Sticky Fingers

Home of Welsford's Cochrane Lane Cliffs.

Moderators: PeterA, chossmonkey, Stacey, Dom, granite_grrl, Greg, Joe

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby john » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:30 am

Greg,

While I think the way you said it is unconstructive, I agree completely about the sentiment. I disagree this had anything to do with being a wuss. I think adams merits were admirable, you, I and others just don't happen to agree with the choice.

I think the first ascentionist sets the style and it should be respected into the future always. Regardless of the FA involvement in the future community for reasons of choice, location or being alive or dead.

Adam,

I dont hink this was a community choice, you did if after asking a couple people, it certainly was not public. I waasa down there the last 2 weekends and heard more people complaining about it then agreeing with it. I think you are right to go look again cause there is pro. Regardless though, if there is gear or not, no one should decide how to retrobolt someone else's route for any reason, the fact there is pro really is a moot point.

good discussion and one that needs to be had though cheers fellas
john
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:08 am
Location: Fred. NB

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:03 am

John

It was a community decision to replace the rusted bolt. Just not to replace one with two Based on what people were saying while I was there doing the deed, and my analysis of the available gear etc I did what I did. I may have been wrong - I can admit when that happens - but I'm not convinced yet.

In most cases I agree that a route's nature should not be changed and that the FA style should be preserved. I disagree that it applies evenly across the board tho. It is debatable and a grey area. I would ask, did Don put that bolt in while on lead hanging on a hook? or did he rap in to do it? I think it has a bearing on the 'original nature' of the route.

I am not sure how we should resolve this as I've heard many people on both sides of the discussion. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and people who are ok with the route as is are likely not to be as vocal as those who have an issue with it.

In any case, as I said before, I think it should be left as is for the season (or half the season whatever) to give more people a chance to form their own informed opinion (not one generated based on comments while being 5000km away). If it is to be removed I will not fight it but the discussion needs to be had.

Oh and how are those bolts on Solstice? U said u were gonna remove them but they're still there.

ok going climbing!
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Dom » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:08 am

The argument that the 2nd bolt changed the ''nature'' of the climb just doesnt cut it according to me because the crux is higher where it's all bomber Gear.
So much rock, so little time
User avatar
Dom
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Oromocto West

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby martha » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:31 am

Adam replaced a rusty bolt. It couldn't be replaced in the same place due to rock quality so he made a judgement call to go higher, thus warranting a bolt lower as well.

There are so many routes with bolts on them that are not 'needed' to be climbed in true style... Leviathan comes to mind.

Why is it that when someone tries to do something good for the community they get crapped on? Fred and I have been crapped all over many times. Do you guys remember what hit the fan when Fred and I raised money and got the ball rolling to remediate the erosion below the sign in box nearly 10 years ago? I think you would all probably agree now that it was a good thing, and over 20 people from the community came out and put over 40 hours each of back breaking work into it. I'm pleased as punch at the way it has held up and the way it has saved that slope.

I can't deal with all this negativity towards a sport and a community of people that I really care about. I rarely speak up anymore because I got tired of being crapped on for things that I thought were 'good deeds'.

Keep it up folks and the people that actually take the time (and money) to keep our crags safe and fun won't bother or care to do it anymore.
The phrase "working mother" is redundant. ~Jane Sellman

If a husband speaks in the woods, and his wife is not there to hear him...is he still wrong?
martha
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:40 am
Location: planning the next climbing trip....

