|
|
|
|
kanouse16
Sep 28, 2004, 3:36 PM
Post #1 of 38
(11523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 3
|
1. You can sign in at the yearly wavier at the Hapatcong State Park Office. Other State Park Offices in NJ are begnning the wavier release process. Feel free to inquire at your local office. Some are up to speed as of October 1. 2004 others are not.
2. Adopt a Crag: Site map survey underweigh for placement of a site kiosk by the NJ State Park Folks. Likewise to improve off-road parking.
3. Bolting Mortoritum (this means no bolts)
Climbers should be aware that a no-bolting policy is in place at Allamuchy. Bolts that are found will be removed.
The reasons for this is that what is being avoided is the over-use of bolts at the climbing site, that bolts are not used for anchor placements and that bolts aren't used beyond the 2 that already found on site.
The no-bolt issue is being done because of the over use of bolts at Forest Lake and likewise down in the Musconetcong Gorge (where some ho-ho placed bolts on trad bouldering problems). Also bolts are now found at the transist area crack. Likewise once folks start bolting it is not a far step to other things such as chipping and or glueing of holds. This has occured in the Sourland Bouldering Area. This actions are wrong and this not France. This is NJ. The climbing resource is fragile, likewise maintaining access to climbing areas.
If folks do not like the no bolt policy feel free to send me a note.
climbnj@climbnj.com
otherwise bolts that are found will be removed.
John Anderson
Access NJ
www.climbnj.com
ps: the site at Allamuchy swallows gear for top-ropes and leads, if your not a climber you should not be there placing bolts,. nj is a tradional climbing area.
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
May 26, 2007, 5:09 PM
Post #2 of 38
(10783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
John,
Let's be clear about what we're talking about here regarding Allamuchy: No one has bolted any sport routes or indicated interest in doing that. Someone attempted to install a reliable two-bolt anchor for toproping. You CAN construct TR anchors in the Main Face area--but it is far from easy. I've done it--and it takes a good amount of gear, two cordelettes, and long static line to do it anywhere near well. Even then, you've got your rope rubbing the rock when you lower the climber. The few trees that remain in the vicinity that might be used are already trashed and becoming un-reliable. I believe that good management of that climbing resource would include the installation of a few two-bolt anchors to provide for safe toproping. Such fixed anchors are found all over our National Parks, many state parks--and at The Gunks--the East's bastion of Trad climbing. If we actually want people to use NJ's climbing resources and be safe LIMITED installation of some fixed anchors is reasonable. I would never advocate the installation of bolts next to protectable cracks--but there is nothing wrong with making a climbing resource safe by the placement of a few, inconspicuous bolts. I'm a trad climber from about twenty years back. And I still consider trad climbing to be the "grand game". But I've also enjoyed clipping bolts on sport routes. I only WISH NJ had a sport area like Rumney for us to enjoy! The "bolting wars" are over. The climbing world has moved on. If someone is willing to donate the time and material to install a few two-bolt anchors--with NJ State Parks Dept. approval--why not move forward? This is NOT trashing NJ's climbing resources! It is proper management of them.
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
saphius
May 26, 2007, 7:03 PM
Post #3 of 38
(10765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 50
|
Considering this: "Last Logon: Sep 2, 2005, 7:36 AM"
He might not be responding anytime soon :)
My instructor and I usually build our anchors out of long, long segments of webbing as per this picture: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...he_Anchor_88182.html
One of those two red packs is filled with webbing of all sizes.
(This post was edited by saphius on May 26, 2007, 7:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roclimb
May 26, 2007, 10:30 PM
Post #4 of 38
(10749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 452
|
What does the statement "NJ is a traditional climbing area" mean?
In my humble opinion, I feel that pretty much halts the progress of high-end lead climbing.
I know John has done many great things fo rthe state of NJ but I appologetically do not agree with this statement.
I implemented an anchor policy that was adopted by the deleware water gap a few years ago. The Water Gap approves fixed anchors for rapelling purposes due to the extreme danger some fo the rap stations in the park.
I think the Allamuchy thing was a similar consideration. I don't live in NJ and can't speak for everyone but from the many e-mails I recieved it seemed there was a concensus that feel an anchor there is needed.
Once again I know John has done many great things and he is a super nice guy, I just disagree with the a NJ bolt-ban.
Respectfully
~Rob Holzman
P.S. I feel the climbing community should pool a large consensus on fixed anchors in the state of NJ..again just my humble opinion.
(This post was edited by roclimb on May 26, 2007, 10:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jia
May 29, 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #5 of 38
(10704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
Thats right I may not respond anytime soon.
Comes from being outdoors and doing on-site trail and site work.
