New and Experienced Climbers Over 50 #27

ZZZZZ.  Two bolts.  I wonder if Randy is feeling remorseful about that yet.  Probably not.  Psycho.  FA in 83 tells the story.

I thought of something while thinking about the wilderness bolting proposals this morning.  BITD the ethic was that the use of bolts should be minimized to the extent possible, always, wilderness or not, basically resulting in only where they were needed (routes like ZZZZZ).  Minus the ego aspect, which I think is routinely overplayed, this resulted in things like FA parties running routes when they were below their pay grade, making them serious undertakings for people who's limits are at/near the grade.  Over time, the trend toward placing superfluous bolts as part of "good" protection has become more the norm.  The good side of this is that it became much more common for routes to be bolted for leaders who were on something close to their limit, without serious fall potential.  So..., my thought was, if a person places x number of bolts (where the greater the number of bolts the greater the chance of "sport" designation (incompatible for wilderness)), will some people choose to pick smaller x numbers and just run the bejeebers out of things?  There are people around who can do that.  Depending on how the proposals play out maybe we're in for something of a return to the BITD ethic?

I put up a nice 10+ in the ORG today (post apocalyptic and owned by LADWP is about as far from being wilderness as one can get) and it was nice to be able to bolt for the grade so more people will be willing to do it.  In fairness, this route was TD and prior knowledge shouldn't manufacture runouts so it's a little apples/oranges, but there are more bolts than necessary (the definition of which is subjective/arbitrary per person and another problem as well).  Had I had been going GU (and/or in wilderness) and felt the need to minimize it would have ended up differently, less people would do it, and there would be complaints which in turn would force me to trot out the old "if you can do 5.x you can run easier climbing".

It seems to me that the people who could potentially lose out on leading bolted face climbs are the less accomplished climbers.

Pointless musings, and most likely overreactive on my part.

 

I remember Electric Blue being reasonably good.

Make Horse Beach on Molokai last February 19

Same beach today. Lot of sand moving naturally, new climbs being born out of the ocean. Not so great for watersports, however. 

Lori Milaswrote:

Still trying to accept the death of Nalvalny.  Watching a documentary this afternoon called Navalny, and I've just been so sad.  Didn't we all know if he returned to Russia he would be killed?  In my eyes, he was a true hero. 

We throw around the name "hero" or "courageous"  all the time, but rarely does it meet the criteria for what it actually takes to be courageous or a hero. Alexei Navalny was a hero and more courageous than anyone on this thread. F Vladimir Putin.

Don’t think they post on MP anymore, but lots of people here know Dallas and Barbara Reid. Met up with them yesterday as they passed through Colorado on their way to ‘settle down’ in TN. They’ve been full-time RV living for over 12 years! Another long-term friendship that started through an MP connection. 

Gary Thomaswrote:

We throw around the name "hero" or "courageous"  all the time, but rarely does it meet the criteria for what it actually takes to be courageous or a hero. Alexei Navalny was a hero and more courageous than anyone on this thread. F Vladimir Putin.

This weekend has been tough, just trying to grasp ... he's gone!  How can a young 47 year old man's life be extinguished like this.  It's hit me hard. His wife is all in black. His kids choked up. A nation enraged.  So, while we're talking music, this comes to mind,.

I read the post of one of our presidential candidates this morning and wondered... what the FUCK was that?  WHAT?

(The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was... The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ~Milan Kundera)

C Miller wrote:

Message received…

Darrell Henselwrote:

ZZZZZ.  Two bolts.  I wonder if Randy is feeling remorseful about that yet.  Probably not.  Psycho.  FA in 83 tells the story.

I thought of something while thinking about the wilderness bolting proposals this morning.  BITD the ethic was that the use of bolts should be minimized to the extent possible, always, wilderness or not, basically resulting in only where they were needed (routes like ZZZZZ).  Minus the ego aspect, which I think is routinely overplayed, this resulted in things like FA parties running routes when they were below their pay grade, making them serious undertakings for people who's limits are at/near the grade.  Over time, the trend toward placing superfluous bolts as part of "good" protection has become more the norm.  The good side of this is that it became much more common for routes to be bolted for leaders who were on something close to their limit, without serious fall potential.  So..., my thought was, if a person places x number of bolts (where the greater the number of bolts the greater the chance of "sport" designation (incompatible for wilderness)), will some people choose to pick smaller x numbers and just run the bejeebers out of things?  There are people around who can do that.  Depending on how the proposals play out maybe we're in for something of a return to the BITD ethic?

