aemter wrote:Let me start by saying I've never climbed a sport or trad route, so please don't take this as anything more than an ignorant question.

When someone bolts a trad route, it can still be climbed as a trad route, albeit the "scars", correct? In other words, just because the bolts are there, you don't have to clip them, right? So when you say that the route is "ruined", it's not that it can no longer be climbed in the traditional manner, you more or less mean that it's defaced. Or are there times when someone bolts a route that it physically interferes with the trad climber?

Again, don't take this in the wrong way, I'm simply curious!

Let me try to explain for you:

Lets say your all ready to go climb Rainier, via the - Ingraham Glacier Route. You start up and discover, that ladders have been installed to make the crevasse crossing safe and easy, steps are pre- chopped on the steeper sections of ice and ladder rungs are installed on the 3rd class rock bands so you can get up and down quicker and more safely.

Are you going to not use any of it??????

The local standard being that GU'd mixed routes are within the limits. But no bolted protectable features are anywhere to be found.

The Chief wrote:So you are saying that regardless of the local ethics, if the "stooges" come along and rap bolt a route in an established trad area, they then are protected by your "they tagged it" rule?

All this regardless of the local standards?

Chief. Go look in your backyard.

In Pine Creek you find the mega-super-trad crack climb: "Pratt's Crack", that climb has been a destination climb for over 40 years.

Climbing that thing with hexes is a hi-light of my climbing "career".

If you walk up that canyon today you see heavily bolted sport climbs on both sides of this fine test piece. The sport climbs are ugly, poor climbs, that nobody climbs. ( I go there and I have never seen anybody climbing to the left or right of Pratts' )

If the bolted climbs were to be removed it would be even more ugly than what exists today.

When these climbs were made, they stayed in place, because the "Local standard" was, and still is:

"Don't f-ck with other peoples climbs"

I believe that this attitude is much better than trying to have "nonconforming" climbs chopped.

But if you add bolts to established climbs, well that is "over the line" in my book.

gk

knoback wrote:Sometimes the bolts do get in the way. They're OK to me if there's no other way to reasonably protect an otherwise good route. That's where the trouble lies. What looks like a heinous runout to me, may be just a nice dash of spice to someone bolder and stronger. If it's an "easy" route for that crowd, maybe they should relent and allow the bolt. If it's a "hardman" route, then maybe I should just wait 'til I firm up a bit and try it without the bolt at a future date. There will always be controversy.

This is very good. Who gets to determine when there is a need for a bolt? Is it always the FA? If so, what if the FA is a shitty climber and thinks bolts need to be used when a stronger climber might disagree?

Guyzo wrote:

aemter wrote:Let me start by saying I've never climbed a sport or trad route, so please don't take this as anything more than an ignorant question.

When someone bolts a trad route, it can still be climbed as a trad route, albeit the "scars", correct? In other words, just because the bolts are there, you don't have to clip them, right? So when you say that the route is "ruined", it's not that it can no longer be climbed in the traditional manner, you more or less mean that it's defaced. Or are there times when someone bolts a route that it physically interferes with the trad climber?

Again, don't take this in the wrong way, I'm simply curious!

Let me try to explain for you:

Lets say your all ready to go climb Rainier, via the - Ingraham Glacier Route. You start up and discover, that ladders have been installed to make the crevasse crossing safe and easy, steps are pre- chopped on the steeper sections of ice and ladder rungs are installed on the 3rd class rock bands so you can get up and down quicker and more safely.

Are you going to not use any of it??????

Guyzo, I understand what you're saying. I've heard about routes being "ruined" by bolts and I wanted a little clarification. In my opinion, when something is "ruined" it's no longer usable. Yes, it would definitely detract from my Rainier climb if those things you describe were present. But couldn't you can take that further and argue that the hut at Camp Muir should be demo'ed, or that the use of wands should be prohibited, or any number of other things that some people think detracts from the climb?

I'm perfectly aware of the destruction of wild places by humans. But who gets to determine what's permitted in these areas? It's the age-old question of wilderness and nature. Should we allow snowmobiles in Yellowstone? Should we allow ATV trails in national forests? Who determines the proper situations for bolts? And one question we are debating in my local area is whether we should allow local hunters to cull the elk herd in Teddy Roosevelt N.P. They are tough questions and I don't think the answers are black/white.

Guyzo wrote:

The Chief wrote:So you are saying that regardless of the local ethics, if the "stooges" come along and rap bolt a route in an established trad area, they then are protected by your "they tagged it" rule?

All this regardless of the local standards?

Chief. Go look in your backyard.

In Pine Creek you find the mega-super-trad crack climb: "Pratt's Crack", that climb has been a destination climb for over 40 years.

Bad example IMO.

