End the Bolt Wars for Good

Nevermind the ARI comment Tony, you obviously didn't get the joke.

With regards to the "never end the bolt wars" comment, I believe we have started small.
We agreed that solving things with a Federalist "National Bolting Policy" (1986 "the Great Debate" AAC Rap bolting meeting) would never work. It can't work.

But...
Creating local FHRCs nationwide would work, it has worked in Eldo for 17 years (?) with a few hiccups. Let each local community figure it out for themselves.

We just need to agree that it might work.

Ternes- you'd like this one too.

youtube.com/watch?v=iCVmKN5…

speech kinda was fitting for this discussion, love the muppet show. grew up with that show

Joe-
You should bring that idea to the Arizona Mountaineering Club (based in the Phoenix area), and help them set up a Fix Hardware Reveiw Board. It might just happen.

charlieB wrote:Creating local FHRCs nationwide would work, it has worked in Eldo for 17 years (?) with a few hiccups. Let each local community figure it out for themselves. We just need to agree that it might work.

If you find my position to be a little less than enthusiastic, remember that I am answering in the context of a title that seems to propose that we can 'End All Bolt Wars for Good.'

OK, so I somewhat agree that local policy is the best thing we can have- but that's different than thinking it will end bolt wars. It simply reduces the carnage and supresses the minority voice, presuming majority rule.

But what do you mean by "Might Work?" You mean might make everyone happy, or might silence one of several competing ideologies? I have long said that peoples beliefs on bolts "were just another form of religion." No surprise to me, someone might bring up the situation in the middle east, then.

As for local regulation... it's not like there has been total peace in Eldo. During the tenure of ACE, Paris Girl was chopped, and Rosy Cruxifixion was retro-bolted. A route was named 'Huck Off' by a FA-ist who was tired of dealing with arguments from both sides on how to do his route, and WISHBONE is presently generating comments on any side. Bolting Rincon is presently a periodic discussion... I'd hate to see it happen.

While the local regulation may be better than whatever perceived chaos that had preceded it, there is no end to the bolt wars, even in Eldo. It's like saying that the revolutionaries (and revolution) are gone once a government is established.

The charter of any committee, local or national, will be written as intended by those who write it (without total agreements) and the interpreted by it's enforcers as they wish to interpret it, within the bounds of public scrutiny. Ergo there will always be dynasties, always be debate, always be dissenters.

While I might find the constitution pretty clear, any American should be familiar with at least the argument that Roe Vs Wade could be overturned by simply appointing different Justices. Meanwhile, people protest, fight in the name of god, bomb clinics, and have abortions. There will always be dynasties, always be debate, always be dissenters, be it for bolts or babies. Religion (including the churches of the bolt and of the anti-bolt) is just that way because it is base on values, not fact. And while we can all share the facts, our values are different.

Tony-
You cite your tenure at ACE as a failure of group policy over anarchy. Meaning: Since Paris Girl was chopped, and Rosy Crux being retrobolted then ACE was a failure as a organization.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Because Eldorado State Park saw that the Eldo climbing community solved their own problems, the Park Service didn't have to. It may have been ugly, and not a "correct" outcome to some individuals, but it was fixed within the community.
You also cite the "messiness" of government as a reason for it to NOT exist all. I would suggest that is a reason for you not to be involved in the process, this is not a reason for process to not exist.
Bottom Line is:
Without solving our own problems, someone else will do it for us. And it is better to have a solution we don't like that we were a part of than, not liking a solution we weren't a part of at all.

Ron - Thanks for the video clip. So funny!

Joe Lee wrote:May I suggest a national bolting policy: NO ONE should be able to add a single bolt to any established route without the permission of the first ascent. Wow. "bolt wars" are now over.

Man, I wish it were this easy. Unfortunately it's a lot more complicated than that.

--Marc

Community regulation isn't perfect, although it is immensely better than the alternative. At the level of ACE, local climbers (We) evaluate and guide the decision-making process. At the national level, depending on who sits in the White House at any given time, our fate could be left to policymakers like Paul Hoffman.

Thomas Jefferson said: "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master."

As soon as we stop believing this, we are destined to become no more than pawns to a controlling puppet master. I think national committees are a bad idea, just as I believe that homogenization spoils the individuality of different regions and communities. Moreover, national regulation breeds blanket policies, the results of which can be seen in places like Canyonlands.

charlieB wrote:Tony- You cite your tenure at ACE as a failure of group policy over anarchy.

I have no tenure at ACE, nor did I ever imply that I did. The other misunderstandings of my points follow just as simply, so I won't address them all. They have so little to do with what I said, after all. You'll need to focus your discussion on someone who feels differently than me.

You talked national policy.
I said local was better.
You said end bolt wars forever.
I suggested to set your target at reducing conflict.
I referred to Chief Joeseph - "Who has the right to dispose of land?"
You made an obscure joke about an ARI. I didn't get it.

The discussion seems to drift to whatever is the opposite of what you think I might have meant.
I can't follow it, so I'm out. I've said my thoughts on the matter anyway.

I think my sarcasm was misinterpreted. I find it fascinating that people actually listen to what this or that committee decides. I would hope that in some areas people would be too individualistic to tolerate route development by committee.

Tony- I am sorry you left the conversation.

Ken-I think you've touched on the answer.

-On the local level we (each community) manage the process of decision making. We set up councils for determining local consensus about fixed anchors, retro bolting (existing lines), and route developement. All with public local input and consensus.

