Mountain Project Logo

Bad Bolts on Rogers

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote:Kevin, sounds like you're up for the job. I've already said you'll have my support.
I do have some experience (years ago) working directly and indirectly with the DEC [short lived organization for doing random repairs of backcountry structures... lean2rescue effectively is doing all that work now]. When I brought this up a few years ago no one wanted to help and only spoke of the end of times. I've yet to hear anyone even say "yes we tried and it failed on a vote on such and such date". Seems like people simply don't want to risk even trying. ironic - as climbers we're always pushing the envelope, right? Suddenly we're afraid of ... what exactly? They already know what we're doing!!

[fwiw, I have lots of motivation to help but would expect some of the other members I know with more direct relations with the DEC to be the actual mouth pieces for such an organization - but there's lots of positions to be filled to make light work of the heavy job]

And we wouldn't be doing this alone. The Access Fund was very eager to help out when I inquired years ago. They have a ton of experience with these matters.
MaxSuffering · · KVNY · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 0

I think the reason you're not going to hear anyone "yes we tried and it failed on a vote on such and such a date," is because there has never been a vote. That's not how good bureaucracy works. Konowitz has been working for years on the Adirondack Powder Skier Association and the only thing he seems to get are more meetings and permission to present proposals. The people in the know tell me that he may get this stuff through "but it probably won't be in his lifetime."

I'm not trying to be a naysayer here. You've heard my opinion of can't do attitudes. But I've also banged my head against the wall that is the D.E.C. all I'm personally going to on this one. It's not about being afraid, it's about putting time and energy into something for no gain. Again, if you have the motivation to start an advocacy group, tell me where to send my check.

The real issue we started with is bad and dangerous fixed anchors. Do we have five or ten more years to let these time bombs sit while we ask permission to do the right thing? When a two-bolt anchor on a popular moderate route has one bolt snap off with less than a half turn of a wrench and the other comes out with two hits from a funkness device I'd say "no." Thus we're back to sneaking around after dark with walkie-talkies.

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
MaxSuffering wrote:...there is a contingent of people who for some reason think that having crappy anchors makes the place special, or more trad, or more like it was back in the day, or some other nonsense. To illustrate my point let me tell everybody about the Rockaholic anchor. The first time I climbed Rockaholic (c. 1994 or so) there was a sturdy hemlock at the top of the good section which sported slings and rings and served as the official TR/lower off anchor. Eventually, as happens, the tree died and over the next few years began to look sketchier and sketchier. A couple of locals decided to place two beefy bolts with rap hangers just to the right. Seemed like a great idea to me, but not everybody. Someone quickly chopped this "convenience anchor" (never mind that it replaced an anchor which had been in the same spot since 1983 and also never mind that the perpetrator is responsible for two of the most B.S. convenience anchors in the Adirondacks -one at Wallface and the other in the Trap Dyke). For the rest of that season everybody climbed up through the uninspiring terrain to the top of the cliff until a new anchor consisting of two pitons tied together with old climbing rope (one of which is pulled straight out as you start to rappel) and backed up up with an marginal looking #4 Stopper appeared. THIS is of course deemed totally acceptable. How this makes sense is beyond my comprehension, I don't get it, never will.
+1
The same thing was happening over on Cathedral and Whitehorse in NH - one of the reasons I stopped climbing there back in the 90's.
Alan Rubin · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 10

Even though past efforts at forming an Adirondack climbers advocacy group (it doesn't have to be limited to locals)may not have been successful, it is still worth trying again. I have been involved in the establishment of several such groups (including the Access Fund, Ragged Mountain Foundation, and the Western Mass Climbers Coalition--and am still on the Board of the latter)and strongly believe that such groups are essential to preserve and support climber access, with the AF being the 'umbrella' organisation for local groups. Sure different groups of climbers will disagree, have different priorities, may not even like each other---but it is still very much worth the effort to try to bring diverse groups and individuals together to discuss issues---and we often find that despite differences we have much in common and, who knows, maybe once folks really get to talk to one another 'enemies' could well become friends.

