New Sport routes on Duncan's Ridge ?

Mathias wrote: I'd say that we should respect the wishes of each FA of each route, but it doesn't seem like anyone knows who the FA for any of those routes really is.

It's not just a matter of knowing who did the FA, since we don't always have that info in climbing. What we do know is the style in which the FA was done, and in every rock climbing area I've ever climbed, that style is respected and upheld. You want to develop new sport routes? You go find a rock without prior ascent history. Ignorance of history is no excuse for ignoring it. Ryan isn't just trying to rewrite the history of Duncan's Ridge and these few routes. I'd argue that he's outright trying to rewrite the history of North American rock climbing and how we handle first ascents, all to suit his ego and his bolt happy ways.

What's with all of the personal attacks!? The reality of the matter is that Duncan's Ridge is a highly accessible area, with close proximity to town. It is only natural that people would want to see increased accessibility there. It seems to me like that's exactly what happened here. Bolts were put up, yes, but not in a manner that impinges on the choices of anyone who would prefer to climb trad. i understand that there is a history here, but the fact of the matter is that the few loud voices don't represent the "community" as individuals any more than Ryan does, even though they keep attacking him for it. The fact is that plenty of people will be stoked to have a couple sport lines in this area. No one is suggesting that we all go bolt crazy and place hardware on every rocky surface we encounter. It seems to me like a "compromise" was never reached, because you didn't really try to meet him halfway- you asked that he take down all but 2 routes and then threatened to cut the remaining ones anyway.

If you're claiming this needs to be a bigger discussion, then why not include a few more voices with differing opinions- and the fact that not everyone agrees whole heartedly with you doesn't mean that we are all a bunch of disrespectful punks who don't respect history. That's just a classic ad hominem fallacy, attacking a person instead of their argument. . The history of this sport is that it is ever-evolving. A couple of guys talking over a couple of beers can't speak for everyone.

As I see it this in not simply a local FC issue or a Front Range/Colorado issue. As more and more people learn to "climb" in gyms and have no or very little knowledge of climbing history, culture, and ethics, this type of problem will become more and more prevalent across the country.

This is the type of problem that arises as climbing becomes more and more commodified. Climbing gyms used to be opened by hard core climbers with a passion, now we are seeing investors, with little or no connect to climbing, looking to exploit a market opening gyms. We have reached the point where the majority of climbers are from the gym and convenience often is first and foremost in their minds. They are the majority. So a vote on will go the way of convenience in most cases unless local access organizations also take on the task of educating about local history and ethics. Gyms and climbing companies should do the same, in my opinion.

This is not just about Duncan's Ridge this is about the future of climbing.

I like how everyone that is for the sport routes uses happy feel good words like "consensus", "accessibility", and "compromise".

The compromise in this area is that the newly bolted TR anchors should stay where there is no bomber natural gear near the cliff edge.

The accessibility will not be changed if there are no sport routes. There are now many bolted TR anchors lining the cliff top. If you don't feel comfortable climbing the route without a rope, setup a TR.

The consensus for climbing ethics is that you don't add or remove bolts from routes. You don't bolt cracks or naturally protected routes. You respect the history and style of the area. There are always gray areas, but I don't think this is one of them. Here are some examples:

1.) Let's assume there are no bolting restrictions in the Flatirons. You find this rad unclimbed 5.6 slab climb. You create a beginner friendly 8 bolt sport route with bolts every 8ft. For anyone that is familiar with local style of the area, this would be unacceptable.

2.) Lots of limestone sport crags across the country have bolted cracks, which could be mostly protected with gear. Trad climbers shouldn't go around and start chopping bolts on these climbs, because it is disrespectful to the area's route developers and to the style of the area.

K-grace wrote:Bolts were put up, yes, but not in a manner that impinges on the choices of anyone who would prefer to climb trad.

I could not disagree more. If you think adding bolts to a boulder problem or traditional lead doesn't change the experience of those climbing it, I think you are dead wrong. If you try to boulder or lead the line using natural/no gear, you don't think you'd grab/clip/stand on that bolt if you get scared and think you're about to die or break yourself? I call bullshit.

