How Rap Slings came to the Gunks
|
Havent been there in awhile but it seemed like there was a cable anchor at the top of every climb and a mid station anchor with a posse of top ropers hanging out at the bottom. I certainly do not remember all those anchors being there 30 years ago. some of them yes but nothing even remotly close to what there was a few years ago. heck I do not remember a single anchor at the top of the cliff BINTD.. |
|
In response to question upthread. Adding bolted belays at the top of first pitches encourages gang top ropeing. That is pretty drastic INMOP. |
|
BigA wrote: Oh, I do like how Rgold put Kevin in his place back on page one and then Kevin threw his toys and pretended not to notice/careThis isn't my thread and rgold explained himself to the degree I realize we will not come to an agreement on the matter. I'll be the better man, unlike you pointing this out. |
|
worth russell wrote:The problem with tr parties is people need to speak up. That shit is unacceptable on classics during peak season and weekends. If you wanna tr go to peterskill it's a great place to do so.Pretty much what should be done. The main arguments against and complaints I've heard about "new" anchors usually revolve around guides or large groups. It's the consensus of an area that allows that as acceptable behavior. Until the community tires of the gang roping, it will continue to happen. It's one reason I try to avoid the Gunks during the busiest times of the year. |
|
Kevin Heckeler wrote: This isn't my thread and rgold explained himself to the degree I realize we will not come to an agreement on the matter. I'll be the better man, unlike you pointing this out.Hahahah!! If my reveling in some fine Internet forum rebuttals makes me an a-hole in your eyes, I am more than ok with that. |
|
JSH wrote:3) A very few new anchors were put in that (arguments have been made that) change use in varying degrees: Main Line, Apoplexy, Birdland.Assuming we're talking about the Birdland anchor at the top of P1 - the bolts replaced a nest of 3 pins and tat. The bolted anchor is within a foot of the original pins and was one of the first of the new bolted anchors in the Gunks. Parties had been top roping P1 off the pins for a couple of decades prior to that. The pins also served as a TR anchor for the 5.12 (Slammin the Salmon?)to the right of Birdland. I don't see how the P1 anchor changed anything one iota when the pins were replaced with bolts. Main Line and Apoplexy are different cases where the argument can be made that the new anchors have indeed changed use. In the case of Main Line it means that the one good pitch of climbing actually gets done now. |
|
I'm late to this thread, but I think that the price of a day-pass has added to the popularity of rapping over the Uberfall walk-off. People seem to be more determined to get their money's worth these days as opposed to the 80s (when I started climbing at the Gunks) when it was $4, although someone could probably prove me wrong by adjusting for inflation. I only encountered one down-soloist in those days -- on Minty. He was bare-footed, had a pretty large pack on, and said that he was on his way back from the swimming hole. He waited patiently for us to finish the first pitch before passing us in the other direction. Nice guy. By the way, I still enjoy the Uberfall walk-off. Allows me to hit the reset button mentally and prep for the next route. The trail up there definitely looks less well-used these days. |
|
rgold wrote: All the Preserve people I've spoken with are very happy about the reduction in environmental stress to the top of the cliff that is the result of the rappelling norms, so in reality there is a balance going on. I don't think, even if there were some way to make it happen, that there are any in the Preserve who would like to see a return to the days when everyone walked back along the top. One might say that the cliff base has been sacrificed to preserve the cliff top. This is one of those land management decisions in which one has to make choices between options, none of which is by itself appealing.I'm not a Gunks local but I've climbed there a fair bit. My preference has been to walk-off from routes when it makes sense; I do that partly to "complete" a route by doing all the pitches and partly to mitigate the risks associated with rappelling. Does the Preserve discourage that sort of thing? I took a look at mohonkpreserve.org/climb and didn't see anything about preferring the use of rappel stations versus the walk-off. |
|
Dave, the Preserve does not discourage walking off. But as I said, they are very pleased at the relief the cliff-top has experienced from the enormous reduction in walking-off traffic. |
|
Makes sense, Rich. Based on my own observations, I suspect that "walk-offers" now make up a small minority of the climbers using the Preserve. |
|
In response to Julie's comments, slings are the first stage. If a station with slings gets used enough, the pressure to bolt it increases. Since the sling stations are installed by climbers trying to maximize their convenience, the net effect is that the bolting ends up as convenience bolting as well. Another thing that happens is that slings on trees end up stressing the trees, and then bolts are viewed as a solution to the environmental damage. |
|
