To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

Gloweringwrote:

And it's not just climbing. If you believe any "harm" to the environment is wrong, and pretty much anything you do will "harm" the environment, just being part of the overpopulation of humans is causing habitat loss. So you really should off yourself. 

Because that's really the argument being made. Any harm to the environment no matter how insignificant is wrong, regardless of the benefit.

Another "you should just off yourself" comment? Nahhh

And that's not the argument I am making. Obviously just living on earth will create some environmental costs. I'm saying it's a lame argument to say.... since there are so many other, bigger issues with our environmental damages done that we shouldn't worry or even question the insignificance of bolting or "leave no trace" or ect....ect... 

And I'm saying that there is typically no significant difference in environmental damage whether a climb has bolts or not, and it's an entirely arbitrary thing to use to try to reduce impact. And has more to do with the climbing preferences of the person making that claim than any actual environmental impact.

Gloweringwrote:

And I'm saying that there is typically no significant difference in environmental damage whether a climb has bolts or not, and it's an entirely arbitrary thing to use to try to reduce impact. And has more to do with the climbing preferences of the person making that claim than any actual environmental impact.

And I am saying I think your wrong about safe well bolted climbs will almost always create much more traffic than it's trad counterpart. (unless like the naked edge example you gave are under 5.8, well protected and are semi classic) and obviously more traffic is more wear and tear on an area.  The traffic will eventually be government regulated like other areas as it should be (if there is an overuse issue).

Mike Preisswrote:

And I am saying I think your wrong about safe well bolted climbs will almost always create much more traffic than it's trad counterpart. (unless like the naked edge example you gave are under 5.8, well protected and are semi classic) and obviously more traffic is more wear and tear on an area.  The traffic will eventually be government regulated like other areas as it should be (if there is an overuse issue).

But as discussed earlier people think bolts are a larger disincentive than they actually are. Trad climbing appears to be growing, if the data examples earlier didn’t work I would say squamish and index are as popular as ever. I doesn’t really seem to matter tho. Making bolts the arbitary cutoff seems silly. I think crags only near highways should be the rule or no routes that go as mixed climbs in the winter or no routes that take multiple days or no routes that could require helicopter rescue the determination of the barrier is silly, it’s even sillier when we are focused on philosophical arguments rather than data.

Mike Preisswrote:

And I am saying I think your wrong about safe well bolted climbs will almost always create much more traffic than it's trad counterpart. (unless like the naked edge example you gave are under 5.8, well protected and are semi classic) and obviously more traffic is more wear and tear on an area.  The traffic will eventually be government regulated like other areas as it should be (if there is an overuse issue).

The rating has far more influence on traffic than if it’s bolted. Earlier I gave the example of Yosemite. Swan Slabs is easy trad and packed all time. Mecca is harder sport with far less crowds. Should we ban any climb under 5.11?

And even if there’s more wear and tear that doesn’t mean there any significant environmental impact for most climbing areas. You can’t just say there is, you have to describe the impact and why it’s a problem. That’s the way EIRs work.

if places are over crowded enough to cause problems that will be regulated, at that specific area as it should be. Again the main reason to say bolt protected climbing is what should be eliminated to reduce potential crowds is because  you don’t care for that time of climbing.

Let’s flip it the other way. Let’s eliminate all non sport climbing. In Yosemite a very popular  climbing spot that would reduce climbers by I’d guess 80-90%. Plus that would likely eliminate almost all the deaths from climbing which also could lead to climbing bans. Sounds good? If it’s all about reducing environmental impact then reducing climbers by 90% should be the goal. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

But as discussed earlier people think bolts are a larger disincentive than they actually are. Trad climbing appears to be growing, if the data examples earlier didn’t work I would say squamish and index are as popular as ever. I doesn’t really seem to matter tho. Making bolts the arbitary cutoff seems silly. I think crags only near highways should be the rule or no routes that go as mixed climbs in the winter or no routes that take multiple days or no routes that could require helicopter rescue the determination of the barrier is silly, it’s even sillier when we are focused on philosophical arguments rather than data.

Glowering wrote:

Holy shit. 15 pages. Man does this guy love to argue!

