Goulara: A Bolting Controversy

Alrighty, folks:

Below you will find the "re-assigned" location for the now-epic Goulara bolting discussion. Have at it. Keep it civil, keep it salient, and have fun.

By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
3 days ago

The new lower bolt on Goulara has been removed three times. But that is apparently not enough to deter the thoughtless bolting of existing lines at Wheeler Gorge. Now FOUR BOLTS (correction: FIVE) have been added to the start of Goulara. This is F-ed up. By the time this round is over, there will be 7 chopped bolts at the start of this route. Never mind the sacrilege of adding bolts to someone else's route, this is irresponsible in terms of the impact on the site.

Please do not add bolts to existing routes at Wheeler Gorge (or anywhere else). I don't care how talented a route setter you are.
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
3 days ago

Did they add all 4 bolts before the original first bolt or is it a completely new line?
EDIT
By andy patterson
Administrator
From: Santa Barbara, CA
3 days ago

I'm guessing they bolted (or intended to bolt) the direct line up the face, the one that goes at somewhere around 5.12. Matt, is this what you're referring to? Is it possible they misread the line and encroached on Goulara? I'm having trouble recalling exactly how far right or left the route starts. Either way, Goulara shouldn't have been touched, but it seems the 5.12 (currently unnamed) could have bolts of its own, since in my memory it was substantially to the right of Goulara. Am I way off base?
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
3 days ago

Kinda the same thing I was wondering. If this is the case..wasn't Economique technically encroaching on Goulara in the same way?
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
3 days ago

John and Andy, thanks for weighing in. When I bolted Economique, I used the first three bolts of Goulara to access the face around the corner. In my estimation, I did not alter Goulara in any way. The first new bolt is on the face around the corner to the left--the bolts actually protect the face left of the arete and are not on the arete. Does that seem like an encroachment on Goulara? Let me know if you think I'm being hypocritical. (I'd hate to be opposite Chuck Ethics.)

The bolts in question are to the right of the traditional start of Goulara and represent a more direct line. Is it okay to put bolts less than a body length to the right of Goulara's start? I am not prone to making slippery-slope arguments (except in politics) but there is a lot of "activity" at Wheeler Gorge these days. Where do we draw a line? If this is acceptable, what isn't? We can talk about the shoddy hardware after we have settled this first issue.

As a historical note, the bolts placed by Gould and Agulara do protect the 5.12 face route. It is an adaptation to their route to climb the arete and stretch way right to clip their bolts. The last two bolts are so far to the right of the arete that clipping them is the crux of the arete route. To be clear, the 5.12 face is the original route bearing the name Goulara.

Here's a photo with the Economique and Goulara bolt locations (the top 2 Goulara bolts are about 5 feet right of the arete--they look closer because of the perspective):

Economique & Goulara bolts
EDIT
EDIT
By Sean Crozier
3 days ago

Matthew if you havnt already, just go take a look at what i did and climb the route. If you don't like it you can call me personally and we'll figure something out. If you decide to go and chop the bolts thats okay with me. But all in all its a pretty fuckin fun lead with nice clipping stances. Id be happy if it stuck around.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
3 days ago

Sean, thanks for entering the conversation. "Pretty fuckin fun lead" is exactly what the individual who added the bolt to Goulara was thinking. Where do we draw a line?

John, I find your reaction to this truly surprising given your Chuck Ethics reaction to the Goulara bolt. Please tell me again why that bolt was offensive.
EDIT
By andy patterson
Administrator
From: Santa Barbara, CA
3 days ago

So the 5.12 face was the original route bearing the name Goulara?

