Discretionary Ethics at Cathedral

Hardly a local or Cathedral hardman but still someone who has been fortunate to make a living up here and reside close by.  North Conway is changing fast.  The housing market went from 0 to 100 in the last couple years.  Land is going quick and visitation is way up.  More hotels, more retail and even a possible casino in the works.  It's losing it's small town feel and the strip is getting out of control.  That cliff still hangs on to it's old school flair and I have grown to appreciate the work the "clergy" is doing.  At first I was like why and how come there's no this or that?  What the heck is that pin there or why do I have to do that?  But I've come to realize that these cliffs need to be protected, treasured and guarded over.  If it wasn't for these places the sport wouldn't be where it is now.  That cliff has always had this certain aura and mystique to it and by making it more "convenient" these things will surely disappear.  There are heaps of places to go where simplicity and convenience are abundant even relatively close to Cathedral.  Heck I haven't even climbed They Died Laughing(shame on me) and the fact that I have to build a gear anchor up there makes it that much more intriguing!

I am, however, in favor of bolted anchors to preserve trees, and also...

I have to push back on this commonly-heard argument. While it might sound reasonable at first blush, where's the evidence that bolts lead to greater tree health?

Conversely, places with lots of bolts like Rumney or the Wall of Hurley Morning Light (top of Cathedral) have seen a lot of erosion around the cliffs, and heavy impacts on trees. The idea that more bolts equals less impact is simply not true. Infrastructure like bolts leads to greater concentrations of climbers in a given area, which can clearly have a negative impact on trees.

I'm not against bolts - I've placed dozens myself. I just don't think that the tree argument holds water.

Why did so many of the rappel trees at the Gunks die? What about the vegetation at the top of otter cliffs, 

Rumney is overused because of an abundance of easily accessible safely Bolted fun routes, close enough to Boston for day trips.

Nick Awrote:

I have to push back on this commonly-heard argument. While it might sound reasonable at first blush, where's the evidence that bolts lead to greater tree health?

Conversely, places with lots of bolts like Rumney or the Wall of Hurley Morning Light (top of Cathedral) have seen a lot of erosion around the cliffs, and heavy impacts on trees. The idea that more bolts equals less impact is simply not true. Infrastructure like bolts leads to greater concentrations of climbers in a given area, which can clearly have a negative impact on trees.

I'm not against bolts - I've placed dozens myself. I just don't think that the tree argument holds water.

I’m not tech-savvy enough to link to them, but there are studies showing such damage, both from direct impact to the tree from poorly set anchors and from soil compaction and root damage from ‘traffic’—particularly to trees located close to the edge of the rock. I have also personally observed many such examples. Theoretically any bolts or other fixed anchors should be located on the cliff face itself, below the lip, so that there is no need for climbers to access the top at all ( and that is a requirement in certain areas). You are correct, though, that in areas often utilized for top-roping ( especially those with easy, non-climbing access to the top), tree damage can remain on-going despite the presence of fixed anchors. Obviously this is less of a problem if the top is largely bare rock so it is easy to avoid the trees and soil. However , if it is a trad climb with gear anchors, the climbing party will need a way to get back down, so walking off or to a fixed rap anchor still can cause such damage, though likely not to the extent that occurs at well-used top rope areas.

I think a bolted anchor for They Died / The Slot makes a lot of sense. It would let you clean the route on lower, and it would make the queue move a lot faster on busy days.

Andy Caslerwrote:

I think a bolted anchor for They Died / The Slot makes a lot of sense. It would let you clean the route on lower, and it would make the queue move a lot faster on busy days.

By that logic, shouldn’t all climbs get bolted anchors?

Tradibanwrote:

By that logic, shouldn’t all climbs get bolted anchors?

Sure, I think all busy single-pitch routes should have a fixed anchor

Andy Caslerwrote:

Sure, I think all busy single-pitch routes should have a fixed anchor

Ok, so define “busy”. See how quickly it becomes arbitrary?

Tradibanwrote:

Ok, so define “busy”. See how quickly it becomes arbitrary?

Haha, "Busy" is pretty easy to define. 

Tradibanwrote:

Ok, so define “busy”. See how quickly it becomes arbitrary?

Frequently climbed, like multiple ascents a day.  The North End of Cathedral is certainly on par with areas like the Uberfall at the Gunks or the Parking Lot Wall at Rumney. 

Chris Ducawrote:

Frequently climbed, like multiple ascents a day.  The North End of Cathedral is certainly on par with areas like the Uberfall at the Gunks or the Parking Lot Wall at Rumney. 

