Bolting "ethics"

Mobley - Did you climb at the New? I'd love to see Ken and his minions try to bring their "bolting ethics" down to NRG. By the way, New River Rendezvous coming up!!! All you sport climbers out there, get down the New. Bolted routes galore and no one will suggest you hang a knotted static line on the face to clip into to "protect" the rock. Give me a fricken break.

mobley wrote:I didnt even get to vote...

I voted, but only the first 50 got counted, so who knows if mine counted.... I agree with Brian that a wider survey would probably yield similar percentages.

mobley wrote:Imagine all the X routes in CT that could be R routes, or better yet PG routes. I think we all like to lead safe climbs right?

Wrong. If you want to do something safe, there is nothing perfectly safe - even driving or staying at home have risks. If you want to climb safe, you can toprope - but that is not perfectly safe, either - your rope can get trashed over an edge if you are not cafeful. When lead climbing, you are accepting some risks, such as lack of gear, gear failure, and belayer failure. You choose to accept these risks if you lead, because they are an interesting part of the challenge. Same with runout routes - there is more risk and challenge involved. Some will decline and choose safer adventures, and having that choice is important. If all climbs had bomber pro every 10 feet, the available flavors of risk are fewer and the game is less interesting.

Imagine all the non-X climbs in CT that you can already lead. I believe there are over 2000 (2786 total routes in the 1995 guidebook). Do we need to bolt the X ones so that you can feel safe leading everything? Raise your level, don't lower the climb to your level by adding bolts to stuff that has already been done. Understand and accept your limitations or train to raise them.

I don't see why you couldn't bolt climbs and if people do not want to use them, more power to them. I know plenty of people that free solo their warmups clipping zero bolts the whole climb, even though they are bolted climbs. They don't freak out at the sight of those evil hangars. The Sharp End has a great little bit on trad climbers that are leading x rated trad routes that have bolts they just don't clip. Learn from them!

So to all the old timers - I get it, you guys were crazy sons of bitches when you were younger, and if your still leading those R and X's you still are. Some of your leads are in essence free solos. So how come people free solo sport routes or skip bolts for that extra rush without a problem, but you guys can't place gear and ignore the bolt. This isnt about wanting to grid bolt CT as our friend talks about. This is about old timers affraid that if their climbs are bolted, then people will not see how dangerous and amazing thier "accomplioshments" have been. This is part of the reason all the climbs here are also sandbagged. I know Ken loves to laugh at 5.12 climbers that cant make it up some CT 5.11's. I just think it's funny that no one realized the younger generation will outlive you all. The result is that more cliffs will ultimately be bolted, and Ken Nicols will go down in climbing lore as being the biggest asshole in our areas climbing history. I dont know why I can place gear next to bolts but some people simply feak out at the idea. Its not ethics, it's pride!

P.S. There are other climbs bolted in CT other than Fire Wall now, and more on the way. Ken get your hacksaw ready and get finding.

CT Climber wrote:I don't see why you couldn't bolt climbs and if people do not want to use them, more power to them.

True, there is the option of just not clipping them. But it is a less committing lead that way - you can always change your mind and decide to clip if things get scarier than you thought. It is similar to soloing next to a fixed rope - if things get bad, you can grab it, so you are not as committed and can relax more than you would on a "real" solo.

But I think your idea applies better to climbs that were topropes and have never been led. The topropers probably mostly don't care if the lead bolts are there or not. So it is more down to the basic question of whether the added enjoyment of leading vs. toproping is worth the impact of adding the bolts. For me, it is not worth it because the climb was already easily accessible by toprope. I'm not interested in leading 40' climbs with 2 bolts, or 60' climbs with 2 bolts preclipped and 2 other bolts left for me to clip enroute. Other people may have other standards for bolting - there is diversity (even in the young generation you mention). But you won't find me bolting such crags, in CT, CA or elsewhere.

Here is one more angle on the issue. I happen to have a very weak ankle, so I do not boulder much - I just can't jump off from anything more than 4' up or so without hurting my ankle. Should I be allowed to bolt boulder problems, so that I can lead them? How about the highballs - those don't seem "safe" to me. Would the boulderers care if I put bolts on their climbs, even though they have done fine without them for years? I could even toprope those boulder problems and save my ankles, but why should I, if I happened to enjoy leading 1-2 bolt climbs? Bolting is the "modern" way, right? I realize you did not advocate bolting boulder problems; this is just an analogy to illustrate that some climbers probably prefer their rocks unbolted unless there is a good reason for it. The "good reason" part is what the controversy is about - people have different standards for when bolts are worth the impact.

