i put up some routes years ago that were super-quality. but i was trying to be "ethical" and FA'd them ground up. i ran into some scary runouts above poor pro, but made it. my friends would come and look at the great lines and want to jump on them. i would always try to talk them out of it because i didn't want to see someone get hurt. long story short, 12 years later, if i was back up there i'd add a couple bolts and make them fun, something i'd recommend to a friend. they don't need to be kept as a stone temple to my inexperience, youth, haste, or ego.
i put up some routes years ago that were super-quality. but i was trying to be "ethical" and FA'd them ground up. i ran into some scary runouts above poor pro, but made it. my friends would come and look at the great lines and want to jump on them. i would always try to talk them out of it because i didn't want to see someone get hurt. long story short, 12 years later, if i was back up there i'd add a couple bolts and make them fun, something i'd recommend to a friend. they don't need to be kept as a stone temple to my inexperience, youth, haste, or ego.
I agree. Many of the routes at the Far-side in California were climbed by some of my partners and me on gear. Now, many of them I sport routes. I wouldn't repeat many of those routes on gear, but as sport routes, they would be a blast. Glad someone found them, took the time to bolt some fun safe routes instead of moving on because they found a few rappel stations at the top of towers and decided someone else climbed them and they should be preserved for future generations in th way we climbed them.
The gear was so bad on some lines, that we were safer free-soloing them. last piece of gear a third of the way up type stuff.
I on the otherhand get bored pissless after awhile with easy, well-spaced, solid gear. I like it when gear gets small, technical and makes you think fast and hard. Wouldn't want to see lines that make you really think and work creatively at the pro get retrobolted.
This isn't about a bolt. See, the process that has evolved over the last 50 years is that if you think any route needs a bolt (or bolts), you go to the First Ascentionists (FA) and ask to be able to put it in. Barring doing that (they may have moved, died or quit climbing) is via community consensus. You asked everyone invested in that area, and let tradition and group interest decide the path. Your "Friend" did neither, and took it upon himself to do whatever the F* he thought - and thus violated a rule much older than he is. The only way to deal with this situation is to remove the bolt IMMEDIATELY and have folks- not just yourself, but everyone, teach your "friend" this old and involution rule. Again, it isn't about this bolt, it's about the process. See, by doing it this way, your "friend" fucked over everyone else by presuming to know what was right and good for them, and by sticking in a bolt without asking anyone, told all of you that his opinion and what HE thinks is worth more than all of yours combined so piss off: a total asswipe move on your "friends" part. Perhaps there really should be a bolt there, perhaps not, but your friend wronged not just you, but everyone else who climbs at that area.
"Quick! Gitcher best lynchin' rope! DIFFERENT R BAD, KILL IT WITH FIRE" !!11!
*snort*
Your post gave me visions of people with tyre irons 'educating' bolters about the best way to do things. Your logic boils down to xenophobia, nothing more. And I mean that in the 'fear of strange things' sense, not the fear of foreigners sense
If you can't live and let live, at least keep the world a beautiful place by staying inside.
I on the otherhand get bored pissless after awhile with easy, well-spaced, solid gear. I like it when gear gets small, technical and makes you think fast and hard. Wouldn't want to see lines that make you really think and work creatively at the pro get retrobolted.
I like intricate pro and routes too. I think they have there place, but not every route and area can or should be treated the same.
I love this side. Here is my interpretation.
"I've been climbing a long time and can on-sight 5.11 regularly, so anything I pout up below 5.9 is going to run-out and dangerous. Even if the route is one pitch long.
On the other hand, anything 5.11 or harder should be better protected because the climbing is hard.
If you're beginner, follow until you can lead 5.11 comfortably because I'm a gatekeeper and I don;t think you're serious unless you accept the risk of what us bold climbers have done. "
Let's face it, I personally warm up on route many climbers can't climb and never will. I can't do other routes that some climbers warm up on.
Ethics are personal. Some people agree with your ethics, other don't. As a climber, each individual needs to decide what is acceptable risk and what isn't. I have been on routes, first ascents or repeats that were life and limb and caused vomiting.
I've been on sport routes that had bolts so close together I never had my waist above a bolt. I had fun on both.
I took repeated 50ft falls on slab, blew the clip on the first bolts of Routes at Stone Mountain in North Carolina, (three time back to back), and worked sport routes. I've also onsight 5.12 sport and trad lines on occasions. Each of those occasions required a different mind set, different skills, and all were risk I was willing to accept at the time.
For me, the climbing moves are the single most important aspect of climbing. The moves feel different if I am 20 ft out on brass rps versus 5ft out on a stainless bolt, but both make me happy. Each for it's own unique reason.
