Anchors in White Rock Canyon, NM

To the "Defenders of Stone"... Your anonymous, poorly-executed, cowardly and self-righteous/self-serving action of removing the bolted anchors at the Old New Place recently are very much unappreciated by a large majority of the local, active climbing community. I placed these anchors to make climbing at the Old New Place safer and more convenient for the local climbing community. Also, you may have noticed the dead trees at the top of the cliff that have been cut down and cleaned up recently. The other pinon trees on the cliff top are headed for the same fate if climbers continue to anchor from these trees. The pinon roots are likely no more than six inches deep in very dry soil and get very stressed when the weight of two climbers is pulling on them. In time, the trees will die and the beauty of the cliffs will be reduced. Personally, I believe well-placed, camouflaged bolt hangers placed over the edge of the cliff, out of sight of nearly everyone but the climbers, is much better than dead, sickly trees at the cliff top.

I don't want to start a "bolt war" here with our local crags. If you truly value the rock as a self-professed "defender of stone", you'll want to avoid a bolt war too because the only thing that truly suffers from a bolt war is, in fact, the rock. Your chopping job wasn't very well done and I hope that if you continue to destroy the bolted anchors you'll do it right the first time or at least go back to finish the job and make it clean. The very stone you are claiming to defend is being marred by your actions.

I have time, money, hardware, motivation and, most importantly, the support of a large majority of the local climbing community and many members of the board of the local climbing organization, the Los Alamos Mountaineers, and thus, anchors will go back in again. That sounds threatening but I don't mean it to be. I strongly believe in open communication and responsibility for one's actions. I take full responsibility for placing the anchors and am open to everyone about it. I wish you would take the same responsibility for your actions and contact me. Let's you and I talk about this openly and try to come to a resolution. If it would help you understand that this local climbing community desires bolted anchors, we can have a "town hall meeting" with as many of the active, local climbers as possible along with members of the LA Mountaineers to discuss this and come to a majority-rules agreement. (This has been done already, by the way. See the LA Mountaineers Revised bolting agreement .)

We have the means and opportunity to make climbing at our local crags safer and more enjoyable for everyone and in the process we can save some trees from dying. How can any of this be argued against? Get in touch with me at halladay@gmail.com please. It would be respectful of you to take responsibility for your actions. I have.

Anchors in White Rock always brings up mixed emotions with me. Having grown up in Lost Almost and cut my teeth (and hands, knees, etc) learning to climb in these areas back in the early 80's, I've been pretty upset about some of the bolting that has been done to 'my home area'. Yeah, I know... I'm not there anymore and don't really have a say. I've been in Boulder since '91 and we fight and re-fight these battles annually. Certainly bolting seems to have become the national past time and it brings up all kinds of issues as Jason illuded to. I do agree with some of the issues that Jason brought up. However, I also disagree with several as well and I'll take this opportunity to avoid work.

Bolting of any kind (anchors or lines) when done, absolutely must be done with the agreement of the community. That's hard because some folks will never agree to bolting and I understand there feelings. There's very little in White Rock that can't be top-roped so one can argue that bolted lines are never needed. Also, the issue of who is the community is difficult. Should it be just those currently active or should there be a historical perspective even if they are not active. I know a lot of the pioneers of the area still live there even if they don't climb and have very strong feelings about what has been done to 'their' FAs. The problem is that once a bolt is placed, the damage (change to the rock) is done whether or not everyone agreed. Cutting bolts out that add risk or are poorly placed or that never should have been placed is the only option. Chopping is a long standing tradition in White Rock. Potrillo has bolts that were chopped back in the 70s.

I also really disagree with the idea that bolting necessarily makes climbing safer. The truth (at least around here) is that the bad habits engendered by sport climbing have been the root causes of lots of accidents. And while I'm sure Jason knows how to bolt properly, it can be done such that things are actually more dangerous. And no one should ever ever EVER put a bolt near a gear placements. That's just pure sport BS. In Boulder, there are some very nice lines that use bolts and gear. Suck it up and learn to place if you want these lines... Don't bolt them!!!!!

Areas really need to have some control either by the city, country, climbers or, most properly a combination, with appropriate checks and balances. Eldorado Canyon in Boulder (arguably one of the premier climbing areas in the world) is a State Park and any new anchor work must go through a very thorough review process. As such, things are well controlled; anchors appear when needed and new lines are done well. Only a few miles away in Boulder Canyon there are no such controls and while much of the bolting is very well done some of it is absolutely appauling. An area called the Sport Park was so badly done that one of the rags appropriately listed it as one of the worst 5 crags in the country.

Now, I totally agree with the issue about the loss of trees as anchors. The attempt to save trees is the primary reason for new anchors in eldo. An area like White Rock that is such a wonderful area for top roping certainly benefits by bolt anchors. Again, though, if a gear anchor can be used then why would you ever put chains in place?

