|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 9, 2004, 6:43 PM
Post #1 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Just did an awesome crackline in Zion this past weekend which I won't reveal the name of so as not to make this personal. Starts with about 60-feet of killer handjamming passing through a strenuous bulge and then tapers down to some off-fingers sizes passing through a roof (crux) finishing on some killer fingerlocks. The difficulty was about 5.10 for the hands section and 5.11 through the roof and to the top. This pitch would get a bunch of stars if it were in Indian Creek.
The issue I would like to bring up is that there is an midway anchor at about 60 feet with no obvious interruption in the crack. From the RC.com description of this route as 5.10 along with the quantity of chalk on the lower section, it is obvious that stopping here is the most popular option. One might ask whether this was an interim rap anchor to avoid needing 2 ropes to rap with, but I was able to rap off the top with a single 165 foot rope.
It seems that this anchor was placed to "create" a 5.10 route by climbing partway up a 5.11 route. This seems to make sense at sport-climbing areas where you can warm-up by climbing partway up a route and lowering off a draw before things get too hard. In addition the bolts are already in place for the actual climbing. It may also make more sense if there were a paucity of 5.10 routes in the area, but in this case there are plenty of 5.10 and easier in the immediate area.
So bottom line is what exists is a 90 foot long classic crack right off the road with 2 anchors. The minimalist in me feels that this detracts from the beauty of the line. Don't worry guys, I'm not a bolt-chopper. I just feel that this is excessive and not a good precedent to set in a National Park, especially one with a strict trad-ethic like Zion.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Nov 9, 2004, 7:05 PM
Post #2 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Maybe the lower anchor was there first.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 9, 2004, 7:19 PM
Post #3 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Doubtful but possible. This particular crack becomes even more splitter passing through an awesome crux roof. Most desert crack first ascentionists I know would not pass on that. Even if the lower anchor were there first the questions remains; does this route need two anchors?
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Nov 9, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #4 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Doubtful but possible. This particular crack becomes even more splitter passing through an awesome crux roof. Most desert crack first ascentionists I know would not pass on that. Even if the lower anchor were there first the questions remains; does this route need two anchors?
Right of the Cave route?
I'll bet there was an anchor there maybe even before cams? And, the bolts were where the easier hand crack necked down?
Not sure the history of those craggin' routes at the base of the C. Gendarme. Eiger Sanction was filmed in, what, 74? Cave route was in the movie...Dougal H. and Clint in the Chimney (with a TR whilst leading, at one point...too funny...). So, that's pre-friends at least. So, my bet is that the anchor was there a long while ago.
Most folks don't go to Zion for the short, half pitch cragging (and are sometimes even discouraged from cragging there...in a guidebook or mag article or two). So, much ado about not much perhaps.
Maybe bsmoot or dangle will chime in. Or, call the shop and see if one of the local fellers knows. They've done some of the anchor work there, methinks.
Does the route "need" two anchors? I guess if you only wanted to do the 5.10 section, I'd say, yep. I don't think this type of thing in Zion is on the park service radar screen at all. 2 million plus visitors a year, new Visitor Center, SAR activity, permits galore (especially for them pesky canyoneers)....a set of anchors at the top of a 5.10 crack just doesn't register.
Went to an Access Fund sponsered clean up a couple of years ago in Zion (Oct '02 already?). Amazing how little trash we cleaned up. Park service folks involved say climbers really do seem to pick up after themselves much better than other user groups. Was interesting to get their take and hear some of the local climber's concerns (permits and costs to recreate, ugh, seemed to be a primary theme). Fixed anchors didn't even come up. Pretty low profile.
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Nov 9, 2004, 8:58 PM
Post #5 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: Doubtful but possible.
Why would it be doubtful? how do you know? Based on the information you have shared with us so far, I don't see how you could make such a judgment. I would say it is quite possible that whoever did the route decided that climbing to the end of the hands was good enough, then someone else came along and extended it. That happens all the time.
I would agree with Brian that this is not a big issue. Furthermore I would debate your statement that Zion has a strict trad ethic. Trad, yes, but strict, definitely not.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 10, 2004, 7:07 PM
Post #6 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: In reply to: Doubtful but possible. This particular crack becomes even more splitter passing through an awesome crux roof. Most desert crack first ascentionists I know would not pass on that. Even if the lower anchor were there first the questions remains; does this route need two anchors? Right of the Cave route? I'll bet there was an anchor there maybe even before cams? And, the bolts were where the easier hand crack necked down? Not sure the history of those craggin' routes at the base of the C. Gendarme. Eiger Sanction was filmed in, what, 74? Cave route was in the movie...Dougal H. and Clint in the Chimney (with a TR whilst leading, at one point...too funny...). So, that's pre-friends at least. So, my bet is that the anchor was there a long while ago. Most folks don't go to Zion for the short, half pitch cragging (and are sometimes even discouraged from cragging there...in a guidebook or mag article or two). So, much ado about not much perhaps. Maybe bsmoot or dangle will chime in. Or, call the shop and see if one of the local fellers knows. They've done some of the anchor work there, methinks. Does the route "need" two anchors? I guess if you only wanted to do the 5.10 section, I'd say, yep. I don't think this type of thing in Zion is on the park service radar screen at all. 2 million plus visitors a year, new Visitor Center, SAR activity, permits galore (especially for them pesky canyoneers)....a set of anchors at the top of a 5.10 crack just doesn't register. Went to an Access Fund sponsered clean up a couple of years ago in Zion (Oct '02 already?). Amazing how little trash we cleaned up. Park service folks involved say climbers really do seem to pick up after themselves much better than other user groups. Was interesting to get their take and hear some of the local climber's concerns (permits and costs to recreate, ugh, seemed to be a primary theme). Fixed anchors didn't even come up. Pretty low profile. Brian in SLC
If the bolts were there before the invention of cams then the anchor has been subsequently retrobolted with Metolius 1/2 inch bolts.
