Time to air some dirty laundry - ADK overbolting

Brian Pappas wrote:How about climb for the love of climbing and leave it at that.

Peace and love and solving world hunger. Yeah, I'm all for it. Just how do we get there again? :p

mike h wrote:On the route page you linked, Jim Lawyer gives you very reasonable advice on contacting the developers and starting a civil discussion about their ethics and bolting. It's clear from your comments that you have no interest in that: That approach seems about as mature as Keenan's comments in this thread.

Per Jim's suggestion I've gone ahead and cleaned up much of this thread. I may have been a bit zealous in wanting to drag this from the shadows, and have an email out that I'm sure will put things into perspective.

mike h wrote: That approach seems about as mature as Keenan's comments in this thread.

Yeah already been discussed on here many times but keenan is sort of well.... an idiot. He is only 20 though so cut him some slack, maybe one day he will wise up. Also don't tell him he is being a moron otherwise he will challenge you to a fight through the internet! hahaha... Just look at that goofy face in his profile pic, truly only a face a mother can love!

BurtMachlan wrote: Yeah already been discussed on here many times but keenan is sort of well.... an idiot. He is only 20 though so cut him some slack, maybe one day he will wise up. Also don't tell him he is being a moron otherwise he will challenge you to a fight through the internet! hahaha... Just look at that goofy face in his profile pic, truly only a face a mother can love!

hi dex.

Kevin-

What do you mean by "also provide a reasonable filter through which new routes should pass before the first bolts are placed" What would be the filter? The removal of the DEC bolting ban? I'm not so sure that having the DEC, or any government agency for that mater, regulating bolting or the development of new routes is a good idea. Did you contact the people Jim gave you a link to? Curious as to what their response was. Although it seems like most of the climbers in the Adirondack's are not connected, the reality is that the community is very small and self regulation is certainly possible with open discussion. Or at least I think it is!:)

Everyone-

I think that Dominic's new route/bolting essay in Adirondack Rock is a great read to reference for "how to" establish new routes.

Hey, I just bought all these bolts. I was wondering if anyone knows of routes that need them. I prefer to place them near cracks or in wilderness areas.

Bolts

The spirit of this isn't anti-bolting. I'm pro responsible bolting. Most reasonable climbers are.

Will Roth wrote:Kevin- What do you mean by "also provide a reasonable filter through which new routes should pass before the first bolts are placed" What would be the filter? The removal of the DEC bolting ban? I'm not so sure that having the DEC, or any government agency for that mater, regulating bolting or the development of new routes is a good idea. Did you contact the people Jim gave you a link to? Curious as to what their response was. Although it seems like most of the climbers in the Adirondack's are not connected, the reality is that the community is very small and self regulation is certainly possible with open discussion. Or at least I think it is!:)

In some areas of the country there are plans/processes in place that regulate how a route gets bolted. It goes through a committee process to review (ensure) the need for bolts to be placed, then they're placed. It also makes maintenance of those bolts possible when needed. It doesn't seem unreasonable, if faced with a desire to stop the activity (but knowing they lack the manpower to do so), that a governing agency would see such a process as favorable for them and us. You'd be surprised at what can be worked out with a government agency. It doesn't happen overnight but things do happen (look at the progress being made at Thatcher Park this year). I've also had the priviledge of knowing the lean2rescue group that started renegade and is now being embraced by the DEC.

Having someone mediate the want for bolts on a route with the need for bolts is never a bad thing. It's not like the State would be actively handling ethics issues, they would simply be involved with forming proper regulatory wording and assisting when needed. A climber's coalition would be the responsible party, reporting to the State.

What I find ironic is that those who insist on climbers handling issues privately through discussion don't want any discussion with the State. Seems there's a kind of prejudice going on here.

