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

Ben Goldstein wrote:

That said this thread reeks of hard-man ego inflation nonsense.

Bullshit.

You want the truth?

Snake Dike IS a beginner climb. As it was for a half century. It used to be commonly climbed in lug sole hiking boots. By beginners.

I have seen plenty of references to the nickname Snake Hike here on MP. Common thinking today seems to be because of the long approach. WRONG. Historically it has been called Snake Hike because it is largely a hike up a dike, with a couple little 5.7ish spots.

This isn’t how Yosemite big ego hardmen viewed it. It’s how the average recreational climber used to view it.

It is a beginner multipitch Yosemite climb. Like Royal Arches. One step above Munginella and After Six.

Eric Craig wrote:

Bullshit.

You want the truth?

Snake Dike IS a beginner climb. As it was for a half century. It used to be commonly climbed in lug sole hiking boots. By beginners.

I have seen plenty of references to the nickname Snake Hike. Common thinking today seems to be because of the long approach. WRONG. Historically it has been called Snake Hike because it is largely a hike up a dike, with a couple little 5.7ish spots.

This isn’t how Yosemite big ego hardmen viewed it. It’s how the average recreational climber used to view it.

It is a beginner multipitch Yosemite climb. Like Royal Arches. One step above Munginella and After Six.

This is literally an example of what I was talking about.

I never said SD or RA were difficult climbs at all. It is fine to think the route needed no additional bolts. It is also fine to think that the route needed more bolts. There is plenty of reasonable discussion in this thread which I have no problem with and am happy to see. My issue was that a significant chunk of comments frame anybody who has an even mildly pro-bolt opinion as a gumby who just can't comprehend how easy and thus un-needing of protection this climb is. 

Ben Goldstein wrote:

One more opinion in a sea of opinions....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...

explain what actual prevention the addition of more bolts would have achieved. Here's something you might understand. I can put on 5 seatbelts...but still drive like I have 0-1 years of experience. Guess what, I'm probably going to end up hurt. The extra "safety" didn't do a whole lot for me, right? What would have brought more safety is greater experience on my part as a driver, not increasing the number of bolts, err, seatbelts.

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.

I placed 5 bolts on a yosemite classic last month, two of those in order to save a tree anchor. I think the SPD bolt removal was an egregious and egotistical abomination. I also recognize that the SPD bolt removal did absolutely ZERO to increase risk on the (traditional - parties can still do the long (safer) walkoff) walkoff. I also recognize that there is little to no good reason to add bolts to SD, and absolutely ZERO reason to add several bolts to each pitch

....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.

excluding a metric shit ton of routes just because they aren't "at least two stars" is your (and jacob's) way of creating a straw man. Solid work. Broaden the horizons, try something off the beaten path, you might just find a route that you really enjoy, even if it's not a four star classic. So yes, there are indeed a shit ton of routes for beginners to cut their teeth on before upping their game for SD.

Christian Hesch wrote:

explain what actual prevention the addition of more bolts would have achieved. Here's something you might understand. I can put on 5 seatbelts...but still drive like I have 0-1 years of experience. Guess what, I'm probably going to end up hurt. The extra "safety" didn't do a whole lot for me, right? What would have brought more safety is greater experience on my part as a driver, not increasing the number of bolts, err, seatbelts.

Using this analogy: would you argue that the seatbelt isn't necessary at all, we all just need to be better drivers and rely on the safety systems which already exist? There is plenty of safety technology in cars already (crumple zones, air bags, speed limits, etc.) why do we need the additional safety of a seatbelt? Also having 5 seatbelts vs 1 is a bad analogy because each additional seatbelt does not provide any additional benefit whatsoever. A fall on a 35 foot runout is clearly less dangerous than a fall on a 70 foot runout though. Yes both falls are very unlikely on easy terrain, but prevention is not an unreasonable goal. Of course more experience is better, but that shouldn't prevent us from asking if one or two more well placed bolts could reasonably reduce risk without destroying the quality of the climb. Adverse conditions and accidents exist and it is fine to plan around them. In general my argument is that safety is a spectrum. As a thought experiment: If the route is so easy that no new bolts are needed maybe it is worth considering removing bolts which are already there. If adding a bolt would make 0 difference, then shouldn't taking a bolt away on identical terrain also make 0 difference in terms of safety? This is not an argument in favor of removing the few bolts which originally were placed, I'm just pointing out that the exact number of bolts which there "should" be is debatable and dependent on personal risk tolerance/preference. I am not saying that these additional bolts would have prevented the off route accident or that we need to add many bolts to multiple pitches. I am arguing that it is reasonable to have the opinion that the route could use a few more bolts.

