UKC

NEWS: Hawkcraig Trashed

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 09 May 2011
Hawkcraig new bolts, 3 kbNew bolt anchors have been placed at the top of the Hawkcraig, one of the best and most popular low grade trad crags in Scotland's Central Belt. For now the identity of the phantom bolter remains a mystery.


Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62114
 RichJ634 09 May 2011
In reply to Duncan Campbell: You can't. Local police and councils can't enforce effectively because investigations cost too much money, and the punishments are not that severe even if the culprit is caught.
 Ian Jones 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

It amazes me how righteous and outraged some people get over two wee pieces of metal. I suggested a bolt anchor here a couple of years ago to assist beginners on the descent but opinion was against it.
I hasten to add I had nothing to do with this 'outrage'.
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

>How do we stop things like this from happening?

Maybe not wasting public money on 'gorse removal' would help?

jcm
 Toby S 09 May 2011
In reply to Ian Jones:

I learnt to lead there and had no issues at all with the access. IIRC we were able to set up an ab rope using natural protection perfectly easily for those who were a bit nervy on the descent. Likewise setting up belays was straightforward for those of learning to lead.
 Roberttaylor 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Not for this at all, but the anchors at the top were gash. Perhaps stakes would have been more appropriate?

I have belayed off some fairly unpleasant tree-roots and gorse stems at this crag.
 David Stevens 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: IT's not quite a bolt free crag, there is a bolt at the top out of The Dreeping Beak, on that side the top out is a bit chossy and most anchors are a bit dodgy.
 Ian Jones 09 May 2011
In reply to Toby S:

Yes, I understand, but this place gets a lot of traffic and I am surprised nobody has had an accident down the descent past Squirrel Slab. I have seen up to 8 people belayed to one loose anchor at the top of Pain Pillar before now.
 Beardyman 09 May 2011
In reply to Ian Jones: I can only assume that this is the work of an outdoor group or scout troop. As annoying it is to us climbers these guys are probably unaware of the feelings of climbers towards this kind of action.

In a similar vain to the group of geology students with rock hammers I met at Bowden Doors, they were finding it hard to understand why bashing a small bit of rock could possibly cause such outrage!!

All we can do as climbers is try to educate these groups on the importance of protecting our cliffs. If anyone sees groups using the bolts as an abseil station then have a word with them, perhaps show them how to construct a solid anchor with natural protection?
 Ian Jones 09 May 2011
In reply to Roberttaylor:

I correct myself. I suggested stakes about three years ago, not bolts.
Good enough for Pembroke and Swanage but not appropriate for The Hawkcraig.
 two06 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I'm amazed that no one has commented on the amount of rubbish left there yet. Surely 2 bits of metal are insignificant next to "several hundred plastic-wrapped telephone directories"?
 radioshed 09 May 2011
In reply to jdawg_85: The used condoms are usually a nice touch too
 Al Evans 09 May 2011
In reply to Beardyman:
In a similar vain to the group of geology students with rock hammers I met at Bowden Doors, they were finding it hard to understand why bashing a small bit of rock could possibly cause such outrage!!
>
You are so right, as a child (before I became a climber) I probably chipped out fossils in the Winnatts that would have been useful footholds or finger holds on routes today.
 james.slater 09 May 2011
In reply to jdawg_85: agreed, two bolts which at very worst are an eyesore, arguably unnecessary and serve to make the crag safer are piddly next to burnt patches and rubbish thrown over the whole darn crag, i know what i would be more pissed off about
 Milesy 09 May 2011
In reply to jdawg_85:
> (In reply to UKC News) I'm amazed that no one has commented on the amount of rubbish left there yet. Surely 2 bits of metal are insignificant next to "several hundred plastic-wrapped telephone directories"?

Not really the same issue though is it?
 Fiona Reid 09 May 2011
In reply to jdawg_85:

Sadly it's not the first time rubbish has been dumped. Last year's delights at Hawkcraig included several tv's which were lobbed off the cliff face and some human waste See my old post http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=421234&v=1#x5981683

I later removed and properly disposed of the as much of the tv's as I could carry back to the top.

 Hay 09 May 2011
In reply to Milesy:
The bolts aren't really an issue at all though, are they?
The belay in question was a pair of shoogly blocks that often served 4 different routes on a busy evening.
Shame they weren't resin staples, really.
Bruce
 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to Hay:
On many of the routes in that part of the crag you can just belay slightly lower from the top and there is plenty of other protection avaialable.

The shoogly blocks aren't that bad or they wouldn't still be there.
 MG 09 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> The shoogly blocks aren't that bad or they wouldn't still be there.

Well they do drop off periodically to reveal new ones. Slightly histerical article given the there were previous bolts that are even visible in the pictures. Hardly "trashing" the crag. And I am in general anti-bolt. The litter is a bigger issue.
Tim Chappell 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

"Trashed" seems a bit of an exaggeration. The bolts shouldn't have been placed, but it's not the end of the world.

Consider this alternative scenario: the Ordnance Survey decide they want to re-do that bit of their Fife maps, so they build a concrete trig point five yards further back from the top of Pain Pillar than these bolts. Lo and behold, everyone starts pulling out a bit more slack to belay off the new trig point instead of the will-they-won't-they shoogly blocks. So is that "trashing" Hawkcraig? I don't think so. Yet it would change climbers' behaviour a lot more than these bolts will. And the bolts will get chopped, which a trig point, I bet you, would not.
 Al Evans 09 May 2011
In reply to Tim Chappell: The OS don't use concrete trig points anymore
In reply to UKC News:
A few points...
I don't understand the need for climbers thinking routes need fixed pro. I'm of the opinion that if an exposed gorse bush at the top of the cliff is capable fo withstanding a force 9 southwesterly gale, it should be strong enough for my belay. If in doubt sling two, there are plenty to choose from!

As for abbing down the descent, if you're capable it is a safe enough scramble, if not then it is quicker to walk round than to ab. When I've been with beginners (including my 5 year old daughter) that's what we've done!

The bolts themselves? Doesn't look the work of climbers at all. Most likely a youth group. But before venting our collective wrath, We should consider what an outsider might think. There is a metal and wood fence 2 metres from the top. It is a man made quarry. There is a hotel at the base and a pier on the beach. I suggest non-climbers may struggle to understand our delicate sensibilities with regard to two wee bolts.
By far the giggest issue is the vandalism, but I'm no more outraged or even surprised than any of the other vandalism we all see daily everywhere else.

Finally, whilst this is news, I dispair at the sensationalist dailymail-esque reporting by UKC. Trashed? Hardly. Not one route has been lost or is even unclimbable currently. Shame on you UKC.

Andy.
Tim Chappell 09 May 2011
In reply to Al Evans:

They do in my alternative scenario. It's my scenario, so I can have what I like in it.

 Toby S 09 May 2011
In reply to Ian Jones:

I've personally no huge issue with abseil stakes, there's plenty of them in places like Cummingstone (sandstone crag in Moray, so I guess the argument there is that they help prevent further erosion of rock) but these two bolts are there for good and even if removed they're going to leave a mess. Howver I'm not sure that I can get hugely excited about a couple of scars in the rock, my main worry would be that it sets a precedent.

Other posters are right though, the litter is a far bigger concern and the slightly hysterical headline is a wee bit OTT.
In reply to Porridge the climber: Sorry the headline upsets you Andy (and others), but since 'trash' has more than one meaning, both appropriate, it killed two birds with one pun. And it made you look, didn't it? That's what headlines are for.
 Tomar 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

If there's something strange
in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
BOLTBUSTERS!

If there's something weird
and it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?
BOLTBUSTERS!

I ain't afraid of no bolts
I ain't afraid of no bolts

...
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Hay)
> On many of the routes in that part of the crag you can just belay slightly lower from the top and there is plenty of other protection avaialable.
>
> The shoogly blocks aren't that bad or they wouldn't still be there.

Agreed. I had no probs finding a belay here. It seems to me to look at these additions they were done by some one who doesn't even know what they are doing?

Also I have to say - there are different/ easier ways to descend. Down the moderate or whatever it is round to the left from the top of pain pillar. Off the branches further along to the right or for those who find both scary you can use your legs and walk down to the rear of pain pillar.
Tim Chappell 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


So, your next article on grading debates will be entitled "Aliens made me sleep with Marilyn Monroe"?
 climberuk 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

It's entirely possible that it's not climbers who are responsible for the bolts. I've seen a group of people (possibly an official rescue team)training for cliff rescue techniques there.

Personally I have no issue with the bolts being there.
Removed User 09 May 2011
In reply to Toby S:
> (In reply to Ian Jones)
>
>
> Other posters are right though, the litter is a far bigger concern and the slightly hysterical headline is a wee bit OTT.

Litter can get tidied up.

Burnt grass will be back next spring.

The bolts will be there forever. Unless someone takes them out.

Are the bolts just studs that are cemented into holes? If so it won't take much to jack them back out again.
 Hay 09 May 2011
In reply to MelH:
I agree with you but I still don't think the bolts are a problem.
 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to MG:
OK well the blocks I'm thinking of have been in place for atleast 7 years.
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> (In reply to Removed UserToby S)
> [...]
>
> Litter can get tidied up.
>
> Burnt grass will be back next spring.
>
> The bolts will be there forever. Unless someone takes them out.
>
> Are the bolts just studs that are cemented into holes? If so it won't take much to jack them back out again.

Agreed. Notice none of the folk going on about the litter have offered to go and clean it up.
 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to Porridge the climber:
Is the whole crag a quarry, I assumed it was only one end of the crag that had been quarried.
In reply to CurlyStevo: only the bit above the hotel is a quarry as far as I know Stevo
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to Hay:
> (In reply to MelH)
> I agree with you but I still don't think the bolts are a problem.

I think I would have less of a problem with stakes. For me these are a problem personally. Just my opinion though. Knowing what people are like it is only a matter of time before some one takes it upon themselves to removes them anyway -without getting a concensus from others so this is all a moot point.
In reply to MelH: Most of it should be being tidied up today by the council Mel - they'd started work when I went to take pics of the bolts this morning. Except the stuff already washed off the beach.
 daWalt 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:
"the bolts serve no useful function for climbers."
They would serve a function if you use them, but that's an aside.

given the assumption that these have not been placed by climbers; is it not slightly presumptuous for local climbers to declare themselves the self appointed authority and chop them?

depending on who placed them and why, they may just reappear again later.
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
> (In reply to MelH) Most of it should be being tidied up today by the council Mel - they'd started work when I went to take pics of the bolts this morning. Except the stuff already washed off the beach.

wow that's really good. Fast work!!! Local government gets something right!!

 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Yeah I figured that too I guess you are including nearly all the climbs to the left of pain pillar in that certainly that area of the cliff looks at least partially quarried.
 Jimbo C 09 May 2011
In reply to climberuk:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> It's entirely possible that it's not climbers who are responsible for the bolts. I've seen a group of people (possibly an official rescue team)training for cliff rescue techniques there.
>
> Personally I have no issue with the bolts being there.

Judging from the size of the bolts and the way they have been left without hangers, I'd agree with that. It's probably someone who has no idea that they could cause such a stir amongst climbers.

Removed User 09 May 2011
In reply to daWalt:
> (In reply to UKC News)

>
> given the assumption that these have not been placed by climbers; is it not slightly presumptuous for local climbers to declare themselves the self appointed authority and chop them?
>

No, not really.

I take it from your user name that you're into bolts or just a troll?
In reply to CurlyStevo: I'd have thought from the top of pain pillar to beyond the hotel, though it could be from the corner that is the moderate descent. There is a ridge of rock at the base on the hotle boundary that would suggest the latter. Not that it makes any difference to the reason the bolts were placed. Anyway, as suggested above, doubt they will be there long.

Dan: It's the tone too. And a headline of "bolts at Hawkcraig" would have got my attention just as much.

MelH: I'll probably be heading over there later in the week. I'll take a bin bag and a handfull of grass seed left over from my lawn!
 KeithAlexander 09 May 2011
In reply to Porridge the climber:

> It is a man made quarry.

That's interesting. Do you know anything about the history of it? When was it active?
 daWalt 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
The bolts could serve a purpose that you are unaware of.
if they do, then it's quite likely that they'll reappear.
In reply to KeithAlexander: Sorry, no. I think I read it in the guidebook actually, but it's pretty clearly quarried when you see it.
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to Porridge the climber:
>
>
> MelH: I'll probably be heading over there later in the week. I'll take a bin bag and a handfull of grass seed left over from my lawn!

