By mobley
From Haven, Ct
Oct 23, 2007
| the premise of the thread is anchors only BTW
it has nothing to do with bolting existing routes(which has been mentioned a few times), besides, maybe ken will come around again after he has another epiphany that tells him to grid bolt his old routes... wouldnt that be hilarious.
ken was a heck of a climber in his day thats for sure. ballsy as hell from the routes I've seen. |  |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Oct 26, 2007
| Bolted anchors would be nice at most of our crags, but let's face it, it is CT, we only went above 55mph on the highway a couple of years ago, give it time...
Mobes, I should have tagged along to the Gunks with you today, weather held out- I did get to that place we were at last week with my solo tr set up. I anchored to an attached mini fridge size block for my anchor, I guess that can come off the list of routes to bolt.
Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well!
Jim | |
By Daniel Crescenzo
From Wrongmont, CO
Oct 26, 2007
| jimo wrote: Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well! Jim | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Oct 27, 2007
| Yah Dan he's big enough to belay me but I've got competition with his girl. Can't say I blame him though, if I was 17 and had a girl who's 19 I'd be all over that too... I was trying to get him to go to school to UC Boulder but he wants to stay local, the kid is nuts.
What are you doing out there? I'm guessing you found a cool job by now, that is if a job can be considered cool...? Unless you can get deals on gear, that's cool!
I'd like to get out there this coming spring to experience some bolted anchors and RAD climbing- Eldo is calling me... | |
By Daniel Crescenzo
From Wrongmont, CO
Oct 27, 2007
| jimo wrote: Yah Dan he's big enough to belay me but I've got competition with his girl. Can't say I blame him though, if I was 17 and had a girl who's 19 I'd be all over that too... I was trying to get him to go to school to UC Boulder but he wants to stay local, the kid is nuts. What are you doing out there? I'm guessing you found a cool job by now, that is if a job can be considered cool...? Unless you can get deals on gear, that's cool! I'd like to get out there this coming spring to experience some bolted anchors and RAD climbing- Eldo is calling me...
Same scene w/ my little bro he got accepted to CU Boulder and chose UConn. Man if my arm was a couple thousand miles long I'd smack the shite outta him. I gave up pro deals and gear whoring for IT so that's the scene. It's no worries gearwise out here though, so many squids buy stuff, get scared, and I dirtbag it.
C'mon out dude, I've got your belay (unless you get a 19 year old girl). Dave's got an apt he doesn't stay in unless he really screws up. I aptly dubbed it The Dog House.
I'll be in town for christmas if you wanna hit up that new gym in NH. | |
By mobley
From Haven, Ct
Oct 28, 2007
| sounds like the boys are thinking from below the waist. maybe sausagefests arent their thing . yet.
or maybe they want to stay "trad". | |
By Daniel Crescenzo
From Wrongmont, CO
Oct 29, 2007
| mobley wrote: sounds like the boys are thinking from below the waist. maybe sausagefests arent their thing . yet. or maybe they want to stay "trad".
I hope not. In case you haven't noticed the sport of choice in ct tends to be competitive alcoholism. Hence the gear shop I used to work @ trying to become the next Gap. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Nov 28, 2007
| Not to kick a dead horse, I just saw some of the Devil's handy work in a spot that was apparently being developed as a sport area, in CT! No classics exist here, and from what history I know this area is a newish find (circa 1990's). There looks to be several good sport lines there, but protection is not to be found. I saw several chopped bolts and a few smashed bolts. The bastard! It is still hard for me to comprehend how someone does this sort of crap but even more, why and how his intimidation and vandalism has been allowed to perpetuate. | |
By percious
From Arvada, CO
Nov 28, 2007
| jimo wrote: Bolted anchors would be nice at most of our crags, but let's face it, it is CT, we only went above 55mph on the highway a couple of years ago, give it time... Mobes, I should have tagged along to the Gunks with you today, weather held out- I did get to that place we were at last week with my solo tr set up. I anchored to an attached mini fridge size block for my anchor, I guess that can come off the list of routes to bolt. Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well! Jim
My ears are ringing... Not sure why my opinion is invalid though! I will still climb in the east when I come back to visit. In fact, ill be there over xmas if you want to give me beta on Maria Direct (and a spot) from the bottom of the cliff. I also decided to keep up my membership with RMF.
cheers.
-chris | |
By Dan Griffiths
Dec 1, 2007
| I recently moved back to CT after learning to climb out west. The bolting ethics are off. Anchors should be bolted to preserve trees. There are reasons for bolts on "trad" lines...it does not make them "sport" climbs. I'm not talking about retro bolting lines that have been led, but the ethic of "no bolts" is absurd.
