Ken Nichols convicted and fined for bolt chopping

[Raindawg]

Raindawg, you are correct in your assertion that there is not a GLOBAL consensus on bolts. But on the LOCAL level there are and that's what we are talking about here.

 

Read the bolt war article cited above and then tell me if you think there is a "concensus". On the local level, perhaps there are scattered examples, but certainly not in the Pacific Northwest in general: consider the "local" poster-children: Dan's Dreadful Direct, Infinite Bliss and the Dishman controversy...take look at those volatile disputes...it ain't pretty. Consider the varying attitudes about bolting in such places as Icicle Canyon.

Furthermore, I don't think you can achieve a "consensus" without a "community", and I don't think such a community exists.

Who's a member of the "climbing community"? Does this include the thousands of folks who buy rock shoes for some once or twice a year top-roping, or who climb mostly in gyms?

[Rad]

.........................

Edited July 19, 2007 by Rad

[JosephH]

I was trying to read on but this one.... Are you f'ing kidding?

 

Ever been to a strip mine? Ever used any of the products that come from a mine.

 

Ever seen a clear cut? Ever used any wood cut in such a way?

 

Have you ever driven on a road? Forget the road, you got a car?

 

You eat meat?

 

Please, when you compare the vandalism that you beset on momma nature every single day

to a few bolts in a rock in the woods, the fact that you need a new basis for your rant

should be clear.

 

You think you are right? Then get your like minded folks together and work

within the system. If not, you're just some thug, probably getting old, and upset

that "things just ain't the way they used to be." Life sucks, get a

helmet-or not. Clip the bolts or not.

 

You want more risk and uncertainty? There are plenty of places you can find that.

Try your extremist environmentalist crap in the open and you will find both.

 

 

 

Well said....all of it. Take that purists!

 

We just went down this pathetically weak progression of logic on ST which is the

typical represented by sport climbers as:

 

1) 'Just don't clip them' inanity...

2) 'Bolts vs. Bhopal' scope-shifting...

3) 'Those inconsiderate 5.11 bolters' inhumanity...

4) 'No one climbs it anymore' recycling...

 

Geoff's is a classic attempt at argument #2 - scope shifting, as in: my god how can

you worry about bolts after Chenobyl...?!?!?!

 

This is simply weak as arguments go though admittedly a step up from "just don't clip them".

[Billy]

Ken Nichols....Madman or Messiah?

[JayB]

Good luck with that.

 

Do us all a favor and create a thread where you post your correspondence with various environmental groups and their responses to you, as well as all of the legislative and administrative victories that you amass in your crusade to get sport climbing outlawed.

 

Who said outlaw sport-climbing? I'd just like to see it banned from PUBLIC land. Those who insist on practicing that form of "climbing" should perhaps find some private land that they can choose to damage. Go buy some rocks. How 'bout the "Washington Climbers Coalition" and the "Access Fund" raise some money and buy Frenchman's Coulee....it's already been wrecked and they could put a fence around it, charge admission and even keep out trad climbers if they want, and then wreck it some more. Didn't they buy a couple of rocks in Icicle Canyon?

As public land, though, I'd rather see places like Vantage shut down to ALL climbing until the place is restored, rather than allow more bolt trails.

What? Not enough natural lines in Vantage to keep climbers happy?

The face routes are too long to top-rope or belay from the top?

Not enough to satisfy the uncontrollable urge to drill???

 

In the time that you took to write this post, you could have dashed off an e-mail to at least one major environmental group alerting them to the nature and scope of this problem.

 

Seriously.

 

Please start your campaign immediately, and keep us appraised of your efforts by posting all of your correspondence and any replies that you get in return.

[Raindawg]

In the time that you took to write this post, you could have dashed off an e-mail to at least one major environmental group alerting them to the nature and scope of this problem.

 

Seriously.

 

Please start your campaign immediately, and keep us appraised of your efforts by posting all of your correspondence and any replies that you get in return.

 

Hey Wise-guy:

 

Why do YOU think YOU can define our agenda and methodology?

Why do YOU think YOU should be informed of the same?

 

Don't count on it.

 

Sit down.

