Mountain Project Logo

New Sport routes on Duncan's Ridge ?

Shelton Hatfield · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 650
Cortland wrote:It sounds like the ultimate question this thread is attempting to answer is how best to preserve the history of Duncan’s Ridge while allowing climbing’s growth in the area to progress in a environmental respectful and safe way. There’s a question that has not been answered - how exactly is sport climbing disrespectful to the history of the crag? What exactly does it say against that history? Judging by the very skewed climbing population on this forum, the historical emphasis seems to be on the tradition of high-ball and high-knowledge climbing. To me, the historical emphasis should be on the climbing itself, the love of the sport, and the beautiful lines we get to touch, as set by the early pioneers. Who doesn’t want to share that history in every way possible? If the lines can be experienced in a different way, ala sport climbing, is that actually disrespectful to the history? If I were to now sport climb these routes, it only deepens my relationship with the rock and the route. I see the route in a new and different way. Why restrain that? It would cause me and others to respect the route, and the original climbers, more deeply. The emphasis should be on experiencing the great lines the original climbers developed. Sport climbing in no way devalues the route. It broadens the perspective. In my opinion, the solution is not to hold the sport back by reducing the ways to experience the rock. This is certainly not win-win. How about a couple historical placks at the base of the climbs, describing the history? Put them on some nice wooden posts. Maybe have some pics on them. This is a win-win scenario. Better respect for the history of the crag. More ways to experience the lines. This would place the area’s mission as increasing admiration for the rock AND increasing awareness of the history. I vote for increasing historical awareness. Preventing different types of climbing does not do that. Educating the masses at this wall does.
Cortland (and anyone else who cares), the standard practice in most area's I've climbed is to leave routes to be climbed in the style in which they were established. Retro bolting with the First Ascensionist 's permission is usually deemed acceptable as well. But what happened here is far from that, and for you to say that "Sport climbing in no way devalues the route" makes it clear that we have differences in opinion. I for one don't want to see bolts marring a beautiful face that has been climbed without said bolts countless times, so to me a route can be devalued by putting bolts in it. No one is "preventing" you from sport climbing. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of established sport climbs nearby for you to climb that were established as sport climbs.

And to answer your question: "If the lines can be experienced in a different way, ala sport climbing, is that actually disrespectful to the history?"

Yes, it is disrespectful when it involves bolting previously established lines without consent of the first ascensionist. People are allowed to experience climbing in whatever way they wish, but when it comes to permanently altering rock, which is a finite resource, you're talking about potentially taking away from someone else's experience.

And I ask you another question. Where does it end? What if people were placing bolts next to cracks that take bomber nuts and cams, because the people wanted to "experience[ the route] in a different way"?

You don't alter previously established routes to lower them to your ability level. You set up a toprope, raise your ability level, or climb something else.
Mike Storeim · · Evergreen, CO · Joined Sep 2002 · Points: 30
Shelton Hatfield wrote: You don't alter previously established routes to lower them to your ability level. You set up a toprope, raise your ability level, or climb something else.
People are generally too lazy to raise their ability if an easier option exists. Catch 22.
Patrick Shyvers · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 10
Cortland wrote:There’s a question that has not been answered - how exactly is sport climbing disrespectful to the history of the crag? What exactly does it say against that history? ... If the lines can be experienced in a different way, ala sport climbing, is that actually disrespectful to the history? ... Sport climbing in no way devalues the route.
You're totally right if we are talking about TR/trad/highball. Nobody says you must highball because the FA did it that way.

Sport climbing in particular is fundamentally contentious because it requires bolts, which permanently alter & even uglify the rock. Remember, we are carrying the great legacy of the clean climbing movement, which gave us nuts and cams and hexes, whose prime directive was to preserve the rock for our forebears.

TR/trad/highball require no fixed gear- though sometimes very small amounts are added in key places to combat damage or to protect previously downright deadly routes- which is why you are generally free to enjoy all three on any climb.

The questions of history, tradition, and precedent is one of the ways the climbing community tries to resolve the always-contentious debate over bolts.
Jon Sinclair · · Lafayette, CO · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 25

At their most effective, organizations like the NCCC function as the collective memory of the climbing community. They preserve and protect traditional climbing areas (a good reason to support the Access Fund) and are a good resource for local climbing history. It seems that they should always err on the side of traditional use and protection. I'm pretty sure that Ryan would agree with that, which is why I'm hoping that he chops those sport bolts. Seems to me that if he were to do that, the NCCC would gain immeasurable respect and would solidify it's leadership in the community. If he doesn't, then this MP discussion is good evidence that there is going to be a lot of bad feeling and the NCCC will be part of that, not the leader and organizer that it could be.

