Mountain Project Logo

Adding anchors at Rumbling Bald

Original Post
Orphaned · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 11,560

I am considering/planning to add cold shuts to the top of Driving & Crying and Fine Line to allow lowering off & top roping. I have the approval of the first ascentists and plan to use SS 5 piece Rawl bolts. Any objections?

Edward Medina · · Ridgway, CO · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 1,061

Rap rings are preferable to cold shuts. How are you planning on removing the old hardware? Doesn't one of these climbs end at a rap tree? You might get a better response at carolinaclimbers.org

M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
Edward Medina wrote:Rap rings are preferable to cold shuts. How are you planning on removing the old hardware? Doesn't one of these climbs end at a rap tree? You might get a better response at carolinaclimbers.org
why are you an NC admin when you live in CO?
Larry S · · Easton, PA · Joined May 2010 · Points: 872

If you look thru his ticks, you'll see he likely lived in NC from 2004 to 2012.

M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
Larry S wrote:If you look thru his ticks, you'll see he likely lived in NC from 2004 to 2012.
just wondering, if I moved along I might pass the torch along myself. already done it once. I wouldnt have even looked myself but I've never seen him post before and since he is recommending a tree anchor I thought I'd look into it.
Brad Caldwell · · Deep in the Jocassee Gorges · Joined May 2010 · Points: 1,400

Ed has helped the CCC and NC climbing in a variety of ways over the years. I'd post this question on the Carolina Climbers Coalition messageboard and/or get in touch with either Mike Reardon or Jon Jones on the site Ed listed, who I think are the area reps for the Hickory Nut Gorge area. Many folks follow the traditions that you must get permission from the FAer to make any changes to routes/hardware...not sure if this would be one of those cases or not.

Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623

I object strenuously! This climb doesn't need anchors. Top the climb out and walk left. This would require two ropes to rap from the tree line anyways, since the pitch is more than 100'. You can easily top rope using a top belay or extend anchors and bottom belay with a 70m rope using stout trees. If you need to rap, you can use the trees at the top of Bear Hunt. The walk off is stupid easy and takes very little time. These are convenience anchors and will be chopped!

Chris Massey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 5
TomCaldwell wrote:I object strenuously! This climb doesn't need anchors. Top the climb out and walk left. This would require two ropes to rap from the tree line anyways, since the pitch is more than 100'. You can easily top rope using a top belay or extend anchors and bottom belay with a 70m rope using stout trees. If you need to rap, you can use the trees at the top of Bear Hunt. The walk off is stupid easy and takes very little time. These are convenience anchors and will be chopped!
Agreed. The only thing I see this facilitating are extended TR sessions for folks that cant or dont want to lead the routes. That area tends to draw folks to the easier lines and I could see these two fine 5.10's turned into all day fixed TR routes pretty easily with fixed anchors.
Brad Caldwell · · Deep in the Jocassee Gorges · Joined May 2010 · Points: 1,400

+1 to what Tom and Chris said!!!

Pat T · · greenville sc · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0

Not sure what all the fuss is about! Using trees as anchors is bad for the trees and does not make Land Managers happy as we have all seen in numerous climbing areas i.e The New and T-wall. I have personally seen many trees die from being used as anchors through my short 25+ years of climbing such as the trees for Bloody Crack and Right Up at the Glass. The trees on the ledge at RB are in good shape for now but why harm them any more when a modern fixed anchor can take care of the challenge? Also if the first ascentionist's are okay with the anchors then there you go... no challenges here. Top roping the routes is going to happen no matter what the anchor happens to be. So once again....if this community service work will save the trees then so be it! Cheers every one... see you at the crag soon!

Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623

The climb doesn't end at 30M. These anchors would only service those leading the climb, but not those that walk to the top to TR the climb. They would still be required to use the trees

Nobody should be TR'ing off the little tree to the left of Fine Line nor a single bolt. Both are stupid and dangerous. There are large pine trees at the top of the climb that can facilitate top-roping with a 70M rope or a 60M rope with a top belay. The top belay is the best option because all the forces are put into the belayer's harness and the tree is just there as a backup. No trees are harmed in that scenario.

The large pine tree above Fine Line/Drivin' does not see the type of use of the trees you refer to on LG. The south face is over guided and crowded. Those tree also provide the only way down on some of those routes. TWall and the New had issues with pine beetles, which is why bolts were added. On these routes at the Bald, the way down is to walk off. The walk off only has to be done by the last person climbing. Adding bolts just means more hardware that will need replacing in 20 years. Those trees have been around for much longer than that with people TR'ing off them. It would be a completely different story if this were an epic walk off, but it takes 5 minutes or less. There are other climbs at the Bald that use trees as anchors, but don't have an easy walk off like most of the Screamweaver Wall, which would be better candidates for such an upgrade.

