Retaliation Updates

My name is Nick Aiello-Popeo; I'm a climber who lives in Conway, NH. I would like to give a brief overview of the condition of Retaliation over the past 6 months.

After a large rockfall greatly altered the first pitch of Cathedral Ledge's classic 5.9, Retaliation, this spring, Friends of the Ledges helped organize multiple work parties for the exhausting task of removing (literal) tons of loose rock from the Tree Covered Ledge, and altering the adjacent climbers' paths. As with most of the work done by local climbing organizations, this job was extremely unglamorous. Luckily for me, I had recently broken my femur and was thus relegated to the job of spotter!

Later this summer, I toproped the route a number of times to see how much had changed. I harangued friends into helping me remove more loose rock, flakes, and dirt from the first pitch. I led the entire route few times, hoping to find a natural line that would be protectable with gear. However, each time I led the route (by a few variations) I was faced with a ground fall for much of the climbing.

The result was an ethical conundrum. Before the rockfall altered the first pitch, Retaliation was a beautiful, pure, gear-protected climb where one could test themselves against nature - physically and mentally. Similar to chipping holds, my opinion is that adding bolts to an existing climb is poor style: A retrobolter robs future ascentionists of the chance to test their own self-reliance.

However, the character of the first pitch had undoubtably changed. This pitch was never "perfectly" protected, but now it was nearly un-protectable. Despite my hopes of finding a gear-only line, I realized the options were a) add a couple bolts, or b) very few people will lead this classic route anymore. I brought up this quandary with a bunch of veteran climbers, some of whom TR'ed the route and offered their insight. At a public Friends of the Ledges meeting in October, I gave a quick overview of the condition of the route and my own thoughts for adding a few bolts.

A week later, I added two bolts that are roughly where climbers used to be able to place protection in the (now departed) p.1 flake. The climbing is a bit harder than before, maybe 5.7. You'll still need to place some of your own gear, and you still have to make moves above your pro. The second and third pitches have not changed.

I also placed one bolt on a variation to the first pitch. The variation has much more interesting climbing than the slab start. Begin on the ledge below Youth Challenge. From the left side of the ledge, clip a high bolt and face climb around the blunt arête. 5.8. (red in the picture)

Routes that have been around for generations are as much the "property" of the climbing community as they are the property of the first ascentionist. While I put in a good-faith effort to build consensus around the bolts I planned to place, don't be surprised if you show up and find that someone has chopped them. As much as I am free to place bolts, others are free to take them back out. It may be a messy form of democracy (especially when done anonymously), but this style of self-regulation has allowed the North Conway community to maintain a truly unique and beautiful atmosphere at our historic crags.

In closing, Retaliation is still dangerous because climbing is always going to be dangerous. But pitch 1 has less loose rock than it did in spring, and it can now be reasonably protected. Full disclosure: while I may be a FOTL board member, I did all of this work in my personal capacity and using my own tools and hardware. I'm also a professional mountain guide, but I don't guide Retaliation very often and I'm not going to make an extra cent by having placed these bolts. 

Thanks for all the work and thoughtful redevelopment!

Thanks for your efforts; sounds very reasonable to me and I hope the bolts stay put. Aesthetically we’ll never get that line back but it’s great that there is a reasonably protected line(s) now for pitch one. Perhaps we should refer to it as Refurbished ;) 

I just looked at the route description here on MP and don’t see the rockfall or modified first pitch mentioned anywhere. I added a comment but would be worth updating 

Although I don’t know the route, it sounds very much like a thoughtful and good faith effort to maintain the character of the climb. 

Thanks for your efforts.  I will  say that you possibly completely over thought that  process.  Major  rockfall that  completely  changes the nature of a  climb = game  on. Once you broke out the  drill to  fix it you had an obligation to  do the  best  job  possible.  Deliberately making it dangerous is  ridiculous.  I certainly don't know that this is the case but that is how your write up sounds???  It sounds like you kept it dangerous on purpose??? 

Thanks Nick A. Climbed the route with the newer low start recently and I think it it has the same general vibe as the original route in terms of commitment and character. As the original start flake is scattered on the trail below and each case is unique, this repair fits the bill spot on to gain the main business above which remains unaltered.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Deliberately making it dangerous is  ridiculous.  I certainly don't know that this is the case but that is how your write up sounds???  It sounds like you kept it dangerous on purpose??? 

More bolts also increases the likelihood the anti-bolt zealots will appear. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Thanks for your efforts.  I will  say that you possibly completely over thought that  process.  Major  rockfall that  completely  changes the nature of a  climb = game  on. Once you broke out the  drill to  fix it you had an obligation to  do the  best  job  possible.  Deliberately making it dangerous is  ridiculous.  I certainly don't know that this is the case but that is how your write up sounds???  It sounds like you kept it dangerous on purpose??? 

Have you climbed the route since the rockfall/cleanup/addition of bolts?

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Deliberately making it dangerous is  ridiculous.  I certainly don't know that this is the case but that is how your write up sounds???  It sounds like you kept it dangerous on purpose???

I think you misread my first post.

I will  say that you possibly completely over thought that  process.  

I disagree. We all would benefit from bolters using more forethought and restraint, not less.

This is the transparency, dialogue, and thoughtfulness our community needs! Thank you, Nick.

I absolutely agree that thinking bolting through very carefully is mandatory. . my comment was  in reference to your trying to keep the climb as close to original as possible. INMOP the rockfall changed that and was a golden opportunity to improve the situation. The original INMOP was pretty dangerous and folks were getting hurt on it.  You made it sound in your description that you deliberately kept the climb dangerous. that may well not be the case but it is how your post read. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

my comment was  in reference to your trying to keep the climb as close to original as possible. INMOP the rockfall changed that and was a golden opportunity to improve the situation. The original INMOP was pretty dangerous and folks were getting hurt on it.  

I think we may simply have different views on what constitutes “improving the situation.” I also think you may be confusing the first pitch (which fell off) with the second pitch. The 5.9 part of the climb was not affected by this rockfall, just the first “approach” pitch, which is often linked with the second.

I tried to keep the first pitch as close to its natural state as was reasonable. I trust climbers to continue to be able to decide for themselves whether a route fits their preferred style, difficulty, or risk tolerance.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

The original INMOP was pretty dangerous and folks were getting hurt on it.  You made it sound in your description that you deliberately kept the climb dangerous.

People weren't getting hurt on the start, but some have on the the crux rounded layback much higher up. People have ripped gear or headed up mistakenly thinking they were on "Upper Refuse" . It didn't help that Websters' first guide offered it as a good introduction to 5.9. Not so much. 

Pitch one was never the safety issue on retaliation, it is the second pitch and the gloriously suspect blind placements that comes with the layback.  

Thank you for working hard on the route and your decision making.  It is appreciated!