"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"

We have entered the next chapter of the sad saga that surrounds climbing at Holt's Ledge.  The good news is Dartmouth College has reopened Holt's to climbing and after a two year closure and we should all appreciate this access.  Their website now says:

"Dartmouth College and the Outdoor Programs Office have reopened Holt's Ledge. The bolts have been removed. Moving forward, permission from Dartmouth is required for any bolting on Dartmouth property and it is very important not to trespass on private property surrounding the cliff. Please respect any notices from landowners and the Town of Lyme, NH. "

The bad news is the deed is done and the fixed protection has been removed, butchered or destroyed.  Dartmouth hired two Gunks climbers (Avery and Jim) to perform the work.  I wonder if they would be willing to explain to the locals, families and kids who climbed there why they were willing to participate in this process and leave such a mess.  I wonder how they would feel if they showed up at their local crag only to find a similar disaster?  The results are very disappointing and the photos below show the atrocious techniques used to destroy safe climbing at Holt's.  I realized whether it made sense or not bolt removal at Holt's was a possibility, but I never envisioned what has occurred.  Was this what Dartmouth wanted or did the bolt removers not perform the work to agreed upon standards?  Judging from the lack of engagement with climbers in this process, it is likely we will never know.  Negotiations or lack thereof over the past two years have made it clear that climbers are not considered a relevant or important stake holder and our input was considered little if at all in this process. We can only assume that Dartmouth has its reasons for destroying this important climbing resource, but it cannot be that they are against climbing on fixed gear where it is appropriate.  Otherwise we would not see Dartmouth Outing Club vans at Rumney on an almost daily basis.  Nor could it be that they are staunchly against development in valuable natural areas.  I wonder how many tons of hardware and materials were trucked in to support the colossal new Moosilauke Ravine Lodge, the temple of the Dartmouth Outing Club, and the surrounding new buildings that have scarred the upper Baker River watershed.
 
Today, the Dartmouth moto "Vox clamantis in deserto" which translates to "‎A voice crying out in the wild..." seems to have more meaning, but instead of cries of challenge, accomplishment and camaraderie, the cries are now of loss and sorrow.

Let’s all hope we can get to an "age of wisdom" and end this "age of foolishness",
Holt's Ledge Climber

So I take it Dartmouth is OK with climbing now as long as it's trad or toproping from trees and not from those mean old bolts?

This is clearly less of an eyesore than the intact bolts would have been... how could you not see this!?

Ugh.

In all seriousness, I can see reasons landowner would not want bolts (bolts can be sen as liability-- if they are installed on the property, then the property owner may be liable to maintain/inspect/ensure safety of the bolts. But if there are no bolts and someone anchored to a tree and the tree broke... that is not the responsibility of the landowner. A state park nearby has the same rules. No bolts, no fixed gear. But toproping off of tree anchors is OK. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but I can understand the reasoning.

However, if they declared a no-bolts rule, as they are within their rights to do, the existing bolts should have been properly removed, and the holes patched. Going as far as hiring someone to do the job, and then accepting this mess is incomprehensible to me.

From the looks of it the debolters pocketed the check and got beers early. And really, you aren't going to get a glue in out with anything less than an oxy-acetylene torch. Just hammer it flat? Sheesh.

The sad outcome is that this is one of those areas where top-roping from trees at the top is way more loud, way more impact to vegetation, way more likely to cause rockfall (the land slopes steeply down to the edge), and way more sketchy all around. I have witnessed this all first hand at this crag.

Regarding liability, New Hampshire has very strong laws protecting landowners against lawsuits from recreational users.

Thanks to the Access fund, climbing is specifically included as a recreational activity in the limited liability laws

"The laws provide that a landowner, lessee, or occupant owes no duty of care to a person who enters upon the land for recreational purposes or to watch recreational activities other than to avoid intentionally or maliciously causing injury or damage to the visitor. Therefore, a landowner is not liable for any personal injury or property damage claims by recreational users unless the landowner intentionally or maliciously brings about the injury or damage. An owner, lessee, or occupant of the land is not obligated to inspect the premises for hazardous conditions, give any warnings of hazardous conditions, or keep the property safe for entry by recreational users. However, property owners cannot intentionally or maliciously fail to guard or warn against a known danger in order to cause injurious results." from http://www.uvlt.org/docs/landconservation/NHLiability.pdf

This act is totally at odds with the incredible tradition of climbing from Dartmouth. I'm embarrassed to be an alum today.

JohnnyG wrote: I'm embarrassed to be an alum today.

