REI Community
Hillbilly Routes
Routes Sorted
L to R R to L Alpha
5.6 dihedral T,TR 
Balls on a Kite T,TR 
Barnyard TR 
Bio-Degradable T,TR 
Booze Pigs S,TR 
Cascadia T 
Curse of the Drill S 
Drink to Puke T,TR 
End of the Innocence S 
End of the Innocence variation S,TR 
Generation Gap S 
Her Spidery Chamber T,TR 
High School Romancer TR 
Left Side Dihedral (aka Corner Crack) T,TR 
Manic Depression S 
No Time to Linger  TR 
Organic Matter TR 
Pagan Rituals S,TR 
Penitent Crack T,TR 
Pine Tree Crack T,TR 
PWB Arete S 
Repentance Crack, The T,TR 
Sex Weed T 
Strong Faith T,TR 
Strongman's Cooldown  T,TR 
Sunset Ascent S 
Swiss Cheese S,TR 
Turkish Revenge S,TR 
Two Hands of Prayer T,TR 
Zig-zag crack T,TR 
Zschiesche toprope problem TR 
Unsorted Routes:

5.6 dihedral 

YDS: 5.6 French: 4c Ewbanks: 14 UIAA: V ZA: 12 British: S 4b

Type:  Trad, TR, 1 pitch, 40'
Original:  YDS: 5.6 French: 4c Ewbanks: 14 UIAA: V ZA: 12 British: S 4b [details]
FA: Nick Maza
Season: 3
Page Views: 2,103
Submitted By: James Schroeder on Sep 22, 2006

You & This Route  |  Other Opinions (27)
Your todo list:
Your stars:
Your rating: -none- [change]
Your ticklist: [add new tick]
Your opinion of this PAGE:    [0 people like this page.]
An interesting lead on the 5.6 dihedral. (Photo K...


Good beginner route in the ledgy corner.


Standard Rack

Photos of 5.6 dihedral Slideshow Add Photo
Rock Climbing Photo: The 5.6 dihedral ascends a line going straight up ...
BETA PHOTO: The 5.6 dihedral ascends a line going straight up ...

Comments on 5.6 dihedral Add Comment
Show which comments
Comments displayed oldest to newestSkip Ahead to the Most Recent Dated Dec 30, 2015
By John W. Knoernschild
From: Wisconsin
May 18, 2008
rating: 5.6 4c 14 V 12 S 4b

A nice climb. Small pro in beginning. used size 4,8 and 6 stoppers then a #2 cam after overhang. It was a bit hard to place pro to protect the overhang. I wouldn't recommend it for your first trad lead.
By Josh Olson
From: Durango, CO
May 19, 2011
rating: 5.6 4c 14 V 12 S 4b

I have led this with only hexes and a nut or two. Good route, good lead, a very intimidating roof until you find that giant Jesus jug.
By Andy Albrecht
Nov 24, 2015

Noob question but would it be in good etiquette to install two bolts to use as a bomber anchor at the top of this route? This would save on going to the top and building an anchor if someone just wanted to session this spot. If not I completely understand as it is someone else's route. I was also thinking the same for the Corner Crack.
By James Schroeder
From: Sauk County, WI
Nov 25, 2015

In my opinion, no, it would not be okay to add anchors. There are lots of trees at the top, and convenience isn't the end all in climbing.
By Doug Hemken
Nov 26, 2015

I'd agree with James. This is an established route that already sees plenty of use. The bar for convenience anchors on public land should be set higher than this.
By Chris treggE
From: Madison, WI
Nov 27, 2015

Nice to see this kind of discourse rather than the usual bolting and subsequent chopping with 15 pages of blah blah in the forums about it.
By jon jugenheimer
From: Madison
Nov 30, 2015

What happens when the tree dies?
By Doug Hemken
Dec 1, 2015

Jon, is that likely to happen soon? What kind of tree is it?
By James Schroeder
From: Sauk County, WI
Dec 1, 2015

Trees. {plural}

A much better candidate for anchors would be Pine Tree Crack which only has one tree at the top used as a fixed, single-point anchor. If any "convenience" anchors are going to be placed at the Hollow, the first ones should be on PTC.
By jon jugenheimer
From: Madison
Dec 1, 2015

No idea Doug, I just want to see pages of Blah Blah Blah ;) but also, I am into saving trees.
By Andy Albrecht
Dec 1, 2015

Not everyone wants to climb TR and this one is a great route to lead on. The rock is in great condition and would offer countless years of use without damaging trees. I agree that PTC could use one too. Two rap rings won't take anything away from the area.
By Chris treggE
From: Madison, WI
Dec 1, 2015

Is the top of the cliffline eroding? Are the trees are showing signs of bark damage? One can only assume that with all this info easily obtainable online now that the traffic to this and every other area will only increase in the future...
By James Schroeder
From: Sauk County, WI
Dec 1, 2015


You asked for opinions, it's my opinion that those two holes are totally unnecessary. I'm all for bolting when it makes sense, but drilling holes for convenience alone on a 5.6 trad route with a forest at its top doesn't make sense to me.