Just my thoughts,

John Keller
LAHS 84

John, thanks for your time (no doubt well-compensated, much like here in LA)! I think you are in agreement with the previous posts. I'll try to point out how and perhaps clear up some possible confusion in the process!

John Keller wrote:Bolting of any kind (anchors or lines) when done, absolutely must be done with the agreement of the community.

Agreed, please see the amended agreement. I understand that this amendment was done according to the standards of the honorable Los Alamos Mountaineers who cast a large net looking for input when the trees started to die.

John Keller wrote:Also, the issue of who is the community is difficult.

Agreed, I would say further that it is the responsibility of the FAists to maintain a guiding role in the community to ensure that the ethics of their day are carried over to the next generations. This is something I see well done by the LA Mountaineers.

John Keller wrote:Chopping is a long standing tradition in White Rock.

Agreed, and I'd be willing to bet that those involved in the placement of these anchors would be the first to agree (if not show up with tools) that bolts placed not according to the agreement should go.

John Keller wrote:The truth (at least around here) is that the bad habits engendered by sport climbing have been the root causes of lots of accidents.

Agreed, bagged, and tagged! I put forth this is the very reason these anchors were placed, to prevent a tragic fall from a failed tree. One must concede the inherent differences in the Boulder and LA climbing communities. LA has one of the most active, open, and charitable communities I've ever seen. It's no surprise to me that folks actively involved in teaching safe climbing here are just as involved in providing safe climbing. Boulder has, well, you know what Boulder has!

John Keller wrote:Suck it up and learn to place if you want these lines... Don't bolt them!!!!!

To quote the agreement, "New bolt lines placed in the four excluded areas mentioned above will be removed."

John Keller wrote:Now, I totally agree with the issue about the loss of trees as anchors. The attempt to save trees is the primary reason for new anchors in eldo. An area like White Rock that is such a wonderful area for top roping certainly benefits by bolt anchors. Again, though, if a gear anchor can be used then why would you ever put chains in place?

For clarity, these weren't chains, they were painted hangers over the edge. The number of routes at ONP is greater than could be established with just gear anchors; tree anchors are part of the history of these routes. Unfortunately, they are a part that will become historic.

I support the technically adept, conscientious, and discreet placement of bolted anchors at the Old New Place.

An aside: The anonymity held by the chopper and the "fuck you" placard placed on the fence at the approach instills me with little hope that this person will ever be part of the community. I stand against this person.

As a local (born in Santa Fe, climbed around White Rock since 1989), I applaud Jason both in his efforts to engage the climbing community (again!, see Google Groups discussion from 2006 about White Rock bolting )in another discussion about local anchors while at the same time working selflessly to improve the safety of local crags. Jason has followed both the word and the intent of the revised agreement, in stark contrast to the crude words and actions of the "Stone Defenders".

I have used and climbed on bolts Jason has installed and have no problems with them. They are well-installed, appropriate for the areas (i.e. not placed where obvious, bomb-proof gear anchors are available) and camouflaged to the extent possible. Having installed bolts and hangers at Box Canyon in Socorro during my college days, I would like to think I know a little bit about bolts.

One thing Jason might have done differently would have been to publicize the intent to add anchor bolts to several climbs and see if anyone had objections prior to their installation. Of course as soon as you publicize intent to do anything in the climbing community, you will get some controversy like the events in Rock and Ice Top 10 Skirmishes from the North American Bolt Wars .

John Keller touches on this by raising the dangerous spectre (that his father, surmised from the last name, introduced in discussions related to this topic several years ago) of "control" of climbing areas by government agencies or some combination of public/private partnership. I doubt this is what most climbers and other outdoor recreation participants would want to see happen, particularly around Los Alamos where the climbing community has largely done a reasonable job of self-policing. Only if self-policing and consensus completely fails should the government overlord option be exercised.

The mission and vision statements of the Access Fund summarize what the core of this issue is all about. I can't say it any better. The outdoors are ours to use, screw up or lose, so it is up to us to do our best to take care of it. Preserving trees by using good bolts, being as safe as we can while climbing, picking up trash and watching where we walk are all important.

Keep up the good work Jason, and let us all keep an informed and civil discussion about this and related topics going.

To the "Defenders of Stone",

Things could be worse! Jason is hardly the "Mad Bolter" you would have us believe and I'm pretty sure we do not need your protection from him. Jason's bolt placements have been carefully and tastefully done (as far as I can tell). Thanks, Jason! He has also publicly agreed not to bolt in certain cases (see Bolting Cholla Wall at the Overlook).

Honestly, the "damage" done to the rocks by bolting is really inconsequential when compared to the damage that we do to the environment surrounding the crags. By this I mean not only the trees that get tied off for anchors, but the brush that gets trampled to make access trails, the long gone Cholla cactus that was once at the base of Cholla Wall, driving your car to the crag (which I maintain is the most dangerous part of climbing, BTW), etc. The fact is, the rocks will be there long after we are gone no matter how many bolts we put up. Perhaps, future civilizations will wonder what the purpose these unreachable metal hangers served! Furthermore, you are only doing more "damage" (and a disservice to the community) by chopping bolts that have already been placed.

