Tonnere Tower

Had a wonderful time with friends here today. Great climbing on great rock with excellent protection. I want to thank the folks that put these routes in.

Isn't this place called Tonneque tower?

I have to say I have mixed feelings about the route development here. On one hand it is nice to have a new local crag, especially one with quality moderate multi pitch routes. Kudos to the hard work to put them in.

On the other hand, I have two reservations. First, the whole Boulder Falls area narrows are extremely overused and crowded. On summer weekends there are cars parked all the way from Boulder Falls to the Practice Rock area, and often more parked along the road past the Practice Rock up to the Boulderado, which is illegal. I think the last thing this area needs is yet another recreation attraction. A few years back a forest service employee told me there was concern about overuse in this area; I can't imagine what they think now.

Even worse though, I have reservations about the style used to put these routes in. I'm not talking about bolting next to cracks, which I could care less about in this area, but rather the egregious amount of cleaning required to put them in. I recently took some family from out of town to Boulder falls, and we watched large blocks trundled off of the tower, causing an enormous racket and raising large clouds of dust. We also saw a climber on a rope smashing and breaking off a number of holds and flakes with a hammer. My family wondered if someone was hard-rock mining back there. Why these aren't considered modified or chipped routes is beyond me. And then to look on this site and find that people are spending 20+ hours over many days to clean a single route (Total Eclipse and Buried Treasure for two) makes me wonder if this area is a good choice to put in new sport routes.

Spending that much time removing rock isn't cleaning, it is excavation. It certainly isn't low impact and I think it makes the climbing community, which should be cultivating a low impact ethic, look bad. The before and after photos of the beautiful mossy walls posted in the various route descriptions are an embarrassment. This isn't simple gardening, like removing some grass and moss from a crucial handhold, or lichen from a foothold - this is full scale sterilization of living matter from a rock wall. One of my visual highlights in the area is the mossy wall upstream from the tyrolean. I shudder to think that in the next few years someone will sterilize that too in the name of creating a popular sport crag. I wonder if this amount of cleaning is even against forest service regulations.

Ron, I appreciate your willingness and intention to create a new area enjoyed by many. But I think this was a poor choice of location. I can think of a number of potential crags within a 20 minute drive of Tunnere that would require less cleaning but would likely yield quality routes.

bpd

No kidding was that well said. This area is a bit of a disgrace. What really boggles the mind is 1. the unbelievable "excavation" that has taken place, and then almost bragged about in photos (look how hard I worked) and 2. the disturbing mentality of the FAists: namely, "we spent hours excavating to uncover cracks, and once we did, we just slammed in a bunch of bolts right next to the obviously excavated placements." It's like a bad dream. I am blown away that we are even still having this debate of bolts next to cracks. Has everyone lost their mind? It's good granite for gawd's sake: the gear is perfectly good in Boulder Canyon. Are all those bolts really necessary?

This area is a sad indication of just how far people have gone from the "clean ethic." I guess I reveal my own prediliction for "no bolts next to cracks, period," which I can concede may be just a stylistic oddity. I am obviously not nearly as enlightened as Boulderpd because all these bolts do offend me. This place is just another crag that's been "Sportpark-ed."

But I think Boulderpd gives us all some insight into the bigger picture of impact, overuse, and how climbers are seen by others. Who cares about bolts, stop crowbarring and destroying vegetation on such a massive scale.

On the other hand, I guess climbing has always involved "gardening:" I've heard that many classic cracks in Yosemite & elsewhere (Diamond?) used to be packed full of moss and flowers till we came along with crowbars and nut tools. But still, where does it end? What justifies these means? I don't know.

This thread also reveals the sickeningly myopic viewpoint often bandied about on this website by certain overly- defensive route developers: "we got there first, so we can do what we want. If you don't like it, go put up your own routes." AKA: "we've got plenty of free time, we got drills, so F-you: no-one does your stupid little trad routes anyway." What utter, pathetic garbage. So no one enjoys gear climbing in Boulder Canyon? Huh? So now it's a race to keep every mossy craglet from grid-bolting? All in the name of "safety?" Get real. No one buys that crap for a minute. Most of these people spend a lot of time bragging about their hardcore trad roots. If that's true (and it certainly seems to be) then how could you have fallen so far to the point where you will struggle tirelessly to defend bolts next to cracks? Oh well. I guess these people are so wise, that their logic flies over my ignorant head, cuz I just don't get it.

I should qualify my comments about bolting next to cracks. I didn't mean that I feel it is ok to bolt cracks, but rather, I have no opinion on the bolting of cracks in the larger scheme of impact to the environment or impact to the perceptions of our sport to those who don't climb. I do have an opinion on it in regards to bolting ethics, but I feel that is an outside issue unrelated to my concerns about this crag. For the record, I am not a fan of continuous bolted crack systems, though I don't mind the occasional bolt near a short discontinuous crack on what is otherwise a bolted sport face climb. I have not seen the bolted crack on Tunnere, and as such I can't make a qualified judgment on it. I hope this discussion doesn't become a continuation of the Total Eclipse bolted crack thread, overshadowing the other points - the large scale gardening and removal of rock debris.

This seems to be a case of "developer" ego run amok. There is a huge difference between cleaning a crack and what has been done to Tonnere Tower.

Sadly, this kind of "development" is routinely viewed from the narrowest possible perspective, i.e., what is good for or desired by a group of climbers, with the decisions being made by one person or at most a handful of like-minded people. Does anyone seriously believe that the "excavation" that has taken place at Tonnere Tower would be approved by any responsible body entrusted with the care and conservation of a natural area?

What has been done at Tonnere Tower is grotesque.

Add to the equation that the author of a majority of these routes has a almost Stalinist control over the editorial comments that may or may not criticize these routes on this website.

