Bolt cutter in Central Mass.

God'sOwnRock wrote:Has this ever been thought about as a compromise?

With regard to Ragged and other heavily used crags... it's entire cliff ecosystems that are severely damaged and destroyed, not just the trees. The loss of topsoil is the loss of habitat. And YES! Stakes, Staples, bolts, it has all been considered but the folks who run the RMF and are responsible for protecting that environment don't care to do anything and in their eyes the cliff top looks great and is in good condition, honest. That's Chuck Boyde's amateur assessment... sad state of affairs really but they don't want to do anything (and don't let them tell you they can't, thats BS).

God'sOwnRock wrote: I don't know enough of the location yet to make some individual judgements but from what I have seen so far, the bold routes wouldn't make interesting sport routes.

.

What about this one???

Golden Age

Or Lightening Strike (5.13 arete of Thor's Hammer)?

Nichols put up many hard ascents with bolts and pins, and then later ripped them all out and was known for chopping anyone trying to replace them so they could recreate the ascent of the first party... Then tells everyone they must do it like him, now...

Morgan Patterson wrote:. What about this one??? Golden Age Or Lightening Strike (5.13 arete of Thor's Hammer)?

Nichols put up many hard ascents with bolts and pins, and then later ripped them all out and was known for chopping anyone trying to replace them so they could recreate the ascent of the first party... Then tells everyone they must do it like him, now...

I did say from what I have seen, I haven't seen those routes, they'd be too hard for me anyway! For me if the bolts can be reached from adjacent trad lines they're a definite no no, otherwise I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it, my instinct says no but I haven't climbed enough here yet.

D.Buffum wrote: The objection is to the extent or degree of the impact, not to the simple fact of placing a bolt. It's not that there's a distinction between a piton and a bolt, it's that there's a distinction between a line of 10 bolts + chains on a 30 meter pitch, or three pitons on a 60 meter pitch. Also, to a small degree a piton does less damage to the rock too; (but that's a pretty minor distinction if you ask me).

This is true, it's often possible to add one or two bolts to a route without changing it's character, trouble is often this leads to more being added.

For most people in my experience the rock damage is only one consideration. The main reason is changing the character of the climbing and denying people a chance to make deep decisions about risk and commitment and have an overall rewarding experience just for the sake of convenience.

God'sOwnRock wrote: I did say from what I have seen, I haven't seen those routes, they'd be too hard for me anyway! For me if the bolts can be reached from adjacent trad lines they're a definite no no, otherwise I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it, my instinct says no but I haven't climbed enough here yet.

Most of the bolting that people want to do in this state is for hard routes which are not safely leadable without some fixed gear, not retro-bolting trad routes. There's a fair debate about bolting and placing fixed gear on TR's, I fall on the make them leads side rather then leave it as a deathroute no one will enjoy soloing. There are quite a few routes that have been put up with mixed (fixed gear and trad gear)... IMO that's the new standard to strive for in developing in state. As far as crowding routes, I agree, new routes shouldn't significantly detract from old routes.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Most of the bolting that people want to do in this state is for hard routes which are not safely leadable without some fixed gear, not retro-bolting trad routes. There's a fair debate about bolting and placing fixed gear on TR's, I fall on the make them leads side rather then leave it as a deathroute no one will enjoy soloing. There are quite a few routes that have been put up with mixed (fixed gear and trad gear)... IMO that's the new standard to strive for in developing in state. As far as crowding routes, I agree, new routes shouldn't significantly detract from old routes.

Sounds like we're not thinking too differently, although I think there is a difference between routes with a big whipper/deck potential from some points only and completely unprotectable routes. And even then it depends on the routes.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Most of the bolting that people want to do in this state is for hard routes which are not safely leadable without some fixed gear, not retro-bolting trad routes. There's a fair debate about bolting and placing fixed gear on TR's, I fall on the make them leads side rather then leave it as a deathroute no one will enjoy soloing. There are quite a few routes that have been put up with mixed (fixed gear and trad gear)... IMO that's the new standard to strive for in developing in state. As far as crowding routes, I agree, new routes shouldn't significantly detract from old routes.

I think for the most part that's true, but this was not exactly the case at Firewall. A number of the sport routes were put up directly over or immediately adjacent to existing trad lines that were PG at worst.

ward smith wrote: Ken denied that he was chopping Farley, and I caught him red-handed in the act, even though he had a restraining order telling him specifically not to visit the property, much less chop bolts. He is a zealot and a liar, a very bad combination. Good luck you guys, that is a great crag, hate to see more bolt scars.