[JayB]

I'm sure that once you and Pope implement whatever cunning, stealthy methodology you are presently devising to advance your agenda, and the the various environmental groups and regulatory agencies are awakened to the fact that people are drilling 3/8" x 2" holes in rock surfaces that constitute less than a 1x10^18th of the total exposed rock surface in the US for recreational purposes the outcry will make the collective response to "Silent Spring" look like a collective yawn by comparison.

 

 

[AlpineK]

Don,

 

I think that if you have something you truly believe in then you won't waste your time talking about it on the internet. Instead you should be writing organizations, legislatures, and other entities that have real influence on the subject of bolts on rock.

 

If you do want the discussion to continue here then like Jay said post your results from real communications. The internet is a good place to talk smack and meet up with like minded folks, but it isn't such a good place to expect real results from discussions like this one.

[pope]

Good luck with that.

 

Do us all a favor and create a thread where you post your correspondence with various environmental groups and their responses to you, as well as all of the legislative and administrative victories that you amass in your crusade to get sport climbing outlawed.

 

Where'd you go to clown school? I'm thinking somebody owes you a refund. It's amusing when you suggest that we should keep you informed of our efforts, just as those who in this thread have suggested that we should "join the community" and help to form a consensus (otherwise we're just thugs, like Ken Nichols). I probably don't need to remind you of the way the WCC handled their "public" meetings with land managers over the Infinite Bliss crisis. But just in case you forgot (we didn't), meetings were announced a few hours before or even after the fact....so that Matty P. and company could be sure the opposition didn't have a chance to barge in and expose the fantasy of a "unified and harmonious climbing community". Our operations will be similarly "public".

 

But thanks for the challenge. The possibility for some small success mandates an honest effort on my part.

[high_on_rock]

Are we all dealing with the same definition of "consensus?" To me, it does not require full agreement, merely general agreement with most of the parties involved. Are we using the term differently?

[pope]

...the fact that people are drilling 3/8" x 2" holes in rock surfaces that constitute less than a 1x10^18th of the total exposed rock surface in the US for recreational purposes the outcry will make the collective response to "Silent Spring" look like a collective yawn by comparison.

 

 

Wow, how'd your arrive at that figure? You are truly a nerd. BTW, the total land area of the U.S. is only 1.4*10^16 in^2....and in case you haven't traveled much, most of that ain't "exposed rock surface for recreational purposes". Not only are your computations a few factors of ten off, I'm sure the real issue has something more to do with what kind of activities and impacts are acceptable on public land. I mean really, what fraction of our national park lands would be impacted by me if I were to ride a motocross bike around the Wonderland Trail? Must be infinitessimally small...but I doubt we'll see the day when Ranger Rick buys into the logic of your calculations.

[JayB]

I think it's amusing that neither of you are capable of detecting sarcasm.

 

I am - in all seriousness - disappointed that the two of you won't be amusing me with a real-time chronicle of your efforts, though.

[Norman_Clyde]

If it's public land and there are no actual laws governing the issue, then then bolters and choppers have exactly the same legal "rights". IMO it is ridiculous to say that trundling, cleaning, etc. is somehow "constructive" yet chopping is "destructive". Likewise, the bolt chopper does not automatically own the moral high ground.

 

The rock doesn't mind being bolted. Environmental impact of bolting is negligible compared to impact of the human presence. The act of bolting, however, by lowering the stakes of a particular climb, leads inevitably to greater environmental degradation of the bolted area, by opening the routes to a larger number of climbers. For people who associate climbing with a "wilderness" experience, this is a problem; not so for people who see climbing as no different from any other sport.

 

Bolting leads to increased human impact because lots of human beings today are willing to climb at a difficult grade with minor risk (as bolts have allowed), but fewer are willing take on the risk which is a part of putting up difficult routes from below.

 

Bolts have become so pervasive that they have severed the connection between degree of climbing difficulty and degree of climbing risk. IMO the original connection between these two (willingness to push climbing limits, willingness to assume risk in the process) was once so strong that this connection came to form part of the identity, the character, of the climber. Some 21st century climbers still see this connection, and IMO this is what the fight is really about.

Bolting has facilitated technically difficult climbs by larger numbers of persons. I don't sport climb myself, but I suspect there is some range of opinions among bolt clippers. Some, no doubt, feel a little ashamed every time they clip a bolt, but they have fun nevertheless, and can also appreciate trad routes without wanting to bolt everything they climb. Others, I imagine, have no respect, not even any awareness, of how the act of putting up a new route on lead was once a completely different test of character than bolted sport climbing is now.

