Retro-Development in Idyllwild

Lou Cerutti wrote:

Put up your own routes and respect those put up by others I think that’s the bottom line here. There is a ton of rock surrounding idyllwild. If you wanna bolt a sport route on something in the back country and spray about it to your friends then go for it. 

I was saddened recently to climb with some people in Joshua tree who were disrespecting the climbing style and just wished every face route was a clip-up. I hope People with that mindset stay far away from a drill or at least take the bit to any one of the abundant Choss piles that are spread all over the dang place. 

T, you’ve expressed wanting to be a sort of climbing historian for the area. I know you’ve climbed a hell of a lot of routes up there, more than most I’m sure. But this idea seems out of character for you, to me. You’re a hell of a good climber from what I’ve seen and I know you’re not going to quest off and Erik Sloan the shit out of TZ but I just can’tsee where your motives lie. 

For the love of Jesus, does no one see the "stance" argument here?!?!? Is the slippery slope that scary to everyone?

And...you are taking too much at face value Lou ;) 

And...BTW Puss in Boots is the best thing on television right now.

https://youtu.be/GNGkHK8Umew

This isn't f'ing nam donny

I'll be honest, I'm a little confused by this thread.  I'm not sure who I'm supposed to threaten to fight for 4 hours straight just yet, but I'm sure the answer will reveal itself.

Old lady H wrote:

Broadly speaking:

For a working definition of "local" how about the people who work with the land owners/managers/"local" climbing coalition/access fund to keep areas open and accessible for climbers? Those people who build trails, sponsor clean up days, sit in meetings, replace hardware, on and on.

"Reasonable rules" might be respecting the sensibilities of the people who have protected your access for decades. Including quietly chopping bolts put up by those who disregard the "local" ethics and endanger access for all.

This is a basic part of the stewardship of our climbing areas. Ignore "local" ethics, and do as you please. But don't complain when the area is shut down to everyone because one person just couldn't resist  showing  off his/her prowess with shiny new bolts! 

Regarding R routes? Sorry, sir. I'm intimately acquainted with an old lady who found a way to climb an R in her first months of climbing. Grow a pair, eh? ;-)

Best, OLH

A reasonable argument OLH (Are we still on MP or a third dimension?) Largely the "access" issues you speak of don't pertain here but if they did....

Concentrating any decision in this process with a small group of individuals is precisely the problem I'm talking about, they all have their bias. I'm laying out logical rules to add bolts, with these rules based on logic we can move forward without conflict or individuals imposing their rules and chopping bolts at their own discretion. It could be just as probable that these land managers or owners would ask for more bolts in the name of safety or shut down an area entirely because routes are "unsafe" in their view. Would you sing the same tune then if they asked for everything to be rap-bolted? Also, if there's some sort of law that says no new fixed hardware, then there you have it, cut and dry. 

Overall, I think it's a good idea to avoid trying to make decisions with muggles.

Regarding R routes? Sorry, sir. I'm intimately acquainted with an old lady who found a way to climb an R in her first months of climbing. Grow a pair, eh? ;-)

I have climbed more R/X routes than you will ever see, often skipping fixed hardware in the interest of a clean ethic. Nothing would make me happier than to erase every single bolt on the mountain and return the rock to purity but we all know that's never going to happen. Thus, if you are going to bolt something, at least do it right, ethically speaking. 

Old lady H wrote:

Regarding R routes? Sorry, sir. I'm intimately acquainted with an old lady who found a way to climb an R in her first months of climbing. Grow a pair, eh? ;-)

Man, I hate to pop my head out of my hole least it get chopped off (I just read this stuff for entertainment value) but, correct me if I am wrong, last I read weren't you (OLH) struggling to red point / head point your local entry level trad climb?  You are leading R routes now?  Or did I miss something?  Just curious...

Xam wrote:

Man, I hate to pop my head out of my hole least it get chopped off (I just read this stuff for entertainment value) but, correct me if I am wrong, last I read weren't you (OLH) struggling to red point / head point your local entry level trad climb?  You are leading R routes now?  Or did I miss something?  Just curious...

Yeah, you missed that I'm teasing tradiban.

I didn't say lead, I said found a way to climb it. Simple, on top rope, although you sure as heck better know what you're about to get the top rope up there.

It's a chimney, with basically maybe one piece of gear 2/3 of the way up, at best. BITD, this is one of several routes here that would have just been soloed, and perhaps the second had a belay from the top. You can walk off from there.

One of my friends here is the FA from the first climbing done locally. Several of those original, ground up, gear only, anchorless routes are on my list (either done, or to do), and I very much hope they are left alone, to be enjoyed as they are.

I "struggle" to climb anything. But, I give it a shot, if it is reasonable. No trads, yet, except follows. Only a few leads, but one of those was close to an onsight. Other, "beginner" routes here I have yet to get up, with dozens of falls at the spot where I'm stuck. Go figure. ;-)

Climbed (and fell off) a lead in the gym, my first leading since that almost onsight months ago. It felt soooooo great, fall included! 

Best, Helen

An "R" on toprope? Good one! (except that those ratings only apply for the leader)

Tradiban wrote:

A reasonable argument OLH (Are we still on MP or a third dimension?) Largely the "access" issues you speak of don't pertain here but if they did....

Concentrating any decision in this process with a small group of individuals is precisely the problem I'm talking about, they all have their bias. I'm laying out logical rules to add bolts, with these rules based on logic we can move forward without conflict or individuals imposing their rules and chopping bolts at their own discretion. It could be just as probable that these land managers or owners would ask for more bolts in the name of safety or shut down an area entirely because routes are "unsafe" in their view. Would you sing the same tune then if they asked for everything to be rap-bolted? Also, if there's some sort of law that says no new fixed hardware, then there you have it, cut and dry. 

