|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 14, 2007, 3:17 AM
Post #1 of 55
(6252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
The following is a part of a conversation I just had with a friend who had just spent the past weekend climbing at the Creek. I relay it to you all here to get some feedback and ideas about the best way to go about preserving a limited resource. When I heard he had been climbing at the Creek, of course had to ask: What area were you climbing at?
"Way Rambo... got on a couple of off-widths, some other stuff." "Serrator, huh... How'd that go... you lead it?"
"Well, some guy lead it, his second couldn't get up it, so I offered to clean it" "Yeah, whaddaya think of it?"
"It's tough... Gastons, ya can't fit your knee in at the bottom, fist stacks..." "Then I lead that .11 just right of it" "Layaway plan?"
"Yeah, that's the one... " "What did you think of that roof... the way the rope cuts into the edge? I've heard some guys route the rope into the crack, then the rope pushes their cams way back in there too."
"Yeah, it was crazy... like 4" deep rope cuts in the edge of the roof. My buddy had his cam pushed in there by the rope when he lead it" "It's a damn shame the damage that happens when someone TR's or seconds some of the routes like that one down there"
"Well, yeah... the rope grooves are ugly, plus once the weathered surface of the rock is damaged, water gets into the rock, speeding up its demise" "Hadn't thought of that... Wonder if someone shouldn't put a bolt at that corner, down on the slab, to keep the rope from wearing on that corner... You think that's something that would sit well with the community?"
"Good idea, and good question.... I dunno... it would help preserve the resource, question is, would people go for it?" I now put this question to you, the masses: What would the general consensus be on a LIMITED placing of bolts on established routes, positioned in order to keep the rope from WEARING in places where it has already been demonstrated that the rock suffers severe damage. Places like the far right corner of the roof on Layaway Plan, for instance*. Would it not be prudent to at least consider placing a bolt down on the slab below the corner, such that the rope might be clipped to a QD, thereby keeping it from rubbing excessively on the corner of the roof, preventing further destruction and more unsightly rope grooves in the soft edge of the rock? How many other routes in the Creek might benefit from such preventive maintenance? Is this something future FA'ists should keep in mind when establishing a route... the steps necessarily taken to prevent damage by future ascentionists? NOTE: I'm NOT talking about bolting a crack for protection, I'm talking about the intelligent placement of a bolts near high-wear areas to ensure the continued longevity of those routes most likely to be loved to death. *I've got to set up my desktop so I can access some pic's I took several years ago of the roof's edge. Once it's up and running, I'll post a pic of the edge I'm referring to in this example. Give me a day or two... I'll post them in the thread if there's any interest in discussing this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Nov 14, 2007, 7:57 AM
Post #2 of 55
(6166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
stymingersfink wrote: The following is a part of a conversation I just had with a friend who had just spent the past weekend climbing at the Creek. I relay it to you all here to get some feedback and ideas about the best way to go about preserving a limited resource. When I heard he had been climbing at the Creek, of course had to ask: What area were you climbing at?
"Way Rambo... got on a couple of off-widths, some other stuff." "Serrator, huh... How'd that go... you lead it?"
"Well, some guy lead it, his second couldn't get up it, so I offered to clean it" "Yeah, whaddaya think of it?"
"It's tough... Gastons, ya can't fit your knee in at the bottom, fist stacks..." "Then I lead that .11 just right of it" "Layaway plan?"
"Yeah, that's the one... " "What did you think of that roof... the way the rope cuts into the edge? I've heard some guys route the rope into the crack, then the rope pushes their cams way back in there too."
"Yeah, it was crazy... like 4" deep rope cuts in the edge of the roof. My buddy had his cam pushed in there by the rope when he lead it" "It's a damn shame the damage that happens when someone TR's or seconds some of the routes like that one down there"
"Well, yeah... the rope grooves are ugly, plus once the weathered surface of the rock is damaged, water gets into the rock, speeding up its demise" "Hadn't thought of that... Wonder if someone shouldn't put a bolt at that corner, down on the slab, to keep the rope from wearing on that corner... You think that's something that would sit well with the community?"
