|
sidepull
May 18, 2005, 9:42 PM
Post #51 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: Go piss on a rabid dog and if you get bitten and die as a result well, that's pretty stupid of you.
Speaking of sociopaths . . .
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
May 18, 2005, 9:49 PM
Post #52 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
From a purely outsiders point of view...
I've been researching Ken for the last 45 minutes or so and the first thing I'm struck by is that for the shear number of chopping incidents he has been attributed, I find it hard to belive that in all of them, particularly the out of state ones, he had "rationale" for doing them all. I'd would appear that the "don't bolt in CT and you'll be fine" theory does not hold water.
The second thing that strikes me is that it's sad that a guy who apparently did so much to advance climbing in Connecticut has acted in such a way that most of his legacy has become overrun with vitriol against him. So much so that he has routes named for him like "Ken's a weenie."
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 18, 2005, 9:59 PM
Post #53 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: From a purely outsiders point of view... I've been researching Ken for the last 45 minutes or so and the first thing I'm struck by is that for the shear number of chopping incidents he has been attributed, I find it hard to belive that in all of them, particularly the out of state ones, he had "rationale" for doing them all. I'd would appear that the "don't bolt in CT and you'll be fine" theory does not hold water.
Actually, Ken got pretty prolific about chopping and did do a few road trips - but they were against specific groups of climbers who came to CT "to get even" for Ken's initial chopping bouts - that was the rather sad spiral...
In reply to: The second thing that strikes me is that it's sad that a guy who apparently did so much to advance climbing in Connecticut has acted in such a way that most of his legacy has become overrun with vitriol against him. So much so that he has routes named for him like "Ken's a weenie."
Can't argue with you there, but again, he didn't act without thinking or without grievance at any point along the way in this sad and now apparently re-ignited saga.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 18, 2005, 10:03 PM
Post #54 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: Go piss on a rabid dog and if you get bitten and die as a result well, that's pretty stupid of you. Speaking of sociopaths . . .
One can only suppose allegory and symbolic representation are completely lost on you...
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
May 18, 2005, 10:16 PM
Post #55 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
In reply to: One can only suppose allegory and symbolic representation are completely lost on you...
It's not that they are lost on anyone here... it's the simple fact that what you said makes no sense and has no bearing in the arguement. And this is not a case where people will step back and say, "Wow, this guy used big words to defend himself afterwords, his original comment must make sense." Fancy words or not, you sound like a sociopath when you make those kind or comments.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 18, 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #56 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Go piss on a rabid dog and if you get bitten and die as a result well, that's pretty stupid of you. Speaking of sociopaths . . . One can only suppose allegory and symbolic representation are completely lost on you...
Apparently the ironic similarity between your posts and Ken's behavior is lost on you. Re-read your posts bud, your defensiveness and and vitriol are pretty representative of the trajectory of the downward spiral of bolt-wars you're describing. (And I'm the one who doesn't understand symbolism).
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 18, 2005, 10:32 PM
Post #57 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Go piss on a rabid dog and if you get bitten and die as a result well, that's pretty stupid of you. Speaking of sociopaths . . . One can only suppose allegory and symbolic representation are completely lost on you... Apparently the ironic similarity between your posts and Ken's behavior is lost on you. Re-read your posts bud, your defensiveness and and vitriol are pretty representative of the trajectory of the downward spiral of bolt-wars you're describing. (And I'm the one who doesn't understand symbolism).
Maybe you simply haven't read all the posts in this thread - the vitriol and out-of-hand descriptions of Ken aren't coming from me. If everyone here wants to paint Ken as a sociopath or mindless lunatic that's their puragative, I'm simply pointing out it's better to let [rabid] sleeping dogs and lie, don't poke hornet nests with sticks, and don't play with dynamite as it were. Again, it's an allegorical representation of the picture you and others here seem intent on painting of ken in the process of demonizing him.
And if by "defensive" you mean responding when someone calls me "some idiot" or "sociopath" - well, so be it, but if you don't want a response, don't call me names and/or quote my posts - that's typically how these threads work...
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 18, 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #58 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: At no time have I described CT local ethics as New England ethics at large. Again, let's agree not to redefine the scope or scale of "local ethics" in a CT discussion.
but you started you post with
In reply to: . . . the history and genesis of the NE bolt wars.
