By mobley
From Haven, Ct
Apr 28, 2008
| Andy Choens wrote: But people _do_ top out on High E and they _do_ use the trees and they _do_ wear out the ridge there. Off the top of my head I'm not sure you can easily get to the rappel anchors from where you are talking about without having to climb some class 4? rock. But, I haven't been down there yet this year and could be wrong about the access to the rappel anchors. I was actually thinking about this thread when I was out this weekend. My partner and I climbed 6ish at the end of the day and should have walked off or tailed an additional line. The "tree" we used to rappel on is an impressive specimen for daring to grow there and I was thinking how tragic it is that I hung off of it. Yes, we could have walked off from 6ish but my partner didn't remember how manky the tree is.
I used the High E rap a week ago, it goes down the directissima side and it is bolted and out of the way of climbers below.
When I did sixish a week ago I walked 50 feet left over to the Maria rap station where pulling the rope wont hit any climber below in the head. bolted.
the ranger on Thursday was going around cutting slings from trees.
i believe all they need to do is give out maps of the rap stations and people will stop using trees. that is the hardest thing to figure out at the gunks if you ask me. I see people pulling their ropes from really bad places where the rope can launch rocks down on peoples heads. |  |
By Shylo
From Mystic, CT
May 14, 2008
| I am looking to reform the bolting ethic in Connecticut. I think we do have a opportunity to stop Ken. We just need to follow the paradigm of WMCC. Anything is possible if we are open to making changes or creating change.
I believe there is a lot of folks in CT that are fearful of change and fearful of taking action. It is great to see how the community in W.Mass pulled together. We can do the same thing.
There are a number of climbers in CT who want to put up new routes in their own style, myself included. That number is growing fast. I do believe there will be change and very soon. Just as Fritz and John Reppy put up routes, using pins, I don't think a few well placed camo bolts wouldn't hurt the crags of CT as much as some are trying to make us believe. I bet there are more people wanting this to happen than those that don't. We just have to organize. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
May 14, 2008
| Shylo,
The WMCC land (i.e. Farley) is private land. Where do you propose bolting? Unless you are going to be an outlaw, similar to Mr. Nichols, you would have to get permission from landowners, for example the Ragged Mountain Foundation. Does Connecticut DEP allow placing fixed protection on state land? I bet they don't. I'm positive Rhode Island doesn't. I think that you will find that there are not that many places, if any, to bolt. I also think that a poll of CT climbers would be worthwhile before you un-holster your bolt drill because a lot of CT climbers are not Nichols extremists but are very trad by choice and not because they are "fearful of change." For example, I'll bet the Ragged Mountain Foundation will not let anyone bolt that cliff unless to replace bolts/pitons that have been historically placed. I think you may have an uphill battle on your hands.
Brian
Shylo wrote: I am looking to reform the bolting ethic in Connecticut. I think we do have a opportunity to stop Ken. We just need to follow the paradigm of WMCC. Anything is possible if we are open to making changes or creating change. I believe there is a lot of folks in CT that are fearful of change and fearful of taking action. It is great to see how the community in W.Mass pulled together. We can do the same thing. There are a number of climbers in CT who want to put up new routes in their own style, myself included. That number is growing fast. I do believe there will be change and very soon. Just as Fritz and John Reppy put up routes, using pins, I don't think a few well placed camo bolts wouldn't hurt the crags of CT as much as some are trying to make us believe. I bet there are more people wanting this to happen than those that don't. We just have to organize. | |
By Shylo
From Mystic, CT
May 14, 2008
| There is a lot rock out there on private land. There are a lot more cliffs than Ragged Mountain. Furthermore, a good challenge is refreshing. Anything is possible. | |
By Healyje
May 15, 2008
| Shylo wrote: I am looking to reform the bolting ethic in Connecticut.
