Los Alamos & White Rock (NM) bolting agreement

Scott,
I am planning on posting some additional comments on this topic, but right now happens to be a hectic time. I hope that folks will continue to update this post over time so that those of us who are not present for meetings and/or personal conversations at the crag will at least know what set of 'policies' get agreed upon. Thanks for putting your time and effort into this Scott.
Cheers.

Got an e-mail last night requesting input from Albuquerque climbers who frequent WR and (again) attempted to wade through discussion which (again) find too complicated and emotional. I wish I could write and/or think eloquently.
A few things stand out in my mind, however. WR IS urban climbing. If the purists want a true backcountry experience let them go there (though I expect there too they will find bolts, pitons, rotted slings and the like). Otherwise how can one reasonably argue against safety, minimal impact and convenience? Bolted anchors should not compromise the integrity of a trad route in a heavily used urban setting. If you don’t like them, don’t use them.
+ 1 for bolted anchors

I have been following things over the last few weeks and feel like I should chime in a bit. Now I probably only climb at White Rock 5-6 times a year so I don't have a huge stake in things. I enjoy the area when I do head up there and the reason I like to climb there is I prefer to trad climb. Now I know the areas in question as to if gear can or cannot be used and it seems trivial. I know that it is a great idea to try and keep things as bolt free as possible for the sake of keeping to true clean climbing styles or simply keeping it clean looking but sometimes that gets a little silly.

I believe that when we have an area such as White Rock it is important to understand its usage and its purpose and manage the area from that point of view. The area is a urban climbing spot and is used by many newbie climbers to long time climbers. When we look at those things we need to take into account impact on the area as well. What that means in my opinion is that there needs to be a compromise between the users. I don't believe that all lines should have bolted anchors but it is nice to have anchors on some of the climbs. How do you determine that? Look around and see what climbs are easy to get around on top and which have objective hazards. Its also a good idea to do what this forum is doing and get some public opinion from various forms of the community.

There is no simple answers and not everyone is going to come away happy. I think that the old timers need to realize that things have changed and the new comers need to step back and learn some history of the areas they visit. I think that all of us who sit in the middle of these disagreements can help bring the two sides together. Its not like White Rock is a pristine backcountry wilderness area. Even the Sandia's lose that feeling when you hear the buzz of the radio towers or the revving of motorcycles. That does not make the area not special but we just need to remember where we are and what people the area is servicing.

I have not read all six (!) pages. I only climb in the area once or twice a year. Yet, there is a single-pitch crag near home that could bloom unnecessary anchor-bolts. So ...

I am a bolt minimalist. Gear is an integral part to my enjoyment of climbing even if I am only making gear anchors to top rope a line. Anchor bolts can be necessary but are still unattractive to me. Unnecessary bolts strike me as worse, such as those in Chuck's pictures. I understand about the sadly drought-stricken / beetle-stricken trees. I understand I could just not use the bolts. But this post is only about me, and I'd rather not see a bolt unless necessary ... even it it means I am not capable of the route (I understand this isn't about bolts for the lead).

That said, I do think this is a worthy and admirable effort by Scott regardless of the level of acceptable bolting that is eventually reached by consensus. I hope all four or six or twelve sides will take advantage of the chance given here.

-1 for unnecessary anchor bolts
-1 for unnecessary static lines from trees

I think that George Perkins' proposed compromise (at the end of page four of this forum) is an excellent one that I would support. Although my preference leans towards one extreme, I believe a compromise is the best solution for this conflict. His proposal is also the most detailed and well defined presented in this forum thus far. If a vote is to being taken, as it should be, then I am in favor of the proposal as submitted by George. More broadly, I believe that bolts are a logical addition to an area that I have never deemed anything but a valid, multi-use, recreational area. I stand at the ready to contribute my time, energy, hardware, and money toward the placement of safe and solid anchors should this proposal be accepted by the majority of the climbing community, as I am sure it would be if a formal vote were to be conducted. Furthermore, to address the issue of compromising another's choice to place gear, I have never seen a bolt installation that would preclude the placement of a removable piece of gear.