In reply to: I also climbed in all those areas in NE you speak of in the 70s and 80s and there was and are all sorts of ridiculous behaviors by all manner of climbers both then and now but they are the uncommon exceptions, not the rule.
I doubt that either one of us can objectivly say what the exceptions and the rules of behavior were, but I'll gladly go along with the ideal that a lot of it was ridiculous.
In reply to: And the "there are no ethics - only egos" argument, while born of some shreds of truth relative to their implementation and maintanence is tired and untrue. There was then and are now both "prevailing" and local ethics - even within trad, sport, and bouldering scenes.
you don't really mean "ethics" in a philosophicaly rigorus sense, what you really mean is "style" or "methodology". When I and a number of others placed bolts in the Gunks the argument made against our actions was that it was "unethical" for enviromental reasons, that it was harmfull to the rock, or nature, etc. This was in the gunks, mind you a place where thousands of trad climbers had stopmed countless trees and plants to death under their feet, where holds on popular climbs had been worn to a fine polish by too many hands and feet, where many trees were cut down to make parking lots for climbers, where pin scars were important holds on some climbs. . . . The point is the "ethical" argument against bolting could only be made if one didn't first recognize the environmental impact of climbing in general, this criticaly feeble argument had to be presented as if, up to that point, climbing had not impacted the area. Which of course was not true.
What is more, few if any people attempted to make the argument strictly in terms of climbing "ethics" (interestingly though the environmental and climbing "ethics" arguments were often combined) because it doesn't take much intellectual power to realize that the favoring of one style of climbing over another, is a subjective matter based on personal experience and preference, having no realy connection to concepts such as the common good or causing no harm etc. In the end there is no "ethical" validity to any type of climbing (this does not mean climbing is invalid, just that it operates outside of the ethical realm). One simply can not point to any absoulte or commonly understood idea, belief or frame or refrence for climbing to advance the argument for a specific belief about the nature of climbing.
Look at the statement made at the time by many well know climbers such as Royal Robin for example. Of course his hostility was driven by his ego, my generation (and our egos) was, through our actions, saying in short that "climbing is not about danger, or adventure or the rugged individual, its about movement, difficulty, and atheletic excellence." the so called traditionalists saw our understanding of climbing as a direct threat to their beliefs about climbing and this made them madder than hell. I should know I had to hear a lot about it first hand. But in any philosophically, academically, or historically rigorus sense of the term none of this had anything to do with ethics. At its essence it was about who's ideas would define the near future of the sport. Traditionalists were flabberghasted that what they held dear in the experience of climbing didn't define anything universal or essential about the sport and was not defining the experience for the best climbers of the time.
In reply to: This is a mojor reason I left that climbing back water in 1991 to move to Salt Lake City, a place were all forms of climbing manage to co-exist quite nicely thank you very much. Hey, I don't blame you if you couldn't handle the scene, it was pretty charged...
I couldn't handle the scene, or the weather or the lack of hard climbing. I wanted to become a better climber and that was not going to happen in the north east.
In reply to: having climbed some of Ken's I can testify to their stoutness, technical merit, and the creativity they represent. His climbing legacy in stone speaks for itself and for you to describe Ken as someone " who never amounted to anything as a climber" well, to be quite frank, you're talking out your ass and/or incredibly insecure about your own "legacy".
Having also climbed some of his routes I'd say this all depends on the scope of your vision. From a global perspectice his legacy in stone is completely banal. Even at his peak, his climbing achievements only have significance on the most local level. His very best sends and hardest FAs always have been, and always will be warm-ups for climbers with actual ability.
I don't worry about my own legacy because I see first hand every day how short the memory of this sport is. My achievements are historically mutable just like Ken's are. The only thing I can offer to climbing that one might consider a "legacy" are some unique ideas about movement and the significance of climbing as movement, which you can read about later this year.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 18, 2005, 11:26 PM
Post #59 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: At no time have I described CT local ethics as New England ethics at large. Again, let's agree not to redefine the scope or scale of "local ethics" in a CT discussion. but you started you post with In reply to: . . . the history and genesis of the NE bolt wars.
The bolt wars were NE in scope once they got out of hand - the ethics they revolved around were CT specific.
