To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

Mike Preisswrote:

I agree in certain areas and with certain animals habitat loss is a main issue but over fishing, killing of animals whether its for food or just greed is still a main reason for animal extinction or near extinction. such as certain wales were hunted to near extinction when they used their fat for burning oil, elephants for their ivory, on and on, and on..... but yeah human encroachment for the black bear, deer, ect... has helped them.  All I said is I personally I find no sporting achievement in hunting and could not get myself to shoot a beautiful elk or deer or any animal trying to survive in the wild (unless of course I had no choice, but nowadays we have many choices) hunt on professor booty

I don't hunt whales or elephants, and we're mainly discussing the US here, but I understand the need to love "charismatic megafauna". Many in the world think a cow or a pig or a chicken are beautiful, and would never kill one of those, but most americans do so daily through their food choices. Also, we all kill things in order to eat, it's a choice of whether you do it yourself or prefer the no mess packages from the supermarket. Personally, I think if we all had to kill what we eat, we would all eat a lot less meat, which would be better for the environment, as well. I know I do. Hunting is not a sport for some, it's a way to put healthy food on the table while contributing to game management. I didn't hunt until I couldn't maintain my health as a vegetarian, which I became to avoid factory farmed meats. Animals must be culled to keep healthy populations in the limited habitats they have available. In some areas, they cull herds from helicopters and it all goes to waste. Whatever choice you make for your food, animals are killed in the process. Valuing one animal over another is the choice you're making.

I'm very proud of MP for having the strength to move on from a bitter dispute about bolting to issues where it's much easier to have rational discussion and find common ground like vegetarianism and abortion.

I only hunt dolphins and I only accept abortions after birth. Is it too late to abort Trump?

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

It was sarcasm. I ain't killing myself.

Of course you have an impact on the environment, everything anyone does has an impact, but considering what you do negligible and therefore unimportant is just what you're arguing against.

One climber doesn't matter, all climbers do matter. If all climbers killed themselves, impact from climbers would be null.

Yes, I am pro-life. If this is more of this CCP-population control bullshit, well, I have no words for that. Whatever you want to argue about its effects on the earth, abortion has a horrible effect on society which is fairly obvious.

What are the "horrible" effects abortion has on society? But I digress...

What are your ethics surrounding bolting? Would you bolt everything for safety?

Tradibanwrote:

One climber doesn't matter, all climbers do matter. If all climbers killed themselves, impact from climbers would be null.

What are the "horrible" effects abortion has on society? But I digress...

What are your ethics surrounding bolting? Would you bolt everything for safety?

My ethics around bolts are this: if it can be protected naturally (within reasonable safety) or if it was already developed as a trad climb, it should not be bolted, unless a blank unprotectable section connecting/starting/finishing a trad line adds to the climb's value. If it is in an climber-accepted trad-only area, it should not be bolted. If it is in the protected wilderness, it should not be bolted except on lead/aid, in other words no rappel bolting on an alpine peak. In a developed sport climbing area, unless there's something special about the route it should not be bolted if you're squeezing in lines between each other, although this is a very general term. 

Otherwise, anything goes. On defined beginner/practice areas, really anything goes, like bolting a 25-foot 5.3 crack so beginners can practice placing gear. 

Basically, I think both sport and trad climbing are important, but wilderness alpine climbs should be held to a higher standard regarding bolts.

Ty Gilroywrote:

The irony of that book is hilarious. Does the back cover say: For conservative snowflakes who need confirmation bias in order to be at peace with their bigotry, brain washing, and selfishness

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

My ethics around bolts are this: if it can be protected naturally (within reasonable safety) or if it was already developed as a trad climb, it should not be bolted, unless a blank unprotectable section connecting/starting/finishing a trad line adds to the climb's value. If it is in an climber-accepted trad-only area, it should not be bolted. If it is in the protected wilderness, it should not be bolted except on lead/aid, in other words no rappel bolting on an alpine peak. In a developed sport climbing area, unless there's something special about the route it should not be bolted if you're squeezing in lines between each other, although this is a very general term. 

Otherwise, anything goes. On defined beginner/practice areas, really anything goes, like bolting a 25-foot 5.3 crack so beginners can practice placing gear. 

