Possible Eldo FHRC application - comments requested

Casey, I'm pretty sure a 50m will work from anywhere in that area, but I will check.

Kevin, Tony never said "ultimate", nor does Calypso "ALWAYS" have a line on it.

I think Tony's argument is sound: Beginner climbers should take into account the descent just as much as the route itself when they're selecting a climb. Some of my very first leads were on the Wind Tower. I didn't have a problem then with a) topping out and walking off, b) scrambling over to the Calypso anchors, c) rapping off the little tree. That said, I also think Casey's argument for adding a rap station there does make sense.

But there really are plenty of other options for beginning climbers in Eldorado Canyon and the Boulder area in general if the Wind Tower is too dangerous/crowded/inconvenient/etc.

Kevin Craig wrote: Be careful however Tony, your "ultimate gumby destination" comment is perilously close to exclusionary elitism. Now I'm all for elitism when it comes to picking safe partners etc. but Eldo is no more the exclusive preserve of 5.10 and above climbers than it is of 5.7 and lower ones. There's room for everyone. Also, exactly how would someone climb more within their abilities than a 5.2 - 5.3 route???? Folks have to learn somewhere and N. Table isn't really the answer (IIRC about 4 - 5.6 routes and small handful of 5.7's and everything else harder none of which are multi-pitch)

Don't quote me unless you want to *actually quote me*. I'm not shoving words into your mouth and attacking you for things you didn't say, so please afford me that same courtesy.

What I said was that if you retro-bolt the tops of all the multi-pitch climbs in eldo you will make it a top of the line gumby destination. Do you disagree? Do you think there is no such thing as a gumby? If the word gumby offended you, sorry. But don't turn it into something I didn't say. I don't look down on beginners, because I've been one. In the future what term would you prefer for me to use for people who either need a guide or can't make their way safely off of a climb that they chose to lead? Choose your term, a rose by any other name is still a rose...

"Within your ability" means climbing things that are well, "within your ability." I always saw multiple vectors to this- skill, strength, endurance, judgment, and anchor-placing skills. A R-rated thin gear route at 5.8 with a mandatory simul-rap might not be OK for a 5.13 sport climber who has no rack and has never placed gear.

Are you saying that climbs below 5.x (?) all need to have bolted anchors for belay and rap? That's a lot more paternal than any view I've ever held or expressed.

I have NEVER climbed Crystal Clear or Perilous Journey. I doubt I ever will. Sure, I climb 5.11 and plenty of them, but guess what, the routes don't "need bolts." Now If I did, and I fell and got hurt, would they need bolts? What if 18 people fell and got hurt, would they need bolts? At what point does everything need bolts? At the point when I can't climb it, when you can't climb it, or when a 5.3 climber can't climb it. Placing an anchor and descending are all part of climbing. If you can't do those on your route of choice, perhaps it is an error in judgment.

There is NOTHING elitist about saying people should climb within their limits and choose routes that they are capable of doing without modifying. I took exception to Ron calling me a 5.12 climber exactly for this reason- it creates a perception that I am an elite climber and thereby capable of 'elitism.' I climb fairly hard, probably above the average, but not at an elite level.

All of that said, I have already stated that if history shows a long tradition of a designated rap there, then I am less against it. Seems to me that any bolts on an old line that constitute a NEW anchor are retro-bolts. The exception here is if there was a traditional designation of an anchor here. But lets face it, the reason why people want this anchor is so that they do not have to:
Finish a multi-pitch route that they started
Build a natural anchor for their guided clients and classes
Walk off of the top of a rock
Rap off of another anchor "too far" to the side and near other routes.

Please tell me which of these is more than a convenience issue? Please tell me which of these could not be solved by simply choosing to climb a different route, *without modifying it.*

Convenience = convenience
Retrobolt= retrobolt
Modify = modify
No lawyer needed to understand that. I'll check my books tonight and see what they show there.

Tony Bubb wrote: I took exception to Ron calling me a 5.12 climber exactly for this reason- it creates a perception that I am an elite climber and thereby capable of 'elitism.' I climb fairly hard, probably above the average, but not at an elite level.

Well, Tony, on your MP.com page you state:

Trad: Leads 5.11d Follows 5.12b
Sport: Leads 5.11d Follows 5.12b

Sure sounds like a 5.12 climber (perhaps not on-sight leader) to me!

Josh Janes wrote:But there really are plenty of other options for beginning climbers in Eldorado Canyon and the Boulder area in general if the Wind Tower is too dangerous/crowded/inconvenient/etc.

