Half Dome has fallen.

Kevin Corriganwrote:

I'm fine with all kinds of routes existing. For this specific route, it doesn't make sense. First of all, as I said in a previous comment, the runouts are contrived. They were not determined by nature. They were determined by some guys with bolts. But more importantly, the desirable characteristic of Snake Dike isn't that it's runout. People want to climb it because it's a 5.7 that goes up Half Dome. The vast majority of climbers are climbing it despite the runouts, not for the runouts. So the character of the route doesn't fit the desires of it's users. We're not talking about the Bachar-Yerian here.

It’s very obvious you have never been on Snake Dike. How does one define a route they have never climbed?

In this particular circumstance, there's an obvious elegant solution. The new bolt line is an alternate start to an unprotected P1 technical crux that leads to more moderate climbing. Leave the new bolts and give it a new name. There is precedent in Yosemite with Direct White Flake, which provides a bolted alternate start to the runout, cruxy original start of The White Flake on Stately Pleasure Dome in Tuolumne. So call it Snake Dike Direct, give it a separate entry on MP and, in the modern manner, just be honest about the style in which you climbed it. If you want the original runout experience of the first ascensionists, it is still available to you. 

IMO, it's objectively a good idea to avoid having an obligatory slabby crux start on a popular moderate climb deep the backcountry. Perhaps some climbers arrive at the base and are deterred by the scary runout slab to the first piece, but I doubt it. Turning back after a 3 AM start to hike five miles with 2500 feet of elevation gain is not an easy decision. A 20 foot groundfall is more than enough to cause death or serious damage. I'm glad it hasn't happened yet, but that slab is only getting more polished with time. 

I do think six bolts to the first piece is overkill though, and I hope the rogue bolter won't continue to overbolt on the more moderate terrain above. It's runout, but it's like 5.4 for most of it.

Still, the community should do some rebolting at least. IIRC, all the bolts are older. The existing bolts could probably use a 1-1 replacement, especially the ones protecting the traverse between dikes. Talk with Eric Beck and get his advice on where to put a couple more retrobolts. 

But let us avoid a bolt war, and let us not be old-man-shakes-fist-at-clouds. Let anyone who uses the new bolt line acknowledge their choice. 

Just to remind those people who did not FA the Snake Dike, here is what FA thinks about the bolts on the Snake Dike.

https://www.climbing.com/news/snake-dike-half-dome-yosemite-add-bolts/ 

And, select bits from the above article

Snake Dike is an old route of mine, together with Jim Bridwell and Chris Fredericks. On the first ascent, we were continually expecting much harder climbing and were conserving our supply of 12 bolts as well as hoping to get down in a day. We left the route with single belay bolts and two protection bolts. We realized that this was totally inappropriate for a moderate route, which we could already see would be popular as it was so pretty.

[Steve] Roper did the second ascent. We implored him to add more bolts, which he did, admirably. He doubled all the belay bolts and added a protection bolt on the runout pitches. He also got down in a day.

I asked other parties to add more bolts. I even put in a plug for this when I was speaking at Oakdale a few years ago. Ideally, I would like to see five protection bolts where it is run out. This is similar to the routes on Dozier Dome in Tuolumne.

Roper once asked, “Is every climb for everybody?” It may look like I want to defang the Snake Dike and bring it down to the lowest common denominator, but the Snake Dike is not a test piece. It has no fangs. It is a lovely route on one of the great monoliths of our planet. Had we had more time and more bolts, we would have done it ourselves [during the first ascent.]

There is a tradition with which I concur that the first ascent party should be the arbiter of style on a climb. Bridwell is gone and Chris has vanished from the climbing scene. So I am once again asking the climbing community add some more bolts to the Snake Dike.

So, there you have it - FA says ADD MOOORE BOLTS! 

And, it is understandable that you have some ideas about the bolting, but, since you were not FAs on the Snake Dike, your opinion is not that important as they relate to the Snake Dike. But, you are all welcome to go and FA something else, and put in as few or as many bolts as you desire.

Climbing Snake Dike was formative for me as a climber and the runout is what made Snake Dike a memorable adventure. There is no shortage of well protected moderates climbs, but there are precious few opportunities for newer climbers to have a true adventure.  It seems that adventure is slowly seeping out of our sport.  I will probably never climb Snake Dike again (I have done it half a dozen times) but Erik is robbing other new climbers of a true adventure experience with this arrogant, narcissistic and unilateral action. That makes me profoundly sad and nostalgic.

So I thought of a correlation I wanted to share.

If one of the founding fathers of the golden piton award decided that Alpinism had become too dangerous and wanted to change the rules to only reflect the physical difficulty of the route, would we all just sit back and agree?  

Snake Dike is one of the 50 classic climbs, and is a mob show most years during the whole season. Thousands of people have been climbing it in its current state for decades.  Bolts were added BITD, no one wants to address that.

This is no longer a conversation that can be had by a few locals and the FA team. Snake dike has become its own Golden Piton, for those bold enough to challenge it. Adding a sport first pitch to a mega classic is poor form, even if the FA party came back and did the retro-bolting. 

