|
|
|
|
basalt
Sep 9, 2002, 8:13 PM
Post #26 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 4
|
I am not going to identify the location of the crag as yet, though it's near Basalt Colorado. I'm protecting my favorite fishing hole.
We don't have topos available of this or the single route next to it.
There is no doubt that we were the first accentionists based on the amount of cleaning and the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of previous climbers. At the time we put the route up there was one other climber working in the area. He had been working this area for a couple of years. We discussed this line with him and he had no claim to it and did not know anyone that did. Again, there was no evidence of anyone having been there. We spent months thinking and planning this line. As near as we can tell JT visited maybe three times.
The style of development at this crag is rap-bolting in an attempt to create the most sensible route and gear placements. We used the best equipment we could buy.
The tree is 115 feet from the ground. It is possible to rap off the side but the talus is steep and loose.
The entire route is 5.8.
The only reason you are reading this is because JT did not/will not discuss it. We tried calling on the phone and he lied. We wrote and he sent a letter admitting to his act with an explanation of why and that he didn't want to discuss it further. We asked for our equipment to be returned and received a portion of it. We visited him and were thrown out of his office. We have done all of this politely but persistently.
His explanation is basically that the route was over bolted and that the bolts were next to gear palcements on the upper pitch. I don't believe he climbed the intended line. There are no "bomber" placements on the arete.
Let me know when you are in the area and I will take you for a tour.
Patrick
|
|
|
|
|
pushfurther
Sep 9, 2002, 8:57 PM
Post #27 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 2112
|
jbone..
duane raleigh is no longer affiliated with climbing magazine. he bought rock and ice and a whole bunch of climbing's staff went with him.
|
|
|
|
|
ergophobe
Sep 9, 2002, 9:13 PM
Post #28 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2002
Posts: 150
|
Given basalt's latest, this chopping sound unjustified. It's unfortunate that there are so few specifics from either side though.
Not speaking about this specific case...
Quote:
no man/woman that chops bolts should even be allowed to climb.
Funny, when I started climbing, many people felt that no man/woman who placed bolts on rappel should even be allowed to climb. I never felt that way, but I have to agree with Karl - 95% of the time chopping bolts is wrong, but there are circumstances under which it is acceptable, even necessary to chop bolts.
He brings up the case of the Gunks. It is *forbidden* by the land managers there to place bolts except within very well-defined rules. This is at least a civil offense since you are breaking an implicit contract that you agree to when you visit this *private* land. If you someone puts up bolts surreptitiously and they do not chop them, they would basically be saying that they have rules, but it's okay to ignore them. There would be no reason or need to talk to the person who put the bolts in in this case, except perhaps to reprimand him/her and perhaps take that person to court if the land manager wanted to go that far.
There are other cases that are more debatable, but in which I would grudgingly support chopping. For example if climber 1 did a desperate, runout but bold and visionary ascent only to go back years later and find that someone had done a second "first ascent" and had placed 10 bolts, he might be justified in chopping the bolts. He would, in fact, be consulting with the person who did the first ascent, just not the person who placed the bolts. This exact situations had created some classic routes (Cookie Monster which graces the cover of the previous printing of the Yosemite guide started out as a desperate, rarely-done gear route and became a relatively popular sport route. Other cases have led to fistfights and worse, but I'd be hard pressed to call a first ascensionist who chops bolts on his route a villain.
Once the bolts are in the guidebook, though, I think it's too late to chop no matter what the circumstances.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Sep 9, 2002, 9:21 PM
Post #29 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
There may have been a very good reason to remove the bolts. There is no way for anyone here (not there) to know. I see clearly that the issue is the lack of communications and the initial lie (if true).
If the bolts were wrong AND they was a problem with leaving them up then the local climbing group could have decided to chop them. There is no reason to hide chopping unless the chopper knows he is doing something questionable. Majority rules is a better idea than the alternative.
As for the tree vs. the rock; both will be gone eventually. The tree may be parent to lots of new trees that keep the entire forest alive and provide needed oxygen. Rock is rock. I vote to keep the tree at the expense of the rock.
