Bolt chopping

Slartibartfast wrote: Reading comprehension, kiddo. If you care, are interested, or even just like conversation, reread my post. Otherwise, why participate?

My apologies. I just started reading last year. I read my first book 6 months ago. It was 510 pages long. Last month I read my first 511 page book. I hope to read one that is 512 pages long next week. Every book I have read had really big words that were easy to grasp. I just started reading outside of books and ventured into the Internet. I find some of the reading difficult to understand since I don't have much experience.

Could you please use modern standards when writing. Adding commas, paragraphs, tone and inflection would make it safer and easier for me to read and allow others to enjoy too.

well there are some cases for retrobolting such as Flesh For Lulu - mountainproject.com/v/flesh…

keep in mind if is a face climb with very little natural pro - solid X without bolts. Even the FA had to drill 3 protection bolts on rap. Knowing where the original 3 bolts and that you can deck from all 3 bolts (plus it's 30+ feet to the first one) are it is not keeping in line with what Rumney is about.

As it stands it is a super classic and one of the best 12's in New England. I would've never of hopped on without the additional bolts and the same can be said for 99% of the people who project the route. It would've just stood there unclimbed and have lichen and moss reclaim the line. I fell well before the first original bolt the first time I tried it.

The Rumney Climber's Association has been great stewards to the area. They are very sensible about what to retrobolt and what not to retrobolt. There is a beautiful 5.8 crack to the right of Flesh that is not retrobolted. Not everything at Rumney is retrobolted for sport.

Oh and I do want to add the plug for trad at Rumney - there are some awesome routes with no lines - with almost all of them solid in the G/PG category of fun so do bring your trad gear to Rumney sometimes!

Ming wrote:well there are some cases for retrobolting such as Flesh For Lulu - mountainproject.com/v/flesh… keep in mind if is a face climb with very little natural pro - solid X without bolts. Even the FA had to drill 3 protection bolts on rap. Knowing where the original 3 bolts and that you can deck from all 3 bolts (plus it's 30+ feet to the first one) are it is not keeping in line with what Rumney is about. As it stands it is a super classic and one of the best 12's in New England. I would've never of hopped on without the additional bolts and the same can be said for 99% of the people who project the route. It would've just stood there unclimbed and have lichen and moss reclaim the line. I fell well before the first original bolt the first time I tried it. The Rumney Climber's Association has been great stewards to the area. They are very sensible about what to retrobolt and what not to retrobolt. There is a beautiful 5.8 crack to the right of Flesh that is not retrobolted. Not everything at Rumney is retrobolted for sport. Oh and I do want to add the plug for trad at Rumney - there are some awesome routes with no lines - with almost all of them solid in the G/PG category of fun so do bring your trad gear to Rumney sometimes!

That's awesome! A community is making responsible decisions that allow more people to enjoy an area.

jeff lebowski wrote:Lowest common denominator is a bolt every 4 feet, right? Yeah let's do that. Maybe we can get Mickey and Minnie to sign autographs for the kiddos at the base of the climbs also. Plus, id love to replace the Nose on El Cap with a tram or gandola. That way my Meemaw can enjoy the route as much as I do. Because everybody, regardless of their tolerance for risk and adventure, should be able to experience the exact same things that I do. These 'improvements' in no way alter my enjoyment of the routes, do they?

I've not been, but, from what I hear, many old classics in Yosemite would have been altered far less, thus preserving the original experience for all, if they had been protected from the beginning by bolts instead of pitons. Isn't that pretty much why small offset gear exists?

Slartibartfast wrote: I've not been, but, from what I hear, many old classics in Yosemite would have been altered far less, thus preserving the original experience for all, if they had been protected from the beginning by bolts instead of pitons. Isn't that pretty much why small offset gear exists?

Slartibartfast.... keep trolling, maybe change bait, or use a thinner leader....

really???

I wish we would chop the trolls

Guy Keesee wrote: Slartibartfast.... keep trolling, maybe change bait, or use a thinner leader.... really???

It's actually a valid point, bolts cause less damage than pitons, cams and nuts are, of course, preferable to both, but if the early Yosemite climbers had used bolts instead of pitons there are some cracks that even w/ the bolts removed would today be better, more easily protectable, climbs.
I don't remember which route it is but I've seen photos of a crack there that is nothing but pin scars, it's disgusting.

