There must be some huge irony here. You guys spend hours writing about abstract ideas on bolting, yet how many of you have written a very simple letter to re-open Southern California's best sport climbing area?
It seems rather than fretting about poor pro on some old route, save several hundreds of exisiting sport climbs at a great area.
Sounds like everyone wins and can agree with that.
Here is a link to the thread that fills you in on what you can do
...To be blunt: you are the one arguing for stealing climbs from future generations, not me...
Well, trad climbing without any fixed protection is the only style of ascent that does not "steal climbs" from future ascentionists, if you really want to look at it that way. Perhaps you should be advocating for that?
fracture wrote:
...So, forgive me if I don't spend much time worrying about whether people who won't even exist for six or more generations might somehow end up sharing your weird and irrational moral sensibilities when it comes to the topic of placing small pieces of metal into lifeless rock. It really doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to me. I'm more concerned about what the people who are alive today want (part of why I reject the anti-democratic FAVD)...
Quite fortunately, the vast majority of climbers do share my "weird and irrational moral sensibilities" and therefore your meritless ideas will never amount to anything more than these occasional ill conceived (although somewhat entertaining) rants of yours.
... sharing your weird and irrational moral sensibilities when it comes to the topic of placing small pieces of metal into lifeless rock. It really doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to me.
It surprises me not at all that you so completely fail to understand the price paid for every bolt. It's one thing to understand and accept the compromise while recognizing the loss in the bargain - it's simply sad and a bit pathetic when one sees only what's gained. And in this case the overwhelming 'rational' egocentricity of the above speaks for itself better than anything I could ever say...
fracture wrote:
I'm more concerned about what the people who are alive today want (part of why I reject the anti-democratic FAVD)...
Your 'Lord of the Flies' version of democracy would only be the source of bolt wars.
If you respected them, you would trust them to make good decisions about how to manage their climbing resources, instead of telling us they should be governed by a single-handed dictatorship.
I've been out of this thread for some time, so I apologize if this got asked, but would you please give me an example of a climbing area in which a single-handed dictatorship exists in conflict with a majority of the local climbers?
It got discussed. I don't know of one. As I told dingus, what I am advocating is actually the de facto rule anyway, despite the lip-service people pay to the FA Veto. Excluding cases of vigilante chopping (which often just amounts to temporary vandalism), at areas where an FA's Veto actually means something, it really only does so because a sufficient number of the people who climb there are in favor of it.
But I would like modern sport climbers to realize that they shouldn't even pay lip-service to it. I don't really care what people do at highly traditional crags that I'll probably never visit (e.g. Yosemite; you'd probably have to pay me to get me to climb there). In my backyard, though, the FAVD causes conflict because some local sport climbers don't understand the distinction between a bolted ground up route and a rap-bolted route. They don't understand the difference between the so-called "testpiece" route(s) at Reimer's (rap bolted runouts that were toprope-inspected and/or rehearsed prior to the first lead) and the bolted E-Rock backside (much of which was originally done on lead from stance without aid). They also don't understand the long local history of retro's made to sport climbs without FA-knowledge.
Ground up is a lame style of bolting (I have made many posts about it). But rap-bolting runouts is even lamer, and has much more relevance to the sport I engage in (granite slab climbing generally doesn't constitute much more than a rest day activity, to me).
Does that clarify?
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 5, 2007, 3:27 AM)
...To be blunt: you are the one arguing for stealing climbs from future generations, not me...
Well, trad climbing without any fixed protection is the only style of ascent that does not "steal climbs" from future ascentionists, if you really want to look at it that way.
But limiting climbing to only that form of route development steals from ascentionists today, instead.
Some of us don't particularly fancy playing with little widgets in our spare time. We'd rather learn how to execute complex movements with the most efficiency and accuracy we possibly can. For some of us, this actually is a sport.
And this sport is as valid a use of public land as traditional climbing, birding, or hunting. There are inherent trade-offs in managing any public land area where there are different user groups: all I am asking is that everyone gets a fair degree of input. (Whether that means direct democracy, representative democracy, some kinda of proportional representation, or even the (most common) laissez-fare self-governance that is (in my opinion) the most efficient, desirable and effective as long as the area is vastly dominated by one type of climbing user-group (and the land managers aren't insisting on some kind of oversight).)
