Los Alamos & White Rock (NM) bolting agreement

suprasoup wrote:Blindly trusting someone else to keep you safe is unacceptable. That's why we double check each other in climbing. To keep ourselves safe and THEN our partners. You're a danger to yourself when you hand the reins of your life to chance and circumstance without doing your best to stack the odds in your favor. You're a liability to your partner for the same reasons. YOU can't spot potentially dangerous situations if you're knowledge is incomplete. YOU can't double check his/her anchors.

Clients trust guides to keep them safe every day. Before you get on an airplane, do you perform an inspection? Do you quiz the pilot, or demand to see his resume? People trust other people with their lives all the time.

Monomaniac wrote: Clients trust guides to keep them safe every day. Before you get on an airplane, do you perform an inspection? Do you quiz the pilot, or demand to see his resume? People trust other people with their lives all the time.

I don't trust guides (the worst, most dangerous stuff I have seen in the mountains has been committed by 'guides'....sorry to the guides out there that are safe etc.). The client/guide relationship is a different ball game that probably shouldn't apply to standard climbing partnerships. As far as the pilot? I trust (maybe stupidly) that the pilot is certified by the FAA up to a high standard.

I think supra's point is well taken, and I would more or less agree with his points.

Also, to Allison, you quoted me earlier in the thread and seemed to imply that I thought your following your boyfriend on trad is sad. Not true. Read the quote more carefully.

The thread thus far has been pretty informational and civil. I do have a couple of questions/comments for specific individuals though.

Chuck. The post with pictures is appreciated and informative, though your chockstone anchor point looked a little sketch (just poking fun). I'm think the 'no new bolts in LA county' is WAY overkill and not reasonable. Further, there is NO middle ground with this, which I think is problematic. For instance, I would argue that the gallows edge climbs, which are new with respect to the original bolting ban, are a great set of climbs for beginners and it would be a shame if those climbs or ones like them were never bolted, which is what would happen with an all out ban. Also, whether or not the bolted anchors were right or wrong, I would sincerely hope that if you know who chopped them, then you would ream them a new asshole for doing such a piss poor, ugly, hack ass job of removing the bolts. If you are going to do it, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for not removing the stud and patching the hole and masking it with local stone/dirt.

Jason Halladay. First, let me say thank you for the work you have done on improving local climbs. The new anchors on Thorazine are great and I appreciate the time, money, and effort. That said, with respect to the pics that Chuck posted, can you comment on what your rationale was for putting in anchor bolts at the stations where the pictures are? In your judgement, why were they necessary?

Thanks everyone for keeping things mostly civil. Cheers.

J. Albers wrote:...with respect to the pics that Chuck posted, can you comment on what your rationale was for putting in anchor bolts at the stations where the pictures are? In your judgement, why were they necessary? Thanks everyone for keeping things mostly civil. Cheers.

Thanks, J., for asking this question. This comes to the heart of the issue for me and what I've been trying to convey all along. Most, if not all of those photos (I didn't look at them all, I get the point), were taken at Old New Place. Obviously anyone with the gear and skill can build those gear anchors there--Chuck has proven that and I've done it for years too. However, the ONP exemplifies a White Rock Canyon (WRC) area that has trees that are extremely convenient for using as anchor points for every climb there. And, as I've seen for years and years, when given the choice of tree or gear anchor, the top-roping climbers almost always choose the trees because it's convenient, cheaper (no rack required) and faster to setup. It also seems to give the impression it's safer--I've heard comments from numerous climbers that don't often deal with gear that they feel gear is not as reliable. Climbers like you and I who have been climbing for a long time, lead gear-protected routes and have fallen on gear frequently know that perception is not true.

Therefore, here's my rationale...in my estimate, at least 75 percent of the climbing done at the Old New Place, The Playground and New New Place is top-roping. The large majority of those users either do not own the gear or appreciate its usage (because they most TR cracks that are 5.10 or harder and don't plan to lead gear-protected routes) so they use the trees. However, if bolts are present, they go straight for those and are done walking around the top of the cliff. This reduces ecological impact on the cliff top, reduces exposure to the cliff edge (less time spent around the top) which then reduces the potential for sending off rocks onto other climbers. The reduction in time exposed to the cliff edge is also an important point for me to stress. Most of the time, a climber simply setting up a TR is not anchored anywhere while doing the setup. (I know that doesn't have to be the case but real-world experience shows me that's how it's done most often.) A person leading one of these routes has roped up and placed gear on the way up and therefore wouldn't die if he/she fell while setting up an anchor. So reducing the time spent at the cliff edge is important to me too.