That's actually very interesting—-I didn't know that. I was truly under the impression the arete was the original line. I do recall the last two bolts being relatively far RIGHT of the arete, which is why I always led out on to the face for that section. At the very least, I'm learning some good history from this discussion.
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
3 days ago

The way I see it Matthew, is that there is no difference from Sean having an alternate start to Goulara as there is you have an alternate finish to Goulara. I wasn't aware that having direct starts to existing climbs was against climbing ethics. That is quite a big difference from adding a bolt to an existing route which I was not okay with. This could be considered a completely different route considering it has an alternate start, different moves and an entirely different grade. It shares bolts with Goulara, yes, but so does your route and so do many routes with alternate starts. What is your issue with it exactly? That it makes the wall too cluttered? That might be true but I don't see any actual climbing ethic rules being broken with that situation. This comes down to a personal opinion of what one would want the wall to look like.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
3 days ago

John, I think you are bringing shame to the handlebar mustache and the aviator glasses. In some ways these new bolts are ethically worse than a single lower bolt (added by a naive amateur who is new to the area and doesn't understand the local history, ethos and ethics).

Gould and Agulara opened one of the most striking formations in the Ojai area. They put up a stout 5.11+/5.12 route (Reese Martin called it 5.12b) on the face that now houses Sean's "completely different route." The bottom three of the new bolts are a squeeze job at best. The top two bolts completely impinge on the original bolt line. No one can claim ignorance of the original location of Gould & Agulara's route because it is stated in the fourth sentence of the route description above (and has been posted for nearly 9 years). Also note Joe Stern's comment in 2011.

Unlike the first bolt that has been added and removed three times, these five bolts fundamentally alter the character of the entire formation. And they alter the character of the crux of Gould and Agulara's route.

To provide an analog, a fuckin fun lead would be a direct alternate start to the route Sword in the Stone, in Rattlesnake Canyon. (If anyone reading this has not yet climbed it, drop everything and go. It's one of the best in S.B.) In fact, I top-rope this variation every time that I climb Sword in the Stone. I could easily add three bolts and join Sword in the Stone halfway up, but it would completely diminish the character and the aesthetics of the existing line. It would be a scandal. Similarly, over the years, I have repeatedly top-roped the line that Sean has now bolted. Adding bolts to the line is a scandal.

In regard to Economique, that route was listed in the guidebook as an open project which was abandoned by Gould. There was literally a printed invitation to develop it. And the bolts on Economique do not alter the character of the climbing on any part of Goulara--the bolts are located around the corner on a different face.

Jon, I don't WANT to be the loud guy either, but this climbing stuff means a lot to me too.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
2 days ago

This is unambiguous about both the original location of Goulara and about the open project now known as Economique:

Edwards Guidebook
EDIT

Please do your homework before adding bolts.
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
2 days ago

This reference to the original 11+ route is climbed by following the original bolt line. Sean added bolts to the right of the original line adding a seperate start with sustained 5.12 climbing that meets up with the top of the original route. I'm just saying that this is obviously different than what you are referencing in the book. I already know you are going to chop the bolts just based on the fact that they're only 3/8" and too shallow so I realize this is a losing battle as far as keeping the bolts there goes. However, I'm not willing to say that you're correct in saying he violated any written or non written climbing ethic rules. This is a direct start to the original line called Goulara. Different moves at the bottem and different clipping stances. Squeeze job? Sounds like it. Changes the character of the crux of the original route? How? Fundamentally changes the character of the entire formation? That sounds like an opinion to me. Also on a side note, in the Steve Edwards guide where he lists the open project which became Eqonomique, lets look at the similarities of theses two situations. Gould toproped Eqonomique from Goularas anchors, many others and probably Gould himself toproped the plumb line that Sean just bolted also off Goularas anchors. Economique uses the first 3 bolts of Goulara and then splits off, adding 5 more bolts. Sean's new route starts with 5 new bolts and then uses Goularas last 4 existing bolts. Kinda similar right? The only difference is that Steve Edwards listed that Gould toproped Economique and didn't mention that he possibly toproped the plumb line that Sean just bolted. Again, I know these bolts are going to be chopped but Matthew, my point this whole time has been that you are chopping them because you don't like the way it looks, not because Sean actually stepped on any first ascentious toes or violated any established climbing ethics. If I'm wrong please let me know. Also to be clear, I love Economique and I really appreciate Matthews work in bolting it and investing his time and money to make it happen. I'm not fighting with you Matthew, but, I don't agree with your view on his violating any "climbing rules".
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
2 days ago

Jon, I'm glad we're able to have this conversation in public so that there is a record of the opinions expressed--one that others can read and judge. Obviously, we earnestly disagree with one another.

