Half Dome's Snake Dike is being retrobolted - get involved!

I’m a mediocre wannabe Valley climber who was looking forward to climbing this route this year, and I have an argument against retrobolting that has nothing to do with access, safety, aesthetics, routefinding, or risk tolerance and everything to do with keeping our routes from descending into bolting lawlessness and mayhem.

Here it is: You should modify a route only if, when, and as directed by the FA. Why? Because respecting the route as originally set up by the FA is the only objective way to keep our crags peaceful and our impact minimal (something we can all get behind, surely). MP users SlabDaddy69 and runoutmaster1971 might be okay with 50' runouts, but someone else (say a certain guidebook author) may not be. So how do you decide between the two? The answer is you don't. You don't decide.

(The nuance in this specific case is that the FA did say he wanted additional bolts added. But their statement was vague (five total? five/pitch? where?), hardly qualifies as guidance, and should have been clarified by Sloan before retrobolting).

By the way, the flip side (or maybe the logical extension) of my argument is that if an FA says they want more bolts (and clearly say where, how many, etc), and someone then goes and installs said bolts, then you damn better respect the new bolts. You don’t get to say “oh it’s been 60 years, sorry, you don’t get a say anymore.” And if the FA isn't around anymore (we're all gonna die one day. Maybe on Snake Dike), then the route ain't changing.

There’s my two cents. Please don’t cyberbully me.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

They call it curation. Its really more like Glimbing.

I don't know what you mean but glimbing, but I think I was the one who spoke of curating routes. 

I was speaking of folks who wish to curate a collection of climbs for what appears to be the specific purpose of putting the climber in unnecessary mortal peril so that the climber may experience a particular internal state or replicate a historic journey. As opposed to equipping a climb safely in the crux sections and letting climbers who wish to be in danger exercise the self-discipline to solo or run out those sections. 

Would that not be an even more impressive ability, refusing to use the bolts that are available when you truly believe you are in mortal danger? I'm kind of tongue in cheek here because I personally would call that a dumb decision and would not climb with people who make that choice, but I understand there are many people who don't see it the same way. 

Andrew Richardson wrote:

I can understand choosing not to take risks while climbing. I cannot understand not understanding how risk is an integral aspect of the sport and its history, a pillar upon which everything else stands.

Can we not admire and honor our first ascensionists without enforcing the risk tolerance of those individuals upon all subsequent climbers? Incidentally, there are probably quite a large number of classic routes that were free soloed by indigenous people long before the modern historic record of climbing. Would that logically mean that everyone must free solo the obvious moderate lines or else be a heretic?

I was speaking of folks who wish to curate a collection of climbs for what appears to be the specific purpose of putting the climber in unnecessary mortal peril so that the climber may experience a particular internal state or replicate a historic journey.

Of course you were, as opposed to a generation of climbers that expect a curated collection of tightly spaced bolted climbs overwriting all prior risk using the sharp end of a chisel, and to hell with history.

Nobody is forced into anything. Anybody who is not up to the (very, very mild) task of Snake Dike has plenty of options. There are countless people on MP looking for partners who would be willing to lead the whole thing. Hire a guide. Nobody is making you “risk your life.”

Also, the crux of Snake Dike DOES have a bolt! The runouts are 5.3!

Looks like Erik's account was deactivated

Deactivated by MP or he deleted it? Not sure why site admins would deactivate him, but plenty of reasons he might delete his account on his own...I imagine some might be using the "contact user" button to personally tell him what they think.

Sometimes climbing is just scary 

Lurk Er wrote:

Deactivated by MP or he deleted it? Not sure why site admins would deactivate him, but plenty of reasons he might delete his account on his own...I imagine some might be using the "contact user" button to personally tell him what they think.

Perhaps it has something to do with asking for money repeatedly? 

Andrew Richardson wrote:

Perhaps it has something to do with asking for money repeatedly? 

Maybe...his recent behavior on here seems to range from highly distasteful (asking for money to retrobolt) to rage-inducing, but not sure any of that violates MP policy. Although the site admins do appear quicker to pull the trigger on bad actors than say, during the Tradiban days. Seems more likely to me that people were DM'ing Erik and he didn't want to take the heat, so he left. Either way, I am in no way defending him or his actions, mostly just curious as to how he found the door.

Would that not be an even more impressive ability, refusing to use the bolts that are available when you truly believe you are in mortal danger? 

This has been brought up several times, but the answer is no, it is substantially more difficult to climb into committing terrain with no opportunity for protection than it is to skip bolts on the same terrain. The bolts allow you to take it one move at a time and see how it goes, and if it gets to be too sketch you know you have an "out" not far away. I think everyone who climbs runnout routes will agree with this.

I’d like to see the NPS ban Sloan from Yosemite because of his continual and illegal practice of using a power drill. The Park will be a better place without him.

I've climbed Snake Dike five times since 2003, each time with a different partner. Probably my favorite route ever. Never once felt unsafe. Adding more bolts would kill the adventurous soul of the entire experience. I can't imagine what the hell Sloan is thinking, but he's proposing the rape of a classic, like painting a mustache onto the Mona Lisa.

If anyone wants to fundraise for chopping Sloan's new bolts, I would happily donate.

Terry E wrote:

I’d like to see the NPS ban Sloan from Yosemite because of his continual and illegal practice of using a power drill. The Park will be a better place without him.

