Woodcock Cove

.

Seconding what Chris said regarding the dismissal of the previous generations hard work. This kind of gym bred behavior is right in line with all the weird “write your route name on a rock at the base of every climb” bull shit. I hope this is a trend that gets chopped and doesn’t catch on in the south.

If you have knowledge of the area's routes why not put it all out there for the community? Unless you enjoy waiting until people post route info so you can be the "Actually...." guy.

"If you bolt it, they will come." 

I saw some pics. No excuse for it.

Why? I like plaques.

Its common in Europe to have the name of the route painted at the base of the route. Sure makes it more convenient. As far as the term gulf, that seems to imply the entire valley. Cove seems a reasonable way to designate a portion of the valley. Breaking things down into sections makes labelling and describing them easier. Leaving the area dormant seems like a waste of resources.

Honestly you can have woodcock back, it's kind've choss

Over the years, I've seen a depressing pattern associated with the opening of climbing areas in the South; Woodcock Cove is just the latest example.  A promising cliff is discovered and climbers start developing routes there.  They keep the area undocumented, either because the rock is owned by people who don't want people climbing on it, or because the developers want to maintain it as their own secret crag.  Later, the property is purchased by a climber organization or some other mechanism makes this undocumented cliff a public climbing destination.  The people who've kept the details of the area to themselves over the years then begin griping about it -- the area name is wrong; the route names are wrong; the subdivisions don't make sense; routes shouldn't be bolted; and so on.  Most of these issues could have been avoided with some transparency and sharing of knowledge.

Maybe the ultimate solution for the complainers is to pool their money and buy the crag they like before it becomes public knowledge.  Then they can keep it as their own private playground; Steele is a prime example of this scenario.

JL

Tristan Pwrote:

Honestly you can have woodcock back, it's kind've choss

LOL, dude from Colorado talking about choss.

nbrownwrote:

LOL, dude from Colorado talking about choss.

Lmao couldn't agree more, one of the reasons I left

saxfiendwrote:

Over the years, I've seen a depressing pattern associated with the opening of climbing areas in the South; Woodcock Cove is just the latest example.  A promising cliff is discovered and climbers start developing routes there.  They keep the area undocumented, either because the rock is owned by people who don't want people climbing on it, or because the developers want to maintain it as their own secret crag.  Later, the property is purchased by a climber organization or some other mechanism makes this undocumented cliff a public climbing destination.  The people who've kept the details of the area to themselves over the years then begin griping about it -- the area name is wrong; the route names are wrong; the subdivisions don't make sense; routes shouldn't be bolted; and so on.  Most of these issues could have been avoided with some transparency and sharing of knowledge.

Maybe the ultimate solution for the complainers is to pool their money and buy the crag they like before it becomes public knowledge.  Then they can keep it as their own private playground; Steele is a prime example of this scenario.

JL

Knowing not to bolt in the proximity of bomber gear isn't incumbent on knowing whether someone else got there first.

Normally, by the time the news is released about a purchased cliff, there have already been people in there doing stuff before the public notification. 

Ben Fwrote:

Knowing not to bolt in the proximity of bomber gear isn't incumbent on knowing whether someone else got there first.

There's too much nuance in a blanket statement like this. For example, there is all kinds of bomber gear on T-Wall routes like Abortion Contortion (now redacted, 13a), but I certainly didn't consider chopping it or it being egregious to my traditional roots. 

On another level (1 number grade) there's also 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-oZXewmiDA

Thanks for your two cents. What I saw was egregious.

Gatekeeper climber having fun with route restoration 

saxfiendwrote:

Over the years, I've seen a depressing pattern associated with the opening of climbing areas in the South; Woodcock Cove is just the latest example.  A promising cliff is discovered and climbers start developing routes there.  They keep the area undocumented, either because the rock is owned by people who don't want people climbing on it, or because the developers want to maintain it as their own secret crag.  Later, the property is purchased by a climber organization or some other mechanism makes this undocumented cliff a public climbing destination.  The people who've kept the details of the area to themselves over the years then begin griping about it -- the area name is wrong; the route names are wrong; the subdivisions don't make sense; routes shouldn't be bolted; and so on.  Most of these issues could have been avoided with some transparency and sharing of knowledge.