I see this "you can just ignore the bolts" argument used all the time to justify people adding bolts to previously established lines, and the logic just doesn't stand up. When you add bolts you are altering the experience of every climber that will follow.

Guy H. wrote:I like how everyone that is for the sport routes uses happy feel good words like "consensus", "accessibility", and "compromise". The compromise in this area is that the newly bolted TR anchors should stay where there is no bomber natural gear near the cliff edge. The accessibility will not be changed if there are no sport routes.

This Guy has his head on straight.

Shelton Hatfield wrote: Ignorance of history is no excuse for ignoring it. Ryan isn't just trying to rewrite the history of Duncan's Ridge and these few routes. I'd argue that he's outright trying to rewrite the history of North American rock climbing and how we handle first ascents, all to suit his ego and his bolt happy ways.

Firstly, who's job is it really to make sure new climbers know the history of a particular area, the style in which an FA was done, or the ethics of that area? It can be argued that it is the new climbers responsibility to find that out however they can, but who is it that truly cares that they respect those things? If you want history to be history, you have to write it down, record it somehow, or pass it down. Don't do that, it's lost. That's just how it is and no amount of arguing will change that fact. So who's recording the history of Duncan's Ridge, and who's passing it down to the next generation? We've seen some of that in this thread, for which I'm glad, but other than that, I'd like to know how anyone is truly sharing this history. Look at the history of the country and you'll see that people recorded significant events for posterity. Think about it this way: How did you learn what you know? I'm reading about Layton Kor right now, who freely admitted that he started climbing by trying to chip holds with a rock hammer because he'd see it in a movie and thought that's how it was done.

Secondly, I very seriously doubt Ryan is trying to rewrite the history of North American rock climbing. All he was trying to do, is make a convenient crag, more accessible, safer, and more interesting for those most likely to use it. I don't believe there was an evil intent and I don't think it's ever going to come off that way, no matter how much gasoline you try to pour on it.

FCJohn wrote: Let me attempt to clarify since everyone (myself included) here is attempting to co-opt "consensus".....Perhaps a better word for me to have used above is compromise..... Ryan met with those guys and the reached a " reluctant compromise" I don't think that Wilford, Duncan, Giddings, myself, or any of the other cast of characters (Brink, Bohn, Heyliger, Austin, Guy, etc, etc, etc.) are claiming a group FA. The FA's documentation might be lost to history, but I hope that the established tradition and ethic haven't been lost as well. Many of those guys have already weighted in on the thread. Those guys aren't the end all be all, but what I do know to be true is this. I personally think (and I hope and pray that the NCCC and Ryan do as well) consider those guys as a group of tribal elders, ones that have more than 100+ years of climbing between 3 of them, who were in scene when the FA's were done and knew those climbers of the day personally. I think they MORE than have the necessary the credentials to be a credible, collective historical, moral and ethical compass for the area. Next to the FA's being here in person, their voices carry LOTS of weight in this non-debate, debate.... If we as a collective, we can't accept this to be true, that some voices simply matter and carry more weight than others, then I guess I don't know anything to be true anymore.

John, this makes me think. I understand exactly what you are saying here and I totally agree that in any topic of discussion there are those few who are more knowledgeable and wiser than the majority, and often, those individuals have actually seen the history happen. I think that those "tribal elders" should have a voice on the matter, and that their voices (even to those who have no clue who they are) would quickly gain weight once they began to talk. So if there were a public forum to have these discussions in person, I think a small group of you could quickly and effectively sway the majority. Tales of adventures past have a way of doing that. However, if it comes down to a vote - a show up at this time and place and cast it, vote - I don't think any of you should get more than one. That's how our political system works, and there's a very good reason for that. Anyone can do all the talking and convincing they can manage, but you get your vote and no other.

