Why Toproping?

Jonhy Q wrote: Natural? WTF??? What is natural? Is it the Cams, the holes in the rock, your climbing shoes, or your biners that are natural? How about your car and highway? WTF is does natural mean anyway? Either it is all natural because it comes from the earth, or none of it is natural because we created it all. That is how argument works. You cannot arbitrarily denounce something as "unnatural" because of your opinion. I say this to you because I think you understand the idea of "reason". I would not bother with the ninny fascist. Time is relative. Word.

well said

the tradiban better stop driving on the highways due to the poor ethical use of explosives

Jonhy Q wrote:WTF is does natural mean anyway?...Time is relative. Word.

Whoa, this is getting a little too heavy. I better have some beer and get back to you later.

quote=CaptainMo
I would contend that's the problem with the concept of consensus. . . There is I would say a consensus against bolting previous lead trad climbs. I think there is likely a wider array of minds with regards to bolting lines lead on tied hooks (a lot are now TR lines). From my experience all of the developers I've met, and I know most of them in the state, don't have a problem on this.

quote=thefish
1. There aren't that many people in CT that actually bother to bolt climbs.
2. nobody is talking about bolting anything that's been done on gear.

Morgan, thefish: I agree that there is a lack of consensus amoung the bolters in CT. There needs to be an agreed on bolting policy. (Good luck with that. :-) You both say that routes shouldn't be bolted that were led on gear. I agree but wasn't that done at Firewall? Doesn't Fire Cracker have a bolt on it? (I know it wasn't either you who bolted there.) Fire Cracker is a recorded lead that was led on gear without the use of hooks. I am no Ken fan but at least he was up front about the use of hooks putting a "H" next to the climbs that hooks were used on in his book "Hooked on Traprock." I bolt in CT (but not on routes that were led on gear). So at least we have a consensus of the three of us.
Brian

Hi Brian,

Personally I could care less about who bolts what in CT. After being held hostage by a lunatic for 30 years I say the more bolts the better.
Will I bolt lines that were led on gear? nope
There are no rules..
There is no governing body...
If someone doesn't like it then are free to chop it....

Did the fire wall get chopped yet? I talked to one of the guys that did the harder lines last week and he said it hadn't last time he checked.

Brian wrote: Doesn't Fire Cracker have a bolt on it? (I know it wasn't either you who bolted there.) Fire Cracker is a recorded lead that was led on gear without the use of hooks.

That is a route? really? have you done it on gear? The bolted route is about 4 ft to the right of that choss line you speak of. I'll meet you there one day and you can show me the line you speak of. I would love to see the placements that I missed. I've done it 10x and have not seen one spot that would take any gear.

bolts turn a crag into a fucking amusement park ! just stirring the pot!

TRmasta wrote: That is a route? really? have you done it on gear? The bolted route is about 4 ft to the right of that choss line you speak of. I'll meet you there one day and you can show me the line you speak of. I would love to see the placements that I missed. I've done it 10x and have not seen one spot that would take any gear.

I will check the line in Fasulo's book and the description in Nichols book against where the bolts are but I'm pretty sure it is the same line. See: mountainproject.com/v/10735…
There are a lot of "trad leads" in CT that could more accurately be described as a free-solo with gear. It can be argued that these certainly deserve bolts to make them safe but it can also be argued that it is nonetheless an established trad lead and the FA should be consulted before bolting. Maybe some day there will be an agreed upon bolting policy in CT. (I'm not holding my breath. :-)

Brian wrote:quote=CaptainMo I would contend that's the problem with the concept of consensus. . . There is I would say a consensus against bolting previous lead trad climbs. I think there is likely a wider array of minds with regards to bolting lines lead on tied hooks (a lot are now TR lines). From my experience all of the developers I've met, and I know most of them in the state, don't have a problem on this. quote=thefish 1. There aren't that many people in CT that actually bother to bolt climbs. 2. nobody is talking about bolting anything that's been done on gear. Morgan, thefish: I agree that there is a lack of consensus amoung the bolters in CT. There needs to be an agreed on bolting policy. (Good luck with that. :-) You both say that routes shouldn't be bolted that were led on gear. I agree but wasn't that done at Firewall? Doesn't Fire Cracker have a bolt on it? (I know it wasn't either you who bolted there.) Fire Cracker is a recorded lead that was led on gear without the use of hooks. I am no Ken fan but at least he was up front about the use of hooks putting a "H" next to the climbs that hooks were used on in his book "Hooked on Traprock." I bolt in CT (but not on routes that were led on gear). So at least we have a consensus of the three of us. Brian

I actually disagree with you on this one Brian - I think there is actually a like mindedness, dare I say consensus, among the bolters in the state. I know you continually point to Burnt Beyond Recognition and I think that route was bolted in poor style but that is really the ONLY route and it is agreed upon by most all now that that was maybe a bad decision in the climbing world, or at the very least permission from the FA should have been gotten before the bolts went in. That said the bolters had permission from the town to do it. It's also my understanding that the FAist was made aware of the bolts and doesn't care about them and is fine with them. Not to mention the route is STILL spicy as hell AND is a MIXED route now not a sport route. The other example you proivided, Fire Cracker is similar but a slightly different line (esp if you go by the spacing examples in Hooked).

