Midway Anchoring - WTF?

[efellis]

In order to gain a better understanding of Washington Sport Climbing Ethics (WSCE) I was hoping to get our community's feedback on what are acceptable and unacceptable practices for altering established routes and midway anchoring.

 

In the past at local climbing areas like Little Si, Index, and Smith Rock midway anchors have been established to create easier more accessible routes out of high quality, more difficult climbs. Case in point: Japanese Gardens, Heinous Cling, and Psychosomatic. These routes were all originally climbed as single pitches and were altered at a later date to allow for climbers to experience the route without the full investment of climbing the more committing and difficult portions.

 

Recently, I bolted and redpointed the first ascent of a sport climb. The entire pitch is approximately 90 feet with a ledge located approximately 35 feet up. The character of the route is such that the first 35 feet is about 5.11- and the remaining portion is significantly harder at 5.12+. The route was not equipped with midway anchors and the first ascent and subsequent attempts have been done as a single pitch to the established anchors. Now as popularity has increased at this climbing area, and a nice 5.11 warmup is needed, a midway anchoring has been proposed.

 

I am not old enough to know what happened historically between the first ascensionists and the midway anchor installers of the more established routes. I was recently told that midway anchoring is an accepted practice in our area and that I should expect this to happen to the route I bolted. It was explained to me that once the route is completed I, as the first ascensionist no longer have a say in what happens to it and in the midway anchorists mind they have freewill to midway anchor away.

 

To avoid a bolt chopping war or endless arguing between the first ascensionists and the midway anchorists I would like to hear our community's thoughts on what is an acceptable alteration and what are the rules for midway anchoring in the climbing community's opinion?

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Erich

 

 

 

 

 

[fenderfour]

No one else? Really?

 

In theory, the FAist still gets to say. At least officially. If the climb is in a popular area (short hike) with a lot of hard climbs, you might expect a short anchor, whether or not you approve of it.

 

Is this right? No, but it might happen.

 

Also, with a lower rating of .11, there won't be so many gapers (like me) trying it at all. If the start was, say .10b/c, there would be a higher chance of midway anchoring.

[chucK]

Usually the main problem with adding bolts to a climb is that it makes the climb easier. In this case though, if the the potential bolt station is at a no-hands stance, I don't see how a bolt station would change the difficulty of the full line at all.

 

Perhaps though you have other problems with this idea? A practical problem is that your wonderful 5.12+ climb may be constantly bunged up by relative newbies sieging the lower portion. Do you foresee that happening?

[archenemy]

I think I agree with your first paragraph, chucK. What does come to mind is a quote from the 11worth ethics thread, "Don't shit on the sidewalk and expect me to step around it", but I don't know if that anti-bolting sentiment is shared with a midway anchor.

 

As for your second paragraph, I don't know that I would feel good about trying to keep people off the second, harder part of a climb by not letting them escape off the first, easier part. It seems like a selfish reason to not allow a midway anchor. Unfortunately, that conflicts with my feelings about not bolting lines by cracks just to make the climb more accessible to non-trad climbers. Essentially, it is the same argument, no?

 

And I certainly agree that the FAist has a say and that the route is already established and therefore shouldn't be altered (even with a midway anchor that I would personally/selfishly like to benefit from) without the nod from the FAist. I don't know if midway anchoring (without discussion first) is an accepted practise here in WA--I know I don't consider that acceptable. Do others?

[beecher]

I always assumed that "mid way" anchors at crags were really only originally installed so you could climb a full pitch (ie: close to a full rope length) to the upper anchor, from which you would belay your 2nd, then lower the 2nd and do two single rope raps to get down. They are not there to break the climb into two pitches of less than a half rope length each, that would be silly.

 

There should not be anchors installed partway up where climbs change difficulty, especially in this case where you can lower or rap with a 60m rope.

 

[RuMR]

In order to gain a better understanding of Washington Sport Climbing Ethics (WSCE) I was hoping to get our community's feedback on what are acceptable and unacceptable practices for altering established routes and midway anchoring.

 

In the past at local climbing areas like Little Si, Index, and Smith Rock midway anchors have been established to create easier more accessible routes out of high quality, more difficult climbs. Case in point: Japanese Gardens, Heinous Cling, and Psychosomatic. These routes were all originally climbed as single pitches and were altered at a later date to allow for climbers to experience the route without the full investment of climbing the more committing and difficult portions.

 

Recently, I bolted and redpointed the first ascent of a sport climb. The entire pitch is approximately 90 feet with a ledge located approximately 35 feet up. The character of the route is such that the first 35 feet is about 5.11- and the remaining portion is significantly harder at 5.12+. The route was not equipped with midway anchors and the first ascent and subsequent attempts have been done as a single pitch to the established anchors. Now as popularity has increased at this climbing area, and a nice 5.11 warmup is needed, a midway anchoring has been proposed.

 

I am not old enough to know what happened historically between the first ascensionists and the midway anchor installers of the more established routes. I was recently told that midway anchoring is an accepted practice in our area and that I should expect this to happen to the route I bolted. It was explained to me that once the route is completed I, as the first ascensionist no longer have a say in what happens to it and in the midway anchorists mind they have freewill to midway anchor away.

 

To avoid a bolt chopping war or endless arguing between the first ascensionists and the midway anchorists I would like to hear our community's thoughts on what is an acceptable alteration and what are the rules for midway anchoring in the climbing community's opinion?

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Erich

 

 

 

 

just out of curiosity, why do you care one way or the other?? as long as they don't change the location of your bolts?

 

Rudy

Edited June 15, 2007 by RuMR

[RuMR]

.. .

As for your second paragraph, I don't know that I would feel good about trying to keep people off the second, harder part of a climb by not letting them escape off the first, easier part. It seems like a selfish reason to not allow a midway anchor. Unfortunately, that conflicts with my feelings about not bolting lines by cracks just to make the climb more accessible to non-trad climbers. Essentially, it is the same argument, no?

 

this is the exact reason why the anchor at jap was removed...