Japanese Garden Anchors Chopped

[mattp]

A little balance here is a good thing, Pope, and I'm glad to see your post.

 

I agree, at least in part, that it always seemed kind of "silly" to me to call that a "pitch."

 

However I don't think this is a case of "fighting the tide" - at least not a clear one. If I am not mistaken there have been anchors there for quite a while and maybe a very long time indeed (I'm not sure they were in the same locatino but see the 1993 Cummins guide and the 1985 Smoot/Cramer guide and while you're at it take a look at Beckey's 1976 Darrington and Index guide - it mentions a bolt that may also have been at the same location). I'm not 100% sure about the date of origin, as maybe the historic bolts were somewhere else, but I think there has been an anchor at THAT location for several years, at least. Either way, from the ground this was certainly one of the closest anchors and therefore I suppose an obvious choice for removal, but it may not have been a case of fighting some new trend in climbing - unless it is chains and not bolts that were found objectionable.

 

Arguments for and against are probably better couched in terms of what do we want to see as "standard" or what do we think should be maintained or something like that.

[backcountrydog]

the anchors were replaced this morning. bolts, hangers, and chains.

breath deep, go climbing, have fun.

[richard_noggin]

replacing anchors

I was look'n at the 1993 Index guide by Clint Cummins they were in place than , why is it an issue now?

[AlpineK]

I understand what Pope is trying to say, but on the other hand I've climbed JG to those bolts many times.

 

I don't know all the history of that route, but from what I saw they didn't take away from anybody who wanted to do the full route.

 

It's nice to here there are bolts there again.

[Alex]

I agree with pope that retrobolting well-established trad routes at Index is a crime worth fighting, but these anchors in particular are not that fight. That anchor has been in place since I started climbing there in like 1995, and for as long as anyone I've talked to can remember. The route is much longer than 35 feet, too. Removing this anchor is akin to removing the massive tri-bolt-and-chain anchor in the middle of GNS, since there is "natural pro" very close by with which one could also establish an anchor, before heading to the top trees. But there is nothing "pure" about Index, so chopping one heavily used anchor, however contrived you may think it is, makes no statement other than that you cannot respect other people's rights to recreate on their own terms.

[glassgowkiss]

Just to add a little balance here....I won't miss it. .

 

Increased traffic, convenience, moderate climbing made available where none existed. And don't forget safety. These justifications will one day be applied to the bolting of every crack at Index.

 

you won't miss it since you don't climb. btw we are talking about some road side rock heap that used to be a quarry, to keep it in a right perspective, not some alpine peak.

[pope]

That climb gave me zero trouble. And I'm climbing this weekend. Shows what you know. BTW, we're all impressed that you managed to write a paragraph without dropping the F-bomb.

[pope]

...from what I saw they didn't take away from anybody who wanted to do the full route.

 

Yes it does. I expect to climb a crack route without having to be constantly reminded of how pathetic this sport has become.

[pope]

I agree with pope that retrobolting well-established trad routes at Index is a crime worth fighting, but these anchors in particular are not that fight. That anchor has been in place since I started climbing there in like 1995, and for as long as anyone I've talked to can remember.

 

I remember when it was not. Not in its current location and configuration.

 

The route is much longer than 35 feet, too. Removing this anchor is akin to removing the massive tri-bolt-and-chain anchor in the middle of GNS, since there is "natural pro" very close by with which one could also establish an anchor, before heading to the top trees.

 

It can't be much more than 35 feet. Maybe 45 feet? That whole pitch is way short of 50 meters. And I don't agree with your comparison since the GNS anchor you mention coincides with what most people would consider the natural end of the spectacular climbing on that slab. It is also the terminus for at least three routes. The anchor a few feet up Japanese Gardens is similar to what you'd have if you put a two-bolt anchor below the bulge on Thin Fingers, in order to provide a moderate pitch for climbers who wanted to avoid the bulge.

 

 

But there is nothing "pure" about Index, so chopping one heavily used anchor, however contrived you may think it is, makes no statement other than that you cannot respect other people's rights to recreate on their own terms.

