Tuolumne Bolt Chopping

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

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.

I believe ego makes most folks wake up every day and go to work or even go climbing , I know I don't want to be homeless or even worse, a person with no hobbies.  Certainly ego is involved in attempting to get to the top of a cliff. You say ego like its a bad thing. 

I probably would enjoy the bolts, I'm just here trolling, uh,  I mean playing the devils advocate.  I hate it when one side of an argument isn't around to defend themselves.

Rpropswrote:

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.

Fair, and I have been a bit strident to make a point.

But we have to hand drill in YNP and it makes a huge difference. People think a lot more otherwise when they are going to spend 30-45 minutes per hole. That's why I responded as I did to statements that Yosemite was a "free for all" when very few new routes are being done, especially at lower grades.

Anywhere people can get away with using electric drills it can be a problem and people do over bolt absolute shit rock climbs. Typically, it becomes self-regulating as the shyte climbs don't get climbed on and people learn their lesson between public derision and lack of traffic on the routes.

My suggestion is education and peer pressure. Don't hesitate to tell people they are overdoing it and that scrap of choss was not worth it and then don't climb those routes and encourage others to stay off. 

If you have very broad community consensus that bolts are being overused or no longer needed get consensus (sometimes even with the original bolter) that the bolts should be properly removed. Then do the hard work of pulling and patching.

Ultimately you may have to work with your land manager to require and enforce hand drilling. It's the best way to encourage good choices, imo.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Fair, and I have been a bit strident to make a point.

But we have to hand drill in YNP and it makes a huge difference. People think a lot more otherwise when they are going to spend 30-45 minutes per hole. That's why I responded as I did to statements that Yosemite was a "free for all" when very few new routes are being done, especially at lower grades.

 

If you have very broad community consensus that bolts are being overused or no longer needed get consensus (sometimes even with the original bolter) that the bolts should be properly removed. Then do the hard work of pulling and patching.

Ultimately you may have to work with your land manager to require and enforce hand drilling. It's the best way to encourage good choices, imo.

earlier in the thread you disagreed with my mildly hot take that maybe bolt "wars" are actually a civil way to have this discussion because of the work required to "discuss", that it's self regulating in that way. it seems like that's exactly you're saying here though. although you do add some good caveats about patching and pulling vs sledgehammer, and consensus (which is probably impossible however, as seen in this thread). 

just curious what the difference is between what i said and what you're suggesting. all these bolts are hand drilled in TM, so it encourages good choices, relatively speaking. whoever bolted the route definitely made good choices in that they drilled responsibly, they thought about the audience for the route, and made them safe, and sounds like the routes don't encroach on existing routes. so that's a good choice. but i think what i am disagreeing with is how theses routes fit with the character of TM climbing, where its not a learning ground for new climbers to lead, even though climbs that fit this description already exist there in a limited capacity, and that that capacity is enough. there are so many things to TR / mock lead in tuolumne that the need is already met if you know how to look.

anyway i appreciate the discussion here from everyone, im definitely learning a lot, and just to say, have never had any sort of bad experience being outside in TM. everyone ive ever met at the rock has been kind and cooperative as far as sharing the space. 

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.

David Swrote:

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

There is no exact definition.  Some wilderness is near roads, not remote and not unspoiled so land managers may be more lenient.  Most managers are not anxious to take on a burden of policing bolts and are happy to stay out of the issue until such time as bolting is clearly well over the line, hoping that climbers will self regulate appropriately.  Some areas have more significant impact from climbers, and are free to decide in their climbing management plan to limit bolts.

The general long held principle is that fixed anchors should not change the "wilderness character".  Director's Order 41 of 2013 followed from that principle.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/DO_41_5-13-2013.pdf
DO 41 Section 7.2

7.2 Climbing
For the purpose of this Order, climbing is defined to include rock climbing, snow and ice
climbing, mountaineering, canyoneering, and caving, where climbing equipment, such as ropes and fixed or removable anchors, is generally used to support an ascent or descent. The NPS recognizes that climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness. However, any climbing use or related activity must be restricted or prohibited when its occurrence, continuation, or expansion would result in unacceptable impacts to wilderness resources or character, or interfere significantly with the experience of other park visitors.

