Tuolumne Bolt Chopping

That area is fun, and the 1 or 2 5.easy routes appeared to be very respectfully bolted (no grids or squeeze jobs). I recall at least one included the use of trad placements. Those were probably great routes for someone to experience TM bolt spacing without getting way over their head.

I had a decade or so of my climbing life where I was almost militant in my devotion to old-school ethics and techniques. I may have even possessed, for a brief period, a bumper sticker that said, “sport climbing is neither.” I enjoyed the climbing, but probably wasted a tragic amount of time judging and frustrated at the changes brought by others.

I’m glad I’ve reached an age where I can just enjoy climbing, accept the inevitability of change in all things, and realize everything, climbing, work, and life in general, is all sort of ridiculous. It’s a much more enjoyable headspace.

I hope people get to enjoy those chopped routes again soon.

Wow this thread has drifted pretty far from calling out a lazy bolt thief ... to six pages on Tuolumne style and ethics.  As someone just upthread said, it's funny to see the same old discussion, "deja vu all over again", that has occurred on climbing forum for decades already.  Seems a good place to insert one of the most well know discussions from one of the most well known purists, Tom "Higgie" Higgins.  This essay is taken from Reid and Falkenstein 1983. If you enjoy this and haven't read it, look for his famous essay Tricksters and Traditionalists.

And for those of you who still think the only "authentic" style of climbing in Tuolumne Meadows is runout, and that well bolted pitches are new, note his description of his own 1974 route on Fairview, Piece de Resistance.  The crux pitch on the route is very reasonably bolted - about 8 bolts - and the best protected climbing on the route.  (I've done the route, it was great. For some reason it's not in the MP database, but it is in the new Tuolumne Guide published last year.)

Thank you for posting that Phylp. I knew Tom. I had forgotten about that article. I will have to look up the other as well. I remember the title Tricksters and Traditionalists, but nothing about it's content. 

For some reason photos did not load properly, here is p 11

Freedom or Freedumb,  it's all good in America, do what feels good right?

phylp phylp wrote:

Wow this thread has drifted pretty far from calling out a lazy bolt thief ... to six pages on Tuolumne style and ethics.  As someone just upthread said, it's funny to see the same old discussion, "deja vu all over again", that has occurred on climbing forum for decades already.  Seems a good place to insert one of the most well know discussions from one of the most well known purists, Tom "Higgie" Higgins.  This essay is taken from Reid and Falkenstein 1983. If you enjoy this and haven't read it, look for his famous essay Tricksters and Traditionalists.

And for those of you who still think the only "authentic" style of climbing in Tuolumne Meadows is runout, and that well bolted pitches are new, note his description of his own 1974 route on Fairview, Piece de Resistance.  The crux pitch on the route is very reasonably bolted - about 8 bolts - and the best protected climbing on the route.  (I've done the route, it was great. For some reason it's not in the MP database, but it is in the new Tuolumne Guide published last year.)

i rebolted that route in 2011, replaced 7 bolts on p6 (crux) and wrote (correspondence with tom et al.) 'the crux pitch is pretty much sport bolted, except for the traverse to the anchor. the rest of the route is very bold imho.  my hat's off to the first ascentionists.'  it is noteworthy, that higgins wasn't the one who bolted that pitch (and surely he would emphasize that, rip ;-).

tom donnelly wrote:

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.

Bolting is allowed in YNP as a legacy recreational activity that predates park formation. Thank you, George Anderson, FA of Half Dome 1875.

Once installed, removal/destruction of them is consider vandalization/theft per the Superintendent of YNP circa 1990's (first bolt wars over rap bolting).

That was then, this is now and certainly such enforcement is way down the list by LEOs of YNP.

That is why the solution to our petty squabbles would be to ban bolting altogether again, per the Super (the Wilderness Manager) himself in conversations I had with him (sorry, 30 years ago, name escapes me) when I was the Access Fund Representative for YNP.

I remain very confident that our ability to add any new routes with bolts or to maintain old anchors is on a razor thin edge that could be rescinded at any time that is most definitely threated by would be bolt choppers.

As I already said, threats can also come from proliferation of bolts.  Did you already forget the proposed ban on all fixed anchors in wilderness from just last year?   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."   The AF response is that occasional bolts are valid per the wilderness act.  Excessive bolts are not occasional bolts. 

This thread about bolts in Tuolumne is surprisingly devoid of slippery slope puns.

