New Sport routes on Duncan's Ridge ?

Cornelius Jefferson wrote: Man talking out of your ass again. Maybe you should wait until you have a full year of climbing under your belt before you weigh in on shit like this. Here I'll throw you a bone: climbing isn't about making everything 'safer and more accessible to everyone.' Maybe the gym would be more up your alley.

I guess I could wait a couple days.... but I won't.

It's already been mentioned by some that Duncan's has been used as a training ground, probably due to it's proximity and accessability. Perhaps it was even the "gym" of it's day. No, climbing isn't all about being safer and more accessible, but this area is very accessible, so why not make it safer so that new climbers can enjoy being outside in an environment that will make the transition from the gym easier? I know I avoided Duncan's for a while because I was told there were no TR anchors and I had no idea how to build one with gear at the time.

I don't think I'm talking out of my ass, I think you just don't like what I'm saying. And I think it's likely that more climbers in the area are in favor of the bolts than against them, though maybe not a majority on this forum. If preserving the "tradition" of Duncan's Ridge is a big deal to you, start a petition to do just that. If you have a persuasive enough argument, I might even do a 180 and sign it so we can get every bolt there taken down.

J Marsella wrote:... A more dangerous shit show.

I disagree simply in regards to anchors. The amount of people I have seen up there belaying off of very questionable trad anchors makes my stomach churn. Having bolts to belay off of will only make it safer for people who are learning.

Now that bolts have already been put in they should stay. Chopped bolts or holes are more of a nasty thing to look at in my opinion than bolts. That said, there should not be any more bolting done without much more thought and discussion.

I would be interested in hearing some Horsetooth history. I just moved here last summer, and I knew that John Gill had put up some hard problems at Rotary and that was about all. Since moving here, it was my understanding that Duncan's was a backwater "top rope" area and did not have any of the classic boulder problems Horsetooth was famous for.

Cornelius Jefferson wrote: What a strange way to characterize this issue lol Yeah let's allow the uneducated opinions of non-climbing 'landowners' (that's the PUBLIC in this case btw) to supersede the long-held/observed ethical traditions of our sport. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

I don't really know exactly what your argument is, although I assume it's along the lines of "nobody should bolt a route once it's been climbed without?"

In which case, I think you may be mistaken on this one.

If it's private land, the landowner can do whatever he/she wishes. Gridbolt their crag and mandate lycra; leave it a lichen covered choss pile and require twead jackets, tricounis and hemp ropes. Or just keep people off.

Most public land managers in the US don't particularly care about climbing styles, so we climbers can decide how things should be done.

Some land managers do care. Some see their mandate as preservation, so climbing may not be allowed at all. Others believe they need to maximize recreational use. This might lead them to prefer lots of bolts.

Your implication that Larimer County officials are uneducated is needlessly insulting and probably inaccurate. I don't know what their opinion is on this particular matter and frankly doubt that you know it either.

Just to give you all a chance to better focus your personal attacks-

I don't really have a personal interest in how things turn out on Duncan's Ridge. I've never climbed there and probably never will.

I have seen several bolt wars over the years and have never seen anybody "win" regardless of the outcome.

I do believe that 'adventure' climbing is important and really worthwhile and would like to see such opportunities preserved.

There are going to be more and more climbers who don't share my appreciation of adventure climbing and will need to be convinced that it is worth preserving.
The mere assertion that climbing tradition madates this or that behavior is not convincing enough by itself. These are public lands. If modern climbers choose to ignore tradition they have every right to do so.

I think adventure climbing is worth preserving for multiple reasons-
it requires/nurtures different skills, particularly self awareness, self control and judgment;
it is better training for remote climbing;
it has less visual impact, usually draws fewer climbers and fits better into wilderness environments;
and it's totally super fun!

I think respecting the "no retro-bolt" ethic is often useful because it keeps every yahoo with a drill from tinkering with routes.
But times change and community desires change and there are times when I think the community can legitmately decide not to honor the no retrobolt mandate.

I noticed a couple of people say that they are opposed to the bolts at Duncan's Ridge. My personal ethics are if you can place gear safely then don't place bolts close to that. With that said, I was one of if not the first person to put bolts for top roping up at Duncan's Ridge about 17 years ago. The first set got chopped after 2 days, the second set got chopped after about 3-4 days. I feel the people that are probably all up in arms about the bolt situation don't climb often enough up at Duncan's for it to matter for them. I have led climbed shorter cliffs and had a good time and I feel and have felt for years that Duncan's has the potential to be a great little crag for those only able get out after work for a short climbing session. There is also plenty of cliff line that would be good short sport routes that are not protectable by trad gear nor is there a tree or large rock to set up a top rope at those locations. I ask people to put their egos aside. One could say things such as "If you can't free-solo/boulder Duncan's then go somewhere else." We were all beginner climbers at one point and often with meager means, knowledge and expertise of getting out to bigger crags and I feel Duncan's is great for introducing those new to the sport/lifestyle safely and conveniently. If you REALLY want to have a dialogue about this (rather than a small person insult contest), I will happily set up a time to meet you at Equinox or any other local micro-brew bar, I'll buy the first round (for one or two, I don't make tons of $$) and we'll have a dialogue. Sorry for the long rant, Duncan's has been on my mind from time to time for about 20 years. Thanks!
Ps. I primarily trad climb btw (climbed for 24 years and going) and I'm not pro or anti-bolts and I have free soloed/bouldered various Duncan's Ridge routes and many of those times wished I had a bolt below me. I have trad led many lines up there but sometimes it was not possible to do so safely.