Just so folks know about this thread in the NorCal Forum started by Erik Sloan who appears to be responsible:

half-domes-snake-dike-is-being-retrobolted-get-involved

Kevin Strickerwrote:

 Adding a sport first pitch to a mega classic is poor form, even if the FA party came back and did the retro-bolting. 

That's fine, you can consider it to be poor form. BITD, many people considered Warren Harding's tactics to be poor form. BITD, it was common to lower off and start again ground up after taking any fall. Many folks considered rehearsing routes and hangdogging to be poor form. And now siege tactics and route rehearsal are giving us all of the hardest climbs done by humans. All good! We can all have our opinions about it.

I find it funny that some of us who feel so strongly that the experience of being run out and shaking and in fear of death should not be stolen from climbers, are the same people who argue that it's not possible to ignore bolts if the bolts exist. Would it not be even more of a mental challenge and accomplishment to refuse to clip bolts that are available? Any climber can do it on any route they choose. 

I personally think it's dumb to refuse to use available life-saving equipment just for the personal satisfaction of conquering death fall potential. And I equally think it's dumb to insist other people can't install basic life-saving equipment because that would be stealing the thrill of bravery from other climbers with a greater risk tolerance. But those folks can think I'm the dumb one. That's fine. To each their own.
 

L Kapwrote:

That's fine, you can consider it to be poor form. BITD, many people considered Warren Harding's tactics to be poor form. BITD, it was common to lower off and start again ground up after taking any fall. Many folks considered rehearsing routes and hangdogging to be poor form. And now siege tactics and route rehearsal are giving us all of the hardest climbs done by humans. All good! We can all have our opinions about it.

I find it funny that some of us who feel so strongly that the experience of being run out and shaking and in fear of death should not be stolen from climbers, are the same people who argue that it's not possible to ignore bolts if the bolts exist. Would it not be even more of a mental challenge and accomplishment to refuse to clip bolts that are available? Any climber can do it on any route they choose. 

I personally think it's dumb to refuse to use available life-saving equipment just for the personal satisfaction of conquering death fall potential. And I equally think it's dumb to insist other people can't install basic life-saving equipment because that would be stealing the thrill of bravery from other climbers with a greater risk tolerance. But those folks can think I'm the dumb one. That's fine. To each their own.
 

This is the underdeveloped mental fortitude my comment on the first page refers to. The mental strength to accept a new reality of safer pro seems to be much harder to develop than the mental strength needed to accept physical danger of unsafe/no pro because the former is an attack on our ego, not our physical body. I see the struggle in myself as well. We are all victims of our ego and its preferences. 

Kevin Strickerwrote:

It’s very obvious you have never been on Snake Dike. How does one define a route they have never climbed?

You're right, I've never climbed it. I'll defer to Eric Beck, who said roughly the same thing in the Climbing op/ed shared in this thread. "The Snake Dike is not a test piece. It has no fangs. It is a lovely route on one of the great monoliths of our planet." I think he has climbed it.

Xander Cage jrwrote:

Man, this topic pops up every couple years and there really isn't ever a cohesive argument for why we shouldn't add more bolts other than being submissive to old men who happened to have the time and bolts before other people showed up. It's odd to see a sport claim so much influence and history from counter culture movements, renegades etc, be so beholden to conservative ideals like following tradition for its own sake, lionizing "great men of the past" etc. 

The cohesive argument is literally right above your comment. Having to grow as a climber so you can face the runouts and stay calm, that’s a rewarding experience that is now taken away from every future climber even though we can all only come up with ONE accident in 50+ years of people climbing this route. 

The only advantage to adding more bolts to Snake Dike, is that it will open the route to more people. I think Snake Dike already gets climbed by enough people.

Some people being denied access to Snake Dike because they lack the skill or courage for the runnouts is, in my opinion, preferable to being denied access because they didn't win a Snake Dike climbing permit lottery (with a non refundable application fee, paid to a private corporation of course). And I fear that is the future Yosemite climbing is heading towards.

 Tony Danza wrote:
Having to grow as a climber so you can face the runouts and stay calm, that’s a rewarding experience that is now taken away from every future climber even though we can all only come up with ONE accident in 50+ years of people climbing this route. 

Anybody can free solo or run out any climb they wish. Alex Honnold's experience of facing death exposure and staying calm is not stolen by other people using bolts and gear. Coincidentally (or not), Alex rehearses his routes extensively with gear before he solos them. Is that poor form? Is he cheating himself?

I'm glad that those of us who don't want to solo don't have to. Use the bolts or not, it's your choice. I'd rather be talking about style than talking about people falling and dying. Yeah, Snake Dike isn't known for lot of accidents, but like all popular climbs, it is getting slicker every year as we climbers erode the rock we love.

