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

Since none of the authors have offered a hard publication date you and the rest of us get to wait for an answer other than "later, and probably later for the comprehensive guide than for the select guide."

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.

Can you provide a list of these routes?

There is no "policy" and from time to time routes do get retrobolted... generally by the FA team or agents of that team.

Snake Dike was retrobolted just after the FA...
has it been updated since then? I haven't done it in a while...

But in general, there is a lot of discussion regarding retrobolting of established routes before the retrobolting takes place. And more often then not the decision is not to retrobolt.

If you want to put up a well protected route there are plenty of opportunities to do your own FA. It's not at all clear why a route that has been around a long time needs to be "improved" in this modern era.

Pavel Burov wrote:This "no retrobolting" point has become kind of dogmatic.

Nothing whatsoever about it is 'dogmatic' - it has been and remains the north american norm.

Pavel Burov wrote:There are lot of routes in Yosemite were developed under influence of strong psychoactive substances.

Dude. Seriously? That's actually a legitimate rationale for you? That a bunch of starving homeless drug addicts climbed harder forty years ago without sticky rubber and cams then you can today? Crikey.

Pavel Burov wrote:Some of them are equipped with inadequate fixed protection which cannot be fixed under the "no retrobolting" dogma.

They don't need to be fixed; possibly you have been so are no longer sporting the pair necessary to do those olde routes.

Pavel Burov wrote:Modern climbers are not homeless drug addicts. They have full time job and go out for climbing on weekends.

Hmmm. So, if I have it right, you basically think 'Modern' climbers (such an apt code word) are basically pussies who, between work, diapers and bowling are looking for some risk-free weekend alternatives to going to the mall. Fuck yes - I finally get it now - you're ENTITLED to have bold Yosemite ascents bolted down to Planet Granite clipping standards. WTF, how could I have missed the obvious. Thanks for clarifying all this for me.

Pavel Burov wrote: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".

All that accomplishment, yet still basically pussies - but straight pussies, the best kind. Ok, got it. Again, thanks for setting me straight. Then again, it could also be taken a sweeping indictment that 'modern' drugs are weak.

Pavel Burov wrote: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.

This is completely tortured logic which flies in the face of reality. And, unless we've somehow become the EU overnight, "no retrobolting" is a solid north american 'rule' across the board. Well, at least you somehow manage to recognize there is a solid rationale for it. It is a tradition which is not 'reviewed' because it doesn't need to be reviewed; it simply needs to be respected and when it's not, then folks need to step up and deal with it which is what's happening on these threads and by chopping the BoR anchor.

[ This is so special it needed a wider audience ]

Ed Hartouni wrote:Can you provide a list of these routes?

No, I don't have this list.

Ed Hartouni wrote:But in general, there is a lot of discussion regarding retrobolting of established routes before the retrobolting takes place.

That's how things should be done (sidenote: "should be done" does not mean "always", the World is not black and white, exceptions are possible). Talk to people before altering a shared resource (e.g., a climbing route).

If the rational for considering the standard:

Do not alter existing routes

is to remedy the work of FA teams "under influence of strong psychoactive substances" it is important to be able to identify those routes and somehow demonstrate that they "are equipped with inadequate fixed protection. "

While I agree that "modern climbers" enjoy the benefits of the earlier climbers development of protection, footwear, and training techniques, have access to detailed information about the climbs, and, in addition, are financially much more well-off then their predecessors, it is not at all clear that modern climbers' "risk assessment" are reliable guides to retrobolting routes.

After all, the FA teams did successfully develop the routes without, for the most part, serious injury or death. They did this, in large part, through their mastery of climbing and the knowledge of how far they could push their limits. As I recall, if they weren't up to the task they backed off rather than continuing in poor style.

Knowing when to back off a climb is an important skill which is, perhaps, under developed today. Not all climbs are for all climbers.

With that in mind, a corollary to "not all climbs are for all climbers," is that we should not remake all climbs to be available to all climbers.

Ed Hartouni wrote:After all, the FA teams did successfully develop the routes without, for the most part, serious injury or death. They did this, in large part, through their mastery of climbing and the knowledge of how far they could push their limits. As I recall, if they weren't up to the task they backed off rather than continuing in poor style. Knowing when to back off a climb is an important skill which is, perhaps, under developed today. Not all climbs are for all climbers.