That paragraph there is the best I've been able to word that conveys my feelings and rationale for placing anchor bolts in areas that have traditionally been "trad" areas and even on routes where it appears a viable gear anchor can be setup. This flows nicely into this quote...

Neil Soice wrote:I would hope that each generation asks why nobody bolted it before. Especially in a place like NM and White Rock, where easy access climbing is a way of life.

I also really appreciate Neil making this point because I think it's an important question to ask. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, these areas saw much less traffic than they do now and most likely the number of active climbers frequenting these areas could be counted on one or two hands. 20+ years later we see a much larger, much more varied community of climbers climbing not just at WRC but everywhere. The impact we climbers are putting on these areas is growing quite quickly with growing numbers and numbers that frequently TR the lines in WRC. So yes, in the 70s and 80s it would have seemed like overkill and poor taste to place anchor bolts on most routes. They weren't being climbed that much and the climbers of that generation were, admittedly, more bold and more proficient than many of the climbers going to the WRC areas now.

I empathize with the few individuals that have posted here regarding not placing these anchor bolts and appreciate their reasoning and feelings. I really do. Honestly. I hate seeing unnecessary bolts as much as they do (well, maybe not quite that much, but you get my point) but I believe it's a stretch to apply the "wilderness" ethic to these 50 foot walls that are mostly TRed and accessible from the car within 5 minutes. I know the "anti-bolt" folks hate bolts they deem unnecessary. I see that and I understand it. But I'm asking people to really consider what I've said and think about the impact we're having on these areas.

Chuck made the point that he'd be glad to give some of his old gear to those that don't have it. And to teach them how to use it and encourage them to use it instead of the trees. That's a very nice offer and I would expect a few would take him up on that. But it's very unreasonable to expect he can supply all the would-be TRers with gear and the know-how to use it. There are just too many climbers these days for that to work. Therefore, the well-placed anchor bolts placed over the edge and camouflaged seem to be the best way, in my mind, to solve this.

I know this was a long-winded response and if you read it all, I'm impressed and thank you for it.

I know you'll always have to have the last word, Mark, but I want to say a few things. When I said "a couple of climbers " have taken away the trad cliffs by putting in anchor bolts...I was referring to the actual placers...and I thought that was Jason and perhaps a few others. I certainly didn't mean that there were only a couple of pro-bolters....alas, there are far too many! And, for heaven's sake, why retrobolt a wonderful route?! It was natural to assume some climber had taken it upon himself to "improve" that route...making it possible to climb with no trad gear. And it seemed very dangerous to lure climbers up there, who, after clipping that first overhang bolt, wouldn't have wires for the crack, and if they fell before clipping the next bolt, might hit the ground. If you or Jason or Josh found someone had added bolts to Question of Balance to make it easier to lead...wouldn't you see it as your duty to your fellow climbers to remove those bolts?

No, George, you mistake me. I have no problem with those more recent bolts..and I didn't know who had placed them.That is a REALLY hard climb. I was just trying to take the example of a really classic climb, like Question of Balance, and what we would all think if someone added bolts on the original line. Wouldn't that be anathema? (I also think the 1/4 inch bolts should be replaced.) And yes, Mark was confused. On Clean Green Dream the first bolt at the overhang is original. I was talking about the newly added NEXT bolt, which I removed. I did not remove anchors but am glad they're gone. There are plenty of belay possibilities at the top of this climb.

Sharon Dogruel wrote:Namely, a lot of the anchor bolts have been poorly placed and ropes actually run over some very rough edges. I know that many rocks are unstable, and that necessitates using better-quality rock, but there are several set-ups that are not very good. Next, one of the most important things that climbers need to learn is how to set safe anchors. The reasoning (for bolting) was that the trees have died, but many of us (over the hill gang) have been setting gear anchors for years (I still do) and it's always a reminder that safe climbing is the responsibility of the climber (not of the person who placed bolts). Last, there are many older climbers who understand that it's not bolts that make a climbing area special, it's the beauty of the place, the nature of the climbs and the joy of figuring out the route. By placing anchor bolts, the climber must conclude the climb in a specific way (often not the most aesthetic) and must always follow that route with minimal variation. If climbers are free to set their own anchors, they can choose their routes without following a prescribed pathway. I will always vote for freedom of choice and I would hope that younger climbers agree.

