Why aren’t there bolted rap anchors off prusik?

Allen Sandersonwrote:

IMHO one needs to view wilderness as an area with a higher standard than other lands which we might otherwise recreate on. 

Congo line of 100 people on prussik cool. Bolted anchors not cool. If we treat the wilderness areas with a higher standard maybe we should actually treat them with a higher standard. Maybe we should let some climbs go unclimbed by anyone. Maybe there should be a permit system. I think maybe not having droves of people all over the summit would achieve this objective better than a couple bolts...

Smith Rockwrote:

A more interesting question is why aren't there rap anchors on the west ridge of Forbidden? 

Do a little google search.  There is quite the history there.  Short version is there used to be but the NPS chopped the bolts.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Congo line of 100 people on prussik cool. Bolted anchors not cool. If we treat the wilderness areas with a higher standard maybe we should actually treat them with a higher standard. Maybe we should let some climbs go unclimbed by anyone. Maybe there should be a permit system. I think maybe not having droves of people all over the summit would achieve this objective better than a couple bolts...

Huh?

Anthony L wrote:

Piggybacking on this post: I will 100%, without hesitation, walk up there and chop all the bolts and spread the hangers out amongst other current projects within the icicle or tumwater if someone does decide to go bolt the descent route off prussik.

If you want a bolted descent, go climb liberty bell, ingall's peak, etc... There's no shortage of options with bolted descents!

That’s a good idea

Let’s chop bolts where novices expect bolts.

Great solution

B Pwrote:

That’s a good idea

Let’s chop bolts where novices expect bolts.

Great solution

I think what you mean is that it’d be a bad idea to climb a peak in the enchantments expecting a bolted rap route.

Anthony Lwrote:

I think what you mean is that it’d be a bad idea to climb a peak in the enchantments expecting a bolted rap route.

In a perfect world I totally agree with you. I  am amazed at what the climbing world has turned into.
However, just because someone goes up there with inadequate experience, I don’t think they deserve death/dismemberment that could occur because of bolts not being where they’re supposed/reported to be.
Im an advocate of consistency.

I think you can make logical arguments for a bolted rap station or natural anchors.

So stop puffing puffing out  your chest 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Congo line of 100 people on prussik cool. Bolted anchors not cool. If we treat the wilderness areas with a higher standard maybe we should actually treat them with a higher standard. Maybe we should let some climbs go unclimbed by anyone. Maybe there should be a permit system. I think maybe not having droves of people all over the summit would achieve this objective better than a couple bolts...

Last time I checked there was an overnight permit system, there is not (yet) a day permit system like there is for Mt. Whitney. So while many may not like the permit system that does seem to be actually treating them with a higher standard.

B P wrote:

Let’s chop bolts where novices expect bolts.

Except that in this case there are no bolts but for one IIRC on the summit so your point is moot as it pertains to this specific discussion. That said, perhaps novices and others should up their game and not expect conveniences, especially in a federally designated wilderness area. At the same time novices should learn the necessary skills so to get their carcasses down a route regardless of the area.

B P wrote:
However, just because someone goes up there with inadequate experience, I don’t think they deserve death/dismemberment that could occur because of bolts not being where they’re supposed/reported to be.
Im an advocate of consistency.

I think you can make logical arguments for a bolted rap station or natural anchors.

No one is talking about creating a hazardous situation. Shit happens though and folks should plan for it. Anchors get taken out by rock fall, slings get chewed through but rodents. Weather forces unplanned retreats.

If the area was not designated wilderness one could make arguments for bolted rap stations or natural anchors. But it is designated wilderness, arguments for bolts are specious.

B Pwrote:

In a perfect world I totally agree with you. I  am amazed at what the climbing world has turned into.
However, just because someone goes up there with inadequate experience, I don’t think they deserve death/dismemberment that could occur because of bolts not being where they’re supposed/reported to be.
Im an advocate of consistency.

I think you can make logical arguments for a bolted rap station or natural anchors.

So stop puffing puffing out  your chest 

I’m not chest puffing. I’m trying to save someone the effort of going in and putting the work in to bolt the descent.  Prussik has a super straightforward descent on natural anchors.

There are many places one could argue for bolts, this isn’t one of them. 

Anthony Lwrote:

I’m not chest puffing. I’m trying to save someone the effort of going in and putting the work in to bolt the descent.  Prussik has a super straightforward descent on natural anchors.

There are many places one could argue for bolts, this isn’t one of them. 

This is the perfect place to argue about bolts.
2 steel bolts replacing years of tat in a wilderness area.
This argument wouldn’t be here if people were doing their job and replacing old tat, but obviously that’s not happening as often as it should. 

What I’m saying is if the decision to place 2 bolts is made, don’t go up there and chop them. Chopping bolts in this situation is lame.

Of course beginners should up their game, but you’re talking about a classic climb on a beautiful peak within 2.5 hours of a major metropolitan area. Let me know how that works out for ya

B Pwrote:

Huh?

