|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 4:22 PM
Post #26 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i agree. it gets repeated too much. as does the "if it can be lead trad, you can chop the bolts".
both are correct and wrong. you see, you cant give a general answer to the question, you can jsut discuss the possible situations.
and i was just expressing an opinion that if the routes FA was made vial bolt protection and if the genera area ethics "allow" sport climbs, but it could be lead trad, you have no bussines removing those bolts. just like if the route was lead trad, you have no bussines adding bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 13, 2004, 5:03 PM
Post #27 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: you see, ppl like you (and the ones who retrobolt) are the ones who start bolt wars that in the end dont result in anything good.
No, this is a common and highly convienent misconception - that removing bad bolts creates bolt wars. Nothing but the inappropriate placement of bolts creates bolt wars - don't place inappropriate bolts and there won't be bolt wars. Again, bolt wars can only be started by bolters acting in way that is perceived by some [motivated] party as "injurious or inappropriate" to the traditional/prevailing ethics and/or aesthetics of an area, route, or line.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 5:07 PM
Post #28 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
then what if the prevailing ethics is to bolt???
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Oct 13, 2004, 5:41 PM
Post #29 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
It seams that when it comes to bolting everyone tends to debate where to bolt and never what to bolt with. On an ethical stand point if you are going to bolt something it’s unethical to use lousy bolts. I have observed in popular climbing areas such as Squamish that Non stainless steal bolts are still being used. In a climbing area out side of my home town of Vernon BC about 2/3rds of all bolts are cheap 20cents a piece three quarter non stainless expansion bolts. Most where put up in the mid 1990s and now here we are 10 years later looking at having to replace about 400 rusting bolts!!! LAME! When it comes to bolts, nothing is permanent. Today’s climbing community is looking at having to replace all the rusted junk placed in the 60's and 70's. Forty years from now all the millions bolts on the millions of sport climbs are going to have to replaced by future generations. I believe that climbers of the future will be as cheap as they are today and they will chose to replace what is only necessary. So the crap sport routs will never be rebolted and all those trad climbs turned sport climbs will be climbed on gear. Because who wants to clip some rusted cracked piece of junk, when your could place a bomber nut.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 13, 2004, 5:58 PM
Post #30 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: then what if the prevailing ethics is to bolt???
Then I would presume no bolt war would be started over bolts placed appropriate to the norm. That, however, does not mean that sport climbers simply by sheer numbers alone should be able to hijack the ethics of an area. Again, if bolts are thoughtfully placed with respect for the rock, pro, and history of the area I can't see a bolt war starting.
But this type of discussion usually winds its way around to being about wanting to climb solely on bolts without the use of any trad gear regardless of the presence of trad placements and / or being guaranteed a "safe" (gym-like) climb. I don't believe many if any trad climbers are going to be alright with this being considered an acceptable use.
Again, I believe such a stance in essence says you want to redefine climbing as simply a replication of your safe gym "clipping" experience outside at any expense to the rock and are unwilling or unable to [learn] place pro in order to reduce your impact on the rock.
To that I have to say take on a little responsibility and learn to lead with pro for the rock's sake, you might actually enjoy it...
|
|
|
|
|
ax
Oct 13, 2004, 6:04 PM
Post #31 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 155
|
I say BOLT IT...
In 20 years it'll be dynamited and there'll be a strip mall or a freeway in it's place. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 13, 2004, 6:12 PM
Post #32 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
Even more strict!
If ic can be soloed...chop the bolts!
If it can be free climbed..chop the aid bolts!
UUPS! ALl Yosemite AID routes...? Gone.
Priceless.
:twisted:
In reply to: i agree. it gets repeated too much. as does the "if it can be lead trad, you can chop the bolts". both are correct and wrong. you see, you cant give a general answer to the question, you can jsut discuss the possible situations. and i was just expressing an opinion that if the routes FA was made vial bolt protection and if the genera area ethics "allow" sport climbs, but it could be lead trad, you have no bussines removing those bolts. just like if the route was lead trad, you have no bussines adding bolts. |
|
|
|
|
zombikev
Oct 13, 2004, 6:18 PM
Post #33 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2003
Posts: 7
|
I think bolting is a very delicate subject. On one hand you have traditional climbing and on the other you have a security blanket. I climb both. I find myself completely sketched out on 5.6 trad routes 400 feet above ground and complete satisfied when i complete a route. Sport tends to make me want to push the limits. They are 2 totally differnet worlds. I hate seeing people yelling "TAKE" on sport routes. The hangdog fests are just over the edge for my sake. Bolt, take, bolt, take, is not climbing. I also think Retro-Bolting has taken over and you can see wonderful trad lines killed by the bolts that exist next to them. I feel that if a route can be traditionally lead bolts should not touch the route. On the other hand, routes that can not be normally climbed unless bolts are placed are wonderful. It gives an opertunity to climb something that might not have been able to be protected other wise.
