Two Bolt Anchors Will Save Paradise Forks Cliff Top

Hey I'm just havin' fun and keeping it light.

To some degree, I feel that many of the arguments here are based on personal and emotional views and ideas rather than straight forward science. Is anybody here formally educated in forestry or agricultural sciences/ecology and can speak on this topic with true expertise? I would really like to hear that kind of input vs blind anti-bolt rhetoric and/or other solutions that are based on assumptions of what will happen in one scenario vs another.

After reading Brian Boyd's link to the rc thread on the same topic, did anyone happen to read the post that stated:

"The following is a very generalized and simplistic attempt to resolve any issues surrounding the physiological status of the trees involved in this debate. ... For those who wish to know more about the physiological responses of trees to a variety of stress (soil compaction, root injury, water stress, xylem vessel cavitation/embolism, phloem injury/girdling, etc), please refer to the following text:

Kozlowski, T. T. and S. G. Pallardy. 1997. Physiology of Woody Plants. 2nd Edition

Or you can PM me for a more complete professional opinion (beware, I'll ask you a bizillion questions) than I'm about to give.

It is entirely likely that the tree is stessed from the following factors:
--soil compaction and subsequent root damage (from trampling)

--xylem cavitation/embolism due to water stress from the inability to uptake water (damaged roots) and transport resins.

--drought stress (resulting in the above as well). I have worked in many areas were bark beetles were incorrectly blamed for tree mortality--it was really drought induced stress that incurred tree death.

--phloem damage: ropes, slings, etc can apply forces to areas of the tree where they come into contact. Therefore, phloem tissue can be damaged by compression and wear--this is girdling. This negatively impacts the tree's ability to uptake and transport assimilates such as nutrients/carbohydrates/resins. you get the picture.

--greta
A Forest Ecologist/Entomologist who studies trees and bark beetles. I also like to climb"

So from my interpretation, it sounds like "mulching" alone might be a limited solution (not that I am sure I believe it would remain undisturbed long enough at the Forks to do its job properly anyway, although that doesn't mean I am bashing the idea at all).

I am totally unopposed to the idea of camoflauged and well-thought-out bolt anchors added, but I would really like to hear what an actual scientist would say about reversing ecological damage while maintaining current recreational activity.

You know there is more that goes into these kinds of decisions than "science." Ultimately the whole debate is about the human experience and the values we place on trees, aesthetics, and keeping things in some arbitrary state as defined by our own experience. That experience includes the state of the rock and bolts would be, in my opinion, an unnecessary permanent defacement to the rock there. It sounds politically incorrect but there isn't a damn thing wrong with managing something like this for our own selfish reasons. We can make the rules by consensus. Some areas have lots of bolts others very few.

In truth those trees don't have any significant impact on the ecosystem anyway. Ecology will tell you that individuals don't matter. Populations do. We could go on and do a research project to attempt to determine the specific effects of compaction, girdling, etc. but that is what I like to call misplaced precision. There is no need to cite references and scientific jargon to bolster the facts. The trees are being negatively affected by human impacts. It is pretty simple really. Bolts will negatively impact the rock and the experience of many people (nonclimbers included) Two wrongs still don't make a right.

BTW I'm a biologist too. That is, "an actual scientist" So by seniority and education I win!

