Rogue Bolting in the Gunks (PSA)

David Kerkeslager wrote:

as evidenced by the "Likes" that first post is still getting. 

To be fair, I was able to give Rich six 'likes' earlier today with a single click. Sorry David, I could only give you one;). It seems the Gunks community has spoken.

Tradiban wrote: My want for this particular situation would be to approach ethics questions from a rational rather than traditional frameset.

Simply more of the retrobolt codewording which is becoming all too common among 'modern' climbers of a certain persuasion.

Healyje wrote: Simply more of the retrobolt codewording which is becoming all too common among 'modern' climbers of a certain persuasion.

I can smell your fear.

last time I climbed there we were down around CCC, Dove etc. yes it is completely shotgunned! the previous times I had climbed at the gunks there were zero bolted anchors.   preserveing the top  is complete BS as there could easily be a single marked trail. there was certainly no problem with the trail in the eightys.  these are and were convience anchors that completely changed the nature of the climbing at the gunks. 

"Intimidation will not sustain traditional ethics."

And being sneaky or illegal will not boost modern ethics.

This battle is as cliche as it comes, old Traditionalists vs New school. Pick your analogy from the past, yer gonna lose. The time is now to change your zealous rhetoric if you hope to have influance over the future.

Evolve or die off meaningless.

I've seen so many beautiful crags ruined by the placement of bolts in the rocks. They are truly the most incredible eye sore in the world. This is why I have supported the development of my local areas by donating ladders of various lengths to each zone for climbers to use as needed. They are 100% temporary and truly bomber in every way. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote: last time I climbed there we were down around CCC, Dove etc. yes it is completely shotgunned! the previous times I had climbed at the gunks there were zero bolted anchors.   preserveing the top  is complete BS as there could easily be a single marked trail. there was certainly no problem with the trail in the eightys.  these are and were convience anchors that completely changed the nature of the climbing at the gunks. 

Hey Nick, Between Three Doves and CCK there are approximately 50 routes and there are only 2 bolted rap lines. Limelight (p2) and Arrow (p1,p2) both placed in 1999.     

There has definitely been a massive rise in people visiting the Gunks and top-roping all day in one spot. 

David Kerkeslager wrote:

 .......In the first 100 routes left to right in the Trapps, there are 7 sets of bolts ........That's 14 bolts for 100 routes, and bolted routes only get fewer as you go right. Hardly "shotgunned".

I have heard this description of the Gunks as “shotgunned” with bolts even though, as you point out, even in the most densely impacted part of the Gunks the area is not exactly littered with bolts. 

Is this because people are equating the massive influx of top-ropers with bolted anchors?

#topropersshouldbeshot

I think Tradiban is serious and not trolling, at least not deliberately. But the arguments are hard to take seriously.

It is true that climbers create multiple impacts of different kinds and bolting is just one of these impacts. People disagree about whether bolting is appropriate in many circumstances. One of the ways climbers have come up with to make peace in this area is to agree to respect the traditional practice of each area. If the area is known not to favor bolts, then we don't bolt. If the area was developed with bolts, then we allow them.

Tradiban considers this to be senseless-- though I believe it is the general practice, pretty much everywhere. It is a compromise, certainly. It results in different outcomes in different places. But that's ok, isn't it?

Tradiban argues for simple majority rule of the "community," which he or she presumes will favor bolting. I think in this particular case, where we are talking about a bolted rappel anchor at Millbrook, the majority of climbers who actually climb at Millbrook would be against it. I suspect that the people who made the decision about this anchor actually know personally most of the people who climb at Millbrook with any regularity, and that these decision makers know their decision is supported by the relevant community. If we expanded this hypothetical vote to the whole population of people who climb at the Gunks, I don't know what the result would be, but I would hope that after a proper education campaign, this population would be sensible enough to vote against an utterly stupid anchor that is completely unnecessary!

Tradiban also seems to think, without reason, that the addition of bolts represents modernity and progress. I don't know why. Fixed protection is as old as climbing. I'm sure it is comforting to think your way represents the future. Personally I hope the arc of history bends towards better stewardship and fewer impacts. That's the side of history I want to be on, anyway.

Gunks Apps wrote:

I have heard this description of the Gunks as “shotgunned” with bolts even though, as you point out, even in the most densely impacted part of the Gunks the area is not exactly littered with bolts. 

Is this because people are equating the massive influx of top-ropers with bolted anchors?