CT Climber wrote:This is about old timers affraid that if their climbs are bolted, then people will not see how dangerous and amazing thier "accomplioshments" have been.

I don't agree - that is putting a lot of words into the mouths of the old timers. I think they were/are just climbers like the rest of us, playing a game on the small crags. It's just that bolts were not part of that game at that time. (Except for briefly maybe about 5 climbs of the 2786 CT climbs in the 1995 guidebook that I'm aware of). And many of the climbs potentially subject to bolting are topropes - I don't think the old timers are claiming those were dangerous.

CT Climber wrote:P.S. There are other climbs bolted in CT other than Fire Wall now, and more on the way. Ken get your hacksaw ready and get finding.

I'd prefer to ignore the bolt removal side of the equation, but if you believe that widespread/secret bolting is a solution because chopping is difficult, you are mistaken. [Actually, I don't think you believe this, but some people might.]

"cutting wheel (tool)
use of abrasives ( in abrasive (material): Cutting wheels )
Abrasive wheels have replaced steel saws in many places. Thin, abrasive cutoff wheels are capable of sawing through nearly every material known, at rates faster than those of metal saws, while generating less heat and producing a better cut surface. Some space-age metals, because of their hardnesses, can be cut only with abrasive wheels..."

If it helps, disagreement over bolts is not unique to Connecticut. Here are some recent examples in Yosemite Valley:

• East Buttress of El Capitan - the old fixed pin which was used by some people to aid or protect the 5.10 crux at the start of p2 fell out or was removed. (There is a different way to protect the move, but it is hard to aid). Somebody replaced it with a bolt a few years ago, nearby. It was quickly chopped and has not been replaced. (No, Ken was not visiting.. :-) )
• Serenity Crack p1 - for years (at least since the 1982 guidebook) there was an old bolt about 25' off the ground that was the first good pro. It was upgraded to 3/8" at one point. A couple of years ago it was chopped, and people noticed you could place a good green Camalot or red Alien in the crack right next to where it had been. (A Friend does not fit there - the crack is a little too shallow). People asked around, and the bolt was not there in 1967 when it was freed. The bolt reappeared briefly, and then was removed again.
• Angel's Approach p1 - 5 bolts shown on the topo. I climbed it 2 years ago and the bolt count was up to 12. Several were placed 2 feet above the previous bolt. I believe it was because people did not know how to properly replace the old bolts. We replaced the original bolts, and the obviously added ones (all with the same type of unusual hanger) were removed. (This is more an example of a cleanup than a disagreement).

If it was Arizona, Ken Nichols would have been in a shallow, unmarked desert grave for ten years now. You need to give the dude a permanent blanket party, or maim his hands so he can't hold a freakin' drill. And, yes I am a trad climber, who likes to clip bolts, too.

Death threats solve nothing. You claim the situation is so easy, but it is not. This is part of the distorted idea that Ken is somehow the only person willing to chop bolts, or maybe the only person who thinks "no bolts in Connecticut". Dream on, but I'd appreciate it if you left the (implied) death threats out.

yeah jesco, it was a rainy week at the New but we managed to get in about 5 pitches a day with all the overhangs around. was my first visit and certainly not the last. what a place. Cresenta(in the rain) was my favorite lead of the trip.

it seems like this thread is turning into a slam on one cliff that was legally bolted. too bad. its almost like all the right wing nutjobs that still cant get over McLame not winning the election. its over, its done, get over it. when someone want to stand on their high horse and tell other people the style they should climb its kind of sad.

so clint, are you going tell us next how we should all wear hiking boots, use hemp ropes and pound 2x4s in the cracks for pro? cams are kind of new school and we all know sticky rubber is cheating. has anyone here told you how you should climb(in CA) yet?

CT Climber wrote:P.S. There are other climbs bolted in CT other than Fire Wall now, and more on the way. Ken get your hacksaw ready and get finding.

This also bums me out, because some years ago I was talking with Ken (about bolts of course) and I asked him if it would work to have a designated bolted crag or two, where people could have their fun sportclimbing and leave the rest of the crags free from bolts. I thought it might work. But he said it would just encourage the bolters to "develop" more crags. I remember the phrase he used to describe what he felt their attitude towards the bolted crag would be:

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is up for grabs."

I thought the Fire Wall might be a chance to see if he was right. But actually since the chopping in October 2008, the C3 folks seem to be getting no break for their efforts to get landowner permission, so the "designated crag theory" never got a real test.

So the feud continues; I guess there's always someone who wants to keep fighting the bolt wars, no respect of the opponents, and too much ingrained hate....

