From wheenan@wizvax.com Fri Mar 3 14:01:55 EDT 1995 Article: 29396 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29396 Newsgroups: rec.climbing Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.wizvax.com!wheenan!wheenan From: wheenan@wizvax.com (Walt Heenan) Subject: Re: Request for bolters X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B] Sender: news@news.wizvax.com (news) Organization: Strategic Systems Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <3hu0sf$pi4@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3i17ij$f6f@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: heenan.wizvax.com Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 10:11:14 GMT In article <3i17ij$f6f@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> rja@batcomfs.Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Allen) writes: >Date: 17 Feb 1995 04:09:55 GMT >In article >"William D. Gooch" writes: >+On 15 Feb 1995, Robert Allen wrote: >+ >+> Not because it's unclear how one side or the other >+> justifies their position, but because of the apparently >+> readily accepted concept that one should go out and >+> permanently modify public property, merely to support >+> ones own hobby.... >+ >+Considering the fact that most modifications of public property (like >+building roads) are many orders of magnitude larger and more destructive >+than any climbing-related activity, your viewpoint strikes me as a bit >+odd. Quite a few such modifications (campgrounds, trails, etc.) are done >+strictly (or at least largely) to support peoples' hobbies. > So what you're saying is "two wrongs make a right"? > IMHO, there's a big difference between puttin in a firepit > to prevent people from making more firepits willy-nilly, than > putting a 2-3 bolt line up (at best) a 30' bouldering line, as > I've seen done at my local climbing hangout. >-- >------------------------ >Robert Allen >rja@sun.com Now let me first state that I have been climbing for almost a decade and have *never* placed a bolt or pin, further, I prefer trad to sport climbing. With that out of the way, I think it is important that *ALL* climbers stop fanning the flames of the 'bolt wars' by suggesting that significant environmental impact results from bolting. The fact is, *NO* significant environmental degradation results from bolting. Bolting is not an environmental issue, and we shouldn't allow it to become one or it will be turned against us and used as a weapon to limit all climbing. Erosion resulting from herd trails and other issues resulting from overuse *are* envioronmental issues, as is the impact of other popular outdoor activities such as hiking (trails), camping (campfires), alping skiing (need I elaborate?), and how about roads into wild areas!. Climbing access is being threatened on all fronts. Portraying ourselves (or at least a significant subculture of 'ourselves') as a crazed group of Army Corp of Engineer wanabees all sporting dual six shooter bolt guns just like Stallone's even to ourselves, let alone the rest of the world is access suicide. If there were significant environmental impacts, we should discuss them. But we shouldn't just accept the common wisdom that bolting causes environmental degradation. Just what ecosystem is it degrading? And yes, there is a big difference between a firepit and a bolt. A firepit does degrade the environment! The *true* major impact of bolts is how it affects our sport not how it affects the environment. Let's stop allowing (let alone assisting!) ourselves to be portrayed as having created this huge environmental crisis. We need to educate people about that so that the false perception of environmental damage doesn't destroy climbing. Let's keep the discussion of bolting focused on how it is affecting the sport and whether or not we like the direction the sport is going. Flame, er I mean, Climb On Walt Heenan wheenan@wizvax.com From stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com Fri Mar 3 14:02:32 EDT 1995 Article: 29392 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29392 Newsgroups: rec.climbing Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!boulder!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com!stuart From: stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com (Stuart Marlatt) Subject: Re: Request for bolters Message-ID: <1995Feb18.231256.11641@den.mmc.com> Sender: news@den.mmc.com (News Admin) Nntp-Posting-Host: spacemanspiff Organization: Martin Marietta, Denver References: <3hs2uo$ln2@news1.delphi.com> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:12:56 GMT Lines: 25 In article robbier@netcom.com (D.P.R. Construction) writes: >cwills (cwills@bix.com) wrote: [...retro-bolting outrage deleted...] >: Cheyenne >Chop em!!!! Absolutely! _BUT_, do it with some sensitivity. Pry them out if you can, and fill the holes with some epoxy and rock-dust. In short, try and return the rock to a state close to its original condition, rather than looking like a bolt-war ravaged wasteland (cf. the base of Country Club Crack, on Castlerock...what a sorry mess). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The opposition is largely composed of "short-haired women and long-haired men." -Marsdon Manson .............................................................................. s.w. marlatt, phd <>< & *(:-) Prov. 25.2 Martin Marietta Astronautics stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com M/S/ L5740, P.O. Box 179 (303) 977-0136 Denver, CO 80201 (303) 977-5853 (fax) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From scott@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com Fri Mar 3 14:02:59 EDT 1995 Article: 29369 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29369 Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!hp-cv!hp-pcd!hpcvca!hpcvcem.cv.hp.com!scott From: scott@hpcvcem.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: Request for bolters Date: 18 Feb 1995 00:35:54 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3i3fda$3gl@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> References: <3i2r41$i5k@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: hpcvcem.cv.hp.com tor@bnr.ca (Rene Tio) writes: : : IMHO, retro-UNbolting is just as destructive and unsightly as : retro-bolting. This is something a lot of people on this forum have been saying, but from personal experience, this is not true. I have seen bolts pulled, and holes filled in with a mixture of colored epoxy and local powdered rock, and when done, you couldn't necessarily tell a hole had been drilled. Certainly not from more than 3' away. This was a lot less "unsightly" than the previous stainless anchor, or hole. Another poster on this forum mentioned how a climbing area had been closed by the owner (Devils Punchbowl?), and that a climber was pulling the bolts, and filling the holes in such a way that "you couldn't tell they were there". So, there are at least two cases where bolts have been pulled and an unsightly scar weren't left. I'm sure there are others. -- Scott Linn scott@cv.hp.com From stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com Sun Mar 5 17:38:23 EDT 1995 Article: 29640 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29640 Newsgroups: rec.climbing Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!munnari.oz.au!uunet!in1.uu.net!boulder!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com!stuart From: stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com (Stuart Marlatt) Subject: Re: A Bolting Question Message-ID: <1995Feb21.153109.20333@den.mmc.com> Sender: news@den.mmc.com (News Admin) Nntp-Posting-Host: spacemanspiff Organization: Martin Marietta, Denver References: <3ibdc2$bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 15:31:09 GMT Lines: 66 In article <3ibdc2$bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu> lanierb@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Lanier Benkard) writes: >I have been thinking about this whole bolting issue, and I have a >question about it. In areas where the climbing is single-pitch only and >the pitches are not very long, why do people bother putting bolts in at >all? Couldn't they instead drop a static line from the top with loops >tied at the right points where you would place a bolt? I don't see how >leading in this fashion would be very different than leading a bolted >climb. There are only three differences that I can make out: (1) It doesn't >damage the rock. (2) It isn't permanent. (3) It somehow seems different >from "bottom up" leading. > >As for (1), I think we would all agree it is better not to damage the >rock. (2) is definitely a disadvantage because you would have to carry a >static line or second rope everywhere. As far as (3) is concerned, it is >true that you are using assistance from the top, but then these days most >bolts are placed on rappel so that anyone repeating the ascent is in a >sense also using aid from a top-rope. What do you think? This of course is an excellent idea. Everything you have said about this is generally true. It has in fact been used on occasion, but has failed to become widely popular amongst sport climbers since: 1. Routes places in this manner leave no permanent trace on the rock; thus the exact location of the route is somewhat vague, and unless the route follows a line defined by the rock, it may be difficult to describe. This could be easily rectified by painting large red lines or by extensive 'scultping', and enhanced by liberal chalk usage - any of these would seem to satisfy the need of climbers to mark their territory (cf. dogs) and thus provide definition to the all-important number-bagging claims. 