Compressor Chopped?

Im for the removal of the bolts. My opinion sure doesnt matter since I will likely never get on the route, but in my opinion bolts should ONLY be put on climbs which are completely unprotectable by traditional means. Such as face climbs with no natural weaknesses. Also I dont mind having bolts at anchors. Makes lots of people safer. Totally different

FACT!

Those bolts were pretty mank now from the sounds of it. It only took a few hammer blows to remove them. I see no reason not to remove them. I doubt anyone would object to the bolt ladder put up by a Japanese party on the Eiger being removed, either. Not as high profile, though.

As for the erasing history argument, eh. We have pictures still. Whatever. Just don't remove my canyoneering rappel bolts and the various rap bolts we have in RMNP, 'kay? You kids can fret about Cerro Torre on your own.

rockandice.com/news/1787-ce…

cms829 wrote:Im for the removal of the bolts. My opinion sure doesnt matter since I will likely never get on the route, but in my opinion bolts should ONLY be put on climbs which are completely unprotectable by traditional means. Such as face climbs with no natural weaknesses. Also I dont mind having bolts at anchors. Makes lots of people safer. Totally different

Yea it's totally different. You aren't actually drilling permanent holes for the anchors at all when you install anchor bolts. God drilled those holes and provided the anchors so they must be ok. Those are the organic anchors right? It's not as if climbers are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand where they feel comfortable and then asking others to embrace the same ethics, it's like totally different man. Those ones are ok brah.

David Sahalie wrote:is it just me or does Kruk come off sounding cocky and like spoiled teenager? and no mention of the being run out of town and questioned by police?

Nope, it didn't sound like that at all to me. Perhaps you are reading into it what you want to believe.

^^^^

me either. to me, he came across as someone who'd just achieved something really big and was trying to explain his reasoning for doing something controversial. i think a bit pride and confidence is to be expected and justified considering what they'd accomplished.

regarding the right or wrong of chopping the bolts, come on people...

seems as though the commonly accepted ethic is that, if the local community agrees that bolts should not have been placed to start with, it is ok to remove them. the issues arise when the local community doesn't agree.

but, in this case, the 'local community' is the community of elite alpinists. and, from everything I've read, there was emphatic agreement within that community that the bolts should never have been placed by Maestri. so, why's everyone complaining now that they've been removed??

and, who's complaining? people who would most likely never attempt the route without the bolts? so, we're basing alpinism ethics on the desires of the via ferrata crowd?

if some 5.8 climber bolted your local 5.10 crack, would you complain if someone chopped the bolts? why is this any different? because it creates a precedent for elitists to chop bolts they deem unnecessary? BS!

again, come on people. we're talking about the compressor route. remember, the murder of the impossible? everyone thought the bolts were an atrocity until they were removed. and, now, it seems that people are getting sucked into the drama. Maestri's legacy lives on...

I wonder what sort of screenplay this will make.

a pointless one

Johny Q wrote: Yea it's totally different. You aren't actually drilling permanent holes for the anchors at all when you install anchor bolts. God drilled those holes and provided the anchors so they must be ok. Those are the organic anchors right? It's not as if climbers are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand where they feel comfortable and then asking others to embrace the same ethics, it's like totally different man. Those ones are ok brah.

if any single bolt is acceptable then every bolt must be acceptable!

Dan Austin wrote: if any single bolt is acceptable then every bolt must be acceptable!

Sounds like the consensus should be none!! They should chop the rest of the bolts now or they are nothing more than egotistical wankers like me!!!