I thought the landowner permission angle might create the designated crag. But since the Fire Wall is tucked away in the woods, stealth access is easy and security is poor. (Unlike much of the Gunks where you walk along the carriage road and it's hard to hide enough to even duck the climbing fee.) Same for most of the Traprock crags - so easy to stealth bolt/chop.

Kudos to you Clint for being classy when it comes to this posting game. I think you've been pretty agreeable in this whole debate, regardless of the comments made to you. Oh, and I live in Boulder now, but I lived in CT for 22 years so I feel that I have the "right" to post.

There was a point in time where NO ONE was a local. You were just a climber. Guess who taught all the Yale and Harvard clubs how to front point in the gullies at Mt. Washington? Yup, Yvon from California. And guess who showed quite a few people in CA how to use pitons etc. Yup, Underhill from CT. How many classic climbs has Henry Barber put up in Colorado?? He's done quite a few climbs here in addition to NH and NY. Fritz?? He's from Germany. Robbins? Jeez, where hasn't he climbed?!?! I could fill up a whole page of climbers that didn't allow the "local" monkier to influence not only their climbing, but also their relationships with other climbers.

Everyone is so focused on who's a local and what stake they have in that area. If it wasn't for these "traveling" non-local climbers, none of "our" areas would even be developed. As climbers, I think (IMO) that we ALL have some sort of stake in how climbs are developed and managed. Read up on your history, we aren't that removed from it....

Scott, I don't think it is so much about "locals" as it is what the climbers who frequently visit the crags are currently dealing with. There is a contributer to this thread who is vigorously posting his side of the debate. I have read every post in this thread and where he presents with great articulation and great quoting skill, he is only telling a fraction of what the reality is, ie what you can read about in a guide book. So for the locals slant, we live with it on a daily basis, our friends to the West do not, but speak as authority because they may have spent a semester or two attending school here.
What harm does installing fixed anchors cause? It seems as though it would improve the safety and quality of the climbs, I don't see a problem there. That's what I'd like to see in my home state of Connecticut.

Well said Jim. I agree with you, sometimes I think the attitudes of some folks towards others grinds my gears.

It's CT's history that has really lent to the ethics there. With such great climbers like Fritz and Barber it's no wonder why there is such a no-bolting ethos. I'm not 100% sure if I think that it was their staunch ethics or just the standards of the day that helped establish it that way. Most people don't even realize how rich CT's climbing history is and how much it has lent to the sport.

I hear Henry still only leads on passive gear.

Thanks, Scott. Speaking of well-travelled climbers, even Layton Kor has a few FAs/FFAs at Ragged.

Jim O'Brien wrote:What harm does installing fixed anchors cause? It seems as though it would improve the safety and quality of the climbs, I don't see a problem there.

[Oops - Jim meant top anchor bolts, not lead bolts - see next post]
Safety is a lame excuse for rap bolting a toprope. People do it because they want the thrill of leading it. It is an artificial experience in my opinion. But if people want to do this and have landowner permission, that is their choice. It just doesn't happen to be mine.

Quality is determined by the rock - the moves and the actual climbing you do. Not by whether there are bolts.

For the record, I lived in MA for 9 years, and climbed in CT during that time. I still remember my first trip to Ragged - especially doing Unconquerable Crack (there is quality that I think we all agree on). I climbed it with Rich Perch who was looking for partners at the crag; he hailed from the Tetons at the time. I've been back to climb in CT a few times since then; always fun.

Clint, I guess I am not using the proper terminology as you understand it. Fixed anchor, not protection anchors in lue of placing gear. an anchor. not retro-bolting trad climbs into sport climbs. the thing you clip into to bring your second up, let's see how else can I put it... Whatever, Please do not confuse the issue by lumping rap bolting and belay anchors as the same.
Lugging the static line to the crag sucks but we put up with it. Build a gear anchor you say, yeah I’m with you except for the ridgeline is fractured loose rock, courtesy of the annual freeze thaw cycle. There are quite a few places you can safely build an anchor, but there are just as many that you can not. Cathole for example, gear anchors galore over the Danzig face, nothing over the Saturday night special face. That same freeze thaw cycle also creates many loose rocks, gravel etc and monkeying around at the top of the climb is dangerous for anyone below. So for me, the safety of the climb and the belay are directly correlated to the quality of the climb. What good is a beautiful line if when you reach the top you have no where to anchor.
I’m sure there will be many who call bullshit on this but can you tell me why these lines are not being regularly led on gear and toproping dominates the climbing style in Connecticut?
Let’s regress to the OP, the discussion started concerning the ridiculous absence of anchors and fixed pro (that was chopped in the late 90’s by KN and the RMF will not replace because it will only foster vandalism).
Anyone who says that slinging trees does not hurt them is wrong. I know of many trees that are dead and dying just because of this, and how comforting is it to know these trees are growing in about 2” of soil? Not very.
So Clint, I admire your passion but I do not think all of us are on the same page. I am always in awe when I read of the development of CT climbing but as stated in a previous post, the FA’s were doing what was being practiced at the time, and times have changed. I’m sure you’ll clip into the belay anchors when you do finally make it back to CT to climb. Drop me a line, we can climb together.

