Tuolumne Bolt Chopping

walden to the rescue with more dizzying insights.

Feel free to expand on how these two routes in particular are impinging on anyone else’s enjoyment of the area, and I would really love your take on how noob leaders are supposed to lead in TM. Perhaps we should direct all of them to the plate pitch of hobbit book, since you disapprove of them having these two routes to learn on?

Bb Ccwrote:

Hangers- maybe, bolts- doubt they are reusable. Climbed these routes last year, enjoyed them, nice warm up for Turkey Trot. Had plans to bring my wife up--------

I was just up there with my 10year old. Shame bolts chopped. 

Christian Heschwrote:

walden to the rescue with more dizzying insights.

Feel free to expand on how these two routes in particular are impinging on anyone else’s enjoyment of the area, and I would really love your take on how noob leaders are supposed to lead in TM. Perhaps we should direct all of them to the plate pitch of hobbit book, since you disapprove of them having these two routes to learn on?

Perhaps newer climbers should learn, I dunno, the way that people have been learning since forever? (Or just at of one of the now NINETY gyms in California). I personally did most of my early trad leading in Tuolumne Meadows.

It's not about these two routes. It's about the notion that I can just add bolts to any old section of rock just because nobody else has done it yet. What if my friend Juan just really likes easy scrambling, and he wants to be safe? Can he throw a handful of 5.1 routes up the shoulder of Daff dome? Don't tell me that would threaten your enjoyment of the area.

These were two of my wife’s first leads ever, she was so stoked and proud to finally put a rope up. These routes are secluded and don’t encroach on a single thing. Really thoughtless take that because they’re “easy for you” they don’t deserve to exist. What grade are we allowed to start at when developing just so everyone’s clear?

idk, tuolumne has stuff to learn on, like the guide cracks.

what grade were these? i think for me in some sense, in an area like this, if there are grades that are too easy and bolted, people will go there to learn the systems of leading without having to learn to climb. that's all fine and good except it might give people the idea that they should begin to lead climbs in tuolumne since they have some leads under their belt (but they don't actually have the climbing part figured out). tuolumne is full of deceiving "easy grades" where the falls are long and not clean. actual climbing is an important skill and perhaps the presence of a "too easy" training ground is actually detrimental.

get a mentor, follow stuff, learn how to climb this rock first, then lead. don't begin taking whips here. thoughts?

Succeed or break your legs. It is tradition 

ilya fwrote:

idk, tuolumne has stuff to learn on, like the guide cracks.

what grade were these? i think for me in some sense, in an area like this, if there are grades that are too easy and bolted, people will go there to learn the systems of leading without having to learn to climb. that's all fine and good except it might give people the idea that they should begin to lead climbs in tuolumne since they have some leads under their belt (but they don't actually have the climbing part figured out). tuolumne is full of deceiving "easy grades" where the falls are long and not clean. actual climbing is an important skill and perhaps the presence of a "too easy" training ground is actually detrimental.

get a mentor, follow stuff, learn how to climb this rock first, then lead. don't begin taking whips here. thoughts?

Guide cracks are, well, cracks.

This isn't about not finding a mentor or not getting mileage on rock or not deserving to climb near where others have put up lots of bolts to climb diverse rock.

Throwing a rope over a boulder, tying off a tree and rapping in to "see how it goes", living in the valley or tuolumne for months before (and after) 14 day limits, climbing until a broken bone and expensive hospital stay showed you who is a friend, pounding pitons for access, beating bashies into submission, serenading fishers with yells and poor music from the heights, stealing food, "scamming tourists", sneaking here and there. Yup, alot to remember. Makes me wonder how much climbing would be done in not just a boltless mecca but ropeless too?

Interesting to note these new, entry level routes were put up after much thought and concern for Tuolumne and Stately Pleasure Dome existing routes.

I don't know much about the routes in question, but don't West Farthing, The Wind Tunnel, Dozier, The Bunny Slopes, Dark Side Dome, etc. have plenty of easy, non R-rated routes suitable for beginning Tuolumne leaders to start on? Tuolumne probably shouldn't be used or thought of as as family-friendly, learn how to clip a quickdraw, 5.3 sport-bolted kind of place IMO. 

Christian Heschwrote:

walden to the rescue with more dizzying insights.

Feel free to expand on how these two routes in particular are impinging on anyone else’s enjoyment of the area, and I would really love your take on how noob leaders are supposed to lead in TM. Perhaps we should direct all of them to the plate pitch of hobbit book, since you disapprove of them having these two routes to learn on?

Does a year of climbing count as "noob"? Because I was able to figure it out. First climbs were following people in TM one summer. Jtree over the winter (more following), and built up a rack...

next summer... looks like NW Books was my first TM lead. Goldmember 2nd. Then Holdless Horror.

That following winter I lead Sail Away in Jtree and was stoked on it.