A couple of questions for you:

How do you feel about the additional bolt that was placed at the bottom of Vanishing Flakes at San Ysidro? Did the new first bolt alter the character of that route?

For anyone following this conversation, the VF bolt was located a similar distance from VF's fixed pin as Sean's top 2 bolts are from the Goulara's bolts. It could be argued that someone was adding a direct start to Vanishing Flakes and negating the need to climb out left to clip the fixed pin. Vanishing Flakes is also an apt comparison because VF is a classic lead in S.B. just as Goulara is a classic lead in Ojai. I invite others to read the thread of comments that were posted about Vanishing Flakes. Please take careful note of Jon Hartmann's (a.k.a. Chuck Ethics') expressed opinion.
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
2 days ago

Well, I'm happy to answer that question Matthew. However, I don't understand why you're asking me it on this thread considering it's a completely different situation that is in no way what has happened here with this new bolt line. So, if I have understood the "rules of climbing" correctly, a person should not add a bolt or alter an existing route without asking the person who put it up. So...new bolt at the bottom of Goulara because someone didn't want to stick clip the high first bolt...that's a no-no. Adding a bolt to the bottem of Vanishing Flakes because they were afraid of clipping the piton and the run out...that's also a no. These two situations however, have nothing to do with an independent line that intercects an existing route. This is called a direct start. My question to you Matthew, once again, is, did Sean break any climbing ethical rules by adding a direct start to an existing route? Can anyone else chime in on this question because Matthew keeps sliding around the issue like a politician.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
2 days ago

Jon, any professed difference between Vanishing Flakes and Sean's foray on Goulara is merely hair-splitting. The new bolt on VF is 4 feet to the right of the pin--just like the top 2 of Sean's bolts are 4 feet to the right of Goulara bolts. The new VF bolt is a direct start to a route thats makes you climb out left to clip the fixed pin. But you thought that was offensive. Why aren't Sean's new bolts offensive? At least admit that the top 2 of Sean's bolts are egregious. They alter the character of the climbing through that section of Goulara.
EDIT
By andy patterson
Administrator
From: Santa Barbara, CA
2 days ago

To aid in this discussion, can someone (Matthew? Jon? Sean?) provide a photograph with some nifty photoshop indications of where the new and old bolts are? This could prove to be an instructive debate—especially if there are salient visual aids. I'm only generally aware of where the new bolt line runs. I'd love to see the whole shebang from a good perspective. I think everyone would.

Thanks in advance! I don't have the wherewithal to get down there any time soon.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
1 day ago

Photo taken Friday, April 3.

Goulara topo
EDIT
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
1 day ago

Jon, how would you feel if Mike Levanduski had put these bolts in rather than a member of your own crew?
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
1 day ago

Do you know how to seperate personal and logical issues Matthew? Stick to the issue and stop trying to engage me personally. Very poor debate skills.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
1 day ago

I' think you are being inconsistent (or illogical).
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
1 day ago

Give it a rest Matthew. Stick to the issue of whether or not Sean violated any climbing ethics by putting up a direct start to the climb. Also, I'm not going to engage with your line of questions any longer. It's a waste of my time and energy. Be respectful to yourself and the climbing community and stop resorting to underhanded smear tactics. Stick to the issue.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
1 day ago

I'll rest with this: I think that a new bolt added 4 feet to the right of a bolt on Goulara is unethical just as the new bolt placed 4 feet to the right of Vanishing Flakes' fixed pin was unethical. Each of these new bolts alters the character and aesthetics of an area-classic and represents an affront to the first ascensionist and to the local climbing ethos.