Basically, I think both sport and trad climbing are important, but wilderness alpine climbs should be held to a higher standard regarding bolts.

These are not your ethics. Your ethic would be something like "I place bolts because bolts preserve life and life is sacred" or "I place bolts because God created Man and Man rules earth, therefore Man can place bolts where he pleases."

What you have written is your opinion on when bolts should be placed with so much open to interpretation, (what is a "climb's value"? for example). Also, your ethics would have no exceptions.

To get you started I will ask a series of questions; What is "reasonable safety" to you? What is a "climb's value"? Why shouldn't we bolt in "protected wilderness"? What's wrong with squeezing lines together? 

In sum, what is the logic behind your opinions?

Gloweringwrote:

The irony of that book is hilarious. Does the back cover say: For conservative snowflakes who need confirmation bias in order to be at peace with their bigotry, brain washing, and selfishness

I knew youd be triggered. 

Ty Gilroywrote:

I knew youd be triggered. 

I think you would have said this about almost any negative response to your book meme. The logic when trying to trigger someone is either they respond you win or they don't respond and you still win. When your goal is to "trigger" someone, you are the one actually losing. I hope one day you move forward and treat people with compassion rather than trying to make them upset.

Holy shit this thread sucks. I'm pro death. Pro abortion pro guns pro death penalty pro legalizing all drugs pro no speed limits. Pro death.

Ty Gilroywrote:

I knew youd be triggered. 

Haha you “knew” wrong. I make fun of liberals all the time. I was laughing at the fact that there’s even a market for that book and what that says about conservatives.

Sounds like you were triggered and posted the book because I insulted your messiah the combover con man. 

Tradibanwrote:

These are not your ethics. Your ethic would be something like "I place bolts because bolts preserve life and life is sacred" or "I place bolts because God created Man and Man rules earth, therefore Man can place bolts where he pleases."

What you have written is your opinion on when bolts should be placed with so much open to interpretation, (what is a "climb's value"? for example). Also, your ethics would have no exceptions.

To get you started I will ask a series of questions; What is "reasonable safety" to you? What is a "climb's value"? Why shouldn't we bolt in "protected wilderness"? What's wrong with squeezing lines together? 

In sum, what is the logic behind your opinions?

That second ethic you came up with sounds pretty good, I'll go with that.

I want this to be open to interpretation. That's the point. Every area should have its own ethics based on the climbers/other people who use the area/etc; a universal ban is the worst possible scenario in my opinion. If life was perfect, then every area would have accepted ethics that went something along those lines. 

Climb's value - is it enjoyable/worth climbing? Of course this is subjective, and again, I intend it to be. For example, say there were two 5.8 lines next to each other that were basically the same. You might not want to bolt one line because why have two of the same climb? But if the area is popular (maybe overpopulated), then it makes sense to reduce traffic to have similar routes. Some people like climbing choss piles, so maybe they might develop a few routes with that.

Reasonable safety - again, this is dependent on location, but if there's a 70-foot groundfall before you get to a great crack, bolting that would make sense. I think first ascentists should make that determination, so if they are extremely bold slab climbers they might have a couple large runouts.

Bolting in protected wilderness is different because of the fact it is protected wilderness, reserved for hikers and foot traffic only, and should be treated with more respect. Thus I think not bolting on rappel and using hand drills is fair. Public land like national forests or state parks or straight-up public land is different.

Squeezing lines together first of all makes it difficult to find a particular route, and second diminishes the aesthetics of a particular one. If you're just adding another 5.7 40-foot sport jug haul three feet to the left of another one, what's the point, but adding a crimpy 5.12+ would be awesome.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Squeezing lines together first of all makes it difficult to find a particular route, and second diminishes the aesthetics of a particular one. If you're just adding another 5.7 40-foot sport jug haul three feet to the left of another one, what's the point, but adding a crimpy 5.12+ would be awesome.

Not packing routes together because it will make it difficult for you to read the route?! Should we color coordinate the bolts for you?! This one makes my brain explode. 

Ty Gilroywrote:

I knew youd be triggered. 