I have never seen a house with an unlocked front door that could not be more easily entered after busting a hole in the wall. (edit: no disrespect intended)

I have two suggestions for a compromise :
1. The "Traditional cliffs" will be revisited by a chosen panel and top-anchor bolts deemed "unnecessary" due to easy, safe set-ups, will be removed....while those bolts at difficult-to-set-up-safely locations will remain. (I mentioned this compromise earlier...)

2. The bolts that are there remain, but a complete moratorium on bolting will go into effect. (Rich Romano, who sometimes has climbed here, told me that the Gunks have had a bolting moratorium since 1986(!) .....So it is possible...

Darien, thanks for posting your suggested compromises. However, can you please verify/clarify your statement about the Gunks bolting ban? Others have informed me that anchor bolts and rap stations have been installed at the Gunks since 1986.

Alright, then, here is my proposed 2009 Amendment to the LAM Bolting agreement:

As the popularity of climbing grows and the demographics of climbers changes, considerations such as climber impact on the environment, climber visibility to the public at large and climber safety need to be addressed when considering the validity of newly-placed anchor bolts. With that in mind:

1. The wording in the original agreement and 2004 amendment still holds true for all areas except the four “excluded areas” (ONP,NNP,Playground, The "Y"). However, section E of the 2004 amendment should be removed entirely.

2. To retain one area that is completely bolt free, the existing anchor bolts at The Y shall be removed and no new bolts, anchor or lead protection, shall be added there.

3. All existing anchor bolts in-situ at the other areas as of October 2009 shall remain in place.

4. No new bolts, anchor or lead protection, shall be placed at any of the four "excluded areas" (ONP, NNP, Playground, The "Y") .

5. The agreement and its amendments shall be revisited every five years by the board and membership of the LAM to take in the input of future climbers in the area. This revisiting process will consist of the LAM board asking the LAM membership if anyone feels there should be a change made to the LAM bolting agreement.

Why isn't Potrillo Cliffs one of the trad-only areas?

The WR cliffs are not in my backyard, and so I am not proposing the addition. Just curious.

Bill, I'm not sure why Potrillo isn't mentioned at all in the original agreement since Potrillo has a long history and climbing has been done there since the mid-50s.
Potrillo seems to have as significant of a history as the other four "excluded areas" that are specifically spelled out in the original agreement and I know there are stripped lead-protection bolts from long ago down at Potrillo too.

Jason, Thanks for your thoughts about Potrillo. It is a nice crag for beginner trad leads. Wish we had something like it closer to ABQ.

Just my two cents, coming from an ABQ climber who only infrequently uses the trad areas near White Rock:

--Although I personally love bolted sport routes, I also like the convenience of bolted anchors on trad routes.

--I also believe that "minimizing" permanent impact is a good thing, whether it be to the rock, trees, people, etc.

--Although I have no idea who the anchor bolt choppers are, my guess is that they had no idea that there was some community agreement to add anchors, were appalled at seeing anchor bolts sprout up in a traditionally "no bolts" area, and were trying to send a "message" by leaving an ugly mess. Obviously some people feel very strongly about this issue, and the implications for future bolting trends there.

--Increasing safety is "generally" a good thing, but this is frequently at a subjective "cost" to some other aspect of a climb, like changing the nature/character of the climb, increasing the frequency the route is climbed, etc. Obviously there is subjectivity in what is/isn't "safe", and the local climbing community should try to come to a consensus.

--Although adding bolted anchors to a route may make the route safer on a "per use" basis, vastly increasing the number of people climbing a particular route also increases the chance that someone will get injured there due to some other silly mistake.

--I don't have an agenda of trying to reduce the frequency of use at any climbing area per se, but do believe that leaving many routes or even entire crags "natural" provides a higher value to the admittedly fewer people with the skill/gear/patience to climb them in their original style. I don't mean to be elitist here, but just like nobody wants to "dumb down" classic crack climbs in Yosemite or even White Rock by bolting them (sure, you wouldn't HAVE to use the bolts if you wanted to do it in the "old" style), leaving the old trad crags "natural" (without anchor bolts) not only maintains tradition for teaching future self-sufficient climbers (remember, there are already plenty of sport climbing areas nearby where people can TR to their hearts content), it also increases the significance of leading a route that had to be climbed with only trad gear. And if people must TR them, well that still takes extra effort over the typical gym and sport routes, and thus still provides added value.

