How Rap Slings came to the Gunks

Rui Ferreira wrote: This was not my own experience. I found it to be the opposite as hanging out by the car on 299 was so inconvenient due to the lack of space between cars and between the guard rail and the infamous white line on the street. Our practice was to bring a day pack to the cliff and only return to the car at the end of the day. I do recall walking off the top of climbs and back down the Uberfall more frequently than rappeling, but it depended on location. In general we walked off most climbs in the Nears, with perhaps the one or two climbs such as Birdland being the exception.

I had the same experience as RGold. BITD when I climbed at the Gunks in the late 70's we parked on the side of road, geared up, topped out on every route, and descended via the uberfall, even for climbs way down. Never carried a pack. Ate lunch at the car.

Today, I still prefer to descend via the uberfall, especially when climbing with my teenage son who has less experience rappelling. It's safer, and often faster -- a party of two topped out on Jackie as my son & I topped out on Classic... They rapped and we walked off, making it down way before they did.

Also, I can avoid carrying two ropes or avoid 2x more raps with a single rope.

p.s. I also enjoy the walk in the woods after topping out. Gives me time to discuss the previous climb with my partner, check out the nature, etc. While walking off I seen a multitude of deer, a couple turtles, some snakes and my very first & only porcupine.

I don't really understand how "entitlement" came to be this four-letter word that everybody shies away from. I am entitled to e.g. the right of free-speech, by dint of being a US citizen. Nowhere does anybody say anything about how warranted that sense of entitlement is, but the implication, when entitlement is used as a pejorative, is that its an unjustified entitlement.

As to the presence of rap-slings at the Gunks, I think its fair to say that as the scene changed regarding toproping, single-pitch climbing, and convenience anchors, people did come to reasonably expect convenient rappel stations, as the Gunks is not exactly a wilderness crag.

That said, I don't feel like the Gunks was ever so cutting edge in the modern (e.g. contemporary with widespread sport climbing) to really benefit much from the new tactics, so adding rap slings onto existing climbs seems like laziness, rather than forward-thinking.

whatever the experience of eating lunch by the car on Rt 44/55 (edited) or not, to say that the primary influence in rap anchors' establishment was due to the banning of parking along the roadside is up for debate. As I have indicated, long before parking was banned some of us were already carrying day packs to the base of climbs. Also, during my first two years most of my climbing was top-roping and not leading, so top-roping was already well established in the late 80's, not only on difficult lines but also on easy routes that could be accessed from the top of the cliff.

One thing the proliferation of rap anchors has done both in the gunk's and other multi pitch climbing areas is reduce the amount of commitment needed to tackle a climb. There is often an easy escape if you do not have what it takes to finish the route.

Historically there have always been people with day packs not only at the bottom of the cliff, but climbing to the top with them....:^).

If you were leading all day, by the simple expedient of carrying your sneaks/ flip flops/going barefoot, you could skip the whole process of going back to the base of the climb you just did, which generally meant getting a lot more done.

Rui Ferreira wrote:whatever the experience of eating lunch by the car on Rt 299 or not, to say that the primary influence in rap anchors' establishment was due to the banning of parking along the roadside is up for debate. As I have indicated long before parking was banned, some of us were already carrying day packs to the base of climbs.

Well sure, at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. However, nothing you've said really contradicts it. The observation that some people were carrying packs to the base of climbs at some time or another has little to do with the fact that we came nowhere near everyone doing it until the parking was banned. And my claim is that the anchor proliferation was substantially influenced when just about everyone wanted to get back to a pack at the base.

rgold wrote:Ha! I did Retribution in the early 60's (19, not 18) with Yvon Chouinard. For many years, well into the seventies, people topped out and walked off everything from Bunny-Fancy Idiot north by heading down the Uberfall.

Nothing to add here, except that this little tidbit of history is amazing.

rgold wrote: Well sure, at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. However, nothing you've said really contradicts it. The observation that some people were carrying packs to the base of climbs at some time or another has little to do with the fact that we came nowhere near everyone doing it until the parking was banned. And my claim is that the anchor proliferation was substantially influenced when just about everyone wanted to get back to a pack at the base.

Or perhaps they had nothing to do with the other, like stubbing your toe and having your elbow hurt at the same time. Causality is tricky stuff.

[I actually don't know/care about why we've arrived "here" fwiw, just sayin']

I'm not really ok with the so called 'convenience' bolts. I was more than shocked to see the anchor on Apoplexy where it is. WTF?

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Or perhaps they had nothing to do with the other, like stubbing your toe and having your elbow hurt at the same time. Causality is tricky stuff.

This is true. I leave it to everyone to decide how plausible it is. There is no way, in any case, to get beyond plausibility.

And yes, the 299 was my mistake. It is 44-55 where the parking happened.

Though it has been stated as such multiple times, I'm pretty sure its parking on 44/55 that was banned not 299. Minor correction

Ok carry on. im just here for the comments

Kevin Heckeler wrote: [I actually don't know/care about why we've arrived "here" fwiw, just sayin']

Oh, I do like how Rgold put Kevin in his place back on page one and then Kevin threw his toys and pretended not to notice/care

As regards my claim that removing parking from 44-55 had a major effect on the proliferation of rappel stations in the Gunks, Chris Fracchia has just reminded me that the West Trapps lot was finished in 1993, which is a little later in the game than I had remembered. This does weaken my claim, and indicates that the other forces motivating rap and top rope anchors were more mature and more prevalent as we went through the 80's.

