|
|
|
|
dondada
Aug 1, 2008, 10:40 AM
Post #26 of 132
(7158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2007
Posts: 75
|
i did a bit of research and i dig what your saying.....just wanted to get an idea of what the deal is and i pretty much got it in spades.....i understand local ethics prevailing but in this case there is no local ethics ive lived in this little town for 25 years or so and have gone on many hikes/keggers/blunt rides in this area and have never ever seen a single climber, i grew up in this town.......so if me and couple of friends want to develop this spot wouldnt what we consider kosher go as the "local ethics"....i mean i could keep it a secret but thats not my style. i would want to post it on mountainproject and rc.com and spread the love for what its worth....i dont however want to expose somthing i worked hard on to some kook who has never been to beacon falls or even heard of naugatuck valley.....i have been eyeballing these cliffs since i was a kid and now that i have a hair on my ass to climb them(and potentially bolt them) i sure would like to without worry of pissing time and money away(again this is an idea for the future not next week or month)anyway i do appriciate the input........carry on
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Aug 1, 2008, 11:09 AM
Post #27 of 132
(7150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
Most likely, you can climb them without bolting them. Setup a toprope. If you really NEED to lead them, hang a static like and clip pre-tied knots. And don't be too sure nobody else has climbed there before. A lot of areas fade away and grow their vegetation back after years of inactivity.
|
|
|
|
|
dondada
Aug 1, 2008, 12:07 PM
Post #28 of 132
(7137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2007
Posts: 75
|
top roping would be easy there as it would be at many sport crags but there is a value to climbing on lead where trad pro wouldn't do the trick.......and i totally appriciate that it very well may have been climbed in the past but i've searched for this spot on line and all i could find was an article about ice/mixed climbing in a near by valley....i wouldnt claim a FA(or place bolts for that matter) unless i was reasonably sure..there is mabey 3-10 climbable routes here mabey 3-4 worth protecting so im not talking about a nutty bolters heaven just a few moderate routes
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Aug 1, 2008, 1:25 PM
Post #29 of 132
(7103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
Valarc wrote: fresh wrote: I dunno, that doesn't seem right. ownership is a contract between people, not between people and things. rocks don't grow back, so what gives you the right to do to them what you want? your porch is different because it's man-made, no? Because I own the land. I'm all for protecting objects of natural beauty, but then if that's the case, make them a park. If it belongs to an individual, I don't want anyone, whether it's the gub'ment, or some smug asshole who thinks his ethics define those of the entire world, screwing with it. what I'm saying is that ownership, a civil contract, should not grant the right to destroy or alter the land. no more and no less. sometimes it does, because we couldn't live without farms, or without buildings. but not always.
In reply to: This country was built upon land ownership. My great-grandaddy cut down trees, plowed fields, made a life for his family, and built the home I grew up in. He was able to do this because of land ownership. Take away the rights of a land owner and you take away one of the most cherished values of the American way of life. it's possible that the American way of life is not sustainable. so instead of carrying on in order to save our way of life, let's shape our way of life in order to carry on.
In reply to: If something should be protected, then it shouldn't be in the control of any one person - it should be a public resource. As long as it's not, it's a fundamental part of the way I was raised to respect the rights of property owners. who determines what should be a public resource? I think the government sucks at stuff like that. as I said before, I think property rights exist between people. not between people and property.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Aug 1, 2008, 1:51 PM
Post #30 of 132
(7092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
wonderwoman wrote: patmay81 wrote: If you want help bolting the great wall I will pitch in, that could be a fun climb if it here bolted... otherwise the R rating might scare weak n00bs like me away- that and 67 pitches of a bolt ladder is a lot less time consuming! I can see it now... 'Scuse me, pardon me, comin' through,' for every Gunks classic it traversed through the middle of! I've never been to the Gunks, but I'm having some fun imagining a portaledge blocking something classic on a busy weekend. "Look, we'll be out of the way after breakfast. Wait or just climb around us!"
|
|
|
|
|
desertdude420
Aug 1, 2008, 2:11 PM
Post #31 of 132
(7071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 294
|
The sport/lifestyle of climbing seems to attract the weirdest "ethic-nazis" in the world... for some funny reason...