Ed, to be fair, most of the FA teams (in the 60s and 70s) did have bolt kits with them while doing the first ascent. I'm not saying every routes can be bolted mid route easily (I still marvel at how Kor bolted the Kor's Roof), etc, but FA team did have the option of bolting. New generation of climbers don't have that option. And we probably don't want that option for everyone.

divnamite wrote: And we probably don't want that option for everyone.

If, as FA, I decide to compressor route something, there is nothing in the current "ethics" book that would prevent me - who cares that a route can be free climbed if I choose to bolt ladder it. And, given the fact that I FAed, the "ethics" book would prevent good folks from chopping bolts, right?

Going to the other extreme - I could be a bad ass free climber, somewhere in 5.13 range and put up a run out 5.12 route with X rating, just to show how really bad ass I am. Again, since I FAed it, good luck adding protection to make a route safer.

Ed Hartouni wrote:
Can you provide a list of these routes?

Pavel Burov wrote:
No, I don't have this list.

He does not have a list, but his Babushka told him stories about climbing Yosemite route under influence.

amarius wrote: If, as FA, I decide to compressor route something, there is nothing in the current "ethics" book that would prevent me - who cares that a route can be free climbed if I choose to bolt ladder it. And, given the fact that I FAed, the "ethics" book would prevent good folks from chopping bolts, right? Going to the other extreme - I could be a bad ass free climber, somewhere in 5.13 range and put up a run out 5.12 route with X rating, just to show how really bad ass I am. Again, since I FAed it, good luck adding protection to make a route safer.

Yes.

Healyje wrote:"no retrobolting" is a solid north american 'rule' across the board.

It's not always that black and white. With consent from both the FA party and the local community, cases arise where retro bolting is okay. For example, at my local crag, the FA and I retrobolted a route because it was intended to be a easy safe sport route but available funds prevented this from happening at the time of the FA. Please note that this is the exception and not the rule

amarius wrote: If, as FA, I decide to compressor route something, there is nothing in the current "ethics" book that would prevent me - who cares that a route can be free climbed if I choose to bolt ladder it. And, given the fact that I FAed, the "ethics" book would prevent good folks from chopping bolts, right? Going to the other extreme - I could be a bad ass free climber, somewhere in 5.13 range and put up a run out 5.12 route with X rating, just to show how really bad ass I am. Again, since I FAed it, good luck adding protection to make a route safer.

History and the court of public option prove you wrong. Wall of Early Morning light and Wings of Steal are history and more recently the Compressor Route on Cerro Torre has been de-bolted.

If you want to create X routes go ahead. They are meaning less, don't make it into guides and in 10 years the route will be re-found, re-climbed, and there will be a new FA.

I still want to know when the Comprehensive Guide will be available.
If there is no deadline by the author then I get that they are not serious. Every project should have a timeline.

Thanks for the photos folks! Keep em coming.

This thread is very difficult to follow. I'm busy, so just skim it and try to respond to the points relevant to this thread.

Along those lines - I think the Weekend At Albert's topo really highlights the difference in approach between me and Ed and gang(Ed seems to be the one responding so I'm using his name for his group) in developing our guidebooks. Theirs has taken almost ten years. Mine will be done in just over a year of effort.

To me the bottom line is that these climbs exist, and people want to go climb them. One of my co-authors went to the area(Weeeknd At Alberts) and climbed some of the routes. He hounded Albert and John to make a topo. When I got the topo, I quickly put it up on the internet for feedback. Are there some mistakes in the topo? For sure. But for Ed to suggest that these routes haven't been published for years(the ones that Albert and John didn't put up, so didn't know the names of) because they were painstakingly tracking down first ascent information - while the public was unable to enjoy routes established on their public lands - is unacceptable to me. My approach is just put out a topo, for free or inexpensive, and let the climbers climbing the routes correct any minor errors. That way more people enjoy the climbs, and the necessary information is collected.

