Bolting "ethics"

Brian wrote:At least two locals (easterners)responded to this thread but you are right this is not a website that seems to be frequented by many easterners. It appears to be largley western. You are better off posting on rockclimbing.com for eastern issues. Bolting is specific to each area as is access but if you compare whole regions like east versus west then I think you can safely make the generalization that bolts are not as readily accepted here as they are out west.

I haven't lived off the east coast for longer than 7 mos so I still consider myself a part of it. The fear of Ken is the reason for bolts not being readily accepted. Since I was a kid I heard stories of Ken and saw his aftermath firsthand. Cold shuts smashed over on themselves and smashed into the rock, bolts smashed until there was nothing but a crater in the rock where it once was. It was never a matter of the rock with Ken. It was a matter of ego. Simply put: Ken decided he was the final word on what climbing in Ct would be and he would exact his vengeance on a neighboring states crag when somebody in ct did something he didn't like.

See Ken got shoved at the Gunks once and much like the Dr smacking Hitler on the ass when he was born, Ken never got over that and decided to displace his aggression by being a trite asshole. By being more trad. I don't think the climbing ever really mattered as much as the feeling of being in control of a region's climbing (I will lay off the Hitler references, because I am sure you can see them). The man is a tyrant! A petty small man who does not love this sport. He loves the empowerment he gets from being a prick.

Read here about the reason why bolts are taboo in new england

westernmacc.com/library/mai…

Brian wrote:Daniel, ..."The fear of Ken is the reason for bolts not being readily accepted." Wow that is an over generalization and a bit presumptious. There are lots of old trad climbers (me included) in the east that do not fear Ken, are not zealots (i.e. nuts) like Ken, but still believe that bolts should be limited. I now a lot of climbers who, like me, believe tht putting in some top rope anchors to save some trees is resonable but grid bolting the Gunks is not. There are lots of climbers here that do not want eastern crags to look like the Black Corridor at Red Rocks. Brian

Hey Brian,

I guess i should have been a bit more clear in this last post seeing that you have disregarded a key element of my previous posts. There is bolting and responsible bolting. See bro, anchors are good, I think they're great, Sport routes I could take or leave, Grid bolting is a nightmare come true. hypothetically: I have a route I want to put up that has a gnarly groundfall factor from about 50' I am going to put A bolt on it so no one dies. Is that so bad? is one little painted piece of metal so disconcerting that you'd rather forgo it, have someone die or get hurt on private property and risk the land owners shutting down one of the few crags you have?

You can say all you want about the fear of Ken being a generalization, I am sure the more trad committee will chime right in with you. the truth is, it's the truth. I have lived and climbed in ct, ma, and nh over a span of 20 yearss and there was nary a crag I hung out at that didn't escape that pricks hammer. All in all bolt wars are stupid. This is not a bolt war, 2 bolts on a route horizontally configured about 1.5 feet apart is not gonna make you less trad. It will however make you safer, you wont kill anymore of the trees you currently use for anchors, it'll make your SR 100' of static cord lighter, no one will leave their static cord fixed on routes (if I were a landowner and I saw this I would be pissed).

You all just need to take some bumps and bruises over there. I think once you all lose a crag to fear or stubborn tradition (whatever you want to call it it is all the same color to me) then maybe tones will change.

To set it straight dude, no presumption, just experience.

Would you smash an anchor?

Brian wrote:Daniel, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. I'm all for putting bolted top-rope anchors where needed to protect trees. Ragged Mountain comes to mind. Almost everyone agrees Ken is a jerk and does not represent most trad climbers. But I do not want all eastern crags to become Rumney's either. Would I smash a bolt? You betcha. If someone put a bolt on a long established trad line than me and a bunch of others I know would remove it. That is exactly what happened on Thin Air at Catheral Ledge a year or so ago that sparked a bolting controversy in North Conway. The east being more trad than the west has more to do with tradition (sic) than just Ken. Places like the Daks and NH have remained trad due to local ethics rather than Ken who has had little influence in those places. Brian

Well, of course. Bolting an established trad line, or chopping bolts on an established sport line (even if it is a perfect hand crack, yes, I have seen these) is bad form. Anchors should be the only exception to the rule. I read about the thin air shitstorm, pretty lame stuff.

the premise of the thread is anchors only BTW

it has nothing to do with bolting existing routes(which has been mentioned a few times), besides, maybe ken will come around again after he has another epiphany that tells him to grid bolt his old routes... wouldnt that be hilarious.

ken was a heck of a climber in his day thats for sure. ballsy as hell from the routes I've seen.