I hear you there. My alma mater UT Austin threw out the caving grotto from using their facilities for their meetings just last month. After something like 75 years there recruiting students to become cavers and many, many great slide presentations for the general public, they decided to evict us. Alas, their rules won't allow non-students, who of course are the ones offering all of the resources. I'm surprised, as some colleges have outright killed their outdoor programs, as they are obviously too dangerous for minors.

If Dartmouth's concern is liability for bolts, perhaps it should not allow intentionally weakened hangers and bolts on its property.

PRRose wrote: If Dartmouth's concern is liability for bolts, perhaps it should not allow intentionally weakened hangers and bolts on its property.

What's pretty funny is they likely increased their liability (or at least cost of defense) doing this since it was an intentional act to damage the bolts. In order for a lawsuit for an injured or killed climber to get past summary judgement, a plaintiff would need to plead that the source of danger was intentionally or maliciously caused by the owner - and this was very clearly intentionally caused.

1st and foremost, certainly there are the rights of property owners to stop people from climbing on a cliff in any way that they choose.(Wait till you See!)
&
 I think that everyone should know that there Is a long & strong history of climbing at the school.
There were times when the best climbers in the country were climber students from Dartmouth.
 Many of those climbers have directly affected me & my climbing trajectory & that they have & still climb at inspirational levels is better known by me than most.
 Some of the hardest climbers, for two decades, came from NH & the walls of NH Have challenged & absorbed the finest climbers from around the globe.

There is a list dating back 100+ years. A list of amazing names of climbers, both well known & unknown.

So when I see this, with no other information, None, I have not even looked here on MP,  & I do not know anything about the property ownership/Liability/cost risk analysis.

That said  .  .  .  .  .  . ?WTF

       That in 2018 anyone who calls (Jim & Avery or)  anyone who would do this  .  .  .  .  Climbers  . . . .And not Criminally culpable Vandals ?
Is at least worthy of a rallying cry rant, here on this sphincter. if nothing more.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?  I hate the bolts in the Gunks!  - guess what?  -A lot of the Times -  I dont clip them!  - (& that causes a clustrfx!)  

Bolt REMOVAL is almost always going to lead to a worse out come for all involved.Many times, bolting & removal/maintenance -  being pointed to as the most significant reason given for banning climbing at a cliff altogether.
 Beyond any remains & scars, i'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me that, that, is the near undeniable" exaggeration of, and an increase in making an "Attractive Nuisance" into a dangerous known circumstance, lending credence to the ability to place the blame for the negligence on the parties responsible.
 If someone wants to hold someone liable -  they go after everyone and any one with pockets or a potential to earn, to satisfy a judgment That this sort of mess was made to negate any adverse issues from safe sanctioned climbing or is being used to stop the leading of climbs ? to stop all the climbing? . . . IT IS  inexcusable Terrible On all fronts

Holt's climber climber wrote: We have entered the next chapter of the sad saga that surrounds climbing at Holt's Ledge.  The good news is Dartmouth College has reopened Holt's to climbing and after a two year closure and we should all appreciate this access.  Their website now says:

"Dartmouth College and the Outdoor Programs Office have reopened Holt's Ledge. The bolts have been removed. Moving forward, permission from Dartmouth is required for any bolting on Dartmouth property and it is very important not to trespass on private property surrounding the cliff. Please respect any notices from landowners and the Town of Lyme, NH. "

The bad news is the deed is done and the fixed protection has been removed, butchered or destroyed.  Dartmouth hired two Gunks climbers (Avery and Jim) to perform the work.  I wonder if they would be willing to explain to the locals, families and kids who climbed there why they were willing to participate in this process and leave such a mess.  I wonder how they would feel if they showed up at their local crag only to find a similar disaster?  The results are very disappointing and the photos below show the atrocious techniques used to destroy safe climbing at Holt's.  I realized whether it made sense or not bolt removal at Holt's was a possibility, but I never envisioned what has occurred.  Was this what Dartmouth wanted or did the bolt removers not perform the work to agreed upon standards?  Judging from the lack of engagement with climbers in this process, it is likely we will never know.  Negotiations or lack thereof over the past two years have made it clear that climbers are not considered a relevant or important stake holder and our input was considered little if at all in this process. We can only assume that Dartmouth has its reasons for destroying this important climbing resource, but it cannot be that they are against climbing on fixed gear where it is appropriate.  Otherwise we would not see Dartmouth Outing Club vans at Rumney on an almost daily basis.  Nor could it be that they are staunchly against development in valuable natural areas.  I wonder how many tons of hardware and materials were trucked in to support the colossal new Moosilauke Ravine Lodge, the temple of the Dartmouth Outing Club, and the surrounding new buildings that have scarred the upper Baker River watershed.
 