Cortland · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0
"The place obviously needs an audio guide circuit, with headphones you can rent at the visitor center and a wax museum."........let’s throw the visitor center on the cliff where we can show a 30min documentary on Horsetooth climbing, presented on the hour! Because that’s clearly what I was advocating.

"And I ask you another question. Where does it end? What if people were placing bolts next to cracks that take bomber nuts and cams, because the people wanted to "experience[ the route] in a different way"?..........that’s another subject. Trying to stay on topic. Ryan already said - "I did not bolt any traditional or Gritstone leads."

Three responses to the (mostly) constructive comments.

1. What about chalk? I find it mares the beautiful face much more than bolts. Why no uproar over chalk lines up all the routes? Obviously the act of drilling into rock is different, but the argument seems to continually be over the aesthetic nature of the lines, as opposed to the well-being of the rock. So since the argument is based on cosmesis, help me understand why chalk is any different.

2. I guess I was incorrect in thinking the motive of the anti-sport crowd is to educate others on the historical nature of the crag. I was too optimistic. Instead the motive seems to be protecting the (highly subjective) aesthetic nature of the climb, as well as the egos of a select few. Here comes the flack - to me and many others, early climbers don’t own the rock itself or even the experience to be had on the rock. They own the respect and the awesome recognition an early or first ascent should bring. Because of this, the issue should probably just come down to a vote. But it definitely shouldn’t be a vote on MP or at some town hall full of die-hards. Someone smarter than me needs to find a way to have a vote that includes everyone - previous climbers who have a historical connection to Horsetooth, current climbers who frequent DR, and people who are visiting for the first time. The area means something unique to everyone who’s climbed it, and a vote should reflect that.

3. Finally, a route like the Roof Route. How often was that climbed before? Every time I’ve gone out since the bolts, people are on it respectfully and amiably sport climbing. How cool! There are so many more people getting to experience this neat line than before. Can the anti-sport crowd really not see the beauty in more people climbing and experiencing a line like this? Obviously biased, but to me, knowing that the route is getting that much more love and attention from others is worth having to climb past 2 or 3 bolts.
Dave Bohn aka "Old Fart" · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 285
Cortland wrote: ..... a route like the Roof Route. How often was that climbed before? Every time I’ve gone out since the bolts, people are on it respectfully and amiably sport climbing. How cool! There are so many more people getting to experience this neat line than before. Can the anti-sport crowd really not see the beauty in more people climbing and experiencing a line like this? Obviously biased, but to me, knowing that the route is getting that much more love and attention from others is worth having to climb past 2 or 3 bolts.
For the past 30+ years, on any given day, there's a 80% chance somebody would have had a TR set on the Roof. It is one of the premier TR's On "The Ridge" as well as the dihedral to the right. Spring and fall normally finds 10-15 people waiting in line for it or sharing ropes. Now that it's bolted, the crowding and traffic is likely going to sky rocket and is going to cause even more user erosion, the exact opposite of what the NCCC set out to do.

And no, I'm not anti sport climbing at all. Did anybody raise an eyebrow when the Monastery or the Palace got bolted, beyond the FS problems with the illegal trails ? Not every 40' tall cliff face on the planet needs to be bolted,and certainly not Duncan's Ridge. Fixed TR anchors have come and gone countless times at that location. Most only last a few months. I'm all for truly solid, vandal proof TR anchors there, but not the sport bolts.

Also great first posts, seeing you just joined yesterday. Welcome to the site !
Patrick Shyvers · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 10
Cortland wrote:1. What about chalk? I find it mares the beautiful face much more than bolts. Why no uproar over chalk lines up all the routes? Obviously the act of drilling into rock is different, but the argument seems to continually be over the aesthetic nature of the lines, as opposed to the well-being of the rock. So since the argument is based on cosmesis, help me understand why chalk is any different.
Chalk is a little less permanent, a light chalking can usually wash off in the rain.

But believe it or not, that wave might be coming in the future. Garden of the Gods & Arches National Park already prohibit white chalk.
Eric Engberg · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 0

So changing it from something that you had to work for and have nice memories of into another ho-hum clip, clip, clip experience is good? Anybody who wants to can throw a TR on it. Cliping a couple of bolts in the name of "leading" it is hardly an improvement (and hardly a lead).

