New Sport routes on Duncan's Ridge ?

The FoCo Coloradoan has a series of photos of climbers on Duncan's Ridge on new bolted "sport" routes. I originally thought this was another journalistic faux pas and they meant new top rope anchors, but on examining the photos, it looks like there are now bolts on the big roof at the top of Duncan's !

coloradoan.com/picture-gall…

I saw some bolts at the top of the roof a few weeks ago. Did they put some bolts in so the roof can actually be lead? That was a pretty ballsy lead without any bolts. It would be sweet if they did, but the article wasn't really clear.

In the included photos, the climber is clearly on lead and clipped into bolts.

When are you going to bolt the Mental Block, Bolt Wall and the Eliminator over at Rotary ?

Hey Ryan, thanks to you and the NCCC for doing that. I'm sure many people will appreciate the new bolted routes. I haven't climbed there too much, but every time I've gone I've felt the area would benefit from bolting, especially on the slabby sections.

Ryan-Nelson wrote: I installed the bolts on the roof route so it can actually be lead. Nice solid glue-in under the roof. There is currently 7 sport routes at Duncan's Ridge, and plenty more on the way.

Thanks Ryan. It'll be nice to have some very local routes. Especially those moderates for teaching new leaders...

Thanks Ryan!

I started climbing at Duncan's Ridge over 30 years ago and I was far from the first person up there. That ridge has always been a top rope area... not really long enough to lead on, but certainly possible to lead. I'm sure the big roof has been done many times as a trad route, even as short as it is.
No one who has any history with that ridge is going to agree to the bolted routes. I don't know whether that really counts for anything, but I'm pretty sure that it would be a nearly unanimous vote. I've alway been ok with bolts and understand their use in most places... I usually argue in favor of making climbs safer. In this case, I think it's a really bad idea. I'm really sure those bolts won't last long anyway, but I wish there had been a more open discussion about it.

Cornelius Jefferson wrote:There seems to be a trend (see also SCC) to form a 'climbers coalition', that negotiates agreements with govt entities which enable the board members of this 'coalition' (which does not represent nor speak for anyone but said board members) to ignore local history and first ascents and use their agreement to spray existing routes with fixed gear. This is a disturbing trend. These 'coalitions' and their 'board members' are wrong if they think an ok by the city or whoever supersedes long-held traditions and ethics. NCCC stand up and defend your actions to the front range climbing community at large. Really, who the fuck do you think you are??

Are you suggesting that the claims of some unknown remote first ascensionists about a bunch of TRs somehow trumps the landowners choices?

Jon Sinclair wrote: In this case, I think it's a really bad idea. I'm really sure those bolts won't last long anyway, but I wish there had been a more open discussion about it.

Bolts on Forest Service land are usually considered abandoned property, but approved bolts on Larimer County property might be a different matter. Chopping them sounds more along the lines of destroying public property. And kind of a stupid place to conduct a bolt war, at least as far as maintaining good relations and access. All to protect the sanctity of some topropes? Really?

In this case, as in most climbing venues, the "landowners" don't see into or care about climbing ethics, tradition, or appropriate climbing use. They are public-land administrators and are only concerned about the rules and regs that apply to that area, in a general sense.

I'm sure Ryan is a well meaning guy that didn't mean any harm. However, there are a lot of people who've been climbing at Horsetooth that are going to see his bolting those "routes" as inappropriate and destructive. This is a battle that has been fought over and over again in almost every major climbing area across the US. The consensus seems to always bend toward "traditional use" and local ethics. I'm quite sure that no argument that Ryan could make would dissuade most of the people who are going to argue against what he did, from the viewpoint of traditional use.

