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

Li Lin,

You are not a climber.

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.

I'm young, and love safe sport climbing just like most of my young friends.  I also like to see Snake Dike stay as it's been for the past few decades.  You don't speak for us.  There are literally tens of thousands of safe sport routes to climb, including giant +3000 ft multipitches like Guaranteed Rugged. There is only one Snake Dike.  You argument is weak like your ethics.

There is only one Snake Dike.

This is what we are saving.

People simply must grasp that once gone, it's gone forever. It's the desecration of the Mona Lisa, Venus di Milo or Guernica because some flavor of the month says so.

We can climb LOTS of easy sport climbs all over everywhere.  We can make more all over the place (get off ur butt).

But there is only one magnificent, moderate, masterpiece challenge like Snake Dike in all the World.

Li Lin wrote:

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.

To the newer climbers out there: you totally can and should use your voice! But first, use your ears to listen to what others have already said and use your eyes to read what has already been written. If you want other people to read what you have to say and take it seriously, you need to be willing to return the favor in advance. Even if you still don't agree with the way things are being done now, this will help you to use your voice more effectively. See what Mr. Rogers posted if you want an idea of what a more informed argument in favor of some additional bolts looks like. Also consider that all of the experienced climbers you are interacting with started out as new climbers, just like you. Consider that many of them thought all of the same things you do, and understand exactly where you are coming from. They know what it feels like to be excited by big climbs and frustrated that so many incredible climbs seem to be unnecessarily dangerous or risky, making an already hard thing seem crazy or impossible.

Consider that "new climber" is not a permanent category that will always define and limit you. If you want to be an experienced climber, it is entirely within your power to become one. If you really care about climbing Snake Dike and it's important to you, there are several different ways to make that happen. Leave room for your perspective to change over time, and get curious about why most of the people who were once in your shoes now view the issue differently than you do. Maybe this issue will look very different to you once you have more experience. Maybe the very fact that this seems scary and impossible to you now will make it feel much more rewarding when you eventually climb it, and you will discover that you are the more experienced climber this route was being preserved for.

Li Lin, 

Sloan's bolts being removed from Snake Dike is not exclusionary.  The route is there for anyone that wants to climb it as is, including you.  If you want to climb Snake Dike, there's nothing from stopping you.  Hire a guide, get a friend with more experience to do the leading, or post up for a partner in the "Partner Finder" and let you're prospective partner know you don't want to lead.  There are plenty of ways to get dragged up the thing.  You could also improve your skills and head game, grab your favorite climbing partner, and lead it yourself.  All that is required is hard work and patients.  

The argument that beginner climbers are being excluded from climbing Snake Dike simply isn't true.  It will be there waiting for you, when you are ready.

While I completely disagree with the "just skip the bolts!" comments (and again, I do not condone AT ALL what Sloan did), I also take umbrage with "Just go climb something else!" comments. 

Doing a filter on all Yosemite (and Tuolumne) climbs between 5.0 and 5.7, that are at least 2 stars and at least 3 pitches with more than a few ratings, produces a list of ~a dozen actual routes. Most of which I've done and recommend to newcomers. Until you get to 5.9, the list IS pretty sparse: Sunnyside Bench, Swan Slab, Munginella, Grack, Royal Arches, After 6/7, Holdless Horror/Bull Dozier, Hermaphrodite Flake, Cathedral/Tenaya/Matthes, Zee Tree + just a couple others. Granted it's not zero, but it's not "dozens or hundreds." A newer climber could easily churn through those multipitches in a season and think, "I'm ready for Snake Dike!" even when they really may not be (which is basically what I did). You can argue "BUT IT'S NOT A BEGINNER CLIMB!" until your face goes blue, but those newer climbers aren't going to hear you - they'll read the cautions and continue anyway. And even when you do start adding in 5.8 multis (another ~10-15 or so), you're getting more mandatory runouts or super committing moves even without the PG13/R rating (Via Aqua, CS Concerto, Nutcracker, and Caverns come to mind), that can deter or trial-by-fire a newer climber who would rather stay on the safer side, but wants to get more than 100ft off the ground.

