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

. I'm personally advocating for limited guardrails in sections that would have a pretty obvious and likely chance of causing death or life-altering injury if there's an accident. 

But why? The endless safe ascents each year demonstrate that the route in its current state, with the current well known warnings, is fine. Even Anna Parsons sadly wouldn’t have been protected by such extra bolts. So why alter the route to solve a problem that hasn’t demonstrated itself? 

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

The fundamental disconnect is automatically labeling 5.7 difficulties as beginners routes. Worse is teaching beginners to expect 5.7 to always be beginners routes. An awful lot of 5.7s include grave fall potential. Should all these 5.7s be bolted to remove their inherent risk?

The pro-adding bolts crowd doesn't seem to grasp this crucial fact. Honestly, the only reason this is even a discussion--albeit a lopsided one thankfully--is because Snake Dike is in Yosemite, on a formation a lot of people want to climb, and is the only moderate way to get to the top.

In the alpine, only an idiot would think all 5.7s are beginner routes. And Snake Dike has always had the character of an alpine route. Only because it's located in the Valley, where long sub-5.8 moderates are hard to come by, does it even register on a beginner's radar.

The East Ridge of Mount Temple only goes at 5.7, but even the most ignorant beginner would understand it's not a novice's route. The idea that we would need to cater to the most gym-addled, brain dead newbie who can't grasp Snake Dike is a step up from most 5.7s is ludicrous.

What next? We need to bolt the Difficult Crack on the Heckmair to make the Nordwand more beginner friendly?

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

The fundamental disconnect is automatically labeling 5.7 difficulties as beginners routes. Worse is teaching beginners to expect 5.7 to always be beginners routes. An awful lot of 5.7s include grave fall potential. Should all these 5.7s be bolted to remove their inherent risk?

This is wrong enough to get people killed. Being physically able to execute a 5.7 move or series of moves does not make a beginner a "5.7 climber," and certainly not a 5.7 leader.

There’s been a lot of arguments around “ego” thrown towards the folks who want to see the bolts removed, but IMO the bolded line above is the biggest component of “ego” making its way into the conversation.

From the folks advocating for more bolts, there seems to be this intrinsic assumption that 5.7 is for “beginners”, and as a result, Snake Dike should be equipped in a way that minimizes risk to said beginners - even if that’s just 4-5 bolts per pitch instead of the full blown grid-bolting that Sloan has done.

I’m not sure where this mindset has come from. Many of the most adventurous routes in the world are not technically difficult - look to the alpine and high-elevation routes and the grades they get. Not only that, but the idea that routes given easier grades are the domain explicitly of newer and less experienced climbers is a fairly ego-driven, and at its roots, relatively toxic one.

I recently developed a new crag, comprised entirely of well-bolted, 5.3-5.7 sport routes. I very intentionally refer to it as a crag for folks looking for “low-grade” routes. Not a crag for beginners. Good for beginners, absolutely. Also good for folks who have been climbing for 40 years and don’t find their body working as well as it used to. Good for kids. Good for strong climbers working back from injury. Good for folks confident in their movement who want to do some soloing. Good for  people who want a low-stress day. It doesn’t get a diminutive name like “The Classroom” or “Kindergarten wall” or anything else that minimizes the desire or need for low-grade and well-protected routes. In fact, quite the opposite - it’s called “Wild Thing Wall”.

And I did this in the center of the South Platte because it’s an area notorious for low-grade climbs being extremely committing, and as I mentioned in my comment on the other thread, having a spectrum of opportunity for folks to get involved and have transformative experiences outside is what causes folks to care about them. I care deeply about providing opportunities for access to folks

Notably, not despite of that, but because of that, I, as someone with zero skin in the Snake Dike game, would hate to see bolts get added to it in the nature that Sloan did, and am against seeing bolts added to it at all. There is no more intrinsic value to “Wild Thing Wall” than “Snake Dike”, and both should be able to coexist to provide the exact type of experiences they provide. One should not be used to point towards the other and call for change. They’re separate entities, let them be their own thing and if they do not align with the experience you’re desiring, go find or create something else that does.

Ultimately, climbing is better when there’s a diversity in vision for how an area or route should look. It creates spaces for everyone. But that means everyone, not fundamentally removing an offering in order to enable another. There’s so much rock out there, this doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game. Let Snake Dike be what Snake Dike has (almost) always been.