Good lad- my faith in humanity is restored. Apparently council will have cleaned most of it up but sure some more will be washed up.
 daWalt 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
No, that happens to be my name with da in front of it.
meaning like the definite article, y' know......
MCofS 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Regarding any ethical viewpoint: The MCofS has a statement on our website which covers the issue (see: www.mcofs.org.uk/climbing-statement.asp). This statement was circulated to all MCofS Members and placed on various websites and tries to be a consensus view after years of discussion. We hope all climbers will use it as a guideline as to where and why bolts can be placed. Following the advice in it would mean that The Hawcraig would be considered a trad venue and not suitable for bolting. There are adequate protection and belays, indeed we use it as one of our REALrock venues taking kids outdoors for the first time and teaching them gear placements, belay placements and leading.

These bolts don't look like bolts placed by climbers but look more industrial and so it is a fair guess that they were placed for reasons other than climbing. The MCofS is trying to find out what this may have been and who put them in and we will post here if we find anything.

Regarding the vandalism and abuse of the venue through rubbish and fires - this is a social issue that is wider than the climbing community. There have been crag clean-ups elswhere by local climbers and clubs which the MCofS have supported. These have cleaned up rubbish left by others to make a crag venue more atractive. Perhaps a local club could adopt The Hawcraig and do general clean-ups? I am sure we could help gain support from the Council?

Kevin Howett
Development Officer
Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS)

 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to MCofS:
there is an accepted bolt on HC though at the right end of the crag.
 hexcentric 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

who really cares?

If the crag was gridbolted, Then it would be understandable to be crying.


I heard a rumour it was the firebrigade after no one could find the 'secret' bolts under the bushes...
In reply to UKC News:

As a regular climber at the Hawkcaig I dont think removal of these bolts is the right thing to do. The damage is done now, what would removing them achieve? apart from a couple of useless holes.

As for the rubbish it will be sorted soon as fife Council will not want to lose the "clean beach award" thingy for Aberdour.

We must remember that this area is used by more than just climbers, on many evenings Ive topped out to groups of people drinking, relaxing and watching the sun go down and as with all walks of life there are always the few ar**holes that spoil it.

SDB
 CurlyStevo 09 May 2011
In reply to ShinyDiscoBalls:
I disagree I think the presense of un-necessary bolts at the top of the crag sets a precedent, I think someone should chop them.
 nich0las 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: looks to me like the work of slackliners looking to make a crossing from Crammond... where next in the pursuit of the extreme!
In reply to CurlyStevo:

I just think we (Climbers) should wait, what happens if it really is the fire brigade or rescue group. I would feel alot better having well trained/practiced emergancy services than jump to conclusions and cut the bolts. Surely for this we could put up with two bolts?

SDB
 Toby S 09 May 2011
In reply to MelH:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Agreed. Notice none of the folk going on about the litter have offered to go and clean it up.

Well it's a bit far for me to go for starters! Sounds like the council and some of the locals have got it hand already which is reassuring.
 Andy S 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: dare I say it? This doesn't bother me particularly. It's only two bolts and the crag isn't exactly littered with good anchors at the top.
bull2010face 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Completely unnecessary and pointless newspiece. Apart from the actual problem which is large amounts of rubbish being dumped in a beautiful area but the bolts seem to be the bigger problem according to author.

Why did you chop the bolts? You destroyed the work of some sensible climber/person.
 Andy Moles 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey:
> And it made you look, didn't it? That's what headlines are for.

I think you should have gone all out and capitalised it. And maybe have some boobs in the thumbnail.
 morpcat 09 May 2011
NEWS: UKClimbing News Forum Trashed

Over-reactive and scare-mongering news articles have been placed at the top of the UKC homepage, one of the best and most popular climbing websites in the UK. For now the identity of the phantom article poster remains a mystery.

The UKC news article has been posted side by side with other articles at the top of the highest point of the homepage, at the top-out to several excellent news and forum articles including the much-loved classic 'A Hill in Spain' video. The article pictures are in situ. Each picture extends about 3 inches. They have been anxiously posted in place and are of unusually sensationalist nature compared with articles conventionally posted by climbers, and look sufficient to hold a force of opinion far in excess of any that could be generated by climbers (a case of bolt phobia?). Nearby is the stub of another article...

NEED I GO ON?
 Nic DW 09 May 2011
In reply to ShinyDiscoBalls:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> As a regular climber at the Hawkcaig I dont think removal of these bolts is the right thing to do. The damage is done now, what would removing them achieve? apart from a couple of useless holes.
>
I think you might be right. One could chop them to ground level i guess but as for ripping them out i feel you may as well at least have something useful (if you so wish to make use) rather then unsightly holes in the ground! They will eventually blend in to some extent, and its not like clifftop bolts are unheard off at central belt trad crags.

The belay anchors are OK, i've always been happy with them, but i have seen better...

Maybe better to wait until the MCofS looks into it rather then someone going out to chop them on a dark night, in a similarly rash, dodgy (and self-righteous) fashion to the person who put them in?
 Nic DW 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

And as for "trashed"... Really? I don't think i will think too much less of the pleasant climbing and gorgeous sunsets across the forth... Its good the issue has been brought to light; unilateral bolting decisions just ain't on, but maybe a little less of the low-quality tabloid journalism please...
 gribble 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

I would like to add my two penneth worth to this issue as well.
 daWalt 09 May 2011
In reply to morpcat:
NEED I GO ON?
please do, it made me laugh.
In reply to morpcat: Sorry, but other than the headline (which I'm comfortable with though others disagree) I'm not sure how the rest could even possibly be considerd an over reaction, or 'scaremongering', or sensationalist, by anyone...? I mean, really? I've just reported the facts. It's up to you how to (over)react to that.
In reply to Andy Moles: If I could get away with boobs I might have considered it Andy
bull2010face 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Dan - it's the fact that you zoomed in on the bolts being there like a CSI Detective on steroids and left the piles of rubbish towards the end of the article.

A ton of rubbish that negatively affects the environment or bolt anchors that actually might have some use - which is more detrimental?
In reply to bull2010face: Have you read the article and thread? The rubbish was being cleared up this morning, so will mostly be gone by now. Nasty, but fairly easy to make good. The bolts are still there now and I'm not sure how easy it might be to remove/repair, but clearly a lot harder than picking up phone books.
 Andy Moles 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

If Jack G can get away with posting something as visually provocative as this: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62056
I'm sure you can push the boat out a little
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
> (In reply to bull2010face) Have you read the article and thread? The rubbish was being cleared up this morning, so will mostly be gone by now. Nasty, but fairly easy to make good. The bolts are still there now and I'm not sure how easy it might be to remove/repair, but clearly a lot harder than picking up phone books.

Absolutely spot on.


Chris
 morpcat 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Oh come one Dan, it was obviously in jest. But seriously, as the majority of replies here have pointed out, it isn't that big a deal - just because someone put them there doesn't mean you have to use them. And as your article points out, they are likely not even intended for use by climbers. It's like the shopping channels on your TV: yes they are terrible, but you don't have to watch them!

What is actually more troubling is certain people writing things like "these guys are probably unaware of the feelings of climbers towards this kind of action" - as if we are the only people that ever go outdoors! Perhaps climbers that intend to go cutting down things that other people have spent time and money installing for their own (also probably worthwhile) hobbies or work are the ones that need to be "educated".
 wibble 09 May 2011
Oh dear! A small story of a small crag. Bolts obviously not placed by 'sport' climbers...This story should not have gone any further than the forums and certainly not posted as a major news item on a nationaly significant website. Come on UKC, I have higher expectations of you.
 JohnnyW 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Slackliners making the crossing from Crammond.... excellent!

(But they'd better watch out they don't cheesewire the boats, as Hawcraig ain't that high! ;0)
 Dribble223 09 May 2011
In reply to wibble:

I'll die laughing if these bolts have been placed to hold a 'no climbing' sign or something...
 hexcentric 09 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

But why do they need removed/repaired?
 joe_alexander 09 May 2011
In reply to morpcat: The just because they are there you don't have to use them arguement is poor. In that case why is there a debate about bolting at all?

In reply to joe_alexander: Normally I'd agree but this is not a conventional bolt on a blank runout. The only way it could change the experience is if you sat on it.
 morpcat 09 May 2011
In reply to joe_alexander: Bolting a face and placing a post at the top are completely different. You can climb the whole thing without having to go anywhere near these additions, whereas climbing a bolted face does affect the experience. I'm sorry but I thought that would be obvious.
In reply to UKC News: Without expressing a particularly strong opinion on this bolting issue either way, giving a thread the title "Hawcraig trashed" and only referring to the bolts put in at the top of the crag in the thread without mentioning the rubbish (and I'm not sure that even the rubbish constitutes the title "Hawcraig trashed"), is deliberately overly provocative and sensationalist and does not encourage free debate about this issue.

Putting bolts in is not "trashing" a crag.
 Maestro 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I heard it was Callum the tool!!
 chrishedgehog 09 May 2011
In reply to Morpcat: "it isn't that big a deal"

In the context of tsunamis and revolutions it certainly isn't, but if you drill, it stays drilled. I am with Craggsy. It is completely right to draw attention to and have a debate. It's just that the debate should have happened prior to the drilling.
 franksnb 09 May 2011
In reply to morpcat:
"What is actually more troubling is certain people writing things like "these guys are probably unaware of the feelings of climbers towards this kind of action" - as if we are the only people that ever go outdoors! Perhaps climbers that intend to go cutting down things that other people have spent time and money installing for their own (also probably worthwhile) hobbies or work are the ones that need to be "educated". "

agree
 Alpenglow 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Bit of an overstatement that two bolts 'trash' a crag. Whereas the large amount of rubbish there is insignificant.

BR
billy no-mates 09 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> (In reply to morpcat)
> as if we are the only people that ever go outdoors!

Aye but the outdoor access code says that you should leave it as it was, not put stuff there which will remain after you have gone.
 barney_edin 09 May 2011
In reply to Dribble223:
> (In reply to wibble)
>
> I'll die laughing if these bolts have been placed to hold a 'no climbing' sign or something...

This could be quite close to the truth. The bolts could be to hold some kind of sign, the local council has other signs about the 'expert climbers' on the Hawkcraig.
 webding 09 May 2011
Bolts are starting to appear in quite a few places where they wouldn't have been considered a few years ago. If we don't make a stand this will continue and gradually we will lose our trad crags. I think it is right and necessary to slightly over react.
 Raskye 09 May 2011
In reply to barney_edin:
> (In reply to Dribble223)
> [...]
>
> This could be quite close to the truth. The bolts could be to hold some kind of sign, the local council has other signs about the 'expert climbers' on the Hawkcraig.

Obviously the new sign will say "No tipping" of phone books
 hexcentric 09 May 2011
In reply to webding:
Perhaps the bolts are to allow you to construct a massive straw man.
 Nic DW 09 May 2011
In reply to webding:
> Bolts are starting to appear in quite a few places where they wouldn't have been considered a few years ago. If we don't make a stand this will continue and gradually we will lose our trad crags. I think it is right and necessary to slightly over react.

Bolts on top= "Loss of Trad"?
Do you genuinely think that?

I'm not saying there desirable or right in this case, but look at nearby rosyth quarry. Often nowt to belay off except the Scaffold posts badly hammered into shallow soil, many eventually get ripped out leaving a bloody mess,needless to bring up safety issue of that. A few bolts on top would solve the problem- safer and less damaging. And what about the ancient bolts on top at nearby Limekilns and Auchinstarry? I dare say they are older then me... Dose this mean they're not trad crags!? Of course you cant ignore bolts half way up a route- if your scared you might fall you will clip whatever your ethics were stood on the ground, but on top is very different.

I'm against these in their position at aberdour (not that its that big a deal) but as a wider debate there is sometime this bizarre fear of bolts. Yes trad ground up NATURAL all the way... Thats certainly how i feel... But if you are going to have in-situ gear, as is widely accepted in limited instances, then lets at least make it good. Shit scaffold poles and rusty pegs are just as much anti- trad as bolts, if your going to "cheat" at least make it good(safe)!!!

Removed User 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

So it seems that the consensus is that if the council didn't give permission for these bolts to be placed by some public service like the fire brigade they should be removed and the damage caused by their placement repaired.

I think they're probably top rope anchors ;=).


 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 09 May 2011
In reply to Nic DW:

>
> So it seems that the consensus is that if the council didn't give permission for these bolts to be placed by some public service like the fire brigade they should be removed and the damage caused by their placement repaired.
>
> I think they're probably top rope anchors ;=).

They look and sound more like abseil anchors to me.


Chris
 hexcentric 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
Selective reading then??
I'd say the consensus is leave them be. Read the thread again. With your glasses on.
 Jamie B 09 May 2011
In reply to webding:

> Bolts are starting to appear in quite a few places where they wouldn't have been considered a few years ago. If we don't make a stand this will continue and gradually we will lose our trad crags.

