Climbers Against Bolting

Robert S wrote:

You won't win the Silent Partner with this one.

I take it back. Never underestimate the capacity of MPers to take the bait.

Tradiban wrote:

I suppose I should preface this with a statement: This is NOT a troll. I'm aware of my reputation and I admit I usually don't take the forums as seriously as some would like me to. So take the following as you like it.

Although the MP crowd may loathe it, there exists a community of climbers in the real world who are committed to bolt-less development, who see the rock itself as sacred, and take all reasonable effort to avoid permanently altering the land in which they play in. This thread is for all of those people with a collective goal of stopping the bolts.

It's been the slippery slope over the years since bolting started, first it was only from a stance, then it was only ground up, then it was on rappel and only when "needed". Now, it's to save everyone from their lack of skill, or to save one tree, or to "spread out the crowd". The climbers of today will think of any excuse they can to add a bolt or squeeze in a new line. 

The consequences have been obvious and bolters are in denial. Somehow, bolting has slipped through a loophole in the system as a similar practice from so many other outdoor vocations would never pass the smell test. We got away with it all for a long time but personally I can no longer turn the other cheek and allow such permanent damage to occur on our public lands.

As a Climber Against Bolting I propose a bolting ban on all public lands and a strict one-to-one bolting replacement policy along with strong oversight from the authority with jurisdiction. It's actually saddening to me to propose this but I believe it is necessary in order stop the unethical treatment of our public lands.

Taking your post at face value. If you want to listen and learn another viewpoint read the below. Of course if you're just going to be defensive and only believe your view matters than never mind.

Most people don't see the rock as sacred. The rock is an inanimate object. It's about the ethics of what affects fellow climbers for most of us. What it the damage/impact? If the bolt is there it's a visual impact, mainly other climbers see. If the bolts is gone it's a 3/8" hole easily concealed. The impact is negligible. If you are worried about actual impacts to the natural environment bothering raptors (an important predator for keeping ecosystems healthy, with limited suitable habitat) is a significant impact. Thankfully we do something about that and have raptor closures. If you want to help protect the environment make sure people don't ignore those closures.

I think it's great that there's a subset of people who want rock with no bolts (at least in some places). I'm glad climbs like Nutrcracker and others exist that will have any bolts added to them immediately chopped. The style of the first ascent and if it's bolted is different from climb to climb and place to place, so people can enjoy different types of climbing. You can find a new unclimbed area climb establish it, report it, and make a note this area is no bolts, and any added will be chopped. I also think it's great there's plenty of people who love sport climbing at places conducive to that style of climbing. Don't like it? Don't get on a sport climb. Should some bolts on the side of a rock you don't see bother you? If so why? If just the existence of bolts on a rock somewhere bothers you does that outweigh the benefit that other people get out of those bolts?

George Anderson stood on bolts when he bolted Half Dome in 1875. This isn't a new phenomenon.

I suggest you try to have some understanding of how the majority of climbers see this because it seems a number of people who have been fervently anti bolt have gone off the deep end and end up actually damaging the rock for fellow climbers, or leaving trashed bolts which don't do anyone any good, to make a point.

Bolts have been a part of climbing in the US for at least 145 years. Sport climbing has been established in the US for over 35 years.

Robert S wrote:

I take it back. Never underestimate the capacity of MPers to take the bait.

Right? Basically every response is on the same side of this "issue." But still, everyone is gunna give their unique take how OP's idea was bad. Me too; I've got my particular reasons why I agree with everyone else. This thread'll go the distance.

OP, I agree with your sentiments on the bolting bonanza that infects all of our crags being an overall detriment to the rock and our sport. However, trying to get a consensus from climbers (especially the MP variety) on any aspect of climbing is likely a Sisyphusian engagement. Explaining to folk that believe bolts are the only/best way that bolting cracks, bolting every 3-4 Jesus-feet, adding squeeze plays, chipping/glueing holds, et al., are all bad style and poor form is like trying to explain to a he-who-shall-not-be-named supporter how he’s a bad human being on every level and about one step away from being another hitler (just give him a chance, he’ll get there!) and shouldn’t be followed by anyone.

