LCC - Salsa Verde

The messages below were comments on the route Salsa Verde.

They were moved to this forum thread to "unclutter" things.

This "route" is an established TR and should remain that way. Contrived and over-bolted, the bolts should be removed like they were before. This was not an "abandoned" project but a TR that was bolted and then had the bolts removed. The TR just to the left of Green A also had bolts added but were removed. mountainproject.com/route/1…

How would it be a better climb if bolted on lead? I wouldn't change much about the line of bolts on this, seemed to flow pretty well, and doesn't seem to infringe on either the Green A or Prepositional Phrase. I get the point that it would be more consistent with the old ethics of LCC if bolted on lead, but we have plenty of slab routes bolted on lead, many of which I appreciate and enjoy specifically for their bold style. I'd argue that if bolted on lead, it would have trended towards the better stances to the left and bailed into the Green A second pitch. It's nice to have something that is bolted in more of a "sport" style so that people can push themselves at the grade and or just enjoy a different style of experience.



I would agree that saying using the gully is "off" to keep it at a certain grade is not how I would prefer it to be described, and that could shift the grade a bit depending on how you climb it. Over time people will climb it and a "common" finish will be established, as well as a consensus grade. However, there's no way this clocks in at 5.9 even if using the gully's arete, and people can enjoy the route however they want. Far from an eliminate problem. I've climbed many routes with similar descriptions. What's the big deal with that?



Why should a TR be left a TR? I TR'd this thing a few times and was excited to be able to lead it. More fun that way.



Alex has put up some of the better new lines in the Canyon in the past few years, and he seems to be pretty thoughtful of how he does it. Blackops and Gladiator are two good examples. From what I've heard, people seem to like this line too. Climbing is evolving and with that so are the style and ethics. What's nice about LCC is that there are now a variety of different climb types from old school to new school. I appreciate that too. I've definitely been on the other side of this argument when well established routes are altered by the placement of unnecessary or unapproved bolts, and I believe in the ethics and style from when a route was established. However, this was an obscure top rope that got done every now and then either from the Green A or Prepositional Phrase anchors with no name or reference anywhere that could be easily found. Now this is a fun and safe 35m lead on good edges and slab, that is well equipped, and that lowers right back to the belay stance with a 70m rope. Also, unless you are a massive curmudgeon, this line doesn't alter previously established routes. I see no problem in that.



I had a nice lap on this climb, and it would be a bummer of someone chopped it, as I'd hope to do more when in the area.



I think these are worthwhile discussions, and I respect the input from others. Personally, I'm curious to the questions I proposed as I think it applies to many discussions on LCC climbing. For me this is an interesting climb because I find this route to be on the right side of the "ethics/style" discussion, whereas other routes or alterations in the past I have felt very differently about. If this climb infringed on the Green A or Prepositional Phrase, I'd be singing a different tune right now. Or if this route was truly "over bolted" I'd be less than psyched. However, I felt this line to be thoughtful, well equipped, fun to climb, and only adds to the Green A Gully.

Keep It Real,



You seem pretty upset about this and that’s perhaps because you care so much about LCC and making sure we keep the canyon a special place for people to continue to enjoy for a long time by protecting the historical significance of the climbing here while also setting a standard of ethics and style for further development as the climbing in canyon continues to progress and be developed. That’s how I feel and, that’s why I’m engaging in this conversion.



Either that, or you’re just a genuine jerk who just likes to start stuff online.



I think I pretty clearly noted that the climb would be different if bolted on lead, and also would elaborate that climbs bolted on lead tend to climb differently than climbs that weren’t. I think we can both agree to that. Personally I enjoy both, as I mentioned already, and have a very good idea of the difference between the two.



What I’m trying to figure out and hopefully be productive with, proposing the question with a bit more refinement; should all climbs in LCC be established ground up, and or on lead in order for them to be acceptable to you? Or to the community for that matter? I’ll say this, if that is the case then we better start chopping and patching a lot of bolts, many of which are on classics throughout the canyon. You know my opinion on this, I think there’s great value to routes drilled on lead, but I also appreciate more modern style bolting as well. I personally think there’s room for both in this canyon, as long as it’s done well. Again, I found this route to meet that criteria.



Your second issue seems to be about bolting over an established TR. I could agree that a well known and used TR that has seen consistent traffic over the years shouldn’t be bolted over. I agree with that. But this TR, which I’ve done a few times myself, doesn’t appear anywhere I can find, including in any guide books published in the last 20 years. Word of mouth and oral history are important in climbing and I spoke with a few people about this today (some of whom have climbed in LCC for “over 50 years”) who did mentioned it being TRd but never documented, or named. It would seem to fall into the category of obscure in my mind, and without access to certain individuals you’d never know it was a known TR, as the only documentation seems to be word of mouth. Personally, I think it was “okay” to bolt this line and the people who did this seem to acknowledge that it was climbed prior to them in some way. Would you feel better if they more strongly mentioned it was a previous TR and FA unknown? I doubt they care about the FA. I agree with your point that if we just started bolting every available TR then that would equate to spray bolting and be bad for LCC, which I don’t want to happen. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here. For example, I don’t think it would be acceptable if someone bolted Subordinate, as that’s a well known TR and I see people on that all the time. Personally I enjoy leading climbs more than on TR, and I don’t find this climb to be spray bolting, nor do I think this was a well known enough TR to be preserved as a TR. So that’s why I am okay with it. You can still TR it if you want too.



