Bad Decision in RMNP

what kind of bolts are they?

Having done a few first ascents, I know you must have put in lots of time and effort, and probably feel pretty bummed at hearing such a negative response. But I agree with many of the posters here, for all the same reasons. My main concern would be for possibly jeopardizing access/regulations at some of the magnificent cliffs of RMNP in the future.

Sounds like this would be a fine route in somewhere like Boulder Canyon, and a welcome addition, but near a trail in RMNP maybe not such a great addition. Please consider removing the bolts, and leaving the crag as it was.

Thanks.

Peter Beal brings up a great point:

"While the consensus regarding this route is clear enough, it seems to me the issue will keep coming back. There are many much bigger walls and formations in the Park suitable for hard sport routes which eventually will be explored. The local climbing community might want to think about how this should be handled."

It's impossible to come up with specifics, as each route is unique, and each crag has different features, history and potential.

How about, a guideline of not creating sport routes close to official hiking trails (say within 100 yards?), or within clear view of hiking trails (within 1/4 mile?). I'm just throwing out ideas here, this might be absurdly impractical or boneheaded for any number of reasons.

It may be that the future development will be along the lines of Eldorado Canyon, mixed, with sport routes coexisting with trad routes, and some restraint about bolts? Basically a trad area, with some bolts. That's how it's been up till now. How does that sound?

If the future development goes more along the lines of Boulder Canyon (a sport area with some trad routes), then, just as in Boulder Canyon over the last 20 years, there will be conflicts.

Perhaps the best approach is crag by crag. And the consensus seems to be that this particular crag is not at all suitable for sport routes. That's an excellent start. In fact, perhaps we can thank the new route developers here for getting the ball rolling on this conversation.

Steve "Crusher" Bartlett wrote:... How about, a guideline of not creating sport routes close to official hiking trails (say within 100 yards?), or within clear view of hiking trails (within 1/4 mile?). I'm just throwing out ideas here, ...

This is a good direction. I have spent years talking with the BLM in Red Rock working to get the current bolt ban lifted. This was one issue (proximity to trails) that they felt strongly influenced the character of the wilderness experience.

I just walked under this route yesterday for the first time since its been bolted. The bolts are still there, the ground below the route is still trampled. I have never seen an example of poorer judgment on behalf of a route developer.

To the developers, if you are reading this, you should not take it personally. Smart people make mistakes; they own up to them, and when they can, they try and correct them. You should removed these bolts, clean the chalk and do what you can to reverse the damage caused to the base area. If this route remains, it will be a testament to the thousands of people that see it annually, that climbers are poor stewards to the environment that we utilize.

The climbing community cannot afford to have this route remain in place.

This route is in the process of being cleaned up. The hangers are off, the bolts and their holes are next.

"All the tourists that day seemed to be in awe, taking pictures, and not complaining." Colin Simon.

Funny, they were doing the same thing when we were taking the hangers off. I guess tourist don't know anything about climbing ethics or climbing access issues since putting up or taking down a route elicits the same response.

Timothy Davis

Did anyone verify if the bolters really did get permission before the bolted and if so did you get permission for removing the bolts? As bad as I think this route is, I would hate to see a bolt war in RMNP.

Has anyone heard from the bolters?

Rick Blair wrote:Did anyone verify if the bolters really did get permission before the bolted and if so did you get permission for removing the bolts? As bad as I think this route is, I would hate to see a bolt war in RMNP. Has anyone heard from the bolters?

Yes people have talked to the bolters. They are clueless.

Getting permission from the park is a BAD idea....on either side of the issue.

Permission to bolt is NOT required. Permission to remove a bolt is NOT required. Both are completely legal.

More importantly is the park not being involved. Drawing their attention is historically a bad idea.

josh

tooTALLtim wrote: "This route is in the process of being cleaned up. The hangers are off, the bolts and their holes are next."

Thanks Tim.

It's really hard to believe how much truth there is to the statement about the Rangers of the park passing by and not having any issue with the route. There couldn't have been more than a dozen Rangers who saw this route being put or were informed of the plans to put on the route. These Rangers may or may not have been climbers. Just based on this thread there are far more than a dozen people who have spoken up and have a problem with this route. I'm sure that there are more people who have chosen not to post. Everybody here is a climber and most know about the ethics and tradition of climbing in RMNP. Now, if the FA party was really willing to take down the route for the Rangers, shouldn't there be no question that you should take the route down on your own since much the larger, informed climbing community clearly disagrees with what you've done?

I personally really feel that the FA party needs to speak up since at least 2 of you are heads of the Alpine Club at CU. It's one thing to ruin your own name but, you also represent the Alpine Club. We don't need people to think that this is what it stands for.

Kind of a weird side-topic, but who's going to end up with the hangers?
Protocol (as long as we refer to unwritten rules) dictates that they be left at the base, at least once the bolts are gone. If not, who's keeping them and why?
Also, I'd like to see the consensus reasons why the route got chopped ranked in order:

• Too close to the general public?
• Bolted on rappell vs. ground up?
• Base vegetation concerns?
• A sport route in historic trad lands?
• Too may bolts for the length?
• other issues?

