Rogue Bolting in the Gunks (PSA)

Earlier this Summer someone, without prior approval, placed a bolted anchor above Westward Ha!/Cruise Control. This action was most likely taken because the standard rappel, from a large white pine, became dangerous after it died. Most people now build their own temporary gear anchor by using the multitude of cracks at the top of Cruise Control. The result of the anchor being placed without approval is that it has been removed by the Mohonk Preserve anchor volunteer group.

The accepted process for adding new anchors at the Mohonk Preserve:

The Mohonk Preserve has an Anchor Sub-committee composed of GCC members, Rangers, Local Climbers, Guides, and Preserve Staff. This group meets annually to discuss climbing related issues and potential new anchors. Committee members discuss the anchors that would remove pressure from a tree anchor and/or to mitigate erosion. The area is surveyed and the committee discusses and votes whether or not to add the anchor. Committee members who are part of the Preserve volunteer group and have attended a course on bolt installation from Petzl carry out the installation. Funding for this work comes from the GCC, ASCA, community fundraisers, Access Fund, and Petzl.

To become part of the process or have your input brought to the attention of the committee contact the GCC. If you see an anchor that is in need of attention or the anchor does not appear to be part of the preserve anchors (Approved anchors have 3/8" PEWAG chain) contact the GCC.

If you have specific questions you can email me directly at physicsfrac AT gmail

Thanks!
Christian Fracchia

Millbrook Westward Ha!/Cruise Control Anchor removal.

Great work guys - thanks for that. 

why not just approve the anchor?  issue a statement about how you must go through the proper channels and then approve the thing anyways?? Ego?

For real though...that anchor had to cost $50. It's quite a nice setup and probably overkill.

If the tree that died is no longer a viable anchor option then what is the solution? Plant a new tree? Drive some pins in? Fix some stoppers? 

The Preserve is a private entity with specific rules and regulations about how its resources can be used.  With respect to rock climbing, there is a policy statement at drive.google.com/file/d/1q0…

In that statement is the text

...the Preserve forbids...placing new bolts and pitons...

As well as reserving the right to make such placements itself "with the consultation of the Land Stewardship Committee" under certain conditions and for certain purposes.

The answer to Nick's questions is twofold.  (1) I certainly can't speak for the committee, but am almost totally certain that that anchor would never be approved (see the following paragraph below).  (2) In order for the Preserve to maintain even a semblance of control over its property, they couldn't possibly retroactively approve rogue bolting, as the net effect of that would obviously be to encourage a lot more of it.

The answer to Wes's comment (and perhaps Nick's implication) is that there are hundreds of safe, effective, and convenient ways to get down to the Death Ledge where the climbs begin, and the loss of one particular tree is of zero consequence in terms of climber access or safety.

It is important to understand that Chris is acting as an agent of the Preserve with the approval of the Preserve and has not embarked on some private act of vigilantism.

Nick Goldsmith wrote: why not just approve the anchor?  issue a statement about how you must go through the proper channels and then approve the thing anyways?? Ego?

First off, this hasn't been the first time something like this has happened here.

Placing an anchor at Millbrook had been discussed and determined it was not necessary and that it would not be in keeping with the ethic of that cliff. Millbrook has never had a single bolt placed going back to 1935; most people here feel it should stay that way. 

Considering that the vast majority of climbs are quite serious and not visited by the typical Gunks climber it is felt that Millbrook climbers can figure out how to rappel in without a bolted anchor.

As for the solution being used now that the tree is dead (see above): People have been doing what they do for other sections of the Millbrook. Build an anchor and rap in. When you're done for the day clean your anchor. There has never been a case of stolen gear. On a busy weekend Millbrook may see 2 to 3 parties.

Robert thanks for your reply. As always you give thoughtful responses that seem rational until you add in the human factor to the equation. I'm not a gunkie but I'm sure that gear will appear in this location to be rappelled from. people are people and thinking for themselves is not always a strong suit.

