Eldorado – Restoring Adventure To First Ascents

Although an interesting and abstractly relevant discussion, once again it seems to be only about 'opinions' as there are not many 'actions' to choose from. Only CharilieB's choice #2. As Steve says repeatedly in this and other discussions, if one feels strongly enough about this topic, get involved in the existing FHRC/ACE process. If you don't like that process or think it is inappropriate, what are your options? don't participate or try to change the system from within. That being said, and knowing personally the ins and out of the existing bolt review process, its NOT perfect. In fact its a royal pain, but its as good as we've got and I feel its a lot better than some of the other alternatives (most less regulation alternatives would stink in my opinion, for eldo).

Steve and Ken are right, Eldo is a very limited resource, and I completely agree with Steve: At this point in history there is no place for ground up bolting in Eldo. Find appealing good quality lines and go through the FHRC bolting process, or if bold, visionary adventure climbing is what you desire, there is still HEAPS of that to be had in Eldo, just leave the bolts behind.

Steve Levin wrote:I don't think the Park insists on unrealistic "standards of safety and perfection"; I think they simply want to avoid the proliferation of bolting.

Of course, and I understand their concern. However, I honestly believe that ground-up ascent permits could be allocated in such a way as to prevent over-bolting. The other pertinent requirements would still apply. There would be no bolting within ten feet of established lines, no bolting in spots that take secure gear, etc..

Wayne Crill wrote:if bold, visionary adventure climbing is what you desire, there is still HEAPS of that to be had in Eldo, just leave the bolts behind.

If you mean, by the term heaps, that there are plenty of already established lines to be had, my response would be that it all depends on the individual climber and his or her Eldo ticked list. If. however, you are referring to heaps of bold, unestablished lines to be had, then I would argue that leaving the bolts at home is just your personal preference, and shouldn’t necessarily apply to the permit process.

You can ground-up establish a route, hand-drilling bolts on lead, and still apply the bulk of existing, regulated criteria in the process. The difference would be that the adventure of the ground-up ascent would be factored back into the equation, while enabling otherwise deadly cruxes to be adequately protected. This kills two birds with one stone in that you reduce liability from unnecessary headpointing deaths while preserving the adventure aspect. This solution also reaches a wider audience.

Steve Levin wrote:The early freeclimbing pioneers assaulted the old aid routes onsight using in-situ gear and a rack of nuts, or they climbed unknown terrain with nuts only. That period may have been the culmination of Eldorado "traditional" freeclimbing. I don't think any of the freeclimbing pioneers (Erickson, Briggs, Reveley etc.) carried a hammer and hand drill- their modus was to follow the "clean climbing revolution"

They didn’t have to place bolts or pins because that had already been done for them, on the original aid ascents of many of those later freed routes. This is not the case with the issue in question, in that we are discussing lines that have not yet been established on any level.

At any rate, I agree that it is an interesting discussion, and I think that the matter warrants further investigation. Maybe I'll draft a proposal for FHRC. Thanks for listening.

Cheers,

Ken

Personally, while I've always admired the outcome of routes that were done ground up, when bolting is involved I find the "ground up argument" to be rather self-serving. For example, some of the bolted routes in Tuolomne Meadows are the result of a bold leader who made the choice to skip placing a bolt, sometimes when a natural "stance" was available. The leader repeating said route, and playing by the rules does not get the *choice*. The experience of the first ascent leader trumps the experience of anyone else doing the route after the first ascent. Maybe that's okay, but the result is that there are many bolted routes there that seldom get climbed. (Maybe that's okay, too.)

While some would disagree, I submit that in Eldo. there is not enough rock for the experience of the first ascent to unreasonably trump the experience of those wishing to repeat a route. On the other hand, those of us who dearly love the Eldo. experience would rather pull our fingernails out than see the proliferation of bolts common to places like Boulder Canyon. I think the process of going through the FHRC while not perfect, strikes a balance between the two opposing viewpoints. I do not see the need for a "ground up first ascent clause" to serve the needs of a few, at the possible expense of many.

Brad White wrote:Personally, while I've always admired the outcome of routes that were done ground up, when bolting is involved I find the "ground up argument" to be rather self-serving. For example, some of the bolted routes in Tuolomne Meadows are the result of a bold leader who made the choice to skip placing a bolt, sometimes when a natural "stance" was available. The leader repeating said route, and playing by the rules does not get the *choice*. The experience of the first ascent leader trumps the experience of anyone else doing the route after the first ascent.

