Can anybody, Jason perhaps, state what type and size the bolt is? Adhesive? Hex head bolt or stud, nail in? Oh, and what color rock is it in?

As I'm still injured, I haven't been up there. Though I have heard it is not a rawl bolt.

I would guess that anybody that believed they could place a bolt in that location without causing significant problems for our community hasn't placed many bolts.

I'm honestly suprised it's still there...

Jason

Josh Janes wrote; That said, I do not agree one bit with their ethic/philosophy of establishing climbs. They get so much credit as the "parents" of Red Rocks, but it doesn't take vision or talent to create bolt ladders out of the good-looking lines in Red Rocks - it just takes a lot of time and hard work. In truth, my opinion is that these lines are not actually classics, but rather merely "ultra popular." I'm not speaking of every Uriosite route, but certainly of many. In their natural state, these lines had great potential, but bolted down as many have been, they are instead left desecrated and sanitized...


Josh you are of course entitled to what ever opinions you choose. But from my perspective the U-s are the parents of modern RR climbing and most of their routes are "classics". Their lines took a great deal of work this is true but they also took vision and insight and inspiration. The also took a ton of talent. Many of their routes are creative master works! Their routes have provided joyful ascent for thousands of followers. Many of their routes have been retro bolted, most without their permission.
One thing most people, who criticize the perceived "bolt ladder" approach on some routes, don't consider is the height of Jorge.
He is NOT a tall man. Even in high step his reach was not excessive. He was the master stage builder for Joanne's performance art. So of course the stage construction would conform to his specifics.

There is a wealth of un-trammled rock at RR. So if someone doesn't like a particular established route for some reason they are free to create their own statement in their own style. Maybe even put up a "classic".

Larry wrote: The approach of "route construction" might have worked when only a dozen climbers visited Red Rock in the course of a year. But now there is increased use, and the issue of protecting the wilderness character of the experience has grown in importance.

It is precisely the issues of increased use and resource conservation that "fixed" gear and "fixed" anchors should address.
Years ago Rustie Bailie influenced, in fact reversed, my opinion on "fixed" gear. Rustie's contention was that with the increase in foot traffic erosion was best mitigated by proper and appropriate fixed protection.
A route like Cat in the Hat has become a "destination" climb for hundreds perhaps thousands of climbers. Ready or not they are coming. These folk are usually not the wizened trad men of yore rather these are the newly immersed out to tick their lists. These new climbers don't come from mentors who teach them the techniques, ethics and history. These folk come from gyms. How and where do you draw the line between maximum adventure and minimum impact on one side and repeatable survivability on the other? Nothing will shut or restrict an area quite as fast as death and injury. Certainly not a new bolt. Call the rescue team too often and they might not let you play anymore.
How do you keep the "trade routes" from becoming fumble and stumble erosion zones? How do you keep them from becoming retro ransacked? or regular rescue sites?
It seems like consensus through communication and education is the best start. Just like "proper and appropriate" trail building reduces erosion the same could be said for "proper and appropriate" fixed gear. Was the new bolt on CitH "proper and appropriate"? I have no idea. Perhaps after the torches are doused and the pitch forks are put down consensus may agree that the last pitch has become more polished and difficult and sandbagged at the grade and a repositioned bolt is the right answer. Nah probably not.
But a point to consider is that CitH isn't the first popular route to get altered by subsequent ascents. Both the Salathe in Yosemite and the Hallucinogen in the Black Canyon have become popular "trade" routes and both of these routes sprout more subsequently placed fixed stuff than was left on the FAs. Certainly not as many people will aspire to climb these big walls as will aspire to climb CitH. But considering the over all increases in traffic since the FAs they are probably proportionally equal to the increased numbers of climbers pushing those grades. There are a great many other similar examples all over the world including as close as Red Rock.
I hope that finding out the larger climbing community is actually involved and concerned the land managers finally decide to really engage in planning for the balance between appropriate access and proper conservation.

