Mountain Project Logo

Bolt or Bolt Ladder Moratorium in the Rockfellow Group (Cochise Stronghold)

Original Post
Aleix Serrat · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 245

Even before the recent controversy regarding a route in the Rockfellow Domes, many people had expressed discomfort regarding the proliferation of bolted lines in the area.

I would like to start a dialogue to see what people think and (inspired by the well thought-out posts of eMurdock in recent threads) whether we can self-regulate as a community.

Briefly, my personal view is: The Rockfellow Dome is the only formation in Arizona where there are 'almost' no bolted lines (clip ups) to the summit. It is one of the last (if not the very last) summits in Southern Arizona that requires a certain level of effort to conquer: physical shape or training, mental preparation, knowledge of traditional protection, etc. This provides a unique recreational experience that cannot be found anymore in other places that have been significantly bolted (such as the Sheepshead).
Many of the routes in the Rockfellow group have been made more accessible and safe with the addition of bolts (i.e. Be all End all, Jaberwoky and others, and I thank the people who did that). Others have not, keeping as scary or committing as when they were just put up (The Three Sisters, Lumpy Unmentionables, Uncarved Block and others, and I also thank the people who resisted their temptations to make them less committing).
Given that climbing formations are a limited resource, given the current number of safe routes in the Dome, given the current trend to bolt more, and given the strong climbing ethics in the Rockfellow Group in the past, and given the existence of many other destinations where a fun day of sport climbing can be had with magnificent rock and views (and I love sport climbing as much as trad climbing), my personal wish for the future of the Rockfellow Domes is this:

Limit electrical bolt drilling to replace old bolts, and some standards to keep bolt drilling at a minimum in potential future new routes put up with the ethics of the place (hand drills? others? ideas?).

This naive message reflects my personal views and my desired future for the Rockfellow Domes. I invite you to say your own.
(I also know that MP is not a universal venue, so I volunteer to contact by phone/meet with any relevant individuals and if need be organize other public venues to complement this dialogue.)

Ryan Williams · · London (sort of) · Joined May 2009 · Points: 1,245

Personally I thought Sheepshead was insanely over-bolted, but that's OK... that's the style on that dome. Sometimes it's fun to race up a 700 foot dome with nothing but quickdraws and a bottle of wine. It also allows the not so strong or experienced climbers (mentally and physically) to get out and have some fun in a great location.

Allowing the Rockfellow Domes to turn into the same would be ruining a wonderful climbing resource. Already a few of the routes there have been changed forever by some bolts being put in close by. It is my understanding that the bolting gets done mostly by one man and that he will not top unless you guys take action.

Good luck!

Norm Larson · · Wilson, Wy. · Joined Jan 2008 · Points: 60

Wow a climbing thread that makes sense. Yes keep it wild. I first climbed at Cochise over 20 years ago and at that time it still had that wild feel to it. A few years back I again visited the area and went to the Sheepshead again. I really thought that climbers in Arizona were a step above when it cam to ethics and acurate rating of climbs. I couldn't believe that Arizonans had so over bolted that beautiful granite like that. The routes I've done in the Rockfellows are all memorable because they took a certain level of committment for me to pull off. Definately my vote is to not dumb them down to a safe for anyone style of route.

Manny Rangel · · PAYSON · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 4,788

While I agree with most of what you said Aleix, I beg to differ on this statement: "Briefly, my personal view is: The Rockfellow Dome is the only formation in Arizona where there are 'almost' no bolted lines (clip ups) to the summit." There are many formations of similar size, Leviathan Dome and others nearby, with no bolted lines to the summit. Shouldn't they also be left alone?

I think this style should be extended to any wild place with a strong tradition of climbing ground up on gear. Maybe it is the easy approach that facilitates crowds and bolts on stuff like the Sheepshead. I know I hate humping loads a long ways.

Whatever the rationale for preserving a wild and committing place, I'm all for protecting them just because we can have all kinds of climbing but we don't need them all in one place.

I'd be willing to support some sort of consensus on what is acceptable in Arizona in regards to bolting big lines on backcountry domes. Bolt ladders are incompatible with the feel of many of these wilder areas, IMO.

Aleix Serrat · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 245

Manuel, I absolutely agree (thanks), my apologies for the inaccuracy. I guess I meant to say "...is one of the few formations in Southeastern Arizona with almost no bolted lines to the summit..."
I agree the big picture is important, but since the more backcountry areas (3+ hours approach) are slightly less prone to crowding/bolting, I wanted to focus this dialogue on the Rockfellow Domes. They are 1 hour hike from the closest roads, and are the most immediate in the list of formations that are or will be susceptible to these issues.

