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

Boreal Strut wrote:

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

If someone were to retrobolt Sliding Board the local climbers would promptly burn them alive.

Cron wrote:

If someone were to retrobolt Sliding Board the local climbers would promptly burn them alive.

Very true. 50-60' run-outs are the norm that moderate leaders get to experience, sometimes full pitches with only 1 piece of gear between the leader and belay. I was taught that this was all part of the experience. I haven't climbed SD yet, but it sounds like there are at least holds on the long run outs, which would be a dream compared to padding up a hold less slab 60' above a tri cam lol

13 does seem excessive. I don’t think the route had 13 bolts and it’s entirety—Including belay bolts.

Bill Lawry wrote:

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.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it still don't look good in a garter belt and thigh-highs, just sayin'. 

Are we sure this isn’t the work of a troll? If somebody added bolts to The Open Book or The Edge… 

I don’t intend to disparage Mr Beck, but I share in Josh Janes‘ opinion that 60 years was plenty of time for bolts to be added by Mr Beck, Mr  Bridwell, or Mr Fredericks.  The three fa’ist could have casually strolled up there at any time and added as many bolts as they saw fit and nobody would have questioned their actions. The fact that Snake Dike has been climbed and enjoyed by thousands over 61 years indicates that Beck’s, Bridwell’s, Frederick’s, and Roper’s original equipping was adequate. 

As a climber who learned to climb at traditional areas, the idea of retro-bolting is ridiculous. 

If the community decides that removing some or all of the new bolts is the best course of action, please do it properly. With a puller, some adhesive like ac100, and a handful of dust/chips, the person responsible for fixing this mess should be able to completely camouflage all holes such that we're not leaving a mess on such an incredible route. I had a great experience on Snake Dike and hope that future parties don't have to look at a mess of smashed bolts or poorly patched holes.

Super sad to hear this. Snake Dike is a classic line and the runouts are part of the challenge. Having climbed it half a dozen times from 1981 in EBs to most recently in 2024 it's a fine route that shouldn't have been reduced to a clip up. Thirteen bolts on pitch 3??? That's an insane dumming down of a Yosemite classic. I doubt there would be many complaints of adding one or two bolts on the strung out pitches but this is over the top. 

Jim Dover wrote: 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?

But Jim, climbing is inherently dangerous. I took a look at your tick list. You solo easy routes. So you choose to make that route more dangerous than it needs to be.
climbers getting hurt deeply upset me. So much so that when a young woman died on a “completely safe” sport route a few years ago (inexperience/inadequate instruction/inadequate supervision), I wrote a long article for beginning climbers hoping to prevent at least one future fatality ( link can be found in beginners forum).

In compiling the article, and from reviewing AINAC publications every year, it is striking how few accidents there actually are from routes being inherently run out.  A very large % of accidents attributable to runouts are because climbers deliberately forego protection even when they have the option of placing it.  In other words, they deliberately “make it more dangerous than it has to be”. So one could interpret that the fact of a route being inherently run out keeps the climbers who cannot do it without falling, off the route.

Yes Snake Dike is inherently run out. None of the three incidents I am aware of were caused by the runouts. All three were user choice (soloing) or user error.

Like others, I am of the opinion that adding bolts - even sport bolting it! - would only increase the accident rate because it will increase the already huge traffic on the route and make the route appear more doable and more accessible to the inexperienced. I guess Time will tell.

(Sorry for any errors am out on climbing trip and have to type on phone)

Do you want to take this 10 page shit storm of a thread out into the real world?! 

A  RESTORE HALF DOME sticker might help!

John Tuttle wrote:

You can put lipstick on a pig but it still don't look good in a garter belt and thigh-highs, just sayin'. 

I think Bill is working on his personal ticket to heaven with most of his posts, personally I hope human feces come into play here as a way to help Sloan explore and reflect on his actions.  Just to stick with Yosemite ethics and history nawmean?

I have no clue what has been done or how far apart these bolts are actually but I think that a bolt every 20 to 30ft is reasonable for keeping people on route and safe.

One of the FA team, Erick Beck, offers his thoughts:

https://www.climbing.com/news/snake-dike-first-ascensionist-speaks-out-after-new-bolts-appear/

Does anyone have a new topo or photos that show the actual change? I’ve heard 8 total added to p1-3, 13 to p1-3, 13 to p3 alone. 