Gloweringwrote:

The rating has far more influence on traffic than if it’s bolted. Earlier I gave the example of Yosemite. Swan Slabs is easy trad and packed all time. Mecca is harder sport with far less crowds. Should we ban any climb under 5.11?

And even if there’s more wear and tear that doesn’t mean there any significant environmental impact for most climbing areas. You can’t just say there is, you have to describe the impact and why it’s a problem. That’s the way EIRs work.

if places are over crowded enough to cause problems that will be regulated, at that specific area as it should be. Again the main reason to say bolt protected climbing is what should be eliminated to reduce potential crowds is because  you don’t care for that time of climbing.

Let’s flip it the other way. Let’s eliminate all non sport climbing. In Yosemite a very popular  climbing spot that would reduce climbers by I’d guess 80-90%. Plus that would likely eliminate almost all the deaths from climbing which also could lead to climbing bans. Sounds good? If it’s all about reducing environmental impact then reducing climbers by 90% should be the goal. 

Yes to a point but most if not all sport climbs are safe or at least not R or X rated so if raged edge was the same grade as it is(5.7) but was shitty rock or had an R rating it would not be that popular. so its more on the safety/convenience rating

There are 2 trad climbs on Mt Garfield main peak that are the same grade(both V 5.10+) as it's neighbor infinite bliss on Garfield's west peak. I'll just say I have never heard of a second ascent on either of the 2 routes on the main peak that was put up in late 80's. look on MP IB page and see how many hits it's gotten

Luke Simpsonwrote:

Holy shit. 15 pages. Man does this guy love to argue!

It's actually 25 pages, since I transitioned the original thread to a new title, but who's counting?

as a neutral observer who likes climbing on bolts:

the vast majority of you folks arguing against tradi in these threads have been far more toxic than you claim he is.

you aren't doing yourselves any favors. at least try to discuss the issue in good faith.

James Huffmanwrote:

as a neutral observer who likes climbing on bolts:

the vast majority of you folks arguing against tradi in these threads have been far more toxic than you claim he is.

you aren't doing yourselves any favors. at least try to discuss the issue in good faith.

Trolli said something extremely offensive to me (said I would be on the side in favor of slavery) and wouldn’t apologize for what he said so I ignored him. He pushes peoples buttons passive aggressively for a long time so they blow up at him. He is not discussing the issue in good faith. If he said: I don’t like bolts and gave reasons why, and I think they should be banned. I’d be fine with it. But he tries to tie it to environmental protection or overcrowding in general and when challenged to back up what he says he becomes obtuse. Done worry about him he’s a troll and has been banned and came back. I’m sure he’s got thick skin. 

Gloweringwrote:

Trolli said something extremely offensive to me (said I would be on the side in favor of slavery) and wouldn’t apologize for what he said so I ignored him. 

Incorrect. I said your brand of ethics (majority decides) is false because it would have supported slavery.

He pushes peoples buttons passive aggressively for a long time so they blow up at him. He is not discussing the issue in good faith. If he said: I don’t like bolts and gave reasons why, and I think they should be banned. I’d be fine with it. But he tries to tie it to environmental protection or overcrowding in general and when challenged to back up what he says he becomes obtuse. Done worry about him he’s a troll and has been banned and came back. I’m sure he’s got thick skin. 

Incorrect. Tradiban was never banned. The new handle is to irk people like you who just want to ignore or ban everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Gloweringwrote:

The rating has far more influence on traffic than if it’s bolted. Earlier I gave the example of Yosemite. Swan Slabs is easy trad and packed all time. Mecca is harder sport with far less crowds. Should we ban any climb under 5.11?

And even if there’s more wear and tear that doesn’t mean there any significant environmental impact for most climbing areas. You can’t just say there is, you have to describe the impact and why it’s a problem. That’s the way EIRs work.

if places are over crowded enough to cause problems that will be regulated, at that specific area as it should be. Again the main reason to say bolt protected climbing is what should be eliminated to reduce potential crowds is because  you don’t care for that time of climbing.

Let’s flip it the other way. Let’s eliminate all non sport climbing. In Yosemite a very popular  climbing spot that would reduce climbers by I’d guess 80-90%. Plus that would likely eliminate almost all the deaths from climbing which also could lead to climbing bans. Sounds good? If it’s all about reducing environmental impact then reducing climbers by 90% should be the goal. 