For the record, it's taken me a long time to form this opinion but this is how I feel about Duncan's Ridge:
Carefully remove the lead bolts, put in more TR anchor bolts, clear a better path to the Nose Wall (which most people seem not to even know about!), and gather all the info we can about the place. It can be a crag for TR, trad, or highball/soloing, but it should be somewhere people can go to learn and have fun as safely as possible, or challenge themselves with the risk of 40' ground falls if they so wish. I think making it more user friendly will increase traffic and therefore erosion, but will also make it a place that the community has a real fondness for. And that might be a way to keep the history alive. But that's just how I feel about it.

All this ethical talk about the style of the FA does make sense to me, but have any of you ever tried explaining this to a non-climber? They own the rock as much as we do. How crazy they must think we all are, not just to climb it, but to argue about whether this bolt should be here, or there, or not in the rock at all. Or to argue about who's got claim to it.

Shelton Hatfield wrote: This Guy has his head on straight.

Yuk,Yuk,yuk

Mathias wrote:All he was trying to do, is make a convenient crag, more accessible, safer, and more interesting for those most likely to use it. I don't believe there was an evil intent and I don't think it's ever going to come off that way, no matter how much gasoline you try to pour on it.

I never said the dude had "evil intent". I just think he is extremely misguided. You know how to make an R/X route safer? Set up a top rope. As stated above, sport routes don't make an area more accessible. It does not enable more climbers to climb there.

Mathias wrote:All this ethical talk about the style of the FA does make sense to me, but have any of you ever tried explaining this to a non-climber? They own the rock as much as we do.

Interesting angle. I have a hard time knowing what non-climbers want, since I most definitely identify as a climber, but I think non-climbers tend to lean towards less shiny clippy things drilled into the rock. Especially when they learn that these routes have been climbed for decades without said shiny clippy things.

Mathias. Climbing was never a demoracy; more like a religion. Any way, the characters with the biggest egos usually prevail. Gotta say it's fun to watch.

JKeller wrote:You've identified the culprits right here. These, including you, are the ones who let the tradition and ethics of the area go to the wayside. If you truly cared about the ethics of climbing at Duncan's all along, you would have never let this happen to begin with. Anyone who climbed regularly at Duncan's in the past year or two knew there were plans in the works to do some bolting up there. I even recall there being something posted on the NCCC site, as well as being mentioned at NCCC events. Where were you before the bolts were installed? Its not the responsibility of the NCCC to seek out approval of a few individuals. Its the responsibility of the individuals to make them self a part of the current community if they want their opinions to be heard.

Very funny... but I don't think you were trying to make a joke. Climbing tradition and ethics isn't something you vote on every 1-2 years. I am pretty sure most folks who solo these lines would probably pack up and leave the area, if a bunch of other climbers started to show up. It is not about being seen or being recognized. There is no ego from the folks against the sport bolts. The majority of them really enjoy sport climbing! Some of these "old guys" can climb circles around us and have done some amazing ascents. You would never know it though, unless you climbed with them and asked.

No gray lines were crossed. Even Ryan has stated that mistakes were made. Ego is a funny thing and can get us into trouble. It is OK to make a mistake, everyone does. One's true character is shown once you realize you were in the wrong. Ryan cares about the area and climbing, nobody is debating that.

"Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'.”
---Friedrich Nietzsche

Shelton Hatfield wrote: I never said the dude had "evil intent". I just think he is extremely misguided. You know how to make an R/X route safer? Set up a top rope. As stated above, sport routes don't make an area more accessible. It does not enable more climbers to climb there. Interesting angle. I have a hard time knowing what non-climbers want, since I most definitely identify as a climber, but I think non-climbers tend to lean towards less shiny clippy things drilled into the rock. Especially when they learn that these routes have been climbed for decades without said shiny clippy things.

This is true; you never said " evil intent". Though you comment did seem highly suggestive of such a thing, from my point of view at least. I don't know Ryan personally and though I'm sure I'd know his face if he walked up and introduced himself, I'm not trying to defend him out of any sense of loyalty. I simply don't believe his intentions were to destroy anything, but rather to add an opportunity for enjoyment. I'm not saying it was right, I'm not saying I agree with the sport routes, I'm just saying I don't think it was done with any sense of negativity.

