Climbers Against Bolting

Grabbing holds erodes the rock and causes permanent damage. 

Tradibanned wrote:

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.

This logic is the equivalent to this is bad because it is bad. Solid point really changed my mind. 

Kristian Solemwrote:

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.

I feel what you are saying and mountain project loves to idealize the way things were and not the way things are now. But when we refuse to accept the definition of what trad climbing is now versus what it was its confusing to people and just creates this weird us versus them culture. It's simply easier to call what used to be trad climbing as a ground up established climb. If you refuse to accept what trad climbing is now you might as well work on using words like nice, silly, and awful how they were originally meant and not how we use them today. Also the pervasive theme that climbs done ground up versus rap bolted are distinctly two separate and totally different things always is insane. By your logic, every climb at index/squamish/smith should mega safe since all these climbs at the very least require someone to rappel them to clean off the moss/choss. It simply idealistic to assume that climbs can only be bold if the FA is ground up and that many climbs can be feasible done ground up in the first place. Or maybe I am just bitter about scrubbing moss off for hours.  

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote: 

I feel what you are saying and mountain project loves to idealize the way things were and not the way things are now. But when we refuse to accept the definition of what trad climbing is now versus what it was its confusing to people and just creates this weird us versus them culture. It's simply easier to call what used to be trad climbing as a ground up established climb. If you refuse to accept what trad climbing is now you might as well work on using words like nice, silly, and awful how they were originally meant and not how we use them today. Also the pervasive theme that climbs done ground up versus rap bolted are distinctly two separate and totally different things always is insane. By your logic, every climb at index/squamish/smith should mega safe since all these climbs at the very least require someone to rappel them to clean off the moss/choss. It simply idealistic to assume that climbs can only be bold if the FA is ground up and that many climbs can be feasible done ground up in the first place. Or maybe I am just bitter about scrubbing moss off for hours.  

You should have been around for supertopo.

A rap bolted sport route should be mega safe, if you choose to do otherwise you have a macho ego saying "look at me and how tough I am, I did it in this style, so should you". You are hanging from a rope and choosing not to put bolts in a logical clipping stance is just dumb. Sometimes you have no other choice going ground up, thus its more dangerous. sheesh - how many routes have you developed ground up? or at all?

ISO beginners who want to learn to aid the first pitch of a multi and top rope it.

Schuyler Baerwrote:

Grabbing holds erodes the rock and causes permanent damage. 

That is a only a significant impact in limited circumstances (eg soft/wet sandstone) and only to other climbers. So for example helping make sure people don’t climb wet sandstone is actually a good use of your time and energy if you want to prevent significant negative environmental impacts from climbing.

A rap bolted sport route should be mega safe, if you choose to do otherwise you have a macho ego saying "look at me and how tough I am, I did it in this style, so should you". You are hanging from a rope and choosing not to put bolts in a logical clipping stance is just dumb. Sometimes you have no other choice going ground up, thus its more dangerous. sheesh - how many routes have you developed ground up? or at all?

I agree that ground up vs top down is/was a huge part of trad vs sport. But mostly the end results determines what type of climb it ends up as IMO. I agree if you are making a sport route it should be safe and bolts should be in logical clipping stances

My impression is he was talking about a trad climb. If you clean on rappel technically you are working on it top down. If it’s cleaned on rappel and a bolt is placed on rappel, but the majority of pro is natural is it a trad climb or a sport climb?

Likewise at some of my local areas it’s dangerous to access the top of the crags (loose rock). So a lot of FAs have gone in ground up (free and/or aid on bolts). The climbs that go in are all bolt protected and protected as a sport climb. I don’t think anyone would argue these are trad climbs. 

Purchased Trad Gear = Sunk Cost Effect

Bolts and quickdraws are cheaper for the collective...  

It's official, you aren't against bolts at all, youre against guide books, and online guides. Simple, just protest all guide book makers, and of course, Mountain Project. You haven't made a single argument that is 'against bolts', you've only made arguments against having info put out to the masses on how to find these climbs. Your group needs to be re branded to Climbers Against Information Sharing.

BTW, 7/10, even if this only makes it to page 5.

Gloweringwrote:

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. 

I feel like you're turning a blind eye to the impacts that bolting has had and is having.

My argument is two part: Bolts bring more people and people bring more impact. Second, the installation of permanent hardware without oversight goes against the very ethos of our public lands. No other user group is allowed to do this

The impact of bolting is climbing's inconvenient truth and it's never too late to make amends for the past.

Guy Keeseewrote:

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

Ok, ok. I wasn't trolling back then either, I just think if you're going to do something, you should do ot right, even if it is unethical.

