pawtuckaway anchors...the nuts and bolts

...This has been a weight on my mind for quite some time and I was wondering how the people feel about it. A couple of years ago someone had placed bolts for top anchors above several climbs on the upper cliff in pawtuckaway state park, the bolts were placed well and it kept people from causing further damage to the trees atop the routes. Not long after the bolts were placed somebody came along and chopped them and made a mess. According to State law nothing can be added or removed from state parks without park permission so technically both parties were not really in the right to do either action. Essentially what I want to know is how climbers feel about this? The state is willing to work with climbers to have the permanent top anchors added to decrease the wear and tear on the trees atop the cliffs, but do most of you feel like its necessary?

Im not really familiar with the ethics of roped climbing there but personally I have always felt top anchors are a good thing so we dont kill the trees, this is for a few reason:

1. Killing trees are bad
2. dead trees fall potentially hitting people (it happened in rumney within the last year)
3. With the lose of trees come corrosion of the soil above the cliffs.
4. Bolts make it safer for people

but this is just my opinion...

I'm also a fan of well-placed anchors for the reasons Matt listed. I am not likely to ever use them at Pawtuckaway, but I think they would be a fine and reasonable addition.

The talk of Bolts on lower slab, upper cliff and Lake Side Jam has been a heated debate amongst climbers of Pawtuckaway for as long as I can remember and climbing at Pawtuckaway.

It's kind of the a 180 to Rumney... You head to Rumney for sport climbing even though the bouldering there is solid, you go to Pawtuckaway for bouldering even thought the park has some amazing trad and TR lines. It's a tough call not a lot of people use the cliffs to TR most people typical go there for bouldering, minus the large trip of school kids or outing clubs.

As for bolting in the park it seems that people don't care about the rules. I believe last year someone added two bolts to the Whip so there friend could top rope it (instead of backing up the existing bolt with a gear anchor which was the norm if a TR was being setup). This past summer (give or take) someone added three bolts to the top of the Cream Boulder.
Again as you stated permission is suppose to be granted by the state, I do know that the whip bolts are rouge bolts. As for the Cream Boulder I have no clue what the deal is with them.
Granted the Whip, Cream, classic Crack, Yosemite and Buttermilk boulders have bolts currently or had there bolts removed (classic crack, Buttermilk) this doesn't give one the right to start swinging a hammer or drilling new anchors without going thru channels.

I'll agree that there should be anchors added to few of the climbs on Upper Cliff in the area of Climbers Corner on down to The Start, On the grounds that the trees that are up there aren't the safest things to be setting up a TR anchor or rapping off of. If added they should be tucked back from the cliff edge visible but hidden so that someone hiking along the cliff top wont trip on them or just be a plan eye sore on the cliff top. Also the trees on Upper Cliff are in pretty good shape minus the mentioned area but if traffic in the other areas increase anchors could be added.

Lower slab which see most of the traffic for TR could use the options of having anchors or use of the trees. Another option for this area if bolted anchors wouldn't be accepted or chopped as in the past is to us webbing. Again down side to this is “who” would be the care taker of the webbing and it can look like a train wreck with webbing being add on top of webbing (example Standard Route on Whitehorse Ledge, the natural thread belay).

Lake Side Jam is another area that's been getting a lot more usage from people over the last couple of years but again the trees are pretty solid up there, you just need some long runners to get to the lip.

As it is there is no real set climbing association for Pawtuckaway, which I know of, like at Rumney. I think this should be the first step we, as climbers, in Southern NH should try to form or organize, so that we can work with the state and Access Fund as the climbing areas in the park expand and the need for anchor placements arise or we could run into the same situation that we have in North Conway, which would not be good...

That's just my opinion...

So how do you suggest we do this, I think it would be great to form a "Friends of Pawtuckaway" group, who had close ties with the access fund and other controlling members of the community. Becuase I agree (no matter what you views are of the situation in N. Conway) we dint want having a bolting battle like the one that is ranging up there.

I'll agree with you that we don't need to have a bolting war in Pawtuckaway, that can stay up north in North Conway, no disrespect guys. Plus, Pawtuckaway has already seen what bad bolting can do to climbs out on Yellow Dog wall (Paul Boissoneault and Dave & Marie Saball will attest to this)...

Not sure... Start by looking into how the Rumney group got started an I believe a friend of mine has a buddy that works for Access Fund... If so, He should be able to give some insight into how to go about something like this...

Thanks for the positive outlook Matt! That seems like a good idea to start advocacy group for pway. If people can come together to have a common solution then we definatley wont have any issues like what happened in Conway. Any other ideas?

Matthew I called to my friend an I do have a contact with someone at Access Fund... I'll be emailing him this weekend, also have a few people in the Seacoast area interested in getting something rolling. I'll be contacting a friend of mine up in Rumney for a contact up there...

So from here's just getting word out and see who would be interested in getting involved and stuff

I am all for the responsible use of bolts in pawtuckaway for anchors... the idea of having a "friends of pway" in place would be key in making sure that it stays responsible... what i don't want to see is more of the bolting and chopping over and over which goes on elsewhere and over time really kills the rock... i respect the old school stance but feel that the sport is not stagnant (it has grown quite a bit) and our ethics cant afford to be...

i must admit that I'm doubtful that we will ever all agree on where bolts are acceptable and where they are not... just because we have a coalition that comes up with a good game plan and gets the proper permission doesn't mean that the opposition wont take the law in to there own hands...

