Our runaway bolting problem

Not a cheap shot. Chris' bolting of Standing Room Only is patently relevant to the recent criticisms of Woodcock Cove development. His excuse that he did not know it was rumored to have been done on gear is invalid, as it has been said before by one of the soft pipe swinger boys "Knowing not to bolt in the proximity of bomber gear isn't incumbent on knowing whether someone else got there first."

Beel Zebubwrote:

Not a cheap shot. Chris' bolting of Standing Room Only is patently relevant to the recent criticisms of Woodcock Cove development. His excuse that he did not know it was rumored to have been done on gear is invalid, as it has been said before by one of the soft pipe swinger boys "Knowing not to bolt in the proximity of bomber gear isn't incumbent on knowing whether someone else got there first."

 

You're trying too hard and not making a good point. Standing room only is not full of obvious gear placement especially back then. What we're talking about is the equivalent of finger locking good getting sport bolted. We're not talking about "I wish I was trad" at castle rock. No it's not the same thing, it's not even close. But why don't you tell us your real name and what you put up there?

Beel Zebubwrote:

Not a cheap shot. Chris' bolting of Standing Room Only is patently relevant to the recent criticisms of Woodcock Cove development. His excuse that he did not know it was rumored to have been done on gear is invalid, as it has been said before by one of the soft pipe swinger boys "Knowing not to bolt in the proximity of bomber gear isn't incumbent on knowing whether someone else got there first."

 

Well, I was and am correct. Good on you to acknowledge that, hard man Beel Zepud.

Some of us are without sin. The rest of you can atone and repent.

Many parts of Standing Room Only were not protectable with the gear that was available at the time. Foster Falls is, by and large, a sport climbing cliff. Woodcock Gulf should have been approached differently. My opinion is this: First you go through and do all of the trad routes, keeping in mind that some badass trad climber can come along and do stuff on thin runout gear. Then you start looking at unprotectable faces, aretes, whatever. Some might be mixed routes. Silent Runner would be bolted by todays standards. 

What is it with all these people with stupid comebacks that don't want to post their real name? Using Standing Room Only as the number one gotcha and a highball slab as equivalent to bolting cracks from bottom to top. It's a shame that such opinions seem to be mainstream what's ok in bolting nowadays. We have had a strong ethos that has kept this region from becoming a bunch of Disney crags. All of you who think you can literally bolt whatever you want are spoiled and entitled. 

    Woodcock is now whatever the SCC wants it to be. They bought it if their values no longer reflect mine, whatever I guess I'll still do trail work where I climb. But it is a great example of what happens when you leave modern "route setters" to their own devices. Just don't act like it's one half dozen the other. 

    If you're bolting a reasonably good gear protected route or someone else's they did without bolts. It's not because it's dangerous, it's not because otherwise no one will climb it if you don't, it's not because the gear is "too expensive". It's because you're too weak to rise to a challenge and are ok lowering it to your level for a participation trophy. If that's you you should be ashamed and your send sucks.

Bolting ain't cheap brah. Bolts, hangers, anchors, bits, natural anchor to rap and place said bolts, and the list goes on. Pimpin ain't easy

Big country, pimpin ain't easy because whores and tricks tend to be difficult personality profiles. Unless you go to TJ's where they all wear uniforms. Seems like they really got their shit together down there. Gives me hope for the future. Crime pays you just gotta keep your integrity. 

So Danny have you done some FA's? I'm not gonna look at your profile and shit rather just ask. I've put in some of that work and I guess your comment about it being cheap got me curious. By the time I was drilling holes I owned a double set of a lot of trad gear. Routes I bolted were not cheap, fucking at all. Maybe I missed the point you were making. Not gonna speak for all of those but when you decide to put the bit to rock it didn't become easier. I put a lot of thought in why and where I put bolts. But your neck of the woods I do not know about

Y’all sound like a lot of fun having climbers….not. And a one pro bolt, one anchor bolt route does sound cheap. If you had a couple beers after, you had enough to buy a second anchor bolt.

Big country I have a few but I'm not prolific. The cheap aspect is the argument (mainly newer climbers) that getting into gear climbing is too expensive. As far as sport development a lot of people just use whatever they have and if the cliff gets bought then they may replace the rusty mismatched hardware. It's pretty common for people to mix metals. But a twelve bolt sport route typically costs $100 if not skimping. 