I think the next TM season I started off with Zee Tree - cruxing to find the starting bolts.

Appears that it is possible to be a noob leader in TM. I'm not that strong a climber and more of a weekend warrior status b/c of other interests, yet figured it out.
Do we need noob leads in every location? There are plenty of options for people to climb, and if you aren't strong enough, bold enough or experienced enough - maybe you have to head elsewhere to gain those skills first.

I've never chopped (or placed) a bolt and don't care about new noob routes. I was a bit incensed for things put up like "Direct White Flake" - imagine putting up a "direct" bolted slab variation on South Crack. Remove all the R-rated stuff and claim that it is just a "variation".

Oh and the people that were quite bummed about all the noob bolted stuff are the ones who would go over to this area for solo laps without anyone around.

Can someone place bolts on the sweet knobby right-side of Fairview? Solos locked those streaks down - some PG13 5.9 knobs would be nice, while we're complaining about bolts again. 

good news is beginning climbers can still hit up emigrant wall off 88 and have some well bolted slab routes to learn on.

maybe practice there and come to TM for the “final exam”

Aren’t the national parks meant to be inclusive/accessible for ALL to enjoy, noob leaders/ kids included? Is climbing inclusive until it isn’t? 

Jabroni McChuffersonwrote:

Aren’t the national parks meant to be inclusive/accessible for ALL to enjoy, noob leaders/ kids included? Is climbing inclusive until it isn’t? 

Are you suggesting ADA accessible rock climbing in national parks, sanctioned by the federal government? I don't think it's reasonable to expect that ALL people, be able to do ALL things, in ALL places that they want to. For example, you can't ride a dirt bike on any trails in YNP, and some might (unreasonably) argue that they've been excluded from enjoying their NP because of this. Additionally, the parks are not responsible for ensuring that each visitor is adequately prepared to do each trail, scramble, river, climb, etc. It is up to those participants to bring themselves up to the ability level to participate in each activity. We've been lucky to have the bolted climbs that we already have, so this kind of entitlement under the guise of inclusivity worries me in a general sense. 

any piece of rock can be grid bolted and made beginner friendly. the only thing that's stopping that from happening on a given piece of rock is either it's a brand new area, or that there is an implicit understanding about the character of an existing area, or an explicit ban on installation. TM is definitely option 2, and to say "well this piece of this one rock in TM doesn't get climbed and is therefore option 1" is intellectually dishonest, if that's the reasoning for it. when i first started climbing, i just somehow quickly figured out that TM is not the same as auburn quarry. you don't go there from gym, it's hard, and it's scary. what's wrong with this? nothing. to create bolted routes for new leaders in any undeveloped rock there skews the balance of the area away from its well established general character. to say everyone needs access - that's an impossibily slippery slope, why can't people just be okay with not being good enough for something yet? that was a huge appeal for me, a place i could work up to, it was a big motivator.

i know what you guys are saying on the other side, but there's many other places to learn, even in the bounds of the park itself.

i'm not totally married to this opinion but i'm becoming more convinced over time. i don't believe this had much to do with me looking down on people who don't climb as hard as i do because i don't climb hard either - a TM 5.7 is engaging for me.

Where's Waldenwrote:

Perhaps newer climbers should learn, I dunno, the way that people have been learning since forever? (Or just at of one of the now NINETY gyms in California). I personally did most of my early trad leading in Tuolumne Meadows.

Copy that. The way YOU did it. Got it. Please fill us in on everything else we should do your way, I’ve been mentored by the wrong crowd, clearly.

It's not about these two routes. It's about the notion that I can just add bolts to any old section of rock just because nobody else has done it yet. What if my friend Juan just really likes easy scrambling, and he wants to be safe? Can he throw a handful of 5.1 routes up the shoulder of Daff dome? Don't tell me that would threaten your enjoyment of the area.

I would postulate that we need to ask several questions before bolting. Primary: will it infringe on existing routes/areas, does it fill a need/use, is it an eyesore, etc. Secondary: is it contrived (matt notes that DWF arguably fits this description, to a degree, which I can agree with), is it over/under bolted, will it see little/no use.

These two routes don’t infringe, they fill a need/use as there are (were) 5-6 beginner friendly routes within 100 yards of each other, clearly not an eyesore (can’t even see it from the road), gets tons of traffic, and utilized a whopping 8 bolts over 225ft. I can see the contrived argument applied but when the proximity of the other beginner routes is factored in,  I think that argument falls apart. 

Edit: Ilya, by that logic, can we chop at least half, maybe 1/3 of the bolts on P3 of HF? b/c it’s way over bolted by TM standards. If these routes were in the middle of nowhere, sure… but there’s already 4-5 beginner friendly routes nearby, so I struggle to see the issue with 13 total bolts/stations place over 68m of rock, for two routes that ease congestion elsewhere.