I'd also argue that this notion of it "not being a beginner climb" is misplaced in practice - I'd be very curious to find out, but if I were to guess, I'd say a majority of those that climb SD didn't work up to it (doing 5.8s and 5.9s and becoming more and more comfortable on unprotected terrain) and more likely thought the climbing difficulty was within reach after doing a subset of the above mentioned routes, and survived (rather than thrived) through the runouts - my guess is that a double digit percentage of climbers on SD are not adequately prepared for the risk they are taking when they get on route.

Yes, there are hundreds of routes outside of the valley all along the sierras and the coast that this group can and should be getting on as well to hone their skills and gain that mental fortitude. But I've still yet to be convinced that the single multipitch moderate route, up one of the most iconic natural features in the country/world needs to be the unnecessarily sparsely-protected route it is. 

As an aside, the cables are not a reasonable comparison - any jabroni that can hike, get a permit, and isn't too scared of heights can and does go up and down that every day - that is not a "Rock Climb." The number of incidents on the cables (almost yearly now) is proportional to the number of people going up and down it relative to SD (literally an order of magnitude more). Adding a couple bolts to the route does not unmake Snake Dike into the same thing, nor take away the achievement of getting up it (IMO).

I can understand that there exist other minimally protected, mental test piece routes and I have no qualms with any of those staying that way - I agree not every route needs to be climbed by every person of every risk posture. I am not advocating for retrobolting everything everwhere (or even ANYwhere) else. And I am not advocating for bolts every 5, 10, 15, or possibly even 20ft. But 50-100ft runouts? on one of the dozen 2+ star 5.7 multipitches in Yosemite? Up Half Dome? I still think it's silly.

tl;dr in 3 pts:

"Go climb something else" is an unfair proposition - There aren't that many other moderate multipitches in the valley/tuo, few of which are of Half Dome's caliber/draw. 

"It's not a beginner climb!" is not true in practice - They do it anyway, and are putting themselves in risky positions they aren't prepared for.

"Just climb the cables!" is an unfair alternative - It's not a rock climb and it's not the same thing, regardless of runout.

"If you want something done 'right'..."

Go bolt.  Or go chop.  

Talk - action = zero.  

Jacob: How many climbs are there in Yosemite that are like Snake Dike? … pitches, iconic formation, crux difficulty, extreme length of lower fifth class runouts. To ask a leading question: is it unique?

Come on people, keep it concise. Nobody wants to read all those words

This has been said in various ways, but I think a bit of emphasis won't hurt.

Snake Dike is not a dangerous climb.  It's has had thousands of ascents over nearly 60 years. The safety record suggests the chance of having an accident is comparable to being struck by lightning sometime in your life. The only two climbing accidents I know of were to inexperienced parties who were off route. As far as I know, no one has taken a fall resulting in serious injury on the actual route. The 5.7 moves have pro.  Those runout "5.4" pitches? The rock is perfect, the angle is low, and you'd have to jump off them to fall. it's a unique and venerable old classic.  It's not a museum piece.  It's an everyday climb with a little excitement, and in that regard it is quite unique. Leave it alone.

@Bill: I agree with it being unique and special - and respect that desire to keep it from becoming "any other climb." However, I don't find the runout-ness to be the necessary defining feature to keep it unique and special. People (beginners, out of towners, old hats alike) will still be drawn to do SD because it's a beautiful feature up Half Dome and at a moderate grade for a big adventure of a day. Royal Arches or Cathedral are not unspecial because they don't have runout.

Put this way - if it were "Snake Crack" instead of "Snake Dike", ie you could sew up the whole thing however you liked, in a sea of flat granite on either side, and it was still 5.4-5.7 for 8 pitches, this route would still be iconic, beautiful, and done every day by dozens of climbers who would say that it was still a climb of a lifetime. Granted, that's my opinion, with the rationale that keeping the non-trivial number of climbers who do the climb from unknowingly accepting unrealized risk is the tradeoff for that "feature."