Sounds reasonable. My post was  totally  hypothetical as I have no  actual knowledge of the climb.  Simply going on the assumption that the tree anchor was the standard  decent. That being the case it is reasonable to assume that  replacing the tree with bolts would be standard procedure  given all the bolts they placed in the Traps.  If that in fact was the  case  the preserve  removing  this anchor would simply be a knee jerk reaction to  rules being  broken  rather than practical solution.   The practical solution would be to find the  person  who installed the  bolts illegally and punish them while keeping the  anchor  intact .

So if an anchor is only used a few times a day, it would last many years. I geuss there is more than one reason I don't climb at the gunks. Most of the modern climbing word  embraces bolted  anchors. But I geuss like driving a car climbing is a privilege not a right and climbing is not a priority  at the preserve even though  they charge climbers more  money.

Maybe if they were really interested in preserving resources, they would have put those in before climbers killed the tree...

Nick Goldsmith wrote: Sounds reasonable. My post was  totally  hypothetical as I have no  actual knowledge of the climb.

Thanks Nick, it is important for other readers to understand this, as at this moment you have 52 likes on a hypothetical comment based on no knowledge of the situation.

  Simply going on the assumption that the tree anchor was the standard  decent. That being the case it is reasonable to assume that  replacing the tree with bolts would be standard procedure  given all the bolts they placed in the Traps.  

I can see how one might think that.  But the Preserve has stratified its resources into different usage categories, with the Trapps being the highest usage of all, and other regions designated for less usage and less intervention.  The Preserve accepts the popularity of the Trapps, but wants to keep other potential climbing areas much lower-key in terms of impacts.

If that in fact was the  case  the preserve  removing  this anchor would simply be a knee jerk reaction to  rules being  broken  rather than practical solution.   The practical solution would be to find the  person  who installed the  bolts illegally and punish them while keeping the  anchor  intact .

It isn't the case.  And let me say again that that particular tree was convenient while it lasted, but was and is in no sense necessary for access, and there is virtually no loss of convenience either, as it is a simple matter to arrange a bomproof anchor a few feet away. The person or persons who placed the bolts ignored the rules of the entity on whose land they are guests---rules they almost certainly knew about---and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the existing environment and how utterly trivial it is to arrange for alternative anchors in that place which have absolutely no impact on the environment.  

Nick, the cliff is somewhat remote and there is no practical way for the Preserve to continually monitor it, so there is little hope that the bolters could be identified.  The "punishment" available to the Preserve would be banning the perpetrators, and given the remoteness of the location and the realities of the Preserve staffing, such a ban would be hard to enforce.  This means that in, the real world, the only practical response to violators of Preserve policy is to make it absolutely clear that if they install bolts, those bolts will be removed, and the holes patched to make the defacement as undetectable as possible.  This is not a "knee-jerk reaction to rules being broken," but in fact the only means the Preserve has to exercise its land stewardship mission in the face of intentional vandalism.

Of the few times I have visited the Gunks we have always gone out to Millbrook to avoid the crowds on the busy days. Good times. Rapping into a climb is always interesting way to start off, especially after pulling to the ropes. Seems like on one visit another group and ours combined forces for the rap. Setting up an anchor is not any big deal. Most people want convenience these days. As for the tree, not sure one could claim climbers were the cause of its demise. Not saying climbers could not have an impact but I would not jump to that conclusion. That said I have rappelled off more than one dead snag.

Allen Sanderson wrote: As for the tree, not sure one could claim climbers were the cause of its demise. Not saying climbers could not have an impact but I would not jump to that conclusion. 

In fact, several trees in the general region, including the traditional rap tree, died of some disease.  None of the other affected trees were used by climbers at all.  It is conceivable that climbing use could have made the tree more susceptible (bark damage allowing in bad things), but in view of the death of trees unused by climbers, it would be a stretch to say climbers killed the tree.

"Millbrook has never had a single bolt placed going back to 1935"

End of thread.  This fact is amazing and to be cherished.   Plenty of other places to climb where hardware is prevelant.  What a joy to know there is a place where climbing traditionalism is protected and preserved to this degree.

