Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Bad Decision in RMNP
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 4 of 5.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Sep 26, 2010
Stabby

Jonas D'Andrea wrote:
The Park is special. If you feel the need to put bolts in somewhere it shouldn't be for bullsh*t. Thanks to the people cleaning this up.

For the record I think the route was a bad idea too. What I am after is getting a consensus on where the various offenses rate, instead of emotional blanket responses like "the park is special". We all know its special.
What if these guys find another 40 foot crag deeper in, away from view of the tourists, and bolt another route? What criteria is applied then?


FLAG
By tooTALLtim
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Me on Land of Ra, Cadillac Crag, Eldorado. <br /> <br />Thanks for the picture Craig Muderlak!

Mike Lane wrote:
Kind of a weird side-topic, but who's going to end up with the hangers? Protocol (as long as we refer to unwritten rules) dictates that they be left at the base, at least once the bolts are gone. If not, who's keeping them and why?


They're sitting in my room. Though I have no plans for them, we didn't see fit to give them back to the bolters.

As for the rest of your post, I will refer back to the subject of Local Ethics in Gillett's RMNP High Peaks book:

"Estes Park is a bastion of traditional ethics. However, as in most areas around the U.S., bolted routes have been established at several crags..Prevailing opinion seems to be moving toward an acceptance of these routes provided they are worth climbing in the first place, though there are still those who decry the use of any bolts (especially in the higher peaks). Arguments concerning bolts placed on rappel or on the lead are not pertinent to the bigger picture: the real concern is the permanent addition of a bolt, not the method in which it is installed....Please make an honest assessment of a route's quality before scarring the rock forever. Avoid the temptation to bolt every climbabale span of rock, especially near trails that non-climbers frequent....Take care of our limited resources."

I think that addresses may of your issues, Mike. Also, just for the record, the base vegetation below the route is destroyed, and there were probably an adequate amount of bolts for the route (5). We left the anchor bolts in, so if future parties felt like top-roping the route, they could. Though watch out for loading a biner over an edge, as the anchor is poorly positioned.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Stabby

tooTALLtim wrote:
They're sitting in my room. Though I have no plans for them, we didn't see fit to give them back to the bolters.

Especially since they have clearly chosen to remain silent on the matter, I would certainly agree. Once they left them there, in legal terms they abandoned them anyway. I would suggest that you find an anchor replacement initiative to donate them to. Maybe keep a couple on your rack for emergencies.

tooTALLtim wrote:
.....Arguments concerning bolts placed on rappel or on the lead are not pertinent to the bigger picture: the real concern is the permanent addition of a bolt, not the method in which it is installed....Please make an honest assessment of a route's quality before scarring the rock forever. Avoid the temptation to bolt every climbabale span of rock, especially near trails that non-climbers frequent....Take care of our limited resources."

Which mirrors my personal sentiment exactly. However this is still an open-ended position statement asking only for restraint and discretion. Is merely getting away from the general public the only criteria if they want to do this again elsewhere?
Through MP, a community rose up and took action; my whole point here is to seize the moment now and define some consensus standards for the Park. As a community. I am getting old and understand how critical moments come and pass unrecognized and often without 2nd chances. The posts on this thread are emotional, beyond the daily tripe. I think that if folks post up what bugged them the most, a consensus might emerge that could be defined as the Park's Ethics. To almost all of us they already seem clear; but obviously there are always going to be new generations coming along. A communal judgment was made that the route was offensive, now tell them why.


FLAG
By Rick Blair
From Denver
Sep 27, 2010
This is a novel auto blocking belay device.  I think it works quite well, depending on rope thickness and sheath quality, it belays very smooth.  Great to lower with.  You gotta love over engineering.  $3 at a gear swap!

Mike,

I am repeating a post I made earlier but at some point drilling gratuitous bolts is just like randomly drilling holes around the park, vandalism. I would suggest a hierarchy of:
Safety - bolts are needed for anchors where nothing else will work.
Utility - Clean up unsightly anchors, route is longer than 25 Meters ( can't be toproped ) 50M rope standard is more than fair.
Convenience - difficult to set top rope from the top.

Some kind of specific guide lines would be good. I am trying not to suggest this from the point of view of a climber but just as any user of a Natl Park who would be bothered by unnecessary damage. I would imagine there are similar standards for wanting to add a road or a trail whether they are specifically codified or not.