I agree with what you say about the solid state that climbers are in at Zion currently. A non-climber would be hard pressed to notice any indication of climbing activity while driving through the canyon (aside from portaledges on Moonlight Buttress which spark more fascination than disdain). Looking up Monkeyfinger the anchors are well-hidden an no non-climber would ever guess that it is a popular climb unless they saw climbers on it.
A right off the road crag attracting large numbers of climbers is just the type of thing that can potentially test the harmonius balance you so eloquently describe that exists right now in Zion. For this reason, I feel these questions need to be asked.
I guess that through this post I was hoping to get people to address the larger picture of is this right. Would it be right for me to place an anchor before the thinhands and fingerstacks section high up on Rock Lobster at Indian Creek to make it a classic 5.10 hands splitter with an easy rap descent. How about a nice bomber anchor before the fist-sized finish of Reed's Direct? That roof crux finish on Illusion Dweller is kind of tedious, so how about an anchor right before it? If we condone it once what will keep these hypothetical travesties from occurring?
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 10, 2004, 7:17 PM
Post #7 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: I guess that through this post I was hoping to get people to address the larger picture of is this right. Would it be right for me to place an anchor before the thinhands and fingerstacks section high up on Rock Lobster at Indian Creek to make it a classic 5.10 hands splitter with an easy rap descent. How about a nice bomber anchor before the fist-sized finish of Reed's Direct? That roof crux finish on Illusion Dweller is kind of tedious, so how about an anchor right before it? If we condone it once what will keep these hypothetical travesties from occurring?
How many people climb more than 100 feet of Supercrack? Ed Webster didn't stop there. Convenience anchors are everywhere. I wonder why this one in particular is so problematic?
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 10, 2004, 7:17 PM
Post #8 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: In reply to: Doubtful but possible. Why would it be doubtful? how do you know? Based on the information you have shared with us so far, I don't see how you could make such a judgment. I would say it is quite possible that whoever did the route decided that climbing to the end of the hands was good enough, then someone else came along and extended it. That happens all the time. I would agree with Brian that this is not a big issue. Furthermore I would debate your statement that Zion has a strict trad ethic. Trad, yes, but strict, definitely not.
You being from Utah likely have more knowlege than me who spends 7 to 10 days per year climbing there so I must defer to you. I can only tell you that based on my experience of over the past 8 years this is not a routine situation. If it "happens all the time" please give me some examples and I will shut up.
In climbing the areas around Moab, Indian Creek and to a lesser extent Zion this double anchor thing is a rarity. If it was commomplace then the one in question would not have struck me as the least bit out of place and this post would never have occurred. I personally can think of one similar situation on the route Dos Hermanos at Indian Creek where fortunatly for the sake of my tenuous argument the lower anchor was pulled sometime over the last few years. I have no idea regarding the circumstances around this or which anchor was in place first.
As to Zion not having a strict trad ethic you are probably correct in calling me on this one. I have not climbed there enough to make that call. I can say, however that on the strict ethical scale that Zion falls closer to the Gunks and Paradise Forks than it does to the Sport Park or Jack's Canyon.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 10, 2004, 7:31 PM
Post #9 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: In reply to: I guess that through this post I was hoping to get people to address the larger picture of is this right. Would it be right for me to place an anchor before the thinhands and fingerstacks section high up on Rock Lobster at Indian Creek to make it a classic 5.10 hands splitter with an easy rap descent. How about a nice bomber anchor before the fist-sized finish of Reed's Direct? That roof crux finish on Illusion Dweller is kind of tedious, so how about an anchor right before it? If we condone it once what will keep these hypothetical travesties from occurring? How many people climb more than 100 feet of Supercrack? Ed Webster didn't stop there. Convenience anchors are everywhere. I wonder why this one in particular is so problematic?
