|
sheesh
Jul 9, 2003, 11:03 PM
Post #76 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Keep proving my point about the egocentricity of the climbing community, climbsumthin'.
:)
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Jul 9, 2003, 11:08 PM
Post #77 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
Of course bolts should not be removed (unless next to a crack but that's a different thread) and only a few of the indignant litterers are suggesting that action. We all know it's often hard to spot a bolt hanger 20 feet away but a draw is easily visible from a hundred times that distance. Removing a bolt trashes the rock, unclipping a draw cleans it up.
So far, the only argument you've managed to come up with for leaving draws is that it's too much work to take them down and put back up. Oh, poor baby. Well if someone else isn't that lazy and decides to clean up your mess, then don't feel bad if they toss it in the garbage. To think that if you don't find it offensive then nobody will is the height of arrogance.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 9, 2003, 11:09 PM
Post #78 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Keep proving my point about the egocentricity of the climbing community, climbsumthin'. :) Peace
Are they litter too, or not? And why? Please bear in mind, trad boys, that there are fixed chains at Indian Creek, bolts at Tuolomne, and chalk at Joshua Tree.
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 9, 2003, 11:29 PM
Post #79 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
I am so trad that I have consistently argued w/ federal land managers AS A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL that bolts, chains, or ANYTHING left behind is illegal and should be considered abandoned property.
In addition, I have also argued (of course, to little effect) that those that drill into any protected rock feature be cited, as it is against all laws regarding the destruction of public property.
Of course, I also argued the issue of culpability regarding the failure of fixed anchors. Because fixed anchors are considered abandoned property, the government is liable for injuries that are caused by their failure. Once they are left up, they are condoned by the government and become the responsiblity of the government.
Chalk has been an issue for years, particularly around archeological panels, lichen and other sensitive areas. I don't need to rehash that.
8)
peace
|
|
|
|
|
deadfish
Jul 9, 2003, 11:34 PM
Post #80 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 57
|
In reply to: If fixed, "left" draws are litter, then what about FIXED, "left" anchor chains and shuts, bolts and hangers, even paw prints of chalk. Those don't get taken home everyday. They are knowingly LEFT. Are they litter too, or not? And why? Please bear in mind, trad boys, that there are fixed chains at Indian Creek, bolts at Tuolomne, and chalk at Joshua Tree.
Absolutely they are litter. Everyone should do their part to minimize impact and leave no trace as much as possible. It has been discussed before that chalk detracts from the beauty of the rock...there have been efforts to use colored chalk to minimize this, but it doesn't work as well. I try to use as little chalk as possible outside to minimize my personal impact.
I agree that we as climbers should make efforts to use natural rock colored hangers on bolts to minimize impact, especially on the lower pitches of climbs where they are visible.
I think that chains/slings should not be left at the top of climbs where they are visible from the ground, and as responsible climbers we should think about anchors in these high impact locations that are as invisible as possible. Some of the Fixe anchors are much less obtrusive than chains.
And certainly I agree that draws left on climbs are unsightly and should be removed at the end of the day. I respect sport climbing as a pursuit, but my personal opinion is that the proliferation of this "draw leaving ethic/consensus" is irresponsible and borne out of laziness. I'm not going to take it upon myself to take them down (mostly because I am lazy) so please don't feel you are required to flame me as a thief.
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 9, 2003, 11:44 PM
Post #81 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
In reply to: Climbers are more eco-sensitive than almost any other single group (obviously, there are exceptions). Why are we sensitive? Because we love those places too. We have a vested interest.
As I was dusting my home while El Portal burns (yes, there is a fire in El Portal today), I thought of this, Mike. Insert the noun "Ranchers" for "Climbers" above. You can insert "Hunters", "Offroaders", etc, etc.
For what it is worth.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 9, 2003, 11:46 PM
Post #82 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
OK, so we have some agreement appearing that fixed chains and anchors, bolts period, and chalk are litter.
One dood said he uses as little chalk as possible. OK. Duly noted.