 

Index is what we make it. We're talking about the way things should be, and yet nobody can seem to avoid the "logical" mistake of justifying the existence of the anchor because it exists and because it has existed for X years. Many contributors to this discussion are essentially saying, "This is the way we've always done it." This is parallel to saying, "We're not comfortable with change." It's OK if you think this way, just come out and say it.

 

And regarding respecting people's rights to recreate on their own terms: in a high-use area on a limited resource which is open to the public, all users have a right to voice an opinion. Opinions are always going to differ, but when considering questions about fixed anchors, we should remember that the solution which leaves the cliff in its most natural state is often the best solution. Otherwise the cliff is subject to the whims of currnet popular opinion. One group wants an anchor, next year they want bolts next the crack, maybe some future group wants a via ferrata up to an observation deck and perhaps a zip line back to the parking lot.

 

More generations will derive more pleasure from rock climbing when they avoid excessive convenience bolting and meet the rock on its own terms, leaving it pretty close to the way they found it.

[richard_noggin]

That climb gave me zero trouble. And I'm climbing this weekend. Shows what you know. BTW, we're all impressed that you managed to write a paragraph without dropping the F-bomb.

 

So you will be climbing Japanese gardens to upper ten persent 5.11c/d with zero trouble this weekend is that what I am hearing?

 

[Alex]

...from what I saw they didn't take away from anybody who wanted to do the full route.

 

Yes it does. I expect to climb a crack route without having to be constantly reminded of how pathetic this sport has become.

 

See, personally I want the anchor there so that I am constantly reminded how pathetic I've become!

[mattp]

I think you are on the right track where you are talking about how the real issue here is how we want to see the crag managed, Pope. Apparently that means (among other things) that you do not want to see even existing short pitch anchors maintained. Or was it the highly visible nature of that particular installation that was bothersome? I presume you must mean REALLY short pitch anchors, because there are oodles of anchors at around the 100 - 120 foot level, well short of even a 50 or 60 meter rope length, but maybe even those are not OK in your book?

 

A good question might be who should decide whether it is OK to add, maintain, or remove a bolt anywhere on the cliff, and how should they make that decision.

 

The argument that a bolt anchor will lead to a via feratta and zip line, however, is not your best one. Yes, there are a couple via feratta's in the US now, but I am aware of no place in the world where a trad climb had bolts added and this activity led to the construction of a via feratta. Not only that, but a prior discussion on this board has included the idea that there really is no "logical" connection because the rock climber seeks mastery of difficult moves while the Via Feratta eliminates all of that kind of challenge. I'm not even sure an acceptance of bolted belay anchors at a "trad" climbing area has anywhere led to the proliferation of bolted protection for crack climbing, but perhaps there is an example somewhere. Anybody?

[high_on_rock]

MattP, you are consistently ruining these threads with facts and logic. This is an emotional issue not a factual one, and your failure to see that distinction invalidates all of your arguments. Bolts are wrong because they feel wrong. Bolts interfere with the feeling of superiority that I get being able to climb something that someone else cannot because their skills are not has high as mine. You need to quit thinking and start feeling.

 

If we allow bolts outdoors then the peon gym climbers will be able to claim that they climb the same as I do, thus either raising them to my level, or god forbid lowering me down to their level. My superiority would be gone! Rather than encouraging more to use the rock, making me a mere normal person; we need to discourage the masses so that I can continue to be seen as an extremist stud. That is where the logic comes in MattP.

 

[high_on_rock]

If god had wanted bolts on that route, she would have put them there!

[RuMR]

MattP, you are consistently ruining these threads with facts and logic. This is an emotional issue not a factual one, and your failure to see that distinction invalidates all of your arguments. Bolts are wrong because they feel wrong. Bolts interfere with the feeling of superiority that I get being able to climb something that someone else cannot because their skills are not has high as mine. You need to quit thinking and start feeling.

 

If we allow bolts outdoors then the peon gym climbers will be able to claim that they climb the same as I do, thus either raising them to my level, or god forbid lowering me down to their level. My superiority would be gone! Rather than encouraging more to use the rock, making me a mere normal person; we need to discourage the masses so that I can continue to be seen as an extremist stud. That is where the logic comes in MattP.

you make absolutely no sense? WTF?

