Would you climb this route?

My recollection is that Ranger Brad told me it costs around $1,500 (not $2,500)to process a new route permit. I'm not sure where that number comes from, as the parties involved are all salaried employees. Actual equipment cost for those particular routes was perhaps $50-$60 per route.

No trails were build to access the "Built for Comfort" routes, unlike other areas that require major staging area stabilization. This factor seems to be the major reason for a route not being approved, and likely was a factor in denial of the route in question.

That said, I've been surprised by several denials of new route proposals, ranging from "too pristine"(The Camel) to "potentially too popular" (Bath Rock East)to "too close to existing routes"(Mushroom Rock).

The City has big potential for the kind of moderate bolted routes that are so popular. I'd love to see changes in the cumbersome approval process, but unfortunately it will may literally take an act of congress to do so.

In regards to the original question: I'd climb it, and I've got some friends in Salt Lake that would climb it too!

No question, I'd climb it and would be glad to see more routes like that at the City.

r.c

kevinhansen wrote:...Look at the massive popularity that Kevin Pogue routes have gained in the last decade. Theater of Shadows, Big Time, Too Much Fun, and Little Time all are abundantly bolted slab climbs rated 5.easy. They all have lines of people waiting to climb them. I think that if there were more 5.5 to 5.7 climbs, and they were abundantly bolted, and if they were spread out around the park...

100% Agree with what Kevin is saying. If you add a route, do it in this style with abundant bolts. People will judge how Pogue's routes are bolted "too closely", but as Kevin has stated, outside of the 4 and 5 star trad routes, Pogue's routes always see traffic because it has a larger community in mind than just just a few gutsy climbers who enjoy run outs.

Wooooo back there Nelly. You need a permit to bolt? WTF, who the hell brought in these clown rules?

kevinhansen wrote: On the side of the park, If I recall it took big bucks (Like $2,500) for Dave Bingham to equip Built for Comfort, Muffin Top and Love Handles on the North West Side of the Breadloaves. They had to do an EPA assessment, Native American artifact assessment, and a ton of red tape.

Only the federal government could justify spending so much money on a bunch of BS paperwork...

Yippyyippychangchang wrote:You need a permit to bolt?

Just like in Eldorado and the Flatirons, among other areas.

dave bingham wrote: My recollection is that Ranger Brad told me it costs around $1,500 (not $2,500)to process a new route permit. I'm not sure where that number comes from...

I raise my glass to Dave for all he has done for climbing in Idaho. Truly a pioneer. I was close but I was off by a grand. still, there has got to be a better use of tax dollars.

One more thing to think about on the parks behalf. Perhaps the park is trying to preserve some rock for future climbers. This concept was taught to me by someone on the Idaho Landmark Naming Committee. Not all the mountains in the Lost River Range have names. This is a gift to future generations, so they can honor others to come.
At the same time, sounds to me like the O.P. is of the rising generation. I say let him bolt, why supress creativity? If the route stinks, yank the bolts. Brad has done it before, there was a terrible route on Fence Line Rock, a Colderone route, if I recall. It was two bolts above a ledge to a blank face. If you fell anywhere you'd deck onto the ledge.

Imagine if every route in the City would have required this much debate. Sheesh.

I would climb the route, but probably only once...unless it were an approach pitch to some other climbing, could be part of a fun link-up, or were a classic and fun slab. If I went climbing with a beginner, I might also take them to climb it if there were other easy climbs in the area. It seems like top-roping it would be a cumbersome task given that it's 200' of slab so I am speculating that other people who would be interested in climbing it would be 5.7 to 5.8 leaders (but depending on how it is bolted), non-leaders, and the locals who's mentality it is to climb everything at least once.

Could it be an issue of the government having only so much money to put toward costs in developing routes and wanting to keep those funds for routes they feel will draw more traffic and raise more money for the park? Are there fees to use this area?

To me, it seems like how you decide to bolt it could affect its appeal...and it would be desirable to find a balance of appeal...between bolting it generously to make it more accessible or to make things more spicy and get the heart pumping with the drawback that it may be less popular. Is less traffic a good thing or a bad thing in this case? If you get the chance to put it up, note that when you do, you can't make everyone happy, so climb it and protect it in your style. It is likely that if you enjoy the route, some others will as well. I say who cares if it doesn't become popular, at least it would be there as an option and some people will enjoy it.

Just to play the devil's advocate...what is keeping someone from just going out and putting in the holes? You could take a handful of removable bolts and climb it. Any subsequent party could do the same. You'd be leading it on gear after all. Anyone no longer desiring to have the route there couldn't remove a hole, but it could be filled with epoxy to "erase" it.

Out of curiosity...what would the consequences be of establishing the line sans permit? Would the, "criminal," be fined and/or banned from the climbing area and the route removed?

Dear Climbers, do you think that government involvement in bolting and route development is good or bad? Is it better to have the government protect the natural resource and limit liberties or to have full liberties and damage to the common wealth i.e., this natural resource. Like most things in life, the ideal would probably be a balance between the two. Anyone have anything to say about how this could best be achieved? How are things at the city of rocks? Anything you would change?

How "technical" is the hike? Would 5.6 climbers be shitting themselves getting there?

If not, perhaps requesting a permit for 2 or 3 routes would be better.
A couple long mellow well bolted slab routes plus that mellow trad feature in the picture would provide a successful day's climbing for that level of climber.

As a new climber, the city was quite intimidating because there were not too many routes under 5.8 with lots of x's on the topo. As lost as we were trying to find what 5.8s there were back then, I doubt I would have been able to find this place. It would take quite a trail building and signage effort on the part of C o R.

bus driver wrote:How "technical" is the hike?... It would take quite a trail building and signage effort on the part of C o R.

I think this is 96% the reason why it was denied. There are no popular routes on the Clam Shell. After 20 years of climbing at the city, I've been out there once.
I'm sure that a trail is the biggest expense of new routing.
Kevin

Yippyyippychangchang wrote:Wooooo back there Nelly. You need a permit to bolt? WTF, who the hell brought in these clown rules?

Bolting on FS land could easily be construed as making improvements. Some how climbers have been given cart blanche on improving FS land. Other user groups haven't been so lucky. A mountain biker was fined $1,000 just for riding an illegally built trail. Hippy chick fixing up a hot springs was threatened with $1,000 fine.

If certain members of the MTB community had any idea what climbers get away with, on regular FS land not to mention Wilderness, they would be screaming bloody murder.