Bolts on Wind Ridge, Eldorado Canyon

Russ Keanewrote:

What will it say in the description? ... "Don't make an anchor where you can't make a good anchor"   I mean, seriously, there are so many inherent requirements for every trad climb you can't possibly document all the things people should know.

I climbed Wind Ridge a few years ago. From what was posted on MP I gathered the 3rd pitch had chossy rock, mediocre climbing and a time consuming descent. Based on that walking off after the second pitch and going over to the Bastille and climbing Werk Sup which was stellar seemed like a better use of our limited time at Eldo. I'm not denying there is a point where the route beta can get excessive but info like the above was certainly helpful. 

This accident was tragic and upsetting.

Yes, it might happen again someday.

Putting a bolted belay there is an attempt to remove the possibility that an inadequate trad anchor would be chosen at that location. Note that the trad anchor atop P1 failed for another party recently. Also note the possible knock-on effects of rappelling or top-roping the route and you'll see the whack-a-mole nature of this criterion for fixed anchors. We can't bolt our way to zero accidents.

Education is categorically different.  [insert 'teach a man to fish' aphorism - or don't].   No, it isn't a guarantee that future climbers will build appropriate anchors - but pointing out the placements might clue them in to change/improve their decision process for building anchors (which is the whole enchilada for trad climbing, isn't it?). 

Of course there are far too many tricky placements in Eldo to list them all - but it's not too much of a chore to crowdsource a few important ones on the entry level climbs that see the most traffic.

Gregger Manwrote:

This accident was tragic and upsetting.

Yes, it might happen again someday.

Putting a bolted belay there is an attempt to remove the possibility that an inadequate trad anchor would be chosen at that location. Note that the trad anchor atop P1 failed for another party recently. Also note the possible knock-on effects of rappelling or top-roping the route and you'll see the whack-a-mole nature of this criterion for fixed anchors. We can't bolt our way to zero accidents.

Education is categorically different.  [insert 'teach a man to fish' aphorism - or don't].   No, it isn't a guarantee that future climbers will build appropriate anchors - but pointing out the placements might clue them in to change/improve their decision process for building anchors (which is the whole enchilada for trad climbing, isn't it?). 

Of course there are far too many tricky placements in Eldo to list them all - but it's not too much of a chore to crowdsource a few important ones on the entry level climbs that see the most traffic.

Thanks Greg -- exactly my sentiment!

Eldo just ain't that damn dangerous in the grand scheme of things. You guys that think it is really need to get out more. There are many similar areas (actually even more so) in the U.S. alone. If we continue to sanitize these great traditional training grounds (i.e. low committing crags) then aren't we just kicking the can on down the road at the risk of incurring more of these of the types of incidents in the bigger, more remote, ranges?

I say this as both a climber and rescuer (medic) of many decades. 

Andrew Doumont wrote:

What I have seen is actually climbing accidents have been on a slow trajectory downward since the 1980s

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/150206-mountaineering-accidents-american-alpine-club-climbing

Obviously this data ends in 2013 and is not scientific or anything, but do you have anything except personal anecdotes to show more accidents are happening? Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong?

Lots of problems with that study, most importantly they're talking about percentages, the number of rock climbers has risen dramatically suppressing the percentage of accidents in relation to the total number of climbers. 

And let’s not forget that many high-profile, expert climbers have been involved in accidents. It’s not just noobs.

Sure, but it's not significant, the pros are "living on the edge" while noobs are living just slightly off the couch.

There are literally climbing documentaries where professional climbers lament how risk-averse new climbers are

The risk adverse noobs are the most dangerous ones because they are lulled into a false sense of security. 

Andrew Doumont wrote:

A) it’s not a study

B) it explicitly shows total number of accidents has decreased since the 80s, just takes 2 seconds to look at the graph and see that. The percentage they talk about is over 62 years

C) let’s see your evidence for your claim that the total number of accidents is “increasing at an accelerating rate”

This whole thread is about new climbers needing to be more risk averse, and now it’s your claim that that will cause more accidents?

I have no desire to deconstruct the whole thing, there's plenty of reasons the article doesn't tell us much about the current situation. 

My prediction is that accidents will increase based on things I have read and seen, including data from many sources. You're free to disagree.

