Hyperspace - Snow Creek Wall

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJason:

Did Iconoclast for the 5th time last June and wanted to clarify these bolts.

The bolts at the top of the 1st 10c pitch replaced slings behind sketchy blocks that have shifted over time. Some of the sling material is still evident in this location as it was pinched off beyond removal when the blocks shifted. The bolted anchor on top of the upper 10c pitch is there to replace what was once was a living cedar tree. Repeated use of slings around this tree choked the remaining life out of it rendering it useless and a hazard to those below. The "chicken" bolt is in the same location as where the leader could first "sling" a branch on the tree.

--Jon

---

Slings around trees don't kill trees. Rapping using trees - not slings around a tree but rope right around the bark - girdles the tree and kills it stone dead.

 

[mattp]

I agree with Puget. I believe the "restoration" of DDD was probably a positive, the chest-beating was not. And I believe the Whipsaw incident was an example of poor judgment - probably on both sides.

Retro - you asked for "salient points" and I hope you find some of the discussion here to be useful. I think you make some good points about the fact that bolts represent a permanent alteration of the rock and I share your disapproval of the trend towards increased acceptance of grid-bolting and of retrobolting historic climbs. But however you decide to follow up on this discussion, I hope you will show some respect for your fellow climbers - even those you may think are misguided, pussies, vandals, or all of the above.

Somebody who replaces belay anchors goes to considerable effort and expense to do so and they rarely expect to receive any significant recognition but they do so out of a desire to contribute to the pursuit of our sport. Most of the time, I think those adding "chicken bolts" have the same motivation and I bet the cases of those who add bolts to an existing climb they cannot climb, in order that they will then be able to climb it, are relatively few. At times the tough-love of the crowbar, or the outspoken tirade, may be necessary. But these actions are not likely to change anybody's sense of what is right and wrong and you can't police all the crags.

Let's see some more discussion. I look forward to meeting all of you at the megafest next week.

[TimL]

OK folks......STOP with the BS

My original intentions in starting this topic were to ask for some simple beta and I received some excellent information. Thanks folks.

I completed the climb yesterday in great conditions. I think Nelson was very correct in saying Hyperspace is the "Astroman" of Leavenworth. So in proper Yosemite style we drank coffee and took our time getting to the base and didn't start the climb till 11:30. Besides, doing the descent trail off the Snow Creek Wall in the dark is a favorite past time of mine. The climb was mostly great, in places dirty, in places really hard and in total fairly long. With more traffic and some cleaning I think it would be a **** Washington classic. I thought the Psychopath pitch was the best pitch on the climb. The first 4 pitches went by quickly and were spectacular! The last 4 tended to take more time and were more difficult. The previous posts give really good beta.

I saw and used 1 set of bolts for anchors on the top of the 1st pitch on Iconoclast. Yes, probably not the best resources but it is possible to contrive a gear belay using a small tree and a loose death flake. The anchor chains were welcomed and in my opinion should be left for future climbers. I did see a bolt high and right of Iconoclast probably leading out to Outer Space. This bolt seems to be in the place the Leavenworth guidebook describes it. Lets not let a small issue about bolting cloud the hype on a fantastic climb.

Retro: Your a cool guy. I've met you before on Castle Rock and understand your feelings about your home crags. We all have to pick and choose our battles and I think the bolting issues brought up surrounding this climb might not be that big of a deal. Maybe a more productive stance would be to recruit some help to clean the gunk off Hyperspace so more people will enjoy it in the future?

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

Fuck guys start another thread for this shit. Call it should we remove the bolts on Iconoclast I want to know about this route.

[Retrosaurus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LUCKY:

So Mitch is the one who smashed the bolts on Whipsaw and almost caused a ground fall by a fellow climber .Wacked out ethics???Chopping a first accent, wacked out ethics????Reherseing and pink pointing a crack and calling it a first accent ,wacked out ethics.GET A GRIP

---

Caused a ground fall? Get real. Everyone of the bolts on Whipsaw are visible from the base of the route. If there had been a groundfall it would have been caused by the climber having his nose in the guidebook instead of his eyes on the rock. I suppose misinformation in a guidebook could also "cause" accidents. Call your attorney. No one is responsible for their own safety anymore. So you really want to get in to the Whipsaw issue, OK. If you are climbing Pony Keg You can clip every one of the Whipsaw bolts with a hand in the PonyKeg crack. PonyKeg was established 9 years previous. If you don't see a problem with this I feel sory for you. I had every intention of cleanly removing the bolts and had started to (on lead, as if that matters). And before I could come back with the proper tools the Whipsaw first assensionist, Kevin Pogue, upgraded the removed bolts to 1/2". I then hammered the hangers flat and some one straightened them back out. Sport climbers continue to whip onto these abused bolts and hangers like the true lemmings that they are. From the way I see things, the person doing the real set-up for disaster is the one that straightened those hangers. I merely rendered them unusable. Someone else in straightening the hangers set the entire community up with 10 perfectly camoflaged time bombs. Let's keep the discussion about issues and actions, not personalities.