There are plenty of arguements on the issue and I for one would only hope that this translates to better participation of activism in climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
jia
May 29, 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #6 of 38
(10702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
Not really, if one needs a bolt do pull a lead then perhaps one is not physically and mentally ready for that level of climbing.
As an example look at the boulder problems or climbing areas in NJ that have been bolted. Climbs and problems that were done before someone came through and bolted them.
Trad climbing is one climbs at the utmost physical and mental level of ones limits. By placing a bolt on a climb you lower the rock to your level rather then reaching to the level of the rock.
High-end lead climbing in NJ is limited to a few specific areas. Climbing stewardship in those areas has not been steller.
ANJ did not make the bolting ban, that has been placed by the NJ State Park Service. Does ANJ agree w/ such a ban. Yes.
The State Park Service is more then willing to discuss the issue and a meeting on climbing issues is slated to take place in short order.
|
|
|
|
|
jia
May 29, 2007, 12:36 PM
Post #7 of 38
(10699 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
heres the problem to that statement.
Bolts have been placed in NJ directly next to cracks that swallow gear.
Don't think for a single instance that if the issue was allowed NJ would be a friggin highway of bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
saphius
May 29, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #8 of 38
(10667 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 50
|
I think, instead of concentrating on putting bolts place, we should focus on opening up new locations and such. I just got my copy of Rock Climbing NJ and almost every single spot says, "Climbing Prohibited." Of course, it was published in 2000... but, how much have things changed?
|
|
|
|
|
jia
May 29, 2007, 4:16 PM
Post #9 of 38
(10653 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
frankly i would 110% agree.
cradle rock needs a united push.
as for other sites that are not found in the guide book things have indeed changed.
to climb on state land all one has to do is sign a yearly wavier. no biggie to a point. bouldering is fully legal in somerset county and inroads are being made in hunterdon.
sites where climbing is prohibited should never have been listed and work against access. when we say climbers are responsible they put the book down.
not all is lost as falcon is making noises about an unpdated version.
a nj climbers resource inventory put together for the state parks is available by sending me an email.
(ingvarja@cwenj.com)
its being polished up for the state parks so input is solicated and sought. needed are photos of nj climbing areas and or history.
hacklebarney is on the access list.
|
|
|
|
|
saphius
May 29, 2007, 5:12 PM
Post #10 of 38
(10636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 50
|
Would also be nice if the climbnj.com site was more up-to-date on all of its pages and maybe a bit better organized. It's a powerful tool that needs some love to reach its potential.
I'm kinda' moving away from the thread's initial topic, though. I'll PM you, Jia.
As to Allamuchy:
The guide says there might be other sites for climbing there besides Practice Wall, Tic Tac Toe Wall, Cake Wall, Main Wall, and the Right Wall.
Let me quote: "There are a number of other cliffs in this park that could be developed--for example, the higher tiers that can be found a long way above Tic Tac Toe Wall. At the far west end of the park is an outcrop known as The Monolith where there is said to be excellent climbing."
Any information on that?
(This post was edited by saphius on May 29, 2007, 5:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roclimb
May 30, 2007, 1:14 AM
Post #11 of 38
(10614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 452
|
JJa
In reply to: Not really, if one needs a bolt do{sic} pull a lead then perhaps one is not physically and mentally ready for that level of climbing.
In reply to: if you place a bolt you are lowering the climb to your level
I placed one bolt on "Edge of Night", a climb I developed in 1999 at the Delaware Water Gap. The climb goes at 5.12b X. I admit, I lowered the rock to my level. Feel free to go and lead it sans bolt and I will happily chop it myself.
I feel I was, certainly, phisically, and mentally ready to have accomplished that.
~Rob
(This post was edited by roclimb on May 30, 2007, 1:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
May 30, 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #12 of 38
(10565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
I don't want to veer too far off the original topic other than to comment that there is a world of difference between placing a bolt along a climbing route where no other protection is possible, to make that route reasonably safe-- and chipping or gluing on holds to make a route easier to climb. Let's not clump placing bolts with chipping and gluing holds. That's not what we're discussing here. We're also not advocating the placement of bolts next to protectable cracks. We are not even discussing the creation of bolt-protected climbing routes in NJ. What we really are discussing is the installation of a very few two-bolt anchors to facilitate safe toproping at Allamuchy. Do climbers in NJ want such anchors? In a more general sense, I also ask: How do NJ climbers feel about the reasonable use of bolts where no natural protection is possible?
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
May 30, 2007, 2:43 PM
Post #13 of 38
(10545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
when i first started climbing allamuchy (at age 15) i wished there was an easy TR set-up to A Year in the Life and Foriegn Invasion.