Uhhh, actually I think that’s a pic of George F. Will whenever Trump tweets something.

Lyle Mwrote:

Not packing routes together because it will make it difficult for you to read the route?! Should we color coordinate the bolts for you?! This one makes my brain explode. 

That is a minor reason, it's not that big of a deal. And no, it's not to 'read the route,' it makes it hard to differentiate which line is which, especially if they're all low-intermediate two-stars.

Gloweringwrote:

Haha you “knew” wrong. I make fun of liberals all the time. I was laughing at the fact that there’s even a market for that book and what that says about conservatives.

Sounds like you were triggered and posted the book because I insulted your messiah the combover con man. 

I am just tired of reading you whining about trump on every single thread. This is a thread about bolting. Nobody cares what your political affiliation is. Hey, I am not a fan of the prime minister of my country but I dont feel the need to moan about him on internet rock climbing forums every day. If you are so unhappy with your leader VOTE! 

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

That is a minor reason, it's not that big of a deal. And no, it's not to 'read the route,' it makes it hard to differentiate which line is which, especially if they're all low-intermediate two-stars.

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence, I’m really not trying to troll but like, dude...

two star climbs are not destinations but I think you’re missing the point. Which is to climb rocks until I literally can’t even pick up my fork for dinner no matter how hard it is to get somewhere or how shitty the climbs are. 

plus what’s wrong with allowing variations of mediocre climbs if the wall actually allows for that? That seems like an awesome bonus rather than an inconvenience because someone can’t route read or get creative to complete a climb. Further, why is a 5.7 less worthy to pack together than 5.12???!!!!!

do you get your opinions from magazines and podcasts? 

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

That second ethic you came up with sounds pretty good, I'll go with that.

So God is the guiding force of your moral principals?

I want this to be open to interpretation. That's the point. Every area should have its own ethics based on the climbers/other people who use the area/etc; a universal ban is the worst possible scenario in my opinion. If life was perfect, then every area would have accepted ethics that went something along those lines. 

Climb's value - is it enjoyable/worth climbing? Of course this is subjective, and again, I intend it to be. For example, say there were two 5.8 lines next to each other that were basically the same. You might not want to bolt one line because why have two of the same climb? But if the area is popular (maybe overpopulated), then it makes sense to reduce traffic to have similar routes. Some people like climbing choss piles, so maybe they might develop a few routes with that.

Reasonable safety - again, this is dependent on location, but if there's a 70-foot groundfall before you get to a great crack, bolting that would make sense. I think first ascentists should make that determination, so if they are extremely bold slab climbers they might have a couple large runouts.

Bolting in protected wilderness is different because of the fact it is protected wilderness, reserved for hikers and foot traffic only, and should be treated with more respect. Thus I think not bolting on rappel and using hand drills is fair. Public land like national forests or state parks or straight-up public land is different.

Squeezing lines together first of all makes it difficult to find a particular route, and second diminishes the aesthetics of a particular one. If you're just adding another 5.7 40-foot sport jug haul three feet to the left of another one, what's the point, but adding a crimpy 5.12+ would be awesome.

Good answers but they are all still pretty subjective and lots of "if"s and "but"s. Therefore a logical framework can never be agreed upon and everything is left to people's opinion. Do you see the problem with that approach? 

I think the idea that bolting saves lives is a good and logical justification for doing so, but then that means we should bolt all even remotely sketchy climbing. Would you agree?

Ty Gilroywrote:

I am just tired of reading you whining about trump on every single thread. This is a thread about bolting. Nobody cares what your political affiliation is. Hey, I am not a fan of the prime minister of my country but I dont feel the need to moan about him on internet rock climbing forums every day. If you are so unhappy with your leader VOTE! 

Take off, eh. A. I don't whine about him, I make jokes about him and his minions. B. on every single thread? Maybe you have me confused with someone else. C. this thread was already drifting towards politics and I made a facetious comment about that (spoiler alert: I don't really hunt dolphins). D. I made some serious comments about bolting on this thread based on my environmental management background and experience with public lands policy and rock climbing specific ethics around bolting. E. I always vote and I always make fun of buffoon leaders as a way to not get exasperated by the stupidity I see every day.