I'll keep my subscription. One guy doesn't make a magazine.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Sep 9, 2002, 9:31 PM
Post #30 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
Any person in the climbing community who feels a need to threaten my life by removing an anchor without consent or notification should be punished accordingly. Further, an editor who makes a stand that is in the domain of his magazine makes a choice that reflects upon his staff, however his staff were involved with that choice in a prior meeting. It's the way a magazine works (I was editor-in-chief of a mag once so I understand). There's a reason why the editor of Vogue wears high fashion items at dinner. And guess what, many times she had a consultant if it was a publicity dinner. The editor of Climbing made a stand on an issue he believes in. And he was wrong in his stance. His actions also reflect a lot on what his staff allow. They have had this discussion, and after the vote was over, he made his stance. I hope no one buys another issue until a new editor is in place.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Sep 9, 2002, 9:35 PM
Post #31 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
Chopping an entire climb is different than chopping anchors. Chopping anchors can be a threat to someone's life. Chopping an entire line is climber ethics gone to new extremes. I don't agree that bolts should be chopped unless it's an extreme situation. If you truly believe it is an atrocity to have bolts on the line per the local ethics, then chop them. Otherwise, move on.
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Sep 9, 2002, 9:48 PM
Post #32 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
I'd have to agree with the sentiments expressed by others. In my original post, I said something to the effect that I wouldn't pass judgement on so little info, and prefaced my reaction with 'if true'.
Now, I'm prone to go further. If someone isn't going to be completely forthcoming, then they should keep their private area infighting and back biting to themselves. This sport gets enough public black eyes with land managers as it is.
I've chopped a few bolts (some bunk top rope anchor bolts someone placed in front of a boulder and a tree at a sandstone crag), and I once placed a bolt on an existing route (with the permission and approval of the FAs), which was subsequently chopped. So, I've heard it from both sides. Some folks don't care if I was able to pull the bolts with a piece of webbing and a bicep curl, other's don't care if the lone chicken head on the long stretch of slab finally broke off.
There has always been, and will always be, strong disagreements about bolts. But, this discussion hasn't reached the point were we can even discuss ethics, since we have only heard one side of the story, and the story tellers are being intentionally vague.
I've learned, if your position is strong, you can disclose everything and let the facts speak for themselves. When people are selective on what they disclose, then the situation is not usually as clear cut as it first appears.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
toobigtoclimb
Sep 9, 2002, 10:12 PM
Post #33 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 426
|
If you don't like the bolting or think it makes a climb "too easy", then don't clip the bolt and climb on. Chopping bolts without a damn good reason is just inane. If you want a more of a challenge, go put up your own route.
|
|
|
|
|
compclimber
Sep 9, 2002, 10:49 PM
Post #34 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 683
|
Who did the original statement come from? I know/know of most of the new route developers in the Boulder area (that's where i would imagine this happened) and would like to bring a little more clarity to this issue.
I'll wait to get some more facts before i add my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
k9rocko
Sep 9, 2002, 11:00 PM
Post #35 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2002
Posts: 195
|
Unless I am mistaken "JT" still hasn't chimed in on this one!!! I am sure that I would be defending my name, if it were getting trashed around on this site....
From my letter to Climbing magazine, I have encouraged "JT" to chime in, either in defense of character.... pronouncing libel, or simply offer justification for chopping bolts...
Until then ROCK and ICE
|
|
|
|
|
climbinganne
Sep 10, 2002, 12:13 PM
Post #36 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2002
Posts: 11679
|
yup....i keep looking too, gabe
|
|
|
|
|
basalt
Sep 10, 2002, 4:09 PM
Post #37 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 4
|
Jonathan Thesenga came to a new (for him) climbing area for the first time and immediately started removing bolts, hangers, and rappel anchors from an existing climb that he did not approve of. He made no attempt to talk to the route's establishers first. He later repeatedly denied knowledge of the hardware removal when questioned. When he finally admitted to taking the hardware in an e-mail to us, he signed it Jonathan Thesenga Editor Climbing Magazine. He returned less than half of the removed hardware (on Climbing Magazine's doorstep no less) and refuses to return the rest or to discuss this issue.
