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

ilya f wrote:

do we know for sure the bolts were power drilled? or is that conjecture based on timing and number of bolts and past history?

I'd say given his history of being kicked out of the ASCA for refusing to stop using a power drill, witnessed further use of a power drill after that, the idiotic number and actual bad locating of the bolts and Sloan being Sloan the probability is easily 100%.

Or do you think someone who cares nothing of this community other than the money they can give him suddenly grew a conscience to add bolts within the regulations way up on the West Shoulder of Half Dome?

Puhlease. Guilty until proven innocent.

(snark not aimed at you) <3

bob steed wrote:

Maybe Jim meant to say Saturday June 20 instead of Saturday June 13?  Then that would be after FF findings on June 19.  

That also aligns with Russ's comment about plans to get it done this past weekend.

Brad Young wrote:

Very, very few routes are going up these days that aren't well protected. Whether a route is all bolts, all gear or mixed bolts and gear, most first ascentionists nowadays make sure the their climbs are well protected. Even at Pinnacles National Park, where we put up routes on lead by hand drilling, well protected is the overwhelming normal now.

And this is great; it creates lots and lots of options for all types of climbers. It also strengthens the argument for leaving existing routes the hell alone (imagine how different this discussion would be if Snake Dike was the "only" 5.7 slab route available in all of the central part of the Sierra Nevada, for example).

There are literally hundreds of well protected routes all over the place now. This is one of the reasons I use the word "entitled" when I refer to those who "need" Snake Dike to be retro-bolted. "Entitled," as in there are hundreds of well protected routes to choose from but no, they've got to have this exact one with exactly the level of protection they want.

Made me curious so I browsed through: https://www.mountainproject.com/whats-new

The great majority of new routes are Sport Routes, so by definition they should be "well protected." But there are some PG13 sport routes.

For Trad:

• 5.11 that requires micros (note: FA decided to not use bolts instead)
• 5.11c R
• 5.6 no pro rating, probably G
• 5.9+ nuts to 3 bolts
• 5.9+ PG 13 Might be a little harder than stock 5.9, this is a serious lead.  
• 5.11b PG 13 Risky moves to first bolt, then slightly runout.
• 5.11c PG 13 There is big fall potential above the first bolt and above the second bolt. On the first bolt have an alert belayer. Above the second bolt, it's about 5.8, simply don't fall. 
• 5.12a/b PG13
• 5.11 some of the trad placements are somewhat advanced, and the difficulty of some moves are a step above what you’ll find on other routes in the area, climbers should be solid at the grade.

So it looks like trad FAs are being done the way they always have been done. Pretty much taking what nature offers, not bolting a lot to bring the protection rating down.

Erik Lund wrote:

Exactly. Whining-fests like this are the worst part of climbing. A member of the FA party called for new bolts, he was too lazy/cheap to do it himself, nobody else stepped up to the plate, somebody finally did, in his own style, which is fine, and now everyone has their panties in a bundle. I'd guess 99.99% of people complaining have never spent the time, energy, and money developing/maintaining/retro-bolting a route - haven't contributed to the larger climbing community at all. I'll take a 100 people freely adding bolts to make routes safe than 1 person whining from the sidelines while not contributing in any real way. Cheers Erik, thanks for doing this!

It's wild to me that someone would be so into climbing that they establish sport FAs and it's a big part of their life. But still be so clueless about other types of climbing. I could see focusing on sport climbing and not being into trad, or big wall, or whatever, but to not even bother to understand the appeal and ethics is so weird and insular. 

I'd guess 20%+ of people "complaining" LOL, have developed/maintained routes. I have and I know several other people posting on this thread have. 

But 99.99% or people "complaining" not retro-bolting is probably accurate. None of them are going to be enough a douche bag to do it to someone else's route haha, but once in a while an FA will go back and add a bolt to their won route after the FA.

bob steed wrote:

Maybe Jim meant to say Saturday June 20 instead of Saturday June 13?  Then that would be after FF findings on June 19.  

I considered that and hope you and Tal are correct. Hoping Jim can clarify and the focus can be shifted to buffing out the damage. I’ll reiterate that this isn’t a call out or critique of the work done so far, just an effort to keep the thread updated and accurate.

Daniel and Bob...Yes, my bad.  I meant June 20th for the date pitch two and three were De-Sloaned.