Dave Bohn aka "Old Fart" · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined May 2002 · Points: 285
Mike Storeim wrote:Since I’ve been climbing at Horsetooth for 45 years now, I guess I’ll throw in my 2 cents worth due to the slight bit of revisionist history in this thread. Bohn, Daly, Mammen, Wilford, etc. were far from the first talented climbers to hit this area. I started climbing there, including Duncan’s Ridge, in 1970 and Gill, Dan Hare, Scott Woodruff, Brad Gilbert, Jeff Stringham and myself had already established many of the lines the “new guys” later found and claimed. Stringham was especially strong and prolific, having done every B-1 and B-2 problem at the Tooth and Flagstaff at the time – a claim nobody else, including Gill, could make. Those of us who were climbing there then often didn’t know who made the FA of some of the problems – they were simply shown to us by a friend and we climbed them, or at least tried. But this post, and certainly this thread isn’t spray about who climbed what first and when, because nobody really knows or cares these days – that is obvious by the retro bolting going on. What the thread is about is that Horsetooth bouldering (notice I didn’t say climbing) has a history that predates the birth of the people currently bolting established boulder problems. It’s about a lack of respect for the history and ethics of the place vs. the supposed need to create laboratory safe access for an ever-larger group of people. In 1971, I placed the first bolts I know of at Horsetooth – a toprope anchor at Rotary Park above the Cat Eye Wall. I was promptly informed of my breach of ethics and failure to respect my elders then, just as Ryan-Nelson is being chastised now. The difference seems to be that even though I may have been the trendsetter, I listened and never placed another bolt at the area. As a self admitted crusty old trad climber, I’m sorry to see the bolting of these boulder problems, even though I haven’t climbed them in years. To me, it’s clearly a further dumbing down of the sport by a new breed. In the end, the damage has been done. The holes have been drilled and even though they can be filled, they can’t be undrilled. Let’s just hope that Pandora’s box isn’t too wide open. But, if it is, Can I get you to bolt Midnight Lightning? That fall from the mantel is way scary……
Thanks for the "Prequel" history !! The Boulder crowd was pretty prevalent and they were ~ 5 yrs older than us. Do you have any old photos of your "crew" to jog my memory ? Even back in '73, the chalk lines were already well defined on all of the "Classic routes" and I vaguely remember getting shown them by the existing crowd in '73, in the first few weeks/months before our "crew" gelled. As you said, it's always been an oral tradition, and I'm glad to see an even older fart pipe up. Thank you very much for your contributions !!

PS: I like the Midnight Lightening suggestion ! But just to throw more gas on the fire, potentially, the greatest sport route at the "Tooth" is the Nemesis Arete at the Torture Chamber. If it were in Boulder Canyon, or Clear Creek, it would have been bolted years ago. But should it be, even though it has a perfectly Trad TR anchor, just to say you "lead" something 5.++?
chris way · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2001 · Points: 125

Like many posts above, I also disagree with the bolting. I also hope some of this thread can be salvaged for the sake of the community we are all a part of. To me climbing is a lifestyle and much of what "lifers" have gained and pass on is a type of mentorship. Passing on traditions, skills, stories, and our ethic is part of the reason climbing has been a big part of many of our lives; there's more to it than simply banging out a few moves and calling it exercise. You can see it clearly as its shared in the posts above and I hope everyone takes that to heart. Still, we grow in life by making mistakes (some of which we regret) and we've all made them.
As for Duncan's. Although to me it's a bouldering area, you can safely place gear and that is a skill that's central to the art of climbing and the mentorship tradition. I'm not big on telling people what to do, nor am I a fan of the reverse, but if people in our own community just do whatever the fuck they want to it seems like a losing situation for everyone involved. Setting a precedent allows those same people to feel like it's ok to head up every canyon and add bolts to routes because it feels scarier than the gym or another crag.
Clearly people are offended and even mr Nelson has to understand why.. Bolts in one of the oldest bouldering areas in the country is kind of like drawing a dick on your face and going to church, but maybe there's a better way to look at it that's productive and helpful for the growing community of climbers.
How about both sides make a petition, leave it open for an extended amount of time and see where the collective conscience of our community's at these days?

