The Fever has hit the Wasatch

Ken Cangi wrote: If someone pulls such a stunt in places like Seneca, North Conway, or The Gunks, for example, the bolts would most likely be chopped and then the perpetrator introduced to the community's antipathy for his or her actions.

when the bolt issue arose in the gunks 1980's, the mohonk preserve (landowner) reserved a lecture hall on campus and invited all who wanted to come, let everyone speak and/or whine and it was decided that bolts were not to be used, anyone who wants further info is free to contact me, i worked in as ranger in the area at the time at an adjoining state park were climbing was illegal at the time and worked with the mohonk rangers on many issues.

my info is likely dated they may be using bolts as rap anchors to protect fragile pine trees

slc is a different sitiuation in the respect that we do not have a pro-climbing landowner

oldfattradguuy wrote:slc is a different sitiuation in the respect that we do not have a pro-climbing landowner

I guess I'd disagree with this. The compromises, not to everyone's satisfaction for sure, made to accomodate climbers during especially the quarry effort a few years ago were flat amazing. We never lost the ability to climb at the Gate Buttress, for instance. I have fond (!) memories of pulling the crux of Schoolroom West just as one of the charges went off in the boulders below. Shock wave just about blew me off the rock, and, I'll not admit to filling my pants.

And look at the bouldering rocks they didn't touch, due to climber's concerns.

Even after some jackasses uprooted their survey stakes (and some other monkey wrenching with the equipment), they still allowed climbing.

I'd say if the land owner isn't pro climbing, then, at least its fully tolerated.

Not that the issue wasn't contentious...

Ken Cangi wrote:...although the rest of you guys - and you know who you are - sound as though you are just looking for something to bitch about. For example, jumping all over Tony C's case, because he used his kid to make a point, was juvenile. Using his kid probably wasn't the best example, although I had no problem understanding what he meant.

Ken, maybe grow up yourself.

As for what he meant- I'm glad you got the point. I guess I missed it... maybe I am not very smart?
I am a very literal person. I took what Tony said at face value. That he wanted to say what he said. I doubted the sincerity of it, but I believed that is was what he wanted to say. Perhaps the other reactions are from literal people too.

So what is so juvinile about thinking that a person wants you to believe that what they are saying is what they intended to say?

I don't know Tony other than within this forum, oh, and kinda running into him at City of Rocks a few weeks ago. But we never spoke. I've got no personal axe to grind with him. I'm sure he can tell you himself that I've emailed him off-line to ask for technical advice on anchors, etc... Not hostile stuff at all.

I do participate in a lot of debates here, and I've noticed too that you do also. I've noticed that when you participate, you tend to participate in full. It's a little funny though, you calling me juvenile and accusing me of jumping his case. That's like Tony telling me I need to read his post before reacting, whilst reacting to something I never said in the first place.

Invariably, flaming people for flaming people leads to finding out that they were not flaming people in the first place.

Tony, when you slag the entire climbing community by calling it apathetic, it is hard to appreciate your contributions. If you are referring to Mike's initiative to organize a bolting/work committee as a "pipe dream" then step aside, and we will continue to meet with those interested in the maintenance of the local climbing resource.

As a local climbing organization the SLCA has developed a positive relationship with the Forest Service and other organizations that have interests in the canyons, but we have no mandate on fixed protection. We need to do the obvious replacement work under the umbrella of the ASCA and not get mired in controversial issues. If individuals feel strongly enough to remove or install fixed anchors, so be it. I just hope they think it through because sometimes no action is the best choice.

Troy is right, it is a lot more fun to just go climbing instead of lugging a bolting kit around.

Tony Bubb wrote: It's a little funny though, you calling me juvenile and accusing me of jumping his case.

My post was directed at the people (plural), who were continually derailing the original topic. My hope was that those people would take a moment to realize how little value such dialogue was adding to the discussion, and then that they would make a personal effort to bring the original topic back on track.