 

If the crag in question is private property, then presumably the owner is free to prohibit bolts, to mandate grid bolting, or to turn the whole place into a quarry or a strip mine, and no person but the owner has any legal right to bolt/chop/strip mine without the owner's consent.

[Raindawg]

I'm sure that once you and Pope implement whatever cunning, stealthy methodology you are presently devising to advance your agenda, and the the various environmental groups and regulatory agencies are awakened to the fact that people are drilling 3/8" x 2" holes in rock surfaces that constitute less than a 1x10^18th of the total exposed rock surface in the US for recreational purposes the outcry will make the collective response to "Silent Spring" look like a collective yawn by comparison.

 

I guess it's O.K., then, if I build a series of pleasant picnic tables up in The Enchantments. They'll probably take up no more space than 1x10^18th of the total of national forest lands. There easier to spot visually, but the tables will probably serve more users than bolted lines ever will.

Whatever.

By the way, regulatory agencies have been awakened about bolts and other climber abuses, e.g. restrictions at Joshua Tree, Arches, etc. and more to come.

 

I think that if you have something you truly believe in then you won't waste your time talking about it on the internet. Instead you should be writing organizations, legislatures, and other entities that have real influence on the subject of bolts on rock....The internet is a good place to talk smack and meet up with like minded folks, but it isn't such a good place to expect real results from discussions like this one.

 

Hey! I actually agree for once with Mr. Feck!

Sound advice, mister. You're right...it has been pretty much a waste talking about such issues on the internet. But not a complete waste, because I know that many folks have been exposed to other perspectives that aren't normally offered elsewhere, and I've found that some have actually changed their opinions on certain subjects as a result of being exposed to the arguments.

 

 

[JayB]

So bolting is the main problem that land managers are concerned about at the sport-mecca that is JT, and this has lead to access restrictions? Bolting is the main problem at Bishop as well I presume, and the rampant bolting in Boston Basin is no doubt behind the land management regs in force there as well.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

[ken4ord]

 

You always start from a position of a right or entitlement to bolt - none exists. Bolt wars only exists because bolts do - don't bolt where they aren't wanted and no bolt wars will occur. Chopping is never the starting point, placing the bolts where they aren't welcome is always the starting point.

 

I disagree Joseph, bolt wars exist because people exist. If there wasn't bolts then there would be something else to disagree upon and fight about.

 

Going back, I agree with your earlier comment about Ken being a great climber and very bold one for that matter. His actions over the years though has only fueled the bolting war as far as I am concerned and not helped matters. I understand, fully accept and believe, there should be areas that are protected from the almighty drill and bolt. Drilling away and chopping away are not going to get us preserve areas. I am not exactly sure what will end the debate because, there are two small fraction on both side of the debate that cannot let go either view point, 'I have right to bolt where I want' or 'bolts don't belong in climbing'.

 

As long as bolts are around, they will be a part of climbing. There is no if's and's or doubt's in my mind about that. As long the rest of the climbing community does nothing, (most likely because they feel it is useless to because of the ego maniacs on either end of the spectrum), there will be bolting wars.

 

What it's going to take is climbing communities such as WMCC that are small localized groups that take action to preserve an area in a way they (as a community) seem fit. Now if Ken Nichols really wanted to make difference especially protecting the Conn. climbing areas that are rich in climbing hertitage, then his best plan of attack would have been organizing the community and preserving those areas as such, rather than being the sole-self-proclaimed-care-taker of those areas. To make matters worse for his view point, he took it upon himself to venture into areas that he had no to little climbing history with and erridicate routes that didn't sit well with him. He is just as bad as the person with the drill, who doesn't bother to do his/her homework about area/existing route/local ethics.

 

I agree bolting is not an entitlement, but I would also say that in most areas it is not prohibited. So in a lot of cases bolting is not leagally wrong, though it is morally wrong as far as some are concerned.