-On the national level, support is given to local groups to execute consensus building. Ideas are shared, formats are traded, ideas exchanged.

Or we can decide none of this is worth doing, and leave it up to park rangers.

Brian-
Why don't you be individualistic and go bolt the Naked Edge.
Eldo is managed by committee.

charlieB wrote:On the local level we (each community) manage the process of decision making. We set up councils for determining local consensus about fixed anchors, retro bolting (existing lines), and route developement. All with public local input and consensus.

Even on the local level, there is NO consensus. Rule is by a majority of those who choose to vote. As a former member of ACE (Action Committee for Eldorado), I have seen this first hand. There are vehement factions both for and against all fixed hardware proposals. The decisions are made in favor of the majority of those who choose to vote. This "majority" is in reality a small minority of the overall climbing community -- the minority who chooses to get involved in the process. Most proposals brought to the Eldorado Fixed Hardware Review Committee (FHRC) garner fewer than 50 votes, from a Boulder-area climbing community that numbers in the thousands.

Certainly, in areas where land managers have a climbing management plan, and choose to regulate fixed hardware, having input from the local climbing community, even if it's a small minority of that community, is beneficial.

But proposing to regulate fixed hardware in areas where land managers are not currently involved in climbing management? I think that's a bad idea, and one that's not enforceable either.

You know what Ron, maybe you're right?
Maybe the climbing community is not worthy of self governance (or even involved governance)?
Maybe an imperfect idea is not better than no idea?
This was an exercise in problem solving, and nothing but bad jokes and incoherent historic rambling has been given in return.
I guess until we get over this, we'll get what we deserve.
Like Tony, I will remove myself from this conversation.

I think I have been beaten to it (well not the exact route, but within a few feet).

There is alot of fresh rock out there why make everyone confirm to what the "community" thinks is right? I think that Topher's point (Castle Rock thread) may be right: committees prevent the development of "R/X" routes as well as the bolt ladders. Do your own thing, leave everyone else (and their routes) alone.

Charlie,

I think there's something to be said in favor of climbing areas that are free from regulation. In the Boulder area, in both Eldorado Canyon and the Flatirons (Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks), fixed hardware is heavily regulated. New/changed fixed hardware must go through an application and review process before anything can be done. As a result, few new routes that require fixed hardware are being established in these areas. The aptly named route Hell Freezes Over, put up in 2004, was the first new bolted route in the Flatirons since 1991, according to Myke Komarnitsky.

In areas that are already heavily developed and where land managers have a climbing management plan, like Eldorado, fixed-hardware regulation is appropriate. In areas with much untapped rock, where land managers have adopted a hands-off approach to climbing management, I'm not so sure regulation makes sense.

Do we want all public lands to be governed by such processes, effectively terminating (or at least slowing to a crawl) development of new routes with fixed hardware? Some would say yes; others would say no. Be careful of what you ask for. Relinquishing freedom comes at a price.

Charlie,

Don't be too hard on yourself and the rest of us. The truth is that bolts just aren't that important to the general public. Jane and Joe Public drive through places like Boulder Canyon, daily, and are oblivious to the thousands of bolts that cause some climbers such angst.

Real estate developers are a much greater threat to our access than are some innocuous bolts on a wall. If you are really concerned with preserving access, spend more time following the Daily Camera articles on the seven empty city counsel seats that are up for grabs, and the deep pocketed developers who are jockeying to occupy them. Your informed vote will do a whole lot more toward preserving our precious resource than will preoccupying your time with trying to regulate bolting.

If you live in another city or state, fret none, because it is the same there. Bolting is way down on the list of things that concern the average citizen and politician.

Ralston Buttes - ZERO access, don't even think about it.
Roxborough State Park - No climbing, bouldering, rapelling.
Cheyenne Mountain State Park - No climbing, bouldering, rapelling.
All Denver Mountain Parks - No climbing, bouldering, rapelling.

None of these are the result of any bolting activity at all. There were no "wars" of any kind. In fact, climbing activity was minimal if not non-existent at these places before the door was slammed.

What you do have are people who are paid by us administering land we own deciding that we are irrelevant. Administrators and bureaucrats almost never refrain from initiating new rules, mandates, laws, bans, etc. It is what they do. Want to know what's coming: Off-Trail travel bans. You will be granted access to "their" park on the condition that you stay only the pre-designated established trails. Protecting the resources is what they'll tell us.

Never give up an inch of your rights to government without due cause. National bolting policy !?! For God sakes man, get out of Boulder and into the real world for a while! That is a stupid idea and we are all the dumber for having read it.

Our only chance to remain "free" men (I'm not going to get started on how we are all slaves to the multi-national corporations financial system of eternal debt) is to keep as much regulatory ability as possible DECENTRALIZED down to the most local system as possible. That takes work. To blithely relegate decisions to "higher" authorities is simply ignorant and lazy.

"Never give up an inch of your rights to government without due cause. National bolting policy !?! For God sakes man, get out of Boulder and into the real world for a while! That is a stupid idea and we are all the dumber for having read it."

Thank you Mike for actually pointing out what I am getting at. (It is obvious to me that you didn't actually read my thread).

To repeat:
A National Policy on Bolting CANNOT WORK. It must be determined by LOCAL communities.
The climbing communities BIGGEST drawback is lack of structure ona LOCAL level, and therefore we give up our rights to self governance to NON-Climbing park rangers , hence all the closures listed above.

How difficult is this to understand? LOCALS unite, even if you disagree on bolts. At least organize.

There, now I am done.