I put up a nice 10+ in the ORG today (post apocalyptic and owned by LADWP is about as far from being wilderness as one can get) and it was nice to be able to bolt for the grade so more people will be willing to do it.  In fairness, this route was TD and prior knowledge shouldn't manufacture runouts so it's a little apples/oranges, but there are more bolts than necessary (the definition of which is subjective/arbitrary per person and another problem as well).  Had I had been going GU (and/or in wilderness) and felt the need to minimize it would have ended up differently, less people would do it, and there would be complaints which in turn would force me to trot out the old "if you can do 5.x you can run easier climbing".

It seems to me that the people who could potentially lose out on leading bolted face climbs are the less accomplished climbers.

Pointless musings, and most likely overreactive on my part.

 

I remember Electric Blue being reasonably good.

Darrell…. Good for you (a 5.10 with good protection)! I have changed my thinking also about what is sport, if you’re hanging on a rope you have better make a perfect route, or else you failed. I guess the times they are a changing. I feel that the LADWP has kept the wilderness more “wild” than the folks who manage “real wilderness” - but that is just my thoughts on the subject.
So now the “authorities” are going to get into the age old debate about what is and what isn’t “sport climbing” should be fun.

Lori…. Cloves!!!!????!! Oh god no, no, no… so did Tony open up a can of Chef Boyardee???

Just a word of caution about looking at things, unclimbed things, at Josh. A big herd of sex starved dude's went over Josh with a fine tooth comb intensely looking for any climbs possible, even using airplanes in the quest. Some even walked past the boundaries of the park- following the path of the rocks. At least 4-5 generations of them. So it’s slim pickings now. 

Happy to know Dallas and Barb are doing well- a 12 year road trip is quite impressive. I wish them well. 

Darrell Henselwrote:

ZZZZZ.  Two bolts.  I wonder if Randy is feeling remorseful about that yet.  Probably not.  Psycho.  FA in 83 tells the story.

I'm not sure I'd call it psycho.  I led it at some point in the late 80s/early 90s (don't have dates marked in the guidebook).  I have a recollection of liking the route but I don't recall anything particularly scary about it.  I tend to remember things that frightened me and I will usually write scary in my book. I wasn't a particularly good climber but I did have plenty of slab experience from GPA and the Meadows.  It seems to me it was pretty routine back then to have 5.8 R/5.9 R routes.  But that was back in time that was a transition from "the leader must not fall" to "if you're not flying, you're not trying". I was in the first school and I still am to some degree.  At that time I typically didn't fall on 10c/10d slab, so 5.9 R was a good bet for "safe", statistically. So "scary" relates to your ability at the time.  Darrell, I'm sure you still lead runout routes at a much higher level than that without giving it much thought.

Guy,

I think the current state that the "sport" definition has morphed into (sport = any bolts, trad = 0 bolts) could be problematic with land managers, etc, who could take it in it's current meaning giving them the ability to declare any route, even with one bolt, or the bare minimum of runout bolts, a sport route which by definition is incompatible with wilderness.  Most of us who've been around know there is such a thing as trad bolted routes and they can be much different than sport bolted routes.  Your comment about "authorities" deciding what sport is concerns me as well.  Hope I'm being paranoid.

When I started climbing in the ORG (1991) it really was almost post apocalyptic with all the junk, broken down infrastructure, cement reinforcements, etc...  When the aqueduct pipeline broke in the 90's they did a tremendous amount of cleanup during the time it was being repaired, which was nice.  I appreciate that LADWP isn't anti climbing.

Guy Keeseewrote:
So now the “authorities” are going to get into the age old debate about what is and what isn’t “sport climbing” should be fun.

Over the last few years I've been involved in many discussions with both the Access Fund and JTNP on new guidelines regarding bolts in Wilderness. Once JTNP came up with their new Climbing Management Plan proposal I knew it wouldn't be long before other National Parks and the USFS mirrored their plan, and that's exactly what has happened.

The bottom line is this: Bolts are now defined by the NPS and USFS as illegal "installations" in Wilderness and therefore need to pass what's known as a Minimum Requirement Analysis to be allowed to exist for recreational climbing. It's a very complicated issue, but to put it simply, based on the Joshua Tree plan, and now the NPS and USFS plans, going forward, Sport Climbs will not be allowed (bolts cannot be maintained or replaced and may be removed on Sport Climbs) and no new Sport Climbs will be allowed in Wilderness.