I also think you're right about putting a top rope on an R/X route or problem. And you're probably right that non-climbers would be in favor of less shiny metal on the rock. Though I'm sure they'd prefer climbers to be safer, if possible, and not to have to step over a taught rope or line of webbing across the path they're walking on. I'm also confident that their thoughts about one person having the say in whether a line is or is not bolted would differ significantly from ours. Just perspective.

Bill: climb may never have been a democracy, but with it becoming so mainstream, something is going to have to change sooner or later. And rather than everyone doing whatever they want, it'd be far more practical for things like crag development or enhancement on public land to become a little more democratic. I don't want to see everything bolted, but I think bolts make a lot of sense in some areas.

I'm looking forward to meeting a lot of new people tomorrow.

FCJohn wrote: Jason are you implying that volunteering at a trail day is a necessary prerequisite for having a strong (or perhaps valid or credible) opinion regarding the ethics of an area? I'm curious to hear what exactly in the previous 6 pages of discussion, in your mind constitutes "isolated trolling" on MP.com? Just askin'...

Active engagement is required for a strong, constructive community. Shouting from sidelines falls on deaf ears.

John, do you have an FA at Duncan's Ridge? Did you help develop the area?

If not, you will only have one vote (if you show up on Saturday), no matter how much time you spend providing "valid" or credible" opinions on this thread.

Jason

Jason Tarry wrote: Active engagement is required for a strong, constructive community. Jason

Having a vote on this issue at a community event is sure way to not achieve this goal. You are just going to have a bunch of people arguing over something that we all love. If the NCCC wants to divide the local climbing community, they should hold a vote. I for one will not cast a vote and give any legitimacy to this crazy idea. I was planning on coming to the event, but now I am having second thoughts. I don't really don't want to spend my weekend arguing with fellow climbers.

I guess I just don't understand why there needs to be bolted sport routes? Can someone explain this to me? The argument that people can learn to lead makes no sense because there are several gyms in fort collins that are available for this.

The bolts(on route, not anchors) add no safety IMO when you can just TR them if you don't want to lead them or highball them.

Also how is Duncan's ridge different than any other climbing area in terms of respecting the FA's and history? Proximity to town has no bearing on this or else the flatirons would be bolted to shit. It is a well understood rule in climbing that you respect the manner in which a FA was done. This especially rings true at a place like Duncans where all of these climbs can still be safely TRd if you don't want to lead them.

Climbing is evolving, but that doesn't mean that you throw out all the long held traditions and ethics that have been passed down for generations.

Jason Tarry wrote: Active engagement is required for a strong, constructive community. Shouting from sidelines falls on deaf ears. John, do you have an FA at Duncan's Ridge? Did you help develop the area? If not, you will only have one vote (if you show up on Saturday), no matter how much time you spend providing "valid" or credible" opinions on this thread. Jason

Jason you didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours and hope you return the favor.

Yours must be a rhetorical question, if you already know the answer, right?
No one knows who did the FAs and I wasn't even born when the area was developed, the ethics and tradition are established. I will guarantee you one thing, I have logged more days climbing at Duncans than you or Ryan do.... And giddings, wilford, and Duncan could all say the same thing to me.

What makes you think that my input has been limited to the sidelines?
I reached out to Ryan and met with him in person, we discussed like men, and he's now backtracked. Those are the facts.

The entire exercise of a vote is a farce and mockery and the fact that the NCCC is even entertaining the idea of a vote tells me that they aren't properly equipped to manage the tradition or ethics of the area.

Now if Ryan is holding a vote personally... Then I'll interpret that as the last gasps of his attempt to salvage a bad idea that is now suffering a long, painful, public death.

Jason Tarry wrote: you will only have one vote (if you show up on Saturday), no matter how much time you spend providing "valid" or credible" opinions on this thread. Jason

The valid opinions and the credible arguments that John has made actually weigh more than some arbitrary "vote" you guys are having on a trail day.

I have to say, I'm very disappointed in the way that this whole process is being carried out. If you have no intention of removing the bolts then just say so.

Those of us that oppose them have stated our objections. My "vote" does not count more than that of any other individual, but that does not mean that I cannot argue for a historical perspective and for the preservation of a local and long standing ethic.

