(05) Unrelenting Nines 

As the beta photo shows, there are now 2 bolts atop the crack for anchors and lowering. Thanks 'Mad Bolter'!

The anchor bolts have been chopped once again on Unrelenting Nines. It would be nice if the person responsible would step up and voice his or her concerns to the community at large. I think you will find that those in favor of the bolts (which as far as I can tell, is a commanding majority) would have a much greater respect for you and your concerns if you were vocal about them. I have no respect for a person who refuses to defend his or her actions.

These bolts were well below the line of sight of any hiker, and if anything, the remains of your hasty chopping job made the rock even more of an eyesore than before.

You force us to guess about your motives and intentions, which will inevitably lead to misinterpretation.

This climbing community is very much focused on consensus agreements, and we will listen to what you have to say if you give us the chance. The bolts will likely be replaced if you continue to hide in the comfort of anonymity. Please give us the chance to hear what you have to say.

Daniel Trugman

I do not know if he is the responsible "bolt-chopper" on this route, but Chuck C. gave a short presentation at the June meeting of the Los Alamos Mountaineers with a plea that is consistent with Sec. E of the 2004 revised Los Alamos Climbing Area agreement, which reads "Anchors should not be placed at the top of climbs that are easily and safely set with traditional gear." For those that missed the presentation, Chuck used several short video clips to show that in each instance multiple traditional gear pieces can be placed within a few feet of anchor bolts in a matter of seconds. With these video clips, Chuck proved that in these cases the community agreement is being violated. Chuck tells me that he has not received any feedback since giving his public presentation.

On this particular route, I cannot recall whether anchors can be "easily and safely set with traditional gear," but (edit: see George's comment below). I think the crux of the matter is whether the "commanding majority" in favor of anchor bolting desires it out of convenience. Chuck's point is that this should not be the reason for anchor bolting. I think the local climbing community ought to grapple with this point so that we can all move beyond this present bolt war. Furthermore, if the community agreement is being violated, there really is no point to having the agreement. We either need to abide by the agreement or come up with a re-wording of the agreement that both sides can accept.

You can build an anchor with large cams in the cracks to the right of and behind the large block at the top of this climb, or perhaps a cordelette wrapped around it. If you think the block is stable, these placements make for a great anchor. (There are not many other immediately obvious great gear placements above this crack on the ledge; there are probably more options on the very top of the cliff, or maybe I didn't look hard enough.) If you're leading this climb, be sure to carry extra hand & fist size cams to build the anchor. In the unlikely event that the block were to be dislodged, pray for your belayer, because the climber doesn't have a chance.

(I'll stay out of the ethical discussion that accomplishes nothing IMO) The sad thing is that the top of this climb -which is one of the finest cracks at White Rock- will be even more of a mess now; with 2 obvious poorly patched holes, 2 more chopped bolts with studs barely sticking out, and, most likely -when someone decides to put them back in- 2 more new shiny bolts.

I heard secondhand that Chuck C. said he did not remove these anchors and that he did not know who did. I also found his offer to teach people "to be competent rock climbers" as he put it (i.e., show people how quickly he could build anchors with gear), to be condescending and insulting, as most WR climbers -some of whom are quite experienced- usually use the bolted anchors if they are present without moral dilemma. I don't plan on taking him up on his offer, and it doesn't surprise me that nobody else has either.

My comments were based on Chuck saying that he did not chop these. He has been fairly vocal about his concerns, but did not take responsibility for the recent choppings of BHJ and U9s. I believe him and thus the perpetrator remains anonymous.

It comes down to what your definition of an "easy and safe" gear anchor is. I personally think that we need to call yet another meeting to clarify this ambiguous statement.

I certainly would (and did) climb on the anchor George built last night, but I'll bet some people would not. Anchoring in blocks and boulders is not ideal, and there would be catastrophic consequences if the boulders came loose. To me, tying off trees is no longer an option. I do not wish to contribute to their demise, even if they do make sturdy anchors in some situations.

The bolts also allow those who do not own trad gear to get a taste of White Rock's crack climbing in a top-roping environment. I'm not saying this is valid justification for bolting anchors. It is, however, a consideration that we should keep in mind, particularly those of us who own gear to set an anchor and take it for granted.

Why should bolt anchors be placed for the convenience of climbers who are not yet committed enough to the sport to acquire gear? There are already sport cliffs in White Rock...why cannot the Old New Place, the Playground, Big Enchilada, (at least), remain traditional cliffs for the local traditionalists? To lead a route at the ONP and find two hideous bolts staring you in the face at the top makes me sick with anguish.

Hideous bolts, sick with anguish? Pretty funny stuff. I think the white rock agreement to split trad/sport areas seems to be working fine. The only legitimate argument for fixed anchors at one of the trad areas is if the tree died that was the anchor or if the rock became suspect. I've never liked some of the anchors you can build atop some of the white rock cliffs--too fractured for my taste, but you could always back up with a tree assuming it wasn't killed by the bark beetle. Viable compromises are hard to acheive and shouldn't be discarded lightly. That said, it might be time to revisit the agreement if it no longer works. I hope the LA folks can work it out.

Here's the anguish-inducing hideousness I found up there on 8/1/2009:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/new_mexico/los_alamos__whit>>>>>

I'd rather see a couple of bolts up there than this mess.

George, I agree that Chuck's offer to teach trad gear placement could easily be interpreted to be condescending, but I do not think he intended it that way.

Daniel, I agree that another meeting is needed to clarify the community agreement, preferably with both sides present. Compromise will clearly be required.