"Good idea, and good question.... I dunno... it would help preserve the resource, question is, would people go for it?" I now put this question to you, the masses: What would the general consensus be on a LIMITED placing of bolts on established routes, positioned in order to keep the rope from WEARING in places where it has already been demonstrated that the rock suffers severe damage. Places like the far right corner of the roof on Layaway Plan, for instance*. Would it not be prudent to at least consider placing a bolt down on the slab below the corner, such that the rope might be clipped to a QD, thereby keeping it from rubbing excessively on the corner of the roof, preventing further destruction and more unsightly rope grooves in the soft edge of the rock? How many other routes in the Creek might benefit from such preventive maintenance? Is this something future FA'ists should keep in mind when establishing a route... the steps necessarily taken to prevent damage by future ascentionists? NOTE: I'm NOT talking about bolting a crack for protection, I'm talking about the intelligent placement of a bolts near high-wear areas to ensure the continued longevity of those routes most likely to be loved to death. *I've got to set up my desktop so I can access some pic's I took several years ago of the roof's edge. Once it's up and running, I'll post a pic of the edge I'm referring to in this example. Give me a day or two... I'll post them in the thread if there's any interest in discussing this issue. A very interesting idea... I have no opinion on this matter, but am interested to see what the rest of the community thinks... hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Nov 14, 2007, 12:09 PM
Post #3 of 55
(6131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
A friend of mine retroed a route of his years ago partly to save the rock. It wasn't the rope but the gear that was destroying the rock. It was already a mixed gear route anyway though.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Nov 14, 2007, 12:18 PM
Post #4 of 55
(6124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
No one besides the bolter would ever know its use. I don't have any confidence in the general users figuring it out on their own. Outside of that issue, I support the idea of one bolt to protect the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Nov 14, 2007, 1:11 PM
Post #5 of 55
(6102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
microbarn wrote: No one besides the bolter would ever know its use. I don't have any confidence in the general users figuring it out on their own. Outside of that issue, I support the idea of one bolt to protect the rock. Perhaps at first. But if it had wide support of the community before it was done enough people would know to educate others. That being said there are still people who still don't understand the concept of TRing or doing multiple lowers on the same anchor through their own hardware.
(This post was edited by chossmonkey on Nov 14, 2007, 1:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Nov 14, 2007, 2:07 PM
Post #6 of 55
(6058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
Sounds perfectly legit to me.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 14, 2007, 3:16 PM
Post #7 of 55
(5997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Not having seen the route in question I cannot realy say for sure but if things are as you have described I would not object to a directional bolt being placed. Is there any alternative options? Perhaps new or relocated anchors at the top. Any natural ways to redirect the rope, perhaps a tree or natural pro that can be extended with a piece of webbing or cordlette?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Nov 14, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #8 of 55
(5925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
chossmonkey wrote: microbarn wrote: No one besides the bolter would ever know its use. I don't have any confidence in the general users figuring it out on their own. Outside of that issue, I support the idea of one bolt to protect the rock. Perhaps at first. But if it had wide support of the community before it was done enough people would know to educate others. That being said there are still people who still don't understand the concept of TRing or doing multiple lowers on the same anchor through their own hardware. Every time I climb at an area that is new to me, I don't know the local ethics yet. I doubt people new to the area would be able to figure it out before their rope is already set up. Additionally, 10 years down the road, the climbing community will be entirely different. How certain can we be that older climbers will remember to pass on the use of that bolt to all the new climbers?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 14, 2007, 11:08 PM
Post #9 of 55
(5852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
Let me describe Layaway Plan for you. Better yet, here's a picture of the roof corner that I'm speaking of; though it might be a little difficult to see the rope grooves, they are there, to the climbers right, just below the bright sunlit area. The route goes up a right facing corner, then traverses right (where our climber is seen under the roof), then goes up in the right facing corner to the chains (about another 15-20' IIRC). The particular bolt I'm thinking would be prudent to place would be at about the elevation of the climbers feet, approximately 18-24 inches to the right of the continuation of the right facing corner. One can see where the face angle changes just to the right of where the big roof ends. There is a little micro-roof above the black wear-marks on the rock...just to the right of that, in my mind, would be the best place to clip a draw to keep the rope away from the edge. A single bolt with a quick-linked perma-draw would probably get the point across plainly enough. Here's another shot (with Ben Folsom climbing it?) where a couple of the rope grooves are just barely visible in the upper right corner of the frame: The upper 1/3 of the climb, though the camera's tilted to make it look less steep than it is, one can clearly see the anchors: Do the pictures help?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Nov 14, 2007, 11:22 PM
Post #10 of 55
(5834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
stymingersfink wrote: Let me describe Layaway Plan for you. Better yet, here's a picture of the roof corner that I'm speaking of; though it might be a little difficult to see the rope grooves, they are there, to the climbers right, just below the bright sunlit area. [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/photos/assets/1/7381-largest_78603.jpg[/image] The route goes up a right facing corner, then traverses right (where our climber is seen under the roof), then goes up in the right facing corner to the chains (about another 15-20' IIRC). The particular bolt I'm thinking would be prudent to place would be at about the elevation of the climbers feet, approximately 18-24 inches to the right of the continuation of the right facing corner. One can see where the face angle changes just to the right of where the big roof ends. There is a little micro-roof above the black wear-marks on the rock...just to the right of that, in my mind, would be the best place to clip a draw to keep the rope away from the edge. A single bolt with a quick-linked perma-draw would probably get the point across plainly enough. Here's another shot (with Ben Folsom climbing it?) where a couple of the rope grooves are just barely visible in the upper right corner of the frame: [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/photos/assets/6/48976-largest_68731.jpg[/image] The upper 1/3 of the climb, though the camera's tilted to make it look less steep than it is, one can clearly see the anchors: [image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/photos/assets/6/6756-largest_78765.jpg[/image] Do the pictures help? The pictures help, why not put the bolt a bit higher and to the right, I think if you put it at the climbers feet, it would be too low and not keep it off the lip. I also think that it would be unlikely to be clipped at that height. I think if it was at the level of the roof and to the right that people would clip it for the protection it offered not realizing that it was protecting the rock. If it's a bomber bolt I can't see why most people wouldn't clip it.
