Rescue after Rockfall on Freestone (Yosemite) - Avoid or Proceed with Caution

Jeff Gwrote:

Very good points.  Well thought out and appropriate for the route in question.

I don’t think that KW is being crusty or grumpy or out of touch by advocating for an accepted standard.

Who's accepted standard? I'm sorry I'm atheist, I don't believe in Tom Higgins

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Who's accepted standard? I'm sorry I'm atheist, I don't believe in Tom Higgins

Trad traditions may be dead in much of North America and even much of crusty, traddy NorCal, but they are alive and well in Yosemite. Regardless of one's opinions of "trad ethics" I think it's good form to respect the norms and traditions of any given area. 

John Tex wrote:

Agreed. It's really all that needs to be said. 

Same can't be said for all of the opposition... a lot of noise from folks who likely couldn't French free a single pitch on this route. 

Still just a lot of noise and ad hominems, or references to "I got here first and that's the way it is". 

Look I understand not adding bolts to things that would change the nature of a route. 

If SD had 6 foot bolt spacing it would not be the same route.  If the constantly reference BY had 6 foot bolt spacings it wouldn't be the same route. If astroman had bolted anchors where you could bail at any point, it would be a different route. I don't think changing these routes is what anyone is advocating for. 

For freestone, either the flake is good (which I have been told it's not) and one can build an anchor and everyone is happy. Or it's not good and one should probably have a bolt to back it up. Either way one can have a solid anchor in a reasonable stance near where it was originally. Not sure how in either case this would be altering the nature of the route. 

This is the same stance I have about replacing bad pins with bolts in the valley (previous thread). I am not looking to grid bolt anything or change the nature of routes. I am just pragmatic that rock breaks, metal rusts, things change over time. If you don't believe that things change, and your "rules" are guided by dogma and not by principles (no new bolts vs don't alter the nature of a route), your rules will be forgotten and overruled the newest generation come in when they realize that rules that are fixed in time are untenable. 

Happy for someone to explain the though process other than just "but no new bolts!!". Also happy to go climb it with you John T or Kevin W or other people hiding behind screen names. We can bring a bolt kit and have a discussion up there together.

Just A Climber wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, the FA of Snake Dike is all for adding bolts to make it safer, but that POV has not been taken/implemented and is down right objected by many. Not that I have a strong opinion on either route (SD or Freestone) because I myself can see some sensible arguments from both sides, but I feel that there is a double standard in terms of respecting "traditions". I still think that the so-called "rules" or "traditions" of seeking FA's approval are short-sighted. A route will outlive an FA's life, or even just their interest in that route. Then what?

Two things: 

1) no one wants to alter snake Dike. If the FA wants bolts added he's going to have to do it himself or ask someone to do it for him. No one's volunteering. I sure as shit wouldn't want to be the one to add bolts it it. 

2) sure, I'm in favor of changing the rules as they are now and think much conversation and debate about the norms is warranted, but the rules as they stand now are very clear. It's certainly a problem once the FAs die and we need to figure out what to do then, but that isn't an issue we're having with this route. 

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Who's accepted standard? I'm sorry I'm atheist, I don't believe in Tom Higgins

It's been the accepted standard in most every climbing area in this country for decades.  I'm not sure what your point is?  

I'm not saying the "standard" can't change or shouldn't change but it is, most certainly, the standard.  Especially in the classic trad areas.  Go ahead, start adding bolts in Yosemite, Eldo, the Gunks, the canyons in Red Rocks.... They won't make it more than a day or two before being chopped.

JFC. No one seems to remember that there's a shit-ton of difference between retro-bolting to add protection - which does definitely change the nature of the route - vs adding a belay anchor bolt. It's an apples / oranges comparison.

And let's try to keep it in context: we're talking about ONE anchor bolt at ONE belay on THIS route.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

I was against retrobolting snake dike as I think part of the appeal is the runout, the climbing is easy and there are good anchors. Also not many of the accidents really would have been prevented by a few more bolts (including the most recent large one).

I don't think this case would be people trying to "bring the climb down to their level", the belay just fell off. 

I also don't understand how having a bolt or two at a single belay that fell off "changes the character of the route". It would still be equally as commiting and impossible to bail, it would still have the heads up climbing that freestone is known for. You'd just have a belay that you could trust to hold a real fall onto the anchor. (Inb4 the flake held a ff2 yada yada). 

The slippery slope argument on this is kind of far fetched.

That's good to hear, and I largely agree with you about both of those cases. I think it likely helps the other side accept your argument when they know you'll also defend against retrobolting in most other circumstances, and without belittling their concerns or turning to thinly veiled insults. What was your position on Sloan's retrobolting antics a few years back? 

And to sort of add on to what Ricky said, what do any of you think the "rule book" should say? I mostly defer to it, not because of any dogmatic belief, but because I haven't seen an alternative that will protect the nature of "trad" climbing and what I value about places like Yosemite better than the existing rules. I say that while at the same time wishing that KW had added a few more bolts to some of his Middle Cathedral routes, but I'd rather deal with those runouts (or just not climb them) than have a situation where anybody could go retrobolt them into sport routes without any opposition whatsoever. 

Brandon Rwrote:

That's good to hear, and I largely agree with you about both of those cases. I think it likely helps the other side accept your argument when they know you'll also defend against retrobolting in most other circumstances, and without belittling their concerns or turning to thinly veiled insults. What was your position on Sloan's retrobolting antics a few years back? 

And to sort of add on to what Ricky said, what do any of you think the "rule book" should say? I mostly defer to it, not because of any dogmatic belief, but because I haven't seen an alternative that will protect the nature of "trad" climbing and what I value about places like Yosemite better than the existing rules. I say that while at the same time wishing that KW had added a few more bolts to some of his Middle Cathedral routes, but I'd rather deal with those runouts (or just not climb them) than have a situation where anybody could go retrobolt them into sport routes without any opposition whatsoever. 

