Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
BLM Seeks Public Comment on Rock Climbing Fixed Anchors in Red Rock Wilderness Areas
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Tyson Anderson
From Las Vegas, NV
Oct 5, 2012
Rapping from the top of Cat in the hat
Just saw this. Any ideas as to what it means?

blm.gov/nv/st/en/info/newsroom...

FLAG
By Eric-D
From Las Vegas, nv
Oct 5, 2012
It means they will be accepting comments from the public. It will be important to keep an eye on the schedule to make sure that people will be attending the meetings.

I don't really know much about the current relationship situation. But I would really like to see something similar to what I have read about at other locations. Some type of committee of park officials, climbers and general public that is able to look at individual routes and make determinations about bolting, retro-bolting, bolt removal etc.

There is no way everyone could be kept happy but any kind of openness to planned and responsible bolting would be great.

FLAG
By BLM Red Rock
Oct 5, 2012
Tyson and Eric,
Thanks for posting this announcement. The BLM intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan Amendment to consider new management decision for permanent fixed anchors within BLM portions of La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness areas of RRC. The BLM is accepting comments for 45 days (until November 18, 2012). Currently new fixed anchors are prohibited in La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness areas of RRC under the authority of the Red Rock Canyon Resource Management Plan (RMP).

The BLM will be hosting public workshops to discuss this planning process. See below for details:

The Bureau of Land Management Red Rock/Sloan Field Office will host public scoping workshops on October 20 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Southern Nevada District Office at 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive and October 29 from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. at the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Visitor Center. These workshops will include a 30-minute open house, a 20 minute presentation, and an hour workshop with stations and comment recorders to discuss potential management decision alternatives. A court reporter will also be available to take comments.

The public scoping workshops will focus on new management decisions for permanent fixed anchors used by the climbing, canyoneering, and other recreation communities in the La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness Areas within Red Rock. A planning matrix and timeline will be presented to help stakeholders understand how a resource management plan amendment could change fixed anchor management and how the amendment would fit together with future wilderness plans and a climbing plan. The public will have an opportunity to make formal comments during the workshops. Comments may also be emailed to rrc_fixedanchors@blm.gov or faxed to 702-363-6779 prior to the close of the comment period on November 18, 2012.
If you have any questions please contact Nick Walendziak at 702-515-5358.

FLAG
By smassey
From CO
Oct 5, 2012
If you're not super familiar with the current situation, bolting is prohibited in the Wilderness, which means most of the canyons (not Calico). What Nick is talking about, is that the BLM is considering revising that policy. Scoping means the first round of accepting public comments on whether new bolts are appropriate, and how that process should work. Currently, replacement of old/crappy bolts is permitted, under certain guidelines and hardware standards.
This has been in the works for awhile now, and it would be great for climbers to show up and express their thoughts. If you can't make the meeting, feel free to write some comments. Comments are taken into consideration when planning the next step of this process. If you do comment, make it concise and spell-check it. I have a feeling they're going to have to read quite a few comments...

FLAG
By smassey
From CO
Oct 12, 2012
Access Fund's page

For those who are looking for a few more specifics, here ya go.

FLAG
By kennoyce
From Layton, UT
Oct 12, 2012
Climbing at the Gallery in Red Rocks
smassey wrote:
Access Fund's page For those who are looking for a few more specifics, here ya go.


bump, just sent the access fund letter.

FLAG
By NickinCO
From colorado
Oct 12, 2012
after the hard stuff, into cruiser hands.
kennoyce wrote:
bump, just sent the access fund letter.



me too, took 10 seconds!

FLAG
By Doug Foust
From Henderson, Nevada
Oct 12, 2012
new toy
I'm really not a fan of the wording in the Access Fund letter:

"Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics"

This is throwing the ball back in the BLM's court to "determine through research" whether we need a permit system. It's taken them almost 10 years to address the bolting ban issue, this has the potential to drag on forever if the BLM is the driving force on determining a permit system.

I think we should go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware. Hand drilling a 3/8" X 3" hole should in itself limit the amount of bolts that go in.

