Infinite Bliss chopped- true or false?

[JosephH]

Well, John, if that's truly the case then they don't have much of a collective leg to stand on when it comes to honestly dealing with access issues as they arise with the FS and other land managers up north. Nothing about calling on the community up north to issue a letter of apology or collectively chopping the route is forcing anything on you.

 

People wonder why the FS takes such an agro stance with climbers and why they stick to blanket decrees, closures, and bans - it's both because of incidents like this and their perception climbers are simply banking on them being too resource constrained to do enforcement - that climbers can't be trusted to honor the law. When confronted with those attitudes they predictably respond with more blanket edicts exactly because of those attitudes. If they felt for a minute like climbers would use some restraint, act honorably, self-police, or would actually get invovled in productive vs. antagonistic ways there wouldn't be so many non-negotiable, blanket federal edicts. IB is no different than Delicate Arch and now that land managers have the Internet all these things are immediate, cummulative, inter-regional, and inter-agency.

[Off_White]

That all sounds highly speculative and made up to me Joseph. Does any of your scenario come from contact you have had with the Baker Snoqualmie National Forest? Has anyone there called for the route to be chopped?

 

With regards to IB, my sense was that ALPS was the force behind the tizzy, that it was one person in particular in that organization, and the big issue was the trail, not how the bolts were placed. There is a fringe deep ecology segment of the environmental movement that is opposed to human presence in designated wilderness, and they work against repairing damaged roads, trail maintenance, and the public's right to access public land. They don't care how the bolts were placed, anymore than snowmobile opponents care whether it's a two stroke or four stroke machine. The core issue is whether people belong in the wilderness. What you're on about is an internal disagreement between climbers, not something of import to how the world at large perceives what we do.

 

Stating that IB and the Delicate Arch incident are equivalent is dramatic hyperbole of the first water. There is no general public outcry about Infinite Bliss, it's just another skirmish in efforts to keep people out of the middle fork of the Snoqualmie.

 

It seems to me that the issue for you, Raindawg, and Pope is a general opposition to sport climbing as a branch of climbing. This handwaving over wilderness is really just a tool to further the underlying agenda. At it's core lies the belief that what you do is valid, and what others choose to do is invalid: only the one thing is real climbing and people like boulderers, mixed climbers, and sport climbers are infidels to be purged from the one true religion. The core philosophy is fascist in nature, and that's what repeatedly gets my hackles up. Despite what some may assume, I am not a fan of overbolted routes and guaranteed risk free climbing, but I am a die hard believer in plurality and individual freedom.

 

 

[kevbone]

Are we back in Jr. High School???

 

 

Well.....that is how you are acting. Moralizing and then hiding behind you cloak and dagger. I will say it again....with as much as you talk shit abou this route....I get the feeling you would not stand up and admit you chopped it. If that is the case....you are a pussy....whimp....or should I say coward.

 

We might as well agree to disagree.

[Raindawg]

Are we back in Jr. High School???

 

 

Well.....that is how you are acting. Moralizing and then hiding behind you cloak and dagger. I will say it again....with as much as you talk shit abou this route....I get the feeling you would not stand up and admit you chopped it. If that is the case....you are a pussy....whimp....or should I say coward.

 

We might as well agree to disagree.

 

You aren't a worthy discussion partner. I will ignore you from now on.

[JosephH]

At it's core lies the belief that what you do is valid, and what others choose to do is invalid: only the one thing is real climbing and people like boulderers, mixed climbers, and sport climbers are infidels to be purged from the one true religion. The core philosophy is fascist in nature, and that's what repeatedly gets my hackles up.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth, Off. I have nothing but admiration for boulderers and always have since early Gill days. Boulderers are taking risks and are totally self-reliant in their endeavors - and the don't dog routes on top of it. I also have no problem with mixed routes, they've always been part of climbing.

 

The problem I have is exclusively with sport climbers. Sport climbing over twenty five years, in combination with gyms, has been a complete and absolute and unequivoval plague on the landscape. A vast majority of folks of 'climbers' today are wholly bolt-enabled and risk-averse and almost none of them would have been climbers back in the day. I make no bones or apologies about it - my clear and abiding preference would be that they weren't 'climbers' today. Again, this 'revolution' is entirely mechanized, and has led to crowding, access problems, and relentlessly threatens trad crags and routes everywhere.

 

Despite what some may assume, I am not a fan of overbolted routes and guaranteed risk free climbing, but I am a die hard believer in plurality and individual freedom.