Some sort of community-minded approach seems like the only alternative to me. There are some areas near me that have dedicated discussion boards and I have occasionally seen threads created in them to discuss the potential of retrobolting, and only after much discussion and input and a consensus more or less reached were those bolts actually added. 

How to do it in areas without these dedicated discussion boards I'm not sure, but some process like that seems best to me. It's those who actually climb in the area a lot whose opinions matter as far as I'm concerned. If you asked all the climbers in the bay area what should be done at Pinnacles, for example, then Pinnacles would get grid bolted and ruined, so it's the Pinn-head's opinions that matter for Pinnacles for example. 

So some sort of discussion between the most dedicated climbers in that area would be a good way to go. Those are the people who understand the history of the area and what does and doesn't make sense for a thousand different reasons that outsiders or occasional climbers in the area might not understand. What I also like about this system is that it's already in use by crusty traddies from time to time and seems to work pretty well. Although admittedly trying to get a bunch of Yosemite hardmen together for a discussion on Freestone sounds like herding cats, but maybe some sort of private discussion online could be created between people whose opinions actually matter, which would be almost no one in this thread, myself included. 

I do wonder, if the FA was done with the rock in its current state, do you think the FA is likely to have placed a bolt there?

We don’t know what it’s like now. The leader who pulled the flake off most likely didn’t get any protection in above it, so nobody that was up there knows if there are solid cams above the original anchor that could be used. Guys that have done the pitch might know, but few have weighed in on that. Bottom line is the circumstances are different, and an experienced crack climber should evaluate it up close. It’s possible there’s a big thread opportunity.

I can say, as I climbed regularly with all three of the FA guys in the years before and after they did Freestone, bolting was kept to a minimum for reasons of style, boldness, and minimal alteration of the rock. I remember Bridwell boasting about how few holes they drilled on the PO, and ZM, concurrently, for the same reason. 

This has turned insane. I hope everyone in the initial incident is doing ok! That is crazy what happened. 

I've got nothing to add other than that, if it were up to me, I would put a 2-bolt anchor right above those crux face moves. This is the most logical/comfortable place for one. That would be sick to pull those crux moves and then be rewarded with an anchor at a nice stance. Would be kinda silly to put a bolt at the old location just because, it's a terrible stance. But then this is all pretty silly. 

This matter should, and will be resolved by the people that live, work, and climb in Yosemite Valley. Specifically, by those members of the community that spend their time and energy contributing to and maintaining the local climbing resource. This thread will likely have little to no bearing on that decision making process, and is largely pointless, if somewhat entertaining. 

TAKE HEED, BORIS HATH SPOKEN

Boris Yaworskywrote:

This matter should, and will be resolved by the people that live, work, and climb in Yosemite Valley. Specifically, by those members of the community that spend their time and energy contributing to and maintaining the local climbing resource. This thread will likely have little to no bearing on that decision making process, and is largely pointless, if somewhat entertaining. 

Roger that, Captain Obvious. Glad you caught on to the point

Boris Yaworskywrote:

This matter should, and will be resolved by the people that live, work, and climb in Yosemite Valley. Specifically, by those members of the community that spend their time and energy contributing to and maintaining the local climbing resource. This thread will likely have little to no bearing on that decision making process, and is largely pointless, if somewhat entertaining. 

But KW says that we can't though Boris :( oh well

Kevin Worrallwrote:

I have a full rotator cuff tear, and I’m off the rock for a while, but thanks for the offer, and thanks for help on the EP trail. It’s probably way overgrown this spring.

Hope you get better soon. 

Thanks for the well wishes!

Surgeon shopping tomorrow

ryan climbs sometimes wrote:

So linking 2/3 and part of 4?

Or just 3/4?

Good question. I guess it wouldn’t really need to change much about the route (god forbid). Would just be moving the top of pitch 3 belay up a bit. So just 3/4 as you put it. Then have a short pitch 4 if you want, to set up for the 11a.

Some sort of community-minded approach seems like the only alternative to me. There are some areas near me that have dedicated discussion boards and I have occasionally seen threads created in them to discuss the potential of retrobolting, and only after much discussion and input and a consensus more or less reached were those bolts actually added.

Gak, man. No self-appointed committees. The only people vested enough to have valid opinions on this route are those who have climbed it and those who go and climb it. That's it. 

The way it has evolved to work is simple: a person is climbing it and wants a bolt there, that person places it. The bolt will stay there until another climber decides to remove it.

The rest is just endless hand wringing.

If anyone wants to climb Freestone, I've got a bolt kit and would bring that if RK or DB gave the nod. 

I think it's time. I've lead 6 climbs in the past 12 months: The Grack, Lurking Fear, Flying in the Mountains, Camp 4 Toilet Stall (FA attempt/fail), and then two routes at Jailhouse that I hung on. Totally ready to go, keep you safe on belay, offer words of encouragement, and whack in bolts. I'll even cary the bolt kit up that horrible approach. I'm good at convincing ppl to drag me up routes that are way above my pay grade. 

DM me. It'll be fun. (Will bolt only if the FAs give an OK.) Happy to go up there without bolts also, but maybe we'd need an 80m or 100m to skip the death-flakes belay.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Gak, man. No self-appointed committees. The only people vested enough to have valid opinions on this route are those who have climbed it and those who go and climb it. That's it. 

The way it has evolved to work is simple: a person is climbing it and wants a bolt there, that person places it. The bolt will stay there until another climber decides to remove it.

The rest is just endless hand wringing.

This is just a slight variation to my self appointed committee, though. I agree that only people who have climbed the route being able to comment makes sense. That's still the community-minded approach I was talking about.