Thank you Sharon (and Scott) for posting these comments. I'm quoting here because there are a few points in here I'd like to address directly.

First, I'd like to hear from Sharon which bolt anchor setups she views as inadequate. Seriously, if I placed them I want to know the problem and fix them if possible. I take the safety topic very seriously. In a couple places it's necessary to place the bolts in places that will require longer runners to reach over the true edge because the rock is poor nearer the edge or dangerous to access. Sharon, please contact me with the anchors that you deem unsafe and we can try to resolve that if there really is a problem.

Second, the presence of the bolt anchors does not mean a climber cannot choose to setup a gear anchor if they want to and want the experience. The gear placements are not adversely affected by the bolts.

Third, as mentioned in the second point, a climber does not have to use the bolt anchor to finish leading the route if they so choose to go another way and establish a gear anchor or tie off from a tree. As I've seen the routes at the "trad" areas in WRC see mostly TR action, the anchor bolts are placed to facilitate the best TR line (which, in almost all cases is a natural finish for leading the routes too.)

So while I appreciate the input, it doesn't add up. No choices are being taken away and in fact, an additional choice is being given--A potentially safer, faster and less impacting choice.

Thomas Leitner wrote:In White Rock we talk about climbs that are 30-50 ft with more bolts than Rebuffat could dream of. As I said, I have made a fair amount of first ascents and have sometimes placed bolts to turn climbs into relative "safe" standards, like placing a couple of bolts on a stance or a bolt protecting a crux on an otherwise unprotected face, but I have never placed bolts on climbs that can be protected with clean gear or that could be top-roped because that would destroy the challenge and experience to other climbers...

Thanks Thomas for posting your thoughts. Again, I'm choosing to quote because I'd like to address your points.

I need to reiterate again that this current discussion involves bolts being placed for anchors only at the top of the routes of a number of routes in WRC. No new lead protection bolts have been placed on established on gear-protected routes in WRC that I know of. The anchor bolts being place at the top of the routes are not altering the leader's experience on the route nor making a gear-protected route accessible to a leader that cannot place gear for protection.

Thomas Leitner wrote:....not to mention other nature lovers who obviously do not think bolts enhance the beauty of our cliffs. Thus, the balance we should seek is to minimize the number of bolts, and it should be strongly biased towards zero on small cliffs.

Since we're all just coming up with conjecture here on what non-climbers would or would not like to see, I'd venture to guess they'd like to see living trees and no "climbers trails" at the top of the cliffs and would not likely see bolts/hangers that are placed over the edge of the cliff and that match the color of the rock. I'm serious here. Think about that. And in WRC the non-climbers are most likely to be distracted by barking dogs in the back yard that's 50 yards away, the tires and trash that has been tossed over the cliff edge and the noise of motorcyles passing by on the road that's 100 yards away.

Thomas Leitner wrote:Or even experienced climbers will clip it [the bolt] and think its safe only to catastrophically discover it was just a piece of junk "decorating" the wall in a fall. The safety argument, so popular in the US, thus works against bolting. Much safer is to know what you are dealing with, placing your own protection and, when not possible, to back off if you are not up to the challenge. Also why would anyone want to put their safety in the hands of potentially, and often really, incompetent bolters?

Seriously, how many of us have ever actually seen a bolt fail? I have never seen a bolt fail. I read the annual "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" and many other books, magazines and internet forums and have never read a report of an accident caused by a bolt/hanger failure. I think this is simply a huge exaggeration to try to come up with another argument against bolts to hide the real reason you don't want to see any bolts--you simply don't like them. As a long-time climber I can get a pretty damn good feel for how good a bolt and hanger is by looking at it, where it's placed, what type of material/bolt style it is and clipping it.

I'm not trying to be harsh or mean-spirited! I'm simply asking for those that adhere strongly to the "no bolts" ethic to step back for a moment, take a deep breath and try to understand this situation. It's a different situation than more wild,less-frequented, ground-up areas like Questa Dome, TP and the Sandias.