Seems to me that one of the main functions of climbing organizations, or coalitions, is to maintain the traditions and ethics of climbing areas. If not them, then who? Those organizations are, essentially, the community memory and conscience. The NCCC (which Ryan is a part of) should be a leading voice in what's appropriate climbing use and in building consensus. If Ryan made a mistake here, and I think he did, it was doing what he did without consensus and consideration of the area's tradition. Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Jon Sinclair wrote:In this case, as in most climbing venues, the "landowners" don't see into or care about climbing ethics, tradition, or appropriate climbing use. They are public-land administrators and are only concerned about the rules and regs that apply to that area, in a general sense. I'm sure Ryan is a well meaning guy that didn't mean any harm. However, there are a lot of people who've been climbing at Horsetooth that are going to see his bolting those "routes" as inappropriate and destructive. This is a battle that has been fought over and over again in almost every major climbing area across the US. The consensus seems to always bend toward "traditional use" and local ethics. I'm quite sure that no argument that Ryan could make would dissuade most of the people who are going to argue against what he did, from the viewpoint of traditional use. Seems to me that one of the main functions of climbing organizations, or coalitions, is to maintain the traditions and ethics of climbing areas. If not them, then who? Those organizations are, essentially, the community memory and conscience. The NCCC (which Ryan is a part of) should be a leading voice in what's appropriate climbing use and in building consensus. If Ryan made a mistake here, and I think he did, it was doing what he did without consensus and consideration of the area's tradition. Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

I don't know the history of Duncan's ridge at all, so should keep my mouth shut. Sounds like more consensus building would be a good idea.

But times change and sometimes a few bolts will make an area better. Whether this is one of those times remains to be seen.

The land manager did give permission for the bolts. If you disagree, then seems to me the proper recourse is to speak with the manager or the NCCC, not chop the bolts.
I hate seeing bolt wars. Nobody wins.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I don't know the history of Duncan's ridge at all, so should keep my mouth shut. Sounds like more consensus building would be a good idea. But times change and sometimes a few bolts will make an area better. Whether this is one of those times remains to be seen. The land manager did give permission for the bolts. If you disagree, then seems to me the proper recourse is to speak with the manager or the NCCC, not chop the bolts. I hate seeing bolt wars. Nobody wins.

I agree with you about bolts and I'm usually the guy arguing on the liberal side of that discussion. In this case, I think Ryan was wrong. I'm certainly not the guy who will head to Duncan's with a crowbar, but there are plenty of people who might do that. It might make an interesting bet as to how long those bolts will last up there.
I'm not sure what the "proper" recourse really is. I don't think it lies with Larimer Co. Parks. In fact, that could be the problem... maybe Ryan felt that by just checking with them it was enough. Just like getting permission from Larimer Co. to chop them wouldn't seem enough.
The best way for it to roll out... if Ryan were to say, "whoops!" and take them out himself. He's probably not going to do that, so get ready for a bolt war. It won't be the first time that bolts have been chopped at Horsetooth. Bolt chopping is a tradition up there...

Personally I think it's an improvement. I live on shields and harmony just down the road and it would be cool to scoot up there after work with a few draws. How many of you guys bitching actually go up there to climb on a regular basis?

lol @ "outdated ethics"

i hope they get chopped.

Dangerous because beginners are going to go up there and try to sport climb. That might be true. However, I went up there this week and the routes appear safely bolted

I think I remember reading about how there have been anchor bolts put up and removed repeatedly at Duncan's in the past.

I can understand taking the bolts out if the FAs were around and spoke up about it. I could understand removing them if the routes were poorly bolted. I could understand if the landowner didn't give permission. But none of this is the case, it seems.

What I don't understand is why some of you are so concerned with the bolts being installed in the first place. If *you* don't want to use them, don't use them. But it's a very convenient crag for new climbers to access and get outside. There are also some routes (if they're actually named routes at all) that you can't protect well with trad. I think at atleast more anchors for TR would be great.

To those who want to have the bolts removed and keep it as a traditional area I have to ask: Do you climb there much? Do you climb on the same gear you used 20 plus years ago or whenever the area was established? Do you really think removing the bolts is preserving the history of the area, or just keeping out everyone who can't build a trad anchor? And while I'm asking, do any of you have a comprehensive written history of the area, you know, like a book I can buy to learn all about the place, the routes and the FAs? The most comprehensive guide I've found so far was compiled by the NCCC, who seem to be making climbing areas safer and more accessible to everyone.

