North End of Ragged Mountain

So now that the RMF has completed its purchase of the North End of Ragged Mountain's Main Cliff without restrictions from the Berlin Land Trust. Do you think they'll put anchors in to start protecting the environment on top of the cliff or will there be a new narrative from their board? If a new narrative... what do you think it will be?

Perfect example would be Cemetary Vault. There's over a foot of topsoil loss. No adequate trees to reach without trampling brush and no gear anchor available.

Do you think they'll let someone bolt the 5.14 and other projects on the North End?

EDIT: No where am I suggesting or want to get into a discussion about bolting an existing traditional route. Its a dumb conversation and not something anyone is interested in doing at Ragged.

I'm not one for bolting a trad route, or even turning a top-rope route into a sport line for the sake of allowing people to lead it. But the cliff top erosion and tree damage is worth the bolting, in my opinion. It's not about disrespecting the old timer's and their old ways as much as it's about respecting the impact on the land.

First off, I feel that now that the land has been purchased, this is the “make or break” time for the RMF to act. What they do now, will govern their success for future procurements and land management issues. With the recent work of the RMF conservation crew, I think the RMF has been moving in a much better direction than that of years past.

Ragged, and CT as a whole, is a tough area to bolt, regardless of legal permissions. I have long suggested that the RMF should look into moving large natural blocks near the tops of the cliff to use as natural anchors. The reason I think the blocks work, is that it appeases all parties and ideologies in CT climbing. This way you continue to use natural protection (or gear if available), as well as not bolting to keep the old traddies happy, all-the-while preserving the ecology on top of the cliff. The RMF can post how to sling blocks for anchors on their kiosk. Eventually they can fence off areas further back, and replant trees with signs saying “cliff restoration in progress. Please do not step over the fence.” I have seen this done at many climbing, hiking, general recreation areas with great success. Granted the moving of large blocks adequate for anchoring can be very difficult. But if this idea were to gain support, it wont be nearly that difficult to raise the money and hands to make the idea a reality.

But to answer your question morgan, I don't think they will let someone bolt the project or others.......yet. I think they want, and should, work on building better relations with the water department and the State of CT before. Gain access and ownership to more land, and then establish a bolting plan. this way, they can handle the "hiccups" of vandalism and safety with more legal and legislative help.

Topo G - I haven't heard of the moving blocks idea but, it sounds like a great one... if you could find some 2000 lb block you could move. I don't recall any of that size around the top of the cliff though...

Additionally, I think closing areas of the cliff down for restoration is completely warranted at this point and long overdue.

Morgan Patterson wrote:Topo G - I haven't heard of the moving blocks idea but, it sounds like a great one... if you could find some 2000 lb block you could move. I don't recall any of that size around the top of the cliff though... Additionally, I think closing areas of the cliff down for restoration is completely warranted at this point and long overdue.

Not knocking the idea, but is it THAT BAD in CT? Like, you have to bring in gigantic boulders with heavy machinery and scatter them across a cliff top just because installing a few dozen bolts doesn't fit with the ethic? I mean, really?

Michael C wrote: Not knocking the idea, but is it THAT BAD in CT? Like, you have to bring in gigantic boulders with heavy machinery and scatter them across a cliff top just because installing a few dozen bolts doesn't fit with the ethic? I mean, really?

Michael, I would like to believe that it isn't, but sadly, many of the newly bolted spots, especially those dearest to a certain individual, will fall and have fallen victim to vandalism by known and unknown parties.

I don't want this forum to turn into yet another bolt/anti-bolt, victimization discourse, but would rather see other alternatives to the current two: trees as anchors, and bolts.

Michael C wrote: doesn't fit with the ethic? I mean, really?

The ethic was hijacked in the 90s... Main cliff has a history of fixed gear, pins bolts etc. Putting in SS staple anchors like at Acadia would be the ideal fixture IMO.

Topo Gigio wrote: I don't want this forum to turn into yet another bolt/anti-bolt, victimization discourse...

Yeah, sorry for steering it in that direction.

The boulder anchor idea is ridiculously impractical imo. Big SS staples make much more sense, and then just deal with the vandals with hidden security cameras and legal means if need be. That simply has to be stopped.

Purchasing the north end of the cliff was a big win for RMF and everybody who enjoys Ragged mountain. The goal, I believe, was to ensure access, not to have permission to throw bolts in.

Even if the RMF was unanimous on putting in bolted anchors, and everybody except ONE person (who we all know very well) agreed, it doesn't change the fact that if bolts go in they'll get chopped. It seems like it isn't an 'if' it's a 'when'. And if you bolt an entire line on the cliff, even if it is new, it will get chopped, and sometimes worse (i.e. vanishing point).

DEF wrote:Purchasing the north end of the cliff was a big win for RMF and everybody who enjoys Ragged mountain. The goal, I believe, was to ensure access, not to have permission to throw bolts in. Even if the RMF was unanimous on putting in bolted anchors, and everybody except ONE person (who we all know very well) agreed, it doesn't change the fact that if bolts go in they'll get chopped. It seems like it isn't an 'if' it's a 'when'. And if you bolt an entire line on the cliff, even if it is new, it will get chopped, and sometimes worse (i.e. vanishing point).

Well the RMF now owns it so its not a matter of permission and more a matter of standards of land management. Also consider that SS Staple anchors are not easily chopped like bolts.

So instead of the RMF managing the property they should relinquish the management decisions to the people who would illegally vandalize the property?