That may be true, Lee, but the good thing is that if a group of climbers goes about bolting anchors the right way, the position of illegally chopping them is indefensible. As the OP pointed out, since the old bolts were likely placed illegally, its hard to argue against someone illegally chopping them.

Might I suggest that we try to get this ball rolling? I suppose the first step would be some sort of gathering to draw up the aforementioned "game plan" so that there can be a clear, unconfused dialogue with NH State Parks. Perhaps a climbers' night out at a Common Man?

-Chris

Lee, I'll agree with you and that's one reason why I made the comment about starting a climbing association/group/coalition for Pawtuckaway in my reply to this post.
No, we'll never totally agree on placements and the likes but at least we'll have a body/group in which we can talk about these things instead of just running out there with a bolt gun/hammer and going to town on the cliffs.

An as the usage of the Pawtuckaway continuous to grow this is going to become more of an issue and before it gets out of hand to the point that we lose the right to climb at Pawtuckaway I think this should be done.

So on that note Chris, Matt, Lee and anyone else that's interested I'm open to meeting up and getting the ball rolling on this.

-Christopher

we might be able to host a meeting at vertical dreams (the climbing gym i work at, id have to ask the owner if that would be cool) it is a good space for such a thing...if that sounds good to you guys we could put the word out to anyone in the community that wants to be part of talks on climbing management for pway... the more folks the better in my opinion...

Hey all,
Good discussion, I was a pawtuckaway climber for many years before I moved up to plymouth.I still try to get a trip or two in (pre and post black fly season) here's my 2 cents.

I think the first thing to keep in mind is the history of the area, unlike Rumney where the majority of the routes went up from the 80's on most of the lines at the lower slabs and upper cliffs were climbed decades before that. clearly a decision was made to leave most of the routes as TR's or bold leads, I know of more than one person cratering on Fantastic Face.

and yes, for many of the routes you have to be resourceful to set up a TR, like the whip boulder (pre crash pad)

the important thing is to form a group, start discussion and build a consensus, even then there's always going to be somebody that's not happy. hopefully they won't take it out on the rock.

Bob

i agree bob... i dont want to bolt any of the old routes at pawtuckaway the bold ethics are great, respecting the traditions in climbing is key... anchor bolts, maybe, but only if we could see that it would save the trees and or rock from abuse... if the tradition begins to harm the environment that becomes an issue... for instance the erosion of the cliff top and loss of trees, this never would have happened if the sport didnt grow... back when the traditions in pawtuckaway were established they would never have imagined the number of people that would use and abuse the cliffs in a season...

i think my biggest fear is that say we decide that a bolted anchor on The Horn would help save the clifftop from erosion... then someone who doesnt agree with the majority comes along and smashes the bolts flat bashing the rock to pieces... in this case our good intentions caused damage to the rock inadvertently (even though it was someone else that did the act it wouldnt have happened if we hadnt stepped in)...

Lee, I'm game for meeting at Vertical Dreams... I'll pass word around to the crew at Indoor Ascent about what's going.

I would be down to attend a meeting, let me know and I will try to spread the word around the plymouth area, Bob your help would be appreciated too, i know you have connections around this area, I think this could be a good thing to get started.

sounds great folks, I'm very psyched that everyone had positive imput and is willing to work with eachother. I will post a meeting time and place as soon possible.

Once again thanks for all your help

-Casey Bald

As soon as I know a time and place, I will get the word out.

-Matt

I'd like to weigh in on this - both here and at any actual meeting. I've thought about bolts at Pawtuckaway a lot and I've kept the issue in mind when observing the cliff tops.

I see no need for top-anchor bolts at 90% of the popular areas in the park. Lower Slabs, Lakeside, the Dome, and much of the Upper Cliff have either sturdy trees (that have withstood decades of heavy use), gear placements, or boulders that can be slung. A few places at the Upper Cliff have some dying trees that might be saved (Obscene Phone Call comes to mind), but this is not likely to effect erosion much. With an easy walk-up, people will continue to traipse around to set anchors at the bolts. I think this foot traffic causes the majority of the erosion problems.

In short, it's my opinion that erosion is a problem that bolt anchors will do little to solve. The major downside is that we'd be running the risk of opening the door to the kind of crap that's going in Connecticut. I don't want to see that repeated at Pawtuckaway. Thanks, but no thanks.

I have a feeling that I'll be in the minority here, but I disagree with adding anchor bolts at p-way. I think that it'll start something that I know none of us wants to see. It may suck to set up top ropes 100' back from the cliffs. But why not make a gear anchor (where possible)if you are hard up to TR or lead the climbs and just bring up your second. If you really want to get mileage in, lead the climb several times, it'll be a better work out any way. For people who can't make anchors this'll be a great way to learn. I think I agree with Lee in that no existing climbs should be touched, but I would like to see some new climbs go in with maybe a bolt or two linking features. But I think that any new routes that do go in should be ground up, keeping with p-way tradition. Please post up meeting times as I would like to be there to voice my opinion. Again, i'll be in the minority and probrably powerless to stop it, but a climber group for p-way, really??? This seems like a waste of time. Just my 2 cents, good topic for discussion.

MAN MOOT!!!

Well said adam!