To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

Mike Preiss wrote:

I think He's one of the few here making the most calm rational statements and arguments for his case(even though I do not quite agree with all of them)

If by calm rational you mean passive aggressive and often irrational then yes. 

There are a few points I agree with and would explore further but what’s the point. 

Josh Fengel wrote:

Climbed Crest Jewel on Sunday and I definitely used the bolts.

The approach keeps the crowds at bay, but maybe, so does the lack of protection.

Like 'Hoppy's Favorite' on GPA: 

"Named for the brand of milk you could buy at the Village store. 

The upper three pitches of this route are pretty fun. Unfortunately, 

the second pitch is 5.8 and unprotected. As Verne put it, 'to keep the riff raff off'."

Looks great Josh! Riif-raff indeed.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

OK yeah I'm losing my patience for this now

Why are you losing your patience? If I need to explain somethings further I would be happy to do so. 

PWZ wrote:

He's a conversation vandal. He should be banned.

The first amendment prevents this.

Glowering wrote:

You’re pathetic. Never needed to do it to anyone before but I’ll permanently ignore you.

What happened? I thought you were going to permanently ignore me?

Mike Preiss wrote:

I think He's one of the few here making the most calm rational statements and arguments for his case(even though I do not quite agree with all of them)

Thanks Mike. Although I know they are trolling I try and give them the benefit of the doubt and answer the questions faithfully. But as you can see if someone doesn't agree or simply doesn't understand on the forums they just resort to personal attacks. I'm used to it so I just do the best I can to show them the logic. I don't really think I need to convince anybody though, bolt bans are coming like it or not. I figure that as climbers we should try and get ahead of the bans and try and undo some of the damage that has been done.

I know I mention it alot but the question, "What's the difference between bolting and chipping?" is quite revealing. I simply can't find a strong argument that they aren't both vandalism. 

I think the key point here is that bolting gives climbers *more* and what could be more human than wanting more of everything? Over the course of history humans overtaken the earth in search of *more* and climbers are no exception. The hostility in this thread comes from the threat that maybe more isn't better. 

Glowering wrote:

I wouldn't say that. I'd say he's incredibly obtuse. I think this is an interesting topic, and I like to talk about. But when someone is completely incapable of acknowledging anyone else's reasoning and just wants to pontificate about why their ridiculous ideas are correct and when called out on their logical falsehoods just ignores it, then it gets old. 

Lets start anew. Which reasoning do you feel I was not acknowledging? And which parts do you believe are my "logical falsehoods"?

I've never requested anyone be banned, but if he was banned and came back with a new account that's pretty pathetic. I wouldn't want to be somewhere I was unwanted.

Tradiban was never banned. Tradi-"banned" is just a reflection on the cancel culture of the MP forums.

Lets just ban climbing on a rope seems like to much work to manage bolts.

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Hey Trad,
You should see how climbers clean the "rock" for bouldering  areas and manufacture landing zones.  It's an all out commercial grade landscaping project. Common tools include come-a-longs, eight foot pry-bars, chainsaws, shovels, and variety hedge pruning shears.  Having been part of developing many bouldering areas in the southwest I'm convinced climbers are at their worst when it comes to bouldering.  Glue and bolts do way less damage to the rock.

Really? I didn't know that, learned something today. Again it's not JUST the glue and bolts and what damage it does to the rock.... It's also what bolts bring.... the hordes of gym/sport climbers which affect the area of the climbs

In honor of this thread I went retro-trad on a 6b sport route near here today and didn't fall off and die. Still used the bolted anchor at the summit of the spire it was on to get down though.

Dylan Colon wrote:

In honor of this thread I went retro-trad on a 6b sport route near here today and didn't fall off and die. Still used the bolted anchor at the summit of the spire it was on to get down though.

Bold

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Hey Trad,
You should see how climbers clean the "rock" for bouldering  areas and manufacture landing zones.  It's an all out commercial grade landscaping project. Common tools include come-a-longs, eight foot pry-bars, chainsaws, shovels, and variety hedge pruning shears.  Having been part of developing many bouldering areas in the southwest I'm convinced climbers are at their worst when it comes to bouldering.  Glue and bolts do way less damage to the rock.

I agree. These tactics should be banned and fines levied for anyone caught doing them. Regardless, their existence does not give bolting a pass.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Lets just ban climbing on a rope seems like to much work to manage bolts.

