First (and Last) Ascent
Saturday was a very interesting day; I didn't expect to do nearly as much as I actually got done. That's always a pleasant surprise :)
The day before, my 4.5 miles on trails in Reach 11 had gone without incident, but all day long my back kept getting sorer and stiffer; by the evening, it would take me five to ten seconds to stand up erect from a sitting position. I slept that night on the couch, with my legs elevated, but it didn't help and I didn't sleep well.
When I got up on Saturday morning, I called Patrick the Tree-Top Ecto and told him not to bother to meet me for a run, as I wasn't sure that I'd be able to run at all, and I didn't want him to have to slow down for an old, bent-over man hobbling down the road.
Then I went out into the Garage Mahal, got on the dreadmill, and ran farther - and faster - than I had intended.
That just felt plain weird. By the time I had run a couple of miles, my backache was completely gone - I felt great. Had a ball during the run; it was nice to feel like I was actually RUNNING (as long as I was careful not to dwell on the fact that my pace was slower than I used to run for easy runs, the illusion was complete : ) and I got off the dreadmill ready for a full, fun day.
Did some chores and then Ethel and I headed off to Sphinx Ridge - that's what I'm calling it until I can get another name. It's the mountain just south of Pyramid Peak, and I don't know the name; since the name is unknown, then the name is a mystery; since it's a mystery, then it's mysterious; since it's mysterious (and it's near Pyramid, which to me is Egyptian, I'm calling it Sphinx (fans of Mystery Men will understand : )
Anyway, this is a ridgeline with what looks like might be some very very climbable stuff, but it also looks like nobody has every bothered to climb it. You can walk up to the top of the ridge in about ten minutes from the Circle Mountain side, and I wanted to do so and then just throw down a toprope, but Ethel was concerned about whether or not we'd be able to climb back up what we threw the rope off of, so she wanted to go around to the other side and hike up to the base of the climbs.
Big mistake :)
It was maybe a quarter-mile hike, but it was at about a 45 degree angle, and the slope was covered with loose talus and cactus - so you would take a step uphill, then slide three steps downhill into something big and covered with spines. It took us 50 minutes to hike up to the base of the cliffs, and then it took 20 minutes to get Ethel's face back to the color normally associated with living creatures :)
Then I did a trad lead up something that can't be rated harder than 5.6 anywhere - but when you're on the sharp end of the rope, and you're going up a cliff that nobody's ever climbed before, and there are pieces of rock coming off in your hand, it's...unnerving. It's good rock underneath, but there are a lot of small pieces that need to be cleaned.
It took me close to an hour to make it to the top, and then it took me a long time to set up the toprope since there aren't any preset anchors; then I got Ethel to load me down (although I found this scary, since (as I said) I was unsure about the toprope anchoring...okay, that's not EXACTLY right. It just FELT weird, since it had been a long time since I had set up a toprope anchor that wasn't using bolts). Then Ethel did some climbing, and we headed back down that scree-loaded slope (it took us 35 minutes to walk the quarter-mile back to the car. That's some rough going :)
Thus, for the route to the base of the crags, this was a first AND LAST ascent - Ethel won't want to do that again, and neither do I :)
Now I'm all atwitter about the idea of bolting these routes - first, setting anchors at the top of a few of them, and then perhaps bolting the face of some of them for leading sport routes. I'm aware that there's a lot of argument about bolting among climbers; some of them say that it's not "pure", and some that they think that it's not environmentally ethical(yes, they think that sticking an ounce of steel into the side of a mountain, in rock so hard and vertical that nothing lives there but lichen, is an "environmental impact").
I...okay, I have a hard time with this. I've tried to find something, somewhere, to read that can somehow make this more than simple posturing, but so far it ain't happening. Placing a bolt in a rock is just that - placing a bolt in a rock. It makes it a lot safer; the American Safe Climbing Association, however, doesn't approve of placing bolts in an attempt to make climbing "safer" because "climbing is inherently dangerous". They do seem to support putting bolts in places where regular protection can't be placed (or "can't be placed easily"), and this doesn't seem to cause them any internal grief (they are, no doubt, of the school that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" :)
As far as I can tell, folks don't want bolts placed because of two (sets of) reasons:
1) Impact on the environment
2) Dilutes the purity of the sport
The first one - no, I can't even pretend to understand it. I can't look at a trillion tons of mountain and see the application of a pound of steel in non-fertile locations as having any real impact at all.