I literally stumbled into Farley, which was just a legend to a 16 year old back in 1993, and to think that Nichols is still rolling around creating this drama in 2014 is insane.

christopher adams wrote: I think for the most part that's true, but this was not exactly the case at Firewall. A number of the sport routes were put up directly over or immediately adjacent to existing trad lines that were PG at worst.

I know Brian's article claimed this, in addition to having extra bolts where there were none which helped support this false claim, like on Fresh Bag (which is R/X w/o placing gear btw). I'm also familiar with most of the routes and I'd hardly call any of them Trad routes. From my understanding, this was a TR crag that was basically abandoned except for a climber or two a year and now its a popular cliff which helps draw climbers away from already overused areas. Additionally and ultimately in my book, the crag is owned by the Town Of Southington and they gave permission for the re-bolting of the entire cliff.

I do agree some of it could have been handled better but ultimately the bolters had permission to do what they did and in the end that's probably the most important from a big picture. For example though, BBR should have been pre-cleared with FA, but subsequently, FA didn't have any issue with added bolts so there's nothing wrong there in the end other then poor form... But even so BBR requires trad gear still, like Fresh Bag. Additionally, some of the original fixed gear is still up there (and absolutely not safe) so some of the placements were updating the previous gear from pins to bolts.

Most important Chris, because you make the point, I will counter with this:

What trad lines have you led there that were retro bolted to be 'sport routes' (ie no gear necessary at all and no real runouts) or what trad lines have you lead that have been significantly detracted due to some bolts being added on adjacent routes? If I had to guess, no offense, I'd say you probably haven't lead a single line on the main walls (ie not the 20' tall left end).

D.Buffum wrote: The objection is to the extent or degree of the impact, not to the simple fact of placing a bolt. It's not that there's a distinction between a piton and a bolt, it's that there's a distinction between a line of 10 bolts + chains on a 30 meter pitch, or three pitons on a 60 meter pitch.

What is the impact from a bolt hole which has been filled in and resurfaced with the same rock around it? Nothing from what I can tell. What is the difference from a pin being worked out and replaced numberous times? It can be significant and not easily repairable.

On your exapmple not comparing apples to apples. Chains on an anchor do not a sport route make. I've seen plenty of Trad climbs with anchors with chains. 10 Plus bolts + anchors and chains, vs 10 pitons + Anchors tat & chains would be more comparable and in that sitation, one can remove or hammer in bolts and fill holes and blend to the extent you'd never even know it was once there. So I'm actually of the opposite spectrum re: impacts. TR'ing has a significant impact on the cliff tops. encouraging people to lead ground up to anchors at cliff lips does far more to protect the cliff environment. I will gladly take the alteration of the rock in order to protect the living environment around the cliff, but that's just me. I think portions of Main Cliff @ Ragged Mountain need to be closed to hiking and climbing IMO.

D.Buffum wrote: What impact is "worse" is certainly debatable, and really each bolt/piton, route and area need to be considered on it's individual merit how much it damages or detracts from the natural condition of the place. My only point is that it's not hypocritical or a "double standard" to oppose bolting an entire crag while simultaneously being indifferent to a handful of pitons somewhere on a mountainside.

I think you make an important point but again your not comparing apples to apples so of course you don't see a double standard (and your example is a good example where there wouldn't be one). You've already excluded the possibility of that in setting up your example. Hand full of pitons on a mountain vs hand full of bolts on a mountain - try using that. There's very much a double standard in this state and in the context with which bolts are discussed. I see it first hand from board meetings to land manager discussions. The double standard is evident in the bias of your example. Pitons were in wide use in CT, you don't see them now because some wacko and his cohorts went about ripping all the historical gear out of our cliffs. The reality that I see is a lot of the development in the state has not been of sport routes but rather mixed gear routes where what would have been a pin placement is now a bolt placement or bolting TR's where there's no gear.

Damn, ass-kickin talk & i missed out on it.

Buffum:
1. Context is entirely the point....

2. I don't know anyone who would object to replacing that piton with a bolt

Mo:
1. Can't argue with you there... I spend a lot of time on each bolt placement discussing the merits and concerns and trying to figure out all aspects good and bad for it's placement. I agree and I think this is how it should be done but unfortunately you can't have those discussions with land managers or boards around here so it really on the individual developer/team.