 

When plurality and 'individual freedom' are wholly predicated and based on the application of battery technology and stainless steel to pristine rock instead of personal responsibility I am no believer at all. And hey, I may well be the last guy on earth taking an unequivocal and unvarnished stance against sport climbing, but so be it. The true fascism (or maybe you prefer communism, which is quite a bit more accurate) happening is happening at the point of a drill.

[pope]

It seems to me that the issue for you, Raindawg, and Pope is a general opposition to sport climbing as a branch of climbing. This handwaving over wilderness is really just a tool to further the underlying agenda. At it's core lies the belief that what you do is valid, and what others choose to do is invalid..

 

You're wrong. At the core is my belief that no party has the right to impose their trail of trash on subsequent parties. This must be especially true in a wilderness area. Sport climbing is oriented 180 degrees opposite of this belief. The route in question is in a wilderness area, not some climbers' playground. Those who install routes like this (and the "community" who encourage it) are the ones imposing their trail of trash on the public in a region that is legally protected from precisely that kind of activity. That's what the "climbing community" needs to understand.

 

John Frieh, I've done plenty of climbing. Less than I used to do certainly. If you're around this summer and looking for a partner, contact me through this message board.

[JosephH]

Then lets go climbing. You can even pick the route

 

I'll bite, IB, in September - on gear only. Kevin, you should get in on this...

[kevbone]

You're wrong.

 

No...you're wrong....

 

 

Man....how long will this topic go for? Maybe we can just burn the entire hillside. Blow up the Mt.

 

For all those who don’t like it (pope, rain boy, and JH) DONT CLIMB IT! You guys sound like you're ideology come from behind the iron curtain. Just because you don’t like it….. nobody else gets to enjoy it. WRONG

 

[kevbone]

Then lets go climbing. You can even pick the route

 

I'll bite, IB, in September - on gear only. Kevin, you should get in on this...

 

I will have already climbed it.

 

 

Is Beacon going to open up early?

[Raindawg]

It seems to me that the issue for you, Raindawg, and Pope is a general opposition to sport climbing as a branch of climbing. This handwaving over wilderness is really just a tool to further the underlying agenda.

 

Nonsense...you're starting to sound like M.Perkins with his self-proclaimed swami-like powers to discern intents and motivations. Yes, I believe sport-climbing sucks both in style and method and I think it's a great shame that is has become the status quo in so many rock climbing areas. You can hang off bolts all day and convince yourself that you're doing something important if you like ("style"), but sport climbing's dependence upon lines of typically closely-spaced lines of permanently installed bolts ("method") becomes an environmental issue. Although I think most of the common bolted arenas are utterly ridiculous and pathetic, I certainly draw the line at its intrusion into the mountains and wilderness. I own the wilderness too. You can't chop down trees to build a picnic table in the Enchantments or construct a summer cabin in Mt. Rainier National Park: we're trying to keep those places nice for generations upon generations...so why should you be allowed at your whim to drill lines of permanent anchors up the side of Mt. Garfield?

 

At it's core lies the belief that what you do is valid, and what others choose to do is invalid: only the one thing is real climbing and people like boulderers, mixed climbers, and sport climbers are infidels to be purged from the one true religion. The core philosophy is fascist in nature, and that's what repeatedly gets my hackles up.

 

Are you some sort of "it's all good" cultural relativist? I'm not. It ain't "all good". I see sport-climbing as trashing the rocks/mountains, much of which are public resources. Boulderers? Who cares...you're free to be lame in the USA. Mixed climbers? Same story...as long as they're not leaving a mess in their wake, they can do what they want whether I think it's "valid" or not. If you think environmentalism in the long-term protection of a finite resource is fascist....so be it.

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Then lets go climbing. You can even pick the route

 

I'll bite, IB, in September - on gear only. Kevin, you should get in on this...

 

I will have already climbed it.

 

Not the way I'm proposing, and hell, you'll have a leg up on us doing a trad ascent.

 

Is Beacon going to open up early?

 

Too early to say, yet...

[marylou]

It's been said that the FA team didn't know the route was inside the wilderness at the time they were installing the bolts. Hard to imagine, given how long it's been since that area was added, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Obviously they know now. Seems to me it would be the right thing for them to chop their own line. They wouldn't have put it up, or they'd have done it by hand drill if they'd known it was inside the wilderness, right?

 

Of course they would. So they should do the right thing and issue an apology to the community and the local land managers. THAT would be good for the image of climbers.

 

It's really simple when you think about it.

