New Yosemite Free Climbs Select Guidebook Almost Done - Call for Photos!

For the record I do hiking guiding in Yosemite. I'm not, and will never be a climbing guide. Interesting angle, that guides are somehow bad for Yosemite and climbing, though.

Ed Hartouni wrote:I'm saying the way we've been doing things stinks, and it's time to change. I believe this is a good starting point for a conversation that includes the climbing community interests in Yosemite Valley. One person's view, or the view of a subset of the community, can only be a part of that conversation, not the determining factor in the outcome. The change should be a consensus, and I don't see that there is a consensus of support for you actions in the broader community. If there were, you'd be more upfront about what you're doing. You can pick those community voices that agree with your own view, and ignore those voices that do not, and redefine "the community" such that you think you have support. I'd suggest that you take a deeper look into the discussions you've had and try to eliminate the tendency we all have to hear what we want to hear. /

So eloquently stated. The recipient of these words should ponder deeply the ethicality of their author and the depth of his intelligence. Any other tact would be ignorant at best and egomaniacal at worst.

For the record I do hiking guiding in Yosemite. I'm not, and will never be a climbing guide. Interesting angle, that guides are somehow bad for Yosemite and climbing, though.

I'm just reading in as best as I can, as no conversation regarding the retrobolting seems to be happening on your or any of your supporters part. I might point out the obvious that you are a guidebook author as well...

I'm assuming any community support you have for retrobolting routes would primarily be from guides and their clients. As I said, that is just a guess. Feel free to fill us in on the real scoop at any point. As others have repeatedly said, all they want is a conversation.

JNE wrote: I'm assuming any community support you have for retrobolting routes would primarily be from guides and their clients. As I said, that is just a guess. Feel free to fill us in on the real scoop at any point. As others have repeatedly said, all they want is a conversation.

I'm guessing here...but if the Eldo Fixed Hardware Replacement Program is an indication, there probably would be a lot more fixed hardware if it's operated as a direct democracy: I've never seen an application with less than majority (online voting) support, but only the almost unanimous supported proposals gets approved. It's conservative by design (like changing the constitution I suppose)...and I'm OK with it, as you can't undo a fuck-up with the rock. I bet there are plenty of (possibly shortsighted) climbers on Erik's side, but the opposition are way more passionate about it.

Erik Sloan wrote:I just finished up my Central Pillar/Bircheff-Williams topo. Check it out it looks like someone added a bolted sport route that adds an anchor to the middle of the second pitch of Paradise Lost(on the right side of the map, off of Pee Pee Pillar). Some friends climbed Paradise Lost and made me a topo for the route. They were super stoked on those added bolts and anchors. For sure some will call it progress, and some will say the opposite. Go Climb it and decide for yourself.

Erik-- interesting that for central pillar of frenzy, you don't show that the route continues all the way to the top (or that you can do a slab traverse over to korbeck)... it seems like you are providing about the same amount of beta as the reid guide...

In my experience you have small groups of internet haters who do all they can to slam someone on the internet, they usually like to say the "passionate" consensus is out and you lose. Also in my experience you have climbers who climb a ton and dont spend any time on the internet which makes me wonder how any real, honest consensus can be made?

There sure are a bunch of names on this thread that have either signed up to post in the last few days or pretty much have not ever contributed to this site. This makes me wonder, is Supertopo a small group of like-minded individuals or a true representation of modern day climbers?

If climbing was equated to art it would be like telling an artist his art sucks and he should quit now and get a job at Walmart or like a ball player being told to never come back to the playground because he sucks. Would you engage in a conversation with folks with no respect?

When said artist paints a mustache on the Mona Lisa because he and a couple dudes think they deserve to improve it to their standards then yes. Especially when they don't ask before permanently changing the face of classic routes. Did you not read the thread? Also Your justification earlier was that it's ok because yosemite is well known for being over bolted. That fact is beside the point of the ethics so many are asking to be upheld.