I climb at Rumney A LOT, but find it sometimes way over protected. I think bolting should occur only in the places it needs to be, not ever 10 feet. Bolts should be place to protect the hard moves, not to just simply bolt something. There are way too many routes that have way too many bolts for the route, but the ethics behind the bolters are "what if this is at the limit for someone.", which would justify all the bolts. The bolting debate and the ethics surrounding bolting will go on forever, I just hope that the bolter of these routes takes into consideration what other people are going to think before they just bolt something.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 13, 2004, 10:49 PM
Post #34 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Sport tends to make me want to push the limits.
In reply to: I hate seeing people yelling "TAKE" on sport routes. The hangdog fests are just over the edge for my sake. Bolt, take, bolt, take, is not climbing.
These two comments reveal a bit of a disconnect.
To efficiently push your limits, hangdogging is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
dm
Oct 14, 2004, 5:56 AM
Post #35 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 90
|
In reply to: Not every stretch of rock needs a route on it. Rob
out of what has been said in this thread, these are truly profound and important words.
To me, the whole issue, to bolt or not to bolt, is really contrived. Trad climbers feel superior because they only bolt when "needed". But who "needs" the bolts, the rock? Of course not. The trad climbers do. Just the way sport climbers "need" to bolt their routes. If you can't protect the climb, why not just leave it alone?!!! This does not seem to be an option to the both sides of the argument, they've got to climb it! Neither sport nor trad climbers contest our "right" to climb the rock. Let's face it, both trad and sport climbers climb to please their egos. They don't climb to preserve the rock, or they wouldn't be climbing it at all. Don't tell me about minimum impact - the minimum impact is no impact at all. The issue we're dealing with is not ethical. We chose to damage the rock because we want to climb it. Nobody forced us to. We won't die if we don't. Whether it's an "ethical" thing or not to use the rock for our selfish purposes - I don't know, but I know we could all stay at home and there would be no bolts issue and the rock would be preserved in its pristine form. We are not really debating about good vs. bad. We are arguing about bad vs. worse.
Don't get me wrong, I climb bolted routes. I just think that that bolting is not an "ethical" issue. Protecting the rock from climbers(whether sport or trad, whether they are the first to climb it or not) who use it for their own selfish purposes might be an ethical issue but I haven't heard of many climbers willing to tackle that. But how many bolts to place on a climb is just a matter of rules of the game that you choose you play.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 14, 2004, 2:28 PM
Post #36 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: To me, the whole issue, to bolt or not to bolt, is really contrived
It is not a contrived issue, it is a fundamental question of impact.
In reply to: Trad climbers feel superior because they only bolt when "needed".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with how anyone feels, and in fact, this statement is a bit peculiar in that it posits this is somehow an internal, subjective emotional issue versus a very objective and real issue of metal on rock. The issue certainly evokes strong emotions, but they are not the issue - inappropriate bolting is.
In reply to: But who "needs" the bolts, the rock? Of course not. The trad climbers do. Just the way sport climbers "need" to bolt their routes.
Another somewhat pecular statement if this is what you really intended to say. The trad climbers don't need bolts by and large - that's the whole point. Do trad clmbers sometimes (rarely) resort to fixed pro? Some do, most don't, but the whole point of trad climbing is to minimize one's impact.
In reply to: Let's face it, both trad and sport climbers climb to please their egos. They don't climb to preserve the rock, or they wouldn't be climbing it at all. Don't tell me about minimum impact - the minimum impact is no impact at all. The issue we're dealing with is not ethical. We chose to damage the rock because we want to climb it. Nobody forced us to. We won't die if we don't. Whether it's an "ethical" thing or not to use the rock for our selfish purposes - I don't know, but I know we could all stay at home and there would be no bolts issue and the rock would be preserved in its pristine form. We are not really debating about good vs. bad. We are arguing about bad vs. worse.