I've been on sport routes that were a blast and could have been protected on gear easily. I've lead trad routes that a fall would have caused serious bodily injuries, in some cases, the line would have been an excellent sport route, but the line was fun non-the-less.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 23, 2010, 2:53 AM)
Ethics are personal. Some people agree with your ethics, other don't. As a climber, each individual needs to decide what is acceptable risk and what isn't. I have been on routes, first ascents or repeats that were life and limb vomiting. I've been on sport routes that hard bolts so close together I never had my waist above a bolt. I had fun on both.
Man... I remember the last time I ate someone's limb out of pure desperation. That causes NASTY indigestion.
Hilarity aside, I agree with Guangzhou and this is what I said earlier. Trying to make someone do things your way and your way only in a sport where death can result from blindly following what people say is... really, really bizarre.
Ethics are personal. Some people agree with your ethics, other don't. As a climber, each individual needs to decide what is acceptable risk and what isn't. I have been on routes, first ascents or repeats that were life and limb vomiting. I've been on sport routes that hard bolts so close together I never had my waist above a bolt. I had fun on both.
Man... I remember the last time I ate someone's limb out of pure desperation. That causes NASTY indigestion.
Hilarity aside, I agree with Guangzhou and this is what I said earlier. Trying to make someone do things your way and your way only in a sport where death can result from blindly following what people say is... really, really bizarre.
Nice catch on the typo. I have to admit, I have done a few leads that nearly caused me to vomit. I might even have vomited on a ledge or two in my time, but I my partners have not photos to prove it.
Your post gave me visions of people with tyre irons 'educating' bolters about the best way to do things. Your logic boils down to xenophobia, nothing more. And I mean that in the 'fear of strange things' sense, not the fear of foreigners sense
Think what you will. However, I'm talking about the correct "PROCESS". I can talk slow for you if you need. Take a moment to imagine that the guy went up to a route with only 2 bolts, a mostly gear route, and chopped one off: just PULLED one of the bolts out, chopped it, with the same consideration his "friend" did in putting in this one in. same - same but different. The "friend" in this new case, gave the same consideration and decided that the first ascentionist put in an unneeded bolt and without discussing it with you, the FA, or anyone who was climbing at the area, just went up and yanked it right out with the statement "It was unnecessary SO I CHOPPED IT". See? Dude is still an asshole because it's not about the bolt, but about the PROCESS. This process has been worked out for a long long time, and it works good if we just consider others and ask, THEN act, and not the reverse which in this case was ACT, then tell. As in, "hey dude, you put in to many bolts on that route so I yanked out the one by the crux that I thought was unnecessary. " PROCESS.
Now how do ya feel? Same-same but different. The process is to check with the FA, "dude, that crux bolt is unnecessary, how do you feel I I chopped it"? or, if the FA are dead, no longer climbing or have moved on, ask all of your friends and folks invested in the area to see what they think first: "Guys, the route XYZ has an unnecessary bolt, what do you think about removing it and noting in the guide that a #2 Mastercam is bomber at the crux?" That is the historically accepted practice and has been for well over 50 years. ASK the folks it matters too first! That is a different thing than thinking to yourself "Oh, that's an unnecessary bolt, the route is considered a classic, but I think it's unnecessary so I'll just go up there and chop it". Then I'll tell my buddy, "hey buddy, I chopped that needless bolt on the classic route you FA'ed and you're welcome". It's a totally asswipe move either way it slices.
It's not necessarily an issue with understanding your rather simple, if asininely stated point. I have fairly good reading comprehension for a 6 year old, after all. Which is about the level at which you pitch your posts.
I disagree with your approach, not necessarily your message. It's a fine distinction, but one you may learn some day, along with subtlety, how not to shout in posts, etc.
Of course it's a good idea to talk to people before doing things that may upset them. Are you the devil if you don't? Hardly. Common sense is rather uncommon after all.
Also, the anchor in question was done in the context of a belay / rap anchor replacement project, not retrobolting or rebolting any line for the sake of climbing it per se; no protection bolts were removed, added, or replaced during that process.
So you put a rap/belay anchor in the middle of the pitch and you don't consider that retrobolting? If you clip them while leading that pitch, that would make them a protection bolt. Do you even read what you write?
healyje wrote:
In thirty six years of climbing and hundreds of FAs I've sunk one protection bolt and under a dozen fixed pins. I'm still LNT, don't use chalk, don't sport climb and, in fact, am basically rabidly anti-bolt in general. Hell, I still regularly free climb over consecutive aid hooks and ballnuts so it's not like you're having this conversation with someone who goes around 'retrobolting' anything for the sake of safety or convenience.