I want to respectfully add that this episode, from conception to discussion to conclusion, might have been better handled quietly among climbers before involving the badges. At least to allow some consensus of the information before assumptive conclusion by angry mob. For the record no one on the FA placed this bolt. And in light of how many routes have gotten altered without consent of the FA team
whether these people agreed or not with the placement is a moot point. The notion that the FA team has some sacrosanct claim to the future of any route is a fluid ideal not a concrete reality.

Tom Cecil is light as a kite!!!

"I want to respectfully add that this episode, from conception to discussion to conclusion, might have been better handled quietly among climbers before involving the badges"

Phil this is an interesting idea. I knew Lincoln when he was in Yosemite and Jed in Red Rocks both are climbers and have always tired to help climbers. Do you think that because a climber works for the National Park Service or for Red Rocks they should not be included in these forums. Are climbers who work for a government agency badges or climbers?

This is off topic but how do you guys do that cool quote in a box thing?

Phil,
Look to the right of each comment and there is a little button for the quote. Don't get tunnel vision Philo! :-)

YDPL8S

Scott thanx! I really cant explain how I missed that.
Well I can. I just can't remember. I think.



Thank God there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Oh crap it's another train.

I love it. Go climbing for a while, and when I finally get bored enough to check this site again, it's Urioste pariah time, and everyone's having a big bad shit fit about a bolt that couldn't be seen from the road with a $100K telescope.

Has anyone noticed that as you drive past the second pullout parking lot, if you look over at the gallery, you can see the permadraws and chalk stains from your car?

Point being perspective. I see a lot of validity in posts on this forum, but I had to laugh at Josh Janes roasting George and Joanne's ethics while celebrating Dan McQuade's 'vision'-ever climb up Cloud Tower and check out the "12d" bolted crack up there? The one that featured "constructive pin scarring" which conveniently happened on rappel, a situation where I often find myself rap-bolting cracks and repeatedly placing and removing pins...

I'm not expecting anyone posting on this site (other than Phil, you are a gentleman and a scholar, sir) to share my raised eyebrows on this one, but it does seem like a lot of fuss over something that could've just been hacked off the next a.m. without much fuss, and as far as rolling on our bellies for the BLM to scratch us once we done good by bringing in the paper and not crapping on the lawn...if you need that kind of reassurance, I reccommend the Oprah book club.

Climbers...wild and crazy lawless individuals, one and all. Your matching outfits are smashing...and here's one I got from Gary Larsen's The Far Side:
"When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults." -K

Careful Kilis you don't want to give gentlemen and scholars a bad name now do ya? Actually I am just an expat dirtbag.

The Las Vegas Climbers Liaison Council (LVCLC) feels strongly that the removal of the bolt on “Cat in the Hat” was an appropriate and timely measure.

There are a number of issues that arose with the addition of this bolt. First, the bolting took place in the wilderness where there is currently a bolting restriction. Second, the bolt was placed on a classic route with a long history. And third the bolt was placed poorly.

Following is a quick breakdown of the positions we as the LVCLC take on the preceding issues.

1) Bolting in the Wilderness Area

The LVCLC has been working with the BLM on their Wilderness Climbing Management Plan for a number of years. Larry DeAngelo – former president of the LVCLC – met with the BLM on numerous occasions and has helped them understand climbers and their needs. This long relationship has been successful and the Wilderness Climbing Management Plan will ultimately include provisions for bolting.

We oppose the current bolting restriction in the wilderness, but we strongly believe that climbers should abide by it.

The hard work that we have done to create a partnership between the BLM and climbers – represented by the LVCLC – is affected by those who place bolts illegally. Indeed, pro-climbing and pro-bolting elements of the Management Plan are immediately brought into question whenever we as a community break the rules. The Cat in the Hat bolt is the tip of the iceberg. A small group of people have created the image that all climbers are willing to break rules whenever they get the opportunity without thinking about the consequences to future generations of climbers.

We are constantly trying to prove to the BLM that we are able to police ourselves. We believe that the addition of this bolt was a step in the wrong direction. But we also believe that the conversations surrounding the bolt and the subsequent removal of it were a step in the right direction. We must continue to move in a positive direction in our relationship with the BLM and show them that we are a responsible and thoughtful user group that will play by the rules.

