To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

Tradiban wrote:

For your first ethics lesson, explain the difference between bolting and chipping.

Please stop thaying thith because you've been answered on that subject many times.

With current technology we can make any grade sport climb in a gym. Why do we need to keep bolting?

I would think the answer would be obvious. Real rocks are more fun to climb on. There's more challenge in routefinding, much longer routes, the fact that you can be outside in beautiful mountains (or deserts or whatever) the (sometime) peace and quiet of nature, the feel of rock is much more varied and pleasant than plastic, you don't have to listen to music you don't like (most of the time), you might see bears (albeit rarely), there's the joy of finding and developing new crags (which I haven't experienced though). I could go on.

Mike Preiss wrote:

Why you and others must respond that a conversation about modern bolting is silly and useless? if you have nothing constructive to add why not just ignore this forum and move on to one you might add something useful. There has been some good posts here on both sides of the issue.

There haven't been any good points made. And there isn't a real issue. It's just endlessly talking past each other, round and round.

I'm glad it's making you happy/outraged to get to talk about it, though. I suspect there's a fair number of folks just checking in every so often to see how the trolling is going, and being regularly surprised. We, or at least I, get to have our say on the shitshow as well. 

JonasMR wrote:

There haven't been any good points made. And there isn't a real issue. It's just endlessly talking past each other, round and round.

I'm glad it's making you happy/outraged to get to talk about it, though. I suspect there's a fair number of folks just checking in every so often to see how the trolling is going, and being regularly surprised. We, or at least I, get to have our say on the shitshow as well. 

Maybe you missed the part where this doesn’t count as trolling because tradibanned tried to text me in real life.

Hey idk I texted him irl. 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Maybe you missed the part where this doesn’t count as trolling because tradibanned tried to text me in real life.

It's still trolling. But yes, that was a crazy part of the show for sure.

Samuel Ammermann wrote:

At the end of the day, shouldn't the bolting ethic be determined by the people that live and climb there?

No because the bolting is unethical.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Please stop thaying thith because you've been answered on that subject many times.

Chipping V. Bolting has not been answered. Perhaps I missed it, where? Besides, the question is a exercise for "ADAM" to understand what ethics are.

I would think the answer would be obvious. Real rocks are more fun to climb on. There's more challenge in routefinding, much longer routes, the fact that you can be outside in beautiful mountains (or deserts or whatever) the (sometime) peace and quiet of nature, the feel of rock is much more varied and pleasant than plastic, you don't have to listen to music you don't like (most of the time), you might see bears (albeit rarely), there's the joy of finding and developing new crags (which I haven't experienced though). I could go on.

And you can do all that without bolts, thereby not breaking ethical codes. "Joy" does not justify vandalism. So, why specifically the need to bolt anything? 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

This^. To the other posters, I have only given up on this discussion since trad climbing is growing at a greater rate than sport(based on the study I posted earlier) but “bolts bring people,” is still the primary logic.

The study you cite, which has dubious origins for sure, notes that the growth rate for "Trad/Ice/Mountaineering" is higher than "Sport/Indoor/Boulder", however the participation rate for Sport/Indoor/Boulder is much much higher. Some more interesting tidbits from the article:

99boulders.com wrote: 

All the above numbers illustrate the demand for climbing. For indoor climbing, business owners respond to and serve that demand — by building more gyms.

The outdoor climbing ecosystem is not so flexible. The closest approximation to “opening” a location is developing a new crag, which takes a great deal of individual and community effort, often for little gratitude and a financial loss.

And even these efforts have a limit. Short of blasting out quarries or waiting a few million years, we’re stuck with the cliffs that nature has given us.

In this sense, the answer to the outdoor climbing question is obvious. Many gyms cater to indoor-only climbers, and many recreational participants will never set foot on real rock.

But — inspired by films like The Dawn Wall, a plethora of beautiful Instagrams, and gym-led instruction programs — at least some will. And as the number of indoor climbers goes up, the number that make the leap to the outdoors will also increase. Many of these climbers will flock where access is easy and climbing is quality, which further limits the number of available cliffs.

All of these issues explain the ongoing challenges faced by local and national stewardship groups. Environmental impact grows, and many climbing areas struggle to handle the traffic.

Really, the article and study support banning bolts to limit use of the outdoors and keep "climbers" indoors.

Tradiban wrote:

The study you cite, which has dubious origins for sure, notes that the growth rate for "Trad/Ice/Mountaineering" is higher than "Sport/Indoor/Boulder", however the participation rate for Sport/Indoor/Boulder is much much higher. Some more interesting tidbits from the article:

Your concerned about traffic. If trad climbing is growing, traffic is growing on not bolted climbs. At what point do you get concerned about boltless climbs having too much traffic? 

Trevor Puppy Love, 99boulders.com, Daniel Montgomery, Samuel Ammermann:

The First Rule of Mountain Project is...

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Your concerned about traffic. If trad climbing is growing, traffic is growing on not bolted climbs. At what point do you get concerned about boltless climbs having too much traffic? 

Lots of trad has bolts too. The study did not address bolt-less climbing.

