|
1 registered (oenophore),
8
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
#10211 - 10/17/03 01:48 PM
Why some bolts and not others?
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
Not a troll or trying to fan the bolting flames, just curious. Why some and not others. Does anyone know the history / story behind some of the "sport" climbs at the Gunk's? Like why are the bolts (if you can call them that) still on Sente and Thin Slabs? How about Arrow? Weren't they placed on rap... how come they weren't chopped? How about some of the "crucial" pins found throughout the Gunk's... when they eventually go will they be replaced by bolts or will someone go up and hammer in a new piton? I know the obvious answer is that without them the routes become X in places but the guide is full of X pro rated climbs. The pushing the standards thread also falls into this question... wouldn't a few well placed bolts open a few new climbs? Why was it allowed back in the Arrow 1st ascent days but not any more?
Again, I am not looking to get flamed or revive the bolting bad blood. Im looking for some historical perspective... and really need to know the story behind that homemade "bolt" on Thin Slabs P1
Charlie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#10212 - 10/17/03 02:35 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
old hand
Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1027
Loc: hamlet's hand
|
the preserve's policy, detailed in both the select (pg. xii)and swain (pg. 13) guides, states that only those bolts and pins placed prior to november '86 would be grandfathered, and can be replaced...there are histories of how this issue was settled in the introductions to dick's black guide (pg. 55) and in swain (pg.11-12) ...
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10213 - 10/17/03 05:42 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: yorick]
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
Wow... thanks for that animated reply. Thats exactly the kind of lively discussion I was hoping to generate. Ill run out and research those references to get my answers. I guess Im the only one who came up to that bolt on Thin Slabs and thought "what the hell is the story behind this thing?" or why the bolts on Sente are the text book example of "absolutely unacceptable" but still in use.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10216 - 10/17/03 10:12 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
chazman ... It's an interesting question. I think the answers are many, but none are complete. I believe the existence of bolts in the Gunks is more due to different personalities than anything else. The bolt ban yorick refers to is something that transpired in reaction to a bolting war that flared up almost exclusively out at Lost City. A new generation of cutting edge climbers were putting up stuff that would remain X without a bolt ... stuff like Clairvoyance or New Mutants. Bolts were placed, bolts were smashed. (Some contend that Clairvoyance can be protected without the bolts, but if you've ever been up there to look at where the wire "placement" supposedly can be made, you'd understand why a guy like Gruenberg, known for his major X routes, would place the bolt.) This all happened in the context of the national climbing debate that was raging at the time over pre-placed protection. It is indeed ironic that several classic Gunks routes had been created with this very technique long before this huge debate flared up. In looking for answers, I guess one should first take into account all the aid pins that had been hammered into the Gunks and then subsequently used for FFAs later on. Even though Stannard brought clean climbing ethics to the Gunks, he was using McCarthy's aid pins on Foops during the FFA. On Warp Factor 1, Williams and DuMais drilled a bolt at the crux for aid. Stannard used it to free the route. Then again, people can argue that those original aid pins (and bolts) were placed from the ground up. And they'd have a point. Ultimately, there seems to be a small fudge factor in the traditional history of the Gunks. And it's hard to fathom why some routes were allowed to be bolted and others not. As previously metioned, one factor is definitely the one concerning whether a route could be protected at all without a bolt or two. But it also seems to be about the personalities of the bolt placers and how they were regarded by the rest of the community. In addition, what were the personalities of the people who resisted bolting? Bolting occured during McCarthy and Stannard's day, yet they never smashed a bolt. Ken Nichols on the other hand made it his jihad to smash every bolt he could. Why exactly was Arrow or Never Never Land allowed to be bolted and New Mutants not? Why does Beer and Loathing remain bolted to this day ... yet Pumping Pygmies had the insitu gear removed immediately? I also think that in 1986 there was resistance to the next generation of climbing. For some reason at that time, American climbers were strongly divided over the direction that climbing was going in. At the Gunks, you had guys like Scott Franklin who had established a 5.13 from the ground up ... but was reviled for placing three bolts on New Mutants. Guys like Mileski and Gruenberg, known for their serious routes, took it on the chin for placing one bolt on Clairvoyance. Dave Lanman, who establshed several hard 12s tradtionally, had his bolts on Running Man smashed. And there's the great story about how Frank Minunni confronted Ken Nichols after he established Future Shock with one bolt -- explaing to Nichols that no matter who does it, if the bolt is smashed on the route, he was going to come after Nichols. (The bolt is still there.) My guess is that Lanman, Franklin and others were making a decision that flew in the face of the generation that immediately proceeded them. Clune, Raffa, Romano and others had devoted their energy and passion to putting new, hard, bold routes up in tradtional style. Of course, there again (with the notable exception of Romano) their generation changed the rules of the past as well. Instead of pre-placing protection, they would work routes in seige parties and yo-yo routes ... not pulling the rope after each attempt as had previously been done. They even went as far as to top-rope To Be or Not To Be before making the FFA. And even some the most venerable Gunks traditionalists put a bolt or two up on the cliff ... including our own RG on Farewell to Fingers. Still, looking back earlier than that, there are these hard-to-fathom exceptions to the tradtional history of the Gunks. Pas De Deux had its pins placed on rappel before the lead ... even though it was possible to place them on aid from the ground up ... why? The same goes for Crowther on Arrow. The bolts could have been placed from the ground up. Hell, Scotty banged in pins on Survival from the ground up. And then ... how does one account for Russ Clune (a strong traditional Gunks climber with a record of bold ascents) cutting down a tree and placing a bolt on rappel ... at Skytop?! Anway ... I think it comes down to this ... Pre-1986 there were few climbers who placed bolts. In the early days, the folks who placed bolts seemed to have generally put a lot of thought into their actions and made conclusions about the protectability of their routes, and more importantly, there didn't seem to be anyone who took it as their duty to remove or smash their bolts if they disagreed with their actions. And the climbers who didn't pre-place or put bolts in ... well ... they made their FFAs in bold style and for the most part, climbers feel it's important to honor the style of the first ascentionist. In addition, many of the climbers who did place a few bolts were alos known for their bold, traditional climbing. (Had Clune and Raffa decided to place a bolt or two on To Be Or Not To Be, I am certain they would still be there today.) Personally, I think that folks like Mileski, Franklin and Lanman also put thought into their bolting. They had earned their stripes as Gunkies and they were protecting visonary climbs that couldn't be protected in any other manner. But conversely, the Gunks community was probably deeply troubled in 1986 by the rise of sport climbing. While we know the Gunks can survive a few bolts and retain its traditions, at the time, you can imagine the fear that the community must have felt at the prospect of the Trapps or Lost City turning into another Smith Rocks. (I don't think that would have happened, but one cannot deny the fear of that possibility was justified.) So ... like I said ... many answers ... none complete. Almost certainly folks like DW and RG can illuminate this subject far better than I can. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10218 - 10/18/03 12:56 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2551
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
|
Nicely said and well thought out. Not being a top climber, I never took any issue with the war as I could protect anything I wanted to climb. The personalities involved were fun, enjoyable people from my perspective. It was hard to believe the stories heard over a brew until someone like Kevin B. would substantiate them. Thanks for the insight.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10220 - 10/18/03 03:43 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
I think Lester has said it pretty well. I can only add a few remarks.
First, I didn't place a bolt on Farewell to Fingers and absolutely never would have. It was there as part of a direct aid start to Farewell to Arms and I just clipped it. It was kinda low, but certainly offered protection that isn't available now. In fact, although I've clipped countless bolts, I've never placed one myself. Given my stage of life, it is pretty clear that I'll end my climbing career without ever having placed a bolt.
Things like Arrow and Sente were done when free-climbing standards were still evolving in the Gunks. Remember, although Wiessner was a force, the major shaper of Gunks climbing was Hans Kraus, who came with a Dolomite approach that used a continuous spectrum of technique from free to aid. The celebration of and emphasis on pure free climbing as we know it arose in California at Tahquitz Rock, and those ideas were still filtering East when Crowther bolted Arrow. Although somewhat out of the mainstream, it simply wasn't an event of great ethical proportions at the time. Moreover, the Gunks was still a vast crag with lots of potential, and bolting with a hand drill is very difficult and time-consuming on Gunks rock, which is much harder than, say, granite. I don't think it would have occurred to anyone at the time that a few bolts would constitute a threat to the nature of climbing on the cliff, and so the contemporaries of the early bolters just shrugged and went about their own climbing, thinking no one would ever dream of extensive drilling.
When standards evolved, doing climbs without previewing, on the lead, and without aid for resting or working out the moves became the accepted way to climb. Bolts were accepted, as long as they were placed by the leader on the lead while free climbing. Lots of climbs, some of them truly ferocious, were done in California in this style, and many of these climbs remain an enormous challenge to this day. The Gunks, however, are too steep for a leader to stop and place a bolt while free climbing anything in the upper fifth-class range, so bolting was unacceptable because you couldn't do it without aid. However, no one thought a few ancient bolted classics like Arrow should be chopped. They were relics of a less developed age, and no one felt offended by their presence. At some point, almost every good climber went up and did Arrow (but not Sente!) without clipping the bolts, but this proved very little since the people doing this were fully capable of soloing the route anyway.
Later bolting efforts were not viewed so lightly. Those who did it were thumbing their noses at everything the climbing community held dear, and those were times when young people expressed their need to rebel by being more, rather than less, idealistic then their elders. Even though certain efforts were viewed as travesties, they were still seen as highly isolated anomalies, worthy of scorn but certainly not worth the damage and bad blood involved in destroying the routes. And so even a route as out of place as Beer and Loathing survived.
I think two things changed the general outlook: power drills and sport climbing. Taken together, it was easy to foresee a never-ending proliferation of bolted routes up tiny strips of blank rock a few feet away from protectable lines. Now, rather than being the result of the anomalous but very occasional behavior of a few stubborn individuals, bolting looked like a major on-going threat to the nature of Shawangunk climbing, and this was at a time before today's population pressures make it obvious that unrestrained bolting would be a disaster for the Gunks.
The original question seemed to imply a double standard, or at least some kind of suspicious inconsistency in attitudes towards bolts. I think that most of what happened was just an evolution of attitudes, together with a willingness to let the past rest in peace so long as it did not seem to threaten the future.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10221 - 10/18/03 01:21 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
addict
Registered: 01/05/00
Posts: 515
Loc: Watertown or Bend
|
Lesters and RGs comments do a fine job of fleshing out the history of protection styles adopted by Gunks climbers. Seen across a span of time, the apparent inconsistencies that RG refers to are more understandable, and both his description and Lesters emphasize the bolt-free standards of the best climbers of three decades that continue to the present. This seems to answer Chazmans first question.
But what about his question regarding replacement of hardware that falls in the pre-1986 category? I think weve all discovered that modern protection devices have almost entirely eliminated the need to replace resident pitons, at least in cracks wider than those filled with a blade, wafer, or lost arrow. So what about these? And, again, what about those blanker faces where bolts had been placed? Do we let them continue to rust out in the optimistic hope that a future, passive technology will ultimately make fixed gear obsolete? Or should these climbs be allowed to decay to an X rating and let that define the future standard of the Gunks? Or do we replicate John Stannards efforts with regards to pitons in the 70s, and promote a conservative replacement effort on a case-by-case basis, understanding now, as I suspect he did then, that this is amounts to an interim solution, less desirable than clean gear, but preferable to the effective eradication of these routes for most people?
