Grants Crack Anchor

I really don't mean to stir the pot, I am genuinely interested as to why there are no bolts above Grants Crack and those face climbs to the right at Swab Slab in Yosemite. 

Everytime I go past the area there is a group of people toproping those routes off that little tree. I think the super topo book shows bolts up there, but they were definitely chopped. Why? 

If you give an inch (swan slab convenience) they take a mile (bolts every 5 feet of astroman)

There's at least a dozen of these so-called beginner routes choking trees and destroying the aesthetics of an area (grants is just 1). We as climbers need to adapt to a changing culture. This sport is growing for better or for worse (call it tragedy of the commons if you're so inclined). I'm not suggesting bolts all over Astroman and seriously I think people at that level will always recognize the beauty and challenge of something like that. But we (as in the old guard 'why are there bolts here group') are going to have to adapt to a growing and shifting paradigm. 

To answer your question....because they were chopped by an insensitive person who feels their ethics are better than those of others. This will end in a heated debate, but this has been bothering me for a while.

Yea I was just making a dumb joke. It’s a complex issue for sure. Unfortunate we still don’t really have consensus and that it still has to be a heated debate, (although that may be more in part due to the debate happening on MP). Chopping a bolted anchor at an area like that seems absurd. Im not aware of how many opportunities there are for gear anchors up there. If the grants crack itself was bolted, that would seem like a more clear cut violation of Yosemite ethics. How do the folks that work for YMS feel about it? They seem to use that spot more than anyone else.

That's seems a little paradoxical...almost chicken/egg type stuff. If the tree weren't there, there'd probably be bolts by now not some crappy walk off.

abandon moderation wrote:

I've seen it happen elsewhere, but guides installing anchors to make guiding clients more convenient is bad form IMO.

That said, what would happen if the tree wasn't there? This has been an ongoing thing up in Tuolumne on stately pleasure dome, and there the answer is "they'd walk down a different way"

Without the tree there is no way to get down unless you lead another pitch up from the ledge or leave gear. 

There are bolts up and right of the tree above Grant's (the top of Funge on Munge I believe). You need a 70 m to tr and get down. Check your knots! 

Sorry guys, whatcha' newbies fail to appreciate is the *polishing* of Swan Slab by countless generations of climbers. Right now, the only thing remotely limiting the amount of use those old TRs get is the inconvenience of the anchor situation.

Bolts would just lead to more rapid deterioration of the climbs to greasy glass. Sorry, its just the way it is over the last 60 years those things have been hammered by countless newbie feet. We don't need to hammer them more and faster. More convenient anchors would degrade them faster.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Sorry guys, whatcha' newbies fail to appreciate is the *polishing* of Swan Slab by countless generations of climbers. Right now, the only thing remotely limiting the amount of use those old TRs get is the inconvenience of the anchor situation.

Bolts would just lead to more rapid deterioration of the climbs to greasy glass. Sorry, its just the way it is over the last 60 years those things have been hammered by countless newbie feet. We don't need to hammer them more and faster. More convenient anchors would degrade them faster.

I think you make some good points about trying to preserve Yosemite's great and classic climbing.

My two counterpoints would be:

1. Swan Slab is hammered by guides. It will never be less popular with newbies as well. The tree anchor, I believe, does not limit anyone. Newbies aren't going to recognize the problems with that tree anchor.

2. I would agree that convenience anchors are a bad thing. However, people will continue to use that tree until it is dead and gone. Ethically, climbers should build a gear anchor and then rap from tree, but that is not happening and will never happen.

M Appelquist wrote:

I think if you can free Lazy Bum and Bummer you should get your lazy ass off Grant’s. Polishing below your grade is unethical. Save the trees, shade your belay.

Edit: Not directed personally to any specific climber.

Saw my ticks huh? Haha.

I agree, Lazy Bum and Bummer are just better climbs as well. And the second pitch of Jamcrack is maybe even better than those two.

There is gear right by the tree, and if you managed to scramble up there to set it up you should be able to remove it and scramble down. I am all for bolts, especially when they save trees on a route.  This location is tricky, however because of its use.

Bolts are not necessary here, but because of how most people use it bolts would probably preserve the tree. For a time.  

The real issue is the slippery slope. If bolts are allowed to be placed here where they are not needed, could these bolts not open the door to more “ grey area” bolts that are perhaps more of a convenient nature? I know many would argue that door has been opened long ago, and a president already established...

but this spot is different, perhaps... this would be by far the most visually obvious to anyone visiting the park, even just driving by in their car. This convenience anchor would be seen being utilized by practically any car driving through... and I am not sure any other location in the park that I can think of would be as apparent. While I am not entirely certain the reasoning behind the debate behind this anchor in particular being sooo heated, I suspect it may be due in part to this.

these are just my 2c and my opinion, and I really do not know who the opposition really is, but in order to have a proper debate both sided should be represented.  

I don't disagree. Bolts are not needed if people act properly. 

