Ken Nichols convicted and fined for bolt chopping

[pope]

Man, who would have guessed that Donald would come to the rescue of Pope, as Pope was taking a long fall off his high horse.

 

Couple of comments are in order. Educated folk generally end their questions with....you guessed it, a QUESTION MARK, not a period. Secondly, educated folk generally at some point develop analytical skills that would allow them to infer that pope's bolt placement is not only consistent with the ideals to which he subcribes, but also provides an example of mountaineering excellence to which high_on_rock should aspire. You used to teach high school? Hopefully not a course in logic.

[high_on_rock]

The statement was a rhetorical question, which does not require a question mark. Keep trying Pope.

 

The sad part is that you are the only one who does not realize that the high horse has stumbled and you are falling.

 

[pope]

The statement was a rhetorical question, which does not require a question mark. Keep trying Pope.

 

The sad part is that you are the only one who does not realize that the high horse has stumbled and you are falling.

 

Ouch! "Who would have guessed...." requires a question mark. And statements are never questions. Glad to see you didn't teach logic.

 

I am an avid and accomplished climber and outdoorsman who finds my peace through outdoor adventure. For years I have taken students into the outdoors, teaching hundreds of people to climb rock, and introducing novice and intermediate climbers to alpine adventures.

(That comes from his website)

 

That's noble. What do you teach the young whippersnappers about picking up trash? What do you teach the kids about treading lightly in the wilderness?

[Raindawg]

The sad part is that you are the only one who does not realize that the high horse has stumbled and you are falling.

 

Wrong. I understand him perfectly. Why don't you?

[high_on_rock]

I am not sure what the question is Pope.

 

Is this some vailed threat to "out" me? Name is Eric Christianson, webpage is vikingclimber.com

 

Give us your information Pope. Come on girlfriend, be brave.

[JayB]

Even I believe that bolts have a place, but they should be EXTREMELY RARE, not the substance of the means which is the way of sport-climbing.

 

 

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could.

 

I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means.

 

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

[Raindawg]

 

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

 

Me and pope should create a coloring book explanation for the likes of you. Or should it contain flow-charts?

 

P.S. Methinks you use the word "methinks" too much....that's like, so 16th century!

 

"Oh, how doth clippeth bolts of great derision!"

[pope]

I am not sure what the question is Pope.

 

Is this some vailed threat to "out" me? Name is Eric Christianson, webpage is vikingclimber.com

 

Give us your information Pope. Come on girlfriend, be brave.

 

Let me spell it out for you. I-F Y-O-U A-R-E G-O-I-N-G T-O A-T-T-A-C-K D-W-A-Y-N-E-R-'-S E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, T-R-Y T-O S-O-U-N-D I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-T.

 

BTW, I see you're chummy with the Spokane Mountaineers. I just visited their Ourdoor Ethics Committee page where I found the following:

 

"Leave What You Find

 

Follow the maxim, "take only pictures, leave only footprints." Leave flowers, rocks and all other natural features undisturbed."

 

They offer classes! Maybe you'd like to participate.

"

[pope]

Even I believe that bolts have a place, but they should be EXTREMELY RARE, not the substance of the means which is the way of sport-climbing.

 

 

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could.

 

I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means.

 

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

 

This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control.

[Dechristo]

No surprise here in hearing of his hypocritical history.

[ken4ord]

I do find some humor in the poop wennie roast for placing a bolt and having said 'that there is a place in climbing for bolts'. I guess I find humorous since I really don't have a strong objection to bolts, but have never found the need to place one even though I have brought a drill kit with me. All the time I have come across a place where I could use one I have backed down or found a way around or just gone for it.

 

BTW-it now clear you are not completely opposed to bolts, but definitely opposed to grid bolting. I can tell you it hasn't been clear in the past and the way you have come across your attitude and my interpetation of your stance was that you were completely opposed to bolting of any kind.

[billcoe]

 

BTW-it now clear you are not completely opposed to bolts, but definitely opposed to grid bolting. I can tell you it hasn't been clear in the past and the way you have come across your attitude and my interpetation of your stance was that you were completely opposed to bolting of any kind.

 

You stole the words out of my mouth. I include Don in that statement as well.

 

As far as the rest of it goes, there would be no routes on El Cap or Monkey Face without bolts. None. Monkey Face West FAce is 4 pitches. 3 are fully bolted, they were done on lead, with a hand drill. It really is a good route - which could have been 1 pitch ending at a rap anchor though.

 

It was put up in the 60's.

 

I see things like that and do not see a huge gap (although I agree that there is one) between a typical sport route at Smith.

 

How many routes on glacier point would exist without bolts? None of the great ones which cruise to the Oasis, including the one Chouinard put up: Coonyard.

 

So the real question is how to define style, what is really worthwhile, what is not. I do not think anybody here would be drilling on Pope about the single bolt, except it seems (until now) inconsistent with what he has been saying all along.

 

When we see something like Dishman, we recognize obvious shit, but after that - it is a small step here or there to a true pure crack. Obviously, many of us see that bolt on Popes route as a precondition for many routes to exist.

 

If a person like John Bachar were to do a FA as a near free solo, dragging a rope along, and then tell the rest of us you will die if you cannot free solo 5.11, does that not kind of screw everybody else? Should a first ascentionist consider others as well?