2. Although most bolted sport routes have been placed on rappel, it will be argued that many such routes do not top out at a ledge or summit, but merely at a set of anchor chains; thus, it will be seen as impossible to anchor the static line at the top of the pitch. (Worse, the possible anchor points may be well above the top of the sport route and might not be themselves bolted!) 3. The fact that a rope actually hangs down the length of the climb will be interpretted as a 'top-rope', and thus the strict, exact definition of terms such as 'pink-point' (climbed route after many tries, with pre-placed gear), 'red-point' (climbed route after many tries, with pre-placed gear), 'flash' (climbed route after many tries, with pre-placed gear), and 'on-sight' (climbed route after many tries, with pre-placed gear) will become blurred and indistinct. 4. As the static rope ages, it will become less safe; conversely, a bolt may be regarded as unconditionally safe, regardless of age and the anonymity of the bolt-placeer. 5. We paid for all these Bosch's and Hilti's - and now there is no need to use them?! In fairness, there are many cases where this technique would prove difficult, especially if the route wanders laterally very much. For severely overhanging pitches, it may be necessary to anchor both the top and bottom of the rope, and if the route is very concave, even this might leave the rope at some distance from the rock at point on the route. Nevertheless, it is inexcusable that such methods are not used whenever possible, just as the bolting of an easily (and traditionally) top-roped over-grown boulder route is an unjustifiable outrage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The shortest path between any two truths in the real domain passes through the complex domain. - J. Hadamand .............................................................................. s.w. marlatt, phd <>< & *(:-) Prov. 25.2 Martin Marietta Astronautics stuart@spacemanspiff.den.mmc.com M/S/ L5740, P.O. Box 179 (303) 977-0136 Denver, CO 80201 (303) 977-5853 (fax) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From robmccau@access3.digex.net Sun Mar 5 17:40:05 EDT 1995 Article: 29558 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29558 Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!access3!robmccau From: robmccau@access3.digex.net (Rob McCauley) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: A Bolting Question Date: 24 Feb 1995 04:53:10 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 50 Message-ID: <3ijonm$2cf@news1.digex.net> References: <3ibdc2$bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu> <1995Feb21.153109.20333@den.mmc.com> <1995Feb21.205821.20211@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Oops, deleted the posters name. Apologies. : The first half is true. And while bolts are often used without : knowledge of who placed them or how (and this is not necessarily a smart : thing), many areas are put up by locals, for locals. I know the people in my : area who bolt, and I've helped them and watched them place. I'm satisfied : with their experience and ability, and their placements. Besides, many many : trad climbs would be X or R or even unclimbable if it weren't for the : anonymous bolt-leaver who put in that belay anchor, or that single bolt in : the middle of that 100' slab. I'd just like to insert my opinions here. The above passage (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have the inherent statement that there's something wrong with climbs being X or R, or unclimbable. Remember that no matter what the climb, it will be beyond the abilities of some percentage of the climbing population. At my (admittedly very modest) peak, I could climb 5.9 and lead 5.8. There were some 5.9s I would have liked to lead, and surely if I had hacked up the climb in some way, whether by bolting or chipping holds, I could have done it. I strongly believe that it should not be like this. Those climbs are just beyond my ability (or willingness to push my limits). There are those who *can* climb them, and I feel it is very wrong for me to modify the climb to my liking without regard for those who can climb it in its natural form. People, including me, *do* climb those R climbs, and speaking for myself (and the 1 R I've ever climbed and the other I tried) I *DON'T* want someone to stick a bolt in it to calm their fears. If you aren't comfortable climbing a climb they way it was first ascended, if you can't climb it without permanently altering the climb, perhaps you should stay off the climb. Sure, if I placed some bolts on those 5.9s, I could have lead 5.9. Bottom line, I