What if the Gunks were Bolted?

I'm stuck quarantining in the midwest hours from real rock, so I figured I'd stir the pot now that the crags are opening up back East.

Obviously, the character and history of the gunks is defined by its trad climbing, no bolts ethos, and there's value in preserving this. For my money, a day of moderate trad climbing there is about as good as cragging gets. Further, while bolted anchors are now allowed to reduce wear on the trees, new protection bolts are not allowed by the preserve, so this is all useless speculation. However, I often ponder the following:

a) The Gunks are rife with old pitons, which are no less an eyesore than bolts that will last longer, cause less damage upon replacement, and will offer more reliable protection. Why not allow 1:1 bolt-for-piton replacement rather than continuing to scar the rock in a continuous cycle of piton replacement?

b) The Gunks is the closest (and only high-quality) crag to the largest metropolitan area in America. Whether sport or trad, it was bound to be popular. How many deaths, broken limbs, and medical bills would have been prevented were the Gunks bolted in places of scant natural protection? Is this stylistic reverence worth the literal body count? This isn’t Denver or SLC where one can just as easily sport climb if the risk of trad is too excessive - for NYC lead climbers, it’s the Gunks or nothing (yes, I know there are a few low quantity/quality sport options but the point stands).

Predicted comments (with my replies inserted parenthetically):

• FA dictates style! You’re trampling on their legacy! (That’s just a guideline decided upon by the community, and that same community could decide that the communal benefit of disregarding it outweighs the benefit of upholding it in some circumstances. Does the FA own that piece of rock? Who’s to say that with modern bolting equipment the Gunks wouldn’t have been bolted back in the 60s? Is the style even being preserved if the FA was done on passive pro and we’re all using cams now?)
• They knew the risks of trad climbing and still chose to do so. (Sure, but there’s a sense of motivated reasoning when your only option to lead climb is trad climbing. Climbers gonna climb.)
• Bolts will lead to complacency and inexperienced gym climbers in over their heads (As though the Uberfall isn’t full of these types, and as though plugging cams in a horizontal on 5.4 is materially more challenging than clipping bolts)

Note that I'm not arguing the Gunks should be sport bolted - I just wonder every time I see a broken ankle whether there's all that much harm in adding a bolt 10 feet up the more popular climbs with blank starts. Is the experience of climbing the money pitch of CCK Direct materially improved by the ledge fall risk in the opening section?

Anyway, just some discussion fodder for the rest of the desk jockeys stuck inside. Take this all as seriously or lightly as you want.

MattHwrote: Is this stylistic reverence worth the literal body count? 

yes.

the end

PWZwrote:

yes.

the end

LMAO well played. Not exactly an argument though so much as an assertion. What, exactly, is the benefit to you of maintaining that style? Do you personally enjoy a climb (at a well manicured cragging destination, in particular) that much more knowing that the number of bolts is exactly the same as it was when the FA did it? This isn't the Fisher Towers or some backcountry big wall, it's a 2 pitch crag a mile from a mid-sized exurb with a walking path right to the base and a literal road a hundred feet away.

The Gunks are already too crowded. It doesn't need the additional traffic the Bolt Binkies will bring in.

Many dead horses will be beaten.

I am in favor of replacing important fixed pins with bolts, but only if no clean gear can protect that section, or if a bolt cannot be placed.

Turning the gunks into a sport area is something I would selfishly want in theory, but in reality I think it would destroy the area, in multiple senses.

Short answer: If the Gunks were bolted I'd be using all my free time bolt chopping.

MattHwrote: a) The Gunks are rife with old pitons, which are no less an eyesore than bolts that will last longer, cause less damage upon replacement, and will offer more reliable protection. Why not allow 1:1 bolt-for-piton replacement rather than continuing to scar the rock in a continuous cycle of piton replacement?

This does happen, *if* the piton was protecting a section where modern gear does not offer a reasonable alternative. However, in lots of cases the piton is not replaced because it is not needed to attain a similar level of protection. Small cams have made previously bold routes much more protectable than their first ascents.

Climbing is actually pretty safe, a quick googling shows this:

"How Many People Die Rock Climbing Each Year? A 2017 report recorded 38 climbing-related deaths in North America in the previous year. On average, we see about 30 deaths per year, though it does fluctuate. Due to inherent self-reporting bias, and limited reporting outside of the United States and Canada, this is the best information that is available." (from Rockulus, data gleaned from ANAM) This is out of 5,000,000 or so North American Climbers. The numbers would be even lower if we removed all the rappelling and lowering deaths.

Even the low probability of death adds to the intensity of the experience. If it was completely safe (say, indoor toproping) it would be a different sport. Personally I believe that it is worth preserving the risk-confronting aspect of climbing.

Over 45 years as a climber my attitude about changing the protection from the style of the first ascent has changed. I now believe that current community consensus or majority is the right way to make decisions about adding bolts. Here in Colorado I think the Eldo and Flatirons bolting models are working well (application and public review for new bolts). It makes me sad that I can't go out and bolt whatever I want, but there are just too many climbers now for that to be sustainable.