I mentioned no names in my post. Several people gave Tony C. a hard time about his kid comment, but you are the only one who responded to my post with yet more defensive rhetoric. Maybe you have a guilty conscience.

You are correct in that I fully participate in these forums when they involve important topics. You could also say that I have very strong opinions about certain issues like: retro-bolting established trad routes, constructing illegal apparatus, in national forests, that endanger the lives of children, etc.

Is it possible, Tony, that you could, for the sake of everyone in this forum who is trying to resolve this "local" issue, please stick to the original topic and try to refrain from making this about you? You guys in Boulder have a system for dealing with these problems. We are trying to work ours out here.

Tony Calderone wrote:Stick to what I actually say and you will be far better off interpreting what I mean.

Problem is, Tony, there's a disconnnect.

When someone says to only use stainless, but, doesn't last year in the Castle...

When someone says we should be painting shiny bolts, but, I can see the bolts they placed next to Already Been Done Crack from the trail....

When someone says we shouldn't be bolting cracks...(see above)...

When someone says they are concerned about the rock, but, they drill more holes instead of replacing hole for hole on the Great White Icicle...

Most folks won't even commment, due, especially to a percieved threat of vandalism of their property...and I certainly don't want any of that on me...but...it's hard to read one thing here, and know the reality has been misrepresented, half truths, double talk...

I think it would be really interesting, from a pop psychology or whatever standpoint, to understand the motivation behind all this constant bickering and hashing and rehashing these fixed anchors. And, I'm not talking about removing a stuck nut a second couldn't clean (in case someone's confused). There appears to be no immediate need, no safety issue, no visual issue, no impending doom that requires a bolting committee, a lone ranger, or who or whatever constantly messing around with especially the anchors on all the easy to moderate classics in LCC. I just do not get it.

And, its NOT apathy. We care. A bunch.

(much spray deleted...prior to posting)

Aaaaarrrggghhhh.

Sorry for the vent. There, I feel all better now...

Anyone climbing tonight? Weather is stellar!

Tony, what's up with all the post editing? That doesn't help with being "misunderstood".

I get that you think we have a problem or two in the Wasatch and that you think the community is apathetic. You just rub some folks the wrong way by accusing them of not looking into the deeper meaning of your every word. Everyone has a different take on what you say, so do yourself a favor and keep it simple. Lets talk about all the positive things we want to do and see if we can agree.

Here is a question to all of the locals: Who among you is for some sort of ACE-style regulatory system, and who is against it?

If for, then how and in what manner would you like to see it accomplished?

If against, are you willing to accept that, without it, more and more bolted anchors will eventually show up on established trad routes?

Tony Calderone wrote:"I think stainless steel bolts are better than carbon steel bolts" does not equal Tony says you should place only stainless steel bolts "I think stainless steel bolts are better than carbon steel bolts" does not equal I only place stainless steel bolts "I think stainless steel bolts are better than carbon steel bolts" does not equal I have only ever placed stainless steel bolts There are a whole lot of bolts on routes I climbed first that I did not place. Assuming I placed them is exactly that... an assumption. I can't police every route I've ever done. Painting hangers does not equal Tony says painting shiny bolts I've said it before... I'll say it again... If you can reach a lead bolt I placed from a protectable crack.... I'll move/remove it. I never said we shouldn't be bolting cracks. If someone could have reused the holes I patched on the GWI for new bolts, they are a better man than me. (Mike White might qualify.) Percieved threats are exactly that... percieved threats. The only thing I've seen destroyed are bolts on routes I'm listed as the FA on all over the Wastach. There is perception (doctored private e-mails, cropped photos & false assumptions) and there is reality. Reality:OTABC has bolts/hangers in the same place it always had them... except now they are not shining mirrors. Reality:Stiffler's Mom is more enjoyable than it ever was... now that it doesn't have useless studs sticking up all over it. Reality:Six routes I bolted have been chopped in the past year. Nobody has acknowledged doing it.

Quote above saved for posterity...