excluding a metric shit ton of routes just because they aren't "at least two stars" is your (and jacob's) way of creating a straw man

By my count are 31 non aid/PG13+ larger multipitch (3+ pitches) routes in yosemite if you use "at least two stars" and 39 if you remove the star filter. Of those there are some I have climbed which I think are miscategorized as G (especially in tuolumne). You can argue that my criteria are too narrow, but that is basically exactly what a more cautious climber who wants a day of adventure is going to be looking for and it is pretty easy to tick off that list in a few months. Restricting to 2+ pitches does add a few 10s of climbs but most of those I view that as a bit closer to cragging rather than adventure (and many of those are actually just single pitch climbs with a 70m anyways). For context my original statement was largely based on my surprise at finishing nearly all of the non-aid <5.7 multi trad in the valley in a few weekends. I found more to do in tuolumne, I was just a little shocked to find out how little was available in the valley (14 total on MP). Perhaps slim pickings is a bit of an exaggeration, but so is your description of "excluding a metric shit ton of routes".

I appreciate your effort to save trees and place bolts elsewhere. Thanks for your hard work.

Why does Yosemite need to have routes for beginners? Do Ceuse and Cerro Torre need routes for beginners?

I think the side of Half Dome is a terrible location for people to get on their first multipitch. Go learn to lead climb 5.7 slab somewhere else, and then go to the Valley when you're ready. California has no shortage of climbing suitable for beginners.

Ben Goldstein wrote:

...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....

You can call others "gatekeepers" or "ego based," but those are just you using trendy words to tell everyone that your point of view is the best point of view. In other words, they are you picking whichever words and arguments are convenient to support your preference for bolting.

Looking at your use of the word "consensus:"  are you able to articulate how a "consensus" is to be formed? And by which "community?"

Do we vote? In writing? Are the votes to be weighted? Based on age? Ability? Geographic proximity?

If the "first ascent" rule isn't used, then how strong a consensus, and who decides? Would a consensus to make a route more dangerous require a stronger consensus?

What about leaving such decisions in the hands of the "best" climbers? Would that work? As an exercise, find me five climbers who can agree on what makes up the "best" climber. Just five who agree. Not likely?

Am I a "better" climber because I handle risk better than my buddy who climbs only on "safe" routes? Or is he the better climber because he leads 5.12s, while I max out on 5.11s?

Tell us how a consensus is to be formed or forfeit any credibility (and the words "...and then a miracle occurs" won't be acceptable).

Ben Goldstein wrote:

By my count are 31 non aid/PG13+ larger multipitch (3+ pitches) routes in yosemite if you use "at least two stars" and 39 if you remove the star filter. Of those there are some I have climbed which I think are miscategorized as G (especially in tuolumne). You can argue that my criteria are too narrow, but that is basically exactly what a more cautious climber who wants a day of adventure is going to be looking for and it is pretty easy to tick off that list in a few months. Restricting to 2+ pitches does add a few 10s of climbs but most of those I view that as a bit closer to cragging rather than adventure (and many of those are actually just single pitch climbs with a 70m anyways). For context my original statement was largely based on my surprise at finishing nearly all of the non-aid <5.7 multi trad in the valley in a few weekends. I found more to do in tuolumne, I was just a little shocked to find out how little was available in the valley (14 total on MP). Perhaps slim pickings is a bit of an exaggeration, but so is your description of "excluding a metric shit ton of routes".