Why are any of you people raising these questions? Why does it come to anyone's surprise that the Tonnerre Tower development is anything other than what it is? A logical progression of crag development in this area?
Boulder Canyon is not a place where climbing ethics have any longevity
And the Tonnerre Tower climbing development is a logical extension of what has been going on in this canyon for quite some time. It is just more shocking, because it has happened quickly and the carnage at the bottom of the climb hasn't had a chance to fade into the background. In time, the bottom of the cliff will become overgrown and look less like a bomb has exploded at the bottom. All of you will forget how wrecked it is at the bottom and move on to the next belay platform.

For what it is worth, I think the climbing is pretty darn good for Boulder Canyon. A tremendous amount of effort has been put into cleaning, flossing and in general creating a cliff which is very user-friendly with routes which are fun and interesting. In a way it is even more aesthetic than before. Sure the pitches are short and the bolts on an average of 6 feet apart but if some are skipped then the run-outs become more worthy of conversation. Yep, there are lots of bolts next to cracks but once the bolts are skipped and the cracks plugged up with TCUs or stoppers, leading becomes more like it always should be: thoughtful and well, MORE thoughtful. Trad climbing is possible because the cracks are clean. And that pleases me.

My point here is that this is a cliff where trads and "sport-to's" can climb, come together and have a good time. In a way it is a communal crag. It isn't difficult to place passive gear, you just have to be strong enough, to have enough "spunk" to overlook and disregard the bolts.... This is an engineered cliff where the creator (Ron?) has put in a lot of effort to clean and create an otherwise unclimbed cliff into what will be and is already a very popular destination. I enjoyed my day of climbing here and I will return. I'll tell all my friends about it. They'll come with their girlfriends and TRAINED, domesticated animals. I hope they will clean up their poop.
It's good fun. which is what most climbers want anyway and the direction climbing here is going. Fun and a challenge. Maybe not life-changing but who knows? It's a chance to create something positive.

This crag development didn't happen in Yosemite, Eldorado or RMNP.
No classic routes were discriminated against, and no one was hurt.
Maybe there was the potential for radical life-changing routes but no one had put in the effort to find out. AND the potential still exists..........

It isn't a bad thing. It seems like the natural evolution of crag development in this area. Why it could even become a positive step for relationships between climbers and land managers.

That's it. The climbing is fun but for sure bring a trad rack because you can do that too. Bring a pulley for the tyrolean across the stream but you can also walk across the water. It isn't deep. Ignore the cheering crowds of tourists as you pull the 10d (or is it 10b?) crux over the roof because as much as the tourists annoy you, you also enjoy their adulation. It's climbing in Boulder Canyon. It's supposed to be fun! And it really is.
And it's for everyone.

Jack

Jack,

Well said.

It is not Eldo nor RMNP at all. It is Boulder Canyon.
Climbing is fun and it should remain that way.
And like you say: It's for everyone.

So for everybody I say:
So be it!
Knock yourself out!

Climb hard!
Climb high!

But most importantly: Have fun and enjoy climbing!

Bruno

Nice Jack...well said.

Allen...your comment is out of line.

The sentiment that since Boulder Canyon is not RMNP or the like, anything goes, sucks. BC is still, or should be, a beautiful place. Climbers don't own it, and even if they did it would be nice if they were better stewards than, say, WalMart. It sounds like the concept of treading lightly did not figure in all this. Perhaps this should be renamed the Kompressor Wall? New routes are fine, but please have a thought for your impacts and don't pull out all the stops just because the location doesn't happen to be a national park. p.s. Have the before and after pictures been removed? What does that mean?

I was pointed to this discussion by someone who thought I'd be interested as an environmental scientist and a climber. I am disappointed to not see the before and after photos. The ethic of low impact in climbing is important, particularly as the population of climbers on our public lands increase. There is an intangible benefit to be able to appreciate the gardens of lichen, ferns and mosses that grow on the rock. It is part of an ecosystem. Some of my more fond moments in climbing involve seeing a garter snake coiled up in a bush on a crag (How'd he get up there?! Must've been a 5.11 move to make it there with no legs) or having a hummingbird buzz me on its way to a group of flowers growing on the rock. Granted, this pesky vegetation does get in the way of a good hold, but why does an entire rock face need to be gardened. I am certain Ron Olsen approached developing this wall as a service and meant no harm. The climbing community, however, is under an obligation to tread lightly on public lands. Trundling rocks and hammering out holds (Really? Isn't that cheating?) in public view is poor form.

Now this is interesting. This thread reminds me of the thousand-pounds-of-dirt-and-moss-cleaned-off-the-slab discussion (see "Future of Life" on Bell Buttress thread) where Bob D’Antonio took some grief for aggressively cleaning and excavating the approach pitch to some slab routes. I truly can see both sides of the discussion: on one hand you are excavating, mining, and trundling off blocks and loose rock – similar to what was done in Rifle on certain walls to create some of the now-classic routes (Arsenal). Also, to a lesser degree, some of the old crack lines in Eldo are currently being "dug out" to create lines with hard free climbing potential. On the other hand you have to ask yourself if it’s really worth it – spending days cleaning just to see the rock may be a bit over the top not to mention the environmental impact. It’s a tough call either way; I plan to climb there this week to see exactly how egregious the situation is…

Ron, it is a shame that you deleted the before and after photos of the Tonnere Tower routes, along with your comments detailing the amount of work you did, and what was done. I had hoped you would discuss your style in creating these routes with the community as a whole, but it appears you chose instead to hide all evidence of your actions presumably in hope that the discussion will go away. Given that you are a Mountain Project administrator, one can not help but wonder if this site supports your actions at Tonnere, or at least supports suppressing the evidence to stifle the discussion.