Well, Josh, if you think about it, there aren't that many options for beginning climbers in the Boulder area that have as easy access to multi-pitch climbs as the Wind Tower.

In Eldorado, there's the west face of Whale's Tail for beginners, but the Wind Tower is the primary climbing destination for the less experienced. Where else are they going to go? Not much on the Bastille, Redgarden, or the West Ridge for those wanting to climb at the 5.4 to 5.6 level.

Sure, there's lots of easy stuff in the Flatirons, but most of it involves hefty hikes and long runout climbs.

In Boulder Canyon, there's the East Slab on the Dome, Pine Tree Route on the Second Elephant Buttress, and easy stuff on the Boulderado.

The fact remains, the Wind Tower is the premier easy-access beginner-to-novice climbing destination in the Boulder area.

OK, Tony didn't *actually* say "ultimate" (just "gumby destination") but I was writing in an airport and responding to the tone - my bad.

The term gumby itself doesn't offend me at all and I've met my share too - in Eldo and elsewhere.

But speaking of not putting words in mouths, um, Tony (et al) I'm not talking about bolting the top of every multi-pitch climb in Eldo. Far from it.

But since you ask, if this did happen (which I don't support), no, I don't think it would become a gumby destination since there are mostly fairly hard routes in Eldo, few walk-arounds, and the pro is tricky in a lot of places to get to said bolts. Retro-bolting the routes themselves, yes. The anchors? No, I don't think it would much change the gumby ratio.

You've turned a discussion about one set of rap bolts into a discussion about retro-bolting all hard lines in Eldo which is just a little far from what I'm talking about and it's NOT a slippery slope. Not all bolts are evil. Not even bolts that make routes safer or, God forbid, convenient for beginners are evil. OTOH, some are. That's why we have a review committee.

One doesn't have to be an objectively elite climber (5.12 or 5.13 or whatever) to have an elitist attitude about people of lesser skill. Implying someone is a gumby because they don't want to summit or scramble off on crappy rock has at least a bit of an elitist tone to it.

The Calypso bolts aren't "near" another route, they *are* another route. And OK, I was being hyperbolic... Calypso doesn't have a line-up on snowy Wednesday's in January. ;^D

But anyway back to the subject...

In "Best of Boulder Climbs" Rossiter shows scrambling off across the Rotten Band and recommends against summiting due to loose rock. He also appears to show an alternative of down-climbing a 5.4 and 5.2 section. Same in "Classic Boulder Climbs" (without the downclimbing option). I think these are based on "Boulder Climbs South." In "Rock Climbing Eldo" he talks in the text about rapping from the top bolts then the Calypso bolts, but on the topo he shows "2x75'" from the top bolts and separately a "100ft" rappel from the Calypso bolts so seems to imply the 2x75 must use a different anchor (the tree?). He doesn't explicitly show using the tree however. SO, it we don't place the bolts should we also police the tree and make sure folks never use it because Rossiter doesn't show it or talk about it? The fact is that for years, many people rap off this tree every week. Is this irrelevant if Rossiter doesn't show it?

It's not a "Bad idea" I use the upper anchors quite a bit, and seeing how both rappells are low angle it would be a good place for beginners to learn how to rappel.

The tree scramble has always had my hairs on the back of my neck up, akward and easy. Good place to let your guard down and a small trip or slip and well the ground is always waiting...

My 2 cents worth

EDIT POST

Ron Olsen wrote:
Well, Tony, on your MP.com page you state: Trad: Leads 5.11d Follows 5.12b Sport: Leads 5.11d Follows 5.12b Sure sounds like a 5.12 climber (perhaps not on-sight leader) to me!

It does *NOT* sound like a 5.12 climber to me. I only know a few 5.12 climbers, and watching them climb is humbling.

When people say what level they climb, most presume that they mean on lead. Just like when they say that they have 'done' a route, that they have lead it without hanging. That was the standard, at least for some long time.

I did not take malice for your intent in what you said- I just wanted to make sure that people understand that I am not a 5.12 climber, nor do I claim to be.

Kevin Craig wrote:Not all bolts are evil. Not even bolts that make routes safer or, God forbid, convenient for beginners are evil. OTOH, some are. That's why we have a review committee. One doesn't have to be an objectively elite climber (5.12 or 5.13 or whatever) to have an elitist attitude about people of lesser skill. Implying someone is a gumby because they don't want to summit or scramble off on crappy rock has at least a bit of an elitist tone to it. The Calypso bolts aren't "near" another route, they *are* another route.