I've just lost all respect for NCCC. A small group making decisions for the community (and obviously from the above comments without a consensus) without even having a discussion involving the climbing community is completely inappropriate. These routes have been highball boulder problems or TR's for 50 years and to unilaterally decide to retrobolt them is the utmost in arrogance. The decision makers obviously represent a small special interest group not the community.

If there had been an open discussion of this I might have been OK with adding some bolts (I have given my OK to have some trad lines I did the FA of retrobolted). Ryan, "more in the works"? You need to have the community discussion first.

I've never entered one of these conversations before but,...

A couple decades ago as a student at CSU, my first exposure to climbing was toproping and bouldering at Duncans, Rotary and of course, the Tropics. I lived downtown (across the hall from Steve as a matter of fact) was a barista at Java Plaza and an obsessive road racer with a budding career on the bike. Summer of '96, I was having a bad season on the road and decided to let go a little by having some off-the-bike adventures. That manifested in climbing a bit.

I climbed a lot with my friend Dave who was the shop manager at Lee's Cyclery and we used to run into a tall, smiley guy who I knew as a regular from Java Plaza. He'd show us problems and drop the occasional, cherished tip. At the time I only knew him as 'weeknight single latte guy' but it was Craig Luebben. I have fond memories of that summer.

Bolts and all that goes with them would have changed and complicated those experiences. I'm sad Duncans is getting bolted. It lacks both future vision and a sense of history.

I feel like I have some invested interest in this argument so I will add to the dialogue. I grew up in Fort Collins and learned to climb here 36 years ago. Horsetooth was my primary destination, when I couldn't get my Dad to drive me to Lumpy or Vedauwoo, and I have spent hundreds of climbing days at the reservoir.
I very strongly oppose the addition of bolts at Duncan's Ridge. I see no argument here that would compel me to change that viewpoint.
They are, simply, unnecessary and short sighted and lack any vision of the future or the past.
My two cents.

Jeff Giddings

Don't place any bolts at Torture Chamber...

Ok, if people are voicing their wishes, I don't care about the protection bolts, but it seems like some bolted top rope anchors would be a good compromise. I went up there this evening and counted 13 climbers on 3 top ropes, all using the new anchors. Looked like everyone was having a grand time.

Duncans Ridge.

When I moved here in "92, Duncan's Ridge was known as a highball/solo and TR area. I remember the buzz created when Steve installed the TR anchor bolts. I've always assumed that the Duncan in Duncan's Ridge refers to Duncan Ferguson one of the leading Front Range climbers of the 70's-early 90's, known for stiff grading, soloing, and pushing the boundaries of ice climbing. That the NCCC is ignorant or chose to ignore the history of Horsetooth is disappointing. Horsetooth is one of the crucibles of modern bouldering and I believe that a number of the second and third generations of pioneering climbers still reside in the area. It behooves them to seek out some of these people to join the board or at least invite them as advisors. People that come to mind are Steve Mamman, Scott Blunk, Mark Wilford, Lizz Grenard. John Gill also still lives in CO.

The NCCC seem to be a very well intentioned group, but looking at the boards profiles not one of them seems to have truly deep roots in the Fort Collin's scene. In contrast, look at the make up of the Boulder Climbing Community. Their board is over twice as large and contains a cross section of the wider Boulder climbing community including Bill and Roger Briggs and Steve Levin, who have climbed in the area for decades, as well as people from successive generations.

It's ironic the Ryan Nelson recounts in his profile that he and friends raged around the reservoir cleaning old problems and claiming FA's due to youthful ignorance, because that's essentially what has happened again.

Perhaps the NCCC would be willing to expand their board and accept some "old-timers" who've lived and climbed in the area for a few decades, to add some historical perspective.

I think there are a lot of new climbers that simply don't understand why Duncan's is not bolted, because to many of us it seems an ideal place for it. As for following tradition, show me the tradition, educated the new climbers about it. Some may not want to know, but I personally would be very interested.