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Nov 14, 2007, 11:41 PM
Post #11 of 55
(5817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
Although your concerns about protecting the route are valid, you must also acknowledge that whenever you place a bolt on a route, it changes the character of the route. Now, if somehow (in other situation) you could place a bolt that is out of reach of the leading climber and can only be clipped while lowering to protect the rock, then one could argue that the additional bolt is simply the extension of the anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 1:17 AM
Post #12 of 55
(5750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
snowey wrote: Although your concerns about protecting the route are valid, you must also acknowledge that whenever you place a bolt on a route, it changes the character of the route. I am free to acknowledge this, and willingly do. The question becomes: how much are trad-tards (i'm one) willing to compromise in pursuit of preserving a limited resource?
snowey wrote: Now, if somehow (in other situation) you could place a bolt that is out of reach of the leading climber and can only be clipped while lowering to protect the rock, <snip> That's where the problem would come in, you see. When the leader is being lowered is when the rope abrasion begins to cut grooves into the roof edge, so by then it is too late. Additionally, by the time the leader is being lowered, they're likely not thinking about how their rope is damaging the roof edge, so are then less likely to go to the extra work to pull the belayer-side rope away from the roof edge and clip it to a bolt already not within reach of the route itself. Here, I would imagine, is were people would look at the poor lost bolt while scratching their heads saying "WTF is that doing all the way over there?"
snowey wrote: then one could argue that the additional bolt is simply the extension of the anchor. Perhaps, but would it be a logical argument, as the anchor exists 15' above the roof edge to begin with. IDK... perhaps I'm not seeing your argument there. No, I think for such a bolt placement to be useful for the purpose of its intent, that being to protect the route more than protect the climber him/herself, it must be placed within reach of the leader, such that if a short draw were fixed to it the rope would be held away from the corner of the roof edge.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 15, 2007, 1:57 AM
Post #13 of 55
(5724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
I've long been a proponent of fixed belay stations in areas of high traffic. They spare vegetation, and decrease wares (fixed soft goods/rap stations) left on the cliffside. I think this instance is similar. If there's an impact that can be lessened with a bolt, then place the bolt if the FA is ok with it. Just be sure that, in the long run, the bolt is less impact than the alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Nov 15, 2007, 3:05 AM
Post #14 of 55
(5700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
stymingersfink wrote: That's where the problem would come in, you see. When the leader is being lowered is when the rope abrasion begins to cut grooves into the roof edge, so by then it is too late. What about rappelling instead?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Nov 15, 2007, 3:10 AM
Post #15 of 55
(5696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
ja1484 wrote: I've long been a proponent of fixed belay stations in areas of high traffic. They spare vegetation, and decrease wares (fixed soft goods/rap stations) left on the cliffside. I think this instance is similar. If there's an impact that can be lessened with a bolt, then place the bolt if the FA is ok with it. Just be sure that, in the long run, the bolt is less impact than the alternative. I'd agree with this, except to say that I don't think FA permission is necessary. I like to respect the FA, but here we're talking a resource being damaged, which I think is more important. But, I also think we are a long way off from any sort of agreement on this. Belays which are bolted solely to spare vegetation still gets chopped in the name of trad.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Nov 15, 2007, 3:24 AM
Post #16 of 55
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
The pics helped picture the damage and route in question tremendously, but your last post is what really cleared up your idea to me. I was thinking sort of along the lines of snowey, and I still argue that people in general won't have the forethought to clip that bolt while being lowered. However, if a leader clips a bolt on the way up, and the rock is protected by default...I could really support that. I still suspect this would only help the second because the third and fourth climbers up are going to be doing top rope most of the time without protecting the rock. It still seems like the decision rests on the local community, but I can definitely see the grey in this issue now. I suppose I am still leaning away from the bolt myself though.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 3:29 AM
Post #17 of 55
(5681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
yokese wrote: stymingersfink wrote: That's where the problem would come in, you see. When the leader is being lowered is when the rope abrasion begins to cut grooves into the roof edge, so by then it is too late. What about rappelling instead? IF the leader raps, it becomes nearly impossible to recover gear from the crack, or a second to TR the route without worrying about a fair sized swing across the slab if they come off.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 3:33 AM
Post #18 of 55
(5678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
caughtinside wrote: ja1484 wrote: I've long been a proponent of fixed belay stations in areas of high traffic. They spare vegetation, and decrease wares (fixed soft goods/rap stations) left on the cliffside. I think this instance is similar. If there's an impact that can be lessened with a bolt, then place the bolt if the FA is ok with it. Just be sure that, in the long run, the bolt is less impact than the alternative. I'd agree with this, except to say that I don't think FA permission is necessary. I like to respect the FA, but here we're talking a resource being damaged, which I think is more important. But, I also think we are a long way off from any sort of agreement on this. Belays which are bolted solely to spare vegetation still gets chopped in the name of trad. The belay is bolted and chained. There is no vegetation to speak of in the immediate area. I'm talking more about placing a single bolt below and outside a corner, in order that a rope will not damage the rock. As a side benefit, it would also help reduce rope wear a small amount.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Nov 15, 2007, 3:50 AM