The second one seems to me to be the idea of "if you're not good enough to do this the way we do it, then don't do it at all". I think it's the same thing as folks who don't want people running marathons if they can't run them in X:XX time (the X's there differ based on how fast the runner who's speaking can run, as far as I can tell).
No, wait - that's not even true; some of the runners who don't want slower runners in their races often have complaints about how the course has to be opened for a much longer period of time and a lot more resources get used up, which makes races more expensive (or less available).
But there's no such equivalent in the bolted-route arguments; heck, if you don't want to use the bolts, nobody is MAKING you use them. You can go right up the route placing whatever protection you wish. No, this is a rule to keep OTHER people from doing something that the person objecting finds offensive to their standards.
(If there is any other way of explaining this, please let me know. Go ahead, Damon. You're the only one out there that I know of who might have an opinion :)
The arguments are referred to as "religous" arguments because the differences in opinion aren't based on anything conscious - it's basic values, and most folks never bother to actually figure out what their values ARE - they just react to 'em.
Anyway - I have every intention of learning how to bolt these routes, and doing so. It's my home rock; I'm gonna be living in Circle Mountain until I'm dead, so I'd just as soon have climbing very close by. And I'd rather that it be bolted climbing, because that's just safer.
That was an exciting hike/climb...I wasn't there but it felt like it! Boy, you sure knew you were alive on that one, eh?!
Reply to this
Jim,
I think you got it right. However, from an etiquette perspective, the decision to bolt or not bolt belongs to the first ascender. If these rocks are previously unclimbed, you should be clear, within climbing ethics, to bolt them.
The real issue to me is when hot shot 5.10+ climbers climb something free, name it, write a route description about its poor gear placements, and then scream if anyone considers bolting it. At that point, those climbers are putting their egos above others' access to the rock and above others' safety. I find that frustrating. But, maybe it's because I suck as a climber, so I need bolts on moderate routes at times.
You do need to make sure that the land itself isn't protected or owned in any way that would prohibit you from bolting it.
Reply to this
DaMan -
Thanks, dude.
Now, here's a couple of questions which should challenge your abilities as a climbing legalist and as a logician (i.e. programmer):
Bolting ROUTES (via ettiquette) belongs to the first ascender. There is also some notion that you're supposed to climb a route free before you bolt it (which begs the question - what about those routes that can't be climbed safely without bolting?...but that's not part of this discussion).
But what about placing ANCHORS?
Anchors do nothing for the route (other than allowing folks to toprope) and anchors are often shared among several different routes. So is it okay to place anchors at the top of a crag, if you haven't climbed the crag (and if noone else has, either?)
And placing anchors will allow you to climb a route that you wouldn't be able to climb on the sharp end of the rope - so is it still a "first ascent"?
I think I've decided to set anchors along this ridgetop and just have fun; if this brings out the virulent and violent, then so be it; but if I never publish the area, then it won't matter, will it? : )
jim p.
Reply to this
Jim,
I think Kevin makes some good points about bolts. However, I also find that there is some hyperbole involved in questioning the safety of bolts at times. I find this to be a somewhat specious argument against them. Yes, bolts can be poorly installed. Exactly once in my life have I found a bolt that I didn't trust due to how it was installed. I have often declined to use bolts due to their age though, especially if trad placements were available.
Putting in bolts at the top so you can hang a top-rope seems like a reasonable compromise between bolting full lines and doing nothing at all, especially if you find the climbs to be lacking quality gear placements.
As for the "first ascent" question, you are now getting into a new area of terminology - flash, red-point, pink-point, etc. I climb, when I climb, for fun. Just like I'm never going to be a great runner, I'll never be a great (or even adequate) climber. I have no interest in first ascents, I like using beta before I climb a rock, and I'll use bolts if they are there. I used to work with someone in Boulder who did a lot of the FAs in Eldo. He was adamant that anyone who TR'd the route to examine it before making a free ascent had no right to claim the ascent. I think that David Brashears touches on this in his book when he talks about the route he put up on the Mickey Mouse Wall in CO.
I often replace slings when I rap off a climb, as my part of the "contribution" to a route. Besides, I don't want to die on a rappel because I was a cheap bastard. Slings and rings are cheap insurance on descents off trad routes.
