A 'Surprise' bolt!

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 61 - 80 of total 184 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

bvb

Social climber

flagstaff arizona

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:38pm PT

on another note: same old roughster.

Trad climber

JTree & Idyllwild

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:40pm PT

I agree with Apogee. The first ascent party decides. The only problem is someone might not know that a member of the FA party did the retro job, and it gets chopped anyway!

More than anyone else, Clark has taken the time and effort to replace hundreds of bolts at Suicide Rock (nearly every bolt on the entire Weeping Wall) and he should be commended for his efforts. He has made Idyllwild a safer place to climb, and the character of the runnout face climbing has not been altered over the last 30 years I've climbed there. A couple of bolts really won't make a difference.

It's heartening, as Darrell mentioned, that there are still people concerned enough about preserving history, and willing to chop added bolts, to maintain the tradition and ethic of the first ascent. I'd hate to see retro bolting get out of control, and I trust that it won't happen here, at least in my lifetime.

Lost Arrow

Trad climber

The North Ridge of the San Fernando

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:46pm PT

It is so chopped!

The_Kid

Trad climber

Idyllwild, CA

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:55pm PT

guys clark jacobs put some bolts in for clam chowder (meets up with surprise) he was part of the first ascent party for that route so that may be the bolt you saw and since he has replaced the majority of the old bolts he should be able to put bolts in any route he wants especially one he FA. and no one should be adding or removing bolts without consulting the Locals first (clark, kelly, etc).

The_Kid

Trad climber

Idyllwild, CA

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:02am PT

guess im late you guys already talked to clark

apogee

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2009 - 12:48am PT

Duke- your confirmation of the placement was appreciated, and not superfluous. Just so you know.

It must have been a chilly Surprise today!

Duke

Social climber

PSP

Nov 13, 2009 - 01:05am PT

Was very comfortable until late afternoon.

Clint Cummins

Trad climber

SF Bay area, CA

Nov 13, 2009 - 01:36am PT

It sounds like Clark means well, but since The Suprise was done before Clam Chowder and the bolt is on the original line of Clam Chowder, if we believe the "FA principle" is a good rule, he would need to ask permission of Pat Callis and Larry Reynolds to add a bolt there. [Edit to add: maybe he already got it from Reynolds] [Edit to add: This is assuming the routes actually intersect at the top of the pitch as shown in the topo, but Darryl said they can be separate; a topo is not always accurate!]

Secondly, I don't think the "FA principle" should allow the FA people to add/subtract bolts at any arbitrary point in the future. I feel that if a route has gotten a sufficient number of ascents (or been climbed for some number of years), a "statute of limitations" applies, and the route becomes community property. No longer "property" of the FA people. In a sense, it "belongs" to the people who have climbed it in the past and have shared that experience.

I haven't done the climb, but it sounds like an unnecessary bolt, if the climbing is so easy above it. Although it's possible to argue that a great many bolts are "unnecessary". So I wonder what Clark's explanation is for it.

My best guess is that the bolt is a replacement for the tied off pins which were used by Callis and Reynolds. In my view, this could be a justifiable use of a bolt, since repeated placement of those pins could be fairly ugly/destructive. But it is interesting that it took so long to do this. Maybe the info on the pins was not known until just now, so maybe the bolt there is overdue. On the other hand, no doubt many people did it without protection there over the years. Will the added protection enable more people to do the climb?

apogee

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2009 - 01:59am PT

"On the other hand, no doubt many people did it without protection there over the years. Will the added protection enable more people to do the climb?"

Clint, not trying to instigate anything, but having climbed the route might bring a different perspective. The bolt in question is so far at the end of the P1 of each route, and the terrain afterwards so inconsequential, that it hardly seems significant. Arguably, this might make the addition less necessary (as far as Surprise is concerned), but it does not seem worthy of a great ethics debate. Your suggestion of a 'statute of limitations' is an interesting and worthy consideration, nonetheless.

No, I don't think the bolt will change anyone's decision to climb Surprise- they will still be faced with a very long runout, which is completely within the character of the route. Hell, they probably won't even see the bolt as they launch leftwards from the crack/flake.

Clint Cummins

Trad climber

SF Bay area, CA

Nov 13, 2009 - 02:16am PT

Thanks for the explanation. So the bolt does not make The Surprise better protected. Does it help protect Clam Chowder? If not, I wonder why he placed it?

bhilden

Trad climber

Mountain View, CA

Nov 13, 2009 - 03:55am PT

I agree with Clint. If Surprise was done before Clam Chowder than the FA party of Surprise needs to give permission to add a bolt.

I don't think the argument of tied-off pins holds much weight as there is no way to judge how good the pins were. Maybe they were A5 which could never be said for a 3/8" SS bolt.

Bruce

apogee

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2009 - 10:04am PT

It would be interesting to do Clam Chowder now, and see the bolt from that perspective. If anyone does so anytime soon, please report back...

henny

Social climber

The Past

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:36am PT

Not a bad idea, maybe someone should do Clam Chowder.

Keep in mind that the routes do NOT need to join at the top of their first pitches. Just because the guide shows it like that doesn't mean it has to be that way. I always used to keep them seperate so I can't say I ever totally agreed with the guide in the first place.

It's very easy up there (vicinity of the top bolt) and it's possible to go just about anywhere, pick your line. You can keep them seperate. Always could, I'm sure you still can.

Because it is possible to keep them seperate the Surprise was first and Clam Chowder second argument may lose a little weight.

Just something more to consider.

snowey

Trad climber

San Diego

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:40am PT

May I recommend that instead of chopping you simply remove the hanger and nut. This makes the "bolt war" much less traumatic to the rock.

bvb

Social climber

flagstaff arizona

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:49am PT

snowey, i think it's already been determined that the bolt will stay. what's being discussed now are the broader ramifications of the bolt's presence on both routes -- surprise and clam chowder.

bwancy1

Trad climber

Here

Nov 13, 2009 - 11:18am PT

I agree with Clint's first post as well.

1-the added bold modifies a separate (earlier) route - the bolt causes collateral damage. In this case the FA-ist has stolen something from MY past...my ascent of Surprise.

and

2-The FA does not "own" a route in perpetuity. Clam Chowder is community property.

As a compromise I say move the bolt lower so that it does not interfere with Surprise. Clam Chowder is second fiddle to Surprise anyway.

guyman

Trad climber

Moorpark, CA.

Nov 13, 2009 - 11:33am PT

Just leave the dam bolt right where it is.
Clark put it in, anybody else put it in, except for woods or smith and that thing is chopped.....

Good to know the internet works.... we settled this sh#t in a few days.

I guess it's time to air out the church... phew that smells???