Jim,

Oops, sorry - I misunderstood what you meant about the type of fixed anchors. Thanks for clearing it up. I agree, fixed top anchors are different from lead protection bolts.

I'll admit that lugging a static rope around for making toprope anchors does not sound like fun - those things can be heavy. But they do provide a low impact and safe top anchor, since they don't stretch much over edges and get coreshot while they are out of sight above you. Although as you mentioned, if there is loose rock on top where the static rope runs, it could get knocked onto people below. Maybe a little loose rock relocation might solve it? There's a story from climbing Stage Fright at Valley View (West Peak) in the 1982 guide - "Before the ledge was cleaned off with a long-handled hoe, it supported a dangerously loose mass of rock." :-)

I am sympathetic to your point about how a good climb deserves a good/safe anchor. Certainly in climbing areas where top anchor bolts are established, people will put nicer hardware on the better climbs (fixed steel biners or towing hooks, large diameter chain links, etc.). On a better climb, more people do it, so more people benefit from investments in labor and/or hardware. And in areas where fixed top anchor bolts are not accepted (like Gunks, gritstone, etc.), the alternatives like gear and static ropes will be used if the climb is worth the effort.

Jim O'Brien wrote:can you tell me why these lines are not being regularly led on gear and toproping dominates the climbing style in Connecticut?

I'm not sure if my answer is accurate, because I haven't been there to observe the people toproping recently. But probably the people toproping in CT have similar backgrounds to those toproping in CA, so it is probably:

• less experienced people, who don't have trad leading skills yet
• young people in college who haven't invested in a rack of trad gear, partly because it's expensive
• group climbing trips - people can get more climbing time in if a few topropes are set up, instead of waiting for 1-2 people to lead things more slowly
• fairly easy access to set up topropes
• maybe there is an increased awareness of the risks of leading? I just got a copy of the Fasulo guidebook today, with the graphic description of the guy decking from Broadway.

I'm not sure if you meant the infrequency of leading on some routes might be related to the lack of bolted top anchors? I think if a person has the skills and is motivated to lead, once they top out on the lead, they can just run the extra climbing rope back to trees or other anchors, and sit on the edge of the cliff to belay their partner. Maybe with the rope doubled to the remote tree/anchor to reduce stretch, if they have enough rope left over. (Alternatively, tie off the rope temporarily to something and go fetch a static line, like they would if toproping the same climb).

I also agree that trees can only handle so much abuse, to their bark and to exposure of their roots as soil erodes. It all depends on the structure of the tree and how protected the soil is. Out here in the west, douglas firs with thick bark can be almost indestructible, but smaller trees with thinner bark, in shallower soil need to be monitored. Trees in trouble should be fenced off (plastic flagging tape?) and soil stabilized if people are serious about protecting them.

Greg Shyloski posted some good photos (on facebook C3 group, not here at MP yet) of clifftop soil erosion problems (exposing roots of dying trees) at Otter Cliffs in Acadia N.P., where the NPS acted to fence off the soil line with tape and install some U-bolts. One of the photos shows a climber (probably a guided student?) standing on bare soil next to a dying tree - it was not fully fenced off and the person did not realize you need to stay on the rock to preserve the soil. So education is a part of it.

People (earlier in this thread) have mentioned some specific trees at the top of Ragged that are not doing well. Posting some photos would probably help the cause. Although depending on the location of things, the solution may involve just anchoring to trees further away. As I posted earlier in this thread, I believe the RMF can't add new anchors at Ragged due to the conservation easement with the Berlin Land Trust which prohibits them. So alternative solutions need to be used at Ragged.

Jim, thanks for the offer on CT climbing - I will definitely take you up on it if I get the chance. And if you come out to CA, and want to climb or just get some beta, I'm here to help.