But you guys must also avoid ANY and all routes with bolts and fixed anchors then, right?
Right?
Since it goes against your rock religion and all.
sheesh is SO TRAD, in fact, that he advocates the removal of fixed gear such as bolts. Do I need to tell you that your SO TRAD forefathers placed and then, um, "left behind" a few bolts in their time? Or am I taking their bolt placements out of context or sumthin'?
*ding*
8)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 9, 2003, 11:51 PM
Post #83 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I am so trad that I have consistently argued w/ federal land managers AS A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL that bolts, chains, or ANYTHING left behind is illegal and should be considered abandoned property.
Well, we have one thing in common. We are both embarrassed that you are a climber.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 9, 2003, 11:52 PM
Post #84 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
LOL. Most of them had worse environmental ethics than folks today. We have a much larger responsiblity, today, as there is so little untouched or unspoiled left. PARTICULARLY here in the anthill of Cali.
I not only advocate the removal of all fixed anchors (from a destruction of public property AND a protection of the public interest [in the form of lawsuits] point of view), but also the complete BAN of any new fixed anchors. And, for those that are caught, they should be cited and fined. Understand, many federal sites now have the policy of no new fixed anchors and citing those that violate the ban.
Climb: Put yourself in a position to make policy changes like I did.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
deadfish
Jul 9, 2003, 11:55 PM
Post #85 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 57
|
In reply to: But you guys must also avoid ANY and all routes with bolts and fixed anchors then, right? Right? Since it goes against your rock religion and all.
Not what I said at all in my post. I said we ALL have a responsibility to minimize our impact. Trad, sport, it doesn't matter.
It means I will be very careful what I leave on the rock where it can be seen.
It means I don't shortcut trails and switchbacks when hiking to the bottom of the rock.
It means I will be carrying brown/gray/olive slings to blend with the rock if I have to bail off a route. And if possible I'll be using a sling trick so I don't leave anything behind.
It means I won't be one of the people leaving draws hanging off the rock.
It doesn't mean I won't climb them...where did you get that? I'm happy to find a bomber bolt when I'm run out on face. I'm just as happy to sport climb. It's not about religion, it's about responsibility and protecting our resources and access.
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 10, 2003, 12:04 AM
Post #86 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Deadfish: You are a much better and thoughtful man than me. :) Nice post.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
mike_ok
Jul 10, 2003, 12:33 AM
Post #87 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345
|
In reply to: In reply to: Climbers are more eco-sensitive than almost any other single group (obviously, there are exceptions). Why are we sensitive? Because we love those places too. We have a vested interest. As I was dusting my home while El Portal burns (yes, there is a fire in El Portal today), I thought of this, Mike. Insert the noun "Ranchers" for "Climbers" above. You can insert "Hunters", "Offroaders", etc, etc. For what it is worth. Peace
I don't think you can insert "Ranchers" since the group is not recreational and is going about what they do for quite different purposes. Offroaders doesn't seem like a fair comparison, since their sport (of which I am a former member, sadly enough) really scars the land. PLEASE don't reply that climbing does too. Climbing is much more similar to hiking in its affect on the land. Now, as to hunters: the "politically correct" ecological response is to hate hunters. Note: I'm not a hunter. BUT, you must admit that we would NOT have the public land today if not for the sale of hunting licences. Hunters pay for a large proportion of the maintainance of public lands. So, sure, insert "hunters" in my original statement if you like. My point is that climbers have a "vested interest" in keeping public lands pristine, much as do backpackers/hikers and, indeed, hunters.
