Why chop these bolts?
|
I recently did a climb that had about 3/4 of its bolts chopped. As it stands now, the climb is a (wondering) “12 pitch” mixed climb. My understanding is that the FA, who originally bolted the route and intended it to be a sport route, was pressured by the local climbing community to chop the bolts. So he did, but he left the shaft of the bolts in the rock. The local community calmed down. But I still couldn’t make sense of the reasoning behind the local climbing community’s want for the bolts to be chopped. The area has several multi pitch climbs, one of which is a well established sport route that didn’t get much flak for being put up. It is well know that the classic trad routes in the area are to be protected/cared for and remain trad. There has since been at least one single pitch sport route added to the area. The area is secluded, on a weekend day it’s rare to see more than one other party at the wall, equally as rare to see another party there at all. And, imo, the route I did that was chopped is a one and done kind of climb (Climbing 300’ vertically and then traversing 150’ to only end up 90’ off the deck at one point made me tilt my head sideways a little bit). The reasons I could find, regaurding why the locals wanted the route chopped, were impacting the rock as little as possible and the route can be done on gear. |
|
Without knowing the area all we can do is speculate. You mentioned it could be done on gear. |
|
|
|
Adrienne DiRosario My guess is- If it can be done on gear it stays a trad line. Forcing them to chop the bolts is a deterrent to anyone else who might want to bolt a trad line. I can understand those reasons, but they are almost entirely driven by someone’s ego, right? (Not saying you are the one making that statement) statements like that also play into a bs climbing hierarchy too. To me if a trad climber uses that logic then he/she should never clip a bolt in their life. If it can be done on trad than it stays trad. Following that logic, If it can’t be done on trad than it should be free climbed with no pro or not climbed at all. Seems like a rather strict line of thinking for a sport that is rather abstract and selfish if you were to look at it that objectively. (Once again, addressing the general “you”). |
|
Luke Roberts wrote: You’re getting into the bolt wars debate that has been brought up 100s of times. There is no answer and folks firmly in both camps that ensure this will never be settled. |
|
|
|
Adrienne DiRosario wrote: Without knowing the area all we can do is speculate. You mentioned it could be done on gear. And if it can be free soloed? Then no one should ever place gear on it, right? (Just giving one example of why bolt wars can never be resolved.) |
|
Gunkiemike wrote: I’m with you Mike, I was only speculating about why they forced the chopping. See my second post “You’re getting into the bolt wars debate that has been brought up 100s of times. There is no answer and folks firmly in both camps that ensure this will never be settled.” |
|
You'd be much better off discussing this with the local community, listening, and trying to see the argument from their set of assumptions and viewpoint (not from a stance of debate.) |
|
Luke Roberts wrote:What does this have to do with ego? Please explain. It couldn’t be that this guy put up a route well out of character regarding the local style and ethics and realized his mistake. Sounds like he put his ego aside and did the right thing. Harvey Carter starting climbing there in the 60’s. It’s not a sport crag. |
|
Gunkiemike wrote: Hey, Gunkiemike, This falls to you. . . whats going on - up ther - y'all condoning bolting now ? I ask because of the Bolt at Dickie Barr https://www.mountainproject.com/route/114266408/hardware-abouts-unknown#Comment-114266706 I know, it is a brave new world n' all Everything is new& un -climbed,(who cares about whats not been recorded by the cool people?...No One). . . . Now it is - forget to ask if a cliff might have a history- but please stop allowing the desecration of the Gunks. please keep the bold history of climbing by fair means alive, not falling slowly down the slippery slope The ghost of Bill Ravitch still prowls I tell ya. . . . |
|
Gunkiemike wrote: I get that you're just making this argument hypothetically, but I'm having trouble understanding the logic of this. Is the idea that people are somehow obligated to climb routes in the style of the boldest ascentionist? That seems different to me from bolts versus gear--bolts versus gear isn't *just* about style, it's about the fact that bolts leave a lasting impact on the rock which gear (usually) doesn't. Gear and free soloing don't affect the rock differently in most cases. Besides a few folks like healyje, I don't think most people are concerned with how other people climb if those other people's climbing style doesn't have any lasting effect. |
|
Michael Schneider wrote: There's more than one bolt at Dickie Barr, which technically is not the 'Gunks, just as there are bolts at the 'Gunks where there's no possibility of avoiding an X rating on an otherwise trad route. |
|
Luke Roberts wrote: https://www.mountainproject.com/v/109103703 That right there is an abortion of all that climbing is about....:( |
|
Just curious... for clarification, they just pulled off the hangers and left exposed posts/shafts sticking out of the rock? |
|
You need a rack to climb the best route on that face so bring your rack and climb on. |
|
|
|
This is why we can't have nice things ... |
|
But noone chopped these bolts. Why are you saying they chopped them. All you need is a hanger, nut, and a wrench and you could lead it sport and have your second clean the hanger on the way up. |
|
Michael Schneider wrote: There are quite a few bolts at the Gunks. Nothing new here. |
|
ebmudder wrote: Dickie Barr is most certainly in the Gunks. The Gunks are larger than the Mohonk Preserve. |