Question about proper usage of Gunks Bolts

rgold wrote: It isn't a matter of climbing ethics at all. The Preserve made errors in placing some rap anchors with the result that rappellers are routed down on top of ascending climbers. Naturally, these poorly situated anchors are convenient for belaying and are universally used for that---there is no reason why anyone would labor to rig a gear belay anchor when there's a pair of good bolts well-positioned for the job.

The initial bolted stations (there were perhaps 5 - 10, iirc), and then the next 2 or 3 groups all replaced existing belay/rap stations that had formerly been trees or piton nests. A lot of these were P1 anchors loaded with tat that, according to the Preserve, were generating complaints from non-climber Preserve members, citing visual objections.

Marc801 wrote: The initial bolted stations (there were perhaps 5 - 10, iirc), and then the next 2 or 3 groups all replaced existing belay/rap stations that had formerly been trees or piton nests. A lot of these were P1 anchors loaded with tat that, according to the Preserve, were generating complaints from non-climber Preserve members, citing visual objections.

I don't buy the "visual objections" from non-climbers. But Preserve staff who climbed, people like Thom Scheuer, found the tat pretty offensive, and they were a significant force in the decision to bolt.

This meant, however, that the bolting effort had a serious flaw from the very beginning, because rather than taking a long-range view and planning on how to manage an increasingly crowded resource, the original bolters basically ran around after climbers cleaning up the worst messes.

Naturally, this comment comes from 20-20 hindsight a long time later, but my view is the Preserve and the GCC still haven't fully understood the original lesson. (And their point of view is that I'm a hopeless idealist with an impractical longing for times that will never return.)

rgold wrote: I don't buy the "visual objections" from non-climbers. But Preserve staff who climbed, people like Thom Scheuer, found the tat pretty offensive, and they were a significant force in the decision to bolt.

Yeah, I had a chat with him about that, pointing out that people will just wind up top roping from them. He said they were doing that now anyway and the bolts will just make the place look a lot better and maybe keep from killing more trees (Jackie, Classic, et al).
I'm not sure any of us at the time had an idea of what the climbing population would become in 20 or 30 years.

...or how climbing "ethics" would change to embrace top-roping and hang-dogging...

Is the Gunks one of those places where "trad" climbers who "care" about the environment prefer destroying clifftop ecosystems, wrapping trees in layers of tat, and nesting together dozens of shitty pitons instead of the horror of a simple bolted anchor?

David Dennis wrote:Is the Gunks one of those places where "trad" climbers who "care" about the environment prefer destroying clifftop ecosystems, wrapping trees in layers of tat, and nesting together dozens of shitty pitons instead of the horror of a simple bolted anchor?

Nope. But it is one of many places where "trad" climbers oblivious to their effects on the environment and unwilling to embrace minor inconveniences do these things. And it is a place where fixed anchors can cause quite a lot of problems, including dangerous situations, especially when these anchors direct rappel traffic down lines of ascent, but also when they encourage top-roping parties to monopolize routes and even try to reserve climbs for themselves while they work on other things or are taking a break from climbing.

Hardly any of these anchors serve a genuine safety purpose; almost all are for the convenience of climbers. A few of the more recently-placed anchors do try to mitigate some of the inevitable environmental effects of a high volume of climbers.

As for the "destruction of cliff-top ecosystems," the reality is that we may be simply trading that upper preservation for the destruction of cliff-bottom ecosystems.

rgold wrote:...or how climbing "ethics" would change to embrace top-roping and hang-dogging...

90+% of the climbing areas in the world have bolted anchors in at the top of the pitch, those so called "new" ethics you speak of have been around for a long time. Of course regionally things are behind the times and the desperate scramble to keep up with the explosion of new climbers(at the gunks especially) is a bit on the poor side but certainly not nearly as bad as places like CT.

Would it be better to get back to the times where the "hardmen" first TRed a pitch 100 times then YoYoed up the climbs on shitty gear while taking huge falls? Maybe I'm mistaken but wasnt it the old crusty hardmen who taught all of the new climbers how to TR? I'm fairly sure the explosion of new climbers learned somewhere.

David Dennis wrote:Is the Gunks one of those places where "trad" climbers who "care" about the environment prefer destroying clifftop ecosystems, wrapping trees in layers of tat, and nesting together dozens of shitty pitons instead of the horror of a simple bolted anchor?

The Gunks/MP are making an effort to correct this problem, its just a few holdouts that still cant get over it which is probably the reason that its taking so long for every climb to have anchors installed. One anchor for every 20-50 climbs is strange and does create problems but it is getting better.

I'm still not sure why this eastern region of the country has been so "anti-anchor" for so long and I have thought about it quite a bit. Its similar to the Amish who cling to their old fashioned ways while the rest of the world evolves around them.

Put an anchor at the top of even the obscure routes and you wont have people dropping ropes, rocks and gear on other climbers. If its not a good place to lower/rap then you dont put chains/rings on the anchor. Its that simple.