I resigned myself to doing other climbs, and came back after i'd learned to place gear. It is pretty simple to make that TR anchor on gear. And yes you do need to bring along something longer than a normal cordalette, but regarding rope rub, the things a slab anyway, so you're gonna have the friction.
I am against a blanket 'no bolt' policy. But i do not think we need convenience bolts on top of the main wall. The fact that it takes a little more know-how to rig that TR is what keeps it open on busy weekends.
and to reiterate. discussing protection bolts and convenience anchors is very different. As is comparing chipping holds to bolts in general.
|
|
|
|
|
saphius
May 30, 2007, 3:16 PM
Post #14 of 38
(10539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 50
|
I completely agree with cadaverchris.
|
|
|
|
|
bber58
May 30, 2007, 8:50 PM
Post #15 of 38
(10519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 3
|
I agree with "mrdeadpt". Let us not confuse the issue. I'm in favor of establishing "two bolt anchors"
is very specific high use climbing areas, as a way to mitigate over use of the natural resources. The subject of the “two bolt anchor” initiative which has been adopted by legitimate organizations such as the Access Fund, the National Parks System, the Mohonk Preserve, and other environmental groups had demonstrated how the use of installed two bolt anchors is successfully managing the climbing resources of other east coast locations such as the Gunks, DWG, and Rumney, NH. So let make this a discussion on how and where to establish safe anchors and discourage bolting on trad protected routes, and you will encourage the grass roots activism you desire.
Barry Rusnock
Access Fund Member
|
|
|
|
|
climbalpine
May 30, 2007, 9:25 PM
Post #16 of 38
(10508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 8
|
I do agree with MrDeadpt, RO Climb, and Bber58 here. As for cadaverchris I enjoyed the bolts while they were there and would love to see them replaced at the top of the Main Wall. I spend a good portion of my life trad climbing and have embraced the policies that the Adirondacks, Gunks, and Delaware Water Gap have implemented towards fixed anchors. Allamuchy is primarily a local afterwork climbing area or a quick weekend getaway. While you can build a trad anchor at the top it would be very convenient to have a well constructed 2 bolt anchor on the main climbs at Allamuchy. If there was ever a climbing area to benefit from 2 bolt anchors it is the highly traveled roadside crags of NJ. They make the sport safer and conserve the trees as well as the surrounding flora.
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
May 30, 2007, 9:48 PM
Post #17 of 38
(10499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
the anchor at the top of A Year in the Life does not use trees - the only case people seem to be making for a 2 bolt anchor there is for convenience.
Its not a rap station designed to limit impact on the rest of the cliff environment (like DWG and other Nat'l Parks)
I don't think that bolting anchors for convenience is a good way to approach climbing and resource managment. its a slippery slope. i.e. wouldn't it be more convenient to pave trails in parks, or bolt trad routes. YIKES!!!
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
May 31, 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #18 of 38
(10473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
Chris,
Valid comment about "anchors of convenience". Problem is you're in Virginia. Don't know what climbing resources you have there...but I'd say if you had a two-bolt anchor above a climb you wanted to TR, you'd use it. This is the thing to consider: Do we WANT people to use a resource? Do we want them to climb in NJ? Truth is: NJ doesn't have much--as far as climbing resources--to brag about. Most folks in NJ would rather drive somewhere else (like the Gunks). For me, personally, NJ's crag and boulders are best used for after-work or quick-session-on-a-busy-weekend use. And, yeah, some two-bolt anchors would facilitate that--as well as preserve trees in some cases. In the case of Allamuchy, a few two-bolt anchors could be installed, as to be inconspicuous to all but the climbers who would look for them--and invisible at a distance. Let's stop looking at NJ's climbing resources like they are virginal and inviolate. Most of the interesting rock in this state has already been quarried and ground into road-building material long ago.
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
May 31, 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #19 of 38
(10467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
In the DC area, we have a few crags that are the typical 'afterwork' spots: Carderock and Greatfalls, both of these spots see a lot of traffic and have gone through the convenience bolt argument over the years.
every time i hear it. it just doesn't add up. putting in a 2 bolt anchor on 'some' climbs at 'some' NJ spots sets a precedent that convenience bolting is OK. I'm afraid some people will take that and run with it.
I know NJ is no pristine wilderness resource, i think thats all the more reason we should be very careful to preserve our climbing resource.
are there specific trees that are feeling the hurt of the TR rigs? perhaps when you see people tying overzealous friction wraps you can instruct them on a double bowline or show them how to pad the tree.
just some more thoughts- early in the morning- before i've had my coffee.....