T Roper wrote: In my experience you have small groups of internet haters who do all they can to slam someone on the internet, they usually like to say the "passionate" consensus is out and you lose. Also in my experience you have climbers who climb a ton and dont spend any time on the internet which makes me wonder how any real, honest consensus can be made? There sure are a bunch of names on this thread that have either signed up to post in the last few days or pretty much have not ever contributed to this site. This makes me wonder, is Supertopo a small group of like-minded individuals or a true representation of modern day climbers? If climbing was equated to art it would be like telling an artist his art sucks and he should quit now and get a job at Walmart or like a ball player being told to never come back to the playground because he sucks. Would you engage in a conversation with folks with no respect?

I've seen some of Erik's work recently and up close. This prompts me to be in the anti camp. I'd wager you probably aren't buying his book or climbed anything he's touched anyway, just playing internet devil's advocate. It would appear that those who actually have are growing to a consensus decision that Sloan should check his roll rather than play house at the crag base and place convenience anchors for aid climbing on established free climbing routes while thumbing his nose at the community.

Nothing personal on my end, but, yeah, I'm not supporting his efforts with my coin.

I go to Yosemite about 4-6 times a year. I have never met anyone there that thought retrobolting was okay.

If fact the only people I've ever talked to that didn't realize retrobolting was wrong were new climbers. And once it was explained to them, they realized why it was wrong too.

Sloan is the ONLY person I've ever heard of in Yosemite who is that involved in climbing but doesn't get it. A guidebook author that doesn't understand one of the most basic climbing ethics is mind boggling.

Reading his justifications I believe he thinks he is doing a community service. But almost universally everyone who has any understanding of the ethics and history of US climbing is against retrobolting.

Colonel Mustard wrote: I've seen some of Erik's work recently and up close. This prompts me to be in the anti camp. I'd wager you probably aren't buying his book or climbed anything he's touched anyway, just playing internet devil's advocate. It would appear that those who actually have are growing to a consensus decision that Sloan should check his roll rather than play house at the crag base and place convenience anchors for aid climbing on established free climbing routes while thumbing his nose at the community. Nothing personal on my end, but, yeah, I'm not supporting his efforts with my coin.

You nailed it really, just sick of seeing people trashed by small gangs of climbers claiming to have the one and only truth. I dont see the big ass deal here still though and dont see how he has ruined any climbs. I do see a ton more personal attacks than I see the list of routes he has "ruined".

What's equally amazing is that he does NOT reevaluate his bolting practices after so much adamant feedback. It seems so obvious yet he doesn't get it. Ending the bolting won't degrade his or anyone else's existence or climbing experience. It seems he simply wants to go against the grain...all while permanently changing the face of Yosemite.

This "no retrobolting" point has become kind of dogmatic.

There are lot of routes in Yosemite were developed under influence of strong psychoactive substances. Some of them are equipped with inadequate fixed protection which cannot be fixed under the "no retrobolting" dogma. Some of those routes follow natural aesthetic lines created by nature.

Modern climbers are not homeless drug addicts. They have full time job and go out for climbing on weekends. They climb hard because of discipline, training schedule, acquired skills, and fit level. Sticky rubber and ultralight gear add some magic too. They climb hard because of following safety routines and obeying rules, not because of climbing being way beyond the term "under influence".

Yes, there is a local rule "no retrobolting". And there is a solid rationale behind the rule. Although there is a solid rationale against it. Tempora mutantur, rules change. And "absolutely no retrobolting" rule is one to be at least reviewed.

Just in case. This is not to be considered as a support of Erik's retrobolting. Today Yosemite policy is "no retrobolting". Till this policy is on, no retrobolting is tolerated.