--Regarding impact on trees and trampled cliff tops, although I don't have recent first-hand knowledge of this, it sounds like most if not all of the pinion trees that died were a result of drought and bark beetle more than TR anchor ropes tied to the pinion trees. The junipers are hearty enough to survive anchor rope slinging and drought, just fine. And although the cliff top trampling might be reduced some with bolt anchors, the additional traffic to these areas will increase trampling/erosion on/off trails and below.

--Although slightly subjective, it sounds like the new bolted anchors violate both the older and more recent bolting agreements.

--In conclusion, my primary reason for leaning towards keeping most of the old traditional White Rock crags anchor bolt free is to ultimately maintain the character, significance and value of these climbs by requiring people to put forth the extra effort to lead them "all natural". Accomplishments usually are more "special" when they aren't easy or convenient. I'd vote no anchor bolts at the White Rock trad areas where gear anchors options exist, and if living pinion trees are currently endangered from climbers, that this and other forums get the word out for people not to sling them and build trad gear anchors instead.

I wanted to weigh in on the idea of "convenience bolts" and their possible application at the Playground or other White Rock crags. There's a general sense in this forum that "convenience bolts" are a bad thing. On the surface, that's pretty persuasive, however, I have some thoughts about the terminology, the definitions of "convenience," and the purpose of bolts. If you take the argument against bolting back a way, you end up with Reinhold Messner's thesis in "The Murder of the Impossible," which is that bolts kills the true spirit of climbing by replacing risk with hardware. From that perspective, probably every bolt ever placed is a convenience bolt.

In the article, Messner is passionate and convincing, but most of us have clipped a bolt on a sport climb, on a belay, or on a rap station at some point in our climbing careers, thus polluting the true spirit of the pursuit. Some of us (like me) have even put up more than their fair share of sport climbs or anchors on cracks. We, the bolt clippers, use bolts like we use highways or cars-as a way to do things we couldn't or wouldn't otherwise. But there's nothing essential or necessary about them (except in the transient sense that they keep us from falling to our deaths).

I personally like sport climbing (the ultimate form of "convenience" bolting), and I like being able to lower off the top of a crack at the Playground without building an anchor first. I also have to say that I think it's a fallacy to think that bolted anchors are a gateway to bolted cracks or even bolted faces. There are plenty of places where anchors are the only form of fixed protection you see (Indian Creek springs to mind).

I also understand that the tolerance for bolts depends upon the individual, and sometimes on the location (except for Messner, where the tolerance is zero). I am a prime example of that sliding scale of acceptance. I tend to think of myself as a "trad climber" more than as a "sport climber," and my favorite climbs are alpine routes with no fixed protection what so ever. My gut reaction is that Mountain Momma in the Sandias, or Question of Balance on Questa, are lessened because they have fixed anchors on them. That lessening comes both from the environmental impact in a wild area and the “convenience” nature of the hardware. I'm more inclined to embrace the bolts on the unprotected and delicate slab climb Pretty Face at Questa because without bolts, it would be far beyond me. The rap stations on the Diamond are middle ground. They diminish the grandeur of the face, but at the same time they provide a "convenient" avenue of escape or descent. Still, I almost wish they weren't there. What’s acceptable is relative and individual.

That said, it’s clear that bolts, sport climbing, and bolted anchors on cracks are now an established part of the sport, and on some level they all exist for the sake of convenience. To me the Playground, or the Old New Place seem the perfect places for "convenient" top anchors. I see them primarily as practice crags in a mostly urban area where the sin of an anchor bolt is quite small and is outweighed by its benefits to the larger community of climbers. It's obvious that the anti-anchor folks have drawn their circles of acceptable convenience in a different place, which means that we are unlikely to come to complete agreement and that this post won’t advance the state of the discussion much (I do still have hopes for a positive compromise). The reason I wanted to post anyway is because I think it’s important to be as up-front as possible about motivations and impacts, and I don't think it's valid to dismiss the fixed anchors on the basis of convenience. Though I’ve come to a different conclusion myself, the argument against that I find most persuasive against anchors is similar the one David Harding just posted—that having to build your own anchors makes the overall experience richer.

