2014 Update: Blob Rock, Bitty Buttress, and all seasonal raptor closure areas on U.S. Forest Service land will be re-opened August 1, 2014 for climbing.
Each year, Boulder Canyon raptor nesting area closures are in effect starting February 1st through July 31st at Eagle Rock, Security Risk, Blob Rock, and Bitty Buttress. However, the area is monitored and closures are periodically lifted early (due to no active nest, nest site failure, or early fledging). This monitoring program is a partnership with the Forest Service Boulder Ranger District, Boulder Climbing Community, and Audubon Society. Check back periodically during times of closure for updates. More info at www.fs.usda.gov/recmain/arp/recreation.
This information is a public crowdsourcing effort between the Access Fund,
and Mountain Project. You should confirm closures, restrictions, and/or related dates.
Hike up to the Wall of Winter Warmth and start the climb on a ledge right near a pine tree below the wall.
Pitch 1: Angle right and reach a wide crack, place a large Friend and traverse left up into a shallow crack. Follow the crack up to old 1/4" bolt and a new 3/8" bolt.
Pitch 2: Follow shallow crack up to old 1/4" bolt and angle right up steep, shallow cracks into a sentry box. Clip the first of two bolts (placed on lead) up to a shallow right-facing corner. Clip the second bolt and make cool moves up to ledge (watch out for loose block) and belay.
Pitch 3: Climb up to an old bolt and climb straight into a shallow right-facing corner. Great moves up the corner lead to a small overhang. Climb straight up through the overhang and follow shallow cracks with good gear to the top of the wall.
This route takes a direct line up a steep wall between Cop Out and Direct on the Wall Of Winter Warmth in Rossiter's "Boulder Canyon Guide", page 117.
By Ivan Rezucha From: Fort Collins, CO Jan 9, 2005 rating: 5.10c6b20VII20E2 5b
Good route, but it should have been trad. We climbed it without clipping any of the bolts, with the only gear difficulty being in the vicinity of the old bolt in the middle of P2.
P1 has excellent gear near the bolts, except that pulling the ceiling the gear is underneath and a bit left. But the holds are huge, and it would be nearly impossible to fall, besides being only about 5.8. The old bolt at the belay directly above the ceiling may indicate that this obvious pitch (obvious due to the big horn at the lip) may have been climbed before.
The P1 belay gear was 3 micro cams, a 0.5 Camalot, and a medium nut, all excellent. However they are all in a 6" section of crack, so the anchor might seem a bit unnerving given the difficult climbing above. Perhaps one new bolt at this belay would have made sense, especially since it could be justified as replacing the existing 1/4" bolt.
P2 is a a tad spicy and trad (no old or new bolts) until a step right at an old 1/4" bolt. Had I clipped this bolt, I would have much preferred this bolt be replaced rather than placing the 2 new bolts higher up. Hard moves gain a finger crack right of this old bolt and fair-to-good gear gets you to a good stance at the steep right-facing corner. There are 2 new bolts here, both unnecessary. There is excellent gear below the lower bolt, and a good but small brass nut just a little lower than the upper bolt. The crux moves here are perplexing. You could escape left below the roof to a big jug or perhaps escape right. Where did the people that placed that 1/4" bolt go? And how much of this pitch is new, given the existence of that old bolt?
P3 is moderate and somewhat runout until you get to the right-facing flake. You can climb at the old bolt up and left of the belay (gear opportunities), or climb more naturally directly above the belay and then move left. The right-facing corner has excellent gear and is quite moderate with good stances. 5.8 or easy 9. Above the ceiling, though, it's very runout on humps, but maybe only 5.6 or 5.7. It may be possible to climb left or right on easier ground.
The descent gully pretty much sucks. Very loose.
By Ivan Rezucha From: Fort Collins, CO Jan 10, 2005 rating: 5.10c6b20VII20E2 5b
Bob says: "...it was done trad".
Of course, I did it trad. Are you saying you did it first trad and then added the bolts later? And that therefore the bolts are OK? Or what?
And, Bob, what about those old bolts? Didn't you retrobolt an existing (mostly) trad line? Perhaps adding a minor variation. Or not.
