.

.

Leave the bolted anchors there.

Jesus Killis...let it go man

Sounds like three different issues here.

1. Placing bolts next to good natural anchors.

2. Placing bad bolts.

3. Bolting easy scrambles for rappel descents.

Item 1: If the bolts are next to trees, one might take the position that they are there to save the trees. But it isn't clear what it is about rappelling that kills trees (if indeed rappelling has any effect), and it seems likely that soil compaction around the roots might be the culprit, in which case putting the bolts near trees does nothing. If the bolts could be moved away from the trees so that climbers congregating at the bolts do not trample the soils around the trees, there could be an argument for such bolts.

Item 2. Bolts 3 inches apart in soft sandstone sound like a potential danger and probably ought to be chopped for safety reasons.

Item 3. This is a byproduct of the asymmetric skill acquisition that is becoming a feature of modern climbing (see my comments on this in the thread on slinging cams). You now have climbers who can get up fifth class with a rope and gear but cannot get down third or fourth class unroped, a relatively new development.

What to do about such bolting is a matter for local discussion involving the contentious question of how much of the wilderness character of a place ought to be preserved in its climbs. Given the fact that it is scrambling and the fact that there are enough natural anchors available for those who might require them, I'd be in favor of getting rid of the invasive bolt species, but it's not my locale and, in any case, I often get shouted down in these discussions anyway.

There is another issue that could be at play here: sometimes guide services bolt exposed scrambles to make them safe for their clients. This, I think, is a reprehensible modification of the environment to satisfy commercial interests and in such cases I'd be strongly in favor of the bolts going.

YAAAAWWWNNNNN, Good lord Killis. Would you post a pic of Eva or something. I think you like to argue for arguments sake. Which makes you very, whats the word I am looking for??? Redundant. Is it cold down there or something?

Just chop the damn stuff if it offends you so much.

u mad bro

I prefer the bolts.

Gobs of multi colored slings on trees is a much bigger eye sore than 2 bolts, with chains, even if they aren't camo'ed to match the rock.

When a descent gets to the point that it is being used alot it only makes sense to make it be the least impact possible. I think that means bolted anchors.

Bolting scrambles is a whole other issue....one I don't care to discuss currently.

josh

My take is:

If the route requires a rappel descent (or has historically involved a rappel descent), then let's do it in the least offensive way possible. If this means placing one bolted station to replace an unsafe natural anchor, by all means, do it. Likewise, if placing additional bolted anchors will reduce the number of unsightly slings and other environmental impact, why not do that too? However, if slings on natural anchors are in a place where they won't be seen by anyone other than climbers and aren't creating negative impact, then probably better to leave them as they can be removed at any time (in the future, when we acquire the ability to teleport and don't need rappel anchors anymore).

Routes that have a reasonable walk-off or have historically been done with a walk-off descent should never be retroactively bolted.

My thought is that you have a very leading narrative style which makes it impossible for anyone to believe you actually care about any thoughts other than those that agree with yours.

You are describing the situation on a popular route in gumby land, err, I mean Red Rocks. If you want unspoiled adventure, there is plenty to be had right up I-15.

Just curious, do you complain about the seat belts on the Dumbo ride at Disney Land too?

+1 mike. I think the trees are more important than a few holes in the rock. Old tat is way worse than bolts. How is rapping off a tree a better experience than rapping off bolts? Many of the bolted anchors in the story don't sound too good though. Killis do you like trolling grandma's quilting site?

Mike Anderson wrote:My thought is that you have a very leading narrative style which makes it impossible for anyone to believe you actually care about any thoughts other than those that agree with yours. You are describing the situation on a popular route in gumby land, err, I mean Red Rocks. If you want unspoiled adventure, there is plenty to be had right up I-15. Just curious, do you complain about the seat belts on the Dumbo ride at Disney Land too?

Couldn't agree more. You are letting a few bolts that are half an inch wide on rock thats over 1,000 feet tall get your panties in a bunch? How many bolts are already on DOWT? 8 more is some kind of travesty? Talk about first world problems, only climbers would make such a big deal out of something so insignificant.

Find something more worthwhile to expend your energy on... like finding more face palm pictures cause thats how I am feeling right now.

tim naylor wrote:+1 mike. I think the trees are more important than a few holes in the rock. Old tat is way worse than bolts. How is rapping off a tree a better experience than rapping off bolts? Many of the bolted anchors in the story don't sound too good though. Killis do you like trolling grandma's quilting site?

+1

I've found a ton of ratty webbing for anchors at red rocks. It seems a lot of people don't ever remove it but just add their own. I'm all for bolts, less visible and won't kill the trees.