L Kap wrote:

I'm not an off-roader so I can't really comment on that, but it seems similar to the Yosemite decimal system which indicates difficulty. Beginners aren't going to do a 5.15.

Are there off-road routes that are the equivalent of Snake Dike where the skills needed to actually do the climb/drive are moderate, but the nature of the terrain and lack of protection makes it potentially deadly? Do offroaders get a sense of adventure from driving easy roads with no guardrails? 

That's why I like the comparison to a mountain road that anyone could drive, just as any 5.7 climber could physically ascend Snake Dike, but adding or not adding guardrails (bolts) changes the risk profile immensely. 

Yes, there are rating systems for off road where moderate trails can lead to deaths (and have) when driving mistakes are made.  People drive straight off easy dirt roads all the time. The most extreme obstacles in off road driving have little danger of actual death. They are more a technical test of the vehicle and driver. Kinda like 5.15 being generally very safe, but there are almost no 5.5s that are safe to fall off.

You are confusing bolts with a risk profile that prevents accidents. The least bolted routes are the ones that see the least traffic and have no accidents at all (people are not generally insane and know when to not attempt such routes ie Bachar's "You asked for it or "Solitary Confinement".

The routes with the most fatalities are those getting the most traffic (ie Half Dome Cables Route, 15 deaths). People with poor conditioning and great fear of heights are lured up there by the cables themselves. More access for the unprepared = more accidents.

The best way to limit fatal accidents is to remove all the added bolts entirely. The original protection scheme led to one of the safest routes in Yosemite for the amount of traffic (based on the total number of fatalities). Increasing access only gives the illusion of safety as you simply will get more unprepared parties.

There are more accidents and deaths in climbing from pulled trad gear, bolts coming unclipped, complacency and poor judgement than lack of bolts per se ie people knowingly going into runouts and then whipping. People have brains that tell them don't do that shit lool.

This is what I think about when I bolt a route for beginners. In some sense you are inevitably luring someone who has no idea what they are doing. I just figure that number will be low as compared to those (that we OG can all relate to) that had no choice but to do scary runouts even when they didn't know what they were doing.

Snake Dike is not a route for beginning leaders nor should it be made into one. The remoteness and commitment required are far too great for such shenanigans, imo.

bob steed wrote:

 Who needs a topo, when you have basic reading comprehension and Roper's signature prose. This description has been on paper for 55 years now. Pretty clear about heading left to the other dike. No arrows needed. I just checked on Amazon and you can buy a used copy for less than $20 shipped.

Ha! Glad you posted this, Bob. That’s exactly what my buddy and I used for beta when we climbed Snake Dike BITD. I may still have my copy in storage somewhere…

To reiterate, once more, another time, yet again (as some folks don’t seem to get it): 

Snake Dike is not a beginner’s climb, despite the rating, and should not be approached as such nor bolted like one. I vote to have the route restored to how it was pre-sloanification. BITD, I knew it wasn’t a beginner’s route (word gets around in the Valley) and so I waited until I was a solid 5.9 trad leader in Yosemite before leading it—and with that margin it was a great experience (and still a very good test of focus/concentration).

Don’t take that away from future generations. 

Eric Craig wrote:

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

I am guessing you have not seen any pictures of the climb or read the description at all because there are literally only a handful of places one can actually place temporary protection on the route. Thus, calling it a "traditional climb" is already a bit of a stretch. The only options are free solo or use bolts. 

In regards to your made up 99.9999% statistic, literally a couple years ago a young climber fell and had serious injuries resulting in the amputation of a leg on snake dike. If we do not change the climb then the real statistic will be that every 2 to 3 years there will be a life changing accident on the route. I agree that there should not be many bolts on the route like a sport climb. I believe the bolts should be spaced apart enough to give the climber a challenge while helping the climber to stay on route and relatively safe. I personally believe this range to be 20ft to 30ft as fall.

Hello Josh,

I am aware of the accident. The people involved have my deepest sympathies.

Snake Dike IS a traditional Yosemite route.

I have done it, a few times. All of which were guided ascents, when I worked at the Yosemite Mountaineering School in the 1980’s.

Would you care to ask questions? Instead of making erroneous assumptions. You might even learn something!

Edit added: If you would be interested, maybe we could meet up in the field sometime. I might be able to help you with your “trad” climbing game. 

Josh E wrote:

I am guessing you have not seen any pictures of the climb or read the description at all because there are literally only a handful of places one can actually place temporary protection on the route. Thus, calling it a "traditional climb" is already a bit of a stretch. The only options are free solo or use bolts. 

