The Devils Lake top rope cluster Fu&k thread...

All of the arguing whether it is better to have fixed anchors versus built anchors is pointless when it comes to Devil's Lake. The states answer is 'HELL NO' to any discussion of fixed anchors. Unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, this goes for replacing old as well as for installing new.

Jake,

gear manufactures as well as retailers make your climbing access possible on so many levels, you might want to educate yourself:

accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5K…
blackdiamondequipment.com/e…
americanalpineclub.org/p/pa…

and so on. So before you make yourself sound like a "know-it-all-guru", check your facts.

andreis wrote: Yes, everyone who wants to climb has a right to try and equal access should be provided to everyone.

Please tell me what law, statue, regulation or document grants a "right" to climb?

Then, defend your statement about equal access. Does this mean every human should have equal access to every climb? Should a 5.8 climber have "access" to the anchors on top of a 5.12 if no walk up is available, for example.

Personally, I only have access to routes within my ability or where I can setup a top rope.

Greg D wrote: Please tell me what law, statue, regulation or document grants a "right" to climb? Then, defend your statement about equal access. Does this mean every human should have equal access to every climb? Should a 5.8 climber have "access" to the anchors on top of a 5.12 if no walk up is available, for example. Personally, I only have access to routes within my ability or where I can setup a top rope.

Greg, I think you need to read what you wrote earlier:
"As if everyone on the planet has a god given right to climb and equal access should be provided."

To that, I answered - yes, everyone has a right to climb and have an equal access to climbs (obviously to their ability).

andreis wrote: To that, I answered - yes, everyone has a right to climb and have an equal access to climbs (obviously to their ability).

So you agree that if you don't have the "ability" to set a proper anchor, your "right" to access the climb hasn't been violated.

Jake Jones wrote: That's why there is never any trash or bullshit in any areas frequented predominantly by climbers.

I can honestly say that, while I do continue to see entirely too much trash at climbing areas I frequent, I've never once had to contend with bovine excrement. Where do _you_ climb?

Eric G. wrote: So you agree that if you don't have the "ability" to set a proper anchor, your "right" to access the climb hasn't been violated.

I also believe that installing permanent top anchor chains will help to preserve trees, vegetation, make setting up top-rope much faster (so people dont occupy the wall for a full day) and safer since there are so many people who setup poor anchors.

+1 for Greg D.

Anchors don't kill people. People kill people.

Also, people who set poor anchors need training, not better equipment.

Everyone, shut up about who has a "right to climb" and who donates $$ for access. I just want to see more stupid TR pictures and what you did to educate the person responsible.

DL will (hopefully) never have anchors on the top, people will always set up crappy anchors, and hopefully no one will ever get hurt from it.

andreis wrote: Greg, I think you need to read what you wrote earlier: "As if everyone on the planet has a god given right to climb and equal access should be provided." To that, I answered - yes, everyone has a right to climb and have an equal access to climbs (obviously to their ability).

Reading comprehension?

And with your own logic:

anchor building is a skill that is part of one's ability. So, if one doesn't have anchor building skills, then any climb that requires anchor building is NOT within their ability. I'm glad we agree.

andreis wrote: with climbing comes the appreciation of the great outdoors.

I love irony!

andreis wrote: with climbing comes the appreciation of the great outdoors.

Well, the appreciation of the great outdoors, as modified to suit my needs for convenience, safety, and time constraints.

Edit: Doug beat me to it!

jon jugenheimer wrote:... and what you did to educate the person responsible.

The only truly important question here.

I do not climb at DL, so read my comments with that in mind.

I REALLY like the way that things are done at the NRG. Many of the routes (trad and sport) have bolted anchors at the top of the climbs. These anchors appear to have minimized the amount of traffic and erosion along the top of the cliff. I never felt that these anchors took away from my "trad" experience in any way. Two of my current favorite climbing areas in AZ have a pretty hard core NO BOLTS ethic. One sees a lot of TR traffic, and you can see the impact on the trees and the erosion along the top of the cliff.