Jim

Jim Hornibrook wrote:

Daniel and Bob...Yes, my bad.  I meant June 20th for the date pitch two and three were De-Sloaned.

Jim

Thanks Jim and thanks to the team that put in the hard work. I appreciate everyone here who has spoken up and acted to preserve an undeniably important aspect of climbing. 

Not all climbs are for all climbers. 

Cheers!

Thank you Jim. I for one greatly appreciate your community service in removing those bolts. 

Jim Hornibrook wrote:

As of Saturday evening, June 13th, all of Sloan's bolts have been dealt with.  Only bolts that have been there for decades with thousands of safe ascents remain.  The first pitch bolts are still protruding around a 1/4" so those would be nice to have filed down and our counter punched into the rock if Sloan's holes are deep enough.  The bolts that were removed from the second and third pitch are flat with the granite.  It would be nice to counter punch those and camouflage them with some granitic gravel.  

Regarding the larger issue at hand, whether routes should be potentially dangerous or bolted into Disneyland rides, I think it's important to educate the younger generation as to where we "older folk" are coming from on this boldness issue.  After all, most new climbers arrive to Yosemite (or wherever) after learning how to climb in the gym, where everything is tightly bolted and the entire experience is devoid of as much danger as the lawyers can remove.  It's a very sterile and safe environment.  Excessive bolting is the norm,  and any chance of changing less experienced minds needs to be handled diplomatically; however...

It’s not gatekeeping.  It’s not a nostalgic view of the past.  It’s an educated wholistic view of where our sport came from.   It’s a realization that climbing can be serious and difficult and hazardous.  We are climbing the exact routes that folk ascended many decades ago.  When you do that mantle on the last pitch of The Nutcracker, you’re dead pointing for the same jug that Robbins grabbed in 1967.  When you struggle up that slippery chimney on Royal Arch’s first pitch it’s the exact moves that Morgan Harris climbed 90 years ago…yes, 90 years ago.  The difference is you have leg loops on your harness.  You have cams, chalk, sticky rubber and cell phone reception at all times.  You have detailed topos and YouTube videos of each move.  You have a belay device and a marked trail to the route’s base.  You have a rock climbing gym five miles from your house where you can train and hone your technique.  You have YOSAR ready to rescue your ass if you make a misstep.
And yet with all these comforts, safety measures and advantages, many still whine about safety and want to desecrate the rock and eliminate the adventure by adding bolts to routes that climbers have been safely navigating for decades. What an embarrassingly entitled and ignorant viewpoint.

‘There is a danger in climbing: ability comes too quickly, experience too slowly.’

The indoor climber who can crush 5.12 on plastic needs the modesty to admit they need to start outside at a much much lower level. It’s a completely different game. There are many critical skills to learn and a history to absorb in order to realize that the beautiful cliffs and domes and peaks we climb outside are not to be equated with the meaningless, ephemeral Etch a Sketch routes of the indoor gym.
Learn the history of the outdoor area you’re wanting to climb in.  It will inspire you to be a better climber.

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

Li Lin wrote:

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

you are absolutely correct, I applaud you. For your convenience, MP has a search function where you can find 5.7 routes and filter OUT all of the R rated routes. Enjoy your well protected 5.7 routes, of which there are dozens, if not hundreds, within Yosemite Valley. 

Edit: well done sir, you baited over a dozen of us to reply to your one (inane) post. bravo.

Li Lin wrote:

we have the right to climb safely too

...in the gym or at the hundreds of sport crags

Li Lin, you are just not getting it at all. Have you read through these threads?

You say, “a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.”

First, lots of younger climbers are safely climbing Snake Dike as is and almost surely having some amazing experiences. So it isn’t an older climbers thing.

Most importantly, though: Absolutely no one is forcing danger on anyone. Just don’t climb the damn route.

To repeat: NO ONE IS FORCING DANGER ON ANYONE! JUST DON’T CLIMB THE DAMN ROUTE!

There are many, many routes I choose not to climb because, for me, I consider them too risky. I am perfectly fine with that. For others with a higher skill level, they are great physical and mental tests—more power to them. By your logic, we should be rebolt the Bachar-Yerian so little ole me and other normal humans can hang dog it without risk.