For best results on the change you’d like to see I suggest you follow the one and only ethic that all climbers can agree upon: Do whatever you want to do. If you feel that the bolts harm a route or area, take ‘em out! Don’t like cracks bolted? Take ‘em out! Don’t like permanent-draws? Take ‘em out! Retro-bolts? Gone!

The point is that the folks that put those bolts in did so because they feel doing this improves the crag and were trying to make rock better for everyone. There’s no reason why you couldn’t or shouldn’t do the exact same thing and approach the rock with your own philosophy. To improve the crag and make it better for everyone, of course. Climbers everywhere are already doing this, so join the crowd.

And to the mining engineer: The world is alive, my friend, and all of existence is sacred. Every grain of sand. Every drop of oil. Everything. Even you and me! Even he-who-shall-not-be-named is sacred and will remember eventually, but probably not in this lifetime....

How do you lock someone else's post?

Tradiban wrote:

Although the MP crowd may [redacted] who see the rock itself as sacred, [jibberish]

I pee on rocks.

Hubbard wrote:

There was a brief moment of purity when the clean climbing manual was published in 1970 or so. It lasted for a few months and dragged on for a few years, five years at the most. It peaked at the same time as rock and roll music did. After that people kept bolting. All the big name purists of the era with a couple exceptions went on to bolt routes. Many Yosemite masters became sport climbers and bolted sport routes top down. The hold outs were few and far between. Even John Bachar bolted routes. Peter Croft? He has bolted. Royal Robbins? He bolted too. They debated how you should bolt , not if you might bolt. 

All that said, I predict that at some point there will be a great bolting pogrom just because there will be nothing left to do and "climbing," needs to keep moving forward. I don't think we are there yet.

Slowly getting sucked into the forums now I see. Welcome to the dark side 

Tradiban wrote:

I suppose I should preface this with a statement: This is NOT a troll. 

Just waiting for the hammer to drop later on in this thread

Gumby boy king wrote:

Just waiting for the hammer to drop later on in this thread

It’s inevitable.  The bags of hammers around here are clumsy too. 

I don't know how trolly this is. It's on topic. It's not rude. It is designed to elicit an emotional response. I don't know if it's an honest position or not.

But I think these discussions can be enlightening. This thread is the other side of the coin with the "I don't understand the appeal of "Trad Climbing"" thread. Many people don't get that climbing is about different things to different people. They think their view of climbing should apply to everyone. Another one I see quite common is "If there's no risk it's not climbing".

I pity the fool who doesn't enjoy all types of climbing, because they have different degrees and different types of fun and challenge.

Bolting on public land is going to get regulated. Yall might as well get that nug glowing in your pipes sooner rather than later. The current anything goes environment is not going to last. Permits and outright bans. Come on, you know this is going to happen and it must happen. Its a fantasy to conclude that climber fixed equipment is somehow in a special class because, well, climbers said so.

Bolting on public land is already regulated. 

• Wilderness areas are no machines or mechanical advantage = 30-45 minutes per bolt instead of <5. 

And specific areas have rules.

• Smith Rock just got regulated, and the funny thing is the regulators are basically the consensus, local developers, then fringe ahole who put in a rebar ladder as protest against bolts is probably the only one who got regulated out of the park, LOL.
• A number of other sensitive / high traffic areas have no new bolts and/or permits required
• That kind of stuff will continue to expand as it should, but blanket rules across all National Forests for example I don't see happening. Too much else to regulate and other matters take precedence for limited manpower.

Adding:

A good land manager is going to weigh a number of values in determining how public lands should be managed:

• Economic Values
• Social Values
• Ecological Values

Climbing adds a ton of economic / recreational value. Think of a place like Smith rock and how much climbing is possible because of bolts, the number of climber days per year times $X per climber day. It's worth millions of dollars.

Glowering wrote:

Bolting on public land is already regulated. 

• Wilderness areas are no machines or mechanical advantage = 30-45 minutes per bolt instead of <5. 

And specific areas have rules.

