Climbers Against Bolting

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.

Thanks for trying to describe some actual problems. But none of these are significant impacts.

Illegal trails are not a result of bolting. I’ve climbed a lot in many places. I have yet to see an illegal trail to a climbing area. a small amount probably exist but unless it’s an ecologically sensitive habitat it’s likely not a significant impact  

Chalk is a minor visual impact mainly to other climbers.

Erosion from climbing is usually minimal and who are what does it harm? If erosion causes enough silt in a stream to affect its ecosystem it’s a significant impact. Dirt that is a little bit farther down the hill is not.

Boom box noise pollution could be a minor impact to other climbers or users in the area for a short time.

Trash can be from any user group. I see a lot more general trash than climber trash. It’s minimal and can be picked up. I see climbers doing more clean up than any other user group probably resulting in less trash overall.

I think your initial statement that you consider the rocks sacred is your real reason. And that’s fine. Be honest with yourself and everyone else. We may think it’s wacky but can agree to disagree. Trying to claim there’s significant impacts from climbing that outweigh its benefits is disingenuous. You listed impacts but nothing significant. 

No more bolts

Gloweringwrote:

Thanks for trying to describe some actual problems. But none of these are significant impacts.

Illegal trails are not a result of bolting. I’ve climbed a lot in many places. I have yet to see an illegal trail to a climbing area. a small amount probably exist but unless it’s an ecologically sensitive habitat it’s likely not a significant impact  

Chalk is a minor visual impact mainly to other climbers.

Erosion from climbing is usually minimal and who are what does it harm? If erosion causes enough silt in a stream to affect its ecosystem it’s a significant impact. Dirt that is a little bit farther down the hill is not.

Boom box noise pollution could be a minor impact to other climbers or users in the area for a short time.

Trash can be from any user group. I see a lot more general trash than climber trash. It’s minimal and can be picked up. I see climbers doing more clean up than any other user group probably resulting in less trash overall.

I think your initial statement that you consider the rocks sacred is your real reason. And that’s fine. Be honest with yourself and everyone else. We may think it’s wacky but can agree to disagree. Trying to claim there’s significant impacts from climbing that outweigh its benefits is disingenuous. You listed impacts but nothing significant. 

Minor/major is a matter of opinion. I don't believe any of these things are acceptable, they are "major" impacts and climbers in general claim to be an ecologically conscious group...unless that means they can't trash a place in the name of "new lines".

I believe our public spaces are sacred and are majorly disrespected when someone comes along with a drill to play "developer".

JonasMRwrote:

 Jonas, lame memes will also be grounds for lockout. I'll give you a warning this time.

A random thought about trees...I think it would make sense to also prohibit the use of trees in anchor systems (or as pro on a lead). Many times it is not completely necessary to use trees anyway, it's just convenient. Of course this would be mostly unenforceable but I think the rule itself and possibility of a fine would help protect those few trees from getting choked or stepped on to death.

Gloweringwrote:
Erosion from climbing is usually minimal and who are what does it harm? If erosion causes enough silt in a stream to affect its ecosystem it’s a significant impact. Dirt that is a little bit farther down the hill is not.

Having seen a couple pictures form the late 90s and early 2000s of Orange Oswald Wall at Summersville lake vs how it looks now, you are wrong on this one. 

For land managers and environmental impact assessment it is a matter of opinion based on the magnitude and nature of the impact, and precedence. E.g. No EIR or management plan is going to list chalk as a major environmental impact unless it’s in a high visibility area where it bothers other user groups, then it may absolutely be significant. You can think any chalk anywhere is unacceptable, but the majority of people are okay with it. You and a small number of hard core ideologues may never change your mind but it doesn’t really matter. But if you want to tilt at windmills have at it.

Most of the impacts you listed are also caused by trad climbing so to be consistent you should be against trad climbing too.

There are significant impacts in some circumstances. The Oswald wall example may be one of them. Again that’s a good place to focus your time and effort if you really want to help prevent real environmental degradation. There’s a number of areas where climbing has been banned and its usually because it causes significant impacts in that circumstance. 

