Mountain Project Logo

Bad Decision in RMNP

Rick Blair · · Denver · Joined Oct 2007 · Points: 266
Tim Pegg wrote: How difficult? As an example, is 3rd class scrambling sufficiently inconvenient to justify bolting a route which would otherwise be top-roped?
I don't know, there are always grey areas but at least this is a basis for discussion. If a 3rd class scramble is involved, say with considerable exposure, at least you have a case for argument using the lowest standard, if it is a walk up, you have no argument.
Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

I would add that somehow the concept of "adventure" should be integral.
RMNP is a true "backcountry" area, which is getting rare in CO. Land managers have a term for locales that see really heavy use as "frontcountry". A perfect example of this would this would be all the dirt bike trails along Rampart Range Road.

Dusty · · Fort Collins · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 210
Mike Lane wrote:* Bolted on rappell vs. ground up?
This cannot possibly still be an issue, it's the 21st century!
alpinglow · · city, state · Joined Mar 2001 · Points: 25

Heads of CU Alpine Club = couldn't be scripted better.

tom holmquist · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 15

Chop the bolts!!!

Will Butler · · Lyons, CO · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 56

I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions.

This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent.

Poor form Tim.

Scott McMahon · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,425
slim wrote:yeah, it was superfresh. also, anybody who thinks that all non-climbers think climbing is cool should read the daily camera's online comments whenever there is a climbing accident.
Point in case...take a look at this awesome human being's comment on the DC after this weekend's death on Longs.

I say climb all you want, but don't expect us to come get your mangled corpse when you fall. Maybe if enough bodies pile up at the bottom, it will break the fall of future climbers and lessen their injuries... and their burden to society.


Read more: Dangerous year on Longs Peak - Boulder Daily Camera dailycamera.com/ci_16180062…
DailyCamera.com
Crag Dweller · · New York, NY · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
Will Butler wrote:I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions. This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent. Poor form Tim.
Are you worried the silent majority will silently protest the chopping of routes they didn't give a rip about?
Scott McMahon · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,425
Will Butler wrote:I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions. This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent. Poor form Tim.
So I was thinking about this while getting ready for work this morning (yes, it's true). Although I don't support spray bolting, I'm not 100% sure I agree with other parties removing the bolts w/ out the FA permission, ESPECIALLY if they had approval of the park.

It's just rather odd to me that everyone has such stout ethics when it comes to "their" climbs, but if someone puts up a climb that you don't agree with or don't like then it's chopping time. What is the basis of that? Skill level or the belief that your ethics are superior? It doesn't count as someone's "vision" anymore??

I don't necessarily agree with the route, but what gives us the right to chop a legal route just because we deem it "wrong". That's a rather self serving and judgemental attitude.
John Maurer · · Denver, CO · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 530

Sometimes the void between perspectives and opinions leads to conflict. I've heard of this before in history.

Thanks for your work, Tim. To the first ascensionists: Don't take a strong reaction to this route as a personal attack - though you obviously put in personal time and effort.

Wayne DENSMORE · · Superior, CO · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 5
Scott McMahon wrote: So I was thinking about this while getting ready for work this morning (yes, it's true). Although I don't support spray bolting, I'm not 100% sure I agree with other parties removing the bolts w/ out the FA permission, ESPECIALLY if they had approval of the park. It's just rather odd to me that everyone has such stout ethics when it comes to "their" climbs, but if someone puts up a climb that you don't agree with or don't like then it's chopping time. What is the basis of that? Skill level or the belief that your ethics are superior? It doesn't count as someone's "vision" anymore?? I don't necessarily agree with the route, but what gives us the right to chop a legal route just because we deem it "wrong". That's a rather self serving and judgemental attitude.
Well said.

And the other downside is it could escalate. Look at cascadeclimbers.com/forum/u…
Scott McMahon · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,425
johnL wrote:So the FA's of this route opened a huge can of worms. The consensus of the community was that the route in fact was inappropriate and should be removed. This really isn't being argued, it's just a simple statement of fact. The problem now lies in precedent and "the line" as in, where do we draw it. The community at large has spoken, a route deemed to be without merit and out of character should be removed regardless of the wishes of the FA. In this isolated case, I wholeheartedly agree that what Tim has done is absolutely called for and in fact would have helped him had I not moved to a salty rock. However, what does this mean for the routes that lie in a greyer area? Does public dislike then allow for the route to be erased? Does a spicy trad lead in a sport area need bolts to satisfy the overall style of a crag? Do the voices of the community, 99% of whom do not do FA's (that's not a bad thing), get to decide the fate of new routes? So where does this put us? BTW, no way does Gillet have disciples. Minions for sure, five of them to be exact.
But what community? The 20 people that have posted on this thread? The thing that makes me pause is that others are calling something "without merit" and stating it has to go. I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge. That't leads up to John's question, where do we draw the line? What if I think your climb sucks...can I chop it?? Would the line stay if Layton Kor put it up instead of some young upstarts from the Alpine Club?

I'm sure it was ugly and probably did not need to be there. I'm just more thinking along the lines of who made us the bosses of climbing? The route's gone now which is probably for the best, but I'm not 100% sure I want a bunch of people on the internet making me decisions for me....unless it's what rack to buy!!!!!!!

BTW Ken Nicols is a perfect example of someone going around and destroying routes based on HIS ethics. How many people on the web will he require to be a "community"??