No bolted anchors does not increase "adventure", it's a pain in the ass that kills trees. If there is an easily built anchor, than fine, but static ropes suck (I just had to buy my first one).
There are plenty of lines I have led, but there are plenty I would like to lead without risking decking. To me, the current ethic strips away much joy from climbing. I have never top roped so much. It makes for some lame climbing.
The result of this ethic is silly. Clubs with crazy webs of static lines leading to a cliff full of top ropes. Talk about creating an "outdoor gym".
I have so much more I'd love to rant on this subject, but I must hold back for now. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Feb 4, 2008
| - Thread resurrection to avoid duplication:)*
As we suffer through the winter longing for the sunshine to warm the rocks, I wonder what can be done to start the conversation about fixed anchors in CT. I use the term fixed anchors because the "B" word just scares some folks. Would it not make sense to address this issue instead of slogging along just wishing there were anchors? Here's the deal. We who climb here have gotten used to dragging along additional ropes and what not for our anchors. Recent additions to our climbing family have raised questions about this practice. There are huge impacts from having climbers generation after generation make their way to the top of the crag, usually through a loose scree field, tie ropes or webbing around a tree and hang the anchors over the edge to tr their selected climb(s). The environmental impact is astounding. I started climbing in CT around 1993 and have seen the trees that were used as anchors die off year after year. We are not blessed with an abundance of top soil, thanks to the pesky glaciers that scraped it all away, The foot traffic alone at the top of the crags is enough to kill off the trees, much less wrapping a rope or webbing around it, disturbing the tree bark and inviting bugs and organic stuff to fester there.
I have heard many times that you should just build gear anchors on the top of the cliffs so fixed anchors are not necessary, but I disagree. Not all of the top-outs are conducive to this and by default we tie into the 2 1/2" Mountain Laurel that had survived there. But these survivors are dying off, rapidly.
I am curious what the other climbers who frequent the CT traprock think of this. I am not so much interested in the egocentric oldschooler who just says suck it up, that is not a solution to this nightmare we are creating. Just think of the impact we can prevent by rapping off a chain anchor after leading a classic at Ragged. If just a third of us do that, we'll reduce the foot traffic at the top by 33%, in coupon terms, that's a great savings.
That is just the environmental angle of this idea, safety is also a concern. It's obvious that a dying tree is not a safe anchor, but sometimes they are used anyway. Consider the Matabesset / Metacomet trail that runs over almost all of the ridgelines we climb at. Someone hiking along may not have a clue that they are in a climbing area, trip over our miles of static rope anchors and take the express train to the base, ouch! OK a little exaggerated, but possible. More plausible is our presence pissing off the wrong weekend hiker, or a kid with a pocket knife finding a bunch of cool rope and biners to take home as a souvenir. All bad scenarios for the climbing community.
OK I'm done for now- please share your thoughts, I know I'm not alone on this-
Jim | |
By Jay Knower
Administrator
Feb 4, 2008
| jimo wrote: * Thread resurrection to avoid duplication:)* As we suffer through the winter longing for the sunshine to warm the rocks, I wonder what can be done to start the conversation about fixed anchors in CT. I use the term fixed anchors because the "B" word just scares some folks. Would it not make sense to address this issue instead of slogging along just wishing there were anchors? Here's the deal. We who climb here have gotten used to dragging along additional ropes and what not for our anchors. Recent additions to our climbing family have raised questions about this practice. There are huge impacts from having climbers generation after generation make their way to the top of the crag, usually through a loose scree field, tie ropes or webbing around a tree and hang the anchors over the edge to tr their selected climb(s). The environmental impact is astounding. I started climbing in CT around 1993 and have seen the trees that were used as anchors die off year after year. We are not blessed with an abundance of top soil, thanks to the pesky glaciers that scraped it all away, The foot traffic alone at the top of the crags is enough to kill off the trees, much less wrapping a rope or webbing around it, disturbing the tree bark and inviting bugs and organic stuff to fester there. I have heard many times that you should just build gear anchors on the top of the cliffs so fixed anchors are not necessary, but I disagree. Not all of the top-outs are conducive to this and by default we tie into the 2 1/2" Mountain Laurel that had survived there. But these survivors are dying off, rapidly. I am curious what the other climbers who frequent the CT traprock think of this. I am not so much interested in the egocentric oldschooler who just says suck it up, that is not a solution to this nightmare we are creating. Just think of the impact we can prevent by rapping off a chain anchor after leading a classic at Ragged. If just a third of us do that, we'll reduce the foot traffic at the top by 33%, in coupon terms, that's a great savings. That is just the environmental angle of this idea, safety is also a concern. It's obvious that a dying tree is not a safe anchor, but sometimes they are used anyway. Consider the Matabesset / Metacomet trail that runs over almost all of the ridgelines we climb at. Someone hiking along may not have a clue that they are in a climbing area, trip over our miles of static rope anchors and take the express train to the base, ouch! OK a little exaggerated, but possible. More plausible is our presence pissing off the wrong weekend hiker, or a kid with a pocket knife finding a bunch of cool rope and biners to take home as a souvenir. All bad scenarios for the climbing community. OK I'm done for now- please share your thoughts, I know I'm not alone on this- Jim
This is a great post and should open up an interesting discussion, I hope. | |
By Kenneth Noisewater
From San Diego
Feb 4, 2008
| Nothing shuts down climbing access to an area more than:
1.) Environmental impact. Killing trees in the name of anti-bolted anchor ideology gets land manager attention faster than anything.