FLAG
By Tim Pegg
Sep 27, 2010
Me on Hallett Peak's 2nd Buttress.

Rick Blair wrote:
Convenience - difficult to set top rope from the top.


How difficult? As an example, is 3rd class scrambling sufficiently inconvenient to justify bolting a route which would otherwise be top-roped?


FLAG
By Rick Blair
From Denver
Sep 27, 2010
This is a novel auto blocking belay device.  I think it works quite well, depending on rope thickness and sheath quality, it belays very smooth.  Great to lower with.  You gotta love over engineering.  $3 at a gear swap!

Tim Pegg wrote:
How difficult? As an example, is 3rd class scrambling sufficiently inconvenient to justify bolting a route which would otherwise be top-roped?

I don't know, there are always grey areas but at least this is a basis for discussion. If a 3rd class scramble is involved, say with considerable exposure, at least you have a case for argument using the lowest standard, if it is a walk up, you have no argument.


FLAG
By Old and Busted
From Centennial, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Stabby

I would add that somehow the concept of "adventure" should be integral.
RMNP is a true "backcountry" area, which is getting rare in CO. Land managers have a term for locales that see really heavy use as "frontcountry". A perfect example of this would this would be all the dirt bike trails along Rampart Range Road.


FLAG
By Dusty
From Fort Collins
Sep 27, 2010
just teasin' the sharks...

Mike Lane wrote:
* Bolted on rappell vs. ground up?


This cannot possibly still be an issue, it's the 21st century!


FLAG
 
By alpinglow
From city, state
Sep 27, 2010

Heads of CU Alpine Club = couldn't be scripted better.


FLAG
By tom holmquist
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010

Chop the bolts!!!


FLAG
By Will Butler
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010
ice park

I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions.

This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent.

Poor form Tim.


FLAG
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Bocan

slim wrote:
yeah, it was superfresh. also, anybody who thinks that all non-climbers think climbing is cool should read the daily camera's online comments whenever there is a climbing accident.


Point in case...take a look at this awesome human being's comment on the DC after this weekend's death on Longs.

I say climb all you want, but don't expect us to come get your mangled corpse when you fall. Maybe if enough bodies pile up at the bottom, it will break the fall of future climbers and lessen their injuries... and their burden to society.


Read more: Dangerous year on Longs Peak - Boulder Daily Camera www.dailycamera.com/ci_16180062?source=most_viewed#ixzz10kVx>>>
DailyCamera.com


FLAG
By Crag Dweller
From New York, NY
Sep 27, 2010
My navigator keeps me from getting lost

Will Butler wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions. This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent. Poor form Tim.


Are you worried the silent majority will silently protest the chopping of routes they didn't give a rip about?


FLAG
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Bocan

Will Butler wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a silent majority out there who couldn't give a rip about whether or not there's rap bolted sport routes in RMNP. We're not all disciples of Gillet and I fear that an aggressive act such as chopping someone's route (which was in their legal right to put up) could have an unintended repercussions. This could easily escalate into something the Park Service has to deal with if route chopping becomes precedent. Poor form Tim.


So I was thinking about this while getting ready for work this morning (yes, it's true). Although I don't support spray bolting, I'm not 100% sure I agree with other parties removing the bolts w/ out the FA permission, ESPECIALLY if they had approval of the park.

It's just rather odd to me that everyone has such stout ethics when it comes to "their" climbs, but if someone puts up a climb that you don't agree with or don't like then it's chopping time. What is the basis of that? Skill level or the belief that your ethics are superior? It doesn't count as someone's "vision" anymore??

I don't necessarily agree with the route, but what gives us the right to chop a legal route just because we deem it "wrong". That's a rather self serving and judgemental attitude.


FLAG
By John Maurer
Sep 27, 2010
Crested Butte, looking for a landing . . .

Sometimes the void between perspectives and opinions leads to conflict. I've heard of this before in history.

Thanks for your work, Tim. To the first ascensionists: Don't take a strong reaction to this route as a personal attack - though you obviously put in personal time and effort.


