Too many bolts at Lost T?

Brassmonkey wrote: But we are talking about a traditionally trad climbing area where bolts (use to be) rarely used. Not your local sport crag. Even there I dont use them though; just my personal climbing ethics, thats all.

Your post certainly implied that it wasn't limited to just the Adirondacks by your statement directly following the part I bolded.

Brassmonkey wrote: You are correct. I was attempting to relate it back to the thread as to avoid a bit of drift in it. However if you want to pull it in that way, I personally don't and wont use them, anywhere. If I cant pull it, I don't deserve to. I hope it doesn't bother you that I don't use or need them. My apologies if it does! ;)

The point though is that if you clip bolts up higher and are willing to fall on them, then how does risking a ground fall from anywhere up to 20ft make sense on a sport route? Seems like a weird sense of personal ethics. Based on your statement, you should just free solo everything. Once you get in the 5.12 range, there is bound to be cruxes low on routes. Why are those cruxes magically different on sport routes?

Brassmonkey wrote: But we are talking about a traditionally trad climbing area where bolts (use to be) rarely used. Not your local sport crag. Even there I dont use them though; just my personal climbing ethics, thats all.

As an observer to this discussion, I'm wondering about the climb everyone is talking about. Is this, by chance, a climb with one 5.10-ish move off the deck followed by 50 or 60' of 5.9 climbing?

The route being discussed does have a crux down low followed by easier climbing above. I am a local climber and developer in the area(s) being commented on and have a few comments i'd like to make.

1. I have found that almost all of the newer routes that utilize "stick clip" bolts can easily be climbed up to and clipped like any other bolt. They are typically 12-15' off the deck so my belief is that the developer(s) mentions that it could be stick clipped...they definately don't have to be as the leader can just climb up to them, clip and continue on the route so I am having trouble understanding what the problem is regarding this?

2. The Adirondacks have bolts all throughout the park. Not just at belay stations or as top anchors. There are numerous sport routes, mixed routes etc. The southern portion of the Adirondack Park has seen a steady increase in new crags and new routes within the past few years. Many of these new routes are sport routes or have some fixed hardware mixed into the climb. Cliffs that come to mind when I think of Adirondack sport climbing: King Wall, Jewels and Gem, Poko, Crane, Shanty, Shelving, Lost T, Annex, Otter, Potash, Lost Hunters....

3. I totally disagree that if a route doesn't take gear than it should be left as a top rope climb. What is wrong with making an excellent climb accessible for someone to lead from the ground up? If that involves adding some fixed gear, as long as it's stainless, will last for years to come and is placed where no traditional gear can be used, then I am totally for it.

4. I don't place hardware where gear can be utilized and understand why people were upset when they encountered this. Removing it behind the backs of the developing crew was not necessary as they were willing to remove these hangers anyway.

5. Gary and crew have done considerable development over the past few years. All of the cliffs that they have worked on see steady climbing traffic reguarly and will continue to do so. Chopping his hardware has obviously turned him off to future development...as a result, the entire climbing community suffers.

That's about all I have. I will continue to develop new routes and cliffs and hope that I don't experience what Gary and others recently have. It's all about the climbing for me. If I run into something that doesn't settle well with me while out climbing, I try to go to the source to find a resolution. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it does not. Definately better than sneaking around in my opinion.

""As for the bolt removal I can see why those who placed them would be pissed. But until the sport bolters start asking for a consensus from the trad community before placing bolts. I can't see the trad community looking for a consensus before removing them...

Seems like on a wall where everything can be top roped bolts should only be needed for anchors where no gear can be had for top roping. And anyone who's not up for the challenge a certain route presents on lead can always TR.""

Both good points. Hence - what seems like an indefinite stalemate between the sport and trad communities.

Originally my point of the other thread was to criticize the manner of bolting, not that there is/was bolting. I think the pressures of egos to get FAs and diminishing feet of easily accessible rock play a large part in why bolts are becoming more common place. The ADKs are finally starting to run thin on new route potential (that isn't 30+ minutes approach) and so the unprotectable lines are getting bolted. Then once you start bolting unprotected lines then there's unprotected moves, etc. It's definitely homogenizing climbing (for better and worse).

Brassmonkey wrote:If he was bolting lines like this in the Gunks everyone would be up in arms.

Why what happens in the Gunks ought to dictate rules for the Adirondacks, I have no idea, since the ownership and political situations are completely different. Like the land owners in the Gunks take a very active role in managing climbing, and charge a specific fee to climbers.

Anyway, as far as I know the normal policy of the Mohonk Preserve for the Gunks is:
No new bolts -- Period.
Except for bolts which the owners specifically approve and place, as anchors -- not intermediate protection points (though a few intermediate pitons and bolt placements from decades ago have been "grandfathered")

Nothing about placing bolts where Trad gear placements are insufficient.
Nothing about Top-Rope-able versus non-TR routes.
Just simply "No new bolts".

If some new (or old) route is R- or X-rated without bolts, then it stays R or X, and
If that means nobody's going to create any more new routes on the main cliffs in the Gunks, that's just fine with the owners.

What "everyone" around the Gunks thinks is beside the point, since the land owners call the shots. When the owners installed some anchor bolts, there were some climbers who objected (and still object), but seems like most climbers there are glad to use them.
If the owners now took a poll of Gunks climbers about adding some more bolts, or even designating one section as open for new pure sport-climbing routes, I greatly doubt that the percentage who voted No would be anything like 100%.

Ken

Justin Sanford wrote:4. I don't place hardware where gear can be utilized and understand why people were upset when they encountered this. Removing it behind the backs of the developing crew was not necessary as they were willing to remove these hangers anyway.

I don't think the removals were done to make a statement. Likely more for retribution by an unstable climber.

Brassmonkey wrote:The Gunks was simply an example... landowner beside the point.

Land ownership is precisely the point, because of the way in which the Gunks are administered there will never be bolting issues in the same way it's a problem on public lands.