Bolting "ethics"

Brian wrote: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

I looked in my guidebook and you're right. The top of classic is bolted. I don't tend to climb on that one, too close to the road / busy.

But, I think my point remains that climbers at the Gunks _do_ use trees to rappel from and we _do_ harm them in the process, even though that harm is unintentional.

jimo wrote: 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?

Although I can't speak for the current RMF, I doubt the situation has changed since I was there. The conservation agreement that the RMF is goverened by would allow bolts at Ragged to mitigate damage to vegetation at the top of the cliff. A lot of us believed that this would be a reasonable way to go but the reality was that any bolts placed at Ragged would be chopped. Especially at the top of the cliff where anyone can get to them. KN has been banned from the property for a long time but the legit bolts on climbs like Knights Gambit have always disappeared soon after being replaced. Without 24 hour patrols at Ragged, we just couldn't justify expending our resources on something that would be sure to disappear almost immediately.

The other problem is that fixed pro is banned by the state on all state land (or at least it was) so you couldn't do anything at Sleeping Giant or Ross Rock or other places owned by the state.

John

John Peterson wrote: Without 24 hour patrols at Ragged, we just couldn't justify expending our resources on something that would be sure to disappear almost immediately.

volunteer #1 right here

unfortunately discussing this with the RMF is tough since their website doesnt even work and hasnt for months. I'd join but...

mobley wrote: volunteer #1 right here unfortunately discussing this with the RMF is tough since their website doesnt even work and hasnt for months. I'd join but...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ever since that handsome and dashing computer scientist that used to do their website left their internet presence has definitely had some serious issues. They tell me they will have a new site up "any day now".

You might ping Matt Shove - he's posting in this thread and is still on the board (I think!).

John

Saving trees is a noble intent and fixed anchors would certainly accomplish that. But don't kid yourself, and let's agree to call a spade a spade - when people say "modern" and complain about having to TR too much, they aren't talking about saving trees - they're talking bolted lines. Sure, if arrangements could be made with land owners and managers - and the bolting were really going to stop with anchors - that would be great. But you'd have to be in serious denial to believe or attempt to sell the idea that's the way it would really unfold once folks broke out the drills.

Ken may well have been a nasty little finger in the dike - but there's also no doubt just what flood he's was attempting to hold back, then or now. A little plain english and honest talk would go a long way towards not reliving that particularly ugly past.

Brian

I live in Albany and climb at the Gunks regularly. There are definitely numerous trees at the top and in the middle that are seeing regular service as anchors / rappels. In some cases, these trees can actually be avoided but parties from out of town don't know how to, so they get used anyway. Off the top of my head (once again at work without the guidebook with my notes) I can think of several popular routes where trees get used heavily.

RMC - Top of P1 (not necessary, but is used as a rap station)

Three Doves/Annie Oh/etc - Top of P1 there are several LARGE pines that get used pretty heavily, granted they're frigging massive trees but they do see LOTS of traffic.

Erect Direction - P1, I'm pretty sure I usually wind up clipping into a tree to belay my partners up.

And there are many many climbs where the top-out anchors are trees. Much like the discussion in CT, the trees at the edge of the cliff are in shallow soil and are undoubtedly strained by our impact. Now, don't take what I'm saying too far. Bolting the tops of ALL the climbs in the gunks would be incredibly expensive, time consuming, and rather silly. Rather, looking more and more at the climbs that are really popular and making sure that people don't have to use trees as anchors on popular routes that see many ascents every weekend. For example, High Exposure is a climb that I think should have bolts at the top of it to limit the impact on the trees. It's a very accessible, heavily trafficked climb which could really benefit from a couple of bolts. In contrast I think putting bolts in at the top the third pitch of Erect Direction (hard 10, not heavily trafficked) is not necessary although I think they could be useful at the top of pitch 1, which is only 5.8 and does see quite a few ascents.

Hahahaha,
Well, conclusion #1 is that most chat room debates remind me of watching a rodent reach ludicrous speed in a hamster wheel. entertaining at first, but in the long run it's just depressing to watch so much energy wasted on nothing.