Chazman is right on to ask his questions together; the answer to the second shouldnt be divorced from considering the first. Yet as much as I respect the two submissions above, only one has been addressed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10222 - 10/18/03 04:56 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Frank Florence]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
|
The question of whether fixed gear should be replaced over time has become a very topical one. The ASCA is doing a great job with this in some areas. Their philosophy, and one I agree with, is that if a bolt is going to exist it should be a bolt you can trust.
I know that at the Gunks there are people who quietly replace key pins from time to time. I think this is valid and that they shouldn't have to do it so quietly, that they should be able to get the recognition from the climbing community they deserve, but I suppose if it were too much in the open there would be endless arguments.
Obviously there are many pins at the Gunks that can be allowed to rot without replacement but which ones are key and which ones have become obsolete is a matter of debate. For example, both the pin on MF and the pins on Roseland can be backed up/ignored, but I for one appreciate having reliable fixed gear there and feel like not having it would change the nature of the climbs as I have come to know them.
So do we replace the few protection bolts at the Gunks as they get manky as well? I would say yes, but then the bolts on Sente were probably never very confidence inspiring and putting in new ones would change the nature of that route, at least as I know it. But perhaps I'm wrong and those things were considered bomber in their time.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10223 - 10/18/03 05:34 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Frank Florence]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
Actually, Frank, I think that what we have now is already "a conservative replacement effort on a case-by-case basis." Many many fixed pins have been replaced, as well as a few bolts, as per the 1986 agreement with the Preserve, although in some cases the climb would have been adequately protected (meaning no worse than PG) by passive gear.
However, the real problem with the case-by-case approach is that the situation today is very different from Stannard's time. I can think of at least 3 reasons for this:
1. As I mentioned, the climbining community as a whole had a sense of idealism about restraining the use of equipment that simply doesn't exist today.
2. This community idealism made it possible for a relatively small group of dedicated climbers to serve as a kind of moral authority for the crag. There is no group now that can exert an analogous influence.
3. It used to be that everyone owned pitons and was competent in placing them, even if they were climbing clean. Now I suspect that the majority of local climbers are no longer competent to place reliable fixed protection.
The effect of (3) is that a small competent group is required for piton maintenence, while the effects of (1) and (2) is that no such group has the "moral" authority to do so.
Some might argue that guides are now the ones to deal with fixed pro. As a person who used to guide and who has friends who do, I think this would be an unfortunate development, because guides as a group have their own concerns which, in my opinion, have already been too decisive in the direction fixed anchors have taken in this country and in Europe, where the commercial appeal of a route can become the primary factor in anchor placement. In brief, there are conflicts of interest that ought to disqualify quides from deciding on the placement or replacement of anchors.
So where does that leave us? The only solution I have heard about is the one in Eldorado. (My description here is my idealized understanding of the concept as it was communicated to me---I do not know how the system works in practice.) In Eldorado, the climbing coalition has a fixed anchor committee, and by agreement with the land managers, the anchor committee is the only group allowed to place and/or replace anchors. The committee holds periodic public meetings in which the condition of in situ fixed anchors is discussed, and proposals for new anchors are aired. The committee takes the public sentiment under advisement, does or in some way inspects the climbs in question to judge the protection situation, and makes a decision about adding and/or replacing anchors, and carries out the work.
Arrangements like this that control the spread of anchors and, by the way, keep land managers from having legal responsibilities for anchors, have been and will probably be more and more critical for continued access to climbing lands.
Ultimately, the GCC is going to have to consider whether it wants to become involved in an analogous program here. Frankly, I don't see any other reasonable way to address ongoing anchor issues, and I'm afraid that the guides might inherit the job by default, without any guidelines from anyone on how they should proceed. If the GCC takes on the task, it will have to air the issues Dawn raises and search for hints of consensus in the public opinion. Although my personal position is that as many fixed anchors as possible should be eliminated, I do think that Gunks climbers have shown both tolerance and respect for the historical nature of a climb, so that preserving the historical fixed protection is probably most in keeping with the spirit of the place.
I might add that nowadays whenever anyone proposes that any group acquire any kind of authority over any aspect of climbing, it is de rigeur for someone to raise the spectre of the Appie control of climbing in the Gunks and the Vulgarian revolution against it. Although occasionally these claims have merit (for example when I make them...) a lot of them are made out of ignorance of the nature of the Appie hegemony and flow from an unsophisticated grasp of today's parallels. Not every slippery slope leads back to the Appies of the 1950's, and pretending otherwise simply obstructs our ability to find solutions a half century later.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#10225 - 10/20/03 11:44 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: crackers]
|
Auto Reply
Registered: 11/14/00
Posts: 4403
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
rg, not only is there a small group of local climbers that know how to place pins, they are placing pins. There is a defacto consensus...
That's about on a par with saying that there is a small group of local burglars that knows how to break into people's house, they are doing so. There is a de facto consensus that this behavior is acceptable. The fact this "small group" has taken it upon itself to do this doesn't make it right, nor does it imply any kind of mandate from the Gunks climbing community.
_________________________
So long as you can boogie you ain't too old.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10226 - 10/20/03 12:57 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Frank Florence]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3134
Loc: in your backyard
|
FACT:
93 + bolts have been placed in the gunks since 2000.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10227 - 10/20/03 01:13 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: crackers]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
not only is there a small group of local climbers that know how to place pins, they are placing pins. There is a defacto consensus...
...among the small group who have appointed themselves to this task. My point is that although this worked 20 or more years ago under different cultural circumstances, it is now a bad way to proceed. It certainly seems to have resulted in some pins I think we would do without. I don't deny that private intervention can work well; the American Safe Climbing initiative has been an enormous success. But an urban crag with the kind of crowding we have invites all kinds of "public-spirited" groups and individuals to "improve" things for the "common good." The Preserve has already had to intervene in at least one bolt-placing incident by a "well-meaning" individual. I believe we have reached a stage in which alterations to the environment need to be planned and evaluated according to specific guidelines that incorporate a vision of how climbing at the cliff fits in with Preserve policy and philosophy. This is no longer an appropriate task for self-appointed groups.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10228 - 10/20/03 05:26 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Smike]
|
Auto Reply
Registered: 11/14/00
Posts: 4403
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
93 + bolts have been placed in the gunks since 2000.
Smike:
Does that number include the rap anchors? If so, any idea how the numbers break down between anchors and protection?
GV
_________________________
So long as you can boogie you ain't too old.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10230 - 10/20/03 06:18 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: oenophore]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3134
Loc: in your backyard
|
it is the number of rap stations x 2 + 1 for the extra bolt on the high e rap station and + for any missed.
Point I was trying to make is that the preserve has chosen with action that replacing aging gear i.e. old slings and pins etc.. with bolts is acceptable.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10231 - 10/20/03 06:29 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Smike]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 2177
Loc: Berkshires, MA and Ahlington, ...
|
Quote:
it is the number of rap stations x 2 + 1 for the extra bolt on the high e rap station and + for any missed.
Point I was trying to make is that the preserve has chosen with action that replacing aging gear i.e. old slings and pins etc.. with bolts is acceptable.
It should be pointed out that it is acceptable for the Preserve in that it has taken on the responsibility to maintain the anchors/fixed gear. It is not acceptable for any of us to take it upon ourselves to place any bolts.
Now going,
Dizz
_________________________
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's way too confining
-Lily Tomlin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10232 - 10/20/03 06:36 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Smike]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
|
While we're at it, let's remember that most of the protection bolts have also been replaced during or slightly earlier than that time frame. The ones I'm aware of:
The Blackout
Never Never Land (third replacement)
J'accuse
Keep On Struttin'
Arrow (the ones up there now are actually the second replacemet set)
Dry Martini (original is still there)
Wonderland (early 90's)
Ones I'm unsure of:
Yellow Wall
Turdland (the original 10-penny nails in lead sleeves  were replaced in the 80's)
I'm pretty certain that all these were done by local climbers, and not the Preserve.
I've heard there are/were plans for Sente, and possibly Thin Slabs.
....and I think I'm missing one or two, but can't remeber where they might be. 
Edited by MarcC (10/20/03 06:39 PM)
_________________________
- Marc
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10233 - 10/20/03 07:32 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: MarcC]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
marc
also carbs & caffine.
pitons especially angles cause more damage to rock than bolts!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10234 - 10/20/03 07:39 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2939
Loc: LI, NY
|
whats up with the 3 piton anchor at the top of "the nose"? its over by double crack, and 49. 3 nice solid recently placed looking pitons equalized with a long length of cord, with the biggest damn quicklinks i've ever seen.
_________________________
tOOthless
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10235 - 10/20/03 08:15 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: empicard]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3134
Loc: in your backyard
|
ahhhh Lizzzzzz.... I was so ready to fire up the old hilti and push that number to say 200 or so using the money I made during my pies for bolts bake sale fund raiser...  Yes Lizz pretty much sums it up the preserve has and is the only one that has the right to replace fixed gear period.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10236 - 10/20/03 09:45 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Smike]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
the preserve has chosen with action that replacing aging gear i.e. old slings and pins etc.. with bolts is acceptable.
Meaning that it is an acceptable activity for the Preserve to undertake. Individuals not officially associated with the Preserve are specifically enjoined from placing bolts to replace "old slings and pins."
(Oops---I posted this without realizing there was another page on which others, for example Dizzy, had already made this point. I apologize for any distress caused by my redundancy.)
Edited by rg@ofmc (10/20/03 09:50 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10238 - 10/20/03 10:31 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
My understanding, as inaccurate as it may be, is the the Preserve has a policy that pre-1986 bolts and pins may be replaced and as MarcC has pointed out, many have. (The Yellow Wall has bolt at the 5.9 move that was replaced in the late 80s, but the old one beneath the roof is/was left in place.)
And from what I've heard, the people doing the replacing of pins and bolts (outside of rap stations and belay anchors) are often not officially appointed by the Preserve to take this action -- however I have heard that most of the people doing these tasks are usually long-time locals who have or had an association with the Preserve.
Regardless of the current state of affairs or how one feels about it, I think this is a very important issue for Gunks climbers to face in the near future. And, not speaking for anyone else, I think this is precisely the sort of thing the GCC should be involved with ... at some point in the future. Why? Because the GCC was established to be a liason or conduit between the climbing community and the land managers. Because the GCC can avoid appearing to be an Appie-like organization in that it should and will represent the needs and desires and ethics of the climbing community ... and not impose itself in an authoritarian manner. All across the country, permanent anchor management has been one of the top priorities of many climbing organizations and coalitions. In my own opinion (not necessarily that of any other current GCC member), this sort of issue is exactly one of the reasons the GCC exists.
One more point ...
I think it's important to separate the issue of replacing pre-1986 fixed protection and the issue of rap stations and belay anchors.
Rap stations and permanent belay anchors are (as RG often points out) matters of convenience. And they are also about the concerns of the Preserve -- whether appropriate or not -- in dealing with trees and vegetation. Replacing original fixed protection on routes should be about maintaining routes in the style they were put up. I recognize that modern gear opens up a debate about what is necessary to pro a route vs. what gear was originally installed on a route, but I believe it's one that can be discussed and concensus solutions found.
I think it would be a mistake to allow the issue of pre-1986 gear to be used as an argument either for or against belay anchors and rap stations. I fear if we allow these issues to be interconnected, I fear that it will simply make it far more difficult to come to appropriate solutions for either one.