Post #19 of 55
(5666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
stymingersfink wrote: caughtinside wrote: ja1484 wrote: I've long been a proponent of fixed belay stations in areas of high traffic. They spare vegetation, and decrease wares (fixed soft goods/rap stations) left on the cliffside. I think this instance is similar. If there's an impact that can be lessened with a bolt, then place the bolt if the FA is ok with it. Just be sure that, in the long run, the bolt is less impact than the alternative. I'd agree with this, except to say that I don't think FA permission is necessary. I like to respect the FA, but here we're talking a resource being damaged, which I think is more important. But, I also think we are a long way off from any sort of agreement on this. Belays which are bolted solely to spare vegetation still gets chopped in the name of trad. The belay is bolted and chained. There is no vegetation to speak of in the immediate area. I'm talking more about placing a single bolt below and outside a corner, in order that a rope will not damage the rock. As a side benefit, it would also help reduce rope wear a small amount. Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to compare an analogous situation.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 4:04 AM
Post #20 of 55
(5654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
I have added a small "X" to the location I'm suggesting would provide the most benefit to the rock itself: Does that help with understanding more what I'm suggesting? Would providing a fixed draw also help to get the point across to those who choose to climb the line? Something just short enough to keep the rope from wearing grooves in the corner. I think those bright enough to place their own gear intelligently would also come to realize quite quickly the intent behind the bolt+draw. The question is, would they also welcome and appreciate the intent?
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Nov 15, 2007, 4:16 AM
Post #21 of 55
(5640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
Much of the worst wear that I've seen on sandstone cracks has to do w/ people top roping them en masse with belays from below, lower offs, and massive hang dogging. Maybe we can just try to tread more lightly in areas that are getting beat up? Edit...I see the grooves now. Still, it will compromise the degree of topropedness of the hard pull around the roof, so I bet people would ignore it...just like they do when they don't run the rope away from the edge w/ long sling.
(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Nov 15, 2007, 4:25 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 4:39 AM
Post #22 of 55
(5626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
caughtinside wrote: stymingersfink wrote: caughtinside wrote: ja1484 wrote: I've long been a proponent of fixed belay stations in areas of high traffic. They spare vegetation, and decrease wares (fixed soft goods/rap stations) left on the cliffside. I think this instance is similar. If there's an impact that can be lessened with a bolt, then place the bolt if the FA is ok with it. Just be sure that, in the long run, the bolt is less impact than the alternative. I'd agree with this, except to say that I don't think FA permission is necessary. I like to respect the FA, but here we're talking a resource being damaged, which I think is more important. But, I also think we are a long way off from any sort of agreement on this. Belays which are bolted solely to spare vegetation still gets chopped in the name of trad. The belay is bolted and chained. There is no vegetation to speak of in the immediate area. I'm talking more about placing a single bolt below and outside a corner, in order that a rope will not damage the rock. As a side benefit, it would also help reduce rope wear a small amount. Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to compare an analogous situation. I think I was replying more to 1484's comment, as it appeared I wasn't being clear. I suppose if I were to drag you into this, I might as well reply to your point about the FA's consent. Provided the FA is still around and actually cares what happens, I would say yeah... get their input/consent. If you can't make a logical and convincing presentation to the FA for preserving something with their name attached to it, perhaps it's not all that logical or convincing. OTOH, for routes where the FA has traded their rope and harness for wings or pitchforks (so to say), it will should always come down to the consensus of the community of resource users. I'm pretty sure that's not the case here. ...then again, I've not gotten that far with the whole thing yet. Let's see what shakes loose, k?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 4:52 AM
Post #23 of 55
(5608 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
iamthewallress wrote: Much of the worst wear that I've seen on sandstone cracks has to do w/ people top roping them en masse with belays from below, lower offs, and massive hang dogging. Maybe we can just try to tread more lightly in areas that are getting beat up? As much as I might agree with you there, unfortunately we are part of the minority. I'm advocating here is the potential to make treading lightly something easier for those less-enlightened type folk to do in particular circumstances.
iamthewallress wrote: Edit...I see the grooves now. Still, it will compromise the degree of topropedness of the hard pull around the roof, so I bet people would ignore it...just like they do when they don't run the rope away from the edge w/ long sling. What do you mean here? Do you mean for the leader? For the second? I think much of the damage to the corner comes from the leader being lowered from the anchor. There's really no other way to avoid it, as letting the rope run through the crack itself will push one's gear back into the crack. The remainder (perhaps majority, in all probability) of the damage comes from TR'ing the route, or even bringing up a second from the anchors above (that never happens in this case).
