Little John's Big Stick 

Not worth the effort

I think it would be a mistake, IMO, to re-bolt this and possible rekindle the Bo-Can bolt wars. The FA party was very open-minded and progressive in allowing those who approached him to remove the bolts, and I think set a good example for others. If someone thought I had put in an unneccesary bolt by a pefectly viable gear placement, I would gladly let them yank it, as long as word got out, either via this site or guidebooks, what gear was needed.

I led this a couple of weeks ago placing gear and it was all about A1--there is no need for the bolts down low--the 6 that were removed. Drag a small rack to the crag, do this, do the other sport routes, and your pack is only going to weight five pounds more for the rack. It climbs nicely as a mixed route and would be best left alone.

I was at an area about a month ago where splitter granite cracks had been bolted. Kind of silly. It just doesn't really make much sense--what are we, trying to put the cam companies out of business? Those things actually hold falls, fer crissakes. I've tested them.

For those that don't know or can't remember the facts of the matter, which as noted by another poster, are archeived on this site... Or for those who didn't bother to read them, or maybe those who KNOW the facts, but just don't want to discuss them honsetly... I didn't even contact Richard Wright about removing the bolts until after he posted publically to this website saying to "pull them."

Kudo's to Richard: there are ethical quandries about both placing and removing bolts next to potential gear placements that's I'm unprepared to deal with unilaterally. I removed these bolts with permission, and without it would not have done so. So maybe there was a different "choppin' posse" forming, but I wasn't part of it. I preferred to think of this route as a reasonable and diplomatic agreement of both sides as opposed to ignition of a bolt war. I have no interest in a bolt war. Other people will always see it in their own light.

By the way, I was up clipping bolts with Richard just a few weeks ago at a crag he has been developing, Ra. So who said I was anti-bolt? Obviously someone who doesn't know me.

Tony wrote: Lastly, Bob, the fact that you'd rebolt this route only proves that you are just as interested if not moreso, than me. Which proves what? An ego thing? As for my motivation- what does this have to do with ego? People do tend to look inward to their own motivations to explain the actions of others. There is NOTHING ego-related about 10a. In a world were people solo 5.13 and climb 5.14 big walls, 10a is not a special grade for the climbing community or even to me, a mere-mortal member of it.

Well Richard seems to have a different story. He said if most climbers thought the route was better off without the bolts then remove them. As most of the folks who visit the crag are sport-climbers you would tend to believe that the bolts did not bother them at all. The route has been established for years and has had hundreds of ascent without anyone taking the bolts out, except you, who when there one day and led the bottom 30 feet with gear and posted it on the internet. In your own words, 10a is not a special grade, what made you want to change the route? So who is driven by ego?

Do you do a limited sampling of your circle of friends to come to the conclusion that MOST climbers thought the route was better off without the bolts?

I would almost think that Richard felt a little bit uneasy by the amount of talk (started by you post) on this route and somewhat caved in to your request.

From a survey done by SteveThere is a strong consensus for1. No chipping of holds.Q5: Is chipping on NEW cliffs ok? 7 agree/5 strongly agree:209 strongly disagree/ 34 disagree

2. The bolts on Purpose should stay in. (158 yes, 72 no)However the question asking whether the bolts onPurpose should have been installed was answered(yes-78, no-133).

This reflects two other strong trends, which are:

1. Existing bolts and chipped holds etc should be leftalone, ie grandfathered in, even when the respondentswere not approving of them. Q34: "should there be areview to remove bolts" 135 strongly agree, but only10 "strongly disagree"

2. Future development needs to be controlled by somekind of climber's forum, (not landowners/landmanagers)or somehow needs to be done with consultation/commentfrom the "climbing community" before bolts are placed,particularly for the more trad oriented cliffs such asCob or Bell or Castle. This is a touchy issue as thefolks most affected by this are least likely to wantthis. Q35: 93 strongly "agree with" a review body, 85"agree"; and 25 "strongly disagree", 27 disagree.How to do this? Perhaps a web site to post new routeproposals and receive comments?

Barlett:

What review was done before removing the bolts?

