]

soulreaper said

Instead, they're removing the challenge and adventure for all of us "young" ones who are now enjoying their legacy.

 

i beenn climbin over 30 years, not much of it in the great PNW (bein new here) but i have been around. i just wanted to say that soulreaper doesnt sound like a "young" climber. sounds like you really have your ethical sh&& together and i appreciate reading your posts.

 

its good to see someone who is not totally anti- or totally pro-bolt posting here. not that others are'nt.

Edited October 18, 2006 by hawkeye69

[RuMR]

he's young...and motivated...

[mattp]

TimL, it would be a better place for this kind of discussion if a broader range of people were willing to participate here. I think I can understand your hesitance but your viewpoint would only add to the discussion.

[bwrts]

If you allow the broad range of people to post, then egos will flare up and words will be written that will no doubt make someone cry and give you reason to ban them or delete their posts and then what will we accomplish....Nothing. just like all the other threads which deal with similar ethical questions. What I do not understand is the large number of "elder" climbers that insist to "bolt" without regard to ethics. The same ethics which they used to support and practice. Makes no sence unless maybe...yes I got it, perhaps there is something in the drinking water that has altered their perception of reality. The Fluoride?!

[DCramer]

More generally, bolting at Index is a concern to me because the trend has moved towards retrobolting. Some of this has been more tasteful than other of it, in my opinion. Some of the more lame examples include:

 

-Black Cat Bone at the Blues Cliff (perfect parallel finger crack--retroed)

-Angora Grotto, which I haven't seen but understand it's a similar situation

-The more recent alleged strange appearance of bolts on Centerfold P.4 (luckily taken care of)

 

The reason I care is that I'm interested in cleaning and climbing "old" routes at Index. In this context, just because the first ascentionist thinks it's ok to either bolt or retrobolt a climb where natural protection is fine doesn't mean it's ok. That just shows me that the people involved are no longer behaving responsibly toward a resource that they themselves have enjoyed. Instead, they're removing the challenge and adventure for all of us "young" ones who are now enjoying their legacy.

 

I am not so sure that I agree with the claims made above. Take for example the three items on the list. The third is strictly alleged. I am not convinced that it even occurred, however, if the bolts were placed, I am fairly certain that the FA party had nothing to do with them. The other two examples are not new at all - I believe that they happened in the 1990’s. (BCB may have been very early 2000’s) Virtually all of the cases I know where a member of a FA party retro-bolted a route have been the work of one person. For many years this person’s primary residence has been outside the US. I know of no retro-bolting activity by him over the last several years. I am fairly confident that the same person was responsible for the JG rap anchor but honestly cannot say for certain. I seem to remember him being worried that people were lowering off the old anchor which was certainly dangerous. Since this person’s activity has been non-existent for several years and since FA party retro–bolting activity was pretty much limited to him in the first place, I do not think that the claims (in bold) are reasonable. Simply put the trend as stated does not exist. Of the routes I have put up at Index I can remember retro bolting only one (Pins replaced by bolts) and it was not at the Lower Wall.

 

Again I wonder why these anchors seem to attract attention when the bolts to the right at the start barely generate a comment.

 

[TeleRoss]

Not sure about the Centerfold bolts either. We climbed the route a few days ago, and while I certainly didn't look very hard, I didn't notice any patch marks.

[TimL]

soulreaper said

Instead, they're removing the challenge and adventure for all of us "young" ones who are now enjoying their legacy.

 

i beenn climbin over 30 years, not much of it in the great PNW (bein new here) but i have been around. i just wanted to say that soulreaper doesnt sound like a "young" climber. sounds like you really have your ethical sh&& together and i appreciate reading your posts.

 

its good to see someone who is not totally anti- or totally pro-bolt posting here. not that others are'nt.

 

He's young motivated and tearing shit up

Edited October 18, 2006 by TimL

[minx]

 

You can't undrill the holes in the rock. Leave it alone. I haven't encouraged the addition of any new hardwear. Just dismissed the implication that removing an existing anchor will somehow improve the asthetic. If you don't like it don't use it.

 

I admit it seems like it wouldn't make sense to put it in there. Too Late. It's already there.

 

Bad arguements Minx, as was your last post. Just because somebody plunked in an anchor somewhere, dosen't mean that the next person now must forwver suffer it being there because some dick head wanted to put in in and it's in now so everyone MUST now leave it there.

 

Pffsssst.

 

As far as you being a weak climber and needing a short anchor. Well, that arguement is weak as well, why not just stay in the gym instead of lowering the climbs to your level?