Is that really so bad? Can you step-outside of your rock-climber world view for just a minute and look at this from a third person perspective? Have you ever asked a non-climber for an outside perspective about this debate (without biasing language, mind you)? How would you feel if you were a birder instead of a rock climber? What if you had been born a couple decades later? In the absence of constant pummeling by the old Rock Cult ideas, a near-exclusive boulderer like you probably would have developed an outlook much more similar to mine than you might care to admit.
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 5, 2007, 3:42 AM)
... sharing your weird and irrational moral sensibilities when it comes to the topic of placing small pieces of metal into lifeless rock. It really doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to me.
It surprises me not at all that you so completely fail to understand the price paid for every bolt.
Around $4.00-$7.00, a hole in a lifeless piece of rock, the energy and money to produce, purchase and charge a drill, and the sweat and toil of someone willing to give back to the community.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand the cost of placing bolts. You speak of lifeless rocks as if they were something deserving of worship. You irrationally oppose the slightest bit of modification ("damage" is an inaccurate way to describe the creation of a outdoor recreational area) for reasons that have nothing to do with real negative impact to the environment. How do you feel about the (living) vegetation you almost certainly impact to some degree or another on a given trip to the crags? What about the gallons of fossil fuel you burn in a given month?
Please try to make some sense, Joseph. Your emotions constantly get the better of you in these discussions. (And while it is supremely entertaining to me personally, I frankly don't understand how you can post here without a constant overpowering sense of embarrassment.)
You speak of lifeless rocks as if they were something deserving of worship.
You so miss the whole concept of rock as it exists by itself versus your 'engineering' of it all I can do is almost simultaneously laugh and cry. You seem so completely incapable of seperating your desire from the expense of that desire. Hey, guess what - some of us actually consider pristine rock an incredible resource.
Step it down a notch to chalk - something I'm sure we can agree you think even less about and less often than bolts. Nothing lost? Well, where I'm from we were way more into the 'can you see it' puzzle half of the equation than the far less interesting can you simply 'do it' half. Then there's the part where folks become so addicted to it they lose the ability to tell when they actually do or do not legitimately need the stuff. Add to that the visual effect on the rock in places like most southern sandstones and it's clear there are losses. Maybe necessary compromises at times, but nothing lost? The use of both bolts and chalk have significant impact. But again, it's like the cigar smoker who, when he does think about his smoke at all, simply thinks everyone loves it and for the life of them can't understand why it's a problem.
fracture wrote:
You irrationally oppose the slightest bit of modification ("damage" is an inaccurate way to describe the creation of a outdoor recreational area) for reasons that have nothing to do with real negative impact to the environment.
The "engineering of an outdoor recreational area" sounds like a theme park conversion which is pretty damn close to the mark I'll agree. As for the "real" environmental impact, that's a very tired scope argument - what's a bolt compared to nuclear terrorism? We're talking about climbing and it's specific impacts, environments, visual, and resource availability (pristine rock).
Again, how long before a bunch of whining developers have no more 'fresh' rock to consume (and "fresh" or "new" sure sounds like a consumable) for their theme park creation within reasonable driving distance of a metropolitan area? Five years, ten years, take a guess. And then what, start in on trad climbs because they deprive you of your equal entertainment entitlement?
fracture wrote:
How do you feel about the (living) vegetation you almost certainly impact to some degree or another on a given trip to the crags? What about the gallons of fossil fuel you burn in a given month?
Vegatation is definitely a reasonable talking point relative to any climbing discussion - fossil fuels is entirely out of scope. With regards to vegetation - in some vernaculars also known as 'habitat' - the least amount of impact necessary to do a route is always preferrable.
In reply to:
Please try to make some sense, Joseph. Your emotions constantly get the better of you in these discussions. (And while it is supremely entertaining to me personally, I frankly don't understand how you can post here without a constant overpowering sense of embarrassment.)