"Trad Face" routes will be allowed. Here's how JTNP defines the difference:

NPS Director's Order 41, which is high level policy from years ago, affirms that "climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness" and that "the occasional placement of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes does not necessarily impair the future enjoyment of wilderness or violate the Wilderness Act," but also states that "the establishment of bolt- intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation."

And what defines "bolt intensive"? Sport Climbs definitely fit the definition, but are 4 bolts in 100 feet OK, but 6 bolts in a hundred feet too many? The old BITD runout face climbing style is now the preferred route mode in Wilderness by the NPS! As one JTNP official once told me "isn't that what Joshua Tree is known for?"

Phylp,

Right, I agree with your comments re ZZZZZ.  You make several good points, I like your insightful observations.  I was being somewhat tongue in cheek seeing if I could elicit a response from Randy by poking at him a bit. 

I do subscribe to the "if you're not flying, you're not trying"  category.  I learned to fly a long, long time ago.  Getting over that paranoia allows one to explore how far they can go.  Statistically, falling doesn't typically result in injury so one might as well try till they fly.  Might as well get your moneys worth out of the rope.  Those things said, we know the goal is to not fall.

There are so many caveats and tangents, i.e., there certainly are routes where the "the leader must not fall" is pretty hard and fast.

Darrell Hensel wrote:

"ZZZZZ.  Two bolts.  I wonder if Randy is feeling remorseful about that yet.  Probably not.  Psycho.  FA in 83 tells the story."

Not that psycho. The two cruxes (5.9+) are actually right above the two bolts, but there is some runout 5.7 with ground fall potential. In 2012 I added a Direct Start and last month I replaced the 2 old bolts on ZZZZZ.

The first bolt had a little tag on it noting its date of installation. My guess is that when Randy did the FA in '83 they placed 1/4-inchers, then they got replaced with these in '88. If either one of the two bolts had failed in a leader fall it would have meant a ground fall for the leader. Now they're both 1/2-inch stainless steel!

Bob - see my reply to Phylp - I'm trying to see if Randy is awake by using ZZZZZ to discuss the obvious points below:

The old BITD runout face climbing style is now the preferred route mode in Wilderness by the NPS!

Exactly!!!  I alluded to this earlier as well.  It is possible/likely that face climbing will become more risky once again.  Hey, maybe that's good... If people complain about runout we can take the easy way out and say "it's not ego, it's what the law requires".  

"isn't that what Joshua Tree is known for?" 

I might add as well as Idyllwild, Yosemite, and almost any area that has granite slab climbing and a past history of GU that adhered to the bolts only where absolutely needed ethic.  Sure, we can go back to the day.  Some of us will revert to our youth, others who are coming up will do what they need to do due to new rules.  As routes once again become less well protected there is a range of people who will start losing out on being able to experience leading them.  That's unfortunate.

Guy Keeseewrote:

Darrell…. Good for you (a 5.10 with good protection)! I have changed my thinking also about what is sport, if you’re hanging on a rope you have better make a perfect route, or else you failed. I guess the times they are a changing. I feel that the LADWP has kept the wilderness more “wild” than the folks who manage “real wilderness” - but that is just my thoughts on the subject.
So now the “authorities” are going to get into the age old debate about what is and what isn’t “sport climbing” should be fun.

Lori…. Cloves!!!!????!! Oh god no, no, no… so did Tony open up a can of Chef Boyardee???

Just a word of caution about looking at things, unclimbed things, at Josh. A big herd of sex starved dude's went over Josh with a fine tooth comb intensely looking for any climbs possible, even using airplanes in the quest. Some even walked past the boundaries of the park- following the path of the rocks. At least 4-5 generations of them. So it’s slim pickings now. 

Happy to know Dallas and Barb are doing well- a 12 year road trip is quite impressive. I wish them well. 

Guy… it turns out to be the best Bolognese I’ve ever made. Tony had two servings and said it was magnificent and wants more. I know how hard this was for him to admit. As it is an insult to his family sauce tradition and everything he holds holy this was an incredible endorsement.  The cloves and carrots made the difference.  

I wouldn’t bet on me not finding some great new routes. I’ve already discovered a handful and I think it’s my new Superpower… having acquired a trained eye from the best.  I believe I’m an undiscovered talent.  

Darrell Henselwrote:

Bob - see my reply to Phylp - I'm trying to see if Randy is awake by using ZZZZZ to discuss the obvious points below:

Exactly!!!  I alluded to this earlier as well.  It is possible/likely that face climbing will become more risky once again.  Hey, maybe that's good... If people complain about runout we can take the easy way out and say "it's not ego, it's what the law requires".  