Now, to relate this to the actual discussion: I'm hiking in a state forest, I don't want to see a deer stand left by a seasonal hunter. That DOESN'T give me the right to go rip it down and throw it away. If I do so, I'm at best a vandal and at worst a thief, just as someone who take another climbers QD's is the same. Someone said I'm lazy above for wanting them left. I have never left QD's on a project. My point is that you can't take someone elses property because you don't like where its left. Contact the rangers if you like. Find out what the regulations are for your area. If the rangers call it litter, let them pull it off. Offer to pull it off for them, AFTER you have their permission and authority. If not, you are stealing property. Its really pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Jul 10, 2003, 1:14 AM
Post #88 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: Climb: Put yourself in a position to make policy changes like I did. Peace
It is the truth. He was at Capitol Reef, and under everybody's favorite bvb, too. I just checked.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 10, 2003, 1:30 AM
Post #89 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Keep proving my point about the egocentricity of the climbing community, climbsumthin'. :) Peace , even paw prints of chalk. Those don't get taken home everyday. They are knowingly LEFT. Are they litter too, or not? And why?
Bad example. Many people will argue chalk is an eyesore. I personally believe all climbing areas should ban loose chalk (and there are others who feel the same). You can use a chalk ball but loose chalk provides no additional value and is a big mess. Yes, it washes off but only after a good hard rain which is sometimes not for weeks. I personally really need chalk. Even with antiperspirant on my hands all summer my hands still sweat badly in the Northeast humidity. However, there have been days where I didn't use chalk and yet on those same days I see people dipping there hands into huge pots up the the elbow. Beyond a light coating chalk actually decreases friction so these people are doing nothing more than defacing the rock and littering. Beyond that they also ruin the route for the rest of us. Chalk caked holds are nasty after a moderate rain. The chalk remains but it becomes slimy. Overall loose chalk is satans work.
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 10, 2003, 1:35 AM
Post #90 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Nice detective work, styndall! BVB and I have had many a discussion around beers, campfires, canyoneering and climbs about these topics!
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Jul 10, 2003, 3:57 AM
Post #91 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: But you guys must also avoid ANY and all routes with bolts and fixed anchors then, right?
In reply to: Since it goes against your rock religion and all.
In reply to: Do I need to tell you that your SO TRAD forefathers placed and then, um, "left behind" a few bolts in their time? Or am I taking their bolt placements out of context or sumthin'?
Trad has come to mean different things to different people. We should probably find a new term for the large number of people who do a double take at the notion of bolted trad routes. Hey, we can call it clean climbing and declare that the rest of you practice "dirty" climbing. Dirty climbing. Nevermind, that kinda sounds like fun. :P Some people still find the whole "leave no trace" idea appealing. Take only photographs, leave only footprints. Minimal impact. I love the idea that I can go to an area, use it to my heart's content, then you can come along and never know I was there. My use of the area doesn't degrade your experience of it, or does so to the minimum extent I can manage.
That's where it all seems to break down in the debate. Your side, if I can point a non-accusatory finger, doesn't seem to accept that it does degrade the experience for some of us. Don't clip them? Doesn't change it. And so, as I suggested a while back, in the end (like years and years ago) we just agree to disagree, to play in our own camps, and quietly think to ourselves that the other side just doesn't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 10, 2003, 4:35 AM
Post #92 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: LOL. Most of them had worse environmental ethics than folks today. We have a much larger responsiblity, today, as there is so little untouched or unspoiled left. PARTICULARLY here in the anthill of Cali.
Maybe in Cali. There are literally thousands of miles of unclimbed rock elsewhere though. On public and private property. My question is if you're willing to chop every bolt and prosecute every bolter to support (and let me make this perfectly clear, so there is no question about it) YOUR ethics? Many landmanagers don't see it the same way you do. When the net value of a bolt is sub-$5, even a hundred of them is small compared to what could be abandoned (and often is from my experience). The access issues and the bolt bans come not from sport areas, but bolt wars and over-bolting.
In fact, the only area I've ever encountered that did not allow climbers, simply because of appearance, was in Canyonlands. Can you guess why they didn't want thousands of people a year clambering around on that rock?
Why do you think it is illegal to bolt in Eldorado Canyon without commnuity approval? Why do you think it is illegal to bolt in Boulder Mountain Parks? The simple reason is because a route would be bolted, a "hard core Trad" climber would chop it (usually poorly), the bolts would be replaced, chopped, replaced, leading to nothing but greater damage to the rock. What is particularly frustrating is that the last of the bolting in the are was done by (ironic isn't it?) those very same "hard core Trad" climbers, grasping for fleeting glory. Good climbing on unprotectable rock.