And to the OP of this thread- not to be a jerk but wouldn't this have been a better question in the beginner forum?

rgold wrote: As for the "destruction of cliff-top ecosystems," the reality is that we may be simply trading that upper preservation for the destruction of cliff-bottom ecosystems.

The base is much easier to deal with all around, especially when there arent rivers of top soil coming down from the top every time it rains. To suggest people not spend there time at the base of the cliffs makes no sense unless you are advocating closures.

First off, congratulations on posting actual climbing content - well done dude...

T Roper wrote:90+% of sport climbing areas in the world have bolted anchors in at the top of the pitch

Fixed that for you...

T Roper wrote:Would it be better to get back to the times where the "hardmen" first TRed a pitch 100 times then YoYoed up the climbs on shitty gear while taking huge falls?

Except back in those times the ethic was ground-up, onsight and no one head-pointed anything. Your take on both bitd and anchoring is a wrong but not unexpected sport climbing perspective.

As for the Gunks, there was about a fifteen year gap between visits and I was shocked to see the carriage road turned into a TR gym where it had previously been all about leading. Given that change, the clamor for anchors shouldn't be all that surprising I suppose.

T Roper wrote: Of course regionally things are behind the times and the desperate scramble to keep up with the explosion of new climbers(at the gunks especially) is a bit on the poor side but certainly not nearly as bad as places like CT.

Its not even the CT community that wants our cliffs bolt free and anchor free its a couple douche bags with hammers that literally just go around flattening bolts and leaving them on the rocks. They don't pull them nor do they chop them. Just flatten them right against the rock and leave them there! No matter how many times we call the cops and no matter how many times he (they) are arrested as long as they aren't in jail they come back and hammer down bolts.

Really looking forward to time wasting away at these special people...

Tylerpratt wrote:No matter how many times we call the cops and no matter how many times he (they) are arrested as long as they aren't in jail they come back and hammer down bolts.

It's a "they" now?

We have a pretty damn good suspicion that this is becoming a familial multi-generational problem.

Jeff0 wrote:Hi, Was out climbing today at the Gunks. Came across some new bolt setups I've not seen before. Pics are attached. Can anyone shed some light on what they think the expected use is here? I mean, top rings for clipping in probably. But do you rap off the bottom rings? Go right through the last link? If you were going to TR off these... what would you clip your lockers to? Thanks. J

These setups are intended for two parties to setup rappels simultaneously - so the first party would use the lowest rings, and while they are rappelling and pulling their rope(s), the next party is threading the top rings (the ones welded to the top hangers). That's the deal with the funky setup. Thankfully most of us don't have to deal with this level of rappel traffic!

Here's info on the anchors being installed last year:

gunksclimbers.org/gunks-new…

TRop, you are arguing with yourself, which is to say making up statements you think I'm saying and then arguing against them.

A few examples.

T Roper wrote: ...those so called "new" ethics you speak of have been around for a long time.

You called them "new," I didn't. I spoke of how things evolved, and that at the time Marc and I were referring to no one would have forseen that evolution. I also offered not even an iota of value judgement about that evolution.

T Roper wrote: Would it be better to get back to the times where the "hardmen" first TRed a pitch 100 times then YoYoed up the climbs on shitty gear while taking huge falls?

Huh? I never said anything about what was better then or now nor did I deprecate anything currently practiced. I just said things have changed.

T Roper wrote:Maybe I'm mistaken but wasnt it the old crusty hardmen who taught all of the new climbers how to TR?

Finally you are right about something---you are mistaken.

T Roper wrote: The Gunks/MP are making an effort to correct this problem, its just a few holdouts that still cant get over it which is probably the reason that its taking so long for every climb to have anchors installed.

This needs to be preserved for posterity. Your ideal for, say the Trapps, is for every climb to have a bolted anchor, and this is going to "correct this problem," whatever the pronoun "this" is supposed to refer to. Should that be every pitch of every climb, by the way?

And these mysterious "holdouts" who, I'm guessing, think trad climbing is about dealing with what is rather than carving it up into what "should be," who apparently exercise vast Svengali-like power over the Mohonk Preserve, preventing them from "correcting this problem," who do you think these omnipotent individuals are?

"my view is the Preserve and the GCC still haven't fully understood the original lesson. (And their point of view is that I'm a hopeless idealist with an impractical longing for times that will never return.)"

The "mysterious holdouts" are the same old anal crusties who go to the same damn crags over and over and over again and have not spent time traveling(besides to the same places over and over and over again). From the time I learned to climb I spent about 20 years of just about ZERO time walking around on the top of any 50'-250' cliff and ZERO time looking for a small tree to tie off, go figure that. On top of that the cliff tops had vegetation right to the edge of the rim, this being desert conditions where trees dont grow back in 100 years. Then I moved to the clusterfucked east where every old guy thinks he was some kind of hero BITD and that anyone advocating for anchors was a sport climbing loser.

Its time to get over the past fellas(you too Joe), just embrace the new science and eat more fiber. We will never be able to stop hanging out at the bottom of the cliffs, we can avoid trampling the tops of them.

can't you guys do something productive like bitch about the MUA