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Nov 15, 2007, 1:42 PM
Post #24 of 55
(5558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
stymingersfink wrote: I have added a small "X" to the location I'm suggesting would provide the most benefit to the rock itself: [IMG]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/daryns77/7381-largest_78603copy.jpg[/IMG] Does that help with understanding more what I'm suggesting? Would providing a fixed draw also help to get the point across to those who choose to climb the line? Something just short enough to keep the rope from wearing grooves in the corner. I think those bright enough to place their own gear intelligently would also come to realize quite quickly the intent behind the bolt+draw. The question is, would they also welcome and appreciate the intent? I don't think a permanently attached draw would be clear enough. The only option that would make it clear to everyone (and this is what you need for full benefit) is to attach a dog tag to the hanger. People don't usually see a dog tag on a hanger, and they would likely stop to read the dog tag while lowering.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Nov 15, 2007, 1:45 PM
Post #25 of 55
(5554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
I'm thinking spray paint, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 1:55 PM
Post #26 of 55
(2462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
PTFTL Obviously many of you have about as much confidence in the ability of others to pick up what we're puttin down. Hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Nov 15, 2007, 2:08 PM
Post #27 of 55
(2454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
No, I think it's a good idea. I'm not bolt crazy my any strech, but doing something that has become commonplace for anchors and such in the name of protecting the rock is a good thing, imo. I think that most people will be able to put 2+2 together when they see the bolt and the drag lines above. When something gets chopped, it travels pretty quick through the community, and a trad area like the creek probably has a strong enough local base that such addition would move equally quickly through the masses...especially if it's discussed before hand. Are you seriously thinking about doing it yourself? Edited to add: I'm really opening myself up for a hailstorm, but what does PTFTL mean
(This post was edited by wanderlustmd on Nov 15, 2007, 2:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
doktor_g
Nov 15, 2007, 2:18 PM
Post #28 of 55
(2450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 152
|
No fixed draw or dangling gear. Wind would rock the draw back and forth and groove the rock even worse than the rope grooves in the first place. Sad as it is. Probably write something about it in the next guide book or suppliment and leave ol big red alone. Your heart's in the right spot though. G
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 15, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #29 of 55
(2433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Definitley a tough one. There has to be another solution other than a bolt. I need to keep thinking on it. How about an edge protector instead:
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Nov 15, 2007, 4:24 PM
Post #30 of 55
(2420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
Maybe, but how could you attach it to a vertical section of wall like that. And it would probably have a greater visual impact than a bold, depending on how close you could match the shade of the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 15, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #31 of 55
(2415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Yeah, it wasn't a completely serious solution because you would still have to find a way to attach it to the rock. And it would have to be a metal edge or bar that you would have to custom fit to the rock. No one is going to do that much work. Chair Rail anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Nov 15, 2007, 4:42 PM
Post #32 of 55
(2413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
If people want to avoid doing damage to the rock there are only two choices in this case. Either hang out at the top, belay up your leader, then both rappel, or have a directional bolt like you're sugesting. I actually like the idea of the bolt. Hanging belays suck and most people are probobly going to get lowered so they can just give their second a slingshot. I know I would. There is a chance that the bolt won't be clipped if it's in the middle of the crux but I think most experiances leaders would clip the rope in when they get lowered. Of course I could also see a leader clip it with an extendable draw while they're climbing which would negate the purpose of the bolt. I think what it comes down to is whether people find the gouges from lowering more offensive or a bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Nov 15, 2007, 6:21 PM
Post #33 of 55
(2391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
stymingersfink wrote: What do you mean here? Do you mean for the leader? For the second? I think much of the damage to the corner comes from the leader being lowered from the anchor. There's really no other way to avoid it, as letting the rope run through the crack itself will push one's gear back into the crack. The remainder (perhaps majority, in all probability) of the damage comes from TR'ing the route, or even bringing up a second from the anchors above (that never happens in this case). Lowering the leader, IMO, is a lazy habit that does a lot of unnecessary dammage in IC. It has its place, but I don't think its place should be on a route with a corner that's getting grooved to hell in a very access-sensitive area. Obvious new fixed anchors (i.e. a directional bolt w/ permenant draw) can be a problem too. In most places only climbers notice these things, but I don't think this is one of them...especially Way Rambo wall. I was under the impression that there have been specific requests from the Ranch folks to minimize the existance of such things and keep them as camo as possible otherwise. Admittedly, I'm not a local and don't know the details, so I just try to go as delicately as I can and encourage others to do the same since I want to keep visiting. Beyond lowering the leader, I was envisioning a fair amount of dammage to come from seconds dogging the bottom of the route w/ the rope running tightly around the corner (b/c slings weren't used to pop it out further and spread the rub around). I'd bet a fair number of folks that start up the bottom, don't make it around the roof and end up getting lowered on the rope that is tensioned around the corner. My original comment was getting at the idea that having the rope run out on the face makes for a bigger fall for both the leader and the secondwhen rounding the corner, and probably as such would end up getting ignored by the less conscientious anyway. Same groove...plus a bolt. With all of the hundreds of full-comfort cragging options right there, it only seems responsible and respectful to me to accept a lower-convience experience if we want to climb routes that are obviously getting dammaged by agressive TRing. IMO, the bolt on the face sort of sends a message that says, "every person should feel entitled to do their thing on every last bit of land here...price of admission is free." I know my ideas may be unrealistic, but I also feel like restrictions are probably going to end up enforced due to the mega-gym vibe and dammage that comes w/ it that seems to dominate there. I enjoy that vibe a lot of the time, but I also think that there are times when we need to remember that it's part wildnerss part next door to someone else's home (an a little bit part of their home too) and take in upon ourselves to show some restraint on the routes that can't handle so much impact.