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
Aug 1, 2008, 4:25 PM
Post #32 of 132
(7033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
I'm not getting into the bolting ethics debate, but if you can easily top rope it then why waste the money on bolts. Take the money you saved and start building a rack that will serve you better than a handful of bolts. Personally, I just don't understand bolting routes that are easily top roped. It makes zero sense in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Aug 1, 2008, 5:07 PM
Post #33 of 132
(7016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
wonderwoman, youve got me all kinds of excited about bolting this thing! Let me schedule the time off and lets get started! edit to add: maybe Markc wants in on the bolting action too!
(This post was edited by patmay81 on Aug 1, 2008, 5:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 1, 2008, 6:07 PM
Post #34 of 132
(6989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dingus wrote: There is ALWAYS another Ken Nichols waiting in the weeds to chop poorly bolted routes or remove bolts that retro-foul previously ascended rock. So yes, you should be concerned. DMT Dingus, world of difference between the two. To me it's kind of sad that you would equate them. Unless you're *really* under the misaprehension that Ken is some kind of alternate-SCA, working with local communities to return classic lines to their pre-retrobolted state. Ken is nothing like that. He goes to communities he knows nothing about, and chops/flattens indiscriminately. GO
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
Aug 1, 2008, 6:09 PM
Post #35 of 132
(6988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
dondada wrote: i did a bit of research and i dig what your saying.....just wanted to get an idea of what the deal is and i pretty much got it in spades.....i understand local ethics prevailing but in this case there is no local ethics ive lived in this little town for 25 years or so and have gone on many hikes/keggers/blunt rides in this area and have never ever seen a single climber, i grew up in this town.......so if me and couple of friends want to develop this spot wouldnt what we consider kosher go as the "local ethics"....i mean i could keep it a secret but thats not my style. i would want to post it on mountainproject and rc.com and spread the love for what its worth....i dont however want to expose somthing i worked hard on to some kook who has never been to beacon falls or even heard of naugatuck valley.....i have been eyeballing these cliffs since i was a kid and now that i have a hair on my ass to climb them(and potentially bolt them) i sure would like to without worry of pissing time and money away(again this is an idea for the future not next week or month)anyway i do appriciate the input........carry on In addition to the local history of the area, which you seem to have down, you should check how the local land managers and community view climbing and bolting. Make sure the local hikers/birders/photogs/nature lovers/others don't consider it their private domain. As you can tell from the above, bolting brings out some strong emotions, even with in the climbing community. Don
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Aug 1, 2008, 6:21 PM
Post #36 of 132
(6976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
patmay81 wrote: wonderwoman, youve got me all kinds of excited about bolting this thing! Let me schedule the time off and lets get started! edit to add: maybe Markc wants in on the bolting action too! I'm sure that would make for a brilliant introduction to the Gunks for me. Surely everyone will carry us on their shoulders and sing our praises!
|
|
|
|
|
mounter
Aug 1, 2008, 6:23 PM
Post #37 of 132
(6974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2003
Posts: 133
|
Ken Nichols seems like a real kook. My take is be sensative and respectful of local practice, law, etc. ...and then if all is kosher, bolt away.
