To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

Blake Morris wrote:

#3 dont agree with at all. there is a huge difference in chipping to make holds and placing a bolt for pro. Night and day difference.

So what's the difference? Break it down for us.

Gloweringwrote:

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?

I can guarantee a sub alpine valley here in Washington gets 200% more traffic now that 2 rap bolted 5.10 sport climbs have went up in the last couple years. Both have an hour to hour half approach. This valley has maybe 8-10 trad alpine climbs on 4 or 5 different peaks. Also I don't think it has to be JUST a sensitive fragile environment to limit foot traffic on. Any valley it will disturb the wild life that inhabit there. Shopping mall routes bring the hordes, is facts

Also I don't think it has to be JUST a sensitive fragile environment to limit foot traffic on. Any valley it will disturb the wild life that inhabit there. Shopping mall routes bring the hordes, is facts

True. Impact is going to be a result of the sensitivity of the environment and the traffic and other factors. You really to to analyze and describe the impact, something the “bolts cause most of the problems” people can’t do (i.e. describe how bolted climbs cause more impact than non bolted climbs)

Another thing I see is conflating ecosystems impacts with human impacts. The majority of climbers impacts are typically on other climbers. E.g. Chipping is mostly an impact on other climbers. The rock and wildlife aren’t typically impacted by chipping. But it would be an extreme negative impact to other climbers if say a classic climb were chipped and it’s difficulty was changed. 

Mike Preisswrote:

I can guarantee a sub alpine valley here in Washington gets 200% more traffic now that 2 rap bolted 5.10 sport climbs have went up in the last couple years. Both have an hour to hour half approach. This valley has maybe 8-10 trad alpine climbs on 4 or 5 different peaks. Also I don't think it has to be JUST a sensitive fragile environment to limit foot traffic on. Any valley it will disturb the wild life that inhabit there. Shopping mall routes bring the hordes, is facts

The Ragged Edge has 94 opinions on mountain project it is 5 years old and Mile High Club has 83 opinions in 4 years. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

The Ragged Edge has 94 opinions on mountain project it is 5 years old and Mile High Club has 83 opinions in 4 years. 

Does not really say anything about the actual volume of climbers climbing those routes, i know is hard to believe but not every climber posts about their climbs on MP!  wonder how many ascents north ridge or SE face of Sperry has?, or the north face of Vesper? Or how about the 1984 Star shot route on Vega?, morning star's west/east ridges?

Mike Preisswrote:

Does not really say anything about the actual volume of climbers climbing those routes, i know is hard to believe but not every climber posts about their climbs on MP!  wonder how many ascents north ridge or SE face of Sperry has?, or the north face of Vesper? Or how about the 1984 Star shot route on Vega?, morning star's west/east ridges?

You don’t think mountain project opinions are in some level proportional to the frequency that they are climbed. Maybe point me in the direction of a climb that is popular and has no ticks on mountain project. If I was to guess climbing traffic on a climb, is pure speculation on the internet better? You implied all the traffic in the valley is because of the two 5.10s but clearly people do other climbs around it. Also I’m my limited time out there people are mostly skiing or hiking.

Dear lord please just let this thread die

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

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

The definition of vandalism is "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". Dylan was asking if I would accept bolts in any fashion, my answer is no, I do not.

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 think your perspective is just too narrow to see the larger problem here. Get out there and climb more in more places. I think you will then see what I'm talking about.

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.

Lots of people like to go out and shoot guns all over the place too, that doesn't mean we should let them.

We shouldn't have bolts because they are unethical.

Nothing wrong with shooting guns as long as they ain't shooting people. Or animals when they aren't allowed to.

I hadn't really thought about it much until I saw two things: First was some comments that Honnold made that was basically he doesn't care.  I thought, hmmm, interesting.  Then I saw something about Megos sending Bibliographie and there was a blurb about Ethan Pringle saying "Good for him. I wasn't sure if it could be climbed."  And I thought, damn, some dude went and fucked up a perfectly good rock face bolting a route that he didn't even know was climbable, and will probably only be climbed by a handful of people in human history.  It's kind of the opposite of Leave No Trace. 

But then I think of when Botswana banned big game hunting to combat poaching, and poaching went through the roof.  It seems that a good portion of the money that hunters spent there supported conservation efforts and paid for game officers to keep the poachers in check. Without that revenue, there was no enforcement and the poachers decimated the elephant population.

I guess a measured approach and responsible self governance are what is needed or else the land managers will take away the privilege all together.    

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Nothing wrong with shooting guns as long as they ain't shooting people. Or animals when they aren't allowed to.

Or by children, mentally impaired persons, nut cases, or people with anger management issues

Mike Preisswrote:

Or by children, mentally impaired persons, nut cases, or people with anger management issues

Nothing wrong with children shooting guns as long as they're reponsible.

Jay Keche wrote:

By tradibanned's own logic (bolting is vandalism; vandalism is wholly unacceptable) climbing as a whole should be considered unethical. It's not a stretch to consider climbing in all its forms as inherently destructive to nature/property (holds break, soil erodes, moss/lichen must be killed to develop even non-bolted routes, etc.). While this is certainly a logical position, it's most definitely not a rational one or helpful for reducing the impact of the sport.

