BOLTED vs. ORIGINAL ROCK
|
I am writing a paper on the benefits and potential safety problems with bolted routes vs. the oringinal rock. Please Post your comments to help me! What are your thoughts? |
|
You'd have to be quite a bit clearer relative to exactly what you have in mind. |
|
Whitney Taylor wrote:I am writing a paper on the benefits and potential safety problems with bolted routes vs. the oringinal rock. Please Post your comments to help me! What are your thoughts?On the second page of this forum discussion I added some less commonly expressed thoughts: mountainproject.com/v/north… But ultimately this sort of thing will not be decided by a resolution of the facts. These sorts of arguements are: A) Not formulated on facts, but on the weight we give the various points that the facts for either side might support. In other words, people will rarely dispute facts, but rather which ones are of the most value or importance. People generally pick a side they identify with and then make their arguements by weighting the available data or 'facts' to support hteir pre-determined 'moral' cause. That's just how it is. B) Not decided by a majority rule. F.W. Neitzchie put it well: 'The course of history has never been determined by the majority, but by the iron will of an energetic minority.' |
|
Allow me to context this with an analogous metaphor (as you don't seem to know much about the subject. . . my apologies if this is untrue). |
|
Ditto to what Cameron said...Cameron obviously you should be on the rock or the river on a Sunday and not MP...although the true fisherman would never waste his time in CO on a weekend. |
|
A good thing I see is that fixed protection for the anchor position allows the route to be used without as much impact to the soils as would a climber needing to top-out and build a temporary anchor. |
|
The way you phrased that question is kind of hard to understand, but put the word "bolts" in any posting and out come the responses. |
|
|
|
cameron wrote: Barbed hooks will allow one to catch more fish with less skill and effort.Welcome to the fishing forum: I started crimping down all my barbs about five years ago after reading an interesting article about the issue. The article claimed that a barb created a bigger hole in the mouth of the fish, so the hook actually wobbled around and could more easily wobble out, resulting in more "quick releases." It also made the point that the barb required more force to penetrate the flesh, also resulting in more lost fish because they failed to be hooked well. So, I gave it a shot. I noticed an immediate reduction in the numbers of lost fish after hooking. Like night and day. I also noticed no reduction in the abiliy to keep a fish on, even if I actually lost tension on the line briefly. That was a big suprise to me, because I quite naturally believed that if fishing barbless, you'd need to always keep tension. But, what happens is, as the article suggested, the lack of a barb allows the hook to penetrate more deeply, often into the bone of the jaw, and it doesn't wobble because the hole exactly fits the hook diameter, so it holds even better than a barb when there is slack in the line. So, I would say that going barbless is best for both novice and experienced fishermen. There is simply no need to have a barb for normal trout fishing. None of my fishing friends believe me though. It's like the Republican/Democrat debate on that other thread right now. No matter how much I explain it to them, they will never believe it until they actually try it for themselves. |
|
Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: It's like the Republican/Democrat debate on that other thread right now. No matter how much I explain it to them, they will never believe it until they actually try it for themselves.What are you talking about? The effect of barbs is subject to empirical evidence. The elephant/donkey fight is as much about value judgments as provable results. If we watch a hundred bites on barbed and unbarbed hooks, most people will see who wins the argument. But we can live through the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and this decade--whatever it's called--and still be at each other's throats. OK, back to your bolts and barbs. Catch lots of fish! |
|
Mike Lane wrote:The way you phrased that question is kind of hard to understand, but put the word "bolts" in any posting and out come the responses. The safety benefit of bolts is obviously that you have greatly lessened your chances of death. The safety problems of bolts is that they may be installed poorly, be of low quality, or be in unstable rock; and they fail which would probably result in death. As for the original rock, it is impacted for millenia. Probably far longer than petryglyphs. Petryglyphs are generally considered to be of significant religious imporatance to the culture that created them. Religion tends to deal with the issue of death. Therefore, bolts are clearly a spiritual symbol proclaiming man's ascension from the clutches of death itself. Ever since Man crawled forth out of the primordial stew and first stood on 2 legs our salvation has obviously been getting vertical. Bolts are mans way of shaking a fist to the heavens and shouting "I will not be limited to protectable features!!!". Bolt chasing may someday be viewed by future anthropologists as the pinnacle of Industrial Man's triumph over darkness and death; perhaps even the high water mark of Western Civilization itself.Dude....we gotta get you outta the house more often!! |
|
Hey Ryan, |