RRRwrote:

It's official, you aren't against bolts at all, youre against guide books, and online guides. Simple, just protest all guide book makers, and of course, Mountain Project. You haven't made a single argument that is 'against bolts', you've only made arguments against having info put out to the masses on how to find these climbs. Your group needs to be re branded to Climbers Against Information Sharing

Ah yes! I am glad you brought this up. I am in fact personally against guidebooks and online guides, however those are free speech and thus can not be regulated. As for the bolts themselves, like I said to Glowering, drilling and installing permanent hardware unregulated is against the ethos of public lands.

Guy Keeseewrote:

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.

—————————————————————-

Keric L wrote:........

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. ......

—————————————————————

Keric, you sound like a smart person. If you really want to understand the progression of bolting acceptance go over the history of the sport from the beginning. Every climber knew that if you made a bolt ladder and did direct aid you could climb anything. But that would be no fun. 

You are right Guy. Tradi tried more than once to get someone other than himself to add bolts to routes. But we know those threads were just trolling and he really didn't want that to happen. If he did he would have stepped up himself and done so.

Just like this is another troll/ sad desire for attention.

Tradi, if you are aware of your reputation then you are aware you have no credibility. You don't truly stand for anything.

"My argument is two part: Bolts bring more people and people bring more impact. Second, the installation of permanent hardware without oversight goes against the very ethos of our public lands. No other user group is allowed to do this"

You mean that installing bolts goes against the ethos of our public lands? An ethos that includes grazing, extracting minerals, logging, paving campgrounds and creating ATV trails? You mean that ethos?

Dear Tradi,

"Don't force YOUR children into YOUR ways, for they were created for a time different from your own."

With Wisdom,

Play-doh

Frank Steinwrote: "My argument is two part: Bolts bring more people and people bring more impact. Second, the installation of permanent hardware without oversight goes against the very ethos of our public lands. No other user group is allowed to do this" You mean that installing bolts goes against the ethos of our public lands? An ethos that includes grazing, extracting minerals, logging, paving campgrounds and creating ATV trails? You mean that ethos?

It's obvious this guy has no persuasive writing skills, as he keeps saying the same thing over and over with no reasonable stance on why BOLTS are the problem. His argument is against climbing becoming popular, and that online guides and guide books are bringing more people around. The fact that he can't argue a decent case for his position is decreasing his troll rating. 4.5/10 now that he's proved incapable of providing a sound argument against bolts. Disappointing. Making up phrases like "public lands ethos" won't win you any awards around here.

Gumby boy kingwrote:

You should have been around for supertopo.

A rap bolted sport route should be mega safe, if you choose to do otherwise you have a macho ego saying "look at me and how tough I am, I did it in this style, so should you". You are hanging from a rope and choosing not to put bolts in a logical clipping stance is just dumb. Sometimes you have no other choice going ground up, thus its more dangerous. sheesh - how many routes have you developed ground up? or at all?

First whether I have established routes or not it is irrelevant to discussing terminology but I would say half a route ground up and 15 in total. Seems weird to personally attack me what is your motivation behind questioning my route development, how is that relevant or even a point? I said its not black and white sometimes ground up is also the only option. The quote I was responding to was implying if your not climbing ground up then its not a trad route. Taking index as an example, you have to at least rap to clean a route and maybe place a single bolt. You then place mostly gear to climb a route and clip a single bolt. By the definition of the poster this is a sport climb since it was not done ground up. The excepted terminology on mountain project and in guidebooks is that this a a trad route. The poster is essentially advocating words cannot change in meaning but to your run of the mill climber having two definitions of a trad route is crazy. 

I feel like you're turning a blind eye to the impacts that bolting has had and is having.

I have multiple times mentioned where bolts and climbing has an impact. What I have said is the great majority of time it is not a significant negative impact. Again please describe these significant negative impacts if you can.

Visual impacts to non climbers from bolts may well be the most important significant negative impact from bolts. Lower Yosemite falls amphitheater has perhaps millions of non climber visits a year and the bolts there are pretty obvious. Thankfully most climbers choose not to climb there during peak tourist season so most non climbers are not aware of the bolts. If the non climbers enjoyment of the falls is impacted by having climbers on the walls and it ruins their pictures in their opinion it is a real impact. 

Lmao

caughtinside wrote:

full disclosure - I read the OP, enjoyed the troll factor, and skipped all the replies.