On the other hand, if I were the man with the Bosch, I would not hesitate to put anchors at the top of every route that I could. Furthermore, I can think of several routes in White Rock that, though I would love to lead them, lack gear placements of any sort at certain critical points where a bolt would be most welcome. Though I do enjoy placing gear, I have no problem with "mixed" routes and I certainly support the idea of not placing bolts right beside obvious gear placements. I understand that adding bolts to existing routes to make them "safer" might ruffle some feathers (indeed, I bet several people's blood pressure just went up), but in the end, the only thing I care about is not hitting the ground.

Now don't go out and buy a new grinding wheel for your Dremel or anything crazy like that. I don't have the time or the money to go a' boltin' any time soon. I'm just trying to show you that things could be worse.

Hmm, maybe Jason will let me borrow his drill...

"Defenders of Stone",

If you believe in any sort of democratic process, you'd be willing to negotiate and hash this stuff out with those that oppose your points of views. I'm not too enthusiastic about seeing the crags pock marked with bolt holes, stubs, JB Weld, Epoxy, and loads of other $hit. Personally I think greasy chalked up holds look allot worse, and are less useful than bolts. Why aren't you cleaning that $hit up and posting signs about it? Might as well cut down the guard rails at the overlook and have the general public tie off to a tree! Your taking what you see as an eye sore (a bolt & hanger, which have a function) and transforming it into another "eyesore" (that has no function)! In what way have you improved the appearance of the rock by leaving a bunch of holes and stubs all over it? I fail to grasp your (seemingly deluded) notion of "Defending" the stone. What exactly are you defending? Your forcing people to anchor off to a bunch of dead and dying trees!!!! What about defending the trees? I've got a bunch of pet rock's that I'm holding hostage in a secret location. Every day that I don't here from you, I'm going to pluck one of their F#@King eyes out!!!!! And then I'm going to rub my greasy chalk balls all over them! And then I'm going to put a Bolt (w/hanger) through their F#CKING heads!!!! Listen to them plea....."Oh please help us "Defenders of Stone"!!!!! I don't want to see a bolt war!!! The people you are dealing with, are probably a bunch of fat rich bloated well financed lab employees that are ready to bolt the hell out of everything and its dead grandmother!!!!! There probably going to drill like a bunch of mechanical porn stars. Lets solve this issue diplomatically!!!

Mark Mathis wrote:Furthermore, I can think of several routes in White Rock that, though I would love to lead them, lack gear placements of any sort at certain critical points where a bolt would be most welcome. Though I do enjoy placing gear, I have no problem with "mixed" routes and I certainly support the idea of not placing bolts right beside obvious gear placements. I understand that adding bolts to existing routes to make them "safer" might ruffle some feathers (indeed, I bet several people's blood pressure just went up), but in the end, the only thing I care about is not hitting the ground. Now don't go out and buy a new grinding wheel for your Dremel or anything crazy like that. I don't have the time or the money to go a' boltin' any time soon. I'm just trying to show you that things could be worse. Hmm, maybe Jason will let me borrow his drill...

Mark,

While I agree with you in that I fully support the placement of fixed anchor stations on routes in White Rock, I am appalled at the idea of placing bolts on routes that you believe “lack gear placements of any sort.” I can think of several routes that may fall into that category: Wisconsin at the Y, Cholla Wall at Overlook, and Sinewave at The Old New Place, just to name a few. Now just because you are unwilling to lead them, does not mean that they “lack gear placements of any sort” and – perhaps more importantly – it also does not mean that there aren’t other, more bold leaders who are willing to lead them – R-rating or not. I would like to think that I fit into that category of climbers willing to go to that edge, and although I have not led any of the aforementioned routes…yet, I would be disgusted and ultimately saddened if somebody were to ruin these routes by turning them into nothing more than glorified sport climbs. Where’s the pride in that? I think that if a person is unwilling to take that risk, then they should either stick to those routes they’re comfortable leading, or stick to top-roping.

I think Leonard Coyne summed it up the best when he said, “It’s not about the ego, it’s not about fuckin numbers, it’s not about who did what to whom, when. You either got the Spirit or you don’t, and if you got the fuckin Spirit you rock…and if you don’t………you’re a sport climber.” (Sorry, had to leave that last bit in for the laugh, even though I love to sport climb—just not on trad routes.)

Furthermore, I’m sure there are routes that, when you first climbed them, you thought to yourself, “No WAY would I ever lead this!” Have you ever led any of those routes? I know I have, and it’s what I call a Proud Send. How would you feel if someday you got up the nerve to lead those routes that used to scare the shit out of you, only to find that somebody had added bolts at the crux sections? I daresay you’d be disappointed that the opportunity had been stolen from you.