As has been said many times, try lifting yourself up to the level of the mountain rather than cutting down the mountain to match your current skill level.
What about this idea do people not understand?

you are asking someone to skip the bolts - ie you are asking someone to choose an alternate experience in this activity, climbing. yet when someone asks you to choose an alternate experience, by climbing another route in the same park, on the same style, that's protected how you want, well no that's imposing on your rights.

again, and again, and again. the argument to skip the bolts is a bad argument.

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

7/10

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

Why do you insist on negating the lived experience of the thousands who have successfully navigated the perceived perils of Snake Dike? And you talk about imposing on others…take a hard look in the mirror. 

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

Can you see how the exact argument can be made for the opposite stance? "adding bolts to climb thats been repeated 1000's of times is not protecting climbing, its imposing one groups ideology to everyone".....

I'm of the group that thinks adding the bolts according to the remaining FA would fit the unwritten ethic that is always refrenced when retroing a climb comes up, and one I have always made sure to do if wanting to retro a climb.
What I do find ironic in this case is that much of that same group seems to be laughing in the face of said unwritten rule, for whatever reason, around snake dike. That to me is a really bad postion to take considering how staunch that crowd is around the rule of FA permission is how one should go about it. It dilutes the value of the tradition that many defend so deeply.
Now, Sloan did no favors by doing what he did. If he would have done whatever Beck suggested people would likely still be upset, someone is always upset, but i don't think the addition bolts would have been removed. It would dilute that tradition rule even further into its all bullshit anyway territory.

Sloan also almost certainly used power tools to do it, which is illegal. He has a LONG history of using power tools to install many bolts around the valley.....So the bolts you defend are almost certainly placed in a manner that is not compliant with current legal rules around bolting.
You would have likely understood all these points if you read through even a handful of the pages in this thread. It's been beat to death on both sides of the table. Snake dike gets climbed all the time in the condition it was. If it was rarely climbed, my personal take around dangerous routes are if they don't get climbed and kind of just sit rotting away, they deserves to be climbed, and adding something to allow that would be rad... Thats not the issue here at all, so moot, despite my feelings. This climb gets romped on the reg.

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

The only people demanding anything are people like you that are demanding that existing classic rock climbs with thousands of safe ascents be made into what you want it to be, for you, now and imposing your ideology on others for yourself.

You have no right to impose your will on the rest of us. We are advocating that historic challenges remain on historic classics for future climbers. Something you would take away from others forever. 

If you can't lead the 5.3 runouts on Snake Dike like the thousands of people who have come before you, then hire a guide, get friends or join the permit system for the cables. I even recently made just such a 3 pitch route for those unsure of their skills to more securely climb on (and is the 3rd or 4th 5.easy  multi-pitch sport climb I've put up in recent years. Note that I put "securely" and not "safely" as the safe part is up to you).

What you are advocating for is additional crowding on an already crowded route (it's clearly not broken, just not your cup of java), and that will likely lead to a permit system in the future on a route reduced to the lowest common denominator of skill = not worth doing and a ruined experience. As above, if it was some death route stacking bodies at the base or rarely climbed then I would be all about increasing access, as I do.

Next, we will hear about the hegemony of ropes and quickdraws being unfair gate keeping by old Gen-Zers and turning the classics into via ferratas is appropriate for the tourists and within their rights.

clearance clarence wrote:

7/10

7/10 on the Troll-O-Meter? I'd give Li Lin a 3 for lack of originality. 

Li Lin wrote:

I strongly condemn the removal of these bolts.

Dressing up an act that puts other climbers at greater risk as “tradition,” “history,” or “boldness” does not make it noble. It is cruel. A public cliff is not the private playground of a small group of older climbers who believe their preferred level of danger should be forced onto everyone else.

If someone wants the original runout experience, they are always free to skip bolts. But removing protection takes that choice away from others and can turn someone else’s climb into a serious injury or death.

Chopping bolts is not protecting climbing; it is imposing one group’s ideology on everyone. Newer climbers should speak up. You do not need to argue with anyone. Just make your voice heard: we have the right to climb safely too.

Should we chip holds on routes that are harder than your chosen grade so that you can be entitled to experience classic 5.13’s without the possibility of injuring your fingers on the crimpy holds?

Only a small group of climbers get to experience 5.13 routes. Why shouldn’t we just make the holds bigger so that everyone can enjoy them?

Your mindset on this is whack. Climbing will never and shouldn’t ever be such that all routes are for all people.