OK, so there I was today climbing with my friend Matt at the pit, doing the norm pit routs, you know the Joker,etc. Well we got to talking and he told me about the post on MP. I listened to him and the argument that was going on. I am not one to turn down a good argument so when I got home I came straight to my computer and read the post. Then I noticed something, this argumen has been going on for as long as I have been climbing, I might add that it is ruffly 25 years of climbing. Every where I go this argument comes up sooner or later, " bolts or anchors on cracks is a bad thing". Well I must agree, I have seen first hand what happens when people bolt or put an anchor up on a crack. If you thing the trees have it bad now, wait to you see what happens to them when every TR, Fire dep trainee, rescue, boy scouts and girl scouts troop shows up. Because anchors are like magnets, they attracted everyone. The forks are not like El Cap or Zion, etc, etc, etc,. it is just a crack area that us locals, and outer towner's love to use as a training area for the big climbs, or to get better at crack climbing. If the forks where higher then two hundred feet and there was no way down then I say put the anchors up. But at the forks there are ways down to the bottom, so that meens I can bring friends down that are not that great of crack climbers, lead a climb set up a natural anchor if permitted and tr them. Then when I am done I can climb up to the anchors top out tie into a tree or rock and belay them up from there if we are done, simple, been doing that for years. Now for the environment, well that is a hard one, see I am one of those tree hugging hippies, and I love trees as much as the next guy, BUT, there it is that but thing, I know that climbing has been and will be around for many years to come, and people will always use the trees and rocks for anchors. How can we slow this down, well to be honest the only way I see this from happening is to shut the places down and everyone climb in gyms. To me that sucks, and that is not what I want and I am pretty sure all of you don't want, unless you own a gym. If you people are so concerned about the environment there then get together and do some trail maintenance there. I know that I get pissed off every time I go there, and the trail go's in 50 directions at the bottom of the hill. We should build and keep up on the trails there so this crap wont happen. And if you really want to, every time you go out there, plant something, a tree, a plant, some weeds, something. In stead of bitching about how bad it looks there, I suggest you do bring those things that will fix the problem. It only takes one to start something awesome. I think this will work, I think we as climbers should come together and do this. Paradise is a great place to come to and we should look on how we can keep it going for all of us, that means you, me and them, and not just people from AZ, because they come from all over.
By the way if I see anchors or bolts there I will let you know now, that I will not chop them, I will take them and use them on sport climbs, I look at it as free booty for me for future sport climbs. So please, please, please, please don't do it leave it as is, lets fix the problem before it gets out of hand and then we all lose it.
Chris

I like this debate. Would like it even more if I knew who was talking, rather than posting as an anonymous coward. I like face to face talk, but this forum does help. I don't think the forks is the place to turn into a modern crag but it does need help. Blanket condemnations just cause controversy. So sad to see.

Removing bolt's for reuse? I'd like to learn how that is done with out thrashing the rock, wedge bolt's you can forget about it.

Manny, Some people get upset at being called cowards. Me. Chill.

I think you know who I am but in case anybody cares, I'm Chris Dunn. Get it, CJD?

Just heard about this discussion today and wanted to add my $0.02. I haven't read all the posts so I hope I'm not repeating the obvious.

My wife and I climb at the forks a lot (at least 50x a year between the two of us). 50 weeks during the year PF is a very quiet place with only 1 or 2 parties climbing on a given day (even during the weekends).

2 weeks during the year, it seems, PF is a zoo. This usually happens near Memorial Day weekend and 4th of July weekend. People aren't climbing with climbing partners, but rather they climb in groups with massive top-ropes set-up everywhere.

I guess we both feel that if rappel anchors are installed, there is a greater likelihood for the group climbing thing to happen more often, which we feel is the biggest contributor to the erosion problem. Not to mention that large parties at the forks are down-right dangerous. There are dozens of unstable rocks at the top of every climb at the forks and more people = more triggers for rockfall.

Let's organize a trail building day and/or look into roping off sensitive areas before we go drilling bolts. They rope off eroded areas at the Gunks all the time!

Chris D, you were not the AC I was addressing, I knew it was you all along! I meant the others: matt and chris, the one saying he would remove the bolts/hangers if any were placed. He makes a good case that no action should be taken until a consensus is reached.

Although, Jon makes a good point about the holidays. I have been to some great parties there and it's true, there are a lot of folks stumbling round going round. I don't advocate Eric's view of putting in anchors on every climb but I do feel the blanket anti bolt thing is not helpful, thus, I was hoping to talk to real people, not ACs.

I have never posted on here before but I have been thinking about this all week and i feel the need to add my 2 cents.

