Sensible idea or totally counter to the nature of adventure climbing?

On Sunday, I climbed the East Ridge of Wolf’s Head with another RC.Commie. It was my second climb of this route, which I enjoy immensely for the position and exposure as well as the awesome cracks. We had a great climb in wintry conditions, didn’t see anyone else, the crux cracks were thrillingly packed with snow, etc. After the climb we packed camp and hiked back to the car in the dark in a snow and rain storm - the essence of alpinism.

The descent requires several rappels - I believe we did 5 single rope rappels and one double rope rappel. All of the stations were the usual tangle of mil spec webbing pinched in between rock features, sunbaked and of varying vintage. The first rappel is a short diagonal, and the position of the top anchor lends itself to a stuck rope when you go to pull your cord. Upon closer inspection, we noticed that the rappel slings at the final station weren’t actually attached to anything - a nasty surprise for anyone who puts blind faith in rap anchors.

This is a wilderness climb in a wilderness area, and I know the rules that govern fixed hardware in such areas. However, since it is a 50 classic climbs sort of route, and rightly popular, it occured to us that equipping the descent route with bolted anchors might make sense. Certainly easier on the eyes than rats nests of slings ever 150 feet, and much more secure. There are poot slings draped all over the south face of the ridge, testimony to various epics that have happened here.

I understand that adventure climbs quit being adventure when you manage all the risk out of them. I also understand that part of the “fun” is manky anchors and stuck ropes. But as someone who prefers to climb in a wilderness setting and also admires common sense, it seems okay with me to equip rappel stations on this particular route. Why are festoons of nylon okay but 2 camouflaged bolts are not?

I am not advocating we go a-bolting on wilderness classics. I don‘t care for fast-food alpinism and I understand bolting anywhere on a wilderness climb puts us on a slippery slope. Maybe people could care less. Thoughts?

But I/we will be happy to chop any unnecessary bolts that you place.

I am not advocating we go a-bolting on wilderness classics. I don‘t care for fast-food alpinism and I understand bolting anywhere on a wilderness climb puts us on a slippery slope. Maybe people could care less. Thoughts?

You might get a clue after a couple of thousand ascents that they are not neccessary....

There arew lot's of reasons to minimize the use of fixed anchor's in the wilderness.

No, I am not going to explain the reasons. But I/we will be happy to chop any unnecessary bolts that you place.

I guess climbers on the internet are special.

I've done Wolf's Head and I personally would not be in favor of adding bolted anchors. Another thing to consider is that there are so many ways to get lost on that descent that wads of slings will continue to appear everywhere--perhaps even more so given how difficult it can be to spot camoflauged bolts.

The descent requires several rappels - I believe we did 5 single rope rappels and one double rope rappel.

All of the stations were the usual tangle of mil spec webbing pinched in between rock features, sunbaked and of varying vintage. The first rappel is a short diagonal, and the position of the top anchor lends itself to a stuck rope when you go to pull your cord.

Upon closer inspection, we noticed that the rappel slings at the final station weren’t actually attached to anything - a nasty surprise for anyone who puts blind faith in rap anchors.

This is a wilderness climb in a wilderness area, and I know the rules that govern fixed hardware in such areas. However, since it is a 50 classic climbs sort of route, and rightly popular, it occured to us that equipping the descent route with bolted anchors might make sense.

There are poot slings draped all over the south face of the ridge, testimony to various epics that have happened here.

I understand that adventure climbs quit being adventure when you manage all the risk out of them. I also understand that part of the “fun” is manky anchors and stuck ropes.

I am not advocating we go a-bolting on wilderness classics.

I don‘t care for fast-food alpinism and I understand bolting anywhere on a wilderness climb puts us on a slippery slope.

Another slippery slope is the dogma that bolts are the root of all evil. Climber impact is measured more in visual impact than a tiny hole in the rock.
Do you think hikers in Yosemite spot the bolt anchors of a climb or the white "trails" of lichen-less rock on each side of a popular crack? What about the rainbow of nasty webbing wrapped around a tree?
Think impact, not dogma.

I'm just curious as to what makes piles of webbing okay but carefully placed bolts verboten.

Another slippery slope is the dogma that bolts are the root of all evil. Climber impact is measured more in visual impact than a tiny hole in the rock.
Do you think hikers in Yosemite spot the bolt anchors of a climb or the white "trails" of lichen-less rock on each side of a popular crack? What about the rainbow of nasty webbing wrapped around a tree?
Think impact, not dogma.