What about the retro-bolt you added on Reasonable Richard? Was that to make it safer?
As for your leave no trace code, how do you feel about gluing holds? SE corner? Crux move?
Why did you add bolts in the middle of a Wayne Wallace route (Christmas Tree route)? And leave Opdyke out of it.
I on the otherhand get bored pissless after awhile with easy, well-spaced, solid gear. I like it when gear gets small, technical and makes you think fast and hard. Wouldn't want to see lines that make you really think and work creatively at the pro get retrobolted.
I love this side. Here is my interpretation.
"I've been climbing a long time and can on-sight 5.11 regularly, so anything I put up below 5.9 is going to run-out and dangerous. Even if the route is one pitch long.
On the other hand, anything 5.11 or harder should be better protected because the climbing is hard.
Your interpretation would be about as correct as my assessment of you being just a sport climber.
I on the otherhand get bored pissless after awhile with easy, well-spaced, solid gear. I like it when gear gets small, technical and makes you think fast and hard. Wouldn't want to see lines that make you really think and work creatively at the pro get retrobolted.
I love this side. Here is my interpretation.
"I've been climbing a long time and can on-sight 5.11 regularly, so anything I put up below 5.9 is going to run-out and dangerous. Even if the route is one pitch long.
On the other hand, anything 5.11 or harder should be better protected because the climbing is hard.
Your interpretation would be about as correct as my assessment of you being just a sport climber.
I on the otherhand get bored pissless after awhile with easy, well-spaced, solid gear. I like it when gear gets small, technical and makes you think fast and hard. Wouldn't want to see lines that make you really think and work creatively at the pro get retrobolted.
I love this side. Here is my interpretation.
"I've been climbing a long time and can on-sight 5.11 regularly, so anything I put up below 5.9 is going to run-out and dangerous. Even if the route is one pitch long.
On the other hand, anything 5.11 or harder should be better protected because the climbing is hard.
Your interpretation would be about as correct as my assessment of you being just a sport climber.
I have to admit, I haven't place gear in a couple of months. We'll see how I do this extended weekend. Going for a first Ascent on a 2000ft granite cliff. Hoping to find a clean line ground to summit. (Clean meaning no bolts, not no dirt.)
So you put a rap/belay anchor in the middle of the pitch and you don't consider that retrobolting? If you clip them while leading that pitch, that would make them a protection bolt. Do you even read what you write?
No, I didn't. You're going to have to be way more specific here as to exactly what you're talking about as no anchor has been or was added to the middle of any pitch. The rap anchor in the form of the wreath of tat came off the tree and got put down on the ledge where an anchor was originally. Folks didn't like that so it got put back up at the tree where it has been all along. Again, get specific as to what you are talking about. And I free rope solo FFA > Dods > Dastardly without clipping any bolts at all.
areyoumydude wrote:
What about the retro-bolt you added on Reasonable Richard? Was that to make it safer?
That bolt on RR that [Opdycke and] I added, as discussed ad nauseum on cc, was a special case relative to it being one of the few 5.9s starting off the trail and an 'attractive nuisance' given the ludicris star rating - and the only line out where folks suckered onto it by the guidebook could easily deck from seventy feet. That was entirely a matter of politics relative to the climbing management plan and climbing advisory committee the BRSP is attempting to reconstitute. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any personal interest in seeing a bolt there. It's not one I need at all.
In reply to:
As for your leave no trace code, how do you feel about gluing holds? SE corner? Crux move?
Again, I could give a flying fuck whether the crux hold stayed or went when it ended up thoroughly loosened by whatever gorilla aped their way through there screwing up the crux and tearing up the traverse from p1. Opdycke expressed no little concern about it and I told him to ask around and see what folks wanted - cleared off or fixed and that I'd be happy to do either. The consensus came back to fix it if possible. It is fixed and there is no visible trace it was.
areyoumydude wrote:
Why did you add bolts in the middle of a Wayne Wallace route (Christmas Tree route)? And leave Opdyke out of it.
I didn't. You'll again have to get way more specific if you are implying I did.
Cool, so you did retro bolt Reasonable Richard. Thanks for clearing that up. Good idea too. Keeps it safe.
Yes, but it had nothing to do with my personal interests or my climbing the line. It was strictly to remove the only place at Beacon where, in the event of a decking, that a newly reconstituted Climbing Advisory Committee not comprised of Beacon locals could point to as an excuse for widespread retrobolting.