Oh my god, I can’t believe some jerk thought this would be acceptable. Thank you for removing that anchor. Millbrook is a special place. Let’s keep it that way.

Nick Goldsmith wrote: why not just approve the anchor?  issue a statement about how you must go through the proper channels and then approve the thing anyways?? Ego?

Nick, I just need to respond again. I think your comments are made without taking into consideration the context of Millbrook. Millbrook is a remote cliff by Gunks standards, it is rarely visited, there are no fixed belays, and in 83 years no one had ever placed a bolt. Much in the way that Lost City has remained undocumented Millbrook is overwhelmingly regarded as a cliff to remain untarnished by bolts.

Secondly, there is absolutely no need for the anchor.

I'm just curious, do you still consider this statement to be true :"Millbrook has never had a single bolt placed going back to 1935"? Or did this one rogue anchor spoil the streak? Because if so, that sucks.

By the way, yet another reason that Nick's question about "just approving the anchor" has a negative answer is that the Preserve, as the only entity allowed to install new bolted stations, has what it beleives to be a legal obligation to make sure those installations are properly done by people who, through an approved training program initiated by Petzl, meet specific standards of competence for installing bolts.  Rogue bolters are subject to no standards of competence and are not obliged to use appropriate methods or materials, which means the Preserve cannot possibly retroactively approve a rogue anchor without abandoning the legal responsibilities it has in such situations.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A feature of this discussion is that there is a confluence of two separate considerations.  One is the Preserve's right and intention to maintain and enforce its land stewardship mission and its legal resposibilities as it sees fit.  My comments have been restricted to that perspective.  

The other consideration, alluded to by Chris, Russ, Seth, and Allen, is the importance of maintaining climbing diversity, making room in the climbing world for the full spectrum of experiences and challenges, rather than striving, as june m would have it, for some homogeneous average experience based on a questionable perception of what the climbing world has "embraced."  

But If indeed the climbing world has embraced bolts, then a cliff like Millbrook becomes all the more important by virtue of its uniqueness---a place where genuine trad climbing is still the required norm.  Such places can be found in the Elbe sandstone towers and the sea cliffs and gritstone of the UK, but in this country, near major population centers, Millbrook is pretty much it.  The very fact, noted by Nick, that the Trapps has been increasingly equipped, means that there can be no claim that climbers will be starved for bolt-enhanced climbing by keeping Millbook pristine.  As Russ Keane says, there are plenty of other places where hardware is prevalent; there is no need to make Millbrook like hundreds of other crags when it has managed, all this time, to retain its unique character.

Nick Goldsmith wrote: why not just approve the anchor?  issue a statement about how you must go through the proper channels and then approve the thing anyways?? Ego?

Generally, I'm about as pro-bolted anchor as anyone. Having fallen in love with the uniqueness of Millbrook, it would be horrifying to see fixed protection pop up there. As others have said, we have to keep that place special.

I think you should remove your comment due to your ignorance of the situation. I'm concerned people will only read as far as your post, see how many "likes" it has gotten, and further exhibit false and negative stereotypes about bolting in the Gunks.

rgold wrote: But If indeed the climbing world has embraced bolts, then a cliff like Millbrook becomes all the more important by virtue of its uniqueness---a place where genuine trad climbing is still the required norm.  Such places can be found in the Elbe sandstone towers and the sea cliffs and gritstone of the UK, but in this country, near major population centers, Millbrook is pretty much it.  The very fact, noted by Nick, that the Trapps has been increasingly equipped, means that there can be no claim that climbers will be starved for bolt-enhanced climbing by keeping Millbook pristine.  As Russ Keane says, there are plenty of other places where hardware is prevalent; there is no need to make Millbrook like hundreds of other crags when it has managed, all this time, to retain its unique character.

Also worth noting, the common way to get to Millbrook is to literally hike past a few miles of cliff where there are bolted routes (The Nears). june m would have to go out of her way to avoid bolts put up by the people they have accused of not prioritizing climbing.