If climbing activities occur in wilderness, climbing management strategies will be included as part of the park's Wilderness Stewardship Plan, or other activity-level plan. Wilderness parks with climbing use will exchange information on best practices, work together on servicewide implementation, and communicate with stakeholders and wilderness users. Wilderness climbing education and impact monitoring will be important components in climbing management programs. It is recognized that the use of removable anchors may reduce, but does not in every case completely eliminate, the need for fixed anchors. 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. However, climbing practices with the least negative impact on wilderness resources and character will always be the preferred choice.

The establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation and management due to the concentration of human activity which they support, and the types and levels of impacts associated with such routes. Climbing management strategies will address ways to control, and in some cases reduce, the number of fixed anchors to protect the park’s wilderness resources or to preserve the “untrammeled,” “undeveloped,” and “outstanding opportunities for solitude” qualities of the park’s wilderness character.

Fixed anchors or fixed equipment should be rare in wilderness.
***
Authorization will be required for the placement of new fixed anchors or fixed equipment. Authorization may be required for the replacement or removal of existing fixed anchors or fixed equipment. The authorization process to be followed will be established at the park level and will be based on a consideration of resource issues (including the wilderness resource) and recreation opportunities.
Authorization may be issued programmatically within the Wilderness Stewardship Plan or other 16 activity-level plan, or specifically on a case-by-case basis, such as through a permit system. Prior to the completion of the park’s Wilderness Stewardship Plan or other activity-level plan, the park superintendent may approve new fixed anchors or fixed equipment on a case-by-case basis.

If unacceptable impacts are occurring in wilderness as a result of climbing, the park
superintendent may deem it necessary to restrict or prohibit the placement of fixed anchors. Proposals for the placement of fixed anchors or fixed equipment for the administrative purpose of facilitating future rescue operations must be evaluated through a MRA.

“Clean climbing” techniques should be the norm in wilderness. This involves the use of
temporary equipment and anchors that can be placed and removed without altering the
environment (e.g. slings, cams, nuts, chocks, and stoppers). Practices such as gluing or chipping holds, and damaging or removing vegetation on or at the base of climbing routes, are prohibited by NPS regulations (36 CFR 2.1). The use of motorized equipment (e.g. power drills) is prohibited by the Wilderness Act and NPS regulations (36 CFR 2.12). Climbers are encouraged to adopt Leave No Trace principles and practices for all climbing activities, including packing out all trash and human waste.

-------------------------

*** Note: the rest of this paragraph about authorization has not been done in general.  Only a few places have a real anchor management plan.  JTree for example.   The EXPLORE Act & PARC Act say that all wilderness places are supposed to develop such a plan within 18 months.  Which seems unlikely in this maga era.

-----------------
AF newsletter summer 2013
https://d1w9vyym276tvm.cloudfront.net/assets/Summer-13-Vertical-Times_LR.pdf

More references about fixed anchors:

Former Senator Udall wrote an opinion piece that noted, “As the primary sponsor of the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, I want to be absolutely clear: Nothing in those bills was intended to restrict sustainable and appropriate Wilderness climbing practices or prohibit the judicious and conditional placement of fixed anchors—many of which existed before the bills’ passage. I used fixed anchors to climb in these areas, and I want future climbers to safely experience profound adventures and thereby become Wilderness advocates themselves.”
https://www.accessfund.org/latest-news/wilderness-climbing-faq

Through the Protect America’s Rock Climbing Act (PARC Act), EXPLORE will clarify that climbing and the use, placement, and replacement of climbing anchors are an “allowable activity” within Wilderness areas, subject to reasonable rules and regulations to protect wilderness character. The bill protects the status quo: it would not expand bolted climbing in Wilderness areas, since these areas deserve special levels of protection. The language protects climbers’ ability to sparingly place and replace bolts with a hand drill only, and does not limit land managers’ current ability to restrict climbing when necessary to protect natural or cultural resources.
https://www.mountaineers.org/blog/victory-explore-act-passes-congress