In reply to:
I've never reinforced a hold though I'm not apposed to it if done right. I don't think LNT supports gluing holds though.
I agree, it isn't, and fixing it had nothing whatsoever to do with my personal ethics or my climbing on the route.
In reply to:
SummerDaze next to the tree, half way up the pitch.
No anchor was added, the anchor on the tree was simply moved to the rock. Part of the deal where Lisa Lantz, the WSP SW Resource Steward, who wanted the chains down and anchors off the trees. The anchor is exactly where it was before, it's just on the rock behind the tree instead of on the tree itself.
(This post was edited by healyje on Feb 23, 2010, 8:48 AM)
Cool, so you did retro bolt Reasonable Richard. Thanks for clearing that up. Good idea too. Keeps it safe.
Yes, but it had nothing to do with my personal interests or my climbing the line. It was strictly to remove the only place at Beacon where, in the event of a decking, that a newly reconstituted Climbing Advisory Committee not comprised of Beacon locals could point to as an excuse for widespread retrobolting.
In reply to:
I've never reinforced a hold though I'm not apposed to it if done right. I don't think LNT supports gluing holds though.
I agree, it isn't, and fixing it had nothing whatsoever to do with my personal ethics or my climbing on the route.
In reply to:
SummerDaze next to the tree, half way up the pitch.
No anchor was added, the anchor on the tree was simply moved to the rock. Part of the deal where Lisa Lantz, the WSP SW Resource Steward, who wanted the chains down and anchors off the trees. The anchor is exactly where it was before, it's just on the rock behind the tree instead of on the tree itself.
For someone so rabidly anti-bolting I think it is funny that you think adding two bolts next to a tree is not adding an anchor. Just because someone throws a bunch of tat around a tree doesn't make it an anchor.
The Summer Daze tree is right in the middle of the pitch, just like the Dodd's Jam tree. Do you not understand or are you just f*cking with me. Really?!?
For someone so rabidly anti-bolting I think it is funny that you think adding two bolts next to a tree is not adding an anchor. Just because someone throws a bunch of tat around a tree doesn't make it an anchor..
When someone throws four slings with rings around a tree I call it an anchor. Far be it from me to simply remove it or you'd now be howling about that. One of the bolts is behind the tree, only one is next to it. It is functionally EXACTLY the way it was found. Someone could clip in that exact spot before and after.
areyoumydude wrote:
The Summer Daze tree is right in the middle of the pitch, just like the Dodd's Jam tree. Do you not understand or are you just f*cking with me. Really?!?
Given you are fucking with me and seem unable to grasp the concept of functional equivalence, then yeah, I guess I am fucking with you. Really.
For someone so rabidly anti-bolting I think it is funny that you think adding two bolts next to a tree is not adding an anchor. Just because someone throws a bunch of tat around a tree doesn't make it an anchor.
like I said, a picture of Ken Nichols by his bed. put the drill down Joe
Ethics are personal. Some people agree with your ethics, other don't. As a climber, each individual needs to decide what is acceptable risk and what isn't. I have been on routes, first ascents or repeats that were life and limb vomiting. I've been on sport routes that hard bolts so close together I never had my waist above a bolt. I had fun on both.
Man... I remember the last time I ate someone's limb out of pure desperation. That causes NASTY indigestion.
Hilarity aside, I agree with Guangzhou and this is what I said earlier. Trying to make someone do things your way and your way only in a sport where death can result from blindly following what people say is... really, really bizarre.
When did someone hold a gun to your head and *make* you get on something too scary for you?
You skipped over the part where he said:
guangzhou wrote:
and all were risk I was willing to accept at the time.
Don't like the climb? Too scary, or too boringly safe? Fine, don't do it. But respect the FA.
I found the subthread about anthropophagy much more interesting than the repetitive cries of 'respect the FA, or else... something!'. Let's go back to that. When was the last time you gnawed on someone?
like I said, a picture of Ken Nichols by his bed. put the drill down Joe
Are you still trying to not make a point. Out with it if you are son.
ken is a hypocrite, you are a hypocrite pops. you talk ALL KINDS of shit about bolts then spend your free time drilling rock. kenny was the opposite though, he started out bolting then turned rabidly anti bolt. its like you have a screw loose or something. maybe you just like playing with tools.
everyone must follow joe healys ethics or be a pussy sport climber cause healyje is a bad ass who runs it out all the time on ball nuts and hooks. I love reading your post history, the amount of repetitive spewing is gargantuan.
(This post was edited by mobls on Feb 23, 2010, 10:12 PM)
35 /
64%