JPVallone · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2004 · Points: 195
chris way wrote:Bolts in one of the oldest bouldering areas in the country is kind of like drawing a dick on your face and going to church,
+1 Like Button
JonnyC · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Mar 2010 · Points: 65

Let's all pretend Rocky Mountain National Park was not yet a national park. In all likelihood the park would be seeing lots of visiters; littering, poaching trails, disturbing wildlife, generally screwing up the exceedingly fragile place. Then people come along and say we need to turn it into a national park and introduce heavy regulations to prevent further destruction, which means no hunting, dirt biking, ATVs, designated backcountry camping sites, etc. There would be only a small percentage of roads that remain open, the rest is trail access, foot only, and trails would be much more controlled. There would be a population of people who would be very upset by this, the history of the place would be ruined they would say. However, it would be in spite of trying to save the place they enjoy.

Horsetooth has a climbing history that everyone who is worth a shit respects. Some people on here seem to think that is not the case. But, it gets a to a point where things need to change or we lose the place to climbing altogether. For those of you who don't actually frequent the area: there is trash enough to fill bags and bags, the graffiti is back with a vengeance at rotary, vegetation is being destroyed (which is a bigger problem than people realize), and the lack of understanding the general public has about climbing means we get blamed for all of it.

But, there are not going to be fewer people because you tell them that they can't climb there because everything is a solo. There are just going to be more people. So, since we cannot go backwards, we continue with style. More people means more power, we will be able to have the clout to clean up the area for good, and create permanent sustainable strategies for management. It is so close to Fort Collins that this will become a necessity before long, do not think about this in the context of most crags where the few who go clean up after themselves. I'm not so sure a couple bolted routes will have this effect, but I for one would tolerate a couple bolted routes that were previously solos, if it means we get to climb there.

It is possible that Ryan wasn't so out of line, and actually had a much nobler cause than just bolting everything like a "loose cannon"?

Then again, I'm 26, so according to most people contributing to this thread I was born yesterday. So my understanding of this is pretty superficial.

FCJohn · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 802
JonnyC wrote: Then again, I'm 26, so according to most people contributing to this thread I was born yesterday. So my understanding of this is pretty superficial.
Don’t possum up to the thread, your age or years of experience in game in no way prevent you from having a mature understanding of the issue. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like Mathias is one of the younger guys, that evolved his position on the issue.

You pose an interesting thought exercise, so let’s examine it.
JonnyC wrote: Let's all pretend Rocky Mountain National Park was not yet a national park. In all likelihood the park would be seeing lots of visiters; littering, poaching trails, disturbing wildlife, generally screwing up the exceedingly fragile place. Then people come along and say we need to turn it into a national park and introduce heavy regulations to prevent further destruction, which means no hunting, dirt biking, ATVs, designated backcountry camping sites, etc. There would be only a small percentage of roads that remain open, the rest is trail access, foot only, and trails would be much more controlled. There would be a population of people who would be very upset by this, the history of the place would be ruined they would say. However, it would be in spite of trying to save the place they enjoy. Horsetooth has a climbing history that everyone who is worth a shit respects. Some people on here seem to think that is not the case.
I hope you can help me understand how his is an analogous situation.
Anyone "worth a shit" respects Horsetooth, where do you feel Ryan falls along this continuum?

Let’s parse the issue out in to its component parts:

This isn’t about sport bolting:
Ryan has bolted probably dozens and dozens of lines that he hopes people ( I among them) have enjoyed, but frankly no-one paid much attention to any of his other "new lines" because he wasn’t attempting to revise history. It might surprise the thread that, I consider myself a sport climber who dabbles in a bit of trad (my aging knees aren't much for bouldering these days)and frankly think Northern Colorado needs more sport lines and have been active in their development. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is lots of untouched stone in close proximity to Fort Collins.

This isn’t about environmental stewardship:
JonnyC wrote: But, it gets a to a point where things need to change or we lose the place to climbing altogether. For those of you who don't actually frequent the area: there is trash enough to fill bags and bags, the graffiti is back with a vengeance at rotary, vegetation is being destroyed (which is a bigger problem than people realize), and the lack of understanding the general public has about climbing means we get blamed for all of it.
This is the strawman argument that the pro-bolt side seems to re-hashing. If environmental stewardship was Ryan’s primary objective, he would have rallied the NCCC and community to have more frequent trash clean up days, buttress and shore up any environmental impact issues. However adding bolts will only serve to INCREASE traffic to the area and undermines your position on environmental stewardship.

This isn’t about access or opportunity:
JonnyC wrote: But, there are not going to be fewer people because you tell them that they can't climb there because everything is a solo.
Why is that a bad thing? If you’re worried about environmental stewardship, I’d hope you conclude that fewer people up there is a good thing. But if you're arguing that we are going to see an increase in popularity of the area either way, then the climbing "improvements" are irrelevant to the discussion.