The Valley is a big place with lots of climbing as it was long before Chris McNamara's Supertopo arrived on the scene and which sold, promoted, and popularized its curated climbing guides with a limited selection of climbs and its own subjective star ratings. If you go out and explore the vast resource that is Valley climbing you can formulate your own judgements on what routes are good or bad - and what makes them so - rather than relying on others' experience. 'Consensus' is just one metric (and who's consensus exactly?). If you become a Valley adept and aficionado you'll become your own authority. With that behind your belt perhaps your opinions on routes and their history, tradition, ethics, preservation, meaning, and value within the larger Valley ecosystem will have greater depth, breath, weight, and authority vs. those that stick their head's up above their cubicle and shout "bolt it!" or "chop it!" especially those with little soak time in the Valley. 

Here's a couple 20+ year old discussions on Valley climbing.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=42866#msg42869

Obscurity rating?! coliler started it....

Oct 19, 2004 - 09:18am  PT    

Author: Coiler

"I cant take all the credit for the Obscurity scale. It was started about 6 years ago with Ben "Benwa" Zartman, Jay"Shaggy" Selvidge, Brian "Mr. Way" Knight and myself. We were all on the quest to find the least traveled routes. the scale worked something like this: O0 being routes that are in the guidebook,usualy right next to something that gets done too much, like "Lemon" at sunnyside bench. It's the route you do when the old classic is crowded. O1 is the route at the cliff thats in the guidebook but nobody does, like, "inner reaches". O2 it's in the guide book and it still never gets done, I mean never. A good example of O2 is "Alley cat" on middle cathedral. O3, it's in the guidebook still, but nobody knows much about it, but Tucker Tech has done it; ex:"Phantom Pinnacle", or the "Flakes" on middle cathedral. O4 routes, they aren't in the guidebook but it's on the obscurist's tick list ,like "Via Aqua" or "church Tower". O5 routes, Little is know, but the consensus among obscurist's is that it IS there. Record shows there have been ascents. an O5 could be something like, "Spireview point" or Pohono pinnacle". O6 is getting tricky, It's definately not in the guidebook, and little is known about it. No know ascents among the Obscurists' circuit, "Willow th'-whisp" is a great example of this. Lynea Anderson and I have made several forays into the area of obscurity looking for it. Still we've never found it.  O7 like I said is a route that doesn't exist anymore or maybe never did. Like "promulgated pinnacle" (which fell over in '98) or "Werner's Crack" which fell off in '97."

------

more on obscurity

Nov 13, 2005 - 02:28pm  PT                            

Ed Hartouni                 

.

*FOOTNOTE: the guidebook referenced is the 400+ page Yosemite Free Climbs by Don Reid (my copy was stolen along with my rack and gear in the Valley in 2022; I picked up an as new copy online for around $5).

I have done several of those, plus others. The Flakes, Phantom Pinnacle,…….both routes on Bear Rock, the Bannister, Fallen Arches…………….I like the O scale! Thanks for sharing.

Via Aqua is supposed to be very high quality. I have also heard the Harding Route on Glacier Point is good. I plan to check that out myself.

Lovegasoline Love wrote:

The Valley is a big place with lots of climbing as it was long before for Supertopo for ex. promoted its curated climbing guides. Here's a couple 20+ year old discussions on Valley climbing.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=42866#msg42869

Obscurity rating?! coliler started it....

Oct 19, 2004 - 09:18am  PT    

Author: Coiler,

"I cant take all the credit for the Obscurity scale. It was started about 6 years ago with Ben "Benwa" Zartman, Jay"Shaggy" Selvidge, Brian "Mr. Way" Knight and myself. We were all on the quest to find the least traveled routes. the scale worked something like this: O0 being routes that are in the guidebook,usualy right next to something that gets done too much, like "Lemon" at sunnyside bench. It's the route you do when the old classic is crowded. O1 is the route at the cliff thats in the guidebook but nobody does, like, "inner reaches". O2 it's in the guide book and it still never gets done, I mean never. A good example of O2 is "Alley cat" on middle cathedral. O3, it's in the guidebook still, but nobody knows much about it, but Tucker Tech has done it; ex:"Phantom Pinnacle", or the "Flakes" on middle cathedral. O4 routes, they aren't in the guidebook but it's on the obscurist's tick list ,like "Via Aqua" or "church Tower". O5 routes, Little is know, but the consensus among obscurist's is that it IS there. Record shows there have been ascents. an O5 could be something like, "Spireview point" or Pohono pinnacle". O6 is getting tricky, It's definately not in the guidebook, and little is known about it. No know ascents among the Obscurists' circuit, "Willow th'-whisp" is a great example of this. Lynea Anderson and I have made several forays into the area of obscurity looking for it. Still we've never found it.  O7 like I said is a route that doesn't exist anymore or maybe never did. Like "promulgated pinnacle" (which fell over in '98) or "Werner's Crack" which fell off in '97."