The BLM is a large an unwieldy body, but is ultimately responsible for protecting Red Rock from “being loved to death.” This is no easy task. As climbers we are high profile users, so our actions are often looked upon with a critical eye. It is important for us to be model users and to create a good example for others. It is important for us to follow the rules.

2) Retro-Bolting

Years of ethical debates among climbers have developed a series of steps that one should take before adding bolts to existing routes:

a) Before adding a bolt to an existing route, one must ask the first ascentionist for permission. (There is a rumor that this took place, but after obtaining permission the retro-bolter on Cat in the Hat did not follow rules b-d.)
b) Before adding a bolt, one must be proficient at bolting. Don’t put in anything that will make the route more dangerous because it is poorly placed.
c) With a popular route it is also important to survey public opinion before adding a bolt.
d) Check with the land manager about current bolting restrictions.

In a previous post Doug Hemken wrote, “You know, with a route as old, well-known, and frequently climbed as "Cat in the Hat" it's no longer just up to the first ascentionists: it's communal property, not personal property (morally, legally it’s government property).”

This sentiment is incredibly important in the preservation of a route. It has been repeated on numerous occasions throughout this thread that people enjoy the run-out on that section. That section is the part that they look back on years after they’ve sent the route and remember fondly. LVCLC Secretary and climbing guide, Jason Martin has climbed “Cat in the Hat” 40+ times. He indicated that when people rappel past him as he is on his way up, they often talk about how “wild” or “cool” that section was. Adding a bolt to that spot in effect robs future climbers of that experience.

3) Bolt Placement and Education

The removal of the bolt from “Cat in the Hat” exposed a number of serious problems. The individuals who repaired the route felt that it was not only an unnecessary placement but a dangerous one. The following list indicates the many elements that were improperly executed in the placement of the bolt.

a) Dust Removal

Those who placed the bolt did not clean the dust away. It rained shortly thereafter and thus caused a large semi-permanent stain on the rock. Those who removed the bolt did their best to clean this up. Hopefully recent rains have worked more of this away. When people don’t remove rock dust there is always the possibility of a long term stain.

b) Position

The bolt was placed beyond the crux moves at the first secure hold. Essentially the difficult climbing was over with.

The original Uriosite protection bolt on the slab was out significantly to the right. The Uriosite bolt was in a position that wasn’t ideal. Many leaders missed the bolt or had to traverse through somewhat difficult terrain to get to it.

In the mid-nineties, the old quarter inch bolt was removed and a new bolt was placed in a better location. The current bolt – probably placed by Dan McQuade – protects the hardest moves and is visible from below. Real forethought went into this original bolt replacement.

Below is a photo of the bolt positions. At the bottom is the current bolt. The Uriosite bolt used to be in the center and to the right. And at the top it’s possible to see where the new bolt was placed.

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/nevada/red_rock/pine_creek_>>>>>

c) Bolt Hole

The bolt hole was poorly drilled at the surface. There was a bunch of material inside the top of the hole with the bolt. It is possible that the bolt hole was also drilled improperly deeper in the hole, thus further compromising the placement of the expansion bolt.

d) Stud Bolts in Red Rock

Stud bolts tend to have problems in soft rock. Unfortunately these are commonly used in this area and are often installed incorrectly. An example of this may be found at the crux of Solar Flare. Even when stud bolts are installed correctly, they tend to easily loosen. Examples of this may be found on “Unimpeachable Groping.”

e) Thread Lubricant and Liquid Nails?

Some sort of liquid nails or other sealant was placed underneath the hanger. A red liquid was administered to the threads that appeared to be a lubricant or even the over-the-counter adhesive Lock-Tite.

Mechanical bolts must never be placed with any sort of epoxy, sealant or glue. This compromises the quality of the bolt and can turn it into a permanent “spinner.” It is further evidence of poor bolting skills.

Following is a photo of the bolt. It is easy to see the “glue” used underneath the hanger.