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Aug 1, 2008, 7:14 PM
Post #38 of 132
(6955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
they may even erect statues in our honor- or maybe carve out the cliff face in our likeness, and have parades and free beer! This just keeps getting better!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 1, 2008, 7:23 PM
Post #39 of 132
(6948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
cracklover wrote: dingus wrote: There is ALWAYS another Ken Nichols waiting in the weeds to chop poorly bolted routes or remove bolts that retro-foul previously ascended rock. So yes, you should be concerned. DMT Dingus, world of difference between the two. To me it's kind of sad that you would equate them. Noted. The OP should nevertheless understand if he bolts poorly or indiscriminantly or without respect to local ethics his work could be summarily chopped by some lone righteous (or self-righeous) judge/jury/executioner. Its just the way it is... all your sadness issues aside. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Aug 1, 2008, 7:37 PM
Post #40 of 132
(6934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
patmay81 wrote: they may even erect statues in our honor- or maybe carve out the cliff face in our likeness, and have parades and free beer! This just keeps getting better! woohoo! I'm in! I love a parade! Heading to the gunks tonight, as a matter of fact. I'll scope out the route.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 1, 2008, 7:46 PM
Post #41 of 132
(6928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dingus wrote: cracklover wrote: dingus wrote: There is ALWAYS another Ken Nichols waiting in the weeds to chop poorly bolted routes or remove bolts that retro-foul previously ascended rock. So yes, you should be concerned. DMT Dingus, world of difference between the two. To me it's kind of sad that you would equate them. Noted. The OP should nevertheless understand if he bolts poorly or indiscriminantly or without respect to local ethics his work could be summarily chopped by some lone righteous (or self-righeous) judge/jury/executioner. Its just the way it is... all your sadness issues aside. DMT True. "Sadness issues." Hah! My bad. GO
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 1, 2008, 8:11 PM
Post #42 of 132
(6913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
hafilax wrote: What a circular and incoherent rant! That argument doesn't make any sense. You both want to protect areas by making them public yet the person that owns it gets to do whatever she wants. So who decides what is protected, the owner or the government? What happens when they take away ownership? But ownership is the most important thing? Only an evil gub'ment would take away ownership. I think I'll try to convince the government that your house is a historical landmark and that it should be protected from you. You could form a support group with Ken. His rant actually makes perfect sense to me. Maybe I'm just from a part of the world where public and private land aren't easily confused. What valarc is saying is that the owner (or owners) of the land get to decide how that land is used. If the majority of the public land owners say no to bolts (or yes to bolts, as the case may be), then the minority HAVE TO accede to that. That's the basis of the social contract. If you opt out of that contract, you have no say on how the land is used. So if I'm the sole owner of the land, you don't have a say in how I use it per se. However, we've both opted into another system, namely society. You can use that channel to affect how I use my land, if you can make a reasonable argument that it affects the general populace. If you don't elect to use legal channels, then you don't have legal sanction to change how I use my land, and I can therefore press charges if you damage anything on my land.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Aug 1, 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #43 of 132
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
ok, i'm getting you to write my rants for me from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Aug 1, 2008, 11:28 PM
Post #44 of 132
(6865 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
The classic case of private ownership trumping public usage in my area is the Smoke Bluffs in Squamish. A subdivision overlooking the town has been built in the middle of the crags. One notable house has been built on top of and beside a couple of very nice climbs. The owners have put up a fence that encloses a nice crack that nobody is allowed to climb anymore and there is a quaint little crag below the house with warnings to be quiet and basically discourages climbing there. I realize that there is a LOT of rock to climb around there but it is frustrating that someone who is against climbing on their property has bought the land. This flies in the face of the local community which is very climbing oriented but there is nothing that can be done about it until the person decides to sell. (Who moves to the "Outdoor Capital of Canada" to restrict the enjoyment of the outdoors anyway?) This is the attitude I was getting from Valarc's post; that ownership comes first and society second.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 2, 2008, 12:37 AM
Post #45 of 132
(6855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