There's nothing slippery slope about it - bolts are evil. Judicious use of bolts is one thing - unfortunately humans suck at the judicious use of anything, particularly bolts. Do you think hikers spot the draws and polka dots on the walls at the New, the Red, and other Eastern sandstone crags? We're talking wilderness here, though, and it isn't about what people see, it's about whether we give ourselves license "comfortize" that wilderness. Once you start, it is indeed a slippery slope no different than running fixed lines up every 7000+m peak in the world, selling tickets, and turning them into garbage dumps.

If you read the Kelsey guide, he speaks to self reliance. Getting yourself off the most well travelled route in the region is a good first step.

turning them into garbage dumps

We're talking wilderness here, though, and it isn't about what people see,

Yeah John Hemlock, damn you for climbing a popular route. f--- is wrong with you man? If you followed Murf's guidelines you would never have climbed it to begin with. Which of course begs the following question... why'd you climb it Murf?

Sounds OK to me.

DMT -

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and I don't know that I listed any "guidelines". I think Wolf's Head is a excellent route ( and you thought I didn't have a sense of "whimsy" ). My impression is that the gets more traffic than any other in that vicinity, with the exception of SF of Pingora. It is technically easy, and well travelled. The Winds seem to be one of the last "popular" areas that have a dearth of information and a true sense of adventure. What does a series of bolted anchors bring to the table? Is there a problem waiting to be solved?

If you can't get yourself on and off WH w/o a bolted rap line, your climbing possibilities in the range are going to be very limited.

Murf

Would you stand for them on Cathedral Peak?

alpine+bolts=pansies.

this is what i do, i take a nife with me!! and when i get to a rats nest that is full of old crap i cut it put it in my pack and when i get home i chuck um out... if its an apline climb i dont think that bolting is a good idea, unless its a must (you can normaly get a piton in)

andy, good point. for most people this seems to be either an aesthetics or ethics issue.


its kinda funny cuz its kind of an oxymoron (is that how you spell it??). we want to bolt rap routes cuz they are so popular and we want to reduce the impact. BUT, by bolting rap routes we are making them more accessible and hence, increasing traffic. your example of the OS route is a good one. what if there were no bolts or rap slings and people had to downclimb the route (which is pretty easy and very feasible). i doubt the OS would see even half of the ascents that it does. what does that mean? people would have to become better climbers (or at least better adventurers).

but the fact remains that bolting in wilderness areas is currently illegal, so don't do it.

Bolt it, and they will come

And when they do, 1 rap line is going to get a litle crowded. So, lets put up another. Domino theory, seen it way to many times.

I find it very hard to believe that the Cirque of the Towers, with its 4 hour talus approach will be overrun with a flood of people who will demand another descent route as they wait in line to rap from the Wolfs Head.

In wilderness areas? Multiple bolted rap routes? You seen this many times? I sure haven't. Not in the back country. Not even once.

DMT

All other arguments aside, I still believe that, on this particular descent, there's gonna be tat everywhere regardless. That's certainly true of the Diamond and the Petite Grepon, which have difficult to follow bolted rappel routes and--tat everywhere. On Wolf's Head, factor in the apparent existence of another bolted rap line and I think that would make adding bolts to this descent pretty pointless.

I have to admit that Wolf's Head is so popular (for an alpine climb that's 11 miles from the car, anyway) that adding bolts may not noticeably increase traffic. Although the descent is by far the most frequent b---- about aspect of the climb, both by those who've done it and those who aspire to.

I have to admit that Wolf's Head is so popular (for an alpine climb that's 11 miles from the car, anyway) that adding bolts may not noticeably increase traffic. Although the descent is by far the most frequent b---- about aspect of the climb, both by those who've done it and those who aspire to.

Went to seneca the other weekend with a guide. I saw something he called "super thread" if I remember correctly. Basicly, it seemed to be VERY sturdy static line protected from UV and sap by webbing. There were two strands of super thread around a tree with rap rings. The webbing was a color similar to the tree bark.

I personally see this super thread option as an equivalent to bolts. I think that the OP would still be happy because there is drastically less visual impact. How does everyone feel about this option?

There is no increase or decrease in adventure if there were to be bolts

i'm just against bolts....period.

grayghost wrote:

I disagree. For me not bolting means more adventure. I think some hardmen argue against bolting just so they can perpetuate their hardman status (ego maniacs) but for me it's about the adventure.

i for one have been a bit inspired by this thread (and for those who know me i'm not easity inspired by anyone) to make the extra effort improve some rap anchors. yeah, that means carrying more slings and ruining my minimalist lightweight ethics (hehe), but it seems a lot of people feel strongly about this issue.

moose_droppings wrote:
Bolt it, and they will come

And when they do, 1 rap line is going to get a litle crowded. So, lets put up another. Domino theory, seen it way to many times.

Dingus wrote:
In wilderness areas? Multiple bolted rap routes? You seen this many times? I sure haven't. Not in the back country. Not even once.