One man's reformation is another man's travesty. You don't want to reform the bolting ethic - you want to eliminate it. Speak plainly and honestly about your intentions and you'll get a lot farther in any discussions going forward. And 'a few well-placed bolts'? If bolts had been few and well-placed the whole NE debacle may have been avoided in the first place (ok, probably not). But the odds of such restraint being much in evidence once the drills are out in CT is a highly dubious conjecture. Personally, I'd recommend against the idea while Ken is still breathing. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
May 15, 2008
| "A lot" of rock on private land. I can't think of any of the bigger cliffs in the state that are not on land owned by municipalities or Ragged Mountain Foundation. Can you name any possibilities for bolting? There may be some smaller more obscure cliffs on private land but then you need to convince the landowner that you want to climb on his land, place bolts there, and promise not to sue him if someone gets hurt. Yup..."a good challenge." Good luck.
Shylo wrote: There is a lot rock out there on private land. There are a lot more cliffs than Ragged Mountain. Furthermore, a good challenge is refreshing. Anything is possible. | |
By mobley
From Haven, Ct
May 15, 2008
| In Salt Lake City the LDS church owned a large amount of the cliffs in Little Cottonwood Canyon. They didnt want to know what the climbers were doing up on those rocks. It was a dont ask/dont tell policy. It was always known that you DIDNT contact them with issues reguarding changes to their property because they DIDNT want to know.
There could be some sweet mixed(bolts&gear)lines all over CT that could be safe leads(if a FEW bolts were put in) and there could be a ton more healthy trees at the tops of the cliffs(if a FEW bolts were put in).
I've been in CT for 8 or so months and would say 90%+ of the climbers I have talked with are for a FEW bolts here and there. Even the ones who arent for it seem to have no problem going to other states and clipping the bolts provided for them. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
May 15, 2008
| Surreptitiously bolting someone's private property is no more ethical (or legal) than what Ken Nichols does. Who gets to decide what a "FEW" bolts are and which ones are the right ones to put in? What usually works in some areas is a group of climbers form a coalition and it is hashed out in a committe. New bolts that do not follow the plan get chopped as just happened in Red Rocks on Cat-In-The-Hat. I don't see a coalition being formed when you are talking about sneaking in and bolting someone's private property. BTW...I'm not anti-bolt.
mobley wrote: In Salt Lake City the LDS church owned a large amount of the cliffs in Little Cottonwood Canyon. They didnt want to know what the climbers were doing up on those rocks. It was a dont ask/dont tell policy. It was always known that you DIDNT contact them with issues reguarding changes to their property because they DIDNT want to know. There could be some sweet mixed(bolts&gear)lines all over CT that could be safe leads(if a FEW bolts were put in) and there could be a ton more healthy trees at the tops of the cliffs(if a FEW bolts were put in). I've been in CT for 8 or so months and would say 90%+ of the climbers I have talked with are for a FEW bolts here and there. Even the ones who arent for it seem to have no problem going to other states and clipping the bolts provided for them. | |
By Fat Dad
From Los Angeles, CA
May 15, 2008
| Shylo wrote: Furthermore, a good challenge is refreshing. Anything is possible.
You want a challenge? Try a route on natural gear.
I also agree that the reformation you're proposing is nothing more than a permissive approach to bolting where those before you put conservation over convenience.
While I believe it is appropriat for the community to discuss what is an appropriate course for newly accessed crags, that doesn't mean that the pro-bolting contingent can't be expected to sack up and either learn to place gear and abandon the expectation that the only acceptable form of protection is a bolt every five feet.
The most important thing, however, is that the discussion stays within the climbing community. The most issue of Alpinist contained an article where the author takes satisfaction that Ken Nichols was dragged into court and convicted of vandalism. However, the author should have been far more concerned by the fact that the community delegated their decision making about what or what is not acceptable climbing ethics to a local judge who knows nothing about climbing, its ethics or its tradition. That precedent is FAR scarier than any number of Ken Nichols. | |
By rgold
From Poughkeepsie, NY
May 15, 2008
| mobley wrote: ...my only issue is the trees getting choked out. you wear off the bark in a ring around a tree and it dies. you drill an anchor in the rock and nothing dies. guess I'm just a tree hugger...
Ladd Raine wrote: Hopefully we come to our senses before all the trees are gone or dieing on the top of all our favorite cliffs.