Furthermore, you’re talking in absolutes…. Not EVERYTHING is a solo. There are many, many climbs that can be TR’d safely, but it appears that Ryan is trying to mass-market the access and climbs of Duncan’s Ridge, which goes against just about everything I know to be sacred about climbing. Why is it Ryan's self-anointed responsibility to create a "beginner friendly" sport crag out of quite literally, what is the birthplace of North American bouldering. Full stop.

I would LOVE to someday climb 13a on gear, but that’s a scary and low probability grade for me and some lines are just simply out of my reach for the time being, but that doesn’t mean that roll up to a test piece with my hammer drill and slam a few bolts in to make it go because I can climb bolted 13a.

I attribute the creative gear (TR & Lead) and rock-craft lessons I acquired at Duncans many years ago to be fundamental watershed moments in my climbing growth and I take those lessons with me wherever I climb and whatever grade I lead. As Jeff G mentioned earlier, adding bolts to the cliff lacks the vision and robs these opportunities from future generations to learn these same lessons.

This isn’t about the evolution of style or ethics
JonnyC wrote: There are just going to be more people. So, since we cannot go backwards, we continue with style. More people means more power, we will be able to have the clout to clean up the area for good, and create permanent sustainable strategies for management.
Climbing is not and will never be a democracy. The number of people climbing in Fort Collins is irrelevant to the discussion. The climbing trade association and outdoor industry can make all of the forward looking projections that want, but it doesn't change the history and values of the climbing community.

Climbing is an individual sport and individuals will always choose their own path in it....whether that be learning to climb at a gym as a top rope climber, leader, or boulder'er or choose to take those same paths outside. If they wish to learn to to rig safe top ropes anchors or lead easy traditional climbs, they can find these experience at places like Duncans, which have 40+ years of established history, ethos, and ethic.

Its funny that you’d invoke an evolution or “continuation” of style, I usually hear that argument traveling in the other direction in terms of bolts being chopped to improve the style of a climb. While it’s not on the same magnitude of scale of the cliffs at Duncan’s, consider Cerro Torre and the Compressor Route which is roughly around the same historical period that Duncan’s was first heating up. Cesare Maestri bolted the compressor route which was above the standards of the time and two, strong young guns by the likes of Hayden Kennedy & Jason Kruk chopped the bolts back in 2012 making a fair means ascent and returning the rock to a natural line, if anything, you’re arguing against yourself if you want to invoke the style card. If the community decides to give license to bolt boulder problems that are below the current standards, then don't be surprised someone immediately wants to chop 'em because the standards have improved.

Sidebar: Kelly Cordes (Former Fort Collins Resident and current Estes Local) tells the awesome story of Cerro Torre in the Tower:
Buy it on amazon at: amazon.com/Tower-Chronicle-…

I’m surprised that Kelly hasn’t popped up to weigh in as an ethical thought leader and former editor of the AJJ, maybe he’s like the Candyman and if we mention his name three times he’ll show up: Sketchy Kelly, Sketchy Kelly, Sketchy Kelly.

Well crap, I'm sure he doing something more important that debating climbing ethics on the internet.... I'm betting he's shampooing his mullet or most likely out buying more tequila.

You could have 1,000 climbers in Fort Collins and their voice or votes should never trump the style and vision of the first ascensionists, the people they climbed with, or knew the standards of the time. While climbing isn’t a democracy, it is a consensus. A consensus in terms of grades, style, ethics, etc. I've developed probably close to 100 (I honestly don't keep track) sport, trad, and mixed lines in my day, and personally might consider a young gun's request to remove the bolts on one of my lines if they felt a line could go "sans bolts", but I'd hope that they'd have enough respect for me as the first assentionist to ask permission before making a unilateral act by just chopping my bolts. Adding bolts to a trad or boulder line that had none, that's just a non-starter.....

Additionally, folks have tried to argue the wishes of the "vox populi", but I've failed to see a community mandate. I'd encourage anyone to go back through the thread a make a quick head count of the pro bolt & anti bolt camps. Ryan hardly has a community(or NCCC) support or mandate to bolt Duncan's and in fact the anti bolt camp outnumbers the pro bolt by about 5 or 6:1. Count it up.

To that end, Ryan KNEW he’d never obtain consensus to bolt Duncan’s, and most disappointing is that he never even attempted to try to seek consensus. He figured it was better to ask for forgiveness than permission and overestimated NCCC's and the community support.

