Mountain Project Logo

Anchors in NC:Old school ethics vs. convenience

Original Post
Bento Bento · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 5

1st post ever:
So I came home to NC for the week and did some cragging at Rumbling Bald. Stellar weather, great partner, sweet climbing. One of the climbs we did was Zydygo. As I neared the top, I thought, it'll be fun to bust out a a few laps on this one. But the best anchor (the anchor for the whole area of 3 routes) was on a tree up and to the right. The rope had run over some trees and dirt up to the anchor so brought up my buddy and we moved on to another route. But it got me thinking.

NC climbing is about adventure, ground up style FA's, bold run-outs, bushwhacking, and getting lost. I get that and I appreciate that. But why can't we have some bomber anchors at the tops of our climbs like so many other climbing areas around the country. Look at places that are stout and traditional like little cottonwood canyon or Yosemite. We get to have decent anchors there.

The cereal buttress and a lot of the climbs at the north end of looking glass are pretty reasonable, but I suspect that if I went and equipped zydygo or chicken head city with a pair of bomber bolts at the top, they'd get chopped and some folks would raise a stink because there are already natural anchors available.

Convenient anchors might bring more folks out to the crags, but some places like Moore's wall already have the crowds. What if quaker state and golden earing had their own separate anchors? What if folks who were on wailing wall could rap off somewhere else besides on top of quaker state? I think we'd all be getting in more pitches in.

I live in Yosemite now, so in all is said in done, I don't give a shit what the anchor situation is at whatever NC crag. I'll still climb here when I visit and have a great time. But NC climbers, what do you think? Are we behind the times? Are the old ethics preserving the climbing here or just a pain in the ass?

Tits McGee · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 260

Ask the CCC.

Andrew Blease · · Bartlett, NH · Joined Apr 2010 · Points: 470

You could find somewhere to build a natural anchor to run laps on and then use the tree for a rap station when you're done.

M Sprague · · New England · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 5,090

...unless your friends are a bunch of uptight conservative traddies!
-jk

"always seek to please your friends. If you do this, you can't go wrong, no matter what state your in." -Whoohoo!Watch this, Bubba!

LB Mullin Jr. · · Gunnison, CO · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 105

As a NC native now living in Colorado I think about this every time I go climbing at home. Every climb is different, but I think that some should get "convience anchors".

Bolts are a huge impact on the rock, but walk up to Moore's and walk the base and you will find a much, much larger impact. Trash, new trails, and human impacts at the base of the routes are ,much larger problems.

Possibly if someone installs some well placed, painted rap anchors we can all spend less time briarwacking and more time minimizing our impacts, and leave the crags "cleaner" than we found them.

saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221
Bento wrote:But why can't we have some bomber anchors at the tops of our climbs like so many other climbing areas around the country.
HAHAHA!! You might as well ask for escalators to be installed for the Moore's approach!

Bento wrote:Are the old ethics preserving the climbing here or just a pain in the ass?
The old ethics are for preserving the pain in the ass. :-)

All kidding aside, while I think many NC climbers make a fetish out of not having anchors or other such conveniences, I do appreciate that North Carolina is a true bastion of not dumbing down climbing to the lowest common denominator.

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

Personally I don't see a reason for there to be anchors at the top of Zydago. As Tim said, there are suitable options for natural TR anchors. There are almost always options for natural anchors in NC.

As for Moore's Wall - no bolts needed. If you think the Amphitheatre needs another rap anchor, put one in. There are plenty of places to rap from up there w/o adding bolts. Use a tree or hexes. The current rap station is made of fixed hexes, as are many of the anchors at Moore's.

The reason that there is only one anchor at the top of Quaker State and Golden Earring is that the climbs end at exactly the same place. There doesn't need to be anchors for everyone that wants to TR a climb.

Moore's is huge. No reason to be waiting in line to climb as there are dozens of routes under 5.10 and even more if you climb harder. The parking lot only holds like 12 cars anyway. If you're really having trouble with crowds then climb somewhere that's not in the guidebook (I realize that might not work for you because you're here as visitor).

In broader terms, I think that having two bolts at the top of a traditionally protected climb is a bit silly when there are other options. Not only is it a waste of money and an eyesore but it breeds ignorance and bad habits.

I LOVE the New River Gorge, but I can't count the times that I've seen a "trad climber" get to the top of a climb that doesn't have bolts (surprise!) and take 15 minutes trying to figure out what to do. People that learn to climb this way are basically learning how to sport climb on gear. Like Indian Creek. It's great fun, but we don't want every place to be like that.