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1380/text

https://www.saltlakeclimbers.org/news/2024/12/26/draft-park-act-passess
The SLCA would like the thank Utahs very own Rep. John Curtis (R-UT) for his involvement as one of the bills original sponsor along with introducing the bill to the House.

https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2024/12/19/xqb6m95tn7yzrj9c0gjad322vzx4zx

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/popular-law-driving-wedge-between-public-lands-advocates

https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/04/24/neguses-bill-safeguarding-climbing-gear-in-rocky-mountain-wilderness-gains-ground-in-u-s-congress/

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

I like how the seasoned Tuolumne climbers are ok with these easier routes being bolted and the posers aren’t 

LOL. Are you talking about the mostly anonymous MP accounts? Exactly who is it you think are such "seasoned Tuolumne climbers" here? Or is this just the resultant death throes of the side with increasingly bad arguments?  

Christian Heschwrote:

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

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…

Thanks for the reply, and I'll take your word for their motivations since you know them and I don't. It's possible that the overuse of "for the community" type arguments and experiencing that squeeze-job over at Low Profile Dome that this party (I think) put in is causing me to be extra skeptical, so I'll try to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

My comments about gridbolting and boring routes weren't really about these routes in particular, but more a general worry if people putting in new routes are left completely unchecked, as some here seem to wish for.  Again, I just want some restraint shown from both sides... is that too much to ask for? 

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.

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.

If it's about the wilderness ethics of putting bolts in the rock, as opposed to snobbery over the ease or difficulty of the grade, isn't that a question for the NPS rangers? Not people who install and use bolts, but just on things that are hard for THEM? 

Christian Heschwrote:

Clickbait headline? Perhaps, but worth a read in case someone knows the chopper and can thank/shame them for their efforts, imo.

To the SPD chopper. Thank you for protecting us from overbolting and removing 50% of the bolts on recently established** routes on SPD. I’m really glad that noobs will now *not* have a safe place to learn lead climbing, and can instead go straight to the classics to clog them up *before* they are able to learn the requisite skills. 

Where are noob bolt choppers supposed to learn to chop if not on noob routes?   

Andrew Ricewrote:

Where are noob bolt choppers supposed to learn to chop if not on noob routes?   

Dammit, I didn’t even think of this… my sincerest apologies to the thief/chopper, I should have realized I was actually the one gatekeeping a noob 

ilya fwrote:

earlier in the thread you disagreed with my mildly hot take that maybe bolt "wars" are actually a civil way to have this discussion because of the work required to "discuss", that it's self regulating in that way. it seems like that's exactly you're saying here though. although you do add some good caveats about patching and pulling vs sledgehammer, and consensus (which is probably impossible however, as seen in this thread). 

just curious what the difference is between what i said and what you're suggesting. all these bolts are hand drilled in TM, so it encourages good choices, relatively speaking. whoever bolted the route definitely made good choices in that they drilled responsibly, they thought about the audience for the route, and made them safe, and sounds like the routes don't encroach on existing routes. so that's a good choice. but i think what i am disagreeing with is how theses routes fit with the character of TM climbing, where its not a learning ground for new climbers to lead, even though climbs that fit this description already exist there in a limited capacity, and that that capacity is enough. there are so many things to TR / mock lead in tuolumne that the need is already met if you know how to look.

anyway i appreciate the discussion here from everyone, im definitely learning a lot, and just to say, have never had any sort of bad experience being outside in TM. everyone ive ever met at the rock has been kind and cooperative as far as sharing the space. 

I highlighted a couple of statements above to ask, who has the authority to make that judgement call for everyone else? 

IMO, a productive way to have any discussion is to limit the discussion to the topic at hand. In this case, the two routes on Stately Pleasure Dome: Jabberwalky and Aoxomoxoa, where bolts were chopped.