Being too risk adverse leads to indecisiveness which can lead back to more risk. Being a competent and safe climber is a complicated process and comes mostly from experience. 

Mostly people's reaction to an accident is to try and fix the problem, but there is no specific problem that can be fixed. So relax and keep a stiff upper lip.

Emil Briggswrote:

I climbed Wind Ridge a few years ago. From what was posted on MP I gathered the 3rd pitch had chossy rock, mediocre climbing and a time consuming descent. Based on that walking off after the second pitch and going over to the Bastille and climbing Werk Sup which was stellar seemed like a better use of our limited time at Eldo. I'm not denying there is a point where the route beta can get excessive but info like the above was certainly helpful. 

(Disclosure: I haven’t read the route description on MP.) This is a matter of taste. I first climbed Wind Ridge in the early 1970s. A fun route and the most fun move is the start of the third pitch with moderate pleasant climbing above there—hardly choss. The walk off is not long. You can even add a 4th pitch to the climb. There are now two bolts north of the end of the climb that are used for rappelling. That was a downclimb pitch prior to the bolts and is still a nice downclimb made easier by using the bolts for an anchor and not for a rappel.

"Russ, did you learn anything from this thread that would be helpful to you if you climbed Wind Ridge?"

Well, sort of, but not anything of note compared to had I jumped on the route not knowing anything.   Beta about areas with junky rock, or good spots to build an anchor, or where the climbing gets tough and you need some crux pro..... These are things that I have learned to judge on my own as I climb the route and scan my surroundings.   Where the climb starts, and descent info, are nice to have though.

rob.calmwrote:

(Disclosure: I haven’t read the route description on MP.) This is a matter of taste. I first climbed Wind Ridge in the early 1970s. A fun route and the most fun move is the start of the third pitch with moderate pleasant climbing above there—hardly choss. The walk off is not long. You can even add a 4th pitch to the climb. There are now two bolts north of the end of the climb that are used for rappelling. That was a downclimb pitch prior to the bolts and is still a nice downclimb made easier by using the bolts for an anchor and not for a rappel.

It was mostly the comments posted about the route rather than the description. I don't think we would have had time for Werk Sup if we topped out on WR and that first pitch of Werk Sup was one of the best 5.8 pitches I've climbed anywhere. I guess it's different if you have more time in an area. I've climbed some stuff at my local crags that aren't bad routes by any means but I wouldn't recommend them to someone only there for a day. 

WTF ever happened to the sense of adventure one is supposed  to have when trad climbing??? Sure lets bolt the shit out of every climb, no matter if it is traditional or a sport route.

Frankly I am sick to death of all of the sanitizing that goes on. If climbers didn't die doing what they are doing, it would be called soccer. Part of the allure of climbing for me an most others was the sense that I am doing something that may kill me, and thus prevents the weak and timid from doing it. Like Royal said "Keep the adventure high". 

Buck Riowrote:

Part of the allure of climbing for me an most others was the sense that I am doing something that may kill me, and thus prevents the weak and timid from doing it.

I climb for many reasons yet after 50 years of climbing I can honestly say that was never one of them. 

Yeah, I have a rope and pro for a reason. Adventure is different from the call of the void, I'm usually after the former when I'm out climbing.

Marc801 C wrote:

So running with the bulls, sans bulls, would just be a jog in the park, and not considered a RedBull sport. 

If you remove the element of danger, you might as well call it something else IMO.  

My personal opinions:
-"Cars without seatbelts would make driving safer, because people would drive more cautiously" <-- What a lot of this thread sounds like to me.
-I don't think this ledge needs bolts to be safe.
-I would have no problem if bolts were added here. Love when I get to an anchor spot and I see some bolts (quicker anchor building, more confidence I found the right belay spot, ect.)
-If bolts are added, but you don't like them, you can still build a gear anchor. Just like you can choose not to wear your seatbelt. Sometimes I do build a gear anchor near bolts, usually because it's a better stance OR the bolted anchor is occupied.
-I have climbed the route, and remember building a solid gear anchor without much problem (as well as placing another piece before my feet even left the ledge, and another after the first pullup move, before doing the mantle thing). Would have placed more if I didn't feel confident in the grade, or though it was likely I might fall there. Falling near/on anchors scares me!
-If I recall, the rest of the last pitch didn't have the most solid rock and/or gear too I think

Ive climbed this route several times in the past and remember that belay being a little meh but immediately turned the corner and found a bomber piece. Most people who climb trad have climbed routes with worse anchors, on worse rock, with more run out, and higher risk. Then again eldo is super popular and attracts less experienced climbers.