Perhaps you can find a local climbing organization that can give you some advice on the area where you just climbed - any history of routes, local etiquette, ownership, etc.
Speaking of climbing, my wife is going to do 2 of the original "50 North American Classics" in Yosemite while I'm tapering for WS. She's going with a guide, because I'm not going to even think about climbing or leading at 5.9 a few days before my race.
Damon
Reply to this
You said "especially if you find the climbs to be lacking quality gear placements".
Dude - I'm a novice at trad climbing. I'm no good at it - and I'd rather not learn any more than I have to learn to get up a wall to set up a toprope :)
Reply to this
Jim,
I'm not going to assert my views here as a vehicle for your resolution on the subject. This battle has gone on for a very, very long time. Perhaps a bit of history should be taken into consideration in order to discover the real objection that most folks have to bolt climbing. "Trad" climbing as we know it, evolved due to the realization that pitons & other fixed anchors of the day were having a vastly detrimental effect on the rock. A "clean" solution was sought out for the purposes of preservation. The bolt has been born into pitonlike controversy because it once again scars the surface of the rock, considered a step backward from the progress we've made. Whether or not it's noticable to your neighbors is basically irrelevant, just as it was to the folks eyeballing El Cap from their rag top Mustangs in the golden age of Yosemite climbing. They never saw the pin scars or the bolts, that climbers saw every day on those classic routes. This "nobody cares but us" mentality fueled the fire of people like Warren Harding in the 60's who flambouyantly placed hundreds of bolts up a blank overhanging featureless wall aptly named the Leaning Tower in Yosemite. The primary controversy of that route was not that the bolts made it safer, but made it possible.
The assertation that bolt climbing is inherently safer is a bit flawed. As with a chock or cam bolt is only as strong as the climber who placed it. Bolts (99% of which are bought from hardware stores) are not put through the rigorous testing that trad gear does. If a bolt is tightened just a few pounds more than it was designed, the bolt has been compromised, and unfortunately it's rarely detectable. I often asked people in my classes (I uses to teach a safe climbing couse) if they would feel comfortable lending out their gear & all of them would say no. Climbing on someone elses bolts is exactly the same thing only its being lended out like a rental car hundreds of times a year on popular routes. That doesn't do much to instill confidence.
The last thing I would consider is whether your after safety, or convenience. Climbing is hard, & with a few exceptions it is rarely convenient. In our day of increasing convenience, a bolt wins out the same way cell phones, microwaves, and fast food have. Your time is valuable & frankly, spending 2-3 times as long to place a cam when a bolt is quick & dirty is often hard to swallow.
I've place a handfull of bolts in my day. I've regretted some but not all of them. Your neighborhood crag is a jewell, Just minutes from your front door. Few people have that. The reason it is undeveloped is because its inconvenient & uncomfortable. You can either play that to your advantage and enjoy years of quiet & peaceful climbing, or remove the inconvenience, and consequently the solitude that comes with it.
Reply to this
Actually, Kevin, you can't help but assert your views!
Just read what you wrote - that pitons were having a "vastly detrimental effect on the rock". That bolting is a "step backward from the progress we've made". That what the common man sees is "irrelevant"; that what Harding did was "flambouyant". The words you used made your emotional stance clear
And that's what this is about, BTW - it's EMOTIONS, not reason, based on core values that aren't explicit. I, myself, have no reverance for a rock surface; I'm aware that all of that talus below the crag is what has already fallen off, without any intervention on my part.
And I have no hatred of humanity; I don't somehow see a chunk of rock being scarred by somebody's piton as being worse than the crack left behind when water seeps in and freezes, forcing a chuck of rock loose. (I don't think that a beaver dam is more "holy" than Hoover Dam
Those are core values, and thus not subject to discussion - only description.
However, I flatly disagree that bolt climbing is NOT inherently safer. For one thing, it's already THERE - there is no balancing while the climber iterates through his pro looking for the right piece. And the bolt is placed at leisure (at least, it is if it's placed on rappel), with no sense of urgency.
(N.B. - that's one of the most blatant clues, to me, that this discussion is really an argument between the elitists and the common man; one of the histories that I read was condemning bolt placement on rappel, rather than on lead, because the person on rappel wasn't exposed to the same danger as the guy on the sharp end of the rope; as though danger was a virtue!)