JonnyC wrote: It is so close to Fort Collins that this will become a necessity before long, do not think about this in the context of most crags where the few who go clean up after themselves. I'm not so sure a couple bolted routes will have this effect, but I for one would tolerate a couple bolted routes that were previously solos, if it means we get to climb there.
Necessity? Nothing is a necessity in climbing.....

Proximity to town is not relevant to the debate either. There are soon to be 5 gyms (Miramont, Inner Strength, FC Club, CSU gym and Ascent Studio) that are far more easily traveled to, climbed at, and are supportive to new climbers. I agree with you that the climbing community needs to do a better job at leadership in preserving keeping our climbing areas clean, and we should all leave the crag a little better than we find them.

People are missing the point that nothing, absolutely NOTHING is preventing you or anyone to climb at Duncan's currently.

You can say:
"well, I don't have a rack and don't know how to set TR anchors"
A: Then find friends that do have a rack and learn rock craft. There exists several places in Northern Colorado to find easy moderate sport leads and top rope options.

"Well the lines are too hard or I can't climb line X for whatever reason"
A: Get stronger & step up your game. I wasn't able to climb every line at Duncan's when I first moved to town and there are many lines all over Horsetooth that are still WAY above my ability.

"But I need a convenient and safe place to climb with (insert here:my wife, family, kids, etc")
There are awesome gyms in Collins for that. My three year old is learning to climb there at a gym right now and when he's old enough to climb outside, I hope to teach him how to properly rig a top rock anchor, place natural clean placements and teach him the skills of rock craft to lead all facets of the climbing game.

Its precisely the preservation of these areas and climbs that I'm so passionate about the topic of ethics, style, and history. As someone astutely pointed out earlier, there exists a catch-22, people won't chose the harder and more challenging of two options, when an easy out exists.

"I care about the environment"
A:Great! Me too! Let's go pick up some trash, build some trails,. plant some trees, lay some rebar and fix the erosion at Duncans. But we need to decouple bolting of established TR & highball lines from this discussion, its irrelevant to the argument of environmental stewardship and you are arguing against yourself here.

Less the younger generation forgets the titans that came before us, let me loosely paraphrase the late Steve Dieckhoff: when you realize that climbing is more than just achieving a sweat, a workout, or a pump, but the totality of the personal experience of an individual's challenge, engagement and struggle with the stone, you realize that history, style, ethics, character, integrity, and honesty are everything in this "dangerous play" we call climbing.

I don't remember where I read or heard Steve say these words, but they always stuck with me as a young climber....

While Ryan has extended an apology publicly and privately, I'll let Ryan's actions speak louder than his words, he's currently on the wrong side of history and his integrity, reputation, and credibility as a past and future route developer are at stake.
Mathias · · Loveland, CO · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 306
FCJohn wrote: Don’t possum up to the thread, your age or years of experience in game in no way prevent you from having a mature understanding of the issue. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like Mathias Is one of the younger guys, that evolved his position on the issues
As you mentioned me, I'm 32 and have been climbing for just one year. I've definitely changed my perspective on the area. I care about the history of climbing areas, especially ones as old and important as Horsetooth. It was my perception that DR was just an old crag people rarely used with little notable historic value. This thread has drastically changed that point of view. I still like the idea or TR anchors and better documentation of the routes, but have grown to dislike the idea of the bolted sport routes. For me, the only question now is, what to do about the sport routes that are already in place.
FCJohn · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 802

Some additional Steve Dieckoff wisdom relevant to the thread

Revisionist retrobolting



Leave no trace


Source: stevedieckhoff.com/

For folks interested in the legend of Steve:
rockandice.com/lates-news/t…
climbing.com/?archive=steve…
Ken Duncan · · Ft Collins, CO · Joined Jul 2004 · Points: 5,719
JKeller wrote:Has any conclusion been reached as to what happens next? A vote at the trail day would be entertaining...
Mark Wilford and I are meeting with Ryan tomorrow.
JonnyC · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Mar 2010 · Points: 65

FCJohn, do not take the opposing view to simply be that everything needs to be retrobolted. The "Leave No Trace" cartoon you posted portrays the extreme we could see if guys like you don't pass on the ethics you are so vehemently arguing for in this thread. But, are heavy-use areas like Horsetooth so black and white? Please keep in mind that I am not trying to change your mind, I disagree with my own arguments, but this discussion seemed one-sided.

FCJohn wrote:You pose an interesting thought exercise, so let’s examine it. I hope you can help me understand how his is an analogous situation. Anyone "worth a shit" respects Horsetooth, where do you feel Ryan falls along this continuum?