(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Nov 15, 2007, 6:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
snowey
Nov 15, 2007, 6:33 PM
Post #34 of 55
(2376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 143
|
Indeed what I was suggesting isn't relevant for this particular route as the damage is coming from the other side of the rope (which is why i stated 'in other situations'). Just a thought. When I went climbing in Kalymnos in October, the guidebook mentions in some of the route descriptions that the climb should be cleaned by a person seconding the route and not by getting lowered. This is especially relevant on some of the overhanging routes with large, fragile tufas taht have the rope running right along them. For the most part, people headed the warnings and recommendations in the guidebook. Perhaps we can first try to increase awareness of the impact of lowering on certain routes ( I am thinking in particular of super crack).
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 15, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #35 of 55
(2372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Pictures make a big impact on people. Get some pictures of the damage and post them up. It's hard to ignore it when you see it.
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Nov 15, 2007, 6:51 PM
Post #36 of 55
(2368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
I bet the Ranch folks have internet access too. Maybe it's better to speak in general terms about how we can leave less trace.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Nov 15, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #37 of 55
(2352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Indian Creek roofs and bulges are almost all grooved from the rope. Especially popular ones. What's the solution? Well, there isn't one really. You could rap the route but then cleaning can be near impossible with the big roofs. You could belay from the top but that won't get done on single pitch routes, it just won't. You could add a bolt but that is really a slippery slope. It's definately weighted ropes (lowering) that causes the grooves. TR'ing isn't as much an issue until you lower. My suggestion would be for the leader to rap and clean as much as possible and attempt to clip a few directionals. The second would TR and clean the route then rap down. If a third person wants up, the second can attempt to place a directional or two, or the third person can suck it up and face a penalty swing (sometimes safe, sometimes not) ad infinitum. Every member raps. Slower but better on the rock. People won't do this either, IC has become the lowest common denominator of climbers at the popular crags. If the antics to preserve the rock get in the way of the stereo, guitar, dogs, baby, bongo, bong, or ganja, it's not going to be done. Maybe we should shut the place down?
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Nov 15, 2007, 7:28 PM
Post #38 of 55
(2349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
granite_grrl wrote: If people want to avoid doing damage to the rock there are only two choices in this case. There is at least a third choice: don't climb the route. Probably not a popular option though. I guess free soloing would work too...
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Nov 15, 2007, 7:40 PM
Post #39 of 55
(2345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
mojomonkey wrote: granite_grrl wrote: If people want to avoid doing damage to the rock there are only two choices in this case. There is at least a third choice: don't climb the route. Probably not a popular option though. I guess free soloing would work too... picky picky
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 8:55 PM
Post #40 of 55
(2314 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
bent_gate wrote: Definitley a tough one. There has to be another solution other than a bolt. I need to keep thinking on it. How about an edge protector instead: [image]http://www.modulor.de/shop/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/0/d/dza_ic.jpg[/image] Well, honestly I'd thought of that one, though after discussing it with my friend we decided to discard that idea as too... unsightly? cumbersome?
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 15, 2007, 9:14 PM
Post #41 of 55
(2307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
stymingersfink wrote: bent_gate wrote: Definitley a tough one. There has to be another solution other than a bolt. I need to keep thinking on it. How about an edge protector instead: [image]http://www.bagfittings.com.hk/BA00091.jpg[/image][image]http://www.modulor.de/shop/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/0/d/dza_ic.jpg[/image] Well, honestly I'd thought of that one, though after discussing it with my friend we decided to discard that idea as too... unsightly? cumbersome? But imagine the luxurious look of a rich mohogany chair rail with a fine lustrous finish! Add some class to the crick!