 

Now my personal opinion is I like climbing. I especially like trad climbing, it is my favorite type of climbing, and I would love to see area protected as such. For example the Gunks, it would be sad in hell if they started retro-bolting that place, but because there is an organized community of people who gaurd over that area and know and respect the history, it is most likely it won't happen. I also enjoy sport climbing sometime, though not as much, and sometimes I think a good portion of sport routes are garbage, but hey one mans garbage is another man gold. These days it seems there has been more activity in preserving this way of climbing, which is fine with me, because in the end it is presevation of something I enjoy, climbing. I wish some of you guys who complain about bolting in areas you would rather not see bolting, STFU do something about it rather than breaking out the chisel and shouting from soapbox. Joseph, I am not saying you are one of them, actually I find you to be more reasonable than your cohorts in this issue, also from what I understand you do actually do something rather than shouting from the soap box.

[ken4ord]

The more I think about this issue, the more I begin to think that we need a new approach. Instead of trying to change the minds of so many sport climbers, we should educate leaders of environmental groups about the impacts of sport climbing and encourage them to lobby for laws banning bolts. Today's climbers have a lot more in common with ORV groups than bird watchers. Here's to rasing awareness.

 

All that will do is get areas shut down to ALL kinds of climbing and bring about further ridiculous regulations.

 

No it won't not if done right.

 

BTW poop I don't think climber ever had anything in common to bird watchers. We use a resource around us, not just observe it, no matter if you climb trad or sport.

[AlpineK]

I'm not about to say that all bolts are good. Personally I have a mixed view on bolts, but I'm not as concerned over the rap bolting vs ground up issue.

 

One place where I am totally in favor of bolts is for rap anchors at crags where there are trees nearby. As an arborist who has spent the last 17 years climbing trees I can tell you that leaving fixed anchors in trees causes real damage to the tree. I've spent years climbing to prune small trees up to 200' tall firs. I have never seen a qualified arborist leave a fixed anchor for descent. As a side issue I'd say that arborists do use spurs/gaffs to climb trees, but that's only when you are removing the tree unless there is an overriding safety issue.

 

To me and a lot of people the crag is about more than just the rock climbs. I look at the crag area as a whole. That being said I could site plenty of places where removing a tree is an acceptable thing to do at a climbing area and does little damage to the forest.

 

Anyway I know my point is a side issue to the main focus of the debate, but I thought I'd bring it up.

[Puma]

Post deleted by Puma

[kevbone]

 

Bolt placement is currently way too subjective, dependent on the climber’s perceived “needs”, i.e. skill level and risk tolerance.

 

That is their right as the route putter upper.

 

 

A moratorium should be put on any additional bolt placement until not just a ‘consensus’ is reached among the climbing community, but a perhaps a process becomes established that would – if a bolt were to be placed –be decided in a more democratic nature than just left up to the whim of the climber (I realize that this is a ridiculously idealized statement, at best).

 

I am glad you realize that too!

 

Perhaps, like gun-control, bolts should be registered when they are sold and permits extracted first as to the where of placement if they were to be placed – this would lessen the impulsivity of the act.

Bolted routes that are currently in place should be “edited” (selective removal) and let those climbers that feel the requisite need for a bolt to clip into stay and play in these areas, within their comfort zone.

 

Another asinine comment…..who gets to decide what bolt gets “edited”.

 

[Puma]

Post deleted by Puma

[kevbone]

Kevbone - Your declaration of “That is the right of the route putter upper” might portray you as someone that has a shallow understanding of the issue - and are perhaps overstating your own significance as an ascender in the climbing world:

 

So….what is the issue (in your opinion)

 

Do yourself a favor: don’t mark yourself as the Dan Quayle of the “route putter upper” populace and the climbing community -

(Are you old enough to remember the following Bentsen to Quayle remark: Senator [Quayle], I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy).

Kevbone: Substitue YOUR name as Senator Quayle's and Beckey’s as Jack Kennedy.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

 

Back to your “rights:

Is it your “right” to consistently trample across environmentally fragile zones, in your quest to get somewhere ahead of everybody else (a shortcut). Is it your “right” to pick every wildflower in a public domain or should you leave most for other people to observe? Is it your “right” to build a campfire for your weenie roasting when the fire conditions are red-hot-high? Is it your “right” to short-cut switch-backs, creating trail chaos and water-runoff problems because it best suits your interests? Is it your “right” to leave your litter and climbing flotsam at the wilderness sight you bedded down at or do you pack-it all out? Is it your “right” to sh*t and p*ss anywhere you want to and your “right” to pollute the water supply of other climbers in the area?