I think leaving NC the way that it is is doing exactly what you say... preserving the climbing. It keeps the lazy or incompetent climber away OR it teaches them how to climb for real.

I do think NC is a bit behind the times... but I happen not to like the times very much.

rock-fencer · · Columbia, SC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 265

last thing we want is more people at the bald!!! you can easily build a gear TR anchor at the top if you want to run laps. Ir you can go find some of the other amazing lines instead of running laps on the same climb. Less fixed anchors the better in my opinion. Keep NC bolt free, especially at established trad locales.

had you suggested installing anchors due to the rap tree slowly dieing that would be different.

Adam Paashaus · · Greensboro, NC · Joined May 2007 · Points: 791
rock_fencer wrote: Keep NC bolt free, especially at established trad locales.
I used to get ethics and style confused. Just to the left of Chickenhead City there are around a dozen bolts with old slings all over them on routes that may, or more likely, may not ever be climbed(projects). But, because the hardman who had the vision, went in a ground up style, im supposed to congratulate him on sinking useless eyesore bolts and then leaving red webbing on them to get down? Why not rap inspect the impossible looking routes and then if they look doable install the hardware ground up? I now see NC as having a strict style but not the greatest ethics. And I HAVE seen trees that have been killed by excess travel at the clifftops because of the lack of anchors. Having anchors at the top of a few routes that get higher traffic cant hurt in my opinion. If we saved the useless project bolts for them we would have a better crag in my honest opinion.
Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

Reading these posts reminds me of that Monty Python clip where the Welshman with a diaper on his head goes "I want to see two rocks banged together"

camhead · · Vandalia, Appalachia · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 1,240
Mike Lane wrote:Reading these posts reminds me of that Monty Python clip where the Welshman with a diaper on his head goes "I want to see two rocks banged together"
Ironically enough, those Monty Python characters you described are actually called "gumbies."

I tend to agree with the original poster regarding anchors on trad climbs. At least in the case of Looking Glass's North Side (I haven't spent too much time at Rumbling Bald), the lack of bolted anchors on climbs such as Cornflake Crack certainly doesn't stop people from toproping; I saw a large-ish group of obviously locals who had set up a bizarre system of two giant topropes on both Safari Jive and Cornflake Crack.

Furthermore, the argument for "natural anchors"rather than bolts as an environmental/aesthetic concern is a bit ridiculous. Check out the trees at Paradise Forks and you'll see what I mean.

I fail to see how NC's staunch ground up style for FA's, and a Leave No Trace ethical goal somehow translates into opposition to bolted anchors at the top of popular routes.
Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623

Most of the climbs that do get frequent travel have bolts. This is why the top of Cereal Wall has bolts, but also because there are no natural gear anchors as an option. I would hardly call Zydygo a route that receives "excess" travel. Not to mention that pine tree is bomber. Its not going anywhere for a while, and when it does start to look sketch, bolts will mostly likely be placed or another suitable anchor found before the tree dies. This is what happened to the original Safari Jive tree, it got moved up to the next tree when the other one started to look bad. As far as TR'ing Zydygo, it is easy with a few directionals. If bolts get placed, they will get chopped just like the convenience anchors on Ice Cream Direct at Hawksbill this summer.

Personally, I don't want convenience anchors at the cliffs. I can't imagine a place like Joshua Tree (a stout trad locale) having convenience anchors. Half the fun is the walk off. If you wanted to TR something there, make a trad anchor and lower off. Convenience anchors for TR'ing, getting a workout in, etc... should be left at the gym. Many places in N.C. maintain their adventure style climbing because of the lack of bolted anchors. It also forces climbers to make step-wise progressions in their climbing. It drives me crazy when I walk up to a climb that I want to lead and some kids are TR'ing it all day and hanging every move (the Bald on a weekend). A place to cut your teeth with tons of convenience anchors are places like Crowders or Pilot, and most locals hate climbing there because of the gumby effect.

Personally, its sad hearing about all the convenience anchors going in at Red Rocks on multipitch climbs that would take trad belays. Guides and other locals putting bolts in so there is no commitment. Lame. I don't think N.C. is behind the times, they just don't give in to the complaining.

