DDT

[Adam]

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

PJ we're gonna have to take you out and teach you a lesson. kids and their arrogance these days!!

[martha]

here is another question....

Did anyone *really* climb Some Enchanted Evening very often BEFORE Fred took the time to bolt the Astroboy Direct Start making it more accessible?

[john]

No need to get harsh with me, i think its a valuable discussion. Just because I am on the other side of the table, does not mean I don't respect others views and it certainly does not mean i am dictating anything.

Regarding serenity:

When I was putting it up Brent and I looked at adding a bolts at the top as the rest of the route was sport. In the end I did not add one, since there was gear available, not really where you would want it, but it is there under in the corner and it is solid. In the end I reasoned that if you could climb the hard lower bottom section the 5.8 runout at top would be ok and if one did not want to run it out, they could carry a piece or two. When I led it I did not place any gear.

[Adam]

...does not mean I don't respect others views and it certainly does not mean i am dictating anything.

from your blog John:

The new climbers like bolts and think its ok, well it's not, precedent and local ethics dictate something different and tolerance be damned , respect is in order. I hope the equiper steps up and decides to remove them himself.

I just don't get it?

that does sound dictatorial, but in your defense you didn't post that here

[martha]

I just read the blog (that I didn't know existed until now) ... which can be found HERE for anyone else who wishes to read it.

I kinda feel like my hubby was just nailed to a cross on this one. unfair.

[Greg]

Stacey and I climbed Some Enchanted Evening again yesterday with a much more critical eye than the first time. Here is what we noticed.

1. SEE is a better climb than I originally thought. Some nice crack climbing and some really fun moves. It is obviously not a 5.3 as I am sure most people realize. It is mostly 5.6 climbing with maybe one 5.7 move.
2. A lot of the gear on SEE blows because of rock quality. There are lots of opportunities but much of it is the same. The gear is likely PG.
3. If you climb this route be really careful about the milk carton sized block resting on top of one of the totems. It could be pulled off easily by a bigger climber.
4. When you get to the block that encroaches on the arête don’t go around it to the left. Instead go up and over it staying just left of the short off width. This actually seems to be the weakness as there are big holds and bomber feet not to mention that is a really cool move. From this line the DDT bolt on the arête is not within reach. If you did move off route, clip it, take that line and fall going over the block (crux) you would get slammed into the arête and be looking for a medic.
5. Only one of the three bolts on the bottom arête are on the right hand side. The other two are out on the face.
6. I was not tempted to clip any of the bolts on the DDT despite the gear issues of SEE.
7. SEE does not get compromised any more than all of the other conflicts mentioned in this thread.

Like it or not, the ‘ethic’ while admirable has been eroded or compromised over time. There are plenty of examples to support this. The thread that Chris alluded to points out many inconsistencies in opinions of folks and draws attention to ‘the classics’ having bolts added nearby. Yesterday while on our way to Cheekbone we noticed that the bolts on Access Denied are about 2 feet away from Gollums Cave (one of the nicest crack climbs in Cochrane Lane). Why/how have these bolts escaped the scrutiny now being shown for DDT. Too many inconsistencies, double standards and exceptions result in the ethic lacking validity or merit. The bolt police were asleep on the job far too many times IMHO. Why are bolted rap stations okay on some routes and not on others? If you want to be a purist, you can’t have so many blatant paradoxes. How much bolting was going on in 1978? Not a lot. If there were cordless hammer drills around at that time my guess is those guys would have been using them.

Fred saw a line, cleaned it and assessed it for gear and bolts. In his opinion the bolts were needed to make a safe climb. So be it. If someone thinks the bolts aren’t needed, prove it by climbing the route without clipping the bolts and placing gear on SEE instead. Oh and don’t forget to take a couple of whippers while you’re at it and see how the falls work out.

The bottom line is – it’s all climbing. A new route was put up, that should be a good thing. The route seems to be in line with the inconsistent application of a very wishy washy ethic.

[cory]

Well put Greg: calm, contemplative, factual, non-speculative.

I agree with all of it (Though, at this time, I will not weigh in on bolted rap stations in general. I feel they aren't the main point of this thread and may be clouding some peoples interpretations.) and want to draw particular attention to

4. When you get to the block that encroaches on the arête don’t go around it to the left. Instead go up and over it staying just left of the short off width. This actually seems to be the weakness as there are big holds and bomber feet not to mention that is a really cool move. From this line the DDT bolt on the arête is not within reach. If you did move off route, clip it, take that line and fall going over the block (crux) you would get slammed into the arête and be looking for a medic.