I can not believe the arrogance of someone who thinks he has the right to dictate to others what a legitimate climb is and how much risk must be, or must not be, inherent in that climb. I have the liberty to engage in a sport that exposes me to a certain degree of risk. How much risk I am exposed to is a decision that I am unwilling to concede to anyone other than myself and partners that I trust. If I am unwilling to accept the risk inherent in a particular climb then I have the freedom to go climb another route that I choose. Likewise, if I feel that a climb does not have enough inherent risk in it then I have the freedom to find another one that does.
This issue has nothing to do with bolts and hardware. It has everything to due with respecting other climber's viewpoints and climbing ambitions. Climbing is a poor excuse for disregarding socialy acceptable behaviour and using any means neccesary to impose your arbitrary standards on others. Our society will always frown on those who extend no respect and consideration to others, take what does not belong to them, and fabricate scenarios that do not reflect factual events. Non-climbers do not understand these controversies for good reason.
I have been climbing for over twenty years. I have climbed ice and/or rock on two continents and 6 different countries and have never had an experience like this. If it is the Climbing Magazine position to advocate behaviour like Jonathan's then I cannot continue to support that publication.
Ralph Mitchell
|
|
|
|
|
nb_b
Sep 10, 2002, 4:44 PM
Post #38 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1
|
> This issue has nothing
> to do with bolts and hardware.
Actually, it does.
> Climbing is a poor excuse for
> disregarding socialy acceptable
> behaviour and using any means
> neccesary to impose your arbitrary
> standards on others.
No kidding, pal - no f'ing kidding. How about some info on this route one of these days? Did you disregard any accepted ethics? Why are you two avoiding the questions asked of you in the forum you started this in - rec.climbing?
nbb
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Sep 10, 2002, 6:14 PM
Post #39 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
this is an excellent witchhunt. is there a website that mentions climbing in colorado that this hasn't been posted to yet? mr thesenga is likely too busy working on his new job to answer what could very well be baseless slander posted on a bunch of different websites.
grow up. people chop - sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. people bolt - sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. what on earth do you have to gain by slagging this all over the internet? basically you accomplish three things:
1. a ton of sport climbers and gym climbers go looking for tar and feathers without even waiting to hear the other side. i wonder what they will do when they cancel their subscriptions and can't read hot flashes any more?
2. a bunch of grumpy trad climbers want to go buy mr thesenga a beer without waiting to hear the rest of the story. they will go out and subscribe to the climbing, and use the comp results section for toilet paper.
3. a handful of people who want to know more than vague accusations before making a judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
tradguy
Sep 10, 2002, 8:26 PM
Post #40 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Climbing should publish the comp results on non-laminated pages. That way it would work better for wiping our butts.
This is a tough issue for me, that I really cannot decide on without hearing the full story. I personally have issues with rap bolting that I won't get into here, but there really is nothing worse than a poorly bolted route (I've climbed some with groundfall potential from the 3rd bolt!). I'm not saying yours was, but perhaps (pure speculation) JT thought it was, and thus aimed to correct it. Or maybe the line HAD been climbed by someone else, and you just don't know about it. There are plenty of possible scenarios.
My former "local" climbing area in Minnesota had an outstanding 5.10b trad crack that had been established and published for many years. One day, I-bolts showed up right next to the crack - within 2 feet. They lasted about 2 days (chopped by the guy who did the FA). A couple weeks later, they were back. Again - gone within a few days. Not more than another week or two, they were back a third time - this time made out of big steel plates double bolted to the rock. It was hideous. They were also removed, and hopefully the punk was caught and beaten with a sack of door knobs, because they never came back. Point of the story is that before anything more happens with this "secret" area, you all should sit down and settle up the score (maybe by arbitration or something?) so that the issue can be put to rest.
|
|
|
|
|
redzit
Sep 10, 2002, 9:51 PM
Post #41 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 195
|
This is now getting comical.
people make mistakes. drop it. settle it your selves with JT.
This is all a repeat of something EVERYONE has heared about, read about and has taken part in.
and with the rest of the gear not being returned, may be they were damaged and he doesn't want you to use them. Either way. if your still pissed ask for compensation of the hangers and bolts and then get on with your life.