Bolted anchors would be nice at most of our crags, but let's face it, it is CT, we only went above 55mph on the highway a couple of years ago, give it time...
Mobes, I should have tagged along to the Gunks with you today, weather held out- I did get to that place we were at last week with my solo tr set up. I anchored to an attached mini fridge size block for my anchor, I guess that can come off the list of routes to bolt.

Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well!

Jim

jimo wrote:Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well! Jim

Sorry Jim, I spend all day on these damn forums. I wish I could climb but the dude that told me he'd have my belay ain't got shit but a bum back and 4 kids hanging off of it. How's the kid doin? Big enough to belay you? send him out here.

Yah Dan he's big enough to belay me but I've got competition with his girl. Can't say I blame him though, if I was 17 and had a girl who's 19 I'd be all over that too... I was trying to get him to go to school to UC Boulder but he wants to stay local, the kid is nuts.
What are you doing out there? I'm guessing you found a cool job by now, that is if a job can be considered cool...? Unless you can get deals on gear, that's cool!
I'd like to get out there this coming spring to experience some bolted anchors and RAD climbing- Eldo is calling me...

jimo wrote:Yah Dan he's big enough to belay me but I've got competition with his girl. Can't say I blame him though, if I was 17 and had a girl who's 19 I'd be all over that too... I was trying to get him to go to school to UC Boulder but he wants to stay local, the kid is nuts. What are you doing out there? I'm guessing you found a cool job by now, that is if a job can be considered cool...? Unless you can get deals on gear, that's cool! I'd like to get out there this coming spring to experience some bolted anchors and RAD climbing- Eldo is calling me...

Same scene w/ my little bro he got accepted to CU Boulder and chose UConn. Man if my arm was a couple thousand miles long I'd smack the shite outta him. I gave up pro deals and gear whoring for IT so that's the scene. It's no worries gearwise out here though, so many squids buy stuff, get scared, and I dirtbag it.

C'mon out dude, I've got your belay (unless you get a 19 year old girl). Dave's got an apt he doesn't stay in unless he really screws up. I aptly dubbed it The Dog House.

I'll be in town for christmas if you wanna hit up that new gym in NH.

sounds like the boys are thinking from below the waist. maybe sausagefests arent their thing . yet.

or maybe they want to stay "trad".

mobley wrote:sounds like the boys are thinking from below the waist. maybe sausagefests arent their thing . yet. or maybe they want to stay "trad".

I hope not. In case you haven't noticed the sport of choice in ct tends to be competitive alcoholism. Hence the gear shop I used to work @ trying to become the next Gap.

Not to kick a dead horse, I just saw some of the Devil's handy work in a spot that was apparently being developed as a sport area, in CT! No classics exist here, and from what history I know this area is a newish find (circa 1990's). There looks to be several good sport lines there, but protection is not to be found. I saw several chopped bolts and a few smashed bolts. The bastard! It is still hard for me to comprehend how someone does this sort of crap but even more, why and how his intimidation and vandalism has been allowed to perpetuate.

jimo wrote:Bolted anchors would be nice at most of our crags, but let's face it, it is CT, we only went above 55mph on the highway a couple of years ago, give it time... Mobes, I should have tagged along to the Gunks with you today, weather held out- I did get to that place we were at last week with my solo tr set up. I anchored to an attached mini fridge size block for my anchor, I guess that can come off the list of routes to bolt. Precious and Dan, you guys bailed on CT for ColoRADo, your opinion is no longer valid here:) Hope all is well! Jim

My ears are ringing... Not sure why my opinion is invalid though! I will still climb in the east when I come back to visit. In fact, ill be there over xmas if you want to give me beta on Maria Direct (and a spot) from the bottom of the cliff. I also decided to keep up my membership with RMF.

cheers.
-chris

I recently moved back to CT after learning to climb out west. The bolting ethics are off. Anchors should be bolted to preserve trees. There are reasons for bolts on "trad" lines...it does not make them "sport" climbs. I'm not talking about retro bolting lines that have been led, but the ethic of "no bolts" is absurd.