Overall, I think it's a good idea to avoid trying to make decisions with muggles.

Regarding R routes? Sorry, sir. I'm intimately acquainted with an old lady who found a way to climb an R in her first months of climbing. Grow a pair, eh? ;-)

I have climbed more R/X routes than you will ever see, often skipping fixed hardware in the interest of a clean ethic. Nothing would make me happier than to erase every single bolt on the mountain and return the rock to purity but we all know that's never going to happen. Thus, if you are going to bolt something, at least do it right, ethically speaking. 

Agreed, sir! Come visit, and I'll show you the not climbed much route(s) I've gotten (easily) 2/3 of the way up. 

The point still stands: local ethics matter, greatly. YMMV, of course.

EDIT to add: not knowing the local history, not bothering to ask, or ignoring answers you don't like, is perilous for access.

Ever heard of City of Rocks? Access issues for City/Castle are ongoing, and must be respected and carefully negotiated. Or everyone loses, big-time. Including the tiny town of Almo, and the state of Idaho (Castle is a state park), as about 80% of the visitors to the area are climbers.

Lesley Gulch in Oregon was killed for climbing, by climbers. So was Tablerock, for any hardware, in the Boise city limits, although that's a long (and colorful) story.

Best to you, sir! Helen

Old lady H wrote:

Ever heard of City of Rocks? Access issues for City/Castle are ongoing, and must be respected and carefully negotiated.

Other than the cliffs that are on private land and the Twin Sisters closure, what are the current access issues?

Ahhhhhh.

I see that some of you are still becoming acquainted with the "post on every subject even though you have zero experience regarding the topic/no business chiming in if you really think about it" phenomenon that plagues some of us.

So good.

FrankPS wrote:

An "R" on toprope? Good one! (except that those ratings only apply for the leader)

So, here's the thing: even I can climb the thing, clean. Should it get bolted? My answer is an emphatic no, but tradiban was talking about "needlessly" dangerous routes. Make no mistake, this is not one to fall on, and, it is not an easy top rope to set. Originally, this route had no anchors. Clearing the top was the "interesting" part of the route, per my FA friend. I have one I will be doing that with, hopefully with the FA on top belaying.

These puzzles can be solved, and we owe it to those who come after us to have that shot at it.

My tick says top rope, Frank. I'm totally straight on the ones I put in here. ;-)

Best, Helen

Please, don't add additional bolts to existing routes at Tahquitz.  Let trad be trad.  

Old lady H wrote:

...but tradiban was talking about "needlessly" dangerous routes..

And he seems to totally forget that none of the routes he's talking about were intentionally made "needlessly dangerous".

Marc801 C wrote:

Other than the cliffs that are on private land and the Twin Sisters closure, what are the current access issues?

Marc, one of the private land areas was closed just recently. Gates were open, to allow for hiking and a fun run, but the climbing was closed. These go back and forth, at the discretion of the landowners. All it takes is for the BLM, the state, or the private landowners to change their mind, for whatever reason, and that's that. 

These aren't "issues" in the contentious sense, because the players are well aware that climbing simply isn't a given. Without the parties ongoing work, and cooperation, this could easily end. 

EDIT to add: unless an area is owned by the Access fund, or otherwise privately owned and managed for climbing, climbers have ZERO rights to install fixed hardware. That is totally at the discretion of the landowner/manager. And has been blown by a single person doing as they pleased.

Talk to the locals, before you bolt and endanger everyone's access. I'm not saying that applies in tradibans case, but it sure has elsewhere. 

Best, OLH

Don't retro-bolt; it is a bad idea.  What is "needlessly dangerous" to one can be an easy free solo for another.  Please do not bolt for your personal climbing ability.  If you feel ambiguity about bolting etiquette, then donate to 'Access Fund' and ask them replace the compromised bolts. 

Old lady H wrote:

Marc, one of the private land areas was closed just recently. Gates were open, to allow for hiking and a fun run, but the climbing was closed.

At City of Rocks or Castle Rock? Which parcel (meaning which cliff(s))?

Oh, and remember it's the NPS that administers and manages City of Rocks.

Idaho Parks and Rec is still part of it. They aren't exactly over funded, so remember that when you're at the visitors center and drop a few bucks. 

Castle Rock. The gates were unlocked for the Idaho Mountain Festival, but areas previously open to climbing were closed. I don't remember just when, but it should be noted on that page, you can look it up. This is recent.

Being administered somewhat as a whole, having climbing rangers, having a procedure for development, were all done over the course of time, with an awful lot of effort put in, by a number of interests. It is a balancing act, which is continuous.

City/Castle is a big, well known area. Table Rock isn't, nor are many other "local" crags, here and elsewhere  Access can be even more tenuous for the small areas that don't have a big base of climbers from all over the country.

Best, OLH

Marc801 C wrote:

And he seems to totally forget that none of the routes he's talking about were intentionally made "needlessly dangerous".

Intentional or not there's no reason they need to be dangerous.

J-- wrote:

Don't retro-bolt; it is a bad idea.  What is "needlessly dangerous" to one can be an easy free solo for another.  Please do not bolt for your personal climbing ability.  If you feel ambiguity about bolting etiquette, then donate to 'Access Fund' and ask them replace the compromised bolts. 

I agree to some extent, but the bolts I'm talking about adding are to protect moves that are on or close to the overall grade of the route. Meaning, there's a nice stance before committing to cruxy moves.