Today, the Dartmouth moto "Vox clamantis in deserto" which translates to "‎A voice crying out in the wild..." seems to have more meaning, but instead of cries of challenge, accomplishment and camaraderie, the cries are now of loss and sorrow.

Let’s all hope we can get to an "age of wisdom" and end this "age of foolishness",
Holt's Ledge Climber

Jack Servedio · PRRose wrote:If Dartmouth's concern is liability for bolts, perhaps it should not allow intentionally weakened hangers and bolts on its property.
What's pretty funny is they likely increased their liability (or at least cost of defense) doing this since it was an intentional act to damage the bolts. In order for a lawsuit for an injured or killed climber to get past summary judgement, a plaintiff would need to plead that the source of danger was intentionally or maliciously caused by the owner - and this was very clearly intentionally caused.

Tell the students they are not allowed to clip any bolts, not a one at Rumney or the Gunks,

 And if caught doing so the price of a 1st offense will be a lot less expensive to life & limb than the next - 

& that going forward they should plan to protect their top ropes with armed guards.

It needs to be made clear that any of the Schools organizations are no longer welcome at any climbing areas.

This needs to be made a matter of public shamming, it stands to ask What did they do? what will they do?
 of all the fake Advocacy Groups - What has  the No AXes fund, to say?

 needs to be done on both a national and local level.

MorganH, wrote:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                That's silly, the climbers at Dartmouth didn't have anything to do with this, they would have wanted the fixed gear to stay. My understanding is that many Dartmouth associated climbers participated in the route development. This is the college admin being assholes, not the college climbing community. 

EDIT:

 You make my point for me, Their lack of stewardship of their own crag, 

is proof that they cant be trusted, Proof of their lack of what is demanded  to maintain access.

As a high profile user group, we have to hold ourselves to higher standards, to be able to expect tolerance of our use.

 SILLY? Who pays the salaries of the college administration?

 HOW IS TAKING AN ACTION THAT NEGATIVELY EFFECTS THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE  LACK OF STEWARDSHIP OF A LOCAL CRAG , TO MAKE CLEAR THAT UNTIL THEY TAKE CARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE, THEY ARE NOT WELCOME TO GO ANYWHERE AND USE WHAT OTHERS VALUE & MAINTAIN,- SILLY? 

 The only way to change the Administration's attitude, is to negatively affect the people who pay to be administered , to  ..... 

then, hours later,

Rob Blakemore wrote:& then the OP Holt's climber climber quoted it, then thought better & deleted This is a bit confusing.

Last I knew, the Town of Lyme voted to remove the bolts on the parcel owned by the town at the special town meeting last October (vote was 143 to 74).  The land was to remain posted "No Trespassing" until the bolts were removed. http://www.vnews.com/Lyme-Mulls-Opening-Holt-s-Ledge-13313303

There was also a question of whether the property maps were wrong, and the land was in fact owned by Dartmouth.  (1/2 of the ledge is owned by Dartmouth and has been open to climbing this whole time, it was only the town owned portion that was closed).

So does Dartmouth own the land? and if they do own the land, why did they go ahead with the bolt removal?  If they do own it and decided to go forward with the bolt removal, is the performed work consistent with their goals?

Maybe we ought to tread lightly here, Dartmouth has been pretty cool about keeping their half of the cliff open and accessible to the public, they could just as easily close it to the public and make it private for DOC folks. 

They literally just rappelled in with a hammer... shake my head. 

Michael Schneider wrote:

Jack Servedio · PRRose wrote:If Dartmouth's concern is liability for bolts, perhaps it should not allow intentionally weakened hangers and bolts on its property.
What's pretty funny is they likely increased their liability (or at least cost of defense) doing this since it was an intentional act to damage the bolts. In order for a lawsuit for an injured or killed climber to get past summary judgement, a plaintiff would need to plead that the source of danger was intentionally or maliciously caused by the owner - and this was very clearly intentionally caused.

Tell the students they are not allowed to clip any bolts, not a one at Rumney or the Gunks,

 And if caught doing so the price of a 1st offense will be a lot less expensive to life & limb than the next - 

& that going forward they should plan to protect their top ropes with armed guards.

It needs to be made clear that any of the Schools organizations are no longer welcome at any climbing areas.