FLAG
 
By kennoyce
From Layton, UT
Oct 12, 2012
Climbing at the Gallery in Red Rocks
Doug Foust wrote:
I'm really not a fan of the wording in the Access Fund letter: "Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics" This is throwing the ball back in the BLM's court to "determine through research" whether we need a permit system. It's taken them almost 10 years to address the bolting ban issue, this has the potential to drag on forever if the BLM is the driving force on determining a permit system. I think we should go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware. Hand drilling a 3/8" X 3" hole should in itself limit the amount of bolts that go in.


I think you're reading the letter the wrong way, my understanding is that the letter is saying to go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware, and the sentence that you aren't a fan of is just a caveat saying that if at some future time, the BLM feels that this is not enough, they can then decide to implement a permit system.

FLAG
By Doug Foust
From Henderson, Nevada
Oct 12, 2012
new toy
kennoyce wrote:
I think you're reading the letter the wrong way, my understanding is that the letter is saying to go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware, and the sentence that you aren't a fan of is just a caveat saying that if at some future time, the BLM feels that this is not enough, they can then decide to implement a permit system.


I think you summed up the intent of the letter well, I just think the wording is pretty ambiguous. They specifically say 1 to 1 replacement is allowed without prior approval, they specifically say anchors for descent or emergencies are allowed without prior approval, but then the wording for new bolts on new routes isn't very clear.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I would hate to see this dragging out another 10 years.

FLAG
By kennoyce
From Layton, UT
Oct 12, 2012
Climbing at the Gallery in Red Rocks
Doug Foust wrote:
I think you summed up the intent of the letter well, I just think the wording is pretty ambiguous. They specifically say 1 to 1 replacement is allowed without prior approval, they specifically say anchors for descent or emergencies are allowed without prior approval, but then the wording for new bolts on new routes isn't very clear. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I would hate to see this dragging out another 10 years.


I understand, I too would hate to see it dragging out another 10 years.

FLAG
By smassey
From CO
Oct 12, 2012
An understandable concern. BLM Manual 6340 which addresses this, states that the local management "may" require a permit. This gives them the discretion to do so, so comments on the type of permit system could be included. A permit system such as that found in Eldo or the Flatirons, that basically requires the FA party to preview the line and determine #'s and locations of bolts, would obviously not work in RR, due to so many routes going in ground-up, and FA parties having no idea if they're going to need a bolt.

Or just comment that no permit system is desired or needed. The forgotten idea of "community review" over beers may come back into vogue...

"Through research and monitoring" implies that baseline data is needed prior to implementation. Hence, comments could also include something like, "if through monitoring, it was determined that a permit system is needed to protect the resource, the placement of fixed anchors should be allowed to continue, without any sort of de facto prohibition, until the permit system is implemented". or something like that.

As it stands, an open hand drill policy would be sufficient, but it's worth thinking about all ways this could go, prior to being surprised by what may be in the draft plan.

FLAG
By Thomas Beck
From Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 17, 2012
beck on limestone
Been doing a little research to clarify my ideas on this proposal and came across this 135 page PhD dissertation:

docstoc.com/docs/77508771/Pers...


haven't read it though.

Going through various sources it seems a common government solution is some form of developer registration, evaluation and permit system administered locally...Castle Rock, Idaho...Wichita Mountains, Eldo and so forth.

FLAG
By Laine
From Reno, NV
Oct 17, 2012
Approach to Washington Column
Thomas Beck wrote:
Been doing a little research to clarify my ideas on this proposal and came across this 135 page PhD dissertation: docstoc.com/docs/77508771/Pers... haven't read it though.


Here is a free link to the full document Thomas describes as a pdf.

FLAG
By Laine
From Reno, NV
Oct 17, 2012
Approach to Washington Column
I think in order to determine the relationship between the impact of bolting in the wilderness and the amount and types of users in the wilderness and the overall ecological impacts associated, the Agency really needs to understand the overall social value for fixed protection and the trade-offs different regulations have to both user's benefits and ecologic change.