To be clear, I am not advocating bolted anchors as the perfect solution. In some places it is not the right thing. I am just saying that bolts are not always more destructive and do not always have a greater impact than the consistent building of TR gear anchors and the shenanigans inherent with tying off to trees.

One more thing - bolt anchors are in NO WAY SAFER than gear anchors. There are tons of pics out there of folks building death traps off of two bolts.

Jake Jones wrote: I know all about it, thanks. You have ONE example of ONE manufacturer that contributes to the aforementioned access and coalition organizations. Access and coalition organizations are chiefly responsible for maintaining access. Our credit cards fuel their (the manufacturers that contribute) their ability to contribute. The other two examples you offered, the AAC and the AF are what I was talking about- so thanks for reinforcing my point I guess? I'm not trying to sound like a "know it all guru" as you suggest, I'm merely pointing out that with regard to access and maintenance, coalitions and access organizations are really what it boils down to. There is a difference between membership fees of an organization going to support exactly what the coalition's stated mission is, and profit capital being contributed so that a manufacturer looks more altruistic and less like the "evil corporation". I'm not taking away from the good things that these companies do, but they were formed for the purposes of profit first and foremost, for this is the main goal of corporations. They do this by creating useful products. The contributions these corporations make are by products of their own corporate missions. The AF and other access coalitions were created to acquire and preserve access. They are not the same thing. Let's hear more about your bolt and hex anchors failing. That part was good.

Corporate sponsorship account for 25% of the AF income. I'd say its a pretty significant contribution from the corporate america. accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5K…

If you are not from here, there are a few things you should understand about DL.

Unlike all the sandstone areas mentioned above, it is very easy and quick to get around from the bottom to the top of any rock here. Very easy.

There are major hiking trails that run along the tops of the tallest and highest cliffs. Major.

Most of us who actually climb here love the unaltered state of the rock. The best thing that ever happened for climbing here was the end of the piton era. Most of us are dedicated to the rock as it is, not the rock as we'd like to reshape it. Without some sort of self restraint, the qualities that many of us love about this place would disappear.

Andreis disagrees with most DL climbers. OK. There are plenty of other places for him to climb. Even sport crags in Wisconsin.

Doug Hemken wrote:If you are not from here, there are a few things you should understand about DL. Unlike all the sandstone areas mentioned above, it is very easy and quick to get around from the bottom to the top of any rock here. Very easy. There are major hiking trails that run along the tops of the tallest and highest cliffs. Major. Most of us who actually climb here love the unaltered state of the rock. The best thing that ever happened for climbing here was the end of the piton era. Most of us are dedicated to the rock as it is, not the rock as we'd like to reshape it. Without some sort of self restraint, the qualities that many of us love about this place would disappear. Andreis disagrees with most DL climbers. OK. There are plenty of other places for him to climb. Even sport crags in Wisconsin.

Doug,

Enjoy being a grumpy old man. Nothing ever stays the same, if there is a demand, there will be changes. Whenever anchors will happen or not, and I'm sure your opinion will not matter. Little respect for people like you who turn conversations into mockery and trash talk instead of a productive chat.

I've actually given you the same serious answer three times here. You tell me you and your friends don't see it that way. I heard you, but you haven't really heard me.

I could be hit by a bus on my ride home, and it wouldn't change the situation at DL one bit. I'm not standing in your way. (Well, not by myself.)

I'm actually feeling pretty chipper, thank you.

Why is it that the chossiest chosspiles in the worst possible states to live in a be a climber are the holdout states for fixed anchors?

I've been thinking on this for years... I got nothing besides Mr Nichols in CT is a witch doctor and has cast a long lasting spell.

I gotta admit sketchy anchors are entertaining.

We have bolted anchors at the top of almost every route at my local crag. I believe it is an advantage for both safety and conservation of the trees.

However, this doesn't seem to dissuade the local boy scout troops, who evidently need to test for their rock climbing/rappelling badges every consecutive weekend, from constructing heinous TR anchorfucks from every tree within 25 yards of the 5.easies, then (mis)belaying the kids with ATC's off of slung tree ground anchors.

My objective here is not to stir up shit, but merely to suggest that Darwin will have his way despite your best intentions.