New Bolt on Cat in the Hat...?

Doug Hemken wrote: You know, with a route as old, well-known, and frequently climbed as "Cat in the Hat" it's no longer just up to the first ascentionists:

I disagree with this.

I don't think it matters how often the bolt goes back in. The route has too much of a history. It will get removed every time.

Sucks that some dumbass wants to start a bolt war by messing with one of the most heavily traveled routes in Red Rock. With the BLM monitoring our activity and with the development of a wilderness climbing plan on the table, we really don't need that right now.

Jason

Doug Hemken wrote:You know, with a route as old, well-known, and frequently climbed as "Cat in the Hat" it's no longer just up to the first ascentionists: it's communal property, not personal property (morally, legally its government property).

Darren Snipes wrote:I disagree with this.

It seems to me that if there is no RR committee to make decisions about retro-bolting routes than it has to be left up to the first-ascentionists. However, if there is currently a moratorium on bolts in RR, then that supersedes even the latter guideline.

I'm definitely not a local to RR, or even an expert. My comments are intended to be all-encompassing.

--Marc

Jason D. Martin wrote:I don't think it matters how often the bolt goes back in. The route has too much of a history. It will get removed every time. Sucks that some dumbass wants to start a bolt war by messing with one of the most heavily traveled routes in Red Rock. With the BLM monitoring our activity and with the development of a wilderness climbing plan on the table, we really don't need that right now. Jason

Jason,
I agree. This is only exploiting the very thing we do not want. These threads are our worst enemy. We have no ability to work as a community and ego driven a$$'s want to make an internet troll stand on why the said bolt should be justified. LIke the person installing it should really matter. What if it even was the climbers with the FA. the bolt is still not necessary and like many of said in all caps :) ILLEGAL!~
Why on earth would someone even try to stand up for the bolt unless it was there's to begin with. It just seems wrong and every reply I see on this thread just backs that up.

The bolt should go and I would like to see the one who placed it remove it in good faith for the community. This is what this post was supposed to accomplish right? A community driven verdict to the necessity of the new bolt.

Who says it's not wanted? What would you like to do, take a vote?
As to its illegality, maybe it's civil disobedience. The blm has been grossly negligent in its addressing of the need for a climbing management plan. Years of inaction are unacceptable to many.

I have to agree with this sentiment. After a period of decades, established classic routes should not have their protection modified without at least communal approval! I find retro-bolting to be a disturbing trend in recent climbing ethics!

Andrew Carson wrote:Who says it's not wanted? What would you like to do, take a vote? As to its illegality, maybe it's civil disobedience. The blm has been grossly negligent in its addressing of the need for a climbing management plan. Years of inaction are unacceptable to many.

I would say the votes are already in. Your the only one backing the bolt. I would say if anything now you are only trolling.

And WTF... civil disobedience??? I bet your pals feel like real rebels as well as community service loyals by drilling into a classic route and leaving metal that does not need to be there.

Land managment is a whole different thread you are welcome to start. This one will only fill up with votes casted against the bolt.

I could give two shits about that bolt either way. And even if I did have an opinion, who would give a shit as to what my opinion is?

HOWEVER, the bigger issue to me is the fact that placing that bolt is technically illegal. The bigger issue is in fact how the BLM enforces/restricts/manages climbing at Red Rocks. There are very postitive things that come from the climbing rangers, however, the management issues, rules and regulations I really dislike.

I realize that some of you/us are fighting to keep access (similar to Arches N.P.) But that doesn't mean that we should roll on to our back and let the powers that be (it is the damn BLM for christ's sake, they normally let anything go) screw us. Some of the management plan is bullshit, and people shouldn't be afraid to say it. The fact that that bolt can be called ILLEGAL is bullshit. That is where I get fired up.

Whether that one particular bolt should stay or go? I don't care.

Andrew, it looks like everyone except you says it is not wanted.

Even if the FA party was involved, and even if some fraction of the community says that it is wanted, it is extremely bad timing considering that the BLM is deciding how to regulate bolting. There's a fine line between being a rebel and just being dumb - and this is way over the line.

You can not deny that adding a protection bolt to the only committing section of a long standing classic easy route that many thousands of people have climbed without that bolt changes the route.

If that bolt stands, why not a protection bolt or two (or more) on scarier sections of other classic moderates? Why not make everything tightly protected? With that bolting ethic, you'd need maybe a dozen protection bolts in various spots to make Olive Oil a comfortized route.

If you want to see what will happen, visit Europe. Bolted cracks, bolted everything, rocks glued into wide cracks for footholds, glue patches with sand for friction on slick footholds, blatantly chiseled holds, etc.