Ah, my 'emotions', now they are a place we can go out of scope. It's only 'emotional' in the same way I get emotional when pensions get robbed by self-possessed corporate thieves in the energy market, or people getting hanged for no reason, or when we end up in a war because some folks are so ruthlessly locked into their own surreal worldview and obsessed with their own needs they completely lose the ability to see what is lost in the process. I'd say it's something in the water down there except I know too many good musicians from Austin - clearly it's actually just a problem with folks with perspectives and attitudes like yours. But god knows, it's all just entertainment, and afterall he put it all here simply for us to exploit.
(This post was edited by healyje on Jun 5, 2007, 8:54 AM)
...To be blunt: you are the one arguing for stealing climbs from future generations, not me...
Well, trad climbing without any fixed protection is the only style of ascent that does not "steal climbs" from future ascentionists, if you really want to look at it that way.
But limiting climbing to only that form of route development steals from ascentionists today, instead...
No, I mean any future ascentionist--even someone seeking to do the second ascent of a route 10 minutes after the FA. When a route is bolted (well or badly) that route has been "stolen from future ascentionistst" by your definition because something is fixed in the rock that they must adapt their climbing style to. Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please. If you're really serious about letting each person and each generation do every climb in the way they see most apt, this is something to think about.
Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please. If you're really serious about letting each person and each generation do every climb in the way they see most apt, this is something to think about.
Curt
But Fracture can't because he can't afford that kind of gas or airfare; necessity breeds one of the most convoluted and wordy rationales I've ever seen. But it's all entertainment!
You seem so completely incapable of seperating your desire from the expense of that desire. Hey, guess what - some of us actually consider pristine rock an incredible resource.
Yes, I understand that. The problem is that you (thus far) haven't proven capable of providing a reason to consider it so. Instead, you rant on and on with religious overtones and continually repeat yourself.
Like the Christians you apparently detest, your brain has been hijacked, Joseph. You are not fully in control of your faculties. I know it's not your fault, but somehow I can't bring myself to be particularly sympathetic.
In reply to:
Vegatation is definitely a reasonable talking point relative to any climbing discussion - fossil fuels is entirely out of scope.
A discussion about the environmental impact of putting bolts into rocks is not primarily a climbing discussion---it's a discussion about human environmental impact. The people likely to know how to give quality answers on that question are environmental scientists, not rock climbers (as you so excellently demonstrate).
In reply to:
But god knows, it's all just entertainment, and afterall he put it all here simply for us to exploit.
We evolved to exploit our environment. Get a fucking book on biology.
Sheesh.
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 5, 2007, 8:34 AM)
Well, trad climbing without any fixed protection is the only style of ascent that does not "steal climbs" from future ascentionists, if you really want to look at it that way.
But limiting climbing to only that form of route development steals from ascentionists today, instead...
No, I mean any future ascentionist--even someone seeking to do the second ascent of a route 10 minutes after the FA. When a route is bolted (well or badly) that route has been "stolen from future ascentionistst" by your definition because something is fixed in the rock that they must adapt their climbing style to.
As I've said repeatedly, I am against vigilante bolting; if you are suggesting that I condone stealing climbs from people who want to do them in 10 minutes, you are attacking a straw man. But moreover, I've indicated that I have no problem with future retro-chopping, even without FA consent. This means that I don't have a problem with future climbing communities adapting the rock to their desired style(s) instead of vice versa (to the degree it is realistic or possible within the constraints of physical reality, of course).
And before you go in circles and complain that the future ascentionists may not want to have to chop the bolts, or that certain types of RD techniques (cleaning in particular) are not reversible, I'll preempt by pointing you to my previous post: I am more concerned about people who are alive today. We cannot live constantly second-guessing our actions based on unpredictable aspects of the hypothetical desires of future generations. (Especially if you are proposing that we hypothesize, against all available evidence, a return to the ideas of the climbing's past instead of the development and progression toward new ideas that we haven't yet come up with. Aren't you forgetting about the Gecko Skin Climbing Revolution in 2075?)