I love climbing at the Gunks and I wouldn't like it if all the classic routes were retrobolted, but if the community decided to replace a few rusty pins with 1/2" stainless bolts I wouldn't lose any sleep.

Given the crowding at many crags close to population centers I think making existing areas more user friendly is a bug not a feature. I would put the work into developing new areas to spread out the crowds.

Also, Hanging Mountain will have sport climbing. A bit further from NYC (thankfully), but it will be an option.

David Housewrote: Climbing is actually pretty safe, a quick googling shows this:

"How Many People Die Rock Climbing Each Year? A 2017 report recorded 38 climbing-related deaths in North America in the previous year. On average, we see about 30 deaths per year, though it does fluctuate. Due to inherent self-reporting bias, and limited reporting outside of the United States and Canada, this is the best information that is available." (from Rockulus, data gleaned from ANAM) This is out of 5,000,000 or so North American Climbers. The numbers would be even lower if we removed all the rappelling and lowering deaths.

Even the low probability of death adds to the intensity of the experience. If it was completely safe (say, indoor toproping) it would be a different sport. Personally I believe that it is worth preserving the risk-confronting aspect of climbing.

Over 45 years as a climber my attitude about changing the protection from the style of the first ascent has changed. I now believe that current community consensus or majority is the right way to make decisions about adding bolts. Here in Colorado I think the Eldo and Flatirons bolting models are working well (application and public review for new bolts). It makes me sad that I can't go out and bolt whatever I want, but there are just too many climbers now for that to be sustainable.

I love climbing at the Gunks and I wouldn't like it if all the classic routes were retrobolted, but if the community decided to replace a few rusty pins with 1/2" stainless bolts I wouldn't lose any sleep.

Given the crowding at many crags close to population centers I think making existing areas more user friendly is a bug not a feature. I would put the work into developing new areas to spread out the crowds.

Many good points. This is basically my perspective as well. I started this thread out of the devils advocate ideas that intrude every so often to see others' perspectives (and because I know they make some people irrationally angry without being able to form a coherent argument as to why beyond 'that's the way it is', as though climbing tradition and climbing the sport are one in the same and inexorably linked forever).

Dana Bartlett wrote:

I've seen several comments about the start of CCK Direct posing a risk of ledge fall. I don't get it. If the leader fell, he/she would swing to the left, but I've done this route three times and there is enough protection to prevent a ledge fall.

Yeah, I know what you mean - I was just using an example of a classic route with a less than classic section that I know people have been injured by falling on. I could've picked a better but less vaunted example for sure. I tried thinking of other classics but TBH I think most of the risky-but-classic routes get a lot of their character from that risk, but that doesn't help my 'bolt the gunks' devils advocacy haha

Many  climbs that were  rated R are protectable with Modern Gear especially in the lower grades. However it seems when you get up into the higher grades there are not very many G-rated climbs. I know that when anchors are bolted at the gunks a park ranger has to accompany the person who is bolting the anchor  and they have to be certified, I believe by petzl . they have to have permission from The Preserve. 

Ian F wrote: I don't have any numbers on hand, but I'd wager faaaaaar more injuries occur at exclusively sport crags than trad crags.

Maybe because all the 5.12 sport climbers never try anything harder than 5.9 on trad?

If you wanted to climb blank starts with less risk than just listen for the music and ask to borrow a pad, problem solved. I’m all for bolts but if a certain climb doesn’t have them and you don’t want to risk injury just don’t climb it, there are literally over 1000 climbs there to choose from. Plus, a broken ankle only takes 4-6weeks to recover from, really not that bad.

Cats and dogs living together!—mayhem!  

MattHwrote:

Many good points. This is basically my perspective as well. I started this thread out of the devils advocate ideas that intrude every so often to see others' perspectives (and because I know they make some people irrationally angry without being able to form a coherent argument as to why beyond 'that's the way it is', as though climbing tradition and climbing the sport are one in the same and inexorably linked forever).

It’s also worth considering the would-be classics like no solution that would be awesome with 1-2 bolts

Artem Vasilyev wrote: Short answer: anarchy, bodies lying in the street, the death of all that is sacred 

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!

A Hill 2 Die On wrote:

Maybe I'm just sick and tired of seeing racism and white supremacy perpetuated by the climbing community.  Ever think of that?  

I thought you were being satirical

Not gonna happen while Richie Romano is still walking this Earth...

Artem Vasilyev wrote: Short answer: anarchy, bodies lying in the street, the death of all that is sacred 

I want to hear the long answer.

Brassmonkey wrote: I'd add that the great majority of the current pitons aren't needed with modern pro, so the need to replace pitons with bolts is a pretty useless argument. 

There is a piton on the lower section of V3 that actively makes the climb more dangerous. It's no real harm if you don't clip it, but anyone clipping it thinking it's pro would be sorely mistaken. At best it lands you on the slab below it, at worst, the way it crossloads your carabiner would cause it to snap, dropping you even further. There are numerous cam and nut placements on the right which drop you gently into space.

There's a similar piton on another route (I think Oscar and Charlie, but I'm not sure) which is similarly terrible, but also blocks a hold.

I wholeheartedly agree: modern pro offers far better protection than pitons in most cases.