Side note: Good point, RG, about the steep quality of hard Gunks lines being a natural deterrent to hand-drilling. So I was wondering ... what you knew about the story of Never Never Land ... one of the few "slab" climbs in the Gunks. Craft, Gran and McCarthy seem to me to have been climbers who were very aware of the Gunks ethos. What was the community reaction to this climb at the time?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10239 - 10/21/03 02:46 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2551
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
|
Good Points LL. Most impressive is a picture in the Mountain Deli of the Trapps at around 1907-8. You can hardley see the rock for all the trees. I've been helped immeasurably over the years by bailing off various natural anchors and considered rap anchors to be for lazy, unimaginative drones. I'm not so sure now. I very much support the GCC moderating and voicing a unified position on these fixed anchors.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10240 - 10/21/03 10:43 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chip]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
I have a lot of thoughts on this issue...especially since I´m stranded here (not a bad thing actually) in over-bolted and chipped Spain. But, since I´m strapped for time, I can´t ramble at the moment.
One thing I want to add -- as for:
"Rap stations and permanent belay anchors are (as RG often points out) matters of convenience. And they are also about the concerns of the Preserve -- whether appropriate or not -- in dealing with trees and vegetation."
I think the function of permanent rap anchors as a means to preserve vegetation is an important point that shouldn´t be overlooked. These anchors, while I´m not entirely in favor of them, are not just for lazy climbers. On high traffic routes, they save trees. Next time you rap from High E, notice that every tree that previously had slings is now dead. In such situations, I think such anchors are necessary.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10241 - 10/21/03 11:47 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
veteran
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1300
Loc: New York, N.Y.
|
I think people have been making some unnecessarily qualified statements in this thread. Pre-bolted anchors, all post-1986 fixed gear was replaced, in kind (ie, pin for pin, bolt for bolt), by climbers, not the Preserve. The Preserve had a policy of not placing, and not being responsible for, fixed gear of any kind. Then they started replacing anchors. As far as I know, they're only replacing (and adding new) anchors. And climbers are continuing the replacement of other fixed gear.
I've long been in favor of an Eldorado Canyon-style fixed gear committee. I'm sure it's bureaucratic and slow and annoying and frustrating, but it has to be better than the current system, with essentially no general climbing community involvement and an out-of-control and accountable-to-no-one committee of three making fixed-anchor decisions with no discernable process or criteria.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10242 - 10/21/03 12:07 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
old hand
Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1027
Loc: hamlet's hand
|
Quote:
...among the small group who have appointed themselves to this task.
while there are individuals who have regrettably taken isolated incidents into their own hands, i'm not sure why no one has mentioned here that the anchor subcommittee was appointed by the preserve, and is made up of individuals who have long, respected relationships with the preserve: clune, dw, joe bridges, keith le budde (not exactly an itinerant band of loose cannons), who work closely with the preserve's senior ranger, hank alicandri...
while i agree that an open forum to discuss replacement of in situ anchors and fixed gear is an ideal one, i'm not convinced that the current system is one in which the gcc needs to be involved, except perhaps to encourage the community at large to let the anchor subcomittee do its job...
if you have a concern about an anchor or piece of fixed gear or a question about their protocol, raise it with hank or the subcomittee...
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10243 - 10/21/03 01:04 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: yorick]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
Yorick,
I think you are mixing up two groups. The Preserve's anchor subcommittee has, as far as I know, dealt exclusively with the establishment of bolted stations for...well, for whatever they're for. I don't think that, in their capacity as an official Preserve entity, they have had anything to do with the placement or replacement of pins, although some of their members, operating under their own "authority," have replaced pins.
In doing so, these individuals are completely within Preserve guidelines for appropriate climber behavior. As it stands now, anyone can replace old pins or bolts that they consider to be unsafe. My comment is that this is no longer a good idea and hasn't been one for a while now.
By the way, as far as I know, the 1986 Agreement specifies circumstances under which climbers can place fixed anchors, but there has never been any limitation on climbers removing fixed anchors. For many years, a fixed pin was booty just the way a fixed cam would be now---it belonged to whoever could get it out. One of the reasons Stannard made his own pitons when he began his fixed pin program was that he hoped they would not be attractive enough to be removed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10245 - 10/21/03 03:21 PM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: GOclimb]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 2177
Loc: Berkshires, MA and Ahlington, ...
|
From the Preserve's UIAA presentation:
"The Preserve encourages a low-impact ethic through its Climbing Policy and Climbing Instruction Policy, which forbid trundling rocks, chipping holds, affixing new holds, cutting trees, and placing new bolts and pitons. The policies further discourage rappelling off trees, and encourage climbers to limit chalk use. Fixed anchors are maintained at tops of many popular pitches. The anchors were originally placed by climbers, but are now maintained by the Preserve, which has replaced over 40 dangerous, unsightly anchors with safe, unobtrusive ones. The use of fixed anchors minimizes damage to vegetation and limits visual clutter."
From their Climbing Policy:
"In order to maintain the cliffs as far as possible in their natural state, the Preserve forbids all environmentally damaging climbing practices. These include, but are not limited to, trundling rocks, chipping holds, cutting trees, and placement of any bolt or piton. However, the replacement of those bolts and pitons in place prior to 1986 is permitted by individuals not employed by the Mohonk Preserve. The Mohonk Preserve explicitly disclaims all responsibility for the safety of any bolts and pitons that may be found in place anywhere on the cliffs of the Mohonk Preserve."
In order to avoid any more confusion, the best practice when considering replacing pre-1986 fixed gear, is to consult with the Preserve.
Now going,
Dizz
_________________________
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's way too confining
-Lily Tomlin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10248 - 10/22/03 01:42 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Steven Cherry]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 259
Loc: Upper Valley NH
|
For those who are curious, here's the web site for Eldorado hardware review. If you click on each route, there's a cool topo and/or photo indicating the place of the proposed changes. Theres an explanation of the change being proposed, along with a section where comments can be submitted. The change is marked on the actual rock in white tape so you can actually head up there and see for yourself if you like. Eldorado Fixed Hardware Review Committee page-Carissa P.S. Thanks to Lester, rg, et al. for all the terrific historical perspective!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10249 - 10/22/03 02:46 AM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: Mike Rawdon]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2326
Loc: Boston
|
Quote:
So the Preserve has taken over the maintenance of the bolts, yet it "explicitly disclaims all responsibility" for them?
Am I the only one struggling to understand?
No. Lester's right, they're going to have to figure out a more consistent policy.
GO
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10250 - 10/22/03 07:07 AM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: Mike Rawdon]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
So the Preserve has taken over the maintenance of the bolts, yet it "explicitly disclaims all responsibility" for them?
Am I the only one struggling to understand?
That's the problem. The Preserve language is not clear. One would presume that since the rap stations were installed at the behest of the Preserve that they must assume some responsibility for them. Yet the language could also be interpreted to indicate that they refuse responsibility for any permanent anchor.
My assumption (though it could be totally wrong) is that the Preserve assumes responsibility for the rap anchors they install, but denies any responsibility for all other fixed anchors and gear.
The last paragraph denying responsibility for fixed gear predates the installation of bolted rap stations by the Preserve ... so that possibly how the dichotomy or contradiction was created in the language.
No matter how you slice it ... it's definitely not clear.
I'm certainly no legal expert, but it seems to me that by instigating the creation of new fixed anchor stations, the Preserve could well be eliminating, or at least muddying, their claim of non-responsibility ... i.e. diminishing their ability to protect themselves from liability.
Let me just add this in response to what Yorick wrote ...
While I strongly feel that this is exactly the sort of issue that local climbing coalitions are created for (and our initial research bears this out -- many climbing advocacy groups take on permanent anchor management) and do very well ... I also think that it probably premature at this point for the GCC to try and take control of the situation. We are a fledgling coalition just beginning to find its feet. We have started off doing all the right things (I believe) and we have begun to establish the right sort of relationships with many of the local land managers ... especially the Preserve. However, it's still early. The GCC first needs to get itself in order and get the basics of the organization up and running. I think Lizz and everyone are doing a terrific job and I think the GCC is right on track. My independent opinion is that giving the GCC more time to cement its relationship with the Preserve and cement a bond based on professionalism and trust is crucial before attempting to take charge of permanent anchor management. The GCC also needs to cement its relationship with the local climbing community. So that climbers feel that they can trust the GCC and that the GCC is there to express their concerns and deal with their issues fairly and intelligently.
Once the GCC gets to that nominal starting point (which I don't think will actually take that long) then I do believe that it's very important for the GCC to get involved with this issue.
Hey, the Preserve has its own opinions. We don't know yet if they'll be open to the GCC's involvment on this issue. Personally, I think if they are smart and think it through, they would be very happy to have the GCC handle this sort of thing ... in full partnership with the Preserve of course. It helps remove the laibility issue and helps climbers become responsible for sensitive, thoughtful management of the climbing environment on the cliffs. My own belief is that a partnership of the Preserve and the GCC could come up with better solutions for the rap stations and fixed anchor issues than are currently in place.
And clearly there are many precedents for this sort of arrangment across the country. And in each one it seems to be beneficial for all involved parties.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10251 - 10/22/03 07:15 AM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: Dizzy]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
One other thing pops out when reading the the Preserve language: Fixed anchors are maintained at tops of many popular pitches. The anchors were originally placed by climbers, but are now maintained by the Preserve, which has replaced over 40 dangerous, unsightly anchors with safe, unobtrusive ones. Am I wrong, or hasn't the Preserve actually created a number of rap stations that never existed before? And it is worrisome from a liability standpoint that the Preserve has specifically stated that they maintain SAFE anchors. Is there a lawyer in the house? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10252 - 10/22/03 11:20 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: cfa]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
I´m enthralled with the Eldo Fixed Anchor Committe Website -- I think this kind of system might be a good fit for the gunks as well. Does anyone at the GCC want to give Eldo ACE a call and figure out the implications / legalities of the whole thing and see if such a system and the GCC would be a good fit? On the same note, I wonder if town hall style meetings would be a better system than informal, faceless web comments.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10253 - 10/22/03 12:48 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: paborden]
|
old hand
Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1027
Loc: hamlet's hand
|
the gcc will be announcing a formal, faceful general meeting for early november shortly...please, bring your questions and comments...
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10254 - 10/22/03 12:48 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? *DELETED*
[Re: paborden]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 2177
Loc: Berkshires, MA and Ahlington, ...
|
Post deleted by Dizzy
_________________________
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's way too confining
-Lily Tomlin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10256 - 10/22/03 03:22 PM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: Mike Rawdon]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
Am I the only one struggling to understand?
Nope. At present, the Preserve's position is self-contradictory and so is not capable of being understood, because they undertook their anchor program without rewriting their anchor guideline policies.
Having placed the bolt anchors, I don't think there is any legal way they can avoid reponsibility for them (but I am not a lawyer). They know they have to take steps to insure that, ultimately, some kind of regular inspections will happen. This means that the official Preserve position on anchors will have to be rewritten to say that they are not responsible for anchors other than the ones they have placed, and for those they are not responsible for their improper usage (whatever that might be...)