"Reherseing and pink pointing a crack and calling it a first accent ,wacked out ethics.GET A GRIP"

First of all, Lucky. I reported my ascent of "Crossing the Deleware" exactly how it was done. (This is the only ascent on pre-placed gear that I have done.)

Second, the route deserves an R/X rating even with hours of work arranging the protection on rappel. The protection is absolutely its worst at the crux, which I would put at 5.11b, but is roughly equivalent to the neighboring Red M&Ms.

Third, I did not alter the stone or anyone else's subsequent climbing experience with my ascent.

I find it absurd that you have a problem with this style of ascent. Maybe you should get on the route or shut up about things where you are so obviously uninformed.

Mitch

Sorry for going off topic but others have felt the need to drag other issues into this forum.

[Chepe]

I made a new thread for shit like this. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000120.html

That way it does not clutter this area or others and the arguments can be all in one place.

[Peter_Puget]

Cavey - I think your Idea of a segregated area for these issues is good after this one dies. Here is beta for Psychopath: at the crux reach up left for the top of a semi knob and don't try to place gear too often there are good placements available just not alway where you want them.

In many earlier posts I pleaded for civil discussion between groups and many responded that sometimes you have to be "uncivil" to these rascally bolters/sport climbers to get your point across. I think it's clear that the self-righteous uncaring face Retro has shown is the true face of those vociferously posting here. (There are others of the same ilk who are merely better mannered and thus remain somewhat hidden but their contempt for others shows thru with equal if more diffuse brightness.) We should in a civil manner but direct manner tell these jokers to get lost and that they are not only behaving poorly but shamefully. In fact we have the obligation.

To repeat: just imagine the effect smashed bolts have on land managers. To repeat: People have been hurt. The bolting debate is real and honest people exist on both sides. Smarmy condescending comments should be seen for what they are: 1. Contemptuous insults 2. An attempt to stop any real discussion.

I invite any interested parties to review the bolting issue threads and see how the main anit bolt posters have have continuously used lies, half truths, and insults (usually sexual)to cow any differing opinions.

[Peter_Puget]

Damn I can't stop posting to this thread but...

Dru - My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew! Earlier this year I returned to an area I hadn't been for ten years or so and was shocked when I saw how embedded into the tree the slings were that I had left on my last visit. Noticable groves were left in the trunk!

Retro - Certainly a weathered bolt is less of an eyesore than slings! Esp. since sling replacment which you advocated usually results in shiny new slings! Think please!

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

[We should in a civil manner but direct manner tell these jokers to get lost and that they are not only behaving poorly but shamefully

[/b]

---

Hey Peter,

Isn't that: 1. Contemptuous insults,

2. An attempt to stop any real discussion?

It certainly is condescending, and perhaps smarmy.

I find many of the anti-bolt tirades on this site to be "colorful". I do think it gets out of hand when the Cap'n threatens people.

I find most of the pro-bolt missives to be simplistic and ignorant.

Chuck

 

[Dru]

Hmmm yeah - if the slings are tight and dont weather enough they could cut into the tree, if it grows. Moral of the story: tie loose slings.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Drul you crack me up!

[Dru]

I think it would be funny to set a time-lapse camera up and watch the mighty tree flex its roots and bust the sling into pieces like a strongman breaking chains wrapped around his massive biceps. "HERO OF THE BEACH!!" Maybe itlll be in the next Koyaanisqatsui movie.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Hehehhe

[Guest]

What a bunch of amateurs. I cannot believe you puds. If that route were in the Valley it would get soloed once a week.

Caveman and Dru are the biggest wimps out of this group!

[hikerwa]

WAAAAHOOOO!!!

The triumphant return of Office Space!

All Hail The Mighty Office Space!!!

[Dru]

CaveMan you are gonna have to open a can of whup ass on OfficeSpice for me as I'm too lazy to get out of my chair and come over there to slap some sense into him.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Having met homey once I dont think he is quite serious Perhaps along the lines of Bonzo.................

[Retrosaurus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

Damn I can't stop posting to this thread but...

