Just a few clarifications to some valid points (from some who has dealt with access issue for far too long).

STH wrote "We should try to climb these routes in the cleanest, least damaging ways whenever possible."

I've always found it amusing how so many climbers preach about how we need to "leave the rock the cleanist we can", all the while dipping into they're chalk back and stuffing their fingers into or onto a hold that's covered with chalk. I would take they're righteous indignation more seriously if they stopped using chalk. Then everyone could look up a route and see a clean crack or try to find the camouflaged bolts. No more connecting the chalk covered dots, on sport routes or trad routes.

I don't condone bolting cracks but "leaving the rock in it's cleanist state", is not an argument I would use. I own a chalk bag.

Let he who is without sin....

I went on Mountain project tonight ironically to see if there was any updated info for a primarily bolted sport climbing area in Hells Canyon, where we are going in a couple weeks. However, I noticed this thread and actually read the entire thing. Now it is about 1.5 hours latter. Maybe I am just getting old, I feel like it when I go to the gym and boulder to stay in some sort of shape, when I see young kids all around climbing 5.12 like we all used to climb 5.10. I think there is a lot of twisted logic by what I can only assume are people that have grown up learning on bolts and primarily climbing sport routes. I am not all that old, but have been climbing for 20 years this summer. I learned to climb trad and lead easy trad before I ever clipped a bolt. A lot of folks have commented that the climbing community needs easy bolted routes to learn on. I am not opposed to easy bolted routes, but they are not needed to learn to lead. And easy bolted cracks are also totally unwarranted and not needed to learn to climb trad. Some say the cost is to prohibitive for a new leader to buy a whole rack. Hey guess what, none of us had a whole rack when we learned to trad climb. We all got together and pooled our resources/gear. Someone may have had some stoppers, another some hexes, maybe a couple had a cam or two. Everyone had half a dozen slings or draws. It was some great adventures. Luckily we had some more experienced folks to show us stuff. We poored over freedom of the hills, read stuff by Chounard, J. Long, Robbins, practiced our gear on the ground, did a lot of top roping. Eventally climbig 5.5, then 5.6 etc. up the line, getting up to 5.10, some of us even up to 5.11 and 5.12 cracks (not me though). Somewhere in there we also climbed a lot of bolted routes too, but most of my long time partners all learned trad first. And I can tell you, these are the type of folks you want to have your back when shit goes down and you need to be able to think creatively to get your ass out of a jam.

Do I enjoy sport climbs, Yes. Do I put up routes, Yes, do I bolt cracks hell no, Do I bolt good natural gear placements, hell no. It is as much up to the FA party to consider bolt placement as it is the chopper of bolt removal. It doesn't sound like the FA party thought much other than drilling a lot of holes.

To the chopping:

I 100% support chopping any totally bolted crack climb of any difficulty. After seeing the photos, if there are entire pitches with good gear all the way, I say give the chopper an A, there is no need to cosult any climbing community to chop a totally bolted crack climb. IF a mixed route, that is more subjective and I give the Chopper an F for not bring it up to the community. I am in nearly full agreement with Mike White on all of his points.

The FA party that bolts a climb that can be entirely safely climbed/fallen on with natural gear (especially in a wilderness area) is just as responsible for vandalism as the chopper in my mind.

P.s. While I have not been to this crag, I have climbed all round southern Idaho, and spent many summers in SE Idaho as a kid exploring its nether regions, and also fraternizing with "good" mormon girls along the Utah border.

Jason Shappart
Everett, WA

At this point I am willing to accept the fact that perhaps the bolting of Geezer Wall was either over-done or completely unnecessary. However, I do believe that the developers of the crag tried to create something for everyone, and if I'm not mistaken, were open to the public about the project from conception to completion. The chopping of the crag, on the other hand, was an act of destruction done in secret and without consent, knowing full well that the act would insight contention among the climbing community more than anything else. Clearly, a more peaceful resolution to the bolting of the crag could have been taken. I believe we need to take measures to prevent unacceptably bolted crags from popping up in the first place. Perhaps all future developments should go through a revision process before projects are given a go-ahead. Mark was telling me that some climbing regions already have something like this in place.