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/nevada/red_rock/pine_creek_>>>>>

The use of sealants, glues or epoxies creates a second problem. Those who replace old bolts prefer simplicity. The situation with this bolt made for a very difficult future replacement without drilling a second hole.

f) A few hammer blows easily broke the bolt. It appeared that the only part of the bolt that the bolter spent any time or money on was the hanger. The rest of the fixture was garbage.

Last year a similar bolting incident took place at the Atman Crag. Twenty-four bolts were added to a wilderness crag that had long been a pure trad climbing area. The bolts were removed and it was discovered that none of them were good. Every single bolt was a time-bomb waiting to go off.

Whether a bolt is placed legally or illegally, on a popular route or on a choss pile, the bolter must get the appropriate education in how to safely place bolts before he or she does so.

We are not advocating for a bolt war or the removal of every bolt in the Wilderness Area. Instead we would like people to think about the impact that their actions have on the larger climbing community. This requires education in a number of areas. Potential bolters should know the rules and regulations and how an additional bolt will affect those rules and regulations. A potential retro-bolter should have permission from a first-ascentionist and community approval as well as the approval of the land manager. And lastly and perhaps most importantly, a potential bolter should know what he or she is doing.

Please feel free to join us to discuss this further at our next meeting.

www.lvclc.org

Now that was a great post. I appreciate the LVCLC clarifying their position. I also appreciate the great work they are doing.

One thing that I would like to disagree with however:

"it does seem like a lot of fuss over something that could've just been hacked off the next a.m. without much fuss"

It doesn't solve the problem. The bolter would likely have taken the same attitude and replaced it. We've been there, done that, and it doesn't work.

A public flogging is good, to set out the community ethic and policy. Who knows how many future bolts this dialog may prevent.

John, stud bolts are a bad idea for soft rock. Nothing is perfect of course, but despite their popularity, stud bolts do frequently have the sleeve fail to "catch" and get dragged outward as you continue to tighten. This is much more of an issue in truly soft rock - Red Rocks is mostly medium rock.

Stud bolts in general are a bad idea simply for the fact that they can't be replaced in the same hole during future replacement. The ASCA stopped using them years ago.

The primary reason they are so popular is price (OK, that and the fact you can place them one-handed in a hole drilled on lead, then pound them in - so a lot of FA folks who need bolts like that use them all the time, then defend them for reasons other than why they used them).

Despite the "common sense" that 3/8" stud bolts are stronger than 3/8" 5-pieces (which have a 5/16" core), stud bolts are WEAKER. I can't seem to get this across to people, but then again I can't count how many people think that all climbing bolts are stainless.

Anyway, I'll repeat what we keep telling people across the country who keep asking me the same question - what stud bolts are the best ones to use? I keep saying the same thing: NONE. Please use non-stainless 5-pieces which are the same price as stainless stud bolts - at least when they rust people can remove them and use the same hole.

And if you are placing non-stainless stud bolts, then you're making sure that your bolt will have to be moved in future replacement in only a few decades. Don't be that cheap! If you must place stud bolts, use stainless and drill the hole deep so that future replacement can patch the hole cleanly.

Also, as far as hanger spinning (far more common, and far less dangerous than bolt spinning), everyone knows that stud bolts see a lot more spinning hangers than 5-pieces. There's also work fatigue for thread-head bolts with nuts (need some metallurgists to explain that), and if nuts are frequently re-tightened, they lose strength (something on the order of 10% of its strength each tightening cycle).

The issue of the bolt quality was only a portion of our message. I will address one question about bolt quality and then leave it at that:

Brian - the bolt hole at the surface was too wide, and filled with liquid nails. There was no way to tell if the bolt hole diameter was also too wide deeper in the hole where the expansion sleeve is located. Drilling holes deep is a different subject (it's good practice using stud bolts).

Aside from that, we'd like to stress the fact that this kind of action has a detrimental effect on our relationship with the BLM and threatens all the work that we've done.

As our previous letter was vetted by a number of senior individuals involved with the LVCLC, we can't really have a timely and representative conversation in this venue. Instead, we would like to continue this discussion in person at our next meeting on the third wednesday of March. If you are passionate about this issue, please attend.

www.lvclc.org