It seems to be an item of faith that putting slings around the base of trees and weighting those slings kills the trees. I don't know if there is any evidence for this. As for the claim that the slings wear the bark off the trees, I've seen lots of dead trees that had been used for rappelling and belay anchors and as far as I can remember, none of them had any marks from slings. (I do think the tree at the top of Classic in the Gunks has grooves from various idiots running their top ropes directly around the tree.) In general, I do not believe that the bark wears off. It is conceivable, but certainly not definite, that compression of the bark, which does not happen around the entire circumference, damages trees, but can anyone say authoritatively that this is the cause of the tree loss at Ragged, especially in view of
Matt Shove wrote: Another example is at the top of the Amphitheater at East Peak, no dead trees there! It's a really popular place, go figure!
There are many possible explanations for trees dying, including the possibility of natural cycles. It seems to me much more likely that soil compaction is a factor. If, for example, the top of Ragged sees a lot of foot traffic (which need be from climbers at all) then that might account for some or all of the distress to the trees.
I've done a bit of climbing at Ragged in recent years, after not visiting for around thirty years. I don't remember there being any trees near the edge back in the day, and there aren't any now. I can't say the change is all that dramatic, but of course my memory could be faulty. Anyway, I've only lead climbs at Ragged, never top-roped, and with one exception (sorry, can't remember the route now) we've had no trouble building conventional anchors at the top.
My conclusion from all this is
1. It is far from clear that anchoring to trees causes tree death, and the East Peak situation suggests that perhaps another agent is at work.
2. A number of Ragged routes have perfectly good natural anchors at the top.
In light of these observations, you don't have to be a raving trad fanatic to wonder about the need for bolted top-rope anchors in an area that has (entirely forgetting about Ken Nichols) traditionally eschewed drilling. They certainly aren't needed everywhere, that much is clear. And it is true that the more top-rope conveniences you install, the more crowded with top-ropers the place will become (the Gunks experience has established this principle beyond any shadow of a doubt). If you increase the cliff-top population and the tree death is related to that population in some way other than belay anchoring, then the net effect of the bolts would be to hasten tree demise, a sad irony for those who are thinking in terms of protection.
If it is possible to obtain a more definitive understanding of climber impacts, then it may be that some bolts at certain places at the top of Ragged might prove to have ecological value, and it would make sense to install such anchors. In locations where ecological concerns are not decisive, such bolts are, in my opinion, a bad idea that helps to both create and perpetuate an ever-growing population that is incompetent at the basics of climbing practice and so can only become a vocal force for more accomodations for their lack of knowledge, minimal abilities, and almost insatiable need for instant solutions. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
May 16, 2008
| Right on.
rgold wrote: And it is true that the more top-rope conveniences you install, the more crowded with top-ropers the place will become (the Gunks experience has established this principle beyond any shadow of a doubt). In locations where ecological concerns are not decisive, such bolts are, in my opinion, a bad idea that helps to both create and perpetuate an ever-growing population that is incompetent at the basics of climbing practice and so can only become a vocal force for more accomodations for their lack of knowledge, minimal abilities, and almost insatiable need for instant solutions. | |
By Shylo
From Mystic, CT
May 16, 2008
| We are in discussions with a town. The town person we are working with is a climber and he has been working for this town for 20 years, knows the police chief, etc.
We have gotten a very positive response thus far.
If it works out, we will be following in the legal footsteps of WMCC.
Like other states I believe we can have a balance of ethics, styles. Climbing (trad, sport, bouldering, ice, aid) is a fun challenge. Climbing changes: new things, new approaches, new gear, new ideas, new areas, new development, new cliffs. Change.
I will let you know how it works out.
PS. I do love placing gear too. | |
By Healyje
May 16, 2008
| Shylo wrote: Climbing changes: new things, new approaches, new gear, new ideas, new areas, new development, new cliffs.
But evidently what doesn't change is people wanting to bolt CT rock. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
May 31, 2008
| Shilo, I'm very interested in this development. I am in favor of a managed bolting policy, however diffucult the process may be. Learning from other climbing areas that have had access threatened or had some kind of "bolt war" perhaps the CT climbing community needs an activist group simular to the WMCC to push and manage this issue. These groups are of like minded people who work with local municipalities and land owners to acheive the end result. Currently in CT we have a few "established" groups such as the CCM, AMC and the RMF, none of which are in the business of land managemnent (although it seems the RMF was created exactly for that purpose, go figure). Trying to get the current orgs to step up and go to bat for this cause is pointless, that is not what the CCM and the AMC are about, who knows about the RMF...
