Bolting "ethics"

Blissab wrote: The fractured nature and freeze thaw characteristics of the top of many Connecticut cliffs probably do not lend themselves to permanent TR anchor bolts, which would probably be chopped anyway.

So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple.

EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

CaptainMo wrote: So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple. EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

I think having a blanket of vegetation up to the cliffs edge might actually help with the freeze thaw cycle on the rock. its probably too late now unless a few tons of topsoil(that has eroded away) were carried up to the tops of the cliffs and planted. I agree that its chossy, its rare when I top out on a climb on traprock that I find a bomber gear anchor.

CaptainMo wrote: So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple. EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

Kool-aid and regurgitation...sounds like you have visited Jonestown also.

Be nice...in my opinion, a permanent anchor system at Ragged would be a liability that would have to be carefully considered, by the Ragged Mountain Foundation.

You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint?

As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations?

You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive.

Blissab wrote: Be nice...in my opinion, a permanent anchor system at Ragged would be a liability that would have to be carefully considered, by the Ragged Mountain Foundation.

It could be or it could also not be a liability. One thing I could tell you with certainty, they would provide for better conservation of the natural resources. We have liability insurance at the RMF and the Access Fund is now capable of providing liability coverage through one of their programs so the liability issues can theoretically be mitigated.

You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint? It is fractured especially along the top edges where' it's exposed to all the elements but there are plenty of areas along the tops of all of these cliffs, along all the routes, that a 1' hole could be drilled and an anchor installed in solid rock. That said a lot of the GEAR placements suck because they are along these fractures and once they're there they're mostly weak because of the geology.


As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations?

No and yes if they want to live. We are not talking about convenience anchors we are talking about anchors for the sake of conservation. In philosophy, examples always help so here goes, they could be the most PITA anchors to use and I would still support them over trees. That's why those damn trees rather then gear get used for Broadway all the time... convenience.


You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive.

Hahaha - people in ICU are alive too, no ;-)? CT...Sedated, bleeding, and being dragged by a dying horse into the future maybe.

If you think differently, I have a test for you: What was the last hard (notable or not) FA that was put up in Central Conn (not at the fire wall)? What publications covered it? In what year was the first 5.14 trad or sport lead in central CT and how many repeats does it have? What top climbers have travel to CT to try this test piece? I think the point has been made no?

Mobes - I never realized u started this crappy thread... u wanna see if you can delete it?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I live out West and plan to keep it that way. I keep getting frustrated though at the willful mischaracterization from Blissab and others of the proposed anchors as "convenience anchors". I haven't seen a SINGLE argument for placing bolts because it's too "inconvenient" to use the trees. The ONLY argument that the pro-anchor crowd keeps making is that they want to keep the trees alive and bolts are the way to do it.

Blissab - quit with the straw men already. Either respond to the suggestion that bolts be placed to KEEP TREES ALIVE or stay away from the thread. Arguing against a statement that NOBODY IS MAKING is getting old. Do you have an alternative to keep the trees alive or do you place CT "ethics" above that concept? If you'd rather keep the areas "trad" than keep the trees alive, that's fine...but own up to it instead of arguing against nobody.

CaptainMo wrote: It could be or it could also not be a liability. One thing I could tell you with certainty, they would provide for better conservation of the natural resources. We have liability insurance at the RMF and the Access Fund is now capable of providing liability coverage through one of their programs so the liability issues can theoretically be mitigated. You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint? It is fractured especially along the top edges where' it's exposed to all the elements but there are plenty of areas along the tops of all of these cliffs, along all the routes, that a 1' hole could be drilled and an anchor installed in solid rock. That said a lot of the GEAR placements suck because they are along these fractures and once they're there they're mostly weak because of the geology. As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations? No and yes if they want to live. We are not talking about convenience anchors we are talking about anchors for the sake of conservation. In philosophy examples always help so here goes, they could be the most PITA anchors to use and I would still support them over trees. That's why those damn trees rather then gear get used for Broadway all the time... convenience. You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive. Hahaha - people in ICU are alive too, no ;-)? Sedated, bleeding, and tied to the back of a dying horse maybe too...

I am not necessarily for or against bolted anchors at the top of Ragged. I strongly agree with the ethical considerations at Ragged to protect the environment, that is why I personally try, as best as I can, to use TR gear anchors or just lead.

However, if permanent TR anchors are placed there, careful consideration should be made by the RMF and not placed in a haphazard fashion, by outside elements. Or for that matter, chopped by outside elements.

As a representative of the RMF, my question to you specifically, CaptainMo, is this:

1. Why are there not at this time permanent TR anchors in-place at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain?