I think all climbers, including sport vs trad, have a common thread which is that we don't like being told what to do. I started climbing in trees making harnesses out of fake seatbelt looking material and leather belts which I would take test jumps out of and either my "harness" or boat rope would break, and I'd take back splatters from 10' ---- In other words, no one was telling me to go climbing -- it was quite the opposite, but that's why I wanted to do it. I would wager that whatever shoeless heathen scrambled up the first mountain didn't have a crowd of climbing gym parents or referees cheering / scolding them on --- once down from the mountain, they were probably berated for not hunting and gathering --- and then they probably went straight back climbing when no one was looking --- but that's climbing, isn't it? 

Humans will always tribalize and try and assign rules and regulations which will never be solved --- but all the while you're not climbing. Just be that shoeless kid that goes climbing not caring what the other shoeless kid is doing over the hill. Quit banging the keys and go climbing -- it's about to be 80 degrees in the South...

But Cody how will my overinflated sense of ownership and ego sustain itself without shaming others online?

codyaverbeck Averbeckwrote:

I think all climbers, including sport vs trad, have a common thread which is that we don't like being told what to do. I started climbing in trees making harnesses out of fake seatbelt looking material and leather belts which I would take test jumps out of and either my "harness" or boat rope would break, and I'd take back splatters from 10' ---- In other words, no one was telling me to go climbing -- it was quite the opposite, but that's why I wanted to do it. I would wager that whatever shoeless heathen scrambled up the first mountain didn't have a crowd of climbing gym parents or referees cheering / scolding them on --- once down from the mountain, they were probably berated for not hunting and gathering --- and then they probably went straight back climbing when no one was looking --- but that's climbing, isn't it? 

Humans will always tribalize and try and assign rules and regulations which will never be solved --- but all the while you're not climbing. Just be that shoeless kid that goes climbing not caring what the other shoeless kid is doing over the hill. Quit banging the keys and go climbing -- it's about to be 80 degrees in the South...

Hmmm. Altering shared natural resources crosses the line from style and everyone being free to do as they wish to ethics wherein antisocial and harmful behavior should be discouraged. People being too afraid that their bolts will be chopped to install bolts on routes with good gear sounds to me like a good thing. 

Skyler Scruggswrote:

But Cody how will my overinflated sense of ownership and ego sustain itself without shaming others online?

Listen buddy, I don't know if reading is your sport or not. But if you actually read everything thing I wrote, I'm not threatening your way of BS bolting with my ego or ownership that I don't have. You bolt my routes or my friends, then I'll figure out removal. All that other BS is your creation. 

   As a response to Cody, if that's Cody Averbeck. This is a guy who has way more ground up endeavors than I likely ever will. I doubt he's the one bolting splitter cracks. But he has changed his preference from ground up to top down. There's more you can do that way I'm sure. I don't think I've ever done one of your routes I found appalling in the manner I've noted here. 

    But I stand behind everything I said on here or if y'all meet me in person. I'm not hard to find. Standards DO matter and if you don't have any, the results will suck. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Hmmm. Altering shared natural resources crosses the line from style and everyone being free to do as they wish to ethics wherein antisocial and harmful behavior should be discouraged. People being too afraid that their bolts will be chopped to install bolts on routes with good gear sounds to me like a good thing. 

It is, but in Chattanooga everything gets bolted. Hence the point of my post. 

