Bolting "ethics"

Fear is the glue that binds sport climbers together.

yeah mobes you sport climber!!!

Jim O'Brien wrote:Fear is the glue that binds sport climbers together. yeah mobes you sport climber!!!

well I havent picked up the rack since that week I spent at the T-wall over thanksgiving so maybe "Trad" Adams is onto something.

This categorization of being a "sport climber" if you believe some bolts should be allowed in CT (or anywhere) is just wrong. Do you feel like a "sport climber" when you clip the occasional bolt or bolted anchor at the Gunks? Some bolts do exist at "traditional" climbing areas.

Any analogy to the auto industry is bogus.

Dear East Coasters,

You provide interesting reading during finals week. That is, however, as close as I'd like to get to y'all. Please keep your insane arguments on your side of the country. There are too many guns out west anyway - the type of vitriol I've seen in this post would have gotten someone shot a long time ago. Also - both the Yankees and the Red Sox suck, so we've all gotten real tired of that debate too.

xoxo,

The West

Austin Baird wrote:Dear East Coasters, You provide interesting reading during finals week. That is, however, as close as I'd like to get to y'all. Please keep your insane arguments on your side of the country. There are too many guns out west anyway - the type of vitriol I've seen in this post would have gotten someone shot a long time ago. Also - both the Yankees and the Red Sox suck, so we've all gotten real tired of that debate too. xoxo, The West

+1 and well said.

Thanks for the suggestions Mobes. I will. I'll also enjoy being within driving distance of Red Rocks, J Tree, Colorado, Moab, and Zion. I'll enjoy the trad routes at Moab, the limitless potential in the Swell, the desert towers, and the slot canyons when I don't feel like climbing. I'll enjoy the public land, wide-open spaces, not having to top-rope half my climbs, and not having to deal with individual landowners and psycho bolt-choppers.

If you ever get tired of pale skin and nasally accents you're more than welcome to come crash my couch. I promise I won't even mention the Book of Mormon to you.

As a follow up to my post a few months ago I want to thank the climber who graciously showed me around CT and took me to some very well done areas. The areas I went to were nowhere close to being overbolted and a couple of the areas were mixed which to me shows there was thought put into the whole process. A couple of routes were sporty enough to make many people soil their britches on an on-sight attempt.

The segregation of climbers in the NE part of the country is sad and silly at the same time. My take on it is because of one man, who put himself on the highest pedestal of them all, the NE now have a ton of beginner "trad" or "TR" climbers that just haven't experienced the flow of a good lead too many times. Maybe someday I'll fully understand the attitudes of many NE climbers but for now I'll be happy living in CO where most climbers just climb and don't trash other peoples style of climbing. In my experiences I have found that the best peeps to climb with are well rounded climbers and most of the people I don't like to climb with are usually one dimensional bores that don't ever try anything new.

And to the kid in Provo, give us all a break please. Being an internet jerkoff may seem funny to you but really most people are laughing at you, not with you. You live in Provo for Gods sake. Now stop scaring your mommy with those crazy daredevil stunts you are pulling in your profile pic Austin.

Clint Cummins wrote: "Violence against the rock" is not usually fine, although that would not be my choice of words. I prefer "minimum impact", or perhaps the 70s term "clean climbing". But these phrases do not give any guidance about when the advantages of bolts are worth the impact and when they are not. It is a value judgement where we have seen there is often disagreement. "Violence against the rock" in your context probably means you feel that chopping bolts impacts the rock, but the original drilling does not impact the rock? Both impact the rock, and in my view the drilling usually impacts it more, although some chopping jobs are a mess, and if you argue that chopping "causes" more drilling, it becomes hard to follow the chain of causation after awhile.... My usual summary is that if you drill and think there is a good likelihood it will be chopped, you are starting an impact process which may not yield any benefits (only costs). Yes, unthinkable. Call him whatever, violence is not acceptable. To be more specific, violence may be acceptable if defending yourself or others against violence, or when defending your personal property. None of these are at risk when we are talking about bolting/antibolting. And it is better to have the police involved - they and laws exist in part so we can avoid being involved directly in violence. The antibolters in CT do not threaten violence against the bolters. Threatening violence makes you look like a jerk. I think you know "might does not make right". (Hank, no doubt you are just tired of hearing the complaining; too bad there are no quick fixes, though).