SO point is that we CT climbers need a proactive, dedicated group that will be willing to slog through the process of creating and maintaining a managed bolting plan.
Jim
(DISCLAIMER: I am an RMF member, wearing the shirt right now and many of my climbing friends are members and board members. I am also a CCMer, with whom I am fairly active) | |
By Shylo
From Mystic, CT
Jun 3, 2008
| jimo wrote: Shilo, I'm very interested in this development. I am in favor of a managed bolting policy, however diffucult the process may be. Learning from other climbing areas that have had access threatened or had some kind of "bolt war" perhaps the CT climbing community needs an activist group simular to the WMCC to push and manage this issue. These groups are of like minded people who work with local municipalities and land owners to acheive the end result. Currently in CT we have a few "established" groups such as the CCM, AMC and the RMF, none of which are in the business of land managemnent (although it seems the RMF was created exactly for that purpose, go figure). Trying to get the current orgs to step up and go to bat for this cause is pointless, that is not what the CCM and the AMC are about, who knows about the RMF... SO point is that we CT climbers need a proactive, dedicated group that will be willing to slog through the process of creating and maintaining a managed bolting plan. Jim (DISCLAIMER: I am an RMF member, wearing the shirt right now and many of my climbing friends are members and board members. I am also a CCMer, with whom I am fairly active)
Jim,
It is good to hear your support. There is some momentum and progress being made. Nothing is written in stone yet though. I am positive we will win this fight though with the support we have been getting.
Yes, as CT climbers we do need to organize. Unfortunately we basically need to organize to stop one person, Ken Nichols. We do have some weight now though.Ken Nichols is on probation until July 2009. He is a convicted criminal with a previous record of vandalizing anchors. Thank you WMCC!!!
Hence, we basically have a little more than a year to secure a area(s), but that is what we need to do. Secure areas and serve Ken No Trespass orders for these areas. It will be a lot easier to stick him with similar charges in CT now that he has been busted already. We are working on it.
We are trying to organize a meeting at Prime Climb this summer to discuss some possible solutions. I will keep you posted. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
Jun 4, 2008
| I think that you are over estimating the singular affect of Ken Nichols. Be aware that Ken Nichols isn't the lone bolt chopper in CT. He has a number of disciples. This link that John Peterson developed on access issues in CT may be of some use. http://www.justclimb.com/Connecticut-Climbing-Access.html
Brian
Shylo wrote: Ken Nichols is on probation until July 2009. He is a convicted criminal with a previous record of vandalizing anchors. Thank you WMCC!!! Hence, we basically have a little more than a year to secure a area(s), but that is what we need to do. Secure areas and serve Ken No Trespass orders for these areas. It will be a lot easier to stick him with similar charges in CT now that he has been busted already. We are working on it. We are trying to organize a meeting at Prime Climb this summer to discuss some possible solutions. I will keep you posted. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Jun 7, 2008
| Good point Brian, I know and have climbed with some relics that were part of the chopping scene. The "battle" isn't solely focused on KN, he's an asshole in this regard, but if you are familliar with usage guidelines and such for most of our climbing areas, the first and formost hurdle is to change the rules to allow climbing at many of the places we climb. Confused? Currently, MOST of the areas we frequent are officially closed to climbing but climbers have been tolerated since the '70s... That's a load of crap!!! It's the proverbial gun to the head.
So as insane as it sounds, first we need to get rock climbing in CT legalized, then we can turn our attention to the outlaws...
JO | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
Jun 8, 2008
| Exactly right....you can't put the cart before the horse. Before you come up with a CT bolting policy you need to know where you are going to allow/regulate bolting and work out access issues before bolting issues. As you mention a number of places people regularly climb are not legal primarily due to liability issues. The town of Meridan comes to mind. I thought about it and I can't think of a place to bolt that is worth bolting except the bigger trap rock cliffs like Ragged, Pinnacle, Rattlesnake, Cathole, East Peak. And good luck with that. I suppose you could bolt some of the smaller places like Fifty-Footer but it hardly seems worth the effort.
