Why Toproping?

CaptainMo wrote: When the thing that you may have loved at one point in time is glaringly causing negative effects on your climbing area and the living things that reside in it it's a little tough to take such a nostalgic view. Not to mention the person that fails to recognize those effects also then becomes part of the problem and not the solution.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. This appears to be just an ad hominem attack rather than an attempt to prove your point.

CaptainMo wrote: When the thing that you may have loved at one point in time is glaringly causing negative effects on your climbing area and the living things that reside in it it's a little tough to take such a nostalgic view. Not to mention the person that fails to recognize those effects also then becomes part of the problem and not the solution.

Hold up, I thought the thread had generally agreed that TR is more protective of the environment in many cases. Can you please give more detail about the 'glaringly negative effects?'

Tom Mulholland wrote: Hold up, I thought the thread had generally agreed that TR is more protective of the environment in many cases. Can you please give more detail about the 'glaringly negative effects?'

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/107773421

see any spots with little or no topsoil and growth?

notice the color of the rock in the most worn out areas

Tom Mulholland wrote: Hold up, I thought the thread had generally agreed that TR is more protective of the environment in many cases. Can you please give more detail about the 'glaringly negative effects?'

That is the exact opposite of the impression I got.

Fat Dad wrote: You mean apart from the permanent destruction of the rock from bolting.

Do bolts kill trees?

Red Tagger wrote:A note on the "consensus" argument: How was this consensus obtained? Was there a vote? Likely not, the consensus spoken of is simply the impression people get from talking to other climbers. This is not a consensus and the using it to justify an action is false. Besides, even if there was a fair vote and a true consensus this doesn't make it right. If the majority of people agreed that murder is justifiable would you agree too?

We do it's called the death penalty... and a vote? right... and how would u be sure you're not just getting one segement? I think speaking with climbers at all the various areas is a great way to gain consensus. If I were to climb at a cliff everyday for a year or two and spoke to everyone almost everone I saw and > 50% agree, would you consider that a consensus? Honestly, I think the concept of a consensus is flawed kind of like race... it's a gradient rather then a black and white.

Tom Mulholland wrote: Hold up, I thought the thread had generally agreed that TR is more protective of the environment in many cases. Can you please give more detail about the 'glaringly negative effects?'

The tread has been mostly in consensus of the exact opposite really... Take a look at one of the prime TR cliffs.

Note: There a very popular hiking trail on the top that contributes to the degradation but this effect can be seen at all the popular TR crags in CT.

Theres what over 100 routes at ragged?

Id say something like 30 or so have great options for gear anchors at the top.

Not to mention the rock is constantly breaking off etc.

Persoanlly bolting sport routes on ragged would be terrifying due to the nature of the rock there.

staples at the top soley for anchor purposes on the other hand...

JohnWesely wrote: That is the exact opposite of the impression I got.

Guess that was just me.

CaptainMo wrote: Take a look at one of the prime TR cliffs.

Yeah, that's nasty. You should do something about that.

Isnt KN banned from Ragged Anyways.. how do his opinions even matter still if hes not even allowed on the property?

Red Tagger wrote: it's that people like me are asking to preserve at least some of this type of climbing and for people to please consider if bolting is really necessary.

This would be the preservation of TR lines correct?

If the trees and ground above these routes beings to become trampled, die, and turns into a dirt patch that eventually erodes off the cliff would you be against TR anchors? how about TR anchors and bolts in the unprotectable sections of the line to keep more people off the top of the cliff? Or would you advocate for closing the cliff all together and banning climbing while the cliff regenerates?

superkick wrote:Isnt KN banned from Ragged Anyways.. how do his opinions even matter still if hes not even allowed on the property?

The restraining order was not re-newed by the new RMF board. I was told they want bygones to be bygones and the current board does not have an issue with Ken and therefore would not like to continue with the status quo.

superkick wrote:Theres what over 100 routes at ragged? Id say something like 30 or so have great options for gear anchors at the top. Not to mention the rock is constantly breaking off etc. Persoanlly bolting sport routes on ragged would be terrifying due to the nature of the rock there. staples at the top soley for anchor purposes on the other hand...