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Nov 15, 2007, 9:18 PM
Post #42 of 55
(2305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
stymingersfink wrote: bent_gate wrote: Definitley a tough one. There has to be another solution other than a bolt. I need to keep thinking on it. How about an edge protector instead: [image]http://www.bagfittings.com.hk/BA00091.jpg[/image][image]http://www.modulor.de/shop/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/0/d/dza_ic.jpg[/image] Well, honestly I'd thought of that one, though after discussing it with my friend we decided to discard that idea as too... unsightly? cumbersome? Okay, I've never climbed at IC so if this is obviously stupid from an informed point of view, oh fucking well... You could chop the current anchor and install a replacement out of TR range and then an intermediate anchor to rap to the ground. Of course the intermediate would have to be below the overhang. This has big impacts and some shortcomings, but it's an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 9:27 PM
Post #43 of 55
(2297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
angry wrote: Indian Creek roofs and bulges are almost all grooved from the rope. Especially popular ones. What's the solution? Well, there isn't one really. Well, as someone was asking earlier in the thread... "Sty, are YOU going to place the bolt?" No, not at this point. In the future, maybe. My point was, it is one of many routes in that area showing the effects of too much misplaced affection. If people are aware of a problem developing in the bud, wouldn't it be more responsible to mitigate the problem as much as possible before they grow into a full-fledged boat-rocking issues? Those who consider themselves "locals" should consider getting together and discussing the problem and possible solutions. Though I'm a long ways off from considering myself an "IC local", on my one visit there several years back I noticed the same problem another friend did years later, which tells me it's not going un-noticed. What is going on, however, is that it's not being acted upon. Since there is no real solution to the problem as a whole, I was looking for possible compromises. IC is an area with sensitive access issues, and there's really no point in aggravating those issues, else we end up with a permit system similar to the Grand Canyon. That'd be pretty well fucked up too, wouldn't it?
angry wrote: Maybe we should shut the place down? That's not a compromise either, but could very well end up being the final result, if enough issues arise without being pro-actively dealt with to the satisfaction of the adjacent landowner, whose property (it has been noted) is the access point to one of the greatest sandstone crags in the world. If nothing else, perhaps the Ranch representative should be included in some of the discussions (if they're not already). By dealing with the issues pro-actively, it projects beyond those involved that we as climbers are serious about taking care of one of our most treasured resources, rather than just rapists and pillagers with a DGAF attitude. There's already too much of that in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 9:35 PM
Post #44 of 55
(2293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
iamthewallress wrote: it's better to speak in general terms about how we can leave less trace. This is also what I'm saying in a way. Generally, when someone puts up a new route in any sensitive area, they should be aware of any future issues which might arise due to projected traffic, and be proactive about mitigating those issues. In some areas, people might develop a crag, do a bunch of work on trails to forestall erosion issues, draw up a good topo with information about concerns to be aware of, then start inviting people to check out their latest handiwork with the best information they are able to provide. In other areas, people might just put a few things up, tell their friends about it, and eventually the grapevine produces a bountiful harvest of people generally fucking things up. One way, IMHO, might be better than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 9:55 PM
Post #45 of 55
(2287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
shockabuku wrote: Okay, I've never climbed at IC so if this is obviously stupid from an informed point of view, oh fucking well... You could chop the current anchor and install a replacement out of TR range and then an intermediate anchor to rap to the ground. Of course the intermediate would have to be below the overhang. This has big impacts and some shortcomings, but it's an idea. I've already discarded that potential solution, since in thinking about it, would it really solve the problem? I think not, for as someone has mentioned, some of the damage comes from lowering a second who just can't make it up the route. Too, it would just mean someone ties two ropes together to facilitate TR'ing the thing. Following your line of thought, just chopping the anchors and moving them down to the slab at the right of the roof corner would do far more to change the character of the route than placing a single bolt there. It would, however, cut down on the wear of the rope against the roof edge. No, short of closing the route (or soloing the thing, which isn't really realistic in my book), the only solution is to find a way to keep the rope from wearing against the corner. I suppose one might place a cam well up into the crack for a downward pull, clip the rope, then place another one for an upward pull closer to the edge of the crack, while routing the rope in the crack behind the roof. This would protect against a fall, while also preventing the rope from pushing that cam farther than cleanable into the crack. Obviously, however, people are just not doing that. Because it's too much trouble while on lead, not really feasible, or because they just don't care... IDK. So far, a well placed bolt below and outside the corner is the best thing I've come up with, though I like the mahogany rail idea too (just not as feasible).
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Nov 15, 2007, 10:03 PM
Post #46 of 55
(2281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
How about fixing a cam way up inside the crack with a long runner/cable/chain? Yeah, it changes the nature of the route, but I think you can't really avoid that with any type of hardware solution. A behavioral solution is a definite long term project with iffy results. At least a fixed cam way up in the crack would offer a fairly low visual profile and I wouldn't think would incur much additional damage to the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 15, 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #47 of 55
(2271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
shockabuku wrote: How about fixing a cam way up inside the crack with a long runner/cable/chain? Yeah, it changes the nature of the route, but I think you can't really avoid that with any type of hardware solution. A behavioral solution is a definite long term project with iffy results. At least a fixed cam way up in the crack would offer a fairly low visual profile and I wouldn't think would incur much additional damage to the rock. Admittedly, I've not yet taken the opportunity to examine the crack close-up, but there may well be several fixed cams in that crack already. Did you look at the picture of the top 1/3 of the route? Once the corner of the roof is turned, the leader has two choices for routing the rope:
1) allow it to thread itself into the crack, where it will push the cam you've just placed as far back into the crack as the cam lobes will allow, potentially making the cam un-retrievable. 2)flip it up over the edge of the roof so it rubs on the roof edge, but won't get caught in the crack itself. It's not a downward fall for the leader I'm suggesting we "protect", rather it is a placement to protect the rock itself from wear of the rope. Long term? Sure, the feel of the route will be changed significantly when the monster roof falls off. Until then though, what can we do to prevent more visible damage to the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Nov 15, 2007, 10:26 PM
Post #48 of 55
(2266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I think I understand that the issue with the leader not wanting to place the rope in the crack is that he/she may lose his/her gear. But if the gear is already fixed in the crack with a long runner on it to clip, you can then run the rope in the crack without risk of losing your own gear and have alleviated the problem of the rope running over the edge of the overhang. No?