It is not just the relics who are Ken diciples. I know some fervant anti-bolt trad climbers who are in their twenties.
I think the best solution is the WMCC and RMF model. Buy the cliff then you can do what you want with it.
Brian
jimo wrote: Good point Brian, I know and have climbed with some relics that were part of the chopping scene. The "battle" isn't solely focused on KN, he's an asshole in this regard, but if you are familliar with usage guidelines and such for most of our climbing areas, the first and formost hurdle is to change the rules to allow climbing at many of the places we climb. Confused? Currently, MOST of the areas we frequent are officially closed to climbing but climbers have been tolerated since the '70s... That's a load of crap!!! It's the proverbial gun to the head. So as insane as it sounds, first we need to get rock climbing in CT legalized, then we can turn our attention to the outlaws... JO | |
By mobley
From Haven, Ct
Jul 7, 2008
| It shouldnt be too long before the five or six trees that are commonly used at the Main Cliff in CT for anchors are dead. I'll give them 3 more years max.
I wonder if the RMF will ever fix their website/message board. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Jul 8, 2008
| Just to reiterate, my issue is concerning bolted anchors and the impact to our climbing areas.
The trees at all of our cliffs are hurting, the most obvious example is at the top of forearm frenzy at Chatfield. I've seen many trees there whither up from over-use, but I guess a fixed anchor is too damaging. The cedars at main cliff are next but I guess I should just relax and use the fractured rock at the top to build a gear anchor, makes things more spicy!
So suck it up and go with your crappy gear anchor and leave the trees alone!
P.S. Why would the RMF want to fix the website problem, they might have to respond to some local issues. | |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
Jul 8, 2008
| jimo,
Many, maybe most, climbers who use Ragged would agree with some top-rope anchors. Why don't you run for a seat on the RMF Board instead of trashing a volunteer organization who without their efforts you probably wouldn't be climbing at Ragged at all? You could get a bunch of other CT climbers who agree with the top-rope bolting to also run and take over the RMF Board with like minded climbers and then you can set policy. Or if you have any web development skills you could lend a hand maintaining the web site. My point is, it is a lot harder to do something than to critize from a web forum. I'm an RMF member. I'll vote for you.
Brian
jimo wrote: Just to reiterate, my issue is concerning bolted anchors and the impact to our climbing areas. The trees at all of our cliffs are hurting, the most obvious example is at the top of forearm frenzy at Chatfield. I've seen many trees there whither up from over-use, but I guess a fixed anchor is too damaging. The cedars at main cliff are next but I guess I should just relax and use the fractured rock at the top to build a gear anchor, makes things more spicy! So suck it up and go with your crappy gear anchor and leave the trees alone! P.S. Why would the RMF want to fix the website problem, they might have to respond to some local issues. | |
By mobley
From Haven, Ct
Jul 8, 2008
| Brian wrote: Surreptitiously bolting someone's private property is no more ethical (or legal) than what Ken Nichols does. Who gets to decide what a "FEW" bolts are and which ones are the right ones to put in? What usually works in some areas is a group of climbers form a coalition and it is hashed out in a committe. New bolts that do not follow the plan get chopped as just happened in Red Rocks on Cat-In-The-Hat. I don't see a coalition being formed when you are talking about sneaking in and bolting someone's private property. BTW...I'm not anti-bolt.
I'm sorry you understood my post as "sneaking in and bolting private property". I'll take it you have not climbed in Little Cottonwood Canyon so in your mind this is what happened there. With a minimum of a few hundred sets of bolted anchors on classic Yosemite type cracks/climbs in this canyon, I dont believe anyone received permission from the landowners, ever. It is run as a "dont ask dont tell" thing that benefits everyone all around. the climbers have safe anchors and the landowners still have nothing to do with the climbers(no liability).
