Whale Dome South Face

It is my opinion that we are coming near the end of a golden era in Tucson climbing. I think the Forest Service and BLM are going to establish a policy on fixed anchors. I think it will not be too long before they will try to ban fixed anchors in wilderness. I think they will try to create a �pay to play� permit system in the other areas.

While I believe arguing among ourselves is useful and educational, to the extent we fight among ourselves, we hasten this in occurring.

To the extent we draw attention to ourselves through our own internal squabbles or through ostentatiously bolting roadside crags with unpainted hardware or through internet discussions on the merits and location of nesting birds, we hasten this occurring.

This is more than a theoretical possibility. As some of you are aware, the U.S. Forest Service charged a very experienced, eco-conscious local climber in federal court in Tucson with �abandoning property� and �creating an installation� for a multi-pitch route in which no bolts were visible from the ground. The invisible bolts were �abandoned property� as well as an �installation.� In their mind, absolutely anything left on a climb is violative of their regulations. For me, the position the Forest Service took in that trial was sobering.

The first ascensionist suffered through a bench trial in federal court. He faced criminal sanctions. Through a stroke of good fortune he was acquitted.

In the not too distant future if we are not of one voice I fear that the climbing that I know and love will change significantly. This may be inevitable. Perhaps we are too great in number. Perhaps it is not possible for us to be of one voice.

If and when that day comes it is my opinion that it will not be the old guard among us who will suffer the most. We will have had our day in the sun. I fear the pleasures that we have experienced will be denied the next generation.

This, then is my plea for us to exert moderation in this wonderful activity, in which we are all happily engaged. I hope to meet and climb with all of you for many years to come.

If you view the NF as a business resource (generating $ via the visitors fees), the FS should be sponsoring people that do FAs. More climbs generate more traffic up the mountain = more $ for them. They should be promoting fixed anchors...it's in their financial interest.

PS...Scott, how do you think they'd feel about fixed draws ?

Unfortunately, the FS doesn't understand enough about climbing to know what to do. When I was on South Face there where several brightly colored slings hanging from chickenheads. I hate having to leave slings behind simply because it looks like trash. If you've ever been to Joshua Tree and seen how "beautiful" there no fixed anchor has made the landscape. That park is covered in brightly colored slings that are used for retreats and repels because our "land managers" think that is a better solution than putting in a couple of painted Metolious anchors. I think in moderation and with common sense we could keep our national forests beautiful and open to safe clean climbing. Even big ugly chains look better than a bunch of bright red slings.

While we're at it why don't we just retro bolt Bachar-Yerian so that mere mortals can lead it??

How come with all the clip up routes down the Stronghold, people can't leave old routes alone?
I climbed the South Face years ago and really enjoyed the route. In the first Kerry guide book it wasn't even rated an R or X route. That's just the way the route was and if you wanted to climb it then you sucked it up and did it. Otherwise you climbed something else. I don't buy the whole you can choose to clip or not clip the bolts argument either. Look at Of Mice and Men on the Druid. That classic route has been ruined by dumb bolting. Do we really need to do that to another route?

Hey Jeff, since you have talked to KIP and he gave you the go ahead, GO AHEAD.

Concerning the general discussion of retro bolting existing routes I have this to say. I still have a few Grossman R/X routes to lead on Mt. Lemmon. I love that they exist and hope some day to have the mental control to lead them ground up without rehearsing them. I may never do all of them and that is okay. But to bolt them down to my lowest common denominator would ruin the chance for more accomplished climbers to test their personal mettle. If you don't understand this then climb for another 30 years and you will.

Again I say to you folks that want safe, fairly safe, super safe, dangerous, fairly dangerous or super dangerous routes go put them up. Quit pondering, discussing, compromising, whining, or whatever and go do something. Start creating what you want instead of taking climbs away from those with the courage to take on a level of risk you are not.

As Greg said a varied menu with a lot of choices is better than meat and potatoes every day.

If you do not know how to put up a route, my offer still stands. I would be happy to show you how I do it.

Hey Rick lets leave the tools at home. If Kip says okay it's his choice to make. Or, call him and convince him to rethink his approval.

Why is Jeff so psyched to see the southface outfitted with bolts?? Is it because it will make his life easier as a guide? Just because Eric says "Go Ahead", I hope that sanity will reign and people will think about their real motivations for permanently changing a route, before they actually implement the changes.

Instead of adding bolts to the southface, why don't you replace the ancient bolts on Moby Dick (mostly the belays)?

Eric,

I can barely claw my way up 5.7 on a good day and I'll be dead in thirty years! There is a good chance I won't act on this, hell, I don't even own a Bosch! I chatted with Kip about this over two years ago and still haven't done anything. I have a book on procrastination and can't get around to reading it either.
Nevertheless, I think we opened up a really good discussion and there are many good points to consider here in this thread.
I still think it would be good for new readers to look at the entire thread before posting. What is being considered here is really just a few fixed anchors more than anything else. Nobody wants to bolt the route into submission! Please stop using the term "retro bolt"! That's not what were talking about here.
Caverdude, believe me when I tell you this, the route in it's current form poses very little challenge to me as a guide...lighten up Frances!
Moreover, "single bolt belays" what the hell route are you on?

Thank you all for the feedback,

JF

Eric, your post makes it sound like you're opening up a "young drillers" school. Don't know if that's good or bad.

(mmmm....did my battery charger just beep ?)

Jeff,
If you ever want to add those bolt's? My "Bosch" is available for you to borrow! That is of course if you didn't get any offer's yet?
I don't know what all the fuss is. The FA party gave the go ahead and has admitted to just running up the climb. It doesn't appear that the climb is going to be bolted to oblivion... Besides there are plenty of R/X routes if someone want's to get on one!