For the others following this discussion, the damage here is not merely removal of some troublesome moss, rocks or lichen from key hand and footholds. Rather, Ron managed to sterilize a wide section of rock wall of all vegetation - and the vegetation was extremely thick before removal. I found and restored at least one of Ron's deleted before pictures. This is a picture of the area left of the first pitch of Buried Treasure, before cleaning:

<<< Invalid image id: 105997654 >>>
PHOTO REMOVED BY ANDY L - see comment below

Compare this with the beta photo for Buried Treasure. The left side of the beta photo (around and left of the marked "8" variation) encompasses the area in the before photo. Notice that the rock is completely bald at this point. All of the moss and lichen is gone.

<<< Invalid image id: 105988568 >>>
PHOTO REMOVED BY ANDY L - see comment below

Unfortunately I could not find the before photo of Twilight Time, as the moss and vegetation was even thicker there than in the Buried Treasure photo. In fact, it appears that Ron essentially destroyed the moss ecosystem to put in the routes Buried Treasure, Bobby's Back, Twilight and possibly Tree Line. In other words, he didn't just remove debris and vegetation from the line of a few routes, but rather from an entire wall - and area what, 30, feet wide, up to the anchors? He mentioned in one of his deleted notes that he even did some cleaning of cracks and areas not needed to climb the route, simply to make the area more aesthetic to climbers.

Ron, I hope you choose to discuss these issues with us. I think it is fair for the climbing community to see the extent of what you have done, as this truly is a community issue. I believe that the destruction to create these routes reflects poorly on climbers, but the removal of all evidence of what you have done reflects negatively on yourself as a route setter, a Mountain Project administrator, and member of the climbing community as a whole.

Funny that some of Ron's biggest critics can't sign in with their real names.

Bob, I purposely chose an anonymous moniker simply because my identity has no bearing in this discussion. The issue at hand is Ron's style and ethics in equipping these routes, not my identity. In fact, you bringing it up seems like a weak distraction from the real issue, at best.

Boulderpd...right.

If you want an honest discussion...then be honest.

You know Ron's style and ethics. He should at least know your name.

I think the best thing anyone can do is go climb the routes, look at area and then make a judgment.

If the majority rules then I would have to say that Ron's has gotten way more positive imput than negative.

Thanks to Boulderpd for extracting and reposting the before/after photographs. Having an open discussion of the ethics and aesthetics of extreme route-cleaning is healthy. We should all consider the cumulative impact of our outdoor recreation habits.

JoAnn Holloway
biogeochemist and unabashed moss-hugger

Personally, I don't think it is cool that boulderpd resurrected those photos. Ron wanted them removed, and all users have that right, not just administrators.

If you post photos to MP and want them removed, you can do it (sometimes it requires admin approval, but we ALWAYS honor photos removal requests)

How would you feel if you had photos posted, chose to remove them, and someone put them back? Not cool in my book.

I sent email to boulderpd respectfully asking him that he remove those photos.

This isn't about my opinion on the debate above, this is simply about protecting the interest all users who submit content to MP.

Andy

I've yet to see a single trade mark logo from anyone who has posted a photo here. The only questonable pictures are scans of old albums and movie posters that are suppose to make us all laugh at the wit of the contributor.

Allen...it's pretty simple. You at anytime can delete your posts or photos.

Ron's comments and photos belong to him...not MP or the cyber world.

Sure, the photos and comments are Ron's. But who does all the damage that Ron has done belong to?

If it's important to have an honest discussion, then people need to be able to see what has been done. A couple of days ago Ron was really proud of his handiwork. Now, he's the invisible man.

Saying that people should just go climb the routes and see what they think is both ridiculous and irrelevant. First, they can't see the "before." Second, people don't need to be climbers to have a legitimate complaint about what Ron, et al. have done on Tonnere Tower and elsewhere in Boulder Canyon. And third, people don't need to live in Boulder or nearby to protest this kind of wanton destruction. Ron's been operating on land that doesn't belong to him, or to climbers, or even to people in the state or region. This is national forest land. But Ron has been treating it like his own personal play pen.

Arguing that people have to post under their own names to have an honest discussion is silly. The biggest obstacle to an honest discussion at the moment is Ron's removal of the photos and comments. The photos show the damage Ron has done. The comments reveal his attitude.

My thanks also to Boulderpd for resurrecting the photos. Not only do I feel that they should not be removed, I would respectfully request that Ron repost all the photos and comments that have been so abruptly deleted. That would allow anyone who hasn’t seen the deleted materials access to them and would facilitate (or allow) an honest community discussion of this important issue. If serious mistakes have been made, as I surely feel is the case, then let’s all, including Ron, air the issues fully and frankly in the hope of reaching constructive agreement about route development in Boulder Canyon.

Also, to echo another excellent comment made earlier on this thread, the fact that someone comments anonymously is simply not the topic of this discussion, so let’s skip the customary attempts to change the subject. It’s also my guess that a significant number of people read, but don’t post on MP largely to avoid stepping into the sewer of negativity and insults that seems to accompany all too many discussions, particularly those concerning style and bolting.

I'm glad to see the photo's back up as well. I just showed them to my better half (not a climber but a class 4/5 river person and a great lover of wilderness) and after a 10th of a second said " it's vandalism."

Bob they may be Rob's photo's but it's National Forest land, our land, not just Ron's.

I guess I'm having a hard time with cleaning the face of the rock. This isn't a fragile alpine environment & the ability of vegetation in this canyon to grow is not destroyed for all time.

Though, I wouldn't have done this, I usually leave the rock the way I found it & would have prefered mixed-pro lines; I don't see a big conservation concern here that's being presented. Compared to what I've seen off-road from the abuse of those that don't hike nor climb, cleaning this rock face pales in comparison to me.

We have reached a turning point in our initial development of Tonnere Tower.

The next routes we develop will have the following characteristics:

1. Minimal bolting. The routes will be primarily gear, with bolts only where needed (where no good gear placements exist).

