Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 20 of 27 < 1 2 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26 27 >
Topic Options
#66096 - 08/02/12 01:34 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: curmudgeon]
retroscree Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/29/11
Posts: 397
I'm serious. Why is this acceptable*, while if it were bolts, a lot of people would have their panties in a bunch?
The Gunks, like North Conway, is an area where the concepts of being a trad area have been mistaken and not tempered by rational thought.

*true, not acceptable to everyone.... for the record, I do not agree with the existence of that anchor.

Top
#66097 - 08/02/12 02:49 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: retroscree]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Shall we review?

Problem:



Problem solved the old-fashioned way:



Problem solved the modern way:



Ain't progress grand?

Top
#66098 - 08/02/12 03:17 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: rg@ofmc]
cfrac Offline
addict

Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 462
This was a problem too:


Top
#66100 - 08/02/12 05:39 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: cfrac]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
True enough cfrac, but it seems to me that the primary justification for that anchor was that it was too dangerous for those below for a party to go on to the top and avail themselves of any of the several nearby descent options, including two bolted ones (not to mention the walk-down and scramble-down).

That being the case, the real "problem" was indeed the one I depicted, and the "old-fashioned" solution would also have been the one I depicted---together with the permanent removal of the bad old anchor.

The "modern" solution was to ignore the real problem and instead fix a flawed and accidental solution by removing the bad anchor and replacing it with the lovely contraption now decorating the scene.

Preserve rules give climbers the "right" to do this, so I expect we'll be seeing more such things in the future.

Top
#66103 - 08/02/12 11:27 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: rg@ofmc]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Really pitons with chains!?!!? that's just horrible! at least make it 2 separate points where you can thread your rope through instead of 1.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#66104 - 08/02/12 01:42 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: talus]
wombat Offline
member

Registered: 05/27/08
Posts: 147
Loc: gardiner
I also opposed all that crap the first time but apparently there was "consensus" away from gunks.com that it was a good idea. That was back in the webbing/cord version. We have not heard here why it became chains.

I still dont get it

Top
#66105 - 08/02/12 02:33 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: wombat]
ianmanger Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 319
Consensus? Among whom?

I have a hammer.

Originally Posted By: wombat
I also opposed all that crap the first time but apparently there was "consensus" away from gunks.com that it was a good idea. That was back in the webbing/cord version. We have not heard here why it became chains.

I still dont get it

Top
#66106 - 08/02/12 03:48 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: ianmanger]
cfrac Offline
addict

Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 462
Originally Posted By: ianmanger
Consensus? Among whom?

I have a hammer.

Originally Posted By: wombat
I also opposed all that crap the first time but apparently there was "consensus" away from gunks.com that it was a good idea. That was back in the webbing/cord version. We have not heard here why it became chains.

I still dont get it


The cordelette got swiped not long after it appeared.

Top
#66107 - 08/02/12 04:26 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: ianmanger]
fotovult Online   content
member

Registered: 09/01/05
Posts: 142
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: ianmanger
Consensus? Among whom?

I have a hammer.



Time to get all Hayduke on that b*tch.
_________________________
www.chrisvultaggio.com

Top
#66108 - 08/02/12 05:07 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: cfrac]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
There is no current mechanism for consensus among the very wide-spread Gunks climbing community. Anchor maintenance has been carried out by individuals with good intentions, based either on their own private evaluation of need and appropriateness, or perhaps in this case on a sample of a segment of local opinion.

When the current Preserve rules on anchors were formulated, the population and conditions were very different. Everyone carried pitons and hammers and knew how to use them. Now, only a small group of climbers have this expertise, and the vast majority of climbers rely on and sometimes supplicate these "masters" for fixed protection. Consensus used to be built in to the fabric of the activity itself, but now more and more climbers are in the position of theme-park users who expect and demand that the rides be properly maintained.

Population pressures are growing and the "climbing public" is swelling to include large numbers of people with little connection to and understanding of trad climbing or even basic outdoor values. There has been an accelerating shift in perspective, in which the conversion of our forests and lakes into gardens and swimming pools is viewed as a positive community development. Climbs are viewed as "community resources" which, like theme parks, have to be modified and maintained for the enjoyment and safety of the community. Natural challenges, part of the essence of trad climbing, are expected to be blunted when those features compromise the convenience and someone's perception of the safety of the "community."

In this environment, one has to wonder whether consensus is even an appropriate mechanism for preservation, or whether it might in fact be an agent of degradation, a polemical term I use advisedly, understanding that there are many who either welcome the demise of the natural state of the crag, or argue that it is already nothing more than an outdoor gym and so should be subject to an unlimited amount of further "improvements."

One of the problems with the interventionist approach has been the continued occurrence of unintended side-effects. As more and more reliable rappel anchors have appeared, there has been an upsurge of rappelling accidents, making the original safety arguments look preposterous in hindsight.

The accompanying elimination of walking back along the top has led to enormous impacts on the cliff base, these have led to massive construction projects in boulder field and cliff base, and in turn these improvements are now starting to lure non-climbers off the carriage road and up to the cliff base, increasing the impacts there even more and also, I suspect, adding a whole new set of issues. The accelerating impacts at the base and the new issues on the horizon make the Preserve position, which basically viewed sacrificing the cliff base as a good trade-off for preserving the top, more questionable than ever.

Top
Page 20 of 27 < 1 2 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26 27 >


Moderator:  Mike Rawdon, Steven Cherry 
Sponsored