It does seem that they have got themselves into a potential legal quagmire. However, they undertook the original anchor program on advice of counsel, advice which I believe to be seriously flawed, but what the hell do I know. Actually, when I heard this, I did a bit of legal research and consulted a few lawyers who deal with negligence cases, including one rather famous Shawangunk figure. The consensus from both the very limited research and personal contacts was that advising the Preserve to undertake an anchor program was a bad legal call. However, the Preserve counsel is far closer to the situation than anyone I talked to and is presumably trying to balance the legal risks of inaction with the legal risks of action in the case of established piton-and-sling rap anchors.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10258 - 10/22/03 09:31 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: paborden]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
I´m enthralled with the Eldo Fixed Anchor Committe Website -- I think this kind of system might be a good fit for the gunks as well. Does anyone at the GCC want to give Eldo ACE a call and figure out the implications / legalities of the whole thing and see if such a system and the GCC would be a good fit? On the same note, I wonder if town hall style meetings would be a better system than informal, faceless web comments.
1) The GCC is currently researching how other climbing organizations across the country work. Again, the GCC has some important initial bits of business to take care of ... like an election of officers and a newsletter and so on. Anchor management is first something that the GCC has to decide if it SHOULD do (I think so), CAN do (why not?), and will be ALLOWED to do (depends on the Preserve). The GCC cannot simply start an anchor management program without the consent of the Preserve.
2) As mentioned, the GCC does have meetings. Hopefully important issues like this will motivate more people to actually join the GCC. The more members we have, the more effective we can be. Also, for those not yet ready to commit to being members, the GCC has a formal Open Discussion area here and at its own website. The GCC wants to hear from everyone. Further more, keep in mind that many GCC people are right here reading and participating in these threads! You're not shouting in a vacuum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10259 - 10/23/03 11:46 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
All I wanted to know was why someone went through the trouble to make the hanger on thin slabs as opposed to buying one for $3 There has got to be a story behind this one... Has the GCC looked into the American Safe Climbers Association? They seem to be concentrated on the west coast but they may be a great resource regarding legality and all. They are a 100% volunteer organization so I don't think they are carrying $5M in insurance and a staff of lawyers. May be worth a call.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10261 - 10/24/03 02:29 AM
Re: Who's "in charge"
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
|
I only heard this from somebody but the story I heard was that the Preserve wanted us off the trees and that to order us off the trees without providing an alternative that was at least as safe would be asking for trouble.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10263 - 10/24/03 06:39 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: paborden]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 259
Loc: Upper Valley NH
|
Quote:
I´m enthralled with the Eldo Fixed Anchor Committe Website -- I think this kind of system might be a good fit for the gunks as well. Does anyone at the GCC want to give Eldo ACE a call and figure out the implications / legalities of the whole thing and see if such a system and the GCC would be a good fit? On the same note, I wonder if town hall style meetings would be a better system than informal, faceless web comments.
As Lester mentions, the GCC seems to already be on it, but I'll keep an ear to the ground as to who out here might be good to talk to in case anyone's interested. Just for a casual conversation, maybe. If I find anything out, I'll let you know.
As for the meetings, my understanding is that the FHRC does a multi-pronged approach: collecting comments via web, flyers in climbing gyms and other places where climbers hang out, and then, before each set of proposals is taken to the Park, a public meeting for all to attend.
-Carissa
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10264 - 10/24/03 12:21 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: cfa]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 2177
Loc: Berkshires, MA and Ahlington, ...
|
Quote:
As Lester mentions, the GCC seems to already be on it,
No, at this point the steering committee is only discussing whether we even want to begin the process of soliciting comments from the entire Gunks community about a very controversial concept like a fixed hardware committee. This is not something the GCC needs to be involved with unless there is an overwhelming need expressed by the majority of the Gunks community and the Preserve.
Now going,
Dizz
_________________________
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's way too confining
-Lily Tomlin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10265 - 10/24/03 03:37 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Dizzy]
|
addict
Registered: 01/05/00
Posts: 515
Loc: Watertown or Bend
|
Quote:
This is not something the GCC needs to be involved with unless there is an overwhelming need expressed by the majority of the Gunks community and the Preserve.
That's why I'm happy to see this conversation taking place here, rather than inthe GCC public forum. It's not implicitly associated with regulation or authority of any advocacy group. The comments given here are simply opinions that have ranged from historical perspective to preservation to vision.
But it's good that folks from the steering committee are paying attention to this converstaion. While it might not rise to the level of a "need" for the GCC, it does have a lot to do with the coalition's potential input capacity in any planning for the Gunks' future.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10266 - 10/24/03 08:03 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Frank Florence]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is not something the GCC needs to be involved with unless there is an overwhelming need expressed by the majority of the Gunks community and the Preserve.
While it might not rise to the level of a "need" for the GCC, it does have a lot to do with the coalition's potential input capacity in any planning for the Gunks' future.
That's exactly my own personal feeling as well. There will probably never be an "overwhelming" need for it, but it could be a very important and useful service the GCC provides which would in turn enhance the status and stature of the GCC in the eyes of the land managers and the local climbing community.
Personally, I think there are issues if replacement of these anchors is left as is. In the past, I've seen old pins replaced poorly and replacement pins pulled by others who didn't think the pins were necessary.
There are also issues which the current Preserve policy (or non-policy) does not address. For example: Replacing pins where modern gear will now effectively protect that same section of route. Replacing a pin with a bolt or vice versa. Replacing a pin where such action might be unduly destructive to the rock.
Also, while the rap stations have been somewhat controversial, I personally think replacement of in-situ gear is only potentially controversial when it's allowed to be performed by individuals acting unilaterally. Otherwise, I think having clear guidelines and input from the community on when and how bad gear gets turned back into good gear is as controversial as apple pie.
Then again ... maybe I've just started a flame war over pie. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10267 - 10/27/03 09:23 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: cfa]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 259
Loc: Upper Valley NH
|
Okay, I think I've found a contact if any of you are interested in chatting with someone out here about the ins and outs of the "committee" process. As some of you have pointed out, this may or may not be a way to go for the Gunks, but it always helps to talk to someone who's done it right?
So, his name is Chris Archer and he used to climb in the Gunks back in the day before moving out to Colorado (I figured this might be helpful too). He is an attorney who incorporated ACE on behalf of the Access Fund (an interesting arrangement in and of itself), and he is a director on both ACE and the Access Fund. He says he's happy to talk to any gunkies wanting to know about their process etc. (I'm not sure that means to post his e-mail on a 100% public bbs, so PM me if you want his e-mail and I'll send it along to you.)
Cheers,
Carissa
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10268 - 10/28/03 01:53 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Dizzy]
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
No, at this point the steering committee is only discussing whether we even want to begin the process of soliciting comments from the entire Gunks community about a very controversial concept like a fixed hardware committee. This is not something the GCC needs to be involved with unless there is an overwhelming need expressed by the majority of the Gunks community and the Preserve.
How would the GCC know if there was an overwhelming need? I'm not intending to be a wise ass here but I am curious. While I see you have left the possibility open it seems the steering committee is backing away from this topic short of a 10,000 signature petition showing up in the GCC mailbox. Maybe I was mistaken about the mission of the GCC but it seems this issue would be at least of concern. From what I have read so far (and please correct me because I'm sure I'm wrong) if I wanted to I could go and replace the bolts on Sente. Is that right? It seems nobody is "in charge" of old in-situ gear so the replacement is up for grabs (notice I use the word replacement... I'm not talking bolting a new sport route). I would think the GCC would want to at least maybe set up some guidelines to review fixed gear replacement since it seems nobody else wants to take responsability. I guess you can always take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach but that means waiting till someone gets hurt on some of these dangerous old pieces before something is done... and that doesn't seem wise. I think I may just have the wrong view of the purpose of the GCC.
Charlie
PS: I have no intention of replacing any bolts or pins so no attacks please.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10269 - 10/28/03 02:49 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
|
Chaz, it seems to me that you're talking at cross-purposes with yourself.
I'm going to go out on a limb and play devil's advocate here...
* Sente is in the guidebook as a 5.8+PG variation (Swain) now that it's in the guidebook as such, it should be maintained at that level--in my view it's a little too late to go a-chopping, now that it's been in the guidebook for years and years.
* In principle, what's wrong with replacing *any* bolt and using the same hole--no matter how poor a decision it may or may not have been to place the bolt in the first place, the mere act of replacing the bolt may not do any further damage to the rock if the same hole is used. So it doesn't do any further harm, and may do people some good.
The current situation may not be so bad. The landowner has set specific rules that the climbing community signed off and agreed to in '86. If there is any further confusion, that puts the ball in the Preserve's court to clarify whether it is permitted to replace any specific bolt. The climbing community committed itself to play by the Preserve's rules in that meeting in '86. We should keep that committment, and we should also recognize those rules as a reasonable compromise position that can work to solve disagreements among ourselves.
To wit,
* The trad farts are guaranteed that sport weenies aren't allowed to place any further bolts
* In turn, the pro-bolt weenies are guaranteed that it's permitted to continue to enjoy the bolted routes that were put up before '86, and that some retro-fart won't come along and chop the bolts rendering a route unclimbable
Any questions?
I'm not saying I'm going to go out and replace bolts on Sente tomorrow either, but only because I'm not chomping at the bit to go climb Sente. But if I wanted to climb Sente badly enough and I didn't feel it was safe, and the Preserve said OK go ahead replace the bolts, I just might!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10270 - 10/28/03 01:11 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 2177
Loc: Berkshires, MA and Ahlington, ...
|
Charlie,
How would the GCC know if there is an overwhelming need? We would ask, of course, over a substantial cross section of the climbing groups who use the Gunks. We would also ask the managers/owners of the land.
The reason that the GCC is not jumping on this and developing a committee, etc. at this time(though the discussion continues), is that the Preserve has a policy that is quite clear and they have no intention of changing it in the near future. They have the last word on what goes on with their lands. It would be presumptuous of the GCC to develop something else that effectively changes their policy and assumes some responsibility and authority that we actually don't have.
You are correct that you, or anyone else, can go and replace the bolts on Sente or the rattly manky TransCon pin. The Preserve says that anyone can replace like gear, i.e. pins for pins or bolts for bolts, at anytime without prior clearance from them. You cannot replace a pin with a bolt, however.
So, given the hands off policy of the Preserve concerning replacement of pre-1986 fixed gear, I'm having trouble seeing the utility of expending the effort and resources of the GCC to set up something that has no authority and is potentially devisive within the community. This doesn't mean that at some point in the future the GCC won't become involved in some sort of fixed hardware review, but the policy makers along the Ridge have to see a need for it before that happens.
Now going,
Dizz
Edited by Dizzy (10/28/03 02:29 PM)
_________________________
I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's way too confining
-Lily Tomlin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10271 - 10/28/03 02:55 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Dizzy]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Following up on Dizzy's comment, I would like to steer the focus of the post a little. We all agree that at the Gunks there are a number of pieces of fixed gear (bolts or pins) in very bad shape, which are critical and difficult (or impossible) to back up. Given the current policy on fixed gear, why not take advantage of the freedom the preserve has given to climbers and go out and take care of these time bombs?
It's that time of the year when it starts to get cold and the ice is not yet in shape. In a couple of weeks there will be many fewer people climbing and it will be the ideal time for some "fixed-gear maintenance". I would be very happy to help identify and replace some fixed iron. If there are a few locals or otherwise dedicated Gunks aficionados who would be interested in pursuing this initiative, we could draft a plan of the fixed gear which we deem needs replacement. We could run it by a few climbing rangers (maybe they will want to get involved on a personal basis as well) and then do the job. In particular, it would be great if someone with experience in placing glue-in eye-bolts could help out. Next Spring, the protection on a few climbs may actually be more in tune with the current guidebook rating.