2. Really... and you're an experienced CT climber? Try Ken and all his cronies to start. Try the RMF board and the guides Chuck Boyde & Matt Shove re Ragged and the replacement of the fixed gear allowed by the bylaws. Matt used to brag about taking down fixed gear or removing stuff like the above. I think you fall VERY much into the common ground that most of us would categorize ourselves (myself included) these days. But when we only discuss bolts we polarize the issue, you've done a good job in your above example of showing that... its important to be to be mindful of. If you're going to discuss climbing and bolts with regards to access/placements/etc it on should strive to do so in the context of fixed protection. When I speak with landowners it's not, hey can I go up there drill some bolts on your property? Its always can we place fixed gear so as not to exclude the placement of all types of fixed gear, inclusive of all styles. If there is interest or questions about what types of fixed gear and why that's a different conversation and usually the next step. At least here in CT there's plenty of historical fixed gear that should be included for a proper and fair discussion.

sorry everyone. slow day.

Morgan Patterson wrote: I know Brian's article claimed this, in addition to having extra bolts where there were none which helped support this false claim, like on Fresh Bag (which is R/X w/o placing gear btw). I'm also familiar with most of the routes and I'd hardly call any of them Trad routes. From my understanding, this was a TR crag that was basically abandoned except for a climber or two a year and now its a popular cliff which helps draw climbers away from already overused areas. Additionally and ultimately in my book, the crag is owned by the Town Of Southington and they gave permission for the re-bolting of the entire cliff. I do agree some of it could have been handled better but ultimately the bolters had permission to do what they did and in the end that's probably the most important from a big picture. For example though, BBR should have been pre-cleared with FA, but subsequently, FA didn't have any issue with added bolts so there's nothing wrong there in the end other then poor form... But even so BBR requires trad gear still, like Fresh Bag. Additionally, some of the original fixed gear is still up there (and absolutely not safe) so some of the placements were updating the previous gear from pins to bolts. Most important Chris, because you make the point, I will counter with this: What trad lines have you led there that were retro bolted to be 'sport routes' (ie no gear necessary at all and no real runouts) or what trad lines have you lead that have been significantly detracted due to some bolts being added on adjacent routes? If I had to guess, no offense, I'd say you probably haven't lead a single line on the main walls (ie not the 20' tall left end).

First, what is this Brian's article you're speaking of?

Second, your counter point is pretty irrelevant, but since you want to compare apples to oranges, I offer this counterpoint to your counterpoint. I have never been murdered, or had any of my loved ones murdered, but I still think murder is generally poor form. IE- just because someone is not personally impacted by an event does not mean they are not allowed to have an opinion or state a philosophical case. Just because I don't have kids doesn't mean I'm ok with people beating kids. I could go on with this but I think it's pretty obvious that won't get anywhere.

But to answer your question, and to frame it within my context of 'directly over or immediately adjacent' to established reasonably safe trad lines, firecracker comes immediately to mind. It's been oh.. 6 years since I've been there because the climbing just isn't that great and I'd rather go to the gunks, so i'd have to take another look see for more.

And about BBR.. wasn't Ken part of the FA party? Or am I mistaken there? Sure, it still requires trad gear, but don't you think the character of the route is a little bit different now?

Listen- I'm all for bolts where they're appropriate. The central section of firewall is well and appropriately bolted. The left middle section of Pinnacle with its huge roof and poor rock quality would be great to see a couple lines of bolts on (after a good deal of cleaning obviously). What bothers me is that people act like just because Ken is a total prick and nutcase (all true) that he didn't do anything to develop CT climbing (patently false). He was among the first to really clean, develop, and document climbing at most of the CT crags.

As a hypothetical, You did a ton of work developing bouldering all over CT (fact, and I am happy to acknowledge that, you really did a ton of great work) putting up a bunch of proud lines.

Imagine a world 30 years from now where practically everyone is climbing V14. All these young crushers decide, well, it's so hard to find a good V14 line, but if we start chipping all the holds off these old easy V5 through V9 lines, we'll have lots of great stuff that we want to climb. You wouldn't be cool with that, right? Couldn't they just do eliminates and not alter the nature of the rock/climb?

Lastly, because I hate Ty Cobb. Ty Cobb was a real asshole- but you have to respect the game he played.

christopher adams wrote: First, what is this Brian's article you're speaking of?

Damn u bring up some great points but, I am only 'working' for another 12 minutes so i don't have time to fully respond but... Brian wrote an article in Rock & Ice which the editors purposefully edited and titled to create a supposed controversy. Brian made a similar claim as you but had miscounted bolts and thought there were bolts where there weren't and as a result claimed trad routes were bolted which weren't because the bolts didn't exist.