On second reflection, perhaps it is all well and good to hold an ethical discussion over a minor route. It's likely that there would not be much to discuss if the bolts had been placed on the 5th pitch of the Naked Edge, or up Pervertical Sanctuary. Like all good discussions this one has at least two worthy and rational sides to it. Tony approached me with the proposition that because popular opinion seemed to lean heavily toward pulling the bolts on LJ, he would do so if I consented. This was a level headed, reasonable, and anything but hysterical request, and that is certainly one characteristic of his. What I told him, in what was hopefully no more agitated a state of mind, was that I personally thought it not a good idea to get into something that smacked of an ethics police "vigilanteeism", but if the general tenor of things favored removal, then pull them. What the F***, I wasn't heavily invested in it in any way and I had no trouble accepting consensus opinion. Bob's argument is every bit as reasonable, and please correct me if don't say this right. The crag was developed largely with bolts since most the routes needed them, and the dozen feet of climbing in question don't add up to very much. There is also a very long tradition in climbing to leave a route in the form of its original ascent, and stripping LJ invites vigilantee bolt wars, and it gives unwarranted credence to the most vitriolic element. Furthermore, the tolerance implicit in Bob's stance provides an opportunity for the climber to exercise their own judgement in their own work. We're climbers afterall, and at least one of the reasons we climb is to define ourselves differently from the 9 to 5 herd mentality that consumes most of our lives. If one tries to cobble together these different sides, along with Steve's position, then it seems to me that we come up with something like the following. If you are putting in new routes, then for the most part you will be working on something you don't own and putting in a route does not confer any greater ownership on the crag. It's still not yours. There is a general preference in Colorado that if the balance of a pitch can be done trad, then leave it trad. If consensus wisdom argues for adjusting a route by adding or removing bolts, then accept the decision based on the greater wisdom. We can all make mistakes. However, I would also add that if we are going to preserve the individuality of climbing and if we are going to recognize the investment that each climber places in climbing, then we are going to have to accept that some things will be done differently than we might choose ourselves. If we can't do this, then climbing is not worth the effort.

Paul, where, exactly do you stand on this issue???

Show me the [relevance] of WHATEVER I said to the incremental n=1,2,3...infinity expression (Are you trying to express this in terms of a series...) you used.

Would you approve of the removal of any bolt on the routes you established? I'm not suggesting you approve, just trying to understand what you are getting at.

Tony,

You had to of known that this would become the topic of another heated debate that you have very definite views on. And you have cast youself in the middle of it. I can't help but wonder what you real intentions are??? megalomaniac???. You say that you did this in order to ease tensions in regard to what some "anarchist" were planning, but I think that you just appeased them. "Give [an] inch and they will want a mile". Time will tell where this will lead. In that moment you were right (I can't disagree), but your actions MIGHT precipitate more anarchy. I hope not, and I hope that you will be right in the long run.....

Tony I wish I could follow your reasoning but I can't. Fact is I have been climbing for 34 years. Fact is I have never heard of a crack that was done with natural gear on the first ascent, bolted and turn into a sport climb. Nothing right, holy or sanctified about that.

Instead of dropping these little hints of what you saved Boulder Canyon from, spill the beans and tell us what was going to happen and who was going to do it. I see we have our own little terrorist alert right here on cb.com.

For as many people who agree with your actions there are just as many if not more who disagree. Did you read the results of the survey?

I'll stick with my view of respecting the first ascent party effort!

We were kinda overdue for one of these discussions... but a quick note from a "moderator" of the site:

One, this is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Two, people seem to be failing to follow the single rule we have for posting: "Don't be a jerk." I know that's pretty complicated, but please do try.

NOW that the hornets nest has been stirred and everyone has "bolting ethics" on their minds...

Regarding Castle Rock: P2 of Corinthian Vine has an old fixed copper head near the top (after you pull out of the dihedral and onto the jugs). There is no other gear available and a fall here would slam you into the ledge above Boot Lead/Close To The Edge (assuming the head rips). Should a bolt replace this "fixed" head? Or should this lead continue to be spooky? And why is there a bolt on that ledge anyway? Suppose that the fixed head wasnt there anymore?

ok, gentlemen, start your engines...