A choice experiment, i.e. conjoint analysis, might be a good way to determine the dollar value associated with various attributes of these "goods". Along with these measures of willingness to pay, probabilities on ecologic change given changes in wilderness use (if these probs exist) could prove useful to determining expected net social benefits of bolting/non-bolting/limited bolting which would be instrumental for policy decision about bolting regulations.

To me this problem really has many similarities to the issues the feds face with rising wildfire cost and success and cost of various pre-fire treatments and the goals of ecologically based management.

FLAG
By Thomas Beck
From Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 17, 2012
beck on limestone
The Access Fund is advocating for a wilderness fixed anchor policy that incorporates these concepts:

Climbing is a historic and appropriate use of wilderness
Some level of fixed anchor use is necessary to climb safely
Generally bolt intensive “sport” climbs are inappropriate in wilderness
Climbers care for the places they climb and value wilderness climbing experiences
Less restrictive policies are best and can be increased as needed

Access Fund Guidelines

Allows only hand drilling
Allows replacement of old bolts 1:1 without prior approval
Allows placement of new bolts without prior approval only in an un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors, and for safety in descending and emergencies
Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics

My comments

While Red Rocks and the La Madre is classified “wilderness” it is hardly a “wilderness experience” when planes and helicopters carrying tourists fly over your positions at low elevations. It is hardly a wilderness experience when the development of Summerlin and even downtown Las Vegas is in plain view. It is hardly a wilderness experience when the trail head parking lot is full to capacity at 8:30AM. It is hardly a wilderness experience when you are hanging at a station, viewing a dog fight on the approach trail and hearing the motorcycle cafe racers run the one way loop at high speed. Nevertheless being back in the canyons of Red Rocks can feel serious and be serious if trouble occurs.

It seems that some unique solution is called for if we are going to have written rules about bolting.

Bolt counting, guidebook reading and forum lurking has been tried in the past. How really effective has it been? It all sets a deadly self generating adversarial role between users and administrators. Due to the size of the climbing area, strict policing of a bolting policy by Park Rangers would be costly, self defeating and ineffective, not to mention the need for special climbing training for rangers. Utilizing a third party group to police ( via call in a tip techniques) could lead to costly administrative duties.


Perhaps we should acknowledge the “elephant in the room” and talk about power installations. Given that Red Rock sandstone is somewhat soft and prone to rock fracturing around the drilled hole (most anyone who has climbed in a trade route in Calico Hills has encountered loose bolts), my opinion is a a more uniform power drilled placement lasts longer. I admit I have absolutely no basis, except anecdotal, for this opinion. There is a tendency when drilling by hand to craft an elliptical hole. Corrosion and electrolysis is the issue when drilling in limestone and some education to not mix metals helps. In the theater of the absurd, you can power drill to your heart's content in the Calico Hills but not four miles away in official "Wilderness". Face it though, the BLM is not going to contravene the Wilderness Act and condone power placements. Let's just not talk about it any more. Nobody does it and it never happened.

Then it seems the technology of anchors is currently undergoing some improvements in technology. It might be wise to allow under any rulemaking that those improvements be incorporated

Now let's look at average developer costs to place a 3/8” stainless steel anchor.
Stainless Steel hanger $1.80
Stainless Steel 3/8” x 3.5 ” bolt $5.00
3/8” Stainless steel chain anchor $23.50
drill bit $8.75
A 1/2” diameter set is more expensive. A 12mm stainless glue in bolt is $9.60

Not every climber can or wants to afford these out of pocket costs. Some climbers will use the slightly less costly plain steel hardware. Assuming an 95 ft. sport route and bolts averaging every 11 ft...that is 7 lead bolts and an anchor set...Approximately $95. Not including a cordless power drill, hammer, brush, blow tube, spare drill bit, chisel, very patient belayer, loose rock...etc. Then you pack that back somewhere into a canyon...


Who is going to spend that and endure the carry without strong motivation? Isn't this process, even with power tools self limiting?

Who will be the first willing to come forward to be evaluated by a ranger who possibly knows nothing about route development or bolting technology and get their permission card?

Are we discussing some new rule-making over a trivial bolting issue which is largely irrelevant given the conditions currently existing at Red Rocks and the La Madre areas?