• Smith Rock just got regulated, and the funny thing is the regulators are basically the consensus, local developers, then fringe ahole who put in a rebar ladder as protest against bolts is probably the only one who got regulated out of the park, LOL.
• A number of other sensitive / high traffic areas have no new bolts and/or permits required
• That kind of stuff will continue to expand as it should, but blanket rules across all National Forests for example I don't see happening. Too much else to regulate and other matters take precedence for limited manpower.

Adding:

A good land manager is going to weigh a number of values in determining how public lands should be managed:

• Economic Values
• Social Values
• Ecological Values

Climbing adds a ton of economic / recreational value. Think of a place like Smith rock and how much climbing is possible because of bolts, the number of climber days per year times $X per climber day. It's worth millions of dollars.

That's pretty spot-on, imo.

I would add that one of the most effective responses climbers can have is to develop & support climbing organisation. We need some sort of coherent voice to talk to other stakeholders and ensure decisions they make aren't too dumb from a climbing perspective. Ideally these organisation have some full-time people working on issues etc. There are many models to do that right, but the base idea is increasingly important imo.

Franck Vee wrote:

That's pretty spot-on, imo.

I would add that one of the most effective responses climbers can have is to develop & support climbing organisation. We need some sort of coherent voice to talk to other stakeholders and ensure decisions they make aren't too dumb from a climbing perspective. Ideally these organisation have some full-time people working on issues etc. There are many models to do that right, but the base idea is increasingly important imo.

Kinda like the Access Fund? 

In the 1980s I saw rap bolting as vandalism. A bolt should only be placed where absolutely necessary. I joined Bob Kamps in his initiative to ban the use of power drills in Josh, a position that put me at odds with a large segment of the local climbing community. Then Randy Vogel set me straight; inviting official regulation into climbing was a really bad idea, regardless of my feelings about bolting.

As my climbing progressed I focused entirely on traditional climbing. A friend of mine had a sticker that said “Sport Climbing is Neither.” I was down with that.

Then a few of my bud’s dragged me, kicking and screaming, to the Owens River Gorge, the lair of the Devil incarnate. By the end of the second day I couldn’t get enough, I felt cheated when the sun went down. It was too much fun doing hard climbs without putting my neck in a noose.

So, here’s where I’ve ended up.

Traditional climbs should be bolted on lead. It’s a fundamental element of the genre. And it makes the first ascent a grand adventure. But it’s not just about the FA, bolts placed on lead give a route a certain character. For example, I’ll argue that the Josh classic EBGB’s is a trad climb, even though it's entirely protected by bolts (placed on lead from stances). Had this climb been bolted on rappel, as a sport climb, it would offer an entirely different experience (rap bolted run-outs are just stupid). The same is true for the Weeping Wall routes at Suicide Rock.

Sport climbs, on the other hand, are almost always better when the bolts are placed on rap. It’s a good bet that a bolt placed from a stance, even an improbable one, will be reasonable to clip. Setting bolts on a proposed sport climb should be thought through carefully in advance.

And please don’t bolt a protectable crack. I’ve come a long way, but I still see that as vandalism.   

I know, I just wasted several minutes of my life that I’ll never get back getting trolled.

Holy crap people are still falling for this, incredible.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Might  just as well  retitled  this climbers  against  climbing.  

Nick, I can show you how to climb without bolts if you don't know how. Come out to California, call me at  951-527-7959 

RRR wrote:

How about you take up a cause to save some trees, or some wildlife, or a waterway, or some industrial farm animals that are being killed for food and polluting the planet in the process? Rocks are rocks. They are inanimate objects that don't need your protection. Oh boy, some sand fell out of a 3 1/2" deep hole. Now what are we going to do? You didn't even give a reasonable argument why we should accept your opinion. We're not "altering the land" by adding bolts, we're altering a rock face. How about going after ATV'ers, or "mudders", or commercial fisherman, or coal fired power plants?? They are altering the land and the environment. Your argument is weak. And no, this won't win you a Silent Partner. If you care about "altering the land" aka, "rocks," (in your head) how about you go after coal companies dynamiting entire mountain tops? That would be a worthy cause.

Trying to justify something unethical by saying other people do worse things is a false justification and a common excuse from the bolting crowd. 

Theo Kalfas wrote:

Finally, someone who shares my love of pitons!

No love for pitons from me, they also scar the rock.

