SCC Community Forum

Sorry guys, I'm deeply ignorant and a clueless climber. Could you guys spell it out for me? We've just been given a long list of routes. What exactly is the issue with them?

I am not the only person with this information. James Dobbs knew what had been done clean back in those days, so please do not make me your whipping post. Unfortunately there are too many old guard climbers who have decided to take the easier path to climbing. I think most of those climbers were just late to the sterilization of the sport.

Paul Barnes wrote:=Now ya can just post over and over and over demanding specifics from Shannon like ya did Ben.

I'm not demanding specifics and I'm not making anybody a whipping post. I'm asking politely what the general issue with this list of routes is. Before, we had accusations of retro bolts with no routes. Now we have a list of routes and no idea what the problem is. Apparently, we don't even know what/where they are. What are we even talking about??

wwes wrote: What are we even talking about??

They are talking about who shared what info with whom, when, and why or why not.

I am talkin about what to do NOW that we have the info.

What do you think?

The problem with transforming a natural cliff to an outside gym wall is that you tend to squeeze the clean lines out by the use of bolts. When we force our will with bolts we loose our balance with nature. Gyms can prepare you for the crags, crags can prepare you for the mountains, lets at least try not to go backwards.

Simple solution, You get your people, I will get my people. We spend a weekend climbing together at Yellow Bluff, have some laughs, brews, and clean it up a little. From what I could tell from the walk through it will not take a lot of work, just a lot of communication.

^^^
Now we're talking. Come on cool weather!

Paul Barnes wrote:I am talkin about what to do NOW that we have the info.

What info do we have now? A list of route names? You're asking me what we should do, but you refuse to tell me what needs to be done. Nobody knows apparently. We just have a bunch of random route names with no context or explanation, which means exactly nothing. I'm not demanding specifics - I'm asking for a basic explanation of what the hell you guys are talking about. You've moved from making bogus accusations to just not making any sense at all. But at least it's getting funnier! And we're up to page 11, so Saxfiend is getting paid! Let's keep it going guys!

I think I spelled out what needed to be done in an earlier post. Shannon spelled out what he wants to do. If you think it's a joke and have no thoughts on what needs to be done...why keep posting?

So I will ask you again...what do you want to see done now? Nothing?...or something? If nothing...again...why post? If something...tell us what that something is.

Would you please point out to me where you guys spelled out what needs to be done with this list of routes?

If any routes are retro bolted, I think we should chop them. Are any of those routes retro bolted?

Paul Barnes wrote: We now have some history...important history at a crag that CLIMBERS own. EVERY effort should now be made to document this and restore these routes to their original state save for perhaps top anchors ( see how much I've learned? I just consented to "convenience anchors")...IF there is a need to. None of these may be retros but there's damn sure a responsibility for the SCC to definitively find out...as climbers...and as owners of the crag. Period. But the bottom line is that we have the information NOW. So what to do with it? In my opinion, there is no statute of limitations on getting it right. No matter how badly you think people have handled it to this point, no matter how upset you may be with them over it. Get it right.

So, basically, I'm now saying we gotta start all over.

Oh, OK.

I'm gonna have to let Shannon answer that one Wes, because I don't know. But, again, the SCC bears the responsibility of making sure they work with Shannon to document what they are, where they are, and whether or not they have been altered. So, again, gotta start all over...no matter how much of a pain in the ass that may be.

OR....they can just say "you had your chance"...which would be extremely disappointing and probably not help public relations, image, or garner much support. Ball is pretty much back in their court.

Thank you Mr. Barnes. They do not have this problem in the Gunks, probably because they have managed to preserve their History rather than re-write it.

Lots of talk in here about ethics and respect... Outside gyms... And hating on bolts... Such a closed mindset will only cause conflict and limit progression. Maybe a good look in the mirror could help put that in perspective for some of you.

Good points to ponder Doc,

And don't get me started on the Gunks. Gunks hasn't really preserved diddly. The Nears got cut in 1/2 less than a decade ago and you can't even climb at Sky Top anymore. Well, technically you can, starting at the introductory low rate of $269 for 1/2 day...Well, plus the 500+ (offseason) you are required to spend for mandatory lodging of course...

So Skytop is preserved (for paid guiding at least). Damn, I never did send Supercrack. Thought it wouldn't go down that way like Skytop did. Open Cockpit and Foops? Wow. If anyone has cash to burn, those are worth some coin. OF course I doubt the guide service that keeps Skytop closed would let you lead...so good luck with that...TR...

I won't even go into the other Gunks areas closed up for right now, but just leave it as...

You guys care to pony up $17 a day just for access to the "open" portions of cliffs? That's what the Gunks is these days. Maybe precious "preservation" is actually technically the path to profit$. Or just shut it down piece by piece(Gee, kind of like the Gunks!), that guarantees "preservation" pshah.

I said don't get me started on the Gunks...

DO NOT get me started on ethics either. Like I've pretty much pointed out earlier, most of these self styled "trads" are full of hokum, preplaced gear, preinspected moves and routes, fixed junk and general hangdoggery. That's not trad, that's a joke.

taipan jam wrote:...preplaced gear, preinspected moves and routes, fixed junk and general hangdoggery. That's not trad, that's a joke.

Yep.

Thanks wwes, My statement may be a little too strong for most, as trad is a spectrum, but then, I'm someone who witnessed one of my mentors giving Bachar a bunch of grief for hanging on a rope in Smith and using a Bosch to put up routes around Mammoth. Bachar was not psyched. If we were playing hoops, he would have taken his ball and left... So my view may be somewhat myopic as well (where did I leave my looking glass, perhaps at the Drs. office...).

I guess what gets my goad is these blanks thinking that their "challenges" are somehow being "trammeled".

Listen, no is stopping you from doing anything. Petit led bolted 13d on gear. I've done some that of myself albeit on number grades less, bypassing bolts with a upturned nose and air of superiority. Why? To prove a point? For sure, at least a red point.

An SCC board member's take on Yellow Bluff from the SCC message board...in case ya missed it...

"obviously my feelings underwent some change when i thought about the issues some more....and when i visited the cliff recently. I have seen where Shannon Stegg has produced a list of routes he implies were retro-bolted. There are more than a few routes and most are in the mid-grade range. There has been no substantiation of exactly where these routes are located and if they do indeed now have fixed protection that was placed there following the SCC purchase of the area. The routes have not been chronicled in any published guide material to date, it seems.

I would think that if the routes are indeed retro-bolted and Shannon wishes them to be restored to their first ascent style, he would offer explicit guidance as to their exact location so that they may be considered by the SCC. Until that occurs, they will only be topics for speculation.

I believe Shannon was a part of a recent site walk to evaluate the current conditions of the cliff and i'm not sure why more specifics were not offered or developed during that event. I understand there is a great deal of concern about the possible imposition of fixed anchors where routes had been initially climbed in traditional style. I believe the SCC is being deliberative in assessing these concerns and that the basis for any remedy, were it to be enacted, will require careful substantiation and consideration by the SCC and other interested parties. This will take some time."

So please clarify, now people want to remove anchors? I thought there was an issue with topping out onto property on a bunch of these areas....I don't know the layout of Yellow Bluff though, admittedly.

What's the solution here, walking around the tops of cliffs (possibly private property) to find trees? I've played that game in the SE some myself, seems better imo just to have anchors for any number of reasons I can elaborate on...