You might almost compare this process to the insertion of a wedge, with the thin end going in first...
 Redsetter 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Ok so the crag has gained a couple of phantom bolts, yes i agree they have probobly not been placed by a climber, look at the size comparison to the smaller rusty stud to the right in the pic. These look to be at least M16 size and not M10/12 as is convention for normal route bolting.

This is what should happen now in my opinon as a climber and engineer.

Some one From MCoS or BMC should actively seek who has placed them. If they are a proffesional body i.e fire service, then an explanation to the nature of the need of them would be good.

If it turns out to be a youth group or climbing individual then an appropriate course of action should be taken.

Under no circumstances should they be removed by any third party.

They should be left as the damage is done and it will only make things worse UNLESS..... they are deemed to be unsafe and fail on an axial pull out test.

I would think that it would be better to shorten the studs, place two hangers on them with nylock nuts and fit an official notice to warn of any further bolting is not allowed under existing climbing guidelines.

If the anchor studs fail the test then yes they need to be re-resined in with appropriate epoxy, dont bother just filling the holes in... it will only insight more bolts.
 Jack Luke 09 May 2011
Not gonna lie, with fading light I did decide to use these as a slingable bit of gear but they are still completely unnecessary at the crag. If anything, the mammoth size of them is what shocked me mostly.
 climber david 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

i'm probably going to get shot down by saying this but as I see it, if you don't like the bolts then don't use them, if you like them, use them.

also, if a 8 year old was killed with a youth group because of the anchors which are supposedly shaky (never climbed there so dont know about it) there would be public outrage and people would be sued/charged with a crime so beter have two tiny bolts (they are in the scale of things - lets face it) and everyone alive at the end of the day.

but thats just my opinion
Tim Chappell 09 May 2011
In reply to climbing obsessed:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> i'm probably going to get shot down by saying this


You are indeed <draws up comfortable chair, pours beer>
 Michael Ryan 09 May 2011
In reply to Redsetter:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Under no circumstances should they be removed by any third party.
>
> They should be left as the damage is done

Bolts can be pulled/sewn off and the holes filled in and camouflaged.

Quite a straight forward job. I've done it many times, as well as placing hundreds of bolts.
 Jamie B 09 May 2011
In reply to climbing obsessed:

> if a 8 year old was killed with a youth group because of the anchors which are supposedly shaky (never climbed there so dont know about it) there would be public outrage and people would be sued/charged with a crime

You're right. The instructors/operators would have failed to use their training to identify a bad anchor, and would rightly be censured. It wouldnt be the fault of the crag for failing to sprout bolt anchors on demand.
 Robert Durran 09 May 2011
In reply to climbing obsessed:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> i'm probably going to get shot down by saying this but as I see it, if you don't like the bolts then don't use them, if you like them, use them.

That is pathertic and very tired old argument that could be used to justify the wholesale bolting of everything, and I suspect you know it.

> also, if a 8 year old was killed with a youth group because of the anchors which are supposedly shaky (never climbed there so dont know about it) there would be public outrage and people would be sued/charged with a crime.

And quite rightly so; no youth group leader should be using a poor anchor. But this is also a pathetic argument that could be used to dumb down and sanitise absolutely everything that children or indeed anyone else gets involved in.

 Redsetter 09 May 2011
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC: NO NO NO dont take them out... the person or group that placed them will only place more !
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC: And there's the rub. This is not a criticism, but to a non-climber that statement and this thread would be difficult to digest!

I'm against bolts, I'm certainly against bolts for health and safety as alluded to above. But (assuming as most think these were not placed by climbers) what rights do we as climbers have to enforce the rules of out game on anyone else. Frankly what 'rights' do we have to enforce them on each other? Barring a few exceptions, none. We choose to play by our rules, not for some high moral purpose, but out of a selfish desire to protect the game we all love. Don't anyone kid themselves it's for some spurious environmental reason.

Given all that, if these bolts were placed by some youth leader to do a few abs, the best we can reasonably do is offer to show him another (better from our point of view) way.

Having said all that if it was a 'misguided' climber, I say chop 'em!
 A9 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Worth a read..
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/climbing-guide-style.asp
For our Southern neighbours; whilst Edinburgh has a gigantic indoor climbing wall it has very few mid grade venues so close to hand suitable for old fogies and beginners.
Encouraging self reliance and the ability to build a half decent belay is definitely worth preserving.
Investigate now / chop L8tr
 yer maw 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: apparently it was Usain from Knutsford who came up on the M6 after reading a thread about the need for some 'safe' anchors. Maybe someone could tap him a reminder that he could die if he doesn't take a turn back before going forward with his next venture.

About sums up the pointless nature of this article, with the exception of the rubbish. There's already a boly at the chossiest side because all of that is flaking away, and as for a shoogly belay being fine, try telling that to the enquiry ;p

Always amazes me how climbers feel they are the sole authority of all things rock/outdoors.
 Bossys gran 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: OMG !!!!! Im shocked what a disgrace!! Actually I couldn't care less this booooooooring old argument never ceases to amaze. But some of the hypocritical responses never cease to amuse!!! Enjoy !!
 Milesy 09 May 2011
In reply to climbing obsessed:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> i'm probably going to get shot down by saying this but as I see it, if you don't like the bolts then don't use them, if you like them, use them.
>
> also, if a 8 year old was killed with a youth group because of the anchors which are supposedly shaky (never climbed there so dont know about it) there would be public outrage and people would be sued/charged with a crime so beter have two tiny bolts (they are in the scale of things - lets face it) and everyone alive at the end of the day.
>
> but thats just my opinion

The opinion of a boulderer and indoor climber. Once you learn some more about trad ethics (which you seem to be trying to get into) maybe you can come back and give an opinion.

But that's just my opinion.
In reply to UKC News:

Whoever placed them, doesn't have enough experience to set up safe belay anchors, on top of the crag, thus reducing the crag to their level of incompetance!!!!

If this was, as suggested by some, someone leading/in charge of a group, very worrying indeed.

Stuart
hakey 09 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> i'm probably going to get shot down by saying this but as I see it, if you don't like the bolts then don't use them, if you like them, use them.

> That is pathertic and very tired old argument that could be used to justify the wholesale bolting of everything

Just stating that an argument is pathetic isn't usually considered a reasonable counter argument. Have you got a reasonable counter argument?


hakey 09 May 2011
In reply to yer maw:

> Always amazes me how climbers feel they are the sole authority of all things rock/outdoors.

+1

 Milesy 09 May 2011
In reply to yer maw:
> Always amazes me how climbers feel they are the sole authority of all things rock/outdoors.

Is that the only group the Mcofs represent then?
 Tom Baird 09 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

I think the counter argument is that bolting any crag spoils the experience of climbing it in the traditional manner - the risk is removed as one always has the option of using the bolts even if one sets out without the intention of using them. However in this case I don't think it applies. The bolts are at the top when any danger is past. The only purpose they serve is to protect the already adequate belay and perhaps as an ab anchor.

I climb a lot at the Hawkcraig and in the past I have used the block belay and will probably do so again. However I used the bolts when I topped out Pain Pillar a couple of weeks ago in the rain. I was glad of them. I've had to wait for a belay at the top of those routes in the past when it was busy - I could have done with them then too.

While I am generally against bolting I would be against these being removed now they are there. The only argument I can see for removing them is to force beginners to learn how to make a proper belay but if they really need to be forced to do that then they have bigger problems than removing these bolts will fix.
 MelH 09 May 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
> (In reply to UKC News) Without expressing a particularly strong opinion on this bolting issue either way, giving a thread the title "Hawcraig trashed" and only referring to the bolts put in at the top of the crag in the thread without mentioning the rubbish (and I'm not sure that even the rubbish constitutes the title "Hawcraig trashed"), is deliberately overly provocative and sensationalist and does not encourage free debate about this issue.
>
> Putting bolts in is not "trashing" a crag.

Um- read the article before getting involved. He did !!!!

Could everyone stop ripping into the author of the article and concentrate on the issues! You lot aren't happy unless you're completely ripping into some one. I think finally I may have had enough. UKC forum for logbook and normal climbing route stuff only for a while me thinks!!!
Removed User 09 May 2011
In reply to Tom Baird:
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> While I am generally against bolting I would be against these being removed now they are there. The only argument I can see for removing them is to force beginners to learn how to make a proper belay but if they really need to be forced to do that then they have bigger problems than removing these bolts will fix.

I think that's the strongest reason for removing the bolts. The Hawcraig is very much a beginner's crag and thus a very formative one. Trad climbing in the UK is about adventure climbing with an emphasis on self reliance and an element of risk. These values should not be eroded by diluting the atmosphere of risk and challenge in what is a beginners' crag.

They also look like a bit of safety risk. It would be a bit ironic if someone tripped over them....
 yer maw 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User: I wouldn't recommend the East end (or indeed a lot of the crag) as being suitable for beginners due to the friable nature of the rock, the birds, finding good belays, tricky descents. Every crag I've climbed at in the Peak or Northumberland is considerably more beginner friendly. Granted their are a lot of easy routes but the top outs and belays leave a lot to be desired.
 Andy Moles 09 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:

Just because people are beginner climbers does not mean they have beginner brains.
hakey 09 May 2011
In reply to Tom Baird:

> I think the counter argument is that bolting any crag spoils the experience of climbing it in the traditional manner - the risk is removed as one always has the option of using the bolts even if one sets out without the intention of using them.

The obvious counter argument to which is that not bolting crags definitively spoils the experience of those who would like to climb on bolts.

And, as someone who has climbed 99% trad, I just don't buy this idea that the 'exposure to risk' is so central to the trad experience - deliberately exposure to risk, real or imagined, has never been high up in my list of reasons for climbing.


 Robert Durran 09 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> And, as someone who has climbed 99% trad, I just don't buy this idea that the 'exposure to risk' is so central to the trad experience.

It is not.
Management of risk is.

 SonyaD 09 May 2011
In reply to yer maw: Descents at Hawkcraig are a doddle and I wish folk would stop mentioning dodgy descents. When I was a beginner I didn't like the look of the mod descent (only did it for the first time last summer) so if I was at the west end of the crag then I would walk round, takes 2minutes! The scramble down at the east end, is barely a scramble. I did some of my first leads at Hawkcraig and never had an issue with setting up belays at all.

MCofS looks like it's trying to find out who placed the bolts, then hopefully they can be chopped as they're completely uneccessary.
 Plungeman 09 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

As an Edinburgh based climber, with The Hawkcraig as one of my favourite crags, I'd like to hope my opinion on this matter would be noted.

I've topped out in that area a fair few times, both pre and post this new bolting, and still have to say the worst thing I've seent here is a local pair of neds 'at it' somewhere nearby. Needless to say they were surprised by my call of "safe!".

If you can't be bothered reading any further - I'm happy for them to stay!

I've used these 'bolts', I've also walked past them to the rock with 3 great channels for gear placements to the NE depending on what I've come up. I'd have to say it's a damned sight better than a belay I once saw that cloved the tiny rusted bolt you can see. My main conerns were gaining stability of my belays vs. damaging my slings on the bolts. It's all personal preference.

To Dan: My thought is that the title of the article is ridiculously tabloid in it's nature. I went from horrified to pissing myself laughing in the time it took the main picture to load - I had visions of half the crag blown away! Worst article I've ever seen up here
 Robert Durran 09 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> Just stating that an argument is pathetic isn't usually considered a reasonable counter argument. Have you got a reasonable counter argument?

Sorry, it is just that the argument is so tired and pathetic and so thoroughly blatantly weak and repeatedly demolished in threads, that I just assumed that I didn't need to do so again here. But I shall do so for your benefit: deliberately ignoring the presence of bolts completely changes the climbing experience, since, with the option always existing of clipping them, the need for self reliance and good judgement, the very essence of the climbing experience, has been removed.

 Robert Durran 09 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> The obvious counter argument to which is that not bolting crags definitively spoils the experience of those who would like to climb on bolts.

I think you should consider emigrating to Spain.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> deliberately ignoring the presence of bolts completely changes the climbing experience, since, with the option always existing of clipping them, the need for self reliance and good judgement, the very essence of the climbing experience, has been removed.

'completely changes the climbing experience' ...'the very essence of climbing'?.... lol!!!!!

Full marks for the ridiculously overblown hyperbole!!!

Even if bolts somewhat 'change the climbing experience', you've failed to demonstrate that that is necessarily a change for the worse.

One might argue with equal validity that the perceived decrease in risk that bolts offer improves the climbing experience for some.

And before you say words to the effect 'those not brave enough or otherwise unwilling to accept the risks associated with trad climbing don't deserve to climb on the crags' - well that's just elitist dogma.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> I think you should consider emigrating to Spain.

I think you should consider responding to the points I've raised rather than answering with implied insults.

 geezer 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

I think it might be the start of the new road bridge!
 Roberttaylor 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I suspect whoever installed this anchor...

*Puts on sunglasses*

Will have bolted.....


YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> 'completely changes the climbing experience' ...'the very essence of climbing'?.... lol!!!!!

If you just don't get it, then I think you should, as I said, consider emigrating to Spain.

> Even if bolts somewhat 'change the climbing experience', you've failed to demonstrate that that is necessarily a change for the worse.

If you think it is a change for the better, then you should, as I said, consider emigrating to Spain.

> One might argue with equal validity that the perceived decrease in risk that bolts offer improves the climbing experience for some.

If it improves the experience for you, then you should stick to sports climbing in established sports climbing areas - your best bet might, as I said, be to consider moving to Spain.

> And before you say words to the effect 'those not brave enough or otherwise unwilling to accept the risks associated with trad climbing don't deserve to climb on the crags' - well that's just elitist dogma.

I would not put it quite like that, but if managing the risks associated with trad climbing does not appeal to you, then maybe you might, as I said, consider emigrating to Spain.

If valuing the great tradition of self reliance inherent to most climbing in this country makes me elitist, then I have no problem with that label. Anyway, all difficult things are by definition elitist, since some people will be better at them than others. And that includes sports climbing.

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> If you just don't get it, then I think you should, as I said, consider emigrating to Spain.

Ah right, I thought that the argument was 'so tired and pathetic and so thoroughly blatantly weak and repeatedly demolished in threads..etc'?

I haven't yet see any demolishing. In fact it very much seems like you've given up arguing any point and have resorted to implied insults - 'If you don't agree, f*ck off!'.

Well, if that's all you've got I guess it's your argument that's tired and weak...





















 MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2011
In reply to Roberttaylor:
> (In reply to UKC News) I suspect whoever installed this anchor...
>
> *Puts on sunglasses*
>
> Will have bolted.....
>
>
> YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH

I'm glad they did it, just for this.
 conor doherty 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Before people were climbing E routes, the pioneering traditional climbers would have filled a VS with full of pitons and probably used a few phone books to get past the difficult start!
 jacobfinn 10 May 2011
So UKC climbing world, have we arrived at any consensus yet? Or has this thread descended into (yet) another slag-fest?

The climbing "community" - and I use the word loosely - couldn't agree on whether s*&^ is brown.

Sensationalist headline draws punters in for a read. Potentially useful discussion starts. Ends in slagging match about bolting vs trad ethics again. No consensus agreed, no club comes forward to adopt the crag, the bolts remain in place. And breathe. We arrive at the beginning to start again.

Pathetic. Looks like the bolts will stay until some avenger goes along one night to clip them leaving two unsightly holes that will look as bad as the bolts.

Really, can anyone tell me why anyone bothers to post on UKC asking for consensus on any issue? Waste of time. That is all.
 Roberttaylor 10 May 2011
In reply to jacobfinn:
> So UKC climbing world, have we arrived at any consensus yet? Or has this thread descended into (yet) another slag-fest?
>

Please let me know when and where the next slag fest is being held. I will bring crisps and dip.


Slags are some of my favourite people.

R
 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Nobody is ever going to be able to prove or disprove that sport is better than trad, or vice versa. It's entirely subjective and personal.

What we hopefully can agree on is that there is enough rock out there to satisfy all preferences, and that those preferences should be respected. In practical terms this means not objecting when new sport sectors are opened up in appropriate areas, and acknowledging that there are certain under-used trad crags which might be suitable for retro-bolting.

It also means not sticking bolts into crags like the Hawkcraig which are well-used and much-loved in their current incarnation. You can try to prove that trad-minded climbers shouldnt be upset by the occasional convenience bolt, but you cant stop them being so, nor can you prove that they're wrong.
 3 Names 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I haven't yet see any demolishing.


Well if you had been using this site longer than five minutes you would have.

Robert is of course right.

 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

> For now the identity of the phantom bolter remains a mystery.

Certainly looks like an ab anchor to me, which leaves two likely scenarios:

(a) Emergency service practice facility; isnt that why the previous bolt was placed?
(b) Commercial user for group abseils. This would be very disapointing as they will be staffed by SPA minimum; instructors who should have been taught and assessed on respecting the crag environment and the traitions of British climbing.
 JimboWizbo 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

The bolts looks like terminals, has anybody wired them up to a radio? Geothermal energy is after all a largely untapped energy source.
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I haven't yet see any demolishing.

If you think that pointing out that climbing a bolted route without clipping the bolts provides a very different experience to climbing the same route without the bolts present does not demolish your argument, then, yes, I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this debate.

> In fact it very much seems like you've given up arguing any point and have resorted to implied insults.

The fact that the best reply to my considered argument you could come up with was "lol" and then, somewhat ironically to criticise my use of the english language, suggests that it is you who is resorting to insults. You might like to tell me what you think my implied insults actually are, since I certainly have not knowingly made any.

> - 'If you don't agree, f*ck off!'.

I take it that this refers to my suggestion that you might consider moving to Spain. Most of the climbing in this country is, by overwhelming concensus, bolt free. The opoosite is true of Spain. Your views suggest that you might actually enjoy and get more out of your climbing by emigrating there.


 jazzyjackson 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)

> If valuing the great tradition of self reliance inherent to most climbing in this country makes me elitist, then I have no problem with that label. Anyway, all difficult things are by definition elitist, since some people will be better at them than others. And that includes sports climbing.

lol. shameless pompous drivel ; )
 malky_c 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to yer maw)
>
> [...]
>
> +1

+ another one.
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to jazzyjackson:
> lol. shameless pompous drivel

Fortunately I spotted the smiley thing just before my blood actually reached boiling point.......

 Pete23 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:
I climb at the Hawkcraig regularly and seen these new bolts on Saturday. There was no need to place these in the first place as there is a fence around 15M back from where the bolts are which is ok to abseil from provided you have enough rope. I have abseiled from the fence many a time using the block at the top as a back-up to collect gear from routes around the Pain Pillar area.
 JLS 10 May 2011
In reply to Pete23:

>"I have abseiled from the fence many a time"

Ha! Perhaps we should chop the fence as well to further promote a culture of self reliance.

:¬)
 Andy Moles 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

If people had a little more foresight, they would plant saplings at the top of new crags, which in a few years would be sturdy and mature enough to provide perfect belay anchors. No one minds a good tree belay.

Alternatively, winch a big feckoff boulder from the bottom of the cliff to the top, and belay off that.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> If you think that pointing out that climbing a bolted route without clipping the bolts provides a very different experience to climbing the same route without the bolts present does not demolish your argument, then, yes, I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this debate.
>
No it really wouldn't be a very different experience and certainly not, as you said earlier, a *completely* different experience. The only difference would be that in one case there would be some bolts that you could choose to ignore if you so wished - that choice does not make for a *completely* different climbing experience. Other than the physical existence of the bolts, any difference would be perceived, subjective - it's all in your head.

I also reject your supporting assertion that the management of risk required with trad climbing is the very 'essence of climbing'. It may be the essence of trad, but that is only to state a tautology. The essence of rock climbing is - another tautology - climbing rock.

> Most of the climbing in this country is, by overwhelming concensus, bolt free.

A consensus amongst a self appointed group of trad climbers (who make up a very small proportion of the 65 million people on this island) who hector and browbeat anyone who questions the status quo.

> The opoosite is true of Spain. Your views suggest that you might actually enjoy and get more out of your climbing by emigrating there.

And such a suggestion, "if you don't like 'X' why don't you move to 'Y'", is a red herring, a distraction to divert attention away from the argument at hand - which in this case was about bolting _in_the_UK_.





hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> Nobody is ever going to be able to prove or disprove that sport is better than trad, or vice versa. It's entirely subjective and personal.

Yes, I quite agree. That, with respect to my responses to R Durran's posts, was the point I was trying to make. The arguments that he seems to think are so watertight are nothing more than very strongly felt opinion - neither objectively right nor wrong.
 andymoin 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey: No need, they'll be chopped soon I would imagine. Shame about the rubbish, looks like the councils on it, maybe an additionl clean up could be organized. Must get back over there soon.
 Michael Ryan 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> [...]
> No it really wouldn't be a very different experience and certainly not, as you said earlier, a *completely* different experience. The only difference would be that in one case there would be some bolts that you could choose to ignore if you so wished - that choice does not make for a *completely* different climbing experience. Other than the physical existence of the bolts, any difference would be perceived, subjective - it's all in your head.

Hmmm a line of bolts up Cenotaph Corner, Right Wall or Left Wall, or up Right Unconquerable.

That would be a totally different climbing experience for the majority - a murder of the possible.

It wouldn't just be in your head....it would be right in your face.

Perish the thought!
In reply to MelH:
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
> [...]
>
> Um- read the article before getting involved. He did !!!!
>
> Could everyone stop ripping into the author of the article and concentrate on the issues!

Errr....you have not understood my post. It is clear from my post that I did read the article - it would be strange for me to be referring to something in the article but not in the title without having read the article!

My point is that the article's title is sensationalist and plays inot the hands of those who do not seek a balanced view of this situation. Some people are for the odd bolt. Some are not. What is needed is open debate, not overeaggeration that does not encourage open debate.
In reply to hakey & Robert Durran:
Facinating as your discussion is, it is:
a) Completely unwinable by either of you. You are never going to convince the other.
b) Totally irrelevant to this thread.

These bolts do not affect the trad experience of climbing pain pillar. By the time you reach them you are at the top. They at worst affect your experience of belaying your partner up, but that is quite different to your debate. A few posters above have said they have chosen either to use or ignore them in this thread. No one so far has said it adversely affected their experience.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> Hmmm a line of bolts up Cenotaph Corner, Right Wall or Left Wall, or up Right Unconquerable.
>
> That would be a totally different climbing experience for the majority - a murder of the possible.
>
> It wouldn't just be in your head....it would be right in your face.

Okay - firstly, my personal view, I'm not particularly for the bolting of gritstone outcrops. I don't see any advantage in bolting such short routes - and it might upset a few people.

That said - taking your examples, aside from the objective existence of the bolts, all of the differences would absolutely reside within the head of the climber. It would still be possible to climb those routes in the trad style, making all of the same moves, managing the risks in the same way...

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Porridge the climber:

> a) Completely unwinable by either of you. You are never going to convince the other.

Well my point was that Durran's argument was subjective.

> b) Totally irrelevant to this thread.

Discussing attitudes to bolting in a thread about a crag that has been bolted - totally irrelevant?
tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

>
> That would be a totally different climbing experience for the majority - a murder of the possible.
>

Honest question Mick - How is 'Murder of the possible' any less of an airy fairy bullshit phrase than 'Living the dream' which upset you soooooooooooo much before?

tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC)
>
> [...]
>
> Okay - firstly, my personal view, I'm not particularly for the bolting of gritstone outcrops. I don't see any advantage in bolting such short routes - and it might upset a few people.
>
> That said - taking your examples, aside from the objective existence of the bolts, all of the differences would absolutely reside within the head of the climber. It would still be possible to climb those routes in the trad style, making all of the same moves, managing the risks in the same way...

whats the difference between bolting something small and something big? The principles are still the same and the ground will still hurt.....

I understand the theoretical assumption that you can trad climb a sport line but its simply not the same because you remove any actual risk which consciously or subconsciously totally changes the experience. Yes the physical moves are the same but the overall expereice is about much more than that.
 PeterM 10 May 2011

The bolts should be removed.
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Porridge the climber)
> [...]
> Discussing attitudes to bolting in a thread about a crag that has been bolted - totally irrelevant?

Yes, because of the (presumed) reasons this was bolted and the location of them. It is not a 'to bolt or not to bolt' thread and shouldn't become one. It is about whether these bolts should be chopped by climbers. See above for my views!
 CurlyStevo 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
"That said - taking your examples, aside from the objective existence of the bolts, all of the differences would absolutely reside within the head of the climber. It would still be possible to climb those routes in the trad style, making all of the same moves, managing the risks in the same way..."

If you don't see that lead climbing is much about what's going on in your head I think you may have missed the point! Your profile doesn't give much away about your experience level so it's hard to know how to interpret your posts. How much experience do you have BTW?

The main differences I can see are:
- the bolts point the way rather than the leader being self reliant, this reduces risk of the climber going off route and therefore reduces uncertainty, dealing with uncertainty in general is a big part of trad climbing.

- the leader always knows they can clip a bolt if the have to irrelevent of if they do or not, also reducing uncertainty. This makes climbing up in to areas where it's not obvious if there is good gear or if the leader will have the strength to place the gear much easier to deal with. Some moves can be nie on impossible to reverse, if you can see a shiny bolt you don't need to worry about that!

- the leader can always rest on a bolt if they have to.
 Michael Ryan 10 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC)
>
> [...]
>
> Honest question Mick - How is 'Murder of the possible' any less of an airy fairy bullshit phrase than 'Living the dream' which upset you soooooooooooo much before?