LucasSpiegel wrote:

Come on people, keep it concise. Nobody wants to read all those words

I do apologize. As a minority voice on this thread and at risk of being put into the same bucket as unserious or unthoughtful comments praising Sloan, I do feel the need to add a bunch of caveats and points and support my rationale. 

Jacob Mintz wrote:

@Bill: I agree with it being unique and special - and respect that desire to keep it from becoming "any other climb." However, I don't find the runout-ness to be the necessary defining feature to keep it unique and special. People (beginners, out of towners, old hats alike) will still be drawn to do SD because it's a beautiful feature up Half Dome and at a moderate grade for a big adventure of a day. Royal Arches or Cathedral are not unspecial because they don't have runout.

Put this way - if it were "Snake Crack" instead of "Snake Dike", ie you could sew up the whole thing however you liked, in a sea of flat granite on either side, and it was still 5.4-5.7 for 8 pitches, this route would still be iconic, beautiful, and done every day by dozens of climbers who would say that it was still a climb of a lifetime. Granted, that's my opinion, with the rationale that keeping the non-trivial number of climbers who do the climb from unknowingly accepting unrealized risk is the tradeoff for that "feature."

No one has some kind of entitled right to climb Snake Dike (no matter how many stars) with how ever many bolts they think should be added for them. It permanently changes the climb and it's already crowded and done by dozens and dozens every year (3438 ticks and counting just on MP). It is not broken; It doesn't need fixing. The ability to runout 100' on 5.3 somehow is doable for thousands of leaders.   

Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne are historic climbing areas and agreed, do not have large numbers of well protected 5.7's because climbers have been able to climb that grade with little protection for over 100 years. There are dozens and dozens of routes elsewhere (and nearby) that ARE well protected. Yosemite is just an old climbing area, so the standards are high for personal ability. You have to have that ability to climb the classics there.

It's a graduation test of sorts from the Gym or bouldering.

Up your game. You can thank us later when you understand that we have saved you from your worst impulses to sanitize climbing. Otherwise, every single route will be reduced to the same low common denominator like the cables route (which was put up in the most bad ass style 150 years ago). See what cables got you? Access for every beginner and 15 deaths. None on Snake Dike from the protection scheme.

John Tuttle wrote:

No one has some kind of entitled right to climb Snake Dike (no matter how many stars) with how ever many bolts they think should be added for them....

They're not listening, John.

You lose them when you tell them that they don't have the right to have things EXACTLY like they want them. Because after all they DESERVE it....

Only they matter, John. They gotta make it safe for everyone. Even though no two climbers can agree on what "safe" is....

It's gonna be a via ferrata soon John because no one should have to grow to meet a climb in this modern age, the climb should be brought down to THEIR level....

OK, Jacob (as an example). I AGREE THAT SNAKE DIKE SHOULD BE SAFE. It's classic and beloved and it should BE SAFE.

I maintain that it is PERFECTLY SAFE AS IT WAS. For all of the reasons discussed above.

DO YOU AGREE WITH MY VIEW? And if not then why should YOUR view of what is SAFE be used instead of mine? Is my view less worthy than yours?

WHO GETS TO DECIDE what safe is? Isn't changing a route just a recipe for total chaos as everyone tries to impose their views?

Certainly there's no chaos surrounding Snake Dike right now.

EDIT: I had to change to as it "was" since Voldemort did his thing to it....

Jacob Mintz wrote:

tl;dr in 3 pts:

"Go climb something else" is an unfair proposition - There aren't that many other moderate multipitches in the valley/tuo, few of which are of Half Dome's caliber/draw.

You leave off “work up to it or get a partner / guide who is up to it.”  There will always be people who take on more than they should. It can’t be helped, even if Snake Dike were turned into a sport route.

"It's not a beginner climb!" is not true in practice - They do it anyway, and are putting themselves in risky positions they aren't prepared for.

Beginning trad leaders certainly know they are not immune to choosing the wrong route for themselves. I knew when I was a beginner. Plus, descriptions of Snake Dike are festooned with caution about it being a serious route. Heck, there are free videos on YouTube about it. Getting near impossible in this age to claim warnings were not available of the need to be prepared - for those “beginners who do it anyway”

"Just climb the cables!" is an unfair alternative - It's not a rock climb and it's not the same thing, regardless of runout.

