DDT

[Adam]

the bolts beside Roundup to the right of Pass the Moonshine if you want to talk about bolts next to a crack).

agreed. IMHO this thing should be more under the microscope than DDT

[john]

Well said Shawn this really is an issue of established ethics vs new views. I agree anchors and pro bolts are differnt in many ways.

The argument of other poor choices setting a new precedent doesn't hold water. This is the newest example of bolting not in keeping with standards. Solstice bolts below the roof should be removed they were placed in error on rap by someone and were never used in the ffA. The route on pyramid is bad also, but not as bad, in that you can't really reach the crack from the route although you can easily traverse place and lead it, not a great fall though since its low to the ground.

There are other bad examples but the fact they slipped under the radar is not an excuse to let more slip with no discussion.

[PeterA]

technically, the crack didn't exist when we put up anubis

it was only after the death of a tree that the bolts were close to a crack

-PJ

[STeveA]

Here's my 10 cents worth:

The opinion of every climber, whether they have been climbing for 1 or 35 years, is important and valid. However, established ethics are valid and should at least be understood. We had a European climber come to UNB a few years back and he was all set to paint the names of the routes at the base of the climbs. Luckily, we found out and explained the local ethics before it happened.

That being said, the local ethics are fluid and change over time. The first routes were established ground up. We never considered rapping down to clean or pre-inspect a route. This determined the local standards at the time. Then cleaning on rappel, using chalk, etc became common practice and was considered part of the local ethics. Then bolts started and these caused many arguments and chopping wars. However, times changed as did the ethics. I am glad that I started climbing when the sport was dangerous and that risk was part of the appeal. I now enjoy climbing save bolted routes as well as the trad climbs. I do feel sorry for those that missed the older days but such is progress. This is a long winded way of saying to Fred: "Don't chop the bolts yet." Lets have an open discussion and see what the local opinion is. It will take about 2 minutes to chop the bolts if that is the final solution, so there is no hurry.

I think the general consensus is that bolts for anchors are different than bolts used to protect a route. The 2 are different issues and should be discussed separately; this is certainly my opinion. There was never a local ethic to avoid bolts at anchors that I can remember, we simply never bothered with bolts if there was a tree because we were too cheap and lazy. I think the prevailing attitude around North America now is for bolt anchors instead of trees.

I believe that if an established trad route is affected by a new sport route, then the new route at the least deserves open discussion among the climbing community. If the trad route is a piece of sh*t then let it RIP and go with the new route. If the trad route is a well used classic then the new route goes. If you have to veer off one route to reach the other then there is room for discussion.

There is definitely a different opinion about the safety of climbing for today's climbers compared to the climbers from previous years, and this is the heart of the difference in opinions. Whether we like it or not, todays climbers want, and almost insist on, routes being safe. Respecting local ethics simply tries to balance this desire with the opportunity for everyone to still be able to enjoy the established routes in the manner in which they were established. If we don't try to maintain this, then we may as well add bolts to all routes and rename them.

I volunteer to climb all the new well bolted sport routes and then if we have to we can chop the bolts. I know this is a lot of work for me, but I am willing to make the sacrifice. Bolt away and then I will 'test' the routes.

[Stacey]

I volunteer to climb all the new well bolted sport routes and then if we have to we can chop the bolts. I know this is a lot of work for me, but I am willing to make the sacrifice. Bolt away and then I will 'test' the routes.

Steve - I love your generosity...It is a huge sacrifice...and though time is tight and the weather chilly, I would offer you a belay to help with the process

Stace

[Fred]

John: I've never seen so many conflicting messages by one individual in one thread before.

Shawn / Joe: I know this route isn't the one you guys have been *talking* about doing for the last 10 years but it's the line that I saw and developed. Once the bolts are gone you can have at er and develop your original project.

Steve: I don't think a yay or nay on establishing new routes should be the responsibility of one individual.

[john]

Not sure what you mean fred? For clarity my stance is: bolts should be used in absence of natural pro and out of reach of other previously established routes.