Eric D · · Gnarnia · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 235

I agree that something needs to be done. Cochise is a wonderful area where bolts should be used sparingly. Now, I am not against all bolted lines in Cochise. For example, Peacemaker and End Game are very good routes. But, the quality of those routes decrease as other bolted routes and variations are squeezed in everywhere. Sheepshead is an example of that. The more bolts and variations pop up everywhere, the lower quality that dome becomes. There are some great lines on Sheepshead, but the proliferation of bolts decreases the quality of established routes.

This is a difficult situation to address in that it's hard to find a blanket rule that fairly addresses those that bolt sparingly and those that don't. I personally love the hand-drills only rule. Anyone can still bolt, but they need to put some work in to make it happen.

Aleix - I hope you are well. I really miss Cochise!

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

Yes. Preservation!

Cuddlebunny · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 5

Definitely not.

A) I'm against chipping.
B) I'm against retrobolting (which includes squeezing "new" lines in too close to old lines).
C) I'm against placing bolts where there's good gear available.

I'm also not a fan of over-bolted lines, but that's a very subjective distinction: my idea of over-bolted is likely different than another's.

But I think that if there's a potential new route on Rockfellow, then the first ascentionist should be able to protect it as he sees fit (so long as it doesn't violate A, B, or C).

I would however be a fan of a "Fixed Hardware Review Committee" such as is in existence for Eldorado Canyon in Colorado. This allows for new fixed protection to be installed through an application process that is reviewed and voted upon by a committee with input from the general public. This has proven to be very effective in Eldo for maintaining the traditional style of the area but still allowing the establishment great new routes.

I would also favor a ban on power drills which would *probably* create a situation that would self-limit the number of bolts placed.

Frankly, I'd be a fan of a hardware review committee and/or a power drill ban for ALL of Cochise.

Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

My father was a high-up Supervisor in CO Corrections, and as such had to deal with our statehouse regularly. One key thing he taught me about rules and bureaucracies is that the law of unintended consequences will be the one and only constant. I know nothing of AZ climbing and who's jurisdiction Cochise falls in, but I would urge you all please leave THE MAN out of it. I can almost certainly guarantee you'd live to regret it.
I know the temptation to think "Something must be done! We must make rules! We must make a system!" Frankly, that kind of naive exuburance goes hand in hand with youth. Once you get older, you start to learn the value of just letting sleeping dogs lie.
If this crag has significant history, the community will self-police itself. Up here, we don't have hordes bolting the hell out of Lumpy, The Splatte, The Park. No moratoriums there. But empower land managers and mark my words, they will expand and expand the rules. No mountain bikes. No camping. No hiking. No access. Don't just invite them in.

CO_Michael · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2008 · Points: 956

I was going to write something very similar to Mike's.

I completely agree.

Fly under the radar as best you can.

Catherine Conner · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 230

+1 Mike & Michael: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly!

Colonel Mustard · · Sacramento, CA · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 1,241
TDog wrote:This post is just a knee jerk to the other thread.
Pretty much. At least confine it to one thread, people, you're starting to make AZ look like one big (knee)jerk fest. I just don't think people are going to write themselves to a happy conclusion here, the solutions just keep getting worse and worse. Climb and be happy sunshine people!
Aleix Serrat · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 245

Just so we don't get out of focus here: this post wasn't meant to discuss interaction with the forest service or federal government (thanks for the advice nevertheless).
That's why I said "self-regulate" as a climbing community.

As far as knee-jerks go, I invite everyone, regardless of their views or opinions, to contribute any solutions or ideas they may have without getting personal on people.

Charles Vernon · · Colorado megalopolis · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 2,655

Aleix, I agree with your basic premise, except that the overbolting is already taking place on the main Rockfellow dome-look left of the Abra rap route, or do the Inner Passage. It might be too late.

I think banning power drills would be the perfect solution--only as others have said, I'd be reluctant to involve the Forest Service.

Why beat around the bush here? It's not as though there's lots of people putting up these heavily bolted lines (on the big domes at least) throughout Cochise . It's essentially one man's decision. In light of that, what does "self-regulation" mean?

I just wish the older, bold lines could be left alone. Look at the recent bolting on Dreamscape Buttress.

Colonel Mustard · · Sacramento, CA · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 1,241
Aleix wrote: As far as knee-jerks go, I invite everyone, regardless of their views or opinions, to contribute any solutions or ideas they may have without getting personal on people.
For that, I propose a moratorium on AZ ethics threads. A one-month moratorium might allow a cooling off, reflective period.
Cuddlebunny · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 5
Charles Vernon wrote:Why beat around the bush here? It's not as though there's lots of people putting up these heavily bolted lines (on the big domes at least) throughout Cochise . It's essentially one man's decision.
It seems to me Scott Ayers doesn't waste one millisecond considering anyone but himself and his own agenda. It's not bolting on Rockfellow that needs to be stopped - it's the actions of one sociopath.