So now that this thread has been completely hijacked, it’s time to steer it back on course to address the topic at hand, which is anchor bolts in White Rock, not protection bolts. As I stated in the beginning of my post, I am fully in support of adding fixed anchor stations to the routes in White Rock. Others who posted before me have made some very good arguments in this regard, so all I can say is “ditto.” And to the self-proclaimed “Defender of Stone:” your intentional anonymity on this matter is laughable. If you are the noble purist that your name and actions indicate, then why not sack up and show yourself? Do you have doubts about what you’ve done? If not, then come clean and openly defend your actions – Jason has, so why won’t you?

Since we were invited, I'll chip in my two cents' worth.

I claim that some of the WR canyon climbs do not lend themselves to decent gear anchors. That's why I have a 200' static rope. I have no doubt that it's hard on the sometimes quite distant trees, and somehow I don't think giving them the excess water I carry comes close to making up for it. That also means not sticking to the established trails and so unnecessarily trampling a very fragile surface ecosystem. This is my basis for supporting bolted toprope anchors.

I'll admit that such anchors, when by appearances installed in a competent fashion (and certainly not all are), add an element of convenience by obviating the need to carry static rope and/or a bag of trad gear, but I'm arguing here solely on the environmental impact.

There are several unaddressed issues in the Los Alamos “bolt war”. The communications in the LA Mountaineers forum so far appear to be of the preaching to the choir type, see groups.google.com/group/soc…. Here, in Mountain Project some balance appears. However, a large portion of perspective is needed in this case.

First, the Los Alamos Mountaineers are not the only climbers in the area or in the world, and thus we (LA Mountaineers and other climbers and other users of beautiful nature) should discuss bolting from a larger perspective than that of the choir. Are bolts something unique to LA crags? No. Is the nature and scenery unique? Yes. Would people from far away come here to clip bolts or to enjoy the unique nature? Do bolts make that nature experience greater?

Second, none of LA crags are high enough that top ropes cannot be used. Since when do dead trees motivate bolts? Climbers are able to put cams or nuts in cracks to protect, very safely, their stands, leading rope and top rope anchors. There is an abundance of cracks at all LA cliff tops to put a top rope anchor virtually anywhere. Thus, a climber does not need any bolts to put up a top rope on White Rock cliffs.

Third, and this is an old argument against any defacing of the rock, if we lower the cliff to today’s standards, by bolting, chipping, or other “improvements”, for “safety”, convenience, or any other reason, we destroy the challenges future generations could push on “our” cliffs. Clearly, bolts are here and can be motivated in some cases. The hard thing is to know when that is. That is, as is evident by the “bolt wars”, a difficult decision to make, one that requires perspective and balance.

Fourth, the safety argument for bolts is hollow. Who is to keep the bolts in good shape? After 10 or 20 years, are we to assume the original bolter takes responsibility and goes back and replaces the old ones? Hardly. Then, what is safer, a (old) bolt found on a cliff placed who-knows-how by who-knows-who, or a new piece of modern hardware placed properly by you? I have seen many really crappy old, and some new, bolts in my life. Some I could pull out with my fingers. Others placed near a crack. Some too shallow. Some at bad angles. They are not safe, they just look convenient and relieve you from placing your own, safe, anchors.

Fifth, the LA Mountaineers forum of bolt supporters thinks removing bolts is an egoistic action, and perhaps it is, but isn’t putting a bolt in a cliff because you think you need it even more egoistic? Obviously, the cliff came without bolts to start with. Nature created the cliff boltless. If a bolt now appears in the cliff a human or likeminded group of humans decided to put it in. If another human or likeminded group of humans decide to take it out, then clearly the decision to put it in wasn’t a consensus opinion. Which leads us back to the first issue above; LA Mountaineers are not alone in the climbing world, and I doubt that all LA Mountaineers agree (on any point). Further, who has asked our future generations of climbers? That is impossible. Thus, from a philosophical point of view neither action can be condemned on the basis of egoism. Such an argument can only lead to leave nature as it is. No bolts, no sawing down “dead” trees, no chipping, no rails, just leave it as it is for everyone to enjoy it the same way as it was created. Further, climbers are in fact a minority of nature users. Who has asked the majority how they feel about bolts and other climber impact? We don’t own the cliffs, we share them with many others. Imagine the hunting community decided that there should be hunting towers built everywhere on the cliffs. Would that be altruistic? Or if agreeing birders built blinds everywhere along beautiful places? Has no one else any say in these matters?