[GKelly]

Who cares? Climbing is lame. Try a real sport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w7sVSMbjyM

[*Chris*]

Very well put Steve. I completely agree.

[Nihoa]

its a fine line preserving the traditions of an area and allowing ethics to evolve. older folks flowers themselves at the thought of sunday shopping where with our generation it really isnt a big deal. a stretch of a comparison yeah but the point is the time will come where old schoolers will have moved on and it will be up to the new crew to decide what is or is not acceptable. this debate can be extended into any aspect of life. it sucks getting old and the world changing under our feet but what can you do?

that said there is still enough representation by those who established this area that the ethics need to be respected. id like to see the whole thing bolted, crack or no crack, but that isnt the precedent so ill go to rumney. its not like there are many people establishing new routes here in nb and better communication between them prior to action would avoid messy internet debates?

[Shawn B]

id like to see the whole thing bolted, crack or no crack

Would you be kind enough to explain why? Don't you trust trad gear? Don't like to carry gear with you? Don't like to bother with gear? Not being condescending or anything like that at all...I really would just like to know why.

I hope the traditional areas of NB never go the way of bolting cracks. Sunnyside, Bear Mtn, St. Andrews...bolt it all...then everyone has a place to go and climb in the manner they prefer.

[Adam]

The route on pyramid is bad also, but not as bad, in that you can't really reach the crack from the route although you can easily traverse place and lead it, not a great fall though since its low to the ground.

you should go back and take another look at this... the bolts are much closer to the crack than DDT is to SEE... hard to see why you have a problem with DDT if you think this is fine.

[Nihoa]

all of the above i guess. climbing for me is about purity of movement and i dont want to spend the time placing gear. i understand those that are really good at placing gear dont have to waste time messing with it but it would be a long time before i got there. people are attracted to climbing for different reasons and there isnt anything about why i like climbing that would draw me to trad.

saying id like to see the whole thing bolted was tongue in cheek. there are other spots to go to sport climbing and as long as there are people that value welsford for what it is it should stay that way. i guess my point was more that despite being a boulderer/sport climber and not really sharing the values other people have i still respect them.

Would you be kind enough to explain why? Don't you trust trad gear? Don't like to carry gear with you? Don't like to bother with gear? Not being condescending or anything like that at all...I really would just like to know why.

I hope the traditional areas of NB never go the way of bolting cracks. Sunnyside, Bear Mtn, St. Andrews...bolt it all...then everyone has a place to go and climb in the manner they prefer.

[Leehammer]

you should go back and take another look at this... the bolts are much closer to the crack than DDT is to SEE... hard to see why you have a problem with DDT if you think this is fine.

I think you can argue about how close is too close to put a bolt to crack until you're blue in the face. We aren't going to have people putting up routes with rulers to measure the distance, it's a judgment call, and different people are going to have different ideas.
In the Anubis/Sticky Fingers cases, the route developer decided to put the bolt in.
In the DDT case, the bolts in question are within reach of another previously established trad route.
It seems disrespectful to the FA of Some Enchanted Evening.

Liam

[Adam]

I think you can argue about how close is too close to put a bolt to crack until you're blue in the face. ...
In the Anubis/Sticky Fingers cases, the route developer decided to put the bolt in.
In the DDT case, the bolts in question are within reach of another previously established trad route.
It seems disrespectful to the FA of Some Enchanted Evening.

Liam

Liam have you seen Anubis? i agree 'how' close a bolt is to a crack is subjective... i never tried to define that. rather that they're much closer on anubis than on DDT.

anubis has seemingly gone under John's radar for what, 2 years now, and DDT has gotten 20x the traffic that anubis has in it's first two months since being put up.

i agree that ethics need to be upheld but there will always be grey areas IMHO

[martha]

In the DDT case, the bolts in question are within reach of another previously established trad route.
It seems disrespectful to the FA of Some Enchanted Evening.