I honestly cannot believe that this thread has not evolved at all in nearly 6 mos. It's still the old "I'm too trad for bolted anchors" Vs "let's keep and save what we have". There's an ol Cherokee saying that states "we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from out children. Now I understand that the east coast locust mentality may struggle with such a selfless Ideal, but give it a shot and maybe you all won't get what little you have shut down. Maybe it'll be around for your children. Or just quibble like douchebags. Maybe then you can program a climbing video game so that CT climbing can live on for your children.

jimo, Eldo is calling, Dave's pansy ass is actually getting out this year too.

Brian wrote:Andy, Yes there are still trees being used at the Gunks either because they are the only option or because some climbers don't know where the nearby bolted rap station is. I think we are in agreement on most of this. I just don't get your point. There is no bolting controversy at the Gunks the climbing community is putting up bolted belays/raps to replace the trees in heavy traffic areas and are still going at it. They probably won't get to the more obscure climbs anytime soon if at all. The new Willams guidebook clearly marks all of the new rap stations. So what is your point? Do you want all of the raps/belays bolted immediately? I don't think the Preserve will foot the bill for that. Like I said no one is saying not to bolt the raps at the Gunks so it is really out of context in this thread. Brian

Before concluding my comments are off-topic, I will politely ask that you go read the OP.

Yes, there is a process at the Gunks and the concerns / issues are different at the Gunks than in CT, where there is more controversy. But, I do think it is a continuing concern at the Gunks. More and more people climb there every year and I have never seen a published plan on how the preserve plans to expand the number of bolted anchors at the Gunks.

And, the Gunks still has a reputation (well earned after banning the use of bolts at the cliffs for a number of years) of being anti-bolt. Is it true today? Not exactly. But transparency never hurts in something like this.

Brian wrote:Andy, Yes there are still trees being used at the Gunks either because they are the only option or because some climbers don't know where the nearby bolted rap station is. I think we are in agreement on most of this. I just don't get your point. There is no bolting controversy at the Gunks the climbing community is putting up bolted belays/raps to replace the trees in heavy traffic areas and are still going at it. They probably won't get to the more obscure climbs anytime soon if at all. The new Willams guidebook clearly marks all of the new rap stations. So what is your point? Do you want all of the raps/belays bolted immediately? I don't think the Preserve will foot the bill for that. Like I said no one is saying not to bolt the raps at the Gunks so it is really out of context in this thread. Brian

I started this thread after my first weekend at the gunks. I was shocked at how many people were climbing there with so few bolted anchors. Now that I have climbed there a bunch I see a real effort to save the trees. My guess is 1/3 of the routes have anchors and those anchors are accessible from routes without. I am HAPPY to give them my money for such a well managed place to climb/bike/hike. It would be a really good thing if other privately managed places places could look at how the The Mohonk Preserve does things.

EDIT- If I saw the same effort at Ragged I would shut the hell up.

Is Ken allowed there? does he still rap from trees even though an anchor is 5' away?

The Gunks has an awesome mix of bolted anchors and trees to use (for anchors not rapping). There are excellent rap stations all along the wall, all you need to do is remember them and walk a few steps to them. If I were managing that place, I would cut all the webbing off the little mid-wall trees, leave them on only the bigger GT Ledge trees and leave none on the top of the cliff. If you've finished the climb, you can walk to the nearest bolted rap station.
Sure, throw some bolts at the top of the popular 1 pitch lines, you know the ones that people choose to not finish cause the next pitch isn't really worthwhile (V3, Ant's Line, Airy Aira and the like).
I think any trad area with the Gunk's-type traffic could follow that same model in order to preserve the cliff vegetation and the safety of it's visitors. No one wants to see people die because they couldn't do the next pitch.

Andy Choens wrote:For example, High Exposure is a climb that I think should have bolts at the top of it to limit the impact on the trees. It's a very accessible, heavily trafficked climb which could really benefit from a couple of bolts.

Andy,

Saw this and have to strongly disagree. I don't see why bolts are needed where there is a perfect gear anchor in the corner on the last ledge. Why someone would go all the way to the trees for an anchor is beyond my comprehension.

See you at the ridge,

Jeff

But people _do_ top out on High E and they _do_ use the trees and they _do_ wear out the ridge there. Off the top of my head I'm not sure you can easily get to the rappel anchors from where you are talking about without having to climb some class 4? rock. But, I haven't been down there yet this year and could be wrong about the access to the rappel anchors.