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

It’s weak because you claim bolting harms the rock as your primary reason for being against it, but you drive a car and use a cell phone which are the products of mining aka grinding up rocks. Somehow, in your mind, this makes sense. 

Hobo, you have not absorbed my responses to your singular attack and your tone has become increasingly disrespectful. I'm going to lock you out of the thread for 36 hours after which you may return if you wish after re-reading my responses.

Gloweringwrote:

For land managers and environmental impact assessment it is a matter of opinion based on the magnitude and nature of the impact, and precedence. E.g. No EIR or management plan is going to list chalk as a major environmental impact unless it’s in a high visibility area where it bothers other user groups, then it may absolutely be significant. You can think any chalk anywhere is unacceptable, but the majority of people are okay with it. You and a small number of hard core ideologues may never change your mind but it doesn’t really matter. But if you want to tilt at windmills have at it.

The chalk problem has been getting worse and worse and I gurantee will start seeing more complaints from the general public about it. Chalk is especially bad on bolted climbs because of the ease of access bolts provide thus the increased over-use of said routes.  Smith Rock comes to mind.

Most of the impacts you listed are also caused by trad climbing so to be consistent you should be against trad climbing too.

You're the one who has talking about significant vs insignificant impacts, trad climbing (sans bolts) obviously has a much less impact than bolted climbing.

There are significant impacts in some circumstances. The Oswald wall example may be one of them. Again that’s a good place to focus your time and effort if you really want to help prevent real environmental degradation. There’s a number of areas where climbing has been banned and its usually because it causes significant impacts in that circumstance. 

 Exactly, ban bolting, lower impact and save climbing. I support areas having their hardware removed if deemed necessary by the authority with jurisdiction in order to lower future impact from climbing.

In Yosemite (a place with tons of climbers and tons of non climbers) Swan Slabs is the most visible area, it's easy access, and it's trad. Cars drive by, people walk by, and the climbers are very obvious as is the chalk. The green dragon will even make an announcement telling people to look at the climbers. Most sport centric areas in the Valley require a hike that almost no one but climbers make and in my experience are not nearly as crowded. Which one has more visual impact?

I'm saying you have to take everything on a case by case basis. And you should focus your effort where things can be a real problem. Not use some arbitrary metric about what climbs are worthy.

Do you guys read the fucking news? This shit is MEANINGLESS

Gloweringwrote:

In Yosemite (a place with tons of climbers and tons of non climbers) Swan Slabs is the most visible area, it's easy access, and it's trad. Cars drive by, people walk by, and the climbers are very obvious as is the chalk. The green dragon will even make an announcement telling people to look at the climbers. Most sport centric areas in the Valley require a hike that almost no one but climbers make and in my experience are not nearly as crowded. Which one has more visual impact?

I'm saying you have to take everything on a case by case basis. And you should focus your effort where things can be a real problem. Not use some arbitrary metric about what climbs are worthy.

This brings us back to temporary vs permanent impact. The climbers themselves are very temporary, the chalk less so. If the chalk gets so bad it basically is permanent then the authority with jurisdiction would be justified in banning chalk. We could split hairs all day but we all know, in general, bolts cause more permanent impact on the environment than no bolts. 

Ignacio Martinez wrote:

You miss the point we've had a pretty good run, about 100,000 years give or take some evolutioning. Chalk? Bolts? Pfft. Highways, skyscrapers, double pfft. Humanity is on its last legs, look I get that its hard to continue to bounce ideas off both sides of your head, it just doesn't matter. Have some tea, when finished swirl the leaves around, I think you'll still find oxygen like rocks or stars are all still meaningless, no matter what you read. Zen is the art of perfecting your inner you, you're too conflicted for that. Release. Try that, release..........................

There feel better now.

So we should all just give up? I'm not a quitter.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

...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. 

If by "the poster" you mean me, then you have some reading comprehension issues.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

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

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.  

I feel what you are saying, and if you have me pegged as an idealist you’re right. Hmmm… How to sort this out without contradicting my earlier post…

“Trad,” of course, is an abbreviation of “traditional,” a word which can be taken to mean, on one hand, old-fashioned, but on the other, time-honored. In any case it harks to the past. In climbing, as in other areas, what is considered to be tradition is in a constant state of flux. If I understand you correctly, this is where you are coming from, and of course you are correct. No one would argue that to climb trad means to use equipment and practices from long ago.