This is just my opinion but what I think is the crux of the problem. In this current age of technology climbing has lost in many ways its sense of mentorship and guidance. I was super fortunate to learn from a guy who learned from a guy for decades. The first two years I climbed I followed on trad from my guy and he taught me the fundamental things I might have missed if I was trying to teach myself. In the current state of climbing we seem to be going away from mentorship and more toward individualism. People can just google how to build and anchor, and go on MP and find a climber for CCC on 6/15. It's kind of the blind leading the blind situation. I've done that 6/15 CCC partner search and climbed with people I would NEVER trust a new person with. I don't think adding bolts will fix this issue. But again, that's just like my opinion man.

Buck Riowrote:

So running with the bulls, sans bulls, would just be a jog in the park, and not considered a RedBull sport. 

If you remove the element of danger, you might as well call it something else IMO.  

False equivalence.

Luigi Mwrote:

I love how most people in the community would rather see people die than 'dumb down the route and the area'. Where's your proof that this would happen? Man, climbers really are terrible, morally bankrupt people. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Daniel Katwrote:

My personal opinions:
-"Cars without seatbelts would make driving safer, because people would drive more cautiously" <-- What a lot of this thread sounds like to me.

The route has a 'seatbelt', in the form of multiple good anchoring options.

-I don't think this ledge needs bolts to be safe.

It's not an opinion - the ledge doesn't need bolts to be safe.

-I would have no problem if bolts were added here. Love when I get to an anchor spot and I see some bolts (quicker anchor building, more confidence I found the right belay spot, ect.)
-If bolts are added, but you don't like them, you can still build a gear anchor. Just like you can choose not to wear your seatbelt. Sometimes I do build a gear anchor near bolts, usually because it's a better stance OR the bolted anchor is occupied.

So you argue that bolts don't fundamentally change the climbing experience? I also love routes with bolted anchors. I also don't pretend that I would just build a gear anchor anyway (unless forced to for some reason, as you point out). One of the coolest things about US climbing is the variety of routes - both scary and safe, quick clip-ups and involved, committing climbs.

-I have climbed the route, and remember building a solid gear anchor without much problem (as well as placing another piece before my feet even left the ledge, and another after the first pullup move, before doing the mantle thing). Would have placed more if I didn't feel confident in the grade, or though it was likely I might fall there. Falling near/on anchors scares me!

Then why would you advocate for bolts?!

Yeah basically. My opinion, in tldr form:
I think the climb is fairly safe as is, but it wouldn't bother me if bolts were added.

Tony Bwrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

https://youtu.be/b9JDPm_QHk4

Something I didn't see mentioned in this thread so far: where's the outrage over other, nearby, convenience-bolted anchors in Eldo?

• The Bomb
• Calypso
• Tagger
• Bastille Crack
• many others

All of these climbs can be done with natural/gear anchors -- which are arguably much better gear anchors than Wind Ridge. All of these climbs can be topped out to a dedicated walk-off/rappel. I don't know the history that led to these anchors being placed, but it seems to me they are purely for a) anchor convenience, b) convenient descents, and c) convenient toproping. In other words, convenience is the only reason they exist, but there isn't a bunch of condemnation or bolt chopping over their existence. Yet I hear a bunch of crusty climbers loudly proclaiming that if you can't build a solid anchor in a chossy gash of rock, you shouldn't climb Wind Ridge. The fact that 100% of the route requires trad gear placed on lead isn't enough for you? How many of you naysayers have ever tested these supposedly bomber anchors with a factor 2 fall off the P3 crux? From the tenor of the discussion here, you'd think someone proposed rap bolting Bastille Crack to facilitate convenient sport leads. It boggles my mind that anyone would consider a couple anchor bolts on the chossy Wind Ridge ledge to be this controversial.

Edit: I've built several hundred to possibly a thousand gear anchors in my climbing career, but the idea of convenient bolted anchors doesn't offend me in the least. It's not like this is without precedent at Eldo in general, or the Wind Tower in particular (arguably the "convenience crag" of Eldo).