A few things.
1) I don't think all bolts are evil. I don't have a problem with bolts, I have a problem with retrobolts. And Retrobolts are not evil either. Retro-bolters are... (snicker).
2) If it makes me elitist to say that people should climb within their abilities instead of using their lack of ability to justify modifying a 50 year old climb, then I am a proud elitist.
3) I said that if people COULD NOT take an alternate option that they should climb elsewhere. I said that if people simply did not WANT TO that it is a convenience anchor. Although you are putting words in my mouth again, you are slowly and surely making my points for me. Are you saying that this is a motivational problem and not an inexperience issue?
4)The Calypso BOLTS are on another climb, but the RAP is near another climb, because You don't rap the Calypso line when you rap from the calypso anchors.
5) I do think that putting in bolts at the top of a pitch changes it's character and the crowd and type of crown it attracts. One must go no further than the West Ridge up by Duh Dihedral to see this. Used to be the gang bang was always over on 'Dr Michael Solar,' but it's on 'Duh Dihedral' now... it followed the anchors and multiplied a few times over. It's pretty thick on 'The Unsaid' as well.

I would just leave it the way it is.

Tony, I can appreciate your view. But, I disagree with your point #5.

5) I do think that putting in bolts at the top of a pitch changes it's character and the crowd and type of crown it attracts. One must go no further than the West Ridge up by Duh Dihedral to see this. Used to be the gang bang was always over on 'Dr Michael Solar,' but it's on 'Duh Dihedral' now... it followed the anchors and multiplied a few times over. It's pretty thick on 'The Unsaid' as well.

This face on the Wind Tower is already being used by a certain crowd type in a certain way. There are weekend crowds hanging out under the boulder or along the lower ledge for the three routes. People also congregate for Rewritten, the Great Zot, & Green Spur; is this because there is a fixed anchor on the Red Ledge? I think not. People congregate because they want to go climb a good line, as they also do for the Bastille Crack.

The anchor Kevin proposes would be at a belay stop anyway. Kevin is not talking about putting a fixed anchor in the middle of a pitch. If anything, he proposes to follow the recommendation provided in 3.4 to replace tree anchors & slings with a fixed anchors.

So, how does a fixed anchor change the character of the pitch or this face? The anchor won't allow for a rest-stop in the middle of a trad pitch; it won't change the manner of the climbing line. I don't see the problem with setting an anchor where Ron depicted.

But, if your concern is the ease of setting a top-rope as becoming the problem, I see this as a concern too. I don't like seeing a multi-pitch route being taken so someone can TR the first pitch. How does this work on the Bastille Crack? People set a rope up to practice the hard variant start. Does the rope get pulled so someone can start the entire line without the rope getting in the way? The same thing happens at Turkey, but I've seen the rope get pulled so a leader can send the line; and a route like the Vanishing Point still remains intact for a free send. But, this route is more advanced than working with a group on a 5.4-5 face.

I'm just trying to rationalize how an anchor at the mid-ledge changes moves or commitment of the pitch below it. Is the problem just that more people go out and participate in climbing than they have before, and that fixed protection promotes this participation?

Mark Nelson wrote:We take those routes for new trad leaders, but then leaving an exposed area for the descent is a problem.

It's their choice to make this an exposed descent--if it is not well-known then let's put the info online.

Mark Nelson wrote: I view a convenience anchor to be something in the middle of a pitch because someone didn't want to find a natural anchor; or bring gear for a climb...

hmmm, this proposed anchor could be both near the middle of a pitch because someone didn't want to find a natural anchor to belay the few moves to the tree (if electing to rap the route, which is unnecessary) AND it would also be an anchor needed for not bringing appropriate gear for descending down the route (a 70m rope, a second rope, appropriate gear for necessary belays on the descent). Given your own definition of a convenience anchor, how is this not one? (I think the fact that it's descent related does not affect terming an anchor a convenience anchor if it meets the criteria of being convenience-motivated).

From Rob Mullen's comments on the Bomb: : "For me the crux of the climb is actually getting to the tree with the slings for the second rap (a 60 M rope will just reach) without getting poked and prodded."

At least one other person who seems to think you can just reach the tree with a 60m stretched out--I'll have to go up there with some ropes of various lengths to investigate where the different lengths end up.

Dan Mottinger wrote:At least one other person who seems to think you can just reach the tree with a 60m stretched out--I'll have to go up there with some ropes of various lengths to investigate where the different lengths end up.

Even if you could reach the tree with a 60m rope (which I doubt), it's not a good spot from which to pull the rappel rope from the upper anchor. The tree anchor is well left of the upper bolt anchor; see the photo I posted earlier in this thread.