The Forks is such an amazing place to climb and i feel very fortunate to live so close to it. I recall one instance sitting at the bottom of the gold wall with my good friend and talking about why we like climbing there so much. When it came down to it, the main reason was that there were no bolts(with one terrible exception). Even the simple act of setting up a toprope there takes some creativity and time. it is a total experience.
I am being purely selfish when i say that putting bolts in at the forks would break my heart. I enjoy it so much the way it is, and putting in anchors of any kind would cheapen my experience.
It seems to me that erosion and tree conservation are not good enough reasons to let the bolting genie out of the bottle. If it is a true concern, then lets fix the ground and the trees through outreach and man hours, not power drills. It is a slipperey slope.

This is just one climber's opinion.
thanks for reading.

andy peter tretiakoff wrote:Removing bolt's for reuse? I'd like to learn how that is done with out thrashing the rock, wedge bolt's you can forget about it.

It is fairly easy, first you remove the nut, then remove the hanger, then remove bolt, then mix rtv with lots of dirt, surrounding dirt that is, fill the hole with this, works great. Now for the stubborn bolts and hangers, well they just go into my pile so I can use them around the house or use on my car and then I fix the place where the hanger's where so it looks like there was never anything wrong with it. I am thinking about learning how to weld so I can make art out of the ones I can't reuse. If you cant remove a bolt without thrashing the rock, then why the hell are you putting them up anyway. I don't think I would trust your bolts if you have this problem.
It is funny the only thing that you got out of my post was the cutting of the bolts and anchors. Did you read the hole thing or just go to what you wanted to read and then spue your shit. Fix the problem, don't become part of the problem.
Chris

Chris,
I must admit I too am curious how you remove a well drilled bolt without screwing up the bolt and a bit of the rock. Please do tell us how you do it. I mean the first two steps make sense but a little more detail on the "remove the bolt" step is in order.
We drill the holes extra deep so if a bolt needs to be moved we can just bang the bolt deeper in the whole and fill with glue and dirt.
We don't try to pull the bolt out, and we would certainly not reuse it.
Andy's question was valid and you should lighten the frak up. He wasn't "spewing" anything he was asking a good question.

But again do tell us how you so effortlessly remove a bolt because I would sure like to know.

It is simple, grab the bolt with Vise Grips, after the hanger is off, then twist till it comes out. Done it hundred's of times, no problem. One mistake I did make or say, is the reuse of the bolt. No can do, I cant reuse them, sorry if I came across as saying you could. Shit the only thing you can reuse them for is paper weights. after you have enough of them together. Also to those well placed bolts and hangers, well I have seen some that scare the shit out of me, and there are more of those then good ones, that is why I like trad. By the way I learned this trick from working on Aircraft, It keeps us from having to oversize the hole, so I put it to use on rock and found it works great.
So what about my first part of my post, don't you think it should be addressed too? I mean hell if this is all we are going to talk about is hangers and bolt removal then PF and any other place like it will go away in the wind.

CJD wrote:You know there is more that goes into these kinds of decisions than "science." Ultimately the whole debate is about the human experience and the values we place on trees, aesthetics, and keeping things in some arbitrary state as defined by our own experience. That experience includes the state of the rock and bolts would be, in my opinion, an unnecessary permanent defacement to the rock there. It sounds politically incorrect but there isn't a damn thing wrong with managing something like this for our own selfish reasons. We can make the rules by consensus. Some areas have lots of bolts others very few. In truth those trees don't have any significant impact on the ecosystem anyway. Ecology will tell you that individuals don't matter. Populations do. We could go on and do a research project to attempt to determine the specific effects of compaction, girdling, etc. but that is what I like to call misplaced precision. There is no need to cite references and scientific jargon to bolster the facts. The trees are being negatively affected by human impacts. It is pretty simple really. Bolts will negatively impact the rock and the experience of many people (nonclimbers included) Two wrongs still don't make a right. BTW I'm a biologist too. That is, "an actual scientist" So by seniority and education I win!

Still sounds like an emotionally-motivated, personal view-type argument to me, biologist or no. I keep forgetting that the highest order of importance to human beings is always that of "me first". (You apply importance-as-population-only for the trees, but as usual, when it comes to us humans, it seems to be all about individual importance.)