One other thought comes to mind, and being a new climber, I'm going to say right up front that this idea might be totally wrong, so don't be too hard on me for just throwing it out there.

Let's first consider whether it's okay for there to exist climbing routes that are all sport. Now, if no such routes are acceptable, then there's no problem. If such a route, however, is acceptable, then at what grade? If I've followed the thread correctly, then the only acceptable grade would be one such that the entire pitch was completely unprotectable using removable protection. Is this practical? I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you put up an all sport route, assuming that it's okay to have such routes, then they're probably going to be protectable in at least some places using traditional, removable protection. That being the case, my observations of most people here tell me that this is the magic formula for greatly offending climbers. That is, climbers cannot tolerate fixed protection were removable protection will do, no matter what. Therefore, sport routes are simply not an option here in the Wasatch for as long as this feeling is the consensus among climbers.

I can see how having fixed protection around when it's superfluous may take something important away from a route, but if the route was not interesting to traditional climbers in the first place, and it was set aside as a sport route, then maybe it's not entirely a bad thing. A sport route is a sport route. It's designed such that all you need to show up with is your set of quick-draws and you're ready to go!

I don't know. I'm just throwing stuff out there.

Lets just pave everything and bolt every crack I'm sick of this discussion. f$#! bolters and mother f%$# choppers. Ethics????? Keep your ethics out of the area I discovered and developed. I found it I bolted it, it was my ethics, not yours so F--off.... I'm sick of this on going discussion. Well I really didn't find this area in particular, and my ethics are a lot different from the bolters here, but the ethics are theirs not yours, so keep out of it.

If you don't like it @ the geezer wall don't go there. I don't like Snowbird (which most of is on public land) so I don't go there. I don't go take bolts out of the tram. You could have developed it as a trad area (aka put up and publish FA's). But you didn't. Someone else did develop it. Deal with it. There is plenty around here for everyone. You don't like it don't go there.

I have been lurking on this site for a long time and am finally compelled to post as there are a lot of sound and some not so sound arguments being debated here.
Matt, if you are sick of this thread don't fu$%ing click on it it's pretty simple.
I have been climbing in the Wasatch for nearly 25 years now and have watched the progression of sport climbing. From the start there has been a mix of sport and traditional climbs in Big and Little Cottonwood and Most climbers have respected both styles. With more and more people climbing It's a given that bolts and bolted anchors are going to appear on the more popular climbs. This has generally been accepted. There have been some additions that have not gone over well like when some guy thought that the Bungle needed more protection and turned it into a sport route even though people had been testing them selves on that route since 1977. That did not last long before it was returned to its previous state. with the exception of the bolt at the top of the flake where there was previously a fixed pin.
For the most part I think people should be able to do what they want. I certainly have placed my share of bolts and will probably continue to do so, although sometimes with mixed feelings. That being said. I have seen some less than inspiring lines being bolted. There is nothing interesting or valuable in a rap bolted slab with bolts every four feet squeezed between two natural lines. I know this is a very Grey area but not every piece of blank rock needs a bolt in it. Another example of poor style would be the north face slabs on Olympus. Bolted anchors being installed for commercial purposes. Thanks Tyson, not really sure what your trying to teach your clients
but you have altered the experience of every climber who goes up there I am sure some people think it's great to have fixed anchors. but in thinking back, for me, it's the routes that have no fixed protection that are the most memorable. Like the north face of Castleton tower before fixed anchors. I have also seen newly bolted routes in Ferguson canyon that can be climbed with natural gear (thanks Greg) no wonder he wont post his routes on MP.
This whole idea of "we did it for the community" makes me ill. If your sole motive is for the community then maybe you should outline your intentions and get some feedback before you fire in 125 bolts into a wall that is mostly protected with natural gear. and in a wilderness area to boot. In my opinion the wholesale bolting of this wall was vandalism and the developers robbed the community by permanently altering the rock to their liking. and in the process actually making it less safe for future climbers. What is the life span for a five piece bolt? 30-40 years? A cam placement never goes bad. Thats one hell of a gift to the community.
Just climb for yourself. If you really want to help the community then show up at a local crag day.