If a burglar breaks into my home you're saying the answer is to remove the locks so nothing gets damaged next time rather then deal with the crime?

M Sprague wrote:The boulder anchor idea is ridiculously impractical imo. Big SS staples make much more sense, and then just deal with the vandals with hidden security cameras and legal means if need be. That simply has to be stopped.

Totally agree - just jaded about the fact that no amount of legal action has worked so far.

DEF wrote: Totally agree - just jaded about the fact that no amount of legal action has worked so far.

But the actions cited by Mark HAVE worked IN CT... Firewall specifically so, I challenge the notion entirely that we are beholden to the lowest denominator and nothing works. Ward was able to box in Ken up in MA.

At one point there was a restraining order against Ken entering the RMF property. Boyde, Shove and several other board members let that lapse in favor of capitulating to and trying to become friendly with him.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Well the RMF now owns it so its not a matter of permission and more a matter of standards of land management. Also consider that SS Staple anchors are not easily chopped like bolts. So instead of the RMF managing the property they should relinquish the management decisions to the people who would illegally vandalize the property? If a burglar breaks into my home you're saying the answer is to remove the locks so nothing gets damaged next time rather then deal with the crime?

You're assuming the RMF wants bolted anchors, which may be true but I can't say. And that analogy doesn't exactly work, it's more like.. a neighborhood dog keeps shitting in your yard in the middle of the night, you'd like to shoot the dog but you can't do that and you just find yourself cleaning up the mess and accept that you're going to have some dead grass.

Also from what I've seen on this site it seems like you've had a long running grudge/disdain for the RMF, who I have found to be a great group of people. So maybe we just won't see eye to eye on this, which is strange for a mountain project forum.

Nowadays you can get a picture of the dog and even get dna analyses of the poop to take to court.

You are correct... I have disdain for their lack of action and lack of acceptance and understanding of their responsibilities as a land manager and not just a climb organization.

Their action and the degradation of the property speak volumes.

M Sprague wrote:Nowadays you can get a picture of the dog and even get dna analyses of the poop to take to court.

Hahaha exactly... And to me with a degree in environmental studies, its not a matter of what RMF 'wants' its a matter of accepted practices and responsibility and, a need (ongoing environmental impacts) to take action. And if I had that dog problem, I wouldnt just accept it as status quo.

So DEF - your though is No Action and the narrative will shift from not allowed to, 'we are held hostage to Ken and other vandals' despite other areas having successfully in dealing with the same issue from the same bad apples?

What are your thoughts on the techniques that were used and have worked at Firewall?

I don't know what they did at firewall, but I do think that overall feelings about Main cliff at ragged are much stronger than firewall if for no other reason than historical significance to the climbing community, but I could be wrong about that.

And no that's not what I'm advocating and that's not my 'new narrative', what I said was just my jaded assessment of what I thought would most likely happen to any new fixed gear that went in. I think the best course of action would be to participate with the RMF and go to the meetings and hear what everyone has to say. I know the RMF has been doing extensive trailwork and really improving the trail system and base of the cliff, I don't know what else they have planned.

one must remember too, and for those not from CT it may be hard to visualize, but Ragged and most of the Central Valley lies in the heart of suburbia. These climbing areas are also very popular hiking vistas, and inherently, party areas with easy approaches. Sure, climbers can prevent climbers from tampering with bolts and staples, but you cant stop others. Especially those with knowledge of the woods in that area.

Little tribal knowledge for you, what climbers call Ragged Mountain, is known to the locals as "Blunts Bluff." And this spot probably sees more traffic from teens and hikers, than it does climbers. And as the name suggests, its a popular hangout for teens, partyers, poachers, degenerates and the like. I grew up in those woods (backyard actually connects with a famous bouldering area ;) ), and know first hand the partying and destruction that can be done atop those cliffs. If a trail cam were to be installed, I guarantee it will be stolen in the first month of being up. If two 17-year old teens could hike up a 10ft trampoline to the cliff jumping cliffs AND then haul it to the top of Main Face in broad daylight without anyone noticing, then much worse can happen. if 6 cars can be driven to the summit of Ragged Mountain (and only 3 make it out), much worse can happen. Have a look at the current, and former guard rails installed at Pinnacle Rock just down the road. Damage done to those was NOT by climbers, but by local kids.

One reason Firewall has been successful is that the equippers did a good job at keeping the bolts out of sight of the gawkers atop the vista. Additionally, Crescent Lake has a managed entrance gate that closes after dusk, preventing most people from access.

DEF wrote:I don't know what they did at firewall, but I do think that overall feelings about Main cliff at ragged are much stronger than firewall if for no other reason than historical significance to the climbing community, but I could be wrong about that. And no that's not what I'm advocating and that's not my 'new narrative', what I said was just my jaded assessment of what I thought would most likely happen to any new fixed gear that went in. I think the best course of action would be to participate with the RMF and go to the meetings and hear what everyone has to say. I know the RMF has been doing extensive trailwork and really improving the trail system and base of the cliff, I don't know what else they have planned.

Sorry I was not saying you're advocating that but, more think that's what direction the RMF will go...

And I served on the Board and heard their anecdotal assessments that the top of the cliff is in, how did Boyde put it, "great shape". This isn't about me or my past with them.. its about them and the future of their land management practices on their new property which is suffering sever environmental degradation from overuse and what we think they will or wont do in the near future.