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:28 pm

well, it looks like action was taken the bolt is gone. i did not remove it. to whoever removed it, i think you should have given time for the discussion to be resolved instead of acting but so be it. I acted w/o full endorsement by the community in the fall and now u did as well.

i looked at where this 'gear' is... and yes there is gear near where the first bolt was... but it would have been just as close to the original bolt. now, you're pretty much forced to use gear on mammalian (which isn't a bad thing) instead of keeping the lines distinct. in fact i think both bolts should be removed if there is some attempt at 'upholding' ethics here. the original bolt was within reach of gear (on mammalian) so it probably shouldn't have been there to begin with.

anyway, live and let die.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Dom » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:02 pm

hopefully the bolt chopper removed the dangerous bolts on Anubis as well...
So much rock, so little time
User avatar
Dom
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Oromocto West

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:57 am

Dom wrote:hopefully the bolt chopper removed the dangerous bolts on Anubis as well...


they are still there.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Fred » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:33 am

I trust the person who removed the bolt will be man enough to let us know who he/she is?
I want to go to hell... there's probably lots of rock to climb there.
User avatar
Fred
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:30 am
Location: Fredericton, NB

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby coryhal » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:07 pm

i chopped your bolt. This discussion will never be resolved. Its plain and simple, you don't go changing someone's route, besides who falls clipping on 5.8 terrain when their climbing a 5.10. The bolts on Anubis shouls also be removed. As for hiding in this form, I'm not hiding, I just dont go up to fredricton very often. I feel strongly about my ethics and decision to remove the bolt, and know there is a large percentage of the comunity who feel the same.
coryhal
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:29 am

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby *Chris* » Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:43 pm

Anders and I had an interesting chat about this yesterday while out cripple-cragging. He told me that in many European areas, the local ethic is for FA's to equip routes with bolts that can be easily removed. It is expected that within a few years, the community will re-evaluate any bolt placements, making additions, moves, and removals as they see fit for safety and style. There is an implicit understanding that the FA won't necessarily get it right the first time. After a few years, better beta, or experience from needlessly bad falls leads to the original bolts being pulled, and being replaced by glue-ins in the optimal spots. The style of the FA is considered... but is in no way sacrosanct. I thought it was worth sharing. Anders can correct me if I lost anything in translation.
coryhal wrote:... besides who falls clipping on 5.8 terrain when their climbing a 5.10.
/Cory, there have been several serious falls at this crag on 5.7-5.9 ground. Folks like Adam have been around long enough to help carry out the victims on a litter. Have you?
User avatar
*Chris*
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Fredericton

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby martha » Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:21 am

coryhal wrote:, besides who falls clipping on 5.8 terrain when their climbing a 5.10.


Fred is one of those people who fell on easy terrain. Years ago probably before you hit puberty and definitely before you started climbing. It happens to safe competent, strong climbers on 5.8 terrain, and arrogance like yours will not keep you safe from it. Ulysse took a huge fall last year on 5.6 terrain if I'm not mistaken.

I have to say, I respect your conviction and the fact that you've got the balls to take such action, however I find it hasty and not without consequences.

To keep things fair then I suppose you should also chop the bolts on Anubis and all the other bolts in Welsford that you don't agree with. Why don't you start a list for us?
The phrase "working mother" is redundant. ~Jane Sellman

If a husband speaks in the woods, and his wife is not there to hear him...is he still wrong?
martha
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:40 am
Location: planning the next climbing trip....

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby granite_grrl » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:08 am

coryhal wrote:besides who falls clipping on 5.8 terrain when their climbing a 5.10

I feel on a 5.5 section on a 5.8 climb. I have also gotten on a 5.9 climb that was 'G' rated at the Gunks, but the guidebook forgot to mention the 5.7 R section on the climb. I'll admit that I was completely gripped and even though it was a great climb, I doubt I'll ever get on it again.
User avatar
granite_grrl
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: St. Catharines, ON

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:35 am

Cory, you had ample time to bring this up with me when we were climbing together two weeks ago. What you will learn with time and experience is that you won't get far in the world without compromise and consideration. Very, very little in this world is black and white, and hopefully you'll learn this before you or someone close to you gets hurt or killed.

I will be removing the other bolt as well since I placed both of them with the understanding that the other would be there. I don't see it as safe anymore. SteveA, you can re-add a bolt where u see fit, or not at all.

And yeah, Cory, you're a bit of a hypocrite to chop one bolt but not others that you yourself deem inappropriate. Finish what you started and clean up the rest of the crag.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby anderfo » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:41 am

Excellent translation, Chris.