This needs to be made a matter of public shamming, it stands to ask What did they do? what will they do?
 of all the fake Advocacy Groups - What has  the No AXes fund, to say?

 needs to be done on both a national and local level.

That's silly, the climbers at Dartmouth didn't have anything to do with this, they would have wanted the fixed gear to stay. My understanding is that many Dartmouth associated climbers participated in the route development. This is the college admin being assholes, not the college climbing community.

This is sad. A resource I had been excitedly would open up again destroyed in a disgusting way. A disgrace

What a disgrace! You mean to tell me they couldn’t find “Dartmouth climbers” who would do this in an ethical way? Are Avery and Jim alumni? Who the hell hired these morons? What a bunch of hypocrites! 

Ken Nichols is alive and well and thriving in Dartmouth.

k, im outa here
now Im bax

Rob Blakemore wrote:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hey Holt's Climber.  I deleted my earlier post, sorry if that caused some confusion in the flow of the thread. I didn't want to have posted anything that wasn't a verifiable fact on a public forum. I know there are strong opinions on both sides, obviously my sympathies are with the route developers....what a bummer to have it chopped. I've volunteered before to help clean it up, or contribute towards the loss of funds for the developers, and still would be willing do so. Thank you for all your collective efforts to develop a cool area, and considerable work to preserve it.

I guess I'm curious to know if the Grafton County Registry of deeds info is the final word in court (or wherever it matters). I've looked at the tax maps that show it as a Town of Lyme parcel. Per the minutes from the special town meeting (October 24th of 2017), the land ownership issue had not been legally resolved. I'll quote from the minutes:

"The matter of actual ownership was discussed. CLyme feels strongly that the property in question belongs to Dartmouth College and therefore the Lyme Select Board and/or voters have no authority to determine what activity can take place. Attorney Laura Spector-Morgan, attending on behalf of Mitchell & Bates who is the town’s legal advisor said that at this time neither party is sure who owns the property and that is still being determined since the CLyme challenge of ownership."
https://www.lymenh.gov/sites/lymenh/files/uploads/2017_special_town_meeting_minutes_10-24-17.pdf

(CLyme is the local climber advocacy group).

Was this ever resolved? If it was Dartmouth land the whole time, Dartmouth's official policy has been that you need approval to bolt on their land, in which case they'd be within their rights to remove (as unfortunate as that would be and has been). I guess I don't totally understand why Dartmouth would have chopped the bolts if they felt the land ownership issue was resolved in their favor. Perhaps they were working to preserve good relations with the Town of Lyme?

I thought it was pretty cool that Dartmouth kept their half of the cliff (the half everyone has always agreed they owned) open to the public this whole time, when they could just as well have closed it or made it DOC only. My general understanding is that Dartmouth has a long tradition of conservation and support for outdoor recreation. Here I'm speculating, but if they do own the land, and did decide to chop the bolts (whether to respect the wishes of the Town of Lyme or for their own reasons), I doubt they'd approve of the unsightly chop job documented above.

As I understand it, the disputed portion of the cliff is the dashed red line in Parcel 20? I've overlaid the Town property map with a google earth view as best I can, but it is by no means definitive.

If you'd prefer I will delete or modify this post to reflect whatever the facts may be.

Best,
Rob                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the map

Reading this thread I realized that there is still confusion about the property ownership of Holt's Ledge.  To be clear Dartmouth College owns 100% of Holt's Ledge including all climbable rock and ice as they have throughout this entire controversy.  This is no longer in question as all documents filed at the Grafton County Registry of deeds support this fact.  The confusion began when Lyme Town officials tried to exert authority over this private property after they estimated property lines using a Town tax map not supported by any survey.  This is truly sloppy work, made worse by the refusal of the Town to recognise the true ownership even when the facts were presented and verified by experts.  The town vote referenced here was based on a wealth on misinformation, including that the vote was an attempt to exercise authority over property that the town did not own.  Very wierd indeed.

This is a Dartmouth thing. Anyone here have ideas about how to move forward? Point well made that teh whole area could be closed which would be Worse.

EDIT: UPDATE. Some folks reached out and explained that the land ownership issue has since been resolved and Dartmouth owns the whole cliff, and the Town agrees with this assessment. Leaving the post here to keep the thread from being any more confusing. 

Hey Holt's Climber.  I deleted my earlier post, sorry if that caused some confusion in the flow of the thread. I didn't want to have posted anything that wasn't a verifiable fact on a public forum. I know there are strong opinions on both sides, obviously my sympathies are with the route developers....what a bummer to have it chopped. I've volunteered before to help clean it up, or contribute towards the loss of funds for the developers, and still would be willing do so. Thank you for all your collective efforts to develop a cool area, and considerable work to preserve it.

