NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Was it really necessary??  (Read 558 times)

cguertin

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Was it really necessary??pologize
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2003, 09:04:57 AM »

So, my "pansy-ass" remark was obviously too far and, of course, I apologize for resorting to name calling. However, was that ice really as low as it looks in the pic on the main page? I can see drilling one bolt(although I wouldn't), but I have to ask the original question again, was it really necessary? Two? NH is lucky to have so many crags on access friendly land where bolting only gets other climbers all huffy. I just seems that a little more caution could be taken when bolting. Every bolt makes the next one that much easier to place(I think that is from the Daks guidebook). Climbers of today influence the climbers of tomorrow. It seems that ethical debates will never die, and that is just great for everyone(especially website owners)!
Logged

Bryan

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2003, 11:05:28 AM »

I agree with the above.  "To bolt or not to bolt" will be a battle for the ages.  I suppose we just have to feel lucky that some people care enough about our enviroment to question bolting as a practice.  That's what this argument is all about, right?  I am all about respecting the right of the first ascentsionist, but it all comes back to the fact that over-bolting  has enviromental impacts.  Even if they're just cosmetic.(which is the only real harm)  
 The way I see it, so many other things in our world damage our enviroment more than two little bolts, so let's start worring about those.  I am curious to know if the alleged bolt chopper recyles or gives a damn about other enviromental issues.  Just my 2 cents.
Bryan
Logged

DWarriner

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 506
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2003, 07:24:02 PM »

I can definitely see both sides on the bolting issue and tend to go back and forth between purist dogma and my desire for  safe climbing.

My schizophrenic solution to this dilemma is that I only place pre-chopped bolts.

-David
Logged
There are no stupid questions - only stupid answers.

Matt S.

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #48 on: February 09, 2003, 05:08:55 PM »

What's next, bolts on Pinnacle Gully?  If anyone has the gumption, I'd be happy to mail your bolts back to you. Please don't retro bolt any more established classics.  Respect the first ascentionists, raise your standards, or train to meet the route's demands.  End of story.
Logged

Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7070
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2003, 03:41:53 AM »

bolts everywhere isn't the answer of course. and I don't think bolts on PG is a good idea, but I'd be happy if soomeone did up a couple of 2 bolt belays. those pins on the left are getting pretty ratty. and how about a 2 bolt anchor on Dropline? the birch is gonna go in the next year or so.

al
Logged
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

dogboy

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • What?
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2003, 06:20:32 AM »

BTW--anyone who feels the need to call Will names ought first to have to go do all the routes he gets credit for in the new Ice Climbers guide.  Once you can pull grade 6, M7 ice, then you can make judgements on others' climbing.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2003, 06:21:12 AM by jeffc »
Logged
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

Alex

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2003, 07:07:04 AM »

speaking of Pinnacle gully, I don't think it would be the end of the world if that one pin at the top of the first pitch was accompanied by something a little more substantial...
Logged

Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7070
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2003, 07:07:26 AM »

hey,

I think that comparing the 2 bolts on BPG to the idea of bolts all the way up Pinnacle Gully is pretty disingenuous. it's not even close to the same thing.

al
Logged
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

Alex

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #53 on: February 10, 2003, 07:16:40 AM »

for the record, i meant right the belay only, NOT as intermediate protection...
Logged

dogboy

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • What?
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #54 on: February 10, 2003, 07:57:53 AM »

See, this is where I disagree.  Pinnacle is an Alpine route.  It is not like BPG or anything at Frankenstein, i.e. close to the road and essentially a sport crag.  If you don't like the pin anchor, build a screw anchor.  Or, if you can't get the ice to build a screw anchor, build a deadman anchor, or pound in another pin and then remove it, or simply simul-climb.  The likelyhood of your second taking a high-force fall on Pinnacle is low anyway....If we were talking about a grade 4 or 5, where someone could take a good whipper, then I'd be all for the bolts.  Pinnacle, however, is not in that league....
Logged
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

jpl

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #55 on: February 10, 2003, 09:37:10 AM »

Interesting debate. Seems like the real crux of the issue is related to whether folks who'd like to climb the route as a pure ice climb will ever have the chance to do it again. I'm sure the safety provided by two bolts will have many aspiring mixed climbers up there for a shot at it, who will probably knock half the pillar off just like Will did on his first mixed ascent. Folks out west have been dealing with this for a while (e.g. routes not touching down anymore because they get done earlier and earlier each season and don't have a chance to form). Fortunatley we have a little more accessible ice than folks out west. I have no solution to offer accept to say the more this becomes the norm (adding bolts to access climbs before they touch down), the more a particular group of climbers will be alienated, the ones who'd like to climb the ice route and not the mixed route. Black Pudding seems like a classic enough line to me to warrant the time needed to form as a straight ice line ... and I like mixed routes just as much as the next person. Although the pins on Recompense and Pegasus seem to have very little to do with this, I say yank them, or just let them fall out. There's plenty of safe clean pro available on both those pitches.    
Logged

HenryG

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #56 on: February 10, 2003, 09:39:28 AM »

This is excessive detail, but when I introduced someone to Pinnacle last March, the pins had been replaced or augmented by webbing pulled through a rock flake.  I've not been up it recently, so I don't know what is there now.
Logged

jpl

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #57 on: February 10, 2003, 10:09:04 AM »

My apologies for commenting on this again, but I must point out that it's really important to remember that we are not the only user group that matters when it comes to the management of cliffs. We have two choices, to regulate our own activity or have them regulated by others (potentially folk who don't know jack about climbing or what it does to the cliffs). There are people who value "wilderness," and bolts (just as much as trails) are not consistent with what they want, that is an experience with as little sign of human activity as possible. There are people who also value cliffs because they frequently have a whole variety of wierd plants, lichens, birds, and other critters associated with them. Bolts allow climbers to go where they haven't gone before, which means that there are fewer and fewer cliffs, and section of cliffs not being subject to our presence. Please remember, we "scrub" routes, "mine" gear placement, "garden" our way up an FA, and these actions have big time impacts for things that live on cliffs and folks who want to see them in their full glory without us crawling all over them like, excuse the analogy, flies on shit. Federal agencies, private conservation groups, private landowners, and others WILL manage for biological diversity and wildneress when it comes to cliffs. We can participate in the conversation and be willing to make concessions (e.g. recognize our actions have impacts that are negative in some ways), or simply find an increasing number of obstacles to our pursuit. I'd suggest excersizing some retraint when it comes to establishing new bolted routes or new climbing areas. Why not clean up some of the absolutely best climbs we have that have fallen into obscurity, like Windjammer on the Kanc., Don't Fire on Cathedral, the direct finish to the Last Unicorn, the upper pitches on Wonder Wall, the original pitches on Pendulum going up left of the cave on Lights in the Forest, and the list goes on and on.  

   
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.253 seconds with 22 queries.