DMT

hehe....back of George Clinton's head......that's funny. do you think it is unreasonable for the climbing community to make more of an effort the reduce "rainbow tats"?

Two things from this thread:

1. I am glad I won a Trango Shark at an Adopt-a-Crag raffle; I'll be slashing the tat this weekend.

2. "Permastoned" is a GREAT route name.

Another slippery slope is the dogma that bolts are the root of all evil. Climber impact is measured more in visual impact than a tiny hole in the rock.
Do you think hikers in Yosemite spot the bolt anchors of a climb or the white "trails" of lichen-less rock on each side of a popular crack? What about the rainbow of nasty webbing wrapped around a tree?
Think impact, not dogma.

It's not bolts that decrease the adventure, it's the mass of humanity.

Crowds and bolts both decrease the adventure. They're connected too because bolts help draw the crowds, and the crowds demand more bolts.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.
DMT

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

In certain times and places, we've had the idea "Let's not tell anyone!" to preserve adventure from overcrowding and whatnot. That worked pretty well for awhile. But then years later, some new folks would come along, re-climb our routes, give them a new name and claim the FA for whatever guidebooks might follow. I know it's petty, but sometimes that drove me nuts. So by this roundabout route I came to realize that guidebooks, if done well, can be keepers of climbing history. What's not written down tends to fade away, and then get overwritten by someone who has it all wrong.

The rap routes on the Diamond and Petit are relatively new, no? At least that's true for the Diamond, and I guess I don't follow how the Petit has a "rap line" anyway since there's only, what, one rap. At any rate, all the tat on those descents is probably older than the bolted rap routes.

As for Wolf's Head, its been a while but I don't recall a true bolted rap line and the lack of one is what initiated this inane conversation. In my opinion, if you put in a bolted rap line there you won't see any proliferation of tat, as long as the start of the descent is obvious and unchanged. I also highly doubt that the route has such a reputation for a difficult descent that its keeping the hordes away.

I believe, although I could be mistaken, that his reference to a slippery slope pertained more to the possibility that seeing bolted anchors might eventually lead some to think that maybe a few protection bolts might not be a bad idea, either. After all, what is the difference in a bolted anchor and a bolt here and there for protection - a sad but true mindset of some, I'm afraid.

Responsible bolting, outside of places like the Front Range and Eldorado Canyon, where such practices are mandated, is susceptible to the interpretation of the person wielding the drill. Although I would like to think that most wilderness climbers know better, the fact is that an ever-increasing number of new members to the activity are being reared on the premise that bolts are the perfect solution to everything - especially dealing with the so-called impurities of climbing (i.e. rapping, etc.).

I believe that certain things should simply be left as they are. If it ain't broke, why fix it? So there are slings left behind. They are an eyesore to me too, but I can always cut them if I don't like looking at them.

Let's just say that the world passes a moratorium on wilderness bolting. That won't change the fact that we don't like looking at tattered slings, although being left without the option of permanent bolts might inspire us to think outside the box to come up with a better (retrievable) solution.

I vote for no bolted anchors on existing wilderness routes that have been successfully done without them.

Notice the part about "left in it's natural condition." In a wilderness we should strive to keep it a wilderness. By building roads, houses, bathrooms, or placing bolts we are altering the wilderness permanently, and thus it ceases to exist as a wilderness.

So this also eliminates cairns, trails, improvised food hanging poles, and rock shelters for providing wind shelter to your camp. All of which can be found in copious amounts in the Cirque. So what makes these human improvements kosher while a few hand-drilled bolts are not?

I think we're starting to chase our tail here a bit but there were some interesting points made in this thread.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

Ah, Wilderness. We often think of wilderness as a place for people, as areas to renew and refresh the soul. However, wilderness also protects watersheds, serves as critical habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, improves air quality, and maintains biological diversity. The United States Congress established the Wilderness Act in 1964 to "secure for the American People of present and future generations the benefit of an enduring resource of Wilderness." While we may each have our own definition, Congress defines Wilderness as areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by people; where people visit, but do not remain.

Actually, no. The Diamond rap route has been around for 10 years or so. It's hard to follow, folks miss it all the time, and there's still tat everywhere. Some dedicated folks clean up the tat from time to time but it always comes back.

Used to be, when you climbed the Petite, you did one rap off the backside, then scrambled up a chimney to the Gash. In the late 90s someone installed a series of ~6 double rope bolted raps all the way down the south face, straight back to your packs. I've done the route using both methods for descent; I found the rap route very hard to follow. We lost it, and just used the fixed slings already in place everywhere to finish the job. Somehow I have the feeling that those slings are still there, and plenty of new stuff too.