Christopher Barlow · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2006 · Points: 540

Camhead's post - to me - defends bolted anchors (and an ethic/style that includes some bolting) pretty well. It seems to me that the discussion so far has confused "convenience" anchors with bolted anchors that promote a higher level of safety and minimize climber impacts on the cliff environment. I love adventure climbing, and I truly appreciated the adventure ethic that many of the major areas in NC have. But having climbing in major traditional destinations across the US (all of the abovementioned in NC, T-Wall, Eldo, Moab area, Red Rocks, Yosemite, Bugaboos. to name a few), there is a reality about the culture of rock climbing: It's a lot bigger than it used to be. There are a lot of people climbing these days. None of us will stop climbing just because it's crowded or because we destroy a cliff ecosystem. Moreover, like it or not (me, mostly not), most people learn to climb in a gym and then develop the repertoire into trad climbing outside, especially in NC where there are very few true sport climbing areas.

That said, it actually, in the long run, isn't inexperience that damages the environment; it's the sheer numbers. Places like Eldo, Red Rocks, Yosemite, and the Bugs (and others that I haven't visited yet) have learned this and started establishing clear, straightforward, and bomber belay/rappel/descent options because that impact (i.e. bolted anchors and well-built trails) minimizes the much larger impact of brightly colored tat all over the walls and numerous social trails, dead trees, and dangerous rockfall caused by people walking around the tops of cliffs.

So in this sense, yes, NC is behind the times. I think the ethic that drives much of the climbing in NC is inspirational, and I still come back to NC for it. But there is a significant difference between the nature of the climbing during a pitch and when it ends. If it were simply a matter of convenience, we could simply stuff two cams irretrievably in the top of a crack and lower off those. It wouldn't be bolts, but it would ultimately turn into an unsafe mess. Bolted anchors, while not for every situation, are part of an effective way to preserve the climbing equally for everyone to enjoy. Ultimately, we as climbers have to let go of the notion that we are solitary adventurers operating alone in the mountains. To me, all that means is we must think about managing routes in such a way so that the character of the climbing for the most part is available similarly to the person that climbs after us.

Jacob Neathawk · · Nederland, CO · Joined May 2006 · Points: 65

does not having a two bolt anchor at the top of a route really prevent anyone from toproping? seems like the trees are the ones who pay the price for the intentional inconvenience. As for the ice cream direct anchor situation, there was no chopping. The anchor was removed due to all the whining from the old guard and wanna be old guard. Now the route is back to its original state where you do a twenty foot dash through rhododendron and moss to reach some tat around a tree. Its more like adventure rappelling than climbing. The climbing is the same but you just get to lower off some manky tat around a tree rather than bolts.

camhead · · Vandalia, Appalachia · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 1,240
TomCaldwell wrote:...Not to mention that pine tree is bomber. Its not going anywhere for a while, and when it does start to look sketch, bolts will mostly likely be placed or another suitable anchor found before the tree dies. This is what happened to the original Safari Jive tree, it got moved up to the next tree when the other one started to look bad.
Are you serious?

It is comments like ^that^ which just flabbergast me. On one hand, staunch traditionalists tout leave-no-trace ethics, and equate bolts with lesser environmental impact, and then on the other hand, many of this same demographic have the attitude that "we can just use the tree until it' almost dead, and THEN add bolts."

It's completely irrational.
Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623

If you really want LNT ethics, don't place any anything, gear, bolts, don't even climb. Everything we do impacts the environment to say otherwise would be irrational. People cut ivy off climbs, trees/plants out of cracks, etc... how is that ok but using a tree for an anchor not. The problem with Safari Jive, is that the first pitch got turned into a TR, when the original route goes to the top all trad. The issue with IC direct was not that the climb didn't need a bolted anchor, but that the FA was not consulted. The "old guard" (aka NC mafia) doesn't take lightly to retro'ing without permission. This is just my general understanding of locals from previous discussions on the CCC boards.

The only reason there are bolts at T-wall and we aren't having the same discussion about there is because of the pine beetles.

Mike Anderson · · Colorado Springs, CO · Joined Nov 2004 · Points: 3,265

There are strong underlying themes in these debates (that happen in several parts of the country) of elitism and hypocrisy. Take the N Face of Looking glass. All of the 5.12 routes and many of the 5.11s have nice bolted anchors for lowering/TRing, whatever. Many of these routes have protection bolts as well. But people would go apeshit if you suggested putting "convenience" anchors on the 5.7s on the S Face.

