Why not put bolts vs pitons in Gunks?

I would propose..
If the safety of the piton can not be adequately assessed remove it (some are death traps waiting for the next fall)
If adequate gear (not 1KN micro-nuts) can be placed then don't replace the fixed gear
If an existing piton is necessary for the safety of the climb and it can not be adequately assessed to hold a fall then replace it with a bolt.

I know that this isn't Mohonk policy.  It is my opinion.  

SethG wrote: Steven, I would quibble with what you say about Moonlight. The pin is junk, yes. But I have placed a pink tricam not far from the pin. It is a foot or two away, and assuming the pin is gone, the lack of a replacement makes the fall even worse than if we assume the pin is good. But the pin is not that well-placed for the crux in any event, and part of the excitement of Moonlight comes from the fact that it is a no-fall situation even if the piton is good. I would argue that the tricam placement provides basically equivalent gear to the piton, and that this climb wouldn’t change that much if it were gone.

But even if I agreed with you about the pro, I would still argue that no fixed gear is necessary. I made my case above about what progress and stewardship mean to me, and I don’t mean to repeat it.

I want to say something else here. Leaders have been navigating that stretch of rock on Moonlight (and the poorly-protected easy climbing that precedes it) for decades with that garbage piton in place. I did the climb when I was a 5.6 leader and it scared the bejeezus out of me. But it taught me some valuable lessons about keeping it together, and about the decisions that trad leaders have to make. The climb is to my mind a valuable right of passage for leaders in the Gunks and changing the gear situation would ruin it. 
Anyone who wants to be a trad climber should climb Moonlight as it is. Go on up there and figure out how to place the best gear you can. Suss out the somewhat blind traverse and ask yourself if you’re confident about the moves. Decide whether to commit or not. That’s what it’s all about. I’m not suggesting you do anything stupid. If you don’t feel good about the fall or the moves, you can climb back down! Or you can climb down only as far as the last bomber gear, and bail. There’s no shame in that. This is what trad climbers do, every day.

I totally agree with this. Replacing that pin with a bomber bolt wouldn't make the crux any less of a no-fall zone, and clipping the okay placements I found around the pin instead of the pin wouldn't make it any more of a no-fall zone. The committing corner moves are what they are. For me (fairly novice climber with only a few Gunks 5.8 leads under my belt) this is one of my proudest leads, and changing the protection (i.e. putting a bolt closer to the crux) would not have given me that experience.

SethG wrote: I want to say something else here. Leaders have been navigating that stretch of rock on Moonlight (and the poorly-protected easy climbing that precedes it) for decades with that garbage piton in place. I did the climb when I was a 5.6 leader and it scared the bejeezus out of me. But it taught me some valuable lessons about keeping it together, and about the decisions that trad leaders have to make. The climb is to my mind a valuable right of passage for leaders in the Gunks and changing the gear situation would ruin it. 
Anyone who wants to be a trad climber should climb Moonlight as it is. Go on up there and figure out how to place the best gear you can. Suss out the somewhat blind traverse and ask yourself if you’re confident about the moves. Decide whether to commit or not. That’s what it’s all about. I’m not suggesting you do anything stupid. If you don’t feel good about the fall or the moves, you can climb back down! Or you can climb down only as far as the last bomber gear, and bail. There’s no shame in that. This is what trad climbers do, every day.

I think this perfectly sums up my feelings as far as the current pro situation in the Gunks go and it's worth repeating if only because I feel as though a bit of that getting lost or at the very least, being overlooked by some of todays climbers. Being able to understand that you cannot, should not or don't want to fall along with what your actual abilities are is something that needs to be nurtured. That's what keeps you safe, not necessarily pre-existing pro. Especially if you aspire to bigger things.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I totally agree with this. Replacing that pin with a bomber bolt wouldn't make the crux any less of a no-fall zone, and clipping the okay placements I found around the pin instead of the pin wouldn't make it any more of a no-fall zone. The committing corner moves are what they are. For me (fairly novice climber with only a few Gunks 5.8 leads under my belt) this is one of my proudest leads, and changing the protection would not have given me that experience.

I understand how jacked one can feel after successfully pushing through a sketchy but exhilarating lead, but not all climbs should be PG/R rated.  I'm arguing that perhaps this one should not be, as it wasn't for many decades while the pin was still good.  We agree that the nature of Moonlight makes it a special climb. (For me it holds a special place in my heart because, back in the day, I free soloed it under at under a full moon.  It was exciting and magical.) But what you said about it staying a no fall zone even with bomber pro makes no sense - the fall,even though a pendulum,  would be relatively short and safe.  And not all leaders will necessarily be able to construct the "okay placements" you found, even assuming they would reliably hold a fall.