I also interpret the SEE route description (from the 4 most recent guidebooks) to stay straight up the weakness and not step left around the block referred to in your 4th point. I've always climbed it straight up, and don't recall ever having to go left when cleaning another's gear. It's the logical path: point of least resistance, minimizes rope drag, safest fall. I don't usually shy away from offwidths either -I actually enjoy them.

also

If someone thinks the bolts aren’t needed, prove it by climbing the route without clipping the bolts and placing gear on SEE instead.

and be sure to stay on DDT, while reaching said placements.

[Shawn B]

No need to get harsh with me.

Gotta agree here. Who's moderating the moderator?

Cara it is not a PERSONAL attack on Fred. No one said "Fred you are an idiot for placing those bolts". He just happened to put in the bolts (all done with the best intentions) that started the discussion...and he also did ask the question which started this thread as well. He shouldn't have asked the question if he didn't want to hear all answers.

This whole thing was the bolt hole that snapped the drill bit. All other "infractions" just surfaced because of this. There are some definite "grey" bolts and there are also some "black" bolts which have been placed. The first 3 bolts on Solstice have to go. The first bolts on the slab for Never Ending Story have to go. Anubis has to go (although I agree the crack was not accessable when the bolts were placed). All others seem to be grey imo. I don't think there is any double standard. Different people have placed different "grey" bolts. It is not a "he placed the bolt...so lets chop it". The clear cut infractions should have been corrected long ago. The grey ones should be discused and looked at on an individual basis.

And to reiterate once again...protection bolts and anchor bolts are two different things and should be treated that way.

[Shawn B]

The route seems to be in line with the inconsistent application of a very wishy washy ethic.

Welsford's ethics are in no way wishy washy. Their enforcement in a couple of cases maybe but not the ethic itself. Cochrane Lane's ethic is a perfect balance. We allow bolts but not if protection is available. Some areas don't allow any bolting and others grid bolt everything. I don't want to see either instance in Welsford.

[martha]

I do not think that this forum is the *best* place to have these conversations. words and phrases get mis-understood, Tone and emphasis get confused and feelings are too easily hurt. Climbing is NOT worth losing friendships over.

the internet is a great place to hash things out, but when it gets personal... face to face is always best. Difference of opinions are great and I adore John for all the crap about him that I disagree with. The best part is when he always realizes that I'm right.

[*Chris*]

Well put Shawn...

Let's focus this discussion on exactly what it is: the proposed move of some bolts on what appears to be somewhat of a grey zone route. What it is clearly not is a whole scale attack on ethics held long and dear in this area. Scanning this thread I've read mention of the following extreme ideas, none of which are being proposed:

1) bolting Warm & Sultry (a long established 3 star trad line)
2) grid bolting the entire area
3) chipping holds
4) painting route names
5) disallowing bolts anywhere

While flashy... I don't think any of these appeals to extreme cases are helpful. They just lower the signal/noise ratio.

It's apparent that these are 'grey' bolts using Shawn's terminology... they are not 'black'. I don't buy anyone's argument who thinks the DDT bolts are 'black' v.s 'white'. What appears to have been the case in the past is that these 'grey' cases have been discussed by the active members of the climbing community, and the prevailing sentiment has dictated what actions have been taken. That is also what is happening now. Although it would be nice to see more 'votes' above, I think the margin clearly shows that the prevailing sentiment for the route in question is that the line is OK as is. While I doubt that anyone would be heartbroken to have the lower arete bolts moved another foot or two to the left, I truly don't see the need for this so-called compromise. The community has discussed the issue... and a large majority don't seem to support any action.

[*Chris*]

Also Greg,
Thanks for clearly laying out your observations made while leading both routes. While I completely agree with your observations, I can't go as far as your conclusion to say that the local ethic is wishy washy. The long standing ethic to not place bolts within reach of protectable cracks works on most routes, most of the time. Although it's an ideal which I support, I know that there are always going to be borderline cases. I just think we've exposed several here.

[jeremy]

lets face it... nothing said here will change anything, except piss some people off who otherwise would be out there climbing together. Everything will continue to be the same as before. People have a problem about a route, they hash it out at the cliff, changes are made and the problem gets fixed. The best place to give ethical debates about this stuff is at the unb gym face to face with each other and with all the new climbers. You guys are the ones pumping out the majority of new climbers each year. If your afraid this one route will change everything for the next generation, then educate them before you set them loose. If anyone needs it its them, not the veterans who have put up routes for years. Fred, I haven't climbed all of DDT yet, but one complaint out of all the routes you put up ain't bad. Keep up the hard work. This whole thing got blown way out of proportion.

[Greg]

The route seems to be in line with the inconsistent application of a very wishy washy ethic.

