New bolts at Crow Hill

No. its a way of reminding people that they may be getting too upset or takeing something too seriously that in the big picture really does not warrent that level of stress.

Eric. I do ground up FA's regularly but usually have a tag line with a drill kit at the end of it as most of what is left in the NE is not an obvious crack system. I also climb big ice. launching into the unknown with no clue how its going to work out and with zero back up plan is not some macho version of what you seem to call real climbing. Its simply a good way to get you and your partner killed.
Doing a red point of a sport climb at or near your limit is real climbing. Soloing shoestring w/ the runnel finish is just as much real climbing as leading The Last Gent or Fafnir. etc. Any time you are outside on the sharp end or following multi pitch you are really climbing.

So yes it was real climbing but it also was pretty sketchy and put us both on a marginal hanging belay and could have still been real climbing without being stupid had we followed a slightly less stringient set of stupid climbing rulze.

I once offered to lead the Full Monty with a kid who was starting to lead trad. he declined the offer as he did not want to spoil his eventual onsight. I heard that a few days later he got off route over the roof and took a monster fall.. Stupid climbing Rulze..... or real climbing;)

Not sure why you keep talking about silly rules with respect to these episodes.
Your friends wanted adventure onsight trad risk experiences and had them. No rule said they had to want those experiences.

On the other hand, the "don't retrobolt existing routes" rule allowed them the opportunity to pursue the experiences they wanted. Community rules that allow us all to share public spaces in such a way that we can each have personally meaningful experiences, well that doesn't seem silly to me.

Eric E, that hangerless thread has been hanging out of dune in a weird position for years now.

This conversation seems way off base since crow hill is in no way purely trad. Please chop all bolts and remove all fixed anchors if this is your belief. Enough of the faulty New England trad climbers logic. Simply being sketchy doesn't make anything trad.

Does anyone know if this is chopped yet? I'm psyched to finally get to send this off of TR.

Can someone please send me a link to the rule book? Perhaps we should have climbing referees blowing whistles everytime someone breaks and arbitrary rule.

Gets your panties out of a bunch, probably more than half of you could not climb this route anyway.

javd wrote:Can someone please send me a link to the rule book? Perhaps we should have climbing referees blowing whistles everytime someone breaks and arbitrary rule. Gets your panties out of a bunch, probably more than half of you could not climb this route anyway.

What are John Mallery's thoughts on it? He did the FA didn't he? Was it a previously TRed line deliberately left that way before? I don't mind a few places saved for the fanatic traddies, but I am wondering where the original justification for vandalizing John's route came from when there was previous bolting that apparently is acceptable.

On the flip side, if an area has historically developed a strong traditional ethic and that is still valued by many, why the obsession to have something leadable by the masses, especially if it can be TRed easily and safely without causing too much ecological destruction to the top? I remember TRing on it decades ago with Whitey and I don't remember it being any big deal. When it really comes down to it, TRing and leading a gently overhanging face with well placed bolts is not a big enough difference to have a bolt war over.

Leave the little trad oasis be and have it as a TR or headpoint test piece for those who like that would be my opinion unless John really wants it restored, in which case it should be done well with good bolts (not studs preferably)in the right spots. Just because a few people came along later and headpointed something doesn't in itself justify not respecting the FA and the way he established the route.

javd wrote:Since Chris gesek is ken nichols' regular climbing partner, they are probably already gone.

If Dune was the first route with bolts at Crow then it would be a problem.

It was not.

So why does someone leading it on crap gear after the bolts were chopped somehow justify chopping the replaced bolts?

I on sight soloed Beginner's on Whitehorse. By that logic I could chop the bolts.

I don't really care, since I live an hour away and have only been there once and climbed Cromagnon. If Dune stayed bolted I might actually have a reason to go there again.

I'll tell you what jOHN MALLERY THOUGHT.."Fuck it" were his exact words. That was many years ago and I told him those bolts are doomed.

It's assinine to say that routes should be 'bolted so they are safe for all"

I'll be happy to sent out a copy of the rule book

I've got to say I like John's attitude. He really helped some areas of New England break free of hidebound tradition.

Gotta' chime in here... some of my first routes were done at CH back in the late 80's and i've been climbing ever since... lived in fort Collins for a long spell and now I see that bolts were responsibly placed up at Duncan's Ridge under the permission of a coalition and I cant help to think that, *in moderation*,this sport route might be a good thing for the climbing community! Top roping has its limitations and *one* sport route might not be worth chopping and time might be better spent making it really nice and then coming up with a plan for bolting not to happen again???

Well said spraguey! I think this argument comes down to the first ascensionsists wishes. Having said that, if it was meant to be a 5.13R at the beginning, he wouldn't have bolted and sent it, aye?

I still think this convo is going in the wrong direction. Look at the mess Jane has in the middle. That garbage pile is a dangerous eye sore. How are rusted pitons different than fresh bolts? Because they are sketchy, the old guard accepts?

Someone earlier said area ethics are determined by the local community. What makes anyone think this is a stagnant mentality. Ideas and local mentalities are bound to evolve. If you disagree, you and ken Nichols should probably take up strong words with the folks are rumney!

The decision that a top down inspection was not allowed is definatly one of our many climbing rules many of which I deem to be silly though I often abide by them..

Nick Goldsmith wrote:The decision that a top down inspection was not allowed is definatly one of our many climbing rules many of which I deem to be silly though I often abide by them..

The intent of the new bolts is all speculation until someone owns up to it and expresses their reasoning and intentions.

I will say that it is a perfectly fine TR (only way I was ever been able to manage it) - not too steep (that's usually one of the sportos arguments for bolting), easily accessed top. It can also be turned into a sport climb by preplacing gear.

The worship of bolts and the fear of any other form of fixed gear is a bit unfounded. I know that the mid point anchor on Jane is regularly maintained - used to be anyway. Certainly non bolt fixed anchors tend to get a lot more scrutiny and are easier to inspect then bolts. There is an endless news stream about bad bolts - looks at the recent bruhaha about the Arrow bolts... To get full credit you need to climb Jane to the top anyway.

Has anyone noticed that the original poster just stirred the shit then left? Did Kenny put you up to this?

For crying out loud.
I have climbed at Crow Hill.
Neat lil crag.
Someone please chop that garbage.