With Richard permission I am posting a letter he send to me via e-mail: Not just obscure, but largely trivial. I can't imagine this route gathering so much concern. I talked to Tony before they yanked the bolts. What I told him then was that I thought it was a mistake to take up what amounts to a vigilante crusade. However, if most climbers thought that LJ was improved without the bolts, then I would concede the point. But, I had no intention of assisting them in yanking the bolts,and I still considered it misguided. Frankly, at this juncture, I thinkit best to just leave it rest. We have had "bolt wars" before, as you know, and LJ just is not worth the furor.

I hope you recognize that I'm not taking up Steve or Tony's side. I am trying, as I have before, to see the issues from their perspective. I think it is offensive, intolerant, and inappropriate when these guysappoint themselves the self-rightous ethics police. I am reminded of Pete Croft climbing a bolted seam on his own gear. As I recall from the mags he made a comment to the effect that for him climbing it on gearwas more satisfying. From what filtered back to Colorado, it seems that he didn't rant and rave; he never indicated that the bolts should be removed, he just thought he could do it without the bolts. Enough said.

As stated before at Richard request a majority of climbers, not just Tony's circle of friends. Maybe in the future if this happens again we can respect the wishes of the FA party.

posted on this site: By: Richard M. Wright On: 8.24.2003 Comments: Pull them.

Posted by Richard on 8/21/2003: I think Richard has been very steady in his stand on making the removal of the bolts by a concensus.

Let's try to get our heads above water here. I'll give this one shot and no more; the time already spent chaffing over this marginal route far out-weighs the time needed to climb it on bolts, trad, or without a rope. None of which constitutes an overwhelming task.

1. Little John's Big Stick and Maid Merrian were switched in Rolofson's guide, and the dihedral was originally called Maid Merrian. I put this in not Alan, who did put in the line to the right, LJBS. I am happy to take my beating without a proxy.

2. The bolts on this route are legally considered abandoned property and anyone is as free to remove them as I was to place them.

3. Bolts seemed judicious in the upper section and at the top of the detached column, and given the relative simplicity of the route and the likelihood of its being climbed by novices, the rest were placed.

4. It is an unfortunate fact that most of the new climbers entering the field today have come up through a gym and not through a more traditional venue. So, many don't climb with trad and sport racks, and may not even own both. I have now had the dubious honor of having three climbers fall to their deaths on routes that I have personally established, and one near fatality. These represent user errors and not failure of in situ equipment. Nonetheless, the onus of responsibility for some aspect of the integrity of the route falls to the party establishing the route. Routes on this crag were extensively cleaned, although not fastidiously, enough to make them largely safe. Bolts that have been placed were placed in such a way as to ensure their maximal holding and shear strength. Placing bolts in the lower section has made the route available to a far greater number of climbers than it would be by omitting them.

5. Holding the line on trad versus bolt protection is facetious at best, and a trite lurch toward the high-moral-ground at worst. Alan, Mark, Ken, Bob, and the numerous others, myself included, who have placed a bolt near a trad placement have spent more of their formative years climbing trad than many climbers have spent climbing altogether. And I will guarantee that each of them places huge value on some the trad routes that they have climbed; I certainly do. The decision to place a bolt near a trad placement is often made in the complex context of the nature of the crag, the overall assessment of the route, the relative need for safety, the quality of the stone, the anticipation of who may subsequently climb the route, and many other factors as well. This is rarely done with blithering stupidity or frank laziness. It is an equally unfortunate fact that most of the striking trad lines were gobbled up in the preceeding 30 or 40 years, leaving many of the faces and roofs undone, largely beacuse they are not protectable traditionally. While some routes, like LJBS, could be done in a mixed fashion, this is no longer the norm for new routes.

6. Is it better to leave new routes so that they can be climbed in a mixed fashion when this is appropriate? Since few of us own the rocks we climb, the rocks are a shared a resource. Therefore, perhaps the best answer to this question will be made by the consensus of the climbing community - not by the advocates at one extreme or the other.