I do agree with you that government agencies can listen to what user groups are saying and work with them. What I'm talking about is more about time management. Having to find a new route/area, clean it and then if it needs a bolt/bolts stop and apply for a permit. Seems like it could be a lengthy process waiting for that permit. Also what about going ground up? Apply for a permit before even climbing a new route if you think it needs bolts? Seems a little excessive to just do an FA. The process in place now; find new route/area, clean route, if bolts are needed, bolt, climb new route clean if not already done ground up. The second process can and usually is done in a day or maybe two days depending on the length of the route. I'm not against bolts and I do agree with you that they need to be placed responsibly but I am against government regulation of route development. As far as discussion with the State, I'm not against it either and the newer management plans being put into place on many of the different types of state land have had climber impute. However, government regulation of new routes is a bad Idea. I have not climbed at the Lost T cliff to see what started this thread. Perhaps a visit is in order for me to better understand what is going on down there.

Will Roth wrote:I do agree with you that government agencies can listen to what user groups are saying and work with them. What I'm talking about is more about time management. Having to find a new route/area, clean it and then if it needs a bolt/bolts stop and apply for a permit. Seems like it could be a lengthy process waiting for that permit. Also what about going ground up? Apply for a permit before even climbing a new route if you think it needs bolts? Seems a little excessive to just do an FA. The process in place now; find new route/area, clean route, if bolts are needed, bolt, climb new route clean if not already done ground up. The second process can and usually is done in a day or maybe two days depending on the length of the route. I'm not against bolts and I do agree with you that they need to be placed responsibly but I am against government regulation of route development. As far as discussion with the State, I'm not against it either and the newer management plans being put into place on many of the different types of state land have had climber impute. However, government regulation of new routes is a bad Idea. I have not climbed at the Lost T cliff to see what started this thread. Perhaps a visit is in order for me to better understand what is going on down there.

It wouldn't be a formal permit process, just a review and documenting of what will be done. By having FA'ers talk with the coalition there can be dialogue that might bring up potential issues or refine strategies. It forces a level of discourse to occur that isn't always occurring right now.

There aren't a lot of climber's in the ADKs doing ground up routes with a drill/bolt gun. Yes, it is happening at a few choice areas (Silver Lake being one I'm sure, maybe Roger's Rock). That would probably be addressed with a preemptive "hey I want to ground up at such and such, you guys cool with that?" Right now people can (and are) going into areas and bolting however they want. Not only has it created a bit of a messy, unbalanced approach to bolting, it's created situations of poor bolting as in the case of the few routes mentioned at Lost T.

Having a standard moving forward and using a coalition of CLIMBERS to help mediate that ethic/standard can't hurt. The State's involvement would be simply to set the ground rules, leaving the mundane task of determining how those ground rules get applied case by case up to the climbing community. Most importantly, climber paths and work at the base of climbs could get done. Right now those things are done stealth and not as well as they could be with full blessing of the DEC (including the use of power tools during the Spring window that allows for them, and approved projects to create stairs/retaining walls, etc). This is already being done elsehwere. This is also likely to be a very similar model employed at Thatcher.

Governing agencies are not the enemy.

As for the time it takes to develop a route - what's the hurry? It's not like the rock is going anywhere. If it takes a couple months extra to bolt it, how does that really change the climb?

Rowdy , It looks like your photo shows boxes of hangers - not bolts .

I think I must be missing something here.

Kevin, you are upset because 3 routes at a new crag are overbolted (in your opinion.)

Rather than discuss this with the developers, (who have an online guide to the crag with all their names posted, hence should be relatively easy to find in the small ADK climbing community) you would like to get the governmental land manager to impose a "Fixed anchor approval committee" of some kind.

You apparently believe that once you draw the attention of the governmental land manager (which seems to currently have a fairly hands off approach to climbing management) they will ignore the important impacts of climbing (eg increased visitation to sensitive areas, disturbance to plant and animal life, removal of lichen, social trails, etc) so that they can focus on esoteric arguments about the appropriate number of bolts on new routes.

Furthermore, you cite Thacher State Park as an example of how this model could work, despite the fact that ALL climbing is banned at Thacher and always has been?

Maybe I've been reading too much of Martin Veillon's ramblings, but if you want routes climbed a certain way, with bolts placed just so, maybe you should go climb them first?

Mark

Mark E Dixon wrote:I think I must be missing something here.

You did.

The overbolting was the inspiration for this discussion. The regulatory component came up as an inevitible consequence of such practices.

3 routes? How many excessive bolts could they even squeeze into three routes?