 

Frankly, Dcramer has an arguement for leaving it there that is hard to argue against, ie, 1) it's pretty much always been there and 2) it's a damn good place, being a no hands nice little stance right there.

 

lets see here bill,

 

DC says that since it's pretty much always been there leave it--funny, i think i made the same point.

 

i guess i just don't see the difference. i thought i was pretty clear. it's already there. leave it alone. no point in undoing it--there'll still be a scar. i don't approve bolting cracks. i don't see why you have a problem with my saying it but it's OK if someone else says it.

 

why am i obligated to become a 5.10+ climber? i am perfectly happy climbing 5.10- with the amount of time i have to climb. climbin a few grades lower than you doesn't make my opinion less valid.

 

i can't help but think that you're a total dickhead who just doesn't like me.

[RuMR]

he's a chauvinist pig...don't take it personally!

[soulreaper]

I should certainly clarify that I'm by no means trying to make a blanket statement regarding first ascentionists. I've climbed many of your (DCramer) and Greg Olsen's (who I've met a few times at Vertical World) routes, as well as those of many other of the prolific ascentionists from that period. It may sound silly, buy I have a profound admiration for you not only because of your work on what I consider to be the best rock I've climbed on, but also for your continued interest in the resource. It's inspiring to those of us looking for an act to follow in Washington as far as climbing goes. Exaggeration? I think not. If it doesn't seem overly obsequious, consider it a complement.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about the trends I posited in my last post (essay--I apologize: I have an English degree): I hope so, because it seems like society at large goes to great lengths to comfortize and in the short time I've been climbing I've seen the reflections-or should I say, 'shadows'-of that trend at various cliffs. I thought the examples I provided were particularly flagrant, the questionable validity of the Centerfold claim notswithstanding. I certainly didn't mean that "everyone" was involved, just a few (or fewer than that?) individuals. I'm willing to admit that the "trend" I referred to is, as you say, extremely localized at Index, at least at this point.

 

In any case I didn't intend to shovel mud; I apologize if that seemed like some kind of general challenge to "those that came before". And I'll take your cue about more worrisome rogue bolts (mank) on the cliff and put some actual work into it this Winter.

[bigwallben]

Amen. Herr soulreaper.

[pink]

 

You can't undrill the holes in the rock. Leave it alone. I haven't encouraged the addition of any new hardwear. Just dismissed the implication that removing an existing anchor will somehow improve the asthetic. If you don't like it don't use it.

 

I admit it seems like it wouldn't make sense to put it in there. Too Late. It's already there.

 

Bad arguements Minx, as was your last post. Just because somebody plunked in an anchor somewhere, dosen't mean that the next person now must forwver suffer it being there because some dick head wanted to put in in and it's in now so everyone MUST now leave it there.

 

Pffsssst.

 

As far as you being a weak climber and needing a short anchor. Well, that arguement is weak as well, why not just stay in the gym instead of lowering the climbs to your level?

 

Frankly, Dcramer has an arguement for leaving it there that is hard to argue against, ie, 1) it's pretty much always been there and 2) it's a damn good place, being a no hands nice little stance right there.

 

lets see here bill,

 

DC says that since it's pretty much always been there leave it--funny, i think i made the same point.

 

i guess i just don't see the difference. i thought i was pretty clear. it's already there. leave it alone. no point in undoing it--there'll still be a scar. i don't approve bolting cracks. i don't see why you have a problem with my saying it but it's OK if someone else says it.

 

why am i obligated to become a 5.10+ climber? i am perfectly happy climbing 5.10- with the amount of time i have to climb. climbin a few grades lower than you doesn't make my opinion less valid.

 

i can't help but think that you're a total dickhead who just doesn't like me.

 

 

minx, stop acting like a chick before you give couchmaster a complex. just becauce bill disagree's with you, doesn't mean he dislikes you. he is a dude, and dudes don't operate like that. go back to your cubicle and log bac on when your cycle is over.

[minx]

pink -- soooo sorry you couldn't get the sarcasm in my comment. i forgot the lame ass rolly eyes graemlin thingy.

 

most people would know that i don't give a fuck if bill likes me.

 

now when you're done assuming that me calling bill out involves estrogen, go re-read my post and tell me that i'm wrong.

 

[pink]

i'm a little offended by your profanity.

[pink]

minx, i never said you were wrong, as long as you think your right is all that matters. i try to surround myself with woman that don't talk like sailors. you seem a little angry, but i'm sure there is a sweet little girl in there somewhere.

 

lets be friends, sorry if i hurt you feelings.

[archenemy]

i try to surround myself with woman

Indeed that must be a challenge for you.