2.) Inability of the locals climbers to solve their own problems. (Meaning bolting issues) Bottom line, land managers usually don't care about bolted anchors or not, but when climbers create conflict among themselves cliffs get closed. (period) It creates more work for land managers.
The Northeastern scene should realize it is in their own best interest to get past this. Ideologues like Ken Nichols are the extremists who take all air out of the room when dealing with land managers, and Grid-bolters are the the other side of the same coin.
Moderate pragmatic climbers who care about the environmental impact they have should be driving organization and LOCAL bolting policy. Not extremists. | |
By Spiro
Feb 4, 2008
| I have been following this thread for a while (nice job Mobley). It seems most people use common sense and see no problem with fixed anchors, it is the right wingers that have issues and make the most noise or do the most extreme things to get their way.
I feel we should have them at tops of climbs where trees are being used on a regular basis..ie gunks, we are killing those trees and eventually will put the bolts in, when it is to late.
It also speeds things up in high traffic crags.... | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Feb 4, 2008
| Although it's been a little while since I've climbed in CT regularly, I did grow up and learn to climb there. So I think that I might have something to add.
The first is this: I totally agree that at least some routes at the ragged mountain area need fixed anchors. It would be great for leaders to be able to slam a couple 'draws on some cold shuts, clip in, and lower right down. A lot of the more popular routes don't have adequate gear anchors on top, so people have no choice but to use the trees (that are receding with every year). Some routes do (ex: Broadway; probably the most climbed route in the state). There is plenty of gear that can go in at the top of that route to facilitate TRing.
The other major concern is this: Unless something has changed in the past 5 years or so, it appears as though the majority of the climbers in CT are top-ropers. It is not uncommon to see a private party of people approach Main Cliff at Ragged and setup shop with two or three TRs all day. And then there are the camps, guide services, and hikers. There are simply too many people trying to take advantage of too little rock.
Now that Nichols has been arrested and officially instructed not to trespass on RMF property, are there any plans to try to install fixed anchors currently? | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Feb 4, 2008
| Kenneth Noisewater wrote: 2.) Inability of the locals climbers to solve their own problems. (Meaning bolting issues) Bottom line, land managers usually don't care about bolted anchors or not, but when climbers create conflict among themselves cliffs get closed. (period) It creates more work for land managers.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), they are one in the same in many climbing areas of CT.
--Marc | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Feb 5, 2008
| Marc Horan wrote: ... The other major concern is this: Unless something has changed in the past 5 years or so, it appears as though the majority of the climbers in CT are top-ropers. It is not uncommon to see a private party of people approach Main Cliff at Ragged and setup shop with two or three TRs all day. And then there are the camps, guide services, and hikers. There are simply too many people trying to take advantage of too little rock. Now that Nichols has been arrested and officially instructed not to trespass on RMF property, are there any plans to try to install fixed anchors currently?
Nothing has changed, most climbs are done on TR. It would be nice to change that mindset. TRing is how most around here learn to climb and stick with that method for whatever reason. Personally, I get sketched out by trad leading in CT; I like to know there is a solid anchor awaiting me when I pull over the sandy, rabbly top of a climb. Most of the rock at the top of the cliffs are fractured crap that would only take a #1 or 2 wire, not very reassuring.
Yes there are too many people and too little rock, most of what we climb on is "water company" property and some of the areas have been shut down tight from climbing, again not real sure of the history of this but with closures, the climbable space is getting tight. As far as I can tell though, there is no discussion about fixed anchors anywhere, the RMF (www.Raggedmtn.org) who are our apparent land advocates, have not published anything concerning this issue. It almost seems that people are afraid to talk about the issue, pretty bazaar. Recently, I have made an inquiry to the RMF about what issues are being worked on, I have not received a reply yet... that is another topic. I am sure there are many layers of bureaucracy to plow through just to get such a proposal on the table, since there are a myriad of land owners that need to be involved.
