New bolts on old trad route, JHCOB wall.

ddriver wrote:

Did this last year and I remember gear being plentiful and good. However, the top rap off the shrub was terrible. Top anchors that allow a finish to the right would be great. As would a decent intermediate station. 

As others have recommended, best to walk off this formation given the objective hazards. The forever unstable approaches begs the question how responsible it is to generate more traffic via convenience anchors and bolt intensive re-engineering of old trad routes such as the First and Second East Faces.

So community consensus seems to be mine as well.  

How long do we wait for the FA to respond before we go clean it up?  It'd sure be nice to have an open dialogue instead of what may appear to be something vindictive. 

I'm happy to do it but need a mentor or at least verbal instruction.  Allen?  

Has anyone spoken with the FA party or alerted them to this thread? Does anyone have their contact information?

Mule Hollow: I hiked up there two weeks ago to do Center Face but ended up clipping the added bolts not knowing they were all added after the first ascent and hundreds of repeats with natural pro until I read the link below.  They need to be removed

From mountainproject.com/route/1…

This bolted route is not necessary. It is not even a first ascent as listed above but rather a retro-bolt of another route. Someone needs to chop this. If you hike this far to do a 5.6, at least use the natural gear that the wall already takes. Bolting this line, Which is essentially center face, is a disgrace.
Pull it and delete it from M

Found the FA,  i'll shoot Tony over this thread so we can get some discussion going about P3s retrobolting.

​https://www.mountainproject.com/route/117648181/prima-vista-arete​​​

greggrylls wrote: Found the FA,  i'll shoot Tony over this thread so we can get some discussion going about P3s retrobolting.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/117648181/prima-vista-arete

Please don’t.

Quite coincidentally, I climbed this route a day or two before all this discussion began. I remember clipping a couple pins: One was part of a belay anchor, sorta equalized with a bolt. Another one protected some of the climbing - but I can't remember if it was on the second or third pitch. I do remember that the bolt line on the third pitch forced the climbing up the arete which was more exposed but harder... The natural line was just left (5 to 10 feet) of the arete, was clearly easier and afforded some opportunities for natural protection. I'm sure this is the path of Second East Face. Sticking strictly to the arete felt contrived.

The bolts were 3/8" wedge bolts. Many were not hammered in to proper depth prior to tightening, thus quite a bit of thread was drawn out of the rock/nuts. The whole package (pin/bolt anchor in the front country, contrived line, sloppy bolt installation, and possible retro bolting) isn't amazing, but none of it seemed particularly appalling as this isn't exactly a contender for best multipitch in the Wasatch - definitely not worth lynching or negativity. My vote would be either go up there and chop it or move on.

Hmmmmm. 2nd East Face has been a favorite jaunt of mine... more so than Outside Corner in the last 5 years. Why? Because its an all gear, a la OC, bit of an old school vibe, fun place to take newer climbers to.  I also used to like 1st East Face. And when Crescendo went up, I thought quietly to myself "well, this looks and feels like a squeeeeeezeeeeee". But it climbs more direct on the arete. Fine.

But this... "Prima Vista Arete" is a clear squeeze/rebolt of a route that has been done on gear since the dawn of BCC climbing. Added bolts on the last pitch is a clear rebolt of a gear pitch.  But looking at the topo on the page, if there are bolts on the claimed "2nd pitch" - that pitch/line as depicted on the arete proper has been climbed by myself,  and many before me, on gear.  It's the same as the rest of the route, small gear, but goes... especially at 5.7. Sure, the normal route might step to the left and follow the crack system, but i've always like the direct up "variation" and never once thought it needed any fixed protection.

I hate to say this, but is nothing sacred anymore? I've started seeing people rap off Crescendo after climbing outside corner clearly because the bolts are there and they didn't want to carry their shoes up with them. Is the 10 feet to the left or right of any route now considered grounds for a new bolted clip up?

+1 for going up there with whomever bolted this (Tony?), cracking a beer, perhaps taking a reminder lap up outside corner for reference, and having a long discussion about how we don't need to do this anymore. I do like the generally positive perspective people are having here, and I would rather this be a discussion to hopefully get the mindset aligned.  Ultimately I believe this hunk of rock needs to return to its original state.

