|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 12:46 AM
Post #1 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I apologize in advance to those that I irritate with this rant-I hope we can remain friends.
Here is a quote from the Tuolomne Meadows guidebook: ...many excellent sport routes have been put up...Unfortunately, you will probably notice that the majority are 5.11 or harder. All the easier terrain was taken up in earlier years by good climbers or by free soloers.
Last time I checked, these rocks were public property. Some of us can't climb 5.11 or harder. I know I probably never will. I am content to lead 5.7 sport and follow on 5.9 or 5.10. That is what I get the most enjoyment from(besides my first love, mountaineering). Just because John Bachar(nothing personal John) free soloed a face for a FA that would make a great 5.8 sport climb does not mean that I shouldn't be allowed to bolt it. I like climbing, but I don't like taking unnecessary risks. I admire people who climb at a higher level and take greater risks. However, why should my ability to enjoy climbing be restricted by those climbing at a higher level?
Just because some hardcore climber can justify the risk, doesn't mean I should have to take the same risk. Tuolomne is famous for runouts. I think it is bunk that the faces I have the ability to climb is severely restricted by this mentality. It is the most beautiful place in the world and I want to climb there, but a few top ropes on Puppy Dome won't keep me busy for long.
Bottom line, FA'ers don't own the rock! If they want to run out the climbs, they can skip the bolts.
Disclaimer: I in no way, shape or form, advocate bolting of trad routes.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-11 17:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jgorris
Jul 12, 2002, 1:05 AM
Post #2 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 124
|
Jody said: "...Bottom line, FA'ers don't own the rock! If they want to run out the climbs, they can skip the bolts."
Well if you want to add bolts to make it safer, maybe I want to add 10 more for every bolt you add so that it'll be ten times safer for me. Is that ok too? The problem is, the land managers don't want to see any bolts. I think a good compromise is to leave the route as you find it, or convince the FA it needs to be retro-bolted.
[ This Message was edited by: jgorris on 2002-07-11 18:07 ]
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Jul 12, 2002, 1:12 AM
Post #3 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
Yeah, I'd sorta think that leaving it alone is the best thing ~ mainly because this issue about "who's allowed to insert bolts" is poop. There's a lot of rock on this planet, and really none of us BELONG there. The Earth just lets us live here.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 1:15 AM
Post #4 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I knew someone would poke at least one hole in my theory. Jgorris has a point that I hadn't thought of-he's right, what's to stop someone from making a Half Dome type ladder up everything. Unfortunately, there are those that will go overboard. My chief complaint is that not EVERYTHING has to have a R or X rating.
BTW, I did a FA of an ice gully without crampons-I forbid any future climbers of the gully to use crampons.
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Jul 12, 2002, 1:30 AM
Post #5 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I did A WI2 with one tool and on lead. It is forbidden for any newbies to toprope it. They are only allowed to LEAD it with 3 screws and one one tool. If anyone else thinks deffernt they can can my route however they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
newtocalgary
Jul 12, 2002, 1:44 AM
Post #6 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 97
|
I have put up some routes in my younger days and have run them out because they were always put up from the ground up
Second I will never ever ever agree with adding bolts anywhere near natural protection just to make it more sporty
a lot of my routes have a few bolts in the wide open but never near any natural placement Sometimes you had to climb 10 or 15 more feet to get to crack but ground falls were never an issue so why add bolts to classic established route.
I have seen some crappy bolt placements and near ground fall issues and still wouldnt change a thing
|
|
|
|
|
jgorris
Jul 12, 2002, 1:45 AM
Post #7 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 124
|
It was spoken:
... I did a FA of an ice gully without crampons-I forbid any future climbers of the gully to use crampons....
... I did A WI2 with one tool and on lead. It is forbidden for any newbies to toprope it...
OK, but ice is a medium which is renewed every season. Rock is not. Tools and crampons leave no trace once the ice has gone. Needless to say, fixed protection on rock lasts for a longish time.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm all for fixed protection, --I've have placed many bolts myself. I'm just looking for a compromise which can keep the land managers, non-climbing public, and me all happy when I want to clip that next point of fixed protection.
[ This Message was edited by: jgorris on 2002-07-11 18:49 ]
|
|
|
|
|
crackaddict
Jul 12, 2002, 1:48 AM
Post #8 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2000
Posts: 1279
|
Touchy subject Jody.
Most of the older routes in Tuolumne were put up with trad ethics. Meaning placeing bolts on lead and only as last resort. Which is also tedious with a hand drill on granite. Most of the FA climbers were probably putting routes up below there level also which made it seem like placing bolts was a waste of time. The whole time not thinking of future parties that would be climbing the route. Or if they were they only wanted the hardest of climbers to be on it. This in point would prove your case of FA'ers thinking they owned the route.
Back then it was different. Now days there is more emphasis on saftey and not boldness. I think your right though some of those glacier polished slab routes should be more protected.
Seems that the only respected way of doing it is getting the FA's approval first though.