hafilax wrote: The classic case of private ownership trumping public usage in my area is the Smoke Bluffs in Squamish. A subdivision overlooking the town has been built in the middle of the crags. One notable house has been built on top of and beside a couple of very nice climbs. The owners have put up a fence that encloses a nice crack that nobody is allowed to climb anymore and there is a quaint little crag below the house with warnings to be quiet and basically discourages climbing there. I realize that there is a LOT of rock to climb around there but it is frustrating that someone who is against climbing on their property has bought the land. This flies in the face of the local community which is very climbing oriented but there is nothing that can be done about it until the person decides to sell. (Who moves to the "Outdoor Capital of Canada" to restrict the enjoyment of the outdoors anyway?) This is the attitude I was getting from Valarc's post; that ownership comes first and society second. Well, social contract's a two way street. To me, Ken's work strikes me as showing up to somebody else's house and destroying their record collection because you don't like their taste in music. I don't care if they only own Barry Manilow records, that's fucked up. And its not fucked up because of any opinion I have on Barry Manilow, its fucked up because if I permit it then, what's to say the same person won't come over and fuck up my shit because he or she doesn't approve. That's what it comes down to. Does the devil only do evil when you don't agree with it? Its a god dammed shame that Smoke Bluffs is closed, but until one of us can front the cash to buy it and open it to climbing, we're stuck, and breaking the law won't do any good and actually casts us in a bad light. Since ownership is part of our society, I don't think that ownership comes first, per se, just that to willfully disregard of it makes you antisocial, and I don't mean "doesn't have many friends". I mean "actively resists the notion of society". Like a career criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Aug 2, 2008, 8:32 PM
Post #46 of 132
(6813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I agree. I just like to see both sides of an argument presented when I think they are both important to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Aug 2, 2008, 10:56 PM
Post #47 of 132
(6796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
dondada wrote: top roping would be easy there as it would be at many sport crags but there is a value to climbing on lead where trad pro wouldn't do the trick.......and i totally appriciate that it very well may have been climbed in the past but i've searched for this spot on line and all i could find was an article about ice/mixed climbing in a near by valley....i wouldnt claim a FA(or place bolts for that matter) unless i was reasonably sure..there is mabey 3-10 climbable routes here mabey 3-4 worth protecting so im not talking about a nutty bolters heaven just a few moderate routes What makes you think it would be online if someone climbed it. I'm sure if it was climbed back in the 1970s and nobody has done much since, there would be no evidence of it online. As a matter of fact, some of my favorite climbing spots have no info online.... thats why they are such great places to climb! Some things are better left a secret.... for adventurous people to find.... like you! If you value the feeling of climbing on lead, and they are easy to toprope, why don't you just hang a static rope and clip pre-tied knots for pro. This is also a great way to figure out the best way it can be bolted, if that is the direction you decide to go one day. Clipping knots on a static rope is a great way of doing a few "dry runs" to check out clipping stances and proper spacing. This would be the most effective way of planning out the route, and could eliminate permanent "mistakes". Also, it is a way you can lead it right away, without buying+installing bolts and possibly regretting it.
|
|
|
|
|
dondada
Aug 3, 2008, 3:23 AM
Post #48 of 132
(6755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2007
Posts: 75
|
help full post......and i do realize that reasearching online is not the know all end all. its all i can do while im 3000+miles away. i will likely top rope them this summer/next spring
|
|
|
|
|
IclimbNAKED
Aug 3, 2008, 8:59 AM
Post #49 of 132
(6731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2008
Posts: 68
|
stymingersfink wrote: Fact of the matter is, it doesn't entirely work that way. It is within the power of the government to regulate the land use to some extent, regardless of who owns the land, and this is as it should be. I think even Valarc would pitch a bitch if his next-door neighbor decided he wanted to get into the "Sanitary Landfill" business, or perhaps decided that he wanted to build a privately-owned sewage treatment plant right up-wind or up-stream from his front door. I grew up in the middle of one of the larger fruit-producing regions of the Pacific Northwest. Sure, the land owner was free to plant whatever crop they felt the market would support, but they were not allowed to apply whatever herbicide or insecticide they wanted to that crop. They had to operate within the bounds of regulation, and this is to protect the rights of those who might be periphially impacted without the benefit of a financial stake in the actions affecting them. THIS I believe there's a definite need to toe the line. When I first started climbing I believed whole-heartedly in sport-climbing; yet the more I think of it, bolts damage rock irreparably as old pro like pitons do. There are some places where trad climbing should be the only option, in my opinion these are scenic places where the geology is as much a part of the natural beauty as the vistas it yields. There are, however, other locales, such as a secluded crag of uninteresting rock that shoots forth from the ground. Bolting this area may not be such a bad idea as the area could be more of an exclusively rock-climbing area; the bolts may not be considered an eye-sore, as there would be no tourists or other folk who are coming just to take in the natural beauty. The point, as stymingersfink said, is that people can be indirectly affected by our actions. That's why in my opinion most places would be better suited to trad climbing, but that's not to say that sport climbing has no place. On to the issue of this Ken fellow. I don't know him, and don't know anything about him. I don't think he has the right to do as some people allege he does and destroy bolts indiscriminately, as this is just as bad as bolting indiscriminately. The rock is still left damaged, only now it's no longer functional for its intended sport climbing purpose.
(This post was edited by IclimbNAKED on Aug 3, 2008, 9:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Aug 3, 2008, 3:29 PM
Post #50 of 132
(6708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
IclimbNAKED wrote: The rock is still left damaged. He should meet our BooBoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|