Liam

The bolt on Anubis also went in next to a previously established trad route. Is that not also disrespectful to the FA's of that route? or does your reasoning only apply to DDT?

Sticky Fingers would have went up around the same time as Mammalian Protuberances. Either the same summer or the one after. I don't know the exact date so that may not apply.

DDT is NOT the only route with bolts near gear or near the gear of other routes.... many that have been listed earlier in this thread. They are all over cochrane lane.

[PeterA]

The bolt on Anubis also went in next to a previously established trad route.

nay, the trad route went in beside Anubis . However, as it is now Anubis should also be chopped.

Cochrane Lane is a traditional area. The ethic set by the previous generation, who made it all possible for us to climb there, is that bolts should not be placed by cracks. If you can clip bolts and place protection from the same stance, the bolts need to go.

The argument that the bolts don't have to be clipped does not have any merit. We could chip new holds onto access denied, serenity, and solstice, and bring them all down to 5.7, so everybody could climb them. And if people wanted to climb them as they originally were, well just skip the chipped holds.

I agree that DDT is a fun route. However, the bolts are too close to the crack and they need to be moved. Also, the argument that there are other routes that also have bad bolts does not serve to justify one route with bad bolts. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all routes with bad bolts should go.

-PJ

[martha]

nay, the trad route went in beside Anubis .

-PJ

because the tree fell out of the crack?

.....was said tree showing signs of death when the bolt was placed? So presumably the tree wasn't able to be slung to climb the route? If it wasn't good enough to sling, then it could have been cleaned from the crack thus leaving a piece of gear in the first place instead of placing a bolt?

doesn't matter to me. I'm fine with all the bolts in question. I'm not so nit picky as to knock the efforts of others so long as people don't start bolting OBVIOUS trad lines. I don't think that you PJ or Fred or any of the rest had the INTENT of kicking up a fuss in the community when the bolts were placed... no one was thinking " those friggers... I'll show them and put some bolts here".... you were just developing the area and given that you (and Fred and others) have done so responsibly and respectfully (of ethics)in the past and present.....Thank you.

[Fred]

It seems disrespectful to the FA of Some Enchanted Evening.

That's a pretty strong accusation. You are implying that I spitefully bolted near the other route in disrespect. Have you lead both of these routes?

[Leehammer]

It seems disrespectful to the FA of Some Enchanted Evening.

That's a pretty strong accusation. You are implying that I spitefully bolted near the other route in disrespect. Have you lead both of these routes?

I don't see how you get an accusation out of that comment really.
I haven't had a chance to lead those routes yet, I should have been more general I suppose.
I just think that if I had established a route, I wouldn't want someone doing something that changes it, whether intentionally or not... Given all the development that you've done, do you feel the same way?

[Fred]

Given all the development that you've done, do you feel the same way?

Yes, I agree with you 100%. I assure you when I developed the route it was with good intentions as always, not some disrespectful "cowboy" act like some are making it out to be. My apologies for calling you out on personal experience on these two routes. What I don't want is for you to form an opinion of my judgement based on what you've read in this thread.

Cheers!

[*Chris*]

Where were these folks last year when Waterfall Layback received bolts?

The argument that the bolts don't have to be clipped does not have any merit. We could chip new holds onto access denied, serenity, and solstice, and bring them all down to 5.7, so everybody could climb them. And if people wanted to climb them as they originally were, well just skip the chipped holds. -PJ

Careful PJ. Many people respect your recent accomplishments. One good way to loose that is to put people down by throwing it in their faces.

It's now Monday... I hope these bolts weren't removed last weekend.

[Adam]

Where were these folks last year when Waterfall Layback received bolts?

ah, i had forgotten about this. interesting that this also went under the radar.

The argument that the bolts don't have to be clipped does not have any merit. We could chip new holds onto access denied, serenity, and solstice, and bring them all down to 5.7, so everybody could climb them. And if people wanted to climb them as they originally were, well just skip the chipped holds. -PJ

I would say that chipping holds in order to free climb something as a progression from placing protection on what was deemed a separate and legitimate route is a complete non sequitur. Now, if they ARE too close then that might warrant chopping/moving them but so far that has not been determined by the community.