Those folks are stretched so thin that they can barely keep up with SAR and automobile accidents thanks to our president.  Maybe enough complaints would do something but I seriously doubt it.

L Kap wrote:

Re: selection bias, the user pool of Mountain Project seems to skew much more male than the climbing community. I bring it up because it's an indiputable fact that men are, statistically, known to have a higher risk tolerance than women. Not all men and not all women, but on average. I think you can expect that to influence the average opinion on a forum topic like this. I'm not trying to make this a gender war, but anyone who hasn't thought about this might want to.

As a woman this is absurd to read. It doesn't matter whether any group tends to have more or less tolerance for risk. If Snake Dike is too risky for you, don't climb it. Just like any other route in climbing. If that applies to a whole group then that's fine, it doesn't make them entitled to bring down a classic to their level. 

Plenty of us women have climbed snake dike and loved it. I thought that with any more bolts it would have been a waste of time and am heartbroken that an experience I would have loved to have shared with my sister, who is visiting the valley for the first time this fall, has been reduced to a gym climb that there will be no point bothering with.

The true tragedy is that the moderate climber has lost the classic route that they could realistically hope to work up to ...Just so we can cater to those that have barely begun the sport. 

Add a bolt or two here and there, but this is devastating.
Shall we fix lines all the way up the Nose next? 

Sloan is an experienced alpine climber IMO, with many years left to climb. I hope he explores why he made these decisions and from that chooses to recommit to transparency with - and respect for the climbing community.

Siobhán Straver wrote:

As a woman this is absurd to read. It doesn't matter whether any group tends to have more or less tolerance for risk. If Snake Dike is too risky for you, don't climb it. Just like any other route in climbing. If that applies to a whole group then that's fine, it doesn't make them entitled to bring down a classic to their level. 

Plenty of us women have climbed snake dike and loved it. I thought that with any more bolts it would have been a waste of time and am heartbroken that an experience I would have loved to have shared with my sister, who is visiting the valley for the first time this fall, has been reduced to a gym climb that there will be no point bothering with.

Thanks for rebutting LKap absurd point. I saw last night but was too tired to respond. None of the half dozen women I climb with follow social media so I will have to call them to let them know about this and poll but knowing them, my guess is they will all be thumbs down on SD retrobolting. Female partner I am with now, who said she did SD byheadlamp with full moon, told her about this rebolting insanity over dinner last night, and she thought it was ridiculous. “I learned to climb on runout routes. You learn not to climb a route where you could fall”.

I haven’t been vocal on these two threads since I never got around to doing Snake Dike. Was never a priority for me. But I looked thru my guidebooks before this trip, and I have led R rated routes in the Valley and the Meadows at every letter grade from 5.6R to 11b R. So I think I can be allowed an opinion. I already stated it once. Pull the retrobolts.

There have been so many beautifully written and articulate posts on the two SD threads - there is no need for me to rehash. 

Ah, we get to listen to the chicken hawks talk about retro bolting and how if you don’t like run-outs go climbing at the gym, blah blah blah blah blah. If you don’t like more bolts, don’t clip them. But please express your opinion with the knowledge that other people have the perfect right to disagree with you. So many of you act as if yours is the only opinion that is valid and I’m really tired of it! Climbing is recreation. Nothing more. Why make it more dangerous than it has to be especially on something that is as beautiful and spectacular as snake dike?
I’ve climbed Snake Dike 13 times and was never uncomfortable with the run outs (the only pitch that ever bothered me was the friction traverse on the 2nd/3rd pitch), but I’m all for judiciously adding bolts on the upper pitches (for Pete’s sake there are 100 foot run-outs on some of those pitches. Is that really necessary even on 5.4?

Some of y'all  have never experienced climbing on the very moderate yet very run out slabs of Whitehorse ledge in North Conway, and it shows

Jim Dover wrote:

Ah, we get to listen to the chicken hawks talk about retro bolting and how if you don’t like run-outs go climbing at the gym, blah blah blah blah blah. If you don’t like more bolts, don’t clip them. But please express your opinion with the knowledge that other people have the perfect right to disagree with you. So many of you act as if yours is the only opinion that is valid and I’m really tired of it! Climbing is recreation. Nothing more. Why make it more dangerous than it has to be especially on something that is as beautiful and spectacular as snake dike?
I’ve climbed Snake Dike 13 times and was never uncomfortable with the run outs (the only pitch that ever bothered me was the friction traverse on the 2nd/3rd pitch), but I’m all for judiciously adding bolts on the upper pitches (for Pete’s sake there are 100 foot run-outs on some of those pitches. Is that really necessary even on 5.4?

No one is arguing about judiciously adding more bolts. I bet that 80% of this thread would be okay with only a handful more having been added, but what Erik has done is a joke. There's 13 bolts on pitch 3 now, like a gym climb. Nothing judicious about it. 

Siobhán Straver wrote:

No one is arguing about judiciously adding more bolts. I bet that 80% of this thread would be okay with only a handful more having been added, but what Erik has done is a joke. There's 13 bolts on pitch 3 now, like a gym climb. Nothing judicious about it. 

I think we would agree maybe a bolt halfway to the first bolt on p3 and then  bolt halfway to the anchor would have been appropriate.. 13 bolts?!?! even by boulder canyon standards that's pretty fucking wild. My gym has runouts bigger than that /s