About falling in 5.8 terrain on a 5.10 climb - yes it happens. But usually it doesn't. That's why you haven't experienced it yourself yet.
You can make the same question; "Who falls on a trad climb anyway?"
If you don't expect to fall, you can skip all your rack if you want. Most people would bring it anyway.
I learned that you're not supposed to fall when trad climbing - just like in ice climbing. Still, we often use protection in trad climbing and ice climbing. Just to make sure that if we fall, we will still be alive and not hurt too bad.
A bunch of photos
My home crag is Hell (and, yes, I've seen Hell freezing over...)
User avatar
anderfo
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 4:45 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby STeveA » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:27 am

People should keep in mind that we are talking about retro bolts on Sticky Fingers. While I did not remove the bolt, I do not miss it. If you remove the other bolt then I think you are being childish and I will not be replacing it for you. If people want to discuss other climbs they should start a seperate posting instead of making comparisons that are not appropriate. I have been involved in bolts wars before, and I am not afraid to get involved again. Leave my routes alone, or suffer the consequences!
You are, therefore I am. That is the question....
User avatar
STeveA
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:07 am

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:50 am

STeveA wrote:People should keep in mind that we are talking about retro bolts on Sticky Fingers. While I did not remove the bolt, I do not miss it. If you remove the other bolt then I think you are being childish and I will not be replacing it for you. If people want to discuss other climbs they should start a seperate posting instead of making comparisons that are not appropriate. I have been involved in bolts wars before, and I am not afraid to get involved again. Leave my routes alone, or suffer the consequences!


Steve, you have to pick a stance and stick with it. Earlier in this same thread you agreed both bolts should be removed. flower or get off the pot.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:03 am

And for the record, i think the route is worse off now, since the remaining bolt is HIGHER than the original, and the resulting potentials leave it unsafe IMHO. that is my reasoning for removing it. not b/c i'm being 'childish', tho it is funny to hear you call me that and then threaten a bolt war.

since i placed it, i am going to remove it and someone else who is intimate with Don's personal preferences can replace it. I pointed at you Steve b/c u claimed to have such knowledge.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Lucas » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:13 am

We are loosing sight of what the original objection to the second bolt was; that it changed the nature of the climb and that traditional protection is available in that area. To go and chop the second bolt would be unproductive, actually create the potential for ground fall and further scar the rock.
Lucas
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:17 am

Lucas wrote:We are loosing sight of what the original objection to the second bolt was; that it changed the nature of the climb and that traditional protection is available in that area. To go and chop the second bolt would be unproductive, actually create the potential for ground fall and further scar the rock.


i've not lost sight. i placed the two bolts in relation to each other. now the 2nd one is there but the first is not and the potential for ground fall is there. had people been willing to discuss instead of act rashly, then i wouldn't be doing this. removing the 2nd bolt IMHO has to be done to either force the climber to keep right on mammalian and place gear, or for someone to replace the original with a single bolt that people won't cry about, and yet still leaves the climb safe.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Leehammer » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:48 am

Hey Adam,

I'm not really trying to get in the middle of anything here but...

I think there are a number of sport climbs out there where you would not want to fall clipping the second bolt.
Falling while clipping is a generally dangerous thing...
For example, I think you would be in the dirt if you fell clipping the second bolt on Celestial Motion at Sunnyside. What do you think?

That doesn't mean I wouldn't lead it, it just means that I'd be damn sure I was going to be able to clip before taking out slack.

Liam
User avatar
Leehammer
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Lucas » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:03 am

The first bolt was removed because there is traditional gear available. When pro is placed correctly the risk of ground fall is minimized and the original style of the route is not compromised.

Please do not further damage the rock by removing the second bolt.
Lucas
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Nihoa » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:14 pm

this was cool to read. it points to a huge difference in euro thinking vs north american thinking that you can see in everything they do right down to their card games. here it seems to be all about individual rights, 'i set this route and no one can eff with it ever cus i am god in this little corner of the earth' vs doing whats best at the time for the greater good and having no ego-fits if it needs modification in the future. what anders is talking about, as i see it, is a removal of the wishy washy emotional ethic and using logic to determine what should be done.