What's not productive is to extrapolate and exaggerate, where hyperthetical scenarios were drawn up to commit every possible cardinal sin such as retro-bolting, rap bolting, grid bolting, or lying about FA, etc. That's a surefire way to get people outraged. However, I did not find any evidence that either route committed any of those "crimes." So, what was exactly the moral ground that the bolt chopper stood on to remove those bolts? 

Some old timers might remember this ST bolt chopping discussion from long time back. While I do not agree with the chopping or the way how it was done, I give him mad props for stating his cause and defending his action out in public. 

I'm usually not one to be accused for being an optimist, but I tend to trust that most people are willing to stand behind their action with pride and reason, which is the ultimate self-regulation that prevents things from going out of hand. 

If you want to examine the reasoning a chopper may have had to chop then you first should examine the reasons an installer put the bolts there to begin with. After all, 

who has the authority to make that judgement call for everyone else?

What goes in, can be chopped back out. At the core, its as simple as - a driller (who personally decided to drill) and a chopper (who personally decided to chop).  

"Everyone else" have literally nothing to do with it. No one decided anything for anyone else, there was no vote. Nobody else was involved. An installer and a chopper, 1:1.  

This is the reality of bolting a lot of people utterly misrepresent. No one voted those bolts in. No one voted them out. None of you had any say at all in this. The installer can install. The chopper can chop. That is the Tuolumne playing field.

And there is no authority. Thankfully. If you have to have your authority and rulebooks and compliance, you'll have to look to the NPS. My opinion - if you invite authority in to settle the matter, you personally lose all authority in the process. And you won't get it back. 

If you want the freedom to bolt YOU MUST accept others have the freedom to chop. Put your bolts in the right place and time using appropriate tools and methods, to suit the venue. Stray too far and someone else may be inspired to chop your work.

I know, for the rulebook bound, this is an intolerable situation.   

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

If you want to examine the reasoning a chopper may have had to chop then you first should examine the reasons an installer put the bolts there to begin with. After all, 

What goes in, can be chopped back out. At the core, its as simple as - a driller (who personally decided to drill) and a chopper (who personally decided to chop).  

"Everyone else" have literally nothing to do with it. No one decided anything for anyone else, there was no vote. Nobody else was involved. An installer and a chopper, 1:1.  

This is the reality of bolting a lot of people utterly misrepresent. No one voted those bolts in. No one voted them out. None of you had any say at all in this. The installer can install. The chopper can chop. That is the Tuolumne playing field.

And there is no authority. Thankfully. If you have to have your authority and rulebooks and compliance, you'll have to look to the NPS. My opinion - if you invite authority in to settle the matter, you personally lose all authority in the process. And you won't get it back. 

If you want the freedom to bolt YOU MUST accept others have the freedom to chop. Put your bolts in the right place and time using appropriate tools and methods, to suit the venue. Stray too far and someone else may be inspired to chop your work.

I know, for the rulebook bound, this is an intolerable situation.   

I don't think this is entirely true although it is in an absolutist sense. We are all alone, amirite?

But, I think when people choose to put up new routes or place anchors they definitely check "which way the wind is blowing" so to speak because the last thing any new rout-eneer wants is for his route to be chopped. Feedback on routes at Fifi buttress informed my choices on Tenaya's Tears etc and feed back on people's enjoyment definitely are "votes" in a sense informing future behavior. Tony Lewis solicited input before placing anchors on the walk off of SPD because people were killing a tree up there. I think people placing bolts are generally quite in touch with current sentiment.

Note the individuals responsible for the chopping rarely engage with the community to state their case etc. This is the "selfish" ego I am referring to when people chop apparently just to suit themselves.

Reveal yourself, Sith Lord of Chop!

:P

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

I don't think this is entirely true although it is in an absolutist sense. We are all alone, amirite?