A play on Murder of The Impossible

http://alpineinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/10/murder-of-impossible.html

 Michael Ryan 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC)


> That said - taking your examples, aside from the objective existence of the bolts, all of the differences would absolutely reside within the head of the climber. It would still be possible to climb those routes in the trad style, making all of the same moves, managing the risks in the same way...

Not at all. First off you have the visual impact of the bolts, second classic trad routes bolted would become more popular, crowded and chalked and worn.

Thirdly, you have a shit out option if you got scared.

> managing the risks in the same way...

Like I just said, you wouldn't manage risk in teh same way, you would erase much of the risk.

Fourth, you would be erasing our trad heritage, our history.

 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> No it really wouldn't....... in your head.
>
> I also reject....... climbing rock.

These points have been very adequately dealt with and dismissed by others.

> A consensus amongst a self appointed group of trad climbers (who make up a very small proportion of the 65 million people on this island) who hector and browbeat anyone who questions the status quo.

They may make up a very small proportion of the population of the whole country, but that is irrelevant; I am pretty sure there is a massive concensus amongst the climbing population and that is what matters. If the concensus ever changed to favour wholescale bolting, then I would very sadly have to accept it. In the meantime I shall fight to stop this happening.

In reply to your other post, yes, it is all a matter of opinion and, yes, mine are very strongly held and I believe largely shared my the majority of climbers - which is what matters.

Apologies to those who feel this thread has been sidetracked, but I really feel that people like "hakey" who display such ignorance of and disregard for the traditions of climbing and the current concensus amongst climbers need to be dealt with.

Removed User 10 May 2011
In reply to Andy Moles:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> If people had a little more foresight, they would plant saplings at the top of new crags, which in a few years would be sturdy and mature enough to provide perfect belay anchors. No one minds a good tree belay.


What a great idea.

I guess it would take about ten years to establish a decent belay but after that you'd have a nice eco friendly solution. I'm just thinking about planting three or four above Shoskred etc at Ratho....


 timjones 10 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> (In reply to Removed UserAndy Moles)
> [...]
>
>
> What a great idea.
>
> I guess it would take about ten years to establish a decent belay but after that you'd have a nice eco friendly solution. I'm just thinking about planting three or four above Shoskred etc at Ratho....

Nice idea. At least those who would undoubtedly rush out to remove these trees would get some free firewwod for their efforts if they exhibited a bit of patience before chopping them
 Tom_Ball 10 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
>"the climber: Sorry the headline upsets you Andy (and others), but since 'trash' has more than one meaning, both appropriate, it killed two birds with one pun. And it made you look, didn't it? That's what headlines are for."

Perhaps if you have the article UKC published when the first bolt was placed, we could compare how the journalistic styles have changed at UKC over the years.

Or perhaps it wasn't even considered newsworthy at the time

Tom
 Ian Jones 10 May 2011
In reply to webding:
> Bolts are starting to appear in quite a few places where they wouldn't have been considered a few years ago. If we don't make a stand this will continue and gradually we will lose our trad crags. I think it is right and necessary to slightly over react.

You are Ken Wislon and I claim my £5!

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

> you remove any actual risk which consciously or subconsciously totally changes the experience

1. If you don't use the bolts the risk is much the same as it would otherwise have been.

2. I don't anyway agree that removal of risk *totally* changes the experience. It may *somewhat* change the experience - and the degree to which that happens will be subjective.

3. Even if the subjective experience is changed it does not follow that the change will always be negative. For example, in some cases it may be that bolting might encourage some who would otherwise be put off by the perceived risk to attempt a route and in sufficient numbers that a net increase in positive climbing experiences is the end result.

> whats the difference between bolting something small and something big?

It's subjective. I don't see much advantage to be gained in bolting grit outcrops - my personal opinion. I can see advantages in bolting some multi pitch mountain crags ( cue predictable comments - 'Oh the humanity!', 'How can you even think such a thing', 'I bet you drown puppies for fun!' etc...)
tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey: I think it is therefore fair to say you do not understand trad climbing and until you do this discussion is pointless.

you carry on mate.
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to Ian Jones:
> (In reply to webding)
> [...]
>
> You are Ken Wislon and I claim my £5!

No, no, I am Ken Wilson.

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> If you don't see that lead climbing is much about what's going on in your head I think you may have missed the point!

Yes, of course the climbing experience as with any experience is all in the head - it is subjective.

> Your profile doesn't give much away about your experience level so it's hard to know how to interpret your posts. How much experience do you have BTW?

Enough to have formed an opinion.
 CurlyStevo 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
I take it you've not done much trad climbing as you seem to miss the point rather.

1. If you don't use the bolts the risk is much the same as it would otherwise have been.

How did your form this opinion? if you can clip the bolts at any time the risk is very obviously reduced, even if you don't use them as you have the option to clip them if the shit hits the fan. Its like saying its no less risky to solo a route (which has protection) with a harness and rope and a lead rack! Also as I pointed out the risk of going off route is reduced which then again affects the overall risk.

2. I don't anyway agree that removal of risk *totally* changes the experience. It may *somewhat* change the experience - and the degree to which that happens will be subjective.

Just because the change is subjective it doesn't mean its not worth considering. Climbing is a subjective experience, the climb it's self doesn't know it's being climbed afterall.

3. Even if the subjective experience is changed it does not follow that the change will always be negative. For example, in some cases it may be that bolting might encourage some who would otherwise be put off by the perceived risk to attempt a route and in sufficient numbers that a net increase in positive climbing experiences is the end result.

I think the general consensus in the UK is that most the climbing is trad climbing and most climbers want that to remain. It matters not that some E2 will get 10 times as many ascents if bolted as a F6B, the concensus opinion is against this and bolting the route will spoil the experience for people climbing in the currently accepted trad style.



hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:
> (In reply to hakey)

> classic trad routes bolted would become more popular, crowded and chalked and worn.

Surely more people climbing is a good thing? I mean aren't the crags were for everyone? The alternative view is somewhat elitist...

> You have a shit out option if you got scared.

Not that big a deal - in my opinion. And for some people that might just as well improve their subjective climbing experience.

> you would be erasing our trad heritage, our history.

What the history would just disappear - like it had never happened, presumably in a Pol Pot Year Zero style? Sorry, that's just silly.

If you mean that the trad culture would gradually die out -

1. That would depend upon whether enough people thought it worthwhile enough to persevere with. Surely, if trad's that good it should be able to stand on its own merit without need for special protection?

2. If trad can't surivive without help, well cultures mutate, evolve are born and die all the time, so why should it necessarily be a good thing to preserve those that may be past their sell by date?

 deanstonmassif 10 May 2011
In reply to Hay:

- The bolts aren't really an issue at all though, are they? -

Nonsense Hay! Someone is going to trip over them and take a nasty fall, you mark my words.

I would hazard a guess that whoever inserted the offending steel into this rock is unlikely to be someone who reads the forum page on a rock climbing site such as this. We can probably all agree that the bolts shouldn't have been put there, but now that they are there the field divides into the pragmatists (the bolts serve a function in safeguarding the belay of some low/moderate graded routes, so I might as well use them) and the purists (cut the f***ers). I am curious as to who put them there; they must have done so in ignorance of the opprobrium the act would generate.

 MG 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> 1. That would depend upon whether enough people thought it worthwhile enough to persevere with. Surely, if trad's that good it should be able to stand on its own merit without need for special protection?

As seems to be happening - they appear to have a limited life expectancy.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
> I take it you've not done much trad climbing as you seem to miss the point rather.

I've done plenty thanks.

I understand the pro trad argument, but it is a subjective one and one that I don't necessarily agree with.

There are after all pro bolt aguments which, though subjective, are equally, if not more so, compelling.

In particular there is the utilitarian argument:

The good is that which brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

*If* bolting routes were shown to encourage more climbers onto the crags, thus increasing the happiness of a greater number of climbers, then bolting might be considered a good thing.

> the general consensus in the UK is that most the climbing is trad climbing and most climbers want that to remain

That may be so, but I suspect that the consensus is maintained partly through a kind of group think - an unquestioning acceptance of assumptions that don't bear up to close scrutiny ('OMG!!! Bolts would COMPLETELY!!! change THE WHOLE climbing experience!', 'Managing risk is the VERY ESSENCE of climbing!!!', 'Trad heritage MUST be preserved', etc.).

And I think questioning prevailing attitudes is a good thing. If a consensus is robust enough it should not only be able to weather such challenges, it should actually benefit from a bit of fitness testing.

I also have a suspicion that the consensus may not be as strong as it once was.
 CurlyStevo 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
the crags are busy enough I personally don't want to see them busier. Bolting the crags would just increase traffic and also pollish most routes up to around E2. I think the current system where the easier routes get pollished more is far better as pollish on thease routes matters far less.

I'd say you are entitled to your opinion but unfortunately for you most people don't agree with it.

Bolting isn't sustainable in it's current form anyway, the bolts last only 25 years and then more holes must be drilled.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Fair points.
 Tom_Ball 10 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
>Bolting the crags would just increase traffic and also pollish most routes

Is your argument really "we can't leave the bolts there as people might use them"

nice one

Tom
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I really feel that people like "hakey" who display such ignorance of and disregard for the traditions of climbing and the current concensus amongst climbers need to be dealt with.

'Dealt with'?

Yes - anyone who offers an opinion that disagress with yours, who dares to even question the consensus (nevermind 'disregarding the traditions of climbing' :-o !!!), or who otherwise engages in similar subversive thought crimes should be 'dealt with'.

Lovely!
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Tom_Ball:

> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
>
> Is your argument really "we can't leave the bolts there as people might use them"

looks like it
 CurlyStevo 10 May 2011
In reply to Tom_Ball:
Sorry that comment was relevent to the later comments on the thread not the bolts on top of hawkcraig.
 Michael Gordon 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
>
> Surely more people climbing is a good thing?

Not necessarily.

I mean aren't the crags for everyone?

No.

The alternative view is somewhat elitist...
>

No it isn't.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> I mean aren't the crags for everyone?
>
> No.
>
> The alternative view is somewhat elitist...
> [...]
>
> No it isn't.

I see I'm up against an incisive intellect here! How could I ever question such solid reasoning?

Oh wait...

If you believe that the crags aren't there for everyone, presumably you think they are only for a select group, perhaps those who've served the trad apprenticeship or some such?

How is that not an elitist view?
 Michael Ryan 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Climbing is elitist though, in a good way in most cases. Some climbs are harder (physically and mentally) than others. To climb harder you have to get better, both physically and mentally. It is part of the challenge. What is wrong with that?

 Ian Jones 10 May 2011

> Nonsense Hay! Someone is going to trip over them and take a nasty fall, you mark my words.

What, like the way they trip over trad. belays all the time?
WTF?
 andymoin 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey: hakey did you by any chance bolt Hawkcraig?! Maybe so you could sit on UKC arguing all day?
 daWalt 10 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
"the crags are busy enough I personally don't want to see them busier."

That's either misanthropic or selfish, I can't quite figure which.
Less popular climbing locations are also available.

 simondgee 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
...and football pitches are for footballers but why don't we make the goals wider, make more people feel like they can score goals.

...and swimming pools lets take the water out for non swimmers...after all swimming pools are only for swimmers... how elitist!


 mhowie 10 May 2011
In reply to Fiona Reid:
How did you ever manage to carry them up the crag? Must have been good haulage training for big wall routes!
tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to simondgee: i know its disgusting. im going to the peak next week with a jackhammer to cut some rock ladders on all the classic routes, that way everyone can get up them. i might install some hydraulic lifts to so my granny can do it too.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> Climbing is elitist though, in a good way in most cases. Some climbs are harder (physically and mentally) than others. To climb harder you have to get better, both physically and mentally. It is part of the challenge. What is wrong with that?

Nothing.

That's not quite the same as where a self appointed group, 'the trad establishment', employ an elitist argument against bolting crags - 'only those who understand the trad ethos deserve to be on the crags'.
 Michael Gordon 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> If you believe that the crags aren't there for everyone, presumably you think they are only for a select group, perhaps those who've served the trad apprenticeship or some such?
>

The crags, like the hills, are there for those who have or are prepared to acquire the neccessary skills and experience to enjoy them to the full. This includes being physically fit and having some useful mental capacities (like not being too afraid of heights). It also includes learning to place gear.

Of course one can still go without the above but for obvious reasons this could have bad consequences.

Believe it or not there are places which are better suited to some people than others! I could buy a canoe and decide I fancied going down some white water rapids, however this would be silly as I don't have the necessary skills for such an activity.

This is not elitism.
 Michael Gordon 10 May 2011
In reply to simondgee:
> (In reply to hakey)
> ...and football pitches are for footballers but why don't we make the goals wider, make more people feel like they can score goals.
>
> ...and swimming pools lets take the water out for non swimmers...after all swimming pools are only for swimmers... how elitist!