Now imagine if it was even easier to toprope for folks without gear.

Grant Simmonswrote:

Hey Chris.  I think that you're right in that it is worth revisiting the layout and flow of the cliffs and adjusting over time, as needed, but I guess I just don't personally see what it is with this situation that necessitates a change.  Maybe I'm just not quite sure what the paradigm shift has been... Is it just that climbers now commonly assume that there will be bolted anchors on top of a single pitch route?  If that is the case, is it the crag that needs to change, or the assumption of bolts?  I also might be missing the point here...  Happy to hear what you meant by that.

As far as Bird's Nest goes, I think that as those pins age and it comes time to yank them out, we probably don't need to pound new ones back in.  Modern gear works well in there and we can adjust our flow by bringing two more pieces of gear to the top and building an anchor with that.  But I don't see the need to remove them immediately.  They connect us to the past and can help inform decisions about thoughtful ways to move forward.

On a relevant tangent, if folks aren't familiar with the bolt meeting that took place last summer, here is a summary of the takeaways.  The long and short of it is that a large part of the local community favors preserving the character of routes and practicing restraint when considering the addition of new bolts.  Not that there isn't a time and a place for new bolts, but just that many really see the relative lack of bolts as something unique and worth preserving.

As someone who is pretty new to the area that is interesting to read that summary. Gives some history/context to this situation.  Thanks for posting. 

I just get offended when the friends of the Ledges ask me for money for bolt replacement, when they’re not willing to consider us the addition of a couple of bolted anchors in a few key locations.

Lots of other places to climb that have fixed anchors

june mwrote:

I just get offended when the friends of the Ledges ask me for money for bolt replacement, when they’re not willing to consider us the addition of a couple of bolted anchors in a few key locations.

I would say that they're being honest about what they're using the money for then. It would be more bothersome to donate to a bolt replacement fund that was instead being used for other bolting efforts.

One thing that I have learned from various bolt meetings is that people generally agree that it's best to consider specific case scenarios. The OP definitely heads in that direction. Route history at Cathedral spans 1931-2023 encompassing multiple generations of climbers with varying amounts of skin in the game so it's always going to be a work in progress. Each route has a story that factors into it one way or another. It is a unique place worth caring for and the folks doing the actual hard work do just that. "Lots of other places to climb have fixed anchors" is true for sure, just up the hillside actually, but this case is just not that pressing in my non clerical, among the fallen, thoughts.  

june mwrote:

I just get offended when the friends of the Ledges ask me for money for bolt replacement, when they’re not willing to consider us the addition of a couple of bolted anchors in a few key locations.

Lots of other places to climb that have fixed anchors

I offered a local rebolter to sponsor certain routes I wanted fixed but they all seem to have their own agenda and my offer was refused. Shows their motivations I guess.

Ah sport climbers and their trusty bolts...

Tradibanwrote:

I offered a local rebolter to sponsor certain routes I wanted fixed but they all seem to have their own agenda and my offer was refused. Shows their motivations I guess.

I’ve asked people which routes get to be re-bolted and it’s usually the route that somebody wants to project. We were very lucky here in Vermont that Crag Vermont hired somebody to re-bolt pretty much all the aging hardware at least at popular crags)

june mwrote:

Why did so many of the rappel trees at the Gunks die? What about the vegetation at the top of otter cliffs, 

Foot traffic probably killed the vegetation, not the strain of people rappelling. Many studies such as this one show how foot traffic kills trees. To quote the researchers, "The negative impact of human trampling is the most visible at locations of highly concentrated tourist traffic."

...in an effort to keep traffic moving....

Other scientific research has shown that areas with the highest concentration of rock climbers have the greatest loss of plant life. More traffic = less trees and plants.

So the desire to save trees and the desire to keep traffic moving are at odds with each other.

If people want bolts because it's convenient or it keeps traffic moving, just say so. But it's important to be honest about the fact that bolts probably won't help the trees because climbers will become more concentrated in areas with convenient bolts. At best, bolts have no impact on trees. They may even have a negative impact.

I've placed a few bolted anchors on new routes, and I've used thousands of bolted anchors. They can be great and super convenient. But on the whole, bolts don't make rock climbing any less ecologically damaging.

(edited for clarity)

So one study in Mexico which has not been published by any journal or organization is the best case example for New England?  I’d love to see this done in examples of use of Rumney vs Ragged Mountain.

That being said- low angle trad routes don’t need bolts.  In fact, I’d say no low angle routes should be climbed with any protection.  Punishment for climbing slab should be terminal if you can’t send.  Send or die.