Infinite Bliss chopped- true or false?

[high_on_rock]

True Marylou, but this is not a debate about drills power drills v. hand drills, it is a debate about whether one should impose personal ethics on others. Write the drillers a ticket, fine them, put them in jail; that crime (if they did it knowingly) is in the past.

 

By the way, nice post Bill

[marylou]

I get you, and you're right, but the route in question has a much larger problem that makes the discussion a non-starter.

 

By the way, being ignorant of the law does not mean not guilty. They looked at the wrong map. I look at several of my maps here in my map library and see the wilderness boundary was moved after the wilderness was origniaaly created.

[high_on_rock]

there is a difference between "ignorance of the law" and "mistake of fact."

[kevbone]

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.

 

Are you telling me you have never sped in your car? That is not leagal as well and alot more dangerous.

[dmuja]

Why is it so hard to realize that ethics are not black and white.

 

Because Infinite Bliss is an "Infinite Debate" taking place within every individual climber. We all always struggle inside with ethics and style etc. On occasion the debate manifests outwardly via the extremes.

 

I must say though, all this could be solved if everyone adopted the "no fall" rule.

 

If you can't climb it without falling, don't. If you climb it and fall off, assuming you live, youve failed, on this day, on this route, youre a fucking loser, period. Just accept it go home! Take a psychic shit, practice some more bouldering and gym climbing and try again some day in the future.

 

Bolts (even run-outs) make falling ok. Its not. Falling is falling, not climbing. The better you get at not falling, the less protection you have to have, the less "impact" you have on the rock (pun intended). Its really quite simple if you think about it.

 

There are too many bolts out there, I fucking hate them.

 

On the other hand, I climb bolted routes and enjoy the experience.

 

See, I still can't resolve the fucking debate my self!

 

[JayB]

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".

 

 

That's a good historical summary in many ways, but it's hard to see how the prevailing ethos from the 1970's is anything but a step down from the ethics that governed the manner in which the likes of Weissner, Underhill, Ellingwood, the Stetner Brothers, etc, etc, etc, approached climbing.

 

With regards to hangdogging, if I'm not mistaken, there's plenty of documentation out there which establishes that this practice was commonplace amongst the likes of Stoddard et al when they were pushing the grades at the Gunks in the 1960's.

 

I accept the fact that clean climbing and many other worthy practices were the ideals that most climbers aspired to in the 1970's. Accepting them as ideals that most people aspired to is one thing, buying the notion that the average climber never failed to live up to them, and that all of the practices that you malign had their genesis in era of bolted sport climbing is quite another.

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

Nonsense...you're starting to sound like M.Perkins with his self-proclaimed swami-like powers to discern intents and motivations.

 

Are not you, D.Ryan, making all kinds of assmputions about the intents and motivations of those involved in this discussion, or those who according to you want "risk free" climbing and care nothing for the environment becaues they apparently value their own need for immediate gratification over learnign to climb the "right way," or whatever it is that you've written?

[Raindawg]

Nonsense...you're starting to sound like M.Perkins with his self-proclaimed swami-like powers to discern intents and motivations.

 

Are not you, D.Ryan, making all kinds of assmputions about the intents and motivations of those involved in this discussion, or those who according to you want "risk free" climbing and care nothing for the environment becaues they apparently value their own need for immediate gratification over learnign to climb the "right way," or whatever it is that you've written?

 

Damn straight, "pal", and how about reading "whatever it is" that I've written before you comment. Including all the "assmputions" and "learnign".

You're probably itching to ban me again because you can't stand my opinion....whatever. By the way, you can refer to me as "Raindawg", mattp, because if I wanted to post under my own name, I would have chosen to do so. (I suppose I should have referred to you as "mattp" rather than "mperkins", but I got the avatar wrong and nonetheless assumed that you were comfortable with everyone knowing your identity and posing as a moderator and such, because "mattp" is your real name...if not, I apologize.)

[Raindawg]

That's a good historical summary in many ways, but it's hard to see how the prevailing ethos from the 1970's is anything but a step down from the ethics that governed the manner in which the likes of Weissner, Underhill, Ellingwood, the Stetner Brothers, etc, etc, etc, approached climbing.

 

How is it a step down?