I don't even know why i spent time on my first post here. What a waste
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Sep 11, 2002, 1:59 AM
Post #42 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
I don't think it's a waste of time to talk about bolting in our real and/or online communities. It's a way we come to understand each other and our very different views.
We need to work out the issues, ethics, standards and communications/conflict resolution to the extent this is possible to avoid nasty fights and also government intervention and rules.
Some have seen this all before, some haven't and are seeing it now. We can't just turn our heads from the uncomfortable ugly things. We gotta work on it even if we can't solve it.
It's at least as valid as a thread on gri-gris, chalk, or climbing music!
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
billwright
Sep 11, 2002, 5:05 PM
Post #43 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1
|
Jbone wrote above:
""Do not F@#k with bolts unless you set them or the original ascentionist allows it. No Excuses. If you don't like it go climb somewhere else. That's the only Decision that should even be discussed. Or you are no better than a Suicide Bomber"
Harsh but too true."
This is so astoundingly stupid that I had to sign up for this site to respond. The above is "harsh but too true." It is just flat out stupid and incredibly ignorant. Jbone, did you just start climbing yesterday? The original ascensionist doesn't the the right to go bolt anything, anywhere and then have complete immunity from chopping? You think this is true? Wake up! This has NEVER been true in the history of climbing and will NEVER be true. If you want to help your cause of eliminating bolt chopping, don't be so damn stupid about it.
It is painful to even give an example of this, but go try and put up a bolted route in Eldo or bolt a face climbing next to Country Club Crack and see how long it lasts. The choppers won't be "Suicide Bombers", they'll be reasonable local climbers. Why are the choppers "Suicide Bombers" anyway? Are the bolters going to hunt them down and kill them? You know what "suicide" means, don't you?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Sep 11, 2002, 6:00 PM
Post #44 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
Disclaimer: I didn't have time to read all the posts and skipped to the end after the first page.
I have a couple issues with this discussion:
If the suspected perpetrator wasn't someone in high standing in the climbing community, would this post/discussion have gone on for this long and/or would the FA'sts be so adamant about finding the perpetrator?
I don't see how you could have recieved an email and half of your equipment back without getting at least an inkling of an explanation as to why the bolts were chopped.
If the line is as good as it sounds, it may have been climbed already without the fixed gear. If not, though, the first ascenionist has the right to author the route as they see fit. Just because someone can climb a route with out the pro doesn't mean everyone else has to . . . unless they were the first ascenionist.
that's my thought-let me know if I missed something that would address my issues in the middle of this thread.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Sep 11, 2002, 6:31 PM
Post #45 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i thought that this guy would be great. i really enyoed the latest editorial for climbong. could he be such a moron??? man, someone in slo used to do this. if i ever catch him, ill rip hiss balls off.
CLIMB ON
|
|
|
|
|
mudjunkie
Sep 11, 2002, 9:51 PM
Post #46 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 13, 2002
Posts: 6
|
First, let me say that it’s been rather amusing following this thread. It conjures up images of the Salem witch hunts. One person would cry out someone was evil and next thing ya’know that “evil doer” was bathed in tar or burned at the stake by a group of usually good natured folk -- normally rational people who let their uninformed emotions drive their actions.
Rather than bicker with each poster -- a severe deviation from the web forum norm -- I hope this single post will clear up any confusion or misinformation. Those with even a modicum of reading savvy should have noticed the lack of detailed info provided by the original poster. Hmmm, makes you think doesn’t it? Or at least it should. What I’m presenting below isn’t a one-sided report riddled with glaring omissions and falsehoods in hopes of gaining a wave of momentum against someone. I have stood aside until now, not wanting to jump into a flame war, but some of these posts have gotten so silly (and at times flat-out ignorant), that I’m now compelled to set the record straight.