The present state of matters is unsustainable, both from the perspective of the rock and the wallets of those (such as Jason) putting up the anchors.

Darien, I can see your point about the presence of bolts detracting from your experience. But if these bolts were chopped because of aesthetic purposes, wouldn't the chopper have made an effort to clean up the rock? The so-called "defenders of stone" are doing quick smash and grab jobs on the bolted anchors, leaving ugly bolt studs hanging out of the rock.

As has been proposed before, I suggest both parties stop placing/removing bolts until we talk this through.

"Why should bolt anchors be placed for the convenience of climbers who are not yet committed enough to the sport to acquire gear?"

Darien,

I think you are using convenient and narrowly defined wording (owning trad gear = committed climber), and as such, this question points to somewhat out-dated thinking. Like it or not, this sport has become diverse enough that many "committed" climbers don't own traditional gear. This is especially true in this community, where a mostly social club creates a community of climbers that are primarily and purely top ropers. There also are many casual climbers, perhaps not so committed, but still out on a regular basis.

My wife is a great example: climbing for 11 years, gets out once every week or so, climbs with a group of women, none of whom owns a rack or would know how to use the gear if they did.

These women won't be getting on Unrelenting Nines anytime soon (actually one of them might), but Beginner's Hand Jam would always get set---using the bolts---on their nights out at the Playground. Now, they'll simply have to go elsewhere. Sure, they could choose to buy a rack and learn how to use it, but since they don't have any interest in leading trad routes, I don't see that happening.

These women top rope as a way to get out of the house for some exercise (they are all stay-at-home moms). They have exactly zero interest in leading, but yet they climb every week. Why wouldn't you consider these women "committed" climbers? Why don't their interests get considered in this debate? Why don't they count?

When having these discussions, everyone from every side of the issue should consider the entire community of climbers.

Finally, at this date, the Los Alamos Mountaineers club represents only a small fraction of the climbing community. I'm out (leading on gear at virtually all the White Rock crags) 2 or 3 times a week. I very rarely see anyone else out (except, of course, those I'm with), and the most committed climbers I know (and I think I know most in the community) have little to nothing to do with the club. So, yes, it seems that it is time for all interested parties to come together for a new discussion. No individual or small group owns the right to make any decision. But, if a major consensus of local climbers wishes to have some bolted anchors at most of the crags, even if the reason is purely convenience, then so be it. How could any other decision be fair?

Unfortunately, the bolters seem anxious to talk, but the bolt choppers continue to remain anonymous. Since we aren't talking about a major wilderness area, since bolts already litter White Rock canyon, and since there is enough garbage, grafitti, tires, etc. mucking up what we do have, I don't feel strongly for or against a few more bolts. But this situation creates an appearance that makes me want to side with the bolters---simply because they have the integrity to voice their opinions, their reasoning, and to do so out in the open.

Mark

Nice post Mark with some thoughtful opinions and questions raised, particularly the point about bolt choppers remaining anonymous. I think chopping bolts without fessing up to the act is cowardly; if you are committed enough to destroy the gear you should be committed enough to defend your actions.

With all due respect for your wife and her friends, I am not sure that we should always add bolt anchors for (their) convenience. Self-reliance and the possibility of harm are integral to climbing, so the convenience/safety argument taken to its extreme would get rid of some of the best things about climbing and reduce run-out trad routes to clip-ups. Stated more simply, climbing is not just a sport even though many would like it to be. I like the idea that skilled climbers can do things other folks can't, which I realize is elitist and would leave out certain folks, potentially including your wife--so be it. I have placed, and likely will place, convenience anchors so I guess I am a hypocrite on this point.

Of course, the White Rock agreement tried to have both approaches live as equals--each with cliffs that followed certain rules. Even if all of White Rock's top-rope contingent said they want bolted anchors at the trad crags, I am not sure it is a good idea to capitulate to the masses. I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I can see the logic of bolted anchors and the argument against them, I am just glad to see people's honest opinions being voiced. If the LA folks meet to discuss this, would they inform the rest of the NM climbers about the meeting ahead of time so they could attend?

W

William,

I appreciate your comments too. And I didn't mean to suggest adding bolts for the convenience of folks like my wife and her friends, just that they are committed to climbing, to a different degree than others, and that perhaps their concerns should, at least, be taken into account. I think your opinions as stated match my own quite closely.

And absolutely, you and any other northern NM climbers that frequent the White Rock climbing areas should get involved in this discussion. Believe it or not, we actually tried to have this discussion a couple of time several years ago, but it was difficult to generate the interest to participate. A reasonable effort was made to include non-LAM members and climbers from both Albuquerque and Taos. We had the appearance of a consensus, put in some new anchors (anchors only---no new bolts on routes), and anonymous others started chopping.

It's impossible to get this right without pissing someone off. But I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone who simply takes action, because a given situation or course of events doesn't meet their own personal expectations as to how things should be done (whether that's adding bolts or chopping them). The actions of the bolters, in this instance, were based on an honest attempt to meet the desires of the portion of the community that actually voiced an opinion. The actions of the choppers, in this instance, appear to be purely self serving.

I'd actually be perfectly happy with no bolted anchors (as I climbed without them for many years), as I also would be with a few more (because I get more routes in during a given outing---admittedly purely convenience). But I would prefer not to see this go back and forth between the folks at the extreme ends of this issue, at the expense of the rest of us and our enjoyment of our local crags.

But now I'm rambling, and in the end all of this is just one climber's opinion---not worth much.

My real sentiment is this: F!@# it, let's go climbing.

Mark