Good question! I guess one of the draws of crackclimbing to me is the purity of the whole thing. Yeah, I know it requires a bunch of high tech gear, but there is just something to walking up to a splitter line and climbing it from the ground up. I walked up to this awesome splitter in Zion and said, "Damn, that crack begs to be climbed!" Passing an anchor in the middle of the line just seems to detract from the experience. I think that I resented the fact that I had the option to clip an anchor as protection. Perhaps if I did I would save the key piece needed for the crux and get the onsight. Its presence changes things and changes your thinking in some way shape or form. It detracts from the purity. I guess this one was an issue for me because it changed my experience. For anyone wondering, I clipped a draw into one of the anchor bolts as pro.
|
|
|
|
|
nabisco
Nov 10, 2004, 7:59 PM
Post #10 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2001
Posts: 38
|
The climb in question is without a doubt a classic line for any area. Having an anchor just 15 feet or so from the very top of the route simply allows climbers aspiring to climb .10's an opportunity to commit to route and safely reach a set of anchors to rap from. If i remember correctly the original line went to the top of the ten section and was extented thru the .11 section at a later date. One can climb straight thru or break the climb into two pitches. I'm all about options, I welcomed the anchors when I climbed it. A well placed bolt that is camoflaged is never taboo IMHO. Saftey and user friendiness is well appreciated when in the vertical stage. If you don't like the bolts, don't clip'em.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Nov 10, 2004, 9:47 PM
Post #11 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: The climb in question is without a doubt a classic line for any area. Having an anchor just 15 feet or so from the very top of the route simply allows climbers aspiring to climb .10's an opportunity to commit to route and safely reach a set of anchors to rap from. If i remember correctly the original line went to the top of the ten section and was extented thru the .11 section at a later date. One can climb straight thru or break the climb into two pitches. I'm all about options, I welcomed the anchors when I climbed it. A well placed bolt that is camoflaged is never taboo IMHO. Saftey and user friendiness is well appreciated when in the vertical stage. If you don't like the bolts, don't clip'em.
Ah yes. The "love it or leave it" mentality. It seems to infect every debate at one point or another. Also a popular GOP battle-cry.
Options are great, I agree. Too many options however are an eyesore and threaten the ultimate option of access to the crags we love.
The anchor in question was anything but camoflaged.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Nov 10, 2004, 9:52 PM
Post #12 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
I think you are justified in bringing up this topic, I just happen to disagree with you in this case. The many instances I can think of are mostly at Indian Creek. Dos Hermanos is an excellent example. As of last fall, the lower anchor was still there, btw. I think it is egocentric to assume that the lower anchor was added later, it very well may have been there first. As for adding lower anchors to other classic routes, I actually don't think that would be a travesty. I probably wouldn't do it myself, but if someone else did it, I wouldn't go chop them, in fact I'd probably welcome the new variation because it would give my wife more routes to climb. She is a badass, like us, but sometimes she likes to climb 5.10's to warm up.
Here are some examples, off the top of my head...I'm sure I could find more if I really though about it:
Looney Tunes, LCC
Green A, LCC
Fall of Mouse, VRG
Super Crack, IC
Coyne Crack, IC
Johnny Cat, IC
Swedin-Ringle, IC
The Phoenix, Yosemite
Anaconda, Garden of the Gods
Heinous Cling, Smith
Darkness at Noon, Smith
Overboard, Smith
Magic Light, Smith
Comp Crack, Castle Rock
As to the strictness of Zion's trad ethic, I know that because there aren't really any "locals", like the overbearing types you find in yosemite, things pretty much get done unopposed. Protection bolts are commonly added to routes with very little backlash, and belays are moved up and down and side to side all the time for convenience or freeclimbng. So far I haven't come across any glued holds...plenty of chipped holds in the form of pinscars and cam hook scars though.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Nov 12, 2004, 4:28 PM
Post #13 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: it "happens all the time" please give me some examples and I will shut up. In climbing the areas around Moab, Indian Creek and to a lesser extent Zion this double anchor thing is a rarity.
I think its very common. Look at the routes in Day Canyon outside Moab. Big Indian Rock. Arches. Canyonlands.
In Indian Creek, "back in the day", it seemed that new routes went to the canyon rim all the time. Now its a bit more uncommon (real uncommon) to see folks ever top out a whole climb there. Elephant Man. Naked and the Dead. Especially routes that go free versus ones that finish with thin aid on top. Or start with thin aid to a hand crack. Bang, set of anchors right in the middle of a pitch. Very common.
So are anchors to facilitate rappelling with a single rope.
Thankfully, its a bit off the radar in Zion 'cause there just isn't much of a craggin' scene there.
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
nabisco
Nov 16, 2004, 6:18 PM
Post #14 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2001
Posts: 38
|
What happened to my original reply?? Was it moved? all I see is where someone copied my post inside of thiers..
|
|
|
|
|
mingleefu
Nov 16, 2004, 6:25 PM
Post #15 of 15
(2825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 466
|
check your filters. The interface is so junked up that if you don't have it set to "-2, I like it raw" you're going to miss out on stuff.
If for some reason someone didn't like your post, and voted it down, then you may not see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