Which locals are disturbed besides yourself? Maybe you're right and these routes are travesties, and these guys are totally out of control unreasoning bolters, but you haven't exactly proven your case yet. Their website makes them seem like pretty decent guys trying to do a good job developing a small crag. You can also find the email of Gary Thomann if you bother to look. gthomann@nycap.rr.com

Inevitable consequence? What else have you tried so far? Not even a bolt war...

Mark

Edited to add-
I've been thinking about this on my drive home and feel like I'm coming across way more hostile than I really feel.
I'm FOR maintaining an adventure tradition in the Daks. I mostly sport climb now, but had my share of fun on Pok-O and elsewhere. Others should have the same opportunity and I may again myself someday.
I just don't quite see how these routes are a big threat to "Adirondack climbing as we know it."
And even if they are, I'm bothered by what seems to be a willingness to bring in the authorities to enforce one side of the debate. I may be a little sensitive on this issue, since here in Boulder there are way too many folks who want to keep everyone except members of their own user group off public lands.

I'm one of three random people to respond to the routes I posted on MP. I know of one privately who's concerned after reading this thread and is contacting them. I wouldn't say I'm alone in my concerns.

My email to Gary has gone unanswered, which is fine as I only asked he forward it on if he wasn't involved.

Authorities can be an asset. This US vs THEM shit needs to stop. It's usually people who have one bad experience or no experience working with governing agencies that have that perception.

What I'm suggesting here isn't a matter of whether it will happen, it's really just a matter of when. As more and more rock gets climbed, especially here in the East where it's in more limited quantity, the desire to squeeze as many routes into every square foot of exposed rock will result in bolted lines where trad wouldn't be safe or possible. This is neither good nor bad, and the trend is going to be for more incidents of improper route setting as a result (if taken as a percent of the whole). This sport is growing and there's a push for more and more routes. The concern expressed here isn't a huge stretch.

The "authorities" in my neck of the woods bring things to a grinding halt regularly. Then the head bureaucrat gets moved somewhere and we have to start over again with a new one. I really wonder if you're going to regret this. Seems much easier to hash things out climber to climber. That's just me though.

Rowdy Wrangellian wrote:Hey, I just bought all these bolts. I was wondering if anyone knows of routes that need them. I prefer to place them near cracks or in wilderness areas.

Dude - u wanna sell me 35 of those puppies? The will be going into CT rock...

Getting the governmental land manager involved can be really bad for access-
look at Cave Rock in Nevada, lava tubes in Oregon, the view-shed issue at City of Rocks, even the Palisades in NY! If you want to see a real horror show, look into the pointless cave closures for white nose syndrome.
So calling them in early seems like a high risk play to me. If I was a bureaucrat, I'd be a lot more concerned about lichen scrubbing than a few bolts and would be inclined to ban new routing altogether, for the sake of the resource.
So do whatever you think is right, but I wonder why you need to call in the authorities if you have such overwhelming support from the climbing community against these bolted routes.
Mark
PS Try a reverse look-up on Gary's publishing address if you want a phone number.

This is a discussion people. No one has called in anyone.

What climbers lack is a solid means of enforcement. Me saying to you "Don't do that" means very little.

Another vote for not involving the governmental land managers...

I'm not saying Kevin's concerns may not be valid, but involving a governmental bureaucracy before trying to resolve the issue directly with the "rouge bolters" will only have negative impacts.

Kevin H stated that "It's illegal in the Adirondack Park to place bolts." If that's true, a land manager won't care if a route has one bolt placed in the traditional "minimalist ethic" or if it's has "4 or 5 bolts... no more than 4 feet away from each other."

A land manager, forced to address this issue will find all bolts illegal; not just the ones Kevin doesn't like...

If iI were Kevin I'd try a lot harder to contact the "rouge bolters" before I'd talk to anyone from the Park.

Governing agencies may not be the enemy. but they certainly aren't your friends...

iBolt

The idea would be to have the management plans modified to be more relaxed on the issue. UMPs come up for review and revision every 5 years or so. My solution is long term, not immediate. It would also expand allowed management to include climber's paths, privies, and cliff bases, as previously explained. The Beer Walls has a privy now thanks to that type of language being inserted into the UMP for that area.

There's a lot that can be done better if we had the full backing of the State.