I know he's put up some good routes, but those routes would have eventually been done by others - probably in better style, and definitely without the countless other examples of indiscretion and downright disrespect of the Stronghold, its present, and its future.
Cuddlebunny · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 5

If he had just gotten online the moment the recently chopped route was posted on Mountain Project and explained himself a little bit - even it was to defend his choices to chip and bolt that line, it would have gone a long, long way towards more civility. Maybe he's tired of all the criticism and is trying to be "above" it all by not responding to what he perceives as personal attacks. But people are not just blindly vilifying him - he's brought it on himself. I mean, the guy won't even share the NAMES of his new routes.

There are plenty of prolific first ascentionists out there who are celebrated almost universally for their contributions and achievements. Sure, you can't please everyone all the time, and there will always be critics and mistakes are made, but Ayers is not even remotely in that category. The sad thing is he *could be* - he clearly has the time and money, as well as a willingness to explore and an eye for lines. But as far as I'm concerned, Ayers has given the finger to Cochise Stronghold and the climbers who care about it and it's time to be proactive about not allowing it to continue further. What kind of stewards are we if we knowingly allow him free reign?

Dan Cohen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 15
Cuddlebunny wrote: It seems to me Scott Ayers doesn't waste one millisecond considering anyone but himself and his own agenda. It's not bolting on Rockfellow that needs to be stopped - it's the actions of one sociopath. I know he's put up some good routes, but those routes would have eventually been done by others - probably in better style, and definitely without the countless other examples of indiscretion and downright disrespect of the Stronghold, its present, and its future. I think he needs to be stopped.
Wow, Cuddlebunny. Those are some powerful words.

Have you ever talked to Scott? If so, have you talked to him about your feelings on his work in the Stronghold?

You certainly have the right to your own opinions, whatever you base them on, but it seems that your words are indicative of feelings, rather than thoughts. I think what you call "countless indiscretions" should be examined on a case by case basis with factual data.

What exactly do you mean by "he needs to be stopped?"

Why hide behind the furry mask, anyway?
Cuddlebunny · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2011 · Points: 5
Dan Cohen wrote: Wow, Cuddlebunny. Those are some powerful words. Have you ever talked to Scott? If so, have you talked to him about your feelings on his work in the Stronghold? You certainly have the right to your own opinions, whatever you base them on, but it seems that your words are indicative of feelings, rather than thoughts. I think what you call "countless indiscretions" should be examined on a case by case basis with factual data. What exactly do you mean by "he needs to be stopped?" Why hide behind the furry mask, anyway?
Yes, I have talked to Scott. I haven't been able to talk to him about my feelings on his work in the Stronghold because once I made it known I had an opinion about these things he ceased all communication.

When you say the "countless indiscretions" should be examined on a case by case basis... do you mean each dome that has been desecrated? Or each route? Or each bolt? Or each chipped hold? Or each ignored email or phone call? How specific do we need to get? I do agree that we should start compiling a list.

By "he needs to be stopped," I mean that unless he radically changes his methods (ie becomes "above reproach") of establishing routes, steps should be taken to compel him to stop bolting (and certainly chipping) altogether. I would hate to involve the NFS, but I can't think of any other solutions.
Dan Cohen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 15
Cuddlebunny wrote: Yes, I have talked to Scott. I haven't been able to talk to him about my feelings on his work in the Stronghold because once I made it known I had an opinion about these things he ceased all communication. When you say the "countless indiscretions" should be examined on a case by case basis... do you mean each dome that has been desecrated? Or each route? Or each bolt? Or each chipped hold? Or each ignored email or phone call? How specific do we need to get? I do agree that we should start compiling a list. By "he needs to be stopped," I mean that unless he radically changes his methods (ie becomes "above reproach") of establishing routes, steps should be taken to compel him to stop bolting (and certainly chipping) altogether. I would hate to involve the NFS, but I can't think of any other solutions.
So, you are saying that when he found out that you had an opinion on his actions in the Stronghold, he refused to answer your phone calls and flat out ignored your private emails?

Did you call him a sociopath when you had direct contact too, or are insults like that just reserved for your internet alias?

By "case by case basis," I mean, you should compile a list of complaints to whatever specificity you prefer. I suggest that, if your goal is respectful dialogue, you refrain from using loaded words such as "desecration." I think your opinions will stand for themselves and there is no need for such strong language.

Personally, aside from the single chipping incident, I don't have a problem with Scott's style of first ascents in the Stronghold. So, I think you need to figure out what you consider to be a valid complaint.

Again, you have the right to your own opinion, but understand that your opinion is no more valid that anyone else's.
Dan Cohen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 15
Dan Cohen wrote: Why hide behind the furry mask, anyway?
Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Arizona & New Mexico
Post a Reply to "Bolt or Bolt Ladder Moratorium in the Rockfello…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

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

Get Started.