“why can't people just be okay with not being good enough for something yet?“ We all know that isn’t going to happen and they’re going to go straight to clogging classics unless there’s viable alternatives to cut their teeth on. It’s a reality, plain and simple

Brandon Rwrote:

Are you suggesting ADA accessible rock climbing in national parks, sanctioned by the federal government? I don't think it's reasonable to expect that ALL people, be able to do ALL things, in ALL places that they want to. For example, you can't ride a dirt bike on any trails in YNP, and some might (unreasonably) argue that they've been excluded from enjoying their NP because of this. Additionally, the parks are not responsible for ensuring that each visitor is adequately prepared to do each trail, scramble, river, climb, etc. It is up to those participants to bring themselves up to the ability level to participate in each activity. We've been lucky to have the bolted climbs that we already have, so this kind of entitlement under the guise of inclusivity worries me in a general sense. 

Here in Maine we have rangers checking to see that folks are prepared to go up Mt Katahdin,  even then folks still die. Yeah, the ADA argument is not a good one, entitlement under the guise of inclusivity is pretty scary. The 4 wheelers have used the same argument on BLM lands for years, sometimes successfully 

Brandon Rwrote:

Are you suggesting ADA accessible rock climbing in national parks, sanctioned by the federal government? I don't think it's reasonable to expect that ALL people, be able to do ALL things, in ALL places that they want to. For example, you can't ride a dirt bike on any trails in YNP, and some might (unreasonably) argue that they've been excluded from enjoying their NP because of this. Additionally, the parks are not responsible for ensuring that each visitor is adequately prepared to do each trail, scramble, river, climb, etc. It is up to those participants to bring themselves up to the ability level to participate in each activity. We've been lucky to have the bolted climbs that we already have, so this kind of entitlement under the guise of inclusivity worries me in a general sense. 

No im suggesting that it’s not crazy to have a route put up by a long time Yosemite climber to include beginners and kids. Dave’s father was George sessions, who was a pioneer in early Yosemite climbing and deep ecology. Look him up. 

Where's Waldenwrote:

 There might be a difference of opinion here, but I personally believe babies should not be lead rock climbing outdoors. 

Nobody said anything about leading

Christian Heschwrote:

Edit: Ilya, by that logic, can we chop at least half, maybe 1/3 of the bolts on P3 of HF? b/c it’s way over bolted by TM standards. If these routes were in the middle of nowhere, sure… but there’s already 4-5 beginner friendly routes nearby, so I struggle to see the issue with 13 total bolts/stations place over 68m of rock, for two routes that ease congestion elsewhere.

what is HF?

i personally think the "lets chop bolts on long-existing pitches" is different because there doesn't exist a strict X bolts per Y feet standard so it's not really an argument. with any area with tons of climbs, there's gonna be variation on either end of the general standard. but when adding something substantial - multiple climbs on a large face, especially targeted at people who will heavily use it like some are suggesting is the purpose - i would say it's bad style for this sub-area's standard to purposely deviate from the TMs general standard. the place will slowly lose its mystique as more of these areas are added so i think it's worth thinking hard about, not just "access" because what im talking about really does have a lot of value to its users, whereas access gives value to current non-users (potential future users).

on the other hand, i don't feel this way about cities. i really dislike historical building restrictions and love when new architecture gets placed in the middle of a city block where all the other buildings look the same. the change and openness to change makes the place feel alive rather than preserved. not sure how to reconcile these two feelings.

bb cc and christian and others, thanks for your insight. 

“why can't people just be okay with not being good enough for something yet?“ We all know that isn’t going to happen and they’re going to go straight to clogging classics unless there’s viable alternatives to cut their teeth on. It’s a reality, plain and simple

you're right, but if there are no viable alternatives created for them (since they can't really create their own), this isn't a problem because they will have to reckon with the areas reality if they choose to climb there. it's not like noobs are dying left and right in TM either.

People arguing against the existence of a few well bolted routes in TM are overlooking the fact that there are plenty of sport routes there already.

The first time I did Fort Knox and Golden Bars (80s/early 90s?, I forget), I was amazed at how close the bolts were compared with most Yosemite routes I had done. I asked Ed Barry why there were so many bolts on a 5.11 and so few on the easier routes. He said it was because when the people who were putting in the routes found climbing at a level where they might actually fall, they put the bolts to protect themselves. 

Plenty of other well bolted routes around the Meadows.  East Cottage Dome, Medlicott west face, etc. people like Dave Caunt who used to put up sparsely bolted scare fests, even bolted much more. closely in his later years.

There’s room in Tm for a couple easy routes for beginners .

. 

east cottage dome? those are like 10b-10d with 4 bolts in each route. definitely not beginner routes, both as far as bolt spacing and climbing skill, i don't think. those felt to me very much in character as TM climbs, even though they are sport climbs. but i don't know the meadows very well, so maybe there's some other beginner area there.

but again, lots of people more experienced than me are saying this is okay so i can certainly appreciate that part.