But I don't think he goes far enough.  If the problem is all the annoying unskilled climbers, then his one-for-one bolt replacement makes no sense.  Its time for real action - all bolts must be removed which will leave the sport climbers to pay badminton, because there will no longer be routes they can fall their way up.  Planet earth and sacred rocks saved!

Nah, they’ll just form orderly queues to hangdog your precious trad lines. Kind of like Skinner, Yaniro and Jardine, but there will be more of them. 

Frank Steinwrote: You mean that installing bolts goes against the ethos of our public lands? An ethos that includes grazing, extracting minerals, logging, paving campgrounds and creating ATV trails? You mean that ethos?

Many of you need to understand something before we can proceed. A very bad thing does not justify a not-as-bad thing.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Ahhh, yes, the logic is clear now. Grinding up and completely destroying rocks to gain the minerals within IS NOT AS BAD as 1/2" holes drilled into otherwise unharmed rock.

You're being too literal, also see my answer to "the schmuck" above.

RRRwrote:

It's obvious this guy has no persuasive writing skills, as he keeps saying the same thing over and over with no reasonable stance on why BOLTS are the problem. His argument is against climbing becoming popular, and that online guides and guide books are bringing more people around.

I have to say it over and over because you're not listening. So lets try it again. Bolts bring the crowds, and the crowds bring the problems. In addition, installing permanent hardware on our public lands by user groups and individuals is largely prohibited for a reason, to preserve the public lands. I will use the same analogy I used earlier, how would you feel if you came upon ATV's making their own trails as they pleased? At least with a ATV trail it can eventually grow back, a bolt will be there for a long time.

Gloweringwrote:

I have multiple times mentioned where bolts and climbing has an impact. What I have said is the great majority of time it is not a significant negative impact. Again please describe these significant negative impacts if you can.

Of course. Illegal trails, erosion, chalk all over, trash, poop, boombox noise pollution, abandoned gear, larger parking lots, fire rings...the list goes on and on. By banning bolting we can slow these impacts and hopefully fully restore some areas to their natural state. Banning bolts won't end the problem but I assure you it will significantly help. More importantly it will show land managers that climbers care about the environment and hopefully stop any outright climbing bans.  

caughtinside wrote:

But I don't think he goes far enough.  If the problem is all the annoying unskilled climbers, then his one-for-one bolt replacement makes no sense.  Its time for real action - all bolts must be removed which will leave the sport climbers to pay badminton, because there will no longer be routes they can fall their way up.  Planet earth and sacred rocks saved!

Honestly, that was what I was originally thinking. The one-for-one replacement was a concession. We can see today at most of our "trad" areas that the lack of bolts keeps people in the gym. People who need bolts to climb are better off in a gym anyway.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

First whether I have established routes or not it is irrelevant to discussing terminology but I would say half a route ground up and 15 in total. Seems weird to personally attack me what is your motivation behind questioning my route development, how is that relevant or even a point? I said its not black and white sometimes ground up is also the only option. The quote I was responding to was implying if your not climbing ground up then its not a trad route. Taking index as an example, you have to at least rap to clean a route and maybe place a single bolt. You then place mostly gear to climb a route and clip a single bolt. By the definition of the poster this is a sport climb since it was not done ground up. The excepted terminology on mountain project and in guidebooks is that this a a trad route. The poster is essentially advocating words cannot change in meaning but to your run of the mill climber having two definitions of a trad route is crazy. 

Trevor, I'm sorry but you are off topic. I'm going to lock you out of this thread for 36 hours. After that time you are welcome to come back if you can stay on topic please. Thanks.

Tradibanwrote:

lol you didn’t respond to me and then lock me out. You also are not locking anyone else off topic.

Edit: Did you and I read the same thread, I don’t see how what I have said is anymore disrespectful than anyone else or off topic. I stand by what I said, your logic quite literally is this bad because it is bad, if you responded to that I would have maybe been more polite.

So does calling you out for having no backbone get me locked out?

Your stance is weak and has no basis in reality because you are incapable of actually standing for something. Transparent and weak is no way to go through life.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

lol you didn’t respond to me and then lock me out. You also are not locking anyone else off topic.

Weird, I could have sworn I put you on the ignore list. Try responding now to see if it works.

Yes, I will be locking out those who go off topic or are disrespectful.

Parachute Adamswrote:

So does calling you out for having no backbone get me locked out?

Your stance is weak and has no basis in reality because you are incapable of actually standing for something. Transparent and weak is no way to go through life.

If you are on topic and respectful you are good to go. You are toeing the line on the respectfulness however, so be careful mister.

How is my stance weak? Explain. Simply saying it is weak doesn't make it so. I am transparent with my stance on bolting, are you?