This is the process I used with my bigwall book and it worked very well. With my new book it will be a $3 - $5 app first, and maybe an ebook, so we can work out the kinks, and then it will be printed. I"m on schedule for Christmas time release!

Please let's stop with the personal attacks. They are unnecessary, and make it really hard to quickly read this thread and discuss important points that are brought up. We're all adults, and can talk about things in a civil manner.

For the folks who want to endlessly tear me down. Here is some more ammo for the fire:

I've never accepted any sponsorship money from any climbing company.
I've never guided a climb in Yosemite except on a 'by donation' basis, meaning folks who liked what I do around here donated some money to my efforts and it worked out for us to go climbing.
I've never made more than $30k/year.
I've never donated less than 200 hours + $1k in supplies,etc./year to Yosemite stewardship programs for the last 17 years straight.
I've spent around $10k on my website over the last 7 years, to try and better help climbers connect with the awesomeness that is Yosemite.

The boys up on the Zodiac looked good up there this morning!
Woot Woot!
Erik
erik@yosemitebigwall.com

Pavel Burov wrote:TThere are lot of routes in Yosemite were developed under influence of strong psychoactive substances. .

9/10

FAist was a filthy stoner. Best excuse this year for failing on a route.

Erik Sloan wrote:With my new book it will be a $3 - $5 app first, and maybe an ebook, so we can work out the kinks, and then it will be printed. I"m on schedule for Christmas time release!

At least there is a date for a new guide/climbing info.

Erik Sloan wrote:Thanks for the photos folks! Keep em coming. This thread is very difficult to follow. I'm busy, so just skim it and try to respond to the points relevant to this thread. Along those lines - I think the Weekend At Albert's topo really highlights the difference in approach between me and Ed and gang(Ed seems to be the one responding so I'm using his name for his group) in developing our guidebooks. Theirs has taken almost ten years. Mine will be done in just over a year of effort. To me the bottom line is that these climbs exist, and people want to go climb them. One of my co-authors went to the area(Weeeknd At Alberts) and climbed some of the routes. He hounded Albert and John to make a topo. When I got the topo, I quickly put it up on the internet for feedback. Are there some mistakes in the topo? For sure. But for Ed to suggest that these routes haven't been published for years(the ones that Albert and John didn't put up, so didn't know the names of) because they were painstakingly tracking down first ascent information - while the public was unable to enjoy routes established on their public lands - is unacceptable to me. My approach is just put out a topo, for free or inexpensive, and let the climbers climbing the routes correct any minor errors. That way more people enjoy the climbs, and the necessary information is collected. This is the process I used with my bigwall book and it worked very well. With my new book it will be a $3 - $5 app first, and maybe an ebook, so we can work out the kinks, and then it will be printed. I"m on schedule for Christmas time release! Please let's stop with the personal attacks. They are unnecessary, and make it really hard to quickly read this thread and discuss important points that are brought up. We're all adults, and can talk about things in a civil manner. For the folks who want to endlessly tear me down. Here is some more ammo for the fire: I've never accepted any sponsorship money from any climbing company. I've never guided a climb in Yosemite except on a 'by donation' basis, meaning folks who liked what I do around here donated some money to my efforts and it worked out for us to go climbing. I've never made more than $30k/year. I've never donated less than 200 hours + $1k in supplies,etc./year to Yosemite stewardship programs for the last 17 years straight. I've spent around $10k on my website over the last 7 years, to try and better help climbers connect with the awesomeness that is Yosemite. The boys up on the Zodiac looked good up there this morning! Woot Woot! Erik erik@yosemitebigwall.com

Erik, you continue to write lots but say little. I appreciate that you are a Valley local and that you have dedicated much time, effort, and money. I applaud the bolt replacement and anchor work that you've done. That's great.

I mostly stayed out of the Ten Days After thread since I had not climbed any of the routes/pitches that people say you modified. But then came the BOR anchors. Something I have climbed, and these anchors are something I (and many others) feel are unacceptable. Now that I have a concrete example of your work and your attitude/response to criticism, it is easier for me to form an opinion.

And the idea that other "Valley locals" all support you is ridiculous. I've spoken with a handful of prominent valley climbers, including at least one you know very well, who say that you have gotten out of control and that they do not support your actions.