What I'd like to know is where does a group of advocates start? My idea is to get a feel for the general attitude from the local climbers, something I am trying to do through a local climber's forum, and this avenue, that reaches far more people than the other one does. Once I have a clear idea of what direction to go, approach an organization such as the RMF and ask them to get involved. Would the Access Fund be appropriate to contact? That may be a subsequent step, if the RMF will not get involved. Again, not sure of their stance on this and other related issues.
It would be interesting to hear of other climbing groups that have dealt with this issue, I don't think CT is the only state with similar issues. | |
By Eastvillage
From New York, NY
Feb 5, 2008
| Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes.
If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish. | |
By Andy Choens
From Albany, NY
Feb 5, 2008
| Eastvillage wrote: Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes. If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish.
IMHO that is an elitist attitude. Furthermore, anchors do have reasonable uses other than encouraging TR camping.
At the Gunks we have a problem that is a different symptom of the same problem. Thanks to the height of the cliff, the Gunks are more of a lead oriented crag. People do TR popular climbs, but the impact at the top of the cliff is limited unless people bring 400 foot ropes!
Unfortunately, many uber-popular AND moderate routes have important belay anchors that are just a web of slings wrapped around a tree. The stress of hundreds of uses on these trees stresses and sometimes kills these otherwise healthy trees. These trees are growing in thin soil on the side of a cliff. They will be better off if I don't decide to hang from them but these trees are often used because the pro is limited.
For example, RMC is a popular 5.5 - 5.6 (Gunks Rating). This climb has a popular belay / rappel anchor on it that is nothing more than a single small evergreen sticking out of a weakness in the rock. Personally, I skip this anchor but many climbers (especially beginners) do not. To date, the tree appears to be healthy but it would be awful if this tree dies because of the stress WE put on it rappelling down. It is very feasible to put in a pair of bolt anchors to the right of this tree.
Strategically placed anchors would make the climb no less of a lead climb but it would help future generations of climbers enjoy the same cliffs that I enjoy today and would make for a safer anchor on a climb that easily sees 10-15 ascents every weekend. | |
By Kenneth Noisewater
From San Diego
Feb 5, 2008
| Eastvillage wrote: Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes. If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish.
That's just silly when you actually think about it. Similar to "If we forced more new drivers license holders to ride motorcycles instead, and everyone drove a motorcycle, there would be less traffic."
It's just silly. Don't ask other people's habits/preferences to change to support your ideology. Change your ideology to fit to reality. Which we all know has a liberal bias.
JIMO- The Access Fund does deal with local groups. They work with many like Action Committee for Eldorado (www.aceedlo.org) which has a Fix Hardware Review Council to deal with issues exactly like this;
constructive environmentally responsible bolting policies. | |
By Eastvillage
From New York, NY
Feb 5, 2008
| That's pretty funny, to assume I have some sort of liberal ideology.
But, I stick by my point,
CT has loads of climbs that can be safely lead and you don't need a bunch of new bolts to do it.
However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed.
These crags are for the most part unregulated in a climbing sense, the new bolts might last quite a while.
Also, many lines would be better protected with a few pins, why not place those, too?
| |
By Andy Choens
From Albany, NY
Feb 5, 2008
| Eastvillage wrote: However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed.
While I am an advocate of placing anchors at the top/belays of busy climbs (including trad climbs) I don't think anyone should just go out and plug them into the wall. CT, NY and other states have a history of conflict over bolting.
There are, unfortunately, people who would see these bolts and chop them for reasons that I won't speculate on here.
I think the more appropriate approach is to make sure they are put in with the support of local climbing groups and the owners of the property so if these bolts are chopped the perpetrator can be held accountable for their behavior rather than degenerating into a bunch of pointless yelling, finger pointing and general nonsense. | |
By Kenneth Noisewater
From San Diego
Feb 5, 2008
| Eastvillage wrote: That's pretty funny, to assume I have some sort of liberal ideology. But, I stick by my point, CT has loads of climbs that can be safely lead and you don't need a bunch of new bolts to do it. However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed. These crags are for the most part unregulated in a climbing sense, the new bolts might last quite a while. Also, many lines would be better protected with a few pins, why not place those, too?
The liberal ideology commment was a spoof of Steven Colbert.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Steven+Colbert+W>>>>>
Nobody is insinuating that these crags get fully bolted.
The issue is bolted anchors where trees are getting killed.
There is room for debate here, you make it sound like it is all or nothing.
That is ideology getting in the way of reality. | |
By Spiro
Feb 5, 2008
| this post is like a train wreck...i just keep looking at it even though it is the same information regurgitated.
Maybe we should try pictures....that might make it clearer for some. | |
|
[ Forums > Eastern States ]
RSS Feed