[kevbone]

It's been said that the FA team didn't know the route was inside the wilderness at the time they were installing the bolts. Hard to imagine, given how long it's been since that area was added, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Obviously they know now. Seems to me it would be the right thing for them to chop their own line. They wouldn't have put it up, or they'd have done it by hand drill if they'd known it was inside the wilderness, right?

 

Of course they would. So they should do the right thing and issue an apology to the community and the local land managers. THAT would be good for the image of climbers.

 

It's really simple when you think about it.

 

 

Question: What if they are not sorry?

[JosephH]

Stating that IB and the Delicate Arch incident are equivalent is dramatic hyperbole of the first water.

Oh, and that issue of Climbing that focused on history and controversy and which specifically highlighted an article on IB represented less national exposure than DA?

[JosephH]

Question: What if they are not sorry?

Then they are complete and utter dicks for jeapordizing access and doing it in a highly visible way within the federal agencies dealing with the wilderness act. They still are as far as I'm concerned for attempting to do such a route that close to the wilderness boundary even if they thought it was just outside. It cound only serve to put the FS on notice that that intent is to do more of the same if at all possible. It was and is a completely stupid move as far as relationships with land managers is concerned.

[JayB]

"A vast majority of folks of 'climbers' today are wholly bolt-enabled and risk-averse and almost none of them would have been climbers back in the day."

 

This notion that the days of your youth represented some kind of stylistic apogee, much less that everyone who tied-in was some kind of uber-hard, steely-eyed, nail-eating motherfucker is unparalelled in the realms of onanistic auto-mythologizing. It was the people who came of age in the 70's who *created* sport climbing, so please spare us this last-samurai business. If any generation had a right to claim that mantle, it would have been Weissner, Ellingwood, etc.

[marylou]

K'bone--Joseph said what I was going to, except much better and more eloquently.

 

Bad stewardship begets bad results.

 

As far as Climbing's ink of IB, I think all that needs to be said about that is they hired Jonathon "light my fire" Thesenga back as EIC.

[high_on_rock]

Joseph, you argue your point well. I believe the difference in our opinions are that you disagree with the new climbers being there if they don't climb old-school; whereas i believe in getting as many people out into nature as possible.

[kevbone]

Bad stewardship begets bad results.

 

 

I completely agree.

[marylou]

Joseph, you argue your point well. I believe the difference in our opinions are that you disagree with the new climbers being there if they don't climb old-school; whereas i believe in getting as many people out into nature as possible.

 

Hm. I guess I'd never see it as a plus if they are taught right from the get-go to ignore the regs. It's not such a giant step from IB to using a snowmobile in the wilderness in the winter months, and then from there, a mountain bike or a dirt bike in the summer.

 

Not good.

[Raindawg]

It was the people who came of age in the 70's who *created* sport climbing, so please spare us this last-samurai business.

 

I came of age in the '70's and was climbing beginning in 1973. I had nothing to do with the creation of sport-climbing, and those who were I consider to be sell-outs. "Sell-outs from what?", you might ask. The '70's were a time when climbing was in transition, from piton-banging siege-climbing to a new ethic promoting minimal impact: "clean climbing". Check out the philosophy in the classic and inspiring article in the 1972 Chouinard catalog: "The whole natural art of protection" by Doug Robinson. Read it on-line here:

Clean Climbing Manifesto

 

Along with other outdoor recreationalists, climbers were beginning to seriously realize that it was unethical to trash the environment. "Leave little trace" should require little explanation here (but then again, maybe it does....) Lots of bold ascents were being made, leaving the pitons and drills at home.

(See for example, the article by Galen Rowell in the June 1974 National Geographic: "Climbing Half Dome the Hard Way") and numerous back-issues of "Mountain" magazine which reported a lot of the advances.

 

As a side-benefit to the new ethic, level of difficulty improved as the gear designed for clean-climbing could usually be placed with one hand and "Friends" allowed placements in parallel-sided cracks, roofs, etc. Lots of great and difficult routes were being put up in this style all over the U.S. Bolts, if they were to be used at all, were to be put in by hand, from the ground up, and few and far between; an ethic which certainly curtailed a lot of their use. Back then, you tried a climb, and if you were up for it, you just might make it. If you fell, you started over...usually from the bottom or came back when you were up to the challenge. The now-accepted charade of hang-doggin was seriously frowned-upon.

 

Sometime around the end of the 70's, early '80's, some dirty stunts begin to appear, most notably at the Smith Rocks. Guys like Alan Watts, to their everlasting shame, started their drilling. I thought the whole concept as it evolved was appalling...from the promiscuous use of bolts, often placed on rappel, to a new type of sieging..."red-pointing" and hang-dogging...with unlimited rehearsals after which one could claim to have ascended a "big" number. [Note: I separate the harmless stylistic affronts - "red-pointing" etc., from the truly serious methodological issues: leaving permanent bolt trails in the wake.]