I guess I'm curious to know if the Grafton County Registry of deeds info is the final word in court (or wherever it matters). I've looked at the tax maps that show it as a Town of Lyme parcel. Per the minutes from the special town meeting (October 24th of 2017), the land ownership issue had not been legally resolved. I'll quote from the minutes:

"The matter of actual ownership was discussed. CLyme feels strongly that the property in question belongs to Dartmouth College and therefore the Lyme Select Board and/or voters have no authority to determine what activity can take place. Attorney Laura Spector-Morgan, attending on behalf of Mitchell & Bates who is the town’s legal advisor said that at this time neither party is sure who owns the property and that is still being determined since the CLyme challenge of ownership."
https://www.lymenh.gov/sites/lymenh/files/uploads/2017_special_town_meeting_minutes_10-24-17.pdf

(CLyme is the local climber advocacy group).

Was this ever resolved? If it was Dartmouth land the whole time, Dartmouth's official policy has been that you need approval to bolt on their land, in which case they'd be within their rights to remove (as unfortunate as that would be and has been). I guess I don't totally understand why Dartmouth would have chopped the bolts if they felt the land ownership issue was resolved in their favor. Perhaps they were working to preserve good relations with the Town of Lyme?

I thought it was pretty cool that Dartmouth kept their half of the cliff (the half everyone has always agreed they owned) open to the public this whole time, when they could just as well have closed it or made it DOC only. My general understanding is that Dartmouth has a long tradition of conservation and support for outdoor recreation. Here I'm speculating, but if they do own the land, and did decide to chop the bolts (whether to respect the wishes of the Town of Lyme or for their own reasons), I doubt they'd approve of the unsightly chop job documented above.

As I understand it, the disputed portion of the cliff is the dashed red line in Parcel 20? I've overlaid the Town property map with a google earth view as best I can, but it is by no means definitive.

If you'd prefer I will delete or modify this post to reflect whatever the facts may be.

Best,
Rob

   
                                               
                        don'tchuffonme  Wrote "   Ken Nichols is alive and well and thriving in Dartmouth"  Actually, I think Ken would not have been this "messy".  (The 1/4 inch buttonhead can [still] be removed easily without any special equipment.)  At the very minimal, the 3/8 inch bolts could have been chopped with a hammer and chisel and then covered with epoxy-and-local-sand mixture.

I agree, Dathmouth has increased it's liability, not decreased it.  

Rob Blakemore wrote: 

Was this ever resolved? If it was Dartmouth land the whole time, Dartmouth's official policy has been that you need approval to bolt on their land, in which case they'd be within their rights to remove (as unfortunate as that would be and has been). I guess I don't totally understand why Dartmouth would have chopped the bolts if they felt the land ownership issue was resolved in their favor. Perhaps they were working to preserve good relations with the Town of Lyme?

Yes, the property issue was resolved. Holts climber is correct

As far as good relations with the town of Lyme, it's a mixed bag.

Many people are way in support of the climbing. They realize that most trails are put in without explicit permission but that doesn't mean we can never use them again. That even if they don't climb, they might hike, hunt, ride, snowmobile, and have other generally accepted impacts on land they don't own in town or in other states. We all need to get along if we are going to do anything. 

Many are against it. There were some vicious lies that got spun out of control...climbers killing peregrines, busloads of climbers from out of state (the horror), profanities echoing through the valley, climbers harassing stay at home moms, feeble climbers who can't climb a route using just traditional protection (these are 35 m face climbs with rotten top-outs). The climbers were made out to be amoral, entitled assholes who were going to burn down the neighborhood and shit all over the place.The argument was framed by the people who live directly below the cliff, who are climbers and helped with the development of the bolt-protected climbs, but then fought viciously against the bolts. They tapped into a "hate the outsider" mentality, and people drank it up.

Thanks for the update and answering my question. That's a real shame.

So to summarize (my understanding of) the facts: Dartmouth does in fact own the whole cliff although that wasn't known initially, (and the Town now recognizes this too). Dartmouth decided to remove the bolts anyway. The people hired to remove the bolts really botched it. Dartmouth hasn't explained why they went ahead with the bolt removal, or commented on whether it was done the way they would have wanted (not that they have to, but it'd be nice if they did)

I don't know that a bunch of us heading to the Outdoor Programs Office with pitchforks is going to be all that helpful, but maybe letters from Dartmouth Alums could help here?  If you're interested contact the people at CLyme.