You may have applied the analogy to the wrong part of the argument. Climbing is not the only activity where these kinds of things become a problem. We just deal with it less because climbers generally respect their surroundings. In this situation the climbers are the hunters/ATV enthusiasts acting out a tragedy of the commons. Obviously Ryan cares a great deal about climbing in the area, is he really the kind of person we want to burn at the stake to make an example? Mistakes were made, but it was in the name of trying to make the area better. I've read The Tower by Kelly Cordes, and was familiar with the Cerro Torre story before the book came out, awesome read by the way. Cesare Maestri was acting in a deliberately destructive way, I do not think this is the case for Ryan. Let's not forget that some people were royally pissed off when the bolts were pulled... because of the historical significance.

FCJohn wrote: This isn’t about environmental stewardship: This is the strawman argument that the pro-bolt side seems to re-hashing. If environmental stewardship was Ryan’s primary objective, he would have rallied the NCCC and community to have more frequent trash clean up days, buttress and shore up any environmental impact issues. However adding bolts will only serve to INCREASE traffic to the area and undermines your position on environmental stewardship. This isn’t about access or opportunity: Why is that a bad thing? If you’re worried about environmental stewardship, I’d hope you conclude that fewer people up there is a good thing. But if you're arguing that we are going to see an increase in popularity of the area either way, then the climbing "improvements" are irrelevant to the discussion.
Is it a strawman argument? Simply cleaning up more and more seems like a path that will lead us to the same place eventually. We would need more and more people on our side active in the process, which supports the proposal of greater access. (Again, please, I wish there were fewer people, do not read my arguments to mean I think everything should be retrobolted) I'm not so sure that the "improvements" are irrelevant in the long term: perhaps it is good that all this happened so now it is out in the open for discussion.

FCJohn wrote:Furthermore, you’re talking in absolutes…. Not EVERYTHING is a solo. There are many, many climbs that can be TR’d safely, but it appears that Ryan is trying to mass-market the access and climbs of Duncan’s Ridge, which goes against just about everything I know to be sacred about climbing. Why is it Ryan's self-anointed responsibility to create a "beginner friendly" sport crag out of quite literally, what is the birthplace of North American bouldering. Full stop.
I was just saying that telling people this, and that the area has such a reputation doesn't seem to be making a difference right now. TR anchors seem like a fine compromise to me. You're absolutely right, Duncan's ridge doesn't need to be a gym, which are the embodiments of climbing as mass marketing.

FCJohn wrote: that doesn’t I mean that roll up to a test piece with my hammer drill and slam a few bolts in to make it go because I can climb bolted 13a.
Is it a different story if the route has no gear placements? This isn't like Greenspit which ended up being rightfully chopped by Didier Berthod.

FCJohn wrote: This isn’t about the evolution of style or ethics Climbing is not and will never be a democracy. The number of people climbing in Fort Collins is irrelevant to the discussion. The climbing trade association and outdoor industry can make all of the forward looking projections that want, but it doesn't change the history and values of the climbing community. Climbing is an individual sport and individuals will always choose their own path in it....whether that be learning to climb at a gym as a top rope climber, leader, or boulder'er or choose to take those same paths outside. If they wish to learn to to rig safe top ropes anchors or lead easy traditional climbs, they can find these experience at places like Duncans, which have 40+ years of established history, ethos, and ethic. Its funny that you’d invoke an evolution or “continuation” of style, I usually hear that argument traveling in the other direction in terms of bolts being chopped to improve the style of a climb.
The "climbing is not a democracy" argument should be approached with more caution. Do not, in the same case, say that it is not a democracy, but it is consensus based. You're right I was speaking in absolutes, are you not? When I said continue with style, it was tongue in cheek. Because I was mostly making an argument that I disagree with, but maybe should be considered.

FCJohn wrote: You could have 1,000 climbers in Fort Collins and their voice or votes should never trump the style and vision of the first ascensionists, the people they climbed with, or knew the standards of the time. While climbing isn’t a democracy, it is a consensus. A consensus in terms of grades, style, ethics, etc. I've developed probably close to 100 (I honestly don't keep track) sport, trad, and mixed lines in my day, and personally might consider a young gun's request to remove the bolts on one of my lines if they felt a line could go "sans bolts", but I'd hope that they'd have enough respect for me as the first assentionist to ask permission before making a unilateral act by just chopping my bolts.
What happens when you are not around? Grades become consensus grades eventually, aid routes go free, bolts are chopped. You made a decision of style with your FAs, when do you pass the torch? Is it really the fault of your generation for not passing on the ethics well enough? I'm not saying "screw you the next generation is here now", I'm just asking what you think. Please be friendly, I am on your side.