 

The manufacturers, retailers and magazine-makers loved it! Sport-climbing's cheap, dumbed-down learning curve and limited risks gave it mass-appeal and the sale of shoes, ropes, harnesses, etc. sky-rocketed. Yeah! More $$$$$$! Who cares about crowds or grid-bolting! $$$$$ And now gyms feed into the system as nurseries for new "climbers", sent "outdoors" with little or no ethical training. In my opinion, rock climbing lost its soul when sport-climbing became the dominant paradigm. I spent time at Smith Rocks before it became sporto....it was a different, and I'd say much nicer, place altogether.

 

In terms of environmental ethics, sport-climbing belongs to the Dark Ages: a giant step backwards. I don't believe it's too late to clean up the mess...which is one reason I continue to present my views on places like cc.com, whether you like to read them or not, or like my style of presentation or not. Most people don't want to hear it, because acknowledging the impact of their beloved sport-climbing will force them to confront the fact that what they do for fun has some serious issues attached. Many people have never heard that it's even controversial!....the manufacturers, retailers and magazines don't want you to think about it too much because maybe you won't buy all the crap they're trying to sell you.$$$$$$

Access interest groups who tolerate sport-routes don't want private land-owners to know the various sides of the debate because they're afraid they won't be allowed access....which is fine with me.

 

You can't turn back the clock, but you can try to correct the mistakes of the present and make a better future. And the future ain't all about YOU, it's about keeping things nice for your grandchildren's grandchildren.

Call me "crotchedy" or whatever other names you've thrown at me. I'm not ashamed of my ideals. Maybe you should look closer at your own.

 

By the way, I hope the Forest Service and other interested parties are reading EVERY BIT of this "discussion"...it will give them a nice taste of at least two sides of the issue and give them some insights on some of the characters who call themselves "climbers".

 

 

[high_on_rock]

Ethics are a personal thing, and trying to enforce yours or impute yours onto someone else is simply wrong (according to my ethics.) Bullying and trying to enforce your own will over others is simply wrong (according to my ethics.)

 

These bolts hanging on IB, I am assuming that the only people who will ever see them are climbers, who can then make a personal and individual choice whether or not to clip into them. Wow, freedom of choice, individual ethics. cool concept.

 

[billcoe]

"....sport climbing's dependence upon lines of typically closely-spaced lines of permanently installed bolts ("method") becomes an environmental issue. Although I think most of the common bolted arenas are utterly ridiculous and pathetic, I certainly draw the line at its intrusion into the mountains and wilderness. I own the wilderness too. You can't chop down trees to build a picnic table in the Enchantments or construct a summer cabin in Mt. Rainier National Park: we're trying to keep those places nice for generations upon generations...so why should you be allowed at your whim to drill lines of permanent anchors up the side of Mt. Garfield?"

 

............I see sport-climbing as trashing the rocks/mountains, much of which are public resources."

 

 

First, a few points: let me say that I agree with Doug, however I think the term "Fascist" is a bit rough and not fair.... the intent, ie that a bunch of strident Elmer Gantrys ( link for a definition ) who think they are so damn right that they want to cram their view down our throat...well, thats the essence of it for me. I'm always suspicius when an individual feels they know what is so ethically pure and so stridently tries to convince the rest of us that we MUST do as they say. No matter if that person is a TV preacher, a Republican or a brother climber.

 

I do understand that viewpoint which those who oppose the route have when they take that very statement above and apply it to those of us who want the route left alone. I get that. I just happen to disagree with this being an ethical breach of such signifigance that the world is about to stop spinning. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being a huge new condo development which will require blasting the cliffs for rock to be put in Yosemite which will also heat with the drilled oil they just found under the Merced being a 9.9, this is a .02. Really. If that. My opinion anyway.

 

Raindawg, you can't even see a bolt on the damn thing in that picture I posted. As far as your assertion that you want it left like Rainer, ...are you now proposing roads and lodges now like Rainier has or are you advocating for the removal of those massive manmade intrusions in that area?? Cause they made a hell of a big mess up there with f*en bulldozers, road graders, cranes and other heavy equipement and as far as that attitude goes, they had all that equipment up there again very recently to put massive manmade things back in place when mother nature tried to remove it, they were using that very same heavy equipment that they put it in with, and that is signifigantly bigger stuff than a battery powered handdrill. I didn't hear a peep from you about that and you can see the "trash" from a many miles away too, unlike these bolts in question which you are screaming like a harpie about yet you cannot even see them in a close-up picture.