Lyle M wrote: No one tells me how to live my life because someone already did that first 300 years ago. 

You're 300 years old? 

SethG wrote:
I want to say something else here. Leaders have been navigating that stretch of rock on Moonlight (and the poorly-protected easy climbing that precedes it) for decades with that garbage piton in place. I did the climb when I was a 5.6 leader and it scared the bejeezus out of me. But it taught me some valuable lessons about keeping it together, and about the decisions that trad leaders have to make. The climb is to my mind a valuable right of passage for leaders in the Gunks and changing the gear situation would ruin it. 
Anyone who wants to be a trad climber should climb Moonlight as it is. Go on up there and figure out how to place the best gear you can. Suss out the somewhat blind traverse and ask yourself if you’re confident about the moves. Decide whether to commit or not. That’s what it’s all about. I’m not suggesting you do anything stupid. If you don’t feel good about the fall or the moves, you can climb back down! Or you can climb down only as far as the last bomber gear, and bail. There’s no shame in that. This is what trad climbers do, every day.

What you say is true, except that the pin was not always garbage, and certainly it becomes more worthless with every passing year.  The original ascent team saw fit to protect the traverse with a pin.  Also,your argument could be applied to any climb with fixed gear. Why replace the bolts on Arrow?  Do classic such as Shockley's, High E , Son of Easy O, MF, Called on Account of Strain, Try Again etc. really need all those fixed pins?  Wouldn't they too become rites of passage at their grades if the fixed pro was allowed to become worthless?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating turning every climb into a mushy whimpfest.  But perhaps a climb like Moonlight should be preserved (or returned to is original status) as an accessible gem.

Steven Amter wrote:

But what you said about it staying a no fall zone even with bomber pro makes no sense - the fall,even though a pendulum,  would be relatively short and safe.

What I mean is that even if the pin were bomber, the pin is far enough to the right of the crux that a fall there would NOT be short and safe. I don't think that there ever was a time that Moonlight was G/PG--even when that pin was solid, the crux was a no-fall zone.

A solid pin at/near the crux, not to the right where the current pin is, would change things (for the worse, IMO).

Steven Amter wrote:

I understand how jacked one can feel after successfully pushing through a sketchy but exhilarating lead, but not all climbs should be PG/R rated.  

I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that. If you're basing your argument on countering that proposal, you're lost even before you start.

If you like to couch things in extremes, your focus on bolting Moonlight - taken together with others' selected "bolt THIS climb" notions - is tantamount to asking that "NO CLIMB should be allowed to go downward on the "safety scale".  Can you not see why that smacks of The Nanny State in many peoples' eyes?

Steven Amter wrote:

What you say is true, except that the pin was not always garbage, and certainly it becomes more worthless with every passing year.  The original ascent team saw fit to protect the traverse with a pin.  Also,your argument could be applied to any climb with fixed gear. Why replace the bolts on Arrow?  Do classic such as Shockley's, High E , Son of Easy O, MF, Called on Account of Strain, Try Again etc. really need all those fixed pins?  Wouldn't they too become rites of passage at their grades if the fixed pro was allowed to become worthless?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating turning every climb into a mushy whimpfest.  But perhaps a climb like Moonlight should be preserved (or returned to is original status) as an accessible gem.

I'm really just not sure you're familiar with the pins on the climbs you're describing at this point. Moonlight wouldn't be "an accessible gem" even if the pin before the crux were solid--the pin is a full 10 feet at least to the right of the crux, and would still give you a dangerously huge pendulum into the wall. And there's not a single necessary pin on Shockley's, High E, or Son of Easy O (except the anchor)--all three of those climbs could lose all their pins and still be G. In fact, I've led Shockley's and High E both in the last few weeks, and don't think I clipped a single pin (except the one before the ceiling on Shockley's--and that was completely unnecessary). I often don't clip pins, but not due to any sort of bravery or risk-seeking: those climbs were all well-protected without clipping any pins.

Leader never falls.
I vote for leaving it the way it is.
Its cool to see old pitons on routes, like making you think about the first people who came up this climb. Why they decided to go this way or how they hammered that pin into the rock. Its inspiring. It keeps the history and the originality of the place and the climb, intact. 

Steven Amter wrote:

What you say is true, except that the pin was not always garbage, and certainly it becomes more worthless with every passing year.  The original ascent team saw fit to protect the traverse with a pin.  Also,your argument could be applied to any climb with fixed gear. Why replace the bolts on Arrow?  Do classic such as Shockley's, High E , Son of Easy O, MF, Called on Account of Strain, Try Again etc. really need all those fixed pins?  Wouldn't they too become rites of passage at their grades if the fixed pro was allowed to become worthless?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating turning every climb into a mushy whimpfest.  But perhaps a climb like Moonlight should be preserved (or returned to is original status) as an accessible gem.

