Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Russ Walling
Social climber
from Poofters Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:40am PT
|
Sorry Joe, not buying your whole schtick on here. Good troll though. Even better than your Syria crap. Keep reeling them in.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:53am PT
|
But if those old routes are going to be bolted up, there's really no one to stop it. If that's where climbing is going, that's where it's going.
Simple wisdom. You have your memories of exciting and challenging times . . . that now lie in that distant land, the past.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:26am PT
|
Hedge if you think these retro bolts you propose can't be removed faster then they can be placed you are seriously mislead. Like I sad before, I chop more than I drill and I'm not the only one. What do you think the managers of these "public lands" are going to say about a mass retro bolting movement? "Logic and common sense" tells me that it'd be foolish to risk having our access limited or shut off completely.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:40am PT
|
Jim, Hedge has obviously been clipped.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 02:08am PT
|
Some old records can't be broken:
___
jghedge
climber
Jul 24, 2007 - 11:16am PT
"Second myth- it took a long time for me (and many others) to get to 5.13, so all those routes in the 80'2 had nothing to do with 5.13 or the modern frigging that goes on today."
Squid you make some valid points, but I would have to argue that you guys were 5.13 climbers putting up 10's and 11's. Even if you weren't leading that hard, the bouldering that was going on proves you were quite capable of climbing 13 or harder. The thing I always wondered was, where was the 5.13 Bachar-Yerian? The true and honest statement about running it out would have been made by someone climbing at their limit, not 2 number grades below it. A 5.11 climber putting up a 5.9X route surely would not be any big deal - why should a 5.11X put up by a 5.13 climber be any different?
___
Six years on and Joe is still spinning the same platter. ...the same old groove. How's that working for ya?
Not like a puss to bolts, Russ. More like a moth to flames.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 02:35am PT
|
... and Hedge said he's a 5.13 climber but he's he crying about how 5.10 is to hard for him. Hahaha
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 02:57am PT
|
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:10am PT
|
Nope one Hedge is enough
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:19am PT
|
I already did. Again, what do you think will happen to our access when hundreds of new retro bolts start showing up? Damn you're dense
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:23am PT
|
I'm not sure I'm following the retro-bolt (adding new bolts to shorten run-outs) logic here.
Is the idea here that anybody should feel free to bring any climb down to their level?...
"I'm not willing to try that move as run out as it would be. But if I put in an additional bolt in the 'right' place, then I'll take a stab at the move. And, after all, nobody should 'have' to face that fall to try that move."
Is that the idea here?
If so, then please explain what "consensus" or any other "pressure" might keep every route from becoming a bolt ladder... you know, lowest common denominator and all that.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:32am PT
|
Why would this be limited to YNP? Ultimately I think that land managers will disapprove of a massive increase in fixed gear of any kind and that will jeopardize our access. This is not a problem that's limited to YNP.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:46am PT
|
A few years ago a bunch of retro bolts started showing up around here. The next year the Chugach State Park came forward with a proposal to ban ALL fixed gear in the park. Luckily it didn't go through.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:54am PT
|
Canyon Lands banned all fixed gear. Flat Irons has a bolting ban. Eldo has a permitting process, for bolts, now. It's not that far away. There you go four examples where climbing access has been limited because of what you propose
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 03:56am PT
|
The CSP's proposal will come back up. They made it very clear that the rampant unchecked bolting needed to stop. It's very obvious
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 04:03am PT
|
One more, off the top of my head, Taluhalla(sp?) Gorge has a ban on adding or replacing any fixed gear. There's five areas, spread across the country, where the ideas the you are proposing have already fuked us.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 04:07am PT
|
Are you saying that not being able to leave any fixed doesn't limit climbing?
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 04:20am PT
|
It wasn't the runout routes the changed anything. It was stuff like power drills, huge increases in bolts/other fixed gear, and the overnight increase in traffic. Get it? What's with the name calling? You whine and bitch when others called you names, like puss, and then you start with the name calling.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 04:32am PT
|
They limit the number of people who can climb that route.
Why is that a problem that needs fixing?
I really don't understand the problem. We are, after all, talking about climbing rather than hiking. Doesn't that mean conforming to what the rock presents, while doing as little TO the rock as possible while getting up?
If an FA team can get up with very few bolts, isn't that a good thing? If that limits the number of people that can rise to that standard of conforming to the rock, isn't that fact exactly what distinguishes climbing from, say, hiking?
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 04:52am PT
|
An increase in bolts will bring an increase in traffic. That's two things many land managers do not want. Very simple. Plus adding bolts to existing routes is weak. If you can't do a route as it is then do a different route. How is bringing a route down to your level gonna help anything? Not increasing the bolt count doesn't limit access.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2013 - 05:17am PT
|
What you really want to do is limit access by limiting bolting
These are two totally different senses of "limit."
In the first sense, we understand that to "climb" at all means to voluntarily "limit" oneself to doing only those climbs that one can get up BY conforming to what the rock presents. That is what distinguishes climbing from, say, hiking. So, a CLIMBER acknowledges when he is not "up to the challenge" presented, and "limits" her ascents to only those she can do without bringing the climb down to his level. Instead, a CLIMBER seeks to raise his level TO conform to the climb. Adding bolts to make a climb "more accessible" to "more climbers" is really a contradiction in terms. As more "climbers" can do a given route, it necessarily becomes less and less "climbing."
In the second sense, the limitation is not self-imposed, as a voluntary conformity to what climbing even IS; instead the limitation is imposed from outside the climbing community and has nothing to do with what defines climbing itself. The limitation is a function of land managers' decisions and sweepingly limits access to ALL, regardless of their ability to conform to the rock.
To the extent that anybody can "legitimately" add chicken-bolts to existing climbs, to that same extent people will continually ensure that every climb becomes less and less CLIMBING and more and more hiking. At that point, the question becomes pressing: Why bother with the bolts? Why not just hike to the top and forget even the pretense of "climbing?"
The ethic of leaving routes in basically the same condition the FA team did has nothing to do with "ownership" of a route; this ethic instead attempts to preserve the value of the route as a CLIMB rather than a hike. Otherwise, we should not stop at adding bolts. We should chip holds... as big as needed to ensure that nobody is "limited" from doing the "climb." While we're at it, let's just cut stairs. And even that's not enough. Let's have those ADA-approved stair lifts, so that even people that can only ride up alongside the stairs can also have access and not be "limited" in their ability to say that they "climbed" the route. And, of course, those power lifts will have to be bolted to the rock... big bolts, so that they are maximally safe!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!