Hmmm, where to start... again, there seems to be a recurring theme in your comments of being focused on human emotions as though they were the actual issue as opposed to the very real impact our decisions have on the rock. No one is arguing staying home, we are arguing impact once we get off the couch. Terms like "minimum impact" and "leave no trace" are very real ways for humans can choose to operate in the world - climbing and otherwise. Impact, bolting (and chalk use for that matter) are certainly all valid ethical issues relative to climbing. I done lots of first ascents with no fixed pro of any kind, no chalk, and no cleaning, i.e. we left no trace. In fact, some of those FA's were climbed 10 years later and rap bolted (6 bolts in 50' in one case) by people who then claimed the FA (and uprated them) - they were able to have that experience because my partner and I chose to climb in a clean, bold style and had better pro skills that we worked hard to acquire.
In reply to: Don't get me wrong, I climb bolted routes. I just think that that bolting is not an "ethical" issue. Protecting the rock from climbers(whether sport or trad, whether they are the first to climb it or not) who use it for their own selfish purposes might be an ethical issue but I haven't heard of many climbers willing to tackle that. But how many bolts to place on a climb is just a matter of rules of the game that you choose you play.
Yet again, the theme/tone is almost Christian as in "It only all exists to provide us with moral dilemnas and to entertain us (and God)." But bolting is about impact and every decision we make related to impact has a corresponding result in the real world - the thinking, debate, and emotions revolving around those decisions represent the ethical context we each have to deal with. I happen to feel every bolt is an a consumer act and that a "billion bolts sold" represents a mass cosumer addiction and are central to the real debate which is not bolting - it's risk/safety.
Are there bold bolted routes, certainly, and most are on rock incapable of being protected trad. They are bold because someone with some spirit and spine made a conscious decision to leave some "sport" in those sport routes. But they are the exception these days, not the rule. Many rocks around the world have been been and are being grid bolted to replicate the gym experience of "safe" climbing. The real question here is more about a "logical and natural right" to a "safe" climbing experience [for]. Stripping climbing of risk is what the debate at it's core is really all about - not the bolts - they are only a symptom.
|
|
|
|
|
crag
Oct 14, 2004, 2:44 PM
Post #37 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 623
|
Help!
What should I do, I like to aid, alpine, boulder, ice, sport, solo & trad climb? I feel that they are all connected. Where should my ethics fall - to bolt or not to bolt? Should I really care? (rehtorically speaking)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 14, 2004, 2:48 PM
Post #38 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
That's the nice thing about Ice - you can get up there and wail the shit out of it without impact beyond what the next person experiences - it's all gone by summer. There is a certain freedom in ice for a trad climber that way. But relative to this conversation, the next time you're up on vertical ice by all means feel free to bolt it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 14, 2004, 3:14 PM
Post #40 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Do trad clmbers sometimes (rarely) resort to fixed pro? Some do, most don't, but the whole point of trad climbing is to minimize one's impact.
Can you say "piton"?
Trad has nothing to do with impact.
In reply to: Are there bold bolted routes, certainly, and most are on rock incapable of being protected trad. They are bold because someone with some spirit and spine made a conscious decision to leave some "sport" in those sport routes.
Sorry, but those "bold bolted routes" aren't sport routes.
|
|
|
|
|
dm
Oct 14, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #41 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 90
|
Healyje, my personal feelings about bolting and minimum impact climbing, my personal "ethics" (though I still don't like using this word in this context) are very similar to yours. I respect and admire bold trad climbers like yourself. However I was playing devil's advocate: Fundamentally, justification of "limited bolting" is just as shaky as grid bolting.
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Oct 14, 2004, 3:46 PM
Post #42 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
Bolts are NEVER acceptable, if there is a solid gear placement right next to it. It's funny how climbers believe that LNT doesn't fully apply to them sometimes. Granted some bolts are definitely needed, I'm not arguing that. But if you can avoid it, you should do so.