It seems as if a lot of your comments are directed towards the people who bolted this. In addition to raising your concerns on MP, I’d suggest you get in touch with them and explain to them why you think this route is bad for LCC. As mentioned, I’ve found Alex’s routes to be some of the best new routes in LCC and I know he cares about and works hard to preserve the ethics and style of LCC. I highly doubt they care much about having their names on a FA, so that’s a bit of a moot point, and I bet they were just trying to create a fun route for people to enjoy. I can also say with good confidence they have a very good idea of the people who have climbed there before them.



Again I think these are important conversations to have, and I’ve given my opinions, but am also open to hearing why people don’t think these bolts should be there. As I’ve said, I’ve found myself on both sides of this argument. If a route is truly a bad thing for LCC I would want it removed properly. But I find there to be not much worse in climbing than people chopping bolts because of some individual or small faction machismo or narcissistic attitude of how they feel climbing “should” be. If most people feel this climb is a disgrace to LCC and step backwards for the Canyon then it should get chopped and the holes patches. I’d admit I’m wrong with my opinions and won’t defend any further climbs of similar style. But if it’s just a few people offended that their obscure TR got bolted in a style they disagree with so that it could be enjoyed by others, then let the route stay.



Life’s too short to chop bolts, and the purpose of discussions such as this are to foster community consensus on ethics and style, so that as a community we aren’t in situations where wasting time chopping bolts is a consideration.

How about you guys meet up, look at each other in the eyes, climb together, and keep it real



Oh, and delete all this foolish folly

Its a fun climb and adds another option in the area if you are waiting to get on the classics. I don't really think it can be done at "only" 5.9. 

It makes for a good approach pitch to get to Meat Puppets (which was rap bolted as well). I don't think I would ever climb this if it was a TR...

Shift Kicker wrote:

It makes for a good approach pitch to get to Meat Puppets (which was rap bolted as well). I don't think I would ever climb this if it was a TR...

No one would climb it as a TR - the anchors are not in a convenient spot to set one up. 

Perin Blanchard wrote:

The messages below were comments on the route Salsa Verde.

They were moved to this forum thread to "unclutter" things.

I don’t care about whether this bolted or not, but I am a bit curious why you felt that a bolting discussion about a route doesn’t belong on the route’s page to stay part of it’s history? Moving the comments here seems like some weird attempt at censorship or covering something up. 

Should similar comments and discussions on routes like Perhaps be haphazardly dumped in a regional section to fade away as well? Who gets to decide that?

John Sigmon wrote:

I don’t care about whether this bolted or not, but I am a bit curious why you felt that a bolting discussion about a route doesn’t belong on the route’s page to stay part of it’s history? Moving the comments here seems like some weird attempt at censorship or covering something up. 

Should similar comments and discussions on routes like Perhaps be haphazardly dumped in a regional section to fade away as well? Who gets to decide that?

I don't think its a censorship thing. I think he found something that he didn't agree with, but wanted the community to weigh in. People may have not navigated to the route to comment there. Furthermore, people arguing about a route in the comments is a bit annoying at times and doesn't add value to the route page.

grug grug wrote:

Furthermore, people arguing about a route in the comments is a bit annoying at times and doesn't add value to the route page.

I find it adds the valuable context of community opinion so I disagree. Maybe it doesn’t add value *for you*

I was just thinking the other day how LCC could really use another slab climb.

Sooo, who is going to own up to removing the route? Whoever it is, if you felt so confident as to act on your convictions, then it seems reasonable for you to confidently own your decision and any potential consequences there-of. You know, just like those who installed the hardware…a PSA.

+1 for reinstalling the bolts. All the Top Rope Tough Guys out there can still TR it with the lead bolts.

The only part of the FA party’s actions that offended me is their argument that certain features are “off.” If you have to use bad beta to achieve a certain grade, the route was graded incorrectly. 

I hope whoever chopped the bolts did it on lead, otherwise it was done in bad style and the route should be rebolted.

Joking aside, this climb was a better lead than a TR and people were enjoying it, myself included. There was never a reason you couldn’t still TR it and this wasn’t some case of someone bolting over an old Trad line or retro bolting and old line.

Hopefully the people who stole those bolts and hangers feel better about themselves now that they have their precious TR back.

I still wonder, would you have still chopped this route if it was bolted on lead? 

I misunderstood the situation - I didn't realize the bolts had been chopped...WTF is wrong with these LCC boomers? Guess we just wait until they die and then we can bolt this slab and put bolted anchors on school room.  

grug grug wrote:

...WTF is wrong with these LCC boomers? Guess we just wait until they die and then we can ... put bolted anchors on Schoolroom. 

Nice troll.  Extraordinarily BAD idea. 

zoso wrote:

Nice troll.  Extraordinarily BAD idea. 

Here he is.
Did you chop the bolts on Salsa Verde?

To be honest I can’t tell if the bolts were chopped once, or twice

It is said that the dark-triad perpetrator will more often than not show up to the crime scene. (or forum?)