Keric L wrote:

The trees clinging to life on cliffsides are actually really cool and worth preserving. Many of them are much older than their soil-based brethren because of reduced growth rates and stringent growing conditions. 

I totally agree but bolts only save a few trees directly. I argue that bolts in general, result in a net loss of trees from the crowds they bring. Besides, there's a safe way to sling trees as to not hurt them (as much). Hint: Don't choke them.

To echo what was said above though, you seem to be approaching this with a fundamentalist mindset that the only way to enjoy climbing is to have no trace at all. This is fine and dandy, but not reasonable for actually allowing people to enjoy the outdoors. Outdoor recreation exists as a balance between the need to preserve nature and the desire to enjoy nature and recreate outside the home. Let's take hiking trails, for example. Hiking trails alter the landscape. To build them we stack cairns, create steps/paths, and paint blazes. Does this mean they're wrong? Should we not hike? They're negatively impacting those local environments. They can lead to soil loss, import of invasive species, and habitat fragmentation. They have lots of benefits though: they facilitate recreation, teach people about the woods, and promote preservation, either through entrance fees or the fact that hikers are more likely to support public lands initiatives. There's cost and benefit, but I'd say generally there's more benefit. When it comes to climbing, more climbs makes it more approachable to more people. This supports general outdoor recreation, preserves our right to climb in these places, and supports preservation of these local natural areas. 

Yes, bolts make climbing more "approachable" and that is the problem. Climbing isn't for a mass audience and our public lands can't withstand the onslaught of the mainstream.

You make one other point I want to bring up: that bolting is to save us from ourselves. I'd say this is so obvious as to not even need to be said. That's the purpose of bolts and protection in general. If you prefer bold climbing then solo away-- nobody makes you clip those bolts. Bolting, when at its best, is done to reduce the risk of injury. Too many bolts can be dangerous because it can lead even experienced climbers to z-clip (plus it's just distracting); too few bolts and you have major deck potential. I think bolting with the idea of reducing injury is good. If a trad climb has a scary runout that could kill you if you biff it, then I think a bolt is fine. Climbers are a small community within a larger community of outdoor recreators. We also need to respect the ideas and opinions of hikers, administrators, and other public land users. We forget climbing is an "extreme" sport in the eyes of the public, and a nuisance to local first responders. Generally, more climbers means more accidents. This has nothing to do with skill level changing, just the fact that there are more of us than ever before. If accident rates increase on public lands then administrators will push for climbing to be banned.

This isn't about preserving "bold" climbing, it's about preserving our public lands. I don't need bolts to stay safe and neither do you, they are a false sense of security as evidenced by increased accident rates. If more bolts equals safer wouldn't the accident rate be going down?

One thing I've never understood about the debate over the ethics of bolting is why we get so caught up in the how. Why does it matter if the person who bolted it did it in any particular style? Why does incurring greater personal risk make a route more worthy of having been put up? Harder climbs often can't be established in the ground up, or stance style. Even Adam Ondra can't bolt a 5.15 by stancing. Even if he could, why should route development be the privilege of only elite climbers? 

We don't need 5.15 climbs especially at the expense of the environment.

Guy Keesee wrote:

You?? Aren’t you the one who wanted bolts added to a whole mess of climbs at T&S? Climbs done in the 50/60s by people who climbed in hiking boots. That was you, Mr. “trad” right? IIRC you advocated to make these “safe” for all.

That was a troll. This is not a troll.

Franck Vee wrote:

Well, obviously, Tradiban's "proposal" is irrealistic and unworkable. No one has dictatorial power over all cliffs. If you can't get climbers to no poop & leave TP all over the place, it's hard for me to see how you would " [... put in place ] a bolting ban on all public lands and a strict one-to-one bolting replacement policy along with strong oversight from the authority with jurisdiction.". I think would have greatly helped your stated goal of not being a troll if you had choosen not to propose something that's obviously not going to happen. Nor something that is in fact desirable - any such "authority" is unlikely to understand climbing all that well, and I certainly don't want any obese bureaucrat behind a desk to determine what makes sense or not wrt to climbing.