Examples of fixed gear which I think should be replaced are:
* A selection of the pitons on Thin Slabs Direct (not all, one or two good ones should suffice),
* The crux piton on the Fat City roof,
* Bolts on Sente,
* Second bolt on Carbs and Caffeine. The first bolt is not too great either (the hanger is not flush to the rock) but it can be backed up.
When making suggestions, it would help if people were very specific about which piece of fixed gear they are referring to. For example, Dizzy mentioned a piton on Transcon. I haven't climbed that route in the past two months, but if I remember correctly, there are at least three pitons on that climb. Also, none of these pitons is crucial, meaning that it cannot be backed up with modern gear (but so are the pitons on Roseland and they were replaced immediately after one of them pulled a couple of years ago). Obviously it's all a matter of opinion and that's why it's better to run these ideas by a few people. In the end, I think, it's better to end up with a couple of shiny unnecessary pitons than with broken bones.
If anyone is interested in pursuing this initiative, feel free to contact me by private message or e-mail or by posting a reply to this message.
Cheers,
Luca
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10272 - 10/28/03 04:09 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Dizzy]
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
Dizz, thanks for the reply. I'll have to defer to your experience on this one. However, while I may be "talking at cross-purposes with myself" (whatever that means) I still don't follow the reasoning. From what I have read "the Preserve has a policy that is quite clear and they have no intention of changing it in the near future" BUT... that policy is that there is no policy... which I guess can be considered a policy. Maybe if the task is too large for the GCC they can look into encouraging the preserve to at least consider it. Why has it replaced/added the anchors? My guess is to save trees, eliminate unsightly sling bundles and for safety. Why not the pins and bolts that are unsafe? We can wax poetic all we want about the true grit trad ethics of the Gunk's but when most of these pins were placed they were considered safe... and the people who followed the route carried that thought in true Gunk's style (even thought we know nothing to do with this sport is a guarantee when it comes to safety). Now, some of these pieces are outright dangerous. Is that in keeping with the nature of the climb? Personally, I don't think so. But like I said, I'll defer to the GC on this one. In re-reading this thread I see that you in no means indicate the GCC has closed this issue. Thanks.
C
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#10273 - 10/28/03 05:49 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- tread lightly
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
Be careful Luca -- I think you´re playing with fire here. While I do think some of the pins you mention could be replaced discretely, when climbers show up at the base of sente only to see a new string of bright shiny glue ins, someone is going to be pissed...
This is the problem, I think, with climbers electing themselves to the task and why we need a committee like ACE working in coalition with the Preserve and the GCC (if they´re not one and the same, of course). Many would insist that the bolts on Sente should stay where they are, as they are. Bolts are a slightly different situation than pins, due in no small part to the stigma they carry. After all, after a few years, that new pin you placed on, say, Thin Slabs, will -- superficially at least -- resemble many of the older pins in the trapps. Replacing those pins, I think, will do little to affect either the popularity or nature of many routes -- after all, I know plenty of leaders who never clip pins, ever. While I´m not trying to take this post in the direction of "should we retrobolt Sente or not", I think the fact that replacing some bolts will drammatically alter the character/popularity of a climb demands a thorough inquiry...and respect.
There are many issue to weigh in on here, be them safety concerns, the existence of old bolts as a history lesson, the commitment old bolts necessitate, what state to preserve a climb in or if to preserve it at all, and -- most importantly -- the implications such actions will have, both on the popularity of a climb and to the preserve as a whole.
My thoughts on the issue are a bit of a jumble at the moment, as you can probably tell, but I´ve long thought that the sente bolt issue is a controversy waiting to happen...much more so than pin replacement elsewhere in the preserve.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10275 - 10/28/03 07:05 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 2435
Loc: Republic of Davis
|
not having done TS direct recently enough, my memory might be hazy, but i remember the first pin being decent, the second pin, you would want a screamer or something, and the third pin was a huge joke. i clipped the first two and didnt even stop for the third which is right before you can swing your leg up onto the pedastool thing and rest anyways.
plus you could probably get some thin pieces up there, balck or blue alien or similar tiny cams
_________________________
Just Call me Mr. Enthusiasm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10276 - 10/28/03 08:33 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
|
Quote:
However, while I may be "talking at cross-purposes with myself" (whatever that means)
whatever, poor choice of words on my part. you seemed to be simultaneously making two contradictory points. *shrug* maybe we're all just confused here.
maybe i'm naive for hoping that some jerk wouldn't come along and chop bolts on sente as soon as they were replaced - even if the existing holes were used... but i'd like to think that in an ideal world such bullcrap wouldn't be necessary. like i said before, if i actually wanted to lead Sente badly enough, and there could be no way to convince people to get a committee going and get some sort of community "blessing" (whatever that means - a big can of worms since we've already seen that there are an infinite number of opinions) for bolting actions ahead of time, then why not just go out there and do what needs to be done to climb the route, given that the current preserve policy allows it.
and it's kind of a sad state of affairs that apparently people are so afraid of a backlash that maintaince of routes falls by the wayside. and if it really comes to that, then maybe a committee really is needed to prevent the backlash and allow work to be done. but personally, i have little patience for committees, would like to think that the existing rules allow productive solutions to route maintenance.
i'm in complete agreement with Dizz about the presumptuousness of forming a committee and the potential lack of authority of such a committee. if there's one renegade bolt cutter out there, that's all it takes to completely undermine the committee, just one disgruntled person.
We all like the sound of a committee because it's a fundamentally democratic process: everyone's opinion is considered and at the end of the day those who dissent are expected to play nice, shut up, and go along with the will of the majority. But what we're really afraid of is that someone like K.N. will come along and blow the committee out of the water.. and that's why you'll see a lot of people who won't feel that a committee is going to work until they have the evidence put before them in the form of that mythical 10,000 signature petition
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10277 - 10/28/03 08:35 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- tread lightly
[Re: MarcC]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Folks like Marc, Luca and Charlie understand the issue clearly.
The Preserve policy allows ANYONE to replace any current fixed pro that was originally placed prior to 1986.
End of story.
There is no official or secret Gunkie ethos or code to the replacement of these pieces. When old fixed pro becomes unreliable, it can be replaced.
There are no history or ethics lessons to be had in leaving time-bomb pins and bolts on the cliff. That argument is groundless in face of the fact that many pins and bolts have been replaced in the past. (Anyone really want to argue that the Arrow bolts should be left to rot so that no one will ever again rap-bolt a line like Crowther did?) (Also, keep in mind who placed many of these pins and bolts. Not renegade sport climbers. But typically long-time local legends.)
The effects of this hands-off approach is that some pieces get replaced and some are neglected -- with no overall ethic, rule or concensus taking part in this decision-making. This approach also does not discriminate against replacement of anchors by individuals with no skill to perform the task.
As for the GCC, it is in the process of establishing itself and already has a lot on its plate. I would hope that at some point in the future, the GCC can keep an open mind about this issue and see how it is a direct concern for the community (and thus the GCC). However, I don't think anyone should expect the GCC to jump into an active role on this issue anytime soon.
In the meantime, Luca is perfectly reasonable in making his suggestions.
Hell, if ANYONE can go out there and replace pro when and where they want ... at least why not have people who are bringing a thoughtful and intelligent approach?
Chazman stated clearly what the current policy is and why there are potential issues. In discussing something specific like the Sente bolts he never ventured out of the policy of the Preserve: replacement of pre-1986 fixed gear may be performed by anyone at anytime.
I really have no idea why people would be pissed at having new, solid bolts replacing the old ones on Sente. Who was pissed when the Never Never Land bolt was replaced?
And that right there is why there is something wrong with the Preserve policy. It leaves a vacuum. And in that vacuum, a few people get to express their personal philosophies about Gunks ethics and history through replacement or non-replacement.
Is there any legitimate reason why the Fat City pin should not be replaced? The only potential reason I can think of is that replacement may not be possible. If that's the case, so be it. But I have never heard anyone make that argument. This situation and others seem more to boil down the argument that, "I had to climb the route in that condition ... so everyone else should have to!"
So ... given that the Preserve has this policy ... and that the GCC will not be involved in pre-1986 gear replacement anytime soon, it's perfectly acceptable, reasonable and legitimate for climbers to make assessments and make replacements.
And I think it would be much better to ENCOURAGE the people who want to go about this work in a thoughtful, intelligent and skilled manner ... as opposed to naysaying and leaving the whole replacement thing to a completely random and arbitrary approach.
If any Gunks climber has strong feelings about whether certain fixed pro should or should not be replaced, you have no ethical or historical backing in the current Preserve policy. Any Gunks climbers with strong feelings about pre-1986 fixed pro should be urging one or more of the following: 1) The Preserve to change its policy. 2) The GCC to get involved in the issue. 3) To join, coordinate or support thoughtful, intelligent, skilled and concensus-arrived decisions on the replacement of unreliable anchors.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10278 - 10/28/03 10:57 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
|
member
Registered: 10/27/01
Posts: 122
Loc: the south, the north, the east...
|
Quote:
Examples of fixed gear which I think should be replaced are:
* A selection of the pitons on Thin Slabs Direct (not all, one or two good ones should suffice),
Replacing the pitons on Thin Slabs DIrect would reduce the boldness of the climb. There ARE gear placements on the traverse if you feel that the middle pin is thin. I agree, the third pin is terrible but who has the time to bother to clip it and if you do (even to protect your second) WHY?
PS Is anybody else having deja-vu over this thread?
_________________________
"hrumph... I've got rocks at home to clean." - Marge Simpson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10279 - 10/29/03 02:39 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: cranken]
|
old hand
Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
PS Is anybody else having deja-vu over this thread?
Hell no! Rap stations have been beat to death... this is uncharted waters (for me anyway). Was I the only one who didn't know there was no policy on the replacement of fixed pro at the Gunk's? Or that anyone can replace an existing piece if they want? That's a little scary (IMHO)... but I guess it's gone on without issue this long so...
What I do find interesting is why can places like Yosemite (which has a long history) go through a process of replacing old and dangerous fixed gear without incident but if you mention replacing the dangerous bolts on Sente it conjures up images of midnight chopping and a complete breakdown of the climbing society?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10280 - 10/29/03 02:01 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: chazman]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
|
I think the valid point that is being made somewhere in here by a few people is that the Preserve has a policy of allowing climbers to replace (or not replace) fixed gear BUT that doesn't prevent us as climbers from establishing a decision making process and procedure for getting this done as a group, if for no other reason than to share the cost.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10281 - 10/29/03 02:56 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: dalguard]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
To clarify my previous post:
First, as MarcC pointed out, I may have defined retrobolting wrong -- would rebolting be better? My bad...big oops.
Second, my problem with the Sente issue is not that it shouldn´t be REbolted or that I´m against modernizing ancient bolts -- just that there are a number of issues we need to take into account here and I don´t think Sente is a black and white "this must be rebolted" climb. Why? Because, with a string (3) of bolts so low to the ground on a moderate climb, near well traveled neighbors, rebolting Sente will -- be it good or bad -- bring a large degree of new attention onto that route. I AM worried about the possible consequences of that attention and think we need to consider any possibilities BEFORE we rebolt a route. That´s all -- I, for one, have conflicting opinions about the whole thing.