I think your proposal goes too far. I want to save climbing, not destroy it. 

Besides, the rope is part of the climber contingent and not a fixed feature like bolts are.

Tradiban wrote:

Besides, the rope is part of the climber contingent and not a fixed feature like bolts are.

Bouldering/soloing...

Meh, trails don’t magically appear, just like bolted, or trad routes, and if trails were properly planned, FUNDED, and maintained it would actually increase the survival of the natural habitat. Put a donation box at every climbing area with suggested (mandatory!) $1 day fee and give the key to the craziest most illogical trad warrior to do with as they please. 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Bouldering/soloing...

Yes, there still would be bouldering and soloing if ropes are banned and I personally wouldn't have a problem with that but the point is that it's irrational to ban ropes. 

Banning bolts on the other hand makes sense, bolts are a permanent direct impact on the rock AND bolts are directly linked to overuse issues.

Lyle M wrote:

Meh, trails don’t magically appear, just like bolted, or trad routes, and if trails were properly planned, FUNDED, and maintained it would actually increase the survival of the natural habitat. Put a donation box at every climbing area with suggested (mandatory!) $1 day fee and give the key to the craziest most illogical trad warrior to do with as they please. 

Yes, I would support a modest fee for all climbing areas if the funds were guaranteed to be used for trail maintenance and enforcement of a bolting ban.

Tradiban wrote:

Yes, there still would be bouldering and soloing if ropes are banned and I personally wouldn't have a problem with that but the point is that it's irrational to ban ropes. 

Banning bolts on the other hand makes sense, bolts are a permanent direct impact on the rock AND bolts are directly linked to overuse issues.

Yes, I would support a modest fee for all climbing areas if the funds were guaranteed to be used for trail maintenance and enforcement of a bolting ban.

Well by your argument bolts aren’t the actual problem, so problem solved? I promote bolts where protection isn’t PG at the grade and Pg13 under the grade possible, top anchors, and fat cups of stfups. 

Bolts alone don't drive overuse. It's a combination of bolts, accessibility, and difficulty. I know Smith Rock pretty well, so let's take that as an example. On a typical nice spring day at Smith, the park is filled to absolute bursting, with the majority of visitors being hikers and maybe 20-25% climbers. Walls with short approaches and bolted jug fests like 5 gallon buckets get crowds at the base that would be considered bad at a climbing gym having a discount night. On that same day, however, a neighboring cliff with a bunch of 5.12-5.13s might have one or two people on it, or even be entirely empty, with the same approach length on the same day. Crags with easy bolted routes but big 45 minute approaches might also have a fair number of people, but usually still not what I'd call "crowded" except on the very worst days. Trad climbing, forget it, you can pretty much always do what you want without interacting with other climbers unless you are on one of the top 10 most popular lines in the whole region. Trad above 5.10- is basically always deserted, even on the most insane days.

The biggest clusters actually seem to happen on the easy multi pitch bolted lines. People love getting up higher than 30 m above the ground, but most people don't have racks or a ton of experience, so you get crowds of people moving painfully slowly up things like Wherever I May Roam (5 pitches, max 5.9, well-bolted), while neighboring gear-protected routes collect cobwebs. 

So the recipe for an overcrowded climbing area with a lot of negative environmental impact comes with these ingredients: (1) lots of easy routes, (2) easy accessibility, both in terms of driving distance from urban centers and the length and difficulty of the approach hike, and (3) bolt-only protection. Remove any one of these and you usually have a crag without too much crowding. Bonuses for extra crowding include (4) soft grades, (5) unusually tight bolting, and a (6) climbing style that mimics the gym with big holds on steep terrain. The most insanely crowded crags in the United States, like those in the Calico Hills at Red Rock or Roadside Crag in the Red, have every single one of these ingredients. 

As Tradiban(ned) points out, the only factor here we have much control over is bolts, of the things I've mentioned. Even if some land managers choose to ban them, there will always be places that are privately owned that promote them. The best solution in my mind, is to forcibly limit crowding via quota systems, distasteful as they may be, when things start to get out of control. These should be much stricter for wilderness areas than urban crags that largely exist to absorb the numbers of people going outside.

Tradiban wrote:

Why are you losing your patience? If I need to explain somethings further I would be happy to do so. 