People of zee wurl, Relax! All will be sorted out in due time...the human beans behind the screens are working together!

Hey Guys, I was with Tony when he put in the bolts. I don't know him real well, but well enough now to know he does share the same ethic as you guys! I'm still rather new to the ethics here, but I offer these points of contention (with a factual viewpoint) to what has transpired in this forum. I clearly see that some comments were trying to manipulate the actual situation:

1) This route on the arete is NOT the same "Second East Face" route as someone stated.
2) Immediate responses of just "Chop it" without any first hand knowledge of the situation...really? Where's your objectivity? People should climb the route and research the FACTS before making judgements (instead of forming and voicing opinion based on another persons comment which may be inaccurate...which is the case I'm seeing). Why would anyone accept a lack of details and incorrect statements at face value?
3) I can say for certain there were pitons/blades that he replaced for at least 2 bolts. This is known as anchor replacement, and is legitimate.
4) Based on the Ruckman guide, the features of the route have changed.There used to be a large block at the start of the 3rd pitch (that kept the OVERALL rating at 5.7). It is now gone and the moves above the ledge onto the arete are about 5.9– with no natural protection. For reference find out the history on the route "After the Fall" which had bolts added after a rock fall, and was considered a legitimate cause for new bolts...and the route was renamed. The 3rd pitch being called out in this forum changed and is harder...unless you think the Ruckmans were in error.
5) I saw one person say there is a "consensus" that this bolting was improper. Which leads me to ask, just WHO is the consensus, and why does that make them the authority? Is it just those of you posting here? Shouldn't a consensus have a broader polling pool than just a handful of people to be the first to respond...and have never done the route? Seems self righteous to me.
6) As for "crowding"...how far away does a route need to be to avoid crowding? I don't know about you guys, but my reach is limited to WELL within reasonable climbing distance from the original Second East Face route.

Not sure how the rest of you feel about one poster attacking Tony and shamelessly reposting a personal email (out of context) in a public forum, but to me it was petty and uncivil. See the "Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk."

As I said I'm new here, but based on all this it sure seems rather unfriendly and rash here. Where I am from we all got together in person instead of recklessly calling for action without factual analysis and debate. Welcome to Utah I guess. I'm all for respect and historical preservation, but what I see here goes beyond that, based on lack of facts and knowledge.

Scott Melcer As I said I'm new here, but based on all this it sure seems rather unfriendly and rash here. Where I am from we all got together in person instead of recklessly calling for action without factual analysis and debate. Welcome to Utah I guess. I'm all for respect and historical preservation, but what I see here goes beyond that, based on lack of facts and knowledge.

Classic 

bheller wrote: People of zee wurl, Relax! All will be sorted out in due time...the human beans behind the screens are working together!

Good to know, info nympho...!

A bit of photographical perspective...from a couple of years ago...

The arête is bolted?  Hmmm...

Note the fixed pin on the upper most quickdraw...gone now?


The arête is now bolted??


Last pitch, drawn in above from the Ruckman guidebook, as "7R"...now bolted??


This pitch...now bolted?

Not Tony again? He is out of the slammer and pounding out new routes for another supplemental book again?

Scott Melcer wrote: Hey Guys, I was with Tony when he put in the bolts. I don't know him real well, but well enough now to know he does share the same ethic as you guys! I'm still rather new to the ethics here, but I offer these points of contention (with a factual viewpoint) to what has transpired in this forum. I clearly see that some comments were trying to manipulate the actual situation:

1) This route on the arete is NOT the same "Second East Face" route as someone stated.
2) Immediate responses of just "Chop it" without any first hand knowledge of the situation...really? Where's your objectivity? People should climb the route and research the FACTS before making judgements (instead of forming and voicing opinion based on another persons comment which may be inaccurate...which is the case I'm seeing). Why would anyone accept a lack of details and incorrect statements at face value?
3) I can say for certain there were pitons/blades that he replaced for at least 2 bolts. This is known as anchor replacement, and is legitimate.
4) Based on the Ruckman guide, the features of the route have changed.There used to be a large block at the start of the 3rd pitch (that kept the OVERALL rating at 5.7). It is now gone and the moves above the ledge onto the arete are about 5.9– with no natural protection. For reference find out the history on the route "After the Fall" which had bolts added after a rock fall, and was considered a legitimate cause for new bolts...and the route was renamed. The 3rd pitch being called out in this forum changed and is harder...unless you think the Ruckmans were in error.
5) I saw one person say there is a "consensus" that this bolting was improper. Which leads me to ask, just WHO is the consensus, and why does that make them the authority? Is it just those of you posting here? Shouldn't a consensus have a broader polling pool than just a handful of people to be the first to respond...and have never done the route? Seems self righteous to me.
6) As for "crowding"...how far away does a route need to be to avoid crowding? I don't know about you guys, but my reach is limited to WELL within reasonable climbing distance from the original Second East Face route.

Not sure how the rest of you feel about one poster attacking Tony and shamelessly reposting a personal email (out of context) in a public forum, but to me it was petty and uncivil. See the "Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk."

As I said I'm new here, but based on all this it sure seems rather unfriendly and rash here. Where I am from we all got together in person instead of recklessly calling for action without factual analysis and debate. Welcome to Utah I guess. I'm all for respect and historical preservation, but what I see here goes beyond that, based on lack of facts and knowledge.

I'm new around here too, and I'm already aware of Tony's reputation along with several other instances of him throwing bolts willy-nilly into existing routes here in the Wasatch. The guy is known for flat out ignoring well-established ethics despite being aware of how the community feels about what he does.

 

Brian in SLC wrote:

Good to know, info nympho...!

A bit of photographical perspective...from a couple of years ago...

The arête is bolted?  Hmmm...

Note the fixed pin on the upper most quickdraw...gone now?  

Yes this pin is gone.  There's obvious and good gear there though.  There's now a bolt very close to this crack.  This is the end of P2 that I was talking about.

Last pitch, drawn in above from the Ruckman guidebook, as "7R"...now bolted??

Oh yes. 

Scott Melcer wrote...
1) This route on the arete is NOT the same "Second East Face" route as someone stated.

>>>P1 and P2 are unique enough imo, but clearly P3 is, in fact, P3 of "Second East Face".  No question.

2) Immediate responses of just "Chop it" without any first hand knowledge of the situation...really? Where's your objectivity? People should climb the route and research the FACTS before making judgements (instead of forming and voicing opinion based on another persons comment which may be inaccurate...which is the case I'm seeing). Why would anyone accept a lack of details and incorrect statements at face value?

>>>Good point.

3) I can say for certain there were pitons/blades that he replaced for at least 2 bolts. This is known as anchor replacement, and is legitimate.

>>>Wrong.  It is rare that it is acceptable to put a bolt where a pin used to be IF there are good gear placements instead, which is clearly the case here.  

4) Based on the Ruckman guide, the features of the route have changed.There used to be a large block at the start of the 3rd pitch (that kept the OVERALL rating at 5.7). It is now gone and the moves above the ledge onto the arete are about 5.9– with no natural protection.

>>>Wrong, there's protection there just fine.  I also don't think it is 8+ or 9- but that's an argument of subjective grading.  I'm not sure about the block.  Maybe someone else remembers?

5) I saw one person say there is a "consensus" that this bolting was improper. Which leads me to ask, just WHO is the consensus, and why does that make them the authority? Is it just those of you posting here? Shouldn't a consensus have a broader polling pool than just a handful of people to be the first to respond...and have never done the route? Seems self righteous to me.

>>>My bad.  I certainly didn't mean to be exclusionary.  Do you have a better way of polling the climbing community?  That wouldn't take months?  

6) As for "crowding"...how far away does a route need to be to avoid crowding? I don't know about you guys, but my reach is limited to WELL within reasonable climbing distance from the original Second East Face route.

>>>Again, P3 is the 5.7R variation on Second East Face.  See the Ruckman topo provided by Brian above.

Not sure how the rest of you feel about one poster attacking Tony and shamelessly reposting a personal email (out of context) in a public forum, but to me it was petty and uncivil. See the "Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk."