2. Why has not the original fixed protection, that were previously vandalized, not been replaced at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain to allow for the potential for lead ascents (understanding that these still will be bold leads)?

As someone who enjoys climbing in Connecticut, I believe this discussion should continue. The balance of power may be shifting in Central Connecticut and clear thinking and sensitivities should be employed.

Just this summer the RMF in fact held a meeting regarding this very subject. At least there has been some discussion...maybe in the future there will actually be a resolution.

Austin Baird wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight. I live out West and plan to keep it that way. I keep getting frustrated though at the willful mischaracterization from Blissab and others of the proposed anchors as "convenience anchors". I haven't seen a SINGLE argument for placing bolts because it's too "inconvenient" to use the trees. The ONLY argument that the pro-anchor crowd keeps making is that they want to keep the trees alive and bolts are the way to do it. Blissab - quit with the straw men already. Either respond to the suggestion that bolts be placed to KEEP TREES ALIVE or stay away from the thread. Arguing against a statement that NOBODY IS MAKING is getting old. Do you have an alternative to keep the trees alive or do you place CT "ethics" above that concept? If you'd rather keep the areas "trad" than keep the trees alive, that's fine...but own up to it instead of arguing against nobody.

I do have a dog in this fight. I am specifically commenting on the "here and now". You are missing my point.

At this point in time there are no fixed anchors at the top of the Main Face of Ragged Mountain. I am also concerned, as others are, about the conservation issues regarding the top of the cliff. I find the amount of static line used to set-up YMC and Broadway ridiculus and irresponsible, when there suitable gear anchor available for these routes.

That said, I would support thoughtful placement of fixed TR anchors at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain by the RMF. But up to now, there has been no movement in this direction and the top cliff environment is still taking the hit. I personally try, as best as I can, to lead or set-up TR gear anchors (this is not an unreasonable approach), until such time, as the RMF determines a proper course of action.

I my discussion here, I guess I am questioning, when this course of action will take place?

Blissab wrote: As a representative of the RMF, my question to you specifically, CaptainMo, is this: 1. Why are there not at this time permanent TR anchors in-place at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain? 2. Why has not the original fixed protection, that were previously vandalized, not been replaced at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain to allow for the potential for lead ascents (understanding that these still will be bold leads)?

A new found rep, yes... So here goes: It is my understanding that a personal dispute between KN and a previous board member/members greatly effected the conservation easement in which the RMF acquired Ragged. That argument was a headache to the Berlin Land Trust and since KN was (and is)good friends with members of the BLT board, he influenced the language put into the deal to what HE wanted, not what was right for conservation of a climbing area. This soiled language applies to bolts, trails, and effects many conservation minded improvements.

This is one of the great problems that confronts the RMF actually... we purchased a 'climbing area' but we are bound to keep it a conservation area and the two don't play well together unless you have the right tools (I believe many of those tools were stripped out by the easement). There has also not been the will or direction at the RMF to tackle these harder more involved items that I know of... The new board I think is a huge change from the past and we're really working hard to identify and communicate the efforts and challenges. Brien (RMF Pres) has done a great job I think of getting a great group of climbers who represent the broad spectrum of climbers present in CT. As for historical gear - this came to vote before I was on the Board - but it is my understanding that there is some hesitation after KN smashed and vandalized holds on Vanishing Point but that the restoration was going to take place slowly over time but would be occurring. I believe some pieces have already been replaced but I'm not sure.

This fall I did a tour of Ragged with the Pres. of the Berlin Land Trust and Brien, the RMF pres. and I really did give it my all to pick out all the conservation issues. A lot of it stems from the Metacomet Trail, and a fair amount from climbers. There were in some areas up to approx 6" of soil erosion along the trail and plenty of trampled climber trails to any decent sized tree. I think a lot of people will look at the top and say it's always looked that way but who was around in the 1920's when it was fresh? Also of concern is that the situation is not static or recovering but deteriorating. I personally think sections of the top of Main Cliff should be roped off and closed to climbing and let the vegetation attempt to re-grow. That might help folks 'recognize' the problem.

EDIT: I'm only responding cause Bliss asked some important questions that have relevant answers. Otherwise I want this thread killed.

started in 2007, seemingly done in 2010, revived without missing a beat in 2012.

(facepalm)

Blissab wrote: I personally don't find the need to bring 100-150-feet of static line to Ragged or many other cliffs in Connecticut. Many of the routes should be led or if TR'd...can be easily set-up with equalized gear anchors. As a classic example, Broadway and YMC has both bomber TR gear anchors, that many people overlook and never use. Instead, there often exists the spider's web of static line. The factured nature and freeze thaw characteristics of the top of many Connecticut cliffs probably do not lend themselves to permanent TR anchor bolts, which would probably be chopped anyway. I feel sorry for those two poor little trees that just happen to have the unfortunate luck of being located 50-feet back of and above Broadway and YMC.