 

With regards to hangdogging, if I'm not mistaken, there's plenty of documentation out there which establishes that this practice was commonplace amongst the likes of Stoddard et al when they were pushing the grades at the Gunks in the 1960's.

 

I'm not defending them, even so, stylistic practices such as hang-dogging, take a far second place to actual physical abuse of the environment like sport-bolting and its dependence upon permanently altering the landscape with bolt trails....if you want to rehearse repeatedly, swing around in your harness, and convince yourself you're capable of climbing something you're not..then enjoy the illusion...I think it's weak, but it doesn't really affect the turf that my grandchildren might encounter. Enjoy you're "red-pointing", but never forget that you weren't up to the challenge.

 

I accept the fact that clean climbing and many other worthy practices were the ideals that most climbers aspired to in the 1970's. Accepting them as ideals that most people aspired to is one thing, buying the notion that the average climber never failed to live up to them, and that all of the practices that you malign had their genesis in era of bolted sport climbing is quite another.

 

It was, and is, an ideal, and I am promoting it as a good one, whether you or anyone else can live up to its demands. Sport climbing is its antithesis.

 

[Raindawg]

True Marylou, but this is not a debate about drills power drills v. hand drills, it is a debate about whether one should impose personal ethics on others. Write the drillers a ticket, fine them, put them in jail; that crime (if they did it knowingly) is in the past.

 

How about $100 per illegitimate bolt. That might have an affect.

[Raindawg]

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

No, ethics are a collective thing, e.g., it's not kosher to marry your sister or steal from your boss's safe.

 

Bullying and trying to enforce your own will over others is simply wrong (according to my ethics.)

 

Reality check: we're on the internet, and nobody has yet prevented you from ascending your beloved sport-climbs. If a compelling argument can be made to the power-authorities, perhaps your cheap fun will be curtailed. Isn't that how "democracy" works? Perhaps you can convince the power-authorities that you can drill the crap out of any blank piece of stone you desire...go to it, sparky...work the system...it's a marketplace of ideas (ideally) and unfortunately you've got to compete with mine.

 

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.

 

Wow, rape of the environment for cheap gratification...cool concept. How about retaining some dignity and climbing Mt. Garfield with a minimum, or perhaps no, bolts.

[JosephH]

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).

Exactly, I do know one of that crew and no bolt would have gone in on the line if there was any conceivable way of using pro. When they sink a bolt, whether on the Nose or on Prusik you can count on it being pro of absolute last resort on a mixed free trad pitch. As for it being drilled on rappel, I don't think anyone on earth to my knowledge has drilled on lead above 5.12. I suppose I should demand that of them, but I'll pass. They tried every single possible avenue of advancing on pro on that last pitch before resorting to a bolt. That's exactly how I trad climb: gear first and fixed pro as protection of absolute last resort. That is trad climbing - there is nothing whatsoever imperfect about my ethics.

 

And if you're trying to contrast the traditional use of a couple of points of fixed pro in trad climbing on a route that definitely pushes limits of trad with a 22 pitch wholly-bolted sport route - and use the 'elitist' argument to boot - well, you way beyond misguided in your argument. There is nothing gray about either route, one is a stellar trad route with a final mixed pitch, the other is a 22 pitch red flag in the face of land managers of wilderness areas.

 

The only 'imposing' that has gone on in this whole matter went down on Mt. Garfield with a drill in hand.

[JosephH]

With regards to hangdogging, if I'm not mistaken, there's plenty of documentation out there which establishes that this practice was commonplace amongst the likes of Stoddard et al when they were pushing the grades at the Gunks in the 1960's.

 

The 60's were not clean and free climbing hadn't firmed up with the ethics that ruled the 70's until the very end of that previous decade. Which leads us to...

 

I accept the fact that clean climbing and many other worthy practices were the ideals that most climbers aspired to in the 1970's. Accepting them as ideals that most people aspired to is one thing, buying the notion that the average climber never failed to live up to them, and that all of the practices that you malign had their genesis in era of bolted sport climbing is quite another.