In regards to your made up 99.9999% statistic, literally a couple years ago a young climber fell and had serious injuries resulting in the amputation of a leg on snake dike. If we do not change the climb then the real statistic will be that every 2 to 3 years there will be a life changing accident on the route. I agree that there should not be many bolts on the route like a sport climb. I believe the bolts should be spaced apart enough to give the climber a challenge while helping the climber to stay on route and relatively safe. I personally believe this range to be 20ft to 30ft as fall.

You don't seem to understand what a " traditional climb" is. Also, read the rest of the thread. It's been stated repeatedly that the accident you're referring to would not of been avoided by more bolts. You're out of your element.

if you are advocating for keeping falls to 30 ft to have a reasonable expectation of safety, that means bolts are 15' apart. the route is 800', so you're advocating for 53 bolts. accounting for rope stretch, the bolts would have to be about 12' apart, so actually 67 bolts.

if you're saying the bolts should be 30' apart, then that's 27 bolts on the route total, with potential falls of up to 70ish feet, which doesn't sound like the type of safety you're advocating for.

so, the numbers you're suggesting don't seem to align with your sentiment. don't bolt it like a sport climb and keep it reasonable but also that means put 67 bolts on the route?

again, this is not a beginner's route as others have eloquently explained.

Josh E wrote:

I am guessing you have not seen any pictures of the climb or read the description at all because there are literally only a handful of places one can actually place temporary protection on the route. Thus, calling it a "traditional climb" is already a bit of a stretch. The only options are free solo or use bolts. 

In regards to your made up 99.9999% statistic, literally a couple years ago a young climber fell and had serious injuries resulting in the amputation of a leg on snake dike. If we do not change the climb then the real statistic will be that every 2 to 3 years there will be a life changing accident on the route. I agree that there should not be many bolts on the route like a sport climb. I believe the bolts should be spaced apart enough to give the climber a challenge while helping the climber to stay on route and relatively safe. I personally believe this range to be 20ft to 30ft as fall.

Your assertion, aside from being wrong about the cause of her fall, also shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics. How many people have successfully climbed SD? 10,000 at least? There has been 1 fatality and 1 grievous injury, so people have successfully climbed it 99.99% of the time, and we have an injury rate of about 1 per 30 years. That's pretty fucking safe if you ask me.

The old concept that the first person to climb something “owns” it in perpetuity isn’t realistic. It’s public land, the government owns it and manages it for the benefit of the public. They could decide tomorrow that the liability and management risk created by rock climbing is incongruent with the greater good in the park and ban climbing altogether. Just because someone was the first to touch it doesn’t mean they own the it.

A bigger issue is Snake Dike was never developed as a route. The FA party was just exploring. They found a path up installing the bare minimum for the exploration. Mostly just belay’s. After the fact they announced it could be developed into a ultra classic  route but that never happened.

It was a great adventure, everyone is very impressed that they did it mostly without protection. But multiple accounts from the first ascent party indicate that they intended for it at some point it be developed into a classic route. But being only a measly a 5.7 beginner climb so far below the skill level of the original party, they moved on to bigger and better things. It never happened. They even suggested if somebody else cared, they go do it.

Climbing has changed a lot since then. It has become a popular sport and as a result, there are more recreational climbers than ever before. These climbers far outweigh the traditional Yosemite hardmen. It’s their park too and they want safe ways to enjoy it.  

There is an ultra classic beginner line up the side of half dome that was never finished. Most of the arguments for leaving it that way center around protecting the egos of the people that did it that way or gate keeping as many people off ‘their’ climb as possible.

The fact is the age old argument that this is the style in which the first ascent party intended the route to be climbed, we know does not apply here.

And by the same logic if a first decent party put 1/4 inch button heads, why does no one have a problem with those being replaced with modern bomber bolts? Doesn’t that lessen risk and alter the character of the route?

The reality is climbing is becoming very popular with the general public. We should be happy about that. There is now a ‘need’ for safe beginner routes for them and, like it or not, they have just as much right to those public lands as anyone else.

Ultra beginner 5.7 classic climbs like Snake Dike will continue to see increased novice traffic because there is a great need for it now. My feeling is that finishing Snake Dike and making it safe serves the greater public good here.