wasn't a 5.9 leader. Also consider that those "impossible to protect" climbs that are bolted with the argument that "no one could ever protect that, so I'll bolt it" argument don't consider that yesteryear's "impossible to protect" climbs sometimes are protected. Consider that tomorrow's pro might just do things that we can't quite envision yet. If that's too far fetched, consider that tomorrow's bolts might be less damaging, longer lived, and more secure. Btw, nice point about the climb being forever tainted for aid climbers who find a bolt placed. It's exactly the same feeling finding a bolt next to a protectable crack, I expect. "Don't use the bolts" just doesn't cut it. Btw, this is not a flame, and isn't directed at the author of the post I quoted. Again, my apologies for deleting your name. Actually, I only chose this post to quote because it had a healthy number of rational arguments, even though it didn't refute the use of bolts. :) Comments by email welcome. Reply to robmccau@radonc.duke.edu : Dave Rowland Rob McCauley Sometime climber of small ability and large opinions. :P From wsorgel@eng.clemson.edu Sun Mar 5 17:44:58 EDT 1995 Article: 29515 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29515 Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!emory!hubcap.clemson.edu!usenet From: wsorgel@eng.clemson.edu (wolfgang sorgel) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: A Bolting Question Date: 22 Feb 1995 22:25:44 GMT Organization: Clemson University College of Engineering Lines: 33 Distribution: world Message-ID: <3igdl8$dk5@hubcap.clemson.edu> References: <3ibdc2$bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu> Reply-To: wsorgel@eng.clemson.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.127.214.22 In article bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu, lanierb@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Lanier Benkard) writes: >I have been thinking about this whole bolting issue, and I have a >question about it. In areas where the climbing is single-pitch only and >the pitches are not very long, why do people bother putting bolts in at >all? Couldn't they instead drop a static line from the top with loops >tied at the right points where you would place a bolt? Besides all other arguments (pro - con) that have been discussed: Keep in mind, that often the soil and the vegetation aroud the crags are very sensitive: You easily destroy plants and cause erosion by walking the (often steep) trails to the top , the vegetation on the flat top of many cliffs is also quite sensitive (and often rare). For this reason, it is for example recommended in many places in Germany NOT to walk around the crags but lead them and then rapell from the last bolt (often special "Abseihaken" - rapelling bolts). I might add, that many limestone routes can not be safely belayed on trad pro at all. So ,IMHO, bolting of high frequency sport routes, even if they are short, can be a plus in "environmentally friendly" climbing, the most challenging access problem in europe. BTW: How "trad" is trad gear at all: Friends seem to be pretty new, compared to pitons ??? Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Soergel, grad. Student of electrical engineering at Clemson University 220 Elm Street # 122, Clemson, S.C. 29631, Phone: (803) 654-0930 ............................................................................... 5000 miles away from home :-) and my boards :-(. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Alan@moorside.demon.co.uk Sun Mar 5 17:48:18 EDT 1995 Article: 29828 of rec.climbing Xref: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:29828 Newsgroups: rec.climbing From: Alan@moorside.demon.co.uk (Alan Little) Path: dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!moorside.demon.co.uk!Alan Subject: Re: No bolts? References: <3ibdc2$bv5@news.ycc.yale.edu> <3isuft$1bn@hacgate2.hac.com> Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: Alan@moorside.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 43 X-Posting-Host: moorside.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:30:05 +0000 Message-ID: <794133005snz@moorside.