Too me is more than just the environmental impact that alpine rapp bolted climbs brings, it's also a little "murder of the impossible" that the great alpinist Messner believed that happens when a climber carries a rucksack of courage, and they must take crowbars and do so much "gardening" to make it shopping mall safe for the masses, so in my opinion is just bad form. My fear is these climbs could easily get out of hand as any decent climber with some time and motivation can easily rapp down any wall or ridge and create these type routes, yes it takes a lot of time and work but that's about it. My only concern is in the alpine/sub alpine as unlike traddiban I do not have an issue with this type of route development in established crag areas(Index, Vantage, ect...) Maybe I am being a little paranoid but I do not want to see my/our beloved Cascade mountains become a circus .

Also what if bolts were never allowed in Yosemite? Like I said earlier in this thread, I personally think it would be awesome if the easiest route on elcap was a true grade IV 5.11b A4 R then accomplishing elcap would really mean something special. So I would not have a problem with it.

Mike Preisswrote:

Too me is more than just the environmental impact that alpine rapp bolted climbs brings, it's also a little "murder of the impossible" that the great alpinist Messner believed that happens when a climber carries a rucksack of courage, and they must take crowbars and do so much "gardening" to make it shopping mall safe for the masses, so in my opinion is just bad form. My fear is these climbs could easily get out of hand as any decent climber with some time and motivation can easily rapp down any wall or ridge and create these type routes, yes it takes a lot of time and work but that's about it. My only concern is in the alpine/sub alpine as unlike traddiban I do not have an issue with this type of route development in established crag areas(Index, Vantage, ect...) Maybe I am being a little paranoid but I do not want to see my/our beloved Cascade mountains become a circus .

Also what if bolts were never allowed in Yosemite? Like I said earlier in this thread, I personally think it would be awesome if the easiest route on elcap was a true grade IV 5.11b A4 R then accomplishing elcap would really mean something special. So I would not have a problem with it.

I don’t agree with everything you said but I respect it because it’s written as your opinion and is well explained. 

I’ve done FAs ground up with no bolts. They are very rewarding. I’ve backed off some climbs I could’ve done if I was willing to bolt. I understand the murder of the impossible and I support it when appropriate and traditional climbing. But I’ve also done rap bolted sport climbs. It’s a different type of climbing and these sport climbs simply wouldn’t exist without bolts. I appreciate both types of experiences. I actually like long trad climbs better, but the crags closer to my home are suited to sport so that’s what I do there.

Thankfully most areas usually lend themselves to one type of climbing or the other. Single pitch face climbing is often sport. Multipitch crack is often trad. 

As I’ve said before how the FA is done is one of the few times style and ethics in climbing overlap. A question that is intriguing is should climbs that can be done trad not be done top down but left to be done ground up? Or should a climb that is done ground up that needs a bolt or otherwise will be an R or X rated climb be left without a bolt? I think as it’s often said it depends a lot on local precedent. And of course a lot comes down to the first ascent principle as described by Royal Robbins.

If El cap was bolt free it would see only a handful of ascents a year or maybe none at all. I think the amazing experiences I and many other people have had climbing El Cap have tremendous value. Should only a couple people have the experience they desire at the  expense of hundred or thousands of others? Some people complain about the cables route in Half Dome and say it should be removed. But I know for thousands of people it was one of the most amazing experiences of their lives and I think it shows a lack of empathy to want to take that away because it’s not pure enough in someone’s opinion. 

Tradibanwrote:

It's actually 25 pages, since I transitioned the original thread to a new title, but who's counting?

have not read all the pages but was wondering how you get down from Towers?  Down climb/back clean? Use a team of drones to fly you down? Or would you base jump? 

Mike Robinsonwrote:

have not read all the pages but was wondering how you get down from Towers?  Down climb/back clean? Use a team of drones to fly you down? Or would you base jump? 

Depends on the tower but rap off each side simultaneously using each other as counterweights. 

Regardless if it can't be done without damaging the rock then perhaps the tower isn't meant to be climbed.

Gloweringwrote:

I don’t agree with everything you said but I respect it because it’s written as your opinion and is well explained. 