Focussing on NY state lands and fixed anchors, things may not be as clearcut as Max has been informed. It is worth contacting the Thacher Climbing Coalition who have been successful in having climbing be included in the master plan for Thacher State Park outside of Albany.They are currently working on the actual climbing policy---which has been a very slow process, but they are making progress as their website is stating that they expect climbing to begin there next spring. Because of the nature of the rock (limestone) there, fixed protection (bolts) is necessary (and fixed belays may well be required to prevent cliftop erosion). So there is at least a precedent being established for the placement of fixed anchors on NY state land.

Alan

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote:I think the reason you're not going to hear anyone "yes we tried and it failed on a vote on such and such a date," is because there has never been a vote. That's not how good bureaucracy works. Konowitz has been working for years on the Adirondack Powder Skier Association and the only thing he seems to get are more meetings and permission to present proposals. The people in the know tell me that he may get this stuff through "but it probably won't be in his lifetime."
It's my understanding their proposals require changes (some significant) to the character of the land, including clearing or widening of trail systems. That's a pretty big deal for the DEC and APA. A bolt on 'lifeless' rock, not so much. I just wouldn't use that as an example of "why bother". Again, the impact of climbing on the environment is extremely low compared to other already sanctioned and supported activities. Hikers boots alone has scraped more rock bare than all our wire brushes combined.

Great example of can-do -- Lean2Rescue. They were guerrilla repairing lean-tos in the western part of the Park, until caught doing it by a high up DEC official. They were politely asked to fill out the proper forms and they now do the work in all DEC regions and are applauded as one of the greatest volunteer efforts taking place in the Park. Granted, we have the initial hurtle of sanctioning the placement and maintenance/replacement of fixed protection, but given that it's for safety of those engaged in a sanctioned activity it really can't be *that hard*. Not so hard it can't be done. Like I said - there's countless example across this country of this same hurtle being overcome. Our mud and bugs suck, but the ADKs really aren't *that different*.

No one is saying don't fix what's in need of repair now, but doing that work now does not preclude starting the process of legitimizing that work. If what had been started was followed through, we may already have accomplished the goal of getting such activities legitimized. It has to start somewhere at some point in time.

I don't personally seeing any other way out of this scenario. This will always be a need moving forward. There are hundreds or thousands of bolts now in the ADKs. The countdown started on each and every one of them the moment they were installed, and each and every one of them will need to be replaced in 15-50 years. Doing the math - that's a lot of work. And bolting is only becoming increasingly common. Call me silly, but I truly feel that my responsibility as a climber today is to ensure access and safety for those tomorrow's climbers. That includes having a system in place for them to get involved in advocating for access and replacement of protection. This sport is only growing and the issues we see today will only multiply. That's how math works.
Nick Goldsmith · · Pomfret VT · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 440

One of the big obsticals to getting approval for replaceing fixed anchors is the sometimes vocal minority who hate bolts telling land managers how evil bolts are.

MaxSuffering · · KVNY · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 0
Kevin Heckeler wrote: It's my understanding their proposals require changes (some significant) to the character of the land, including clearing or widening of trail systems. That's a pretty big deal for the DEC and APA. A bolt on 'lifeless' rock, not so much.
One of the selling points the A.P.S.A. is using is that they are for the most part NOT looking to widen existing trails or clear-cut ski trails. The main "new" trail proposed would actually be reopening the Mt. Marcy ski trail which was once quite long, but now only a mile or so remains. What they're advocating in most places is "glades," minimally maintained naturally open woods. VERY few trees would be cut, rather it's the undergrowth and lateral branches which need removal. Think loppers, not chainsaws. I've had some very long talks with Ron about this and feel like I have a good handle of what his angle is.

The prevailing attitude I've encountered is exactly opposite of what you state: trees grow back, holes in rock are forever. There is also the concern that if you allow one fixed anchor it opens the door to grid-bolting the entire park. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on what I've been told.

Other than those small points I agree with everything you're saying, especially the hiker vs. climber impact. I also agree with Alan Rubin but would point out the people I've actually talked to as stated in my third post in this thread. It is important keep in mind that the New York State Park system and the Adirondack State Park are managed very, very differently. "Park" is probably the wrong word for them to have used, but that's a whole different discussion.