I've read with interest the criticism of new route activity at places like Woodcock, and the implication that an organization such as the SCC`buys property such as Woodcock then encourages or facilitates the indiscriminant use of fixed gear to an extent that routes any common sense climber can see could be naturally protected end up being turned into to sport routes for the shear convenience of that style.  Let me try to add some clarity by sharing what my understanding is about this activity.  The SCC exists primarily to promote access and stewardship.  Subsequent to a purchase by the SCC, what happens at the crag is more or less totally based upon the local climbing community that the crag is a part of.  The SCC does not cultivate a squad of drill-wielding climbers that are, upon purchase of a crag, unleashed to lay claim to the cliffs.  However climbing evolves, whatever the prevailing style or ethic, before or after the SCC makes a purchase, is a result of the various local climbers in that community that take on or have taken on roles as stakeholders regarding any particular crag.  If you have a grievance about the style of climbing, the use of fixed gear, and that issue means a lot to you, then i encourage you to get involved in the efforts to influence how climbing evolves at the places you care about.  You need to make your voice heard to the others in that circle of participants such that you can compel others involved to understand and consider your point of view.  The SCC is a shoe string operation.  The organization does not have a division of personnel that are designated as the style police.  The arbitration of the use and or prevalence of fixed equipment is determined by the local climbing community.....the stakeholders of a particular area.  I am completely sympathetic to the concern over a growing tendency towards indiscriminant use of fixed gear....and i certainly think that the increased popularity of gym climbing contributes to a similar expectation of fixed anchor convenience when it comes to establishing new routes in outdoor environments.  But for those who feel that this kind of thing is an indiscretion, if there is any 'fault' to be cast, it is on the members, participants, stakeholders within the particular climbing community.

When i put up new routes i often struggle with just how much, if any, fixed gear is reasonable.  There is a lot of nuance in this kind of contemplation.  If a route is ultimately going to be a mixed route, given all desired points of protection, do you install gear such that a route requires one or two or three pieces of trad gear over a length where most of the route utilizes bolts?  A route that is predominately protected over its length by bolts, for the sake of minimizing the use of bolts, requires of the leader to place one or two or three pieces of trad gear?  Is that reasonable?  Does that make sense?  Is the conservative use of fixed gear really of any virtue in that case?  Perhaps the route as a complete sport route is a more prejudicial choice, in that case.

I cannot speak to the specifics of somewhere like Woodcock.  I visited there just prior to the SCC purchase but have never climbed there.  i observed that there were routes established there before the SCC purchase but am not familiar with style choices that prevail there, either before or after the purchase.  The community mentality there may be that conservation of the resource has given way to making it convenient for the climber, which i would consider a failure by the local climbing community.  Convenience is not the highest virtue in most cases and instead, climbing conditions that require the climber to cultivate resourcefulness and skill.....and minimizes the impact on the resource, is of higher virtue.  But that is my personal opinion.  I would hope that the local climbing community at a place like Woodcock would also share in a conservative approach to the proliferation of fixed gear.  I generally try to advocate for that when given an opportunity to provide input.  I think that verbalizing your feelings in community forums is important but what is more important and more effective is becoming involved. 

Chris Watfordwrote:

1. I had permission to climb at Woodcock for years. I parked in the owners yard. 

2. I havent bolted anything at Woodcock that could be naturally protected, so you are mistaken.

3. I did however do tons of trad routes there, many of which have now sprouted bolts. 

4. As far as Standing Room Only, I was actually not that psyched to bolt it, but it became popular. There is still some disagreement as to whether it had been done on gear or not. I certainly didnt know that it had been rumored to be. I was climbing primarily with Eddie Whittemore there at the time and he was not aware of anyone having done it on gear. I'll be happy to remove the bolts if that's what people prefer.

Per #3, i think it is entirely valid that if you have established routes on natural gear and they have been retro-bolted, those bolts should be removed.  I would support you or anybody where, in the interest of conserving the resource and minimizing the use of fixed gear, this could be done.

bernard wolfewrote:

I've read with interest the criticism of new route activity at places like Woodcock, and the implication that an organization such as the SCC`buys property such as Woodcock then encourages or facilitates the indiscriminant use of fixed gear to an extent that routes any common sense climber can see could be naturally protected end up being turned into to sport routes for the shear convenience of that style.  Let me try to add some clarity by sharing what my understanding is about this activity.  The SCC exists primarily to promote access and stewardship.  Subsequent to a purchase by the SCC, what happens at the crag is more or less totally based upon the local climbing community that the crag is a part of.  The SCC does not cultivate a squad of drill-wielding climbers that are, upon purchase of a crag, unleashed to lay claim to the cliffs.  However climbing evolves, whatever the prevailing style or ethic, before or after the SCC makes a purchase, is a result of the various local climbers in that community that take on or have taken on roles as stakeholders regarding any particular crag.  If you have a grievance about the style of climbing, the use of fixed gear, and that issue means a lot to you, then i encourage you to get involved in the efforts to influence how climbing evolves at the places you care about.  You need to make your voice heard to the others in that circle of participants such that you can compel others involved to understand and consider your point of view.  The SCC is a shoe string operation.  The organization does not have a division of personnel that are designated as the style police.  The arbitration of the use and or prevalence of fixed equipment is determined by the local climbing community.....the stakeholders of a particular area.  I am completely sympathetic to the concern over a growing tendency towards indiscriminant use of fixed gear....and i certainly think that the increased popularity of gym climbing contributes to a similar expectation of fixed anchor convenience when it comes to establishing new routes in outdoor environments.  But for those who feel that this kind of thing is an indiscretion, if there is any 'fault' to be cast, it is on the members, participants, stakeholders within the particular climbing community.

