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

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So its "because you said so?"

Why the button heads, then? 

I get the feeling the button heads were to make removal more difficult

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So its "because you said so?"

Why the button heads, then? 

3/8" galvanized button heads AND glue, per report.

To be extra dooshy is my take.

New England had a similar situation with  Ken Nichols back in the day. Except he was chopping not installing, this all reads so similar though it's crazy

I hope when pitch 3 is reached for chopping you consider what Eric Beck recently cited as his preferred level of protection for that pitch: 4-5 bolts between anchors. Seems a good compromise in the bolt wars to chop / leave unusable the bolts added to pitch 1 and 2 since Beck didn't think any additional protection bolts were necessary on those pitches, but also leave 4-5 protection bolts total on pitch 3. I would trust Russ to select which of the 13 new bolts to chop and which to leave on P3 (though I can see the argument that all bolts added to P3 should be chopped if they were added in an illegal manner).

Ben jaminwrote:

As I understand it, an individual could not file a suit against Sloan for this. However, we could request the National Park Service Climbing Rangers to do so. The reality is that he broke the law by using a power drill and he is not going to go up there and re drill all of them by hand. 

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to do so. It's in the parks best interest to stop this and prevent the unauthorized use of power drills for these exact reasons before it gets out of hand. Given the time it took to drill these and potential forensic evidence of the holes themselves, in addition to prior history with ASCA, and testimony from multiple people, it seems like you could reasonably prove he broke the law beyond a reasonable doubt. Not sure what the bar is though. I'm not a lawyer. 

Perhaps even a stake out of some kind could be in order. Chop the bolts and wait for him to come back and document it to catch him red handed.

It's worth thinking through the secondary implications though, especially given the land management plans under discussion currently. I don't think anyone wants undue restrictions. However this may be an alternative course of action that prevents a bunch of bolts being added and chopped, and may provide additional financial and other access deterrents to Sloan.

I'm not convinced it's the right course of action per se, but I think it definitely deserves to be considered.

You think the Trump DOJ is going to prosecute someone for using a power drill to destroy nature? Surely you haven't been paying attention.

Risto Vuoriwrote:

I hope when pitch 3 is reached for chopping you consider what Eric Beck recently cited as his preferred level of protection for that pitch: 4-5 bolts between anchors. Seems a good compromise in the bolt wars to chop / leave unusable the bolts added to pitch 1 and 2 since Beck didn't think any additional protection bolts were necessary on those pitches, but also leave 4-5 protection bolts total on pitch 3. I would trust Russ to select which of the 13 new bolts to chop and which to leave on P3 (though I can see the argument that all bolts added to P3 should be chopped if they were added in an illegal manner).

+1 to this.

Also throwing my hat in the ring, I think it should be everyone's goal throughout all this to damage the rock the least amount. Maybe that means pulling bolts and patching holes, which takes longer and more effort, but might be a better alternative to bashing and bending more metal in rock. This is a coveted rock on a coveted route and it is our duty to preserve it as best as possible

Russ Bwrote:

Sorry for not laying out that I will be bringing a hammer along to beat down any sharp edges to mitigate this. Do you think my dammer will do, or should I lug the 2.5lbs sledge up? 

It's real easy to poke holes in things without offering effective solutions while sitting on your ass behind a screen. Trust this has been thought though and the idea comes from a senior member of the community who knows Sloan personally enough to have had the foresight to suggest this right from the start.

Todd Berlier wrote:

It forces him to either pull, patch and do the job right, or commit further reputational suicide by placing bolts next to the ones he already trashed the route with, which I will gladly go right back up and do the same thing to the very week he does it. 

The damage he does to the route can be handled in due time, after he gets the hint that he is a stain on the community and agrees publicly to stop or leaves the park. 

People have a right to ask questions about your approach as it will impact others and the rock doesn't belong to you alone. Not sure why so many are behind you making these decisions? Emotions should not be driving action at this point. 

Sloan’s stated goal was to “modernize” this route but he used an inferior type of bolt (a type that will become untrustworthy in a decade or two) that has no place in modern climbing. 1/2” stainless glue-ins would be just as difficult to remove if not more so and at least achieve the misguided goal of being “modern.” This fact alone tells me at best he is disingenuous and at worst sociopathic.