I might add as well as Idyllwild, Yosemite, and almost any area that has granite slab climbing and a past history of GU that adhered to the bolts only where absolutely needed ethic.  Sure, we can go back to the day.  Some of us will revert to our youth, others who are coming up will do what they need to do due to new rules.  As routes once again become less well protected there is a range of people who will start losing out on being able to experience leading them.  That's unfortunate.

There are some very powerful forces lobbying against bolts in Wilderness, more organized than us climbers, who don't all agree on bolting policy.

Here's a snippet from a comment letter by Wilderness Watch to the USFS:

"Climbing is not prohibited under the Wilderness Act, but fixed anchors are. While it may be true that fewer people will climb certain routes in Wilderness if they don’t have fixed bolts or other fixed protection, natural limits on use is not a bad thing when it comes to Wilderness protection, particularly with the recent explosion of outdoor recreation uses in Wilderness. And, Wilderness has never been about convenience or even safety. If we are to set aside and protect a few less managed, less developed, wilder places, they will come with inherent risk. As one climber told us, “I used to rock and ice climb and specifically sought out routes in Wilderness because I was constrained by the route, only able to place protection where it was available naturally. This is a heightened and connected experience. Wilderness climbing is sacred."

Darrell Henselwrote:

Bob - see my reply to Phylp - I'm trying to see if Randy is awake by using ZZZZZ to discuss the obvious points below:

I tried to ignore the original post and go back to sleep, but Darrell's insistent prodding has me fully awake now. 

As Bob mentioned, the bolts were placed to (and do) protect the hard bits -- and hand drilling on the lead was (is) hard work. But, Darrell makes some valid points about protecting routes for a leader "at that grade."

As far as the whole proposed ban on sport routes at Josh (as opposed to the NPS/USFS proposed complete ban on any "fixed anchor"), the parsing of bolted routes into trad v sport is so fraught with ambiguity as to make it highly subjective. 

Shouldn't the real concern be resource impact? There is very little correlation between the presence of sport routes in Josh wilderness and negative impacts to resources -- perhaps only a small handfuls of routes.

-----

Edited to address the false assertion of Wilderness Watch. Bolts are absolutely not prohibited under the plain language of the Wilderness Act. 

Under the "interpretation" utilized by WW, all trails and signage are also absolutely illegal. 

Bob Gaineswrote:

The bottom line is this: Bolts are now defined by the NPS and USFS as illegal "installations" in Wilderness

For what it's worth, they've been making that argument since the whole bolting in Wilderness thing exploded in the Superstition Mountains (AZ) in the very early 90's

Greg Oplandwrote:

For what it's worth, they've been making that argument since the whole bolting in Wilderness thing exploded in the Superstition Mountains (AZ) in the very early 90's

Yep, and the Sawtooths in the late 90's.  Ugh.

Bob Gaineswrote:

Over the last few years I've been involved in many discussions with both the Access Fund and JTNP on new guidelines regarding bolts in Wilderness. Once JTNP came up with their new Climbing Management Plan proposal I knew it wouldn't be long before other National Parks and the USFS mirrored their plan, and that's exactly what has happened.

The bottom line is this: Bolts are now defined by the NPS and USFS as illegal "installations" in Wilderness and therefore need to pass what's known as a Minimum Requirement Analysis to be allowed to exist for recreational climbing. It's a very complicated issue, but to put it simply, based on the Joshua Tree plan, and now the NPS and USFS plans, going forward, Sport Climbs will not be allowed (bolts cannot be maintained or replaced and may be removed on Sport Climbs) and no new Sport Climbs will be allowed in Wilderness.

"Trad Face" routes will be allowed. Here's how JTNP defines the difference:

NPS Director's Order 41, which is high level policy from years ago, affirms that "climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness" and that "the occasional placement of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes does not necessarily impair the future enjoyment of wilderness or violate the Wilderness Act," but also states that "the establishment of bolt- intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation."

And what defines "bolt intensive"? Sport Climbs definitely fit the definition, but are 4 bolts in 100 feet OK, but 6 bolts in a hundred feet too many? The old BITD runout face climbing style is now the preferred route mode in Wilderness by the NPS! As one JTNP official once told me "isn't that what Joshua Tree is known for?"

Thanks Bob, I’ve included the link here.

Brian in SLCwrote:

Yep, and the Sawtooths in the late 90's.  Ugh.

I'm personally kinda relieved Becky's "bolt ladder" on Baron Spire fell off. That was one of the few things I worried about, when my son seemed like he was interested in it.