Josh E wrote:

I have no clue what has been done or how far apart these bolts are actually but I think that a bolt every 20 to 30ft is reasonable for keeping people on route and safe.

People developing traditional climbing skills has worked 99.9999% of the time. Why shouldn’t people do that? Please please provide an answer. 

Donate here to Erik's fund to install a via ferrata on the Nose!

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.

Thank you so much for chiming in. That comment from L Kap was so incredibly regressive, sexist, and painful to read.

Josh E wrote:

I have no clue what has been done or how far apart these bolts are actually but I think that a bolt every 20 to 30ft is reasonable for keeping people on route and safe.

I agree, that would make the route much safer.
But this route isn’t about safety. It’s about adventure, skill and the trill of absolute commitment. There are plenty of “safe” routes in the valley. Like Crest Jewel. It’s plenty safe, amazing granite, amazing position. I found it boring and mundane. Guaranteed safety is not what I’m looking for in climbing. 

M M wrote:

I think Bill is working on his personal ticket to heaven with most of his posts, personally I hope human feces come into play here as a way to help Sloan explore and reflect on his actions.  Just to stick with Yosemite ethics and history nawmean?

And more power to Bill Lawry. Being kind is no sin.

I don't want to ever suggest that anyone is beyond redemption (after they get out of prison). 

In fact, I expected to be challenged on how do I know what a pig looks like in a garter and thigh-highs? 

Dustin Stephens wrote:

Thank you so much for chiming in. That comment from L Kap was so incredibly regressive, sexist, and painful to read.

Statistics are not regressive or sexist.  The population of women is, on average, less risk tolerant than men. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing; it just is.

It's no different from noting that the population of women is, on average, shorter than the population of men. Therefore, if a climb is bolted to favor taller climbers - the natural clip stances are reachy for someone who is 5'9" or taller (5'9" is the average height of US men over 20 according to the CDC), it will statistically be more difficult and maybe even dangerous, for the average US women's height of 5'3.5". Can a shorter climber learn different techniques, and will they have different advantages? Sure! And they are still disadvantaged by reachy bolting, and reachy bolting is generally considered to be poor form by modern climbers. This is a simile. I'm not claiming the bolting is reachy on Snake Dike.

Similarly, climbs where the bolting is exciting or a mental stretch for people who favor greater risk taking, will be much more challenging or even exclusionary for people who do not favor greater risk taking. I don't imagine that statement is controversial. Lots of folks here seem to value that run-out climbs screen out climbers with lower risk tolerance. What's controversial appears to be asking people to consider that women are disproportionately represented in the "less risk taking" population. You can have a disproportionate impact without discriminatory intent. But maybe at least be conscious of the outcomes of your choices and think about whether that's an acceptable trade-off to you.

You can do with that information what you will. Of course, individual women may be more predisposed to risk-taking than the average man, just as individual women may be taller than the average man. Individual women can also choose to work to increase their comfort with risk. Individual men can work to lower their comfort with risk. It's up to each of us! Depending on what we value and how we choose to grow. Or not.

As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly value feeling fear or putting my life at unnecessary risk, and I prefer partners of any gender with a similar approach. I appreciate people who naturally have a high tolerance for risk, but work to temper that in the name of safety. YOSAR and other first responders have more than enough customers.

I also appreciate the moves the climbing community has made in recent decades to actively prioritize safety and equip routes to lower the risk of death and serious injury. Of course, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety, but where humans add permanent equipment to rocks, there are better and worse design options.

Some folks may read my thoughts in horror and joy that they don't feel the same. That's just fine! I'm not trying to convince anyone to feel what I feel. I am asking folks to think about the diversity of climbers and the impacts of our community choices in how to permanently equip classic routes.

I do want to express my respect for others who have commented in opposition to my position, including Siobhán Straver and phylp phylp. Your thoughts are compelling and I respect your experiences, even if I ultimately prioritize things differently than you do.

Edit for Ricky Harline's request for citation. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-13573-004

Feel free to plug "literature review risk and gender" into the AI or search engine of your choice.