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Here is a "bolt war" story from one of my local crags. Hobson Moor quarry is a small crag near Manchester, England. It contains about twenty routes on quarried gritstone (a kind of hard sandstone found a lot in northern England), and some worthwhile bouldering. The rock on most of the harder routes is of pretty poor quality. (Also, it's not in a very aesthetic situation). As you will have gathered, it is harldy a world class venue - but it is about the nearest climbing of any worth at all for Manchester climbers, and therefore quite popular. The harder routes were rarely led. Then about three or four years ago, somebody put in cemented pegs on some of them. This was generally accepted by the locals as a solution which made what were previously unpleasant and dangerous leads into quite popular and worthwhile routes. (BTW, I am totally against any retro-protection of any kind on routes that have been led cleanly, and are of any real quality and/or in wilderness areas. But Hobson Moor is generally accepted to be an "outdoor gym" of no aesthetic worth, with routes of interest only to locals. I do not claim that all my views are necessarily consistent). Anyway, last year somebody put in resin bolts on a couple of the routes, next to the already generally accepted and perfectly adequate cemented pegs. Asshole. Soembody else came along and chopped both the resin bolts and ALL the cemented pegs, not only on these routes but all the others as well. Asshole. You can't replace a cemented peg. So we're now back to toproping or life-threatening leads on the harder routes. As I said before, I have nothing against life-threatening leads on routes that have other redeeming qualities to make them worthwhile. If you can do them and are willing to accept the consequences, fine - otherwise, toprope or climb something else. But what we had at Hobson Moor was a perfectly OK state of affairs, quite accepted by local consensus on a crag of purely local interest, which meant you didn't have to risk your life just to get pumped on a Tuesday evening after work. But you only need two opinionated individuals to screw it up for everybody. -- Alan Little From lesher_c@wizard.colorado.edu Fri Jul 21 18:28:43 EST 1995 Article: 5286 of rec.climbing Xref: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:5286 Path: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boulder!wizard.colorado.edu!lesher_c From: lesher_c@wizard.colorado.edu (Chris Lesher) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: More Retro-Bolting. Idyllwild, CA Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:44:38 Organization: University of Colorado Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <3r7dui$d65@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3s49mq$b4h@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3s4hod$j44@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s51uc$iv4@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <3sak9r$140k@huey.cadvision.com> <3srpbo$391@bmw.hwcae.az.Honeywell.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.138.131.105 X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev Final Beta #10] In article <3srpbo$391@bmw.hwcae.az.Honeywell.COM> Greg Opland writes: >hamilton@luey.cadvision.com (B hamilton) wrote: >> While the trads fumble with their racks, Eurodog saunters past >> and commences >> to onsight free solo every line. The trads look on in horror >> (admiration?), because they know from that point on, the only way >> that they, their children and their children's children will ever set >> foot on those routes is to either (1) hike the 30 miles around and >> downclimb 1000 vertical feet of loose blocks to set up a toprope, or >> (2)ask Eurodog to drag them up the routes. Have I got it right? :-> >What makes you think Eurodog sport-buddy has the guts to free >solo an unknown route with possibly loose holds and a walk-off >the back of "30 miles around and 1000 vertical feet of loose >blocks"? Are you saying he's going to downclimb the route as >well? >Nice try. Not buying it. But just for the sake of argument, >I believe there are routes in Tuolumne Meadows that John Bachar >soloed on the first ascent. >G. But Greg, his point is a valid one. Those routes that Bachar soloed are generally regarded as established now, right? It would be unacceptable to (probably) most climbers for someone to retrobolt them, even on lead. If we follow the 'first ascent establishes the gear' principle then these routes are destined to remain unprotected. An extreme example, but one that I've heard others use when slagging the principle of respecting the first ascent style above other considerations. Chris From jbargo@carsinfo.com Fri Jul 21 18:28:49 EST 1995 Article: 5161 of rec.climbing Xref: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:5161 Path: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU!metro!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!jbargo From: jbargo@carsinfo.com (Jerry Bargo) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: More Retro-Bolting. Idyllwild, CA Date: 30 Jun 1995 23:46:41 GMT Organization: OARnet Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3t22d2$s7f@ns.oar.net> References: <3r7dui$d65@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3s49mq$b4h@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3s4hod$j44@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3s51uc$iv4@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <3sak9r$140k@huey.cadvision.com> <3srpbo$391@bmw.hwcae.az.Honeywell.