Finally, for those who like to cite other cases and history, it is always better to cover both sides. For example, look at the decisions made by the National Park system in Joshua Tree or in Yosemite, their discussions and decisions had much more perspective than what has been seen here so far. Also, landowners generally prefer that their land is left as is rather than turned into trampled, tree cut, eroded, and littered (including bolts and old slings) places that scare away flora and fauna. To enjoy outdoors climbing is to respect nature and your own limitations. If you are not up to that, build your own route indoors with as many bolts you need – it will never be as beautiful or as hard as that route out on that cliff. And that’s what’s at stake here. Think twice. Think out of the box. Think altruistic.

This thread seems to be bringing up some good discussion. I, for one, fully support the intelligent placement of anchor bolts.

Mr. Leitner's post intrigued me. Responses below.

Thomas Leitner wrote:There are several unaddressed issues in the Los Alamos “bolt war”. The communications in the LA Mountaineers forum so far appear to be of the preaching to the choir type, see groups.google.com/group/soc…. Here, in Mountain Project some balance appears. However, a large portion of perspective is needed in this case. First, the Los Alamos Mountaineers are not the only climbers in the area or in the world, and thus we (LA Mountaineers and other climbers and other users of beautiful nature) should discuss bolting from a larger perspective than that of the choir. Are bolts something unique to LA crags? No. Is the nature and scenery unique? Yes. Would people from far away come here to clip bolts or to enjoy the unique nature? Do bolts make that nature experience greater?

Yes, some people do actually come here for the climbing. Granted, I would say that the majority do not. You ask if the bolts make that nature experience greater? Well, does it hurt that nature experience? Properly placed and camouflaged bolts are difficult to see even for "climbers", let alone the "general public". I have taken many visitors on hikes through these canyons and pointed out places that I have climbed. They usually ask how I do it, what equipment is required, etc. NOT ONE of them has ever spotted bolts without me pointing them out to them. Personally, I don't think that bolts take away from the "nature experience".

Thomas Leitner wrote:Second, none of LA crags are high enough that top ropes cannot be used. Since when do dead trees motivate bolts? Climbers are able to put cams or nuts in cracks to protect, very safely, their stands, leading rope and top rope anchors. There is an abundance of cracks at all LA cliff tops to put a top rope anchor virtually anywhere. Thus, a climber does not need any bolts to put up a top rope on White Rock cliffs. Third, and this is an old argument against any defacing of the rock, if we lower the cliff to today’s standards, by bolting, chipping, or other “improvements”, for “safety”, convenience, or any other reason, we destroy the challenges future generations could push on “our” cliffs. Clearly, bolts are here and can be motivated in some cases. The hard thing is to know when that is. That is, as is evident by the “bolt wars”, a difficult decision to make, one that requires perspective and balance.

Yes, you can put a TR on all of the White Rock cliffs. Not all of the routes have good gear placements for anchors at the top. Solutions are either carrying a very long static line or two, don't climb that route, or bolt them, or "push yourself" as you put it. By putting anchor bolts at the top of routes, I don't understand how we are "destroying" the challenge for future generations. If you want more of a challenge, then don't use the bolts. It is as simple as that.

Thomas Leitner wrote:Fourth, the safety argument for bolts is hollow. Who is to keep the bolts in good shape? After 10 or 20 years, are we to assume the original bolter takes responsibility and goes back and replaces the old ones? Hardly. Then, what is safer, a (old) bolt found on a cliff placed who-knows-how by who-knows-who, or a new piece of modern hardware placed properly by you? I have seen many really crappy old, and some new, bolts in my life. Some I could pull out with my fingers. Others placed near a crack. Some too shallow. Some at bad angles. They are not safe, they just look convenient and relieve you from placing your own, safe, anchors.

You bring up a good point here. But, I do know that Jason has worked at some areas replacing hardware. Yes, it is convenient and "relieves" us from placing our own, safe, anchors. But, not everybody can afford to go out and buy a rack to build proper anchors. It was only a year ago that I finally made the decision to start trad climbing. It is no small expense, as all of you are aware. This is another advantage (in my view) of bolted anchors. It allows more people to experience new climbs. I know that some will argue that they shouldn't be on that route if they can't place gear. Some can't place gear simply because they can't afford it. Others will clap and say that they don't want more people on "their" routes. And others will suggest that those "gear-less" people should just go and climb with people who have gear.

Thomas Leitner wrote:Who has asked the majority how they feel about bolts and other climber impact? We don’t own the cliffs, we share them with many others. Imagine the hunting community decided that there should be hunting towers built everywhere on the cliffs. Would that be altruistic? Or if agreeing birders built blinds everywhere along beautiful places? Has no one else any say in these matters? Finally, for those who like to cite other cases and history, it is always better to cover both sides. For example, look at the decisions made by the National Park system in Joshua Tree or in Yosemite, their discussions and decisions had much more perspective than what has been seen here so far. Also, landowners generally prefer that their land is left as is rather than turned into trampled, tree cut, eroded, and littered (including bolts and old slings) places that scare away flora and fauna. To enjoy outdoors climbing is to respect nature and your own limitations. If you are not up to that, build your own route indoors with as many bolts you need – it will never be as beautiful or as hard as that route out on that cliff. And that’s what’s at stake here. Think twice. Think out of the box. Think altruistic.