By Ivan Rezucha From: Fort Collins, CO Jan 10, 2005 rating: 5.10c6b20VII20E2 5b
OK, Bob. End of discussion. To you "trad" means ground up hauling a Bosch. Interesting definition. My language was imprecise. I should have said, "it should have been done without bolts" rather than "it should have been trad". I will not apologize, since I'm sure you knew what I meant, and are twisting the words as you often do.
By Ken Heiser From: Boulder, CO Jan 11, 2005 rating: 5.10a6a18VI+18E1 5a
This is a fun route.
By Ken Heiser From: Boulder, CO Jan 11, 2005 rating: 5.10a6a18VI+18E1 5a
I still agree with Ivan that this is a bolted trad route.
The new bolts placed on this route are unnecessary and detract from the quality of the climb. Since when has it been acceptable to spray new bolts next to cracks on already established trad lines? I climbed this route without clipping any of the new bolts and felt perfectly safe. I'm surprised those bolts haven't been removed yet. I know those bolts might be an old subject, but I just climbed the route yesterday and was pissed to see such a cool line get "modernized". I think the bolts should go!
D'Antonio-bashing has almost become an art form. Disguising your anti-bolt proliferation philosophy by making a retrobolt argument is pathetic. If you're going to say things like that, you better be willing to stand up and say who, what, when, where, how, etc.
Bob has committed to take the bolts out if you do. So do it ... if you can. If you can't, STFU.
Ken, as stated before, there were NO sport climbing areas in the US in 1978, and bolt proliferation was hardly an issue as well. Ken, your story regarding your background and experience has undermined your credibility to say the least. Fortunately, you can still be a success in the world without credibility on this website.
It's safe to say a lot of us will be tuning your contributions out from here on out. Thanks for playing.
This ethical debate is interesting, but I don't want to get involved. However, it seems that Ken's accidental use of a period instead of a comma in his first post has opened him to wide ridicule for suggesting that sport-climbing existed in 1978. Read the sentence with the comma instead of the period; it makes perfect sense and is nothing to get excited about. Save that for the actual issues.
I think it's silly that there aren't more mixed sport/trad routes in Boulder Canyon. The rock is very fitting for it, with some cracks and some faces. I know there are some crack-routes around that have bolts, with the argument that "it is a sport area, and some people wouldn't know to bring gear" and there are trad routes that are run out because no one wants them to be mixed seems silly. I've been to sport areas where cracks are left alone, and discontinuous routes become "mixed" with some trad pro and some bolts. It seems to work very well, the routes are described as mixed in the guides, and everyone who can't place a nut steers clear. I am not anti bolt or pro bolt, I think there is a grey area we are all missing. Why not have more mixed routes? Also, if the ascentionists (1st, last, 1st in 20 years, etc.) had to clean a bunch of lichen and loose choss, it would be fitting for them to think they were the first. I'm surprised that Ken H. isn't devoting his attention to "Rosy Cruxifiction" or other Eldo routes with bolts. It would seem like a better place to cry about than Boulder Canyon or the S. Platte.
By Ken Heiser From: Boulder, CO Mar 18, 2005 rating: 5.10a6a18VI+18E1 5a
I must confess to a bit of confusion here. Maybe I'm missing something, but from reading Bob D's own description, it sounds as though there was fixed protection already in place on every pitch when he first climbed the route on the alleged first ascent. Bob, or anyone, if your ascent truly was the first, then what would explain the presence of the old bolts? Why wouldn't you just assume that the route had previously been climbed. The bolts don't sounds like rap anchors. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious.
Also, just an FYI, I'm writing from the Boulder Library, so it would be a waste of anyone's time to try to trace my identity.
I too would like to thank Myke and Ben for all their hard work, and for providing me with the opportunity to waste months of my life and ruin a reputation I didn't have.
BobD wrote:"Funny how Ivan can critique and [criticize] these new routes with the luxury of fixed protection in place. Doesn't matter if he use the gear or not, just knowing it is there and available makes it so much easier."
Bob, I'm glad to hear you say that. Kind of deflates the tired old argument that "if you don't like the bolts, don't clip 'em".
In Ivan's defense, at least he's getting out and climbing all these routes before forming an opinion. Umm, much unlike myself. As usual, I really have nothing to add about the actual route in question. Signing off....