:?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 14, 2004, 3:51 PM
Post #43 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: then what if the prevailing ethics is to bolt??? Then I would presume no bolt war would be started over bolts placed appropriate to the norm. That, however, does not mean that sport climbers simply by sheer numbers alone should be able to hijack the ethics of an area. Again, if bolts are thoughtfully placed with respect for the rock, pro, and history of the area I can't see a bolt war starting. But this type of discussion usually winds its way around to being about wanting to climb solely on bolts without the use of any trad gear regardless of the presence of trad placements and / or being guaranteed a "safe" (gym-like) climb. I don't believe many if any trad climbers are going to be alright with this being considered an acceptable use. Again, I believe such a stance in essence says you want to redefine climbing as simply a replication of your safe gym "clipping" experience outside at any expense to the rock and are unwilling or unable to [learn] place pro in order to reduce your impact on the rock. To that I have to say take on a little responsibility and learn to lead with pro for the rock's sake, you might actually enjoy it...
ugh, were really arguing about a small deal, but here goes...
also, trad climbers shouldnt be able to hijack the ethics of the area. so if the area is a sport climbing one, no chopchop. i already said that in a trad are chopchop is usually ok.
some people just prefer bolts (i dont say i do, id love to try trad, im sure id love it, but i kinda cant afford the $$$ for geat and time to learn right now).
ayway, what im saying is that bolts have their place, if you like it or not. not in all areas, ot on all routes, but just because the route can be climbed on trad gear, that doesnt mean the bolts are ok to be chopped. like when bolting, many things need to be taking into accout when chopping.
and i agree with DM (btw, did you know that you have the same name as a chain of german (or austrian) cosmetics stores???).
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 14, 2004, 3:56 PM
Post #44 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Yes, I can say "piton" and have placed less than 10 in thirty years of FA's. I've also only placed bolts in three rap points in the same period, never as pro on a route. Many if not most trad climbers have never placed a pin or a bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Oct 14, 2004, 3:57 PM
Post #45 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Fundamentally, justification of "limited bolting" is just as shaky as grid bolting. |
|
|
|
|
treyfrancisclimbs
Oct 14, 2004, 5:24 PM
Post #46 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2004
Posts: 170
|
just look at what sonnie trotter did on monkey face. there were bolts there and he just skipped them. he managed to climb the whole route placing gear and the bolts right next to him never even once jumped out and bit him on the a$$ or shamed him into clipping them. nobody is going to force you to clip bolts on a route that is leadable on gear.
|
|
|
|
|
crag
Oct 14, 2004, 5:35 PM
Post #47 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 623
|
In reply to: But relative to this conversation, the next time you're up on vertical ice by all means feel free to bolt it...
Like they've done in Hyalite Caynon. The Mix Masters are changing the face of what is consider a mixed route almost everytime a leashless climber heads out - a scratching & bolting they will go.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Oct 14, 2004, 5:36 PM
Post #48 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:wink:
|
|
|
|
|
treyfrancisclimbs
Oct 14, 2004, 5:54 PM
Post #49 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2004
Posts: 170
|
gosh, i don't remember saying anything about cracks and faces with bolts spaced 3 feet apart. and i really didn't mention anything about wussing out and clipping a bolt if you just can't handle the "fear factor." i was kind of meaning more along the lines of if you don't like the bolts, don't use them. if it isn't your route you have no say as to whether or not the bolts should be put in or chopped. if you are into climbing for the intensity and fear factor maybe you should just free solo everything. maybe you should tear the doors off your vehicle and cut out your seatbelts and cut your brake lines too. maybe you should do that to everyone else you think should be driving for the fear factor and intensity
|
|
|
|
|
dm
Oct 14, 2004, 5:59 PM
Post #50 of 67
(8706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 90
|
In reply to: In reply to: Fundamentally, justification of "limited bolting" is just as shaky as grid bolting. How "fundamentally" are you getting here ... like the sun's gonna go nova in 10 billion years? Back to actual rock climbing, there is a great difference between one bolt and one thousand. That difference matters to every climber on the rock. Some climbers want lots of bolts, some want fewer -- a matter of degree, more often than absolutes.
Ok, let's talk about actual climbing then. You can chose to solo slabs or not to climb them at all. Just because the rock is there it doesn't mean it's got to be climbed. You can stick to climbing cracks. This way you will stick to zero-bolt "ethics". How many trad climbers out there follow this ethics? I'm sure there are some. At least this is more consistent than demanding that some bolts can be placed if "needed". They are only needed because we think we "need" to climb this rock. This is a very egotistic approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