Seriously? 7 (long) posts in 2 days? Wish I had the time to lecture others with endless mind numbing babble, regurgitating the same long winded points over and over. However I have a job. This thread has become quite ridiculous by this point. By the way what happened to the NY spectrum of this "ethics" discussion? Or is it simply that bringing 'Dacks ethics into the picture/discussion might shatter much of this anti-bolting hypocritical nonsense? Good lord, get a life. I would continue typing to further my point, but I'm going out to make some rock juice. Maybe some should do the same.
Oh, and for the record, a top-rope ascent IS NOT CONSIDERED A FIRST ASCENT!!! ANYWHERE!!! As was stated earlier that Ken claimed many FA's on a top-rope.

Phoenix wrote: Seriously? 7 (long) posts in 2 days? Wish I had the time to lecture others with endless mind numbing babble, regurgitating the same long winded points over and over. However I have a job. This thread has become quite ridiculous by this point. By the way what happened to the NY spectrum of this "ethics" discussion? Or is it simply that bringing 'Dacks ethics into the picture/discussion might shatter much of this anti-bolting hypocritical nonsense? Good lord, get a life. I would continue typing to further my point, but I'm going out to make some rock juice. Maybe some should do the same. Oh, and for the record, a top-rope ascent IS NOT CONSIDERED A FIRST ASCENT!!! ANYWHERE!!! As was stated earlier that Ken claimed many FA's on a top-rope.

mind numbing is right. especially with no real knowledge of the situation it is even worse... yep, the Gunks doesnt allow anchors... all TR climbers are newbies... bolts cant be replaced at RM...I'd like to see pictures(or you could see for yourself)... lets hear more from 3000 miles away.

Mobley, reading your comments I really can't help but laugh. It seems like you think that the current access issues, erosion problems, as well as the argument over fixed protection/anchors are recent developments. Fact of the matter is, all of these problems have existed for decades.

You seem to think that because Clint is currently residing in California that he has no idea what goes on here, and is removed from the Connecticut climbing scene. You all paint Ken as a villain without hesitation or consideration. Well, consider this: While Ken is currently a derisive character in our neck of the woods, in the past he has done more to develop climbing areas in Connecticut that any other singular person in the state's history. Clint helped Ken put together and publish several of the guidebooks to our beloved crags. His history here puts him much closer to the heart of the matter than you could ever hope to be.

You've mentioned that you're an immigrant to our state. Maybe that's the problem. You have no concept of the proud history of Connecticut climbing. You view this state and its ethics as an outsider, and maybe as a result, you shouldn't be allowed to share your opinion on the matter.

The moral of that rant is that it's easy to turn any argument around. I think we should focus on moving forward from where we stand, and for that to happen one needs opinions from more than just the people that agree. I personally don't understand how a discussion about eroding cliff tops and fixed anchors has lead to the bolting and conversion of an established area into a sport crag.

What ever happened to protecting the asset? Since the conversion, traffic to Firewall has increased probably 1,000 times. There are not enough fixed anchors to serve all of the climbs. By my account, we've taken a step backward there. The only benefit as far as impact is concerned has been the redirection of traffic from other areas.

Crap like this will be the inevitable result of bolting CT's cliffs:

rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…;page=unread#unread

Shylo wrote:CT climbing history "proud"? Hardly, more like sad. Ken has done nothing positive or proud for climbing. Ken has closed cliffs like the small cliff and owls lair, he runs around at night destroying routes even in other states, he violates no trespassing orders, falcon bans, landowner agreements, and gets arrested. He has also poured roofing nails over other peoples driveways because he doesn't agree with them. You are proud of such behavior?

First, Ken did not close small cliff and owl's lair. They were closed by the land owner because of environmental impact. If you take the time to have a conversation with him, he'll give you personal use of the cliffs. I have it, Ken has it... you don't?

Second, you're intentionally twisting my words. I said "IN THE PAST". Ken was there, scraping off lichen and loose rock, building trails, and writing guidebooks before you were born. The amount of groundwork he did was amazing, and definitely surpasses that of any other individual. His judgement has obviously slipped in his age, no one is denying that either.

My post was not about Ken or bolts. It's about an open mind. You guys are not prepared to consider all sides of the argument before you speak, and worse, before you act.

You also conveniently ignored the part of the post where i asked, "what happened to impact"?

Seriously, what happened to impact? I though that's what you guys were all about? It seems like you just used impact as an excuse to make headway for the bolting of sport routes at established crags. Well, I hate to say it, but if that was your intent all along (which i have a hunch it was) you could have at least installed the fixed anchors that you were talking about in a way that allows use of them for all of the climbs at the cliff.