The pages from Higgins date back to over 40 years ago when, for whatever reason, bolts in rocks were viewed as anathema to "real' climbing. Dangerous routes on typically slabby 5.10 or 11 were viewed as "pure" and somehow deeply meaningful to leading climbers of the time. Now most of the protagonists of that era have aged out of climbing or died and their "ethics" seem to many today to be contrived and in denial of the reality that the vast majority of climbers are uninterested in breaking their necks on low difficulty routes anymore. 5.15d is a thing. It always amazes me to see grownup men (it's almost always men) still get worked up about this well into the 21st century.

The logical solution is to build community consensus, in conjunction with land management agencies, on routes and fixed anchors and their installation and maintenance. For some, the introduction of local climbing orgs, an application and permit-granting process, and enforcement via land management policy is a bridge too far but it is the only path forward away from anonymous vandalism, amateurish anchor placements, and ranting on internet forums. The middle path between unregulated free-for-all bolting and vandalism and name-calling in the name of "ethics" does exist, if people are willing to work towards that end.

tom donnelly wrote:

As I already said, threats can also come from proliferation of bolts.  Did you already forget the proposed ban on all fixed anchors in wilderness from just last year?   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."   The AF response is that occasional bolts are valid per the wilderness act.  Excessive bolts are not occasional bolts. 

If you actually understood the issues as it pertains to us climbers: The "threat" comes from within and it is climbers abusing the privilege of bolts by chopping them leading to a defacement of the rock.

"Moderate" amounts of bolts are those deemed enough by the first ascent party in Yosemite. Be it 5.1 or 5.14. That is it. Period. End of Story.

Yosemite is exempted from Wilderness Act restrictions on bolts due to reasons already listed. It is the chopping of bolts that endangers our access more than anything, imo. It is only when the self-appointed bolt police (or John Bachar for historical fact) choose that they get to decide how and how many bolts are placed on a given route that problems arise. Or for the record, when the Sloan's of our Yosemite use electric drills against Park policy.

Not reasonably protected but relatively easy routes in the vastness of the Park.

Peter Beal wrote:

The pages from Higgins date back to over 40 years ago when, for whatever reason, bolts in rocks were viewed as anathema to "real' climbing. Dangerous routes on typically slabby 5.10 or 11 were viewed as "pure" and somehow deeply meaningful to leading climbers of the time. Now most of the protagonists of that era have aged out of climbing or died and their "ethics" seem to many today to be contrived and in denial of the reality that the vast majority of climbers are uninterested in breaking their necks on low difficulty routes anymore. 5.15d is a thing. It always amazes me to see grownup men (it's almost always men) still get worked up about this well into the 21st century.

The logical solution is to build community consensus, in conjunction with land management agencies, on routes and fixed anchors and their installation and maintenance. For some, the introduction of local climbing orgs, an application and permit-granting process, and enforcement via land management policy is a bridge too far but it is the only path forward away from anonymous vandalism, amateurish anchor placements, and ranting on internet forums. The middle path between unregulated free-for-all bolting and vandalism and name-calling in the name of "ethics" does exist, if people are willing to work towards that end.

Careful there, as there has been no "free for all" in Yosemite National Park. Where that danger exists, for the vastly more common part in my observation, is where someone goes crazy with a bolt gun.

Hand drilling, as required by YNP, has led to a very nice balance between necessary and unnecessary bolting, imo.

John Tuttle wrote:

Bolting is allowed in YNP as a legacy recreational activity that predates park formation. Thank you, George Anderson, FA of Half Dome 1875.

Once installed, removal/destruction of them is consider vandalization/theft per the Superintendent of YNP circa 1990's (first bolt wars over rap bolting).

That was then, this is now and certainly such enforcement is way down the list by LEOs of YNP.

That is why the solution to our petty squabbles would be to ban bolting altogether again, per the Super (the Wilderness Manager) himself in conversations I had with him (sorry, 30 years ago, name escapes me) when I was the Access Fund Representative for YNP.

I remain very confident that our ability to add any new routes with bolts or to maintain old anchors is on a razor thin edge that could be rescinded at any time that is most definitely threated by would be bolt choppers.

More "most definitely threatened" by random folks with desires to play with tools on weekends with the "just doing it for the n00bs from the gym" mentality. "Scarring the rock" argument is absurd, there is a time and a place for bolts, this doesn't sound like one of them.

Talking to a superintendent 30 years ago means absolutely nothing doc.