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: carshp.carsinfo.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] : Those routes that Bachar soloed are : generally regarded as established now, right? It would be unacceptable to Right. : (probably) most climbers for someone to retrobolt them, even on lead. If we Right. : follow the 'first ascent establishes the gear' principle then these routes : are destined to remain unprotected. And what is wrong with that? Does every route have to be safe? Protected? Well protected? Easy? Easy enough for "my baby sister to climb?" Wheel chair accessible? We do have wilderness trails that are designed to facilitate wheel chairs. There are easy routes, well protected routes, merely adequately protected routes, and runouts. Everything has its place, even unprotected "death routes". Someone brought up the word "respect". Perhaps this is the root of much of the conflict. IMO, retrobolting demonstrates a lack of respect for the FA party and the style in which they accomplished it. It demonstrates a lack of respect for subsequent parties who would repeat the route in the same style as the FA party. Most of all, it demonstrates a lack of respect for the rock. In any given region there are more than enough "safe" routes to keep a climber busy for a lifetime. So why emasculate the much rarer adventure test piece just to make another "safe" route? "Don't clip the bolts if you don't like them," highlights the ignorance of the sport climber. The mere presence of the bolts completely changes the route whether you clip them or not. Adventure climbing is a mentally and emotionally charged experience. The security that the mere presence of a bolt offers radically alters the balance of the whole experience. -- Jerry Bargo University of Cincinnati CARS Information Systems Corp. Mountaineering Club *************** A day without tempting fate is a day wasted. *************** From nsparker@ingr.com Fri Jul 21 18:30:20 EST 1995 Article: 5237 of rec.climbing Xref: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU rec.climbing:5237 Path: news.nsw.CSIRO.AU!metro!OzEmail!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mid.net!news.dra.com!indigo.dra.com!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.ingr.com!b11.b11.ingr.com!b11!nsparker From: nsparker@ingr.com (Nick Parker) Newsgroups: rec.climbing Subject: Re: Bolt it, Glue it, Puke it Date: 5 Jul 1995 12:40:27 -0500 Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL Lines: 43 Sender: nsparker@b11.b11.ingr.com Message-ID: References: <003A9DA7.fc@nile.com> Reply-To: nsparker@ingr.com (Nick Parker) NNTP-Posting-Host: b11.b11.ingr.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) I wrote: [Lots of ranting and bitching about the R&I Jardine article.] Clyde_Soles wrote: [Lots of good criticisms about my bitching, my being "We are Borg. We are Newt."] Of course you're right Clyde -- R&I nor any other publisher can control what people do with the information that is published. You are most certainly correct that censorship is a far worse fate. Touche' I knew all that to begin with -- I guess I just came across that article at a really bad time, and I was in a really bad mood about the whole issue. Some of my favorite local crags are closed, and others are threatened. Recently I had to indefinately postpone a planned road trip due to yet another closure. Not long ago I found a really baaaadly placed and unnecessary "convenience" bolt on one of my favorite local boulders. The bolt is about a foot from a good crack, there's a tree anchor not 10 feet away, and the boulder is only about 15 ft high to begin with. Whoever placed the bolt let a foot long line of epoxy to drip down the rock and dry there. This happened in an area that was absolutely pristine -- before this bolt there was no fixed pro or rock modification at all. After all this I was in no mood to read Jardine espousing chipping and gluing on holds to lower difficulty levels to bring "the masses" to the crags. It made me want to puke. Of course R&I is not responsible for our local problems, and I *was* off base with my bitching -- but it sure was tough to see yet one more thing that could influence climbers to abuse the crags. >....I don't think there is a cure for your form of tunnel vision. Well said. Thankfully it was only the 24 hr strain, and not a permanent condition. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Parker nsparker@ingr.com Design & Ergonomics Group Intergraph Corp, Huntsville, AL 35894 (Statements/opinions may not reflect official Ingr positions.)