Guy Keesee wrote: Slartibartfast.... keep trolling, maybe change bait, or use a thinner leader.... really???

I admitted I wasn't sure. Is it not true that many old lines are covered in pin scars, and might even be completely different in character if it weren't for these scars? If it's not, that information would, ever so slightly, improve my opinion of the old-school ethics, which I currently consider to be, in some aspects, to be laughably hypocritical.

If it's ridiculous enough that you think I'm joking(I'm not), then please tell me why.

Jacob Smith wrote: Although I technically agree w/ your point, that those kinds of tactics are ridiculous and translate very poorly to trad climbing, I disagree entirely w/ your premise, that there are an increasing number of climbers doing this because of gyms. All of the strongest climbers I know got started in the gym, guys that aren't afraid to run it out on 5.11-12 terrain, who climb until they whip regularly. In my experience, an aversion to climbing gyms makes for nothing but poor finger strength and a weak lead head. People talking about the "new generation" who grew up in gyms always bugs me - all of the strongest rock climbers today (I honestly can't think of a single exception) started as gym climbers.

I agree with you and don't mean to discount the value of gym climbing. But the climbers you are talking about are not advocating retro bolts on 5.8.

Greg D wrote: I agree with you and don't mean to discount the value of gym climbing. But the climbers you are talking about are not advocating retro bolts on 5.8.

Fine, then. If not 5.8, then 9 or 10. My point is that I believe there is a time and place for it, even if the FA is vehemently opposed. Not everybody climbs 5.10 on their first day. If you really did(that is what you wanted to say, isn't it?), than that's awesome, man! But you are the exception, not the rule. Is your point that, because a route is easy for you or for some, everyone else should stop complaining?

Grid bolt anything above 3rd class.

Let's add some bolts to Bachar-Yerian;)

Slartibartfast wrote: Fine, then. If not 5.8, then 9 or 10. My point is that I believe there is a time and place for it, even if the FA is vehemently opposed. Not everybody climbs 5.10 on their first day. If you really did(that is what you wanted to say, isn't it?), than that's awesome, man! But you are the exception, not the rule. Is your point that, because a route is easy for you or for some, everyone else should stop complaining?

No that's not my point. Doesn't matter if it is 5.7 or 5.11. Mic Farchild free soloed the FA of Smoke and Mirrors 10a. Later he added three bolts. Retro bolts do happen sometimes. But this should not be standard practice.

Do you believe someone placing a bolt unilaterally has more right to do so than a person removing a bolt?

Remember: a bolt changes the rock for everyone forever.

Greg D wrote: No that's not my point. Doesn't matter if it is 5.7 or 5.11. Mic Farchild free soloed the FA of Smoke and Mirrors 10a. Later he added three bolts. Retro bolts do happen sometimes. But this should not be standard practice. Do you believe some placing a bolt unilaterally has more right to do so than a person removing a bolt? And remember: a bolt changes the route for everyone forever.

I believe that placing a bolt requires effort and expense, and the end product allows more people to enjoy the experience. Chopping also requires effort and expense, but the end result benefits none except an elite few that want to hoard a resource for themselves. So, while both are inappropriate at times, the first is, on the whole, more noble than the other.

Remember, that the topic at hand is not bolting, but chopping. All of my examples involve defending retro bolts because these are the ones that self-styled vigilantes tend to chop, without asking whether the retro fitter has, in fact, done the community a service.

Greg D wrote: Do you believe some placing a bolt unilaterally has more right to do so than a person removing a bolt?

I think it comes down to ownership. First ascentionists own their routes, and the reasons for this are not ultimately as childish as they sound - if creating a route does not convey a degree of ownership no one would do it, this is why cutting edge sport climbing abandoned Smith Rock, route developers kept getting their FAs stolen. I don't want to spend days and days cleaning a route, not to mention the cost of anchor bolts and chains, only to have someone else come along and get the first ascent, or alter/destroy my creation.
Where it gets complicated is crag ownership. Locals who maintain trails, replace worn-out anchors, and clean popular lines at the beginning of the season have a degree of ownership over their crags, and if they feel that a climb should be retrobolted, or chopped, that can be the right decision.
It's notable that the retrobolting/chopping controversies you hear about are often locals vs visitors.
So basically, the only time you can maybe mess with someone's climb is if it's in your backyard.

