Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Bolting "ethics"
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 12 of 12.  <<First   <Prev   10  11  12
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
jason malczyk wrote:
I grew up in Southington CT climbing the rocks of Ragged Mountain. I recently went back for a family visit and climbed at both Ragged and Pinnacle and noticed there was more vegetation on top of Ragged now then when I grew up. The real problem I saw was graffiti, trash and broken glass. The trees all seemed just fine. I feel people are just using the trees as an excuse to put their mark of bolting on CT climbing. There are sport climbing crags in CT but they are not every crag. CT is one of the most densely populated areas in the country and not every one going to these crags goes to rock climb. The areas get used a ton by climbers and non climbers. Both effecting vegetation. The bolting issue in CT is about land ownership. Unlike the West the land it CT is owned by mostly private people or the water company. You have to respect the land owners and what they want. CT is lucky it has what it has. If you want to bolt it just buy a crag-I think Pinnacle is for sale


Hi Jason - Do you by chance have any photos from when you were growing up? I recently did a pretty thorough inspection of the top of the cliff and I was unable to located any substantial new growth along the RMF cliff top. Most of the trees were either stunted, dying, or in fair condition. There were pronounced climbers trails from the Metacomet trail leading back to most healthy looking tree along the top as well. Were those trails more pronounced back when you visited?Also interested on your take of "more," do you think there are more grasses, trees, or shrubs from back in the day when you used to visit, and if so in what proportion? I know personally I was unable to located any new substatial growth. It's an interesting point that you are making, that despite increased hiking and climbing traffic, that the area seems more vegetated. I have also been told a fire occurred at the top of the cliff. Do you know if your experience is from before or after this fire? Thanks!

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
jason malczyk wrote:
I feel people are just using the trees as an excuse to put their mark of bolting on CT climbing.


Bolting routes and adding route anchors are two separate issues in CT which, at this point, are considered by most to be separate issues. As your statement above stands, your feelings are wrong. People are asking for anchors based on dying trees and negative impacts on cliff top ecology. Some evidence was even provided of a once popular anchor tree at Chatfield Hollow which is now dead. While some bolting issues in CT may be about ownership, your attempt to simplify or generalize the matter does little benefit to those that live in climb in the state.

FLAG
By Ben Brotelho
From Albany, NY
Dec 17, 2012
Epic free solo with a pack on
"As your statement above stands, you're feelings are wrong"

If you're gonna call someone out, at least show him the respect of proper grammar!

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Ben Brotelho wrote:
"As your statement above stands, you're feelings are wrong" If you're gonna call someone out, at least show him the respect of proper grammar!


Thanks Ben... busy am at work didn't get any coffee. I'm not trying to be mean but yes calling out a very important distinction in how the issue is defined at this point.

FLAG
By wivanoff
Dec 17, 2012
High Exposure
CaptainMo wrote:
I have also been told a fire occurred at the top of the cliff. Do you know if your experience is from before or after this fire? Thanks!


I remember the fire at the top of Ragged. It was quite a few years ago, IIRC. Not sure when, though. It may have been before RMF. Or there was more than one fire. Honestly, though, I don't remember any permanent damage to trees that you might use as anchors. For time reference, I'm pretty sure that the fire I'm thinking of occurred when the hemlock on Hemlock Groove was still alive and there were still two small trees growing out of the lower crack on Cary Corner.

Interesting point, though. Many of the "anchor" trees at the top of Whitestone in Plymouth are now dead because of a fire (unattended campfire) about 3 years ago.

I've personally put out unattended campfires at the top of Whitestone and Pinnacle on several occasions and helped put out an uncontrolled fire at the base of the main cliff at Ragged. In that case, some idiot had a campfire at the top of the cliff and kicked the hot ashes down.

I have no evidence but I do not believe any of these were campfires started by climbers.

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Ya know this has me thinkin... I wonder if there isn't some eager forestry student over at Yale that might be interested in doing an environmental composition survey of the cliff top. It might be a great idea to partner with Yale to get some empirical evidence of what is or isn't ontop of the cliff right now and it's current condition (as defined by an educated person).

I will mention it at the next RMF meeting.

FLAG
By The Coop
Dec 17, 2012
Can anyone tell me why KN placed a bolt 5' off the ground on Creation of the World?

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
The Coop wrote:
Can anyone tell me why KN placed a bolt 5' off the ground on Creation of the World?


Dunno but here is Jim Lawyer's page on the climb... notice the title of the window when you load the page... might be some insight.

jimlawyer.com/Adirondacks/web/...