The Author of that particular route was not a local and never returned to the area. That specific route was FA'd on a passing whim. Not until he returned to the Valley, did anyone really know of the routes existence.

The locals came in three years later and established what I feel is the true standard for that gully, Shiela. The more "locals came in, oh some 12 years later and began to establish the current standard and began utilizing bolts in that particular area. Not a bunch of out a towner "Stooges".

aemter wrote:

knoback wrote:Sometimes the bolts do get in the way. They're OK to me if there's no other way to reasonably protect an otherwise good route. That's where the trouble lies. What looks like a heinous runout to me, may be just a nice dash of spice to someone bolder and stronger. If it's an "easy" route for that crowd, maybe they should relent and allow the bolt. If it's a "hardman" route, then maybe I should just wait 'til I firm up a bit and try it without the bolt at a future date. There will always be controversy.

This is very good. Who gets to determine when there is a need for a bolt? Is it always the FA? If so, what if the FA is a shitty climber and thinks bolts need to be used when a stronger climber might disagree?

Guyzo wrote:

aemter wrote:Let me start by saying I've never climbed a sport or trad route, so please don't take this as anything more than an ignorant question.

When someone bolts a trad route, it can still be climbed as a trad route, albeit the "scars", correct? In other words, just because the bolts are there, you don't have to clip them, right? So when you say that the route is "ruined", it's not that it can no longer be climbed in the traditional manner, you more or less mean that it's defaced. Or are there times when someone bolts a route that it physically interferes with the trad climber?

Again, don't take this in the wrong way, I'm simply curious!

Let me try to explain for you:

Lets say your all ready to go climb Rainier, via the - Ingraham Glacier Route. You start up and discover, that ladders have been installed to make the crevasse crossing safe and easy, steps are pre- chopped on the steeper sections of ice and ladder rungs are installed on the 3rd class rock bands so you can get up and down quicker and more safely.

Are you going to not use any of it??????

Guyzo, I understand what you're saying. I've heard about routes being "ruined" by bolts and I wanted a little clarification. In my opinion, when something is "ruined" it's no longer usable. Yes, it would definitely detract from my Rainier climb if those things you describe were present. But couldn't you can take that further and argue that the hut at Camp Muir should be demo'ed, or that the use of wands should be prohibited, or any number of other things that some people think detracts from the climb?

I'm perfectly aware of the destruction of wild places by humans. But who gets to determine what's permitted in these areas? It's the age-old question of wilderness and nature. Should we allow snowmobiles in Yellowstone? Should we allow ATV trails in national forests? Who determines the proper situations for bolts? And one question we are debating in my local area is whether we should allow local hunters to cull the elk herd in Teddy Roosevelt N.P. They are tough questions and I don't think the answers are black/white.

I know something about climbing, I hope.

To answer your other q's ..... That's above my pay grade.

In my opinion, when something is "ruined" it's no longer usable.

Hmm.

I think a climb is ruined when the experience of doing it has been brought down to dummie level, either by bolting where gear is good or by adding bolts to a previously bolder and cleaner climb.

I'm a bit more agressive than Guyzo re rap bolting in areas which have a long standing tradition of ground up climbing. Y'all should have chopped Duck Soup back in the day. Heck, the first version of Games Without Frontiers (rap bolted by Spaniards) lasted about 2 days in Josh.

To me the only justification for rappel bolting is to "set" good sport climbs on the type of rock where it will give the best result. If we climbers allow rap bolting to become accepted in our established trad areas, you'll see more and more Ministry Wall type stuff (left of Pratts Crack.) I know I'm just old fashioned but the first time I saw those routes I was stunned. I climbed a couple to be sure, left shaking my head and have never gone back.

And frankly I don't see what any of this has to do with hunters culling a herd of Elk. The presence of bolts on climbs effects almost no-one but climbers. We should settle this among climbers. And this is another case where politics are local. For the most part SoCal climbers have done pretty well at getting it.

ksolem wrote:To me the only justification for rappel bolting is to "set" good sport climbs on the type of rock where it will give the best result. If we climbers allow rap bolting to become accepted in our established trad areas, you'll see more and more Ministry Wall type stuff (left of Pratts Crack.) I know I'm just old fashioned but the first time I saw those routes I was stunned. I climbed a couple to be sure, left shaking my head and have never gone back.

That particular stuff was in fact put up by a confirmed "Out of Towner So- Caler"... NOT A LOCAL. This individual has a long standing reputation for doing such things. He is now on the Western side and up to his old tricks.