Every FUCKING new bolt on this route will be CHOPPED.
1. This subject was already discussed and conclusive a few years ago that NO NEW BOLTs are NEEDED.
2. The route is already overcrowded.
3. The mental part of the route is one of the main important intrinsic factors.
4. The person who had the major fall was off route and new bolts would not have helped.
5. Additional bolts were already added long ago. "Steve Roper on the route's second ascent (and with the permission of the FA party), added a few bolts.
6. Only one of the FA climbers said he wanted more bolts. The others said they did not want more.

It is much harder to properly remove bolts than to place them. If someone doesn't remove them properly, then guess what: the BULLSHIT bolts will be removed no matter what. This is something for the Asshole Bolt Adder to think about. The bolt adder is the one who needs to properly chop and patch his MISTAKES. In the meantime, what size wrench is needed to acquire this new source of hangars?

The already existing new thread from just Yesterday. Yet Sloane decided he needed to retro-thread this subject. mountainproject.com/forum/t…

tom donnellywrote:

Every FUCKING new bolt on this route will be CHOPPED.
1. This subject was already discussed and conclusive a few years ago that NO NEW BOLTs are NEEDED.
2. The route is already overcrowded.
3. The mental part of the route is one of the main important intrinsic factors.
4. The person who had the major fall was off route and new bolts would not have helped.
5. Additional bolts were already added long ago. "Steve Roper on the route's second ascent (and with the permission of the FA party), added a few bolts.
6. Only one of the FA climbers said he wanted more bolts. The others said they did not want more.

It is much harder to properly remove bolts than to place them. If someone doesn't remove them properly, then guess what: the BULLSHIT bolts will be removed no matter what. This is something for the Asshole Bolt Adder to think about. The bolt adder is the one who needs to properly chop and patch his MISTAKES. In the meantime, what size wrench is needed to acquire this new source of hangars?

The already existing new thread from just Yesterday. Yet Sloane decided he needed to retro-thread this subject. mountainproject.com/forum/t…

I will respectfully ask everyone to chill. Access just became the #1 priority.

Please don't smash the bolts, they will be pulled and patched.

Cory Bwrote:

Climbing Snake Dike was formative for me as a climber and the runout is what made Snake Dike a memorable adventure. There is no shortage of well protected moderates climbs, but there are precious few opportunities for newer climbers to have a true adventure.  It seems that adventure is slowly seeping out of our sport.  I will probably never climb Snake Dike again (I have done it half a dozen times) but Erik is robbing other new climbers of a true adventure experience with this arrogant, narcissistic and unilateral action. That makes me profoundly sad and nostalgic.

This was my experience (climbed it in 1982). And I will also likely never climb it again. I am very glad to have the memories of that day with my buddy, Jim… shaking our heads at the runouts and feeling the relief getting to each belay and the tremendous sense of accomplishment back in Camp 4. Sorry that future climbers may not have the option to build up their skills and head game for SD if bolts are added. 

(If the route really is getting polished as someone above alluded to, maybe adding a bolt or two would be reasonable??? No idea. Still, both the polish and the extra bolts would certainly ensure I never repeat SD… I savor my original memories.)

As a humorous aside… could we maybe haul an old, wobbly, rotten tree trunk up Royal Arches in order to restore the spice and novelty of that route for the new generations of climbers? Another great memory from BITD…

L Kapwrote:

That's fine, you can consider it to be poor form. BITD, many people considered Warren Harding's tactics to be poor form. BITD, it was common to lower off and start again ground up after taking any fall. Many folks considered rehearsing routes and hangdogging to be poor form. And now siege tactics and route rehearsal are giving us all of the hardest climbs done by humans. All good! We can all have our opinions about it.

I find it funny that some of us who feel so strongly that the experience of being run out and shaking and in fear of death should not be stolen from climbers, are the same people who argue that it's not possible to ignore bolts if the bolts exist. Would it not be even more of a mental challenge and accomplishment to refuse to clip bolts that are available? Any climber can do it on any route they choose. 

I personally think it's dumb to refuse to use available life-saving equipment just for the personal satisfaction of conquering death fall potential. And I equally think it's dumb to insist other people can't install basic life-saving equipment because that would be stealing the thrill of bravery from other climbers with a greater risk tolerance. But those folks can think I'm the dumb one. That's fine. To each their own.
 

I agree!

I mean, if people are so bad ass they should just solo it. Isn't that the logical extension? Maybe the FA put TOO MANY bolts in, no? 

E MuuDwrote:

I agree!

I mean, if people are so bad ass they should just solo it. Isn't that the logical extension? Maybe the FA put TOO MANY bolts in, no? 

It has very little to do with being “bad ass”. I would even say it has nothing to do with being “bad ass”. This notion is a convenient misconception, to put it politely.

The pro retro bolt crowd are always the champions of the 5.7 gym climber, while denigrating anyone who feels a sense of accomplishment from leading a 5.7R.

To them Snake Dike is simultaneously so dangerous that it needs retro bolts, and so easy that no real climber should waste their time defending the traditional ethic on a total beginner route that every Valley local has soloed in their guide tennies.

As of June 5th, the first three pitches have added bolts. On the 5.7 traverse over to the dike, there were 3 added bolts in just that small traverse. This seems unnecessary! #getchafreehangers