Lastly, as an active member of the local community, I’ve found the discussion here to be interesting and educational—I've benefited from hearing the discussions on both sides.

Thanks again, everyone, for your input. Seems like the discussion is petering out here, maybe because of the recent snows.

Here's where we stand:
1. A few of the anti-bolters (Darien, Chuck) are willing to accept the existing bolts provided no new bolts go up in Los Alamos County.
2. The most active anchor bolter of late (Jason) is willing to stop placing new anchor bolts if the chopper(s), who haven't yet come forward, are willing to stop removing bolts.
3. There are other variations, e.g., proposal by George, that attach specific areas to specific rules (in the spirit of the 1989 agreement), or others with the idea of having a "committee" go climb-by-climb to determine whether anchor bolts are allowed due to lack of natural pro.
4. Plenty of solid opinions were expressed about the ethics, etc., which I won't summarize here. Most of you appear to play well with each other and seem willing to support an agreement that comes out of a community-based process, so thank you.

My own take is that #1 is probably not going to be met with favor because it is too restrictive. Jason's offer (#2) is quite reasonable, but the problem is we don't know who the chopper(s) are and whether they will agree to this. The latter also applies to any other compromise. Personally, the "climb-by-climb" approach seems heavy-handed to me. We might as well start writing IWD's (apologies to the non-LANL folks; IWD's are written procedures required for performing potentially hazardous activities) before we rope up. There has got to be a better solution than the climb-by-climb assessment.

The time is coming soon (not just yet) before we will try to move forward.

bruno-cx wrote:Does the above include the dungeon?

To clarify, I am not in the don't care category or off-topic I hope. I see points on both sides and hope the compromise that mostly worked for 20 years can be renewed somehow to work for another 20, but I definitely couldn't support Chuck's idea of no new bolts in Los Alamos County. There may be many crags lurking out there that are appropriate for sport climbing and limiting that development seems overly harsh and dogmatic.

I look forward to whatever kind of meeting the LA folks are planning to discuss this in person finally.

William

Sorry I was not clearer. I do care about the situation, and
I have mixed feelings about the approach being taken.

I am in favor of bolts where adding them would preserve the trees and bushes at the top of the cliff. Sure, 20 years ago the occasional climber could tie off to these and have a safe anchor. But with the vast increase in climbing, such practices are killing the delicate flora at the top of the cliffs. I feel that is a greater impact then 20-30 2 bolt anchors, especially if they are somewhat camouflaged.

I would also favor replacing existing bolt anchors for reasons of safety. For adding additional bolt anchors, I think it should be subject to the review of some sort of committee under color of authority from whatever entity owns the land where the crags are.

As for adding new bolts on existing climbs, I would object to that. If climbers have climbed it using gear, the climbing style should respected (although placing bolt anchors anchors for safety or environmental reasons should be an exception to this).

I also know a little something about law, how it is created and how it is enforced. I am fascinated by the process I see here and think it is very healthy, and a solid attempt to overcome the "tragedy of the commons." I worry about its efficacy however and recognize that it is a delicate process.

I hope this clarifies the somewhat nebulous posts I had made before.

George, thanks very much for doing the tally. I've been meaning to do that myself but you beat me to the punch. Thanks again.

To clarify, if a tally is being kept, I’d be better lumped with a “no unnecessary anchor bolts at the traditional crags” group. The new bolts don’t cause me personal heartburn, and I like them, but in the spirit of the original 1989 agreement and the 2004 revision (including Section E), it doesn’t seem like many of them should be there.

P.S. I don’t think we should formally get the landowners involved in this discussion. While sound in principle, some of the crags are on DOE-LANL land (Y, Potrillo, and I think Big E), and if we engaged them it would be too easy for some bureaucrat to decide rock climbing is just too risky and close the crags completely. (Several areas on LANL land that had been open for hiking for decades have been closed in recent years with debatable justification, and its unlikely they will ever be opened back up.)