If the trump factor bothers you, then how do you feel when a permit is granted to equip a line with specific placement of bolts, installed from a toprope, with a power drill? The experience is still trumped for all subsequent climbers, but in the latter scenario, the adventure factor has also been eliminated for everyone. When a route gets equipped on onsight, on lead, the adventure factor is felt not only by the first ascent party, but also by the subsequent parties who want to achieve the goal of climbing it in the same bold style.

You are correct that following parties might feel trumped by virtue of possibly wanting to forgo a bolt here or there, but that issue is rendered moot when you consider the current Eldo regulations.

Brad White wrote:I think the process of going through the FHRC while not perfect, strikes a balance between the two opposing viewpoints. I do not see the need for a "ground up first ascent clause" to serve the needs of a few, at the possible expense of many.

I am not suggesting that we eliminate the FHRC process – only that we find a way to equitably amend it in order to restore a sense of adventure to Eldo route development in a way that does not necessitate putting up death routes. As it stands, our choices are death routes or spiritless sport routes. That seems more self-serving than my proposal.

Ken Cangi wrote: ... As it stands, our choices are death routes or spiritless sport routes. That seems more self-serving than my proposal.

This is kinda the way I feel about it also. The excitement of exploring new climbing lines simply doesn't exist unless a person is capable of onsight soloing the entire wall when natural features don't allow for adequate protection.

Ken, I still get almost everything I want out of climbing, including a sense of adventure, when I climb in Eldo. I sorta feel bad for those who don't. I guess Eldo. hasn't really been a prime venue for those who want to do first ascents for what, two, maybe three decades?

Cheers!

Brad White wrote:Ken, I still get almost everything I want out of climbing, including a sense of adventure, when I climb in Eldo. I sorta feel bad for those who don't. I guess Eldo. hasn't really been a prime venue for those who want to do first ascents for what, two, maybe three decades? Cheers!

Brad,

I'm glad that you enjoy the Eldo experience, as do I, but what does any of this have to do with the issue of permits for ground-up bolting?

Ken Cangi wrote:I am not suggesting that we eliminate the FHRC process – only that we find a way to equitably amend it in order to restore a sense of adventure to Eldo route development in a way that does not necessitate putting up death routes. As it stands, our choices are death routes or spiritless sport routes. That seems more self-serving than my proposal.

Ken,

Virtually all routes established in Eldorado in recent years are neither death routes nor spiritless sport routes.

New pure trad routes established in Eldorado recently are not death routes. Take a look at Steve Levin's new Eldo routes. Some have good pro, some are PG or R rated, but none can be called a "death route".

Also, most new routes established under the current FHRC guidelines are not sport routes. Routes are bolted to safely protect cruxes; no bolts are installed where gear is available. The resulting routes are nearly always mixed (bolts and gear). Take a look at the route applications from last year -- all of them are mixed; not one is a pure sport route.

And most of the resulting routes can hardly be called "spiritless". Have you followed the discussion on Wishbone? This route, established under the current FHRC guidelines, is certainly not "spiritless". I'm sure it provides plenty of excitement for climbers who lead it.

I see your view on wanting to restore adventure to first ascents in Eldorado, but practically speaking, I don't see how this can be accommodated in the FHRC guidelines and the permit process. How are the climbing community and the FHRC going to have enough information to vote yea or nay on an application for a ground-up, on-sight first ascent which will be bolted? Good luck coming up with modifications to the FHRC guidelines to allow this, but I think you have a difficult job.

You might want to talk with Chris Archer, a long-time ACE board member, to sound out his views on the subject. You have to convince him, and the other ACE board members, of the worthiness of your proposal, since they are the ones who write and revise the FHRC guidelines, not the FHRC itself.

Ken Cangi wrote: . . . As it stands, our choices are death routes or spiritless sport routes. That seems more self-serving than my proposal.

Wow, sucks to be you I guess . . . sorry but that just seems so negative. That really seems like an artificial dichotomy you present, especially since spirit, adventure and excitement are all relative and extremely personal experiences. I can give two quick examples that certainly don't prove you wrong, since that was simply an opinion and I can respect that, but these examples I feel are appropriate exceptions that prove the rule . . .