The rock at Ragged is fine for bolting - this is a total misconception. The easement will not allow it and no one that I know of except myself has an FA that they would want to bold anyway.

Tom Mulholland wrote: Guess that was just me. Yeah, that's nasty. You should do something about that.

Hahahaha... awesome! You made my afternoon Tom! Trust me I'm an ardent and vocal supporter of doing something but there's a lot of legal things that need to happen and old minds to change.

CaptainMo wrote: We do it's called the death penalty... and a vote? right... and how would u be sure you're not just getting one segement? I think speaking with climbers at all the various areas is a great way to gain consensus. If I were to climb at a cliff everyday for a year or two and spoke to everyone almost everone I saw and > 50% agree, would you consider that a consensus? Honestly, I think the concept of a consensus is flawed kind of like race... it's a gradient rather then a black and white.

I can tell you that the "consensus" spoken of previously in this thread isn't scientific and without a real vote or something like it the idea of the consensus can be easily construed to serve one person's personal purposes. Where's the proof that most people would like to see a cliff bolted?

Red Tagger wrote: I can tell you that the "consensus" spoken of previously in this thread isn't scientific and without a real vote or something like it the idea of the consensus can be easily construed to serve one person's personal purposes. Where's the proof that most people would like to see a cliff bolted?

I would contend that's the problem with the concept of consensus. . . there is not proof and there is little empirically that one could do to prove that they do or don't. I think consensus in CT runs among age groups in a generalization and I would say 99% of the people I've ever met or spoken to at the crags throughout CT don't really have any issues with someone placing a bolt on their FA with land owner permission.

There is I would say a consensus against bolting previous lead trad climbs. I think there is likely a wider array of minds with regards to bolting lines lead on tied hooks (a lot are now TR lines). From my experience all of the developers I've met, and I know most of them in the state, don't have a problem on this.

cant we just have a general open invite climbing forum hear both sides and take a vote.

go with the concensus?

pretty sure we all know which side will win...

CaptainMo wrote: This would be the preservation of TR lines correct? If the trees and ground above these routes beings to become trampled, die, and turns into a dirt patch that eventually erodes off the cliff would you be against TR anchors? how about TR anchors and bolts in the unprotectable sections of the line to keep more people off the top of the cliff? Or would you advocate for closing the cliff all together and banning climbing while the cliff regenerates?

No, the preservation to climb a cliff free of man made devices is what I seek. I find the addition of metal to the cliff more intrusive than the erosion on top. Erosion happens everywhere and it's simply a judgement call what erosion is ok and what is not. There's still erosion at the bottom of the cliff and on the trail in no? So what makes that erosion ok and the erosion on the top not? In the case of Devils Lake there is some erosion on top (there's also a paved path for tourists) but I would rather see that then the whole thing littered with metal. In a way erosion is natural, bolting is not.

So, YES if you really care about erosion then ban climbing on the cliff entirely. If you only care about erosion on top then ban top-roping but bolting the routes doesn't save the cliff from man-made impact it only moves the impact from one spot to another.

Red Tagger wrote: No, the preservation to climb a cliff free of man made devices is what I seek. I find the addition of metal to the cliff more intrusive than the erosion on top. Erosion happens everywhere and it's simply a judgement call what erosion is ok and what is not. There's still erosion at the bottom of the cliff and on the trail in no? So what makes that erosion ok and the erosion on the top not? In the case of Devils Lake there is some erosion on top (there's also a paved path for tourists) but I would rather see that then the whole thing littered with metal. In a way erosion is natural, bolting is not. So, YES if you really care about erosion then ban climbing on the cliff entirely. If you only care about erosion on top then ban top-roping but bolting the routes doesn't save the cliff from man-made impact it only moves the impact from one spot to another.

;-) Well stated and that I completely agree understand and that's rare in these discussions. Probably the best articulated anti bolt (with regard to this discussion) statement yet.

its moves it from a living to a non-living thing.

one of those is more important... ya thing?

and we arent talking about bolting every route under the sun. A few smartly placed anchor on poorly protectable sections, and TR anchors on the more popular climbs.