I have seen many new climbers, climbing within their grade, fall and sustain life changing injuries. It’s not worth it. We are talking about a 5.7 here. 

Regardless of which camp you are in, everyone needs to slow down. The person installing them isn’t using the right hardware or putting it in the right spots. The person chopping the bolts right now is doing tremendous harm. A large button head  requires the right equipment to remove properly and because that person has neither the skill or the or equipment just snapping them off. Which is gonna make dealing with it properly much more difficult now. Their justification is that they need to be rendered useless as quickly as possible for fear that more people will start climbing it and support for leaving it that way will actually grow. 

It’s a pretty selfish argument and certainly not an EMERGENCY. 

The war has already started, and the damage is already accumulating. This will call a lot of unwanted attention and likely new regulation  to climbing in our national parks.

My vote is if the bolts are already in, leave them there until some consensus on management is developed. In the meantime, if you want to have the same experience as the first ascent party, no one’s forcing you to use the bolts. You can the free solo the whole route if you want and tell everybody you did that. The fact that there’s this much controversy around this indicates there probably really is a substantial need to finish developing this climb. If the community can’t come to a consensus, the park service will. I suspect no one will like the outcome of that. 

Eric Craig wrote:

Would you care to ask questions? Instead of making erroneous assumptions. You might even learn something!

Edit added: If you would be interested, maybe we could meet up in the field sometime. I might be able to help you with your “trad” climbing game. 

Josh, you may not realize it yet, but Eric (an OG rock guide) has just offered you what is basically a free guided session. He was a prominent climbing guide in Yosemite for many years, and his comments are informed by much more than pictures. When he says all of his climbs of Snake Dike were guided ascents, he means that he was the one guiding them. Even a single outing with a guide these days costs a minimum of a few hundred dollars, so this is a generous offer, and I would jump on it in a heartbeat if I were you. I'm sure he has many cool stories and could provide insight into the history of Yosemite climbing and sport vs trad as well. The traditional climbing skills Eric was alluding to go beyond knowing how to place nuts and cams.

Mason Young wrote:

A bigger issue is Snake Dike was never developed as a route. The FA party was just exploring. They found a path up installing the bare minimum for the exploration.

You're describing almost literally the definition of a trad route. Also, just because a route is 5.7 doesn't make it a beginner route. Hell, the Cassin Ridge is only 5.8, how hard can it be?

Hson P wrote:

You're describing almost literally the definition of a trad route. Also, just because a route is 5.7 doesn't make it a beginner route. Hell, the Cassin Ridge is only 5.8, how hard can it be?

Ofc thats true.

Just because someone protects a trad route a certain way doesn’t mean that you have to protect it the same way either.

My point is that there is a tremendous need for accessible and aesthetic beginner climbs in our national parks for the current masses of climbers. As was said previously, there’s nothing stopping someone putting up a new sport route on either side of snake dike, or anywhere else. 

The fact remains that Snake Dike was never developed, in spite of the first ascent party thinking it should be, and it could be a great candidate for this. Everyone knows that, for better or worse, this route would be used by many more people if it was better protected.

Mason Young wrote:

The old concept that the first person to climb something “owns” it in perpetuity isn’t realistic. It’s public land, the government owns it and manages it for the benefit of the public. They could decide tomorrow that the liability and management risk created by rock climbing is incongruent with the greater good in the park and ban climbing altogether. Just because someone was the first to touch it doesn’t mean they own the it...

There is an ultra classic beginner line up the side of half dome that was never finished. Most of the arguments for leaving it that way center around protecting the egos of the people that did it that way or gate keeping as many people off ‘their’ climb as possible.

Hey Mason, I used to think like you do, but changed my mind when I learned more. I think you should read more of the earlier comments on this thread, and if you disagree with them, make arguments that take them into account. The current system has nothing to do with the FA "owning" the route, and the arguments for leaving the route as is are not about ego. I did my best to explain some of the background and the arguments that won me over in comments here and here. These directly address many of the arguments you have made. Linking them again here because this has been a long thread, and based on your comment, I assume you have not seen them. Many others have also made thoughtful comments addressing your points. Snake Dike is not an "ultra beginner" route simply because it is 5.7.

As for restrictions, the NPS has just proposed new restrictions on fixed anchors in the wilderness (which includes Half Dome), and they state that "The establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation". The proposal emphasizes wilderness over safety and makes clear that not all routes can/should be made safe. The restrictions are already here, and they are mostly concerned with excessive bolting rather than safety:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/203156530/us-department-of-interior-to-develop-nationwide-framework-for-climbing-managemen

“We should respect the wishes of the our elders, establishment and the government”, said no climber in the 70s. 