FLAG
 
By Healyje
Dec 17, 2012
girl40
The conversation here would be a lot simpler if folks would simply drop the pretense top anchors are anything but a proxy for the real topic at hand. The honest truth of the matter is a lot of folks wanted and still want to throw the gates open to drilling and sport climbing.

Assertions to the contrary are specious and less than honest. Get past that and you can have an honest conversation.

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Healyje wrote:
The conversation here would be a lot simpler if folks would simply drop the pretense top anchors are anything but a proxy for the real topic at hand. The honest truth of the matter is a lot of folks wanted and still want to throw the gates open to drilling and sport climbing. Assertions to the contrary are specious and less than honest. Get past that and you can have an honest conversation.


You don't live in state and you've said the same thing over and over and over and over and it still doesn't make it the case. There are areas that people want to place bolts for sport routes and there are areas that people want TR anchors. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it not true. There are examples in the state right now where Trad lines have bolted anchors, there are examples of bolted sport lines, there are even quite a few mixed routes... all stand in opposition to your assertion. Thanks for your comment... you and Jason should chat it up about how you feel a situation thousand or so miles away may or may not be.

FLAG
By Healyje
Dec 17, 2012
girl40
No, I don't live there now, but that doesn't mean I won't be back to climb there again.

Just be honest, it's a complete smoke screen for the real issue at hand.

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Healyje wrote:
No, I don't live there now, but that doesn't mean I won't be back to climb there again. Just be honest, it's a complete smoke screen for the real issue at hand.


Honestly it's not and if I felt it were, I would be man enough to admit it, thanks Healy.

Maybe there are some folks that do but most folks here are being completely honest and dealing with all of the issues not just coating it over with broad generalizations born from deeply rooted personal causes. Over and over and over and over and over and over...

FLAG
By Healyje
Dec 17, 2012
girl40
I'm sure, just as I'm sure the bolts which have gone in recently have all been for top anchors, right?

FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Healyje wrote:
I'm sure, just as I'm sure the bolts which have gone in recently have all been for top anchors, right?


No they're not, but NO ONE is on here claiming they are! Stop making up stuff for you to moan about... no one cares. Land owners (including a State Forest Warden, and a local town) have given permission to some folks to bolt sport routes. That's the facts jack.


Maybe you should go replace some more bolted anchors in your own state - you seem to be fine with them there or did I just misread your comments?

FLAG
By Murdo
Dec 17, 2012
ZOMBIE THREAD!

FLAG
By Healyje
Dec 17, 2012
girl40
CaptainMo wrote:
No they're not, but NO ONE is on here claiming they are! Stop making up stuff for you to moan about... no one cares. Land owners (including a State Forest Warden, and a local town) have given permission to some folks to bolt sport routes.


A local town that wasn't given anything like the whole picture or both sides of the story. That, jack, is the story.

CaptainMo wrote:
Maybe you should go replace some more bolted anchors in your own state - you seem to be fine with them there or did I just misread your comments?


Already replaced the seventy four most used anchor sets, a local tradition. If it were up to me personally I'd have been removing them, not replacing them.

FLAG
 
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Dec 17, 2012
Stoked...
Healyje wrote:
A local town that wasn't given anything like the whole picture or both sides of the story. That, jack, is the story. Already replaced the seventy four most used anchor sets, a local tradition. If it were up to me personally I'd have been removing them, not replacing them.


From my understanding the C3 group asked the town for permission to place bolts and received said permission, what's the other side of the story? Where were you at the time and why were you not involved if you had an issue with their request? Oh right...

Convenient of you to side step the fact that you are making up stuff when you're called on it. You're obviously a divisive person on here more willing to make accusations and inflammatory statements then actually identifying and dealing with the issues like some of us. Thanks for taking the time to enrich our lives. And you should just be honest with yourself Healy about your anchor replacement. Who would spend countless hours replacing gear they thought (as ardently as you do) should be removed from the cliff? Or is that comment just to make me worship your unworldly generosity?

If you come up with some con-struc-tive comments I would be glad to discuss and debate them with you but your current comments are nothing more then inflammatory and imaginative.

FLAG
By Healyje
Dec 17, 2012
girl40
CaptainMo wrote:
And you should just be honest with yourself Healy about your anchor replacement. Who would spend countless hours replacing gear they thought (as ardently as you do) should be removed from the cliff?


I would, it needed to be done. Fifty eight of those anchors were bad with both bolts spinners and several were complete death traps. I replaced them at my own time and expense. My personal opinion as to whether those anchors should or should not be there simply did not enter into it. Ditto the Peregrine closure, my personal opinions are irrelevant to both the policy and the fact I've put in hundreds of hours monitoring the nesting to help establish the opening date each year.