For all I know, you could be a biologist working in a lab studying epidemiology, too. (Just sayin'.) Further, I doubt you are an expert regarding the ecological system that is present at the Forks (to my knowledge ecological systems don't just occur on a massive, forest-wide scale; they can be very specific and limited in scope too, I believe).

Anyway, I was thinking of someone with expertise clearly delineated in ecological matters like this. And one person's statement that some unbiased science about what might constitute the ideal cooperative solution would be useless definitely doesn't represent my view. People's individual impressions that "doing x will bring about y" really informs us of very little and, since there is no method of analysis behind them, is a poor basis to make decisions on IMO.

Hello all from yet another Chris,
I spent numerous days out in the Forks over several years before moving to Co. When I first started going out there, we'd see maybe one or two other parties, when I left Az 2 years ago, the weekends were packed with largely top roping dominating.
There is a walk in to the forks, past the white wall the cliff face recedes to a steep, loose soil talus slope into the base and then walk back into the forks. Might developing that as stable access trail be a viable option? I know it turns a 10 minute walk to 30 or more, but it could ultimately save climber's lives, the trees and ground cover.

Might as well clear cut the trees- they're dying due to extended drought AND Climber mediated erosion. Global Warming will surely finish them off anyway.
Obviously the local climbing ethic will not tolerate bolts- anchors placed would quickly be removed. So in order to overcome this we'll have to place anchors at the top of each (potential)route and grid bolt the entire crag to overwhelm by sheer numbers.
If by some mad and extensive effort these bolts are actually all removed the crag would be transformed to a scarred and aesthetically unappealing trad crag. No one would want to climb there then so we might as well use it as a city dump. We're running out of landfill space in our consume and discard culture anyway.
Besides, everyone knows the problem isn't to bolt or not to bolt. It's too many F@#*ing PEOPLE! What we really need is more condoms not more bolts!

History, tradition, Bahh... You guys need to put your egos aside and think about real history. Those ponderosas are at least 100 years old and easily predate any of you or your mommies. Clearly, anyone who wants to set up a top-rope can easily do it with some cams or by slinging a tree, people are not going to head back to flagstaff because there are no anchors nor will more people show up because there are some. Like eric indicated, some anchors, even 50 of them is a much better option than the continuted degradation of the area. Many other "core" trad areas have anchors at the top, you just have to deal with the fact that the sport is becoming more popular and change is needed. The continued racism of this country is based on tradition, is your tradition really so righteous. There probably are other solutions, these are incumbent on the local community to divise before the forest service takes it out of thier hands.

natedawg wrote:Many other "core" trad areas have anchors at the top, you just have to deal with the fact that the sport is becoming more popular and change is needed.

Agreed. It seems much more responsible to install anchors than to jeopardize the health of the trees in the area - especially if these routes are regularly top-roped.

I really doubt the tying off of trees is doing much harm. More likely the problem is simply too much traffic around the fragile roots in thin soil at the base of the trees. Voluntary avoidance of these areas is unlikely to work, nor will bolted anchors. Perhaps stacked rocks or small fences would keep traffic down in problem spots. I don't like the sound of making the edge of a wilderness area like a city park but a preemptive action may protect the crag from distruction or a govenrmental protective closure....

Chris,
No shit, that really works. Just twist until the collar comes off I guess. But what if it just spins inside the hole??
I'll have to try that the next time a rusty old bolt needs replacing.
What about a big wrench and just tighten the nut down until the bolt breaks??? How deep in the whole do you suppose it would fracture??

The best thing to do is probably set a few rap stations, and/or bust a good trail for the walk in. That will help some, at least everyone will rap in at 2 or 3 locations instead of twenty. This will not help with people topping out and tying off trees though.
Replanting would help but what ever area got some new flora would need to be off limits until it had time to establish.

The only sure fire solution is for us die hard climbers to convince the weekend gumbies that climbing is super dangerous and that they will surely perish if they ever climb again. Stay away for your own good!!