Welsford's ethics are in no way wishy washy. Their enforcement in a couple of cases maybe but not the ethic itself. Cochrane Lane's ethic is a perfect balance. We allow bolts but not if protection is available. Some areas don't allow any bolting and others grid bolt everything. I don't want to see either instance in Welsford.

I think the lack of enforcement takes away from the strength of the ethic.

[Greg]

Also Greg,
Thanks for clearly laying out your observations made while leading both routes. While I completely agree with your observations, I can't go as far as your conclusion to say that the local ethic is wishy washy. The long standing ethic to not place bolts within reach of protectable cracks works on most routes, most of the time. Although it's an ideal which I support, I know that there are always going to be borderline cases. I just think we've exposed several here.

Perhaps you’re right Chris. If the other questionable areas were dealt with it would certainly add validity to the ethic and prove that is being followed and applied in a consistent manner.

[Adam]

I think the lack of enforcement takes away from the strength of the ethic.

this is a good point. to say the 'ethic' is not wishy washy it has to have been enforced when questionable practices are employed... otherwise the "new routing method" (ie., questionable bolting) becomes part of the "assumed-accepted ethic", else why didn't anyone put up a stink.

so IMHO the other examples from the past few years HAVE altered the perception of the local 'ethic'. now, if they all get dealt with as a result of this discussion and subsequent action, then i'd say the ethic is not wishy washy and returns to what people here are claiming it still is.

[Shawn B]

Try to argue to the judge that the speed limit is not valid just because 5 other cars passed you earlier doing 140. See how you make out.

Out of the hundreds of bolts in the cliff, there are a mitt full which are clear infractions. You seriously think this 2-3% results in an invalid ethic? Even counting questionable placements you won't even reach double digit percentage. We can start discussing how the ethics are starting to change maybe once/if we start to approach 25%. Maybe you are trying to be self serving to your own beliefs if you are trying to justify that ethics are invalid because of this?

Peace and love all. I'm off to a maaagic place...where the only bolts I'll be thinking about are the ones I"m clippin'. Maybe when I get back Ken Nichols will have visited to John's delight.

[Adam]

Try to argue to the judge that the speed limit is not valid just because 5 other cars passed you earlier doing 140. See how you make out.

Out of the hundreds of bolts in the cliff, there are a mitt full which are clear infractions. You seriously think this 2-3% results in an invalid ethic? Even counting questionable placements you won't even reach double digit percentage. We can start discussing how the ethics are starting to change maybe once/if we start to approach 25%. Maybe you are trying to be self serving to your own beliefs if you are trying to justify that ethics are invalid because of this?

Peace and love all. I'm off to a maaagic place...where the only bolts I'll be thinking about are the ones I"m clippin'. Maybe when I get back Ken Nichols will have visited to John's delight.

when you write the 'ethics' down and make it law then your analogy will apply

in any case, I am not saying it is an invalid ethic, i'm agreeing with Greg that the ethic at a cliff is the result of practice, and if routes are going up and not getting scrutinized with the ethic in mind then the ethic in changing IN PRACTICE. in theory yah, maybe it is still supposed to hold true but if nothing is done about it then the practical ethic has been altered.

[john]

Can the people saying there are other bolts out there, by cracks or too near existing routes, list the ones they see as wishy washy. The bolts they are saying are minimizing the ethic. I can't think of many in comparison to all the bolts out there.

Ones I have heard mentioned so far:

Solstice 3 lower bolts
Anibus 2 bolts
Never ending story lower 2 bolts (shawn mentioned?)
Slippery when wet lower 2 bolts (someone mentioned?)

[Leehammer]

sticky fingers?

[*Chris*]

Levithan's lower lead bolts have been mentioned in the other thread.

[Adam]

sticky fingers?

i did bring this route up as an example of a bolt near trad gear, however i wasn't actually suggesting it get chopped. FTR

[STeveA]

This is a good example of why history is important. Almost all of the bolts that people are complaining about, Sticky Fingers, Leviathan, and many that they are not talking about, received a lot of scrutiny at the time by the climbers who were there. I am not sure what the definition of 'local ethics' is, but I can assure you that all these routes met the local ethics at the time. If the ethics change, I hope that they don't involve applying the new standards to established routes. There should be a grandfather clause for existing routes.

[Adam]

This is a good example of why history is important. Almost all of the bolts that people are complaining about, Sticky Fingers, Leviathan, and many that they are not talking about, received a lot of scrutiny at the time by the climbers who were there. I am not sure what the definition of 'local ethics' is, but I can assure you that all these routes met the local ethics at the time. If the ethics change, I hope that they don't involve applying the new standards to established routes. There should be a grandfather clause for existing routes.

again FTR, i wasn't complaining about sticky fingers. just using it as an example of what is today being deemed questionable. the cases might be different but there are striking similarities.

fack i love bolts i don't want DDT chopped either! but i agree with the local ethic if evenly applied to the given rash-ly bolted route.

