Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Tuolumne Bolt Chopping
Bb Cc wrote: I was just up there with my 10year old. Shame bolts chopped. |
Christian Hesch wrote: 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? |
|
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 Hesch wrote: 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... That following winter I lead Sail Away in Jtree and was stoked on it. |
|
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” |
Jabroni McChufferson wrote: 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 Walden wrote: 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.
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 R wrote: 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 |
Where's Walden wrote: Nobody said anything about leading |
Christian Hesch wrote: 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. |
|
Over the years, I've witnessed maybe three bolt chopping incidents in the areas that I feel close to (Yosemite, Pinnacles, TM). By "witness", I don't mean I watched them do it, but rather, I read extensively about the incidents and studied about the context. I've yet to have one instance where I could agree with the bolt chopper. I can't imagine how offended the chopper had to feel to have to take a hammer to the two climbs listed among 11 routes of 5.5 and below in the MP Route Finder for Tuolumne (with default filter settings). Any other grade range, there are way more routes to choose from. between 5.0 and 5.5: 11 between 5.6 and 5.7+: 74 between 5.8- and 5.9+: 94 between 5.10a and 5.10d: 141 between 5.11a and 5.11d: 90  No, I don't think the sky will fall -- your area will be grid bolted -- if you leave the "offending" bolts alone. You go crush your almighty projects, but please do not rob the joy from those who have few options to choose from in the first place. |
|
If the climbing is demonstrably fifth class it is not for anyone other than the FA party to say how close the bolts should be within some reasonable aesthetic limit (I know what it is when I see it). ie a veritable bolt ladder up 5.1 friction is clearly ridiculous. It's more effort to clip bolts than walk up the pitch and a short fall would have little consequence. The mythical "grid bolting" that would have bolts every six feet on ridiculously easy terrain is what I am talking about that we all would agree is unacceptable. But there are veritable bolt ladders up the cruxes of numerous 5.10 - 5.11 routes in Tuolumne and the Valley and arguably they are the most popular climbs for their grades. This is reasonable as well because the routes are steeper. The 10 foot slow slide is now a bit on the "whipper" side with more serious consequences. But this is clearly a double standard. What is safe for one climber is not for another and they both have the same expectations and privilege to climb at their own limit. What I am trying to say is that if a route is well constructed then people will know it when they see it and it should be left alone. If not, people will vote with their feet and the routes will fade to obscurity. There is no defensible elite standard that should tell us how others should bolt and climb routes other than straight aesthetics virtually all of us will agree upon. If someone climbing 5.6 thinks there are way too many bolts on a 5.6 then they likely are right. That doesn't mean the routes should necessarily be chopped. Just don't climb them! The offending route is all in your head. Don't give it a rent free zone. There are very few routes that will fall into this category. I see no evidence that the routes in question were "over the top" to justify bolt chopping. No existing routes were retro bolted (as far as I know) and soloists don't have a leg to stand on. Their 5.5 solo was not ruined. They have no exclusive claim, imo, to an easy slab preventing from others bolting it. It's selfish to expect such a trivial solo to be immortalized, imo, and deny others the opportunity for an entry level route that is well protected. The preserving of tradition in Tuolumne and Yosemite as a whole is to prevent the retro-bolting of historic routes whatever the grade. Eunuch should never have been retro bolted. The Dike route should never be retro bolted just as the Bachar-Yerian should never be etc. or an aid route retro bolted if the aid moves are still doable. Historic and Classic climbs done at the dawn of the age should be sacrosanct and left in their original FA condition so people remember what our heroes accomplished. But by no means does the tradition of evolving aesthetics in Yosemite say that anyone willing to hand drill and well protect any FA quality route in a reasonable fashion should not be able to do so regardless of grade. If its ok on Fifi Buttress its ok on Stately Pleasure Dome, imo. Anything else is hypocrisy and selfishness as far as I am concerned FWIW. This is my opinion based on ~45 years of off and on putting up new routes in Yosemite and also as the former Access Fund Representative for Yosemite National Park. Such chopping shenanigans imperil our access. Please stop and consider the larger community of Park users and their perception of our privilege to hand drill bolts as we see fit. Hell, arguably the most important ascent in Yosemite history was a bolt ladder up the "Bunny Slopes" of Half Dome by George Anderson in 1875. That is why we are allowed to bolt today and there is remarkably little climbing in Yosemite without some bolts ie the only El Cap route that would exist would be the East Buttress afaik. I'm not saying bolt everything, but the Park is big enough for good bolted protection for any type of legitimate FA of a fifth class route when no other protection option exists. Just don't place more on existing routes please. |
|
The first ascent principle goes both ways. You don't add bolts to an existing climb and you don't chop bolts that the FA put in. I'm often educating young people on why you can't add bolts to an existing climb. But it seems some people don't get that it's just as lame to chop someone's FA when it doesn't encroach on another climb. It's not protecting the environment or ethics, it's ego. |
|
Does ground up matter? |
Matt N wrote: IMO, no. The slab above on South Crack is a rite of passage since 1965. There exists a variation to traverse to seasonally wet cracks further out right and follow them to the summit with acceptable pro found. It should not be retro bolted and there is no legitimate alternate line on the slab, imo, that would not effectively replace the original route. Direct White Flake looks pretty reasonable to me as an independent line and how the bolts go in should matter only to the FA team. Everybody else gets to judge where they are regardless (ie well positioned?) but it's just in their heads that how the FA did it matters to them otherwise. |