Bolted anchors (whether protection, belay, rappel, or some combo) only make sense when there are limited natural protection options - that's not the case here.

By Ian CB
Dec 1, 2015

I figured I'd throw my two cents in here. I set up a lot of top ropes due to being a guide. I do notice that there are dead trees, frequently near the edges of cliffs. I think I'm not the only one that can put this together. While things are good now maybe this is something that will need to be addressed at some point, hopefully before it really becomes an issue.
By Doug Hemken
Dec 1, 2015

I don't understand: "This would save on going to the top and building an anchor" but "Not everyone wants to climb TR"? People don't climb to the tops of climbs anymore?

The number of ticks on this route here on MP shows that this route is already popular. Altering a route on public land that already has a substantial community of users strikes me as high handed/self centered.

Putting bolts in rocks is totally appropriate in some circumstances. In my opinion, these are not those circumstances.
By Chris treggE
From: Madison, WI
Dec 16, 2015

Reading this thread:

makes me glad Devil's Lake won't have the bolt safety issue come up. The aging bolts at the Dodge make me a bit nervous if I pause to think about them. If there isn't a need for bolts then perhaps best to avoid. If you build an anchor then you know exactly what you have.
By Tony Brengosz
Dec 26, 2015

Isn't the "this route is already popular without anchors" argument backwards? It seems like the more popular a route, the more it should be considered for bolted anchors.

I agree that not every route everywhere needs to have anchors, but like Andy says, two camo'd rap rings won't take anything away from the area, and ultimately would be appreciated by most people climbing the route.
By Doug Hemken
Dec 28, 2015

Tony, it sounds to me like you are saying: the greater the number of people who value a route as it is, the more urgently we need to change those values.

You also appear to be saying that most climbers would appreciate always having bolted anchors.

I think most climbers appreciate both sport values and trad values: the simplification and focus of sport routes, and the additional skills and judgement required for trad routes.
By Tony Brengosz
Dec 29, 2015

That's assuming that everyone who climbs a route values it for the same reasons. Where you might enjoy the fact that when you get to the top there's nothing up there, others probably don't care much and would rather just clip a few draws and come down.

And yes, I think that most climbers probably would like bolted anchors everywhere. I don't personally think that, but having bolted anchors for single pitch cragging, even with easy top access, doesn't really seem that outrageous to me.
By Doug Hemken
Dec 29, 2015

I assume if a route is popular that people find value in it. You argue that if a route is popular it should be altered?

To be clear, I don't think popularity (or non-popularity) is the bottom line here, just something that ought to be an additional consideration. I'm more with James, bolts here are obviously unnecessary, and the climbing community should be placing the bar higher for ourselves, especially on public land.

While we all appreciate convenience, is that also *all* we care about?
By Tony Brengosz
Dec 30, 2015

You mentioned that one reason it shouldn't get anchors is that it's already a popular route without them. I wasn't arguing that a route that's popular should be changed only because it is popular, I was just trying to point out that from my perspective, with all other things being equal, a route that gets climbed 100 times in a year should be considered for an anchor before a route that gets climbed once a year. But like you said, popularity isn't the only factor, and honestly, with 20 ticks(obviously there's been more but still) in almost 10 years being posted on MP, it doesn't really strike me as all that popular.

The Hollow is a single pitch cragging area, and while there are both trad and sport climbs, most people come here to sport climb. This is borne out by the number of ticks on sport routes vs. trad routes. A few more anchors wouldn't be compromising the "values" of the area, or, in my opinion, the character of the climb.

Regardless of whether this route gets anchors or not, it's great that we can have the discussion here.

Mountain Project

The Definitive Climbing Resource

MTB Project

Next Generation MTB Trail Maps

Powder Project

Backcountry Ski Maps & Secret Stashes
FREE Stickers · Gyms · People · RSS · School of Rock · Contact · About
Terms · Privacy © 2017 Adventure Projects, Inc.