[mattp]

I think his point was that there is plenty of arrogance to go around. I suppose that label could apply to those who pound away on cc.com, thinking their posts may be significant, just as much as it might apply to those who install or remove bolts at a crag.

[kurthicks]

I'm not even sure an acceptance of bolted belay anchors at a "trad" climbing area has anywhere led to the proliferation of bolted protection for crack climbing, but perhaps there is an example somewhere. Anybody?

 

Not exactly the same--but at Mclellan rocks in Spokane--there is an entire wall (Pack Rat cave, i think) that is full of bolted cracks (most of which still haven't seen FAs). I heard that the argument was that since it overhangs so much (probably 20 degrees or so) that it was "too hard" to place gear on the routes.

[glassgowkiss]

pope, i can see your point if:

-routes were not manufactured

-it wasn't an old quarry in a first place

maybe your energy should be focused on removing a bunch of metal from tunnel area and left side of lower wall. to me 2 inch rods with monstreus lognuts are way bigger problem then some bolts half way up. your thinking is on par with nps, where they go to detail about bolting on a road side crag (newhalem), forgetting to mention 2 artificial lakes, a road, multiple powerlines and a whole little town along with steam engine!

your generation carved more pinscars (like mentioned by you iron horse- which btw i did lead to the top and you did not) then any trigger happy guy with a dril ever will- so stfu, as clearly we can see your superior moral high ground sunk well below sea level

btw. if you have such big balls, so you need to show us length of your dick by removing anchors from a popular climb, have some balls and show us your face wanker. other wise you're just another chickenshit cunt

Edited May 4, 2007 by glassgowkiss

[glassgowkiss]

I'm not even sure an acceptance of bolted belay anchors at a "trad" climbing area has anywhere led to the proliferation of bolted protection for crack climbing, but perhaps there is an example somewhere. Anybody?

 

Not exactly the same--but at Mclellan rocks in Spokane--there is an entire wall (Pack Rat cave, i think) that is full of bolted cracks (most of which still haven't seen FAs). I heard that the argument was that since it overhangs so much (probably 20 degrees or so) that it was "too hard" to place gear on the routes.

so here is your chance laddy- go and send them. as a fa you earn your right to remove any pro you don't see fit for the climb. show us you slop (superior lock-off power)

[Weekend_Climberz]

pope, i can see your point if:

-routes were not manufactured

-it wasn't an old quarry in a first place

maybe your energy should be focused on removing a bunch of metal from tunnel area and left side of lower wall. to me 2 inch rods with monstreus lognuts are way bigger problem then some bolts half way up. your thinking is on par with nps, where they go to detail about bolting on a road side crag (newhalem), forgetting to mention 2 artificial lakes, a road, multiple powerlines and a whole little town along with steam engine!

your generation carved more pinscars (like mentioned by you iron horse- which btw i did lead to the top and you did not) then any trigger happy guy with a dril ever will- so stfu, as clearly we can see your superior moral high ground sunk well below sea level

btw. if you have such big balls, so you need to show us length of your dick by removing anchors from a popular climb, have some balls and show us your face wanker. other wise you're just another chickenshit cunt

 

Damn, where's RainDawg?

[catbirdseat]

CPB shows his face.

 

[richard_noggin]

Who's CPB..CBS

[kevbone]

Who's CPB..CBS

 

 

And why are they in a bathroom?

[RuMR]

Who's CPB..CBS

crazy polished knob, errr polish bob AKA agent orange AKA robert

[kurthicks]

Not exactly the same--but at Mclellan rocks in Spokane--there is an entire wall (Pack Rat cave, i think) that is full of bolted cracks (most of which still haven't seen FAs). I heard that the argument was that since it overhangs so much (probably 20 degrees or so) that it was "too hard" to place gear on the routes.

so here is your chance laddy- go and send them. as a fa you earn your right to remove any pro you don't see fit for the climb. show us you slop (superior lock-off power)

 

I would give them a go if I wasn't moving to Bellingham on Thursday.