Oh brother, Tony's weary. Tony, you started this. You sat on your high horse and loudly proclaimed your intentions to the world. Deal with it ya whiner.

Bob,
I sent you this before, but so long as you continue lighting fires pretending this does not exist, I guess that my moral compass says it is the least of the possible Evils to post it. Richard, if you are reaading this, forgive my divulsion of a personal Email. Since you said you wanted to avoid a bolt war, I am acting in my best consience in posting this to do so. Maybe I shoulda done it a long time ago, maybe you shoulda.

Maybe you are interested in this because you've bolted handcracks yourself, chipped holds in climbs, and claimed the FA of routes you have never climbed... but I digress.

So here is the permission from Richard. Apparently there is confusion and I generally don't like posting formerly private Emails, but if it will put a bolt war to bed, here it is.

-----------------------
"Tony,
Thanks for contacting me directly. Frankly, LJBS has always been an after-thought in my mind. Not a big deal by any means. I could care less whether it is bolted from the start or trad, so if you are in the area and want to yank them, have at it. If you do pull them, it would be a good idea to have this noted somewhere. While it would not take a rocket scientist to see that some pro would be useful, with the notation placed in the route description, someone could plan on taking the gear. We should be careful not to start an all-out trad-sport conflict.

(Insert- I have removed a few sentances of text here regarding other bolted cracks and their locations and FA parties which I don't know Richard would approve of me posting)

Perhaps if it is clear that the FA party is in agreement, or doesn't care, then it may be less of a declaration of open warfare.

-Richard "
------------

Bob, are you satisfied now that this is public? Can we move on? You can call it alleged if you like and I won't argue. You know well enough though that I am honest and try to do right and I think you know (regardles of what you might say in public) that I am not making a word of that up.

Richard's 'consensus' statement was much later and in the context of involving a local bolt chopper and what he said was: -----------"So long as there is no disagreement about bolt removal, it may not matter a great deal who does so. But, I do agree that ************ is probably the wrong choice."---------

So let's not cloud that any further. Let's move on. Regardless of what was said later, I was given permission to remove the bolts and that is clear. Richard also warned me that it might touch something off. He was right. I did what I did becasue I saw something touching off if I didn't and I though that the bolts were unnessecary and that proper removal (clean, non-violent, with permission) is better than hanger-smashing, which is unreasoanble and certain to enrage.

Now that all of the facts are out, I have nothing further to say. I accept the responsibility for what I did, and I accepted it openly before. But I'm not taking crap for what I didn't do and I absolve myself from any responsibility for the future. I told you what I think is impending and if it happens, remember I told you about it in advance and you made your own choices. I'm over it.

I brought my trad rack to Sherwood Forest this afternoon and led Little John's Big Stick on gear. The direct start up the corner is hard and poorly protected, so I came in from the right and got a bomber #3 Camalot as my first placement, just as Tony says. Above, I got solid placements with a #.75 Camalot and a red Alien before reaching the detached pillar. I put a #2 Camalot in the crack at the base of the pillar, but avoided putting a bigger cam up higher. At the horizontal crack I got a good red tricam. From here, it's three bolts to the anchor.

My assessment: LJBS is a reasonable and fun climb done in this manner. All gear placements are in solid rock, and the #2 Camalot placed at the base of the detached pillar would exert mimimal levering on the pillar in the event of a fall (which is unlikely since the climbing is easy in this section).

I lead this bottom section on gear. You could pretty much stand just above the ground and place a very small stopper or RP to protect the first move to good gear. I didn't bother and just clipped the bolt. Then lead on good gear until the start of the dihedral. After that it would be dicey on gear at best.

I won't even bother with the gear/bolt debate above and I just lead it because I enjoy placing gear. Probably could just bring 4-5 cams for this. I placed a #0.5, #1, #3, and a yellow Alien. Probably should have used a #2 as the #3 is high on the pillar as Ron mentioned. You probably could find some crap in the dihedral, but why bother. This isn't Serenity Crack.