Jon, I don't regret our back-and-forth on this issue. In fact, I appreciate that you took time to weigh in publicly. I hope others will speak up too. If a consensus emerges that my views on this are too extreme, I will certainly value hearing that consensus.
EDIT
By Jeff Mahoney
From: Santa Barbara, CA
9 hours ago

Clarification, please: Where do the moves on the newly bolted line become the same as for the original (11+) line of Goulara? Do you stay on the right side of the new bolt line and then finish the last 3 bolts of Goulara?
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
9 hours ago

Jeff, there is a picture that Matthew posted of the new bolt line 6 comments above yours. But yes, that is the way it was bolted. It stays to the right and finishes on the last 3 bolts of Goulara.
EDIT
By Jeff Mahoney
From: Santa Barbara, CA
8 hours ago

Thanks, Jon. Yes, I saw the pic and read the comments, but nothing really spelled out where the climbing actually is (which side of the new bolt line).

I think the problem is one of semantics. If climbing the line of new bolts truly stays independent of Goulara, but merely uses the last three bolts, then you have a new route (more than half of the climbing is unique) and it should be named as such, which means this wouldn't be a "direct start." Calling it a direct start seems to be the main issue (not just for me) and does alter the character of Goulara if the bolts are that close and could be used. This jibes with Economique being a separate route---but merely uses the first three bolts of Goulara. If, on the other hand, you're linking to Goulara after the first three new bolts and it becomes a "Should I clip with my right hand or should I clip with my left?" situation, then the 4th & 5th of the new bolts should be removed and this could be called a "direct start" and then it becomes more of a gray area---UNLESS Sean, et al. made some effort to contact Gould and/or Agulara and they said "Sure, bolt a direct start." That would be the "ethical" thing to do in my opinion.

The placing of an additional starting bolt on Goulara, because people are concerned about tumbling down into the creek if they blow it, will always be wrong. That's not how the route went up, period. The route has been climbed for decades that way (just like Vanishing Flakes), so either sack up, use a stick-clip, bring a cam and/or get a better belayer.
APPROVE | UNDO |
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
8 hours ago

I just contacted Sean as he isn't really an avid MP poster. This is his statement You climb right over them. I don't think at any point you could reach the original bolts to clip them the way I did it. I was even under that tree branch and used the right arête at one point.
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
6 hours ago

Hi Jeff. I'm glad you entered the conversation.

The first three bolts are definitely independent of the climbing on the route called Goulara. They are a "direct start" to Goulara and should have necessitated permission from the first ascentionists.

Bolts 4 and 5 of the newly added bolts are a clear case of "Should I clip with my right hand or should I clip with my left?" As this photo shows, the new bolts infringe on Goulara in a glaring way. This part of the face can easily be led on Goulara's existing bolts:

Red - Goulara
Purple - new bolts
(bolts 2-5 visible)
EDIT

In fact, this is so much the case that on the very first lead of the new bolts, the climber decided to skip his own fifth bolt and clip Goulara's instead. He could have made the same choice on the fourth bolt but decided not to (he is almost standing on Goulara's bolt):

Red - Goulara
Purple - new bolts (all 5 are visible)
EDIT

If you view the second image full size, you can see the the rope is clipped to Goulara's bolt instead of the brand new fifth bolt. Both photos were taken during the "first ascent."
EDIT
By Jeff Mahoney
From: Santa Barbara, CA
5 hours ago

Thanks, Matthew, especially for posting pics with bodies on the climb. From Jon/Sean's comment, it sounded like the climbing was on the right-hand side of the new bolts (using the arete) through all five, necessitating a new route designation and exact beta so as to not conflict with Goulara. If what the pics show is the case, then I agree that the 4th & 5th new bolts should be removed and leave the first three as a direct start, pending someone tries to get in contact with Gould/Agulara. (I'm not trying to argue that the FA'ists own the rock/route or that their word is final, but getting some input can clarify all of this. If they say "Don't care" or "Yeah, cool, direct start it," as opposed to "Hell, no! We did that variation using the original bolts" etc. then you need to take that in to account.)