That would be my guess. I must admit that I myself have reached the top of some popular toprope routes and been surprised to find that they aren't bolted.

Dylan B. wrote: IIRC, when Jason Huston did the first lead of Acid Rock (?) at DL, and hand-placed a pin, Tradiban was willing to excuse that breach of local ethics as harmless and acceptable on the cutting-edge of local climbing. But I don’t think he’d have approved bolted rap anchors along the East Bluff. I don’t know if he’s changed his tune, if he makes some kind of exception for DL that doesn’t apply elsewhere, or if he’s Just being provocative.

You are either trolling or misremembering the event. Long story short Huston and I no longer speak to each other and I have the first "clean" lead of Acid Rock.

In other words, my anti bolting stance could not be stronger.

I was part of the group that lobbied for the inclusion of bolts in the 80s.  I even placed one on Future Shock.  The non-bolting side of the debate won and in retrospect I am glad that we lost the debate.  I felt that if done responsibly, bolting would be good for the Gunks.  Time has cured me of that delusion.  There will always be those that overstep bounds or have no idea what restraint is. Placing that anchor in Millbrook proves that limits must be in place.  Even at the time I placed that bolt, I wouldn't have been happy about bolts in Millbrook.  It is a truly special cliff.  The Gunks is a truly wonderful area and one of the last bastions of traditional climbing.  Now that I live so far away, I treasure it even more.  I hope that the Gunks will always remain strong in its ethics and identity.
FM

Tradiban wrote: This battle is as cliche as it comes, old Traditionalists vs New school. 

This is true and not necessarily a bad thing; it has been a feature of climbing for well over a century now.

Pick your analogy from the past, yer gonna lose. The time is now to change your zealous rhetoric if you hope to have influance over the future.

Evolve or die off meaningless.

Tradiban speaks of democracy without any apparent understanding of how it ought to work.  He misses the positive outcomes from human interaction between people with opposing viewpoints and instead embraces the ghastly contemporary political perversion of productive discourse.  Are whoever the traditionalists are at any particular moment going to "lose?"  Absolutely, because the concept of "losing" here means not getting everything advocated. In every climbing age, the traditionalists have in some sense lost their battle.  

The "New Schoolers" have lost just as consistently of course. Phrasing the clash of perspectives in terms of winning and losing almost completely loses sight of an ongoing interaction in which the pendulum of opinion and practice continually swings back and forth.  The sport a whole evolves in directions that don't fully satisfy either camp, but on the other hand give no one group total control of the direction of things.  Moreover, the camps themselves are not even remotely fixed; as people grow and mature they have a way of re-evaluating the assumptions that governed their younger days.  Most of us, if we think about it, will recognize friends whose views have changed in both directions from their original positions.  

Moreover, it isn't even clear to me that the situation is well-characterized as distinctly polarized, when in fact there is a range of opinions with nuanced understandings all along the spectrum.

To the extent that "sides" can be identified, should either side reduce the zealousness of their rhetoric?  Well, "zealousness" covers a lot of ground, from content-free ad hominem attacks to reasonable arguments based on shared premises.  It would be nice if the arguments tended towards the latter end of the spectrum, but human nature, internet culture, and our current civic climate continually push things towards the less productive end.  But if zealousness means a sincere conviction about the beliefs advocated, then it is neither detrimental nor undesirable, and certainly doesn't decrease future influence.

The traditionalists wouldn't have a prayer unless some of the younger generation found the arguments and perspectives attractive and even essential.  This has always been the case in climbing and there is no reason to imagine it won't continue.  We have a shared passion, but views about how to best honor it that diverge---it has always been thus.

JSH wrote:

Those bolts at Millbrook?

Nono, I was talking about routes in the Trapps. I was surprised to discover there weren't bolts on P-38, for example, since I see a lot of folks toproping that. It's no big deal because there are lots of protection options, I just assumed incorrectly.

Given the proliferation of bolts in the Trapps, you just know some idiot would rap down and expect another anchor at the death ledge.

Yeah, the big danger with Millbrook bolts is that if you actually need those bolts to rap in safely, there's no way you're going to be able to get out.

This post has gone in many different places. My original reason for this post was....

1. To let the rogue bolter know that the Preserve will not tolerate unapproved anchors
2. To let others/copy cats know it won’t be tolerated
3. To let those who take things into their own hands and smash hangers flush with a hammer that the anchors will indeed be removed swiftly, appropriately, and patched properly

Maybe I should have been more direct in stating what to me seemed apparent. 