2. Minimal cleaning. Moss and lichen will be removed only where necessary to make the line climbable. Expect to see moss, lichen, and vegetation on the routes. Cracks will be cleaned only to the extent to allow gear placements and critical hand holds.

3. Minimal trundling. There is not much loose rock, so little trundling will be required. Dangerous loose rocks will be trundled, when it is safe to do so, to avoid possible injury to climbers and belayers.

We hope this addresses concerns raised by various people and that trad climbers will enjoy the new routes.

Mark wrote: Though, I wouldn't have done this, I usually leave the rock the way I found it & would have prefered mixed-pro lines; I don't see a big conservation concern here that's being presented. Compared to what I've seen off-road from the abuse of those that don't hike nor climb, cleaning this rock face pales in comparison to me.

Could not have said it better.

Most ski areas are NF land...wonder if the people bitching here worry about that damage (slopes, lodges, houses, lifts, parking areas) as they carve tele-turns on their new $2,000 boots and skis after driving their sleek SUV through that big tunnel on I-70???

Allen...how does you wife feel about all the put-ins/parking areas/camping areas/picnic areas along rivers and streams that allow her access to pursue her sport??

Well Bob I dunno, I've been skiing since age 5, my ice gear costs more than 3x my ski equip. My point is there are bigger conservation concerns to this state than our outdoor sports.

Ron is a fair man, I'm glad to read he will be looking more toward a lessened impact for his routes.

Mark wrote: My point is there are bigger conservation concerns to this state than our outdoor sports.

My point is that other outdoors sports that people pursue on this site have/had a way bigger impact than Ron's actions on a section of rock in Boulder Canyon.

Glad to hear he is moving in another direction.

Ron, thanks for finally joining our discussion. I hope that the new, cleaner method of route setting you hope to employ on the next Tunnere Tower routes carries on to all of your future routes, on Tunnere Tower and at every other crag you visit.

I will not, however, remove the before photo - singular, as I only recovered one photo. The climbing community has a right to know the magnitude of the cleaning and trundling that occurred in the creation of these routes, and I believe this right transcends Ron's wish to hide the evidence. This is a community issue now. And Bob's suggestion to climb the routes and decide does not work, as a climber can not digest the magnitude of the destruction without knowing how the route appeared before it was equipped. The only way to do that is to view the before/after photos.

Bob, your analogy of ski resorts, parking areas, camp sites, picnic areas and so on does not apply in this situation. Those establishments were permitted by the forest service, likely subject to environmental impact studies, and built with the oversight of the land manager. I suspect Ron did not have a permit or forest service approval for his wide-scale trundling and removal of vegetation. Perhaps he did; if this is the case then I rescind my criticisms of Ron's style, though I would question the Forest Service for approving such a project.

You also gloss over the fact that this damage reflects negatively on the climbing community as a whole. If the Forest Service did not approve of Ron's actions, how could this possibly help the relationship between the Forest Service and climbers?

Ron emailed me early this morning and said if I don't remove the photo by noon today, he will instruct Andy, the site owner, to remove them. I hope this does not happen, as it closes dialog about the damage, and covers the fact that an administrator of this site acted in such a manner. In the very least the various routes should be marked as the modified routes they are in the Mountain Project database.

All -

I've removed BoulderPds repost of Ron's photos.

This isn't about MP or my own personal position on the debate. This is about protecting the interest of all MP users. You can't simply post somebody else's photos. There are no special cases. Period.

What if someone posted a photo of your own that you didn't want public? You would ask that it be removed. And I would honor that request.

This is no different. The circumstances don't matter. MP (and myself personally) cannot be asked to make judgment calls in these matters. I simply need to enforce the Terms of Service.

Carry on,
Andy

Ron Olsen wrote:

"We have reached a turning point in our initial development of Tonnere Tower.

The next routes we develop will have the following characteristics:

1. Minimal bolting. The routes will be primarily gear, with bolts only where needed (where no good gear placements exist).

2. Minimal cleaning. Moss and lichen will be removed only where necessary to make the line climbable. Expect to see moss, lichen, and vegetation on the routes. Cracks will be cleaned only to the extent to allow gear placements and critical hand holds.

3. Minimal trundling. There is not much loose rock, so little trundling will be required. Dangerous loose rocks will be trundled, when it is safe to do so, to avoid possible injury to climbers and belayers.

We hope this addresses concerns raised by various people and that trad climbers will enjoy the new routes."
____________________________________________________________________

Thank you, Ron. I appreciate you and your parters' willingness to use a lower impact approach to future route development. I look forward to tiptoe-ing through the lichen on your future routes!

While much of the controversy documented here has been resolved, the philosophy behind cleaning routes deserves at least a bit more comment. Cleaning rock prior to an ascent has a very long history in the US and elsewhere, and I wonder if at least some of the comments on this thread are from climbers who have never witnessed the before and after pictures of routes that can require significant cleaning. It is easy to think that rock has always been in the state in which we personally climbed it (possibly because we are on routes that have had dozens or hundreds of ascents). Yet there are many areas, and many climbs, where this does not hold. Let me enumerate a few examples:

1. Ray Jardine thoroughly cleaned many of his now world-famous classics. Here is Ray on Phoenix: "We rappelled down from the top and spent a day cleaning the usual lichen off the sides" (Mountain 69). On Crimson Cringe: "Originally, the crack's lower third was packed with dirt and had bushes growing out of it. Higher, the wall was covered in lichen. After I had thoroughly cleaned it, Kauk and I gave it a try" (Rock and Ice 68).

2. Todd Skinner spent hours cleaning out cracks and brushing lichen from his brilliant routes on Devil's Tower. Here is Beth Wald on Let Me Go Wild: "After cleaning, the climbability of the second pitch was seriously in question ... but we were obligated to try, having logged so many cleaning hours, and our dutiful attempt was launched" (Climbing 91).