FCJohn wrote: Adding bolts to a trad or boulder line that had none, that's just a non-starter..... Additionally, folks have tried to argue the wishes of the "vox populi", but I've failed to see a community mandate. I'd encourage anyone to go back through the thread a make a quick head count of the pro bolt & anti bolt camps. Ryan hardly has a community(or NCCC) support or mandate to bolt Duncan's and in fact the anti bolt camp outnumbers the pro bolt by about 5 or 6:1. Count it up. To that end, Ryan KNEW he’d never obtain consensus to bolt Duncan’s, and most disappointing is that he never even attempted to try to seek consensus. He figured it was better to ask for forgiveness than permission and overestimated NCCC's and the community support.
Albeit you jump to some hasty and rather brutal conclusions I agree.

FCJohn wrote: People are missing the point that nothing, absolutely NOTHING is preventing you or anyone to climb at Duncan's currently. Its precisely the preservation of these areas and climbs that I'm so passionate about the topic of ethics, style, and history. As someone astutely pointed out earlier, there exists a catch-22, people won't chose the harder and more challenging of two options, when an easy out exists.
Right, not currently. Preservation is not so black and white here (excluding the historical aspect), what exactly is the easy way out that we are leaning towards here? I take that to mean that if people are left to their own devices, the place will be destroyed. I think that was presented initially in the context of routes, undermining the learning experiences people should have climbing at Horsetooth. It could also be said in the context of preservation. To the people who have power over us in regards to land usage, the easy (also cheap) way out is to ban climbing.

FCJohn wrote: "I care about the environment" A:Great! Me too! Let's go pick up some trash, build some trails,. plant some trees, lay some rebar and fix the erosion at Duncans. But we need to decouple bolting of established TR & highball lines from this discussion, its irrelevant to the argument of environmental stewardship and you are arguing against yourself here. Less the younger generation forgets the titans that came before us, let me loosely paraphrase the late Steve Dieckhoff: when you realize that climbing is more than just achieving a sweat, a workout, or a pump, but the totality of the personal experience of an individual's challenge, engagement and struggle with the stone, you realize that history, style, ethics, character, integrity, and honesty are everything in this "dangerous play" we call climbing. I don't remember where I read or heard Steve say these words, but they always stuck with me as a young climber.... While Ryan has extended an apology publicly and privately, I'll let Ryan's actions speak louder than his words, he's currently on the wrong side of history and his integrity, reputation, and credibility as a past and future route developer are at stake.
I think anyone who spends a lot of time climbing in Colorado would agree. Again, not all climbing areas are the same. Yes, decouple bolting established heady/TR lines, that horse is dead, but there is another discussion here as well. What about the lines not yet established? You could argue that more people will be bad, with the current state of things it will be. But, what if it turns out to be good? More people to respect the area. Because you have a much wider scope of view regarding the history of climbing in general, and have seen what has become of climbing areas (not just Horsetooth) in recent history, I would really like to hear your thoughts on this topic in a broader sense. I am used to thinking about this concerning the alpine areas that I really connect with, where climbers are much much less of a problem. How would you propose we get a handle on the non-climbing population that frequents Horsetooth, which in my opinion does more damage?
FCJohn · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 802

JonnyC - You make some points that are confusing and some that have merit, but most importantly I appreciate you taking on the other side of academic debate even though you and I seem to agree on the majority of the issues.

I'll extend the same invitation that I extended to Ryan, send me a PM, let's get a beer and discuss if you'd like to dialogue further. Its the weekend and its time to climb rather than piss on each other via the internet....

These debates are nuanced and more fun to be discussed over a few pints.

I'll buy the first round.

john

JonnyC · · Fort Collins, CO · Joined Mar 2010 · Points: 65

That's pretty cool, might have to take you up on that.

richardd · · Loveland, CO · Joined May 2012 · Points: 10

Just an anecdote about TR anchors in popular public areas...My friends and I took a day trip to Rocks State Park in Maryland and set up a bomber anchor with gear on an excellent climb called Strawberry Jam. We had a lot of fun toproping it, but when we went back to clean it, found someone had stolen all the gear except for one big nut. I still can't believe climbers would have done that... bolt anchors can't be messed with so easily by random jerks walking around clifftop...

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "New Sport routes on Duncan's Ridge ?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.