Your parade of horribles is my dream! I've been arguing that all of those pins and bolts should be allowed to expire when the time comes.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I'm really just not sure you're familiar with the pins on the climbs you're describing at this point. Moonlight wouldn't be "an accessible gem" even if the pin before the crux were solid--the pin is a full 10 feet at least to the right of the crux, and would still give you a dangerously huge pendulum into the wall. And there's not a single necessary pin on Shockley's, High E, or Son of Easy O (except the anchor)--all three of those climbs could lose all their pins and still be G. In fact, I've led Shockley's and High E both in the last few weeks, and don't think I clipped a single pin (except the one before the ceiling on Shockley's--and that was completely unnecessary). I often don't clip pins, but not due to any sort of bravery or risk-seeking: those climbs were all well-protected without clipping any pins.

I think you are actually making my point. I agree that these climbs can easily be done on removable gear - hell, they are all free soloed on a fairly regular basis too - but the pins make these  great climbs safe and more accessible to climbers at their grade, consistent with the original ascent parties. I suspect that you feel solid at these grades.  But put yourself in the shoes of a visiting climber who wants to safely sample these classics.   We are not talking about adding new gear that changes the original character of the climbs.  Son of Easy O has a pin before the roof  for which most leaders are thankful.  High E would probably see an uptick in the number of dangerous, long whippers  from climbers too gassed to throw in a cam if the 3rd pitch pins were gone.  Maybe such climbers would avoid the climb until they were strong enough to place  all their own gear.  Maybe.  But what's wrong with keeping these climbs fun and safe?

SethG wrote:

Your parade of horribles is my dream! I've been arguing that all of those pins and bolts should be allowed to expire when the time comes.

(I am assuming your comment was not in jest)

If you were arguing that fixed gear should not be added to bold climbs to make them safer/easier, I would agree with you.  But when it comes to maintaining the original protection grade of classic routes, I would tend to disagree.

Perhaps my personal story can explain why.  I am an old gunkie who moved out of the area.  Although I still climb fairly decently, when I visit the gunks (maybe 4 to 6 days a year), I want to reclimb the classic routes.  But its true that I'm older, and my specialized gunks skills have undoubtedly suffered somewhat. Although I am happy to place gear,  I don't want the classic climbs to be substantially harder or less protected then they were in past times because of a reluctance to replace the traditional fixed gear in key places.  I don't know, but suspect that my feelings are probably shared by a majority of gunks climbers.  And the fact that over the years important fixed gear has been replaced on many climbs suggests that there is somewhat of a consensus. My argument was that Moonlight should be added to that list.

In the end, I guess the issue comes down to differing opinions about where the proper balance lies.  No doubt, reasonable people can disagree.

Steven Amter wrote:

In the end, I guess the issue comes down to differing opinions about where the proper balance lies.  No doubt, reasonable people can disagree.

No, in the end it comes down to realizing that the Preserve will dictate what happens. Reasonable people can deal with it, whether they agree or not.

Steven Amter wrote:

(I am assuming your comment was not in jest)

If you were arguing that fixed gear should not be added to bold climbs to make them safer/easier, I would agree with you.  But when it comes to maintaining the original protection grade of classic routes, I would tend to disagree.

Perhaps my personal story can explain why.  I am an old gunkie who moved out of the area.  Although I still climb fairly decently, when I visit the gunks (maybe 4 to 6 days a year), I want to reclimb the classic routes.  But its true that I'm older, and my specialized gunks skills have undoubtedly suffered somewhat. Although I am happy to place gear,  I don't want the classic climbs to be substantially harder or less protected then they were in past times because of a reluctance to replace the traditional fixed gear in key places.  I don't know, but suspect that my feelings are probably shared by a majority of gunks climbers.  And the fact that over the years important fixed gear has been replaced on many climbs suggests that there is somewhat of a consensus. My argument was that Moonlight should be added to that list.

In the end, I guess the issue comes down to differing opinions about where the proper balance lies.  No doubt, reasonable people can disagree.

Your point of view is very reasonable and very consistent with Preserve policy, if you replace pins with pins. 