I was actually thinking about this thread when I was out this weekend. My partner and I climbed 6ish at the end of the day and should have walked off or tailed an additional line. The "tree" we used to rappel on is an impressive specimen for daring to grow there and I was thinking how tragic it is that I hung off of it. Yes, we could have walked off from 6ish but my partner didn't remember how manky the tree is.

Andy Choens wrote:But people _do_ top out on High E and they _do_ use the trees and they _do_ wear out the ridge there. Off the top of my head I'm not sure you can easily get to the rappel anchors from where you are talking about without having to climb some class 4? rock. But, I haven't been down there yet this year and could be wrong about the access to the rappel anchors. I was actually thinking about this thread when I was out this weekend. My partner and I climbed 6ish at the end of the day and should have walked off or tailed an additional line. The "tree" we used to rappel on is an impressive specimen for daring to grow there and I was thinking how tragic it is that I hung off of it. Yes, we could have walked off from 6ish but my partner didn't remember how manky the tree is.

I used the High E rap a week ago, it goes down the directissima side and it is bolted and out of the way of climbers below.

When I did sixish a week ago I walked 50 feet left over to the Maria rap station where pulling the rope wont hit any climber below in the head. bolted.

the ranger on Thursday was going around cutting slings from trees.

i believe all they need to do is give out maps of the rap stations and people will stop using trees. that is the hardest thing to figure out at the gunks if you ask me. I see people pulling their ropes from really bad places where the rope can launch rocks down on peoples heads.

Shylo wrote:I am looking to reform the bolting ethic in Connecticut.

One man's reformation is another man's travesty. You don't want to reform the bolting ethic - you want to eliminate it. Speak plainly and honestly about your intentions and you'll get a lot farther in any discussions going forward. And 'a few well-placed bolts'? If bolts had been few and well-placed the whole NE debacle may have been avoided in the first place (ok, probably not). But the odds of such restraint being much in evidence once the drills are out in CT is a highly dubious conjecture. Personally, I'd recommend against the idea while Ken is still breathing.

In Salt Lake City the LDS church owned a large amount of the cliffs in Little Cottonwood Canyon. They didnt want to know what the climbers were doing up on those rocks. It was a dont ask/dont tell policy. It was always known that you DIDNT contact them with issues reguarding changes to their property because they DIDNT want to know.

There could be some sweet mixed(bolts&gear)lines all over CT that could be safe leads(if a FEW bolts were put in) and there could be a ton more healthy trees at the tops of the cliffs(if a FEW bolts were put in).

I've been in CT for 8 or so months and would say 90%+ of the climbers I have talked with are for a FEW bolts here and there. Even the ones who arent for it seem to have no problem going to other states and clipping the bolts provided for them.

Shylo wrote:Furthermore, a good challenge is refreshing. Anything is possible.

You want a challenge? Try a route on natural gear.

I also agree that the reformation you're proposing is nothing more than a permissive approach to bolting where those before you put conservation over convenience.

While I believe it is appropriat for the community to discuss what is an appropriate course for newly accessed crags, that doesn't mean that the pro-bolting contingent can't be expected to sack up and either learn to place gear and abandon the expectation that the only acceptable form of protection is a bolt every five feet.

The most important thing, however, is that the discussion stays within the climbing community. The most issue of Alpinist contained an article where the author takes satisfaction that Ken Nichols was dragged into court and convicted of vandalism. However, the author should have been far more concerned by the fact that the community delegated their decision making about what or what is not acceptable climbing ethics to a local judge who knows nothing about climbing, its ethics or its tradition. That precedent is FAR scarier than any number of Ken Nichols.

mobley wrote:...my only issue is the trees getting choked out. you wear off the bark in a ring around a tree and it dies. you drill an anchor in the rock and nothing dies. guess I'm just a tree hugger...

Ladd Raine wrote: Hopefully we come to our senses before all the trees are gone or dieing on the top of all our favorite cliffs.