My point is that starting from the bottom and going to the top is fundamental to traditional climbing style. When you take that away you are not climbing trad anymore. Many things can evolve, but there are basic principles, and this is one.

You’re point about having to clean routes, and perhaps place the occasional bolt, on rappel, while undertaking this task is interesting. While I have a fair number of FA’s under my belt, it’s a problem I haven’t been confronted with, except once, and that was ugly business. It had to be done bottom up, there being no other access to the top. I had crap in my hair, in my eyes, in my ears, up my nose, and down my shirt. OMG. If I could have done it on rap, I would have (but not bolts). Would I hold it up as a solid example of traditional climbing style? Not really. Is it a big deal? I suppose not.

I’ve gone a step beyond bolted climbs. Now I don’t climb anything that isn’t permadrawed

Man Tradiban, how do you do it I'll never understand. (If this is the real tradiban) It's good to know that you can pop in anytime and still inspire a massive angry forum thread any time you wish, no one else has really captured your magic since you left.

Lily Johnsonwrote:

Man Tradiban, how do you do it I'll never understand. (If this is the real tradiban) It's good to know that you can pop in anytime and still inspire a massive angry forum thread any time you wish, no one else has really captured your magic since you left.

Its not the real Tradiban  ;-)

There is a simple formula:  Make it look like you're Tradiban and people lose their mind.

I don't hear anyone talking about whether an increase in bolts makes climbing safer or more dangerous (by number of injuries)? Like how about bolted anchors on sketchy routes is that cool? 

Thoughts?

Lily Johnsonwrote:

Man Tradiban, how do you do it I'll never understand. (If this is the real tradiban) It's good to know that you can pop in anytime and still inspire a massive angry forum thread any time you wish, no one else has really captured your magic since you left.

I believe the real tradiban quit because this was the case. Or maybe he just needed more time to be a beer fairy.

Outstanding move Tradibanned 

Used 2climbwrote:

I believe the real tradiban quit because this was the case. Or maybe he just needed more time to be a beer fairy.

He actually decided to start life...  gave up his internet dirt bag ways.

There is more to MP...  like bolting.

Kristian Solemwrote:

I feel what you are saying, and if you have me pegged as an idealist you’re right. Hmmm… How to sort this out without contradicting my earlier post…

“Trad,” of course, is an abbreviation of “traditional,” a word which can be taken to mean, on one hand, old-fashioned, but on the other, time-honored. In any case it harks to the past. In climbing, as in other areas, what is considered to be tradition is in a constant state of flux. If I understand you correctly, this is where you are coming from, and of course you are correct. No one would argue that to climb trad means to use equipment and practices from long ago.

My point is that starting from the bottom and going to the top is fundamental to traditional climbing style. When you take that away you are not climbing trad anymore. Many things can evolve, but there are basic principles, and this is one.

You’re point about having to clean routes, and perhaps place the occasional bolt, on rappel, while undertaking this task is interesting. While I have a fair number of FA’s under my belt, it’s a problem I haven’t been confronted with, except once, and that was ugly business. It had to be done bottom up, there being no other access to the top. I had crap in my hair, in my eyes, in my ears, up my nose, and down my shirt. OMG. If I could have done it on rap, I would have (but not bolts). Would I hold it up as a solid example of traditional climbing style? Not really. Is it a big deal? I suppose not.

Kristian, I locked out Trevor for being off-topic, you will be next! Regardless I think what Trevor is talking about is "Sprad" climbing or maybe just "mixed". 

Gumby boy kingwrote:

I don't hear anyone talking about whether an increase in bolts makes climbing safer or more dangerous (by number of injuries)? Like how about bolted anchors on sketchy routes is that cool? 

Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure accidents have gone up with bolting. Kinda crazy huh?

Bolted anchors on "sketchy" routes, now THAT is crazy! But like I said, it's splitting hairs, banning bolting is the ethical and logical course of action to get climbing back on track.