I'll stand by Jimos response to the RMF and say that if you think that what he said was trashing an organization then you are quite sensitive. I have lived here about a year now and have not seen what the RMF does besides manage a piece of land and put out newsletters with terrible "how to" sections with photos so small you cant even tell what is going on. The kiosk on the trail has membership forms locked up inside where nobody can access them and the website link for joining the RMF has been down for how long now? I believe that the organization who claims to represent the Access Fund for CT is not doing much. Promoting membership should be a priority dont you think? maybe I'm wrong?
CT has gone to sleep on their issues is what I see. People dont even talk about all the closed areas anymore. I have a huge cliff, East Rock, about 1 mile from my house that has been closed for years and from scouting around it I can say there could be nice bolted/crack climbs all over it improving the park and increasing tourism. This is what my energy will go into working on. Now lets hope the mayor has open ears and my local alderman gives a crap.
| |
By Brian
From Wakefield, RI
Jul 8, 2008
| Mobley,
Actually I have climbed in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Whether the Mormons overlook people bolting on their property really isn't relevant to CT and private landowners here. I say the same thing to you as jimo. If you don't like how the RMF is run then run for office and change it. I agree with you that it has not been as active/responsive as when some of the earlier advocates ran it. Ragged is the largest climbing destination and you aren't going to institute change there except through the RMF so change the RMF. After I see your policy statement maybe I'll vote for you too. Good luck with East Rock (and I'm not saying that facetiously.)
Brian
mobley wrote: I'm sorry you understood my post as "sneaking in and bolting private property". I'll take it you have not climbed in Little Cottonwood Canyon so in your mind this is what happened there. With a minimum of a few hundred sets of bolted anchors on classic Yosemite type cracks/climbs in this canyon, I dont believe anyone received permission from the landowners, ever. It is run as a "dont ask dont tell" thing that benefits everyone all around. the climbers have safe anchors and the landowners still have nothing to do with the climbers(no liability). I'll stand by Jimos response to the RMF and say that if you think that what he said was trashing an organization then you are quite sensitive. I have lived here about a year now and have not seen what the RMF does besides manage a piece of land and put out newsletters with terrible "how to" sections with photos so small you cant even tell what is going on. The kiosk on the trail has membership forms locked up inside where nobody can access them and the website link for joining the RMF has been down for how long now? I believe that the organization who claims to represent the Access Fund for CT is not doing much. Promoting membership should be a priority dont you think? maybe I'm wrong? CT has gone to sleep on their issues is what I see. People dont even talk about all the closed areas anymore. I have a huge cliff, East Rock, about 1 mile from my house that has been closed for years and from scouting around it I can say there could be nice bolted/crack climbs all over it improving the park and increasing tourism. This is what my energy will go into working on. Now lets hope the mayor has open ears and my local alderman gives a crap. | |
By jimo
From Branford, CT
Jul 16, 2008
| Brian wrote: jimo, Many, maybe most, climbers who use Ragged would agree with some top-rope anchors. Why don't you run for a seat on the RMF Board instead of trashing a volunteer organization who without their efforts you probably wouldn't be climbing at Ragged at all? You could get a bunch of other CT climbers who agree with the top-rope bolting to also run and take over the RMF Board with like minded climbers and then you can set policy. Or if you have any web development skills you could lend a hand maintaining the web site. My point is, it is a lot harder to do something than to critize from a web forum. I'm an RMF member. I'll vote for you. Brian
Brian- If you took what I said as trashing a volunteer orgainization, your a bit off.
Now rereading your post, Im not sure why I'm replying except to say it is not the RMF that sets policies. The RMF is "sponsored" by the Access Fund, for real. It is only logical that they would be the organization that would be expected to negotiate better access policies with local gov't. I have found no proof of what they have or have not done, I have asked but get no reply.
jo | |
By Matt Shove
From Manchester, CT
Jul 17, 2008
| Brian in RI-
Since you are a Ross Pond guy, do you know about the 2 bolt anchor at the party wall? The one next to the 2 inch crack? The right hand bolt is very poorly placed, sticking out more than a quarter inch. The left one is fine, but that other one should get fixed if that anchor is gonna stay. Email me so I can discuss it, I guessed you might know something about it, or maybe who placed it.
Matt
Mattshove@emsclimb.com | |
|
[ Forums > Eastern States ]
RSS Feed