Again, just my opinion, but it's what I hope would happen if someone wanted to add a "direct start" to one of my routes. Frankly, I wouldn't mind having the direct start option to Goulara and I think that it would be a decent addition.

But yeah, no one likes seeing classic, established routes altered merely for convenience. The added bolt(s) to Vanishing Flakes was exceptionally unethical and showed a complete lack of consideration not only for the FA party, but for the hundreds of people that have led it over the years as it was intended. The same goes for adding that extra starting bolt for Goulara. The large majority of us did the route the way it was put up (or you added a cam or stick-clipped, which does take away from the character, but is completely kosher), but the added bolt isn't the route.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
4 hours ago

Pertaining to removing the 5th bolt; Matthew, you must be confused about the pictures. The reason the pictures show the guys clipping Goularas bolt instead of their 5th bolt is because at the time of that picture the 5th bolt wasn't there. That is why Sean is on the left side of the bolt line. He had to traverse over to the left to clip the bolt of Goulara on the FA. After these photos were taken he added the 5th bolt so he could stay on the right side of the new bolts all the way past the roof. (If you remove Matthews bolt location overlay you wouldn't see a bolt there, yet...which means...Matthew falsely added the picture of the bolt in that picture to try and prove his point.) As far as contacting Gould about putting the direct start to the climb, I have to ask, for the sake of comparison and to avoid hypocrisy, did Matthew Finnup ask Gould or Agulara for permission to bolt Economique? I'm not accusing, just asking.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Sean Crozier
3 hours ago

So about those photos... First off one is me and the other my friend. I'm not a good enough climber to change my pants and take off my shirt mid climb. Second of all, but more importantly, I only put in 4 bolts. The picture of me climbing it shows I clipped that bolt on Goulara because the other bolt wasn't there. At no point was there any question of should I clip this or that. Also as a side note; I read shotty equipment somewhere up there in the line of comments. It's my understanding that the shear strength of a 3/8" bolt is around 4000lbs. I know 5 piece rawl bolts are much stronge but 3/8 will get the job done.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
3 hours ago

Jon, I didn't ask for permission because the route was known to be an open project and even published as such. And as previously argued, Economique does not infringe Goulara in any way. The situation is very different than what is being discussed here.

Thanks for clarifying about the history of the fifth bolt. I stand by my earlier statement that the fifth (as well as the fourth) is unnecessary and an infringement of Goulara.

Sean, thanks for weighing in again. I realize that there are two climbers pictured. Both photos were taken during the first lead effort. 3/8" will get the job done if the rock is sufficiently hard. Duane Raleigh did some good work on this. That issue seems entirely secondary to the ethical questions.
EDIT
By Sean Crozier
3 hours ago

Fourth bolt should stay.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Sam Cody
3 hours ago

Hi I'm Sam. Sean used my drill and my hardware. I was there when he bolted it. and I climbed the first ascent of this route.

The fourth bolt is necessary. But, Matthew, if you feel up for it, have a go at it sans 4th and 5th bolt. I'm quite certain you'll change your mind about that. Have you even climbed it yet? Also there is no difference between your route as an extension and Sean's route as a direct start/different line. If you feel the need to chop these bolts, then you should chop your bolts on Economique as well. Also, it doesn't matter if the bolts are 4 feet away, you can't clip the original bolts unless you did some traversing movement, which is not part of this climb. As well as the first photo is me climbing this route before the 5th bolt was placed, hence why I'm much more left than originally intended. Also, if you want to climb it in the original FA style, skip this bolt, and the next bolt, and clip the last bolt before the anchors.... That's the original style in which it was climbed.