3. Climbers who developed many of the classics in the New River Gorge sometimes used efficient power-cleaning methods to quickly remove the lichen and grunge from numerous routes. Most of these climbs, now on beautiful, pristine rock, are exceedingly popular.

4. Gary Gibson, far and away the most prolific new-router in England, has unearthed numerous routes and even entire crags from moss and vegetation. (One such cleaning session knocked off a loose block, nearly killing Gary. He now does his gardening with a metal plate in his head).

5. One recent example from Kirk Miller (yesterday on MP) on the first ascent of the South Platte classic Heart of Darkness: "I had spent so much time cleaning the initial crack, my partners began calling me Mr. Greenjeans".

I have not climbed at Tonnere Tower, but much of the criticism that has appeared in this thread against cleaning appears at least mildly disproportionate given what others have been doing for years and continue to do. There are thousands of acres containing all types of vegetation in Boulder Canyon where one can go to enjoy plant life. The cliffs being developed now and in the future are a tiny fraction of that acreage, and hand-cleaning only accelerates a process that will occur naturally. I was told that on July 4, there were at least 15 climbers swarming the new routes at Tonnere Tower. Given this popularity, I suspect that even with Ron's new minimalist philosophy regarding cleaning, the entire tower will soon be traced with beautiful swaths of clean, grey rock.

Paul...wonderful comments. Thanks for putting things in perspective.

Hope you are well...later, Bob

Resolved? Hardly. Today I received several emails from climbers informing me of changes in circumstances regarding Tonnere Tower that compel me, for the time being at least, to cease publicly discussing the destruction Ron wreaked, and allow Ron the chance to redeem himself with his newly found style of route-setting. Wheels are in motion, etcetera. It is unfortunate Andy decided to remove the evidence of his administrator's actions, but I'll address that tomorrow when I'm not distracted by a cranky child who doesn't feel the need to sleep. It is also unfortunate that I won't refute Bob and Paul's fallacious "appeal to tradition" arguments, at least right away, but as I said my departure is only temporary so Watch This Space, as they say.

I would be happy to discuss the damage to Tonnere, or the photos, in private over email to anyone who is interested: boulderpd@hotmail.com

boulderpd - As I said above, my removal of the photo has NOTHING do to with Ron being an administrator OR his actions. I removed it because you posted his photo without his approval, and he wanted it removed. Posting photos that aren't your own is against the Terms of Use of this site.

If you asked me to remove one of your photos that somebody else posted, I would honor that request. Just like I did with Ron.

My job is to remain neutral and make sure the rules of the site are followed, regardless of the issue being discussed or the people involved.

All else aside, leaving unattending fixed ropes strung all over the place is unsightly guys. Overheard falls hikers wondering about them today.

Some of you super route developers should do your moss killing penance by popping across the road and cleaning up the green and red webbing visible all over the falls wall.

Andy, you didn't give me a chance to explain. You provide us with the following rationale for deleting the picture (singular) I posted:

"Posting photos that aren't your own is against the Terms of Use of this site."

and

"This is about protecting the interest of all MP users. You can't simply post somebody else's photos. There are no special cases. Period."

That's fair enough. You are the Site Landlord (bows head reverently) and you have the right to remove whatever wish.

Your enforcement is selective though, and that selectiveness gives the impression that you deleted the photo as a favor to a friend, not as a standard procedure.

For example, take the route page for My Way on nearby Boulder Slips. Some enterprising user added a photo of Frank Sinatra, even though My Way is one of the most overrated songs in his catalog. Does the user own that photo? I doubt that he obtained the rights to it from the Sinatra estate.

The terms of service states: "When you post Content to Mountain Project you grant Mountain Project, its affiliates and partners, a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sub licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that Content for the purposes of displaying that Content on Mountain Project"

Does the Sinatra estate know that you have worldwide, royalty free, irrevocable license to reproduce a picture of Ol' Blue Eyes for just about any Mountain Project related use you can imagine?

Consider also the person who added that photo is - wait for it - Ron Olsen. He is someone who, I believe, is acquainted with the rule forbidding the posting of pictures one does not own.

At least once a week I see an obviously copyrighted picture as the "picture of the moment". Movie posters, album covers, liquor labels, stills of famous movie stars. You must have seen them too; I can not see that it is possible that you haven't. Regardless your administrators know about the issue, since one of them added one.

So explain to me how you can ignore the rule ("There are no special cases. Period.") in these cases, but choose to invoke it when I post a photograph that embarrasses one of your administrators? I'm not asking that to be sarcastic, I am genuinely interested in your rationale. Perhaps you didn't realize that people were adding so many pictures they did not own. Perhaps the answer is as easy as purging your database of them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't realize this was occurring. Fair enough?

It is that selective enforcement that leads me to think you deleted it to protect an administrator, instead of a blanket enforcement of the terms of service. Do you see how one can come to that conclusion?

If I post a link to an external server that is hosting Ron's image, would you remove that? The image would not be posted on your server, thus avoiding a violation of the terms of service.

A client postponed a business meeting this morning, and suddenly I am free to grab a few quick routes before the day gets too hot. I am out the door and my partner and I are seriously considering checking out Tunnere Tower on Bob's "climb the routes before a conclusion is made" advice. Maybe I'll run into Ron up there, wouldn't that be interesting?

<<< Invalid image id: 105948827 >>>

boulderpd -

In theory you're right, that is selective enforcement.

But why didn't I delete that album cover? Because nobody asked me to. If I proactively deleted photos, I'd spend much of my day browsing photos. How would you like to spend all your time browsing photos and deleting them?

This site is a labor of love, and that love would be lost pretty quickly if I spent all my time chasing after users.

BUT, if someone asked me to delete a particular album cover, I would do it without hesitation.