*Chris* wrote:Anders and I had an interesting chat about this yesterday while out cripple-cragging. He told me that in many European areas, the local ethic is for FA's to equip routes with bolts that can be easily removed. It is expected that within a few years, the community will re-evaluate any bolt placements, making additions, moves, and removals as they see fit for safety and style. There is an implicit understanding that the FA won't necessarily get it right the first time. After a few years, better beta, or experience from needlessly bad falls leads to the original bolts being pulled, and being replaced by glue-ins in the optimal spots. The style of the FA is considered... but is in no way sacrosanct. I thought it was worth sharing. Anders can correct me if I lost anything in translation.
User avatar
Nihoa
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:25 pm
Location: Freddy NB

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby martha » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:22 pm

Nihoa wrote: is a removal of the wishy washy emotional ethic and using logic to determine what should be done.



Logic? :shock: :shock: you can't be serious?!

Image
The phrase "working mother" is redundant. ~Jane Sellman

If a husband speaks in the woods, and his wife is not there to hear him...is he still wrong?
martha
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:40 am
Location: planning the next climbing trip....

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:44 pm

i understand what you're saying Liam... however i put two bolts in precisely to prevent that situation. as it is now, if someone falls there and is hurt, i will feel responsibility b/c i DO feel the potential is there now and i'll be kicking myself if i don't go remove the bolt. u may not agree with my reasoning but my hand has been forced by Cory, and so this is the decision i've made.

if someone wants to re-determine where the bolt should go you will have a blank slate to work with.
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby STeveA » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:45 pm

Adam wrote:
STeveA wrote:People should keep in mind that we are talking about retro bolts on Sticky Fingers. While I did not remove the bolt, I do not miss it. If you remove the other bolt then I think you are being childish and I will not be replacing it for you. If people want to discuss other climbs they should start a seperate posting instead of making comparisons that are not appropriate. I have been involved in bolts wars before, and I am not afraid to get involved again. Leave my routes alone, or suffer the consequences!


Steve, you have to pick a stance and stick with it. Earlier in this same thread you agreed both bolts should be removed. flower or get off the pot.


If you cannot tell the difference between a joke and someone being serious then you have a problem!
You are, therefore I am. That is the question....
User avatar
STeveA
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:07 am

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Adam » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:48 pm

STeveA wrote:If you cannot tell the difference between a joke and someone being serious then you have a problem!


i saw no sarcasm notation of any sort so i guess i have a problem! :roll:
User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Leehammer » Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:11 pm

Adam wrote: as it is now, if someone falls there and is hurt, i will feel responsibility b/c i DO feel the potential is there now and i'll be kicking myself if i don't go remove the bolt.


I really feel you are putting too much responsibility on yourself here. The way I see it, the responsibility 100% falls on the climber to know the protection available on the climb, and as soon their feet leave the ground, they are accepting the risk.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think as long as you put the bolt in properly, your hands are clean.
User avatar
Leehammer
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby cory » Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:52 pm

Adam wrote: i put two bolts in precisely to prevent that situation. as it is now, if someone falls there and is hurt, i will feel responsibility b/c i DO feel the potential is there now and i'll be kicking myself if i don't go remove the bolt. u may not agree with my reasoning but my hand has been forced


I've been avoiding weighing in on this situation, as I've not had opportunity to attempt this route in the 2-bolt state. Now, I will not have the chance to evaluate the technical decision. So I will talk about the tactical one.

Adam's heart and mind were in the right place last season when planning to replace with one bolt, then (with consensus from everyone who was available that day) with two when rock quality issues arose.