David Sahalie wrote:so, let me get this straight: wrapping multiple slings around a tree, the petrochemicals used to make the slings fading in the sun and turning into tat in less than is year, the slings strangling the tree flow of water and nutrients (yep, it all happens on the outer layer, is better than... several ounces of sand removed (aka rock in red rocks), and steel (non oil) is used as a semi-permanent solution? ... just because the shininess of bolts burns your eyes like permadraws? ... mmm, yeah, sounds like severe case of white people problems.

+1 again. First world white people problems Killis! Go cry somewhere else.

i'm not condoning it in any way but i would say that it is a push back in the wrong direction to remove the bolts now simply because trees are so cool when they live on a cliff... i would say someone should clean up the tat from the trees. i think we'll see more and more and more and more and more climbers coming here over the coming decades and i think all those trees should be thought about and preserved. it doesn't bother me to see a camouflaged bolt anchor on a descent that is helping trees out.

now retro bolting an ASCENT is another bag of worms! LOL... but the part of me that loves the canyons says this is a benign attempt to conserve nature...

plus i weigh 220 lbs sans rack/rope and i HATE/ LOVE some of the twigs that have held me on scary rappels...

thanks,

jon

p.s. many of you are very angry people! JEEZ, this is all supposed to be fun. lighten up! lol

Doubt this was the response he was expecting! Im sure he is still right in his own mind though...

so much bait in the water... Why do you even ask people for their opinions?

I would agree with Josh that I think bolted rap stations make better sense than slinging trees or boulders. Properly placed modern bolts are safe, reliable, and will last a good 10 years and probably much longer. Rope and webbing while typically bomber when first placed, can deteriorate quickly, especially in high UV, can be easily damaged by rodents or mechanical abrasion, and in the best of conditions only has a lifespan of a year or two when exposed to the elements.

Plus if it looks sketchy, people tend to add additional webbing without removing the old and we end up with a big mess of tat until Killis or someone else cleans it up.

Let's hope that the wilderness bolting ban will finally be lifted this year.

Leave the rap bolts.

You're already "tarnishing" the rock by climbing it.

Doug Foust wrote:I would agree with Josh that I think bolted rap stations make better sense than slinging trees or boulders. Properly placed modern bolts are safe, reliable, and will last a good 10 years and probably much longer. Rope and webbing while typically bomber when first placed, can deteriorate quickly, especially in high UV, can be easily damaged by rodents or mechanical abrasion, and in the best of conditions only has a lifespan of a year or two when exposed to the elements. Plus if it looks sketchy, people tend to add additional webbing without removing the old and we end up with a big mess of tat until Killis or someone else cleans it up. Let's hope that the wilderness bolting ban will finally be lifted this year.

Yes but...

First there is the "properly placed" proviso, which simply defines any actual problems out of existence. Killis mentioned one set of bolts that are visibly not properly placed, and then there are placements that are bad but not so visible. Those placements will not last for ten years, but often can't be easily inspected as webbing can.

Then there is the fact webbing in a bad place or in bad condition can be cut down. Back-country bolts on descents are not going to be inspected and maintained the way they would be on boulders in Calico Hills. Chances are at least some of them will become dangerous, and unlike webbing, their integrity or lack of it will not be visible.

One of the especially unpleasant aspects of retrobolting back country descents that were perfectly viable without bolts is that some (hopefully but not verifiably competent) "public spirited" individual unilaterally makes decisions for the entire community. You leave some webbing in a stupid place, no problem---it is easily removed and no trace remains. Bolts are another matter altogether.

Some people have (very prematurely) referred to a consensus about leaving the bolts. What about the consensus about retroactively placing the descent bolts---does that matter?

Finally, none of the bolting supporters has addressed the third item in Killis' list: bolting back-country scrambles. This isn't a matter of replacing tree anchors with bolts. This is a matter of replacing ordinary easy downclimbing with bolted rappels. I'm curious to hear whether the bolting supporters think it is fine to bolt up a scramble that had been regularly traversed without any anchors.

R-gold , you should get into the discussion on Mtn Proj about the bolts popping up on the West Slabs of Mt. Olypus in Salt Lake city. Having done this 2000 ft slab numerous times I think its ridiculous to have any bolts on the thing for many reasons. I also have done Dream of wild turkeys(15 years ago and I dont remember any trees) and can say that getting down from that without bolts would be really tough plus that specific canyon is littered with bolts anyways. Trees on cliffs in the desert dont have an easy time and even non stainless bolts can last an easy 20 or more years in the right conditions. I have no idea how old the rusty and bent 1/4" bolts were when we did Prince of Darkness but I dont remember seeing any empty holes and I surely clipped all of those pieces of shit.

Someone mentioned to me recently about some padlocks that just popped up on a bolted route around here, he suggested just leaving them alone and dont play into the game of who is more right and who gets to chop. Maybe it was really important to the padlocker to padlock those bolts, I certainly dont want to squash his dream.

y u mad