I'm deciding (as soon as I get reassurance that there is no property owner to complain) to place anchors rather than bolting the routes themselves, but that's not out of ANY acceptance of decorum; it's because I don't want somebody coming behind me and cutting the bolts because he thinks that they shouldn't be there. That, to me, is the height of arrogance; "nobody less skillful than I should be allowed to climb over the same rock that I can climb". It's just plain elitist.
And were this to happen to bolts that I placed, I'd wind up getting angry about it; thus for me to bolt the routes might be creating "premeditated resentments".
Me, I'm a sport climber, when given the opportunity. My yogurt is sweetened with Aspartame, and my granola is low-fat - I have no illusions of being a real "mountain man" and find such folk to be tiresome. And I don't think of my local crag as being a jewel because its uncrowded - not at all! There's nothing I like better than a good, noisy, crowded crag, with lots of folks being sociable; when I die, Ethel's gonna spread my ashes at Ruth Lake, where we passed many a pleasant day along a LONG wall with folks spread out below each set of anchors.
I find all the solitude I need in my morning prayer and meditation time - I LIKE people
If I set these anchors, and other folks come along and bolt the routes themselves - nothing would please me more.
Lastly - and here's where I really differ from "real" climbers (and where you might finally decide that I am, indeed, the dinosaur I seem to be) - I find referring to this discussion as being about "ethics" to be silly and pompous. We're talking about peoples tastes, and about their egos -
"ethics 1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values"
I personally don't see anything "moral" or "immoral" about whether or not one places a bolt on a climbing wall - but, to my way of thinking, there is a LOT immoral about cutting bolts somebody else has placed.
Reply to this
Jim,
For some reason I feel like I should say sorry for my reply...but I'm not going to. Bolting, as well as climbing is entirely about ethics. It's not so much an issue of if, but of when. I know few climbers who would turn down a bolt on a run out 11c slab 200 feet off the deck, but on the same token, to place a bolt next to a perfectly protected crack is widely regarded as taboo. It is my assumption that if you led your route without them (bolts I mean) then what is the merit of installing them sans climb?
Make no mistake, I have placed a number of bolted routes and each time I did, I second guessed it. I've even had my bolts chopped by "elitist" climbers as you refer & I too was pissed, but to dismiss all ethics is in my opinion, very poor form.
We pack in our trash, it is our responsibilty to pack it out. We use barbless hooks, we don't use machines in wilderness areas, we give uphill hikers the right of way, we say "ROPE" when we know we're in the middle of nowhere, the odds of hitting someone are slim, and if you did it wouldn't kill them, it would just piss them off! We do all these things for no other reason than becase they are ethical.
Consider this, without ethics, you are a consumer. You cannot enjoy yourself without irrevocably consuming something, which enriches your experience and compromises someone elses. I do not align myself with the elitist crowd you speak of, but I can say that when I hit the trail, I am thankful for their efforts. They are the ones giving back to the community, the environment and the future generations of our beloved sports. The consumers get what they want, right now, and to hell with the future.
You seem to love climbing & I applaud you for that. I don't feel in any way that your bolting project is going to end the world. The fact that you don't see it as a jewell is sad, it could be something far less rewarding like a Baby Gap.
For the record:
I LIKE people too.
I Especially like "tiresome" mountain men. Warren hardings "flambouancy" was a quote from the book Camp Four, widely regarded as the definitive historical work on American climbing history.
Ethics have absolutely hothing to do with ego's. I don't refrain from cutting switchbacks because I think I am better than other hikers, or the trail, I do it out of humility even though it may be faster, it isn't the right thing to do.
In closing, I've been on both sides of this story. (I was part of the crew that bolted many of the routes in the Uintahs that you and Ethel may have enjoyed (see page 129 in "Uintah Rock" as well as all of the drawn illustrations in that book which are consequently of trad gear)I have fought for and against this topic over the last 20 years. What scares me, and those like me, is that irregardless of your final decision, you seem fairly unwilling to consider what the rock looks like from our eyes.
Either way best of luck in your climbing endeavors.
-Kevin
Reply to this
Once again I see that when two honest, logical people disagree, it will often come down to a difference in definitions.
I posted Merriam-Webster's definition of "ethics" yesterday in my comment; perhaps you didn't read it, or perhaps you've decided that you like your definition better, or maybe you really believe that pieces of metal in rock walls are a moral issue.