The RMF is also going to be coming up with a stated policy on bolting in CT. I'm a member on the committee that will be working on it... I think a lot of the policy is going to come down to how the RMF board decides to deal with 'permission' and what's acceptable (verbal, written, etc). The ground rules are pretty simple and we've covered them here.

Chopping the bolts at firewall would actually be considered a jailable offense.

They had permission from the town to put them in.

Tisk, tisk. Already talking about exceptions are we gentleman? If it has been led then don't bolt it unless...it was done on hooks...the FA gives permission...the gear "sucks"...the toprope creates erosion...etc? What happens if you can't contact the FA? Is the route then taken "hostage"? What if the FA says no? Is the route then also a "hostage"? What if it was done on gear but that gear just isn't up to your personal standards? How come I don't believe that you can't resist grid bolting the whole thing?

All I ask is that you are honest with yourselves, you want bolt everything so that you can "lead" it without any risk, isn't that the truth? People will always justify what they want in their minds to get their way.

Red Tagger wrote:Tisk, tisk. Already talking about exceptions are we gentleman? If it has been led then don't bolt it unless...it was done on hooks...the FA gives permission...the gear "sucks"...the toprope creates erosion...etc? What happens if you can't contact the FA? Is the route then taken "hostage"? What if the FA says no? Is the route then also a "hostage"? What if it was done on gear but that gear just isn't up to your personal standards? How come I don't believe that you can't resist grid bolting the whole thing? All I ask is that you are honest with yourselves, you want bolt everything so that you can "lead" it without any risk, isn't that the truth? People will always justify what they want in their minds to get their way.

1. it was done on hooks - Yes bolt
2. the FA gives permission - Yes bolt
3. the gear "sucks" - no because there's gear
4. the toprope creates erosion - yes bolt
5. you can't contact the FA - try to gain consensus
6. What if the FA says no? - No bolting
7. What if it was done on gear but that gear just isn't up to your personal standards? - you mean like tied down hooks? Pretty sure that's no one's standard and gear has improved greatly so someone would have to have pretty wack standards to prefer older gear over newer gear. In the case of hooks, see above.

Re Grid Bolting: Well honestly the place hasn't been grid bolted so if we couldn't resist grid bolting, wouldn't it be that way now several years later? Also if it was grid bolted why are a handful of the routes MIXED routes requiring some gear to prevent ground fall potential? I can think of at least 5 routes with bolts that also need trad gear.

Re you want bolt everything so that you can "lead" it without any risk: Ha don't make me laugh - this statement pretty much tells me you haven't climbed any of the newer routes there and you're taking a very generalized and misconceived trad view. There's plenty of risk left in these routes, 20 ft wippers, ground fall from 20ft etc. Most the guaranteed X/death factor has been removed yes.

have fun kids... off to put up a new (not TR) CT FA.

doesnt count if you wont share where the cliff is :P

CaptainMo wrote: 1. it was done on hooks - Yes bolt 2. the FA gives permission - Yes bolt 3. the gear "sucks" - no because there's gear 4. the toprope creates erosion - yes bolt 5. you can't contact the FA - try to gain consensus 6. What if the FA says no? - No bolting 7. What if it was done on gear but that gear just isn't up to your personal standards? - you mean like tied down hooks? Pretty sure that's no one's standard and gear has improved greatly so someone would have to have pretty wack standards to prefer older gear over newer gear. In the case of hooks, see above. ...

Morgan, Those are rational, logical "rules." I agree qualitatively with all of them. If everyone came together with their rules I believe (maybe naively) that a consensus can be reached. It has happened in other climbing communities so hopefully it can happen in CT. BTW I am actually not talking about "Burnt Beyond Recognition" at Firewall. I believe that there are other routes that were bolted there that are either the same route Nichols describes in his book or they are one or two feet away. Personally I don't have any strong feelings about the bolting there one way or the other. If anything it has only been improved and draws more climbers than it did without bolts. However, an argument can still be made that generally accepted climbing ethics were ignored whether the Town Council approved them or not. Most town council members don't even know what a bolt is.

Jake Jones wrote: Pardon me for saying so, but this seems highly hypocritical coming from you. I understand your perspective, and I think parts of it have merit. But for you to say this, insinuates that you're cool with any discipline of climbing when clearly you are not. You are a staunch supporter of anti-bolting sentiments- which also means you are rather wrapped up in how you do something, not to mention how other people do it as well. I don't really take issue with your opinion (unyielding as it may be), and I feel it is a valuable "other side" to the coin. I think everyone is entitled to their own stance and it's good to see someone that is passionate- as long as that stance isn't misrepresented.

I think you misinterpret but I understand why. In this scenario I am your oppressor. I'm just some guy on the internet and I've climbed at the crag(s) in question only once. So why even care about what I'm saying? I'm simply providing a different perspective. If people are concerned about what I or anyone else think about the way they climb, they have lost.