 

PS, Pope, I congratulate you for doing what I (my opinion only here, and all of this is only OUR opinions, including yours) consider the right thing. I once retro-added a bolt (3/8" hand drilled) to the crux near the top of a 5.6/5.7 route I had done when it was suggested that many aspiring leaders would be trying it die to the grade, but that a full pitch of shit placements was a time bomb waiting for some one to blow it and auger in as their pieces ripped.

[kevbone]

Wow......Pope.....that was a bitch slap if I ever saw one. Getting crushed at your own game.....wow!

 

Hey Forrest Gump, Jr. You appently understand NOTHING!

Even I believe that bolts have a place, but they should be EXTREMELY RARE, not the substance of the means which is the way of sport-climbing. Sit down and think once in a while instead of riding on the coat-tails of someone else's weak attempt at derision. Did your comment above make you feel good?

 

Uh....yeah! I felt all warm and fuzzy inside.

[JayB]

Even I believe that bolts have a place, but they should be EXTREMELY RARE, not the substance of the means which is the way of sport-climbing.

 

 

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could.

 

I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means.

 

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

 

This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control.

 

 

So now on routes in which the bolts "will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle" and so as long as the bolts aren't close enough together to aid from one to the next, the bolts are no longer provide "the substance of the means." This includes the majority of sport routes.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

[RuMR]

[kevbone]

Even I believe that bolts have a place, but they should be EXTREMELY RARE, not the substance of the means which is the way of sport-climbing.

 

 

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could.

 

I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means.

 

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

 

This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control.

 

 

So now routes in which the bolts "will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle" and so as long as the bolts aren't close enough together to aid from one to the next, the bolts are no longer provide "the subtstance of the means." This includes the majority of sport routes.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

Oh man Pope......getting worked over eh?

[billcoe]

Interesting in that there is a near identical version of this discussion on supertopo right now.

 

supertopo link

[JayB]

Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

 

Me and pope should create a coloring book explanation for the likes of you. Or should it contain flow-charts?

 

 

 

When you figure out a way to use the "substance of the means," argument in a manner which excludes bolted slab routes, feel free to make use of whichever of these two methods you're most comfortable working with and accustomed to conveying your ideas in.

 

 

[underworld]

the no-bolting argument is ego disguised as eco.

 

 

[dan_forester]

the no-bolting argument is ego disguised as eco.

 

 

that's certainly true in this forum. I'd like to think that there's folks out there who could really articulate the need for restraint in bolting - because it's a worthy subject for debate - but they don't seem to post up here. Maybe they don't want to be associated with the puerile rhetoric and belittling, condescending tone that the anti-bolters around here employ.

 

[high_on_rock]

It is my humble opinion that Pope and Ryan thrive on feeling like they are being ostracized for their views, which is completely incorrect. Joseph professes many of the same beliefs as the pope/ryan duo, but Joseph puts forth his arguments coherently, respectfully, and without trying to belittle those who take opposing positions. [edit: to be clear, I fully respect Joseph for both his views and his respect, as I believe most others do too.] The problem with Pope and Ryan is that they try to use the anonymity of the internet to be jerks without cost. No one has a problem with the views they put forth, merely with the junior high manner through which they put forth the views, and the “holier than thou” condescending tone they use. From here on out I believe I may send their identities by PM to folks upon whom they anonymously piss. Perhaps with a lack of anonymity comes accountability, and through accountability comes temperance.

Edited July 25, 2007 by high_on_rock

[underworld]

where is the fun in that?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Seeing as Raindawg willingly gave up his identity for his very cool archaeology post, I don't see how outing them will help anything. A little bit of detective work or a LW guidebook would easily reveal pope's identity too. Regardless of enviro or ego, their viewpoint still has merit and adds healthy balance to the bolting discussion. It is too bad they usually have to resort to personal attacks and off-topic humor instead of factual logical arguments.

[high_on_rock]

The fun is in exposing the creepers of the night to the light of day, so one can see what he is really dealing with. Things that hide in the darkness rarely look so frightening or intimidating when the light shines upon them. Besides, I received the following PM from Ryan,

“By the way, if I wanted to use my real name, I would....the reason I don't, is because there are a lot of immature violent types on the internet who might irresponsibly act to opinions different than there own. I suppose that a good many people prefer "avatars" for that very reason.”

 

I received that PM at the same time his girl Pope went to my personal webpage to try to find some way to attack me. It is time to shine a light on these folks who thrive in darkness.

 

[Raindawg]

The fun is in exposing the creepers of the night to the light of day, so one can see what he is really dealing with. Things that hide in the darkness rarely look so frightening or intimidating when the light shines upon them. Besides, I received the following PM from Ryan,

“By the way, if I wanted to use my real name, I would....the reason I don't, is because there are a lot of immature violent types on the internet who might irresponsibly act to opinions different than there own. I suppose that a good many people prefer "avatars" for that very reason.”

 

I received that PM at the same time his girl Pope went to my personal webpage to try to find some way to attack me. It is time to shine a light on these folks who thrive in darkness.

 

You aren't exposing anyone. See what trogdor wrote above.

The name isn't "Ryan", it's Don Ryan...which a good many ALREADY know. But you can call me "Dwayner" or "Raindawg"...

A lot of people use "avatars" for the reasons you quote me above.

I'll gladly express my viewpoints in the same way, in person, to anyone.

 

"high-on-rock" or whatever...very uncool to post the contents of private messages...you are obviously someone who can't be trusted.

 

You got a problem with "my girl" "pope"?...take it up with him.

 

Now wasn't that "fun"?

 

- "Raindawg"