Ethically and environmentally, there is no difference between these situations, but if you dig deeper, you'll get a bunch of rationalizations for why it's OK for a 5.12 to have a convenience anchor, but not a 5.7. An inconsistent ethic, is not an ethic, it is just a social construct to keep people in their place. Same with the environmental argument...obviously bolts have less impact than rapping off a tree or walking down a descent "trail", so ask why "they" make that argument? What is the underlying motivation for subverting the proliferation of anchors?

These things are very hard to change because the younger crowd grows up idolizing the "old guard" and memorizing their dogma so they can regurgitate it when the time comes, instead of thinking through the issues on their own and coming to their own conclusions. I'm just glad I climb 5.12 so my NC climbing experiences are more convenient. Thank you hypocritical elitist NC bolt policer!

Bento Bento · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 5
TomCaldwell wrote: I would hardly call Zydygo a route that receives "excess" travel.
I'm surprised that thing doesn't get more action. It's rad. wish it was twice as long!
Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623
Mike Anderson wrote:There are strong underlying themes in these debates (that happen in several parts of the country) of elitism and hypocrisy. Take the N Face of Looking glass. All of the 5.12 routes and many of the 5.11s have nice bolted anchors for lowering/TRing, whatever. Many of these routes have protection bolts as well. But people would go apeshit if you suggested putting "convenience" anchors on the 5.7s on the S Face. Ethically and environmentally, there is no difference between these situations, but if you dig deeper, you'll get a bunch of rationalizations for why it's OK for a 5.12 to have a convenience anchor, but not a 5.7. An inconsistent ethic, is not an ethic, it is just a social construct to keep people in their place. Same with the environmental argument...obviously bolts have less impact than rapping off a tree or walking down a descent "trail", so ask why "they" make that argument? What is the underlying motivation for subverting the proliferation of anchors? These things are very hard to change because the younger crowd grows up idolizing the "old guard" and memorizing their dogma so they can regurgitate it when the time comes, instead of thinking through the issues on their own and coming to their own conclusions. I'm just glad I climb 5.12 so my NC climbing experiences are more convenient. Thank you hypocritical elitist NC bolt policer!
That is funny that you make that argument since I made the same one about protection bolts on slab faces in N.C. on the CCC boards under their Double Cross thread. That climbs 5.10 or harder receive way more protection bolts than a 5.9 and below would. So don't call me an elitist. I even suggested placing bolts near the old Safari Jive Tree last summer and got shut down when they moved the slings up to the next highest tree under a title Safari Jive anchor. The conclusion was those slings on the tree were convenience anchors and not the original route. I am merely stating what the opinions of many FA'ers in NC have given the general populus in responses on the CCC boards. If you want to make an argument an actually have an impact in NC Mr. Anderson, revive one of those old threads or post this on the CCC forums.

Agreed Bento, wish that climb was so much longer. You should give Flakes of Wrath a try next time. But be warned, there are no bolted anchors at the top, just a bomber SS cable wrapped under a giant boulder. Someone save the boulder!
csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
Tits McGee wrote:Ask the CCC.
The CCC does not make those decisions.
Mike Anderson · · Colorado Springs, CO · Joined Nov 2004 · Points: 3,265
TomCaldwell wrote:If you really want LNT ethics, don't place any anything, gear, bolts, don't even climb. Everything we do impacts the environment to say otherwise would be irrational. People cut ivy off climbs, trees/plants out of cracks, etc... how is that ok but using a tree for an anchor not. The problem with Safari Jive, is that the first pitch got turned into a TR, when the original route goes to the top all trad. The issue with IC direct was not that the climb didn't need a bolted anchor, but that the FA was not consulted. The "old guard" (aka NC mafia) doesn't take lightly to retro'ing without permission. This is just my general understanding of locals from previous discussions on the CCC boards. The only reason there are bolts at T-wall and we aren't having the same discussion about there is because of the pine beetles.
Right on cue, thank you for that.

Interesting speculation on bolts at T-wall, but I disagree. There are bolts at T-wall because Rob Robinson decided to put them in. If he had gone with the "old school trad" ethic for the cliff, I'm sure all the psycophants would have helped enforce the hypocritical and inconsistent policies that would have followed. Instead he/they decided a mix of sport and trad is OK, and, well this can't be right, the two styles have been able to coexist peacefully for 2+ decades. But what about the infamous "slippery slope" we've heard so much about? Hmm, we should ask our "old guard" overlords to provide us with an explanation that is consistent with dogma....
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern States
Post a Reply to "Anchors in NC:Old school ethics vs. convenience "

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

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

Get Started.