Do I think users should be posting album covers? No. Do I think admins should be posting album covers? No. But I'm not going to chase after people for doing it. Nor would you if you were in my shoes.

So I enforce the rules, but I don't spend all day looking for situations to enforce. I wait until an issue is brought to my attention, and then resolve it to the best of my ability while trying to remain neutral.

Is this a perfect solution? No. It is a practical one.

Ultimately, this was a lose-lose situation for me no matter how I responded. Keeping the photo up would have pissed off some set of users, and taking the photo down would have pissed off another set. But taking the photo down is an action justified and required by the TOS. There was no clear justification for keeping the photo up. It was somebody else's photo and they complained. Sure, some people thought the photo was important, but that doesn't mean I can throw away the rules when a violation is brought to my attention.

What argument could I have used to keep the photo up? What rule could I have pointed to and justified that action? Does the fact that some members of the community think the photo is important mean that rules don't apply?

Taking the photo down was the only "neutral" action. Keeping the photo up would have meant ignoring the rules in the face of a complaint, which would be a non-neutral response.

If someone posted a photo of yours, and you asked me to take it down, what would you want me to do? Would you want me to apply "judgement" as to whether I thought that photo should remain? Nope, you'd just want me to take it down. It's your photo, not mine, and not the person who posted it.

Bottom Line: my response to the situation above would have been the same for any user, Administrator or not.

ps. Posting a photo of somebody elses on another server doesn't change my interpretation of the TOS. I'd delete the link to the external server. The TOS specifically uses the phrase "otherwise make available via Mountain Project" for just such a case

pps. That album cover has been deleted because, as indicated above, it was brought to our attention.

ppps. If you're volunteering to go find all the album covers and obviously infringing photos on the site and delete them.... have at it, you'll be my hero! :)

Wow, what a thread, very entertaining. I was hesitant to comment, I usually avoid these things. I am however very compelled to comment here. The issue is not the cleaning, I think Paul Heyliger's comments sum it up very well and put this issue to bed. The issue here in my opinion is the bolting of cracks and over bolting. I climbed here yesterday and the climbing is awesome. However, bolting cracks and over bolting are bad practices. When you have a bolt at your feet, a bolt at your waist and are in arms reach of the next bolt something is not right. To the individuals putting up routes here - PLEASE stop spraying bolts on gear protectable lines. Let's avoid another Sport Park here. Many of the lines need the bolts (less of them), but many do not need any at all. Say no to Sport Park ethics! All this aside, thanks to Ron and others for their efforts here, the climbing is very good.

I drove by yesterday to scout the start for the 5.6 route and it did not look very fun (mossy and chossy). I also noticed what appeared to be multiple fixed lines running from the summit all the way down the right-hand (north) skyline in such a way as to be highly visible from the parking area, and there was not a climber to be seen. This is a high traffic area and abandoned ropes can draw attention to something that probably already gets too much attention. Oh, and watch out for poison ivy.

Friends and I went by this area again today and did a few climbs. I don't know which ones we did 'cause we didn't have the guide. It seems like people are helping clean up some the area at the bottom of the routes which is a good thing. Nothing seemed amiss when viewed from across the creek.
Again, the routes we did were very enjoyable. Clean with good rock. Regarding the number of bolts that protect the routes, yep there are a lot of them but no more than at Security Risk, Animal World, Black Widow and many other crags in this canyon. As far as I can tell this has been the Bldr Cyn norm now for over ten years. The difference is that the cracks here have also been cleaned so you have that option; to protect with gear or with bolts. Ya don't have to clip every bolt. We didn't. Have fun.

Hello folks,
I couldn’t help myself. I had to join in on the discussion. Hope I’m not too late to the party.
I’ve read over all the comments and I believe this discussion brings up three different issues that are important to the future of climbing. I have not been to the crag, so I can’t comment particularly on this crag, but I’d like to comment on these issues. (Hey, I’ve been injured all summer so I’m writing this post.)

1st issue: The environmental impact caused by climbers.
There seems to be an argument back and forth about whether cleaning moss, etc off routes is a significant environmental impact. Some think it is horrendous and others think it is no big deal. Does anyone who is commenting really know the answer? Has anyone with a degree in environmental science gone up there and studied the impact not only of cleaning moss, but also the impact of trail systems and more human use in the area? I don’t agree with the argument that because many classic climbs were aggressively cleaned or there are far greater impacts to the environment such as the building of ski areas or super highways, it is okay for climbers to do as they please. And I don’t believe the government agencies managing these lands take that view. Personally, I have no idea whether the development of this crag has any significant environmental impact on the eco system of Boulder Canyon, but I do believe that as more people climb, climbers will cause impact to the areas they use by creating new trails, trampling the vegetation, leaving dog and human poo behind, etc. Climbing crags are a finite resource, so we need to think about wise ways to use this resource.

2nd issue: Impressions we are making to non climbers and land managers.
I believe many climbers think we have our own community, and others are not concerned with what we do or it is not their business. I have been a member of the City of Rocks climbing management team, the Las Vegas Climbers Liaison council, and the Flatirons Climbing Council. The mission of these organizations is to be the liaison between climbers and land managers. I am not a land management expert, but I think I have some insight into what the trend is for future management of climbing areas. The powers that be are looking at recreation as causing a serious impact to our national lands. All recreation will need to be managed. Whether we like it or not, climbers will have to contend with rules and regulation. If we make a good impression now, we will have a much greater chance of getting what we want later. Also, the general public is not necessarily a benign audience watching us climb. For example, the obsession of one man who was incensed by bolting at the City of Rocks was able to rally the forces of the environmental movement against the “destruction” climbers were causing. Thus the Forest Service enacted the fixed anchor ban in wilderness areas around the year 2000. This ban meant that climbers were not even supposed to leave a sling around a tree (not that this could be enforced). So in my opinion, if there is crag development with no land manager approval, it is best to lay low.

