Adding anchors at Rumbling Bald

Be Esperanza wrote:I do support the placement of a modern two bolt anchor with rings at the ledge, for the purpose of saving the tree.

This seems like the best solution to me.

Shortening a pitch with anchors at a height 40ft lower than the established anchors, all to allow top roping, has got to be a first at Rumbling Bald.

However, adding and changing out tat and trampling the roots and soil at the base of a tree isn't the ideal long-term solution either. Any anchors added to the top of the established pitches would be invisible from the ground, accessible via the walk up to the ledge, and would last much longer than the current set-up.

I think when you make the blanket assertion that "the use of any and all trees is bad and should never be done"...well, that's a very slippery slope. The pine beetle damage at T Wall necessitated the installation of rap rings. Otherwise, a good stout tree with slings and ring is as good as it gets. When that changes, then I fully advocate the installation of anchors. There are lots and lots (and LOTS)of routes in NC and TN, heck everywhere, that end at trees.

I have climbed both of these routes and I know for a fact that I set up a TR on both of them. I don't remember how, but I know I did it and I did it right after another party of people pulled their top ropes.

Adding anchors in the middle of a climb should be a no-no, and 3 years ago I would have said not to add any more hardware that isn't needed. However after living at the NRG for the past 3 years and dealing with the anchor situation here I am all for adding anchors to routes that are already bolted and will already have to have maintenance done on them in the years to come.

After the fire that we had at the NRG this past spring I have been working with NPS to get rid of the anchors on trees and instead add bolted anchors. This is because a lot of trees burned and there is also a species of pine here that is not doing so well (maybe endangered, I don't remember).

If the FA says that it's okay and the local climbing community says it isn't then what should be done if the FA says no and the local climbing community says yes? Looks like you can't win either way, especially when someone from the community tells you to contact the FA. I'm betting next time you won't post this in a forum, yet contact the FA and then just do what they say. :) Whether you add them or not, if you ever come to the NRG hit me up. I'll buy you a beer, tell you what I think of the NC ethics and then we can go add anchors to my ever growing list of routes..

As for saying they will be chopped, give me a break. There's enough elitism bullshit in this sport as it is, let's leave the ego at home and go climb. After all that's one thing we all have in common.

Chris Watford wrote:I think when you make the blanket assertion that "the use of any and all trees is bad and should never be done"...well, that's a very slippery slope. The pine beetle damage at T Wall necessitated the installation of rap rings. Otherwise, a good stout tree with slings and ring is as good as it gets. When that changes, then I fully advocate the installation of anchors. There are lots and lots (and LOTS)of routes in NC and TN, heck everywhere, that end at trees.

How is it a slippery slope? Generally and in almost every scenario I can come up with trees should not be used as regular anchor source for a route IF you care about environmental impacts of climbing. Simply the act of slinging them contributes to soil compaction which, contributes to erosion which, exposes roots which, lead to dead trees. Or there's the wear on the bark... Its really pretty simple, talk to an environmental scientist.

Loss of topsoil and trees = loss of habitat and environmental destruction. Drilling two holes in a rock = 0 ecosystem impact. Feel free to come to CT and see what slinging sturdy trees does to them at climbing cliffs.

obv if this is a remote cliff that no one goes to it probably doesn't matter but if its a regularly used crag, thinking that it doesn't matter is naive, shortsighted and far from a traditional conservative ethic.

To the OP, welcome to mountainproject. Congratulations on your FIRST post! If you didn't want a heated discussion, maybe you should have a chose a topic that is less controversial and polarizing as placing bolts on an established climb. Seriously though, who are you? The trad climbing community is quite small in NC, especially for those that should be doing these sort of projects. The fact that you chose Fine Line/Drivin' as your first candidate for a top anchor shows you have climbed very little at the Bald. There are much better candidates for this type of upgrade than a climb with an established walk off. Not to mention you wanted to do it at 30M! If you are just psyched on drilling something, find someone you are attracted to.

To Chris, I think you win the worst advice given by a moderator. Telling people they should just add bolts without getting any feedback is a recipe for disaster. You have barely scratched the surface of NC trad to start making blanket statements about local ethics and especially about adding hardware to existing climbs. There are so many FA'ers that don't live locally or climb any more that have no clue of the current situation when someone asks them if they can alter their routes.

To all the passive-aggressive silly nannies getting upset that I say it will be chopped, read what I wrote, not what you want! I didn't say that I would chop them, I was merely stating the most likely outcome if those anchors were placed. I don't want to damage the rock anymore than the next whether it is chopping or adding a bolt. Seriously, this isn't CT! We don't have droves of people all trying to gangbang the same route. Had bolts been placed when this climb was first established, the tree would still have lasted longer than hardware. If you are really worried about trampling roots, you might as well stay home. There are tons of roots that get way more traffic on the approach than the top of this climb.

To saxfiend, it is up to the locals to enforce. Next time bring your crowbar John if you don't like it. Ben made it seem like the added bolts don't detract from the original nature of the climb. It is also only on the Fish variation. Having done this Groover variation, I would also agree that the bolts aren't needed.

Give me a break on the pity party. This is the internet, grow some thicker skin. You don't need proper credentials to fix problems locally. It is just that this is your first post ever, you show a lack of experience with RB, and you start your first post off with "I am about to bolt anchors on an established climb with a walk-off, any objections" (my interpretation). I have to believe that if nobody had responded in a day or two, you would have probably done it. Boulders have been bolted, trad climbs have been bolted, climbs have been retroed/neutered, bolts added against land manager instructions, etc... So some people have done some crazy stuff locally all in the name of self-interest and then branded as utilitarian, so my knee-jerk reaction is warranted.