 

So give me a heads up on when you are going to take on the NPS for the major infractions of your trust by putting in these major projects all over the place like Rainer and Yosemite. Because your statement "I certainly draw the line at its intrusion into the mountains and wilderness." certainly applies here in a signifigantly larger way than the bolts on IB.

 

So, good day to YOU as well SIR.

__________________________________________________________________

Not the way I'm proposing, and hell, you'll have a leg up on us doing a trad ascent.

 

I think it's an admirable thought and effort JH. Furthermore, Kevin is still climbing pretty strong, he'd be a strong partner for that try. (If opposites really do attract..couch, cough)

 

However: it could very well be that you are following a natural line of weakness which romps left when the origonal route romps right, that you are up on a slab........in the middle of nowhere....wayyy the hell up there...

 

So are you stuck on a ledge unable to downclimb way above your last piece of pro waiting for a rescue, or did you bring a bolt kit?

 

 

If so:

 

Do you propose to install your own bolts, with a hand drill to get off? Completely within all existing rules, regs, handbills, suggestions and ethics.

 

It that answer is yes, I can assure you based on what I have read from at least 2 others posting above that you will find yourself at severe odds and with strong oppostion about that. In fact, if you put up a GFA to the top, and are forced to put in only 2 bolts for pro on a 200' 5.11 friction pitch wherein you are looking at sure death if you do not do so, they will advocate chopping your fine and proud efforts.

 

Would you feel that those 2 bolts, put in on stance and hand-drilled, are justified? From what I've seen of their writings, I do not think they would. Furthermore, would you hand drill your own rap anchors (and possibly belay stations if you are not on route) or use existing ones?

 

Look, like all of you older guys, and I've been climbing since 1972, I do not like to see climbing be turned into a risk-free gym type environment and take away what attracts me to it with the mental challenges I enjoy.

 

I do not see 80-100 ' runouts on a long challenging route as encouraging that, and in fact this is a dangerous route by many accounts. "Sport climbing" is where the adventure is taken out and replaced by safety. Sport routes by definition are closely bolted. This is not a "sport route". It is just a bolted route.

 

Should an individual or 2 head up there with the intent to remove the pro, I would highly recommend NOT telling ayone and NOT getting caught, because it would make that individual a pariah in the eyes of the community. This polorization and the anger it incurs would not be a good thing for anybody in my view.

 

Sometimes chopping efforts are recognised as ligitament, IMO this wouldn't be felt to be by most climbers.

 

I'm done laying my thoughts out, I understand your opinion, I do not share it.

 

You might further consider ....when people like Off White and myself do not agree with you, people climbing a long and as pure, well - you might consider your position a bit further.

 

Regards to you all

 

Bill

 

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Why is it so hard to realize that ethics are not black and white. I admire pure trad ethics, but I don't adhere to them and I suppose this makes me less of a climber.

 

To make a point:

 

I for example dont think pure sport routes belong in the stuart range or at washington pass. On the the other hand, JosephH approved of rap bolting on Prusik Peak, one of the most pristine peaks in WA (not a sport climb, but illustrative of my point). http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=24&Number=403612&Searchpage=1&Main=28773&Words=prusik+JosephH&topic=0&Search=true#Post403612

 

I know the crew involved (if it is in fact the same line) and they have worked that route over several years and if they resorted to a bolt then there was no other conceivable option - these aren't rap bolters, they are bold and gifted free climbers who wouldn't do it otherwise.

 

This rationale reeks of elitism. Who determines whether a climber has the requisite experience to make these decisions. I would have thought the answer was the FAist, but it sounds like unless the FAist climbs 5.13trad, that isnt true. IB follows a little climbed face on a little climbed low elevation peak on I-90. Personally it would have been nice to see the route make use of natural protection where available, but that is my personal ethic and I do not wish to impose it on others. Not trying to attack JH, merely point out that even the purist ethics have boundaries and it isn't fair to impose your own imperfect ethics on the community at large.

 

[i'd imagine the gray area extends to pope and dwayner too as I recall pope not disapproving of some well thought rap placed bolts on a recent SEWS FA and I'd imagine even dwayner at the least approves of the practice of lead bolting to link features (this is speculative and I could very well be wrong in which case I admire your perfect ethics, honestly).]

[marylou]

It's not an "ethical" issue when bolts are installed with a power drill in a wilderness, it's a legal issue.

 

Even if you think it's ok to steal candy bars from 7-11, it's still not legal.