This sort of trend WILL get climbing BANNED in some areas if allowed to continue. If you pit the Wilderness ethic in the US against a tightly protected bolting ethic, the Wilderness ethic will win. Many climbers will support that Wilderness ethic over a tightly bolted ethic. And the general public, especially environmental activists, view bolts as questionable to begin with.

yeah, it is not good to change the character of the long standing, well known climb. if the people replaced a bad bolt, well no problem. i am going to redrocks in one week, this is a route i have never climbed, and plan to climb it. now what am i to expect?? no excitement because someone figured it is for the best interest to keep it safe? that would be like putting a bolt in the middle runout of jules verne! grade doesn't matter, we should have safe climbs, and wild climbs.
andrew you seem to agree with this bolt?? if so, what would you think of a new bolt on one of your favorite climbs you like to do often? would this upset you?
legal stuff, ahh everyone breaks the law sometimes, but if the relationship is not good with climbers and who "runs" the place...
well then this may make us all look bad to some extent.
maybe the people really meant well, thought they were doing good.
although this seems to be a bad mistake.

SAL wrote: I would say the votes are already in. Your the only one backing the bolt. I would say if anything now you are only trolling. And WTF... civil disobedience??? I bet your pals feel like real rebels as well as community service loyals by drilling into a classic route and leaving metal that does not need to be there. Land managment is a whole different thread you are welcome to start. This one will only fill up with votes casted against the bolt.

Interesting thread. I've climbed the route, and, don't really think that terrain near where the bolt was placed makes or breaks the route for me. A classic, crowded multi pitch 5.6 in Red Rocks with one extra bolt on it? I guess I'd wonder more who placed it. What if it was a person on the FA?

Look at the new guidebook. Tons of new routes. Some by the FA folks from Cat in the Hat. Some that have, ahem, shall we say, uhhh, lets just say the dates of the FA for some of their newer routes haven't been reported that accurately... And, certainly, with a HUGE pile of FA's that are among the most popular routes in Red Rocks, and, being no strangers to bolted protection...

So, really, is the addition of a bolt to a route by those FA folks really inconsistant with their style or ethics? I don't think so. Offends folks who came much, much later. And probably a teeny number of folks who might have actually been around Red Rocks when that route was established. At a time where both styles were at least tolerated.

Reminds me a tad of a route here in LCC (Wasatch). River's Edge. That was a kind of ugly situation for our community.

I think the FA folks have a say in the later addition or upkeep or whatever of the route they opened. So does everyone, really, belonging to a climbing community. But, their vote ought to count a tad more, methinks, and, at least folks oughta consult them before any rash action is taken.

My two cents at least...(given as I've climbed the route, wouldn't care if a bolt was added there as its kind of insignificant to my experience on that route, and, someone who's gone back and both removed and added bolts to routes I've done).

Cheers,

-Brian in SLC

Climbers who think that every route should be entirely injury-proof should take up another hobby, like paper mache, or video games, or coloring books. Make sure to get the safety scissors.

Will

Thanks Jason for the posting I guess. Although calling an able-bodied bro (I've been broken for SEASONS, so that comment is a joke) and removing it with no hoopla would, imho, been a better tactic.

I might take a lap on this one on Saturday...

brent armstrong wrote:Thanks Jason for the posting I guess. Although calling an able-bodied bro (I've been broken for SEASONS, so that comment is a joke) and removing it with no hoopla would, imho, been a better tactic. I might take a lap on this one on Saturday...

Brent,

I considered that, but then I thought about the educational value that a sound internet beating might have for these guys. It is less likely that they will go out and "fix" a bunch more routes if they see how opposed the community is to it.

Jason

Greg, I have not expressed my personal opinion one way or the other, only differing perspectives.
Voices on this website hardly approach a consensus of climber opinion.

Once the posse is saddled up, are you planning on returning Crimson C. to its original state?

Anyone remember the name of that Bolivian route Twight and Backes put up years back...?????

Seems pretty applicable to today's standards.

Andrew, these don't seem to add up:

"Greg, I have not expressed my personal opinion one way or the other..."

"For my part, I think it's a good thing that they decided to add a pro bolt..."

I try to stay away from bolting controversies, but adding a pro bolt to the single most popular 5.6 in Red Rocks - in the middle of a BLM decision making process on future bolt regulations - is not smart. As I said before, way over the line - even if done by the FA party, it's just dumb. Bad PR for climbers.

Andrew Carson wrote:Voices on this website hardly approach a consensus of climber opinion.

The climbing community is massive and those who have the time and the patience for the internet are only a small sample of the community. However, this sample appears to be universally opposed to the addition of bolts on classic routes in the wilderness area.

If this sample is opposed to such action, then we can only assume that the opposition will -- for the most part -- translate across to the wider community.

Supposidly a lot of thought went into the placement. Did they think about the fact that people would be offended? Did they think about the implications on the wider community? It's quite arrogant to believe that your friends are wiser than thirty years worth of climbers who have sent that route without the extra bolt and then somehow were able to restrain themselves from going back and bolting it.

Jason

Hi Greg -- true, I am not being consistent here, but first, I was saying early in the thread that I didn't think it was a good idea to chop it, given the people who placed it. IMO, it should stay, but probably won't. The blm is derelict in its responsibility to manage the area and it is not surprising that fixed anchors in wilderness are becoming common. Have you talked with Larry about this since early on today? We had a good conversation. I am sure he will pitch in.