The tasteful and intelligent use of bolted fixed anchors preserves cliff top vegetation. That is my firm belief. You think people would be intelligent enough to rationalize that the more time you spend on the rock the less time fragile vegetation is getting killed when you are running back a 100' to set lines, etc.

Education and teaching this viewpoint is important to me. It is part of my job today as a guide. I teach this lesson as much as I can.

If people only looked at areas like the White Mountain National Forest and Acadia National Park where vegetation had to be killed in order for us climbers to learn this lesson.

Our numbers as climbers are growing. It is time for us to make intelligent choices on our land use. Innovation and change are good things when viewed from the appropriate perspective.

So here is the lesson.

There is no such thing as traditional climbing or sport climbing...there is only climbing. We are all the same and we are all doing the same thing. We all impact the environment. I swear that some "traditional" areas impact the environment more than some sport cliffs because they use "natural" anchors such as trees. It is backward thinking.

Stay on the rocks, lead as much as possible.

Photos from Acadia National Park that demonstrate my point.

Cliff top soil is fragile. Don't walk on it whenever possible. A sign at the top of Otter Cliff.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/shyloski/IMG_1008.jpg

If we use trees as climbing anchors it impedes there natural growth and development. In most cases it kills them as seen here and the plants around them. A lesson to be learned by us all. Stay on the trail, don't use trees for anchors whenever possible!!! If you are running back to trees you are eroding the soil. Learn from these photos. Use cams at the edge of the cliff or fixed anchors.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/shyloski/IMG_1006.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/shyloski/IMG_1001.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/shyloski/IMG_1000.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/shyloski/IMG_1009.jpg

That being said, compared to many other user groups at cliffs I have seen climbers have relatively low impacts. All forms of Climbing should be encouraged. It is a great sport. You don't have to make a field to play, cut the grass every other day, spread fertilizer, or install lights, etc.

I am sure a middle ground can be found on this issue.

I just hope climbers remember this one important point:

That important view point being, and READ THIS CLOSELY: that removal of properly placed bolt anchors can be considered, in some places, a act of vandalism that egregiously threatens the lives of people that are participating in a form of relatively low impact outdoor recreation. In most cases bolted fixed anchors can be beneficial to the cliff environment. So be forewarned, you might want to distance your association with those people ASAP.

Shylo, what does this all mean? Are you targeting the unaware to educate them or are you setting up for something much larger?
As a side note, I was at Cathole the other day, not wanting to lead the choss on this particular day, embarked on setting a TR gear anchor. I realized that the features that I'd used in the past were no longer there, the freeze/thaw must have fractured the rock off. I was forced to use a static line to a (healthy) tree with a poorly placed cam as a backup-
My point here is even if I'd lead the route, there were no anchors for me to use other than trees 30 - 40 ft from the edge of the cliff. What is the harm in installing fixed anchors here?

Jimo,

My intent is to educate and help people rationalize our actions as climbers. I see several people that are saying that the ethic should be to ONLY to use trees and gear if we want to TR in CT and that there should be no bolts. I disagree with this thinking. These people are saying its ok to run back and forth 50' across the fragile biomass of the cliff top to use trees or gear. An intelligent look at cliffs in New England in high usage areas (such as Acadia, the white mtns, or the gunks) shows that this ethic slowly kills the biomass and fragile plants on top of the cliff and eventually kills the trees over time or stunts their natural development. That was my intent.

With a certain convicted bolt chopper on probation until July 2009 because of his actions in a perceived ethical bolt anchor "crisis" I see this time as a opportunity for us as a community of climbers to reevaluate our usage of our cliffs to make intelligent choices for our future development. Our numbers as climbers are growing in this state and it is time for us to make good decision on how we want our cliffs to be used.


I am proposing that fixed anchors should be used and that future guide books in CT should specifically describe (where and size of) removal gear (cams, nuts) anchors that are within 6' of the cliff edge in their description. I believe leading should be promoted because it confines our usage to the base of the cliff and channels our wear to the rock face and to a body length of the cliff edge and cliff base. This would significantly reduce our damage to vegetation and trees.

I believe that the RMF and a new organization, C3 (The Connecticut Climbers Coalition) which is modeled after the WMCC, is going to discuss this issue in a town meeting forum this Fall. I will keep you posted on the location and date of this discussion.