Maybe I wasn't clear. There is the standard descent line, the West (?) Face, which has been used for decades for no problem without bolts. This descent is complicated and not obvious, there is tat all over it, and regardless of whether or not bolts are placed, I imagine there always will be (because many folks will miss the bolts). The (alleged) "bolted rap line" that I referred to is, apparently, a recent development and takes the opposite side of the mountain.

so theoretically if you used a hand-drill the act of bolting in wilderness is allowed, however actually installing a bolt and leaving it, at least to my reading of the legislation, seems to be inconsistent with the law and therefore illegal. but i could be wrong, i ain't no lawyer.

If you don't like seeing the, pick it up and pack it out. Hell you could even leave a camoflauged sling. Which does not permanently alter the wilderness.

I understand the resistance to a lot of hardware in places like the Winds. There's a certain irony in the way we use the word wilderness. To me, a true wilderness is something more remote like the Brooks Range or the McKenzie mountains in the Yukon, and in a setting like that you can do things on a mountain that just about noone will ever see. In a pseudo-wilderness like the Winds, which are stacked with trails, pack animals, climbers, hikers, fishermen, and 6-year olds, the impacts of fixed anchors seem in a way a bigger deal. Even in "wilderness" parts of the desert in Utah, you can do things that wouldn't pass muster in the Winds.

So I guess I'm somewhat ignorant, but what exactly are the specs of the USFS regulations pertaining to fixed anchors in designated wilderness areas? No establishment of new fixed anchors? Are there supposed to be no fixed anchors, period? Or am I imagining things and the only regulation is no power drills? I've navigated the Access Fund's website and wasn't able to determine anything.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

DMT

Bolting bans or fixed anchor bans in "Wilderness" areas, or other areas for that matter, are COMPLETE s--- as long as there are established trails.

Hypocricy.

From the Access Fund site:

"Specifically, the Forest Service decision prohibits "use of permanent fixed anchors" for climbing in wilderness. A "fixed anchor" is any kind of climbing device which is left in place by climbers to descend from technical summits (where no walk-down is possible) and to provide a margin of safety when moving over particularly dangerous or difficult terrain on the ascent."

This applies to slings or bolts equally... thereby negating about 99% of the arguments presented in this thread. If you rap off fixed slings on forest service designated wilderness land, you are breaking the law. I bet 100% of the experienced wilderness climbers in this very thread have broken that law at least once since implemented and I'd dare say they will continue to break it for as long as they climb in the wilderness and rappel from summits.

So you can take the 'but the rules stipulate' argument elsewhere, it doesn't fly with the climbers who actually climb in these environments.

For reference:

http://www.accessfund.org/advo/wild.php

The rule either demonstrates a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of what climbers do, or it is an outright attack to eliminate climbing from wilderness areas completely. Either way, the rule is not compatible with how we practice our sport.

DMT

Dingus, that page you found is about the rule enacted in 1998. I was under the impression that this rule is no longer in effect. Am I wrong? Have I been cheerfully breaking the law ever since?

I could be wrong as no easy summaries are to be found

and lewisiarediviva, you had a good hunch that perhaps wilderness, in this setting, might have a more specific meaning than the dictionary definition.

however, the term is not a "politically correct" phrase but rather it is a straight-up political phrase.

Some how I'm not surprised that USFS is unsure what their own regulations actually mean.

When I worked for the USFS about a decade ago, it was my impression that, generally, the USFS had a more strict interpretation of the Wilderness act than the Park Service or BLM. For example, the Park Rangers I knew of would use chain saws to clear fallen trees from their trails in Wilderness areas, and we would use an ax or hike in 6 ft. cross cut saws (very fun) to clear trails in our Wilderness areas. The USFS bolting ban could be an artifact of their strict tendancies.

Anyway, if THOSE tools are on-route for trail work, they are bloody by god on route for route work too. A hand drill IS NOT a power tool, not by any stretch of the imagination and anyone who has ever used both would laugh at the notion.
DMT

Anyway, if THOSE tools are on-route for trail work, they are bloody by god on route for route work too. A hand drill IS NOT a power tool, not by any stretch of the imagination and anyone who has ever used both would laugh at the notion.

DMT

landongw wrote:

If you don't like seeing the, pick it up and pack it out. Hell you could even leave a camoflauged sling. Which does not permanently alter the wilderness.


Nor does a bolt. Everyting you said applies equally to bolts, slings and humans for that matter.

DMT

? huh ? a sling can be cut and removed. a bolt leaves a permanent hole in the rock, which water gets into, freezes, thaws and breaks the rock. sounds like a permanent alteration to me.

Even if no one removes a sling, 200 years later it will degrade (I honestly don't know how long it takes, but 50 years of sun leaves slings close to dust), no one will know i was there. But a hole in the rock is a permanent footprint of my passing.