Obviously this campaign would be piecemeal. I used to be fervently against government oversight of climbing but things have gotten out of control and unfortunately it's the government that controls public lands. We, as climbers have overstepped our boundaries and it's time for the National Forest, BLM, etc to reel it back in.

bernard wolfe wrote:

You claim to be sensitive to the "impact to public lands".......and this......THIS is the mode of impact that you find most troubling.......or troubling enough to propose a ban on its practice???  Are you aware of the broad array of uses and impacts to the nation's public lands?

I agree, there are alot of problems in the world. Banning bolts is something we can do as climbers to show our real support of the environment.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Tell me about those sweet alpine environments that would see almost no humans except for trad climbing in? Now contrast that to another bolt line in clear creek canyon on the side of the road. Which causes more harm?

I believe the bolt line in Clear Creek causes the most harm as that bolt line is just part of a whole, a whole that has a terrible impact on our environment. 

Pepe LePoseur wrote:

Isn’t he already a winner?  Doesn’t he own the Silent Partner?  Oh who can keep track nowadays

I am not Rocrates but the fact that many people think I am is exactly what I wanted.

Glowering wrote:

Taking your post at face value. If you want to listen and learn another viewpoint read the below. Of course if you're just going to be defensive and only believe your view matters than never mind.

Most people don't see the rock as sacred. The rock is an inanimate object. It's about the ethics of what affects fellow climbers for most of us. What it the damage/impact? If the bolt is there it's a visual impact, mainly other climbers see. If the bolts is gone it's a 3/8" hole easily concealed. The impact is negligible. If you are worried about actual impacts to the natural environment bothering raptors (an important predator for keeping ecosystems healthy, with limited suitable habitat) is a significant impact. Thankfully we do something about that and have raptor closures. If you want to help protect the environment make sure people don't ignore those closures.

The impact of bolting goes way beyond shiny objects and holes in the wall. Bolts open access to the masses and the masses destroy everything they consume.

I think it's great that there's a subset of people who want rock with no bolts (at least in some places). I'm glad climbs like Nutrcracker and others exist that will have any bolts added to them immediately chopped. The style of the first ascent and if it's bolted is different from climb to climb and place to place, so people can enjoy different types of climbing. You can find a new unclimbed area climb establish it, report it, and make a note this area is no bolts, and any added will be chopped. I also think it's great there's plenty of people who love sport climbing at places conducive to that style of climbing. Don't like it? Don't get on a sport climb. Should some bolts on the side of a rock you don't see bother you? If so why? If just the existence of bolts on a rock somewhere bothers you does that outweigh the benefit that other people get out of those bolts?

Lots of people enjoy different styles of hiking too, should they be allowed to blaze new trails wherever they please? It's not about my like/dislike of bolting, it's my constitution telling me it's wrong to impact our public lands in the way we are currently operating.

George Anderson stood on bolts when he bolted Half Dome in 1875. This isn't a new phenomenon.

I suggest you try to have some understanding of how the majority of climbers see this because it seems a number of people who have been fervently anti bolt have gone off the deep end and end up actually damaging the rock for fellow climbers, or leaving trashed bolts which don't do anyone any good, to make a point.

Nah, I won't be chopping any bolts, that proves nothing.

Bolts have been a part of climbing in the US for at least 145 years. Sport climbing has been established in the US for over 35 years.

So? The longevity of a wrong doesn't make it right.

SenorDB wrote:

OP, I agree with your sentiments on the bolting bonanza that infects all of our crags being an overall detriment to the rock and our sport. However, trying to get a consensus from climbers (especially the MP variety) on any aspect of climbing is likely a Sisyphusian engagement. Explaining to folk that believe bolts are the only/best way that bolting cracks, bolting every 3-4 Jesus-feet, adding squeeze plays, chipping/glueing holds, et al., are all bad style and poor form is like trying to explain to a he-who-shall-not-be-named supporter how he’s a bad human being on every level and about one step away from being another hitler (just give him a chance, he’ll get there!) and shouldn’t be followed by anyone.

For best results on the change you’d like to see I suggest you follow the one and only ethic that all climbers can agree upon: Do whatever you want to do. If you feel that the bolts harm a route or area, take ‘em out! Don’t like cracks bolted? Take ‘em out! Don’t like permanent-draws? Take ‘em out! Retro-bolts? Gone!