I’ve done FAs ground up with no bolts. They are very rewarding. I’ve backed off some climbs I could’ve done if I was willing to bolt. I understand the murder of the impossible and I support it when appropriate and traditional climbing. But I’ve also done rap bolted sport climbs. It’s a different type of climbing and these sport climbs simply wouldn’t exist without bolts. I appreciate both types of experiences. I actually like long trad climbs better, but the crags closer to my home are suited to sport so that’s what I do there.

Thankfully most areas usually lend themselves to one type of climbing or the other. Single pitch face climbing is often sport. Multipitch crack is often trad. 

As I’ve said before how the FA is done is one of the few times style and ethics in climbing overlap. A question that is intriguing is should climbs that can be done trad not be done top down but left to be done ground up? Or should a climb that is done ground up that needs a bolt or otherwise will be an R or X rated climb be left without a bolt? I think as it’s often said it depends a lot on local precedent. And of course a lot comes down to the first ascent principle as described by Royal Robbins.

If El cap was bolt free it would see only a handful of ascents a year or maybe none at all. I think the amazing experiences I and many other people have had climbing El Cap have tremendous value. Should only a couple people have the experience they desire at the  expense of hundred or thousands of others? Some people complain about the cables route in Half Dome and say it should be removed. But I know for thousands of people it was one of the most amazing experiences of their lives and I think it shows a lack of empathy to want to take that away because it’s not pure enough in someone’s opinion. 

People also have the "most amazing experiences of their lives" hunting big game in Africa, but that doesn't justify it.

We can't let human's wants and desires steer our moral compass and people can find other ways to enrich their lives without trashing the wilderness with bolts.

Mike Preisswrote:

 My fear is these climbs could easily get out of hand as any decent climber with some time and motivation can easily rapp down any wall or ridge and create these type routes, yes it takes a lot of time and work but that's about it. 

I think there is a balance between creating things that can be enjoyed by the masses and leaving somethings that are battles and bold. I don't think bolting morning star or goat wall has taken anything from climbs in WA Pass or the Core. 

Tradibanned wrote:

People also have the "most amazing experiences of their lives" hunting big game in Africa, but that doesn't justify it.

We can't let human's wants and desires steer our moral compass and people can find other ways to enrich their lives without trashing the wilderness with bolts.

All climbing is amoral. It is totally unnecessary.

Tradibanned wrote:

People also have the "most amazing experiences of their lives" hunting big game in Africa, but that doesn't justify it.

We can't let human's wants and desires steer our moral compass and people can find other ways to enrich their lives without trashing the wilderness with bolts.

Not sure why Trevor's reply wasn't hidden since it had Trolli's quote but I'll reply as it pertains to my post.

If hunting big game in Africa in some instances means it generates large sums of money so there are large preserves set aside for it and rangers are hired to prevent poaching and it keeps those animals from otherwise going extinct, that justifies it in those instances IMO. I would never hunt big game and think it's lame, but you should weigh all the factors when making decisions, not just think in black and white.

Human wants and desires are a huge part of our moral compass. At least for rational people. If it's all about the natural ecological environment and human wants and desires don't matter you should not travel, and live in a city. But you insert yourself into sensitive high alpine environments, so according to your moral compass you are a hypocrite.

Gloweringwrote:

Not sure why Trevor's reply wasn't hidden since it had Trolli's quote but I'll reply as it pertains to my post.

If hunting big game in Africa in some instances means it generates large sums of money so there are large preserves set aside for it and rangers are hired to prevent poaching and it keeps those animals from otherwise going extinct, that justifies it in those instances IMO. I would never hunt big game and think it's lame, but you should weigh all the factors when making decisions, not just think in black and white.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, those land preserves do not justify the hunting, they pervert it. The money to save these animals can come from less ethically dubious sources.

Human wants and desires are a huge part of our moral compass. At least for rational people. If it's all about the natural ecological environment and human wants and desires don't matter you should not travel, and live in a city. But you insert yourself into sensitive high alpine environments, so according to your moral compass you are a hypocrite.

No. Human needs are a huge part of our moral compass, not wants. It is dangerous to use our wants and desires to guide our moral compass. 

It could be possible to say that humans need to go climbing or get outside or whatever, but it would be impossible to say we need bolts.