When i put up new routes i often struggle with just how much, if any, fixed gear is reasonable.  There is a lot of nuance in this kind of contemplation.  If a route is ultimately going to be a mixed route, given all desired points of protection, do you install gear such that a route requires one or two or three pieces of trad gear over a length where most of the route utilizes bolts?  A route that is predominately protected over its length by bolts, for the sake of minimizing the use of bolts, requires of the leader to place one or two or three pieces of trad gear?  Is that reasonable?  Does that make sense?  Is the conservative use of fixed gear really of any virtue in that case?

I cannot speak to the specifics of somewhere like Woodcock.  I visited there just prior to the SCC purchase but have never climbed there.  i observed that there were routes established there before the SCC purchase but am not familiar with style choices that prevail there, either before or after the purchase.  The community mentality there may be that conservation of the resource has given way to making it convenient for the climber, which i would consider a failure by the local climbing community.  Convenience is not the highest virtue in most cases and instead, climbing conditions that require the climber to cultivate resourcefulness and skill.....and minimizes the impact on the resource, is of higher virtue.  But that is my personal opinion.  I would hope that the local climbing community at a place like Woodcock would also share in a conservative approach to the proliferation of fixed gear.  I generally try to advocate for that when given an opportunity to provide input.  I think that verbalizing your feelings in community forums is important but what is more important and more effective is becoming involved. 

   Much of what you said are my points. But as far as getting involved? I've personally been involved as have the individuals who used to be the SCC who are going further than I. I think a lot of development was done at Woodcock opening day. So the SCC was directly involved unless I've been misinformed. 

   Also unless I've been misinformed Watford offered documentation prior to opening as well. As far as I'm concerned Woodcock is just another sport crag now. But even at the established crags I haven't seen anything as egregious as there.  

Danny Birchmanwrote:

   Much of what you said are my points. But as far as getting involved? I've personally been involved as have the individuals who used to be the SCC who are going further than I. I think a lot of development was done at Woodcock opening day. So the SCC was directly involved unless I've been misinformed. 

   Also unless I've been misinformed Watford offered documentation prior to opening as well. As far as I'm concerned Woodcock is just another sport crag now. But even at the established crags I haven't seen anything as egregious as there.  

What has been done.....can be undone.  Let's straighten it out.  I'm certainly in favor of removing bolts where they were placed indiscriminantly and without regard to initial ascent style or viability of the use of natural protection.  I don't think unilateral action is helpful......someone seeing themselves a crusader and pulling out bolts as some righteous endeavor.  I think there needs to be a healthy discussion.  The folks who indiscriminately installed these controversial placements should step up and take ownership and voice their feelings. There is certainly nothing sacred about fixed gear and it can be removed.  I also do think however that the issue can fall either way.......some routes have a more appreciable existence as sport, some as trad or mixed.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Hmmm. Altering shared natural resources crosses the line from style and everyone being free to do as they wish to ethics wherein antisocial and harmful behavior should be discouraged. People being too afraid that their bolts will be chopped to install bolts on routes with good gear sounds to me like a good thing. 

Did I say go bolt? I said go climb. I wonder, how has your predisposition to judgement bettered you and yours? For those here, I'd say to attempt to look past your judgement and tribalism and try to find common ground as climbers. All forms of climbing have enriched my life beyond measure. It's sad to see climbers refusing to experience and appreciate "other" disciplines and points of view due to imagined differences.

It's like anything in life, if only you take the time to try something different or put yourself in a different place, then you might find that your world view changes and you become better for it.