I guess you weren't there when Ken assaulted Claude in front of his children at the main cliff. Your blind defense of this guy is comical, but I guess it should be expected...

thefish wrote: I guess you weren't there when Ken assaulted Claude in front of his children at the main cliff. Your blind defense of this guy is comical, but I guess it should be expected...

LOL, who else on Mtn Project or the internet period has spent as much time as Clint documenting a cliff that he has admittedly never climbed? I'd say that action speaks for itself.
mountainproject.com/v/fire-…

Clint is a very nice person, i've climbed with him on a few occasions over the years. Its the blind defense of one extremist that I don't agree with him on.

Don't worry, in a few years the only person that could be bothered to chop bolts won't be physically capable do to old age.

thefish wrote:Don't worry, in a few years the only person that could be bothered to chop bolts won't be physically capable do to old age.

Don't bet on it!

Read some things online about this Nichols guy...he's badass!

Ben Brotelho wrote:Read some things online about this Nichols guy...he's badass!

Badass? Try experiencing the things that Ken has done in real life in Connecticut or Western Massachusetts, instead of reading these things online...you may have a different opinion.

By the way, those two shiny new belay anchor bolts in your Wallface picture would be smashed, bent or chopped by Ken, if he had his way.

youtube.com/watch?v=xY11VAm…

Pretty badass for being like 60 something

But tornadoes are pretty badass too, and they do shit like this:

youtube.com/watch?v=OJBnxMg…

Ben Brotelho wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY11VAm-nX4 Pretty badass for being like 60 something But tornadoes are pretty badass too, and they do shit like this: youtube.com/watch?v=OJBnxMg…

So, what's your point? Just because someone climbs something 10,000 times...that's remarkable. Someone who leads that route once is equally remarkable. There are a lot of old guys leading hard routes.

In any event, definately Ken is a polarizing figure, which is unfortunate. However, what he has brought to climbing in the region, his spirit and his staunch traditional ethics, in my opinion, is something to be respected and has kept Connecticut a traditional area, which in my opinion and as an outsider, is fine by me.

However, without getting into a long historical discussion, the devices he used to promote his traditional ethics, in my opinion, has scared the North East. After being brought to justice, he deserved the legal punishment for his past actions in Western Massachusetts.

Ben - u have too much time on your hands... troll elsewhere. This thread deserves to have died two years ago.

Hey! I was just reiterating blissab's point that badassery and destructive tendencies can and often do come together! I'm not the one who brought this thread back from the dead...no need to cut me deep with the "T" word!

I think we should continue killing all the living trees at the top of connecticut's cliffs by people setting up anchors off of them. The treeline at ragged is what like 100ft back now?

Now damaging non-living rock by putting a few bolted anchors in at the tops of cliffs. That is madness.

superkick wrote:I think we should continue killing all the living trees at the top of connecticut's cliffs by people setting up anchors off of them. The treeline at ragged is what like 100ft back now? Now damaging non-living rock by putting a few bolted anchors in at the tops of cliffs. That is madness.

I personally don't find the need to bring 100-150-feet of static line to Ragged or many other cliffs in Connecticut.

Many of the routes should be led or if TR'd...can be easily set-up with equalized gear anchors. As a classic example, Broadway and YMC has both bomber TR gear anchors, that many people overlook and never use. Instead, there often exists the spider's web of static line.

The factured nature and freeze thaw characteristics of the top of many Connecticut cliffs probably do not lend themselves to permanent TR anchor bolts, which would probably be chopped anyway.

I feel sorry for those two poor little trees that just happen to have the unfortunate luck of being located 50-feet back of and above Broadway and YMC.