Just some thoughts …..Please feel free to tear into this but no hate mail OK?

FLAG
 
By tom donnelly
Oct 18, 2012
Whether or not climbers agree on these being "real" wilderness is not the issue. It is legally defined as wilderness. And I don't think most climbers want every canyon to be impacted like the Gallery.

I agree it's too vague for the AF to suggest, "Allows placement of new bolts without prior approval only in an un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors, and for safety in descending and emergencies."
Maybe that is intentionally vague to allow for more discussion & collaboration.
Different climbers will interpret this very differently. Does every route need a rap descent? If we wanted to be clear, a good way would be to start a list of existing routes that would be considered acceptable under the new policy, and a list of existing routes that would be undesirable.

The real impact of new routes, bolts, and anchors is in the number of additional climbers visiting each canyon. Even gear routes attract additional climbers, especially with so much better beta and descent info available these days. Climber levels have continued to increase despite the existing bolt restrictions. So my opinion is that we should loosen up the rules only a little, not enough to cause a lot of new routes, anchors, climbers, loss of wilderness experience, and impacts.

FLAG
By John Wilder
From Las Vegas, NV
Oct 18, 2012
tom donnelly wrote:
, "Allows placement of new bolts without prior approval only in an un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors, and for safety in descending and emergencies." Maybe that is intentionally vague to allow for more discussion & collaboration.


It should be noted that the Access Fund's position on this has evolved directly from 7 or so years of dealing with trying to get bolting permitted via the Wilderness Planning process. There is good reason for every single point they are making to be sure.

FLAG
By Rudeboy
From North Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 18, 2012
Paiute wall scout mission, red rock nevada. March ...
Allowing bolting to be legal will only increase the amount of unnecessary bolting. Simple as that. If you tell climbers they can place bolts they will. Routes with bolts have been goin up "underground" for years now. What do you sopose will happen when its legal? Less bolting with more "experienced" placements? Get real.

There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.Its your choice to participate. If your convinced that the public and government/state need to cater to your need to be 100% safe from injury or death, your a confused individual and need to get a hobby that offers more safety.

Bolts have their place in climbing but their existance has seemed to ruin the spirit of the sport. At the most a permit process with a hand drill only policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.

Take sesame street area at mount charleston for example. Sport routes,*cough* I mean bolt ladders that are completely unnecessary, especially at the ratings. You could remove half the bolts on those routes and they might become a legit beginner area. As it is now a paraplegic could yard those bolts french free style. Bolting needs restrictions to help keep people from over bolting. Your safety is YOUR concern, stay off the mountains if you cant handle the height.

FLAG
By Rudeboy
From North Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 18, 2012
Paiute wall scout mission, red rock nevada. March ...
Just for the record and contrarily to my previous comment, I am for it becomming legal. I believe these concepts should be considered and bolting should be under scrutiny. Bold ethics are a must and catering to non serious climbers creates the controversy in the first place. The climbing experience as a whole should not be compromised because some individuals lack climbing skill and strict bold ethics.

FLAG
By Austin Baird
From SLC, Utah
Oct 18, 2012
Me scaring years off my mom's life
Rudeboy wrote:
There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.


Although I agree with other points of your post, climbing isn't an "extreme sport" for most people. Alex Honnold? Dean Potter? Sure, that's "extreme"...but what 98% of us do is most definitely not. I'm comfortable with the prospect of getting hurt while climbing and I enjoy pushing myself on routes with "no fall zones". That being said, I'm a person first and a climber second and I'm not looking to climb to fulfill some deep need for badassery and adrenaline.

FLAG
By Rudeboy
From North Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 18, 2012
Paiute wall scout mission, red rock nevada. March ...
Dont anybody let the "extreme sport" thing go to your head, or anything I say for that matter. It simply implies a category of sports such as: bmx, motocross, snowboarding ect. Sports where YOU assume the responsibility for your safety. Not that its crazy. Any reference to free soloing strengthens my points I would think.