Third issue: Our own personal climbing aesthetics:
There is still much discussion about bolting next to cracks and the general consensus seems to be “Don’t” The issue seems to be resolved at this crag, as the route setting party has agreed not to do this in the future although the general trend overall in this country seems to be more bolted cracks (Shelf road is an example.) Maybe this does not need to be stated, but I do not agree with the argument “Just ignore the bolts and climb with gear.” If there is a bolt there, even if you vowed to not use it, the bolt takes away from the climbing experience. The level of commitment to the route has been greatly lowered. If you get in trouble, you’ve got the back up bolt to save you. This back up greatly diminishes the mental and physical experience of leading the route. As far as putting the bolts too close together, that is a trickery issue. One person’s over bolted route is another person’s run out nightmare. There is the argument that routes need to be safe. How safe do we want climbing to be? How close together do bolts have to be to offend the large majority of climbers? Forty years ago any rap bolting would have been abhorrent. Now 6 feet apart is okay. In another 20 yrs will 1 ft apart be okay? At what point will judgment become an unnecessary attribute for climbers? These are questions I think climbers need to ask themselves when envisioning the future of climbing.

Conclusion: For the time being, there are no regulations in Boulder Canyon. Climbers can do what they please. Right now it is up to us to decide how these crags are managed. I love to sport climb and I am not against rap bolting, but I think we need to step back, look at what we are doing, and contemplate how our present actions will affect the future of climbing. I don’t think the only criteria for developing crags should be how much fun we are having or if the majority of people (which seems very difficult to determine) enjoys the crag. I have heard there is a group that deals with climber’s issues for Boulder Canyon. Maybe this group could become a forum for management ideas in the Canyon. If we don’t regulate ourselves, someone else will do it for us.

Thanks for reading this post. I hope you were entertained by this rant.
Carol Kotchek

Minor point, Carol, et al., Boulder Canyon is not without regulation. The BICC discovered that Boulder Canyon actually has a patchwork of landowners, so the regulation/control of these lands depend on the precise parcel. In fact, there are crags in Boulder Canyon where signage indicate it is already illegal to bolt. Caveat Emptor.

Ron, A friend took me to Tonnere Tower the other day and we climbed many of your routes. I thoroughly enjoyed my day there. Notwithstanding all of the controversy outlined in this thread, I think the condition of the area, to include the trails and the routes, are well done. I was involved in much "gardening" back East in the late '70s and early '80s. These routes today see many, many climbers repeating what are now classics.

Wow, have been to Tonnere Tower and climbed most of the routes there and am surprised about the controversy above. Are there signs of impacts from the climbing? Yes, but the area (especially the base) looks to me pretty much like any other area. If guys like the anonymous Boulderpd have higher ethics that do not allow him/her to disturb the environment that is fine but he/she needs to quit climbing because any climbing affects the crag.

Is it overcleaned and excavated? Gosh, maybe, I did see signs of cleaning. But for all you that must have adventure, be assured there is still loose rock up there. We easily pulled a bowling-ball-sized, loose rock off (and were able to stuff it in an alcove where it is safe) just last week. So, as always, be careful.

All in all a nice area. If I had a criticism I would say that some of the routes could have been put in as mixed gear and bolt routes. But that's just me, I happen to like that kind of thing. I did the top pitch of "Staying Alive" yesterday and took some gear and skipped some of the bolts. That is no statement on ethics or anything I just wanted to do it as a mixed route and got exactly what I wanted. I know I did not have the commitment factor cause I could always clip the bolts - so what. If I had wanted to scare myself I would have done something dangerous.

I would like to say thanks to Ron and others for the work on the area.

I’ll preface my following comments by saying that one of Boulder’s best assets is the environmental concern of so many of its residents. I firmly believe that Boulder owes its overall preservation to all the people who take active roles in maintaining and preserving its natural resources. That having been said, I also believe it is equally important that we be able to enjoy those resources with a reasonable amount of impact. Our quality of life depends on it.

I say environmental concern, as opposed to awareness, because we Boulderites tend sometimes to elevate our concerns to the level of crusades before taking the time to consider all sides of the issues.

I recently moved back to the area. As a long-time climber, skier, and filmmaker/photographer, I spend lots of time in nature areas all of this country and beyond. Upon arriving back in Boulder, last month, I was immediately taken by just how beautiful this place is in comparison to so many other areas of the country. It isn’t just the landscape, because we all know that the United States is home to some of the most beautiful national parks in the world. What makes this town so unique is that it combines amazing topography, recreational opportunities, and world-class amenities in such a way that they work in harmony with one another – almost one hundred thousand people sharing a relatively small space in ways that make most of us smile on a daily basis. I have never lived in another place where so many people enjoy their lives so much. It is a prospering, healthy, educated, community of well adjusted, interesting people.

As a climber, this is the place to be. Boulder is rich in climbing history and access, and the people who make up this unique community are among the most friendly and interesting people that I have met anywhere. They are climbers as a lifestyle, as am I, and I immediately feel at home among them.

I just recently met Ron Olsen, through my friend (Bob D’Antonio), and my immediate impression of him was that he was an intelligent, polite, and reasonable individual. Bob introduced me to Tonnere Tower, and I had the opportunity to climb many of routes with him, as well as a multi-pitch, first ascent with both Bob and Ron just the other day. All I can say is thank you for taking the time and effort to create an environment in which people like my fiancée and other new and moderate climbers can finally experience what those of us who climb above 5.11 take for granted - an abundant variety of quality, well-protected routes.

After doing all of the routes on one of the slabs, I mentioned to Ron that one of his routes seemed like a squeeze job to me and that it diminished the quality of two adjoining routes. He considered my concern and removed the entire route. That is far from the representation of a guy who isn’t willing to listen to reason. More than a few other route developers would have told me to go expletive myself.