There were no threats, just being stern and stating the reality without any ambiguity. It will be chopped. Not many locals will give weight to you saying you have FA permission when they don't climb any more and these are clearly convenience anchors.

Mike R · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2010 · Points: 2,768

Andy,
Thanks for taking the time to check with the FA party (assuming Frank?). From the CCC's stand point, it would be best to hold off on adding any hardware until the climbing management plan is completed by the State Park. As of right now, the draft is in the works and incomplete but they have very recently sought the CCC's input, especially on bolting policies. As the land owners, they see the benefit of fixed SS anchors Vs. tree anchors in terms of long term sustainability. That said,TR anchors can also cause trampling or overuse above so that spot is a bit of a conundrum. There is no literature suggesting that hardware currently can not be placed in CRSP that I know of.

In response to Tom C's comment and what should be asked before installing fixed anchors on existing routes; is it needed in this area? Can't you set a gear anchor on the ledge and walk off left? Is the purpose simply to be able to climb it sling shot with a 60M for convenience? Would the placement of said anchors neuter the route in anyway?

Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
TomCaldwell wrote: Not many locals will give weight to you saying you have FA permission when they don't climb any more and these are clearly convenience anchors.
So now the FA only matters when it suites you tradsters? That's pretty messed up. Really exemplifies the problem with the trad ethic... that and how it plays out in real conservation terms or rather degradation.

Crock of poop if you ask me... thats what I think of your option to sling tress. Walking over their roots to simply setup the anchor around a tree (regardless of backup or not) contributes to soil compaction and has been shown to damage trees. Using them is not sustainable and shouldn't be be allowed if you 'care' about the ecosystem of that area.
Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Morgan Patterson wrote: So now the FA only matters when it suites you tradsters? That's pretty messed up. Really exemplifies the problem with the trad ethic... that and how it plays out in real conservation terms or rather degradation. Crock of poop if you ask me... thats what I think of your option to sling tress. Walking over their roots to simply setup the anchor around a tree (regardless of backup or not) contributes to soil compaction and has been shown to damage trees. Using them is not sustainable and shouldn't be be allowed if you 'care' about the ecosystem of that area.
Are Administrators not supposed to be Moderators?
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945

I'm a route admin for CT... not a forum mod. Is there a problem? Was I outta line?

I need a signature quote...

"Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of Mountain Project."

Michael Brady · · Wenatchee, WA · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 1,316
Morgan Patterson wrote:I'm a route admin for CT... not a forum mod. Is there a problem? Was I outta line? I need a signature quote... "Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of Mountain Project."
Just poking fun...Ya know for the fun of it. I just like to see ya get all hot and bothered :)
Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
Mike Brady wrote: Just poking fun...Ya know for the fun of it. I just like to see ya get all hot and bothered :)
hahaha all gooooood!!! I have been in trouble in the past.
Tom Caldwell · · Clemson, S.C. · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 3,623

Local standards are always more important than FA'er opinion. This has been stated locally for decades. The FA or someone acting on FA permission cannot violate local standards without some sort of repercussion. Bolts have been removed and routes erased in some cases. Convenience anchors are not part of the local standard, regardless of the opinions of those who have never been to the area.

saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221
TomCaldwell wrote:Local standards are always more important than FA'er opinion. This has been stated locally for decades. The FA or someone acting on FA permission cannot violate local standards without some sort of repercussion.
And yet that didn't stop the dumbing-down of Groover (P4) at Laurel Knob . . .

JL
Brian E · · Western North Carolina · Joined Mar 2005 · Points: 348

If I'm understanding the situation correctly, I oppose the installation of an anchor at the 30m mark because I feel it would change the nature of the pitch. I have climbed these routes, but I don't really remember too much about them. I believe the pitches are about 130 feet, and end at nice ledge with a large tree that can be used to rap. Due to the fact that you're proposing to put anchors in the middle of the face, I think that would be sort of lame.

I do support the placement of a modern two bolt anchor with rings at the ledge, for the purpose of saving the tree. There's some other routes that could use them as well, like Southern Boys... but we probably don't need to be adding anchors for the purpose of top roping. I believe there are several routes in that area that are able to facilitate top roping, like Gunboat diplomacy and bear claws.

I would probably hold off until the park figures out how they want to handle such situations. IMHO The CCC has done nothing short of fantastic work in building a working relationship with them. I know it sucks having to wait on the park to act, but the anchor can probably wait another year.

Finally, I would challenge the NC climbing community, of which I am a part of, to attempt to communicate with each other respectfully, and to refrain from threats. In the grand scheme of things, a couple of bolts really doesn't matter when one considers all of the problems in the world today.

CDC · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2011 · Points: 1,065

I almost never post a comment on this or any website in reference to anything but felt compelled here. These routes have been here for some time and have adequate anchors already. I see no need to place more steel in the rock than needed.
Pass it own to The CCC!
Thanks,
CC

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern States
Post a Reply to "Adding anchors at Rumbling Bald"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.