No bolted anchors does not increase "adventure", it's a pain in the ass that kills trees. If there is an easily built anchor, than fine, but static ropes suck (I just had to buy my first one).

There are plenty of lines I have led, but there are plenty I would like to lead without risking decking. To me, the current ethic strips away much joy from climbing. I have never top roped so much. It makes for some lame climbing.

The result of this ethic is silly. Clubs with crazy webs of static lines leading to a cliff full of top ropes. Talk about creating an "outdoor gym".

I have so much more I'd love to rant on this subject, but I must hold back for now.

• Thread resurrection to avoid duplication:)*

As we suffer through the winter longing for the sunshine to warm the rocks, I wonder what can be done to start the conversation about fixed anchors in CT. I use the term fixed anchors because the "B" word just scares some folks. Would it not make sense to address this issue instead of slogging along just wishing there were anchors? Here's the deal. We who climb here have gotten used to dragging along additional ropes and what not for our anchors. Recent additions to our climbing family have raised questions about this practice. There are huge impacts from having climbers generation after generation make their way to the top of the crag, usually through a loose scree field, tie ropes or webbing around a tree and hang the anchors over the edge to tr their selected climb(s). The environmental impact is astounding. I started climbing in CT around 1993 and have seen the trees that were used as anchors die off year after year. We are not blessed with an abundance of top soil, thanks to the pesky glaciers that scraped it all away, The foot traffic alone at the top of the crags is enough to kill off the trees, much less wrapping a rope or webbing around it, disturbing the tree bark and inviting bugs and organic stuff to fester there.
I have heard many times that you should just build gear anchors on the top of the cliffs so fixed anchors are not necessary, but I disagree. Not all of the top-outs are conducive to this and by default we tie into the 2 1/2" Mountain Laurel that had survived there. But these survivors are dying off, rapidly.
I am curious what the other climbers who frequent the CT traprock think of this. I am not so much interested in the egocentric oldschooler who just says suck it up, that is not a solution to this nightmare we are creating. Just think of the impact we can prevent by rapping off a chain anchor after leading a classic at Ragged. If just a third of us do that, we'll reduce the foot traffic at the top by 33%, in coupon terms, that's a great savings.
That is just the environmental angle of this idea, safety is also a concern. It's obvious that a dying tree is not a safe anchor, but sometimes they are used anyway. Consider the Matabesset / Metacomet trail that runs over almost all of the ridgelines we climb at. Someone hiking along may not have a clue that they are in a climbing area, trip over our miles of static rope anchors and take the express train to the base, ouch! OK a little exaggerated, but possible. More plausible is our presence pissing off the wrong weekend hiker, or a kid with a pocket knife finding a bunch of cool rope and biners to take home as a souvenir. All bad scenarios for the climbing community.
OK I'm done for now- please share your thoughts, I know I'm not alone on this-
Jim