You are now apparently advocating what we could perhaps call an HFAV: a Hypothetical Future Ascentionist Veto. At least your argument has comedic value, I guess.
[ Edit to add: it is also worth mentioning that even ascents of rock without fixed gear cause gradual changes. After thousands of ascents, footholds and handholds become polished and break or change shape. If you really think that we are not justified in making any sort of changes to routes based on hypothetical future generations, you cannot even condone the practice of ascending climbs without fixed gear. ]
In reply to:
Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please.
Did you really just type that, Curt?
(The rebuttal is so obvious it hurts: not if they want to sport climb them.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 6, 2007, 1:45 AM)
There must be some huge irony here. You guys spend hours writing about abstract ideas on bolting, yet how many of you have written a very simple letter to re-open Southern California's best sport climbing area?
It seems rather than fretting about poor pro on some old route, save several hundreds of exisiting sport climbs at a great area.
Sounds like everyone wins and can agree with that.
Here is a link to the thread that fills you in on what you can do
After you write your letter, feel free to resume the pointless banter.
Jeepers, randy, what are you trying to do -- make people understand the real issues we face in climbing access? What were you thinking? It's so much more fun to duel with wireless laser mice at 20 paces while swilling a Starbucks. Working with land managers, developing routes & areas, maintaining trails, educating climbers, writing guidebooks -- who needs that. We have indoor gyms, don't we? This outdoor climbing thingy is really over rated. We might get dirty, get rained on, get hungry or thirsty, and have to worry about what layers to wear. Maybe we should all just take up bowling -- I think the shoes don't hurt as much.
(Way to keep things in perspective, randy. Your post will likely fall on deaf ears, but maybe someone will comprehend and apply their energies in a productive manner.)
There must be some huge irony here. You guys spend hours writing about abstract ideas on bolting, yet how many of you have written a very simple letter to re-open Southern California's best sport climbing area?
It seems rather than fretting about poor pro on some old route, save several hundreds of exisiting sport climbs at a great area.
Sounds like everyone wins and can agree with that.
Here is a link to the thread that fills you in on what you can do
After you write your letter, feel free to resume the pointless banter.
Jeepers, randy, what are you trying to do -- make people understand the real issues we face in climbing access? What were you thinking? It's so much more fun to duel with wireless laser mice at 20 paces while swilling a Starbucks. Working with land managers, developing routes & areas, maintaining trails, educating climbers, writing guidebooks -- who needs that. We have indoor gyms, don't we? This outdoor climbing thingy is really over rated. We might get dirty, get rained on, get hungry or thirsty, and have to worry about what layers to wear. Maybe we should all just take up bowling -- I think the shoes don't hurt as much.
(Way to keep things in perspective, randy. Your post will likely fall on deaf ears, but maybe someone will comprehend and apply their energies in a productive manner.)
How does saving some climbing area all the way across the country from ME help ME? Its all about ME isn't it? I want it NOW! I want it MY way! Who cares about the future anyway.
I am proud to say I occasionally bring a nice cold chisel on certain routes so I can modify the holds to suit me. At my age, I doubt I'll get any stronger. So, it is do it now or never.
(This post was edited by fixedpin on Jun 5, 2007, 4:45 PM)
- Working with land managers (check) - Developing routes (I put up trad routes - I don't 'develop') - Maintaining trails (check) - Educating climbers (check) - Writing guidebooks (don't believe in them) - Keeping our trad area trad (check)
Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please.
Did you really just type that, Curt? (The rebuttal is so obvious it hurts: not if they want to sport climb them.)
Surely you meant: not if they need to sport climb them...
No, I didn't. I don't believe anyone needs to climb anything, and in context, Curt was clearly talking about people being able to climb in their desired styles ("as they please").
(This is a perfect example of a post that you should feel embarrassed about. All you managed was to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the discussion in this sub-thread.)
Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please.
Did you really just type that, Curt? (The rebuttal is so obvious it hurts: not if they want to sport climb them.)
Surely you meant: not if they need to sport climb them...