Johny Q wrote: Sounds like the consensus should be none!! They should chop the rest of the bolts now or they are nothing more than egotistical wankers like me!!!

the only solution is to grid bolt the first 6000 meters of mauna kea, the world's tallest mountain, which has yet to go by fair means (i.e., without oxygen) from the base

David Sahalie wrote: ok, lets see whst i read and i 'believe" "But, the mountain and our route have been betrayed by the unfortunate controversy that enshrouds it like the clouds." writing in the third person like you are somehow the victim of the crime you committed? maybe Kruk wants to be a politician. "The fact that we were planning on leaving these bolts in anyways, meant it was too silly not to use them on the ascent." uhhh, yeah, just admit you wanted to pull them, but you liked the belays. "A bunch of people climbed the Compressor Route and had fun, but now it’s a new era for Cerro Torre" yeah, your YOUR era, oh wait, that lasted about a day, and now it is Lama's.

Now it's time for a new era. No more aiding this thing. Lama has shown the light. If you aid it you are a weak cheater.........

If Maestri would have climbed to the summit and didn't chop his own route on the way down I think they should have left the bolt ladders. I think it was fair game for the boys to clean it up.

Larry Bruce wrote:If Maestri would have climbed to the summit and didn't chop his own route on the way down I think they should have left the bolt ladders. I think it was fair game for the boys to clean it up.

Except they didn't. They only cleaned the bolts they didn't need. Looks like someone else needs to finish the job.

David Sahalie wrote: "The fact that we were planning on leaving these bolts in anyways, meant it was too silly not to use them on the ascent." uhhh, yeah, just admit you wanted to pull them, but you liked the belays.

Have to agree with David on this one (and that the article was a bit over the top). They admittedly used bolts where it was convenient, not necessary.

"We also used two of Maestri’s original belays on the headwall. These were in spots in close-proximity to other natural anchor options. Believe us, we know how to build gear anchors. The fact that we were planning on leaving these bolts in anyways, meant it was too silly not to use them on the ascent."

Kind of a cop out. The last sentence implies that they had decided prior to or during the ascent to chop the bolts, which contradicts the statement in the article that the discussion of chopping and decision to chop didn't take place until they were on the summit. Also, with all the hyperbole about betrayal et al, to say it would have been "too silly not use the them" is a weak justification when taking the position that their actions were so righteous.

If they are going to spout high moral standards, creating a new era, etc., they should have have removed all of Maestri's bolts and not justified leaving some for convenience.

Have to agree with David on this one (and that the article was a bit over the top). They admittedly used bolts where it was convenient, not necessary.

"We also used two of Maestri’s original belays on the headwall. These were in spots in close-proximity to other natural anchor options. Believe us, we know how to build gear anchors. The fact that we were planning on leaving these bolts in anyways, meant it was too silly not to use them on the ascent."

Kind of a cop out. The last sentence implies that they had decided prior to or during the ascent to chop the bolts, which contradicts the statement in the article that the discussion of chopping and decision to chop didn't take place until they were on the summit.

It's strangely-worded but it could easily have been meant as "we weren't initially planning to chop the bolts (any of them), and we already knew we were going to use the anchor stations on rappel, so it would have been stupid to not use them on the way up".

David Appelhans wrote: Nope, it didn't sound like that at all to me. Perhaps you are reading into it what you want to believe.

I believe my opinion started slant towards David's when I read this:

"He was in Turkey sportclimbing and preoccupied with a Norwegian girl there. I was in Mexico flying paragliders."

I don't think my personal perspective matters except to say that in almost all "climbing controversies", local opinion should be what matters most.

Rolo Garibotti is fired up and not pulling any punches:

climbmagazine.com/news/2012…

This all seems very tragic to me.

I was certainly no fan of the bolts, but I don't see this ending positively for anyone involved.

David Sahalie wrote:is it just me or does Kruk come off sounding cocky and like spoiled teenager? and no mention of the being run out of town and questioned by police?

Its not just you. I don't give two sh*ts about the bolts, but I agree, their letter makes them sound like entitled children. They write their letter like as if any of this stuff has huge meaning. Its fricking climbing, not human rights work. Get over yourselves. On top of that, the majority of their arguments are quite specious. And chopping anchor bolts and leaving nuts, pins, and tat? That's part of your "ethical" statement to the world? Of the topics in this world that need ethical statements made about them, I think this ranks near the fricking bottom. Sheesh.