I could continue to rant off on safeclimbing.org, but I´m gonna cut it short...
And, chaz, I too think its funny that, in the Gunks, rebolting Sente seemingly fortells climbing armageddon...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10282 - 10/29/03 05:28 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: paborden]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
A number of posts have suggested that fear of opprobrium has restricted the replacement of anchors. Though we have no way of knowing what motivates or restrains individuals, I suspect that lack of time, lack of interest, lack of equipment, and lack of expertise are far more likely explanations. Even to replace a fixed pin, you have to do the climb, note that the pin is bad, and come back with hammer, pitons, and probably a a wire "funkness sling" in order to remove the old pin and install a new one. It's not like the old days, when everyone had this stuff on their rack and (more or less) knew how to use it. So only a few "public spirited" individuals are ever going to be involved with anchor replacement, even in the case of fixed pins, and bolt replacement is a whole 'nother story.
I still feel that individuals who claim to be acting in the public interest may or may not be doing things that are beneficial for the evolution of climbing on the crag. Even if things start out reasonably, there seems to be an almost inevitable trend for the public-spirited to find new outlets for their good works, sometimes by reinterpreting their original mission. The bolts on Mainline are an example of the Preserve exceeding all its self-proclaimed parameters, and the Anchor Subcommittee is presumably more self-critical than either individual climbers or guides, whose perspective may be influenced by the need for commercially viable routes.
As for (retro)bolting, I have some concerns about the current "anyone can replace anything" situation. Although there is some of hope in judging a really badly placed pin, it is virtually impossible to tell whether a bolt has been properly placed. Yeah, I know there are some obvious characteristics that signal a poor placement, but many placements can be substandard without looking any different than good placements, for example placements in which the bolt has been under- or over-torqued or in which the hole is marginally too shallow or has been insufficiently cleaned. The history of sport-climbing suggests that bolts can tolerate a fair amount of improper installation, because not that many fail, and we can be pretty certain that only a minority were installed with, say, a torque wrench to make sure they were properly tightened. But the Gunks is not a sport crag and I question whether we really want to say---as we do, in effect, now---to anyone with the bucks for a Hilti, "upgrade my climbs, oh motorized one!"
There is also a second replacement issue, much more controversial. There has never been a history of chopping in the Gunks, which is not to say it hasn't happened. In general, the climbing community has tolerated a few stray bolts, even if the general consensus was that the bolts shouldn't have been placed. But that was in the days when it was inconceivable that there would ever be more than a few stray bolts. As legacy bolts and pins deteriorate, it seems to me appropriate for the community to ask once again whether these anchors are needed. My personal answer is that (1) pins that can be replaced by adequate passive pro should not be replaced. (Adequate has to be defined, of course. I wouldn't consider a single small alien "adequate," although a combination of small cams and/or other gear might be. Put another way, the protection rating shouldn't change.) (2) Bolted climbs that are substantially outside the trad ethic of the cliff should be allowed to gracefully disappear, meaning the dangerous old bolts should be removed, the holes patched, and the climb relagated to top-rope status. This is, in my opinion, exactly what should happen to Sente, but not, say, to Arrow. Partially this is because Arrow is a classic and Sente is just a "fill-in," and partially this is because that bolts placed on the lead were always part of the trad approach, and legacy climbs whose bolts could have been placed on the lead are more appropriate to a trad area than those that could only have been bolted on rappel.
As I've already said, there is no Preserve guideline about fixed anchors that enjoins someone from returning Sente to the top-rope status I think it deserves. This raises an interesting question: How long does a fixed anchor have to be gone before it loses its status as a replaceable entity?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#10283 - 10/29/03 05:44 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
As always, rg, well said  and, as should be obvious from my previous posts, I share many of your concerns. The inevitable response to a route like Sente should be, "its unsafe in its current state, someone could get seriously hurt." As long as this statement isn´t taken to its extreme -- after all, climbing will ALWAYS be dangerous -- I thinks its a reasonable one. While we can always try to absolve ourselves of responsibility by citing another climber´s ignorance for jumping on, say, Sente, I don´t think that entirely absolves the community (in this particular case). But that´s a loaded question...worthy of much thought. However, there are three ways, as far as I can tell, of making Sente "safe" -- 1) educate new leaders as to the fact that a Sente lead may be the same as a solo in its current state 2) rebolt it 3) chop it. #1 seems impossible...what about our other options? I think that we all agree on one thing though -- whether a route is chopped or has its fixed gear updated, if its gonna be done, let´s make sure its done right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10284 - 10/29/03 05:58 PM
Re: Mountains out of mole hills? Hey, Chicken Little, the sky is falling?
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4237
|
Poll
How many people here have a rack of pitons and a hammer and know how to use them?
How many people here own a drill suitable for placing bolts, the components to place a bolt, and the know-how to do so?
How many people who answered affirmatively to the previous questions have any intention of replacing pins or bolts that they, themselves deem unsatisfactory?
How many people here believe a piton that they, themselves,did not place provides them trustworthy and reliable protection on a climb?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10285 - 10/29/03 07:01 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: strat]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Poll
How many people here have a rack of pitons and a hammer and know how to use them?
How many people here own a drill suitable for placing bolts, the components to place a bolt, and the know-how to do so?
How many people who answered affirmatively to the previous questions have any intention of replacing pins or bolts that they, themselves deem unsatisfactory?
How many people here believe a piton that they, themselves,did not place provides them trustworthy and reliable protection on a climb?
All non-starter questions. In the Gunks area there are people who know how to replace pins and bolts and do so from time to time.
Far more pressing and relevant questions are ones such as RG has raised. Given the vacuum of the Preserve policy allowing anyone to replace a pin or bolt, the issue boils down to what pieces are appropriate to replace and which ones are not.
Personally, I agree with almost everything RG has stated. However, I'm not in complete agreement with his rationale for not replacing the Sente bolts. His criteria on this route seems to be more based on the aesthetics of a line than with how it was originally created. I'm a little confused by that. Sente bolts and Arrow bolts were both placed on rappel by the same person. Both routes have bolts that *could* have be placed on lead, but were not. RG's assessment is that the Sente bolts should be left to rot, while Arrow's should remain. His criteria being that Arrow is a classic and Sente is a "fill-in."
I'm not saying RG's criteria is wrong. But it points out the crux of the issue. Everyone's got different criteria for what should get replaced and what shouldn't.
Yes, replacing anchors is a pain and it's time consuming and only a few of us know how to do it. But when it boils down to a lack of time and motivation ... then I really do think what pieces of pro get replaced really depends on what any particuarl individual thinks should or should not get replaced. If you're thinking about investing the time to replace a piece, you are naturally going to choose a piece or pieces that YOU feel should be replaced and you are not going to invest time replacing something you think is unnecessary or something that you feel goes against your own sense of the area's ethics.
More important poll questions would also include:
Do you think the current Preserve policy concerning in-situ gear is adequate?
Do you think guidelines should be created for the replacement of in-situ protection?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10286 - 10/29/03 07:04 PM
Mountains Out of Mole Hills.
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4237
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Same opinions stated over and over again and no facts.
They are NOT non-starter questions because these questions are root-cause questions. The assertions that have been made in this thread is that people are running around willy nilly irresponsibly replacing gear or will at any given moment. The questions get at the basis of a "problem" that is perceived to exist that is being discussed by an incredibly small population of the gunks community on this discussion board.
Get to the facts at the base of a problem first, then build solutions if a problem exists only after the facts are in place.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10287 - 10/29/03 07:08 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: strat]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Same opinions stated over and over again and no facts.
Could you elaborate more specifically what opinions you are referring to?
What facts are you seeking?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10290 - 10/29/03 07:24 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: rg@ofmc]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
(1) pins that can be replaced by adequate passive pro should not be replaced. (Adequate has to be defined, of course. I wouldn't consider a single small alien "adequate," although a combination of small cams and/or other gear might be. Put another way, the protection rating shouldn't change.)
I think this is a very appropriate type of guideline. Why bang in new pins where they are no longer necessary?
(2) Bolted climbs that are substantially outside the trad ethic of the cliff should be allowed to gracefully disappear, meaning the dangerous old bolts should be removed, the holes patched, and the climb relagated to top-rope status.
I also think this is an appropriate guideline. I'm just not sure if I completely agree with your example of Sente, but I get yur point. Maybe a more clear example would be Beer and Loathing? Ultimately, in the Trapps and Near Trapps, I don't think there are many routes that were bolted that far out of the local ethic. Anyone know of other routes that would fall into this description?
Carbs? Yellow Wall? Never Never Land?
This raises an interesting question: How long does a fixed anchor have to be gone before it loses its status as a replaceable entity?
An interesting question, indeed! I guess anything pre-1986 retains this status as long as there is some remainder of the piece. There may even be some issue of references in guidebooks. For a piece to actually lose this status for replacement, I would imagine it would have to rot into oblivion and have no mention of it in any guidebooks.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10292 - 10/29/03 10:57 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2025
Loc: SoCal
|
Quote:
(2) Bolted climbs that are substantially outside the trad ethic of the cliff should be allowed to gracefully disappear, meaning the dangerous old bolts should be removed, the holes patched, and the climb relagated to top-rope status.
I also think this is an appropriate guideline. I'm just not sure if I completely agree with your example of Sente, but I get yur point.
Sente's current state royally ticks me off.
I'm in the shit-or-get-off-the-pot camp: either pull the existing bolts, disguise the holes, remove it from the guidebook ... or re-bolt it.
Standing below it, looking up and having that carrot of a route dangled in front of me just because some "ethics" quandry left it that way (read: unclimbable) as a testament to moral indecision and hand-wringing ... just disgusts me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10293 - 10/29/03 11:09 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Julie]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
|
Quote:
Standing below it, looking up and having that carrot of a route dangled in front of me just because some "ethics" quandry left it that way (read: unclimbable) as a testament to moral indecision and hand-wringing ... just disgusts me.
On and off I've talked to some of the folks doing the bolt replacements over the years. Sente was/is on most people's list. It's more a matter of not getting around to it rather than ethical quandry. If I hadn't moved (to someplace where bolting is pretty much accepted (and bolt replacement is a total non-issue; there's an ASCA donation can at Black Diamond, REI, IME, and Kirkhams)) I'd have replaced the Sente bolts myself - or at least put in belay slave duty.
_________________________
- Marc
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10295 - 10/30/03 02:51 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Julie]
|
veteran
Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
|
Julie, I've led it. Todd just led it a couple of weeks ago. Sure those bolts aren't great but I bet they're as good as blue aliens.
I'd just like to know if those bolts were *ever* considered great before I vote for replacing them. Does anyone know if, in their day, those bolts represented the ultimate in safety or did they always look homemade and suspect?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10296 - 10/30/03 02:55 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Mike Rawdon]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 362
Loc: On the road...
|
Yeah...Sente IS leadable -- it just depends on what level of risk you´re willing to accept or, like many leaders, be oblivious to. In response to your post, Mike: I find it much more likely that, should the bolts on the route be stripped, someone will go and rebolt it. And I don´t like the idea of bolt wars at all, especially those that run in reverse...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10297 - 10/30/03 06:55 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: paborden]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
I've already expressed my personal preference for letting Sente fade into the obscurity it has always deserved by removing the bad bolts, patching the holes, and making no replacements.