In reply to: In reply to: And the "there are no ethics - only egos" argument, while born of some shreds of truth relative to their implementation and maintanence is tired and untrue. There was then and are now both "prevailing" and local ethics - even within trad, sport, and bouldering scenes. you don't really mean "ethics" in a philosophicaly rigorus sense, what you really mean is "style" or "methodology". When I and a number of others placed bolts in the Gunks the argument made against our actions was that it was "unethical" for enviromental reasons, that it was harmfull to the rock, or nature, etc. This was in the gunks, mind you a place where thousands of trad climbers had stopmed countless trees and plants to death under their feet, where holds on popular climbs had been worn to a fine polish by too many hands and feet, where many trees were cut down to make parking lots for climbers, where pin scars were important holds on some climbs. . . . The point is the "ethical" argument against bolting could only be made if one didn't first recognize the environmental impact of climbing in general, this criticaly feeble argument had to be presented as if, up to that point, climbing had not impacted the area. Which of course was not true. .
Environmental impact is simply a small facet of the "clean climbing" and LNT ethics of the 70's - anyone in their right mind on either side of the argument then and now would have to acknowledge our sport is not without impact regardless. The essence of it all for many of us was and is more the aesthetics than the environment and the "environment" and "aesthetics" are one of many dimensions to the roots of the ethic.
One part of the ethics from the LNT was all about allowing others to have as close to an FA experience as possible. One of our old routes was bolted, renamed, and upgraded two levels of difficulty a decade after we put it up. That crew only got to have an "FA experience" because we left the route like we found it. Someone else a decade later could have had the same experience if they had left it like they found it. This was a driving aspect behind all the FA's put up by my partner and I.
In another example, I come from a climbing area where "seeing" the route was at least half our game - many of the climbs we put up weren't obvious let alone the solutions. You had to evolve to even see them when they were unchalked, and in fact we fought against chalk use there for that exact reason - so they wouldn't be reduced to the mindless [physical] simplicity of "can you do it". It absolutely killed the creative aspects and puzzle quality of the routes that we prized and loved.
But the "game" and the ethics adopted are usually driven by the rock and beyond the [broad, baseline] ethics of "be clean" and LNT the implememented varied from area to area and the same rules of the road and even the exceptions were highly varied from stone to stone across the country and rightfully so that it should vary with differing scopes and scales - chalk on tall, polished, white granite in the Valley has had essentially no aesthetic impact where it has had enormous impact on short, multi-hued, lichened walls in Southern Illinois or Kentucky.
Most of the [real] argument against you guys bolting in the Gunks and elsewhere had and has nothing to do with the "environment" beyond an aesthetic version of littering and the "consumption" or destruction of having as close to an "FA experience" as possible.
In reply to: ... At its essence it was about who's ideas would define the near future of the sport.
If you substituted "rock" for "sport" you'd be spot on with the basis of the objections me and mine held and hold. We didn't and don't care about the "sport" so much as the rock and the "experience". It is the "commercialization/commodization" of rock that is the problem in our eyes. That it (even the future opportunity for an FA experience) essentially and utterly "consumed" by sport methods. I personally couldn't give a rat's ass about difficulty or movement and only an idiot back in the day would have thought that climbing above 5.12+ was really going to happen ground up, onsight, on gear, with no cleaning as anything but a fluke. But the impact and immutable change to the "experience" of that bolting brings is undeniable.
In reply to: In reply to: This is a mojor reason I left that climbing back water in 1991 to move to Salt Lake City, a place were all forms of climbing manage to co-exist quite nicely thank you very much. Hey, I don't blame you if you couldn't handle the scene, it was pretty charged... I couldn't handle the scene, or the weather or the lack of hard climbing. I wanted to become a better climber and that was not going to happen in the north east.
I'm sure you had your reasons, but you have to admit a lot of others did get good in the NE before, during, and after that - but I've moved around as well for my own reasons and everyone has to follow their own muse in that regard.
In reply to: In reply to: having climbed some of Ken's I can testify to their stoutness, technical merit, and the creativity they represent. His climbing legacy in stone speaks for itself and for you to describe Ken as someone " who never amounted to anything as a climber" well, to be quite frank, you're talking out your ass and/or incredibly insecure about your own "legacy". Having also climbed some of his routes I'd say this all depends on the scope of your vision. From a global perspectice his legacy in stone is completely banal. Even at his peak, his climbing achievements only have significance on the most local level. His very best sends and hardest FAs always have been, and always will be warm-ups for climbers with actual ability.