But, I think when people choose to put up new routes or place anchors they definitely check "which way the wind is blowing" so to speak because the last thing any new rout-eneer wants is for his route to be chopped. Feedback on routes at Fifi buttress informed my choices on Tenaya's Tears etc and feed back on people's enjoyment definitely are "votes" in a sense informing future behavior. Tony Lewis solicited input before placing anchors on the walk off of SPD because people were killing a tree up there. I think people placing bolts are generally quite in touch with current sentiment.

Note the individuals responsible for the chopping rarely engage with the community to state their case etc. This is the "selfish" ego I am referring to when people chop apparently just to suit themselves.

Reveal yourself, Sith Lord of Chop!

:P

Not revealing one's identity isn't necessarily indicative of selfish reasoning. The person chopping a bolt might just want things back to the way they were before the bolts were placed, without having to defend themselves from an angry mob whipped up by people like you on the internet. Maybe they even believed your made up legal threats and don't want to be prosecuted. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the drama. People add bolts to things all the time under the cover of anonymity too... what are your thoughts on them? I mean, how many different anonymous accounts have you had on MP now? 

And the reasons for chopping a bolt go beyond just "selfish ego" reasons, though I do understand that there are plenty of cases where people have been driven by their ego to chop bolts. Accept that. This constant barrage of straw-man demonizing just isn't fooling anyone who is paying attention. 

edit to add: 

HH/KT/HB/?? this discussion, and your input, has gone beyond the specifics of these particular routes, and you know it. Don't pretend your comments aren't speaking in a universal sense. 

Jabroni... that's actually a pretty funny. Well done. 

Brandon Rwrote:

Not revealing one's identity isn't necessarily indicative of selfish reasoning. The person chopping a bolt might just want things back to the way they were before the bolts were placed, without having to defend themselves from an angry mob whipped up by people like you on the internet. Maybe they even believed your made up legal threats and don't want to be prosecuted. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the drama. People add bolts to things all the time under the cover of anonymity too... what are your thoughts on them? I mean, how many different anonymous accounts have you had on MP now? 

And the reasons for chopping a bolt go beyond just "selfish ego" reasons, though I do understand that there are plenty of cases where people have been driven by their ego to chop bolts. Accept that. This constant barrage of straw-man demonizing just isn't fooling anyone who is paying attention. 

Doh!

Brandon Rwrote:

Not revealing one's identity isn't necessarily indicative of selfish reasoning. The person chopping a bolt might just want things back to the way they were before the bolts were placed, without having to defend themselves from an angry mob whipped up by people like you on the internet. Maybe they even believed your made up legal threats and don't want to be prosecuted. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the drama. People add bolts to things all the time under the cover of anonymity too... what are your thoughts on them? I mean, how many different anonymous accounts have you had on MP now? 

And the reasons for chopping a bolt go beyond just "selfish ego" reasons, though I do understand that there are plenty of cases where people have been driven by their ego to chop bolts. Accept that. This constant barrage of straw-man demonizing just isn't fooling anyone who is paying attention. 

No, you see they don't have other reasons. This is clearly a case of selfish ego.

We aren't talking about something that is easily universally condemned (ie new Bolt Ladder up the Columbia boulder) but the stealing of bolts on popular moderate climbs that were not over bolted or squeezed in. Bolts were added to an obscurity as well with the permission of the FA.

Some individual decided that they alone were the arbiter of bolt law and that is selfish. No one in this thread, once all the facts are known, is defending the chopper/thief. If they had the courage of their convictions they would take responsibility and explain their point of view. A bolt chopper doesn't want to deal with the drama, that they created? Ok.....

As well, in this very thread I ask people to not add bolts to climbs, so come on man. I think I'm pretty clear on retro bolting not being ok. 