Pavel Burov wrote:This "no retrobolting" point has become kind of dogmatic. There are lot of routes in Yosemite were developed under influence of strong psychoactive substances. Some of them are equipped with inadequate fixed protection which cannot be fixed under the "no retrobolting" dogma. Some of those routes follow natural aesthetic lines created by nature. Modern climbers are not homeless drug addicts. They have full time job and go out for climbing on weekends. They climb hard because of discipline, training schedule, acquired skills, and fit level. Sticky rubber and ultralight gear add some magic too. They climb hard because of following safety routines and obeying rules, not because of climbing being way beyond the term "under influence".

So what? Are you implying that drugged out FA needs to be "fixed" so your dedicated, drug-free climber could do it? I'd wager there is a lifetime of other climbing they could get to. And perhaps there are other climbers - on drugs or otherwise - that may be inspired by that climb? That are disciplined to training other facets of climbing to reach the level necessary to climb the route as it stands?

MojoMonkey wrote: So what? Are you implying that drugged out FA needs to be "fixed" so your dedicated, drug-free climber could do it?

Not "needed to be", this is yet anotger dogma. What should be fixed will be fixed. When time comes.

Is Pavel Burov implying that the low or zero hole counts of, say, Pratt or Robbins or Sacherer are products of pharmaceutical impairment? I'd like to know because that would tell us a great deal about just exactly how stupid he is.

Spiny Norman wrote:Is Pavel Burov implying that the low or zero hole counts of, say, Pratt or Robbins or Sacherer are products of pharmaceutical impairment? I'd like to know because that would tell us a great deal about just exactly how stupid he is.

An obvious logical fallacy.

I have never allowed you to speak at my behalf, please, do not do it. Thank you.

Pavel Burov wrote:This "no retrobolting" point has become kind of dogmatic. There are lot of routes in Yosemite were developed under influence of strong psychoactive substances. Some of them are equipped with inadequate fixed protection which cannot be fixed under the "no retrobolting" dogma. Some of those routes follow natural aesthetic lines created by nature. Modern climbers are not homeless drug addicts. They have full time job and go out for climbing on weekends. They climb hard because of discipline, training schedule, acquired skills, and fit level. Sticky rubber and ultralight gear add some magic too. They climb hard because of following safety routines and obeying rules, not because of climbing being way beyond the term "under influence". Yes, there is a local rule "no retrobolting". And there is a solid rationale behind the rule. Although there is a solid rationale against it. Tempora mutantur, rules change. And "absolutely no retrobolting" rule is one to be at least reviewed. Just in case. This is not to be considered as a support of Erik's retrobolting. Today Yosemite policy is "no retrobolting". Till this policy is on, no retrobolting is tolerated.

Why don't you actually get on BOR, the climb that ES has admitted to retroing and tell us if you think the latest example is justified. It was a two bolt anchor added to the middle (40 ft up) of a perfectly protectable pitch placed just to make "aid practice" more convenient.

csproul wrote: Why don't you actually get on BOR, the climb that ES has admitted to retroing and tell us if you think the latest example is justified. It was a two bolt anchor added to the middle (40 ft up) of a perfectly protectable pitch placed just to make "aid practice" more convenient.

Another obvious logic fallacy. My proposition is on "no retrobolting" dogma. Nothing about any case.

Pavel Burov wrote: An obvious logical fallacy. I have never allowed you to speak at my behalf, please, do not do it. Thank you.

Pavel Burov has poor reading comprehension. He does not understand what a question mark (?) signifies. There's no point to engaging someone who can't understand what's on the page (or, more likely, makes the conscious choice to misunderstand).

Spiny Norman wrote: You want it fast, or you want it done right? You want it done by people who are deeply (small-c) conservative and thoughtful in their use and stewardship of the resource, or you want it done by a cheerfully unhinged mad bolter who's made it abundantly clear that he couldn't possibly give two shits what other people think before he whips out the power drill? At this point there is literally nothing Sloan could do or say that would make me feel good about spending money on his book — or even using a friend's copy of it. It's damaged goods. Bad karma. Permanently tainted.

Well that certainly didn't answer my questions. I just want to know when these guides hit the shelves.