Chopped bolts

So while climbing at Sand Rock yesterday, I noticed that the bolts and anchors on new beginning have been chopped again.  They were there on DEC 28 and gone on Jan 1.  Does not make sense to me.

I don't see the route listed on this site and can't find my Dixie Cragger's Atlas.  I'm not familiar with (or don't remember) this route and its history. Usually, when bolts get chopped, it's because the climb was originally done on gear, has ample gear placement opportunities and/or can be easily top roped.  From the picture, it appears that there are at least a few opportunities for gear placements - though it looks a little sparse in the middle. For some history on such things, it was common in the early-mid 90s for some people with portable powered hammer drills to get a little carried away, retrobolt routes and bolt easily protected climbs (cracks).  Often, these bolts got removed, including at places like Sand Rock.

I'm not in the area, so it wasn't me.  : )

I can't find this route in either the 2nd edition or 3rd edition of Dixie Craggers

My guess is its a retro of a trad route and someone doesn't appreciate it. Perhaps a good example for need of documenting a route

Edit: Ah. I see. V0 boulder problem bolted like a gym climb. I wish you luck

I believe Joel must’ve meant “First Beginning”. This climb is near fireplace boulder, usually done with pads. My best guess is that someone chopped the anchors after deeming them unsafe and plans on returning to install glue-ins, this tends to happen at sand rock from time to time. 

I know this was a boulder problem for many years prior to the bolts. Not sure why they were removed as they've been there a while. 

Nathan Steele wrote:

I know this was a boulder problem for many years prior to the bolts. Not sure why they were removed as they've been there a while. 

We still go after murderers, even it their victim has been dead for decades and the culprit has been roaming free for a while.  : )

Some hero saw his name in lights and probably decided to drill. Most likely a gym climber

#HPSC. 

The bolts were in the process of being replaced.  Due to hardware availability issues and time constraints (we are all volunteers) it took a little while to finish the job.  Bolts are now back on the route (thank you Sam!).  however, still no quicklinks on the anchors.  Will get those on the next trip.

It's a boulder problem (5.6ish) when you walk in and go left, heading to mud wall. It is also an easy 1st trad lead. There is a traverse going the whole length of that wall from left to right. Robyn did the whole thing ending way right, under a roof, 1980s.

courthouse wrote:

It's a boulder problem (5.6ish) when you walk in and go left, heading to mud wall. It is also an easy 1st trad lead. There is a traverse going the whole length of that wall from left to right. Robyn did the whole thing ending way right, under a roof, 1980s.

You're saying that it's a moderate boulder problem that can also be led on gear and presumably top-roped? If so, then why the F is it bolted?

Its chopped, because some idiot bolted it.

Heavy Pipe Swingers Crew can not confirm or deny any involvement in the removal of said hardware on a boulder problem that takes gear. Sincerely, 

Sport crag assassin's 

Night chop ninjas 

Retro wrecking roughnecks 

HPSC V2.0

Leo Galleo wrote:

Heavy Pipe Swingers Crew can not confirm or deny any involvement in the removal of said hardware on a boulder problem that takes gear. Sincerely, 

Sport crag assassin's 

Night chop ninjas 

Retro wrecking roughnecks 

HPSC V2.0

I believe that it's the Hard Pipe Swingers Coalition, but what do I know?

Todd Berlier wrote:

ugh. here we go. although im all for keeping routes and problems as FA intended, having the choppers come on MP and claim responsibility like this is lame.

imo, if you're going to chop remove the gear and have a face to face with whoever bolted it, tell them why and give them their gear back. 

edited to add: lets not have a bolt war play itself out on MP, please. there are reasons for adding bolts to existing routes/problems and my apologies for weighing in with opinion on the chopping. 

LOL. No and too late. : )

IMO, if you're going to bolt something, then you determine whether it can be (safely) led on gear and do some due diligence to see if someone else did the route first. If the former isn't the case, the latter is, and the potential retrobolter would like to see bolts added, then it's incumbent on the retrobolter to discuss their desires with the FA before picking up the drill.

