New bolts on old trad route, JHCOB wall.

The bolts/ gear issue may seem pedantic, but it's part of our local ethics (and most climbing areas local ethics) that existing traditionally protected routes that have been climbed for generations in such a matter do not get altered without the FA's request and or blessings, or if the FA is unavailable, then not without an attempt at a greater community agreement upon such updates or alterations. It has yet to be determined if in this case three points hold:

#1 geologic change has exposed new rock in this section that now differs from the topo in the Ruckman guide

#2 this section is no longer 5.7 due to said rock fall/geologic chance and therefore the new difficultly warranted updated bolts

#3 Adequate natural gear placements do not allow for protection while climbing this section

"This isn't 'Nam Smokey, it's bowling, there are rules."

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.

Brad - perhaps the easiest way to answer your question is by saying - all of the described variations, plus or minus 5 feet of the arete have been climbed by myself, and multiple other people, and likely countless other people before us, without fixed protection... multiple times... in the past 4 years.  

The first time I climbed this route or these variations was 4 years ago, so i can not comment on the condition of the route in the 90's pre-rockfall (if there truly was any, but it doesn't appear so, or it has weathered nicely).
 
And to add some context  -  below is a photo of a grill we set up at the base of the 3rd pitch ledge with a group of my friends to celebrate a buddies birthday  - the one where, as "claimed",  there is a "missing" block that makes the 5.7 move 5.9 - .  There is/was a small pin in a thin seam that served as part of the anchor, as well as a small RP.  From that stance, you can make a heads up stand up move up on the arete, using some feet to the left.   The 2nd East Face original variation climbs slightly to the left, past a fixed pin,  but essentially within arms reach of the same line to the right - and both these variations meet roughly 40 feet up at a break in the arete, which is the final section of the pitch protected by RP's on really fun exposed small edges.  There is a photo of this exact section shown in the 2nd east face route page by "Gregrylls" from Sept 8th, 2018.   The ledge seen in that photo is the ledge where this pin and rp anchor is - there is also a slung block that the belayer is using in the photo.
 
 That all being said. This is just the claim for the "3rd" pitch.  And as I mentioned before, the arete direct on the second pitch of 2nd East Face has also been climbed without fixed protection.  There is actually a photo by "Michele Evans" on the 2nd East Face route page from 2013 that shows a rope tracing the direct line up the arete on the 2nd pitch - which sounds like had bolts added to it - which clearly shows an ascent of the arete proper. 

 

5.7R grilling, you guys are plain crazy. Even more so if it turns out to be 5.9 grilling. That shit needs bolts FOR SURE.

Boissal . wrote: 5.7R grilling, you guys are plain crazy. Even more so if it turns out to be 5.9 grilling. That shit needs bolts FOR SURE.

you should've seen the 5.9+ X habanero brats we had rolling. 

I've grilled on a hibachi zip tied to a tube through class 2-3 rapids, and I'm still pretty impressed by this. 

Hilarious you guys grilled up there! Would be cool to have a bunch of the commenters here convene up there with a cooler full of strong beer and get this whole thing sorted out. 

Boissal . wrote: 5.7R grilling, you guys are plain crazy. Even more so if it turns out to be 5.9 grilling. That shit needs bolts FOR SURE.

This route just went from one star to four in my book!

Those pins... 9/10 would hang grill from for sure.

I posted several comments and was asked to take them down to facilitate a more friendly discussion and solution.
In light of photos and multiple accounts of ascents of this very terrain I will, again, chime in. 
I couldn’t be more happy that there is photographic evidence of the lack of change to this route. 

Tony tried this same revisionism in Moab after Kyle Copeland died and here in the Wasatch several times. I have even had the pleasure of having him come at me directly claiming he FA’d routes in 1979. These are a protection less sport route and a crack that took days to clean and prep.

This rock and the route are the same as they have always been except now the route has bolts placed by a convicted felon and known liar. Convicted of what you might ask? Misrepresenting the truth! 

I’m sorry if this is perceived as being unkind or negative. The truth is that what I have written is fact and I posted it here because people, new to the Wasatch and watching this from afar, should know.

Pull them, pull them all!

cdec wrote: I posted several comments and was asked to take them down to facilitate a more friendly discussion and solution.
In light of photos and multiple accounts of ascents of this very terrain I will, again, chime in. 
I couldn’t be more happy that there is photographic evidence of the lack of change to this route. Tony tried this same revisionism in Moab after Kyle Copeland died and here in the Wasatch several times. I have even had the pleasure of having him come at me directly claiming he FA’d routes in 1979. These are a protection less sport route and a crack that took days to clean and prep.

This rock and the route are the same as they have always been except now the route has bolts placed by a convicted felon and known liar. Convicted of what you might ask? Misrepresenting the truth!

I’m sorry if this is perceived as being unkind or negative. The truth is that what I have written is fact and I posted it here because people, new to the Wasatch and watching this from afar, should know.

Pull them, pull them all!

Second that.

I seem to remember giving the guy some feedback pre-jail , about one of his new routes. Many of the guys doing new routes back in 2000, Garret, grampa etc were always happy and interested in feedback. TC didn't want to hear it and actually told me to F off.