Now that would be a Sisyphusian engagement! 

With Climbers Against Bolts I hope to get people rethinking their impacts on our public spaces and send the message to land managers that not all climbers support bolting. I have a feeling that many land managers feel the same way I do.

The point is that the folks that put those bolts in did so because they feel doing this improves the crag and were trying to make rock better for everyone. There’s no reason why you couldn’t or shouldn’t do the exact same thing and approach the rock with your own philosophy. To improve the crag and make it better for everyone, of course. Climbers everywhere are already doing this, so join the crowd.

There are obvious problems with bolt wars. No single individual has the right to alter public lands to their liking and I am arguing to take a step back and at least do one thing to NOT impact public lands.

Glowering wrote:

Climbing adds a ton of economic / recreational value. Think of a place like Smith rock and how much climbing is possible because of bolts, the number of climber days per year times $X per climber day. It's worth millions of dollars.

The almighty dollar, will we ever break free from it's prison? I agree Climbers Against Bolting are up against a behemoth, I hope that land managers can see beyond the dollars and choose to protect what they are charged with protecting.

Kristian Solem wrote:

In the 1980s I saw rap bolting as vandalism. A bolt should only be placed where absolutely necessary. I joined Bob Kamps in his initiative to ban the use of power drills in Josh, a position that put me at odds with a large segment of the local climbing community. Then Randy Vogel set me straight; inviting official regulation into climbing was a really bad idea, regardless of my feelings about bolting.

As my climbing progressed I focused entirely on traditional climbing. A friend of mine had a sticker that said “Sport Climbing is Neither.” I was down with that.

Then a few of my bud’s dragged me, kicking and screaming, to the Owens River Gorge, the lair of the Devil incarnate. By the end of the second day I couldn’t get enough, I felt cheated when the sun went down. It was too much fun doing hard climbs without putting my neck in a noose.

So, here’s where I’ve ended up.

Traditional climbs should be bolted on lead. It’s a fundamental element of the genre. And it makes the first ascent a grand adventure. But it’s not just about the FA, bolts placed on lead give a route a certain character. For example, I’ll argue that the Josh classic EBGB’s is a trad climb, even though it's entirely protected by bolts (placed on lead from stances). Had this climb been bolted on rappel, as a sport climb, it would offer an entirely different experience (rap bolted run-outs are just stupid). The same is true for the Weeping Wall routes at Suicide Rock.

Sport climbs, on the other hand, are almost always better when the bolts are placed on rap. It’s a good bet that a bolt placed from a stance, even an improbable one, will be reasonable to clip. Setting bolts on a proposed sport climb should be thought through carefully in advance.

And please don’t bolt a protectable crack. I’ve come a long way, but I still see that as vandalism.   

I know, I just wasted several minutes of my life that I’ll never get back getting trolled.

 I mostly agree! However, climbers in general have shown that they can't be trusted with their tools. Things keep on slipping and I think the time to act is NOW before it's too late and all climbing gets banned.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

If rocks are sacred then why do you drive a car or write this junk from your phone or computer? All of our technology comes from metals we take out of rocks.

Hobo, we all make compromises as humans to live our lives. This is not a black/white world, it's deeper than that.  I do envy those that live almost pure with low impact but the truth is that these people pay a personal price for their lifestyle. Banning bolting won't solve all the world's problems but it is a step in the right direction.

and the masses destroy everything they consume.

No one is destroying or consuming anything. The ecological impact of climbers at most busy crags is insignificant. What are they destroying? Describe the significant negative impacts of climbers or bolts. 

Dollars are one way of quantifying value. It’s not about dollars for moneys sake (note: no money actually changes hands). It’s a way of quantifying how much fun, exercise, and other benefits are created because people are climbing

You haven’t given any actual reasons why bolts or more climbers are bad, except you like climbs without bolts and you don’t like crowds. Plenty of places to have that experience without telling everyone else they shouldn’t have the types of climbing they enjoy.

The longevity means this ship has sailed. 

So Traddie....  you were trolling then but not now.

I get it.

You really want that Silent Partner don’t you?