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

Mental illness is for real! Lock him up with and all the others.

Pretty funny, M M & John T.  As others can testify, I am no saint.  And for me, heaven (and hell) are where we already are - and then there is purgatory - with occupants all commenting in these threads.  ;)

For unrelated material but still related material, google-search "ten sleep louie anderson".  Let's find a way to not let this go that far.

L Kap wrote:

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.

Your argument is based on statistics you pulled out of your ass, good sir.

Ricky Harline wrote:

Your argument is based on statistics you pulled out of your ass, good sir.

Citation added to original comment, and if you'd like to use an honorific, it's ma'am. 

^^^

So L Kap has nonsensical views.

But a wicked sense of humor.

I've seen worse combinations.

L Kap wrote:

Citation added to original comment, and if you'd like to use an honorific, it's ma'am. 

Later research published in journals like Psychology of Sport and Exercise explicitly noted that the Byrnes meta-analysis laid the groundwork for general sex differences, but that specific analyses of extreme sports—like rock climbing—had to be conducted in subsequent, independent studies. Those later studies have shown that while men generally report higher risk-taking in climbing, the actual behaviors are heavily moderated by a climber's individual self-efficacy (confidence in their own skill) rather than gender alone. [, 2, 3, 4]

ma’am, seems like further studies don’t jive with your assumption. 

“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 probably have a higher tolerance for risky climbing than average, yet I’ve never called any kind of rescue. I would wager that perfectly “safe” routes done by perfectly “safe” climbers see a majority of the YOSAR calls. I have several friends of friends who have YOSAR’d off stuff like Royal Arches, yet don’t personally know anybody who got helicoptered off the B-Y.

Right or wrong, Eric took action. Since when did climbing require a committee to get anything done. Respect.
 

codyaverbeck Averbeck wrote:

Right or wrong, Eric took action. Since when did climbing require a committee to get anything done. Respect.
 

"Someone did something super selfish and disrespectful. It doesn't matter if it was right or wrong because being a dick is something I respect".

Brilliant perspective dude.

Go chop it then and do something other than being an internet loser. 

"Someone did something super selfish and disrespectful. It doesn't matter if it was right or wrong because being a dick is something I respect".

Brilliant perspective dude.

codyaverbeck Averbeck wrote:

Right or wrong, Eric took action. Since when did climbing require a committee to get anything done. Respect.

^I nominate this for the new worst take in either thread. With over 20 pages between the two of them, that is quite an accomplishment. Right or wrong, this comment made an impression. Respect.

 Go chop it then and do something other than being an internet loser.

I appreciate your bold action in this thread. Not all of us have what it takes to be an internet winner.

If you want a real response, some of us appreciate having a discussion before making permanent modifications to one of the most well-known climbs on the planet (either bolting or chopping). That is what is happening here, on this website where people share their thoughts about climbing, and on this thread about exactly this topic. It seems that there is already a plan in place to remove the bolts and patch the holes, rather than crudely and impulsively chopping them in a way that would cause further damage.

You’ve obviously never chopped a bolt, likely never placed one. Armchair activists curing the world of retro bolting. Quit your bitching and go climbing. Clip them, don’t clip them, go solo it. Where’s the donate button, I’ll buy Eric a beer. He’s got balls; all you got are soft tipped fingertips. 

L Kap wrote:

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. 

This was thoughtfully written and I will say that although I didn’t see the relevance of your original statement to the snake dike issue, you’ve at least explained your point here well, and I personally appreciate that you put thought into this side of things at all.

It feels to me personally that although it’s kind to consider that male climbers as a group are more pro risk, it’s still something that is possible for a female climber to have power over. Because with routes that are known as risky one can make an evaluation whether to take that risk based on one’s own appetite. So it feels like the community don’t need to make the call on behalf of the women by making things deliberately safer, because those with lesser risk appetites can just make the call for themselves.
Meanwhile height based safety issues are harder to navigate, because with routes bolted for taller climbers- or even reachy crucial gear placements, you don’t know how reachy things are until you’re on it, and possibly find yourself in a more dangerous position than expected. So this is where a greater awareness by the community is useful, lest bolters or graders accidentally put the short climbers in unexpected danger.

I suppose the difference feels like with snake dike everyone knew they were in danger, not just one group. One group may be less inclined to take on the danger, but their power hasn’t been taken away because they can still consciously make that choice. And can over time become more risk tolerant and work up to doing the scary climb- but only if it still exists. Meanwhile you can’t become taller over time, so one has to instead hope for safety based accommodations from others, even if just a heads up in the topo.

I don’t know, I can’t speak for all women, that’s just my initial thoughts on the difference, but your point is an interesting one that I’ll probably ponder. At any rate thanks for putting thought to these topics, you’re no doubt an aid to the less represented in many other conversations so thanks for thinking that way.  

codyaverbeck Averbeck wrote:

Right or wrong, Eric took action. Since when did climbing require a committee to get anything done. Respect.
 

My God, what a moronic opinion.

You sir, have managed a total disregard for history, ethics, and community consensus all in 18 words... Respect.

MP really needs to get a "thumbs down" button

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly support Erik Sloan’s bolting efforts on Snake Dike.

The argument that “runout and mental pressure are part of the route” should not be used to force unnecessary risk onto everyone else. Your extraordinary experience should not require sacrificing other climbers’ safety. That is like forcing your religious doctrine onto people who do not share your faith.

If you want the original runout experience, you are completely free to skip any bolt you want. Nobody is taking that choice away from you. But removing or opposing protection that could prevent serious injury or death takes that choice away from others.

More bolts give climbers options. They do not force anyone to clip them.

Li Lin, 

The strong reaction most people are having to him retro-bolting Snake Dike isn't simply because he added bolts to make a "dangerous" route safer.  He way over bolted it down to a boring sport route.  I honestly don't think the reaction would be nearly this strong if he added just enough bolts to make it safe, but still exciting.  There's now something like 16 new bolts total, and i think 6 on the first pitch.  Could have put 2-3 on the first pitch, and one additional bolt on the runout pitches higher on the route, and there probably would have been some productive debate, and that's about it.

He also unilaterally decided to retro-bolt one of the most beloved moderate classics in the country, at the most beloved climbing destination in the country... with a power drill, where it is illegal to do so.  Adding bolts to a "classic" route like this should, at the very least, have some community input.  

Erik's retro bolting had nothing do with safety, and everything to do with his ego.

What a tragedy.

The opinion that not clipping the bolts even if they are there can preserve the character of these routes is a misunderstanding of what it means to climb these routes in this style with so few bolts. You eliminate most risk knowing there's a bolt right there even if you don't clip it.

I've never climbed snake dike, but I'm sure the FA meant only a bolt here or there, not the monstrosity it is now.

Salamanizer Ski wrote:

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. 

Crest Jewel is what you are holding up as 'safe'? Did that thing get retrobolted since I climbed it in the 90s?! I remember a lot of loooong runouts on rock much less featured than snake dike! Ha, my memory must be slippihg...

M M wrote:

I'm let down there was no woot woot

What The actual F is the world coming to?

What do you mean?? This guy needs to be in prison.

How do we get this guy into prison???

Bill Lawry wrote:

Pretty funny, M M & John T.  As others can testify, I am no saint.  And for me, heaven (and hell) are where we already are - and then there is purgatory - with occupants all commenting in these threads.  ;)

For unrelated material but still related material, google-search "ten sleep louie anderson".  Let's find a way to not let this go that far.

The parallels are absolutely striking. My first thought as well…