Kind of like when Steve Roper got permision From Jim Bridwell to place some more bolts on Snake Dike. At least it got a couple more bolts on it.
But for now I will head up those burley runouts with you if you need a partner in Tuolumne. Just twist my arm. Ok Ok I'll go!
[ This Message was edited by: crackaddict on 2002-07-11 18:50 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 12, 2002, 1:50 AM
Post #9 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Well, though I don't agree with bolting, I think he has a point.
A guidebook shouldn't state, or seem to state, that the rock is "someone's". The rock isn't even ours to begin with, but that is a little philosophical isn't it? I mean, we ALL have equal "rights", so to speak, to the rock.
The person who climbed a route first gets the "honor" of the FA, but it is still no more his or hers than the rest of us. Right?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
bouldertoad
Jul 12, 2002, 1:56 AM
Post #10 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2002
Posts: 352
|
Very interesting debate. I agree with the thought of a the person who does the FA has the right to climb a route in the style they see fit. If the route was put up free-solo the it is up to the next party or whoever to contact the person and ask, not tell, if htey can retrobolt the route. Chances are the person who did the FA will care less about whether or not you bolt something they free-soloed. As far as the argument of why shouldn't I be able to bolt the thing? I feel that there are so many routes out there of good quality that can be done in a safe style so go and do those first. You may actually find that later on when your abilities and mental edge grow you might enjoy the extra stimulus of a runout route.
Just my .02
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 2:07 AM
Post #11 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay jgorris, so the issue is rock damage, not FA style? If that is the case, all bolts should be banned everywhere, right?
BTW, I have never placed a bolt for anything but a few minor top rope areas.
|
|
|
|
|
wallhammer
Jul 12, 2002, 2:23 AM
Post #12 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 265
|
are the routes you want to do multi pitch? just curious if you could give some examples, thanks, Len
|
|
|
|
|
dondiego
Jul 12, 2002, 2:26 AM
Post #13 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2001
Posts: 1367
|
I agree with Jody. Be considerate, but bolt where needed. I don't want to see a rock with bolts all over it any more than the next guy but the next guy has no more right than me to make decisions concerning the rock. Besides, better to see a bolt than a decked climber.
-Don Diego-
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 2:42 AM
Post #14 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
wallhammer...no specific routes...I was just perusing the guidebook for a few easy routes and came across the quote..it just kind of bothered me.
crackaddict...you're on...I love R/X routes...as long as YOU are leading them!
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jul 12, 2002, 2:51 AM
Post #15 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I think the issue in Tuolumne, as in other areas, is one not of the "rights" of the FAer, but rather one of the consensus standard of an area. That is, if the local standard is one that says that the method of FA should be respected and retained, then that is the standard that should be respected for that area, by you and other climbers. I cannot imagine an area in which it would be acceptable to unilaterally add or remove a bolt to an existing route, but if that was the standard, then I suppose you could do that with less worry about a backlash.
Again, there are a number of forum threads that touch on this, but the Search function is inoperable right now, so it would take some manual searching to find them.
I will say that I think it usually comes down to respecting the consensus standards of an area, whether you personally like them or not.
If you want the standards of an area to change, taking a dramatic action such as adding or chopping bolts is more likely to work against your objective. If you want to climb an established route but want to feel safer, you may be out of luck.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-07-11 19:52 ]
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Jul 12, 2002, 2:52 AM
Post #16 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
There are way too many sport climbs as it is - some climbs should be left to those with big balls.
If anyone retrobolted some of my scary climbs, I'd be pissed!
Not every climb need be brought down to the level of the commoner.
It IS OK to have real live death routes, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 3:51 AM
Post #17 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay Pete! I had an honest concern...some would call it a misguided concern. even my detractors on this thread up to this point have been civil about it. Now you come along and start spouting your macho freakin' bullcrap and putting me down, etc. Well, ya little weanie, I have just about had it with you. I have tried like crazy to get along with you but you refuse to operate with ANY class whatsoever! You must be the biggest wimp on this site because you are constantly belittling those that aren't up to your grand "aid-climbing" style! I am probably ruining my reputation with this tirade but you deserve it! I swear, I am going to find one of your "scary"(probably 4th class) routes and rap bolt the living snot out of it! You'll kick my A** or whatever it was you threatened...come on up to Tuolomne on Monday...I'll be waiting!
|
|
|
|
|
uncle_big_green
Jul 12, 2002, 3:55 AM
Post #18 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 261
|
You are indeed correct. On public lands, the FA does not own the route. However, we should in my opinion strive for the highest possible standard in "establishing" routes. I would say that successfully free-soloing a route demonstates a higher standard than dogging up a section of rock. I and others believe that it is perfectly acceptable to remove any piece of fixed protection that is not used on a ground-up, non-rehearsed and non-previewed ascent of any route. Such an ascensionist would NOT be obligated to do this, of course. If someone has a "right" to place a bolt, then why doesn't someone else who does the route in better style not have a "right" to remove the bolt and patch the hole? I doubt too many free soloists would bother chopping bolts. That being said, there has been a tendancy for bolts to appear next to bomber gear placements. Since the FA doesn't own the route, then to heck with those bolts.