I will not be at your trail day. I wish you good luck and I hope that a full on bolt war does not ensue.

Thank you, FC John for your passionate pleas to respect the history of Horsetooth climbing.

Respectfully,

Jeff Giddings

Guy H: Don't let the thought of arguments dissuade you from doing some trail work. I'm not going to argue with anyone while I'm there, though I may have discussions with people. It's a community effort for a community crag.

I would hope there isn't a vote at the trail day. If there's going to be a vote, I feel there should be a meeting first and an open forum. But ideally, the trail day will connect the newest generation of climbers with the older. Us n00bs can learn some history, and maybe the veterans can appreciate that not every new climber wants to ignorantly trample upon the past.

Regarding the argument *for* the sport routes (which I'm not really in favor of), I think it goes something like this: For gym climbers who have no mentors or more experienced friends to help them, going outside can be a daunting proposition. Some simply don't have the raw strength needed for many of the gym routes, due to the overhanging nature, and so haven't learned to lead indoors. This is true even for those who do have more experienced friends. To have a few easier sport routes on a short wall that doesn't seem in any way intimidating, makes the whole process much less terrifying. Are there other places to do this? Yeah, probably. But not being much into sport anyway, I'd have to think on it to find something easy to find, low grade, short, not totally vertical. So not a great argument, but I think that's what they'll end up being used for if they stay.

If the democratic process is a farce for decisions such as this, then please enlighten me with how the community should proceed?

I've only been to Duncan's Ridge a hand full of times. It was fun, but limited. The setting and views were fantastic. Does your countless hours spent at this location provide your perspective with more weight?

Personally, I would prefer that bolts are not installed at this area. My climbing roots are based on the appreciation of the first ascent-est style. However, I also know that climbing is evolving. Climbing is now mainstream. We are no longer the recluses hiding in obscure rocky crags. Boldness of the early forefathers has given way to pure difficulty of the young modern crushers. The growth of this activity will mandate safer and more user friendly conditions. I believe that the Duncan's Ridge property manager was proactive with the NCCC regarding the installation of fixed anchors.

The goal of our modern climbing community should be to keep a connection to the original developers while guiding the inevitable progress and modernization that will occur.

We can't just stick our foot in the ground and try to stop rock climbing from progressing. It will progress and more fixed anchors will be installed. Let's try to build a consensus on how the progression will occur.

I missed this gem of a post from JKeller earlier and I wanted to revisit it because of the pure insanity of his statements.

JKeller wrote: You've identified the culprits right here. These, including you, are the ones who let the tradition and ethics of the area go to the wayside. If you truly cared about the ethics of climbing at Duncan's all along, you would have never let this happen to begin with. .

I, along with these old school climbers personally let the tradition and ethics go by the wayside?

How so? Help me understand this.

Should I have carved the rules of Duncan's ridge on a stone tablet at the base of the crag?

Do you feel it is my personal responsibility extend an invitation to each new climber that picks up the sport in Fort Collins to school them on the ethics of an area.

You're wrong. If Ryan, a board member of the NCCC mind you, is going to take it upon himself to pick up a drill, slam bolts in a bunch of boulder problems, let's be damn straight that its his sole personal responsibility to ask the right questions about the ethics of the area before drilling a single hole. full stop.

Its laughable that you're somehow questioning my personal commitment to the ethics of this or any other area.

I've had a dialogue with each and every past president of the NCCC since its inception about the ethics of the area. There is a thread discussing the exact same issue back at Duncan's in 2010. I was part of the discussion then, and I'm still here now.

At one time, as a new guy to Fort Collins, in my early 20s I contemplated bolting the ridge myself, but you know what? I asked a few questions of folks older and more experienced than me, recognized that it wasn't the right thing to do, and moved on to much more worthy pursuits.

I have 20 years of "skin in the game" on climbing ethics. If you think I have somehow been sitting idle this whole time while the NCCC & Ryan have been out saving the world, then you're a fool.

JKeller wrote: Anyone who climbed regularly at Duncan's in the past year or two knew there were plans in the works to do some bolting up there.