What is at stake and what I'm most concerned about is what happens to access at bolted crags. Regardless of the physical change bolting brings to the rock it brings other impact as well, not to mention maintenance. Mainly it will bring more people and with more people there are more accidents which in turn will bring more attention from authorities. This all has a broader not-so-easily measured "impact" on the area and climbing in general. In the context of the discussion and the OP, how many people have been hurt top-roping? Not many I presume.

In other words, climb as you please, fuck what other people think, but understand that any action has consequences and bolting these cliffs have positives and negatives for climbing as a whole.

CaptainMo wrote: 1. it was done on hooks - Yes bolt 2. the FA gives permission - Yes bolt 3. the gear "sucks" - no because there's gear 4. the toprope creates erosion - yes bolt 5. you can't contact the FA - try to gain consensus 6. What if the FA says no? - No bolting 7. What if it was done on gear but that gear just isn't up to your personal standards? - you mean like tied down hooks? Pretty sure that's no one's standard and gear has improved greatly so someone would have to have pretty wack standards to prefer older gear over newer gear. In the case of hooks, see above. Re Grid Bolting: Well honestly the place hasn't been grid bolted so if we couldn't resist grid bolting, wouldn't it be that way now several years later? Also if it was grid bolted why are a handful of the routes MIXED routes requiring some gear to prevent ground fall potential? I can think of at least 5 routes with bolts that also need trad gear. Re you want bolt everything so that you can "lead" it without any risk: Ha don't make me laugh - this statement pretty much tells me you haven't climbed any of the newer routes there and you're taking a very generalized and misconceived trad view. There's plenty of risk left in these routes, 20 ft wippers, ground fall from 20ft etc. Most the guaranteed X/death factor has been removed yes.

Hey, I like most of this, it makes sense but how do you make sure these rules are followed?

However...#7, no I mean like "shitty" placements or you need ball-nuts and you don't have ball-nuts. There's plenty of gray area out there for people to make wiggle room.

"Grid bolting" isn't necessarily simply placing bolts every x amount of feet, it's an effect of excessive bolting. Before you know it the damn thing has been "grid bolted".

If your rationale for bolting a route is to make it "safer" and accessible for more people then how do you justify leaving "risk" on these routes? If you're going to bolt something, then just bolt it! Risk is entirely subjective and it seems to me that the bolters are making arbitrary decisions about what's acceptable and what's not, i.e telling people how they should climb something.

Jake Jones wrote: Pardon me for saying so, but this seems highly hypocritical coming from you. I understand your perspective, and I think parts of it have merit. But for you to say this, insinuates that you're cool with any discipline of climbing when clearly you are not. You are a staunch supporter of anti-bolting sentiments- which also means you are rather wrapped up in how you do something, not to mention how other people do it as well. I don't really take issue with your opinion (unyielding as it may be), and I feel it is a valuable "other side" to the coin. I think everyone is entitled to their own stance and it's good to see someone that is passionate- as long as that stance isn't misrepresented.

I agree.

The hypocrisy of many of Red Tagger's posts in this particular thread is blaring, making it difficult to get beyond the hypocritical, egotistical posts and actually take this debate seriously. Less spray and more rational arguments please; leave out as much hyperbole and contradicting statements as possible and your message will reach a wider audience who would be otherwise put off.

(I know, I know, you don’t care what other people think, et al., yet your continual postings indicate otherwise. Please, if this area isn’t your home-town climbing area, try not to dominate the debate. Doing so under that context is a bit disingenuous.)

Red Tagger wrote: Hey, I like most of this, it makes sense but how do you make sure these rules are followed? However...#7, no I mean like "shitty" placements or you need ball-nuts and you don't have ball-nuts. There's plenty of gray area out there for people to make wiggle room. "Grid bolting" isn't necessarily simply placing bolts every x amount of feet, it's an effect of excessive bolting. Before you know it the damn thing has been "grid bolted". If your rationale for bolting a route is to make it "safer" and accessible for more people then how do you justify leaving "risk" on these routes? If you're going to bolt something, then just bolt it! Risk is entirely subjective and it seems to me that the bolters are making arbitrary decisions about what's acceptable and what's not, i.e telling people how they should climb something.

For someone so concerned about overbolting and ethical bolting etc etc you sure do climb the fuck outta bolted climbs LOL!!! just look at your tick list lol

here is One Eyed Jacks 5.11b a climb that you onsited, look at that crack right next to a bolt!

BFAM is the only true sport climb at the Waterfall, and it's a good one at that. Find it by walking two minutes right from the main Amphitheater area and look for a left-leaning column with a line of bolts. The route face climbs up this corner and the face and arete to the left past nine bolts, ever steepening rock, and a crux by the last bolt. This is a great route and an excellent warmup for the harder lines at the crag.
Protection
9 draws.

the only true sport climb at this area and you of all people had to climb it!

You purist you !!!!

not that I'm saying you aren't an excellent climber, and I'm being sincere about that.