My opinion on the subject is this: Jason has done an excellent job on bolting carefully, safely and in good locations. The anchors are a big safety feature since there are so many new climbers who do not have gear or experience. The dead and dying trees also are a problem. Bolted anchors are also a nice convenience when rushing to top rope after a stressed day at work. I agree that 75% of WRC climbers are top roping. All my regular top roping partners (about 6-8 people) like the bolts except one. So for my group of climbing friends it is better than 80% for the anchor bolts. The reasons are safety, convenience and cost of gear. Times change and we need to change with the times. I think one word of wisdom is that the old timers who bolted were poor and could only afford a few bolts. Now climbers have more cash on average than 30 years ago. It is easier to bolt now. If an old climb had three bolts it was probably because the guy bolting only had three bolts to use. For the record, I am an old guy who still trad climbs. I have never placed a bolt but use them. The older I get the more I like bolts.

I am gladdened by the number of people and diverse opinions that are represented on this thread. There have been many good points from the various perspectives.

I'll digress later, but for now I wanted to try and bring this discussion back to its title "Los Alamos & White Rock (NM) bolting agreement." At the risk of complete egomania, I would like to restate something I said elsewhere on this site: "Viable compromises [like the White Rock agreement to split trad/sport areas] are hard to achieve and shouldn't be discarded lightly. That said, it might be time to revisit the agreement if it no longer works. I hope the LA folks can work it out."

Others may lament how poorly the compromise has been working, but I would like to take some time and admire that it held up for almost 20 years when we obviously have such a range of opinion. It seems to have tamped down the dissatisfaction for a while at least. When we self-regulate as climbers, we are able to avoid whatever management choices that the actual land owners/managers, BLM, FS, or Los Alamos County in this case (somebody correct me if this is not the landowner). Can any of us actually believe that we would be better served by decisions from LA County on whether to place bolt anchors atop the routes in the traditional White Rock areas?

Because of the obvious difficulties in finding common ground I am in favor of maintaining the bolting agreement if it still serves its purpose. If it doesn't, then we should think long and hard about how we might find a new solution. Chuck Calef suggests that we include the residents (climbing and non-climbing) of LA County in some kind of referendum, presuming, I would guess, that the local folks would obviously not support bolts atop their local trad cliffs. I am not sure I agree with the point I think he is making because the local residents might love easier access to their resource and encourage bolting, equating it perhaps with trail improvements. Supposition on my part, but the outcome of such an approach is not clear.

The major arguments I have heard thus far for the bolted anchors are convenience, safety (reduced time at cliff edge, etc), and reduction of environmental degradation. While I have my own opinions about what I would do when developing a crag, I don't think any of these arguments for the bolt anchors are so compelling to scrap what once seemed to be a viable compromise of styles. If a majority of folks feel certain anchors can no longer be set safely without bolts, perhaps due to tree death from bark beetle or loose blocks atop a climb, then I can see why a fixed anchor would be appropriate. How much do those bolts mean to those who placed them if all heck breaks loose and these arguments spill over into public view? As my earlier posts indicate, I am decidedly not a bolt hater or opponent of fixed anchors, just a supporter of keeping control over climbing areas as local as we can get it.

I can't see an easy answer to the TR crew who evidently swarm White Rock cliffs looking for trees or bolted anchors. I am struggling with this because I feel climbing should not necessarily be easy, it should require some commitment else it becomes a regular sport. If the cliffs are truly common, shared resources for all residents (including the TR folks), then they might exert the power of their superior numbers and try a legal solution to the problem. Who knows, maybe they would contact county commissioners and request bolts be added. Facetiousness aside, whatever solution we seek should include helping understand their concerns and educating each other about the problems and possibilities of each solution.

OK, my serious reply is over and I wanted to address a few points that are slightly off-topic.

--There seems to be quite a bit of emotion over bolts in general, rather than this specific scenario. Keeping the discussion rather tightly on topic might help limit hurt feelings and focus the solution. On the other hand, I kinda like hearing everyone's impassioned cries of outrage so keep it up but maybe separate it like this.
--Since we have the rarest of creatures contributing to this topic, an admitted bolt-chopper (although one with excellent repair jobs evidently, good job there), I would like express some concerns with the habit. Why not identify yourself when chopping and seek some input before just swinging the hammer? Seeking public input to place a bolt seemed important to Chuck, but not at all important for the bolt removal. This seems totally odd. Also, I am not sure I agree that it is a climber's duty to erase a new bolt on an existing climb, but I sure would get a cross-section of opinion before I would do it. Either way, the frequent divergence in how someone who placed a bolt will identify themselves while the chopper won't, always seems to reflect something critical--guilt, ego, I'm not sure, but something seems amiss.
--I am really glad these issues have not expressed themselves to this degree in the Sandias. We are not blessed/cursed with the easy access of White Rock so I hope things stay fairly calm. We also benefit from a fairly tight-knit community that talks to one another, even if our styles diverge slightly.