Ryan PM'd me a few days , upset about my comments and questioned me about when was the last time I climbed there. Here's my responce.

"The last time that I climbed the 2 different variants of the Roof Route (far left and center) was in 2010 and it was on TR. Previously to that, I'd always bouldered all of those routes, as far back as 1974. I had never even tied on to a TR at Duncan's until I got a bit more cautious in the mid 1990's. Duncan's was originally a highball area for us, "Back in the Day", and few of us even thought of using a TR. It was my training ground to get used to longer runouts while on lead, like those on Glacier Point or the Splatte where you "might" have 1-3 bolts in a whole pitch of sustained "5.9+" climbing, my favorite headgame routes.

So it's more a matter of tradition and following the style of the first ascents. If this wasn't Ft. Collins, but Boulder, instead, your applications would have been shut down immediately. I'm all for increasing local climbing ops, but it needs to stay true to tradition. TR anchors would have been just fine.

Thanks for the new additions and allowing a grouchy "Old Fart" to reminisce about "The Good Old Days".

I saw the new lines this week.

The bolting was quality and very tasteful. It's not like he bolted trad lines- the sport routes were put up in areas that obviously benefited from it. I get the concern about bolting grids, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing a trad line bolted. Clearly Ryan does too. Duncan's is a better place thanks to Ryan's efforts.

Keep up the good work, NCCC. Thank you for your countless hours of selfless actions. See you at the next clean-up day.

Bill M wrote:Personally I think it's an improvement. I live on shields and harmony just down the road and it would be cool to scoot up there after after Work with a few draws. How many of you guys bitching actually go up there to climb on a regular basis?

Imagine how much quicker, and how much more climbing you could get in after work with just your shoes and chalkbag assuming you need chalk. Since convienence is your argument for being pleased with the massacre that just took place, then what's more convienent then bouldering. Why mess around with ropes and gear on climbs that have been bouldered and or even lead traditionally for many decades?

And sorry for the spelling errors and bad grammar. I don't correct it on purpose just to mess with the grammar nazis of the world.

I put shoes on and attempted climbing for the first time in 1993 at the tropics. I was a freshman in college and had no idea how that day at the tropics would impact my life. Although I have moved on in life and left the US to live in a country where I can practice my profession and make a living being self employed in my trade, Ft Fun still has a place in my heart.

I met and attempted to follow many heroes back in the day around those very rocks sans bolts. Countless days at Duncan's with the late great Luebben. I can't speak for him but I bet if he was still here he would be absolutely embarrassed by the coalitions actions.

Back then you either bouldered it out, placed gear, or came and set up a top rope for the day that could easily be removed when finished. Nothing left behind. And during most of the 90's crash pads were un heard of. At best a little piece of carpet or floor mat to wipe your shoes on was your launching pad. Certain areas even lent themselves to water soloing on the right years.

After the Tropics were blown up, it seemed like it was the beginning of the end. And now a group like this that means well, is actually hurting the group it attempts to protect and promote. The addition of all that hardware might only create more impact to a very fragile environment that exists as is. Of course beginning sport areas are needed to give folks an entry level environment, but with that brings a group of users and usually in great numbers from right out of the gym.

Regardless the damage is done. Maybe before launching into the next phase of your super project to bolt Horsetooth into submission talk to the people that matter, Your very climbing community you claim to serve. Quite arrogant to establish that the Coalition is the only people authorized to bolt and that you are executing your rights in full force without discussion with people that matter.

Having read some of the bolters comments along the lines of "Many more to come" I would hope that you would holster your drills and listen to the people before grid bolting the ridge into submission.

At least take a look at how the routes are received that already do exist and more importantly how the impact of the place might be altered, IE) user groups and user days before expanding your not so genius visions.

My 2 cents.

PS. I always loved horsetooth, and I treasured my days in solitude that I ran around Duncan's. I am an expat now but what little time I am ever back in colorado or close to Estes and the surrounding areas, Horsetooth is always on my mind. I guess seeing a bolted reservoir is about as much of a reason I need to resist the temptation to visit again.