Matthew, you take all of this stuff extremely personal and it's affect on the climbing community is extremely detrimental. Mostly, you have no basis for an argument, and it seems to me that with the previous "bolting war" going on, this just helped light some fire in your ass about this or that. In reality, all we wanted to do was add a new route to Wheeler Gorge. If we knew it would have been blown so far out of proportion maybe we wouldn't have done anything at all. Which asks the question, should anyone bolt anything ever? Probably not, because why add more routes to areas? For people to have fun and have more options of things to climb? Apparently the answer is no because entitled people like Matthew here will have something negative to say about everything.

For the record, Sean's route is a great addition, the original route is great, and so is Economique. All three are awesome lines. But Matthew, you do not own this public climbing crag. You are not the mayor. Nobody voted for you to police this place on what people can or can not bolt, and where to draw the ethical line. There were no climbing ethics breached with this new addition. It's a very fun and safe route.

For those that haven't climbed it, please do. It's super fun. Happy Easter, Hail Satan!
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Cassidy Depew
3 hours ago

Matthew your breaking guidelines 1-3, but mostly guideline #1 for new comment posting. You should probably go makes some friends and go climb some rocks, because your argument has no real backing. You straight up did the same thing Sean did.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
2 hours ago

Matthew said "Jon, I didn't ask for permission because the route was known to be an open project and even published as such."
Let's keep things in perspective Matthew. The ONLY reason that this was a "known open project" was because Gould top-roped it and Steve Edwards said it should be bolted in a guide book that Steve Edwards created. Did anyone ask Gould if you could bolt his top rope route? Oh...you didn't? Well guess what, Gould top-roped the direct route as well and I'm saying it should be bolted on an online guide book right now. What's the difference exactly? Because your invitation is in actual ink and mine is in digital ink you think you have more of a right than Sean? Neither Sean nor you talked to Gould so you are both in the same boat on that issue. Logic.
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Matthew Fienup
Administrator
From: Ventura, CA
45 mins ago

Wow. Please at least show a little respect to Steve Edwards and the unimaginable number of hours of homework that went in to compiling the S.B./Ventura guidebook. Steve is a unique font of local knowledge and his guidebook is a great asset.
EDIT
By Sean Crozier
39 mins ago

How was that disrespectful?
APPROVE |
EDIT
By Jon Hartmann
From: Ojai, CA
28 mins ago

I'd love for you to explain to me how I disrespected Steve Edwards in your imagination. I value and appreciate that guide book and all the work he put into it just as much as I appreciate all the work you've put into our local climbing areas. Again, you're resorting to underhanded smear techniques to attack me personally while I'm sticking to facts and logic. I suggest you think with your head and not your emotions.
APPROVE |
EDIT

Thank you Andy. I was wondering when Matthew and my back and forth would warrant its own forum posting. Drama. But...are we in northern California?

I've never seen or climbed these routes (though maybe I will next weekend) but everyone gets opinions, right? The new bolts are ok, the line is fairly distinct. Next time don't put them so close together; it's unsightly. Climbing is fun. This video is a good example of how fun climbing is.

vimeo.com/123870988

Wow. Nobody cares.

Wel Idahomike, it's true that you might not care because this isn't your local crag. However, if this was listed in Joshua Tree or Yosemie or your local area, you might care a whole lot. Thais forum was created to get a consensus of the entire climbing community of how they feel about this issue. You never know, it could happen to you someday and we're just trying to set a precedent. Sorry there's so much personal drama in between the lines but I'd love for you to focus on the main issue and let me know what you think

I wish more people from our community would weigh in on this issue. Just looking for opinions.

Jon, this is a local issue. These bolting debates just disintegrate into arguing and name-calling. No good comes out of threads like these.

Good luck.

Jon Hartmann wrote:Sorry there's so much personal drama in between the lines

It's unfortunate, but it happens. I'm not in the loop as to the behind-the-scenes stuff, but this really should be a 99% objective debate based on established ethics for the area. If an unequipped route is advertised as an "Open Project" then it's pretty much an open invitation for someone to finish it---even better if it will actually add to the area. You have to agree that Economique is cut-and-dry in that sense, and has been a good addition to Wheeler. Adding a direct start to Goulara was never listed as an Open Project and is definitely in a much grayer area. Nothing to get upset about, it just is what it is.