I still believe, based of course on personal experience rather than anything that could be called proper sampling, that a significant number of climbers were still walking back and coming down the Uberfall through the 80's, and it wasn't until the parking ban that nearly everyone found rappelling to be by far the most convenient way to return to their stuff.

For what it's worth I agree with rgold and his statement about entitlement. People like the easiest possible way and that's what these anchors are. That being said I love them and am glad they are there. I get quite a bit more climbing in during the day not having to downclimb 5.3 or hike around to various areas. The gunks are great and it's proximity to the city and climber density warrants such things. Ill take It a step further and say I wouldnt mind seeing all tree raps/ manky pin nut raps replaced by bolt anchors. The problem with tr parties is people need to speak up. That shit is unacceptable on classics during peak season and weekends. If you wanna tr go to peterskill it's a great place to do so.

worth russell wrote:For what it's worth I agree with rgold and his statement about entitlement. People like the easiest possible way and that's what these anchors are. That being said I love them and am glad they are there. I get quite a bit more climbing in during the day not having to downclimb 5.3 or hike around to various areas. The gunks are great and it's proximity to the city and climber density warrants such things. Ill take It a step further and say I wouldnt mind seeing all tree raps/ manky pin nut raps replaced by bolt anchors. The problem with tr parties is people need to speak up. That shit is unacceptable on classics during peak season and weekends. If you wanna tr go to peterskill it's a great place to do so.

Honestly if the dummies want to camp out on one route its better for the rest of us that dont care about a hit list. As far as saying anything I do it the P.A. way by walking all over their stuff and not offering an apology. The topropers wont be going anywhere anytime soon unless they change the rules at the Gunks and I doubt that will happen. They have enough problems catching all the pebble wrestlers trying to sneak in without paying.

I did most of my gunks climbing in 84-87 Almost always left a pack at the base of the climb, walked accross the top and downclimbed the uberfall. When down by HE/Directisima etc we downclimbed a really easy chimny. sneakers ahnging off the harness was the norm for the Gunks. I have been back a few times since then and the gang top ropeing sucks dog snott. It is completly a result of installing top rope stations at the top of all the first pitches. Its really funny that Gunks anti bolt policy gone horridly wrong was to create a climbing atmosphere that encourages yo yo climbing. The gunks are now almost exactly like Rumny but without all the well protected harder climbs. They outlawed new bolt protected climbs which would have allowed for many new harder lines but at the same time they reto bolted all the existing classics and turned them into yo yo sport/gear climbs.

Couldn't have fucked it up any better if they had tried INMOP

A much better approach would have been the Seneca model. Well marked trails for the top outs. Follow the blue plastic diamonds to common rap stations that mostly do not follow climbs or encourage yo yo ing half pitches.

Ha yeah Nick ! One thing I have found really amazing is the extent to which the Daks have been spared this type of idiocy. Climbing there is still a pretty good adventure.

Tom Stryker wrote:Ha yeah Nick ! One thing I have found really amazing is the extent to which the Daks have been spared this type of idiocy. Climbing there is still a pretty good adventure.

The Dacks are still a great adventure, but that has a lot less to do with bolts and a lot more to do with less people, a remote setting, long approaches, thick vegetation, complex terrain, and many little-visited backcountry cliffs. The Gunks, meanwhile, are within 2 hours of a city of 10 million people, and you can see every inch of cliff from the road. Given the popularity of climbing, a ton of people at the cliff in the Gunks is expected. Bolts or not, it is going to be a radically different experience than the 60s. At this point, the important question is how additional bolts affect the experience and the crowd management. Are they a positive thing (by helping to keep traffic moving) or a negative thing (by encouraging gang TRing)?

In reality, the Dacks have orders of magnitude more bolts than the Gunks, due both to the nature of the rock and that most of the routes went in during a later time period when bolts were more accepted. At popular, roadside cliffs (Hurricane, Pitchoff, Poko, Moss, Silver Lake, etc.) bolted anchors are very common, and with two ropes (and sometimes with one) you can easily rap from most belays. Granted, you can walk deep into the backcountry to avoid bolts, but even then there are routes like Freeride (Wallface) and the South Face of Gothics, which are heavily bolted backcountry routes. Again, the adventure has more to do with the location, terrain, and godawful bushwacking, and less to do with the bolts.

The biggest disappearance of Dacks adventure came with the publication of the Lawyer guide. With the Mellor guide, you were likely to get lost and confused even trying to get to a popular cliff, and the obscure cliffs could only be learned about through rumors. The new book changed Dacks climbing more than any bolt could. While the adventurousness of the old way was nice, I preferred the new way regardless... I like information that lets me find and climb great routes, instead of wandering lost in the woods.

Sorry for the tangent...now back to the Gunks...

I have no problem with bolts and climbing. I have probobly placed more than most in this conversation. In many instances I am all for replaceing tree slings with boted rap stations. I do have a problem with retro bolting existing classics and by doing so drasticly changeing the way they climb. I feel that the gunks completly screwed the pooch on this one. A case of good intentions gone horribly wrong. The right thing to do would have been to establish proper trails on the top leading to perhaps six designated rap routs for the Traps.

Really? Orders of magnitude more bolts than the Gunks? One order of magnitude would be 10x more yes? So there's like 100 or a 1000 times more bolts in the Dacks than the Gunks? I 'll admit my climbing there has been limited to Chapel Pond, Spider's Web, Pok-o-Moon and Beer Walls, but that seems like quite a stretch.