This may not be the best route to make an example of, but the bigger question bodes looking at.
Crag Dweller · · New York, NY · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
Scott McMahon wrote: But what community? The 20 people that have posted on this thread? The thing that makes me pause is that others are calling something "without merit" and stating it has to go. I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge. That't leads up to John's question, where do we draw the line? What if I think your climb sucks...can I chop it?? Would the line stay if Layton Kor put it up instead of some young upstarts from the Alpine Club? I'm sure it was ugly and probably did not need to be there. I'm just more thinking along the lines of who made us the bosses of climbing? The route's gone now which is probably for the best, but I'm not 100% sure I want a bunch of people on the internet making me decisions for me....unless it's what rack to buy!!!!!!! BTW Ken Nicols is a perfect example of someone going around and destroying routes based on HIS ethics. How many people on the web will he require to be a "community"?? This may not be the best route to make an example of, but it needs to be looked at.
I understand what you're saying, Scott, but consider this.

There was essentially no debate as to whether this route should have been put up among the 'community' of 20 (or however many) posters. The comments were virtually 100% against the route and for the removal of the bolts with the exception of posts from 3 people. One was the guy who bolted the route. The other two came from people who'd just created their MP profiles on the day this debate heated up. Interestingly, there were 3 people in the pic of it being bolted. In most good statistical analysis, biased or tainted responses are removed. I'd say posts from those 3 individuals fall under that description.

So, 100% of people polled were against the route. And, a large percentage of those posts were VERY STRONGLY AGAINST it. 20 people may be a small sample of the total community but it's likely that a sentiment held by 100% of the sample community would be held by a strong majority of the larger community.

I'm definitely not going to be given my PhD in statistical analysis based on this post but I think you know what I'm saying. It ain't a perfect way to make community decisions. But, in this case, I think the imperfections were negated by the virtual unanimity of the opinions expressed.

Thanks, Tim, for removing the bolts.
Cor · · Sandbagging since 1989 · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 1,445

tim, thanks for the service to the community!

jonhL, you have some really good points to think about...

scott, you also have good points...and about the nicols guy, he (from what i hear) is always stepping over the boundary. he would take anchors, everything, nothing anywhere could stay.
i don't think anyone thinks they are the boss here. it is just thoughts on the matter. it seems like everyone that spoke up has been climbing for a long time (they would understand ethics.)

i think this site is a good spot to discuss these things, even if we get flames... the only other way to discuss this stuff indepth would be at some climbers meeting type thing. that would take a lot of effort to get everyone togather (all the time, since we have so much to debate about!)

oh, and i agree with one other point made earlier, nooooo need to get the park involved!!! they have enough things to worry about, and we need to be a self managed/regulated group.(which works most of the time)

cheers!
cor

jjb3 · · Golden, CO · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 20

Thank you Tim.

Spencer Anderson · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Sep 2003 · Points: 526
Crag Dweller wrote: I'm definitely not going to be given my PhD in statistical analysis based on this post but I think you know what I'm saying. It ain't a perfect way to make community decisions. But, in this case, I think the imperfections were negated by the virtual unanimity of the opinions expressed.

Scott McMahn wrote: I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge.


Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert either

I think that it's worth considering, of these how many would disagree with the decision or be indifferent to removing the bolts?
A: Climbers in CO who don't have computer (probably not many)
B: aren't on MP
C: are too intimidated to post.

Also consider that people who post things on the internet, check sites like MP or even get involved, tend to be vocal and passionate. I think that's what accounts for more of the consensus. So the question is, should a internet forum (where strong opinions have already been made) be the place to decide these kinds of things?
John Maurer · · Denver, CO · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 530

Probably not, but the interwebs provided a forum this time to examine and communicate something that betrays the established spirit of the climbing ethic in the Park. Very good points being made - but at some point taking action and avoiding something that could be largely problematic wins the day in lieu of just sitting around talking about it. Huzzah. I only was in Estes for 4 summers but love the area and return there frequently. I am confident this route's removal reflects the area ethic.

I kind of get the feeling that the routes on Chiefshead will retain their character but will soon (5-7 years) have squeezed lines all over around them. I've been climbing for 20 years and aspire to some of these routes - though I have yet to sack up and try them. I bet if there was a "safer" route than what is currently available, I'd be all over it. Does that make it right? I'm sure I'd have a great time but would probably be missing something in the process. Sure, it all is a grey area - but at least this is a forum for people to express their views. It seems most people are being fairly thoughtful in not attacking and keeping it open to ideas. Isn't this some productive form of self-policing? Also, the only reason I type here is to keep my tendons loose for actual climbing.

John Maurer · · Denver, CO · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 530
John Maurer wrote: I kind of get the feeling that the routes on Chiefshead will retain their character but will soon (5-7 years) have squeezed lines all over around them.
. . . therebye losing their character . . .
Buff Johnson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2005 · Points: 1,145
Scott McMahon wrote: Point in case...take a look at this awesome human being's comment on the DC ... DailyCamera.com
I was partial to this one:

DC poontards
David Rivers · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 20

Fixed Protection

"Fixed protection has become a major point of contention with park managers and powerful wilderness lobbies such as the Audubon society. The very concept of 'climbing management' and resultant closures and restrictions has developed around climbers' use of bolts and other forms of fixed anchors, especially in high-profile areas. ..."

"Knowing that every bolt and piton we place will be counted and documented by some regulatory agency or wildlife organization, it is obvious that some restraint on our part is necessary. As for new free climbs requiring bolts: Only the very best lines should be developed. Contrived and mediocre routes can (should) be left to obscurity or toprope."

"Rock & Ice Climbing Rock Mountain National Park: The High Peaks"
Richard Rossiter

Thanks for removing the bolts.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "Bad Decision in RMNP"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.