------

more on obscurity

Nov 13, 2005 - 02:28pm  PT                            

Ed Hartouni                 

lol, I remember that post. It was pure gold BITD.

Oh, and the only “consensus” I’ve ever seen work was to leave the route as was done by the F.A. It’s the consensus that emerged from over 50 years of debate and every 5 years or so someone comes along and tries to challenge that consensus… again! 

Ben Goldstein wrote:

...but prevention is not an unreasonable goal. Of course more experience is better, but that shouldn't prevent us from asking if one or two more well placed bolts could reasonably reduce risk without destroying the quality of the climb. 

if this is our standard, we need to retro bolt every route in the valley that exposes (beginner) climbers to risk, per your stated goal(s)

.... As a thought experiment: If the route is so easy that no new bolts are needed maybe it is worth considering removing bolts which are already there. If adding a bolt would make 0 difference, then shouldn't taking a bolt away on identical terrain also make 0 difference in terms of safety?

thought experiment: it's worked for thousands of climbers, with zero known catastrophic falls on the runout sections. Again, what exactly are you trying to prevent? something that has NEVER happened? I've not heard of a standard climbing ethic where, after a certain number of years, the community comes together and says "the FA put up "too easy" of a route, we must reduce the bolts from one to zero. Weird take, dude.

 By my count are 31 non aid/PG13+ larger multipitch (3+ pitches) routes in yosemite if you use "at least two stars" and 39 if you remove the star filter. Of those there are some I have climbed which I think are miscategorized as G (especially in tuolumne). You can argue that my criteria are too narrow, but that is basically exactly what a more cautious climber who wants a day of adventure is going to be looking for and it is pretty easy to tick off that list in a few months. Restricting to 2+ pitches does add a few 10s of climbs but most of those I view that as a bit closer to cragging rather than adventure (and many of those are actually just single pitch climbs with a 70m anyways). For context my original statement was largely based on my surprise at finishing nearly all of the non-aid <5.7 multi trad in the valley in a few weekends. I found more to do in tuolumne, I was just a little shocked to find out how little was available in the valley (14 total on MP). Perhaps slim pickings is a bit of an exaggeration, but so is your description of "excluding a metric shit ton of routes".

No idea how you're doing your filtering but I went on and hit "5.7 and down, 2 or more pitches".... came up w/ 139 total, went through and started counting the non-aid routes.... quit counting at 75, there was still at least 1/4 of the page left. "slim pickings" is one hell of an exaggeration.

I appreciate your effort to save trees and place bolts elsewhere. Thanks for your hard work.

Thank you. It's fuggin hard, doing it by hand. Sure it's tempting to use the drill but won't lower myself to that.

I apologize for throwing a monkey wrench in this discussion. I have a different take on this.
Royal Arches should also be on this list, but isn’t, because it is listed as as 5.10a/5.7 A0 or some such thing. Bottom line is there are only two longer than five pitch 5.7 or easier “non aid” routes in Yosemite Valley. This illustrates the rarity of true beginner routes, and how special these routes are. And how special Yosemite Valley is.

If you can’t handle the climbing, go hiking instead. Or swimming.
Or raise your game, as many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of climbers from all over the world have done, for many decades.
Or go somewhere else.

The Valley has already suffered dearly.

"Consensus" is a shouting match where the "loser" agrees to be shouted down more or less by a perceived majority.

Unless there is a financial incentive (see Bachar and Boreal where he essentially destroyed the brand in the USA) then all it takes is someone with fingers in their ears going "lalalalallala I can't hear you" to continue what they are doing. Narcissism will rule the day.