Exactly! Why stop at bolts? What about all the people who can't manage the routes even with the bolts there?

tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC)
>
> [...]
>
> Nothing.
>
> That's not quite the same as where a self appointed group, 'the trad establishment', employ an elitist argument against bolting crags - 'only those who understand the trad ethos deserve to be on the crags'.

The point about you not understanding trad is regarding your suggestion that climbing next to bolts hardly changes the expereicne which is clearly bollox. Fact is that the major users of crags are climbers - 99% of the population couldnt give a toss about it therefore they are not relevant to the argument. In terms of climbers within the UK the majority concensus is in favour of trad. Like youve said cultures can change and adapt and in the future maybe it will but at present the concensus is against bolts. Its not some elitist minority....... just be grateful your not somewhere in eastern europe where your not allowed chalk or metal protection.
 simondgee 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC)
>
> [...]
>
> Nothing.
>
> That's not quite the same as where a self appointed group, 'the trad establishment', employ an elitist argument against bolting crags - 'only those who understand the trad ethos deserve to be on the crags'.
I smell trollism!
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> 'Dealt with'?

You seem to have resorted to reading things quite unnecessarily into my choice of language! By "dealt with", I mean challenged in your ignorance fuelled opinions; I think that was pretty obvious from my post.

> Yes - anyone who offers an opinion that disagress with yours, who dares to even question the consensus (nevermind 'disregarding the traditions of climbing' :-o !!!), or who otherwise engages in similar subversive thought crimes should be 'dealt with'.

You seem to be getting rather melodramatic. Are you accusing me of actually wanting to debate the issue? What? On UKC? Yes, I think you should be challenged, since you seem to favour the destruction of much of what the majority of climbers in this country love about climbing.
tradattack 10 May 2011
In reply to simondgee: definitely seems that way but its entertained quite a few people on a very boring tuesday afternoon!
 franksnb 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

can we agree that:-

if the bolts are there for a climbing anchor, for the use of individuals or clubs that is laughable, they should be removed (if anyone feels strongly enough to bother, i doubt anyone does).

if they are there for some other cliff user then we should leave them alone.

and..

the trad sport arguments is pointless
Sarah G 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:
"Trashed"? Oh per-lease.

Sx
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> if the bolts are there for a climbing anchor, for the use of individuals or clubs that is laughable, they should be removed.

I hope we can add instructors to that list.
 LakesWinter 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> [...]
> No it really wouldn't be a very different experience and certainly not, as you said earlier, a *completely* different experience. The only difference would be that in one case there would be some bolts that you could choose to ignore if you so wished - that choice does not make for a *completely* different climbing experience. Other than the physical existence of the bolts, any difference would be perceived, subjective - it's all in your head.
>

Actually climbing a route with bolts without clipping them would be a totally different experience to climbing routes with no bolts at all. On the former you have the option of clipping into a reliable anchor at intervals and you can see where it is. On the latter you have to make your own choices and select your own protection and make your own judgement as to its' reliability and where the next piece will be. So I think the difference of spaced guarenteed safety from a bolt and committing to the next runner materialising is not subjective, it is real. The bolt physically exists, the runner may or may not exist.

The bolts should be removed, unless placed for emergency service use. In the same way if a trad climber removed bolts from a consensus sport venue then the bolts should be replaced. There's enough rock for both styles and your justification makes me wonder if you placed the bolts?


 franksnb 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: yep add instructor (but only climbing instructor)
Removed User 10 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to simondgee)
> [...]
>
> Exactly! Why stop at bolts? What about all the people who can't manage the routes even with the bolts there?

Yes Michael, the last time I was in Glencoe I was asking myself how come there was no wheelchair access to the bottom of Rannoch wall?



 franksnb 10 May 2011
In reply to MattG: mate the route isn't bolted stop feeding the troll
 franksnb 10 May 2011
In reply to Removed User: why should a wheel chair, and access or lack of it, prevent you from climbing a route? tenuous, faintly insulting to the disabled and weird analogy. but agin the route in question isn't bolted.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to MattG:

> climbing a route with bolts without clipping them would be a totally different experience to climbing routes with no bolts at all. On the former you have the option of clipping into a reliable anchor at intervals and you can see where it is.

You also have the option to just ignore the bolts and climb as you would were they not there. As I've already said the experience may be somewhat different, and yes the bolts are an objective difference, but still this does not make for a *totally* different climbing experience (in my books that would be something like, I dunno, doing it blindfold, or covered in honey pursued by african killer bees, or on acid...).

Anyway, seems I'm repeating myself now. Before anyone attempts to once more explain to me why I am wrong and they are right, please go back and read the rest of my responses in the thread - particularly the bit about the arguments on either side being subjective...

> your justification makes me wonder if you placed the bolts?

Haha! You think you smell blood eh? No doubt sharpening your pitchfork as we speak...

 sebrider 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I'm thinking UKC Editors must have previously worked for the mail?!

Soon will be phase 2 of the construction...chains will be attached to these bolts and tugs will be used to pull the top of the cliff towards the sea to a more overhanging position.

The venue with its number of hard classics (e.g. Pump Pillar and Macho Guacho) will then rival the west's offering of Dumbarton Rock...sorted
In reply to sebrider: Sunday Sport actually; but I got sacked for being too highbrow innit.
 yer maw 10 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: lucky sod. I lie awake dreaming of such jobs.

In reply to all- Anyhow, what if they are put there by a local adventure activities company/firemen etc. for abseiling? Are climbers actually going to impose themselves on the activities of others because they have some righteous pseudo-ownership of every crag in the country. It's the highest point of the cliff, not on the face in a fantastic location.
Along come the firemen to do some practise and find someone cutting them down. How would the conversation go? I'd pay to be there.

PS looks like room for about ten locking nuts on top of each one. A hefty piece of work indeed and I'll second the suggestion they are part of the new road crossing.
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> You also have the option to just ignore the bolts and climb as you would were they not there.

If you really do still think that, and I am actually beginning to believe you might, then you are seriously deluded, ignorant, stupid or all three.
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> You also have the option to just ignore the bolts and climb as you would were they not there.

If you really do still think that, and I am actually beginning to believe you might, then you are seriously deluded, ignorant, stupid or all three.
 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

I am not anti-bolt and would actively support the creation of more good sports venues, the considered retro-bolting of certain neglected crags, and even the occasional instalation of abseil/belay bolts at trad crags where there are pragmatic arguments for doing so.

In short I am neither the enemy of you nor the bolt.

BUT, I'm afraid that your obstinate clinging to the notion that a bolted route can offer any sort of meaningful trad experience is nonsense. There is no commitment beyond putting some quickdraws on your harness; others like CurlyStevo have tried to explain this at length but you just havent listened.

Proof of the pudding; there are well over 100 sports crags in the UK, and some of them must have a few nut and cam placements on offer. Has anyone ever seen anyone climbing any of them on gear?
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to yer maw:

> righteous pseudo-ownership of every crag in the country

Ha ha! Indeed! +1
 simondgee 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> I am not anti-bolt and would actively support the creation of more good sports venues, the considered retro-bolting of certain neglected crags, and even the occasional instalation of abseil/belay bolts at trad crags where there are pragmatic arguments for doing so.
>
I would think that view pretty representative of the consensus across the uk amongst active climbers. ...and where there is a consideration odf retrobolting or belay bolts that it is done through local advocacy BMC/landowner/clubs...

I was just thinking there are about 4-5 ways we might consider uk bolting from zero tolerance , partial and wholesale bolting...i wonder where we would end up with an AV system of voting?
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

> others like CurlyStevo have tried to explain this at length but you just havent listened.

I have listened. Listen to and agreeing with are actually two different concepts - I know it's a subtle difference, but different they are.

> Proof of the pudding; there are well over 100 sports crags in the UK, and some of them must have a few nut and cam placements on offer. Has anyone ever seen anyone climbing any of them on gear?

No, that's not proof. It could be interpreted in numerous ways:

1. Where routes are bolted people prefer to climb on bolts (which might even be interpreted as sport climbing is more enjoyable than trad).
2. People go to sport venues with the explicit intention of sport climbing, not to climb trad.
3. Trad climbers might feel that they would look daft trad climbing a sport route.
etc...
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> hen you are seriously deluded, ignorant, stupid or all three.

An ad hominem. Nice!

How about you tackle the ball not the man?

 KeithAlexander 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

> Proof of the pudding; there are well over 100 sports crags in the UK, and some of them must have a few nut and cam placements on offer. Has anyone ever seen anyone climbing any of them on gear?

I tried this at Benny Beg once, but I didn't enjoy it. It felt a bit ridiculous investing the effort to place gear, or make committing moves, when you can just clip a bolt at any time. Across the road is a trad crag with the same rock and very similar climbing, which I enjoyed a lot. The sport climbing at Benny Beg, I find less interesting, and climbing the routes on trad gear just felt stupid, rather than more enjoyable. I wasn't able to ignore the bolts and have the same experience I had at the trad crag across the road.

 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

So we agree that existing bolted routes are of no interest to trad climbers. So what makes you think that retro-bolted routes would be?
 yer maw 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: has this gone a bit of topic (as usual with most bolt debates) and best kept to the legitimacy of bolts at the top of Hawkcraig?
Removed User 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> [...]
>
> An ad hominem. Nice!
>
> How about you tackle the ball not the man?

Two cliches in one post? Impressive.

The problem we have is that you're suffering from clue deficit syndrome, or just taking the piss, so it's difficult to point that out without getting personal.



 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

> Surely more people climbing is a good thing? I mean aren't the crags were for everyone? The alternative view is somewhat elitist...

Sorry, I do also need to return to this statement. Why is more people climbing a good thing? I honestly couldnt give a monkeys whether Mr and Mrs Ramsay from Bridlington got into the sport; the crucial thing is that they have the opportunity to do so if they wish. I really dont see how the fact that some crags have bolts and others dont is in any way elitist or obstructive.
 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to yer maw:

> has this gone a bit of topic (as usual with most bolt debates) and best kept to the legitimacy of bolts at the top of Hawkcraig?

No harm in a wee tangent...

As per the legitimacy question, it's hard to answer until we know who set them up and why. We have currently no idea whether we're looking at:

(a) Rescue services for practice
(b) Commercial experience provider
(c) Misguided recreational climber

I'd have a different answer for each.

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Removed UserEric0Points:

> (In reply to Removed Userhakey)
> [...]
>
> Two cliches in one post? Impressive.
>
> The problem we have is that you're suffering from clue deficit syndrome, or just taking the piss, so it's difficult to point that out without getting personal.

Personal insults, pffft.... just makes you look like you are incapable of addressing, or unwilling to address, the substance of the argument.

Very poor... nul points Eric.
Removed User 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact.

Cheers.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> So we agree that existing bolted routes are of no interest to trad climbers.

No, I don't necessarily agree - the three interpretations I gave were just examples of different explanations to the one you gave. I'm not saying any or all are the case.

> So what makes you think that retro-bolted routes would be?

I never said they would - merely that those who insisted on climbing trad on a retro bolted route could do so if they wished. Whether anyone would want to do so is another matter.
 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

> those who insisted on climbing trad on a retro bolted route could do so if they wished. Whether anyone would want to do so is another matter.

They wouldnt, trust me on that. Which means that your original assertion that adding bolts does not take anything away from a crag does not hold water.

hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

> trust me on that.

Hmm.... no thanks.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> [...]
>
> your original assertion that adding bolts does not take anything away from a crag

Where did I assert that?
 Lukeyhear 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Regarding what bolts change.

I love to cast my eye over a nice clean slab of rock, weathered by nature. I find rock often has a character and personality that for me is one of the main parts of enjoying outdoor climbing.
If someone cant understand why a steel bolt arrests the eye and takes one away from the trance then I dont think you can help them.

I also like mossy gullys.
 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Mostly going off this earlier rejoinder to Mr Durran:

> No it really wouldn't be a very different experience and certainly not, as you said earlier, a *completely* different experience. The only difference would be that in one case there would be some bolts that you could choose to ignore if you so wished - that choice does not make for a *completely* different climbing experience. Other than the physical existence of the bolts, any difference would be perceived, subjective - it's all in your head.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Lukeyhear:

> If someone cant understand why a steel bolt arrests the eye and takes one away from the trance then I dont think you can help them.

Which is of course an argument for not bolting any crag, including Goredale, Malham, Kilnsey.

Funny how when it suits the climbing fraternity bolting major natural rock features is okay - and begger what anyone else might think (I remember in the 80s the non-climbing locals in Malham weren't exactly in support of the drilling activities going on in the Cove, rather the opposite).