FLAG
By Weston L
From Summerlin, NV
Oct 18, 2012
Me at the good rest on Doggie Do
Rudeboy wrote:
Allowing bolting to be legal will only increase the amount of unnecessary bolting. Simple as that. If you tell climbers they can place bolts they will. Routes with bolts have been goin up "underground" for years now. What do you sopose will happen when its legal? Less bolting with more "experienced" placements? Get real.


Will it really? Unnecessary as deemed by who? Have you ever been to Tuolumne Meadows? Bolting is legal there. I suppose that areas will have to, God forbid, form their own ethics and self-police.


Rudeboy wrote:
There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.Its your choice to participate. If your convinced that the public and government/state need to cater to your need to be 100% safe from injury or death, your a confused individual and need to get a hobby that offers more safety.


Climbing is not an "extreme" sport. Perpetuating this notion does not work in our best interest. Your logic is fatally flawed in a multitude of respects, however, chief among these is your misconception about the role of government in the matter. The simple fact of the matter is that if placing fixed anchors were to occur legally (and with the exception of the continued ban of power drills in federally designated Wilderness Areas), that does not necessarily indicate that a potential FA party would bolt everywhere. Black Velvet canyon and the clashes that occurred over the years, and even some of the route names are a testament to the differences in climbing ethics that have been at odds, and cooperating, for decades. The FA of a route determines the experience that the individuals who will come up the route in the future will experience. Routes like Rock Warrior are a testament to this in your own back yard. Routes like the Bachar-Yerian are international test pieces that allow people to not do "bolt ladders" yet still utilize bolts for protection in areas that otherwise are not protectable. Essentially, what I am saying is that climbers can self-regulate and that in the event of a lift of the fixed anchor ban, I don't think bolts would pop up every five feet everywhere. The crags near Tahoe are a wonderful example of this.

Also, the BLM is a federal entity. the state of Nevada has nothing to do with this.

Rudeboy wrote:
Bolts have their place in climbing but their existance has seemed to ruin the spirit of the sport. At the most a permit process with a hand drill only policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.


The existence of bolts has ruined the spirit of the sport? Please explain. Have you climbed any runout testpieces before? Climb You Asked For It, Bachar-Yerian, Dike Route, etc. and see if your opinion on bolts has changed. Even if it doesn't, your personal opinion on climbing is just that - and the role of government shouldn't be such that they dictate HOW we climb. Now I am a proponent of having solid relationships with Land Managers, that is to say that we should keep a low profile, minimize all impacts as climbers - including visual (camouflage your damn bolts), but to say that bolt spacing should be determined by the government? Get real, dude. I do agree, however, that hand drilling in Wilderness is not only the only way to go - it is the law.


Rudeboy wrote:
Bolting needs restrictions to help keep people from over bolting. Your safety is YOUR concern, stay off the mountains if you cant handle the height.


Is that so? Who is to determine what over, or under, bolting is? The mountains aren't our individual playgrounds to blanket with our individual ethic and force everyone else to it. The routes established by the FA parties are put up sometimes to make a statement (B-Y, You Asked For It, etc) and others are put up for the enjoyment of generations of climbers to come (PoD, DoWT, etc). I'm going to drop the trite statement that climbing is inherently dangerous, but your glorification of the danger of it certainly seems to indicate that you are more concerned with your own chest-beating of boldness as opposed to the enjoyment for the greater good and self-expression of an FA team.

Rudeboy wrote:
Just for the record and contrarily to my previous comment, I am for it becomming legal. I believe these concepts should be considered and bolting should be under scrutiny. Bold ethics are a must and catering to non serious climbers creates the controversy in the first place. The climbing experience as a whole should not be compromised because some individuals lack climbing skill and strict bold ethics.


I am glad to see that you are contradicting yourself, admittedly, and that you feel that bolting should be legal and bolting policy should be under scrutiny. However, ethics are ethics - they are individualized. Please do me a favor and do some research on ethics, societal norms, and then re-visit how other climbing areas handle their own ethical issues. This should give you some perspective. Judging by your rhetoric you see yourself as a torch-bearer of "strict" ethics. Your definition of strict ethics may not be those of the sport climbers at the Gallery, nor of those who are quietly putting up routes in the backcountry. Let those putting up FA's, and who have put up the FA's, determine how they want to bolt (of course with the exception of power drilling in Wilderness, which isn't cool). Some modern folks have even wandered into 'new' territory of their own at Red Rock and elsewhere thinking that they had an FA, simply because someone was judicious and opted not to put in a bolt .