The best spot to do the pull is on the big ledge, near the start of the second pitch of West Overhang. A falling rope will land in a pile at this spot. What I usually do is downclimb to the tree with the top end of the rope and pull it through the tree anchor while my partner feeds me the rope from the big ledge.

This is far simpler than getting "poked and prodded" by tree branches while doing the pull, and then dealing with the pile of rope on the ledge up and right of the tree.

Good info to know Ron.

Dan Mottinger wrote: Given your own definition of a convenience anchor, how is this not one? (I think the fact that it's descent related does not affect terming an anchor a convenience anchor if it meets the criteria of being convenience-motivated).

Several points:

1. The proposed bolt anchor replaces a tree anchor, which is viewed favorably by the FHRC in section 3.4 of their guidelines.

2. The proposed bolt anchor is more in line with the upper rap anchor, and is easier to access from the big ledge where most people pull the rope.

3. The fact that the proposed bolt anchor is in a better location than the tree does not disqualify it from consideration by applying the dreaded label "convenience anchor." All rap anchors are "convenient". Eldorado abounds with "convenience" anchors: the top of the first pitches of Tagger and Calypso, the middle of the crux pitch of C'est La Vie, the top of the first pitch of the Bastille Crack, the anchor on the Red Ledge by Green Spur, the rap bolts atop Chockstone Chimney, ... I could go on and on.

It really irritates me when someone says something like "Oh, that anchor would make things more convenient; therefore it's BAD." If you feel that way, then maybe you should stop using all those "convenient" anchors that already exist in Eldorado, and do it the way the first ascensionists did: go all the way to the top of the rock on every route you climb, and then walk off.

Certainly you should never use those "convenient" rap bolts at the notch on the Wind Tower descent. They weren't there in the 80s, and I guess there are some who feel they shouldn't be there now. Hope you are doing the exposed 5.2 downclimb instead of using those wussy rap bolts!

Dan, I would say to try and answer your question about what I see as a convenience anchor deals with the ascent in which an anchor is placed. Say I climb a route with a 50M rope, but don't want to make the route four pitches as established. I try for 3 pitches and find there is no gear, so I drill a couple of bolts. Now I've made a 50M 3 pitch ascent and changed the character of the climb, I've also given an indirect indication that a single rope descent can be made also from this station; which it can't. The anchor I placed was merely a convenience for shortening the climb by a pitch, because I didn't want to stop at a ledge that was about 20 meters below.

OR, the pitch is harder than I can climb, so I add an anchor at a transition area to give myself a rest. Then try to free the next 1/2 pitch; so I can say I freed the entire route. Thereby, also changing the character of the route.

Say I take an ice route and climb up 5 pitches. On my descent, I make a bunch of V-threads to get us down with a single rope. I haven't harmed the route in any way; I've only facilitated a safe descent.

At this face on the Wind Tower, the proposed position would not really affect anything about the climb. A person would have to still climb up to the mid-ledge to make an anchor.

Let's be clear about one thing, the crux is not about rappelling; he was just making a comment in humor. As for taking a 70M rope or a tag line. I had asked if Eldo was typical for a single 50M?? By gear, I meant taking a rack as opposed to only draws, and then mandating every climb should accommodate draws-only because gear climbing is too cumbersome for me to meet the expectations of the natural line. Also, I could show up with a 800'+ spool and argue the entire Redgarden Wall should not have any anchors; and I should be able to climb & descend to and from the roadway without any descent hiking.

Again, how is an easy trad slab changed forever by placing a descent station adequate to keep people within the system while using a common single 60M rope length, that also replaces a tree & slings anchor, which also does not exist anywhere but at the ledge intended for an anchor?

I and some like minded people can probably save the tree and what not by simply pledging to go up there every visit we make to eldo and removing all the slings from it so that they are not there and the tree gets less abuse. This could also serve to weaken the justification that an anchor is "being replaced," because you can't 'replace' somthing that isn't there.

This above proposal has it's own problems though... and frankly, I don't feel like I own Eldo, so I'd rather try to discuss things here, even if it is futile and the pros and cons already have their minds made up.

The problem in my view, Mark, since you asked a few commetns back, is that the climb would be changed- that a rap station would also be a belay station and as you know, if within a rope's length, is a TR anchor- which changes the nature of an area.

Ron Olsen wrote: 3. The fact that the proposed bolt anchor is in a better location than the tree does not disqualify it from consideration by applying the dreaded label "convenience anchor." All rap anchors are "convenient". Eldorado abounds with "convenience" anchors: the top of the first pitches of Tagger and Calypso, the middle of the crux pitch of C'est La Vie, the top of the first pitch of the Bastille Crack, the anchor on the Red Ledge by Green Spur, the rap bolts atop Chockstone Chimney, ... I could go on and on.