Now, deciding to remove the second bolt, he also has his heart and mind in the right place. Legally, probably not, but morally and ethically yes. (and I mean bigger world ethics here, not bolting ethics)
________________
(goodman) not to be confused with the other Cory
User avatar
cory
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: SJ

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Greg » Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:36 pm

Adam wrote:
Lucas wrote:We are loosing sight of what the original objection to the second bolt was; that it changed the nature of the climb and that traditional protection is available in that area. To go and chop the second bolt would be unproductive, actually create the potential for ground fall and further scar the rock.


i've not lost sight. i placed the two bolts in relation to each other. now the 2nd one is there but the first is not and the potential for ground fall is there. had people been willing to discuss instead of act rashly, then i wouldn't be doing this. removing the 2nd bolt IMHO has to be done to either force the climber to keep right on mammalian and place gear, or for someone to replace the original with a single bolt that people won't cry about, and yet still leaves the climb safe.


Adam: Given your rationale for adding the bolt I find it odd that the guide book description for this climb has a protection rating of G and there is no mention of a ground fall potential when clipping the original bolt. Do you think this was an oversight?
Greg
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:57 pm
Location: Kingston, NB

Re: Sticky Fingers

Postby Greg » Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:59 pm

Some interesting reading from the ASCA.......

The amount of protection on a climb is traditionally determined by the first to climb the route, and while climbing is a fairly anarchistic pursuit, the one revered tradition is that later climbers never add additional fixed protection to an existing route. In other words, the addition of bolts or pitons to existing routes is not tolerated unless the first person to do the route adds the bolts to their own route.

If you are seeking security, DO NOT CLIMB. To quote Helen Keller, "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." Climbing of any type inherently involves the risk of death.

http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm

By the ‘90s, large numbers of well-bolted climbs reduced the psychological component of climbing and increased the physical component in many locations. Today many climbers routinely climb at levels that they would never conceive of on traditionally bolted face climbs, and many areas have seen wave after wave of bolting consuming nearly every available section of rock. Traditionally protected testpiece face climbs of the 1980s have often never seen a second ascent. The climbing community changed in composition, and climbers began to expect that well-protected face climbs were the rule instead of the exception. Indoor gyms appeared on the scene, and the number of climbers who had no clue at all about the seriousness and danger level on traditional routes skyrocketed. The rating system grew largely meaningless as nearly no components describing seriousness, type of climbing, and commitment were used. Today many climbers are used to thinking of themselves as“5.11 climbers,” when in fact they are not even slightly prepared for the seriousness and difficulty encountered on 5.8 climbs outside. Some routes at the 5.9 and 5.10a level in Yosemite, such as Steck/Salathé, Lost Arrow Chimney, and the Crack of Doom, are more difficult and dangerous by far than the “hardest” routes in the world, currently 5.15. Since all of the latter have lots of closely spaced bolts, there is little danger commitment required - instead, ferocious power, technical skill, and perseverance are required.
However, bolt chopping continues to this day, as tightly bolted routes and new rappel stations where downclimbing was the previous norm are chopped. Debates still rage, and many climbers rappel bolt routes only to come to a later realization that they should not have done so. A tiny minority of first ascensionists continue with tradition and establish bold new routes on lead with only occasional use of bolts.
Now, the pendulum may be swinging back, as more climbers turn to no-rope bouldering, and a resurging interest in ground-up traditional climbing may be occurring. It is difficult to say however, as the simple fact is that sport climbing is much safer, and even those who carry on the traditional methods often climb sport climbs on “psychological days off.” Very few climbers are capable of bold climbing at high levels, and fewer still are capable of doing so routinely. The popularity of routes has many factors, but good protection is primary, overshadowed only by rating and perhaps accessibility. Like it or not, well-protected sport climbs draw crowds, and thus land managers concentrating on bolts do so with some reason. However, Joshua Tree demonstrates that a good 5.7 crack sees endless traffic, while a tightly-bolted 5.13 never even has the grass at its base disturbed by a single footprint.

http://www.safeclimbing.org/conservation_bolthist.htm
Greg
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:57 pm
Location: Kingston, NB

PreviousNext

Return to New Brunswick

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests