From Greg's email:

Natural cliffs are beautiful. I believe hikers---including off-trail hikers---have a right to see a natural landscape, so I don’t think we should do something to a cliff to improve our climbing experience if we expect it might offend someone on the ground.

Regards, Greg Swift



I said this in an earlier thread about this topic. I have brought many non-climbing visitors with me on hikes down near the places that I have climbed. Not a single one of them noticed any bolts on the hikes (even when we were near Gallows) until I pointed them out. And even then, they oftentimes had trouble seeing the bolts after I pointed to them (except at the "sport" areas, where the bolts run up the entire climb). If you are down beneath the cliffs, the newer anchor bolts are very hard to see (for the most part). This is because Jason does a good job at camouflaging them.

If you are on top of the cliff, the only real way that you see the bolts is if you walk right up to the cliff edges. Now, I will agree that in this case, you will see something man-made. If you strongly believe that the hikers have a right to see natural landscape on their hikes, then let us wipe out the town of White Rock. Because that is what is sitting just a couple of hundred yards (sometimes less) behind them - a giant, steaming pile of "unnatural", man-made stuff.

I have three items to add to this debate that really haven't been addressed.

The first is parents and children climbing in WRC. I would say that the vast majority of climbers I know do not have children. The bolted anchors really add value for this group who have not spoken yet. Many parents have taken classes with YMCA or Mountaineers to belay their kids who want to learn to climb. Many of these parents don't climb but are just there so their kids can climb. Most climbers without kids do not relate to this and may even say unkind word about this. I have a kid and I taught her to climb. The bolted anchors give parents a warm fuzzy feeling. So to the bolt chopper who is unknown I say "are you a parent?" Think about it.

The second issue is failed or questioned gear anchors in WRC. I have seen a gear anchor fail. Jim Straight fell and a gear anchor pulled. Jim had some minor cuts and bruises. He was only 10 feet up when the anchor failed. Also I have seen arguments from many people who question the soundness of gear anchors. I have seen some climbers actually take down an anchor when it was called unsafe.

The third issue is Chuck and Darien's anchors in photos. I was present when some of these anchors were setup. Several other climbers were questioning these anchors. The rope was old used 8.5mm. Many of the cams were 20+ years old. People asked me who these people (Darien and Chuck) were. I said they were very experienced. But so we had a situation where new climbers did not trust the old guard. The new climbers were very wary of accepting advice from "old" strangers.

So in this debate try to give consideration to parents and children. Remember these kids will be leading 5.11 in two years. I have seen several do it. Also some of these kids will be trad climbers. I have seen a couple do that too.

Most of the climbing that takes place in White Rock Canyon is top-roping and most of the top-rope anchors (where there are not already bolted anchors) are not built with gear, but with static rope tied off to trees and/or large blocks. Irregardless of whether or not this is a good practice, it has become more difficult to do in recent years due to many of the trees dying off (from drought and/or bark beetles, not because they were being used as anchors). Consequently, it would be a great benefit to the majority of the local climbing community (and to those who choose to visit from time to time) to have bolted anchors throughout White Rock Canyon. Obviously, this will not please everyone (some would want more, some less). However, I believe this should be the substance of any new or revised agreement and is what will probably happen in the long run, regardless. After all, the rest of our lives will be in the future, so we might as well get with the program now.

I can't help but comment on Greg Swifts's letter and Darien Raistrick. Greg's statements - "saddened as the bolts installed by others have slowly proliferated," "the right to install bolts... the leave no trace wilderness ethic is violated," "they will be eye sores and create freeze/thaw potential for faster rock erosion for millennia," "I don't think we have a right to develop everything, when developing involves permanent alteration," and "stop all bolting in Los Alamos county from now on. Enough is enough." - are hypocritical. As he has helped to develop routes at Questa Dome, which is a true and legal wilderness area. For the record, I am in favor of those routes. Some may argue that the bolts weren't need or that the route didn't need to exist. I feel that is solely up to the FA, as long as no laws were broken (ie. a hand drill was used). As for Darien, who made you the judge at TP? Lastly, I hope you all can work things out peacefully and come to a reasonable agreement.

Interesting point about families. I know a family that started climbing relatively recently. They like the bolts, and they're fully competent and comfortable with using static rope to set an anchor, but I don't see them setting gear anchors, maybe ever. The cost of the gear is one factor, but distrust of gear anchors is almost certainly the greater factor--I just don't see them dangling themselves, and especially their children, off a gear anchor. That could all change with time, of course (they never thought they'd sport lead, but that has changed in a big way), but in the meantime, for some years to come I'd guess, it'll be rocks and trees and bolts exclusively.

It has taken me a little while to read this whole thread. Alot has been said and I feel a little overwhelmed trying keep track of all of the ideas thus covered. Sorry if this post is scattered but I want to touch on my thoughts without adding too much more text to this already long thread

1 I for one think that all of the bolted anchors at the onp and most at the nnp are really a shame to have. The tops of these cliffs are super solid and building bomber natural anchors are a piece of cake as chuck showed, yes assuming you have and know how to use gear.

2 The arguments that, I can get in more pitchs after work, and I want to be able to climb any route with two draws and a rope so the anchors should stay seems as selfish as any of the other arguments which have been called such.

3 I think that by placing anchors above every climb we wrong the next generation of climber. Once a bolt exists there is very little incentive to build a gear anchor, and even less desire to seek the knowledge to do so. Climbing is a super diverse sport; can't we let a couple of cliffs at wr represent the diversity of the sport.

4 I think that lowering the impact on cliff tops by placing bolts will be more than offset by new traffic the bolts bring.

5 Given that state of the world the anchor bolts/choppers are the least of our worries! sorry this is off topic.

6 Bolts only give the illusion of safety. Climbing is by nature dangerous. Vigilance and knowledge are what minimize the risks not bolts.

7 We are all lucky that we have time in our lives to climb.
Enjoy Jamie Hamilton

Gary, I care a great deal for the new generation since I am part of it. It is not just old trads who dislike the use of bolts when gear will work. It just seems common sense to me. The diamond was used earlier in the thread as an example of a wall with tons of tat and bolts. I don't think a 1000' wall with sketchy weather can be compared to white rock. Fixed anchors do exist in climbing, but I feel that they should only be used when necessary. If the wall was clean it would be only until the first party bailed Every time a party bails on the diamond they must leave as many anchors as raps they are from the glacier. Therefore fixed gear exist. White rock presents a very different situation. To retrieve your gear is on the way back to the car!

Plus I don't see bolting anchors everywhere at white rock as progress or a service to the new generation, just the homogenization of a crag and the climbers it could potential produce.

Let a small fraction of white rock's crags be iron free, and you can have your bolted anchors everywhere else. Just my two cents.

I'm in favor of anchors being set on the top of most routes. Especially if it means reducing foot traffic on the top of the climbs. If all the trails at the top of the routes eventually disappear because people aren't having to retrieve their gear this would dramatically reduce the presence of climbers to others walking the pedestrian trails near by. Sorry if what I'm saying is a little redundant. I wanted to chime in and state my position while I have the chance. The fact of the matter is "you can't please them all" no matter what stance you take. It only takes a few disagreements before the rock is pock marked with bolt studs, and more eye sores. I would suggest drilling bolt holes and keeping a cache of removable bolts that could be accessible to the community (just brain storming). But it wont take long for someone to bitch about the bolt holes.

Bolts +1

I wanted to remind people of previous efforts to police gear anchors at WRC top roping. Leslie Champ use to arrive later than most people after work. Leslie would check anchors as a service. I would hear her call down saying "who put this bad anchor on climb X". Leslie did this for several years. She would get people to go up and fix the anchor. Other people were helpful but not as responsible. Someone would yell down "don't climb on Open Book since the anchor is bad". After Mark and Leslie ran the climbing school they stopped going top roping and they said they felt at risk to legal action if there were an accident.

So if someone gives advice or checks anchors, there might be a risk if an accident happened.

In early September a new climber asked me how to tie a water knot. He wanted to sling some rocks for anchors at top roping. I told him and showed him. Then I felt bad. What if he did it wrong? What if someone were injured? I never checked his anchor. I didn't climb it either. It was at Big Enchilada and he went to the south side. There were three other new climbers who went and used it.

So if all of the anti bolted anchor people wish to take over for the great job Leslie Champ did checking gear anchors I would say we need you. One person said they would do it. What about the rest?

This year at top roping there were about ten regular climbers who know how to set any kind of anchor safely. There were also another 20 part time new climbers. Maybe three of these could set a gear anchor. None had long static lines or webing to use trees. So I say simply is there a safety issue for WRC top roping if bolted anchors are gone?

I started WRC top roping in 1997. Then there were usually 12-15 experienced climbers all the time. There were about 3-5 new climbers. I asked people to check my anchors. I got lots of help. No one ever declined to help. But now in 2009 there are not enough experienced climbers. I top rope all the time after work for 12 years in a row. Things are different now. There really is a safety issue with WRC top roping anchors.

I'll second Larry's comments.

Wind back the clock. I'm fresh out of LAM climbing school, have purchased a climbing rope, static rope, webbing, and carabiners. I show up for the first time to T-Th toproping, at the Y. I set a rope (with static rope anchor) and check out others' setups. I see one setup that beggars belief, a static rope setup. I *know* it's utterly unsafe but feel I'm in no position to exert any authority being the ultimate newbie. I asked Leslie Champ to come up and check it. She confirmed that it was utterly unacceptable and ordered the rope pulled. Whew!

Then I walked a few feet further and found another, bad but not certain death like the first. Leslie patiently educated the perpetrators--LANL summer students, as it turned out, but with a bit of belligerent attitude.

The setter of the first anchor, who'll I'll refer to as DS (Dip Shit) pulled similar crap all summer long. Excuse for bad trad anchor: "I didn't have the right size piece," etc. DS is, or was, a regular local. At least one person on this forum will know to whom I refer. I adopted a policy of only climbing on what I'd inspected, what was set by the time I set mine.

Fast forward, climbing at the Playground. Another party was there, we agreed to share ropes. One of our party gets to the top of one of their topropes. Anchor is a single strand (not even loop) of webbing. I passed on that one.

But I've seen crap anchors on bolted hangers, too. The first that comes to mind was short slings on Polly's Crack with an internal angle of distinctly more than 120 degrees. However, these are infrequent in comparison.

Norbert Ensslin sent this to me earlier today (Oct. 10, 2009), asking me to post it here:

I'm writing to add my concern about the number of anchor bolts that have been placed in White Rock in recent years. I'm reluctant to provide input to this website because of the negative tone and personal attacks in some of the previous submissions. Such attacks not only undercut the arguments of the person who makes them, but also make it harder for everyone to come an agreement later. Perhaps the Los Alamos Mountaineers should also collect input in a more formal way, or sponsor a series of meetings. Usually, if people can meet face-to-face, they are more respectful of each other and more ready to listen to other point of views.

However, some recent postings to this website are starting to propose some potential compromises, which is very encouraging. We should all be trying to provide constructive input and show mutual respect for each other. Our goal should be to arrive at a broad consensus agreement involving the participation of as many local climbers as possible. I think that neither bolt placement nor bolt removal is inherently good or bad. But once we have a consensus agreement, it will be easier to determine where we should have bolts and where we should not.

As most of you already know, extensive bolting in White Rock started in 1987 or 1988, with the advent of sport climbing, portable drills, and a new generation of strong, enthusiastic young climbers. After some controversy, local climbers drafted an agreement in 1989 that left all of White Rock open to bolting except for 4 of the major traditional areas, the Y, the Playground, the Old New Place, and the New New Place. The goal was to provide sport climbers with plenty of opportunity to put in new bolted routes, while still keep a few areas in their natural condition. I was involved in that process, which involved 17 of the most active Los Alamos and Santa Fe climbers at that time.

The stated reason for the 2004 revision to the original agreement was the die-off of pinion trees near the cliffs after the 2000-2001 drought. As some of you already mentioned, the revised agreement states that "Top anchor bolting is allowed at all areas in White Rock to foster safe climbing practice," and "Anchors should not be placed at the top of climbs that are easily and safely set with traditional gear." This agreement, apparently, did not involve a wide enough participation of the current, larger climbing community to achieve lasting results. Also, as some of you mentioned, the words "easily and safely" are somewhat subjective.

For the 30 years preceding the drought, climbing anchors at the 4 traditional areas had been set using (very roughly) 1/3 gear anchors, 1/3 juniper trees, and 1/3 pinion trees. It was customary for climbers to arrive at the cliffs with a length of static line, or long slings, or a set of old cams and stoppers. However, in the last few years, bolt anchors have been placed at the top of many of the major climbs at these 4 areas. I have great respect for the people that placed these anchors. They are excellent climbers who undertook this activity as a public service to the community. Unfortunately, many of these new anchors are unnecessary, and some actually violate the bolting agreement as revised in 2004. Specifically,

1. Bolt anchors have been placed at the top of many climbs that never had pinion trees nearby.
2. Some bolt anchors are only a few feet away from large juniper trees that have been used as anchors for at least 35 years with no sign of damage.
3. Some bolt anchors are within reach of large boulders that can be tied off with static lines.
4. A few climbs have bolt anchors placed so low that it requires a precarious scramble down to the edge of the steep part of the wall to reach them.

These examples suggest, as some of you have also said, that some bolt anchors were placed for convenience even though other safe alternatives were available. And a few anchors appear to have been placed to make it more convenient to lead the climb from below, actually making it less safe to try to reach these anchors from above than to use other higher natural anchors. Climbers are now becoming accustomed to using these convenient bolt anchors, rather than bringing static lines or lead gear and taking a few extra minutes to set a natural anchor.

In fact, some people are saying that convenience is a sufficient reason for placing bolt anchors, irrespective of previous agreements. A number of arguments have also been advanced to say that, for environmental reasons, bolts have less impact than natural anchors. I think that these arguments are weak, and not a valid justification. Yes, trees and grasses are transitory over the course of many years, whether or not we touch them or step on them. But bolts bring about a permanent alteration in the natural character of a climbing area, and I think that their placement should never be taken lightly.

For myself, I would prefer to a consensus agreement that keeps bolt anchors at the Y, Playground, Old New Place, and New New Place to a minimum. I believe that bolted toprope anchors should exist only at locations where the local consensus is that there is no reasonable safe alternative. Bolted lead anchors should not be needed at any of these 4 areas, because the leader always has the option of going to the top and walking back down to the base of the cliff.

As a climbing community, we need to ask ourselves some questions. Do we want to keep any rocks in White Rock in a natural state? Do we have any obligation to future generations to preserve some of the areas in the same state that we found them? What role should the Los Alamos Mountaineers climbing school play in teaching the placement of toprope anchors? What is the right balance between increased safety and convenience for current climbers, versus leaving future climbers the opportunity to discover some routes or anchors for themselves? My climbing abilities nowadays are mostly limited to easy sport climbing, which I do enjoy very much. But I also see a new generation coming along with a strong interest in trad climbing techniques and multi-pitch routes. If we alter our climbing environment in a permanent, irreversible way, what are we taking away from all future climbing generations?

I visited this page for the first time yesterday, and found the discussion very educational and helpful in understanding the different perspectives better. Here’s some thoughts from a White Rock resident (since 1991), fairly new to rock climbing (2007 LAM school, taught by Jason Halladay; excellent!) but long-time hiker and fan of wild places. I’m one of the semi-regular after-work TRers, and also doing easier trad leads.

For me the environmental impacts of anchor bolting, pro and con, are of the least concern here. Seeing bolts never bothered me as a hiker, trivial impacts compared to things like the trash thrown over the cliffs, graffiti, etc. But the ground trampling at cliff tops also seems minor, less than at cliff bases and no different from other use areas. This is basically a near-urban backyard recreation area, albeit an exceptionally scenic one, and I don’t think anchor bolts (or static lines and gear setups, for that matter) detract from residents overall enjoyment of this open space.

I’m also not worried about ground compaction setting up static lines hurting the junipers. Hardy trees, with roots anchored in cracks in the rock. Some fascinating research came out on them this year. They are more drought-resistant than pinons because they can actually take in moisture through their needles, not being totally dependent on getting it through their roots like most other trees. They seem to do fine in other heavy use areas, such as campgrounds, and I think they can handle the climber traffic here.

I think the best reasons to have anchor bolts at the White Rock crags are convenience and safety, and that these are fine reasons to do so. Again, this is a semi-urban area that gets a fair bit of after work use. As others have mentioned the quick setups let you get more climbing in, and less time at the cliffs tops means less chance of falling or knocking rocks down on other climbers (the biggest hazards at these crags). The anchor bolts also make the crags more accessible for newer climbers (much easier to find tops of routes), and makes their anchors safer for others who use their ropes. I’ve thanked Jason for setting up anchor bolts, and was bummed to see them cut at BHJ.

That said, I also agree that many of the new anchor bolts seem inconsistent with the revised bolting agreement. I was at ONP the day Darian and Chuck were setting anchors and taking photos, and checked out a couple of their setups. Bomber, right next to new anchor bolts. Yes, I like the convenience and added safety of having the bolts there, but anchors can be set without them. It just takes more time and commitment, not necessarily a bad thing.

Times change, setting solid anchor bolts is easier than it used to be and provides lots of benefits, and the large majority of current White Rock climbers seem to want them (myself included). But I also philosophically agree that we don’t need to have bolted anchors everywhere, and don’t think we should be hasty at abandoning tradition. We don’t have to make everything easier and more convenient. And folks like Darian, Chuck, and Norbert have been climbing here far longer most of us, and I think have a valuable long-term perspective, and I’d be ok with deferring to their judgment on anchors.

Scott, thanks for moderating this discussion, and I do hope a workable resolution can come out of this. We all love the crags, and I’m looking forward to a time when a main discussion at them isn’t the pros and cons of anchor bolts.

Removable highest quality climbing specific bolts called the Triplex are made by Fixe. Might find these useful for this application. Two drilled holes in basalt (bubbled even more so) are hard to see. I sometimes can't find them right after we drill. Good luck.

http://www.fixeusa.com/triplex.htm

I have to say that the idea of removable bolts makes me a bit anxious. If that were the case, I'd build my own anchors. Either place the bolts or don't place the bolts.

If the date on this thread was 1989 instead of 2009, i wouldn't be surprised. thanks for the nostalgic trip back to the bolt wars of the 80s...

are the people advocating chopping new anchor bolts and banning new bolts on climbs (does this include upgrading old ones?) ready to live with the knowledge that your actions may result in causing harm to others?

if a couple of teenagers are used to clipping bolts for their after-school TR session and now they are denied this and decide to set their anchors and they fail, are the choppers, removers, and pluggers ready to live with the consequences of their actions?

... i know the counter argument: they should know how to place an anchor, need more experience in the placing trad gear, take a class, etc... but the fact would remain they are harmed and if you hadn't removed the bolts they would be not harmed.

It has taken me more than a little time to read through all these posts, the majority of which seem to be thoughtfully written. Just as background, while I haven't been out at the crags quite enough in the last several years, I have been climbing in White Rock since 1993, I do know how to set up a bomber, equalized anchor with gear (and have the gear to do so), and I mostly top-rope or clean bolted or trad routes in White Rock, although I have lead both sport and trad routes there. Oh yeah, and I'm a parent too, and I do take the kids to the crags.

It does seem as if this is a debate that cannot be "won." We can hope for a resolution that pleases the majority of the people, but like my Dad always says, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time."

I'm going to refrain a from a lengthy, opinionated discussion on the variety of issues that this thread has brought up (trust me, I could write novels for responses, but I won't).

Instead I will say that I'm in favor of bolted anchors at the top of crags where trees are dead or dying, and where solid gear can't be placed. I also think that bolted anchors that are already in place shouldn't be removed, even if they can be removed aesthetically, unless they are unsafe.

While my opinion is that convenience should not be the justification for placing bolted anchors at the tops of the climbs, I can admit that I would easily clip into a set of convenient anchors for a top-rope set up.

This has been an interesting and informative read, but it all seems futile, unfortunately, for both sides. As Norbert said, it is encouraging to see climbers proposing compromises. Isn't that what the real issue is here--to actually propose these compromises in a clear and straightforward manner? So far only a handful of people have proposed their suggestions for a new bolting agreement. Let's see some more thoughtful, clear, concise proposals. (I realize I gave my opinion, and didn't propose anything, but I'll be considering this, for what it's worth.)

Scott,
I am planning on posting some additional comments on this topic, but right now happens to be a hectic time. I hope that folks will continue to update this post over time so that those of us who are not present for meetings and/or personal conversations at the crag will at least know what set of 'policies' get agreed upon. Thanks for putting your time and effort into this Scott.
Cheers.