Hopefully everyone who is placing bolts currently is using the proper hardware: minimum 3/8" stainless paired with an appropriate hanger. I've been told that these rigs should last a minimum of 50 years, maybe longer. I am assuming that for better or worse the world will be a very different place when their lifespan is up. If as Nick said early in the thread someone was actually equipping routes in 2006 or '07 with non-stainless hardware then I think they should be called out to either erase the routes or fix their mess as soon as possible. There is no excuse for that.
Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
Nick Goldsmith wrote:One of the big obsticals to getting approval for replaceing fixed anchors is the sometimes vocal minority who hate bolts telling land managers how evil bolts are.
Max, what Nick says here is true. That's where presenting information to the managers is critical ("advocacy"). People can change their minds when presented facts. This is again where I feel we as a community have come up short - we really haven't even tried. "I talked to a few people, they cited current regulation so I gave up". I'm thinking 10+ years from now, regulation/UMP amendments.

The powers that be might be resistant, but can't be an excuse not to try. We don't write laws because they'll be followed or liked by everyone. Part of being a professional is separating personal agenda from job responsibility. I know of the inner workings in the DEC (at least as of 2007) and have experience working with and around the less savory folks in their ranks. They know who they are, like the asshole supreme court justices who make absurd arguments to support their dying political aims.

The DEC wants us onboard as much as they want any usergroup to work WITH them. It's not a perfect system but it's not as bad as a few I've spoke with make it out to be. The key is to get things written into law clearly, then there's less local enforcement discretion and inconsistency.
Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote:The prevailing attitude I've encountered is exactly opposite of what you state: trees grow back, holes in rock are forever. There is also the concern that if you allow one fixed anchor it opens the door to grid-bolting the entire park. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on what I've been told.
The former is partly true, but the APA actually takes issues with watershed ecology very seriously as I recently learned with a close friends personal experience with his land ownership within the blue line. They didn't care a bit about the structures on his properly, trees being cut, etc. They wanted the tiny stream flowing through it and marsh managed better. That seems to be their rule of thumb - what's the 'impact on the environment'. The actual impact of a bolt is for all intents zero, it changes nothing ecologically. Rock fall is a natural occurrence, therefore losing/gaining rock is already a part of the natural cycle and not something we have any control over anyway. But we can control how much clearing of green is performed.

The latter is always the droning cries of the anti-bolting establishment. In the case of the DEC and the Park in general - it it was going to happen, it's going to happen when you have no checks/balances in place. Like right now. It really hasn't (Lost T perhaps the only exception I can think of, but I wouldn't call that anywhere near grid bolting just not the ADK standard practice).

Maybe we just need someone with a quick wit to discuss these matters, shoot those preconceived notions down in their place.
MaxSuffering · · KVNY · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 0
Kevin Heckeler wrote: Max, what Nick says here is true. That's where presenting information to the managers is critical ("advocacy"). People can change their minds when presented facts. This is again where I feel we as a community have come up short - we really haven't even tried. "I talked to a few people, they cited current regulation so I gave up". I'm thinking 10+ years from now, regulation/UMP amendments. The powers that be might be resistant, but can't be an excuse not to try. We don't write laws because they'll be followed or liked by everyone. Part of being a professional is separating personal agenda from job responsibility. I know of the inner workings in the DEC (at least as of 2007) and have experience working with and around the less savory folks in their ranks. They know who they are, like the asshole supreme court justices who make absurd arguments to support their dying political aims. The DEC wants us onboard as much as they want any usergroup to work WITH them. It's not a perfect system but it's not as bad as a few I've spoke with make it out to be. The key is to get things written into law clearly, then there's less local enforcement discretion and inconsistency.
Kevin Heckeler wrote: The former is partly true, but the APA actually takes issues with watershed ecology very seriously as I recently learned with a close friends personal experience with his land ownership within the blue line. They didn't care a bit about the structures on his properly, trees being cut, etc. They wanted the tiny stream flowing through it and marsh managed better. That seems to be their rule of thumb - what's the 'impact on the environment'. The actual impact of a bolt is for all intents zero, it changes nothing ecologically. Rock fall is a natural occurrence, therefore losing/gaining rock is already a part of the natural cycle and not something we have any control over anyway. But we can control how much clearing of green is performed. The latter is always the droning cries of the anti-bolting establishment. In the case of the DEC and the Park in general - it it was going to happen, it's going to happen when you have no checks/balances in place. Like right now. It really hasn't (Lost T perhaps the only exception I can think of, but I wouldn't call that anywhere near grid bolting just not the ADK standard practice). Maybe we just need someone with a quick wit to discuss these matters, shoot those preconceived notions down in their place.
For the fourth time in 24-hours: sounds like you're the guy for the job. Where do I send my check?