Peter Beal wrote:

The pages from Higgins date back to over 40 years ago when, for whatever reason, bolts in rocks were viewed as anathema to "real' climbing. Dangerous routes on typically slabby 5.10 or 11 were viewed as "pure" and somehow deeply meaningful to leading climbers of the time.

What makes those routes "dangerous " is lack of skills, not lack of bolts. I have safely led some of the routes referred to in this thread and elsewhere,  plus plenty of other routes of similar character in the Valley and other places. And there have been many others before and after me. If people today, who ARE different, are really serious about being safer climbers they would be very well served by developing those skills, which are even applicable to pure sport climbs. Those skills even help me now on the simple low grade routes I do. What I fail to understand is why some people are so dead set against having the best of both worlds, and the ability to stack the odds even more so in their favor. In every way. 

 Now most of the protagonists of that era have aged out of climbing or died and their "ethics" seem to many today to be contrived

There seems to be plenty of people around who learned the ancient ways, long ago in galaxy far away. Some still persue climbing the same way (mostly), some completely adopt all the modern thinking and equipment, and some are in between. It's all good. There seems to also be a small segment of youngins interested in/actively developing the skills I have referred to. I believe some of them don't even realize it. But those people will be better at all kinds of rock climbing because of it. 

 and in denial of the reality that the vast majority of climbers are uninterested in breaking their necks on low difficulty routes anymore. 5.15d is a thing. It always amazes me to see grownup men (it's almost always men) still get worked up about this well into the 21st century.

I am not in denial. Everybody has always had the opportunity to play by the rules best suited to them. 

5.15d is just a grading. To those aspiring to climb that grade, I wish them the best of luck in that pursuit. Same for any other grade a person aspires to climb. Or any particular climb.

I am kind of grownup. I sorta get worked up when people misrepresent the past. Especially when dissing it at the same time. People don't know what they don't know. For those that think I don't understand the "modern" I say BS. Where do you think these modern techniques came from? A few of them came as much from me as anyone, within the context of American climbing. I didn't invent any of it. 

The logical solution is to build community consensus, in conjunction with land management agencies, on routes and fixed anchors and their installation and maintenance. For some, the introduction of local climbing orgs, an application and permit-granting process, and enforcement via land management policy is a bridge too far but it is the only path forward away from anonymous vandalism, amateurish anchor placements, and ranting on internet forums. The middle path between unregulated free-for-all bolting and vandalism and name-calling in the name of "ethics" does exist, if people are willing to work towards that end.

The above mostly sounds good to me. 

Yeah, Tom Higgins writings are dated. Tom was a good man, passionate about his views, and I bet he rarely meant to dis people personally.  There was good stuff to be learned from him 50 years ago, and that holds true today. The choice to do so is up to the individual. 

I certainly mean no disrespect to you Peter. Please ask me anything you like.

I am curious Jabroni, where you think I stand on that subject? 

I have specifically avoided commenting  on the bolting and chopping of bolts on the original climbs mentioned in this thread. Mostly because I regard my opinion on that as being not very important. 

Eric Craig wrote:

What makes those routes "dangerous " is lack of skills, not lack of bolts. I have safely led some of the routes referred to in this thread and elsewhere,  plus plenty of other routes of similar character in the Valley and other places. And there have been many others before and after me. If people today, who ARE different, are really serious about being safer climbers they would be very well served by developing those skills, which are even applicable to pure sport climbs. Those skills even help me now on the simple low grade routes I do. What I fail to understand is why some people are so dead set against having the best of both worlds, and the ability to stack the odds even more so in their favor. In every way. 

There seems to be plenty of people around who learned the ancient ways, long ago in galaxy far away. Some still persue climbing the same way (mostly), some completely adopt all the modern thinking and equipment, and some are in between. It's all good. There seems to also be a small segment of youngins interested in/actively developing the skills I have referred to. I believe some of them don't even realize it. But those people will be better at all kinds of rock climbing because of it. 

I am not in denial. Everybody has always had the opportunity to play by the rules best suited to them. 

5.15d is just a grading. To those aspiring to climb that grade, I wish them the best of luck in that pursuit. Same for any other grade a person aspires to climb. Or any particular climb.

I am kind of grownup. I sorta get worked up when people misrepresent the past. Especially when dissing it at the same time. People don't know what they don't know. For those that think I don't understand the "modern" I say BS. Where do you think these modern techniques came from? A few of them came as much from me as anyone, within the context of American climbing. I didn't invent any of it. 