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
May 31, 2007, 12:37 PM
Post #20 of 38
(10465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
re: me being in VA and caring about NJ - Allamuchy is my home crag. i come back to climb and I've stayed active in NJ access.
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
Jun 1, 2007, 2:45 AM
Post #21 of 38
(10440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
Didn't mean to "dis" you, Chris, regarding being out of state. Only to say that you might have all kinds of climbing resources in VA. Yours is one of the more reasonable arguments against bolting that I've heard lately.
Are there any bolted TR anchors at Carderock and Great Falls? Can't say I ran into any when I was to Carder many years ago.
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
bber58
Jun 1, 2007, 9:04 PM
Post #22 of 38
(10421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 3
|
Chirs,
You make a reasonable argument. We should not be the ones deciding to bolt or no-bolt, even anchors. That direction such come from the folks at the state park level. Perhaps the state can issue a permit and contract out the placement of two-bolted anchors in those areas where the officials feel it's necessary. Make it illegal to place them anywhere else under threat of being fined. A process could be created to submit a request for a proposed bolted anchor and have the state evaluate the proposal. Sounds like more state bureaucracy, huh?
Barry Rusnock
|
|
|
|
|
scoobs
Jun 2, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #23 of 38
(10402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 2
|
There are several issues being discussed in this thread. I'll address two:
Bolted anchors at Allamuchy:
I very much support the placement of a limited number of bolted anchors (with rap chains) at Allamuchy. I have been climbing there for a little over ten years and have often wished for bolted anchors at the top of the climbs. While I acknowledge the validity of cadaverchris's argument about convenience bolting, I respectfully disagree. I believe that the majority of climbers would embrace the improvement of the climbing areas without carrying the idea too far. My thinking is along the lines of mrdeadpt's and climbalpine's. The majority of the use of NJ's climbing areas are after work or "just want to climb for a few hours" areas. Is this the convenience argument? Yes it is, and it has merit. The addition of convenient anchors would boost the quality of the climbing areas using the consideration of what they are functionally able to be. It also has the added advantage of consolidating the wear on the surrounding vegitation, but in my mind that is not the primary discussion happening here. The primary concern is that when you have to rig a top rope setup you need to bring more gear and need to spend more time constructing the systems to climb. This cuts into the ability to get some climbing in for the couple hours that you are there. I am not interested in having bolt ladders created, nor am I interested in creating a sea of bolts or sport routes. If these things start to happen, they can be moderated by the same means that are happening for this discussion on two-bolt anchors.
Blanket no bolt policy:
I am completely against a blanket policy. A blanket policy does not serve the best interests of the broader climbing community and fails to consider the uniqueness of different areas. Bolts have been accepted by the climbing community for many years now, and the predicted horrors have not occured. Trad climbing is still very much alive, and rock is being managed responsibly. Managers still fighting the existance of bolts is irresponsible because the argument has already been lost within the broader climbing community. Bolting is happening, the real question is how do you responsibly manage the existance and placement of bolts in NJ rock climbing areas. A blanket bolting ban is naive.
Matt
FWIW, I am completely against the chipping or gluing of holds anywhere on natural rock.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdagunks
Jun 2, 2007, 3:16 PM
Post #24 of 38
(10395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 37
|
Originally being from Jersey and spending many after school sessions at the Mooch , I find this debate over an 80 foot rock hilarious .
Preserving a NJ classic , come on . Bolt it and be done with it .
If you want QUALITY  local trad go to the Gap or Green Pond ( if its still legal ) .
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 3, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #25 of 38
(10354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
if the same effort had been put into amending the States Administrative Code and Hunterdon County then perhaps the discussion would be moot.
Working to change a NJ Law is not as sexy as bolts but changing the law is tedious and requires effort and personal involvement.
NJ does not need bolted climbs. Green Pond does not need bolts (and yes its legal to climb on State owned land at Green Pond). Gaining full access to Green Pond among the varied landowners in and around Green Pond will require some doing.
The managers of Green Pond who we have spoken to have already mentioned concerns over bolts. Educating them on proper bolts usage is being undertaken.
Setting a "precedent" for TR anchors and the like at the Mooch will ripple to other areas in the State. There is ample evidence of where bolt placements have closed access to climbing and bouldering sites.
Such actions by folks do nothing but make the issue of responsible access a hard sell to park managers. Placing bolts against the wishes of the Park Management is akin to placing closed bouldering/climbing areas in a guide book.
The State Parks have in place a no-bolting policy.
If folks want to change such policy folks will have to get more involved in working w/ the Park System and the legislators.
Comparing Federal policy (the Gap) w/ State and Local Policies is an attempt to balkanize, confuse and misdirect the argument.
Locals will follow the State lead and the State does not follow Federal policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