If you time shift 20 or 30 years that's a valid statement - that today's top climbers would find Ken's climbs to be a warm up; that was not the case when viewed in the context of time they were put up. I don't know what you climbed, but plenty of them were as bold and solid for the day as anything put up in the Gunks or anywhere else in the East. Also, from that perspective and logic all climbs by anyone past are banal - but so goes the character (or lack of it) in climbing today. I personally find it remarkable that in surfing you can't bolt big waves and the elders of that sport are respected for the foundations they laid down. Probably because kids today still have to come up with the same goods and skills as their parents to go out and ride big waves.
In reply to: I don't worry about my own legacy because I see first hand every day how short the memory of this sport is. My achievements are historically mutable just like Ken's are. The only thing I can offer to climbing that one might consider a "legacy" are some unique ideas about movement and the significance of climbing as movement, which you can read about later this year.
I'll add that in climbing, "movement" happens within a context of a physical and aesthetic reality that we attempted to preserve with our ethics. Having done a myriad of activities along with climbing, each with a "movement" component I have also done a lot of thought about pure movement [and risk perception] on stone as well so I look forward to reading your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
jcpace
May 19, 2005, 12:24 AM
Post #60 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 155
|
It seems that to some on this forum, the words 'rationale' and 'reasoning' do not mean much. The logic and rationale that Ken is operating under is undeniably flawed. He may have his own 'reasons' for chopping bolts, but they can't be attributed to be a reasonable thing to do.
Ken, you're a jerk. Do the climbing community a favor and move to Kansas.
|
|
|
|
|
ivalley
May 19, 2005, 12:42 AM
Post #61 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 26
|
I am confused about this whole thing. It seems like originally it was about W. Mass. and now it seems like it is about CT. Maybe someone can enlighten me but this whole thing seems pretty convoluted.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 19, 2005, 12:45 AM
Post #62 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I am confused about this whole thing. It seems like originally it was about W. Mass. and now it seems like it is about CT. Maybe someone can enlighten me but this whole thing seems pretty convoluted.
Yes, in a nutshell is is quite convoluted with dozens upon dozens of players. A climbing and NE version of the Hatfields and McCoys with one McCoy...
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 19, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #63 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: He may have his own 'reasons' for chopping bolts, but they can't be attributed to be a reasonable thing to do.
I'd say exactly the same thing about the fool who decided to go to CT and start bolting again...
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 19, 2005, 12:51 AM
Post #64 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
This may be the most intellectually stimulating 'to bolt or not to bolt' thread I've read. Pure movement vs. the experience... interesting! I also look forward to reading more of your thoughts, fluxus.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
jstan
May 19, 2005, 12:56 AM
Post #65 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 37
|
This thread on bolt chopping, IMvery humbleO, shows more promise than any I have seen over the past 40 years. I have long thought, and have advocated, once a bolt is placed it should be left as is till the community can be brought together to discuss the issues. Bringing people together does not assure the problems will be solved. It is, however, far preferable to the situation discussed here. There is one aspect to this kind of conflict I have not seen discussed. We all climb because we enjoy the activity. In discussions on bolt chopping it is crystal clear everyone’s blood pressure and adrenaline flow are up. It is difficult to enjoy something when that activity is welded at the hip to conflict. Bolt wars do two things. They trash the resource we all need. And they reduce or eliminate everyone’s enjoyment of that resource. It is a lose lose. Everyone has a stake in keeping the activity as free as possible of conflict.
Once the adrenaline is up we all are designed to fight or flee. We were hardwired this way several million years ago. We are hardwired to a response that often fails, and fails badly. It does not work here. We are intelligent creatures. I have seen the following happen and it was the golden key permitting resolution. Everyone needs the opportunity to present their view. Literally, everyone. Most importantly I saw each person choose their words with excruciating care. What I saw led me to suspect most had prepared what they would say in advance. And they prepared those remarks specifically so that everyone might stay well short of the redline. An apparent effort by speakers to do this soon spreads a different feeling in the audience as a whole. It builds from there in a very powerful way.