Dru - My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew! Earlier this year I returned to an area I hadn't been for ten years or so and was shocked when I saw how embedded into the tree the slings were that I had left on my last visit. Noticable groves were left in the trunk!

Retro - Certainly a weathered bolt is less of an eyesore than slings! Esp. since sling replacment which you advocated usually results in shiny new slings! Think please!

---

Does anybody really buy this bullshit?

1)Do you know how fast trees growing from cracks on SnowCreek Wall do not grow. You couldn't tie a sling on tight enough and still thread a rope through to choke the tree before the sling would be dried, bleached, degraded, weathered, tattered and gone completely of its own accord.

2)"a weathered bolt is less of an eyesore than slings". One pass with a knife and there is no eyesore at all. I advocate sling removal, not sling replacement.

[This message has been edited by Retrosaurus (edited 09-20-2001).]

[mattp]

My apologies to Caveman for contributing to further discussion in this thread, unrelated to the original topic (beta), but directly related to the current topic of this thread (to chop or not to chop and what is righteous about bolting/removing bolts from an existing climb).

Retro, I applaud you for being willing to clean up other people’s messes but as has been suggested already in this conversation, this one may not be a mess that needs to be or should be cleaned up with a crowbar. I haven’t been up there to look at the current installation, but the last time I was on the climb I do remember finding some heaps of webbing on some questionable natural anchors. You could remove all those slings, and pull the bolts and chains while you are at it, and for a team who is competent on the route and is not forced to retreat by weather or darkness, this would be no problem. But not every team has such luck and those that retreat from a climb often feel compelled to add slings to existing heaps of unsightly mess. Some people will leave a carabiner on a nut, invisible from afar and easily removed by the next party, but others will leave brightly colored slings tied around blocks and bushes, and these can be seen from as far away as the trail. You may not approve of their actions, but they are doing what they think is necessary for their own safety and I doubt you will be able to convince them to do otherwise – unless there is an obviously safe anchor already in place.

Clearly, there are competing goals in play here. As a permanent installation, bolts should be minimized. But the visual impact of rappel slings, while not a permanent alteration of the crag environment, is probably more significant in the eyes of the non-climbing public who views the cliff from the trail across the creek. And even if they are cleaned up every time a stronger party is able to complete the route, the slings continue to sprout all over the place. I am not advocating adding retreat stations all the way up (and down) this or any other climb. But I believe those two stations in particular used to accumulate heaps of webbing on what may be unsafe anchors, and I would think it probably better to compromise on this one and leave the bolts in place.

 

[Retrosaurus]

Matt,

Your points are well taken and I won't do anything without thorough evaluation of yours and all other ideas that I hear presented.

Mitch

[Drederek]

Did Remorse/Psycho/Iconoclast/OS this spring or early summer. Didn't see the aforementioned rap stations(I think) and didn't feel unduly put out by the protection at the belays. The 10c pitches were very good. There was a short section of not so great rock that I managed to "let" my partner lead. The bolt "high and right" that leads out onto the face didn't look new but it was a great indicator of our location and as shadows were lengthening we opted that way instead of Hyperspace. That bolt was very well placed to get you to the chickenheads and then you're on your own. I went straight up the edge to a chain anchor next to a dead stump (is this one of the ones under discussion?). Then my partner traversed a tcu sized crack over to OS. Doesn't seem like these anchors are a problem to me, but I could have set a safe belay there. I guess the question is are these anchors a finishing touch or the spearpoint of an invasion? Having placed a couple of bolts in rock and thousands in concrete I can tell you its easy yet time-consuming. Getting the equipment up there is the hard part. Retro, is that respect for Mattp I hear or are you learning patience and tolerance?

[Peter_Puget]

Quote from Retro:

"Does anybody really buy this bullshit?

Do you know how fast trees growing from cracks on SnowCreek Wall do not grow."

Rejoinder: Now to be clear Retro, I never said or impled that I was speaking of a tree on Snow Creek Wall. (Here is the whole post relative to trees:"My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew! Earlier this year I returned to an area I hadn't been for ten years or so and was shocked when I saw how embedded into the tree the slings were that I had left on my last visit. Noticable groves were left in the trunk!")I was directing a comment to Dru regarding the possibilty of a tree being killed by slings.

Mattp's points do make sense; however, there posting here should have been a needless and unneccesary restatement of the obvious. It is truely sad that it wasn't.

ChuckK -

Quote -"It certainly is condescending, and perhaps smarmy."