Greg,
True, however, my original conversation with Kip Metzger and my intent was to add a few fixed anchors and PERHAPS one bolt to pitch four. I think many of the posters have gotten way off topic and haven't even read my comments on earlier posts. Moreover, with the term "retro bolting" there is often a misconception of adding multiple protection bolts, were talkin about adding a few fixed anchors here, not "easing the runouts". There is really only one runout pitch on the route and I have used words such as, "perhaps, maybe and possibly" in regards to the addition of ONE bolt on pitch four.
Let us all understand this... a precedent has already been set in regards to this matter. The first ascent party doesn't need permission to make changes or improvements to their route, they may also give permission to another person to perform these changes. This happens all the time! All over the country!

There is definitely a shortage of high quality moderate multi-pitch routes in the Stronghold, that alone is what sparked my interest in possibly making these "improvements" to the route. I thought this would be a welcomed addition and climbers would appreciate the effort. I guess I was wrong.
Unless I see more positive input, a consensus and fewer words such as "retro bolting" and "chopping", I want nothing to do with this! I'm washing my hands with it, throwin in the towel. I'm done!

Jeff Fassett

If only somehow you could get direct input from people who go to the stronghold often or have done this route or want to do it. I wish I could offer some input, but I don't really have an opinion, except that if the majority of people who climb the stronghold are ok with it or want it, then it maybe should be. I would really have to see the belay stations for myself to make a call.

How about the majority get off their butts and put up some routes in a style they want, and leave the others alone.

As was said earlier Joseph, if the majority decides, all the routes will have bolts every six feet. And when that is the only menu item I think you too will eat elsewhere.

I also find it interesting that no one from this thread has taken me up on my offer to teach them how to put up new routes.

Jbak, it would be age discrimination to open up a "Young Drillers" school.

Hey Jeff, you are going to run out of towels if you keep bringing stuff up on these sites. But if you must, I have some extras you can have.

Regarding anchors and existing bolts: If they are bolted and the bolts need replacing then anyone can replace them. No need to talk to the FA party. That is a public service.

As far as I knew adding bolts to a route that didn't have them is retro-bolting even if you do it to a climb you did the FA on.

To those of you who suggest that Jeff is doing it to make his life easier as a guide you are wrong. If you knew him even a little you would know this.

Okay Jeff, I now have one less towel for you!

I always mean: "majority" = "reasonable majority".

Having bolts every 6 feet on 600 foot moderate route is unreasonable, I'd be surprised if any climber dissagreed with this(aside from short sections of crux moves on a "sport" route).

This really is just the same thing that has gone on through out the history of climbing(as I have read, I must make clear), and I don't subscribe to the 'doomsday' prophesy. Climbing will survive in all its forms!

The sampling in this thread is so small compared to the actual community.

Leave the route alone. There are plenty of high-quality well bolted multi-pitch routes out there. Why not just do other routes instead if that's what you're looking for?

hey guys, i see there are some newcomers to this thread that don't seem to fully understand what is being discussed here. it's hard to blame them since reading 3 full pages of a discussion can be a real pain in the ass. i believe what is being proposed is a few fixed anchors and a single bolt to ease the sixty-foot runout. i don't think anyone is talking about turning this route into a clip-up.

Eric D wrote:Leave the route alone. There are plenty of high-quality well bolted multi-pitch routes out there. Why not just do other routes instead if that's what you're looking for?

Eric D,

How about providing us with a list of high quality multi-pitch Stronghold routes in the 5.7-5.8 range? Other than the three or four we already know about. You did use the word "plenty"

JF

I'm not following you here Greg and I think your missing the point. Eric said there are plenty of moderate routes in the Stronghold. When I see the word "plenty" I'm reading that as... lot's, many or perhaps numerous. I know of just a few such routes in the Stronghold. Perhaps a list could be provided to those of us who don't have the knowledge of all these routes. I don't think that's out of line or a lot to ask for.
People, READ EVERYTHING BEFORE POSTING! I said in a previous post that I'm done with this thing! Nothing is going to happen here!
Holy cow, this has become more painful than putting my testicles in a vice! Ouch!

JF

Jeff, for what it's worth ($.02?), I think your tone has been gentlemanly and reasonable. I guess now I'll have to go do the route just to see what it's all about. I should have done it last time I was there instead of Moby. In general I don't think you should add anchors to an old trad route. Finding belays is part of the challenge on some old classics. The Kor Route in Sabino Cyn comes to mind. (Unless that's been altered.) But if someone DID add good anchors I certainly wouldn't get worked up.

On the topic of low-risk homogenized climbing, you old traddies will get a kick out of this: overheard at the gym..."you should take a stick-clip to Munchkin, most of the routes are really run-out to the first bolt". I kept waiting for the punch line.........!

John,
Thanks for the input.
I just wanted to say again as I have in some earlier posts... my only real motivation behind considering the additions to the route is the lack, or shortage of good long moderate routes in the Stronghold. I personally have climbed the route many or "plenty" of times and have no problem with the route in it's current form. I simply wanted to make the route more attractive to other climbers.
BTW, love the Kor route! Good desert fun.
So now, let's go all the way back to the first post by Mike Diesen.
Answer...No sorry.
Be well and be safe,

JF

one of us wrote: "...... last I checked the Stronghold was public land. Just because someone found a way up a rock doesn't make them the owner. "

Yes newbee, the first one up makes the name, the grade and unless it creates a lot of controversy its permanant that's life. Go to your limestone carve outs if you want to bring a route down to your level. I climb pretty moderate to insignificant and feel great when I can test my meddle against a bold first ascentionist. Thank the person for puttin the route up. If its too hard, leave gear and bail. Tough life this rock climbing.