FLAG
By Thomas Beck
From Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 18, 2012
beck on limestone
tom donnelly wrote:
Whether or not climbers agree on these being "real" wilderness is not the issue. It is legally defined as wilderness.


In response, merely pointing out this area is not like traveling to a remote climbing destination or even something like The Diamond in Colorado. On the other hand it is not like climbing in Eldo which has bolting guidelines and a permit system. Incidentally the proposed bolting guidelines in Joshua Tree have not to date been implemented and bolting remains illegal.

I spent some time yesterday reading up on the issue. The Department of the Interior itself is conflicted in interpretation of the Wilderness Act guidelines and finds itself constrained by a law passed in 1964 (wilderness Act) to protect areas against encroachment by mining, cattle, timber interests. The language of the law itself was huge compromise taking several years to implement.

The Department of the Interior and their agencies has and continues to undertake installations in or at the borders of "wilderness" to promote and shape visitor use on a region by region basis in addition to a policy of habitat modification to increase visitor interest. Red Rocks comes under some additional guidelines because it is classified as a conservation area.

Seems the current "big concern" here is visitor use and biodiversity impact. And what we as climbers face is opposition by wilderness conservation groups like Sierra Club, Wilderness Watch, Friends of Red Rocks. Make no mistake; their agenda is to see Red Rocks, La Madre and Charleston closed to climbing. A concerted effort by these groups, to restrict climbing has been going on since 1998.

If you have been climbing around here for any length of time you will have noted the increase in climber numbers. Think about getting on a trade route on the weekend in the fall or the Red Rock Rendezvous.

One way to chisel at the issue and further their agenda is for them to get passed regulations allowing no new or replacement bolting and getting bolts classified as "installations". Once the fixed pro degrades to the point climbers would consider it unsafe then fewer and fewer climbers will go out into the wilderness to do the routes. This is already happening in parts of the US. see:

supertopo.com/climbing/thread....

The Access Fund counters that bolts are a necessary piece of climbing equipment for enjoying a wilderness experience; as endorsed by the Wilderness Act.

Somewhere in the middle, the BLM realizes the enormity and daunting aspect of policing bolting at Red Rocks, La Madre and Mt. Charleston areas; just as the NPS realized it was impractical to try to administer bolting in Joshua Tree with over 5000 documented routes, not to mention an estimated 35% undocumented routes.

tom donnelly wrote:
The real impact of new routes, bolts, and anchors is in the number of additional climbers visiting each canyon. Even gear routes attract additional climbers, especially with so much better beta and descent info available these days. Climber levels have continued to increase despite the existing bolt restrictions. So my opinion is that we should loosen up the rules only a little, not enough to cause a lot of new routes, anchors, climbers, loss of wilderness experience, and impacts.


Changing the subject slightly;

what climber surveys in various parts of the country have found generally, is climbers go to destinations that:

are at or below their on-sight climbing ability

fit their risk quotient, with more experienced climbers generally preferring more risk and more remoteness

have some appealing aesthetic about the route or location

have the shortest possible approach taking all these prior factors into consideration

About 30% of the motivated climbing population climbs between 5.7 and 5.9

About 30% climbs between 5.9+ to 5.11

In the surveys, fixed protection or lack of fixed protection is a low ranked consideration.

______________________________________________________________________

I'm not going to say that moderate bolted sport routes do not influence where climbers congregate. It's obvious they do. But also consider if the Gallery or the Panty Wall was an hour and 35 minute approach with some 3rd class scrambling...how often would they get visited?

Maybe not as much...?

Now consider where the Wilderness boundary caronsite markers are on the various approach trails into the canyons. How many suitable cliffs are nearby those boundaries which could be new sites for grid bolted sport routes or over-bolted routes or any version of sport climbing?