FLAG
By Wayne
From Superior, CO
Sep 27, 2010

Scott McMahon wrote:
So I was thinking about this while getting ready for work this morning (yes, it's true). Although I don't support spray bolting, I'm not 100% sure I agree with other parties removing the bolts w/ out the FA permission, ESPECIALLY if they had approval of the park. It's just rather odd to me that everyone has such stout ethics when it comes to "their" climbs, but if someone puts up a climb that you don't agree with or don't like then it's chopping time. What is the basis of that? Skill level or the belief that your ethics are superior? It doesn't count as someone's "vision" anymore?? I don't necessarily agree with the route, but what gives us the right to chop a legal route just because we deem it "wrong". That's a rather self serving and judgemental attitude.


Well said.

And the other downside is it could escalate. Look at cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/704620/Ken_N>>>


FLAG
 
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Bocan

johnL wrote:
So the FA's of this route opened a huge can of worms. The consensus of the community was that the route in fact was inappropriate and should be removed. This really isn't being argued, it's just a simple statement of fact. The problem now lies in precedent and "the line" as in, where do we draw it. The community at large has spoken, a route deemed to be without merit and out of character should be removed regardless of the wishes of the FA. In this isolated case, I wholeheartedly agree that what Tim has done is absolutely called for and in fact would have helped him had I not moved to a salty rock. However, what does this mean for the routes that lie in a greyer area? Does public dislike then allow for the route to be erased? Does a spicy trad lead in a sport area need bolts to satisfy the overall style of a crag? Do the voices of the community, 99% of whom do not do FA's (that's not a bad thing), get to decide the fate of new routes? So where does this put us? BTW, no way does Gillet have disciples. Minions for sure, five of them to be exact.


But what community? The 20 people that have posted on this thread? The thing that makes me pause is that others are calling something "without merit" and stating it has to go. I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge. That't leads up to John's question, where do we draw the line? What if I think your climb sucks...can I chop it?? Would the line stay if Layton Kor put it up instead of some young upstarts from the Alpine Club?

I'm sure it was ugly and probably did not need to be there. I'm just more thinking along the lines of who made us the bosses of climbing? The route's gone now which is probably for the best, but I'm not 100% sure I want a bunch of people on the internet making me decisions for me....unless it's what rack to buy!!!!!!!

BTW Ken Nicols is a perfect example of someone going around and destroying routes based on HIS ethics. How many people on the web will he require to be a "community"??

This may not be the best route to make an example of, but the bigger question bodes looking at.


FLAG
By Crag Dweller
From New York, NY
Sep 27, 2010
My navigator keeps me from getting lost

Scott McMahon wrote:
But what community? The 20 people that have posted on this thread? The thing that makes me pause is that others are calling something "without merit" and stating it has to go. I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge. That't leads up to John's question, where do we draw the line? What if I think your climb sucks...can I chop it?? Would the line stay if Layton Kor put it up instead of some young upstarts from the Alpine Club? I'm sure it was ugly and probably did not need to be there. I'm just more thinking along the lines of who made us the bosses of climbing? The route's gone now which is probably for the best, but I'm not 100% sure I want a bunch of people on the internet making me decisions for me....unless it's what rack to buy!!!!!!! BTW Ken Nicols is a perfect example of someone going around and destroying routes based on HIS ethics. How many people on the web will he require to be a "community"?? This may not be the best route to make an example of, but it needs to be looked at.


I understand what you're saying, Scott, but consider this.

There was essentially no debate as to whether this route should have been put up among the 'community' of 20 (or however many) posters. The comments were virtually 100% against the route and for the removal of the bolts with the exception of posts from 3 people. One was the guy who bolted the route. The other two came from people who'd just created their MP profiles on the day this debate heated up. Interestingly, there were 3 people in the pic of it being bolted. In most good statistical analysis, biased or tainted responses are removed. I'd say posts from those 3 individuals fall under that description.

So, 100% of people polled were against the route. And, a large percentage of those posts were VERY STRONGLY AGAINST it. 20 people may be a small sample of the total community but it's likely that a sentiment held by 100% of the sample community would be held by a strong majority of the larger community.

I'm definitely not going to be given my PhD in statistical analysis based on this post but I think you know what I'm saying. It ain't a perfect way to make community decisions. But, in this case, I think the imperfections were negated by the virtual unanimity of the opinions expressed.