 

Jay's latest attempt at revisionist history. In fact, the overwhelming majority of climbers in the 70's - get set - actually did live and climb those ideals - certainly I and every human I ever climbed with in that period did. I also distinctly remembering hearing "falling" all day long at Eldo, the Gunks, and everywhere else we went - it wasn't until something like '81 before I heard someone yell 'take' for the first time. What do you suppose what average ratio is heard between those two yells these days? And please, Jump on ST and ask Jello, Werner, JStan or any of the old crew over there if it was just an illusion of an ideal, I'd love to watch that slapdown...

[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.

 

Are you telling me you have never sped in your car? That is not leagal as well and alot more dangerous.

 

Argument holds no water. Next!

[JosephH]

...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.

To repeat my previous post, the only cramming down anyone's throat that's happened, happened on Mt. Garfield with a drill. I don't recall them asking anyone before beginning the cram job either.

 

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.

What I advocate isn't complicated - it's don't ignorantly bolt sh#t where it raises a big red flag to land manager and don't put up a 22 pitch sport climbs in the North Cascades. Now, if those two requests are too arduous and defiling of folks' sense of personal freedom then hey, what exactly would constitute a limit for you? As for the seismic level of ethical events? I put IB about on par with the Jardine Traverse for stupid or Kurt Smith's misadventures in the Valley.

 

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.

This is the old scope argument - "my god bolts pale in comparison to Bhopal". Yeah, they do, but we're talking climbing not bulldozers and the land managers couldn't give a rat's ass if they are visible or not - they cared that they got put up there at all.

 

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?

How do you suppose people have been climbing onsight FA's forever? You manage risk, you take your chances. And no - I wouldn't take a drill with me. I also wouldn't actually climb IB - I'd start at the same start and work whatever line appeared to be the best line to the top.

 

This is not a "sport route". It is just a bolted route.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

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

Fair enough. This will likely be my last post on the matter as well.

 

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.

Bill, I have considered and reconsidered my opinion on this. Each time I come down to the same bottom line:

• It was an incredibly unnecessary and bonehead, red-flag move in the first place.
   
  
• Regardless of the uncertainty, they knew they were dancing right on the edge of a wilderness area one way or the other.
   
  
• The plan from day one was to create 22-pitches of sport climbing that 'blissfully' required no pro.
  

There are no other facts I need to know to come down squarely on the side of those who strongly oppose it. To do otherwise I might as well start gridbolting the columns out at Beacon.

[high_on_rock]

Don't worry about it DRyan, you don't need to hide behind your darth Vader mask to give an opinion. I am Eric Christianson, you have met Matt Perkins, John is wide open with his identity, as is Joeseph. back off the Darth Vader stuff and just have a civil conversation. Stealth and decoder rings are not necessary.

[richard_noggin]

Ever think of how other people see you...

A bunch of old cronies spray'n endless ethics

The young are reach'n up and pull'n down and think'n let old gramps spray his shit ..he's just an old has been or never was

Pretty said fixating on spray'n endless ethics on the internet

We are and at you!

 

 

 

[high_on_rock]

"What I advocate isn't complicated - it's don't ignorantly bolt sh#t where it raises a big red flag to land manager and don't put up a 22 pitch sport climbs in the North Cascades. Now, if those two requests are too arduous and defiling of folks' sense of personal freedom then hey, what exactly would constitute a limit for you?"

 

What would constitute too much of a violation of my freedom is if they insisted that I clip into those bolts to climb it. As is, I can choose to climb it any way I want, as can you, as can they. Without the bolts, we are all forced to climb it your way - like it or not. Freedom of choice baby!

[high_on_rock]

Maybe we should all post photos of eachother to get rid of this annonimity crap, that way when we see eachother at the rock we can say "hi" rather than merely piss on eachother on the internet.

 

I would be the less young of the two.

 

 

Come on DRyan, Share.

Edited June 11, 2007 by high_on_rock

[kevbone]

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.

 

Are you telling me you have never sped in your car? That is not leagal as well and alot more dangerous.

 

Argument holds no water. Next!

I am not so sure Marylou……your argument was legality. Your own words. I was trying to point out that all of us do illegal shit. This route is no different that speeding, which is something we ALL do everyday.

 

 

[JayB]

With regards to hangdogging, if I'm not mistaken, there's plenty of documentation out there which establishes that this practice was commonplace amongst the likes of Stoddard et al when they were pushing the grades at the Gunks in the 1960's.

 

The 60's were not clean and free climbing hadn't firmed up with the ethics that ruled the 70's until the very end of that previous decade. Which leads us to...