I mean, if bolts are so evidently bad in and of themselves - how can the climbing community justify their littering (desecration?) of such an iconic and visible landscape feature as Malham Cove to the public at large?
 Michael Gordon 10 May 2011
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
> (In reply to yer maw)
>
> As per the legitimacy question, it's hard to answer until we know who set them up and why. We have currently no idea whether we're looking at:
>
> (a) Rescue services for practice
> (b) Commercial experience provider
> (c) Misguided recreational climber
>
> I'd have a different answer for each.

Can I take it Jamie that you'd be more in favour in relation to scenario a than b or c?

Can someone put forward why this is preferable? After all there are plenty of bridges etc with solid anchors that would provide ample abseiling practice. If on the other hand it was for cliff rescue scenarios then for a real accident there is unlikely to be a nice set of bolts conveniently sited at the top of the crag ready for emergency service use.


 Michael Gordon 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Lukeyhear)
>
> [...]
>
> Which is of course an argument for not bolting any crag, including Goredale, Malham, Kilnsey.
>
> Funny how when it suits the climbing fraternity bolting major natural rock features is okay - and begger what anyone else might think (I remember in the 80s the non-climbing locals in Malham weren't exactly in support of the drilling activities going on in the Cove, rather the opposite).
>
> I mean, if bolts are so evidently bad in and of themselves - how can the climbing community justify their littering (desecration?) of such an iconic and visible landscape feature as Malham Cove to the public at large?

Because some crags are deemed more suitable to sport climbing than others. 'Deemed more suitable' by whom I hear you ask? The majority of climbers, that's who.
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> Because some crags are deemed more suitable to sport climbing than others. 'Deemed more suitable' by whom I hear you ask? The majority of climbers, that's who.

Yes, I'm aware of the usual justification for bolting limestone, but you didn't address the points I raised:

1. (in answer to Lukeyhear) If bolts on rock present such a terrible visual intrusion as Lukeyhear would have it, then how is the visual intrusion justified anywhere (Lukey was in effect arguing against all bolting).

2. How is it okay for the climbing community to unilaterally decide that introducing such visual intrusions to a very visible, well known, iconic landscape feature is acceptable and sod what the non-climbing locals or public at large may think? Kind of points up yer maw's 'righteous pseudo-ownership of every crag in the country' comment.



In reply to hakey:

welcome back niggle, we've missed you...

 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Of course you can't actually see the bolts at Malham, Kilnsey or Gordale so they can't really be a visual intrusion. The climbers maybe but the places are tourist traps anyway!


Chris
hakey 10 May 2011
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> Of course you can't actually see the bolts at Malham, Kilnsey or Gordale so they can't really be a visual intrusion.

I know!

So that deals with the bolts as visual intrusion argument. (I just wanted someone else to say it )

 Jamie B 10 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Can I take it Jamie that you'd be more in favour in relation to scenario a than b or c?

"In favour of" might be overstating it, but I'm more inclined to be understanding of non-climbers who are motivated to save lives (possibly my own), than outdoor centres out for a quick buck and/or actual climbers looking for an easy top-rope anchor for a VS. Although I still feel that the latter is the least likely.
 yer maw 10 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: without reading the whole thing again, was their any conclusion about the use of stakes as well or has this also been deemed too intrusive to trad climbers ownership of crags?
 Robert Durran 10 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> An ad hominem. Nice!
>
> How about you tackle the ball not the man?

Eric9points has really already answered this post. Yes, I was also making a statement of fact and no offence was intended. I was just pondering in exasperation why you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong:

Either you lack the climbing experience to understand that you are wrong, in which case you are ignorant.
Or you are incapable of understanding that you are wrong, in which case you are stupid.
Or you are perfectly capable of understanding why you are wrong, but persist in deluding yourself that you are right.

I actually hope that you are just ignorant.

hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:


> I was just pondering in exasperation why you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong:

Because the whole thing is a matter of opinion, it's subjective, there is no objective right or wrong! Neither you, I, nor anyone else here has the last, absolute, definitive word on the matter.

And that is very much my point - no matter how many people believe that bolting is so obviously, self-evidently a bad thing, almost as though it were a priori knowledge, that belief _is_just_a_belief_, a matter of opinion, subjective, not 'right', not 'wrong'....

If you don't understand the concept of subjectivity and how that differs from any notion of provable truth or falsity, then it is you who is stupid or ignorant (take your pick).
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
>
> Because the whole thing is a matter of opinion, it's subjective, there is no objective right or wrong!

I was referring (quite explicitly) to this statement of yours which is undeniably factually wrong (as various people have tried to explain to you): "You also have the option to just ignore the bolts and climb as you would were they not there."

> And that is very much my point - no matter how many people believe that bolting is .......a bad thing.

Yes, that is a subjective opinion and I never said it wasn't.
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> I was referring (quite explicitly) to this statement of yours which is undeniably factually wrong (as various people have tried to explain to you): "You also have the option to just ignore the bolts and climb as you would were they not there."

Various people gave their *subjective* opinion on that statement. I still disagree that the statement is undeniably factually wrong.

Do you even understand how difficult (impossible) it is to prove any statement wrong in the absolute objective sense that you seem to be implying here?
 Timmd 11 May 2011
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
> (In reply to Porridge the climber) Sorry the headline upsets you Andy (and others), but since 'trash' has more than one meaning, both appropriate, it killed two birds with one pun. And it made you look, didn't it? That's what headlines are for.

If headlines keep being sensationalist or hyperbolic (or whatever word you want to use) though, people may stop reading the articles as frequently as they did, which would not be good for UKClimbing.

Cheers
Tim
 mightyanteater 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to climbing obsessed)

> [...]
>
> And quite rightly so; no youth group leader should be using a poor anchor. But this is also a pathetic argument that could be used to dumb down and sanitise absolutely everything that children or indeed anyone else gets involved in.

I would say that this is not a pathetic argument. While you can discuss the rights and wrongs of our overly health and safety obsessed society, the simple fact is that that's the way it is and people are understandably cautious especially after such incidents as the one at Grey Mares Tail Burn ( not a climbing incident but i feel relevant to this argument). Having said that I am against the unnecessary bolting of crags where trad protection is the norm.
 mikesuth 11 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

I suppose those amongst us finding trad too elitist could always revert to the use of a climbing frame with rubber matting or adventure playground instead. Lower their sights a bit...

Joking aside.

Most of the beauty of climbing in the UK is the culture of doing so in harmony with nature, of leaving our natural environment as we found it. The very idea of covering our rock with bolts to satisfy a minority unable to raise their standard high enough to fall in with the rest saddens me a lot.
It just worries me that these people can see such easy justification for their causing such irreversible to our rock.

Subjective? Yes. But once they're in, the hole's there to stay. Damage done never to be undone. Is this a price worth paying for the "greater good" of the masses unwilling* to learn to place their own protection.

* I say unwilling opposed to unable. As elitist as some may deem the sport of climbing to be, I don't doubt that effort, practise and ambition go a long way in achieving aims and ability.
 3 Names 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

There really are none so blind as those that will not see.
 Redsetter 11 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I cannot believe just how rediculous this thread has got, more so that the bolts in question...

I suggest that this thread is closed now and removed from the news.

Its starting to sound like the PFJ (talking with no action)

Whats done is done -----now move on
 Dave Garnett 11 May 2011
In reply to Redsetter:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC) NO NO NO dont take them out... the person or group that placed them will only place more !

Or even, and this is just possible, for all we know they were placed with the full knowledge and permission of the landowner and and taking them out would amount to criminal damage.

I know people get hot under the collar about this and if it happened on my local crags I'd be livid too, but we don't own this crag as far as I know; all we can do is get the facts.

 Redsetter 11 May 2011
In reply to Dave Garnett: Exactly, good point well presented !

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Various people gave their *subjective* opinion on that statement. I still disagree that the statement is undeniably factually wrong.

The statement is as undeniably wrong as the statement "the sun will not rise tomorrow". It is as near undeniably wrong as makes no difference.

I have had enough of this now. You are a lost cause and I shall charitably put you down as ignorant.

 SonyaD 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]

>
> I have had enough of this now. You are a lost cause and I shall charitably put you down as ignorant.

It was a damn fine effort though :oD
 Ian Jones 11 May 2011
In reply to sebrider:

Soon will be phase 2 of the construction...chains will be attached to these bolts and tugs will be used to pull the top of the cliff towards the sea to a more overhanging position.

The venue with its number of hard classics (e.g. Pump Pillar and Macho Guacho) will then rival the west's offering of Dumbarton Rock...sorted

Finally somebody says something sensible.

 Ian Jones 11 May 2011
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> welcome back niggle, we've missed you...
>
>

Most of us had forgotten he actually existed.

hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> The statement is as undeniably wrong as the statement "the sun will not rise tomorrow". It is as near undeniably wrong as makes no difference.

No 'the sun will rise tomorrow' is a definitive, fairly unambiguous statement. OTOH, my statement was not definitive (I was presenting it as opinion not fact) and somewhat open to interpretation. What, for example, did I mean by 'ignore'?

You decided to interpret my statement in a very rigid sense - that I was saying that it would be possible to completely put the existence of the bolts out of mind and have *exactly* the same climbing experience as if they weren't there.

As I've said several times in this thread that the existence of bolts will to some degree change the climbing experience, I would have thought that it would have been clear that the rigid interpretation you chose was wrong.

I guess you chose that particular interpretation because it suited you to do so...



 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
In your frantic back-tracking, you have chosen to ignore, in order to suit your purposes, the words in the statement in question "......climb as you would were they not there".
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey: hahahaha. you have an impressive ability to be pedantic and argue for the sake of arguing despite fully understanding the argument. excellent if particularly annoying debating skills. well done sir.

to answer though: yes climbing and the experience of climbing are exceedingly subjective, it is this additional subjective perception of risk and adventure real or otherwise which seperates traditional climbing from sport climbing. in many ways the beauty of sport climbing is the isolation of the more the physical side of climbing allowing climbers freedom from the subjective risks.

for subjective arguments we cannot ask for empirical proof so like you said there are no definitve right or wrong answers per se. subjective arguments are by their nature defined by the eye of the beholder, however, when the result of the debate is of significance to a number of individuals then the majority viewpoint must take priority - essentially democracy.

so, whilst you have every right to annoy the shit out of people pedantically arguing that trad climbing a bolted line does not entirely change the experience for the majority of people the subjective experience has been changed significantly enough to negatively impact the whole experience.
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
> In your frantic back-tracking, you have chosen to ignore, in order to suit your purposes, the words in the statement in question "......climb as you would were they not there".

By which I meant make the same moves, place the same gear...

Again you made the interpretation that suited your purposes.

Anyway, I thought you'd had enough?

 tlm 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> No it really wouldn't be a very different experience and certainly not, as you said earlier, a *completely* different experience. The only difference would be that in one case there would be some bolts that you could choose to ignore if you so wished - that choice does not make for a *completely* different climbing experience. Other than the physical existence of the bolts, any difference would be perceived, subjective - it's all in your head.

That's the whole point about climbing - just how much of it IS in your head, and how much the 'in your head' bit makes a difference. Argueing agaist bolts is argueing to try to preserve the 'in your head' bit of climbing as this is the bit that many of us particularly enjoy... (in fact, thinking about it a bit more, isn't ALL experience actually in your head?)
 JimboWizbo 11 May 2011
In reply to tlm:

I have to agree, extreme example to prove it out:


Imagine walking along a 2foot wide pathway, on the ground.
Now imagine doing it with a 900ft drop either side.
Same moves, different experience!
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

> (In reply to hakey) excellent if particularly annoying debating skills. well done sir.

Thank you!

> subjective arguments are by their nature defined by the eye of the beholder, however, when the result of the debate is of significance to a number of individuals then the majority viewpoint must take priority - essentially democracy.

Yep, fair point. In a healthy democracy it is surely a good thing that all arguments, including minority views or those that question a consensus, get a fair hearing and don't just get shouted down or dismissed out of hand?
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to tradattack)
>
> [...]
>
> Thank you!
>
> [...]
>
> Yep, fair point. In a healthy democracy it is surely a good thing that all arguments, including minority views or those that question a consensus, get a fair hearing and don't just get shouted down or dismissed out of hand?

haha, yes indeed I couldnt agree more. although im sure we can also both agree that this is no longer a fair and democratic debate but more a practice in the art of winding people up! its all very entertaining though and Mr Durrant would do well to take the forums less seriously!
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> That's the whole point about climbing - just how much of it IS in your head, and how much the 'in your head' bit makes a difference. Argueing agaist bolts is argueing to try to preserve the 'in your head' bit of climbing as this is the bit that many of us particularly enjoy... (in fact, thinking about it a bit more, isn't ALL experience actually in your head?)

careful. its gonna turn into a dualism argument in a minute. cogito ergo sum and all that.
 CurlyStevo 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
you may have a hay day over this article hakey!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=61965
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> (In reply to hakey)
> you may have a hay day over this article hakey!
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=61965

Haha!

 franksnb 11 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo: lol, i think rob d. has met his match.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> By which I meant make the same moves, place the same gear...