The discussion here has been very good. You could be the very first people to make the next move. It is a 5.20. Take my word for it. If you make the move successfully, you will never again be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
May 19, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #66 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
Healyje:
What / where specifically in Connecticut has recently been retrobolted? You claim this action was provoked, and you seem to be sure that somewhere in Connecticut has been retro- bolted. Where is this area? PM me if your not comfortable discussing it in the forum. I'll have the class not to post anything that is said to me in confidence on the forum. If on the other hand, if something did get rebolted nobody knows about, I'll post back here and acknowledge that maybe he did have a reason. I still won't agree, but I'll acknowledge. I'm looking for a specific area and route.
Engaging in revenge is never a profitable activity, but I, and I'm sure many other climbers want a justification as to why we should not look at this as an unprovoked attack (on an established area outside the Ken's holy pissing grounds, aka the entire state of Connecticut). People want to know the specifics of why this was done. I agree this is Hatfields/Mcoys. It's gone on too long.
Edited once for spelling
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 19, 2005, 2:03 AM
Post #67 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Environmental impact is simply a small facet of the "clean climbing" and LNT ethics of the 70's - anyone in their right mind on either side of the argument then and now would have to acknowledge our sport is not without impact regardless.
Exactly, and yet, many didn't see this basic point, which is what made me so bitter at the time. Being against bolting is one thing, making bogus arguments to bolsters one's supposed ethical superriority, quite another.
In reply to: One part of the ethics from the LNT was all about allowing others to have as close to an FA experience as possible. One of our old routes was bolted, renamed, and upgraded two levels of difficulty a decade after we put it up and that crew only got to have an "FA" experience because we left it like we found it. Someone else a decade later could have had the same experience if they had left it like they found it. This was a driving aspect behind all the FA's put up by my partner and I.
I regret to say that you don't have to be a LNT type to have this kind of experience, there are many stories within the realms of free soloing, bouldering and even sport climbing of people claiming a first ascent after the fact that include, raising or lower grades, adding bolts, changing names etc. I hate to say it but the best defnese against this sort of thing is to loudly spray about what you have done (or have others do it for you), because as we all know there is no universal methodology in climbing.
In reply to: If you substituted "rock" for "sport" you'd be spot on with the basis of the objections me and mine held and hold.
but if your being honest it has to be both. You may not think in the "institutional" way thats behind calling climbing a "sport" but if for no other reason than self preservation and the preservation of the routes you value, you would need to be articulating your reasons and methods to the climbing comunity, so in that sense it was, and is about the "sport" even if I can understand your honest dislike for thinking about climbing in that way.
In reply to: It is the "commercialization/commodization" of rock that is the problem in our eyes. That it (even the future opportunity for an FA experience) essentially and utterly "consumed" by sport methods.
Those of us on the other side of the ideological divide did then, and still do insist that "consumption/commodization" was part of climbing before sport climbing came along. in a very real sense a guy like Chouinard did far more to commercialize climbing that sport climbing has. He and Royal and others presented, to the world, a romantic image of the climber as a reason to spend money on products related to climbing.
They took their reputations as climbers to the bank so to speak and then got pissed later when it brough more people with different ideas to the sport. those two are, in my mind, directly responsible for the changes they so bitterly denounced in climbing, they are fools in the truest sense.
Addressing more directly what you were getting at: before sport climbing came along myself and my partners would thumb through the guidebooks and see the same names over and over again, linked to the "best and boldest" routes in various areas. there is no doubt that the overwhelming emphasis placed on trad FAs in a place like the Gunks was a form of consumption, of staking a claim, of leaving a mark. Even advocates of LNT were dam sure that they left a trace, of a certain kind.
In reply to: But the impact and immutable change bolting brings is undeniable.
indeed it is.
In reply to: If you time shift 20 or 30 years that's a valid statement - that today's top climbers would find Ken's climbs to be a warm up; that was not the case when viewed in the context of time they were put up. I don't know what you climbed, but plenty of them were as bold and solid for the day as anything put up in the Gunks or anywhere else in the East.
I disagree, correct me if I am wrong but as I remember it Ken probably never climbed much harder than 5.12b/c at best, and most of his climbing was 5.12a or under. By the late 1980s 5.13d had been free soloed, and the world on-sight standard was 5.13a/b. In 1986 Partick Edlinger(sp?) came through the Gunks and flashed every route that the locals thought was hard or bold while learning to place gear. He did far better than the locals, climbing in the local style.