Again, you bring up some good points, but comparing sets of bolt hangers to hunting towers is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As I stated earlier, NONE of the non-climbing friends that I have taken with me through the canyons have ever spotted bolts without me pointing them out. They are SMALL.

Anyway, enough rambling. Jason, if you need any help with future work in this arena (physical labor or just discussions), let me know. I would be more than willing.

Thomas Leitner wrote:There is an abundance of cracks at all LA cliff tops to put a top rope anchor virtually anywhere.

Can't agree.

Thomas Leitner wrote:Thus, a climber does not need any bolts to put up a top rope on White Rock cliffs.

True for now--given a long enough static rope--for however long the remaining trees last.

Thomas Leitner wrote:I have seen many really crappy old, and some new, bolts in my life.

Yup!

Thomas Leitner wrote:They are not safe, they just look convenient and relieve you from placing your own, safe, anchors.

No need to assume that everyone is an idiot. The crappy new bolts a the Y don't relieve me from placing my own safe anchors, usually with a static rope. I posit that that's the worst of both worlds.

There are really two threads here: one about bolted TR anchors, another about it being done `right'. I believe the intent of the original author is wrt the former.

Thomas Leitner wrote:Such an argument can only lead to leave nature as it is. No bolts, no sawing down “dead” trees, no chipping, no rails, just leave it as it is for everyone to enjoy it the same way as it was created.

Leaving it the way it is also means no trails, no hiking, no horses, etc. It also means no roads, bridges, houses, factories, or farming. Ultimately it means no humans on the planet: even in small numbers with only a stone-age technology those pestiferous, overly-clever creatures will dream up agriculture and clear land. This is the ultimate perspective. "just leave it as it is for everyone to enjoy it the same way as it was created" is more than an oxymoron, it is an impossibility.

So, if we're not going to pursue that to its logical conclusion, then we're in the world of compromise. Allow or disallow hiking? Only on trails? Trails are environmental disasters of their own, but generally regarded as preferable to free-for-all in high-traffic areas, i.e. they are compromises. Climbing? I regard bolted TR anchors to be somewhat analogous to hiking trails--compromises to minimize impact while maximizing access.

Digressing a bit, gear anchors aren't absolutely zero impact on the rock. And, manufacturing that gear certainly isn't zero environmental impact. Roughly speaking, using round numbers, a $1000 trad rack represents 100 times the materials and energy costs of a $10 set of bolts. You can do your own arithmetic scenarios regarding numbers of climbers, climbs, and trad racks.

Kei Davis wrote: Digressing a bit, gear anchors aren't absolutely zero impact on the rock. And, manufacturing that gear certainly isn't zero environmental impact. Roughly speaking, using round numbers, a $1000 trad rack represents 100 times the materials and energy costs of a $10 set of bolts. You can do your own arithmetic scenarios regarding numbers of climbers, climbs, and trad racks.

Hmm, a $10 set of bolts is one bolt ($3-6/ea) and one hanger ($3-6), in other words one bolt anchor. Now, you cannot place that anchor without a drill bit and a hammer (old school) or a cordless hammerdrill (new school), which costs $300-500, plus a drill bit, say $15. And then you need to load that drill with new batteries, not precisely free nor environmentally friendly. A $1000 "trad rack" can be reused over and over again, besides the slings and biners you use to clip into bolts are part of the "trad rack" too (although I don't see how you got them into your $10 bolt set calculation). Each stopper or cam can easily be placed 1000 times, and some of my pieces have probably been used much more than that. Now, mathematically, that brings us to less than $1 per placement. Thus, the $1000 "trad rack" is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly. The main point, however, is that once I've climbed a route, the "trad rack" leaves no trace.

Bob D'Antonio wrote:I started climbing here in the early 70's and see no reason for not having some established fixed, top-roping anchors. The removal of anchors has been going on now for at least 15 years and will not stop until "Mr. Defender' leave the area or get caught in the act and get the shit kicked out of him.

You just know the little chickenshit scopes out the crag for hours, then scurries back to his mom's basement for some more Star Trek re-runs and girlie mags. One thing about Ken Nichols, at least he has the balls to man-up for his actions.

Bob D'Antonio wrote:I started climbing here in the early 70's and see no reason for not having some established fixed, top-roping anchors. The removal of anchors has been going on now for at least 15 years and will not stop until "Mr. Defender' leave the area or get caught in the act and get the shit kicked out of him.

Bob,
George and I have mentioned to each other more than once that we look forward to your comments on this topic - we're glad you joined us!

George Perkins wrote:Why doesn't he chop any of the sport climbs at Below the Old New Place? I'll tell you why. Because D'Antonio put some of them up, and so, if he chops them, he will die. Soon.