By Ivan Rezucha From: Fort Collins, CO Mar 19, 2005 rating: 5.10c6b20VII20E2 5b
Bob said: Funny how Ivan can critique and criticize these new routes with the luxury of fixed protection in place. Doesn't matter if he use the gear or not, just knowing it is there and available makes it so much easier.
That may be true in general, but on Direct Copout the new bolts are in places that are totally unnecessary. P1 is ridiculous. The gear is excellent. P2 the new bolts are at the belay (is Bob suggesting we could quickly clip the new bolt as the belay is failing?), and at the crux where there is excellent gear a few feet below and decent although small gear almost even with the bolts. The only place the gear is the least bit sketchy is at the traverse right past the old bolt and the next move or two up, and, for some reason, Bob and Co. did not place a new bolt here.
By S. Kimball Mar 20, 2005 rating: 5.10b6a+19VII-19E2 5b
To beat this dead horse again...Bob's 1st pitch variation is better than the old obscure way of traversing in from the far right, overbolted or not. Regardless of the bolt placements or who did the 1st free ascent of the sentrybox this is a great pitch. Bobby D's all right with me....
For what it is worth, I would advise Bob D. to believe Ken's account of his climbing. While he was my partner, he was not only always honest about his abilities but of his previous experiences; which were many I guarantee! It's a wonder Ken didn't document the very days (yes, plural) he spent on this route in the past, since like most climbers, he kept quite accurate diaries of his adventures. Overall, a very competent climber at the 5.10 level on traditional routes in the past, he now seems to be doing some harder routes while enjoying the security of some of the newer bolted routes. Also; I will attest to the Platte being a very special place to both Ken and myself and believe Ken when he said he had nothing to do with Bucksnort.
Another go-nowhere thread on a go-nowhere topic. Nobody is going to agree on this folks- haven't we learned that lesson?
For example, let me argue both sides on a couple of issues.
To start, let me argue the route had been done before, and counter some of Bob's points regarding consulting with local authorities, and the condition he perceived the line to be in when he first got on it::
Although Jim, Richard, and others are indeed authorities on local climbing, nobody holds the crystal ball recording every passage of every potential line on every crag. Furthermore, dirt, lichen, loose rock etc. on a line is in no way conclusive evidence that the line is unclimbed- have you ever climbed in the Black Canyon, or even on some of the obscure pitches in Eldo? By the same token, the absence of fixed gear, or even a lack of suitable cracks in which to place removeable gear doesn't mean you are on virgin rock (people were onsight soloing FAs of 5.10 in the '70s, if you recall). Nor does a tired statement like "we cleaned all the protection placements when we did the route" mean much; any competent trad leader on fuzzy rock knows how to clean placements out of dirty cracks. If Bob is saying he cleaned these placements with a more aggressive methodology, I would then accuse him of chipping the route. Indeed, the complete lack of any sign of passage does not indicate the line is virgin.
Now let me argue Bob's point that he did the FA of this route:
If a particular line has never been reported or documented in a guidebook or website, and prolific local climbers are unaware of the route- if indeed there is a complete absence of information in any form regarding it- and if first hand observation leads an experienced (potential) first ascent party to believe the line has not been climbed, long-held climbing protocol legitimizes calling a (potential) ascent the First Ascent.
How about arguing style and bolt placements/locations of a FA?
A first ascent may be approached in any of several styles: ground up with traditional gear, as a rehearsed headpoint, ground-up using bolts, cleaning and placing bolts on rappel, or as a free solo. Each of these approaches is legitimate, but take your pick, it would be easy to find fault (or logic) in any of them.
How about bolt placements regarding this route?
The "modern" approach to establishing bolted climbs often entails following a line that may or may not be as direct, logical, or in any way similar to one chosen by a climber onsighting with a rack of cams and wires. Often, when putting in a bolted line a climber will choose the more direct, cleaner, and often more sustained path. This results in many fine sport climbs that present future climbers with the ingredients- difficulty, deviousness, problem solving, a killer pump- that make sport climbing so appealing and popular.
But what about those pesky trad climbers?
Well, from the strict traditionalist's perspective, the result (of the aforementioned sport-bolted line) may be a less "natural", overbolted, contrived, worthless tripe heap. It may offend their sensibilities, esthetics, or their belief that rock is a limited resource, that style is critical, i.e. the whole argument that climbing is more than gymnastic movement, that it entails risk and calculation, etc., etc.