The above mostly sounds good to me. 

Yeah, Tom Higgins writings are dated. Tom was a good man, passionate about his views, and I bet he rarely meant to dis people personally.  There was good stuff to be learned from him 50 years ago, and that holds true today. The choice to do so is up to the individual. 

I certainly mean no disrespect to you Peter. Please ask me anything you like.

Thanks Eric,

I started climbing in the late 70s and am well aware of all the ethics arguments but I also saw how fruitless they ultimately wound up being. Universalizing certain dicta about fixed anchors or rock alteration just wound up being a dead end that usually degenerated into Dawn Wall/Wings of Steel/“Ray Jardine was just a hangdogger” name-calling, chopping routes and even the infamous fistfight about Crossroads.

Those attitudes helped keep American climbers well behind European climbers for at least a decade, did nothing to substantially advance clean climbing standards (Jardine’s Friends did way more there), and baked in a legacy of conflict that simmers to this day. The once-infamous Boulder Flatirons bolting ban was partly the result of this holier-than-thou approach to climbing.

The reason I mentioned 5.15 is that if you want to find the heritage of the Bachar-Yerian style of route, you head to the limestone multipitch 5.14s in Switzerland etc. where long runouts are common on routes initially established ground up. The numerous 5.14 and higher sport routes (and gyms) common in Europe give climbers the tools and strength to climb such lines.

Tom Higgins should be given a lot of credit for articulating his vision publicly in print but unfortunately too many interpreted it too strictly and severely, forgetting that most climbers climb on public land and have no plausible claim to ownership of routes or supervision of their character or style. When conflicts about climbing styles erupt, typically we all lose to some degree. Therefore if any debates emerge about this, it’s better they be within the context of a community conversation, not within the feelings of specific individuals with private agendas.

Well we kind of had this discussion before. One thing that has shown through to me is that you are genuine, and I respect that. Our somewhat divergent opinions come from our related but (somewhat) different chosen ways to pursue climbing activities. So be it.

As I said months before,  if I happen to visit Boulder, I will try to look you up. Hopefully we can have a good laugh. 

As for the bolt chopping that precipitated this thread, I don't think highly of it. I don't know the routes, but I know the place. I don't have anything against the routes that were there. Such climbs do serve a good purpose.

tom donnelly wrote:

As I already said, threats can also come from proliferation of bolts.  Did you already forget the proposed ban on all fixed anchors in wilderness from just last year?   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."   The AF response is that occasional bolts are valid per the wilderness act.  Excessive bolts are not occasional bolts. 

1.) Can you tell me where in the Wilderness Act mention is made of fixed pro ‘in moderate amounts’?

2.) Can I borrow your Boltometer (TM) so I can measure the difference between ‘occasional’ and ‘excessive’ with as much accuracy and objectivity as you apparently can?

 Thank you.

M M wrote:

More "most definitely threatened" by random folks with desires to play with tools on weekends with the "just doing it for the n00bs from the gym" mentality. "Scarring the rock" argument is absurd, there is a time and a place for bolts, this doesn't sound like one of them.

Talking to a superintendent 30 years ago means absolutely nothing doc.

Please give me this evidence that any current bolting activity done by hand drilling is threatening our access in YNP, please?

I assure you, in my direct experience, Wilderness Managers take people hammering on bolts or leaving studs/holes when chopping bolts very seriously. 

If you could also explain, in your judgement, why the bolts in this thread were not warranted. It sounds like a number of people were quite enjoying their use?

It's generally very telling that bolt choppers very, very rarely patch the holes or remove studs when they want to prevent the use of bolts as it seems to clearly show it's more about ego than any sort of ethic tied to preserving anything.

John Tuttle wrote:

If you actually understood the issues as it pertains to us climbers: The "threat" comes from within and it is climbers abusing the privilege of bolts by chopping them leading to a defacement of the rock.

I think you’ve done a good job of asserting this opinion, and some will agree and some will disagree, but don’t you agree think both sides of a chopped bolt should acknowledge their piece of the responsibility pie? Placing a bolt that is likely to get chopped seems……like Snyder putting in a rebar ladder.
What course of action is a dissenting opinion left with when someone steps out of line with an established ethic?
Honest question because I live in a place with a lot of drills, and no one chops anything, including retrobolts, and the results are piling up in a disturbing direction.

Open mindedly looking forward to a response.