I am not a gunks climber but as  a seasoned desert climber I do not agree with the climbing being diminished from old rusty things being replaced with new.  When a party went up a tower and placed a brand new piton or 1/4 inch bolt I would have felt pretty good falling onto it.  30 years later I would not be stoked on the same piece of gear.  In my opinion a good bolt restores a route closer to the safety of the first ascent than us relying on something 30 years old. Just my opinion.  Also I do enjoy the occasional spicy run out climb.  I am just just a sport climber  but crappy fixed gear is just silly to me if its fixed it may as well be good.  Some may think I am taking it to the extreme but relying on 30 year old pitons is about as silly as relying on old hemp ropes.  If you really want the experience of the old timers ditch you fancy new cord and use some old frayed junk.  Grab a swami and a pair of eb's.  If you are not willing to do this you are only half way on board with keeping the climb " as it was"

The arguments about replacing pitons with bolts are arguments of entitlement.  A 5.6 climber with only modest protections skills is entitled to good protection on Moonlight because at some point in the past other climbers (or a more competent version of a current climber) had that protection.  A climber on a formerly well-pitoned climb is entitled to the level of protection available to ascenders in the past.  Besides the intrinsic selfishness of such arguments, there is absolutely no end to the range of entitlements that are easily justified by exactly the same types of claims.  Moreover, arguments about past “advantages” are weakened by the fact that modern climbers have far better gear in every respect.  The idea that it is somehow “not fair” that earlier climbers had this or that fixed pro doesn’t ever seem to be coupled with the enormous advantages the modern climber gets to deploy.  Maybe Willie Crowther, 58 years ago, wearing shoes that wouldn't qualify as more than approach shoes now, equipped with slick rubber soles, carrying a small rack of soft-iron pitons, perhaps with a Goldline rope tied around his waist, and facing difficulties that were completely unknown and not even visible from the traverse, maybe he needed a piton, but the modern climber, armed with gear Willie couldn't even have imagined and fully aware of the 5.6- grade, really doesn't need that pin.

Somehow, the entitlement arguments always seem to favor the less skilled.  The fact that all kinds of opportunities for practicing the trad climbing craft are eliminated never seems to be considered.  (The complete BS argument of not having to clip the bolt if you don’t want to can only be made by someone with no understanding of the intrinsic mental aspect of trad climbing.)

What about the 5.7 or 5.8 climber who wants to push into the realm of less-perfectly protected climbing?  Are there to be no routes requiring challenging protection skills below such a person’s difficulty limit?  Why aren’t they just as entitled to routes that require contemporary protection strategies and the mental acuity to implement them?

I mention this not because I think it is a good argument, but because it illustrates a persistent asymmetry in the demands for fixed protection.

It would be a feature of sport climbing to ask what is “appropriate” for a given climber.  The trad climber is in the business of dealing with what nature provided, not what some “developer” has established for safety and comfort.   If a route is naturally dangerous, that’s a decision nature made.  The trad climber’s role is to continually evaluate the risk in the light of their climbing and protecting skills and temper their actions accordingly—that’s what its all about.  No one is forcing anyone to do this, and their are plenty of venues for climbers who want to pursue difficulty with a reduced level of risk.

The Gunks in particular is full of  naturally well-protected climbs at every level, it is not as if climbers would ever be denied a host of opportunities if all the fixed pitons were gone.  And let's be clear: the argument has nothing to do with clipping 30 year-old mank.  It has everything to do with doing the route without the ancient fixed pro, most of the time substituting something else.  Small nuts, small cams, tricams, and ballnuts allow the contemporary climber to construct protection systems that are in many cases quite adequate, thereby even further limiting the consequences of fixed protection disappearing.  The rock structure in the Gunks is especially suited to this; other areas (eg granite and soft sandstone) do not offer comparable options and cannot be used for comparative arguments.

I’ve done Moonlight a few times; the last time was about a year ago.  The traverse has various protection opportunities with modern gear and is probably PG without the pin (which I didn’t bother clipping).  There is absolutely no reason to put a bolt there and no need for the fixed pin, which hopefully will at some point be removed.

Many routes in the Near Trapps were done after the piton age had passed.  There are 5.8’s requiring doubled ball nuts and 5.5’s requiring tricam placements in flares that won’t take a cam.  It all works just fine without fixed pins, and the rest of the Gunks would as well. Seth is right; it is time to let most of the fixed pro go.

rgold wrote: (The complete BS argument of not having to clip the bolt if you don’t want to can only be made by someone with no understanding of the intrinsic mental aspect of trad climbing.)

Curious to understand the logic of this remark.  What mental aspect of trad climbing makes intentionally skipping a bolt different from not having the bolt ?  Is it that our brains don't have the will power to skip a good bolt ?  Or that we might have the will power, but exercising it would break an important rule and set a precedent for bad decisions later ?