I am surprised by the people, such as Taliban who have never visited the area, that are making arguments about Gunks specific issues in which they don’t have context to support their arguments.

I think that’s part of the purpose of the area specific threads versus the general discussion threads.

David Kerkeslager wrote: Nono, I was talking about routes in the Trapps. I was surprised to discover there weren't bolts on P-38, for example, since I see a lot of folks toproping that. It's no big deal because there are lots of protection options, I just assumed incorrectly.

Yeah, the big danger with Millbrook bolts is that if you actually need those bolts to rap in safely, there's no way you're going to be able to get out.

You can get out without roping up or even rappelling again if you have very basic mountaineering competence and have a clue about the geography of the place you're in, but people who can't get down to the Death Ledge without a bolted rap anchor probably possess neither attribute.   

It is a bit of a walk of shame though, yer probably gonna be late for supper.

Tradiban wrote: This battle is as cliche as it comes, old Traditionalists vs New school. Pick your analogy from the past, yer gonna lose. The time is now to change your zealous rhetoric if you hope to have influance over the future.

Evolve or die off meaningless.

No, this is not what this “battle” is. This is not some grand debate about old vs. new school ethics. It’s an incredibly specific situation that people without any contextual knowledge of have no place commenting on. 

I’m pretty new to gunks climbing, having moved to the area only last year, but it sure doesn’t seem like the no-bolts-at-millbrook thing is contested or opposed. Seems quite happily accepted, even (especially?) among my generation of climbers. 
Like I said earlier, I’m about as pro-bolt as anyone, and I’m young enough to be considered part of the “new school” by basically any definition. But this anchor is inappropriate in this situation. Stop trying to make this some big debate without any contextual knowledge. 

Dylan B. wrote:

I do remember that you have the fist “clean” lead, but I had not been aware that you were among those disturbed by Huston’s breach of local ethics.

How does that square with your current position?

I am and always will be a staunch traditionalist. However, unlike my long haired opponent, I climb with the new generation and I listen to their thoughts on the matters of ethics and style. By and large they are not into this ego-driven macho climbing of yesteryear. This is a result of climbing becoming main stream. More than most climbers today will not be comfortable with R/X as alot of climbers we're even 15 years ago. As traditionalists we can either compromise or watch eithcs die.

rgold wrote

:
This is true and not necessarily a bad thing; it has been a feature of climbing for well over a century now.

Tradiban speaks of democracy without any apparent understanding of how it ought to work.  He misses the positive outcomes from human interaction between people with opposing viewpoints and instead embraces the ghastly contemporary political perversion of productive discourse.  Are whoever the traditionalists are at any particular moment going to "lose?"  Absolutely, because the concept of "losing" here means not getting everything advocated. In every climbing age, the traditionalists have in some sense lost their battle.  

The "New Schoolers" have lost just as consistently of course. Phrasing the clash of perspectives in terms of winning and losing almost completely loses sight of an ongoing interaction in which the pendulum of opinion and practice continually swings back and forth.  The sport a whole evolves in directions that don't fully satisfy either camp, but on the other hand give no one group total control of the direction of things.  Moreover, the camps themselves are not even remotely fixed; as people grow and mature they have a way of re-evaluating the assumptions that governed their younger days.  Most of us, if we think about it, will recognize friends whose views have changed in both directions from their original positions.  

Moreover, it isn't even clear to me that the situation is well-characterized as distinctly polarized, when in fact there is a range of opinions with nuanced understandings all along the spectrum.

To the extent that "sides" can be identified, should either side reduce the zealousness of their rhetoric?  Well, "zealousness" covers a lot of ground, from content-free ad hominem attacks to reasonable arguments based on shared premises.  It would be nice if the arguments tended towards the latter end of the spectrum, but human nature, internet culture, and our current civic climate continually push things towards the less productive end.  But if zealousness means a sincere conviction about the beliefs advocated, then it is neither detrimental nor undesirable, and certainly doesn't decrease future influence.
The traditionalists wouldn't have a prayer unless some of the younger generation found the arguments and perspectives attractive and even essential.  This has always been the case in climbing and there is no reason to imagine it won't continue.  We have a shared passion, but views about how to best honor it that diverge---it has always been thus

@rgoldTLDR