|
jut780
Nov 15, 2009, 9:03 AM
Post #1 of 73
(5103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Nov 15, 2009, 9:09 AM
Post #2 of 73
(5101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4002
|
Actually, long term using of trees for TR set ups can be destructive to the tree. It wears the bark down and can weaken the root system especially if there is only a shallow dirt base for the tree to anchor in, as is often the case for trees located at the top of cliffs.
It is better in those cases where trees are the only options to use painted hangers and bolts rather than use the trees. Now if there is cracks for pro that is a different story, but I would rather see people using bolts for anchors than trees in a "nature" preserve since it will actual preserve the nature part of nature preserve best. A well thought out and placed camo'd anchor set is the best option.
This is not a license to indiscriminately bolt in anchors at will rather something to think about. Also your title may be a bit dramatic. Adding TR Anchors versus Bolted to Hell are usually not exactly synonymous.
(This post was edited by roughster on Nov 15, 2009, 9:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jut780
Nov 15, 2009, 9:27 AM
Post #3 of 73
(5079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
taydude
Nov 15, 2009, 9:33 AM
Post #4 of 73
(5068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2006
Posts: 531
|
did they bolt One Flew over the Hill? That thing was a pain to set up an anchor on if I remember right. Or maybe it was something nearby...
|
|
|
|
|
jut780
Nov 15, 2009, 9:43 AM
Post #5 of 73
(5054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazlo
Nov 15, 2009, 11:08 AM
Post #6 of 73
(4977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5069
|
If you care so much, get the hell out there and chop them yourself before the authorities are forced to. You could probably de-fuse the situation and earn yourself some shinny new hangers for your effort.
The same thing happened in my area this last year...but for us it was a single set of bolts. The only thing was that it's "sacred ground" for our local indian tribe. Now we're still dealing with a threat of losing our right to climb over a single set of bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Nov 15, 2009, 1:54 PM
Post #7 of 73
(4884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
What routes have gotten bolts popped in? Seems as though with all the access issues I've been hearing about at the other crags, it would be sort of a no-brainer to tread as lightly as possible at Moss.
|
|
|
|
|
jut780
Nov 15, 2009, 3:20 PM
Post #8 of 73
(4840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
jut780
Nov 15, 2009, 3:22 PM
Post #9 of 73
(4839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
dta95b7r
Nov 15, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #10 of 73
(4810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2007
Posts: 74
|
I climbed there once.... its about 30ft tall if someone is going around putting in anchors in that shithole they should be left alone they obviosly have issues if i had the misfortune of climbing there i would be more concerned with the spraypaint/trash around the boulders
|
|
|
|
|
dta95b7r
Nov 15, 2009, 4:23 PM
Post #11 of 73
(4806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2007
Posts: 74
|
oh and you suckered me in with the "moss bolted to hell" i thought you were talking about moss cliff=killer not moss island=shittyshitshow
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Nov 15, 2009, 5:29 PM
Post #12 of 73
(4762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
Actually for being such a small venue, there's some beautifully hard climbs on Moss Island and the outlying crags
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Nov 15, 2009, 5:31 PM
Post #13 of 73
(4761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
jut780 wrote: top rope anchors have been placed on just about ever cliff on moss island. Something like 20 bolt hangers were installed in total
Damn. Shitty. Hopefully it doesn't ruin it for everyone. How's everything else dude? Buzz was saying some new stuff is going up at Nine. You still getting out?
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 15, 2009, 5:40 PM
Post #14 of 73
(4755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I also got suckered in thinking it was moss cliff.
99.9% of the time it is lower impact and less visible to use bolted top anchors than it is to use trees as top anchors. the bone headded cheese FCK anti bolt climber that complains about bolted top anchors to the land managers need a swift kick in the nuts! Granted the anchors should not be installed without the land managers aproval but if that can not be easily obtained (dealing with the forest service is slow, painfull and better avoided if possible) then it is better to install those anchors before all the trees get killed and access is denied due to erosion mess.
The absolute worst thing that can happen to a crag is for climbers to declare a bolt war and start slinging mud at each other and crying fowl to the land managers
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Nov 15, 2009, 9:36 PM
Post #15 of 73
(4722 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
Agreed, but while access isn't really an issue at this particular cliff, it's owned by the town and sees significant traffic on weekends both from climber user groups and local dogwalkers, bikers, boaters, ect. the concern stems from the high profile of the area, and the fact that as mentioned above, there is ample, AMPLE, opportunity to construct safe anchors off of traditional gear; often times with no need to use trees at all even when they are available. While I see your point of bolts decreasing impact on vegetation that would otherwise be used in anchor set up, bolting at this particular area is a touchy subject since it is one of the only smaller crags between population centers such as Syracuse, Ithaca, etc and larger but significantly further areas, namely the Gunks and the Adirondacks. Access is already an issue at some of the lesser travelled satellite crags due to a transfer in land ownership, so local climbers area likely extra touchy right now on any activity that could further jeopardize the resource.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 4:50 AM
Post #16 of 73
(4685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
already an issue at some of the lesser travelled satellite crags due to a transfer in land ownership, so local climbers area likely extra touchy right now on any activity that could further jeopardize the resource. end quote
So you don't think that CLIMBERs makeing a big stink about bolts that the town otherwise would never even know existed might just be that activity that adversly affects access?