The cables route is a rock climb. And using the cables is like having a brain-dead leader taking you up in my opinion. Seriously.

Sure, the cables route is not the same thing as Snake Dike. Keep it that way - both are already too crowded.

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.

I missed the part where we forced you to climb Snake Dike... 

Also one serious injury on the route in 60 years is straight up nothing compared to the carnage that goes down on the regular route for Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier every single season. It's insane how sensitive some rock climbers can get. We're making a mountain out of a molehill here. 

Soft, soft, soft. 

Not every single route in the world needs to be childproofed for your emotional comfort. It's okay if some of them are dangerous. 

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.

Every day before I check in with the Forums I think, there cannot possibly be any more discussion about Snake Dike, because very experienced people, young and older, have answered every question and issue so thoroughly, so carefully, and with such impeccable logic that there cannot be anyone left in the world who doesn't get it.

And then I see a post like this.

Li Lin, and others who are posting in the same vein, please read through the article I wrote for inexperienced climbers like you:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/126319824/climbing-information-for-beginners

Safety in climbing does not exist, just as safety in driving a car does not exist. Bad luck and being in the wrong place and time can always come into play. Just as with driving a car, increased safety in climbing derives mostly from skill, experience, and good decision making. Thousands of people die in car accidents every year, even though they were driving cars with the highest safety rating available. Those people had poor skills, had a lack of experience, made poor decisions, or were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are plenty of injuries and accidents on sport routes every year. If you don't believe me, try routinely falling off most 5.6-5.8 sport routes every time you go out climbing.  See what happens.

Over the years, I have had a number of serious and less serious climbing accidents.  But they all have one thing in common - none of the injuries was the result of a lack of bolts. They were all a result of my own decision making and occasionally, bad luck.

One more opinion in a sea of opinions: Adding a couple bolts would have been fine but clearly it was overdone. Preserving some amount of heady easy runout is ok especially on classic lines where there is small potential for catastrophic failure.

That said this thread reeks of hard-man ego inflation nonsense. Insulting other climbers who want to increase the safety of a climb is unproductive and childish. It is ok for other people to express their opinions and be against gate keeping. Insisting that we need to respect the will of the FA, but also arguing that a majority of people in this thread (and thus the community at large) don't want any new bolts and should be followed is contradictory. I personally believe more in a community consensus driven ethic rather than a FA based ethic, but it is clear that some posters in this thread just pick whichever is convenient to support their preference for bolting on this particular climb.

In general I find the hardcore anti-bolting crowd significantly more frustrating than the pro-bolting crowd. There are many routes in Yosemite that end in tat/tree anchors which would be significantly safer, cleaner, and more aesthetic with a pair of anchor bolts. There are climbs which have had the rap bolts cut because the descent was relatively chill 5th class even though this makes it a dangerous pain to get down in non-ideal weather or with newer partners (ex: Stately Pleasure Dome). There are climbs with hard to protect dangerous cruxes which some will insist don't need a bolt in spite of the fact that the area is marred by piton scars from FA/early climbers who clearly disagreed.

Grid bolting is bad, but bolt chopping absolutism makes the sport worse. Also a strong +1 to the point by Jacob Mintz that there really is not a lot of <5.7 quality non-aid trad multi in this area. Of the stuff that does exist a lot is >PG13. Not every climb needs to be accessible to every climber, but pickings are a little slim for the newbies around here and it's ok to acknowledge that.

If you climb long enough, especially in Yosemite National Park and the Sierra, you are certain to encounter poorly protected or unprotected terrain. You might find yourself off-route, or you might get bad or incomplete information about a climb. You might encounter a rescue scenario that forces you into dangerous territory.  

For decades, Snake Dike was an approachable and classic introduction to moderate poorly protected terrain for generations of Yosemite climbers. The route trained hundreds, if not thousands of climbers in the art of navigating low angle terrain with serious consequences.

It seems entirely possible to me that Snake Dike, in its original form, has prevented more injuries and more rescues than it has caused.