The main thing is that you were repeating 'bolts are vandalism' to that other dude's questions without specifying why. 

. I don't really think I need to convince anybody though, bolt bans are coming like it or not. I figure that as climbers we should try and get ahead of the bans and try and undo some of the damage that has been done.

Now.... where did this come from? In Washington bolts are bigger than ever and land managers work with the climbers to set them (at least, I think so, I've never bolted anything.) Where are you climbing that bolt bans are evidently coming?

This explains a lot about your tone - all this time I was thinking 'well he must know bolts are never going to stop, why is he so calm about this?'

I know I mention it alot but the question, "What's the difference between bolting and chipping?" is quite revealing. I simply can't find a strong argument that they aren't both vandalism. 

I think the key point here is that bolting gives climbers *more* and what could be more human than wanting more of everything? Over the course of history humans overtaken the earth in search of *more* and climbers are no exception. The hostility in this thread comes from the threat that maybe more isn't better. 

Yeah, honestly, the only point to my argument is that I like bolts and so do lots of other people, so I don't see why we shouldn't have them.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Now.... where did this come from? In Washington bolts are bigger than ever and land managers work with the climbers to set them (at least, I think so, I've never bolted anything.) 

I have been bolting a lot and the land managers seem to not care unless it causes problems with other recreation/could result in death. The company line however is to ask permission. With that said index is total anarchy but the routes are good and it doesn’t hurt anyone.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

I have been bolting a lot and the land managers seem to not care unless it causes problems with other recreation/could result in death. The company line however is to ask permission. With that said index is total anarchy but the routes are good and it doesn’t hurt anyone.

Well, there you have it.

So the recipe for an overcrowded climbing area with a lot of negative environmental impact comes with these ingredients: (1) lots of easy routes, (2) easy accessibility, both in terms of driving distance from urban centers and the length and difficulty of the approach hike, and (3) bolt-only protection. Remove any one of these and you usually have a crag without too much crowding. 

Not correct. 1 and 2 often lead to crowding. But easy trad climbs in Yosemite, Lovers Leap, etc. are usually very crowded. Much more so than bolted climbs in the same area. Smith is a predominately sport area, so you'll see more sport climbers there. Yosemite and Lovers Leap are predominately trad so you'll see more trad climbers there.

Significant negative environmental impact comes from: environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. raptor nesting, erosion susceptible areas - like loose soil above a water source, climbers are highly visible to other users, etc.), and to a lesser extent how many people are climbing in that area. You could have an environmentally sensitive area and just one climbing party can cause a significant impact, e.g. they scare away the only nesting pair of raptors in that area. Or you could have a very crowded sport climbing area in an abandoned rock quarry and have it cause no significant impact.

Land managers (usually) and anyone with an understanding of environmental impact assessment is going to look at it logically and be able to analyze the impacts.

I was going to make a mention of destination trad areas being an exception, because they're pulling from a highly non-representative population, but I was already getting long-winded. I still think my Smith example works though, because on any given day there 90% of the climbers are at least semi-local and there aren't really any big trad-only areas nearby to pull those climbers away, with the exception of Trout Creek, which is sufficiently less popular than Smith as to prove the rule. Smith also has quite a lot of trad, it's just not worth traveling across the country for compared to other areas.

If we leave out the dozen or so areas nationwide that people plan big vacations around, the fact remains that a sport area and a trad area of similar quality near an urban area are not going to attract similar numbers of weekend climbers, all else equal. The main barrier is of course financial, cams are expensive.

If we leave out the dozen or so areas nationwide that people plan big vacations around, the fact remains that a sport area and a trad area of similar quality near an urban area are not going to attract similar numbers of weekend climbers, all else equal. The main barrier is of course financial, cams are expensive.

I don't know how you can prove this "fact". I would think there wouldn't be much difference. For example in NorCal we have Lovers Leap (trad) and and The Emeralds (sport) about the same distance from Sacramento. Lovers is higher quality but isn't a world class destination that attracts a lot of travelers. They are both crowded and I've seen more people in line waiting to climb at Lovers.

My main point is that if you can't explain how bolted climbs lead to more actual significant environmental impact than similar non-bolted climbs than it's specious reasoning.

You could say "without bolts there'd be less environmental impact at Smith". Because there'd be less overall traffic. But is that impact significant or is it just more people?