Bolting etiquette (for solo climbing)

[JosephH]

I might just keep the idea of "placing them in a hidden, recessed spot, a couple inches off the ground" up my sleeve (as mentioned above)...

 

Have to say again this is a bad idea, you'll piss folks off, and they'd last less time than a top anchor at Rocky Butte - and for what? Hump an empty haul bag up and fill it with rocks for an anchor if that's what it takes, but like Kevin said, getting creative is the name of the game.

[Mr_Phil]

I'm pondering a scenario:

You are going to start off on a solo climb up an already bolted route.

 

Question - is it acceptable to place a couple of bolts with hangers at the base of the climb a couple of feet off the ground which would end up being used EXCLUSIVELY for an upward pull?

 

Personally, I think you guys have your heads up your asses.

 

It's ok to bolt the route and have bolted anchors, but not ok to add a bottom anchor?

 

This is pure arrogance.

[kevbone]

I'm pondering a scenario:

You are going to start off on a solo climb up an already bolted route.

 

Question - is it acceptable to place a couple of bolts with hangers at the base of the climb a couple of feet off the ground which would end up being used EXCLUSIVELY for an upward pull?

 

Personally, I think you guys have your heads up your asses.

 

It's ok to bolt the route and have bolted anchors, but not ok to add a bottom anchor?

 

This is pure arrogance.

 

Not if the FFA or FA did not do it first, and remember most of climbing is pure arrogance.

[JosephH]

Mr Phil, charges of arrogance rooted in ignorance on the topic at hand is pretty intimidating. Adding bolts for soloing is completely lame and pretty much the antithesis of the whole idea of creative self-reliance.

[kevbone]

Mr Phil, charges of arrogance rooted in ignorance on the topic at hand is pretty intimidating. Adding bolts for soloing is completely lame and pretty much the antithesis of the whole idea of creative self-reliance.

 

 

What about adding bolts when the anchor was previously a tree?

[JosephH]

If you're talking a top anchor and the route gets any traffic at all then I'd say put in an anchor to spare the tree. I've seen too many of them die over the years. Bottom anchor for roped soloing - use the tree, I do all the time.

[kevbone]

Not to push your buttons JH, but you placed two brand new bolts on grassy ledges as an anchor for a fixed line that was previously tied off to a tree just so it was less visible at 500 feet off the deck. That way one could get down over the ledge to top rope a climb. I am in the mind set that either get creative without drilling more bolts or lead the damn climb ground up.

 

Just my thoughts.

Edited April 6, 2007 by kevbone

[billcoe]

Mr Phil, charges of arrogance rooted in ignorance on the topic at hand is pretty intimidating. Adding bolts for soloing is completely lame and pretty much the antithesis of the whole idea of creative self-reliance.

 

Yeah, whuhhh he said, well spoken.

______________________________________________________________

 

Not to push your buttons JH,

 

Opps, too late.

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

Personally, I think you guys have your heads up your asses. It's ok to bolt the route and have bolted anchors, but not ok to add a bottom anchor?

 

That is correct: just double check the F*ken rulebook, page 181 paragraph 5 subsection 2.

 

This is pure arrogance.

 

No - this is artificial arrogance, "pure arrogance" is showing up late for the party and deciding on your own to alter a route to make it easy for yourself because....well, just because you want to do it. Cause then its all about ME MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME me!

[JosephH]

Kevin, I added an anchor to replace a tree anchor that required 60 feet of rope and still sucked for the purpose of accessing the routes it served. I was specifically, repeatedly, and independently asked to eliminate that rope by BRSP, the WSP Resource Steward, and the WDFW. The replacement anchor and rope are virtually invisible, both from the ground and Grassy Ledges. And given one of the two routes is the best, if not only reasonable place, to stage a rescue litter off Grassy Ledges, the anchor can also serve that rescue option as well. Jim O. and pretty much everyone else who has seen it views it as a much better arrangement to the rope running from the tree down to the now removed sport anchors. So again, the rope sucked for getting down to the routes, it pissed off three different folks we don't want pissed, and was a straight anchor trade for the tree.

[kevbone]

Kevin, I added an anchor to replace a tree anchor that required 60 feet of rope and still sucked for the purpose of accessing the routes it served. I was specifically, repeatedly, and independently asked to eliminate that rope by BRSP, the WSP Resource Steward, and the WDFW. The replacement anchor and rope are virtually invisible, both from the ground and Grassy Ledges. And given one of the two routes is the best, if not only reasonable place, to stage a rescue litter off Grassy Ledges, the anchor can also serve that rescue option as well. Jim O. and pretty much everyone else who has seen it views it as a much better arrangement to the rope running from the tree down to the now removed sport anchors. So again, the rope sucked for getting down to the routes, it pissed off three different folks we don't want pissed, and was a straight anchor trade for the tree.

 

I do like the hidden little rope that you can clip to get to the repel anchor on climbers left, but why the need to get to the top of the other climb?

[JosephH]

The premise for the anchor replacements was like-for-like functionality.

[Kevin_Matlock]

It's ok to bolt the route and have bolted anchors, but not ok to add a bottom anchor?

 

This was sort of my prospective of why I asked this in the first place. I mean, what does it matter if the bolting party was the first ascent or not? They still have permanently altered the rock. Why do they get a free pass? I understand that there is the unwritten rule of "leave it as the FA was done", but what happens if the first team up a route bolted it "poorly" (definition purposely ambiguous)? Surely nobody is going to give you shit if you swap out some awkward anchor made from a single crustly 1/4" bolt with a pair of nice stainless jobs, located in a much better location, right?

 

How about if somebody sticks the bolts in a location that is way the hell out of reach for 90% of the climbers... would it be ok to move the bolts closer to the typically climbed line?

This is why I was offered the answer of "yes, add them since it will enhance the protection of the climb". I wonder if climbing were almost exclusively a solo activitiy... would if just be expected to have two bolts set at the start?

 

I saw another recent thread here where Kevbone you say "fuck it, it's smith, bolt away". I can't say I know Smith very well, but are you suggesting that it's full-on wild, wild west and nobody there follows the typically accepted rules? Wonder if a person were to just start slamming in a pair of bolts at the start of all climbs at Smith? I'm sure it wouldn't go unnoticed.

 

Again, not sharpening my drill for anything, just asking pointed questions purposely looking to question what's typically viewed as "the norm".