Maybe Icebox Canyon or up behind Ragged Edges or in Lost Creek. Now think about the approach and weather exposure in contrast to cruising up to the Panty Wall, Stone Wall, Gallery or Black Corridor.

What would motivate you to do the approach to one of those areas inside the wilderness? Some "killer line" or maybe you're tired of queuing up at the Panty Wall or the feces at the Black Corridor. See how this is shaping up?

Not advocating anything...just saying and trying to get you to examine the motivations and think...

FLAG
 
By Rudeboy
From North Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 18, 2012
Paiute wall scout mission, red rock nevada. March ...
Weston L wrote:
Your logic is fatally flawed in a multitude of respects, however, chief among these is your misconception about the role of government in the matter. .


Weston L wrote:
Also, the BLM is a federal entity. the state of Nevada has nothing to do with this..


Federal entity sounds like gov to me.

Weston L wrote:
The existence of bolts has ruined the spirit of the sport? Please explain. Have you climbed any runout testpieces before? Climb You Asked For It, Bachar-Yerian, Dike Route, etc. and see if your opinion on bolts has changed.


Easy, bolts created a saying in climbing, it goes something like "bomber". This prospect allowed would be wussies to do something they would not do without said bolts. Thus ruining the "hardman" spirit of climbing. Obviously this statement negades usage of runout bolts. Again IMO, dont let it go to your head.

Also I do dabble in free solo, at a grades I can handle. So yeah not gonna change my mind on the runout thing, I simply wont put my self on a route I cant handle. Which ties into the overbolting.....

Weston L wrote:
but to say that bolt spacing should be determined by the government? Get real, dude.


I didnt say that the government should decide. I said there should be a requirement. That could be determined by whoever your heart desires. Such as no less than 8' on protection bolts other than anchors. Including ladders which could eaisly be spread.

Weston L wrote:
Who is to determine what over, or under, bolting is? The mountains aren't our individual playgrounds to blanket with our individual ethic and force everyone else to it.


No such thing as under bolting smart guy. Overbolting is easily done, and everybody knows the hang dog crap im talkin about. Dont play dumb. Your the only one to try and force anything I merely suggest.

If the mountains arent our individual playgrounds then how does an FA team have ownership of a route or how its bolted? Smart guy. See your next quotes.

Weston L wrote:
I am glad to see that you are contradicting yourself, admittedly, and that you feel that bolting should be legal and bolting policy should be under scrutiny.


I never contradicted myself once my dude. I came off as anti bolt and wanted to clarify that I am pro bolt where no other piece of gear is available. Mater of fact you contradict pretty routine.

Weston L wrote:
However, ethics are ethics - they are individualized. Please do me a favor and do some research on ethics, societal norms, and then re-visit how other climbing areas handle their own ethical issues. This should give you some perspective. Judging by your rhetoric you see yourself as a torch-bearer of "strict" ethics. Your definition of strict ethics may not be those of the sport climbers at the Gallery, nor of those who are quietly putting up routes in the backcountry. Let those putting up FA's, and who have put up the FA's, determine how they want to bolt (of course with the exception of power drilling in Wilderness, which isn't cool). Some modern folks have even wandered into 'new' territory of their own at Red Rock and elsewhere thinking that they had an FA, simply because someone was judicious and opted not to put in a bolt .


Sounds like your gettin to buthurt from all this relax. My ultimate message is not to allow free reign with bolting. Other people that dont climb use these places aswell consider the rest of the world you selfish goober. "FA parties should determine How they want to bolt"? So your saying they take ownership of the route then? But "the mountains arent our individual playgrounds"? totally contradict yourself. Talk about forcing ethics. I just want people to consider my perspective before they make it legal. Ultimately the rock will crumble and Ill be dead by then so dont confuse.

FLAG
By Weston L
From Summerlin, NV
Oct 18, 2012
Me at the good rest on Doggie Do
Hmmm...