Get Sloan's books out of REI and the Yosemite Mountain Shop etc. due to his history of illegal activity threatening the very sport he purports to love (or at least benefit financially from...)

THAT will cause a change in behavior.

Paging Eric Gable and Ed.

Eric Craig wrote:

I have done several of those, plus others. The Flakes, Phantom Pinnacle,…….both routes on Bear Rock, the Bannister, Fallen Arches…………….I like the O scale! Thanks for sharing.

BTW, the 'Benwa' credited as one of the founders of the Obscurity Scale is none other than Ben Zartman who posts here and now manufactures climbing gear as Zartman Rigging.

Eric Craig wrote:

I apologize for throwing a monkey wrench in this discussion. I have a different take on this.
Royal Arches should also be on this list, but isn’t, because it is listed as as 5.10a/5.7 A0 or some such thing. Bottom line is there are only two longer than six pitch 5.7 or easier “non aid” routes in Yosemite Valley. This illustrates the rarity of true beginner routes, and how special these routes are. And how special Yosemite Valley is.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember people are more prone to having epics on Royal Arches than they do on SD? Usually it’s because they underestimate its length and get lost/benighted on the rappels/descent? For such an easy access long route that is fairly safe (compared to the backcountry/runout nature of SD), it gets its fair share of chaos. This is not to disagree that RA should also be on that list, just making an observation.

Going by the MP Route guide, Snake Dike and Royal Arches are the ONLY routes longer than 5 pitches that are 5.7 OR easier. That makes them the easiest Grade III routes.

There is another. It would probably be about Grade O3 or O4 on the obscurity scale. I only know of one person who has done it, through an intermediary person. The route is the Harding Route, on Glacier Point Apron. I intend to go do it when I am in The Valley next fall. I absolutely do not recommend a not-so-experienced party go try it.

Regarding your question Mauricio, Royal Arches is somewhat more complex. And today’s RA climbers routinely make it more complex than it needs to be. It’s also longer, climbing wise. 

Eric Craig wrote:

Going by the MP Route guide, Snake Dike and Royal Arches are the ONLY routes longer than 5 pitches that are 5.7 OR easier. That makes them the easiest Grade III routes.

Here's a list that is close enough.   6 pitches is a cherry picked arbitrary number, so I picked 4.
https://www.mountainproject.com/route-finder?selectedIds=105833381&type=rock&diffMinrock=1400&diffMinboulder=20000&diffMinaid=70000&diffMinice=30000&diffMinmixed=50000&diffMaxrock=1900&diffMaxboulder=20050&diffMaxaid=75260&diffMaxice=38500&diffMaxmixed=65050&is_trad_climb=1&is_sport_climb=1&is_top_rope=1&stars=0&pitches=4&sort1=area&sort2=rating

Arbitrary? No, not at all. Yes there are some easier routes.
I don’t need to go look up any of your referenced material. I already know. Plus a bit more.

What is your actual point Tom?

I’ve always felt that Yosemite Valley is not a beginner area. There’s very little that’s worthwhile below 5.8. 

Erik Sloan wrote:

Yo Gang! .....lol sorry for the slow post my son's bday is at the end of the week so I"ve been busy.

At long last Half Dome's iconic Snake Dike route is being retrobolted. Woohooo! I"ve done the first three pitches - but that still leaves a lot to do!

I will post an updated topo of the route here and on the route's page in the next few days. What a great route I"m so excited to see this become a modern classic - and for all the whiners worried that there are not enough runnout slab pitches left in Yosemite don't worry - there are still plenty!

If you want to contribute monetarily you can paypal me at 

erik@yosemitebigwall.com

or Venmo

erik-sloan

If you want to get involved with the retrobolting efforts please email me erik@yosemitebigwall.com

Best, Erik

Rockclimbingyosemite.com

Erik: you are going to go down in history as an all time idiot in Yosemite history. Your actions have created so much unnecessary drama and bad press for climbing. Why you would choose Snake Dike as a hill to die on is beyond me. That's my two cents. 

David Buchanan wrote:

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

Okay!  10/10