There are climbs at the Bald that do need top anchors and could use "saving the trees". There are also protection bolts that need upgrading. So your services could be put to good use. You can submit bolting projects/upgrades on the CCC's website. You could even tick off some of the projects that are already posted for everyone to view. carolinaclimbers.org/rebolting

Andy,
Thanks again for reaching out and looking for feedback, even if it does cause what appears to be a storm. Bottom line is people care, and that's a good thing. I know many people in this post all with opposing views but I would share a rope or beer with any of them anytime- all great folks.

Again, the State Park has reached out to the CCC in regards to installing fixed anchors instead of tree anchors to mitigate tree killing- all hypothetical at this point and post- Management Plan. This will likely be outlined in the future CRSP Climbing Management Plan and they will seek climbers' input to find out where needs arise. Southern Boys, Bee Line, and Screamweaver are a few needs I can think of and I am certain there are more. The goal will be to save vegetation, not add convenience or neuter routes. Keep an eye on the CCC page for more info on it as it will hopefully be an organized effort with thoughtful community input. Hold on to that drill in the meantime.

I thought it was funny when I clicked on the rebolting link for the CCC that I got "access denied"

Mark O'Neal wrote:I thought it was funny when I clicked on the rebolting link for the CCC that I got "access denied"

Yes, you have to have an account on the web site in order to post to the rebolting database. Otherwise things get over run with spam. A lot of time has been spent (mostly by me) dealing with the spam bots and that is one of the things that helps control it. Creating an account is free. Maybe think about joining the CCC while you're there?

Chris Whisenhunt we should invite Rudaw down to the Bald!

Save the anchor bolts for capt. Crunch.!! If anything at rumbling needs an anchor it's that climb.

So I don't have time to read all the blah blah (or patience) but it sounds like you've got Tom fired up. I back Tom. So no convenience bolts.

I got your back while you chop them bro!

From my perspective, it didn't take too much to get Tom fired up. I was actually near this area the other day. I peeked over at the tree that's used for the anchor. The tree is pretty big, and so I officially retract my support of a bolted anchor on this ledge for the purpose of "saving the tree" because I don't think the tree is really in any danger of dying. I'm not a botanist, but of all the anchors at the bald that could use some modernizing, this one isn't a priority IMHO.

How about the anchor on top of Big Corner at hanging Chain? Come on, the wiggly block with webbing. You know the one. I like the pitch, but the anchor sucks. Couldn't one of you old farts get Doug Reed's permission to add a couple of bolts so that I may live to see my niece graduate elementary school.

If I wasn't scared of vigilantly retribution from the WNC trad climbing community, I would start a threat entitled, "Existing Anchors at Rumbling Bald that need replacing" and the one for Big Corner would be at the top of the list.

Maybe we should replace all anchors in the state entirely out of pink tricams? I am a firm believer that the only way to get respect in this state is by leading the Glass Menagerie on nothing but pink tricams while wearing a swami belt and EBs.

From my perspective Tom was pretty damn patient with that dumb shit. I'm not as familiar with the anchors you're talking about now. But you should ask nicely. Tom is the nice guy to talk to. Super supportive and really passionate about the climbing around here. Great guy for beta as well. I'm not the nicer guy. So don't piss Tom off!

Speaking of bolts Be... how about 1 more on gorilla tactics? Wouldn't that route be so much more fun? I can't get Nathan to even talk about it (get further in the thread and I'm a jackass cause he responded months ago). That would be a badass route all sport and it's one bolt away. Not like 3 or anything just 1

Thanks Evan. I only got fired up when they started calling my statements egotistical or elitist. You hit it right on, it is about being passionate. I love this place and often miss it traveling to other areas that don't have the same standards. Now that the OP has deleted all of his posts, it kind of looks like I was having a conversation with myself. Successfully trolled!

So I was at the Bald yesterday at Test Pilots, what is up with the brand new bolt next to the 5.8 OW? We were all scratching our heads with that one. It is a bolt to nowhere and totally a squeeze.

Convenience anchors are awesome. Shortening the climb would be lame.

Op, thanks for putting this out to the community before acting. Obviously, you knew it might get some flashback from people.

All fixed anchors are "convenience anchors". However, adding bolts that's shorten a route by ~40' would seriously change the nature of these routes in question.

As for everybody calling Tom elitist, you're right and that's one of his greatest attributes. Thanks for standing firm on tradition.

At the end of the day I'll all for adding some anchors that make things safer, I don't like rapping off slung blocks that wobble either. But if you can't make decisions about anchors that will allow you to go home at night then climb somewhere more sanitized, like crowders, or the family wall @rb, or pilot. The personality of a crag as determined by the climbing community, fa's, cliff structure, available anchor options, and descent methods are way more important than any singular perspective.

Sincerely,

A person with an Elitist attitude #chopthis

wes calkins wrote: All anchors are "convenience anchors".

What about gear anchors? I'd try to stay away from generalizations like this because they're often wrong. Like saying, all trad climbers are crusty old white men... it's just as wrong as the statement you made.

Jonathan Dull wrote: ...it's called not being a pussy I love seeing threads like this! NC TRADness!!!

haha, you got me there... not sure what 'not being a pussy' has to do with ecosytem conservation which was the point of that comment. Sounds like an insult an uneducated frat boy would sling at college party trying to impress the girl in the corner!