That's the Spirit, George!

Thomas Leitner wrote:Thus, the $1000 "trad rack" is both cheaper

That remarkable calculation apparently assumes that the bolt is used by only one person.

Mike Lane wrote:But unless you walk-in from where you live, solo the route naked, avoid any cleaning at all, and do not relieve yourself in any way can you claim "no trace".

Donning the whole-body condom to prevent the smearing of sweat, body oil, blood, etc. on the rock.

This "discussion" is deeply saddening. The values I tried to bring across to this community of balance and perspective, respect of nature and one's own limitations are countered by comments like "...if he chops them, he will die. Soon." and "get the shit kicked out of him", not to mention the unintelligent words of previous messages. It is clear that this group lacks any respect for other opinions as much as they do for nature (and human lives). Mr. Halladay, these are the people who support you. There is no hint of "The Spirit" here.

To clarify/simplify my previous post... I support bolting in White Rock in accordance with the bolting agreement (as was the case with the bolts that were removed). If the agreement is not amenable to all parties, we should have a town hall style meeting to discuss further. Any actions taken outside of this consensus process (in either the placing or the removal of bolts) should be strongly discouraged.

I'd like to extend a sincere "thank you" to everyone that has taken time to post their opinion on this topic here and via the personal messages you have sent to me. The topic of "to bolt or not to bolt" is seemingly always a highly-debated topic that can have ugly consequences for the rock we all appreciate and love to climb. I would like to be very clear on a few points that may have been overlooked by a few people:

1. This discussion is regarding only bolted anchors. The LA Mountaineers Club long-standing and most-adhered-to bolting "policy" is the best agreement we local climbers have and it explicitly states the installation of route protection bolts is prohibited. I believe that all of us climbers can ethically agree on this without issue. Strong climbing ethics are what the climbing community is built on and placing new protection bolts to an already-climbed route or a route with natural protection is terrible ethics.
2. This is not my cause as Thomas implied in his response about "the people who support me". From the comments here and elsewhere (in person, other forums, etc...) this is clearly a cause that many local climbers support. I happen to care enough about this to put the time, money, effort and emotions into it. As I've stated elsewhere, drilling holes in rocks isn't something I do for fun and each time I drill a hole, I question my motives and actions. I know it's not a great thing to do but I hope it serves a greater good.

To me, the major topic here is impact. No matter what we as climbers, or any other type of outdoor enthusiats, do to minimize our impact we leave a trace and alter the area we've used. Climbers trails, fixed nuts, white chalk on dark rock and trampled vegetation are all direct results from our activities. Personally, and apparently many others feel this way too, I believe two small, camouflaged bolts and hangers over the edge of the cliff at the top of a route demonstrate a much smaller impact than the eventual death of the trees at the top of the cliffs.

And Thomas, I apologize to you in advance and I don't want to pick on your opinion because I value your input, but I would like to counter a number of your points because I think these points exemplify the arguments most often made against bolted anchors...

Thomas Leitner wrote: Are bolts something unique to LA crags? No. Is the nature and scenery unique? Yes. Would people from far away come here to clip bolts or to enjoy the unique nature? Do bolts make that nature experience greater?

Yes, the nature and scenery of White Rock Canyon is incredible! Depending on the primary purpose for the visitor's to be there, some would clip bolts and others would simply hike and enjoy the view. I contend that bolted anchors (again, camouflaged and placed over the edge of the cliff) do improve the nature experience indirectly by allowing the trees along the cliff edge to potentially live longer. Also, if a TR setup was in place at the Old New Place as hikers walked by, a 25 foot length of static rope going over the edge would be more visible and unsightly than two quickdraws clipped to bolts over the edge of the cliff. Bolted anchors minimize visual impact.

Thomas Leitner wrote: none of LA crags are high enough that top ropes cannot be used. Since when do dead trees motivate bolts? Climbers are able to put cams or nuts in cracks to protect, very safely, their stands, leading rope and top rope anchors.

Indeed this is true. However, it's been my experience that climbers at these areas choose to tie off from the trees 95% of the time because it's more convenient and many TR climbers don't own a rack or enough gear to safely set a TR using gear alone. Bolted anchors minimize environmental impact.

Thomas Leitner wrote: ...this is an old argument against any defacing of the rock, if we lower the cliff to today’s standards, by bolting, chipping, or other “improvements”, for “safety”, convenience, or any other reason, we destroy the challenges future generations could push on “our” cliffs.

I submit that two camouflaged bolts and hangers atop a climb on a 60' cliff that is 100 yards from someone's back yard and in close proximity to spray-paint-graffiti-defaced rock are the least of the impact worries we currently face. Again, we are discussing anchor bolts here, not protection bolts. I don't believe anchor bolts are robbing future generations from challenging themselves and pushing themselves on the routes. If anything the bolted anchors may actually help motivate the future climbers to push themselves by climbing these routes because the anchors will allow them a safe and convenient way to anchor at the end of the route. I know that personally I led more routes at the ONP in the weeks the bolted anchors were in place than I had led there in the 10 years+ that I've been climbing here.

