Tuolumne Bolt Chopping

M Mwrote:

Marc, I dare say that you don't climb anymore if you think it doesn't matter. If a 5.5 isn't drilled in traditional style in a place like TM it definitely deserves a good cleaning. History matters!

So it's OK to rap-bolt 12's and 13's but not 5.5's? That's exactly my point - ego is obviously more important than creating good routes.

Marc801 Cwrote:

So it's OK to rap-bolt 12's and 13's but not 5.5's? That's exactly my point - ego is obviously more important than creating good routes.

Common sense tells me it would be impossible to drill on lead for 95+% of the grades you mention. No ego, just reality. 

About bolt wars: They suck, but are avoidable if BOTH potential bolters and choppers show some restraint and thoughtfulness about the place they are in. The blame can't always be ONLY on the chopper. Emigrant Wall (for example) and Tuolumne Meadows are not the same place, and should not be treated the same in regard to bolting and/or chopping. 

M Mwrote:

Common sense tells me it would be impossible to drill on lead for 95+% of the grades you mention. No ego, just reality. 

Regardless of how hard to impossible to stance drill a route may be you can always aid climb it with hooks, pins, bat hook holes or 1/4" bolt ladders that can be pulled and patched---All techniques that are routinely used on harder climbs. And all of which are just sausage making that doesn't matter once complete only the taste of the sausage once finished for everyone else who does the route. Everyone knows new routing is frickn' hard work. I really don't think many will be impressed that you made it harder just because.

I get it that appreciating Bachar's boldness on the BY is commendable and inspiring etc. but does it really matter on 5.6? Anyone hand drilling it should only care about the final taste.

Are you going to admire me for stance drilling 5.5? Personally, I'm over it. Been there and done that since 1978.

Anyone putting up 5.5 is doing it for the community thanks, not the badass props. Anyone that would chop such a thing is doing it for selfish reasons and should get some help. We're talking severely weird. They are taking this whole rock-climbing thing way too seriously and may need some help to gain perspective.

^^^ Spot on. I've climbed at Emigrant many times. Its fine. Its nothing like Tuolumne and has a very, very different history. 

I fully support the those who defend the tradition of Tuolumne. I don't give a rats ass if any of you like it or not. Don't put your rap bolt nonsense there and don't jam your shit right next to 50+ year old trad routes.

Again, I don't care if you like it or not. The place is defended. If you put more nonsense in there it will get chopped.

Brandon Rwrote:

About bolt wars: They suck, but are avoidable if BOTH potential bolters and choppers show some restraint and thoughtfulness about the place they are in. The blame can't always be ONLY on the chopper. Emigrant Wall (for example) and Tuolumne Meadows are not the same place, and should not be treated the same in regard to bolting and/or chopping. 

Chopping bolts is illegal vandalism and stealing hangers is theft. Both are prosecutable crimes.

There is no place for chopping routes in Yosemite National Park and as I have stated many times it endangers our access to climbing there.

Don't do it, please, if you actually care about climbing there.

Peer pressure (disapproval) and voting with your feet are the solutions if needed,

“Chopping bolts is illegal vandalism and stealing hangers is theft. Both are prosecutable crimes.”

Citation, please. 

Rob Dillonwrote:

“Chopping bolts is illegal vandalism and stealing hangers is theft. Both are prosecutable crimes.”

Citation, please. 

"The National Park Service (NPS) prohibits the defacing of rock and other natural features within national parks. This includes carving, painting, or removing rock images, as well as altering rock formations. The NPS website on guidelines for visiting archeological places states that even touching rock images can be harmful. 

Regulations & Penalties:

• Federal Law: Vandalism of national parks, including defacing rock formations, is a federal misdemeanor.
• Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 2.31): Prohibits destroying, injuring, defacing, or damaging property within national parks.
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA): Protects sites with emigrant signatures and prehistoric pictographs, and their defacement is a violation.
• Penalties: Defacing park property is punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalties can include:
  • Fines of up to $5,000 or even $100,000 in some cases.
  • Imprisonment of up to six months or even a year. 

Importance of these Regulations:

• Preservation: These regulations are in place to protect and preserve the natural and cultural heritage of national parks for future generations.
• Cultural Violence: Defacing historical and cultural sites, like pictograph panels, is considered an act of cultural violence.
• Visitor Experience: Vandalism degrades the experience of other visitors."

Really, Rob, was it that hard to know that taking a sledgehammer to a bolt or leaving a hole after stealing the bolt and defacing the rock thereby is punishable? I'll let you look up theft of other's property.

Easy there, cowboy. I’ve always been under the impression that NPS takes a hands-off approach to citizen bolting, and that bolts, hangers etc. are effectively considered abandoned property.

The language of ‘defacing rock’ sounds like it could apply equally to bolt placement as well as bolt removal.

Could bolt wars bring the hammer down on all climbing in the park? Sure. Will anyone ever be prosecuted for bolt removal? I’m not so sure. That’s an interpretation of the code that sounds like a stretch to me. Please note that I’m not taking a side in this particular bolt war, just curious about the legality that’s been asserted. 