>>>I understand that of course, but if you've ever tried to have a civilized conversation with Tony, you'd understand.  He has always attacked me verbally first.  

As I said I'm new here, but based on all this it sure seems rather unfriendly and rash here. Where I am from we all got together in person instead of recklessly calling for action without factual analysis and debate. Welcome to Utah I guess. I'm all for respect and historical preservation, but what I see here goes beyond that, based on lack of facts and knowledge.

>>>Remember you are coming at this as a noob to Utah and don't know the back stories.  That's why many of the comments seem harsh.  There's a lot of history here.  You saw the negativity on this thread but there is plenty of positivity as well.  I was hoping it would be a great community discussion and that we'd come to a good solution.  

With all the above said, I want to be clear that I very much respect Tony, his climbing accomplishments, and his additions to the Wasatch.  It isn't easy establishing new routes and there are many routes that blur ethical boundaries unintentionally.  Nobody is perfect.  I myself have put in a few routes and am willing to change them as the community suggests.  No one owns the rock, we just play on it.  And play nicely, hopefully. 

A claim has been brought to my attention that the third pitch variation (.7R) in the Ruckman guide has experienced rockfall and changed since the topo was drawn and the book published. Perhaps this rockfall occured as far back as in the 90's. It has also been reported  that another part of the ledge just below the .7R fell off (right side of the ledge) as well as a large block that originally leaned into the wall there and allowed one to very easily begin the pitch to access the arete in question.  Furthermore I have been told that the arete as is, is a newly exposed piece of rock that post dates the Ruckman topo. And that this newly bolted arete is no longer  .7R as originally noted, but is now closer to 5.9 and natural pro wasn't readily available- which is why some new protection bolts were placed. A comparison was made to Unreliable in the Green A Gully- a case where natural rockfall destroyed a route, but afterwards it exposed new rock that warranted and allowed for the building of a new route with a new name.

 Can anyone with more experience and familiarity of this route verify this or comment toward this claim in a civil manner?

I hope to get all the facts sorted out polling the group mind here.

bheller wrote: A claim has been brought to my attention that the third pitch variation (.7R) in the Ruckman guide has experienced rockfall and changed since the topo was drawn and the book published. Perhaps this rockfall occured as far back as in the 90's. It has also been reported  that another part of the ledge just below the .7R fell off (right side of the ledge) as well as a large block that originally leaned into the wall there and allowed one to very easily begin the pitch to access the arete in question.  Furthermore I have been told that the arete as is, is a newly exposed piece of rock that post dates the Ruckman topo. And that this newly bolted arete is no longer  .7R as originally noted, but is now closer to 5.9 and natural pro wasn't readily available- which is why some new protection bolts were placed. A comparison was made to Unreliable in the Green A Gully- a case where natural rockfall destroyed a route, but afterwards it exposed new rock that warranted and allowed for the building of a new route with a new name.

 Can anyone with more experience and familiarity of this route verify this or comment toward this claim in a civil manner?

I hope to get all the facts sorted out polling the group mind here.

I didn't climb it before this "event" if said event happened.  However, the route is is most definitely not 5.9R, let alone 5.9.   It's well protected (with some small nuts) 5.7.  I'm a nervous nelly and gaining the arete I had a cam by my waist and reached above my head and placed a small offset nut to protect the crux, an insecure 5.7 move.

The "replacing pins, rockfall, runout, safety arguments" in my opinion are straw mans.

When I climbed this less than a week ago I sewed it up nicely with traditional gear usually with my draw inches from a freshly drilled bolt.

Kaden O wrote: Why does it matter? If you don’t want to use the bolts, you don’t have to. The bolts do not restrict you from using trad equipment to climb the route. Can someone explain to me why there is such a debate about this?

History, Style, Ethics, Respect of FAs vision, etc. etc. ETC!  

I first climbed this two years ago and casting off on the airy arete with a piton and some small nuts protecting me (safely I might add) was memorable.

Climbing a retrobolted slap job clip up on top of a historically trad line IS NOT MEMORABLE.