The wilderness act is there to protect the wilderness. I am sure when it was written it wanted to prevent bolting since that would have actually limited traffic (early 2000s?). But with the influx of people in climbing, evolution of climbing gear, and expansion of information if you think a couple bolts in the wilderness will actually protect the alpine environment today that seems woefully naïve. Prussik with a couple bolts and a permit system/limited climbing window is gonna do a lot more to protect the wilderness than not allowing bolts. I am not saying this should be done, but if you think the wilderness act is the only thing relevant to this discussion maybe we should think about what its actually intent of the act is.

B Pwrote:

But you’re talking about a classic climb on a beautiful peak within 2.5 hours of a major metropolitan area. Let me know how that works out for ya

You continue promulgate specious arguments as it does not matter if it 2.5 hours or 2.5 days of a major metropolitan area the area is designated wilderness. Start there and work forwards.

John Tuttlewrote:

America: We argue over a few thimble's full of rock dust removed from a mountain we climb for a bolt anchor to rap from while entire mountains are removed by strip mining iron ore for our cars.

Just so we can claim we are superior to someone else who climbs.

Again the lame and lazy argument that because there's far more destruction happening to the environment then it's ok to do as we wish (what's a few bolts gonna hurt?) you can justify almost anything.  Leave no trace isn't just a nice slogan, it should be one of the main goals(along w/not getting killed) of any climber/hiker/camper/recreationist, ect..

I just realized this threads almost a year old.

And Allen and Trevor still don’t know what they’re arguing about. 

Mike Preisswrote:

Again the lame and lazy argument that because there's far more destruction happening to the environment then it's ok to do as we wish (what's a few bolts gonna hurt?) you can justify almost anything.  Leave no trace isn't just a nice slogan, it should be one of the main goals of any climber/hiker/camper/recreationist, ect..

America: Where "Holier than Thou" crusaders throw out the baby with the bathwater as not pure enough.

Holier than Thou is a good song but not underrated, as I was arguing on another forum.

Ok!  So it looks like we can wrap this one up for this year.  See everyone on this here thread next March!   Safe climbing!  

I'm a huge advocate of the 1964 Wilderness Act and bolts have been used in Wilderness areas since they began.  When you go climb Slab Daddy in Darrington you're in the Boulder River Wilderness and only god and Dave know how many bolts are up there. The only caveat is bolts have to be placed by hand. 

The Canadians used a little common sense and some science when they decided to can the tat for bolts on popular routes.  It's better for wildlife, safer for climbers and less of an eye sore.  We're lucky we can leave tat at all in Wilderness Areas. 

That brings us to the Park and Directors order 41. Many other parks allow bolts in the wilderness and onky 1 park in the nation bans them.  NOCA. 

https://rockandice.com/tuesday-night-bouldering/tnb-death-on-forbidden-peak-was-the-nps-complicit/

Fred spoke on this when we were on a long drive.  He told me "Whoever put those bolts in on Forbidden was wrong, and whoever choped those bolts was wrong."  I though about his words for a long time. 

Mike Preisswrote:

Again the lame and lazy argument that because there's far more destruction happening to the environment then it's ok to do as we wish (what's a few bolts gonna hurt?) you can justify almost anything.  Leave no trace isn't just a nice slogan, it should be one of the main goals of any climber/hiker/camper/recreationist, ect..

ps. A wad of brightly colored Tat is not "leave no trace". It can easily be demonstrated that properly colored bolts and hangers have less impact.

Mike Preisswrote:

Again the lame and lazy argument that because there's far more destruction happening to the environment then it's ok to do as we wish (what's a few bolts gonna hurt?) you can justify almost anything.  Leave no trace isn't just a nice slogan, it should be one of the main goals of any climber/hiker/camper/recreationist, ect..

Exactly tat is not leaving no trace. I think most people fundamentally agree that speeding at 60mph in neighborhoods with kids is a bad idea. Having a speed limit lower helps save some lives. But if we don’t want people getting killed in neighborhoods maybe managing with stop signs and other features is a good idea as well. I’m not saying there should or should not be bolts but if our goal is to protect the wilderness maybe that’s what we should try to be doing.

John Tuttlewrote:

ps. A wad of brightly colored Tat is not "leave no trace". It can easily be demonstrated that properly colored bolts and hangers have less impact.

Bolts are less "leave no trace" than a few well placed camouflaged colors slings. Bolts require holes which are permanent. Slings can be removed and will "leave no trace".

Eric Thompson wrote:

Many other parks allow bolts in the wilderness and onky 1 park in the nation bans them.  NOCA.

The discussion is not about whether bolts are allowed. They are. The discussion is whether their usage is needed. One of the key parts of Wilderness management is answering the question of what is the minimum tool needed for properly managing the area. The Minimum Requirements or Minimum Tool analysis is a key part of any analysis.