Actually, I am already concerned about traffic on non-bolted climbs. Banning bolting will retard the growth of outdoor climbing overall and keep the masses in the gym. Some will still seek out non-bolted climbing but most will reserve themselves to the gym only. 

Besides, the only other way to limit non-bolted climbing is to introduce a quota system, much like you so hastily embraced. I simply cannot stand between the people and thier public lands.

Professor Booty wrote:

I said "skilled".Maybe I should have said "ethical", as well, but a "skilled" hunter doesn't take that shot. I've seen many more torn apart by other animals. Also why I don't hunt bow.

Yes humans have encroached on wildlife habitat but let's face it most of the reasons we lose (or close to losing) species is humans over hunting or fishing whether it's for food, their pelts, skins, horns, ect... The wild animals have enough trouble surviving predators, harsh winters, starvation, diseases, ect.. to have along come Elmer thud with his bazooka to wait in the hide and blow their head off.  I find no sporting achievement in hunting a deer, bear, moose, ect... Now you give the animal a fair chance at doing the same to the hunter, then you got a sporting achievement.

JonasMR wrote:

There haven't been any good points made. And there isn't a real issue. It's just endlessly talking past each other, round and round.

I'm glad it's making you happy/outraged to get to talk about it, though. I suspect there's a fair number of folks just checking in every so often to see how the trolling is going, and being regularly surprised. We, or at least I, get to have our say on the shitshow as well. 

Well I think good points were made in-between the useless ones, and no anger/outrage here, like I said before the "route setters" will keep going and unfortunately there will be no slowing them unless/until the government gets more involved

Mike Preiss wrote:

Yes humans have encroached on wildlife habitat but let's face it most of the reasons we lose (or close to losing) species is humans over hunting or fishing whether it's for food, their pelts, skins, horns, ect... The wild animals have enough trouble surviving predators, harsh winters, starvation, diseases, ect.. to have along come Elmer thud with his bazooka to wait in the hide and blow their head off.  I find no sporting achievement in hunting a deer, bear, moose, ect... Now you give the animal a fair chance at doing the same to the hunter, then you got a sporting achievement.

Hunters do way more than climbers ever will for the environment.

Try stalking within 20 yards of a bull elk with a recurve then come back and talk about fair chance.

Dying of starvation or disease is so much better. FYI, humans are predators.

Hope you're not a meat eater. That spike to the head of a cow while trapped in a cage isn't very fair chance either.

Parachute Adams wrote:

Hunters do way more than climbers ever will for the environment.

Try stalking within 20 yards of a bull elk with a recurve then come back and talk about fair chance.

Sigh...I’m sure that there are plenty of responsible hunters.  My dad and his friends for example.  However, I see many more tearing around on ATVs, starting bonfires which are often left unattended, and leaving beer cans, brass and shitty TP everywhere. 

Frank Stein wrote:

Sigh...I’m sure that there are plenty of responsible hunters.  My dad and his friends for example.  However, I see many more tearing around on ATVs, starting bonfires which are often left unattended, and leaving beer cans, brass and shitty TP everywhere. 

Agreed. Same could be said for climbers. Ever seen all the crap they pull off of El Cap every year?

Hunters contribute every year to conservation of our public lands just by buying a license. Not to mention the huge donations to various organizations in support of that conservation. 

And no, I am not referring to the NRA.

Gumby King wrote:

Trevor Puppy Love, 99boulders.com, Daniel Montgomery, Samuel Ammermann:

The First Rule of Mountain Project is...

Hey I'm having fun with tradibanned. Most of the people on this site are mad snowflakes compared with something like ultimate guitar forums.

Todd Berlier wrote:

I pretty much agree with you. Hell just driving to the crag yesterday, I stopped on the side of the forest service road in a random spot to urinate and ended picking up about 8 to 10 shotgun shells on the side of the road.Then when I got to the trailhead: motorcycle tracks on the trail... 

To play devils advocate: what we end up seeing are the shitty hunters/gun enthusiasts, not sure what percent are the responsible ones.  I always where blaze orange and sing loudly when I am out and about during the season. Oh and don't get me wrong, I still hate guns :)

Neither of those things can be linked to hunters. Shot gun shells and motorcycle tracks do not necessarily point to hunters. Assumptions are a messy business. No assumption about how that garbage ends up on El Cap.

Not a gun fan either.

Parachute Adams wrote:

Hunters do way more than climbers ever will for the environment.

Try stalking within 20 yards of a bull elk with a recurve then come back and talk about fair chance.

Really? you have a powerful gun and you think the Elk has a chance? when's the last time read about an animal winning in hunting? I see huge Elk all the time where I live and I can't imagine putting a bullet in it. Only shooting I'll do is with a camera. Maybe you mean a Bow? recurve? still

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Hey I'm having fun with tradibanned. Most of the people on this site are mad snowflakes 

Awkward...  but you do you ;-)

Gumby King wrote:

Awkward...  but you do you ;-)

tuhuh-cough cough

Not like that.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

tuhuh-cough cough

Not like that.

oh.

Well...  you're missing out.