[Stacey]

It's now Monday... I hope these bolts weren't removed last weekend.

DDT is still as is - - we climbed SEE last night...

[john]

If some people want to be able to climb the arete itself (DDT) and not just have bolts beside the crack to give safety or convenience, why not relocate the bottom three bolts around the left face further. That way those truly wanting to climb the arete have bolts and those wanting to climb SEE won't be able to reach DDT bolts, preserving its original state? Everyone wins. I will donate the hardware.

I do think the upper two bolts by the two flakes should go, the gear is good especially the second piece, a few feet above the first (bolt 4 and 5). The very top bolt I don't think will help you not hit the ledge if you fall anyway, given the amount of rope out. The natural piece to the right would easily achieve the same safety i.e. keep you from tumbling off the ledge. I think the last 3 bolts are convenience, not safety, but I do think the bottom 3 bolts are necessary and well positioned height wise, if you truly want to climb the arete proper. Relocating the bolts would allow both routes to be completed as intended, one on gear one on bolts.

Thoughts? Win win or not good enough? Other compromises?

jb

[Adam]

If some people want to be able to climb the arete itself (DDT) and not just have bolts beside the crack to give safety or convenience, why not relocate the bottom three bolts around the left face further. That way those truly wanting to climb the arete have bolts and those wanting to climb SEE won't be able to reach DDT bolts, preserving its original state? Everyone wins. I will donate the hardware.

I do think the upper two bolts by the two flakes should go, the gear is good especially the second piece, a few feet above the first (bolt 4 and 5). The very top bolt I don't think will help you not hit the ledge if you fall anyway, given the amount of rope out. The natural piece to the right would easily achieve the same safety i.e. keep you from tumbling off the ledge. I think the last 3 bolts are convenience, not safety, but I do think the bottom 3 bolts are necessary and well positioned height wise, if you truly want to climb the arete proper. Relocating the bolts would allow both routes to be completed as intended, one on gear one on bolts.

Thoughts? Win win or not good enough? Other compromises?

jb

moving the bottom ones is more reasonable than just chopping IMHO. what gear is where the bolts you think should be removed? the hollow flake that you hang off? i don't think that should have gear behind it - or is there something else there? i forget.

[john]

The hollow flake has a bolts by it but right above the hollow flake it a bomber flake fully deep and atached with another bolt just above it. The lower bolt will not stop you hitting the ledge your feet are on but will stop a tumble off the ledge if you fell reaching the good flake, where the gear is. I do think the hollow flake is fine for stopping a tumble off the ledge for sure. Just above it I would guess 1.5-2ft (not sure) is the bomber gear. This should be looked at again, but if you just climbed the 10a arete this move is maybe 5.6. You grab the flake and stand up, with bomber gear in the flake at your hands.

[Fred]

John:

Why not just go up there and re-vamp the route to the style you see fit instead of losing energy in here dictating how it can be improved.

Criticism taken, I get your point. Now shut up and go chop and re-bolt like you want it.

Fred

[Fred]

John:

Serenity has a convenience bolt at the top where natural gear is available does it not? I think you bolted this route no?

Fred

[PeterA]

Where were these folks last year when Waterfall Layback received bolts?

The argument that the bolts don't have to be clipped does not have any merit. We could chip new holds onto access denied, serenity, and solstice, and bring them all down to 5.7, so everybody could climb them. And if people wanted to climb them as they originally were, well just skip the chipped holds. -PJ

Careful PJ. Many people respect your recent accomplishments. One good way to loose that is to put people down by throwing it in their faces.

It's now Monday... I hope these bolts weren't removed last weekend.

That was just an idle analogy, and not an slight at how anybody climbs, one way or the other. I apologize if it came off that way, the main point was on the chipping, not the grades.

-PJ