BUT, if we really can't do without this thoroughly artificial "lead," then the bolts should be replaced. In my opinion, there is absolutely no justification for a climb that is dangerous by design. If the climb is naturally protected and nature dictates that the protection is sketchy, than that is the way the climb was meant to be. But to purposely manufacture a dangerous climb, or to purposely allow a manufactured climb to become dangerous, is sociopathic at best. Confronting natural danger is part of the essence of trad climbing, but manufacturing danger on purpose is stupid, with apologies (by no means heartfelt) to all the so-called extreme sports and TV shoes that do exactly that.
Consequently, I cannot agree with Dawn that maybe Sente should be left as is if the bolts were always questionable. By current standards, they were always questionable, because bolting technology has, like all other climbing technologies, evolved and our understanding of bolts has evolved. In retrospect, the bolts may never have been very good, and they are certainly now much worse. If you lead this climb, you have absolutely no idea how much impact those bolts will take. Small aliens are extremely hard to judge accurately, but I'd much rather deal with that situation, where I place the pro and arrive at a judgement based on whatever objective observations I can bring to bear, rather than the pure russian roulette of clipping old bolts.
I also think Julie's complaint about ethical handwringing is way off base. The fact is that rebolting is a lot of work and no one cares that much about Sente, and for good reason. I really don't think fear of reaction is holding anyone back, because there isn't going to be any reaction, other than the gratitude of those souls whose life isn't complete until they "lead" Sente.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10300 - 10/30/03 07:42 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Julie]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I have one question regarding the replacement of fixed pitons. Some climbs sport two pitons right next to each other: the crux of Coex comes to mind or the two pitons at the corner move on Feast of Fools (P1). In particular, in the case of Feast of Fools one of the pitons is much "younger" than the other. Was one placed as a backup for the other piton in a nearby crack instead of replacing the older one? It seems strange that the first ascentionists would have placed both pitons at that spot, especially in the Coex case where they are both very solid placements. Is this yet another tolerated exception to the hard and fast no retrogear rule? I understand the preserve agreement with the climbing community, but what is the general practice that is accepted for piton replacement? Use the same hole or add another piton and wait for the older one to rot away? Obviously, the issue is much more straightforward for bolts.
Cheers,
Luca
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10302 - 10/30/03 08:41 PM
Re: Mountains out of mole hills?
[Re: strat]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4237
|
Survey Results to date are as follows:
# of people who have responded that they have a rack of pitons, a hammer, and know how to use them?
Zero
# of people who have responded that they own a drill suitable for placing bolts, the components to place a bolt, and the know-how to do so?
Zero
# of people who answered affirmatively to the previous questions have any intention of replacing pins or bolts that they, themselves deem unsatisfactory?
Zero but, a recognition that people are doing it and are following the preserve's guidelines.
Sounds to me like the grounds to form a committee....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10304 - 10/30/03 09:32 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2320
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
It seems strange that the first ascentionists would have placed both pitons at that spot, especially in the Coex case where they are both very solid
I have some inside knowledge about what the first free ascentionists did in this case, which is clip into the two pins already in place from the first (aid) ascent. The two pins together looked manky enough at the time---long soft steel horizontals whose eyes had been hammered down until they touched the rock so as to reduce leverage---for the party to place a backup angle in the good horizontal at the top of the little arch. (Perhaps I should add that this was several years before any kind of nuts were available!)
As for FoF, it seems clear that a good pin was placed near a questionable one. If you think about a leader leading the pitch, of course he/she isn't going to remove the bad pin (unless it comes out in the hand). The question is then whether the second is going to hang on in order to remove the bad pin, and the answer has obviously been no. In fact, the manky pin may be worth something. I led FoF this early this spring and I clipped both pins (one with each of my doubles). Those pins protect the hardest moves and are in a critical position---the next piece is a long way down. Any time you are staring a major catastrophe in the eye, you should be happy for a little redundance, however questionable, and I suppose that is why both pins are still there.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10307 - 10/30/03 11:32 PM
Re: Mountains out of mole hills?
[Re: strat]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
|
Quote:
Survey Results to date are as follows:
# of people who have responded that they have a rack of pitons, a hammer, and know how to use them?
Zero
# of people who have responded that they own a drill suitable for placing bolts, the components to place a bolt, and the know-how to do so?
Zero
# of people who answered affirmatively to the previous questions have any intention of replacing pins or bolts that they, themselves deem unsatisfactory?
Zero but, a recognition that people are doing it and are following the preserve's guidelines.
Well, if you insist....
#1: piton rack - yes (ask Crackers or cfa about some of the amusing historical items in my basement);
hammer - yes;
know-how - yes
#2: own a drill - yes (hand drill), but I'd use an electric on Gunks rock;
have components - used to (easily obtained);
know-how - highly restricted yes - I know enough to place them for emergency retreat, but I wouldn't want to place one as part of a rebolting effort that many others will rely on
#3: I have in the past and if still living within Gunks range, would consider doing so - depends on the route/placement/etc. My big criteria is that replacement is warranted if
- it is impossible to get trad gear in that is as reliable as a pin
- using trad gear drastically alters the nature of the route from the way it's traditionally been done (eg: the trad placement is so low that now a fall will likely result in a broken ankle)
I'm already on record regarding the maligned Sente. Again, it really would depend on the specific situation. And although there might not have been any responses to your survey, I know a lot of folks on this forum could answer yes at least as many times as I did.
_________________________
- Marc
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10308 - 10/30/03 11:38 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others? -- A call to action
[Re: Mike Rawdon]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Pointed question - would anyone reading this chop the route if it were rebolted tomorrow? (or know anyone who would likely do so) Note that KN is banned from the Trapps AFAIK.
That's an interesting question. I tend to doubt it. Especially with KN and BR not in action these days.
Beyond that is another interesting question ...
Is it against Preserve policy in any way to chop or remove replacement pins and bolts? Is it against Preserve policy to chop or remove the original pre-1986 gear and NOT replace it?
The policy only specifies that old fixed gear can be *replaced*.
Fortunately, with the lack of the strident anti-bolt people, it seems like the area has avoided the quandry of old fixed gear being replaced ... only to be pulled ... to then be re-replaced .. and then pulled again ... a fixed gear war so to speak.
With the popularity of the Gunks and the overcrowding and the waves of new climbers unfamiliar with history of climbing ethics and bolt wars ... it may be that even with a lack of specific fixed gear guidelines, we might not see confrontations over old gear replacements.
Until, maybe, someone replaces the pin on Fat City.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10309 - 10/31/03 03:19 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: chazman]
|
stranger
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 7
|
Can someone point to an example of where a replacement of fixed gear was done irresponsibly. Cuz, the way I see it, if it ain't broke, why bother wasting time to fix it? And until there is evidence that the people who are replacing fixed gear are causing damage then it ain't broke.
If the concern is that new people to the area will start doing bad things then it's the Perserve's job to make sure their policy is more clear.
This is simply a non-issue.
Here's a thought question.
The pitons that exist at the gunks are hold-overs from a time when climber's regularly and routinely used pitons. Those days, at urban crags, are long behind us. So, is our reliance on fixed pins a bit of a contradiction when we talk about the clean climbing revolution and all that it stands for? In other words, if an old-school climber who lived in the piton days but had the revelation that pitons were evil and started climbing with nuts only, then with hexes, then with slcds, but still clips the pins and wants the old pins to be replaced, haven't they truly not embraced "clean climbing" ethics???
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10310 - 10/31/03 07:28 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Icerockman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Can someone point to an example of where a replacement of fixed gear was done irresponsibly. Cuz, the way I see it, if it ain't broke, why bother wasting time to fix it? And until there is evidence that the people who are replacing fixed gear are causing damage then it ain't broke.
If the concern is that new people to the area will start doing bad things then it's the Perserve's job to make sure their policy is more clear.
This is simply a non-issue.
Here's a thought question.
The pitons that exist at the gunks are hold-overs from a time when climber's regularly and routinely used pitons. Those days, at urban crags, are long behind us. So, is our reliance on fixed pins a bit of a contradiction when we talk about the clean climbing revolution and all that it stands for? In other words, if an old-school climber who lived in the piton days but had the revelation that pitons were evil and started climbing with nuts only, then with hexes, then with slcds, but still clips the pins and wants the old pins to be replaced, haven't they truly not embraced "clean climbing" ethics???
This is not really an argument about clean climbing vs. non-clean climbing.
Pre-1986 can be replaced by anyone at anytime. Some of us are wondering if this is the best sort approach toward old fixed gear. Period.
Yes, it's true that for the most part, people who have replaced old gear (and we're talking bolts as well, not just pins) have done it well. However, the Preserve policy leaves open the possibility that poor replacement or poorly *thought-out* or *unnecessary* replacements could happen in the future.
Your comments about replacing unnecessary fixed gear is absolutely valid. But that precisely one of the issues that is being discussed here.
The Gunks has retained a strong clean climbing ethic since it was introduced by John Stannard. And that's why some of us think a few guidelines for replacing gear coud help. You are exactly right in pointing out that people should not rely on pins (old, new or otherwise) when there are possibilities for placing clean pro.
But the current Preserve policy does not take this into account and does not take into account that modern gear can often provide adequate protection now where old pin placements were required. The current Preserve policy allows anyone to replace a pin even if it's no longer necessary to protect the route.
Most of us here would like to see unnecessary pins NOT be replaced.
Now, it's likely that most of these unnecessary pins will not be replaced. But different climbers have different opinions about these fixed pieces and at any time, anyone is allowed to replace a pin or bolt, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Will this happen for sure? I don't know. But it's happened a few times in the past. I have seen poor pin placements (belay pins on Roseland which were later yanked) and a few pins replaced that were no longer necessary.
Then there is the fact that there are plenty of pins (and some bolts) that are in fact necessary to protect certain sections of certain routes. If you can figure out a way to protect the roof of Fat City without the pin, please let me know!
Please keep in mind that most, if not all, the people involved in this discussion are trad climbers skilled in placing protection. No one here is looking for the "convenience" of clipping pins. Most of here know how to evaluate a pin. Most of us usually back pin placements up with our own gear. Personally, I climbed in the Gunks for 8 years, everything from 5.3 to 5.12, all trad, and I never sought out pins to make leading easier. On some climbs, however, an old pin (or bolt) can be all that you have. In these cases there aren't clean gear options. These pieces were the protection for the FFA and they are still necessary to protect the route in the fashion in which it was first climbed. From time to time these pieces of gear get replaced. From comments here, I gather some of us would like to see more regularity in these sorts of replacements. Of course, it remains to be seen if bringing any extra degree of reliability or regularity to these replacements is even feasible. But one never knows. When people share their thoughts, communicate, ideas are exchanged and a sense of community tends to increase. And often things get done when no one previously thought anything could possibly get done.
(I witnessed this happen over and over again with the CCC in New York. Climbers can often be pessimisstic and solitary by nature. They often don't believe anything favorable or productive can get accomplished until it actually happens.)
In the end, I'm willing to accept the possibility that the satus quo might be good enough. The current Preserve policy might be what the majority of the community wants or feels adequate.
But I do think it's an important discussion. With the reality of lost access and threats to current access, and with the advent of the GCC, the Gunks (I hope) is slowly becoming an area with an increased awareness of the climbing community as a whole, and an awareness that certain issues are better addressed by approaching them as a community. Personally, I believe that any time the community can take responsibility for its impact on the cliffs and manage itself, the less others (land managers and such) will feel the need to manage things for us.