The majority (not all, of course) of your controversy could be stopped with one simple concession: stop adding protection bolts where there were none before. IMO you could easily slide by if you continue to bolt anchors (at the end of pitches!), replace bolts, replace rivets with bolts, but you severely crossed a line when you added (anchor) bolts in the middle of an established free route with very adequate protection just to make it convenient to practice aid climbing.

You keep talking about talking like an adult. Well, adults make concessions and compromises when dealing with opposing viewpoints. Are you willing to do so or do you only expect this of others?

CSProul -

This thread is about my new guidebook, which I'm very busy finishing up. I understand that you want this thread to be about something else. I've participated in the other, ethical threads. I just don't have time for that right now. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I'm staying focused on the goal - putting together an awesome guide to Yosemite.

Along those lines, here is another popular sport area, Toejo.

Please send any corrections/suggestions to me via email or post here!

Woot Woot!
Erik
erik@yosemitebigwall.com

Erik Sloan wrote:CSProul - This thread is about my new guidebook, which I'm very busy finishing up. I understand that you want this thread to be about something else. I've participated in the other, ethical threads. I just don't have time for that right now. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I'm staying focused on the goal - putting together an awesome guide to Yosemite. Along those lines, here is another popular sport area, Toejo. Please send any corrections/suggestions to me via email or post here! Woot Woot! Erik erik@yosemitebigwall.com

Well, Erik, the "something else" has now become a subject that I hope will severely impact the sale of your new guidebook. This thread would have never taken off it hadn't been for your bolting (I'm bummed that your getting the free publicity). And yes, you've "participated" in the other threads, but can you actually address my point above about having an adult conversation and making any compromise? Because so far, all you've said is that you dismiss differing opinions and won't change anything.

"I'm not avoiding the discussion."

Sure seems like you are to me. You haven't addressed your anchor at the church bowl area. You haven't spoken on the accusations regarding power drilling in the park. There are other issues you have brushed aside as well.

You may want to keep to the topic of your guidebook, but so long as you remain committed to your unorthodox approach of modifying other people's routes you should expect the conversation to change course.

"I've participated in the other, ethical threads."

By my count, you have contributed only a single comment to the 'Book of Revelations' thread on Super Topo. The thread contains several hundred comments by other climbers, so frankly your claim of participation seems less than honest.

supertopo.com/climbers-foru…

...

Erik Sloan wrote:CSProul - This thread is about my new guidebook, which I'm very busy finishing up. I understand that you want this thread to be about something else. I've participated in the other, ethical threads. I just don't have time for that right now. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I'm staying focused on the goal - putting together an awesome guide to Yosemite. Along those lines, here is another popular sport area, Toejo. Please send any corrections/suggestions to me via email or post here! Woot Woot! Erik erik@yosemitebigwall.com

This thread is about your new guidebook.
And so it is about why people may or may not want to buy your new guidebook.
This thread is about what people are talking about on this thread, which as it relates to the above, would happen to be the fact that you are retrobolting, apologetically, threatening bolt wars, and acting sanctified about it.

I understand that you want this thread to be about something else.

I understand that you don't have time for that and ARE avoiding the discussion. Can you read what you write? Read it out loud in front of a mirror and when you get to that "huh?" look on your own face, that's the part when you are supposed to start understanding the public reaction to your statements.

Yes, you are staying focused on a few goals, but they are your own, and not shared. So when you come to a site that you verbally spit on, use it for advertising and dis it in the same thread, then tell 'the regulars' who put a lot of effort into making this a great site that they are not to discuss something on "your" thread... well, read it in the mirror again. If you don't get to the "huh?" look, perhaps you have an empathy problem.

Have you given the whole attitude you've got a nice long look?
The rock and the sport are bigger than you. Having a different opinion than the majority is fine, but acting on it will draw fire that should be expected, and that's a choice you made and continue to make. There are minority views on everything.

What I regard as delusional/dysfunctional is your inability to acknowledge that there is a larger constituency involved in this argument, and you are not on it. The discussion isn't going to "go away" by your will any more than you are going to "stop retrobolting" by their will. Wake up man.