One of my own counter-arguments to "not having to clip the bolt" is that it's not the same for bragging rights.  Saying "I've climbed [a climb widely recognized as R-rated]" may be more socially acceptable than saying "I climbed [a well protected climb] in an R-rated way by skipping available protection".  Actually, I've heard conflicting views on this - some feel that risk must be justified by objective constraints, while others are happy to create their own artificial constrants by skipping placements.

So I potentially see the logic of your remark, but it depends on the rules that we assume our brain follows in deciding which risks are acceptable.  I have the impression those rules are not the same for everyone, which may explain some disagreements around the "not having to clip the bolt" argument...

(sorry - I realize this is a complete tangent to the original Gunks-specific topic - but I've been trying to understand people's (including my own) logic around necessary vs unnecessary risk for some time)

Serge, skipping a bolt makes the climb into a stunt, which could be cool and impressive but is far from the spirit of the endeavor.  The necessary commitment to get things right and maintain control is totally different when there is a bolt there.  You could say, ``I'll see if I can fiddle in some gear and if it doesn't go well I'll clip the bolt and rest on it.''  The nature of the route and what the climber has to bring to it is now utterly different.

rgold wrote: The arguments about replacing pitons with bolts are arguments of entitlement.  A 5.6 climber with only modest protections skills is entitled to good protection on Moonlight because at some point in the past other climbers (or a more competent version of a current climber) had that protection.  A climber on a formerly well-pitoned climb is entitled to the level of protection available to ascenders in the past.  Besides the intrinsic selfishness of such arguments, there is absolutely no end to the range of entitlements that are easily justified by exactly the same types of claims.  Moreover, arguments about past “advantages” are weakened by the fact that modern climbers have far better gear in every respect.  The idea that it is somehow “not fair” that earlier climbers had this or that fixed pro doesn’t ever seem to be coupled with the enormous advantages the modern climber gets to deploy.  Maybe Willie Crowther, 58 years ago, wearing shoes that wouldn't qualify as more than approach shoes now, equipped with slick rubber soles, carrying a small rack of soft-iron pitons, perhaps with a Goldline rope tied around his waist, and facing difficulties that were completely unknown and not even visible from the traverse, maybe he needed a piton, but the modern climber, armed with gear Willie couldn't even have imagined and fully aware of the 5.6- grade, really doesn't need that pin.

Somehow, the entitlement arguments always seem to favor the less skilled.  The fact that all kinds of opportunities for practicing the trad climbing craft are eliminated never seems to be considered.  (The complete BS argument of not having to clip the bolt if you don’t want to can only be made by someone with no understanding of the intrinsic mental aspect of trad climbing.)

What about the 5.7 or 5.8 climber who wants to push into the realm of less-perfectly protected climbing?  Are there to be no routes requiring challenging protection skills below such a person’s difficulty limit?  Why aren’t they just as entitled to routes that require contemporary protection strategies and the mental acuity to implement them?

I mention this not because I think it is a good argument, but because it illustrates a persistent asymmetry in the demands for fixed protection.

It would be a feature of sport climbing to ask what is “appropriate” for a given climber.  The trad climber is in the business of dealing with what nature provided, not what some “developer” has established for safety and comfort.   If a route is naturally dangerous, that’s a decision nature made.  The trad climber’s role is to continually evaluate the risk in the light of their climbing and protecting skills and temper their actions accordingly—that’s what its all about.  No one is forcing anyone to do this, and their are plenty of venues for climbers who want to pursue difficulty with a reduced level of risk.

The Gunks in particular is full of  naturally well-protected climbs at every level, it is not as if climbers would ever be denied a host of opportunities if all the fixed pitons were gone.  And let's be clear: the argument has nothing to do with clipping 30 year-old mank.  It has everything to do with doing the route without the ancient fixed pro, most of the time substituting something else.  Small nuts, small cams, tricams, and ballnuts allow the contemporary climber to construct protection systems that are in many cases quite adequate, thereby even further limiting the consequences of fixed protection disappearing.  The rock structure in the Gunks is especially suited to this; other areas (eg granite and soft sandstone) do not offer comparable options and cannot be used for comparative arguments.

I’ve done Moonlight a few times; the last time was about a year ago.  The traverse has various protection opportunities with modern gear and is probably PG without the pin (which I didn’t bother clipping).  There is absolutely no reason to put a bolt there and no need for the fixed pin, which hopefully will at some point be removed.

Many routes in the Near Trapps were done after the piton age had passed.  There are 5.8’s requiring doubled ball nuts and 5.5’s requiring tricam placements in flares that won’t take a cam.  It all works just fine without fixed pins, and the rest of the Gunks would as well. Seth is right; it is time to let most of the fixed pro go.

Exactly this