YOu sure could... So quit doing putting more in. Tagger's tree was always there and before the bolts it was regarded more frequently as a multi-pitch climb. These days you are about sure to have to get around a TR party to climb the upper half of it though. Score another one for the "single pitch anchor crew." I admit though- you may have prolonged the life of that tree, so I have not complained.

Ron Olsen wrote: It really irritates me when someone says, "Oh, that anchor would make things more convenient; therefore it's BAD."

The pattern I have noted is that you get really irritated when people don't agree with you. What if it irritated me when people say "Oh, that anchor will make it more conieneint to TR the first pitch; therefore it's GOOD."
That would not make me right or wrong, let alone sanctified... it would just make me irritable. I guess I just choose to disagree and not get irritated about things that nobody has even actually said.

Ron Olsen wrote: If you feel that way, then maybe you should stop using all those "convenient" anchors that already exist in Eldorado, and do it the way the first ascensionists did: go all the way to the top of the rock on every route you climb, and then walk off. Certainly you should never use those "convenient" rap bolts at the notch on the Wind Tower descent. They weren't there in the 80s, and I guess there are some who feel they shouldn't be there now. Hope you are doing the exposed 5.2 downclimb instead of using those wussy rap bolts!

Yeah, and if you don't like the war in Iraq, just quit watching the news... And if you're not satisfied with your government, just quit voting.

I walk off of the shelf on Wind tower most of the time. But that's my gig. Maybe you should pull them, Ron. Go ahead, I won't complain but I won't cheer. I don't care about them because they didn't turn the down-climb from a historically multi-pitch route into a TR playground.

I went up there today and may have found a bolt placement location that might mitigate some concerns. I'll post photos later, but it's located such that a rappel rope could be pulled, but would have enough friction (and the viable pull vector is such) that it would not be convenient for TR'ing. Would this make folks a tad happier?

Kevin: I am in favor of your proposal, and agree with your reasons (safety and tree conservancy). Thank you for bringing this up.

Safety is a relative term – what’s safe for an experienced climber may not be so for a scared beginner, and I think that this is the case here. Many beginners attempt this as a single pitch, some assuming that there already are reliable fixed anchors in a logical place. Climbing along the slippery ledge to Calypso anchors should not be advocated. A fixed anchor might also make The Bomb accessible to parents climbing with smaller children – one of the few in Eldo. Would that be bad? I’d far rather see fixed anchors here than on climbs that are recognized as challenging trad testpieces. I do not think that putting them here opens the door to that.

Tony: You have far too much to say about this topic and almost all others. (8,000 posts and counting…) These are old, well-visited issues. Present your views succinctly, as opinion and not fact, and please stop there. Discussions about your climbing ability, your not-expert ‘facts’ regarding trees, literature class or what you ate for dinner last night are irrelevant to this topic. Each post presenting an opposing point of view does not require a rejoinder from you. It makes it tedious for others who must skip past your predictable diatribe in order to read the posts that follow. “Ethics” is supposed to be about the shared values of the group, which I think indicates that opinions must be expressed with civility, willingness to listen to alternate views, and not with the desire to overwhelm by volume, sarcasm or ‘superiority’. Compromise will sometimes be necessary in order to be a member of the group. It would be nice if every now and then you expressed a concern for someone who is not ‘just like you’. Imagine…

Just for the record, a 60m rope will not reach from the existing bolts to the rap tree.

Kevin Craig wrote:I went up there today and may have found a bolt placement location that might mitigate some concerns. I'll post photos later, but it's located such that a rappel rope could be pulled, but would have enough friction (and the viable pull vector is such) that it would not be convenient for TR'ing. Would this make folks a tad happier?

Kevin,

I would look for an anchor position that:

• is easy to get to from the big ledge
• has a decent stance to set up the rappel
• gets down with a 60m rope
• is located so the rope won't get caught in a crack or chimney when it is pulled
• has a good rope pull without unnecessary friction.

The anchor is likely to be right of the tree, and not in line with the route that is currently being toproped off the tree. I wouldn't go out of your way to make it difficult to toprope off the anchor if that increases the friction of the rope pull. In all the times I've been on the Wind Tower (and that is a lot), I've only seen someone toproping off the tree two or three times.

Bottom line: choose an anchor location that is optimal for the rappel and don't worry about inhibiting potential use as a toprope.