Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Retrobolters Fibbing
|
So, there is a super secret double down private crag near Chattanooga that "Warriors" posted about 'Choppers Chopping' Unfortunately, the author is abandoning the truth to present his plea for advice on how to keep people from chopping. First, the people that own the land the crag is on have never talked to the climbing community, they are disinterested. The majority of the routes were put up on gear, this fact from the first ascensionists themselves, R Robinson, F Gardiner, J Roberts, and those there at the time, T Wells. They wished the routes to stay trad. When they were retrobolted, the FA asked that the bolts be removed, but entitlement prevailed. The retrobolters have gone to landowners at the top of the cliff, who do not own the cliff itself, but the most convenient of approaches, and told them that the routes were dangerous without bolts, that the trad climbers were vandalizing and stealing property, and thus only they and their friends should be allowed to utilize the trail. I posted here because the Author, 'Warriors' prebanned locals that know the whole story of his entitlement, |
 |
David Draperwrote: Why didn't you post this in the original thread? So someone reading it can get both sides of the story? https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/120699416/choppers-chopping-on-private-and-closed-cliff |
|
Glad you asked, because "Warriors" pre banned locals that know the whole story from posting on his thread. |
David Draperwrote: Thanks for the prompt explanation. The plot thickens! |
|
10/10 |
|
Seems like some pretty fucked up behavior from the retrobolters, and I'm this hell site's predominant advocate for retrobolting. Sounds like the common story of people not respecting norms and ethics of a crag and therefore ruining access. |
David Draperwrote: What are you talking about? You can literally go post on that thread if it hasn't been closed (as of now it is not closed). Pre-banning is literally not a thing on here. |
Pnelsonwrote: If it's not a "thing," what does it mean when some threads say "This topic's author has restricted who can reply"? Isn't that part of what the Ignore User function does? That thread in particular used to say that, but it doesn't anymore. I've hit the post limit for this thread. |
Pnelsonwrote: Whatever you say. Whenever I or any others locals familiar with this topic try to reply, it tells us we are restricted from replying. |
Tradiban wrote: You really wanted to help this fithy retro bolter with "our climbing problem". What's up now? Also like to point out that Warrior has not responded to anything on his own thread. Hes also ban me from his thread. Guess he didnt like my responses. Ill send gas money to anyone that goes out to chop these bolts! |
|
Interesting. It appears we have our specific case that the other thread lacked. And it’s a juicy one |
PNW Chosswrote: I offered my help to catch a chopper as chopping is never a good thing. Best to catch the chopper and then create a dialog to resolve the dispute. However, what I didn't know was that Warriors was misrepresenting about the circumstances of the chopping and I simply cannot support a misrepresenter. |
|
I'm reserving my opinion until I hear more.
If it's private property the land owner can usually decide whatever they want. Normal First Ascent Principle ethic does not apply. But if it's as stated, that the actual land owner is disinterested, then IMO FAP applies. |
Gloweringwrote: Agree, that we need more facts to make better informed rushes to judgment, but there is a principle that transcends FAP, and that’s that you don’t bolt trad protectable climbs, regardless of FA |
|
It’s a sport crag |
|
Here I am, trying to go to sleep so I can climb tomorrow and now y’all got me up making popcorn |
Huh? Are you assuming I'm someone else? I never chopped anything in TN. I live on the west coast. I participate in these conversations because I find conversations around style and ethics interesting and it's my hope that I would add something to the understanding of the conversation and/or stir up shit. David Draper mentions above there are multiple ways into the crag, are you sure the choppers trespassed? Removing retrobolts is usually not destroying climbs, it's someone going out of their way to protect the FAP ethic that's been in place for generations, and preventing someone from destroying the challenge of the climb that the FA intended. Racking up and sacking up are style questions. Starting in on calling people wusses indicates you are probably in the wrong here, but again I'll hold my judgement. I don't care what style someone chooses to do a climb. I do care about ethics and people being disrespectful by changing the route. That can go both ways: adding bolts or chopping. How was the 'chopping' done? If it was really chopped with a chisel and sharp studs left, that's an indication the chopping was about ego, not protecting the resource. If the bolts were pried out and the holes patched that's a sign of someone wanting to preserve the rock the way the FA was done. Bottom Line: since this is private property retrobolts are okay if the land owner says it's okay (along with chiseling holds, bolting holds on, bolt protected cracks, etc.) Normal public resource ethics (FAP) doesn't apply. So this really comes down to who owns the crag and what do they want? If you made a mistake and thought the landowner of the trail owned the crag owned the crag and thought they were okay with retrobolts that's one thing. But if the actual land owner of the crags is disinterested then normal FAP ethics apply IMO and they were in the right to remove the bolts. And if all the attention causes access issues that's on the retrobolters. |
Warriors wrote: |
|
I don't have much time so Ill be succinct. Warrior, Don't recall your wife, if she got a bad vibe, she didn't express it, and in a professional setting communication is vital. Weird thing, I've never worked in a clinic in Chattanooga, only home health. Just skip the retro bolts? BS, its like a tight rope with a net. Jerry Roberts? I should have elaborated, he confirmed to me the routes having gone up on gear, decades later he wanted to bolt every gear line at suck creek, so yes, I imagine he would have been great with bolting Lookout as well. Pitons? The route I chopped at Bee had a piton placed on lead, but has gear options as well above and below the piton placement, excellent line, sad with bolts. Property owners? Check your maps, the majority of the cliff is owned by people that live in the valley, when I walk the cliff line I have marked the coordinates to confirm this. Lea biting you, as I said at the time, sorry for that and I'll handle any medical bills, but if you were more angry about it than you let on and man up to speak with me, then thats on you. Rumored to have chopped bolts? Dude, I posted that I did on 3 different public forums, I have always been up front with my disdain for the massive move inn the Chatt area to retrobolt. Sue Edward Yates? Ed and I talk straight up, he got busted for being in Prentice Cooper during a managed hunt, I don't know about him getting sued by anyone. As for you prebanning me, sounds like you and your wife's fault for poor communication skills, fair enough? Now that that subterfuge is past. The routes were put up on gear. The FA want their routes to stay gear. Luis, Fisher and others have lied their asses off telling landowners on top of the cliff that they should be the arbitrators of who gets to go there, based purely on who agrees with retrobolting the cliff. |
|
As entertaining as this is you guys just need to meet up in person and hug it out. I'm pretty sure this cliff isn't worth all the negativity. |
