Giant City State Park Retro-Bolted!

Dave Hug wrote:

I don't think we should be comparing Giant City to Devils Lake. They are two different areas with different climates, vegetation, soil types, etc. 

Doug, these aren't "empty words". Just because you see these actions as not directly aiding to improve the clifftop environment, doesn't mean they are not indirectly improving the clifftop environment. By doing so (bolting), we are preserving what is left of the clifftop environment, and for the time, indirectly demonstrating our concern for the environment. Also, there has been talk about a project to restore the clifftop, but with so many irons in the fire, we want to complete the bolting first, and then move on from there. 

Doug, I never said nobody cares about trad climbing. In fact I said if a route can be led with trad gear then we are placing only an anchor on it, thus preserving it. Now I also know I just dug myself into a hole. Many of the routes at Shelter 1 have been boldly led with traditional gear, but who is to say the gear would have held? That leads me to believe that in that sense, the routes were basically soloed (not all just the ones that were spicy, maybe Crackpot). So who is to really say what we can call a climb. Was is a top rope, can we truly say it was a trad route, I cannot give the answer. Moving forward, I also want to state that I am just part of a team doing this, and personally not in charge. We rely on guidance from Eric Ulner and Jeff Frizzell, for-as they have the experience of climbing there back when top roping and bold leading was the standard. So I guess what I am saying is that we are not just a group of young bucks doing this, but we are trying to respect our elders and and letting their guidance/expertise guide this project.

Ed, I agree with the notion to preserve these climbs for future generations. I personally want nothing more then that. The problem lies with the prevailing climber type/interest that inhabits our region. People want to use bolts and at the same time lack the skills to properly set up a static line that has both ends equalized to create the master point to top rope off of (for the record, some people do have those skills, but they are few and far between). I feel it is sad, and I've seen it time and time again where people only have a specific set of skills to equip themselves for safe sport climbing. On top of that the routes at Giant City and Ferne Clyffe are filthy with many holds having inches of dirt and moss in them. This in return does not seem to interest the climbing community, and thus, classic routes are never touched. Ive noticed this for the better part of 8 years and slowly drawn a conclusion in my mind. I would rather see these routes get climbed, be appreciated, and passed down and used to foster future generations then be left in their present state as "art" that is only viewed and never touched. That is why I am in favor of this project. And sure, you can say that if people wanted to climb the routes that they could clean them, but I have never seen anyone except for a few actually do so. I guess people would rather climb then clean and don't know what else to say on that note. 

Donut, it definitely is not the intention of the ICA to allow a climbing are to become "loved to death", and we are highly aware of the implications that come from bolting an area such as Shelter 1. Now we know there will be much more traffic on routes and increased wear on routes, but as far as them becoming damaged, only time will tell. In instances such as this, it is important to look at routes such as the Makanda Layback or the Camels Back, routes that have always been popular and have been climbed thousands of times. The before said routes remain in impeccable shape and the stone quality is still great, well textured, and have retained their texture and grip. For me, this makes me hopeful for the rest of the routes on the wall. Granted the routes I mentioned regularly get rained on and many of the routes in the overhung section will not, but at least they are not virgin, and have already been broken in. All in all, I hope Shelter 1 always remains in great shape and never wish for it to be damaged. I only hope to share it with the rest of the climbing community and to gain more people that care for it the way I do.

Erik, great question man! All routes that the Return to Forever bolder traverse cuts through will have their first bolt placed well above the the traverse. We want to make sure to preserve that. As for the Makanda Layback, we have the first bolt at the end of the layback gully. Also since you can place good gear there, we felt it unnecessary to place bolts any lower then that. 

Sounds like a long winded rationalization for dumbing things down.

Anchor bolts = yes

"Safety bolts" = no

Dave Hug wrote:

Continuing on, we are in no way shape or form ignoring or paving over FA's. The route is still there, we are not changing any names, and if you want to top rope it, well, now you can use a bolted anchor and stop destroying the clifftop environment. Also, I am not trying to be negative towards Joe, but in my opinion, there is a much greater challenge in leading a route as opposed to top roping it. No matter what happens at the park,  the same climbing opportunity will always exist, we now just have opened the door for other people to experience what few already have.

I would totally disagree with your statement "there is a much greater challenge in leading a route". On vertical rock, yes, but on overhanging routes like many at Makanda definitely not. And that's because before the typical climber can actually lead one of those routes they're going to dog it to death into submission. That's infinitely less of a challenge than what it takes to learn to climb those routes on TR - figuring out the moves while actually climbing. The climb-or-fly-no-hanging is not only that much harder than dogging your way up them, it also has a lot to offer in the way of learning to think and figure things out while actually climbing as opposed to hanging, taking a break and figuring it out while sitting right in front of it which is both incredibly weak and misses the real opportunity those overhanging routes offer on TR.

And, to be excruciatingly clear, the "just don't clip'em" shite is one of the lamest and obnoxious memes in all of climbing. 