how often do people approach top rope gang-bangers? I did only once this summer, and only because they threw a rope down on top of a leader on ken's, but overall it seems like everyone is in agreement that it is out of control, everyone agrees that a solution is to talk to groups that are doing it, but I am hard pressed to recall a single time I've seen anyone actually talk to a group. |
|
I don't climb there as much as I once did, but I'd have to respectfully disagree with the idea bolted anchors have not in fact contributed to the gang toproping syndrome. The " tat" people speak of usually didn't look like a good TR anchor, just a rappel station. I also never saw anyone do the U shaped thing to TR two routes at once( in the Gunks ), until the bolts came. |
|
Tom Stryker wrote:Weekends in the Gunks have reached a situation I read about that happens with monkeys in overcrowded environments in monkey zoos in Asia, people stop interfacing and even avoid eye contact now, it's every man/woman for themselves. Move far enough down crag, or climb weekdays, and it goes away.Bingo! So how does someone fix this? Remove every first pitch anchor, even if it actually serves a use (as a rappel anchor)? |
|
You know - its true the Trapps are crowded on weekends, and at times can be quite *interesting,* but as a person who did trailwork and spent nearly every single Sunday between May and through October in 2013-2014, from 9am to 3pm, near the base of the High Exposure area, this "monkey madness" is partly a hyped version. |
|
Happiegirl beat me to it - Skytop is a private cliff and the climbing activity there is FOR PROFIT. Bolts go in to support that business. Sucks that it has changed from the good old days, but that's the way it is now. |
|
JSH wrote: I cannot think of any rap stations newer than, say, 2000. I'm sure they proliferated in the 70s? 80s? but I don't think the Preserve needs to 'intervene in endless creation' at this point.You must mean bolted rap stations? The early rap stations were cables/slings around trees. For example, there use to be a rappel off of a pine tree just to the right (north) of Arrow that gave you a fun free hanging rappel similar to the Madam G rap. It also didn't go directly down the Arrow route like the one does now. The placement of the rap routes could have been done more thoughtfully so they aren't over existing routes which would eliminate a lot of problems. |
|
JSH wrote: I cannot think of any rap stations newer than, say, 2000. I'm sure they proliferated in the 70s? 80s? but I don't think the Preserve needs to 'intervene in endless creation' at this point.Rap stations in general or the Preserve-installed bolted stations? If the latter, the majority of them went in well after 2000. The first 5 bolted stations were installed in 1999. There are now around 50 bolted stations. |
|
Dana Bartlett wrote: You have it backwards. They are needed because of the sense of entitlement. Read the recent survey sent out by the GCC.I'd have to disagree... I would argue they are needed to reduce impacts on the environment and as I understand, have been proven with data to do so. Basic logic would tell us that using a metal piece in an inanimate rock has less impact on a tree, then using that tree. |
|
Morgan Patterson wrote: I'd have to disagree... I would argue they are needed to reduce impacts on the environment and as I understand, have been proven with data to do so, let alone one's basic logic.I think the situation is less clear-cut than some people suggest. A typical example: climbers install slings on a tree. The anchor gets a lot of use and the tree is stressed. People look at the tree and say that bolts are needed to reduce environmental impact. The result is that you have what I would call local perspectives informing practices with global consequences. These perspectives can be restricted either spatially or temporally. If you widen your spacial frame of view, perhaps you find that there are three anchors on a walkable ledge each sixty feet from the other. (This occurs on the ledge running from Jackie to Dennis, for example.) Are three bolted stations now required to save the stressed trees? In the same vein, if you widen your temporal perspective and ask whether it ever made sense, from a land management perspective, to have a sling on that original tree at all, you might have concluded that the solution was to remove the sling and try to find ways to encourage climbers not to replace it, rather than installing some bolts. I also think the environmental arguments say something about climbers in general that is not a happy thought, which is that as a group they are quite willing to destroy the environment and the only solution to the problem is to provide alternatives that are convenient enough that they will leave the trees alone. I'm not at all convinced this is true, and if it isn't true, then the conclusion would be that such environmental sensitivities as climbers possess have not been activated in the service of preservation by the Preserve (juxtaposition of words intended). Bolting in a place like the Trapps is a land management issue for the Preserve, it isn't something that is up to this or that climber at all. The Preserve's interest are in...preservation...not in climber convenience. The Preserve, to suggest a Modest Proposal, could simply rope off climbs with stressed trees, as it does with trails, with a sign saying that the area needs to reconstitute. I suspect something like that would alter climber behaviors in a flash. |