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.

Yes it is. The last 30 feet of p2 and minus the bolts he moved last night over to the arete, the last 60 feet of P3 are indeed the Second East Face. I climbed it. There is ZERO speculation.

Cheers.

Tyler, are you saying that the person who bolted this went up last night and moved the bolts further to the right?

Yes Josh, that's exactly what he's saying.  Others I know, have been up the route and will comment i'm sure.

I climbed it again yesterday am and the drill dust was still a plenty.

-The pin at the belay for the beginning of P3 has been removed with a 2nd chain added in its place.

-The pin higher up that was kinda hidden and required you to thread a runner through it (as it levered the biner otherwise) is now gone.  There is no gear to be had in the area so the bolt a few feet above this now makes sense and it should be left imo.  There is a crack a few feet above this bolt but it is really just a gap between the wall and a pretty large block just sitting there, so a gear placement here is rather foolhardy.  

There are 2 new bolts just barely left of the arete proper (so a few feet right of the original bolts in question).  The old (~a month old) bolts were still there.  Now maybe they're gone?  Personally I don't think these new bolts solve the issue as they are still right on the route.  I do appreciate the effort  though.  

I appreciate the positive and appropriate comments on this thread.  The others have unfortunately not helped the situation.  I realize it's complicated.  

A few bolts just appeared on this old trad route in Aspen. Anybody know anything about it? FA was not asked permission. Sorry for the thread drift  

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106195279/cardos-corner

Josh Janes wrote: Tyler, are you saying that the person who bolted this went up last night and moved the bolts further to the right?

No, but I climbed it seemingly RIGHT after it was drilled. There was 6 bolts including anchor on the 3rd pitch belay ledge in a 15 foot square radius. It was odd, but I can see he is moving the squeeze job to the arete. It's contrived and squeezed but not quite as bad as the original looked. The bolts that were left instead of pins really took the oomph out of that pitch.

All the bolts added to the route need to be removed. He still has a line that weaves in and out of the 2nd East Face if it gets done properly. My 2 cents.

Tony, you would really do your self a favor here by communicating with the people who are reaching out. Just be transparent man! Lets not backslide to yesteryear and have a bolt war over something the community wants to resolve. (said with as much respect as i can muster)

I'm not speaking for Tony, but I don't blame him at all for not responding in this thread, given the way some folks are trashing him pretty hard. It comes off as insulting to neutral partied readers...which I consider myself in this. I see Zoso and Tyler have replied with a positive tone...BRAVO lads!. But, I was really dismayed by what I (as a newbie here in both SLC and MP) have read here the past few days...almost makes me want to leave MP altogether and delete my Crescendo page. This morning, someone told me that people have physically moved away from SLC due to the infighting here...that's really sad.

I don't know Tony's back story with those of you talking about him, but I read there instances of judgement about him, backed up only by one-sided tiny summations. Just what led up to him telling someone "F you"...(if that is accurate)? I can't imagine that is his go-to first response...seems something would have provoked that).

Sucks to see this thread getting rather personal and bringing up dirt, and I imagine that is why he is avoiding responding altogether. This thread was supposed to be about evaluating a route.

Josh Janes wrote: Tyler, are you saying that the person who bolted this went up last night and moved the bolts further to the right?

Hey Josh....I had a full retard moment and didn't read your question properly. Yes, the bolts got moved further to the right.

And I see your point 100% Scott. I will say you don't have enough time here dealing with said issues or with said characters, so I can see why you see it all as vitriol, but know that it isn't 1 sided.

Cheers

Scott Melcer wrote: I'm not speaking for Tony, but I don't blame him at all for not responding in this thread, given the way some folks are trashing him pretty hard. It comes off as insulting to neutral partied readers...which I consider myself in this. I see Zoso and Tyler have replied with a positive tone...BRAVO lads!. But, I was really dismayed by what I (as a newbie here in both SLC and MP) have read here the past few days...almost makes me want to leave MP altogether and delete my Crescendo page. This morning, someone told me that people have physically moved away from SLC due to the infighting here...that's really sad.

I don't know Tony's back story with those of you talking about him, but I read there instances of judgement about him, backed up only by one-sided tiny summations. Just what led up to him telling someone "F you"...(if that is accurate)? I can't imagine that is his go-to first response...seems something would have provoked that).

Sucks to see this thread getting rather personal and bringing up dirt, and I imagine that is why he is avoiding responding altogether. This thread was supposed to be about evaluating a route.

Scott,

He is responding, furiously behind the scenes through DM's filled with profanity, name calling and statements that are so incredibly false that it makes my head spin.

We've been at exactly this same spot before. "If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it"
The 2015 flare up in Moab I referenced. Nearly the same issues then as now. There was clearly a consensus, with one dissenter!

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/110140958/wall-street-anchor-replacement?page=2

cdec wrote: He is responding, furiously behind the scenes through DM's filled with profanity, name calling and statements that are so incredibly false that it makes my head spin.

Well, do share already! Good profanity is hard to come by and I'm all out of good names to call people... Sounds like you're sitting on a gold mine of both!