Bolting "ethics"

Marc Horan wrote: ... 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?

Nothing has changed, most climbs are done on TR. It would be nice to change that mindset. TRing is how most around here learn to climb and stick with that method for whatever reason. Personally, I get sketched out by trad leading in CT; I like to know there is a solid anchor awaiting me when I pull over the sandy, rabbly top of a climb. Most of the rock at the top of the cliffs are fractured crap that would only take a #1 or 2 wire, not very reassuring.
Yes there are too many people and too little rock, most of what we climb on is "water company" property and some of the areas have been shut down tight from climbing, again not real sure of the history of this but with closures, the climbable space is getting tight. As far as I can tell though, there is no discussion about fixed anchors anywhere, the RMF (www.Raggedmtn.org) who are our apparent land advocates, have not published anything concerning this issue. It almost seems that people are afraid to talk about the issue, pretty bazaar. Recently, I have made an inquiry to the RMF about what issues are being worked on, I have not received a reply yet... that is another topic. I am sure there are many layers of bureaucracy to plow through just to get such a proposal on the table, since there are a myriad of land owners that need to be involved.
What I'd like to know is where does a group of advocates start? My idea is to get a feel for the general attitude from the local climbers, something I am trying to do through a local climber's forum, and this avenue, that reaches far more people than the other one does. Once I have a clear idea of what direction to go, approach an organization such as the RMF and ask them to get involved. Would the Access Fund be appropriate to contact? That may be a subsequent step, if the RMF will not get involved. Again, not sure of their stance on this and other related issues.
It would be interesting to hear of other climbing groups that have dealt with this issue, I don't think CT is the only state with similar issues.

Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes.
If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish.

Eastvillage wrote:Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes. If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish.

IMHO that is an elitist attitude. Furthermore, anchors do have reasonable uses other than encouraging TR camping.

At the Gunks we have a problem that is a different symptom of the same problem. Thanks to the height of the cliff, the Gunks are more of a lead oriented crag. People do TR popular climbs, but the impact at the top of the cliff is limited unless people bring 400 foot ropes!

Unfortunately, many uber-popular AND moderate routes have important belay anchors that are just a web of slings wrapped around a tree. The stress of hundreds of uses on these trees stresses and sometimes kills these otherwise healthy trees. These trees are growing in thin soil on the side of a cliff. They will be better off if I don't decide to hang from them but these trees are often used because the pro is limited.

For example, RMC is a popular 5.5 - 5.6 (Gunks Rating). This climb has a popular belay / rappel anchor on it that is nothing more than a single small evergreen sticking out of a weakness in the rock. Personally, I skip this anchor but many climbers (especially beginners) do not. To date, the tree appears to be healthy but it would be awful if this tree dies because of the stress WE put on it rappelling down. It is very feasible to put in a pair of bolt anchors to the right of this tree.

Strategically placed anchors would make the climb no less of a lead climb but it would help future generations of climbers enjoy the same cliffs that I enjoy today and would make for a safer anchor on a climb that easily sees 10-15 ascents every weekend.

Eastvillage wrote:Rampant top roping is a symptom of gym climbers going outdoors and not demanding anything of themselves more than simple laps up and down routes. If more people would lead climbs in CT, the desire for bolts at the top of routes would diminish.

That's just silly when you actually think about it. Similar to "If we forced more new drivers license holders to ride motorcycles instead, and everyone drove a motorcycle, there would be less traffic."
It's just silly. Don't ask other people's habits/preferences to change to support your ideology. Change your ideology to fit to reality. Which we all know has a liberal bias.

JIMO- The Access Fund does deal with local groups. They work with many like Action Committee for Eldorado (www.aceedlo.org) which has a Fix Hardware Review Council to deal with issues exactly like this;
constructive environmentally responsible bolting policies.

That's pretty funny, to assume I have some sort of liberal ideology.
But, I stick by my point,
CT has loads of climbs that can be safely lead and you don't need a bunch of new bolts to do it.
However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed.
These crags are for the most part unregulated in a climbing sense, the new bolts might last quite a while.
Also, many lines would be better protected with a few pins, why not place those, too?

Eastvillage wrote:However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed.

While I am an advocate of placing anchors at the top/belays of busy climbs (including trad climbs) I don't think anyone should just go out and plug them into the wall. CT, NY and other states have a history of conflict over bolting.

There are, unfortunately, people who would see these bolts and chop them for reasons that I won't speculate on here.

I think the more appropriate approach is to make sure they are put in with the support of local climbing groups and the owners of the property so if these bolts are chopped the perpetrator can be held accountable for their behavior rather than degenerating into a bunch of pointless yelling, finger pointing and general nonsense.

Eastvillage wrote:That's pretty funny, to assume I have some sort of liberal ideology. But, I stick by my point, CT has loads of climbs that can be safely lead and you don't need a bunch of new bolts to do it. However, if anyone is really that upset about the lack of convenient bolted anchors, then they should spend some time money and place a few where they think they are needed. These crags are for the most part unregulated in a climbing sense, the new bolts might last quite a while. Also, many lines would be better protected with a few pins, why not place those, too?

The liberal ideology commment was a spoof of Steven Colbert.
youtube.com/results?search_…;search_type=

Nobody is insinuating that these crags get fully bolted.
The issue is bolted anchors where trees are getting killed.
There is room for debate here, you make it sound like it is all or nothing.
That is ideology getting in the way of reality.

this post is like a train wreck...i just keep looking at it even though it is the same information regurgitated.

Maybe we should try pictures....that might make it clearer for some.

The tree at the top of this photo is at the anchor of a 5.7 called Classic. This tree is also the anchor for Jackie.