I don't discard ethics - not at all! Every day, I have to address myself with a moral inventory. I simply don't see the issue of placing a bolt or not placing a bolt as a MORAL question. (i.e. a question of MORALITY, not "mores").
You ask why would I place a bolt where there are places to put pro - I respond "sport climbing". There are many people who don't know how to place protection, and don't want to know how. (See "City of Rocks, Idaho"). It was several years before I ever led a trad climb, and I'm still quite the neophyte; I don't LIKE trad. Gear takes time and effort to set, and that takes away from the actual effort and energy that I'm putting into CLIMBING. Gear can come LOOSE if it's pulled from above.
I've climbed routes all over Big Cottonwood, Little Cottonwood, and - oh, what's that limestone canyon next to Big? the one with the water tower at the base - anyway, these routes are all bolted, all the way. No reason for trad gear. (I only got trad gear because I found that there were routes that weren't bolted, or places that had never been climbed that look interesting. I certainly didn't get it for ETHICAL reasons).
I'm not, BTW, trying to persuade you to a viewpoint; you asked a question, and I'm answering. There are a LOT of folks like me; we just like to climb, and we'd rather do it if somebody else has already bolted the route. I suspect that there are a lot MORE folks like me than actually admit it, because somehow the idea that trad is better has become fashionable, and folks don't want to ADMIT it.
But the sport crags are full of folks who are climbing with just a set of quickdraws and a lead rig; those poor folks don't even know how pitiful and pathetic and "immoral" they are. They think that they are out there, having fun.
Reply to this
"because somehow the idea that trad is better has become fashionable, and folks don't want to ADMIT it."
Then it's a good thing that our family isn't fashionable, isn't it?
Nope. Not at all.
Reply to this
We aren't fashionable - we're PRE-fashionable. Other folks are actually BEHIND us - by the time they catch up, we'll have moved on to something else.
Hey - shouldn't you be at work?
Reply to this
Jim,
I can definately see your point of view. If I understand you correctly, you essentially view trad gear as a distraction to the actual act of climbing. Whereas us primarily trad-like individuals (I spend a fair bit of time on bolted routes too) see the act of racking, sorting, and placing gear as a inseperable part of the act of climbing. Granted, I grew up climbing at the age of 8, watching my dad place now prehistoric trad gear (I actually built a shadow box for his antiquated rack) so it is safe to assume that I have attached some kind of nostalgic reverence to the act of placing gear. There's also the side of folks that prefer the act of making due as opposed to buying new. (Hence the collection of beat up Subaru's and VW campervans held together with chickenwire found ramapant in climbing parking lots. It's safe to say that those folks are traddies.
All in all, each of us is out to have a good time & it's important to keep the ethics debate close at hand, but not in such a way that it prevents us from learning and practicing our sport.
There is one sad bit to all of this that I have had some experience with. I taught climbing in the Uintahs for 8 summers. In that time I established a dozen new routes in various locations along highway 150. I placed bolts on two of those routes and even they were just top rope anchors. When the first guidebook was published, others had taken the credit for 10 of my routes because there was no lasting evidence of my climbs. I never argued with anybody about it because I wasn't out for recognition, I just smiled. It's a bit sad that people now feel obligated to place bolts in order to establish a route. It's possible (though from your description of the approach, highly unlikely) that some old dude in your area has climbed every line on the rock in question, and without a bolt, we'll never know.
I know you have no reverence for rock (as you stated earlier) but for some reason I imagine you to have some reverence for history. It may be of interest to you to read Steve Ropers book Camp 4. A: its actually a great read & B: it may give you additional insight into the Trad/Bolt controversy. I don't suggest it in hopes persuading you to switch teams becuause it actually addresses both sides of the issue (although it does lean toward less is more) I just think it would be a great historical reading for someone of your introspective nature.
Lastly, you mentioned City of Rocks, which with few hideously over-bolted exceptions, is in my mind the perfect climbing area. I say this because even though you may not have sought them out, it has hundreds of amazing bolt free trad lines mixed in with its legendary collection of sport routes. In this perfect world, there is something for everyone. Perhaps after all of this, that should be the goal.
Something for everyone.
Once again, I wish you the best in your climbing endeavors.
-Kevin
Reply to this