"Easy, bolts created a saying in climbing, it goes something like "bomber". This prospect allowed would be wussies to do something they would not do without said bolts. Thus ruining the "hardman" spirit of climbing. Obviously this statement negades usage of runout bolts. Again IMO, dont let it go to your head.
Also I do dabble in free solo, at a grades I can handle. So yeah not gonna change my mind on the runout thing, I simply wont put my self on a route I cant handle. Which ties into the overbolting....." - Rudeboy

Please give me a valid source that bolts created the term bomber? I see no correlation. Runouts are fine, but enabling the government or anyone else to force them upon people isn't cool. That is fine you aren't willing to put yourself on routes you can't handle, I don't know many people who do that to begin with. Pushing one's limits in a safe manner vs. climbing something you are confident at the grade of. Lots of people learn this lesson in Tuolumne Meadows or anywhere else that there are large runouts. Pushing yourself on your technical threshold vs. pushing your psychological threshold. That is a differentiation most can make for themselves.

Congrats that you dabble in free soloing, be careful on that sandstone as I am sure you know the holds can be a bit friable. How does that tie into over-bolting? You could just make a statement and do what Bachar did and solo all of the "over-bolted," or in JB's case, rap bolted routes to make a statement.
John Bachar wrote:
You've got rap bolts, I've got rap music

source

Rudeboy wrote:
I didnt say that the government should decide. I said there should be a requirement. That could be determined by whoever your heart desires. Such as no less than 8' on protection bolts other than anchors. Including ladders which could eaisly be spread.


Really?

Rudeboy wrote:
policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.


Policy, particularly when being used in a thread referring to the policy that a government entity is going to enact regarding fixed anchors in wilderness in an area all of us hold dear, usually is in reference to GOVERNMENT policy. Due to poor writing it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say at times, however, it was pretty clear you were inferring if not outright stating that the government should regulate bolt distances. Whether it is the government, the LVCLC, AF, etc. nobody should regulate the distances between bolts. Again, these FA's are someone expressing their vision for the route and for the rock - something anybody with a basic understanding of climbing history would be opposed to government or others intervening in (unless illegal), but you knew that already.

Further, how do you propose one work through a blank section? What about the classic 5.10+ A0 routes out there where a bolt ladder allows passage through blank sections? Do you see where your logic is crumbling as you say the rock will?

Rudeboy wrote:
No such thing as under bolting smart guy. Overbolting is easily done, and everybody knows the hang dog crap im talkin about. Dont play dumb. Your the only one to try and force anything I merely suggest.


Rudeboy wrote:
If the mountains arent our individual playgrounds then how does an FA team have ownership of a route or how its bolted? Smart guy. See your next quotes.


Sure, in the eye of the FA there is no such thing - fine. Overbolting can happen, but the FA put the route up - you don't have to clip the bolts, do ya Mr. Billy Bad Ass free soloist? The mountains are our individual playgrounds in a collective sense - that is to say that through consensus norms are established which we individually contribute to, and others establish routes for individuals enjoyment. Great groups like the ASCA and LVCLC replace bolts as becomes necessary and things get done both individually and collectively.

Rudeboy wrote:
Sounds like your gettin to buthurt from all this relax. My ultimate message is not to allow free reign with bolting. Other people that dont climb use these places aswell consider the rest of the world you selfish goober. "FA parties should determine How they want to bolt"? So your saying they take ownership of the route then? But "the mountains arent our individual playgrounds"? totally contradict yourself. Talk about forcing ethics. I just want people to consider my perspective before they make it legal. Ultimately the rock will crumble and Ill be dead by then so dont confuse.


I take the issue of fixed anchors very seriously - taking away that kind of thing can be the start of a slippery slope to losing climbing access to the area and not seeing areas get developed to what they could be. What relevance does this pose to non-climbers? I already covered the minimizing of impact and being a good steward of the land, perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills as well as your writing skills. Not really that contradictory, if I wanted to chip holds or glue holds on the Black Velvet Wall - I shouldn't and can't (illegal + not ethical), since it isn't my own personal playground by virtue of these ethics and laws. However, the addition of bolts when permitted legally creates something that is accepted by the local ethics and fits with the societal norm in this area. I know, it requires a bit of thought, but perhaps sit down with a cold one and pontificate that. It might ease that dull pain you are feeling stemming from your head.

FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>