End the Bolt Wars for Good

It seems to me that like most poeple, climber's virtues are also our vices.
Meaning:
Because we are individualists, adventurous, and strong willed (ie good) we are also stubborn, hard to manage, and a divided community.

As long as we fight among ourselves we will never have an effective unified voice with land managers. We must solve our own problems first.

Therefore I would like to suggest an end to the bolt wars forever, by starting a dialogue on a national bolting policy.

Discuss-
A national bolting policy is a local solution. The formation of local climbing organizations and associated fixed hardware reveiw boards is the only national solution to determining effective solutions.

Please disagee, play the devil's advocate, whatever...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SmgLtg1Izw

I for one welcome our new route development overlords!

Point taken Ron. Good job pointing out why this is actually very important/difficult.

I repeat for Brian (who I know is joking):
A national bolting policy is a LOCAL solution. The formation of LOCAL climbing organizations and associated fixed hardware reveiw boards is the only national solution to determining effective solutions.

LOCAL= you Brian.
Keep up the good work-smart guy.

That was cute, Ron!

Here's my 2 hundred thousand dollars worth of
"End Of The Bolt Wars For Good?" Trailer/clip

charlieB wrote:Therefore I would like to suggest an end to the bolt wars forever, by starting a dialogue on a national bolting policy. Discuss- A national bolting policy is a local solution. The formation of local climbing organizations and associated fixed hardware reveiw boards is the only national solution to determining effective solutions. Please disagee, play the devil's advocate, whatever...

A great idea, but I don't honestly think it's anywhere near possible at this point. We can't even get people in one region to agree on bolting ethics. Take a look at what's still going on in New England. I don't live there anymore, but I happen to know there are still being pro/anti-bolt battles being waged in CT and NH to this day.

I think your goal is a very admirable one, but I think bolting ethics are going to have to stay at the local level for a long time.

It would also be cool to have a 'fixed hardware [review] board' for every area, but climbers are simply too..

charlieB wrote:stubborn, hard to manage, and a divided

Keep working for it though Charlie, I love your line of thought..

--Marc

I need my bolt gun!

Damn you, Ranger Walker!!

Thank you Marc.
I believe my intent was to say it should always be a local decision, and creating locally governed democatic groups to create local policy is the way to go.
When communities act/vote together; the divisive outliers on either side of an issue lose out.
The result is a sensible publically supported policy.

Sort of "My Karma ran over your Dogma" approach.

Mark, you can find "Dogma" & "Outlier" in the dictionary.
You might look up "Ideologue" as well.

Mar"K" not Mar"C", sorry for the mix-up. I should have included last names.
MarK Nelson with his "bolt gun" zinger comment.

Now back to the "devil's advocate"...

MarC-thank you. I mean that

Right-O

Understood. My bad, I should have noticed..

--MarC :)

This just in... Isreal and Palestine sign peace accords! elsewhere: bolt wars still rage on.

Are you the old guys up in the peanut gallery on the Muppet Show?
What was that guys name? Waldorf.

youtube.com/watch?v=7h15xIo…

The federalists amoung the founding forefathers believed that creating a strong central government was a necessity to avoiding 'factionism' whereas relatively small populations or in social or geographical isolation (individual communities or states) might have an overwhelming effect on politics and drive a local 'majority' into a tyrant situation and violate the rights and freedoms of others.

The anti-federalists believed that it would just make it happen on a larger scale.

Part of the compormise was to limit the power of the government with the 9th and 10th ammendments in the Bill of rights. (Which never really worked, by 1808 Madison said the fed had grown/gone too far) But naturally, these got made less effective with each judiciary after the Marbury Vs Madison decision.

Points being-
1) The only thing worse than local factions and local ethics wars might be a national one. "One-Size-Fits-All" (AKA" one size fits nobody) is usually worse than an inconsistent fit, where you can find what suits you best.
2) Whatever you set out to create, if it has any power at all, will within a short time become the master not the servent and grow beyond your intent. No matter the limits you think you may have placed upon it.

The one who wins the war is the one that has the most bolts.

"Perhaps you think the Creator sent you here to dispose of us as you see fit. If I thought you were sent by the Creator, I might be induced to think you had a right to dispose of me.
Do not misunderstand me, but understand fully with reference to my affection for the land. I never said the land was mine to do with as I choose. The one who has a right to dispose of it is the one who has created it. I claim a right to live on my land and accord you the privilege to return to yours."

-Chief Joseph (of the Nez Perce) 1876

Thank you for the history lesson Tony.
We agree then that, local is better than national. State's Rights vs. Federalist Dogma.
Yet, you contend that since neither system is perfect then neither should be applied, or worth partaking in? Am I correct in that understanding of your argument?

I contend that for the rock climbing community to be successful at all when dealing with a non-climbing land manager; an imperfect system will always be more successful than no system. We just need to agree on that, and work out the details later.

Or you could quote Cheif Joseph to the National Park System when dealing with an Anchor Replacement Initiative and see where that gets you.

The suggested theme seems brings to mind the AAC's 'Great Debate' of 1986 which brought together well known climbers to debate the merits of rap bolting. Apparently, nothing was accomplished :)

ARI or bolt wars? Pick a topic & I'll answer. It seems however, to have changed since my posts.

The feds already heard Chief Joeseph. His quote was directed towards their generals. As you may know, they promised him that he could live in Idaho, then exiled him to Washington anyway, presumably claiming that some other indians had sold them the Nez Peirce land.

My implication in all of this was that you are not going to end bolt wars.

My suggestion is that if you want anything close to agreement, you better start small.

charlieB wrote:Are you the old guys up in the peanut gallery on the Muppet Show? What was that guys name? Waldorf. youtube.com/watch?v=7h15xIo…

statler and waldorf.

this discussion will never end...but it certainly is entertaining