Firecracker is what I would call a squeeze job or a bolted variation and I have some sympathies for the decrying but then again I've never met anyone who's even tried to trad climb that route and everyone I've ever spoken to considers it a solo, one of those "CT trad" climbs. Its a gray area to me, not to others. I also know the old route is not the same line as the new route. These are all excuses but in the end (not that i bolted it) but in my head I would do the benefit calculation, positive benefit to climbing community to have some variation of it bolted and used by many or having it locked away as a death route to stoke one person's ego. My point in asking what ones you've climbed is to make the point that you probably haven't trad climbed anything there nor anyone you know, because they;re not really trad climbs in the traditional sense. They're free solos with a gear placement maybe 2 that have been toproped since they're establishment.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Damn u bring up some great points but, I am only 'working' for another 12 minutes so i don't have time to fully respond but... Brian wrote an article in Rock & Ice which the editors purposefully edited and titled to create a supposed controversy. Brian made a similar claim as you but had miscounted bolts and thought there were bolts where there weren't and as a result claimed trad routes were bolted which weren't because the bolts didn't exist. Firecracker is what I would call a squeeze job or a bolted variation and I have some sympathies for the decrying but then again I've never met anyone who's even tried to trad climb that route and everyone I've ever spoken to considers it a solo, one of those "CT trad" climbs. Its a gray area to me, not to others. I also know the old route is not the same line as the new route. These are all excuses but in the end (not that i bolted it) but in my head I would do the benefit calculation, positive benefit to climbing community to have some variation of it bolted and used by many or having it locked away as a death route to stoke one person's ego. My point in asking what ones you've climbed is to make the point that you probably haven't trad climbed anything there nor anyone you know, because they;re not really trad climbs in the traditional sense. They're free solos with a gear placement maybe 2 that have been toproped since they're establishment.

I lead firecracker around 2007 on gear. At the time I was only climbing 5.10 or so and most of the other routes that were bolted since then were beyond me. I had rehearsed the climb and the gear on toprope as I have for a bunch of other climbs that were at/near my limit like croc tears at orenaug, ymc, and unconquerable crack (though there's no gear beta needed on that gem).

The loss of firecracker is no big deal- But just like everything else.. it's a slippery slope.

Right now we're waiting on land use agreements for developing climbing at Thacher Park outside of Albany- I'm really psyched to see the bolts go in.

It's a limestone cliff that's generally pretty steep and chossy- the perfect place for this sort of thing. Climbing there has historically been minimal and limited to really obvious trad lines, no siege tactics by crazy mothers.

You should check it out..

Morgan Patterson wrote: ... Brian made a similar claim as you but had miscounted bolts and thought there were bolts where there weren't and as a result claimed trad routes were bolted which weren't because the bolts didn't exist.

Let first say that I think Firewall is much better off bolted. It turned a seldom climbed not-so-great crag into a fun little sport crag. I stand by my Rock and Ice article. Old trad routes (or at least routes that were led no matter what you call them) were retro-bolted at Firewall. Dave Fasulo is doing a new version of his CT guidebook and he confirmed that to me as well. I've developed an area with Ken and his standard operating procedure is to lead every inch of the rock whether it is a mossy/chossy 5.4 or whether it has one piece of protection in 50 feet. That way he can claim it is his route and log it in his little book and stroke his insecure ego.

you lads or ladies should grab a sixer and 15ft of nylon and go tr yer arses off or hell maybe just grab a bouldering pad and a 12 pack, leave them drills at home

Brian wrote: I stand by my Rock and Ice article.

I know you do, as you should and I agree about the retroness overall. But it's okay to admit you made a mistake in listing bolts that weren't there and that helped make your 'case'. I wouldn't stand by those... My point earlier to chris was that they're not trad routes anyone has lead, they were TRs that were solo'ed once maybe twice.

I bet my dad could beat up your dad!!!

Seriously...a community of climbers does an impact assessment, submits proposals to bolt for toprope or the route itself (for safety/trees/vegetation/erosion/etc), gets permission from a government entity (the town/owner/etc), and then to have some holier-than-thou jackass vandalize it is absurd.

Mass is nothing but double-standards, try passing someone going 40 in a 55, and have them speed up to prevent you from passing, or better yet, move over into the passing lane and slow down to prevent you from passing. You have a right to go 40...and I have a right to pass you in a legal passing lane. Kiss-my-assumptions that you have your rights, but I can't have mine.