Adam Byra wrote:

“We should respect the wishes of the our elders, establishment and the government”, said no climber in the 70s. 

Wise words spoken conclusively by someone not born until 1988

“Clean Climbing” - one of the most direct and, for a time, strictly adheared to calls for traditional ethics in the history of our sport was published 1972 btw

There's a thousand feet of third class slabs after Snake Dike.  People can, and many have, fallen on third class and died.  Should be bolt that too?

If Harding was alive today he’d be partying with Sloan, talking about what a bunch of conformist losers we’ve all become. RIP Warren. RIP climbing. 

Mason Young wrote:

The old concept that the first person to climb something “owns” it in perpetuity isn’t realistic. It’s public land, the government owns it and manages it for the benefit of the public. They could decide tomorrow that the liability and management risk created by rock climbing is incongruent with the greater good in the park and ban climbing altogether. Just because someone was the first to touch it doesn’t mean they own the it.

A bigger issue is Snake Dike was never developed as a route. The FA party was just exploring. They found a path up installing the bare minimum for the exploration. Mostly just belay’s. After the fact they announced it could be developed into a ultra classic  route but that never happened.

It was a great adventure, everyone is very impressed that they did it mostly without protection. But multiple accounts from the first ascent party indicate that they intended for it at some point it be developed into a classic route. But being only a measly a 5.7 beginner climb so far below the skill level of the original party, they moved on to bigger and better things. It never happened. They even suggested if somebody else cared, they go do it.

Climbing has changed a lot since then. It has become a popular sport and as a result, there are more recreational climbers than ever before. These climbers far outweigh the traditional Yosemite hardmen. It’s their park too and they want safe ways to enjoy it.  

There is an ultra classic beginner line up the side of half dome that was never finished. Most of the arguments for leaving it that way center around protecting the egos of the people that did it that way or gate keeping as many people off ‘their’ climb as possible.

The fact is the age old argument that this is the style in which the first ascent party intended the route to be climbed, we know does not apply here.

And by the same logic if a first decent party put 1/4 inch button heads, why does no one have a problem with those being replaced with modern bomber bolts? Doesn’t that lessen risk and alter the character of the route?

The reality is climbing is becoming very popular with the general public. We should be happy about that. There is now a ‘need’ for safe beginner routes for them and, like it or not, they have just as much right to those public lands as anyone else.

Ultra beginner 5.7 classic climbs like Snake Dike will continue to see increased novice traffic because there is a great need for it now. My feeling is that finishing Snake Dike and making it safe serves the greater public good here.

I have seen many new climbers, climbing within their grade, fall and sustain life changing injuries. It’s not worth it. We are talking about a 5.7 here. 

Regardless of which camp you are in, everyone needs to slow down. The person installing them isn’t using the right hardware or putting it in the right spots. The person chopping the bolts right now is doing tremendous harm. A large button head  requires the right equipment to remove properly and because that person has neither the skill or the or equipment just snapping them off. Which is gonna make dealing with it properly much more difficult now. Their justification is that they need to be rendered useless as quickly as possible for fear that more people will start climbing it and support for leaving it that way will actually grow. 

It’s a pretty selfish argument and certainly not an EMERGENCY. 

The war has already started, and the damage is already accumulating. This will call a lot of unwanted attention and likely new regulation  to climbing in our national parks.

My vote is if the bolts are already in, leave them there until some consensus on management is developed. In the meantime, if you want to have the same experience as the first ascent party, no one’s forcing you to use the bolts. You can the free solo the whole route if you want and tell everybody you did that. The fact that there’s this much controversy around this indicates there probably really is a substantial need to finish developing this climb. If the community can’t come to a consensus, the park service will. I suspect no one will like the outcome of that. 

Snake Dike is not a beginner route. Snake Dike is presently crowded. You talk like it's some rarely climbed thing. It's had thousands of ascents with the old protection scheme and virtually no accidents. Before Sloan came and illegally bolted it to sell more guidebooks and get paid by newbs thinking he was doing it for them. That is his motive: Money.

There are countless opportunities to put up "super beginner routes" and many already exist. I'm talking THOUSANDS of potential new routes.

Elsewhere.

Stop whining and get busy.