There are two morals to my rant: 1) not every square inch of rock has to be climbed (or made "safe") - if its too scary, then do something else; and 2) use bolts judiciously.
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Jul 12, 2002, 4:14 AM
Post #19 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Langford,
You freaking p*ssy!
I've said it before and I'll say it again,
"the indiscriminate use of bolts is indicative of cowardice and cheating!"
If I were able to come to Tuolomne, I'd know exactly where to look for you:
Wobbling up some over-bolted sport-climbing woosy-assed 5.7. I'd hear your knees knocking all the way from the Valley!
"Ruining your reputation?"
Dude! You don't HAVE a freakin' reputation! You're coasting along on the shirtsleeves of your dad!
If it wasn't for his photos, you'd be a nobody around this place.
If you rap bolt one of my routes, mate, you'll find your pea-sized microscopic underutilized cowardly BOLLOCKS rammed up into your frickin' throat!
That is not Big Wall Prophecy - that is Big Wall Fact.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 4:30 AM
Post #20 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Uncle...although I disagree with you, I really respect the classy manner in which you presented your case.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-11 23:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
seamonkeyfight
Jul 12, 2002, 4:31 AM
Post #21 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 32
|
I think you should probably try to contact the FA first and if you can't find them then you should take a poll of the local climbers. If its going to piss everyone off then its probably not a good idea. You definately want to enlist the help of an experienced route-setter as well. Thats just my 2 bits. Have fun
BTW GAWD, easy on the caps man.
|
|
|
|
|
newtocalgary
Jul 12, 2002, 4:45 AM
Post #22 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 97
|
Some long run out routes have thier place
A 5.7 on the chief called merci me is one of those climbs Its a graduation in squamish for newbies to lead thier first big wall 5.7
there is 2 long runouts although it is only 5.7 I know the FFA and he stated he was proud of that route and cant believe no one has ever asked him if they could add a bolt (although he stated he wouldnt want them to) its been up since 1967 the origanal bolts were redone years ago but no one would disrespect him to do it and rob new lower grade climbers from experiancing that sphincter tightening runout
|
|
|
|
|
natec
Jul 12, 2002, 4:55 AM
Post #23 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2001
Posts: 667
|
Jody,
I agree with what you are getting at. Just because its 5.6 doesn't mean that you should be FORCED to solo it. BUT Toulumne has HUGE potential to become an overbolted, chipped out, drilled out mess of a sport climbing area if you let the bolting go. The traditional ethic should stand in this area in order to protect the crisp beauty that it is. I wish there was more protection up there too.
As for contacting the first ascentionists of a lot of these climbs its going to be veryhard as a lot of them are DEAD. So that arguement is null.
The arguement that it is fair to change the route according to the best style that it has been completed in is absurd. I for one don't consider free soloing a commendable style for an ascent. Go clean some guy up who was trying free solo a route in order to do it in the best "style" and you will understand what I mean. I will accept that some routes are going to be runout, but just because a route has gone free or has been free soloed, doesn't mean that I have to accept that style. The Nose has gone free, is this better style than aiding it, yes. Is it also a style that mere mortals will ever achieve, hell no. Bottomline, if you don't have permission, don't add bolts, and don't remove bolts. It's a selfish act.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 12, 2002, 5:19 AM
Post #24 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Nate, thanks for your wisdom. I will not add bolts or FOR SURE not chop them. I was just kind of irritated that 'ownership' of a route was basically implied. You are right, morons would have the tendency to overbolt and that is definitely worse than underbolting.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-11 23:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jgorris
Jul 12, 2002, 5:22 AM
Post #25 of 324
(20929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 124
|
Jody said: Okay jgorris, so the issue is rock damage, not FA style? If that is the case, all bolts should be banned everywhere, right?
I didn't address the issue of style because it is very much more subjective as compared to the more pragmatic issue of ethic. But, since you raised it, my view is that there are plenty of FA opportunities left out there for anyone who wants to go and create well protected routes without having to resort to
renegade retro-bolting of existing routes. In my view, renegade retro-bolting is a step backward in the evolution of climbing style. But, that is merely my opinion.
On the otherhand, the proliferation of bolts
(and other forms of fixed protection) has caused climbing areas to be closed in the past. The question of style in these affected areas is moot.
As I have said (and having placed many bolts myself), it is my hope that some sort of compromise with respect to placement of fixed protection can be agreed upon. A good place to start in my view, is with a policy of leaving existing routes in the style in which they were originally created. Of course there will be some exceptional cases
to the policy.
BTW, Jody, I think it is great to raise the questions you are raising and to provoke the discussion of these issues.
Thank you for that.
[ This Message was edited by: jgorris on 2002-07-11 22:23 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