So the fact that Ken and others were putting up challenging 5.11s - 5.12s with slim natural gear was of local significance but it didn't have a broad impact.
In reply to: Also, from that perspective and logic all climbs by anyone past are banal - but so goes the character (or lack of it) in climbing today.
That is not the argument I was making. You are right, its easy to look at the past and say "no big deal" but I was saying that what we were doing in the NE (Ken, me and the rest of us) in the 1980s was not that significant because we weren't climbing anywhere near the world standard of the day. I don't mean this just in terms of grade, I mean this in terms of fitness, movement, how "smart" we climbed, the quality of the routes we were doing etc. in 1988 the best climbers in the NE were not that much better than a solid French teenager. Although that french teenie bopper probably had no philosophical dedication to the way he chose to climb.
If you want to say that the type of thinking that lead to tying off hooks, nestinng RPs, using crack-em ups for non-aid purposes, should be adknowledged and understood, I'll take your point but the physical and social violence perpertrated by some who thought and climbed in that style is as much as part of it as the rest. There was a lot of deep seated anger in the NE at the time I am thinking of, and a lot of it was brough to climbing by unstable individuals such as Ken. And I think they deserve all the sh*t they get because, rather than engaging a younger generation of climbers they disagreed with in a positive way, they decided to lash out in anger. This was their choice.
In reply to: I'll add that in climbing, "movement" happens within a context of a physical and aesthetic reality that we attempted to preserve with our ethics.
If that is how you experience it, I have nothing but respect for your philosophy, methods and experience, its good to know that you were / are thinking in such terms. But in my experience this is not the most memorable aspect of the thinking at the time, nor was it the most influential. What had the greatest influence is the violent actions such as those that were mentioned at the start of this thread. The thing that floored me most was that the people who flattened the hangers of the bolts I placed did so while claiming that they were attempting to preserve the physical and aesthetic reality you write of. How useless, flattened, hangers sticking out out of the side of the cliff achieve this end is beyond me.
sorry for spraying so hard and so long.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
May 19, 2005, 2:18 AM
Post #68 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
In reply to: The thing that floored me most was that the people who flattened the hangers of the bolts I placed did so while claiming that they were attempting to preserve the physical and aesthetic reality you write of. How useless, flattened, hangers sticking out out of the side of the cliff achieve this end is beyond me.
I could not agree more. We have had some problems out here at my favorite "local choss pile" :lol:. Without re-reading the entire 5 pages again, were the bolt holes filled to conceal there initial placement, or were they just ripped out???
If they were not cleaned up and the holes filled then it's nothing more then a sensless act of vandelism. Period. All the talk and hype of ethics over actions like this are all hot air.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
jstan
May 19, 2005, 2:26 AM
Post #69 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Mark posted while I was offline composing my contribution. I saw his post only after I had posted. Independently, both of us came up with exactly the same comment on the quality of this thread, almost word for word.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
May 19, 2005, 2:58 AM
Post #70 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
Now granted I live in Alaska and bolt-chopping isn't typically an issue. Ken Nichols hasn't ever graced us with his problematic presence (to my knowledge), and we haven't had much in the way of "bolt-wars," etc. However, if I might point out a couple of conclusions I have reached upon reading through most of this thread-
1) Revenge is never, ever a justifiable motivation to chop bolts. Someone from MA bolts something in CT? If that is indeed the case, and Ken is so torqued-off by that, why not simply remove the bolts that torqued him off in the first place? Chopping bolts to attain some kind of "revenge" is useless, selfish, and affects waaaaaaaaaaaaay more climbers than the sneaky little buggers who did the CT bolting. Bottom line is-two wrongs don't make a right. If Ken's favorite trad line gets bolted, all he really needs to do is keep removing those bolts when he sees them. Eventually the bolters will give up. It seems to me that bolting is a more involved process than chopping anyhow.
2) Chopping bolts very often leaves the rock much more damaged, unsightly, and generally altered than if the bolts are left in place. In addition (as has been pointed out before), the use of bolts often limits the inevitable damage that climbing will do to the rock and surrounding vegetation to one little spot. People who have a bolt to clip into need not tear up trees, bust up the rocks with poorly places pro or pitons, etc.