None of these bolts should be left. All should be pulled and patched. Someone who knows what they are doing can make the holes completely disappear. This is much more difficult on other types of rock, but on granite - especially the whitish variety that makes up the slabby terrain of Half Dome - an experienced person can make these holes completely vanish - no matter how many times it must be done.

Kyle Pereirawrote:

+1 to this.

Also throwing my hat in the ring, I think it should be everyone's goal throughout all this to damage the rock the least amount. Maybe that means pulling bolts and patching holes, which takes longer and more effort, but might be a better alternative to bashing and bending more metal in rock. This is a coveted rock on a coveted route and it is our duty to preserve it as best as possible

It's clear that you don't understand the thought process here. Leaving the modified hangers there for now preserves the evidence of what Sloan did to this route and should (for any rational person) deter further misguided damage to the rock. The hangers and bolts can then be pulled and holes patched later at a more appropriate time once this fool is out of the picture.

Andrew Ricewrote:

You think the Trump DOJ is going to prosecute someone for using a power drill to destroy nature? Surely you haven't been paying attention.

And you think this is a potential DOJ case?? 😂😂😂

Dustin Stephenswrote:

And you think this is a potential DOJ case?? 😂😂😂

Thank You!

I was going to say.
There's something ironic about this statement, because yes I have been paying attention and clearly you (Andrew Rice) have not.

Here are the facts:

1. This type of infraction as I understand it is within the jurisdiction of the US District Court of the Eastern District of California within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Typically for this type of infraction in Yosemite, the cases are instead handled by a US Magistrate Judge. There is a high likelihood that whatever judge would not have been appointed by Trump and there is pretty much a zero percent chance anyone related to Trump's "DOJ" would have any idea this is even happening.
I believe the specific regulations are Title 36 of the CFR and the Wilderness Act of 1964.

2. There are multiple examples of individuals being prosecuted, some under Trump's presidency for violations of these or similar acts:
a) The Casey Nocket case   (more info here)
b) The Base Jumper Convictions (I don't agree with Base Jumping being illegal, just using it as an example)

All that being said, yes there is a precedent and yes it is realistic with sufficient evidence.
The big questions are just:

1. Can we prove with sufficient forensic and other evidence he used a power drill
2. Can we convince the NPS to bring the case to a judge
3. Is it the right course of action

I don't want to decide what to do for everyone, I'm just trying to present a logical argument for an alternative to consider beyond chopping and adding more bolts in perpetuity.

Dustin Stephenswrote:

It's clear that you don't understand the thought process here. Leaving the modified hangers there for now preserves the evidence of what Sloan did to this route and should (for any rational person) deter further misguided damage to the rock. The hangers and bolts can then be pulled and holes patched later at a more appropriate time once this fool is out of the picture.

This is the problem I see with this approach: a reminder to whom? Only those aware of the situation. To an unsuspecting climbing they will be arriving at a mangled bent piece of hardware and might question the state of the hardware on the rest of the route. Are the anchors smashed? Is the route safe? Could lead to bad choices to retreat. I would also prefer to see unwanted bolts instead of a bunch of smashed hangers left for future clean up. Food for thought

Ben jaminwrote:

As I understand it, an individual could not file a suit against Sloan for this. However, we could request the National Park Service Climbing Rangers to do so. The reality is that he broke the law by using a power drill and he is not going to go up there and re drill all of them by hand. 

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Whether it has merit is up to the court. 

What the NPS can do is issue a temporary closure/restriction. That is the superintendent can issue an order prohibiting the installation of any fixed gear on Half Dome. 

As for Sloan likely using a power drill. The NPS would need to have proof. There is likely none.

Someone invent a bolt that trad climbers can somehow ignore when they pass it, so they can still climb trad and tell everyone about how run out their climb was. Normally when someone trad climbs a bolted route everyone thinks they’re dumb and it’s not a real accomplishment. But maybe there could be a label on the bolts “for sport climbing only”, so the trad climbers won’t have to feel dumb skipping bolts and pretend they’re not there.

I always hear sport climbers say “ignore the bolt if you want to climb trad” and trad climbers say “go find your own Yosemite if you want to place bolts”, both of which seem unlikely to happen. Maybe “for sport climbing only” labels would be a good solution for both sides?