I finally spoke with Calvin and while I think it's great that the park staff is now open to climbing, I don't think that necessarily gives you the right to come in and pave over the place with bolts and change the nature of climbing there. You could just as easily have installed good top anchors and called it good. But I get it that yours is a sport climbing culture now and folks want bolts, but don't think for the moment that you aren't totally changing the character and nature of climbing there and not for the better in my opinion. And I'm saying that as someone still focused on fairly high-level trad FAs even at this admittedly advanced age. Bottom line is that anyone who thinks faux clipping while dogging up those overhanging routes out there is more challenging than learning them on TR either hasn't learned any of them on TR or is otherwise just fooling themselves. Sure, once you know and can do a line it's a bit harder to lead than TR, but that's not what this is about - it's about learning to climb those overhanging routes while climbing which is actually more challenging done on TR than on lead.

So again, I don't live there and only get back on occasion and know it's your place now, but I'd again ask that you humor me and don't retrobolt [Karma] City Limits. The reasons are two-fold: first is all the above and that there should remain one representative example of how climbing at Giant City began and two, the route was and is quite delicate and simply won't bear the kind of abuse it will suffer from the traffic of folks dogging up it. In particular, the first major hold on the route is quite delicate and we thought it ever so slightly loose during the FA and would likely come off with too much traffic (and while I don't normally advocate it be prepared to epoxy it back on if it does come off or the route will be lost).

Healyje wrote:

 It's both incredibly weak and misses the real opportunity those overhanging routes offer on TR.

Good one Joe, classic really. TRing overhangs is a disipline all to itself really, those low down falls that crater you into the ground or those big ones that sometimes impale you with tree branches are something to not be missed!

And those also had serious lessons that contributed greatly to what our climbing was and became and were definitely not to be missed. But truth be told, this really is more a family discussion where you, Helen and others not from there aren't really necessary.

Healyje wrote:

And those also had serious lessons that contributed greatly to what our climbing was and became and were definitely not to be missed. But truth be told, this really is more a family discussion where you, Helen and others not from there aren't really necessary.

My apologies. I was advocating not messing with your route, because of my belief in preserving our (collective) climbing history. 

Post deleted.

Best, Helen

There is a huge difference between retrobolting and putting in top bolt anchors to replace trees. Those absolutists who are against all bolts period to replace trees on well trafficked routes have zero arguement. An irrational dislike for any bolt or denial of how traffic has grown is a "personal" problem disconnected from land managers who are looking at problems based on objectivtivity.

Those are called "straw man" arguments, Mike.

Good top anchors should have been installed forty years ago before we left but the park wouldn't allow it. The tree loss, which was underway and obvious at the time, was ultimately on them as a result.

Healyje wrote:

And those also had serious lessons that contributed greatly to what our climbing was and became and were definitely not to be missed. But truth be told, this really is more a family discussion where you, Helen and others not from there aren't really necessary.

ahhhh, the wonderful "only locals can have an opinion or contribute" argument... because every "local" crag's ethics are soooo nuanced that people with other "local" crags cannot possibly understand the complexity of issues at that one particular "local" crag. I mean, this is definitely valid since climbers only can climb at their one or two specific local crags, and cannot possibly have experienced the history or ethics of other areas. They would be entirely unequipped to offer their opinions in any constructive way that might support or challenge the view point of a "local". 

In this case, exactly.

climberish wrote:

ahhhh, the wonderful "only locals can have an opinion or contribute" argument... because every "local" crag's ethics are soooo nuanced that people with other "local" crags cannot possibly understand the complexity of issues at that one particular "local" crag. I mean, this is definitely valid since climbers only can climb at their one or two specific local crags, and cannot possibly have experienced the history or ethics of other areas. They would be entirely unequipped to offer their opinions in any constructive way that might support or challenge the view point of a "local". 

Not only that, but somehow former locals get to have a say too and their say is worth more than the current local climbing organization take on the situation.

Healyje's pontification never ceases to amaze.

Who should be in charge of the roads around here?  Town government, county government, state government, or federal government?

This post violated Rule #1.

From the A Local's Guide (TM) To Being "Local":

16. Fiercely involve yourself in petty squabbles over ethics; inflate them to seem bigger than they are, then attach yourself to the most righteous side of the debate.

Source

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Probably because it was deemed to violate the terms of this website.

https://www.adventureprojects.net/terms

Remember, some of us older fellers are in a protected class (ha ha).

I think if you keep the dialog civil and respectful, you wouldn't have to worry about your post(s).

climberish wrote:

ahhhh, the wonderful "only locals can have an opinion or contribute" argument... because every "local" crag's ethics are soooo nuanced that people with other "local" crags cannot possibly understand the complexity of issues at that one particular "local" crag. I mean, this is definitely valid since climbers only can climb at their one or two specific local crags, and cannot possibly have experienced the history or ethics of other areas. They would be entirely unequipped to offer their opinions in any constructive way that might support or challenge the view point of a "local". 

What is it to you?

Ryan Swanson wrote:

And "piss off" is ok?  Ha

Was in response to another now deleted post.

climberish wrote:

Just the hilarity of closing conversations about the vast and informative topic regarding "ethics" (in general, not particularly at this area). This is a public forum open to discussion from the PUBLIC. 

I agree, Mountain Project should be used to promote inclusivity in climbing.

Check your privilege Healyje.

The difference is we're [locally] talking about retrobolting some of my FAs so I do have a valid opinion and dog in this discussion and unless we're talking about your FA's or you are involved with the aforementioned retrobolting or are a local affected by it then you really don't and, given I asked politely at first, can now simply piss off.