Thanks, Tim, for removing the bolts.


FLAG
By Cor
Sep 27, 2010
black nasty

tim, thanks for the service to the community!

jonhL, you have some really good points to think about...

scott, you also have good points...and about the nicols guy, he (from what i hear) is always stepping over the boundary. he would take anchors, everything, nothing anywhere could stay.
i don't think anyone thinks they are the boss here. it is just thoughts on the matter. it seems like everyone that spoke up has been climbing for a long time (they would understand ethics.)

i think this site is a good spot to discuss these things, even if we get flames... the only other way to discuss this stuff indepth would be at some climbers meeting type thing. that would take a lot of effort to get everyone togather (all the time, since we have so much to debate about!)

oh, and i agree with one other point made earlier, nooooo need to get the park involved!!! they have enough things to worry about, and we need to be a self managed/regulated group.(which works most of the time)

cheers!
cor


FLAG
By jjb3
From Golden, CO
Sep 27, 2010
Devils Tower

Thank you Tim.


FLAG
By Spencer Anderson
From Fort Collins, CO
Sep 27, 2010
game face

Crag Dweller wrote:
I'm definitely not going to be given my PhD in statistical analysis based on this post but I think you know what I'm saying. It ain't a perfect way to make community decisions. But, in this case, I think the imperfections were negated by the virtual unanimity of the opinions expressed.

Scott McMahn wrote:
I'm just not sure who made everyone on this site in charge.


Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert either

I think that it's worth considering, of these how many would disagree with the decision or be indifferent to removing the bolts?
A: Climbers in CO who don't have computer (probably not many)
B: aren't on MP
C: are too intimidated to post.

Also consider that people who post things on the internet, check sites like MP or even get involved, tend to be vocal and passionate. I think that's what accounts for more of the consensus. So the question is, should a internet forum (where strong opinions have already been made) be the place to decide these kinds of things?


FLAG
By John Maurer
Sep 27, 2010
Crested Butte, looking for a landing . . .

Probably not, but the interwebs provided a forum this time to examine and communicate something that betrays the established spirit of the climbing ethic in the Park. Very good points being made - but at some point taking action and avoiding something that could be largely problematic wins the day in lieu of just sitting around talking about it. Huzzah. I only was in Estes for 4 summers but love the area and return there frequently. I am confident this route's removal reflects the area ethic.

I kind of get the feeling that the routes on Chiefshead will retain their character but will soon (5-7 years) have squeezed lines all over around them. I've been climbing for 20 years and aspire to some of these routes - though I have yet to sack up and try them. I bet if there was a "safer" route than what is currently available, I'd be all over it. Does that make it right? I'm sure I'd have a great time but would probably be missing something in the process. Sure, it all is a grey area - but at least this is a forum for people to express their views. It seems most people are being fairly thoughtful in not attacking and keeping it open to ideas. Isn't this some productive form of self-policing? Also, the only reason I type here is to keep my tendons loose for actual climbing.


FLAG
By John Maurer
Sep 27, 2010
Crested Butte, looking for a landing . . .

John Maurer wrote:
I kind of get the feeling that the routes on Chiefshead will retain their character but will soon (5-7 years) have squeezed lines all over around them.


. . . therebye losing their character . . .


FLAG
By Buff Johnson
Sep 27, 2010
smiley face

Scott McMahon wrote:
Point in case...take a look at this awesome human being's comment on the DC ... DailyCamera.com


I was partial to this one:

DC poontards


FLAG
 
By David Rivers
Sep 27, 2010
East Beach bouldering

Fixed Protection

"Fixed protection has become a major point of contention with park managers and powerful wilderness lobbies such as the Audubon society. The very concept of 'climbing management' and resultant closures and restrictions has developed around climbers' use of bolts and other forms of fixed anchors, especially in high-profile areas. ..."

"Knowing that every bolt and piton we place will be counted and documented by some regulatory agency or wildlife organization, it is obvious that some restraint on our part is necessary. As for new free climbs requiring bolts: Only the very best lines should be developed. Contrived and mediocre routes can (should) be left to obscurity or toprope."

"Rock & Ice Climbing Rock Mountain National Park: The High Peaks"
Richard Rossiter

Thanks for removing the bolts.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 4 of 5.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>