Edit to add: I'm not picking on you or trying to be difficult, I'd love to be proved wrong here. If someone can do a better job and make some progress I'm all for it.
Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

Some of the groups don't like each other...

I laughed out loud when I read that. Now I'm sure we know a lot of the same people!!

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote: For the fourth time in 24-hours: sounds like you're the guy for the job. Where do I send my check? Edit to add: I'm not picking on you or trying to be difficult, I'd love to be proved wrong here. If someone can do a better job and make some progress I'm all for it.
One person can't do it, that's why individuals talking to the DEC isn't getting anything done. This is going to take much more than the usual few.
Nick Goldsmith · · Pomfret VT · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 440

You absolutly need to work with the access fund on this kind of stuff and you also need a regional climbers coalition. VT has crag VT, mass has their thing. RCA in NH etc.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
Nick Goldsmith wrote:You absolutly need to work with the access fund on this kind of stuff and you also need a regional climbers coalition. VT has crag VT, mass has their thing. RCA in NH etc.
I spoke with a climber from MA at the sadkrf yesterday and likely will be heading to the WMCC event next weekend to hopefully get some more info on their startup challenges, etc. All climbing areas have roughly the same issues to varying degrees - access, bolting/not-bolting/chopping bolts/replacing bolts, restrictive regulations, etc. The fact a climbing region as large as the ADKs has zero formal representation is kinda mind boggling really. You can physically fit those three regions you mentioned into the ADKs and still have room to spare. lol

And lets put an end to the whole "the ADKs are big with many different sub groups" BS now. This is 2015. There's this whole "internet" thing. If I can have friends in France, Netherlands, South Africa, Canada, California, etc then climbers 2-3 hours away by car can sure as hell communicate and coordinate with one another.
MaxSuffering · · KVNY · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 0

Kevin, I once again agree 100% with everything in your last two posts. If you have the experience and motivation start organizing, you have your second member right here.

You cannot however put an end to the "'Adirondacks are big with many different sub-groups' BS" because the Adirondacks ARE really big and DO have many different sub-groups. That's simply a fact. I agree that climbers 2-3 hours drive from each other CAN (and should) communicate and coordinate, the question is will they? It seems ridiculous that they wouldn't over very real and pressing issues yet I can tell you that there are climbers living only a few miles from each other in the greater Keene-Lake Placid region who are not on speaking terms. This is probably the biggest reason for previous attempts at organization failing. Getting the word out is not the problem; ego, personal agenda and apathy are the problems.

Review posts 1,2 and 5 in this thread. That's what previous climber-group meetings sounded like, except in person. I'm glad I was still drinking back then.

Reread my story of the Rockaholic anchor and contrast that with the routes put in by the Arieta Climbing crew. Obviously coming up with a group-wide fixed anchor statement to present to the D.E.C. is going to be very difficult. And if we have no agreed upon group-wide statement we end up looking like a bunch of uncoordinated tribes bickering among themselves, which nobody is going to take seriously.