So you posted signage? You published a feasibility study for public comment? Funny, I didn't see it and I climb up there all the time. Tell me again about the blue ribbon job that the NCCC/Ryan did in attempting to gain consensus on the front end of this debacle?

JKeller wrote: Where were you before the bolts were installed?

Where was I before the bolts were installed? You might think I've been sitting on my ass "trolling" the internet, but I was out climbing, bolting other, more appropriate and worthy crags in Colorado/Wyoming, and generally overestimating the amount of common sense and respect other developers and NCCC board members had for ethics and tradition. I've been climbing there for 15 years contributing to this community.

What were you personally doing 50 years ago when climbing first hit the scene in Fort Collins? Were you there with your drill?

This whole thing would be a non story if you Jkeller, Ryan, or anyone were the first person to climb at DR 50 years ago and grid bolted the crap out of the crag. Those people would have set the ethics of Duncan's ridge and we'd all be respecting that today.

But you know what, that shit didn't happen, and Ryan and the NCCC don't get to rewrite the ethics of the area for any reason: Not popularity, proximity, accessibility, convenience, stewardship, not safety. nope. Not-a-one.

Send me a PM, I have a great piece of Rock up the canyon that I don't have time to get to this summer. I'll give you the GPS coordinates and you and Ryan can go to town and drill it to pieces. Have at it. Only then, can you or anyone else set the stage/tone for ethics at an area.

Jason Tarry wrote: Does your countless hours spent at this location provide your perspective with more weight? .

Unequivocally.Yes

Duncan Ferguson's opinion > Ken Duncan, Wilford, Bohn, etc.etc.etc > My opinion > a beginner who's climbed there a few > a gym rat's opinion > my 2 year old's opinion.

Yes. There are simply some opinions that carry more weight than others. I think its generally a universally accepted practice to show deference to those climbers who came before us in terms of ethics of an area.

If you disagree. Then I'd encourage you and Ryan to go bolt the 3rd flatiron. See how that turns out for you...

JKeller wrote: Its not the responsibility of the NCCC to seek out approval of a few individuals.

You could-not-be-more-wrong if you tried. I don't count myself among that crowd, but the fact that you can't recognize that simple issue makes me dismiss and invalidate nearly everything you have offered up and perhaps might offer in the future as someone that knows-what-the-hell-they-are-talking-about....

I'll give you just one name, here is a hint: His Name is Duncan.
Last name: Ferguson.

The ridge is named after him. He lives in Colorado. Ken Duncan knows him.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to ask, "Hey, who is this Duncan guy that the ridge is named after?" ""Perhaps before we go drill the ridge named after him, how about we try to get a hold of him and see what he might have to say?"

Here is another name: Mark Wilford. He's a bad ass. He lives in Fort Collins. He climbs at Miramont & still climbs at Duncan's ridge. He's a gear rep for climbing gear that you and I both use. He generally knows what the heck he's talking about.

oy vey.....

JKeller wrote: Its the responsibility of the individuals to make them self a part of the current community if they want their opinions to be heard.

Again, you are dead wrong. Its the responsibility of Ryan as the self anointed Duncan's Ridge re-development officer to seek out the opinions of those that know a lot more than he does about the area before bucking the ethics, history and tradition of 50 years climbing by bolting boulder problems.

You can have all of the personal opinions you want on your own set of ethics. But just because because you have an opinion (or a drill) doesn't give you the right, authority, or community mandate to drill Duncan's ridge.

When you choose to start discovering and developing your own crags, you'll earn the right to dictate the ethics at that new area. Until then, leave well enough alone.

Again, lets not dick measure or bash people. Taking a poll is not the decision maker here. It's a way to get and record some feedback from the community. Whoever wants to stick around on Saturday for discussion is welcome to. The MAIN purpose of this event is TRAIL WORK. Opinions from the older community do weigh on the Coalition members quite a bit. The consensus seems to be no lead bolts, keep the anchors. NCCC has just recently gotten permission to take responsibility for maintaining the area and we would like to do this the right way. Everyone's opinion should be considered, as well as ethics and history.