So by your statement anyone who doesnt own cams shouldnt be able to climb at these places? Not applying this to myself, but there are many people who are perfectly happy being a TR climber, and using static lines/ webbing to make their anchors. This kills trees. A few staples at the top of popular routes would solve this issue in a heartbeat.

But the Koolaid runs deep in CT..

Id also argue most of the climbs at ragged etc have garbage for even making gear anchors.

• *I dont want to see bolts all over ragged. Heck I dont want to see any bolts at all. But I think a few solid staples on the most popular routes placed 5-10 feet back very much like you see at Otter cliffs in Acadia would be a wonderful solution.

everyone talks like there is this huge group of CT locals who don't want sport climbs or bolts. The truth of the matter is that there is one egomaniac extremist who has held the state hostage for the last 30 years.

CaptainMo wrote: It could be or it could also not be a liability. One thing I could tell you with certainty, they would provide for better conservation of the natural resources. We have liability insurance at the RMF and the Access Fund is now capable of providing liability coverage through one of their programs so the liability issues can theoretically be mitigated. You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint? It is fractured especially along the top edges where' it's exposed to all the elements but there are plenty of areas along the tops of all of these cliffs, along all the routes, that a 1' hole could be drilled and an anchor installed in solid rock. That said a lot of the GEAR placements suck because they are along these fractures and once they're there they're mostly weak because of the geology. As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations? No and yes if they want to live. We are not talking about convenience anchors we are talking about anchors for the sake of conservation. In philosophy, examples always help so here goes, they could be the most PITA anchors to use and I would still support them over trees. That's why those damn trees rather then gear get used for Broadway all the time... convenience. You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive. Hahaha - people in ICU are alive too, no ;-)? CT...Sedated, bleeding, and being dragged by a dying horse into the future maybe. If you think differently, I have a test for you: What was the last hard (notable or not) FA that was put up in Central Conn (not at the fire wall)? What publications covered it? In what year was the first 5.14 trad or sport lead in central CT and how many repeats does it have? What top climbers have travel to CT to try this test piece? I think the point has been made no?

I think thread's like this and knowledge from people like you are essential towards the progression of CT climbing. With continued discourse perhaps we won't have to wait for the old closed-minded people to die off. It is not up to any individual to determine what makes for ethical climbing, rather as a collective we must agree upon terms that will best protect our crags and their surrounding habitats

"If you think differently, I have a test for you: What was the last hard (notable or not) FA that was put up in Central Conn (not at the fire wall)? What publications covered it? In what year was the first 5.14 trad or sport lead in central CT and how many repeats does it have? What top climbers have travel to CT to try this test piece? I think the point has been made no?"

I don't think there are any potential 5.14s in central CT if there are let me know. There have been several very hard boulder problems put up. One very recently.

superkick wrote: Id also argue most of the climbs at ragged etc have garbage for even making gear anchors.

Given the current state at Ragged, your aurgument is incorrect...there are suitable/safe multi-gear equalized anchors at the top of Vanishing Point, Ragged Edge, Carey Corner, Broadway, YMC, Netherlands, Wet Wall, Knights Gambit, Vector, Wishbone, Unconquerable (with the use of the tree left) and other routes that negate the need for all the static line. You are correct, this doesn't apply globally across the cliff line.

So to flip the conversation, because someone doesn't own cams or nuts, it's okay to choke-out the two small trees at the top of Broadway/YMC and other routes?

I'm not saying that the use of long static line for TR anchors (sometimes can't be helped at this point) is all bad...but the first line of defense should probably be safe gear anchors, for all the obvious reasons, until such time as the RMF moves on an alternative.

Hey CaptainMo,

Thank you for your response and clarification. I also spoke in depth with Brien, RMF President a weekend or two ago out at East Peak, while watching KN at the Amphitheater, regarding this issue.

The timing may be right for a new direction in Central Connecticut with the guidance of sensible stewardship.

This issue should stay alive.

AB

I thought climbing wasnt allowed in Meriden, hmmm.

TRmasta wrote:I thought climbing wasnt allowed in Meriden, hmmm.

You know better than that. The hiking along the Metacomet is wonderful.

turbotime wrote: I think thread's like this and knowledge from people like you are essential towards the progression of CT climbing. With continued discourse perhaps we won't have to wait for the old closed-minded people to die off. It is not up to any individual to determine what makes for ethical climbing, rather as a collective we must agree upon terms that will best protect our crags and their surrounding habitats

Well stated!

OK, lets see what we can all agree on. I'll start.

-anchors at every heavily used TR spot