 

I accept the fact that clean climbing and many other worthy practices were the ideals that most climbers aspired to in the 1970's. Accepting them as ideals that most people aspired to is one thing, buying the notion that the average climber never failed to live up to them, and that all of the practices that you malign had their genesis in era of bolted sport climbing is quite another.

 

Jay's latest attempt at revisionist history. In fact, the overwhelming majority of climbers in the 70's - get set - actually did live and climb those ideals - certainly I and every human I ever climbed with in that period did. I also distinctly remembering hearing "falling" all day long at Eldo, the Gunks, and everywhere else we went - it wasn't until something like '81 before I heard someone yell 'take' for the first time. What do you suppose what average ratio is heard between those two yells these days? And please, Jump on ST and ask Jello, Werner, JStan or any of the old crew over there if it was just an illusion of an ideal, I'd love to watch that slapdown...

 

More revisionist than the mass of self-aggrandizing conceits shape your perception of the climbing scene today? "Totally bolt dependent blah, blah, blah..." This certainly explains the massive increase in the popularity of, say, ice-climbing since the 1970's. All about the bolts out there on the ice.

 

I'm also left wondering how, if this ethic was so sacrosanct - one can account for it's prompt demise upon the arrival of cordless powerdrills? Since it was climbers from the 1970's who pioneered the practice of powerdrilling while on rappel, it seems to me that the limiting factor was not the sanctity of the ethic, but the absence of the technology that enabled the practice. What percentage of the people who were climbing then stuck with this set of practices? This, too, is telling.

 

This is like listening to people from the 1930's commending themselves for the hardiness and fortitude that they displayed by forgoing antibiotics.

[kevbone]

No, ethics are a collective thing, e.g., it's not kosher to marry your sister or steal from your boss's safe.

 

 

I disagree...ethics are personal......don’t preach to me about what is kosher and what is not kosher.

[kevbone]

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).

Exactly, I do know one of that crew and no bolt would have gone in on the line if there was any conceivable way of using pro. When they sink a bolt, whether on the Nose or on Prusik you can count on it being pro of absolute last resort on a mixed free trad pitch. As for it being drilled on rappel, I don't think anyone on earth to my knowledge has drilled on lead above 5.12. I suppose I should demand that of them, but I'll pass. They tried every single possible avenue of advancing on pro on that last pitch before resorting to a bolt. That's exactly how I trad climb: gear first and fixed pro as protection of absolute last resort. That is trad climbing - there is nothing whatsoever imperfect about my ethics.

 

JH......so I take it you have not climbed IB? So you really have not foundation of knowledge of how run out it is or if the bolts were place next to cracks or really anything about the route other than hearsay. So you say this route on Purisk was acceptable to place a bolt due to no other forms of pro? Well…..how do you know that is not the case on IB? You don’t. So until you and the others climb it for yourself…..maybe you all should go aid climbing.

 

Or maybe we could all get together for beer sometime.

 

[billcoe]

I am not so sure Marylou……your argument was legality. Your own words. I was trying to point out that all of us do illegal shit. This route is no different that speeding, which is something we ALL do everyday.

 

 

No that is nothing like this instance. Nobody was speeding. Shit, these guys had a Forest Service map which showed this area to NOT be in the Fr*kin wilderness area. AFTER the fact, with some lunitic on their ass about it, the FS looked at this very instance and then said that they made a mistake on the map.

 

As far as the rap bolting part goes, I understood that part of the route was bolted on rappel, part not.Would re-boltiing it, on lead, with hand drills, make you dudes happy? Cause that is allowed here. If some of us were to go up - pull out every powerdrill driven bolt and re-do it with a hand drill so that we are within your ethical beliefs and confines, is that OK with you all?

 

Nobody was speeding here.

___________________________________________________________

 

High on rock, these guys will not change their opinions just because our identities are all out there. These are deeper issues.

__________________________________________________________

 

Don, you never responded to my Mt. Rainer development issue I raised, unable to talk about it?

[high_on_rock]

Bill, I know that no one will change their opinions by losing the anonymity, but perhaps we can change it into more of a discussion than an argument. Easier to piss on a name than it is a real person.

 

Note for the record that Bill posts his photo with his blogs.