Ken Cangi wrote:Here is a question to all of the locals: Who among you is for some sort of ACE-style regulatory system, and who is against it? If for, then how and in what manner would you like to see it accomplished? If against, are you willing to accept that, without it, more and more bolted anchors will eventually show up on established trad routes?

Against.

Yes.

Tony said:

I never said we shouldn't be bolting cracks.

Wow! that's a classic

I am against the idea of a regulatory body unless it becomes mandated by a land manager/owner. Informal, volunteer action is fine with me. The bolting meetings have been successful in bringing some people together to discuss some of the issues. Whether it becomes a productive group is yet to be seen. It's goal is to prioritize and accomplish some of the important replacement work that needs to be done.

I don't think we are finished talking about the GWI, and no one took any minutes. We will need to be a little more organized, minutes will be posted on the SLCA website, and hopefully I won't be nursing a headache.

Good thing that tumbled, stainless hardware is available. Blends in well in LCC. We could get a bunch of chain powder coated as well. How about those rusty Goliaths on the lower, Schoolroom Rappel?

jonathan knight wrote:Good thing that tumbled, stainless hardware is available. Blends in well in LCC. We could get a bunch of chain powder coated as well. How about those rusty Goliaths on the lower, Schoolroom Rappel?

Yeah, those are bad. Looks like someone soaked them in vinegar to remove the zinc plating. Rusting like gangbusters. Whats with the fixed rope hanging off the downclimb to the climber's left?

Another one thats not too bad is the first pitch belay anchor on Perhaps. The left side stainless powerbolt is loose. I screwed it back finger tight, but, probably needs a tad bit more tightening. Remember Powers dumped the torque on these down to 12 foot-pounds, so, please don't over torque. The anchor on the other side is a Fixe chain and ring gig, and, I'm not sure if the fellers who placed it knew, but, its plated and not stainless (22kN). Leakin' a bit of rust onto the rock. No biggie and I much appreciate these nice Fixe chain and ring combo's, but, if someone has a stainless one to donate, that'd be sweet. Really not a deal, though, and almost not worth mentioning. The stainless Fixe gear seems to get a haze on the stainless stuff so painting them is probably not super required. They don't appear that shiny to me after a short spell in the out-of-doors. But, the Perhaps anchor isn't a priority for sure. And, the patch job on the old bolt location is barely visible (well done anchor all around!). But, if you're in the neighborhood...

I wonder if the studs on Leggo My Eggo on the Egg are still original? That'd be my vote for some work.

JK, if you go for the powder coating on some chain (and rapides and rings), I'd go in on that for sure. Stuff I've seen done is money.

One big happy family here in the Wasatch!

I think that we can safely exclude this one as an accomplishable goal.

Brian in SLC wrote: We're all good right now, thanks.

No problem, Brian. Just tryin to offer some meaningful thought here.

Maybe if you guys installed some via ferrata and get the tabernacle out climbing. Then, offer some kinda membership fee to the fold (I dunno, call it field training for their next planet), you'd recoup some of that beer & anchor money easy.

#6 We all agreed to leave the bolt on C.P. and you agreed not to remove it. We never said anything about gathering more info.

We will tape record the next meeting so we know who said what.

Tony Calderone wrote: Ken, I think you would be welcome at the meeting. I thought it was actually very productive. Maybe it was the cookies.

Hey what do you mean maybe it was the cookies? Of course it was the cookies. I think you could all use a cookie about now.

kandice

Troy D. Anderson wrote: ps. Tony, you should chill out, and "YOUR" routes won't get chopped as often. If you keep pace, I would bet you'll see more removal of hangers with Calderone drawn on them.

So is this a direct threat or an observation, Troy? I don't mean to sound accusing, but your comment makes it apppear as though you condone people chopping Tony's routes because they don't like his point of view or his approach.

I wouldn't know Tony C. if he bumped into me on the street. He may be a complete jerk in real life, for all I know, although I haven't seen any sign of that here. Moreover, nothing that he has said here would justify chopping his routes. That's f--ked up.