When considering the ethics of bolting one can't just ignore the trade-off between protecting human life and preserving nature/property. I personally would say that protecting human life should take priority and therefore bolting in many cases (rap anchors, unprotectable sections of trad routes, etc.) is totally ethical.

You're stretching the logic. If banning all climbing is your want then that's your right but I think most of us want to save climbing.

To justify destroying public lands to protect human life is a very slippery slope and I think it's obvious that bolts have actually contributed to injury and death in climbing.

Jay Keche wrote:

I don't want to ban climbing. I was just pointing out a major flaw in your logic.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Come back when you have an actual rebuttal.

By stretching my logic to irrational levels you seem to want to ban all climbing.

Here's the difference, some trails etc are necessary for climbing, bolts are not. 

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Nothing wrong with children shooting guns as long as they're reponsible.

And an adult is present. About 1,300 children die per year in the US from guns. Children do not have the judgment to handle guns without an adult present. 

My kids know how to shoot, but my guns are in a safe when not being used. This is one of the no brainer laws that should be in place federally.

Jay Keche wrote:

I'm still waiting for that coherent rebuttal that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy.

That won’t happen. Neither will an honest reassessment of the situation. Some people make up their minds and don’t have the ability to admit they’re wrong.

Let's say I live in Boulder and want to climb Longs Peak via a route on the Diamond. I don't really see the moral difference between the paved road to get to the trailhead, the maintained and signed trail to Chasm Lake, the climber's path above that, and the occasional protection bolt on the route where gear cannot be safely had. Now, if any of those was excessive, like if the park service proposed to pave the trails, or someone wanted to put in an unnecessary bolt ladder up protectable terrain, I'd object, but it seems clear that the environmental impact of a handful of bolts is less than a trail, which is much less than the road, all of which are essential to the overall experience. 

Now, you may argue that without the bolts, the trail would not exist and the road would get less use, which is true to a degree, and there is a serious debate to be had there about what level of alteration of the wilderness is justifiable in service of access. I don't think there is a good argument to be made, however, that banning the placement of hand-drilled bolts up there "saves climbing" in any way, as there is almost no chance of the NPS deciding to ban climbing, and even less chance of bolts being the reason why. No one but climbers will ever see bolts, pitons, and fixed tat up there, so it really is climbers alone who suffer the negative impacts of the bolts being there, via aesthetic impact and the removal or risk inherent to boltless climbing. I do think the climbing community has done a reasonably good job of self-policing in this regard, though if this ever stopped I would not be too sad if the NPS started requiring "new route permits" or something like that.

If we banned bolts, which isn’t going to happen so this thread is all just speculation, many trad climbs that have an occasional protection bolt or bolted anchors would still be climbed. People would end up getting killed on them more often. THAT is what would get climbing banned. 

Over my limit for this topic so replying to later post:

Daniel Montgomery wrote:

That's a big closet full of strawmen you have there. Slippery slope BS, is just that BS. Keep it specific to should we have laws that require people to keep guns locked up and out of the reach of people under 18 and argue that on it's merits. The second amendment also says "well regulated", should I define that? The supreme court has said and common sense dictates that you can limit the right to bear arms. You don't want people to have nuclear arms right? The questions is what's reasonable. You agree yourself "over a certain age" should be just fine. Actually the way I'd like to see the law written is something like "people who don't lock up their guns and a child accesses them and kills or injures a person is guilty of a felony with a minimum prison term of 5 years". I'm okay if a parent says to a kid "you can take your gun out today and go plinking on the back 40, give it back to me when you're done and I'll lock it up" if that kid has been educated on safe gun handling and has shown they are responsible enough to do that (as judged by their parent). There's tons of scientific evidence that brains aren't fully developed until 21. Sure some kids are more mature and ready earlier, but laws have to be written for the average person. 1,300 children a year dead for something so stupid and easy to prevent is too many for me. If the Sandy Hook killer's mother had locked up her guns 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members would still be alive. It doesn't infringe upon my rights to have to lock up my guns and fighting this kind of no brainer law is what gives some gun owners (and the NRA) a bad name.

We're still talking about bolts?? 

Don't like them, don't clip them. 

Gloweringwrote:

And an adult is present. About 1,300 children die per year in the US from guns. Children do not have the judgment to handle guns without an adult present. 

My kids know how to shoot, but my guns are in a safe when not being used. This is one of the no brainer laws that should be in place federally.

No, it shouldn't. That kind of logic is a slippery slope; why shouldn't the government ban unhealthy food or cigarettes? Heart disease kills way more people than guns, although probably not more children. Why doesn't the government just decide what is the optimal healthy meal for each person and feed them that for the rest of their life? Why are roller coasters allowed? Plenty of potential for danger there. Why are people allowed to own scissors, machetes, hatchets, etc without locking them in a safe? Chainsaws? Lawn mowers? Because of personal freedoms, and also the second amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Infringed: 'act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.' Making federal or state laws to limit someone's right to bear arms is unconstitutional. 

There are plenty of children who have the judgement to handle guns. There's no way you can make a blanket statement about that; certainly there are many who should not use guns, actually I'd probably say most children should not use guns alone because most children don't handle guns often. But someone who is around safely used guns their whole life and is over a certain age should be just fine with guns. There's 50 million households with guns in the US; a solid percentage of those are households with kids; 1300 children is a pretty low percentage.