Slartibartfast wrote: I believe that placing a bolt requires effort and expense, and the end product allows more people to enjoy the experience. Chopping also requires effort and expense, but the end result benefits none except an elite few that want to hoard a resource for themselves. So, while both are inappropriate at times, the first is, on the whole, more noble than the other. Remember, that the topic at hand is not bolting, but chopping. All of my examples involve defending retro bolts because these are the ones that self-styled vigilantes tend to chop, without asking whether the retro fitter has, in fact, done the community a service.

See mountainhick's post on page 2:

"Actually there is a very simple answer that some can not accept: The acceptance of things not having to be all or nothing according to one's own opinion.

Let there be scary run out trad routes in some places.

Let there be clinically safe bolted sport routes in other places.

Something for everyone.

Diversity is good and allows everyone some choice."

Sometimes retrofitting is justified. Sometimes chopping a retrofitted climb is justified. There are vastly, vastly more well-protected climbs than R/X rated climbs. Leave some for the crazy folks.

David Barbour wrote: There are vastly, vastly more well-protected climbs than R/X rated climbs. Leave some for the crazy folks.

This simply is not true, at least in the climbing areas around the Pacific Northwest. Any old chunk of rock can be a steep, run-out nonsense route, the trad-protectable climbs and the bolted climbs are by far the minority of the possible climbs.

Slartibartfast wrote: Remember, that the topic at hand is not bolting, .

This is the most critical flaw in your position. One cannot chop a bolt that has not been placed. You cannot discuss one without the other.

Jacob Smith wrote: I think it comes down to ownership. First ascentionists own their routes, and the reasons for this are not ultimately as childish as they sound - if creating a route does not convey a degree of ownership no one would do it, this is why cutting edge sport climbing abandoned Smith Rock, route developers kept getting their FAs stolen. I don't want to spend days and days cleaning a route, not to mention the cost of anchor bolts and chains, only to have someone else come along and get the first ascent, or alter/destroy my creation. Where it gets complicated is crag ownership. Locals who maintain trails, replace worn-out anchors, and clean popular lines at the beginning of the season have a degree of ownership over their crags, and if they feel that a climb should be retrobolted, or chopped, that can be the right decision. It's notable that the retrobolting/chopping controversies you hear about are often locals vs visitors. So basically, the only time you can maybe mess with someone's climb is if it's in your backyard.

Well put. The only thing I'm not quite on board with is the sense of ownership and creation. A guy who does a new gear route and places no fixed gear has created nothing. Even worse, a guy who puts up a new route and places lousy or inadequate gear has created something that sucks, and has a negative impact on the area by monopolizing a route that could maybe be great(if you're bored, search through all the 3-4 star R/X rated routes in the database).

If the only reason people put up new routes is for ownership then that, too, sucks. Why not try doing it to make a worthwhile contribution to the community?
If you climb for yourself, that's totally fine. Great, in fact. But if you want me to respect you, CONTRIBUTE! Simply being first isn't a contribution.

Slartibartfast wrote: I admitted I wasn't sure. Is it not true that many old lines are covered in pin scars, and might even be completely different in character if it weren't for these scars? If it's not, that information would, ever so slightly, improve my opinion of the old-school ethics, which I currently consider to be, in some aspects, to be laughably hypocritical. If it's ridiculous enough that you think I'm joking(I'm not), then please tell me why.

When I started, we saw the pin scarring done by the pounders, and CLEAN climbing became the norm (if one didn't climb clean- then you got all sorts of pressure to clean up your act) and free climbing was the main goal of many climbers, you know, go do the climb without aid of any sort. (no takes at all, that was not invented yet)

Everyone knew that thin cracks that were to small to get your tips into were not free climbable. We all knew that climbing pin scars was bogus so a new ETHIC came into being, that is this: NO MORE PINS - EVER. every now and then one would hear the ting- ting- ting- ting- of pins and every one would run over to the sound and heckle the sH&T out of the offinding parties. After a while the crags became quiet.

I don't what you mean by being "laughably hypocritical" ..... The ethic about adding bolts to other folks' lines was inplace long before clean climbing started.

And yes, we bitched about this climb being unprotectable, and wondered why Tom Higgens or Bob Kamps made the thing into a run out, big time, big fall death route.