Is it your “right” to constantly deface rock in your quest to “conquer” some piece of vertical landscape?

 

I could say the same about trad climbers who “deface” rock by killing sensitive flowers and flora fauna.

 

 

Why do YOU think that YOU get to DECIDE that YOU get to drill bolts, indiscriminately of what other people may or may not want to see done?

 

 

Because I got their first. If you got there first….you would get to decide.

 

Remember.....respect those who came before you.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Kevbone - Your declaration of “That is the right of the route putter upper” might portray you as someone that has a shallow understanding of the issue - and are perhaps overstating your own significance as an ascender in the climbing world:

Do yourself a favor: don’t mark yourself as the Dan Quayle of the “route putter upper” populace and the climbing community -

(Are you old enough to remember the following Bentsen to Quayle remark: Senator [Quayle], I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy).

Kevbone: Substitue YOUR name as Senator Quayle's and Beckey’s as Jack Kennedy.

 

Back to your “rights:

Is it your “right” to consistently trample across environmentally fragile zones, in your quest to get somewhere ahead of everybody else (a shortcut). Is it your “right” to pick every wildflower in a public domain or should you leave most for other people to observe? Is it your “right” to build a campfire for your weenie roasting when the fire conditions are red-hot-high? Is it your “right” to short-cut switch-backs, creating trail chaos and water-runoff problems because it best suits your interests? Is it your “right” to leave your litter and climbing flotsam at the wilderness sight you bedded down at or do you pack-it all out? Is it your “right” to sh*t and p*ss anywhere you want to and your “right” to pollute the water supply of other climbers in the area?

Is it your “right” to constantly deface rock in your quest to “conquer” some piece of vertical landscape?

 

Also, you might want to rethink your judgment of your accusatory statement ( “Another asinine comment…..who gets to decide what bolt gets “edited”). Apply your own logic, consistently here, Kevbone. Why do YOU think that YOU get to DECIDE that YOU get to drill bolts, indiscriminately of what other people may or may not want to see done?

Maybe it becomes the decision of whatever Parks Department or government Bureau has jurisdiction over the land (if it is public), with consideration from climbers and users of the area .

 

 

 

The Anger. The Angst. Thank you DIS-ALL-US-ION-ME-E-ENT! OH OH OH! OH OH AYE!

 

Dibs on the screenplay.

Edited July 20, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Puma]

Post deleted by Puma

Edited July 20, 2007 by Puma

[kevbone]

Are you are attempting to characterize yourself as a leader here?

 

No….but it sounds like you are trying to characterize me. Have fun with that.

 

 

RESPECT must be earned; not bought for $900 in the form of Hilti TE Rotary hammer-, a twenty-eight buck glue-in bolt or a Pika rock drill.

 

 

In my mind…..you earn my respect by getting there first. For example….I go to a crag that has absolutely no bolts….but does have potential for multiple sport routes. I do not touch the place with my drill…..why? Because I respect those who came before me and they wished for a crag with no bolts. It is quite simple.

 

And its a Bosch!

 

 

And are you merely deceiving yourself, that you “got there first”? Does the first one to "tag" a rock then "own" the rights to that rock?

 

 

No….no one owns the rock…..but I roll with the mentality that the crag gets the reputation from those who got there first. SEE ABOVE. It is an unspoken rule. Once again I believe it is called respect. I have huge amounts of it.

 

 

 

It would be difficult to “respect” you with your ”ME FIRST!!!” mentality that pays little consideration or regard to those “following”.

 

 

Well…..tough shit…..you should have gotten there first. And by the way……I have only been part of a “me first” mentality one time in 11 years of climbing…….I have always been the “following” part of climbing. I always respect the climbers that I follow….even If I do not agree with them…..I just go climb something else.

 

(BTW: Your lack of knowledge (“WTF are you talking about…?) of the Bentsen to Quayle remark demonstrates a lot. If you have to ask the question, you wouldn’t understand the answer).

Relax friend…..I know what you are talking about…..I was pointed out it had nothing to do with this discussion.