It's a nice tree. It was there long before me. It would be great if it out-lived me too. A couple of nicely positioned bolt anchors would take the stress off of this tree, let people climb / TR on these CLASSIC gunks climbs more safely, and generally be a nifty thing to do.

Pictures == 1000 words?

Andy,
When was the last time you were at the top of Classic/Jackie? There is a bolted chains there. Has been for years now.
Brian

Andy Choens wrote: The tree at the top of this photo is at the anchor of a 5.7 called Classic. This tree is also the anchor for Jackie. It's a nice tree. It was there long before me. It would be great if it out-lived me too. A couple of nicely positioned bolt anchors would take the stress off of this tree, let people climb / TR on these CLASSIC gunks climbs more safely, and generally be a nifty thing to do. Pictures == 1000 words?

Sorry I didn't get the joke.
I do think it's become a tempest in a teapot.

Eastvillage, thanks for the input and I don't mean any disrespect and this is not directed at you personally but your ideas are the reason why this thread is here. I love the ideas of old school, but hey, my rack is full of cams, I use sticky rubber shoes and a padded harness. You seem to be mistaken about the point of this discussion though, I am speaking of fixed anchors on the top of selected climbs. I'm sure you have used them before at the Gunks, did that diminish your lead experience? I'm guessing that secretly you were glad to have a bomber, straight forward anchor to belay your second.

Andy Choens wrote: While I am an advocate of placing anchors at the top/belays of busy climbs (including trad climbs) I don't think anyone should just go out and plug them into the wall. CT, NY and other states have a history of conflict over bolting. There are, unfortunately, people who would see these bolts and chop them for reasons that I won't speculate on here. I think the more appropriate approach is to make sure they are put in with the support of local climbing groups and the owners of the property so if these bolts are chopped the perpetrator can be held accountable for their behavior rather than degenerating into a bunch of pointless yelling, finger pointing and general nonsense.

I couldn't agree more Andy, it would be ideal to have all parties involved agree on a managed anchor initiave around here. The WMCC proved that it is illeagle to chop / destroy anchors- the same penalties should be upheld in this state.
I'd like to see the RMF take hold of this issue, I am not sure how to present the issue to them. Any ideas?

saw the devil yesterday, he's one hell of a climber- soloed up the corner I sweated up on lead- bastard... I'm gonna do some grid bolting to piss him off (kiddin')

jimo wrote:saw the devil yesterday, he's one hell of a climber- soloed up the corner I sweated up on lead- bastard... I'm gonna do some grid bolting to piss him off (kiddin')

I've been climbing with him before and seen him up and down-climb Dol Guldur placing gear and removing it as he went. I think there are something like 3 5.11 cruxes on it; quite an impressive feat.

What crag did you see him at, out of curiosity? I believe he's banned from RMF property, no?

--Marc

The RMF property only encompasses Ragged Mtn as far as I know, he's "banned" from there- he didn't park at the normal spot on Shelton, that approach brings you through RMF property. He was walking up The Enforcer 5.11R (on top rope, slung to 3" diameter "trees") at Owl's Lair.
Which brings up the origional topic, these small trees are used as anchors and are not going to last much longer. Why the hell don't we have fixed anchors at these crags? It doesen't take a rocket (tree) scientist to see that the vegitation is dwindling from over use. The solution seems to be just ignore it until some non-climbing entity banns all of us from the crag- think Small Cliff.

Jim

Jim,

Technically, you are trespassing by climbing over there. Some non climbing entity already did ban climbing from that east side of Ragged, the New Britain Water Dept. It's been that way for years. Adding bolts will only aggravate the NBWD, and it'll prove people are climbing there, and they'll get chopped by you know who.

If local climbers would stop crowding the same old spots, and spread out a little to the many other secluded traprock crags, our impact wouldn't be so visible. It just happens that everyone gravitates to TR in the same places. Anchor off of gear if you have to, that will save the trees.

Matt

Matt Shove wrote:Jim, Technically, you are trespassing by climbing over there. Some non climbing entity already did ban climbing from that east side of Ragged, the New Britain Water Dept. It's been that way for years. Adding bolts will only aggravate the NBWD, and it'll prove people are climbing there, and they'll get chopped by you know who. If local climbers would stop crowding the same old spots, and spread out a little to the many other secluded traprock crags, our impact wouldn't be so visible. It just happens that everyone gravitates to TR in the same places. Anchor off of gear if you have to, that will save the trees. Matt

you make it sound like we have options galore this time of year.

Matt, just to clairify, I have no intenetion of bolting ANY Traprock, the issue is really not that easy. I know there are closed areas, I don't know each one specifically though. It is rediculous that there are climbing areas that we "sneak" into, I can not wrap my mind around the access issues we face here. I will admit my ignorance to the history of the access, I surmise the attempts to secure access have not been revisited for some time. What can the local community do to get secure access? That is the first and foremost hurdle, then a management plan to follow. Sounds like a job for the access fund...
BTW Matt, I know that you know that I know, you know?

JimO

mike mullendore wrote:Why don't you guys all get together on Friday April 25, 2008, and plant some trees at the top of Ragged. That way you show the land owners you care and you will feel better about yourself for stopping global warming. If they see climbers doing good she-ite for them then they will be cool. And in 30 or 40 years when said trees that are the argument here are long since dead, then you will have replacements and will have secured access to the greatest trad crag in all the land.

that sounds nice and all but since there is no top soil near the edge of ragged that might be tough. it all eroded away a long time ago.

I'll have to go up there on the next nice weekend day and take some pictures and post them here.