Maybe the fixed gear thing is one of these issues. Maybe it's not. But it's worth talking about. That will at least give more of us a sense of what others are thinking.
And yes, if the community has a sense that the current Preserve policy needs some amending or guidelines, then the Preserve needs to actually be a part of implementing that change. However, the Preserve is not a climbing organization. They don't necessarily have the same perspective or opinion or insight on climbing issues that the local climbing community might. It's really the responsibility of the climbing community, if it feels something needs to be addressed, to bring it to the attention of the Preserve. Climbing coaltions are simply formalized groups to represent the concerns of climbers. They work when they have strong relationships with land owners and managers. They are the primary conduit between the climbers and land managers. They attempt to increase awareness in the climbing community about land managment issues ... and increase awareness among the land managers about climbing related issues. Information needs to go both ways.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10311 - 10/31/03 10:05 PM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
stranger
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 7
|
When was the last time you actually climbed at the gunks?
The pins that aren't "needed" are removed by relic hunters and/or are rotting away. The pins that are "needed" are being replaced.
This is a non-issue.
The only way it becomes an issue is if someone doesn't understand the policy. Therefore, the issue is to educate people about the policy.
The pin on Fat City isn't necessary. Why isn't it necessary? Because everyone who climbs it and clips it recognizes that it has little or no protection value with or without a screamer. Yet, that route is climbed, constantly.
And, whether you like it or not, if we are still heavily reliant on these pieces of rotting iron, we have not embraced clean climbing.......
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10312 - 11/02/03 07:14 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Icerockman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
You think this is a non-issue. Others do. I'm not 100 percent sure if it is ... or isn't.
Most important is for people like you and everyone else to voice their opinion.
The pins that aren't "needed" are removed by relic hunters and/or are rotting away. The pins that are "needed" are being replaced.
Pins that are required to retain the same protection rating as the FFA get replaced ... sometimes. It took a looooong time for someone to replace the one on Feast of Fools. And no one has replaced the Fat City pin.
Pins that aren't necessary, yeah, they generally fade away. But the Preserve policy allows them to be replaced. You have noticed that the Roseland traverse pins get replaced from time to time.
The pin on Fat City isn't necessary. Why isn't it necessary? Because everyone who climbs it and clips it recognizes that it has little or no protection value with or without a screamer. Yet, that route is climbed, constantly.
That's a bit ofsophistry ... or odd logic. As long as anyone is willing to free-solo a route, no bit of gear is ever needed.
For many years, the old pin at the crux of Feast of Fools was mankier than the Fat City pin. Lots of people climbed the route. So, according to your logic, that pin was unnecessary. Yet, it was eventually replaced.
The point is not whether people can climb a particular route without the original fixed gear or not ... it's whether the route retains the same approximate protection rating as it was put up.
Surely you wouldn't advocate someone adding bolts or pins to make a route go safer than it was when first climbed. I have trouble understanding your insistence that some routes should be more dangerous than they were when they were first put up.
A pin on something like Fat City is not "necessary" to climb it. That's obvious. I too have climbed the route as it is. A replacement is only necessary to retain the ability of climbers to climb the route in the condition and style it was originally established.
And, whether you like it or not, if we are still heavily reliant on these pieces of rotting iron, we have not embraced clean climbing.......
The fact is, we are not heavily reliant on pins and bolts in the Gunks. Quite the opposite in fact. The Gunks obviously has a strong tradition and ethic regarding clean climbing. It's virtually impossible to climb at the Gunks and rely heavily, if at all, on pins and bolts. But here and there are a few classics that were establishedwith a pin or bolt ... Carbs and Caffeine, Fat City, Arrow, Never Never Land, Pas De Deux, etc. I mean, heck, with the advent of small camming units, the pin on Foops didn't really need to be replaced .... but it was.
Obviously there's not a ton of routes that need the old fixed gear to retain the original level or protection. But there are some. It's not a big issue. But some of us just wonder if there's a more sensible approach to replacing it ... or not.
I guess a hypothetical question for some would be ... if Fat City (or substitute another
The only way it becomes an issue is if someone doesn't understand the policy. Therefore, the issue is to educate people about the policy.
That might be all that's necessary. But there's not a lot to understand about the policy. On Preserve property, anyone can replace any pre-1986 piece. Period.
Personally, I think it would be more beneficial to use the pre-1986 fixed gear policy as a jumping off point to create a broader education. Every year, with the growing crowds, more and more new climbers are visiting the Gunks. How many of them know where this in-situ gear came from ... how many understand the clean climbing/minimal impact ethic? How many rely too much on in-situ gear? How many know how to evaluate an old pin? How many will back these pins up?
We can't make new (or old) climbers climb safer. But it's certainly worth a try to make everyone as aware as possible to the unique and special qualities of the area.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10313 - 11/03/03 12:25 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: LesterLeBlanc]
|
stranger
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 7
|
<<A replacement is only necessary to retain the ability of climbers to climb the route in the condition and style it was originally established. >>
If the pin was placed by the first ascentionist, then, by using your logic, the pins should be gone and we should all carry pins and hammers, because that is what the first ascentionist faced, I know, I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to hang out and hammer that f'n pin in when I led it.............Of course, I know many of the hard routes were aid lines so there were probably in-situ gear by the true FA'ers or their repeat ascents.....
<<How many of them know where this in-situ gear came from ... how many understand the clean climbing/minimal impact ethic? How many rely too much on in-situ gear? How many know how to evaluate an old pin? How many will back these pins up? >>
These are all questions that should NOT be answered by a committee of people who judge when and wether a pin should be replaced or not and then do the replacing.
You are in essence asking this committee to take over some of the individual's climber's responsibility in protecting themselves with the resident gear they come upon on the cliff.
The questions you asked are more appropriately addressed by the preserve (better) publicizing its policy on fixed protection and perhaps some very very very general reminders about the dangers implicit in climbing......
Again, I ask the question, when was the last time you climbed at the gunks? I admit to being a resident climber here only over the past 8 years so I don't know what it was like back in the day, but, I know very few people who rely heavily on any of the pins and I know fewer people who carry a hammer, which is necessary to properly evaluate the utility of a pin.
I don't ask this to be inflammatory, but, rather to try to undestand where a difference in ideas is coming from.....
Bolts are an entirely different story. And, practically speaking, there is even much less of a threat of random people chopping and re-bolting then there is of repinning being done.....Have you ever placed a bolt with a hand drill? oy vey, that's alot of work. Can you afford a HILTI, know many climber's that can????
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#10314 - 11/03/03 09:03 AM
Re: Why some bolts and not others?
[Re: Icerockman]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 1914
Loc: Los Angeles
|
These are all questions that should NOT be answered by a committee of people who judge when and wether a pin should be replaced or not and then do the replacing.
You are in essence asking this committee to take over some of the individual's climber's responsibility in protecting themselves with the resident gear they come upon on the cliff.
What committee are you talking about? Education about issues affecting the climbers in the Gunks is an ongoing effort by the GCC. But that's it. Toward the specific issue of fixed gear, I have mentioned the possibility of guidelines for replacement. Guidelines that would add more specificity to the Preserve open replacement policy. These guidelines would have no impact on the personal responsibility of climbers. The only specific approach I have even tried to formulate is one of a review policy ... whereby a climber in the community brings up the possibility of replacing an old piece of fixed gear. Under current Preserve policy such a climber has nothing to prevent him from replacing the piece at will. But if a few basic guidelines were set up, that climber would have to meet some basic criteria before going off and replacing the piece of gear. Honestly, I don't know if even this minimalist approach would work. I have stressed several times that the GCC is currently very busy with many fundamental programs to make itself viable as a local advocacy group for the climbing community. At this point it does not have the ability nor the time, and more importantly, it does not have the authority to manage a fixed gear committee. If the GCC were to ever get involved in this, first it would have to find out if there was a broad concensus from the local community. Personally, I do think any climber impact on the cliff is a GCC concern. But I don't have any definitive answers as to how the GCC could best help implement a responsible, productive fixed gear management policy. And you know what? Even if tomorrow, the Preserve and the GCC created a fixed gear management committee and supervised the replacement of fixed gear, this would not take over one iota of individual climber responsibility. It doesn't matter if a climber comes upon an old manky pin, or a brand-spanking new pin ... each climber is responsible for evaluating that point of protection no matter what it's apparent condition. But such a committee as you mention is not in the works and I doubt it ever will be. Again, I ask the question, when was the last time you climbed at the gunks? I admit to being a resident climber here only over the past 8 years so I don't know what it was like back in the day, but, I know very few people who rely heavily on any of the pins and I know fewer people who carry a hammer, which is necessary to properly evaluate the utility of a pin.
The last time I climbed in the Gunks was about when you started climbing in the Gunks. I would hardly call that "back in the day." Yeah, the best way to truly evaluate a pin is to have a hammer with you, but even without one, it's possible to get a pretty good idea on how solid a pin is. A good rap with a carabiner usually will let you know if there is a solid "ring" to the pin. That and some visual inspection can give you a basic idea if the pin is generally okay or utter crap. If the pin was placed by the first ascentionist, then, by using your logic, the pins should be gone and we should all carry pins and hammers, because that is what the first ascentionist faced, I know, I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to hang out and hammer that f'n pin in when I led it... That's not by my logic. Because I could never defend that argument. That sort of thinking would require all of us to carrying a bolting kit and rebolt ever bolt we come across ... even if it's on a sport route. No one climbing a route after the FFA will ever put in the same effort that the first ascensionist did. The ethic on climbing established routes does not require you put in exactly the same effort the first ascensionist did (re-pinning and re-bolting), but that you do not attempt to alter the route from the manner in which it was established. Or use any types of assistance that did not occur on the FFA (hangdogging, pre-inspection, as pertains). Of course, I know many of the hard routes were aid lines so there were probably in-situ gear by the true FA'ers or their repeat ascents..... Which, in the Gunks, encompasses much of the fixed gear found on many of the routes we have been discussing. Bolts are an entirely different story. In what way are they entirely different? And, practically speaking, there is even much less of a threat of random people chopping and re-bolting then there is of repinning being done..... Given the hardness of Gunks conglomerate, you would think this was true. But looking back at the bolts war of the 80s, people were far more apt to put time and effort into bolting, chopping and re-bolting than replacing pins. Can you afford a HILTI, know many climber's that can???? I can afford a HILTI. A lot of climbers out here in the west own them. But I don't think that's part of the issue. There are few bolts in the Gunks. But those few (like on Arrow, Never Never Land, and C&C) seem to get replaced with more regularity than the pins. I don't know what it was like back in the day, but, I know very few people who rely heavily on any of the pins ... I don't know if there ever was a time when Gunks climbers relied heavily on pins. Except maybe the era when many of these climbs were created with aid. Or maybe the era in the 60s when many aid lines were being freed with the original aid pins still in place. Even then, I doubt people like RG, McCarthy, Williams and crew were really *relying* on these pins. They had to make individual choices and decisions just like all of us have to. If they didn't like the original fixed gear they found, they made a decision to either live with it or back it up. (As RG has recently mentioned about his FFA of Coex.) After the arrival of Stannard, clean climbing was here to stay. If I have said anything that has given the impression that I am advocating any policy, committee or plan that attempts to remove personal responsibility from individual climbers, than I apologize. I do not, nor will ever advocate any system, plan, policy or guideline that attempts to do that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index