No More Secrets wrote:

[video of Direct White Flake]

Not a comment on whether the bolts are good or bad, but  Are you sure the second pitch is a new line and new FA?
or was it the second pitch of Kamps-Couch?
conflicting beta and comments here https://www.mountainproject.com/route/118987709/kamps-couch
There are two different topo photos on that webpage, and they quite conflict on where Kamps-Couch is located.
I only have the 1986 guidebook which does not have the info of the third and fourth editions.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

"Everyone else" have literally nothing to do with it. No one decided anything for anyone else, there was no vote. Nobody else was involved...This is the reality of bolting a lot of people utterly misrepresent. No one voted those bolts in. No one voted them out. None of you had any say at all in this.…Put your bolts in the right place and time using appropriate tools and methods, to suit the venue. Stray too far and someone else may be inspired to chop your work.

As mentioned already, “we” (the people) do indeed “vote,” by climbing it - and then by climbing it again with noob friends that we bring back, specifically b/c the opportunity exists for our less experienced friends. That number of “votes” is in the mid 3 digits, I think that’s enough of a clear statement on “having a say” in whether this was the “right place and time”…

Brandon R wrote: 

People add bolts to things all the time under the cover of anonymity too... what are your thoughts on them?   

The people who put the sweat equity into the two routes in question (not the wild hypotheticals that some are postulating) did so with full transparency... So your comment seems like a red herring, in relation to the org topic of the thread.

Christian Heschwrote:

As mentioned already, “we” (the people) do indeed “vote,” by climbing it - and then by climbing it again with noob friends that we bring back, specifically b/c the opportunity exists for our less experienced friends. That number of “votes” is in the mid 3 digits, I think that’s enough of a clear statement on “having a say” in whether this was the “right place and time”…

The people who put the sweat equity into the two routes in question (not the wild hypotheticals that some are postulating) did so with full transparency... So your comment seems like a red herring, in relation to the org topic of the thread.

Given the title, and the general drift of the thread by many here, I don't think discussing the issue of bolting and bolt removal in a general sense (including hypotheticals) should be that big of a problem. Here's another one... if you built a zipline from the top of Stately Pleasure Dome down to the lake, it would draw huge crowds. Yet, I don't think those votes/crowds outweigh the fact that this attraction would be outside of the acceptable use for a national park. That is to say, popularity shouldn't be the only metric when deciding if something like this should remain or not. But really, my main issue isn't even with these 2 routes at all... it's with the simplistic "chopper always bad, bolter always good" kind of mentality I've seen displayed here. And if your goal is to prevent future bolt chopping, then I think it's worthwhile for people to discuss and understand differing opinions and motivations in greater depth. Otherwise, it's just an internet bitch and whine fest. If that's the case, sorry to contribute to the ruination of your thread.

Brandon Rwrote:

Given the title, and the general drift of the thread by many here, I don't think discussing the issue of bolting and bolt removal in a general sense (including hypotheticals) should be that big of a problem. Here's another one... if you built a zipline from the top of Stately Pleasure Dome down to the lake, it would draw huge crowds. Yet, I don't think those votes/crowds outweigh the fact that this attraction would be outside of the acceptable use for a national park. That is to say, popularity shouldn't be the only metric when deciding if something like this should remain or not. But really, my main issue isn't even with these 2 routes at all... it's with the simplistic "chopper always bad, bolter always good" kind of mentality I've seen displayed here. And if your goal is to prevent future bolt chopping, then I think it's worthwhile for people to discuss and understand differing opinions and motivations in greater depth. Otherwise, it's just an internet bitch and whine fest. If that's the case, sorry to contribute to the ruination of your thread.

Yes, but a zip line would not be allowed under Park regulations as I currently understand them. 

It's a straw man to conflate a well protected rock climb that no one outside of climbers will ever notice with a zip line that every tourist could use and see people using etc.

But I do feel ya' on this "demonizing" of bolt choppers. We can all imagine something ridiculous that shouldn't exist. BUT, it IS illegal according to Park policy as I understand it to remove/damage bolts with the intent of erasing a rock climb or rappel station etc. This is born out of Bachar's hammering flat the hangers on Punchline bitd. So as much as we might not like some bolts somewhere, we technically don't have the individual right to remove them AFAIK (though I certainly can envision enough community outcry on some abomination where community stewards remove them).