Maybe the ultimate solution for the complainers is to pool their money and buy the crag they like before it becomes public knowledge.  Then they can keep it as their own private playground; Steele is a prime example of this scenario.

JL

Whining about names, ratings, and who did what first are all part of the game and finally don't amount to much. The real issue is when people come in and just immediately start slamming bolts into all the 'new' lines. Usually the information that an area has been climbed at is known, and if you have a question about whether an area has been climbed at someone can tell you if ask around. Generally developers will also leave signs that they have been in an area, e.g. random fixed gear and rap anchors. Simply put, if it is known that an area has been climbed at, then the default assumption should be that any line that is reasonably clean and has a reasonable number of gear placements (and not necessarily 'G' or even 'PG') has been climbed and should not have anything added to it until it can be determined whether it is in fact a cherry. I can't even fathom why someone would want to: retro bolting, even in ignorance, is an admission that you can't climb something as well as some old fat fart, and that should be embarrassing. 

And as a counter argument to yours, it was well known that Yellow Bluff had seen extensive development before it was originally closed. The developers were still around and eager to share the information. The SCC did not give a shit.

Jim Corbettwrote:

And as a counter argument to yours, it was well known that Yellow Bluff had seen extensive development before it was originally closed. The developers were still around and eager to share the information. The SCC did not give a shit.

It's ironic that you bring up Yellow Bluff as a "counter-argument," since it's actually a prime example of what I'm talking about.  The eagerness to share that you imagine was nowhere to be found.  Shannon Stegg had detailed documentation of route development there, but he refused to share it.  I know this because I personally contacted him about the history of the crag prior to the SCC opening, and he said no.  Also, for what it's worth, Curt and Betty Jo Merchant were on hand the day Yellow Bluff was opened to the public, and they didn't raise any objections to what the SCC was doing.  And James Dobbs was contacted by the SCC about his routes; he said go ahead and bolt them if you like.  The only reason Orange Crush was not bolted is because Will Eccleston onsighted it on gear that opening day.

So, thanks for unintentionally proving my point about the consequences of a lack of transparency by crag developers.

JL

Saxfiend was correct to move this discussion to the forums, that is where discussions belong.

Its already been said twice, but maybe third try will be the charm.... Why don't you guys release a list of climbs you did. Maybe put them in geographical order (as they appear along the cliff), and then even include neat little notes or FA information, you could call it like a "topo" or something. Then, climbers who want to climb (or develop) at Woodcock could look at it - they could use it as a guide, to figure out what to climb, or if a certain route has been climbed before.

saxfiendwrote:

It's ironic that you bring up Yellow Bluff as a "counter-argument," since it's actually a prime example of what I'm talking about.  The eagerness to share that you imagine was nowhere to be found.  Shannon Stegg had detailed documentation of route development there, but he refused to share it.  I know this because I personally contacted him about the history of the crag prior to the SCC opening, and he said no.  Also, for what it's worth, Curt and Betty Jo Merchant were on hand the day Yellow Bluff was opened to the public, and they didn't raise any objections to what the SCC was doing.  And James Dobbs was contacted by the SCC about his routes; he said go ahead and bolt them if you like.  The only reason Orange Crush was not bolted is because Will Eccleston onsighted it on gear that opening day.

So, thanks for unintentionally proving my point about the consequences of a lack of transparency by crag developers.

JL

Again, not knowing whether someone else climbed something first is not an excuse for not knowing to not bolt in the proximity of bomber gear - especially on terrain that's not insurmountably difficult for most people (for you nuance-concerned folks).