It dosent mean jack that there are cracks up there if people trash the trees anyways. Very few if any people will build gear anchors for a top rope set up when a big fat tree is standing there waiting to be killed. In fact i would venture that the ONLY people who will pass up a tree anchor for gear TOP ROPE anchor are NooBs learning or practiceing their gear anchors.
Properly constructed top anchors should be just below the top edge of the cliff where hikers can not easily see them. 1/2 in glue ins are best as they are really hard to see if done correctly. If 3/8th bolts are used the metelious rap hanger is a good low impact option.
The attachment is a photo of a nice low impact top anchor.
(This post was edited by tradmanclimbs on Nov 16, 2009, 5:27 AM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
bolts.jpg
(52.7 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jut780
Nov 16, 2009, 9:53 AM
Post #17 of 73
(4632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 10:53 AM
Post #18 of 73
(4605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
So you say the athoritys have allready been tipped off to the situation? does that mean that a climber who has bolt issues threw a tizzy and went to the athoritys declAring what a travesty the top anchors are and how horrible it was that a CLIMBER placed them? if that is the case then that person does in fact need a swift kick to the nuts even though i was and am just speaking retoricly.
Seriously. if the trees are being used as anchors then bolts needed to be placed to stop that.. It is not like we are talking retro bolting lead protection. Its a fairly good bet that if it was presented to the land managers as a step taken to help preserve the integrity of the soil and vegatation at the top of the cliff that access would not be adversly affected. instead small minded people with not much common sense and bolt phobia issues present it to the athoritys as a capitol breach of ethics.. just about aS SMART as slamming your own dick in a car door
On the other hand a major step like installing top anchors at an entire cliff should be a community decision and not perpetuated by a single individual. On the same note if the community decides in favor of top anchors and a single individual goes against that it is equaly counterproductive.
(This post was edited by tradmanclimbs on Nov 16, 2009, 11:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dugl33
Nov 16, 2009, 12:14 PM
Post #19 of 73
(4574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 725
|
Whatever happened to "leave no trace"?
These sound like convenience anchors to me.
I agree that sometimes it is appropriate to bolt near trees to protect a particular tree, but usually this is done when people are repeatedly rapping off the tree, and rope-gouging the tree when pulling the rope. Temporarily slinging a tree as an anchor -- pfft, minor stuff here.
The problem now is how to deal with what's done. Is it better to leave it be, remove some or all the bolts, what?
If you chop the anchors, do a damn good job -- refer to asca or access fund for info. Fill the holes with epoxy and rock dust. Do a good clean job!
Also, if the cat is indeed out of the bag, get in touch with the police dept., DEC, whatever, and offer to help with the situation, coming to an agreement with regards to what to do. If the authorities aren't involved, do not involve them. Talk to as many local climbers as possible and try to agree on what to do, then do it. Perhaps solicit advice from Access Fund as well.
Wake up people!
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #20 of 73
(4538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
In a low traffc area slinging a tree as an anchor is no big deal. wilderness crag with henoius approach = slung tree is kosher. At a high traffic area that sees daily use, slinging trees is a big deal and will kill them causeing erosion issues that land managers are gaurenteed to notice. it is not the actual slinging of the tree that causes the most damage but the continous trampleing of the root system. Simply put properly placed bolts are much lower enviornmental impact than slung trees in high use areas.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 3:03 PM
Post #21 of 73
(4534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Man. I just Love slung treees! they are so much more natural and lower impact than evil convience bolts
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 3:10 PM
Post #22 of 73
(4530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Damn, I wish some real hard trad worshiping bolt chopper would come allong and chop these horrible unsightly convience bolts and put those nice orange slings back on the tree
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 16, 2009, 3:40 PM
Post #25 of 73
(4495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
If its a super high use area people will not place gear. they will kill the trees. Go ahead an burry your head in the sand and ignore the facts of what happens at high use crags. Like it or not high use areas have to be managed and maintained. there is no such thing as LNT @ roadside attractions.
Installing permanent top anchors usually will not adversly affect access. Bolt wars, climbers bickering and crying to land managers about evil bolts will close areas dow. Erosion and vegatation dammage will also get you shut down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
