Tuolumne Bolt Chopping

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.

Perhaps you would like to start a different topic for meta discussion of the merits of bolt chopping and zip lines in National Parks. Christian's thread here was very specific about the destruction of two very well-utilized, not-grid-bolted, not-squeeze job, beginner routes next to dozens of other bolted routes that just happen to be harder.

If someone builds a zip line from Stately Pleasure Dome to the lake, chop at will. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Perhaps you would like to start a different topic for meta discussion of the merits of bolt chopping and zip lines in National Parks. Christian's thread here was very specific about the destruction of two very well-utilized, not-grid-bolted, not-squeeze job, beginner routes next to dozens of other bolted routes that just happen to be harder.

If someone builds a zip line from Stately Pleasure Dome to the lake, chop at will. 

So, any words deviating from this thread's narrow standard should be chopped and/or taken to a different location where they will fit in better.   

HH, it's not really a strawman since I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's position in order to make it easier to defeat. It's just simply a (wild) hypothetical in order to expand or challenge our understanding of our own positions. 

We must only discuss whether chopping of bolts is bad and not whether they should have been installed in the first place.

Got it.

Only took 8 pages.

Chopping [broccoli] palate cleanser:

Bb Cc wrote:

Do you?

I've never chopped a bolt (or placed one), or advocated for chopping...

Matt Nwrote:

I've never chopped a bolt (or placed one), or advocated for chopping...

Oh, trust me... we know!

(You can probably find a meme for that.)

Sorry if that was harsh. I had to expose my insufferable self by making some long posts citing facts just so that some unfounded rumor does not continue to spread and mislead, only to watch that effort falls on deaf ears. I can't help but feel a little salty about it. I'll be nice tomorrow. Maybe.

Matt Nwrote:

Does ground up matter?
https://www.mountainproject.com/photo/124700574

Matt Nwrote:

What's the history of rap-bolted 5.5-5.7s in Tuolumne?  [Excluding any retro-bolting issues]

Edit to add: Seeing your mention of ASCA below, I can't help but wonder if you actually meant to exclude rebolting from your hyperthetical ethics discussion as even the strictest ground-up on lead traditionalists would not think twice about rapping for rebolting. Rebolting vs retro-bolting...(I'll stop here.)

I'm just trying to get this thread back off track and productive with dated comedic references.

* I donate to the ASCA, so there's a chance people have clipped "my bolts" :-P

Good comeback.

After 8+ pages, I think we are mostly talking in circles now. No one's mind has changed. 

How about I inject something to derail the serious discussion? It just happened.

So when I got off my climb, I noticed nearby, a guy apparently just lowered off a climb that challenged me -- there is one hard/powerful/reachy move at the roof that got me both times I tried. Since I knew my partner, while belaying me, had a direct line of sight, I asked him how the guy did on it. Upon my inquiry, my partner waved his hands like an Italian. "Yes, he got to the top, but he stick-clipped the first bolt. What a travesty. What happened to the ground-up on lead ethics?! We should go chop that bolt. Back in my days, we didn't even have the first bolt. Our routes always started with the second bolt!"

I was basically ROFL at that point. Oh, this was at my gym this evening. 

one last thing i'll say is that if this wasn't posted, i would have zero feelings about the whole thing, including the routes existing in the first place. i wonder how i would have felt if i climbed them without knowing any of this. im guessing that might be true for others too, like if they had just climbed the routes without any context, we all might have been fine with it, even if not ecstatic.

which leads me to wonder what the original post is really about. i think if the OP's goal was to create a productive conversation with the FAist and the chopper, they really failed in making that happen. so maybe the OP wanted to rile everyone up or just find a platform to express their general views about climbing ethics, using this example. if so, i'd say that is, on net, a disservice to the community. if you really care about the issue being resolved, OP, try something else next time?

Andrew Ricewrote:

Perhaps you would like to start a different topic for meta discussion of the merits of bolt chopping and zip lines in National Parks. Christian's thread here was very specific about the destruction of two very well-utilized, not-grid-bolted, not-squeeze job, beginner routes next to dozens of other bolted routes that just happen to be harder.

If someone builds a zip line from Stately Pleasure Dome to the lake, chop at will. 

No but chopping scars the rock,  it has been said 100x so it must be true.

Might be worth a re-read if you haven't already. 

It's essentially a summary of the reasonable attitudes here.

Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike? Peter Croft: "Yes". - Climbing

Sounds like the two routes in question are valued, not contrived, and worthwhile.  I don't think it is worth trying to get inside the head of the chopper(s).  Although my guess is that they are elitist assholes.  I know because I used to be one myself.  

Seems like the routes should be put back in, so that people can enjoy them again...myself included.  

ilya fwrote:

which leads me to wonder what the original post is really about...

Rile up? Perhaps, to a degree. 

Get a feel for how a decent sized segment of the community feels about having 5.easy routes in easy access yet still out of the way places in TM? Yes, definitely.

Learn the reasoning/identity of the chopper? I’m certainly still awaiting the reasoning, the identity is less important, though certainly would put some spine behind their actions.

Figure out if there’s a reasonable bit of support for replacement? Def wanted this info.

obtaining 3/4 of my original goals seems reasonable. I could lock the thread but that might offend my libertarian sensibilities, and I’ve learned a few things, even from the drift, so I think leaving open is best. :)

 "Back in my days, we didn't even have the first bolt. Our routes always tarted with the second bolt!"

ROTFL.  My wife actually hears this everytime I skip the first bolt, just because that is how I learned the route back in the day without it

Although the complement, is that in my aging, I am a firm advocate of stick clipping the highest bolt I can reach    

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Might be worth a re-read if you haven't already. 

It's essentially a summary of the reasonable attitudes here.

Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike? Peter Croft: "Yes". - Climbing

I am going to add a bit here and see what comes up. 

I feel that adding bolts to Snake Dike is a reasonable thing to do. It's kind of a unique situation in my mind.

In this thread, or this one combined with another, the following Tuolumne routes have been used as examples of runout routes, and I think they should stay that way: Grey Ghost,  RCA, Great Pumpkin, and Roseanne. IIRC, all these TM routes have challenging protection opportunities one place or another the cuts the number of mandatory run outs down a bit, and that is an integral part of the TRAD game. 

"Get a feel for how a decent sized segment of the community feels about having 5.easy routes in easy access yet still out of the way places in TM? Yes, definitely."

This is what an LCO is designed to do. They get feedback on anchors, trails, etc. from community members, review suggested ideas, new route/sectors, etc within the group, then discuss with local land management agencies, formulate and implement an action plan, loop back to review and repeat. This process weeds out the extremists on both ends of the spectrum since it operates under official sanction, gives local climbers autonomy and buy-in in managing their climbing areas, promotes sustainable access, improves the resource, and land managers have one less thing on their plates to deal with.

The only question is whether climbers can step up and make it work.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Might be worth a re-read if you haven't already. 

It's essentially a summary of the reasonable attitudes here.

Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike? Peter Croft: "Yes". - Climbing

just a quick fact check: at no point in answering the question of retro bolting snake dike does peter croft/the article say "Yes"...

Climbing - Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike

takeda however is 'not in favor' and jackson 'would rather the old classics remain as they are.'

old5tenwrote:

just a quick fact check: at no point in answering the question of retro bolting snake dike does peter croft/the article say "Yes"...

Climbing - Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike

takeda however is 'not in favor' and jackson 'would rather the old classics remain as they are.'

Interesting that JL seems okay with adding bolts to most moderates, yet in the 'taco thread I mentioned before (pg 2), he's isn't so sure
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1617265/Super-Chicken-on-Medlicott-add-bolts-to-third-pitch

old5tenwrote:

just a quick fact check: at no point in answering the question of retro bolting snake dike does peter croft/the article say "Yes"...

Climbing - Should We Retro-Bolt Snake Dike

takeda however is 'not in favor' and jackson 'would rather the old classics remain as they are.'

Completely agree. For some weird reason the link to the article (all I wanted to post) wouldn't post properly. Probably due to the dotcom in the link?

Regardless, Snake Dike is one of those classics that should not be retro-bolted, imo. No need to polish the route that much faster with more traffic and who knows, maybe more bolts will lead to even less experienced people trying it and more accidents? These things are unknowable.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

Completely agree. For some weird reason the link to the article (all I wanted to post) wouldn't post properly. Probably due to the dotcom in the link?

Regardless, Snake Dike is one of those classics that should not be retro-bolted, imo. No need to polish the route that much faster with more traffic and who knows, maybe more bolts will lead to even less experienced people trying it and more accidents? These things are unknowable.

It seems that statement could also work for TM as a whole but what do I know?