Most of the posts here focused on the proximity to the trail. Does that mean it'd be ok somewhere off the beaten path? I think there's a lot of gray areas that should be discussed.

Mike Lane wrote: Also, I'd like to see the consensus reasons why the route got chopped ranked in order: * Too close to the general public? * Bolted on rappell vs. ground up? * Base vegetation concerns? * A sport route in historic trad lands? * Too may bolts for the length? * other issues? Most of the posts here focused on the proximity to the trail. Does that mean it'd be ok somewhere off the beaten path? I think there's a lot of gray areas that should be discussed.

The Park is special. If you feel the need to put bolts in somewhere it shouldn't be for bullsh*t.

Thanks to the people cleaning this up.

Good work getting that sorted to remove the bolts.

Come on guys, admit your mistake in the thread so people can move on...

Heads of the CU alpine club? Wow.

Get Used to it!
I say that with sarcasm and sadness.

Good on ya Tim and Co. for taking action and removing the hanger and cleaning things up.

Jonas D'Andrea wrote: The Park is special. If you feel the need to put bolts in somewhere it shouldn't be for bullsh*t. Thanks to the people cleaning this up.

For the record I think the route was a bad idea too. What I am after is getting a consensus on where the various offenses rate, instead of emotional blanket responses like "the park is special". We all know its special.
What if these guys find another 40 foot crag deeper in, away from view of the tourists, and bolt another route? What criteria is applied then?

Mike Lane wrote:Kind of a weird side-topic, but who's going to end up with the hangers? Protocol (as long as we refer to unwritten rules) dictates that they be left at the base, at least once the bolts are gone. If not, who's keeping them and why?

They're sitting in my room. Though I have no plans for them, we didn't see fit to give them back to the bolters.

As for the rest of your post, I will refer back to the subject of Local Ethics in Gillett's RMNP High Peaks book:

"Estes Park is a bastion of traditional ethics. However, as in most areas around the U.S., bolted routes have been established at several crags..Prevailing opinion seems to be moving toward an acceptance of these routes provided they are worth climbing in the first place, though there are still those who decry the use of any bolts (especially in the higher peaks). Arguments concerning bolts placed on rappel or on the lead are not pertinent to the bigger picture: the real concern is the permanent addition of a bolt, not the method in which it is installed....Please make an honest assessment of a route's quality before scarring the rock forever. Avoid the temptation to bolt every climbabale span of rock, especially near trails that non-climbers frequent....Take care of our limited resources."

I think that addresses may of your issues, Mike. Also, just for the record, the base vegetation below the route is destroyed, and there were probably an adequate amount of bolts for the route (5). We left the anchor bolts in, so if future parties felt like top-roping the route, they could. Though watch out for loading a biner over an edge, as the anchor is poorly positioned.

tooTALLtim wrote: They're sitting in my room. Though I have no plans for them, we didn't see fit to give them back to the bolters.

Especially since they have clearly chosen to remain silent on the matter, I would certainly agree. Once they left them there, in legal terms they abandoned them anyway. I would suggest that you find an anchor replacement initiative to donate them to. Maybe keep a couple on your rack for emergencies.

tooTALLtim wrote: .....Arguments concerning bolts placed on rappel or on the lead are not pertinent to the bigger picture: the real concern is the permanent addition of a bolt, not the method in which it is installed....Please make an honest assessment of a route's quality before scarring the rock forever. Avoid the temptation to bolt every climbabale span of rock, especially near trails that non-climbers frequent....Take care of our limited resources."

Which mirrors my personal sentiment exactly. However this is still an open-ended position statement asking only for restraint and discretion. Is merely getting away from the general public the only criteria if they want to do this again elsewhere?
Through MP, a community rose up and took action; my whole point here is to seize the moment now and define some consensus standards for the Park. As a community. I am getting old and understand how critical moments come and pass unrecognized and often without 2nd chances. The posts on this thread are emotional, beyond the daily tripe. I think that if folks post up what bugged them the most, a consensus might emerge that could be defined as the Park's Ethics. To almost all of us they already seem clear; but obviously there are always going to be new generations coming along. A communal judgment was made that the route was offensive, now tell them why.

Mike,

I am repeating a post I made earlier but at some point drilling gratuitous bolts is just like randomly drilling holes around the park, vandalism. I would suggest a hierarchy of:
Safety - bolts are needed for anchors where nothing else will work.
Utility - Clean up unsightly anchors, route is longer than 25 Meters ( can't be toproped ) 50M rope standard is more than fair.
Convenience - difficult to set top rope from the top.

Some kind of specific guide lines would be good. I am trying not to suggest this from the point of view of a climber but just as any user of a Natl Park who would be bothered by unnecessary damage. I would imagine there are similar standards for wanting to add a road or a trail whether they are specifically codified or not.

Rick Blair wrote:Convenience - difficult to set top rope from the top.

How difficult? As an example, is 3rd class scrambling sufficiently inconvenient to justify bolting a route which would otherwise be top-roped?