I strongly disagree with the statement that bolts only affect climbers, last week in the Mount Olympus Wilderness area just out side of Salt lake City I stumbled upon a heavily bolted area called Chadbourne Crag consisting of a series of 5.11 thru 5.13 pockety limestone routes, must have been over a hundred bolts with various gear hanging from them along with double chained rappel stations. I will never climb this stuff yet coming across this in a wilderness area was rather disturbing. Some places should never be bolted period.

The Chief wrote:

Guyzo wrote:

The Chief wrote:So you are saying that regardless of the local ethics, if the "stooges" come along and rap bolt a route in an established trad area, they then are protected by your "they tagged it" rule?

All this regardless of the local standards?

Chief. Go look in your backyard.

In Pine Creek you find the mega-super-trad crack climb: "Pratt's Crack", that climb has been a destination climb for over 40 years.

Bad example IMO.

The Author of that particular route was not a local and never returned to the area. That specific route was FA'd on a passing whim. Not until he returned to the Valley, did anyone really know of the routes existence.

The locals came in three years later and established what I feel is the true standard for that gully, Shiela. The more "locals came in, oh some 12 years later and began to establish the current standard and began utilizing bolts in that particular area. Not a bunch of out a towner "Stooges".

Chief.... when Chuck did that climb ..... pre 1970... there were "no locals" on the east side. The town of Mammoth was about 1,500 strong and Bishop was well nothing of a town and crowley was a place that had about 5 people living there. All fishermen.

I think "locals" were any California climbers. I don't think this is a bad example because Pratts crack is about as Trad as one can get. I knew folks (climbers) who lived in Mammoth in 1970 and they believed that there was not any good climbing locally.

I guess the definition of "good climbing" has changed a bit over the years.

byates wrote:I strongly disagree with the statement that bolts only affect climbers.... I will never climb this stuff yet coming across this in a wilderness area was rather disturbing. Some places should never be bolted period.

Excellent point and one that should always be in the back of the minds ot the individuals that put these areas up.

Unfortunately, it is becoming very evident that many of these folks do not give a rats ass what their actions result in. And how they affect others.

The Wilderness...

Appears that the "The Hulk" has become one of these examples.

Unfortunately, many of the players involved in that mess know better!




Guyzo, there were lots of locals then...

John Fischer, Jay Jensen, Gordan Wiltsie, Galen Rowell, Dale Bard, Doug Robinson, Bob Harrington, Erret Allen, Dean Hobbs etc!

byates wrote:I strongly disagree with the statement that bolts only affect climbers, last week in the Mount Olympus Wilderness area just out side of Salt lake City I stumbled upon a heavily bolted area called Chadbourne Crag consisting of a series of 5.11 thru 5.13 pockety limestone routes, must have been over a hundred bolts with various gear hanging from them along with double chained rappel stations. I will never climb this stuff yet coming across this in a wilderness area was rather disturbing. Some places should never be bolted period.

byates.... please reread Kris post..... he used the word... "almost" before "only"

And I do think that, shit like chain anchors, fixed draws is uguly.

Guyzo wrote:And I do think that, shit like chain anchors, fixed draws is uguly.

You may not Guy, but I can tell ya that many out there that ARE NOT climbers, find them repulsive.

Especially in the established WILDERNESS!

And that my friend needs to be considered by all those that put them up there in the first place.

Consideration and respect for the other folks that frolic in the Wilderness area, should always be part of any FA, IMO!

The Chief wrote:

Guyzo wrote:And I do think that, shit like chain anchors, fixed draws is uguly.

You may not Guy, but I can tell ya that many out there that ARE NOT climbers, find them repulsive.

Especially in the established WILDERNESS!

And that my friend needs to be considered by all those that put them up there in the first place.

Consideration and respect for the other folks that frolic in the Wilderness area, should always be part of any FA, IMO!

Chief, put down that 4th coffee. Guy said "I DO THINK...

howiemtnguide wrote:In my opinion:
1) When the bolts are unsafe or poorly placed.
2) When a group of those with the authority and credibility to make that call agree it's best for the route and the public.
3) After consultation with the person/people responsible for placing the bolt (if possible) and after some community debate on the matter.

The only one of these that I can endorse without a lot of discussion is no. 1.

The problem with number 2 is that the qualifications you're talking about are pretty open to debate. You can have a rap bolter who has established some good routes/sport climber, etc. who will offer an opinion that is completely unacceptable to the trad minded of the group. For the record, most bolting advocates generally don't understand the perspective of trad climbers. The number one response I hear to retro bolted routes is "if you don't like the bolt, you don't have to clip it." That's not a response; it's a denial that there's even a legitimate issue to discuss.

I have an even bigger problem with number 3 in that it comes from a perspective that not justification is needed to add bolts, but a community discussion is needed to remove them. If you're really serious about limited unnecessary bolts (and you should be), the discussion should take place before the bolts are added.