Thomas Leitner wrote: Who is to keep the bolts in good shape? After 10 or 20 years, are we to assume the original bolter takes responsibility and goes back and replaces the old ones? Hardly. Then, what is safer, a (old) bolt found on a cliff placed who-knows-how by who-knows-who, or a new piece of modern hardware placed properly by you? I have seen many really crappy old, and some new, bolts in my life.

The nice thing in this case and in this relatively small climbing community in general is that we can likely trace who placed what bolts where if we really wanted to. There's a strong and proud history of climbing around here. And we have an awesome climate that really does very little to damage the stainless steel hardware used on our cliffs. The dry and warm climate of White Rock means the stainless steel will last for numerous decades without experiencing the rusting and decaying found in wetter environs. And people do take responsibility for replacing aging hardware. I have personally replaced a number of anchors and bad bolts around here and in the Jemez. The simple fact is, a 3/8" x 3.5" bolt and hanger can be replaced. A 50+ year-old Pinon tree cannot be easily replaced.

Thomas Leitner wrote: ...the LA Mountaineers forum of bolt supporters thinks removing bolts is an egoistic action, and perhaps it is, but isn’t putting a bolt in a cliff because you think you need it even more egoistic? Obviously, the cliff came without bolts to start with. Nature created the cliff boltless. If a bolt now appears in the cliff a human or likeminded group of humans decided to put it in. If another human or likeminded group of humans decide to take it out, then clearly the decision to put it in wasn’t a consensus opinion.

Ah, but as best I can tell, the decision to put the bolts in was a consensus agreement. The removal of a bolt takes just one person even if the local majority consensus is in favor of bolted anchors. From the responses here and elsewhere, the majority rule here is for bolted anchors. To my knowledge there was no solicitation of input or discussion before the bolts were chopped. This is most likely one person who feels his egotistic opinion on the matter trumps all. No matter what we do, we're not going to get 100 percent agreement on this topic--the best we can do is go for majority consensus and hope that the minority is respectful enough of climbing ethics to not remove the bolts.

Thomas Leitner wrote: Such an argument can only lead to leave nature as it is. No bolts, no sawing down “dead” trees, no chipping, no rails, just leave it as it is for everyone to enjoy it the same way as it was created. Further, climbers are in fact a minority of nature users. Who has asked the majority how they feel about bolts and other climber impact? We don’t own the cliffs, we share them with many others. Imagine the hunting community decided that there should be hunting towers built everywhere on the cliffs. Would that be altruistic? Or if agreeing birders built blinds everywhere along beautiful places?

As stated elsewhere on this thread, the simple fact that we are outside enjoying these cliffs dictates that we cannot, no matter what, leave nature as it is. It's our hiking boots disturbing the soil, our chalk leaving glaring spots on the dark rock and our anchor ropes slowly killing the vegetation, including trees, on the cliff tops. If hunters built towers and birders built blinds in the area, that seems to me that they'd be going "backwards" in terms of minimizing impact (both visual and environmental) and there would be some upset folks. Therefore, I presume that won't happen. As for the chopped down dead trees atop the ONP, I have no idea who did that but assume it was the county or other local authority.

I often hear people cite "the future generation" when discussing this topic. I too will cite the future generation...the rock climbing population and the world population in general has grown considerably since these routes were first established. We need to honor history but we also need to look towards the future. These routes will, no doubt, continue to become more popular and see more traffic in the decades to come. If we don't do something now to minimize the impact our actions have on these areas, we jeopardize these areas. Tying off from the trees for anchors worked well in the past and was certainly viable at the time but we have to face that fact that times have changed and modify our behaviors and actions accordingly. I strongly believe bolted anchors are a necessity.

Furthermore, we local climbing communities, serving as the best stewards of our local cliffs, should do other activities such as trail maintenance and clean ups that benefit the climbing areas.

MIKE LANE WROTE:

With all due respect,

You sir, represent one of the scarier trends emerging today, that of the Liberal Fascist.

Blessed with an advanced sense of fairness over all of the unenlightened masses, you have a moral duty to impose the will of you deem is best, for their own damn good.

your delusional view

you need the couch

Liberal Fascism again

lowlife vermin

Liberal Fascists

=====================================================

Please read guideline #1.

If I catch someone chopping a bolt that could possibly lead to disaster for a climber, I'll video document it and file a law suit for attempted manslaughter against the bolt chopper. Those bolts were placed by the climbing community, which this person is not part of. It is possible that this could constitute an act of terrorism and could also be filed under those laws as well. It's just a thought.

Marc Beverly