I get the impression that Ron is relatively new to route development, but that he sincerely wants to do it well and in a thoughtful way. He could use cheap hardware, but he chooses to use stainless steel bolts ($1.25 ea.) and hangers ($3.50 ea.), because he wants the routes to stay safe for future generations of people who will climb on them. Most sport areas get developed predominantly in the upper grades, because the people bolting them do so for themselves. Ron and Bob are actively developing routes for the average climbers, and the are doing it on their own time and dime.

I know Bob, and I know that he is doing this to give something back to the community. He is easily capable of climbing 5.12 or harder, and could invest his money and efforts into developing routes for himself, but he isn’t. He also gets much grief about being that bolt-crazy, sport jockey, which cracks me up, because Bob was doing 5.12 trad routes before most of his critics were born or out of diapers. He is solid on the sharp end, and I would rather have him on the other end of my rope in a dangerous situation than 99% of the people who are talking so much shit about him. Shelf Road, Penitente, Taos, and other areas are, in large part, the classic areas that they are because of Bob’s efforts. That in conjunction with having authored almost two dozen guidebooks makes him, in my eyes, a true asset to the climbing community. . He understands the climbing scene as well or better than most, and his efforts have earned my respect.

As for the moss, I think it is a bogus argument. New routes get cleared of moss all of the time. It has been a common practice for as long as I can remember and longer. The moss on that wall – from everything that I have read - is a non-essential form of vegetation, unlike, for instance, Reindeer Moss, which is an important source of food for reindeer and caribou. Moreover, the removal of that moss has uncovered some beautiful granite formations. We are not talking about some exotic, flowering moss formation like the ones that drape many Hawaiian cliffs and harbor scores of wildlife.

Boulder Falls is a high-traffic, tourist destination, which has managed to remain reasonably impacted in spite of its large volume of visitors. If anything, being able to easily view the climbing activity will only add to its tourist appeal. And as another poster pointed out, time will patina the copper, so to speak.

Someone brought up the issue of excavating the rock there. I think he mentioned that he saw someone smashing holds and flakes with a hammer. I doubt it! I have been all over that tower, and there are no manufactured holds anywhere. There are some large boulders that are precariously perched on the tower, which could be dislodged with little effort. This is one of the natural hazards of rock climbing outdoors, and is not a valid reason not to develop an area.

I do, however, believe that it is usually wise to remove detatched boulders whenever safely possible, although I adamantly believe that it should be done when no one else is around – preferably at night and with spotters. Doing so would help to eliminate the risk of serious injury to unsuspecting climbers, bystanders, and passing vehicles, and would keep what might be erroneously construed as excavation under the radar.

This place is nothing like the Sport Pile/Park. The routes are pretty well to very well thought out and of high quality. Some of them are mixed, so I recommend that you bring a rack if possible. Small Aliens work well on several of the routes.

My one admonishment to Ron and Bob would be to clean the routes before bolting them, so that natural gear placements and stances would be exposed before placing unnecessary bolts. This isn't so practical on ground up FAs, although I think it should be standard procedure on top down projects.

I have read the thread above...
Please advise: Why bolt these cracks? Entire pitches could go safely on trad gear. Why not remove the bolts?

My name is Dirk Peters, cellular 509.392.1618 email rocksandwoks@gmail.com

I am more than curious.

Dirk,

You ask why bolt next to cracks? Simply because it has become the standard practice in Boulder Canyon to do so. The bolt wars that have occured in Boulder Canyon have become legendary and the end result has always been the same; that the majority of rock climbers in this area prefer to have their protection where it is most convenient be it a bolt or some other form of pro. Many of the routes that have bolts for pro can do without and lots of us do so by just placing passive gear or cams where it suits us best and ignore the fixed pro. This is the Boulder Canyon norm. Just hand me the rack and climb past the bolts. This talk of chopping bolts, that's just silly talk................

This thread is too great not to jump in on with an opinion.

1. Climbers are notorious for cleaning off rock to create routes. In Squamish, for example, they spend days scrubbing moss off the rock and clandestinely engaging in selective logging. As a result, it is a world class climbing destination. It is, however, good to keep in mind that there is a higher authority out there, ie. the land manager, who has ultimate control over this area.

2. I thought it was interesting that Ron Olsen posts that Tonnere Tower has now "reached the point" where there will in the future be minimal bolting next to cracks. What was the tipping point for that decision? Are ten bolted cracks "the point" at which there are enough? Five? How about two? My opinion is that one bolted crack is too many.

3. Jack states that bolted cracks have become the norm in Boulder Canyon, and that we should just accept it. I say that we need a new norm. I do not advocate for the removal of bolts, it just leads to a poisoned climbing community. I enjoy sport climbing. I do however think that we are robbed of an opportunity when there are bolts next to cracks; the opportunity to extend ourselves as climbers and people. Sure, I could skip that bolt and place gear. But in the back of my mind, and I'll bet in the back of your's too, I know that if I get the slightest bit stressed, rather than suck it up, I can just clip.

4. There are some pretty cool routes out there, even in Boulder Canyon, that are a mix of bolts and gear. The first pitch of "Country Club Crack" on Castle Rock, "Give the Dog a Bone" on Coney Island Crag and "Trash it and Move On" at Vampire Rock come to mind. Eldo, Squamish, and Index are just a few top end climbing areas where bolts are installed to link crack systems, not replace them as lines of travel, creating beautiful climbs that are safe, as long as you have the ability to place safe gear.

5. Ah, there's the rub. Having the ability to place safe gear. The minority seem currently interested in learning that craft. Most of us just want to pull down. So we put bolts next to cracks, and then declare we have "done the route" when we clip them. We are fooling ourselves.