Regardless, I said, we've all TR'd the Goulara face variations and many of us have said "too bad it's not bolted over here." Props to Sean for doing the work, but given the hair-trigger responses for the continuous first bolt problem on Goulara, you could expect there was going to be flak, even without whatever personal stuff is going on. As it now stands, Underhanded should be considered a separate route and hopefully it will remain once people on both sides climb it as such. Economique uses the first three bolts of Goulara; UST uses the last bolts. Pretty sure everyone can agree on that.

From a development standpoint, though, I think Sean is in a good position to do a little more and should consider bringing the UST line over to the right arete with a few more bolts and put in an anchor down and right of the Goulara anchor in that obvious recess. That would establish a fully independent line (that would probably stand alone as a stellar route---hint, hint) and give people the option to finish either way, but mainly not tie up Goulara exclusively.

I feel pretty certain that would be the best solution---everybody wins, because there will be more excellent cobble climbing. Again, just my objective (selfish) opinion.

So after reading the above, a twenty year old toprope and potentially undocumented awkward lead got retro-bolted with new lead bolts which are 4-5 feet away from the existing Goulara fixed gear?

Similar to what Jeff just mentioned, I have climbed the other three routes in question and may have actually climbed the 'new route' more than 5 years ago. I haven't seen how "tight the fit is" in person yet, but from the pictures, I TR'd this route and led this route during the second winter I lived out here, '08-09. I led this by reaching over and clipping the Goulara bolts, similar to the way 'Goulara Left' is climbed, reaching 4-5 feet over from the arete. I'll see if I can find the pictures to see just where exactly I was, I think I have them on a backup drive (I got a new computer a couple years ago.) I also think it is likely that others may have done just as I did back when the area was first developed.

In my meaningless opinion, in the best case this route is a squeeze job (OK, but not ideal), worst case a retro job (not OK at all). So?

A note to my fellow developers:
1. When putting up new routes it takes just a bit of restraint to prevent the creation of a grid bolted pile, every permutation should not be equipped for a lead. I have crowded my own routes with other routes of my own and regretted it. As an example, a great climb may feel "out there" and airy but when a 'close neighbor' goes in, some of the expansiveness or feeling of vastness is traded against another version of the same thing only slightly harder/easier.

2. Use appropriate SS hardware for the medium. Comments made above by a 'friend' of the equipper regarding the "shortness" of the bolts are alarming to me.

Andy, thanks for taking my suggestion and moving the discussion over to this forum. Can we move the individual comments over so that folks can view the photos that I included in previous posts? I think these are material to the discussion. I know that this has been done in other situations--we might need to appeal to the MP higher-ups for help.

If anyone following this thread wishes to see those photos, for now, you'll need to visit the comments section of the original route page:
mountainproject.com/v/goula…

I have never and probably won't ever climb these. But around where I live (Montana), putting bolted lines 4-5' away from existing lines is borderline grid bolting. But it is happening more and more (especially on our limestone), much of it by people bolting with the soul intention of chasing grades and creating harder variants.

How necessary was another climb at this location?

It seems like crowding routes just creates an eyesore and gives the wrong impression to younger/newer climbers. Which is partly why I feel like there is more grid-bolting happening in general, people are mimicking what they're seeing. Go to Ten Sleep, WY for an example. Over ten years ago some people put up some beautiful independent lines in areas like the French Cattle Ranch. But for some reason it was seen fit to add bolts in-between numerous lines for variants and slightly harder grades. Now it'd be A0 to traverse large portions of that wall. To me it doesn't even matter if done with permission or by the original developer.

Why put in a route that you and others laud as great and then mar it with a route right next to it or a two bolt variant that never veers 4' away? Who cares what they're doing in Spain, France or wherever. In the end a gorgeous wall became less pure and studded with shiny metal. In my opinion a waste of a good resource.

Also, I don't see the pictures of the climbs in question.