Risto Vuoriwrote:

I hope when pitch 3 is reached for chopping you consider what Eric Beck recently cited as his preferred level of protection for that pitch: 4-5 bolts between anchors. Seems a good compromise in the bolt wars to chop / leave unusable the bolts added to pitch 1 and 2 since Beck didn't think any additional protection bolts were necessary on those pitches, but also leave 4-5 protection bolts total on pitch 3. I would trust Russ to select which of the 13 new bolts to chop and which to leave on P3 (though I can see the argument that all bolts added to P3 should be chopped if they were added in an illegal manner).

The FA does not own the route. We are talking about a route that's had it's current protection in place for 60 years. Any changes must prioritize empirical injury evidence, preserve the route's mental and physical challenge, and limit environmental impact. Then take into account the FA's preferences. 

• Pitch 1: A bolt is not strictly needed because the roof protects well. However, it is a candidate to prevent a swinging fall into the corner (which has happened)
• Pitch 2: A bolt in the middle of the dike could have limited the massive injury fall, though it might encourage underprepared climbers.
• Route Navigation: People can laugh or say it's lame, but a small sign or indicator at the Pitch 2 anchors would address the issues that has happened by far the most on the route and would not impact the challenge of the route. This is the only location with a documented serious injury and stories of reports of multiple people getting into sketchy situations. Note: The fatality on the route was someone not being tied in, there isn't anything you can do to a route to reduce that risk.
• Pitches 3 to 6: Keep these pitches as they are. The long, low-angle runouts on solid rock define the Snake Dike experience. Adding two bolts per pitch to halve the fall potential may be an acceptable compromise.
• Pitches 7 to 8: No bolts are needed. Climbers must use traditional gear.

P.S. Adam Byra, how many times does it have to be repeated: adding bolts 1. changes the mental commitment to get on a route, and 2. changes the experience of being on lead, not knowing if a bolt over your head is one you will use or not. The fact that you keep ignoring that when it's been explained and keep bringing it up makes me thing you are Sloan, because he also just ignores the things he doesn't want to hear. LOL.

Yeah well everyone has their own set of arbitrary standards for how many bolts are needed, guidelines for placing them, etc. Snake dike doesn’t have enough pro for average 5.7 climber. It’s a good candidate for bolts. A nice bolt every 15-20 feet isn’t going to kill anyone, might save someone. Mixed climbs are annoying, trad gear is annoying, heavy, expensive, doesn’t work well, etc. The only good argument is gatekeeping, preventing crowds, which is fine. I understand some people don’t want it to be a tourist line. Idk but Yosemite in 2026 is kind of a tourist spot. 

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

So its "because you said so?"

Why the button heads, then? 

It’s not “because he said so”, boomer. He literally explained why there’s a very credible case against Sloan based on repeated past behavior. 

Adam Byrawrote:

Yeah well everyone has their own set of arbitrary standards for how many bolts are needed, guidelines for placing them, etc. Snake dike doesn’t have enough pro for average 5.7 climber. It’s a good candidate for bolts. A nice bolt every 15-20 feet isn’t going to kill anyone, might save someone. Mixed climbs are annoying, trad gear is annoying, heavy, expensive, doesn’t work well, etc. The only good argument is gatekeeping, preventing crowds, which is fine. I understand some people don’t want it to be a tourist line. Idk but Yosemite in 2026 is kind of a tourist spot. 

Trad gear doesn’t work well and it’s heavyyyyy, please make snake dike easy for meeeeee.

Adam Byrawrote:

Yeah well everyone has their own set of arbitrary standards for how many bolts are needed, guidelines for placing them, etc. Snake dike doesn’t have enough pro for average 5.7 climber. It’s a good candidate for bolts. A nice bolt every 15-20 feet isn’t going to kill anyone, might save someone. Mixed climbs are annoying, trad gear is annoying, heavy, expensive, doesn’t work well, etc. The only good argument is gatekeeping, preventing crowds, which is fine. I understand some people don’t want it to be a tourist line. Idk but Yosemite in 2026 is kind of a tourist spot. 

I still agree with the opening line of your first post on this thread when you said "I don't get it..."

You don't get it, and that's ok. Read and learn

Adam Byrawrote:

trad gear is annoying, heavy, expensive, doesn’t work well, etc.

kinda makes your opinion on a “trad” climbing irrelevant, eh?