After the mid-90s Sand Rock route restorations, it was publicly announced who did the cleaning and why. The hangers were booty. Some were used in places where replacements were needed and some were used to make necklaces. ; ) Two fairly well-known climbers (KP and DR) asked one of the choppers in separate conversations "did you get permission from the FAs to chop the routes?"  (Note that the FAs established the routes on gear and should not be confused with the retrobolter) True WTF moments.  Of course, the question was turned around on them. "Ask the retrobolter if he asked permission from the FA before drilling."

Todd Berlier wrote:

ugh. here we go. although im all for keeping routes and problems as FA intended, having the choppers come on MP and claim responsibility like this is lame.

imo, if you're going to chop remove the gear and have a face to face with whoever bolted it, tell them why and give them their gear back. 

edited to add: lets not have a bolt war play itself out on MP, please. there are reasons for adding bolts to existing routes/problems and my apologies for weighing in with opinion on the chopping. 

I disagree with your first piece.  If you chop a route, you better be public about it, and have a damn good reason. 

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

I disagree with your first piece.  If you chop a route, you better be public about it, and have a damn good reason. 

If you retrobolt a route, you better be public about it, have a damn good reason, and the consent of the FA(s).

Ben F wrote:

If you retrobolt a route, you better be public about it, have a damn good reason, and the consent of the FA(s).

Agreed. If you touch anyone else's line that you didn't establish, you'd better have a damn good reason. First step: ask the developer. Step two: damn good reason if they say no. I've been told no on at least 3 lines that still sit with dangerous bolt jobs that consistently turn people away, or are just not nearly as fun of a line as they would be with a bolt job that considers the climber, and not the developer's pocket book. 

While I agree that it is generally appropriate to get the OK from the original equipper before making any changes to a bolted route, I think there are some important exceptions. I think that it shouldn’t require the approval of the FA ( or equipper—not necessarily the same person) to make a one-for-one replacement of such things as seriously worn anchors or dangerous bolts ( for example ones using the ‘wrong’ metals in areas impacted by the sea or the maritime environment or in certain tropical areas). This is primarily true for sport climbing areas, but I believe is also appropriate for trad areas that rely heavily on bolt protection. After all, do folks rap from rusted pins or decaying tat ( if they have any choice) just because those are the pieces used by the FA ( or the FD)? Since folks here in MP often jump to conclusions, I’m not advocating that such anchors be replaced by bolts, only that it is common practice ( and common sense) to replace, if at all possible, deteriorating rap anchors and the same should be true for fixed protection on the climbs themselves, without having to get ‘permission’. Again this is only for one to one replacements not adding, chopping, or relocating.

Alan Rubin wrote:

While I agree that it is generally appropriate to get the OK from the original equipper before making any changes to a bolted route, I think there are some important exceptions. I think that it shouldn’t require the approval of the FA ( or equipper—not necessarily the same person) to make a one-for-one replacement of such things as seriously worn anchors or dangerous bolts ( for example ones using the ‘wrong’ metals in areas impacted by the sea or the maritime environment or in certain tropical areas). This is primarily true for sport climbing areas, but I believe is also appropriate for trad areas that rely heavily on bolt protection. After all, do folks rap from rusted pins or decaying tat ( if they have any choice) just because those are the pieces used by the FA ( or the FD)? Since folks here in MP often jump to conclusions, I’m not advocating that such anchors be replaced by bolts, only that it is common practice ( and common sense) to replace, if at all possible, deteriorating rap anchors and the same should be true for fixed protection on the climbs themselves, without having to get ‘permission’. Again this is only for one to one replacements not adding, chopping, or relocating.

Agreed. Maintenance on a typical sport route isn't worth contacting anyone. Just do a good job. I don't know what the pearl clutchers do when their favorite pin breaks in Yose, considering all of them were place by the hands of Gods. 

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

Agreed. Maintenance on a typical sport route isn't worth contacting anyone. Just do a good job. I don't know what the pearl clutchers do when their favorite pin breaks in Yose, considering all of them were place by the hands of Gods. 

God's and Satan live in the Valley.  They are at constant war.  This is why the Valley Christians were formed years ago.