DEF:Condescending - showing or implying a gracious or patronizing descent from dignity or superiority. (Random House Dictionary)

DEF:Smarmy - excessively or untuously flattering, ingratiating, serville affectionate,etc. (Random House Dictionary)

Chuck, I do not think I am being either condescending or smarmy. My position is that these guys are not behaving in a proper manner. Smashing hangers is not acceptable behavior. Their insults are designed to stifle debate and cow anyone with a slightly differing view. As with any person/groups not meeting the most basic behavioral norms demanded by any society/group in any culture on earth they can be told to get lost and its not condescending. I'll let you figure out why smarmy doesn't fit. Maybe there is a reason that you "..find most of the pro-bolt missives to be simplistic and ignorant. "

Further quote - "Hey Peter,

Isn't that: 1. Contemptuous insults,

2. An attempt to stop any real discussion?"

Well since I do find their behavior contemptuous and in a broad sense it is an insult I'll agree with you. I would like to say however that it is an opinion borne out of direct contact and many attempts at trying to improve the level of discourse over this issue. It is not an attempt to stop any real discussion in fact it is something quite the opposite. Imagine a room in which two sides are debating an issue and a small number of them predominatley of one side are screaming obscenities at every opportunity. Their screaming and yelling prevents any real discussion. If everyone else in the room ( on both sides of the argument) forced them to leave, then the real discussion could start!

Again, I say review the threads regarding bolting. I am neither pro or anti bolting. And have often suggested areas of shared ground between bolters and anti bolters. Several times I have asked the anti-bolters questions and they have been ignored or answered incompletely. I have always responded to any serious query. Retro's response quoted above does more to clarify his anger and lack of logic than to answer any of my arguments. I wonder if you felt his reply was as "simplistic and ignorant" My point is that removing the bolts will guarantee the placement of slings. Thus Retro is in fact advocating sling relacement. In my view, his viewpoint by not seeing that is simplistic and ignorant. His sense of duty in removing old slings is grand but I'll wager a dollar he did not remove all the slings on the route the last time he climbed it. But ChucK my criticisms go beyond Retro he is merely an easy and convenient target who is active in this thread. The anti bolting side has a pervasive element in it that is exactly as I described. This element is not one but many individuals.

 

 

[Nick]

All you bolters and anti bolters need to step back and get some perspective. Bolts and rap slings are minor details. If you want the mountains clean you should quit driving all over them in polution spewing automobiles. Why waste your energy fighting over a few tiny bolts when there are so many roads that could be returned to the forest, so many trees to plant. . . .

[Retrosaurus]

 

"I never said or impled that I was speaking of a tree on Snow Creek Wall."

What is this thread titled?

 

"My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew!"

Has anyone actually seen a tree killed by slings?

 

"Chuck, I do not think I am being either condescending or smarmy."

Condescending, yes.

Smarmy, yes.

Add laboriously longwinded and wordy.

A self proclaimed semantic scientist.

you are the only one who thinks you are not.

Do you often find yourself finishing the conversation aftereveryone else has left the room?

 

"I am neither pro or anti bolting....The anti bolting side has a pervasive element in it that is exactly as I described."

Your agenda is clear.

 

"His sense of duty in removing old slings is grand but I'll wager a dollar he did not remove all the slings on the route the last time he climbed it."

You owe me a dollar... and an apology.

[chucK]

Peter,

I still consider your remarks condescending, but I'll take back the smarmy part. I guess I don't know what that means. In respect your attempt to "civilize" the discussion on this board, I felt I should elaborate on my terse comments.

An idea I find to "simplistic and ignorant" is that bolting is always a net positive. I've heard many times that people who want a safer climb will like the bolts, and those who don't can "just skip the clips". Anyone who thinks you can just try to ignore the bolts and retain the character of the original unbolted line just doesn't get it (yet?). I think I give the benefit of the doubt to champions of this idea by calling them ignorant. If someone out there doesn't get why this argument is vaccuous I'd be happy to discuss it via email.

Which brings me to explanation of my view of the CC anti-bolter's style of argument. I called them "colorful" because I think they are often humorous and entertaining, as long as they are not threatening (to people, not in situ bolts). I understand that what is considered "threatening" varies depending on who's on the target end, but let's get one thing straight. If you're out at the crags or in a bar and someone gets in your face and starts insulting you, then that could easily be construed as threatening. Being called names on an internet chat board is more like someone yelling at you out of a car as they drive away. It shouldn't be too scary. You have no exposure, ESPECIALLY if you're one of those here who chooses to remain anonymous.

Threatening to hurt someone by "mixing it up" or dropping rocks on them is not appropriate in discussion, even in an anonymous setting. What I find especially cowardly is getting in your threatening shot, then going back and editing away the evidence in an attempt to hide your attack from the rest of the community.

Chuck