My current perspective of the situation is that the NCCC is trying to make the area more user friendly for the majority of climbers likely to use it regularly. And what I'm seeing here, is some old guys with a bunch of memories of the place from decades ago saying 'Don't f*ck with it! It's tradition!' And no further explanation. If you want us to understand, please explain *why*. Give us the history and something to respect, and perhaps many of us will do just that.

I have been climbing for 36 years and I have never seen a time when the younger climbing generation was not pissing off the people who came before them. Climbers do not like to be told what to do and young climbers even more so. In fact, pissing off their elders might be the oldest climbing tradition and the only one that will stand the test of time.

Mathias, I gave you a reason why I believe that Duncan's shouldn't be bolted.

Jeff G. wrote:. They are, simply, unnecessary and short sighted and lack any vision of the future or the past.

Shall we go over bolt Lumpy and Eldo as well just because you have no sense of history, skill or vision, and lack initiative?

Jeff G. wrote:Mathias, I gave you a reason why I believe that Duncan's shouldn't be bolted. Shall we go over bolt Lumpy and Eldo as well just because you have no sense of history, skill or vision, and lack initiative?

Insulting the new climbers doesn't strike me as likely to be persuasive.

Unless we give them reasons to think otherwise, they might easily respond "yes please, grid bolt both of them. The experiences you old guys had 30 years ago don't exist any more and even if they did, we are not interested."

Bouldering exploded because people discovered it was cool, fun and rewarding.
Gym climbing is exploding because even more people have discovered it is cool, fun and rewarding. Adventure climbing is even more cool, fun and rewarding and the opportunity needs to be preserved or the new climbers will miss out on something really great.

But I believe it's a mistake to think every old area needs to be preserved. Folks who understand the importance of adventure climbing need to figure out which areas need to be protected (e.g. Eldo) and let some of the others shift to different uses.

jeff walz wrote:Tradition goes beyond books. It's witnessed and experienced. Think of Duncan's history like the Native's oral tradition. It wasn't recorded, but it's still important.

Like any oral tradition, when nobody knows it anymore it's dead. (That's why we started recording traditions)

If you want Duncan's traditions protected, maybe the discussion ought to be focused on "how do we share the tradition". The fact that Duncan's history is so hard to scrape together suggests there is room for improvement in that sharing.

When the tradition is shared it is everyone's, and we protect it together. When only a handful of old-timers know it, it feels like a select few trying to impose their rules & ideals on others.

jeff walz wrote:Uh - yeah. But they didn't, so what are you proposing?

I am proposing the people it's important to put their heads together. But collecting information wouldn't be a bad start.

If no one knows and there isn't any information to be found, I contend it's a dead tradition. But I know there is information to be found.

jeff walz wrote:... to appease the new generation of adventurers who apparently can't operate in the presence of mystery?

For better or worse, telling young people a mysterious historical figure told them they have to do things a certain way, with no concrete reasoning or justification, only "because [mysterious figure] said so", usually doesn't work out well. How do I know? Look at what's happening to Christianity.

If the tradition is so great, you'd think priority #1 would be sharing as much of it as possible with the new generation so they can appreciate & enjoy it too. Instead of just declaring it should be a certain way "because tradition".

Look, I'm not saying I want bolt-spray. The point is we already know the traditional bolt war leads nowhere, so I'm hoping another solution can be found.

Bill M wrote:I have been climbing for 36 years and I have never seen a time when the younger climbing generation was not pissing off the people who came before them. Climbers do not like to be told what to do and young climbers even more so. In fact, pissing off their elders might be the oldest climbing tradition and the only one that will stand the test of time.

There was no interweb and we were still using film loaded cameras back then so the history everyone seems to ask for is just for campfire stories. I do remember the few times anchor bolts appeared and disappeared.

If someone just visited the crag and there were 3 ropes and a bunch of climbers having a great time, then I think the argument that the bolts will promote preservation and sustainability has just been thrown out of the water. This place is going to be a shit show for all to enjoy, trash and destroy before you know it. The rock does not need that type of traffic, nor does the environment itself.

Regardless, the issue at hand I don't think is the bolts so much as is NCCC. They should not have the sole authority to decide how the communities climbing resources get used without talking to the climbing community. The fact that they did this without discussion is the problem. I have absolutely no respect for what they claim to represent and the actions that contradict the word community.

The only thing those bolts will do is make the place more crowded and turn the wheel of preservation backwards.

Climbed in Fort Collins for 4 years. Duncan's ridge is relatively small and honestly quite boring after you have done the routes. There isn't anything challenging enough climbing wise to inspire the history like Rotary Park does. There aren't any lines that are striking, they are short and easy.

By not bolting the crag, climbing progress is inhibited. The reality is that climbing is growing rapidly. There are loads of rock out there to be discovered and climbed and the community needs to be inspired to find them and create new history.