"Can't it be toproped?" you ask.
Only with duct tape and hope. Unless you're willing to set out on over a ropelength's of hard climbing with no protection, you see the problem.
"But wait", you say, "if it can't be climbed clean, why climb it at all?"
Based on that logic, El Cap would never see an ascent. Ever. Classic climbs like those on Devil's Tower would only be done by the well heeled. Taken to its natural conclusion, such an opinion encourages the removal of all non "game trails." That is, unless the wildlife made it, we shouldn't be using it.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 10, 2003, 4:43 AM
Post #93 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I am so trad that I have consistently argued w/ federal land managers AS A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL that bolts, chains, or ANYTHING left behind is illegal and should be considered abandoned property.
Sounds like the biggest danger to climbing access is you.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 10, 2003, 5:05 AM
Post #94 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*And so, as I suggested a while back, in the end (like years and years ago) we just agree to disagree, to play in our own camps, and quietly think to ourselves that the other side just doesn't get it.*
I think I do get where you're coming from, though. There's some deep-rooted angst at work here, I reckon. You being from the Deep South and all, I can understand why you'd bridle at having someone's else's ethics imposed on you. You would'nt happen to have a Confederate flag mounted on your car would you?
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Jul 10, 2003, 3:13 PM
Post #95 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: I think I do get where you're coming from, though. There's some deep-rooted angst at work here, I reckon. You being from the Deep South and all, I can understand why you'd bridle at having someone's else's ethics imposed on you. You would'nt happen to have a Confederate flag mounted on your car would you?
I'm not from the Deep South, I just live here now. I'm what they call a Damn Yankee. What's the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee? A yankee is someone from up North. A damn yankee is a yankee who won't go home. :)
You can give it another try if you'd like, but my reasons are simple and have already been stated.
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Jul 10, 2003, 4:51 PM
Post #96 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the Superstition mountains of Arizona. One person can make a complaint to those "in charge" which can lead to access problems. Minimizing impact should be every climber's goal. This may include cleaning your draws off your project even if it is not in a sensitive area. Many non climbers see one climber's actions as being those of every climber.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 10, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #97 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: A yankee is someone from up North. A damn yankee is a yankee who won't go home. :)
I haven't heard that in a while but it's true. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 10, 2003, 6:26 PM
Post #98 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the
Actually, if you read the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I'll be happy to send you a copy, it clearly outlines what is permissable within wilderness boundaries. Bolts would not fit that permissability.
The hiker didn't cause the bolt ban, he simply had it enforced. It you were placing bolts in a wilderness area you were violating the Wilderness Act before the hiker raised a stink. It's kind of like doing 7mph over the speed limit, you probably won't get pulled over but it's still not legal.
Just because as a climber you don't see something as an eyesore doesn't mean it's not. Perhaps the hiker/photographer was going to take a shot of the cliff in he morning light and he noticed the bolts were detracting from the picture. Tell me thats insignificant and then try to argue that climbers don't cause there own access issues, I'll be waiting :D :?:
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jul 10, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #99 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Yet another fine pissing contest!!
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 10, 2003, 7:22 PM
Post #100 of 168
(7189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Shees: You said this:
"I am so trad that I have consistently argued w/ federal land managers AS A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL that bolts, chains, or ANYTHING left behind is illegal and should be considered abandoned property. In addition, I have also argued (of course, to little effect) that those that drill into any protected rock feature be cited, as it is against all laws regarding the destruction of public property. "
I hope that you NEVER Step onto public propery. Doing so will IRREVERSABLY kill many small insects and damage plants as well, no matter how carful you are. I will accept your arguements concernig climbers if that is true, otherwise you are just another F*EN LOUDMOUTH BLOWHARD HYPOCRITE who neither walks the walk but just talks the talk.
But I'm sure YOU do not go onto public property as you sound so conciencious and concerned about others, so my capitolized statement above must not be true.
Regards;
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