I've seen the photos now. Unless those are giant humans, thats grid-bolting.

Keep in mind that that 5th bolt was falsely added into the picture. The climbing route stays to the right of the new bolts and the only reason the climber is on the left side of them is to clip the original bolt. The 5th bolt was added later so that the climber can stay on the right side of the bolts in a plumb line to the anchors. Also, the original route climbs on the left side of the original bolts with the climbers left hand staying on the arete.

I live in the surrounding area but I have not had a chance to climb this particular route. I feel like if two people are unable to be on the bolted routes at the same time then what is the point? If someone wanted to climb the variation on the right side they could set a top rope by climbing the established route first. Looks like the swing would be very mild.

The location of bolts is accurately represented. I have a 9,000 pixel wide image of the wall which shows the bolt locations very clearly. If you can handle a 142MB attachment, I'll gladly e-mail it.

The original route called Goulara climbed the face directly over the left-hand line of bolts, and not on the arete. This is documented in the Edwards guidebook as well as by Reese Martin in issue #5 (March/April 1997) of "mOthEr rOck: southern california's climbing magazine." Goulara is the route listed as "Unnamed, 5.12b ***":

mOthEr rOck, issue #5

Check out the entire issue here:
scribd.com/doc/42782484/mOt…

I m not saying the 5th bolt doesn't exist in the location you've placed it. However your argument was hinging on the climbers being on the left side of the bolts to clip the bolt on goulara. As previously stated the only reason the climbers were on the left side of the new bolt line was because that 5th bolt did not yet exist. You don't get to add a bolt in a picture that doesn't exist to prove that point because that is considered a lie. If you had pictures of the climbers at that height with the 5th bolt in, they would be on the right side of the 5th bolt and not on the left. I'm not asking you to remove the 5th bolt from the pictures where there aren't climbers involved but having it there when Sean and Sam are climbing is painting a false picture.

Matthew I'm going to post over here from this point forward.

Northern California???? I figure I need to get north of Santa Barbara to make that claim.....

This is what I posted, you locals need to go fix the whole mess at the bottom of this arete. As a outsider, this is what I see and think after walking up and climbing Economique.....

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Ill toss in my .02, Im not a local, but I live in Ventura county. I climb at Wheeler about 5-6 times per year......

The whole Ecominique, Goulda arete is a messed up piece of rock. First off is the way up- off the deck first bolt.... WTF? Is that little bit of death climbing supposed to prove something? On a 10A?

The Next time im there... I bring the gear, plug it in and climb, the route is pretty nice... but with the disintegration of the lower features (pulled cobbles)I'll never recommend that climb as long as the beginning is as unprotected as it is. ITS NOT GOOD SPORTCLIMBING, PERIOD.

Now I find out (after reading this bunch of comments) that the bolts are all there to do variations .... for different starts, finnishes, sub-cruxes, crux avoiders, well thats just plain funny or sad depending on ones mood.

If there are really 3 different climbs now, would you boys please color code or number the proper bolts and list the correct sequence, OK? I don't wish to get em wrong.

And while your at it, how about a separate anchor for each climb. Most of the newer climbers I run into don't like it if you clip into the same anchor as they are using as a TR for some 12 .... that they have no hope of climbing by the way.

Call me, I give you some top anchors if you can't afford it.

And VF was just fine with the pin for pro, I hope the bolt has been pulled.

Jon, the body provides a very important reference as to the distance between the bolts. I think that the new bolts are too close to Goulara's bolts, regardless of where someone climbs.

I acknowledge that I was duly corrected as to the history of the fifth bolt--that, at the time of the first lead, the fifth bolt was deemed unnecessary and had not yet been placed.

Matthew if you want to get a body on the climb to show a reference AND have the 5th bolt shown then GET A REAL PICTURE. You don't get to add a bolt to a picture if it doesn't exisit in the picture. You are painting a false picture that is misleading the public of how the route is actually climbed. Get your head straight and do the right thing.