Jay put on a climbing festival yesterday, how many people showed up? Twenty cars worth maybe, so lets say 50 people or a few more? That's a pretty small turnout considering the number of climbers who could be considered Adirondack regulars. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Again, not trying to be difficult, not trying to be a jerk. I'm just providing what I've learned through past experience.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote:This is probably the biggest reason for previous attempts at organization failing. Getting the word out is not the problem; ego, personal agenda and apathy are the problems... And if we have no agreed upon group-wide statement we end up looking like a bunch of uncoordinated tribes bickering among themselves, which nobody is going to take seriously.
Policy can only be done by consensus. I was not involved with whatever past discussions took place, but whatever plan of action is implemented and presented to the DEC, and whatever information is presented to the DEC/APA would be based on clearly agreed upon guidelines. All climbers voices would be heard and all opinions represented, even if not verbatim in the final mission statement. The goal here isn't to impose, it's to give everyone an opportunity to get involved, have their voices heard, and to get some overdue changes made at the regulatory level. The climbers don't even need to be present, the coalition could be broken into areas (western, southern, eastern, northern/HP) with a representative from each. In organizations like this I've been involved in the past, surveys are brought back to each area by the representative and the results/"votes" used in determining policy. This is how such an organization must work. I think some of the fear is that people doing things one way today might be be allowed to continue to do things that way tomorrow, or have an extra hurtle to getting that thing done. But that would IMO be a minuscule price to pay when you weigh it against all the advantages.

As far as personalities - if policy is being formulated and people want their opinions heard, they will need to be involved. Their absence doesn't count as a vote, so simply having the coalition forces people to look past petty differences unless they truly don't care about the outcome (in which case they aren't going to be involved anyway).

I have a significant CV regarding such (not for profit/autonomous) groups. When/if that time comes I'll explain, but not publicly. And yes, in those organizations there were just as many egos trying to impose their will, and yet things still got done.

There were a lot of people at Crane, maybe 50 (possibly more). I wasn't in charge of the head count. Ended up climbing away from the trail most of the day so I didn't really get to see too many other climbers outside of the small group I was with. The rain spoiled the weekend, many more would have attended if they could have camped and climbed dry rock today [making the sometimes longer drive more worth it for them].
Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
MaxSuffering wrote:Again, not trying to be difficult, not trying to be a jerk. I'm just providing what I've learned through past experience.
You can stop saying that, I know you aren't. Your input here (and in the future) is invaluable. ;-)
Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

The Rockaholic anchor ain't happening. I'm 99% sure I pissed off more than one friend of mine. I'm happy to tell you about it when I see you in October.

Kevin, I don't know who you've been talking to. I doubt it's the same people I am. There's zero support for new bolts. I was told everything at Poko is good. That anything that's rusty is safe. I hope you get further than I did but I've heard more than enough to take Max Suffing's advice. Just face it.. Things are going to stay the way they are. Stuff is getting replaced though.

The thing that gets me is there's no bolted mixed climbs because of all this. That's going to change.

This isn't going to turn into "Real Housewives of Keene Valley" by my hand so don't ask me for anything more than what I write.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
Bill Kirby wrote:The thing that gets me is there's no bolted mixed climbs because of all this. That's going to change.
I'm not sure where you've been climbing in the ADKs, but that is inaccurate. Crane alone has a bunch of mixed climbs. Lost T. Shelving Rock. Silver Lake.

Maybe not so much in the high peaks, but there's a lot of climbing outside the Keene area. I hardly even go up there anymore.

There's no need to wait for people to die to start the long process of getting regulation changed.
Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480
Kevin Heckeler wrote: I'm not sure where you've been climbing in the ADKs, but that is inaccurate. Crane alone has a bunch of mixed climbs. Lost T. Shelving Rock. Silver Lake. Maybe not so much in the high peaks, but there's a lot of climbing outside the Keene area. I hardly even go up there anymore. There's no need to wait for people to die to start the long process of getting regulation changed.

Thanks Kevin, I didn't know there were any good ones at Shelving Rock. Still though I'm not driving down an hour when there's good spots to get pumped close to Keene. They just need a little something is all :)

I'm going to wait for those guys to die. Most of them taught me how to climb so I respect them although I don't agree with them. I respect them enough to ask permission to put in any fixed anything.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "Bad Bolts on Rogers"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.