In my 17 years of climbing I have never pulled a bolt, or even felt compelled to. The bolts placed by Patrick and Ralph were so egregious, however, that I was driven to action. These are the detailed facts of exactly what happened, where it occurred, and why:
First, I never “signed” a letter to Patrick and/or Ralph using my position as Editor of Climbing as defense for my actions. The signature in question is the standard email signature that is attached to the bottom of all my email messages. They contacted me at work, emailed me at work, and I responded from my work email. I did not remove bolts under the guise of Editor, merely a concerned climber who didn’t want to see a couple of jokers botch a crag. As it turns out (hindsight is a bitch), this was an erroneous assumption on my part. If I were just a regular, low-profile climber, this thread would have died after a day -– if it would’ve even been posted to begin with. I am, however, in a high-profile position and should have realized people would associate my actions -– incorrectly or not -- with my work at Climbing. I am not a spokesperson for the sport, I am not a role model, and I am not the bolting police. I am a climber, and my actions reflect my ethics and motivations as climber, not as a writer or editor.
Now to the actual climb. The area is called Hells Gate and is in the high country near Basalt, Colorado, basically 90 minutes from Aspen. It is an extremely small crag. It is however, beautiful and serene. It is basically a sweet, bullet granite slab, in places rising to over 400 feet in length; a wonderful local place to climb. Do not lose perspective here; no one in his or her right mind would ever roadtrip to the crag -– it’s fun, but nothing of note beyond the local climbing community. There are probably a dozen or so routes, a handful of which travel up the entire slab. Ralph and Patrick’s four-pitch route is one of these.
The route was not chopped, i.e. it was not erased from the crag. Blatantly superfluous anchor bolts were pulled. Lead protection bolts were pulled where simple gear placements would suffice. I was not dictating the route become scary, bold, or an R-rated pant-loader that only “rad” climbers could ball up to lead. No bolts were stripped that would put anyone’s safety in peril, as some people have posted. I am not against rap bolting. I am not against bolts. I take a stance, however, when people begin bolting next to obvious gear placements at non-sporting-climbing-only areas, tarnishing a wall. The grade is irrelevant. Be it 5.4 or 5.14 (in this case, 5.. The details behind the erroneous placement of bolts are relevant. Placing bolts next to easy-to-protect cracks on sound rock is a violation of the basic tenets of bolting. The route in question is a standard “mixed” route, i.e. a leader will protect his or her lead using bolts as well as natural protection. The bolts that were removed were extraneous, placed by inexperienced climbers who felt a string of bolts and unneeded rap anchors would make their route a “real” route.
As Patrick noted in one of his vague posts, the route begins up a 5.8, bolted bulge to a low-angle crack. The hand crack had been industrially mined of all vegetation, leaving behind a shallow, dirt-filled crack. Not the coolest route-cleaning effort, but nothing that I take much exception to. Nevertheless, it speaks to the style in which the duo felt it was OK to establish the route. This pitch ends at a curiously bolted anchor after maybe 100 to 130 feet of climbing, 30 feet below a large ledge that could hold a dozen people. Hmmm … why stop here to belay on a funky stance when you can continue on to a nice, comfy ledge? Even more curious, why belay here and then lead a silly 30-foot pitch? Fifteen feet to the left of this anchor is another bolted anchor from a previously established route. There was absolutely no need for their new anchor. None. It was removed.
No bolts were removed from the 30-feet of face climbing leading to the ledge.
At the commodious ledge there was a bolted anchor and a stout tree. No, the tree isn’t going to pull out. Ever. Dry year or not. Just another lame excuse offered up by the duo for their drilling. Why, however, would you even need to use the tree as an anchor? At this ledge there is also an obvious crack that will except basically anything on your rack, a #6 nut, a #3 Friend, whatever. There is absolutely no need for a bolted anchor here. The duo also felt the tree’s branches were offensive and sawed off all branches from five feet down. This of course left the tree dripping sap and scarred it permanently and needlessly.
The next pitch follows the arête of the slab. The entire pitch is protected by bolts. It’s a fun pitch. Maybe a touch over bolted for some, but there is no other reasonable protection. This pitch is 100 feet or so long. No bolts were removed from this pitch. It ends at a stance, with a two-bolt rap anchor. Good idea. From this anchor you can easily do one rap off the slab’s side into a talus gully, where a three-minute walk deposits you back at the base of the slab. This anchor allows a simple and easy way to rap off the route with one rope. There is absolutely no need for rap anchors below this point. The duo obviously felt a “real” route needed to have its own rap anchors all the way down the slab, allowing you to descend directly down to your packs with no walking. If you wish to rap the entire slab, there is a route just to the left with fixed rap anchors. This is another reason why the first two rap anchors on Patrick and Ralph’s route were pulled.
The final 100-foot pitch roughly follows the slab’s arête to the rounded summit. All but one of the bolts were removed from this pitch. This was the most ridiculously bolted pitch I’ve ever seen. Each bolt was drilled within a foot of a simple nut or cam placement that even a day-three novice could safely fish in. A standard rack of nuts and a couple of cams (basically what you would’ve already used on the first pitch) is all that is necessary to safely protect this pitch. The one bolt that was left in protects a four-foot traverse from the crack to the arête proper. There is absolutely no rationale for the bolts that were drilled. None. Anyone who had spent a half a minute, let alone “months” as Patrick writes, planning the route would see that there is no need for all those bolts on that pitch.
I have no interest in debating my actions on the Internet. This is my sole comment on the entire situation. I have much better things to do than defend myself to anonymous individuals -– like, for instance, go climbing. Bash away if you chose, but bash me. This has nothing to do with Climbing magazine. Thrash me if you feel the need to, heck, you can call my momma ugly if it’ll make you feel better. To include Climbing magazine in this issue, however, is an incorrect correlation.
Obviously many of you will still think I was wrong to pull the bolts, even after reading my post. Fine. I don’t pretend that I’ll have convinced everyone my actions were in the right. I merely wanted to present the facts.
-- Jonathan Thesenga
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Sep 11, 2002, 10:28 PM
Post #47 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
[ This Message was edited by: drector on 2002-09-11 16:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climbincajun
Sep 11, 2002, 10:32 PM
Post #48 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
or we can end this painful thread
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Sep 11, 2002, 10:36 PM
Post #49 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Thanks for sharing your side of the story Jonathan.
There's always two sides to the story. Rather than pass judgement on anyone from a thousand miles away, let me just let me say I'm sorry everyone involved in this incident got dragged through the mud.
It might be justified in dragging the first ascent folks through the mud a bit since Patrick waged a negative PR campaign on you. Each party risked some response and recrimination out of their actions, and everybody got it. Don't know what the lessons to learn from this are, but I hope we learn em.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
k9rocko
Sep 11, 2002, 10:41 PM
Post #50 of 204
(26921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2002
Posts: 195
|
[in response/and in partial defense to JT..... who is declaring himself too cool to continue this discuasion on this site 
JT's response wasn't all that bad.... I am impressed. I don't approve of chopping bolts, but I am not crazed by boneheads with drills either. If you can trad-it, you shouldn't be bolting it.
Finally, this isn't such a one sided discussion.
"Sit down. Strap in. Hang on!"
I guess you (JT) do have better things to do with your time, and prefer to not discuss this on the internet. However, this debate involves a serious matter within the climbing community.
All of us are real poeple (climbers to boot), and none of us 'post and run' from a controversial issue. You might be suprised that I (and anyone here) would tell you the same thing straight to your face.
Consider cutting bolts a situation where you should have a second and third opinion in your favor before chopping the bolts. This way you are protected by others when 'the mud' get's slung. From your reply, it seems like other climbers might agree with you. After all, that was the meat of your post.
I would recommend you seek out the bolter, and educate him/her..... and have them chop their own bolts. Anyone who cuts another's bolts without doing a little footwork to avoid a war is just asking for trouble.
Unless safety was at issue, you should not have run to your car for your claw hammer. Like the poster said, one could climb to a spot where they expected to find fixed pro and (WHAMMO!)
You are wrong asking us to exclude Climbing Magazine from any actions you take as an individual climber. That is like saying I should be able to use drugs at home even though I work for a law enforcement agency (again..ludicrous).
From now on, your actions are reflected upon your employer. You get high enough on the totem pole..... and that's what people see whenever they look at you.
Finally, thanks (JT) for the insightful reply and the food for thought......
J. Gabriel Bier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