It seems to be an item of faith that putting slings around the base of trees and weighting those slings kills the trees. I don't know if there is any evidence for this. As for the claim that the slings wear the bark off the trees, I've seen lots of dead trees that had been used for rappelling and belay anchors and as far as I can remember, none of them had any marks from slings. (I do think the tree at the top of Classic in the Gunks has grooves from various idiots running their top ropes directly around the tree.) In general, I do not believe that the bark wears off. It is conceivable, but certainly not definite, that compression of the bark, which does not happen around the entire circumference, damages trees, but can anyone say authoritatively that this is the cause of the tree loss at Ragged, especially in view of

Matt Shove wrote:Another example is at the top of the Amphitheater at East Peak, no dead trees there! It's a really popular place, go figure!

There are many possible explanations for trees dying, including the possibility of natural cycles. It seems to me much more likely that soil compaction is a factor. If, for example, the top of Ragged sees a lot of foot traffic (which need be from climbers at all) then that might account for some or all of the distress to the trees.

I've done a bit of climbing at Ragged in recent years, after not visiting for around thirty years. I don't remember there being any trees near the edge back in the day, and there aren't any now. I can't say the change is all that dramatic, but of course my memory could be faulty. Anyway, I've only lead climbs at Ragged, never top-roped, and with one exception (sorry, can't remember the route now) we've had no trouble building conventional anchors at the top.

My conclusion from all this is

1. It is far from clear that anchoring to trees causes tree death, and the East Peak situation suggests that perhaps another agent is at work.

2. A number of Ragged routes have perfectly good natural anchors at the top.

In light of these observations, you don't have to be a raving trad fanatic to wonder about the need for bolted top-rope anchors in an area that has (entirely forgetting about Ken Nichols) traditionally eschewed drilling. They certainly aren't needed everywhere, that much is clear. And it is true that the more top-rope conveniences you install, the more crowded with top-ropers the place will become (the Gunks experience has established this principle beyond any shadow of a doubt). If you increase the cliff-top population and the tree death is related to that population in some way other than belay anchoring, then the net effect of the bolts would be to hasten tree demise, a sad irony for those who are thinking in terms of protection.

If it is possible to obtain a more definitive understanding of climber impacts, then it may be that some bolts at certain places at the top of Ragged might prove to have ecological value, and it would make sense to install such anchors. In locations where ecological concerns are not decisive, such bolts are, in my opinion, a bad idea that helps to both create and perpetuate an ever-growing population that is incompetent at the basics of climbing practice and so can only become a vocal force for more accomodations for their lack of knowledge, minimal abilities, and almost insatiable need for instant solutions.

Shylo wrote:Climbing changes: new things, new approaches, new gear, new ideas, new areas, new development, new cliffs.

But evidently what doesn't change is people wanting to bolt CT rock.

Shilo, I'm very interested in this development. I am in favor of a managed bolting policy, however diffucult the process may be. Learning from other climbing areas that have had access threatened or had some kind of "bolt war" perhaps the CT climbing community needs an activist group simular to the WMCC to push and manage this issue. These groups are of like minded people who work with local municipalities and land owners to acheive the end result. Currently in CT we have a few "established" groups such as the CCM, AMC and the RMF, none of which are in the business of land managemnent (although it seems the RMF was created exactly for that purpose, go figure). Trying to get the current orgs to step up and go to bat for this cause is pointless, that is not what the CCM and the AMC are about, who knows about the RMF...
SO point is that we CT climbers need a proactive, dedicated group that will be willing to slog through the process of creating and maintaining a managed bolting plan.
Jim
(DISCLAIMER: I am an RMF member, wearing the shirt right now and many of my climbing friends are members and board members. I am also a CCMer, with whom I am fairly active)

Good point Brian, I know and have climbed with some relics that were part of the chopping scene. The "battle" isn't solely focused on KN, he's an asshole in this regard, but if you are familliar with usage guidelines and such for most of our climbing areas, the first and formost hurdle is to change the rules to allow climbing at many of the places we climb. Confused? Currently, MOST of the areas we frequent are officially closed to climbing but climbers have been tolerated since the '70s... That's a load of crap!!! It's the proverbial gun to the head.
So as insane as it sounds, first we need to get rock climbing in CT legalized, then we can turn our attention to the outlaws...
JO