I apologize for the overly verbose response.

Williampenner wrote:Since we have the rarest of creatures contributing to this topic, an admitted bolt-chopper (although one with excellent repair jobs evidently, good job there), I would like express some concerns with the habit. Why not identify yourself when chopping and seek some input before just swinging the hammer? Seeking public input to place a bolt seemed important to Chuck, but not at all important for the bolt removal. This seems totally odd. Also, I am not sure I agree that it is a climber's duty to erase a new bolt on an existing climb, but I sure would get a cross-section of opinion before I would do it. Either way, the frequent divergence in how someone who placed a bolt will identify themselves while the chopper won't, always seems to reflect something critical--guilt, ego, I'm not sure, but something seems amiss.

Well said William. It is a strange, yet telling, asymmetry.

Jason Halladay wrote: Second, the presence of the bolt anchors does not mean a climber cannot choose to setup a gear anchor if they want to and want the experience. The gear placements are not adversely affected by the bolts. Third, as mentioned in the second point, a climber does not have to use the bolt anchor to finish leading the route if they so choose to go another way and establish a gear anchor or tie off from a tree. As I've seen the routes at the "trad" areas in WRC see mostly TR action, the anchor bolts are placed to facilitate the best TR line (which, in almost all cases is a natural finish for leading the routes too.) So while I appreciate the input, it doesn't add up. No choices are being taken away and in fact, an additional choice is being given--A potentially safer, faster and less impacting choice.

In past discussions on this topic, the points that you make above are never accepted by the anti-bolt crowd from what I have seen. Even earlier in this thread, a poster said that it changes the "nature" of the climb. I agree that it adds another option. For the anti-bolt trad purists who have posted thus far, what is it about anchor bolts that changes it for you? Is the urge to clip the bolts just too compelling? Or is it just that you don't like them (as Jason suggested)?

Williampenner wrote: I am struggling with this because I feel climbing should not necessarily be easy, it should require some commitment else it becomes a regular sport.

I am curious. Why would climbing becoming a regular sport be a bad thing for you?

Devin Shunk wrote: For the anti-bolt trad purists who have posted thus far, what is it about anchor bolts that changes it for you? Is the urge to clip the bolts just too compelling? Or is it just that you don't like them (as Jason suggested)? I am curious. Why would climbing becoming a regular sport be a bad thing for you?

It is just as you said, bolting TR anchors is an option or "optional", it is not a necessity.

My problem with the bolts stems from the fact that NM has tons of bolted climbing areas. What is becoming rare are areas without bolts. Yes more people climb today, but there are tons more bolted, easy access routes as well. Go to an area like Devil's Lake WI on a weekend, you'll see hordes and hordes and hordes (of all levels of experience) TRing the living hell out of that place... no bolts. People can and have adapted to different ethics. This includes lots of climbers in NM TRing at the Playground etc over the years. No bolts made those areas in White Rock a bit unique. Jason is doing an admirable thing, a thankless job really, trying to improve/contribute to the climbing community. Obviously, his intentions and methods are thoughtful.

For me the reason not to bolt anchors is very basic: When my daughter is a bit older and we go to one of the few areas remaining that are bolt free, I'm sure she will ask "Why didn't somebody bolt this?" I am hoping I can answer "Because climbing is not so important that every piece of rock must be bolted. In a few places, people made the choice to try our best to leave it as we found it."

It is a bit like our National Parks. Generations before us chose to not to build houses, McDonalds and condos on every square inch of America. We're much better for it. Maybe White Rock is not the right place for a few bolt free crags, but a previous generation (before me) thought to provide that opportunity. Why not just a few anchor bolts? Why not just a few McDonalds and condos in Yellowstone? Hey I like cheeseburgers as much or more than the next guy.