Jamcrack is a similar level difficulty to reach a ledge with good gear to top rope harder climbs, yet there are bolts. 

Penthouse cracks just to the left has a bolted anchor.

M Awrote:

Ethically, climbers should build a gear anchor and then rap from tree, but that is not happening and will never happen.

This

When I was in Yosemite in 2019 I hung around Swan Slabs a decent amount and always wondered what was up with the Grant's Crack anchor. The route sees a lot of traffic from new outdoor climbers wanting to TR it and I saw a lot of people get flummoxed by the anchor situation. The issue back then which I haven't seen mentioned here was that any webbing which was left on the tree would disappear after a few days, and a lot of people climbing it weren't comfortable scrambling down to the left to take their gear with them. So I've seen people rap directly off the tree (which is obviously bad) instead of leaving something behind.

One time I came upon that dude Devin leading it (he laybacked it, for those curious). At the top he was surprised there was no anchor and realized he didn't have an ATC, so he announced to his belayer that he was just going to wrap the rope around the tree and then be lowered, which seemed like a good idea to everyone else in his crew. I told him to build an anchor and I'd scramble up the side and grab it for him instead.

One time my curiosity got the better of me and I asked a guide what was up, what was his theory about why the anchor material kept disappearing. He got a little intense and was like "well most people don't know this but anything on a cliff is a wilderness area and that means no fixed gear, leave no trace, you wouldn't want to see webbing left on the top of Middle Cathedral and it's the same here" which I thought was a really weird response. My totally unsubstantiated and crazy conspiracy now is that the guides take the gear off the tree there whenever it shows up so that gumbies stay off it and they can use it for their clients :P My 2c is that the bolts should reappear and spare the tree, it's not like there aren't bolted anchors elsewhere on the same cliff.

Marcus McCoywrote:but this spot is different, perhaps... this would be by far the most visually obvious to anyone visiting the park, even just driving by in their car. This convenience anchor would be seen being utilized by practically any car driving through... and I am not sure any other location in the park that I can think of would be as apparent. While I am not entirely certain the reasoning behind the debate behind this anchor in particular being sooo heated, I suspect it may be due in part to this.

I don't know about that. In terms of bolts, if this was the case then the bolts at the base of Aid Route just around the corner would need to go. And if we're talking about seeing climbers utilizing an anchor, there's no difference between a gear anchor or a bolted anchor in terms of what someone sees driving or walking by 

There are gear options up there. The down climb isn't terrible. But I will add that a bolted anchor would reduce the shit show of gumbies who get to the top and have no idea what to do. Everybody sees 5.9 in the book and goes for it. Straight up I'm all for saving the trees especially on a heavily trafficked line like Grants. Damn shame the webbing gets chopped. Judge me if you will, but I would support a bolted anchor on Grants even though somebody would probably chop them within a week

Fail Fallingwrote:

I don't know about that. In terms of bolts, if this was the case then the bolts at the base of Aid Route just around the corner would need to go. And if we're talking about seeing climbers utilizing an anchor, there's no difference between a gear anchor or a bolted anchor in terms of what someone sees driving or walking by 

I thought a bit about the aid route when I wrote this, but the only hardware I could think of as being as obvious were the bolts before the crack... and to me that seemed less egregious. There is the anchor higher up but you gotta know where to look a little more for that, but I guess thats a personal thing at that point.

And yes, while an anchor is in use there is no difference between natural or manmade. I think the difference is what the anchor looks like when it is not in use. And to me there is a bit of a difference between lone lead bolts, which sometimes are hard to find even when you know where to look, and a full anchor station equipped for rappelling.

Your trolling could be more eloquent, bro. 

2/10.

Marcus McCoywrote:

I thought a bit about the aid route when I wrote this, but the only hardware I could think of as being as obvious were the bolts before the crack... and to me that seemed less egregious. There is the anchor higher up but you gotta know where to look a little more for that, but I guess thats a personal thing at that point.

And yes, while an anchor is in use there is no difference between natural or manmade. I think the difference is what the anchor looks like when it is not in use. And to me there is a bit of a difference between lone lead bolts, which sometimes are hard to find even when you know where to look, and a full anchor station equipped for rappelling.

So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly:

Aid Route anchor (which is equipped for rappelling) is fine because "you have to know where to look" (when it's not in use) 

but 

Grant's Crack anchor (if equipped for rappelling) is not fine because the same non-climbing user groups zooming past in their cars or walking past on the trail, that didn't know where to look for Aid Route, would somehow know where to look for Grant's Crack? 

(Ignoring, of course, that niether anchor can be easily seen from the road because of the living trees)

I heard Devin Andretti soloed up there and chopped em.

Hahaaa.. someone oughta chop P1 Jamkrak anchor. It's there purely for the convenience of a hundred billion climbers a year. There's no need for it, you can scramble off right and boulder down the easy wide crack or the tree. Has anyone looked at the back half of the trunk on Grant's tree lately?