[Stacey]

I am not sure what the definition of 'local ethics' is, but I can assure you that all these routes met the local ethics at the time. If the ethics change, I hope that they don't involve applying the new standards to established routes. There should be a grandfather clause for existing routes.

Doesn't this imply then - that 'local ethics' can and do evolve as the climber population changes over time?

I agree that there should be a grandfather clause for existing routes for general consensus...but then that also needs to allow for new routes (i.e. DDT in question) to be 'permitted' under what potentially may be changing 'local ethics'.

[anderfo]

Adam, maybe you can be Grandfather on Halloween.

[Andrew]

You know what, I think this has gotten out of hand.

I think we can all agree that bolts should not be installed if trad placements can be used.

You shouldn't be able to easily clip a bolt on route B while climbing route A.

Bolt anchors (rap stations) should only be used if (there are no suitable trees) or ((there is no natural placements available) and (there is no walk off)) or ((there is natural placements) and (there is no walk off)).


I think people just like to get their word in and some people just 'want to be starting something'.

There are people in our climbing community that can climb very well when good protection is available. There are also people who will climb R rated routes that almost no one else would even consider climbing on lead. There have also been people who figured climbing top rope for a couple months without good direction should get on trad lead with serious consequences.

I have no offense intended in these notes, just trying to highlight the facts that everyone is different, but I think everyone will agree on the points made above. From what I have herd over the past 10 years, that is the local ethic in my mind.

Concerning DDT - I haven't climbed this yet; however, from what I've heard, it's a fun route that is already popular. Protecting a route well is great. This makes people want to get on it if they feel safe. No one wants to get hurt and loose out on a season of climbing. Fred has done a great service by putting up yet another great route and properly protected it. I think those who are bitching and complaining about it have had their chance to do so and now that time is over. Move on. If you've got a crack in front of you, put gear in and ignore the bolts to your left which are in long stretch distance. Obviously they're on your current route and should no affect your ascent.

Appointing a committee for cases such as this or consult with before placing bolts, etc. would be a good idea. It also shouldn't be made up of all Fredericton climbers. We should have reps from all major centers. SJ, Fred, Moncton.

That's my 3 cents -- you know, with inflation and everything these days --

[john]

I think we can all agree that bolts should not be installed if trad placements can be used.

You shouldn't be able to easily clip a bolt on route B while climbing route A.

Bolt anchors (rap stations) should only be used if (there are no suitable trees) or ((there is no natural placements available) and (there is no walk off)) or ((there is natural placements) and (there is no walk off)).

I think those who are bitching and complaining about it have had their chance to do so and now that time is over. Move on. If you've got a crack in front of you, put gear in and ignore the bolts to your left which are in long stretch distance. Obviously they're on your current route and should no affect your ascent.

How you started you post seems to tell us how it should be done, this thread is partly about what to do if it is not done. Your second thought seems to contradict your previous thought completely.

I dont think this is about bitching for its sake only, people can decide to move on when they want, dont read it if you are tired of it.

[Andrew]

I have no offense intended in these notes, just trying to highlight the facts that everyone is different, but I think everyone will agree on the points made above. From what I have herd over the past 10 years, that is the local ethic in my mind.

^^ That is the second part of your first quote. My statement was mostly based on what I've learned over the years of what the ethic seems to be, in it's basic form.

Any comment on the comity idea?

I think we can all agree that bolts should not be installed if trad placements can be used.

You shouldn't be able to easily clip a bolt on route B while climbing route A.

Bolt anchors (rap stations) should only be used if (there are no suitable trees) or ((there is no natural placements available) and (there is no walk off)) or ((there is natural placements) and (there is no walk off)).

I think those who are bitching and complaining about it have had their chance to do so and now that time is over. Move on. If you've got a crack in front of you, put gear in and ignore the bolts to your left which are in long stretch distance. Obviously they're on your current route and should no affect your ascent.

How you started you post seems to tell us how it should be done, this thread is partly about what to do if it is not done. Your second thought seems to contradict your previous thought completely.

I dont think this is about bitching for its sake only, people can decide to move on when they want, dont read it if you are tired of it.

[Stacey]

I think people just like to get their word in ...



...Concerning DDT - I haven't climbed this yet; --

Jeez Andrew - I hate to pick on you - but if you have NOT even climbed the route yet (and therefore have no reference as to where the crack vs bolts are),
doesn't that make you *as you say* one of those people who just like to get their word in?