I'm sure the bolts are a big hit with the after work crowd, which on a user basis are likely the majority. I guess "Progress" is what it is, people will vote with their feet and TR's. I'm sure Jason's effort will be rewarded in this way. I agree with one of Mark's previous comments: What's done is done, chopping the bolts will likely just scar the rock and make the impact even worse. I hope the bolts don't get a hack job chop, that's not going to help anybody. I just post here in hopes that NM climbers will leave as many areas as possible unbolted. An unbolted cliff in NM has the chance to offer as close to a natural experience as anywhere.

Neil

I can see both sides of the coin. Valid arguments exist from both sides. Everyone just needs to accept the reality, that no matter what is discussed or written in whatever agreement, there is always going to be opposition, whether we like it or not. If there are bolts I disagree with, I just leave them and do not clip them. I will also clip them in some instances. As Larry said, "we also must change with the changing times." Get with it and get on with it. If climbers spent as much energy and time as they do whining on a forum, on the rock, they might accomplish something profound. Instead it is just analyzed and wasted energy. We need to come to the realization that on both ends, it will always be to fight a losing battle, no matter what the agreement ends up. More climb, less talk, and learn to co exist peacefully with one another. We all need more compassion and less ego and stop worrying about the material aspect of what is.

It has been correctly brought to my attention that since I am trying to play the role of a moderator both in this discussion as well as coming up with a new bolting agreement, that I ought to disclose where I stand on the issue and whether I have particular ties to any of the primary characters involved in the debate.

I have added an edit to the first post in this thread, so please take a look if you wish.

Below is an email to me from Greg Swift on Oct 3, 2009, posted here with his permission:

Dear Scott,

I’ve been climbing in Los Alamos County since 1981, when I first came to the lab as a postdoc. Once or twice a week toproping on our basalt cliffs after work has been one of my habits for most of the time since then, and plenty of leading there too, especially in the 1980s, although now I usually go elsewhere for leading (Diablo; Tres Piedras; Questa; farther afield).

In all that time, I’ve never been tempted to install a bolt in the Los Alamos basalt. I’ve been saddened as the bolts installed by others have slowly proliferated. I’ve wondered why people have been installing so many bolts, especially the recent top-anchor bolts at the traditional cliffs. People who don’t know how to put reliable nuts or cams in cracks? People who like to lead, but don’t want to top out and walk back down, or don’t want to top out and rap down, leaving temporary anchor pieces to be retrieved at the end of the day? These do not seem like good enough reasons for drilling holes in natural rock that has been there for millennia.

Perhaps you remember a few years ago when spray-paint graffiti suddenly proliferated at the New New Place. I hope you were angry about it. You might be surprised that I felt equally offended when all those top-anchor bolts started appearing on the previously unbolted cliffs a couple years ago. In both cases, had I known who was creating unnecessary eyesores I would have encouraged them to stop it.

How can a climber feel outrage at spray-paint graffiti on public land while claiming the right to install bolts? In both cases, one man’s creative project is another man’s eyesore, and the “leave no trace” wilderness ethic is violated. To some hikers, the bolts and graffiti may be equally offensive. Natural cliffs are beautiful. I believe hikers---including off-trail hikers---have a right to see a natural landscape, so I don’t think we should do something to a cliff to improve our climbing experience if we expect it might offend someone on the ground. [Acting on this belief, at Diablo I’ve painted a lot of bolts and chains (that were installed by other people) so they’re less visible (preferably invisible) to hikers in the arroyo.]

When the graffiti appeared at the New New Place, I did some research to find that “sand-blasting” with talcum powder is the preferred method for removing spray paint without damaging the underlying varnish on basalt. I thought removing the graffiti immediately would discourage additional vandalism. But the experts advised that the best thing is just to wait a decade and let nature remove the paint. This seems to be happening, as they predicted.

Alas, waiting a decade, or a century, will not remove bolts and drilled holes. They will be eyesores and create freeze/thaw potential for faster rock erosion for millennia.

Even bolts that are invisible to the public may be an offense against future generations. We don’t know how climbing skill, climbing equipment, and climbers’ sense of risk/adventure will evolve a few generations from now. I would not be surprised if rope-free climbing becomes routine because of some currently unimaginable advance in safety technology. I suspect that future climbers will think the bolts installed today are ridiculous and offensive. But even if the technology does not evolve in the future, and even if future climbers always choose the same balance between risk and adventure that we choose today, I think we should leave plenty of unaltered rock for them to enjoy in whatever way they choose---I don’t think we have the right to “develop” everything, when “developing” involves permanent alteration.