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

"The National Park Service (NPS) prohibits the defacing of rock and other natural features within national parks. This includes carving, painting, or removing rock images, as well as altering rock formations.   ...

Penalties: Defacing park property is punishable by fines 

There is nothing in this to indicate anything wrong with bolt removal.  If anything, it is more on the side of being against bolt installation.
Park property does not include typical climbing anchors; it includes only natural features and official installations such as the cables on Half Dome.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Anyone putting up 5.5 is doing it for the community thanks, not the badass props. Anyone that would chop such a thing is doing it for selfish reasons and should get some help. We're talking severely weird. They are taking this whole rock-climbing thing way too seriously and may need some help to gain perspective.

Your attempt to demonize and belittle people with opposing viewpoints only creates a bigger divide, and if anything, pushes me to the side you're not on. Your legal argument, as already pointed out, is poor and potentially implicates the person drilling holes more than the person removing bolts. But, let's just say that you're right for the sake of argument... then adding a big fat padlock to each bolt would also be illegal to remove as it would destroy property. And that's all assuming that legality is each person's sole guide to every action in their life. 

Some people argue in good faith, you don't appear to be one of them. 

"A bolt never placed, can never be chopped"  -Confucius

Welp. We've done it again folks.
We have thoroughly established people dont agree on bolting ethics. In particular on the hallowed ground of YNP.

Looking forward to the next iteration of this timeless classic.

I've often said that if bolts were easier to place in the 60's and 70's, there would be a whole lot less runouts in the Meadows.

Marc801 Cwrote:

I've often said that if bolts were easier to place in the 60's and 70's, there would be a whole lot less runouts in the Meadows.

I am curious why bolts would be easier now in Yosemite National Park? Power drills?

60's 70's runouts in Tuolumne are not because of the work of bolting. It was a VERY DIFFERENT mentality then. No question. At all.

There are varied opinions, but the reality of what happens is decided on the rocks. Add a retro bolt to a classic bold climb, and people will get pissed and chop it. Put up a rap bolted 5.6 in an obscure place and it will never get chopped.

There ARE places less than 15 minutes from the road in Tuolumne that are bolt worthy at a variety of grades. Probably not 5 minutes, but I've seen lots of good rock with very moderate approaches.

Tuolumne does have a history of bold routes from the 70s/80s, but for example these were often done by 5.11+ climbers putting up 5.8s. There are newer climbs that are better protected and no one chops them. Because they are good climbs and don't encroach on other climbs. I for one think we should respect those old climbs and leave them bold even if it means they barely get climbed, however I also believe if someone wants to put in a sport climb and it doesn't encroach on other lines they should be left alone as well. There are still people around from the pre sport era who think rap bolting and sport climbs shouldn't exist, but thankfully they are probably too old to actually get out there and chop anything LOL.

Most of Yosemite is Wilderness, where the intent is to use only moderate amounts of fixed pro, which is what was intended by the Wilderness Act long ago.   A term used for this issue in recent years is "bolt intensive."  

Mr Rogerswrote:

=)

Ha!  Definitely a different type of case not anticipated by the writers of the wilderness act.  But this issue began to be recognized not too many years later.  Altho below 4200' of the valley is not wilderness, many pin scarred routes go above that.  I wonder what it would look like if they had just fixed the pins and not removed.  A much harder free climb without the scars.  Purely a theoretical question since who would have paid for the pins, some would fall out, or get stolen.

The routes chopped were not sport routes, they were modestly spaced entry level slab. I have climbed them once, was hoping to bring up spouse and friends. Found them to be fun warm up before Turkey Trot.

New name for the area? Stasi Dome?

Brandon Rwrote: …I'm just going to say it, and I could be wrong, but it kind of appears to me that these routes were put up "for the community" in the same way some social media influencer films themselves giving out $20 bills to the homeless. It doesn't actually solve a real problem, but the recipients love it and it gives the influencer a little bit of fame and a manufactured feeling of being a hero for the downtrodden. And like Mei, I don't put anyone on a pedestal, including those with famous dads. 

For the two routes originally in question (and turkey trot), you’re 100% incorrect about that. For DWF, that might be a possibility,  for the route just right of TT, probably more likely (different developer for PIW vs the easy routes). Nobody’s going around patting the guy on the back

… That's why I think new bolted routes should emphasize quality over quantity, and should avoid encroaching upon already established routes. Even following the traditional and historic "rules", at some point further development needs to be slowed, else we'll end up with a gridbolted mess of boring routes and even bigger crowds. 

Obviously not gridbolted so does not apply. Also doesn’t encroach on anything. Thus the only part of this statement that can be applicable is…”boring routes?” Pray tell, exactly who makes up the council that determines what routes are “boring”… and what is the action to rectify such a horror? Removing the route? Are we planning to apply this standard equally to all “boring” routes in TM (and perhaps the Valley proper?)? I can’t see this going wrong in any way, shape, or form…