No, I didn't. I don't believe anyone needs to climb anything, and in context, Curt was clearly talking about people being able to climb in their desired styles ("as they please").
(This is a perfect example of a post that you should feel embarrassed about. All you managed was to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the discussion in this sub-thread.)
Actually, that was sarcasm, not misunderstanding - i.e. wanting to climb in a desired 'style' as opposed to having to climbing in a 'style' because one lacks the requisite skills and ability to assume risk which are two very different things.
Just got a nice message from Fracture with a copy of his excellent email in support of the proposal to get Williamson Rock re-opened.
How about you other guys?
June 6, 2007 is the deadline for comments. So have your snail mail letter postmarked by Wed. June 6, 2007 or, if you send an email, send it before 5:00 pm PST.
Randy, I'd asked on ST if any of the climbers heading up the Williamson effort had talked directly with the involved biologists working their side of the closure at Williamson and never got an answer. Has anyone that you know of. I work closely with our DFW Raptor biologist, Parks Staff and Resource Steward; it makes a huge difference in outcomes. Happily take the answer off line.
Randy, I'd asked on ST if any of the climbers heading up the Williamson effort had talked directly with the involved biologists working their side of the closure at Williamson and never got an answer. Has anyone that you know of. I work closely with our DFW Raptor biologist, Parks Staff and Resource Steward; it makes a huge difference in outcomes. Happily take the answer off line.
Since I've hijacked this thread a bit anyway:
The climbers and Friends of Williamson Rock (FoWR) have not only discussed the frog situation with the USGS Biologists (the ones monitoring the frogs), but have reviewed all the scienftic literature and reports.
Some of the people involved with FoWR are: biologists, experts on environmental planning, etc. Also, FoWR has had an excellent relationship with the Angeles National Forest. However, it was US Fish & Wildlife that demanded the intitial "temporary closure."
Part of the closed area impacts the Pacific Crest Trail and similar (separate) proposal to construct a bridge over the creek for the PCT's trail crossing are also underway.
The science and reports are well understood. It remains to be seen what opposition (we know that one group is strongly opposed to the Williamson Trail proposal) arises.
Since opposition is anticipated, the stronger the climber support, the better the chances of success of re-opening this crag.
Perhaps we owe Randy for hijacking what was becoming more and more of a never-ending thread.
For those that aren't familiar with Williamson, it is one of the major SoCal climbing areas and home to some wonderful routes. Perhaps even more importantly, its sheer size allows for better disbursement of the region's many climbers.
If you think that a decision on access to a crag that is perhaps far away from your home means nothing to you - think again. Federal level decisions like the ones pending here can set precedents for future decisions elsewhere. Maybe next time your favorite crag will be the one on the chopping block.
I wrote my letter a few weeks back. Please write or email yours today.
...You are now apparently advocating what we could perhaps call an HFAV: a Hypothetical Future Ascentionist Veto. At least your argument has comedic value, I guess.
Yes, I was trying to come up with something equally amusing as you fervently preaching this wholly indefensible position of yours. However, I don't think I'm quite there yet.
fracture wrote:
[Edit to add: it is also worth mentioning that even ascents of rock without fixed gear cause gradual changes. After thousands of ascents, footholds and handholds become polished and break or change shape. If you really think that we are not justified in making any sort of changes to routes based on hypothetical future generations, you cannot even condone the practice of ascending climbs without fixed gear.]
Even a dog can tell the difference between being accidentally stepped on and being kicked. Intent matters.
Yes, I was trying to come up with something equally amusing as you fervently preaching this wholly indefensible position of yours. However, I don't think I'm quite there yet.
Curt
there you go
**edit** is this the tradition we are trying to keep alive?
(This post was edited by 8flood8 on Jun 6, 2007, 4:51 AM)
Yes, I was trying to come up with something equally amusing as you fervently preaching this wholly indefensible position of yours. However, I don't think I'm quite there yet.
Curt
there you go
**edit** is this the tradition we are trying to keep alive?
Well, almost. However, if you've done that route, you know that there is one 30 year old 1/4 inch spinner at the top of that crack.
19 /
16%