3) Ken is undoubtedly a terrific climber who SHOULD by all rights have a reputation for putting up tons of FAs in the New England area. However, even here in Alaska, his bolt-chopping is all I've ever heard about. A similar example would be someone like Dr. Kevorkian. As a doctor he has doubtless saved hundreds of lives in the course of his career, but a few "mercy-killings" amidst all the good medicine has earned him the alias "Dr. Death"-and rightly so. Ken's activities, despite a lifetime of achievement as a climber, have earned him the reputation of being "that bolt-cutting jerk on the East Coast....boy I'd kick his ass if he ever came around here....."
Anyhow, I can understand the rather delicate matter of bolting ethics, particularly in a place as populated as New England. Retrobolting sucks, superfluous bolts suck, even bolts next to a perfectly pro-receptive crack suck. But is "revenge" the correct response? In the end, it only further hurts the rock, and it negatively impacts far more climbers than are even involved in bolting or chopping. I think he ought to knock it off. I wouldn't mind seeing him spend some time in jail...if only someone could set him up on private property and catch him in the act.....
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 19, 2005, 3:03 AM
Post #71 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Without re-reading the entire 5 pages again, were the bolt holes filled to conceal there initial placement, or were they just ripped out??? If they were not cleaned up and the holes filled then it's nothing more then a sensless act of vandelism. Period. All the talk and hype of ethics over actions like this are all hot air.
When I left, the crags of NE had useless steel sticking out of them. I don't know how ken is doing it these days. but back in the day he (and others) had no problem leaving a big mess behind.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 19, 2005, 3:13 AM
Post #72 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: There was a lot of deep seated anger in the NE at the time I am thinking of, and a lot of it was brough to climbing by unstable individuals such as Ken. And I think they deserve all the sh*t they get because, rather than engaging a younger generation of climbers they disagreed with in a positive way, they decided to lash out in anger. This was their choice.
In my opinion this is the gold wisdom of this whole thread. This is a problem in other areas of the world. In most areas the issue has been settled by engaging the younger climbers in a positive way. There are a lot of huge egos and extremely strong personalities that are drawn to the pursuit of climbing. Some of thos personalities are tipped over the edge into insanity.
We have these personalities here in Oz too. We also suffer from bouts of boltwars so you are not alone with this problem.
In reply to: sorry for spraying so hard and so long.
Spray long and hard if you keep the quality up such as what you have already written. Gold, pure gold.
|
|
|
|
|
landgolier
May 19, 2005, 3:13 AM
Post #73 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 714
|
I'm watching this thread pretty passively, but I want to get 2 cents in here. There is an attitude of "You get what you deserve if you bolt in CT, you provoked Ken and that's the way it is." Everybody count to 3 and say it with me...fuck that. This has nothing to do with bolting ethics, this is just bullying. I don't climb in NE much any more, and I'm sorry that shit is getting rowdy and that people are chopping bolts and destroying rock in the process and whatnot, but let's be clear on this: just because someone is a big enough bully to rule the schoolyard doesn't make it fair or right. Hell, I think maybe what I'll do is head down to my local crag with a .38 and start picking off everybody who offends my personal ethics by doing anything but freesoloing. I've got the gun, I've got the power, everybody else has to deal with me and my kindergarten attitude. It's the same thing. I don't give a shit if this guy owns every first ascent and ground-up bolting from Brooklyn to North Conway, that doesn't give him the right to pull this kind of childish crap. Maybe he is a bit 'tetched in the hed,' in fact I hope he is, because I'd like to believe that sane adults wouldn't engage in garbage like this. I know some of you have personal reasons for defending his actions, and I understand those perspectives, but I still can't look at this situation without seeing is as just some asshole bully making his own rules due to the lack of any supervising authority.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
May 19, 2005, 4:05 AM
Post #74 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
ken nikkels must die. and he ain't anywhere near as badass as his apologists claim. fukker shows up in flag, i'll take the bitch out with one punch.
sukit.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
May 19, 2005, 4:59 AM
Post #75 of 165
(23969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
I'm currently registered to vote in New Hampshire, but I live in California.
Does this mean that I am allowed to chop any bolts I encounter on my next drive home to North Conway?
As a born-and-bred Yankee, the small distinctions over state lines, however entertaining politically and historically, are really quite small given the current state of climbing. The contention that rural CT is fundamentally different from rural MA is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