jimo wrote:* Thread resurrection to avoid duplication:)* As we suffer through the winter longing for the sunshine to warm the rocks, I wonder what can be done to start the conversation about fixed anchors in CT. I use the term fixed anchors because the "B" word just scares some folks. Would it not make sense to address this issue instead of slogging along just wishing there were anchors? Here's the deal. We who climb here have gotten used to dragging along additional ropes and what not for our anchors. Recent additions to our climbing family have raised questions about this practice. There are huge impacts from having climbers generation after generation make their way to the top of the crag, usually through a loose scree field, tie ropes or webbing around a tree and hang the anchors over the edge to tr their selected climb(s). The environmental impact is astounding. I started climbing in CT around 1993 and have seen the trees that were used as anchors die off year after year. We are not blessed with an abundance of top soil, thanks to the pesky glaciers that scraped it all away, The foot traffic alone at the top of the crags is enough to kill off the trees, much less wrapping a rope or webbing around it, disturbing the tree bark and inviting bugs and organic stuff to fester there. I have heard many times that you should just build gear anchors on the top of the cliffs so fixed anchors are not necessary, but I disagree. Not all of the top-outs are conducive to this and by default we tie into the 2 1/2" Mountain Laurel that had survived there. But these survivors are dying off, rapidly. I am curious what the other climbers who frequent the CT traprock think of this. I am not so much interested in the egocentric oldschooler who just says suck it up, that is not a solution to this nightmare we are creating. Just think of the impact we can prevent by rapping off a chain anchor after leading a classic at Ragged. If just a third of us do that, we'll reduce the foot traffic at the top by 33%, in coupon terms, that's a great savings. That is just the environmental angle of this idea, safety is also a concern. It's obvious that a dying tree is not a safe anchor, but sometimes they are used anyway. Consider the Matabesset / Metacomet trail that runs over almost all of the ridgelines we climb at. Someone hiking along may not have a clue that they are in a climbing area, trip over our miles of static rope anchors and take the express train to the base, ouch! OK a little exaggerated, but possible. More plausible is our presence pissing off the wrong weekend hiker, or a kid with a pocket knife finding a bunch of cool rope and biners to take home as a souvenir. All bad scenarios for the climbing community. OK I'm done for now- please share your thoughts, I know I'm not alone on this- Jim

This is a great post and should open up an interesting discussion, I hope.

Nothing shuts down climbing access to an area more than:

1.) Environmental impact. Killing trees in the name of anti-bolted anchor ideology gets land manager attention faster than anything.

2.) Inability of the locals climbers to solve their own problems. (Meaning bolting issues) Bottom line, land managers usually don't care about bolted anchors or not, but when climbers create conflict among themselves cliffs get closed. (period) It creates more work for land managers.

The Northeastern scene should realize it is in their own best interest to get past this. Ideologues like Ken Nichols are the extremists who take all air out of the room when dealing with land managers, and Grid-bolters are the the other side of the same coin.

Moderate pragmatic climbers who care about the environmental impact they have should be driving organization and LOCAL bolting policy. Not extremists.

I have been following this thread for a while (nice job Mobley). It seems most people use common sense and see no problem with fixed anchors, it is the right wingers that have issues and make the most noise or do the most extreme things to get their way.

I feel we should have them at tops of climbs where trees are being used on a regular basis..ie gunks, we are killing those trees and eventually will put the bolts in, when it is to late.

It also speeds things up in high traffic crags....

Although it's been a little while since I've climbed in CT regularly, I did grow up and learn to climb there. So I think that I might have something to add.

The first is this: I totally agree that at least some routes at the ragged mountain area need fixed anchors. It would be great for leaders to be able to slam a couple 'draws on some cold shuts, clip in, and lower right down. A lot of the more popular routes don't have adequate gear anchors on top, so people have no choice but to use the trees (that are receding with every year). Some routes do (ex: Broadway; probably the most climbed route in the state). There is plenty of gear that can go in at the top of that route to facilitate TRing.

The other major concern is this: Unless something has changed in the past 5 years or so, it appears as though the majority of the climbers in CT are top-ropers. It is not uncommon to see a private party of people approach Main Cliff at Ragged and setup shop with two or three TRs all day. And then there are the camps, guide services, and hikers. There are simply too many people trying to take advantage of too little rock.

Now that Nichols has been arrested and officially instructed not to trespass on RMF property, are there any plans to try to install fixed anchors currently?

Kenneth Noisewater wrote:2.) Inability of the locals climbers to solve their own problems. (Meaning bolting issues) Bottom line, land managers usually don't care about bolted anchors or not, but when climbers create conflict among themselves cliffs get closed. (period) It creates more work for land managers.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), they are one in the same in many climbing areas of CT.

--Marc

http://www.climbtech.com/web/products_climbing.aspx
would the hole fill in with dirt?