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 23, 2007, 3:47 PM
Post #49 of 55
(2181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
shockabuku wrote: I think I understand that the issue with the leader not wanting to place the rope in the crack is that he/she may lose his/her gear. But if the gear is already fixed in the crack with a long runner on it to clip, you can then run the rope in the crack without risk of losing your own gear and have alleviated the problem of the rope running over the edge of the overhang. No? I think in this case (unless steps were taken to protect it) the rope would do the same damage to the sling as it is to the rock. In some respects it would be irresponsible to place fixed gear that people would clip to protect a fall that could easily become damaged and fail when fallen on. People clip rotten rap slings and die because of it all the time and the cam being pushed way up in the crack would make it both hard to inspect and difficult to replace the sling on when it becomes damaged. Also, I will often clip fixed gear but always back it up which would negate the usefulness of the fixed cam. It sounds to me like the bolt is the best solution but I dont know about the fixed draw, that may be a bit much.
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Dec 3, 2007, 10:33 PM
Post #50 of 55
(2102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
Well, you could place the bolt there, but I'd go with a chain instead of a draw, because the webbing will get weathered and potentially unsafe (people might fall on it, even if it's just there to re-route the rope) OR maybe you can place a bolt higher up the route, right beside the crack, with a long cable that goes inside the crack, and exits the crack right at the roof where it can be clipped with a carabiner. Sure, it would alter the character of the route more, but then you can virtually guarantee that the leader doesn't have to go out of his way to clip. the bolt, and the rope can go as far into the crack as possible without becoming costly.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Dec 3, 2007, 11:07 PM
Post #51 of 55
(715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
It's a noble idea, probably unique to desert sandstone. My only concern is the placement. It looks to me (and I've never tried it), like I'd want to put my feet on or around that "X" as I came around the end of the roof. It could really spoil things if you take away a potential smear with a bolt placement. Be careful about that.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Dec 4, 2007, 1:05 AM
Post #52 of 55
(696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
onceahardman wrote: It's a noble idea, probably unique to desert sandstone. My only concern is the placement. It looks to me (and I've never tried it), like I'd want to put my feet on or around that "X" as I came around the end of the roof. It could really spoil things if you take away a potential smear with a bolt placement. Be careful about that. agreed. One would need to be quite familiar with a route, such that a bolt placed with the intent to preserve the quality of the rock would not interfere with climbing the route, nor would it detract from the aesthetics of the route in question.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Dec 4, 2007, 1:10 AM
Post #53 of 55
(696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
onceahardman wrote: It's a noble idea, probably unique to desert sandstone. My only concern is the placement. It looks to me (and I've never tried it), like I'd want to put my feet on or around that "X" as I came around the end of the roof. It could really spoil things if you take away a potential smear with a bolt placement. Be careful about that. for what it's worth, the key foot after doing the roof traverse is a semi-wobbly block down and to the right. everyone uses it, but I'm amazed that it has not broken off yet. As for the original gist of this thread, I'm not sure about bolting to preserve this route. In a perfect world, nobody would toprope it; just leaders and seconds would climb it, and individual ethics would dictate that you don't do the route unless you are pretty sure you won't fall and rub the rope over the rock. yeah right. the bottom line is that too many people are climbing at the creek, and the whole place is being worn down. this is sad, but reality.
|
|
|
|
|
stickyfingerz
Dec 4, 2007, 2:15 AM
Post #54 of 55
(671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 110
|
FYI, Read here about a similar situation where a 2-bolt rap anchor was installed at Cathedral Ledge in order to save an abused tree and prevent cliff erosion. http://www.neclimbs.com/...dex.php?topic=1423.0 Despite appearing to have the endorsement of the community, the new anchor was chopped in less than a week. I'm not familiar with the local ethics of the Creek, but remember that it only takes one motivated individual with a crowbar to turn your rock saving bolt into a worse situation than you had to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Dec 4, 2007, 2:29 AM
Post #55 of 55
(664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
stickyfingerz wrote: Despite appearing to have the endorsement of the community, the new anchor was chopped in less than a week. I'm not familiar with the local ethics of the Creek, but remember that it only takes one motivated individual with a crowbar to turn your rock saving bolt into a worse situation than you had to begin with. Precisely why I chose to begin a discussion about the ethic, or lack thereof. Though I intended it less for retro-bolters (as doing so is rarely anything less than controversial), more to provoke some forethought for FAist's currently putting up routes in/on delicate/fragile eco-systems. The only way the route in the example could be retro-bolted with a minimum of controversy, is if the FA went back and performed a little work in the interest of maintenance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|