So, I'm a newbie and I have learned how to climb in the Wasatch front without much problem. My only complaint is how hard it is to break into the Utah climbing community. People aren't super eager to climb with people who suck, especially in an oversaturated climbing community. Lucky for me I took climbing classes at the U a few years ago, and have been dating my instructor since.

My significant other is probably what you oldies would call my "mentor", or as I like to call him, my mentor with benefits. He has taught me about the ethics of the Wasatch, as he was taught by climbers who were better than him when he was new. I understand that this code can be frusterating to newbies. I have been frusterated many times by things I'm too scared to lead because it was rap bolted and the spacing is far apart, etc. However, the longer I climb, the more I have come to appreciate it.

I have just started to lead trad, and it has been an amazing new door to open in my climbing world. I don't have a rack, but pretty much everyone else I know does, so it's never really a problem. I can see how it can be frusterating with expensive gear and hard scary climbs, but we newbs just need to get out there, make some friends, and do it! I think this idea of overproctecting climbs for the new people is insane! Why the need to molly coddle us so much all of a sudden? And as far as trad gear being too expensive, that is no excuse! Half the hard climbers I know are barely employed because all they want to do is climb, and somehow they find a way to make to make it work.

In lieu of this, I propose an Adopt-A-Newb day for the Wasatch Front. Everybody find yourself a newb, take a day to bring em up to some of LCC's classic trad lines, show them the ropes, and explain to them why we keep the ethics we do in LCC and BCC. Lets waste a day on that rather than rebolting cracks under the pretense of saving the newbs.

I think the best thing we can do for the Watatch Front is to reinstate the old ways and start doing some mentoring. Maybe the newbs will get some benefits too..

You trad climbers are so rad. Sounds like you have it all figured out. Have fun chopping assholes.

Something Lance said struck me. When I'm out hiking, I hate to see signs of civilization. Even cairns can be annoying to me. Admittedly, I haven't entered this into my thinking on the matter, and it is a very big concern for me. I guess I just haven't seen a bolt yet as something annoying, because I've been so reliant on it to climb. I'm quite certain now that my view of bolts will change if I can somehow become successful at trad. climbing.

--heavy sigh--...Even still, I don't know. To be honest, I'm struggling with this issue. I have mixed feelings about it. I still wish that we could have kept the Geezer Wall just the way it was. I liked it, and I wanted to do all the climbs. I guess I still can. It's just going to take some more learning and more inginuity, which isn't a bad thing, not a bad thing at all.

Recently, Tyson took me on my most memorable climb of the summer: Tingy's Terror. We did it in 9 pitches and 4 repels, I believe. It was mostly trad., but there were some bolts along the way. And thank goodness for those bolts too(!), because without them, there wasn't any way to protect those tricky sections. Another way would have to have been found. Minus the inability to traditionally protect it, the route we took was a great climb, so I think it's nice that the bolts were there.

Has anyone considered that perhaps the bolts were pulled out of spite for the bolter or climbing community as a whole and had nothing to do with bolting next to cracks?

Went climbing yesterday in Little cottonwood. The standards are pretty loose. People have done whatever they want as far as bolting slabs. and adding bolts of convenience. In American Fork every cliff is grid bolted In Maple thousands of bolts have gone in. In Big Cottonwood there are sport walls and sport climbs existing along side naturally protected routes. So why does the Geezer wall matter? what is 125 more bolts to add to the thousands out there and the thousands more that will go in?

"Vandalism" and "robbing the community" may have been a bit harsh. I can respect the work that went into the Geezer Wall, the effort to camouflage the hardware and the idea behind the development of the crag.

The Geezer Wall would have been accepted without question had someone not chopped it. And it very well could have been simple theft and not a statement on bolting next to cracks.

Everyone who climbs has benefited from bolts and the people who develop crags. So why do we embrace thousands of bolts in one canyon but not another? We accept bolted anchors next to perfectly good cracks out of pure convenience. All of this starts to look pretty Grey when you look at the bigger picture. And in the really big picture none of this matters one single bit.