So, what to do in Los Alamos County, from here forward?

I STRONGLY agree with EVERY “whereas” in Chuck’s proposed resolution. [edit by scotthsu: Chuck has his own personal proposed resolution which captures his feelings on the matter. His proposed actions are summarized in his first post on p.3 of this forum thread, but his "whereas" statements have not been posted.]

I agree with his first proposal, to stop all bolting in Los Alamos County from now on. Enough is enough.

Regarding his second proposal about removal of some existing bolts: if whoever put those top-anchor bolts at the otherwise all-gear cliffs agrees that they should be removed, then I agree that they should be removed. This will send a strong message to others who might think about drilling---the message being that a community-wide consensus has formed: “No more bolts! And the earlier trad-cliff no-bolting agreement should have been honored!” But if whoever put those top-anchor bolts does not agree that their bolts should be removed, then I think they should stay. The damage is already done to the rock, and getting into a removal/reinstallation/removal/… cycle will only do more damage.

Please let me know if the consensus decision ends up being on the side of bolt removal. If so, I would like to try making close-fitting basalt plugs for the holes. I imagine carefully selecting a small stone with the same texture and color as the rock, for each individual hole, diamond-grinding it to close-fitting cylindrical shape (leaving the exposed end unground, so it matches the cliff in color and texture), and gluing it into the hole. If we’re going to remove those bolts, let’s do it as well as possible.

Regards,
Greg Swift

If we use these cliffs, we cannot leave no trace; we can only minimize our footprint. While many crags in WR have plenty of opportunities for gear anchors, most people, if given the chance, will tie off of trees. Even in those cases where there are not suitable trees to use as anchor points, the constant trampling across the clifftops not only increases our impact, but poses an increased danger to those doing the trampling and those below who might be struck by falling rocks or debris. The acute amount of damage to the rock that comes from the installation of well-camouflaged anchors is far more benign than an entire swath of dead/trampled vegetation along the clifftops.

George Perkins wrote:Here's a genuine compromise offer that will be rejected.

Thank you George. I am thrilled to see a concrete proposal that includes some real compromise. I would love to see comments from others that suggest specific changes to George's proposal. Or, if you have a fundamentally different approach, feel free to submit your own concrete proposal in the spirit of what George has done.

whoa. hold on. I will post a response to George's proposal, but I have a couple of initial comments.

1) how did the dungeon get grouped into this? Are you talking about a specific set of routes? What has been added that folks don't like or what do people want removed? ....further, Peter is not the sole FA at the dungeon.

2) How did the bolt on Thorazine get grouped into this? I have to admit, my first impression of removing this bolt would be that the trad group loses my sympathy about keeping all the trad areas as trad only.

I guess I don't understand the need for the absolutionist policy on these crags. Why do the crags need to be grouped as purely bolted or not bolted. This doesn't seem reasonable. I would much prefer parts of Chuck's proposal, at least the part about each climb/anchor is judged individually.

From Greg's email:

Natural cliffs are beautiful. I believe hikers---including off-trail hikers---have a right to see a natural landscape, so I don’t think we should do something to a cliff to improve our climbing experience if we expect it might offend someone on the ground.

Regards, Greg Swift

I said this in an earlier thread about this topic. I have brought many non-climbing visitors with me on hikes down near the places that I have climbed. Not a single one of them noticed any bolts on the hikes (even when we were near Gallows) until I pointed them out. And even then, they oftentimes had trouble seeing the bolts after I pointed to them (except at the "sport" areas, where the bolts run up the entire climb). If you are down beneath the cliffs, the newer anchor bolts are very hard to see (for the most part). This is because Jason does a good job at camouflaging them.

If you are on top of the cliff, the only real way that you see the bolts is if you walk right up to the cliff edges. Now, I will agree that in this case, you will see something man-made. If you strongly believe that the hikers have a right to see natural landscape on their hikes, then let us wipe out the town of White Rock. Because that is what is sitting just a couple of hundred yards (sometimes less) behind them - a giant, steaming pile of "unnatural", man-made stuff.