1) The above formentioned wishbone 11b/c in the alcove area is a great exception previously mentioned for just this reason. A beautiful line, great position, fun, challenging climbing. Kevin Gallagher applied through FHRC to place bolts on this route to supplement the natural gear available. I don't think anyone who has climbed this route would call it a "spiritless sport climb" it still retains excitement and adventure for most ascentionists. Hell even hardman msamet thought it exciting and adventurous to paraphrase. point: no reason to be forced into "spiritless sportclimbs" following the FHRC rules and guidelines at all.

2) outside the FHRC bolting I recently established Tango, .11b/c in the cirque of the cracks region of west ridge. I and the others who have been on it (I don't think it has had a second ascent yet? I encourage people to check it out) consider it quite good quality climbing, nice position and rock, good gear, certainly no death route. For me as a first ascentionist, establishing it ground up on sight was adventurous and exciting and filled me with soaring spirit. point: good quality "moderate" route established ground up with natural gear Not a death route.

So, only two examples but there are other recently established bolted lines that are nothing like the "spiritless sport climbs" found in other bolder area canyons, and also recently established natural clean gear routes of high quality that are not death routes.

Nevertheless Ken, you're of course entitled to your opinion I really encourage you to get involved with FHRC and try to "equitably amend" the process so you can find some adventure in eldo. Others of us make our own adventures where we find them.

paz y amor

edit to add: sorry to be redundant to Ron's message directly above which was posted during my slow typing I was refering to the mentions of wishbone much earlier in this discussion.

I've done ~50 FA's in Eldo in the last 10 years. Almost none of them is a death route, none of them has a single point of fixed pro, and some of them are even good.
It occurs to me that one could submit a bolt permit request for a flash FA and specify the feature intended and simply that bolts will be placed as felt appropriate and that they will be sparing and not near gear placements, etc...
And see if it gets approved. If it were really a new line, I'd vote for it.

Wayne,

It really doesn’t suck to be me, and I have never found it impossible to find adventure under the current restrictions, but that isn’t the point of my premise. My “spiritless” comment was meant in the context of the style in which routes are currently bolted. In other words, spiritless top-down, rehearsed and then rap-bolted vs. onsight, ground-up bolted.

Regarding your first exception, I can’t really speak for or against the quality of Wishbone, because I haven’t done the route. I understand that there is a runout on the upper section of the route, because I’ve read the MP comments about it. I guess the question of spiritless – by my definition - would only apply if I found out that Wishbone were established on a toprope and then rap bolted, purposely creating the runout. I would find that not only spiritless, but also contrived. Where is the adventure in a fabricated runout for subsequent climbers that was created by a first ascent party who had the opportunity to rehearse the moves in advance? That, to me, is an artificial adventure.

As for your second exception, it is a moot point, because my entire adventure argument is based on the context of placing bolts on otherwise unprotectable, crux terrain. You have already admitted that your route takes good gear, so the example doesn’t apply.

Wayne Crill wrote:Nevertheless Ken, you're of course entitled to your opinion I really encourage you to get involved with FHRC and try to "equitably amend" the process so you can find some adventure in eldo. Others of us make our own adventures where we find them.

The above comment sounds like pure sarcasm to me, but I’ll respond to it, anyway, by repeating that I have no problem finding adventure in Eldo. It is actually pretty easy these days, considering my current lack of fitness. But again, that really isn’t the point of the argument.

Tony Bubb wrote:I've done ~50 FA's in Eldo in the last 10 years. Almost none of them is a death route, none of them has a single point of fixed pro, and some of them are even good. It occurs to me that one could submit a bolt permit request for a flash FA and specify the feature intended and simply that bolts will be placed as felt appropriate and that they will be sparing and not near gear placements, etc... And see if it gets approved. If it were really a new line, I'd vote for it.

Solid, man, on the ascents!

I guess the way I see it, Eldo just won't go into the next generation where lines are going in as multi-day ground up projects at an elite grade.

I mean look at what was just accomplished in the Evans Wilderness (Back to Earth) this past year, totally incredible mixed-pro line at that next level. Granted, if anyone saw this happening in Eldo, you'd either say it was incredible and maybe even be all for it -- or be totally opposed because fixed pro is going in without oversight review of every single placement; but how can he get the FA without working the fixed pro as he progressed? I mean you can't just top-rope something like this.