CaptainMo wrote:
From my understanding the C3 group asked the town for permission to place bolts and received said permission, what's the other side of the story? Where were you at the time and why were you not involved if you had an issue with their request? Oh right...


And I needed to be there to know the requestors gave at least a brief rundown on the history of climbing in CT and the ongoing debate about said bolting? The fact you try to portray that request as somehow innocent and see no other side to the story in that incident pretty much says it all. Glad to see nothing has changed. See ya.

FLAG
By Unassigned User
Dec 17, 2012
Healyje wrote:
No, I don't live there now, but that doesn't mean I won't be back to climb there again. Just be honest, it's a complete smoke screen for the real issue at hand.

I haven't smoke screened anything, I will bolt as I see fit. end of story.

if you don't like it you are free to remove the bolts

FLAG
By Unassigned User
Dec 17, 2012
ah this little exchange speaks volumes about Mr. Healy...

By James Markett
May 22, 2012

The first free ascent of this route was done by McGowan and Wright, not by Healy. Healy tried to claim first free ascent many years after the fact saying that he climbed it before the first ascentionists so that he could try to justify his retro bolting of the climb.
By Healyje
May 22, 2012

Excuse me? And who are you? The climb as not been retrobolted - it was rebolted (and you're welcome).

FLAG
By Unassigned User
Dec 17, 2012
"Kenny Allen------------------------------------
I feel it should be noted that joe healy is NOT an official spokesperson for climbing at beacon rock... i do not want to seem defamatory toward him in any way, but he speaks only for himself and frequently acts without consulting any of the regulars who climb at beacon on a daily basis during the busiest climbing months.
-----------------------------------------------"

thank you for moving away from CT please do not come back.

FLAG
By ed esmond
Dec 18, 2012
Have you noticed how Kenny Nichols and his insanity becomes more "admirable" and his apologists more vocal the farther away from Connecticut (and the rest of New England) they are?

A quick look at this and the other recent "bolt ct" thread show it's climbers from far away Oregon, California, and that epi-center of climbing, Wisconsin who continue to think Nichols' approach to climbing is "the way."

Not surprisingly, the climbers from New England, who've dealt with him for years and years and years, see it a little differently...

One of the long distance supporters (who's personal exposure to Nichols was 2 years worth of climbing with him, many decades ago....) wants to make sure that "the whole picture or both sides of the story," is told.

Here's the "whole picture:" Nichols unilaterally decided for everyone in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and anywhere else he could drive to in a day, what climbing should be....

Kenny was definitely a "whole picture" sort of guy... The "whole picture" was "do it my way, or I'll chop." Keep in mind the "chopping" wasn't just removing the offending bolts and returning the rock to it's natural state. In Massachusetts, it almost always involved swinging a heavy hammer and smashing things.

Nichols' "side of the story" is that he didn't give a rat's behind about "the other side of the story."

Some may say "I agree with his philosophy but not his actions." Which is all very nice, except after all these years, his "actions" have become his "philosophy..." It isn't about bolting, but more about "Do it my way or I will punish you...."

From the other side of the country, it may be hard to see that; but, from right next door, it's pretty obvious.

Those of us, who haven't had the luxury of distance from Nichols and his wackiness over the years, are tired of him and his bs. We'd just like to move on...

It's 2012: sport climbing is not a crime. A few bolts on some scrappy cliffs in suburban Connecticut won't be the end of Western Civilization.

Really...

respectfully,

Ed E

ps. A quick question for the guy from Wisconsin, who lead the 5.11x on "tied down hooks:" How'd that go? Was it everything you imagined it would be? Think it will catch on, maybe be the "future of free climbing?" How many times did you tr that route before trying it on hooks?

FLAG
By Unassigned User
Dec 18, 2012
you are 100% spot on with that post Ed.

Thank you

FLAG
By Jim Lawyer
Administrator
Dec 20, 2012
CaptainMo wrote:
Dunno but here is Jim Lawyer's page on the climb... notice the title of the window when you load the page... might be some insight.


I know this is off topic (and refers to a comment on page 12), but I thought I would clarify for CaptianMo regarding the title of the referenced web page -- it is in error. The title ("Shitty Choss Pile from Hell") refers to the route "Weekend Warrior" at the Upper Washbowl (Adirondacks), the upper pitches of which are...well...shitty.

The route "Creation of the World" is quite to the contrary -- stellar. As I understand, one of KN's criteria for placing bolts is that they be placed on lead from natural stances (i.e., not from aid). He did just this on Creation of the World, the natural stance being the ground. Incidentally, this is the only bolt he placed in the Adirondacks. (Doesn't quite make up for the hundreds he chopped.)

FLAG
 


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

Email me.
Page 12 of 12.  <<First   <Prev   10  11  12