So, here we have another round robin go-nowhere argument with people getting a little too worked up. I understand Ivan's logical argument. I understand Bob's defense of his route.
In this specific example, a route was climbed in the '70s by someone who did not report it (I would give Ken et al full credit for their statements...innocent until proved guilty, eh?). Then, 25 friggin' years later, a potentially popular sport climb has been established on this small crag in a heavily traveled climbing area. Not everyone will dig this route, but many certainly will.
This route is insignificant, folks. Follow the Middle Path- there will never be agreement between either side of a debate perpetuated by those who hold their personal beliefs infallible, who are unyielding, who believe they are "right".
There are many fine climbs to do in Boulder Canyon- both traditional and sport. If you find some bolted route offensive because you personally can eliminate clips, by all means feel offended, skip the clips and finish the climb. Then walk away.
Likewise, if you find some under-protected traditional climb offensive because, in your view, it is dangerous and foolish, respect someone else's foolishness (i.e. do not retro bolt the line), walk away and find something else to climb.
Fortunately, Boulder Canyon has a rich tradition in both traditional and sport climbing, and there is a ton to climb there. Get out there and climb, and have a safe and fantastic time doing it. Nobody is right here, folks. Apples and oranges.
I really liked the post a while back suggesting the "mixed" rack approach to climbs, and questioning why this did not happen in B. Cyn. If there is gear, don't place a bolt, and record it as a mixed route so people will carry gear on it (several routes on Easter, Bell etc could be done this way). Oh well, who knows....
Hey, this website has turned into a big pile of crap because of discussions like this. It's hard to find any useful knowledge about many routes cause of all of these ethics debates. If anyone does take over this site I pray that they can save it from you nutjobs. Here is an idea, go climbing, come back home rest and reflect and when your fingers have the strength, type up some good info on the routes you did. Let people know the conditions, how the route was, rap stations,,, stuff like that. Do you guys wonder why the site moderator is calling it quits right after he complained about receiving 600 emails from tattletales about jerks. I am glad I don't live on the Front Range with all you pc lunatics who ruin everything that is supposed to be good with your arguments about what is right and wrong within your little climbing community. There are other things out there to ruin too. You people should be politicians not climbers!
I'm not sure what it means. I guess that's why I made the post. I was wondering if he (Vaino) removed the route from his website because he removed the bolts. Just curious what happened....
Regardless of who did the FA of this route, I rather enjoyed it. You recommended the route to me several months ago (maybe a year?) when we met at the Eldo Market while drinking coffee.
By Jeff McLeod Oct 27, 2013 rating: 5.106b20VII-19E2 5b
This is a fun route with the most interesting moves comparable in quality with the route "Left Side" on this same formation. When I climbed it, P1 was protected entirely by good bolts and P2 was protected by newish bolts at the upper crux. I found it exciting that the lower crux traverse section (just one or two steps) has to be protected by small cams and a horrible old bolt.
By Greg Miller From: boulder, co Nov 13, 2013 rating: 5.10a6a18VI+18E1 5a
Seems like there isn't to much constructive info on this page, so what kind of gear do you need for this?
By Ivan Rezucha From: Fort Collins, CO Nov 14, 2013 rating: 5.10c6b20VII20E2 5b
Greg, you can do it all sport or all trad, including the belay anchors trad. There was a big flame war about this when Bob D. first did it. All related comments were removed, I thought, but now I see my comments from that time (maybe only I see them?). Bob D's comments are not there. It's fun either way.
By Greg Miller From: boulder, co Nov 16, 2013 rating: 5.10a6a18VI+18E1 5a
Very fun route! I rope soloed it with only clipping the 2nd bolt on the 2nd pitch. The first pitch is super fun and no need for the bolts, the bolts make it out of character with the rest of the route, but whatever. There are short crux sections with tons of no hands rest and plenty of gear opportunities. A standard rack to a #3 is plenty, but I did find having a set of offset master cams very helpful. Each pitch has different climbing and cool holds (chickenheads, jugs, perfect layback flake, thin face). I approached from the Upper Dream lot, working down to the river, and to the base. It's a short walk back to the car from the top, just watch for private property lines. Do it!