Ah, so more frantic back-tracking....

So I think we are now agreed that it is an undeniable objective fact that having a line of bolts up a route changes the climbing experience, since, as was established a while back, the option of clipping is still there even if one set out without the intention of doing so. And that is leaving aside any aestheyic considerations.

I consider the debate won.

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> (In reply to CurlyStevo) lol, i think rob d. has met his match.

It appears he did not remove the pegs before leading it - a pretty poor show in my opinion - and probably affecting the grade.

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> Ah, so more frantic back-tracking....
>
> So I think we are now agreed that it is an undeniable objective fact that having a line of bolts up a route changes the climbing experience, since, as was established a while back, the option of clipping is still there even if one set out without the intention of doing so. And that is leaving aside any aestheyic considerations.
>
> I consider the debate won.

Hes not backtracking because all he said was it doenst totally change the experience. Expeereicne cant be an 'undeniable objective fact' by definition. Experience is subjective!

Funnily enough I agree with your viewpoint but your sounding like a right idiot.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> Mr Durrant would do well to take the forums less seriously!

And you would do well to spell my name correctly, or I shall deal with you.

hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> undeniable objective fact

There is no such thing as an undeniable objective fact and you most certainly can't talk about experience, which is subjective, in those terms.

> I consider the debate won.

Oh dear...
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> Experience cant be an 'undeniable objective fact' by definition. Experience is subjective!

I disagree. The option of clipping is there. That is an objective fact. I experience that option - objective fact.

> You're sounding like a right idiot.

That, I think is a truly subjective viewpoint.

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> There is no such thing as an undeniable objective fact.

I think there are very reputable philosophers who would take issue with you there. Anyway,for all practical purposes, there are certainly objective facts.

> And you most certainly can't talk about experience, which is subjective. in those terms.

I dealt with that in my last post.

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: Yes it as and the sum of my experience with you is continuing to confirm my subjective viewpoint!
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Yes it as and the sum of my experience with you is continuing to confirm my subjective viewpoint!

Fair enough, but aren't you going to respond to the first part of my post. Or have I stumped you?

hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [There is no such thing as an undeniable objective fact.]
>
> I think there are very reputable philosophers who would take issue with you there.

Name one and show how they would take issue with my statement.

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: Objective is by definition existing outside of perception and undistorted by emotion or personal conception or bias. It is therfore not possible to apply the term to experience. However clever you think your little argument is it does not work either on a linguistic or logical level.

Oh by the way, welcome down of your high horse to the level of the pedant. you have gracefully joined us on our level.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Objective........

So are you saying that you can deny that the choice I perceive that I have to clip a bolt exists? If so, then I think you are on a much lower level of pedantry than me.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: You chose to take the argument to a linguistic level and I am responding in kind...actually to be fair i think hakey made it linguistic but anyway....

the only thing which can be called an 'objective fact' is the presence of bolts. Whilst an objective fact impacts on a subjective notion it does not mean that a subjective notion becomes an objective fact.

No i do not deny you have the choice to clip a bolt but that does not make it an objective fact for the reasons i listed in my last post.

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: oh and arguing over whos the biggest pedant has to be the lowest form of pedantry possible!
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Name one and show how they would take issue with my statement.

I am no expert on philosophy and a quick google produced loads of jargon with which I felt very ill at ease! However, I am told by a colleague that any empiricist (and there are plenty of them) would believe in an objective reality.

Presumably, if you do not believe in an objective reality then the universe would cease to exist if all intelligences capable of preceiving it were eliminated - personally, I would find that hard to stomach!



 3 Names 11 May 2011
In reply to All:

Somebody kick that mans ass!
 caminoaustral 11 May 2011
In reply to Porridge the climber:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> A few points...
> I don't understand the need for climbers thinking routes need fixed pro. I'm of the opinion that if an exposed gorse bush at the top of the cliff is capable fo withstanding a force 9 southwesterly gale, it should be strong enough for my belay

respect for that sort of logic...!
a blade of grass would also stand up to a force 9, and would you belay off that?
 ruaidh 11 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

I was going to reply to the article, but the weight of comment already is so far up its own arse I'm not going to bother.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to ruaidh:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I was going to reply to the article, but the weight of comment already is so far up its own arse I'm not going to bother.

You gotta love 'I'm not posting because im above it' posts, theyre like the 'Your not worth talking to so im not going to post' posts. The irony is beautiful
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to ruaidh:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> ........the weight of comment already is so far up its own arse I'm not going to bother.

My (admittedly subjective) view is that it is just getting interesting.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> No I do not deny you have the choice to clip a bolt but that does not make it an objective fact.

Change that to "nobody could deny....." and I think you have a self contradictory statement......and I can rest my case.
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I am no expert on philosophy

Stating the obvious.

> However, I am told by a colleague that any empiricist (and there are plenty of them) would believe in an objective reality.

But the phrase was '*undeniable* objective fact' and there really is no such thing.

Someone may believe that say their own existence is an objective fact. But the key word there is 'believe' - something that is a matter of belief is not an *undeniable* fact.

Don't take my word for it on that, go and look up the objections to Descartes' proposition 'cogito ergo sum'.

And lest you are tempted to bring up mathematical proofs as undeniably objectively true - sorry they're not. They rest upon the assumption that the underlying logic has been perfectly divined - and we should admit the possibilty that the human mind has a logical blind spot of which we are unaware.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: DO you think your a lawyer?

Your missing the point and without giving you an hour long philosophy lesson your probably not gonna get it. I see what you think you saying but you cannot apply objectivity to any notion of choice or experience, it doesnt work by definition. You said yourself in earlier post that you dont really understand the meanings of the terms so maybe best if you rest your case somewhere else
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> But the phrase was '*undeniable* objective fact' and there really is no such thing.

Do you interpret "undeniable" as meaning that one could not deny it or that one could deny it but only if one was wrong? The distinction seems crucial here.

> And lest you are tempted to bring up mathematical proofs....

I wasn't planning to do so.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> Do you interpret "undeniable" as meaning that one could not deny it or that one could deny it but only if one was wrong? The distinction seems crucial here.
>
> [...]
>
> I wasn't planning to do so.

undeniable means unquestionably wrong - let us take your suggestion that you have the choice to clip the bolt. Some philosdophers argue that we do not have freewill but a predetermined existence. There is no way to prove either side and debate has gone on for thousands of years. However staunchly you believe in your freedom to choose the bolt someone will argue otherwise and it is therefore deniable
 CurlyStevo 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
it is afterall perfectly possible someone may trad climb a bolted route without spotting any bolts!
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo: ironically i actually agree with his standpoint its his incorrect use of language and holier than though attitude i am 'dealing with'. having said that I have managed to totally lose the bolts on a sport climb more than once!
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Do you interpret "undeniable" as meaning that one could not deny it or that one could deny it but only if one was wrong?

Can you unscramble that? I've read it several times now it doesn't quite make sense.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) DO you think your a lawyer?
>
> Your missing the point and without giving you an hour long philosophy lesson your probably not gonna get it.

I have been taking "objective" to refer to something of which is true or exists independent of the observer. Philosophers may well have a subtly different definition. By my definition, the fact that I have a choice whether or not to clip a bolt is certainly, at least for all practical purposes, objective.
Given that you have already said that you agree with me, maybe we should end the debate here........

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Can you unscramble that? I've read it several times now it doesn't quite make sense.

Suppose we all agree that the moon exist. I could deny this. I would of course be wrong. The fact that I have denied it could be taken to mean that it is not undeniable!

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: So what you have basically said is you have been arguing based on your own special definition of the word (which is wrong)and therefore you must be right.

well done you

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> Suppose we all agree that the moon exist. I could deny this. I would of course be wrong. The fact that I have denied it could be taken to mean that it is not undeniable!

100 years ago the world was undeniably flat....
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> undeniable means unquestionably wrong

Surely you mean "right"!

I was working on the premise that I have freewill, but yes, I am aware that the jury is out (and will no doubt remain so for a long time) on that one. Don't most moral phioshophers agree that it is probably for the best if we get on with things as if we do have free will?

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) So what you have basically said is you have been arguing based on your own special definition of the word (which is wrong)and therefore you must be right.

I don't see how the definition of a word (which is a human construction) can change the truth or not of a fact - the fact does not change just because we might all agree to change the meaning of a word.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: yep, and personally I am very much in favour of free will and really really hope im right otherweise its all rather pointless. my point is simply that however sure we are of anything (and I am pretty damn sure about the choice to clip a bolt) theres always some airy fair philosopher who will dispute it and very very very pccasionally they will be right.

sorry ive been such a pain in the arse today - its what happens when youve stupied philosophy and someone starts a debate involving subjectivity and linguistic definitions. its not my fault.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> sorry ive been such a pain in the arse today.

No worries! I've quite enjoyed it.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: It doesnt change the fact - I never said it was. I said your use of language was wrong thus making your argument null and void. Language, words and their definitions are a human construct but they have to be used in the correct way or they do not convey the correct meaning.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tradattack)
> [...]
>
> No worries! I've quite enjoyed it.

haha, cool. im fairly sure that Hakey understands a lot more about trad than hes suggesting and is just debating points for fun. still entertaining
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Suppose we all agree that the moon exist. I could deny this. I would of course be wrong.

No of course about it. The existence of the moon is not indubitable. There is no absolute, incontrovertible proof of it's existence.

I happen to believe that there is a moon, that it has a real physical existence outside separate from mind's apprehension of it - but that is a belief, not knowledge. I have no access to absolute truth about the existence of the moon, or indeed anything.

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) It doesnt change the fact - I never said it was. I said your use of language was wrong thus making your argument null and void. Language, words and their definitions are a human construct but they have to be used in the correct way or they do not convey the correct meaning.

True, but that does not mean there is anything to stop everyone agreeing to change the meaning of a word and then just getting on with it. I think that all this tedious (but no doubt necessary) arguing about the meaning of words is a real turn-off as far as philosophy is concerned; to the layman it does seem to be a boring barrier to be surmounted before tackling anything actually interesting. Maybe I'll just stick to mathematics!

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I happen to believe that there is a moon, that it has a real physical existence outside separate from mind's apprehension of it - but that is a belief, not knowledge.

So you "believe" that objective truths exist, a "belief" presumably shared by mant reputable philosophers. Or have I used the word "objective" wrongly again.
There is a danger here of getting boggeddown in self-referential statement I think......
hakey 11 May 2011
And re Free Will - to open another can of worms - sorry the arguments are very heavily stacked against any notion of free will.

Briefly - agency (how events come about) is either caused (predetermined) or uncaused (random) and it has to be one or the other (they are a true dichotomy).

But free will is defined as agency that is neither predetermined nor random - an obvious contradiction.

There are plenty of other problems with the notion of free will and no good arguments for.

There was an interesting In Our Time (Radio4) a couple of month's back and all of the philosophers who took part agreed that free will is an illusion.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: In some instances yes it gets very very tedious and pedantic but it does not occur in all areas of philosophy and there are some really interesting concepts which really challenge you to think aout things in a different way.

If you look at it from a maths perspective its like me saying

If i say 5+2=3 because I have decided that + actually means -

Its important that we have a common understanding of meaning in order for any argument to work.

Anyway maths has got more than its fair share of wacked out mind bending concepts which frankly make me want to cry just thinking about.
 samrad 11 May 2011
you guys are such sad buggers!! if you want to find more out about climbing then get out and go climbing yourselves (i'm sure you will learn from the experience) rather than waisting hours pointlessly arguing.

i was just gonna have a quick look to see if there were any interesting points about this article, but you have spoiled this thread arguing about a load of unrelated BS.

get a life
sam
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to samrad: Suprisingly enough I am not sat inside debating on UKC by choice..... If climbing where an option I would not be here. The point of the debate was not to 'learn about climbing'.

Its been a fun and interesting debate which fair enough is off topic but its a fairly BS thread anyway with all the main points already said.

If a few of us fancy wasting our work day by having an interesting if pointless debate then wats it to you?

whay arent you out climbing and leanring from experience rather than wasting time being a holier than thou jackass on UKC?
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> So you "believe" that objective truths exist,

I have a belief that an objective reality exist, or at least my actions are in accordance with a belief in objective reality - I wouldn't step out in front of a bus.

But belief is not knowledge. I can not be certain that an objective reality exists outside of my subjective experience, that my perceptions are false, that I am perhaps hallucinating or being deceived by a malevolent spirit.

Without knowledge an objective reality is deniable.

> a "belief" presumably shared by mant reputable philosophers.

A reputable philosopher wouldn't state that their belief had equivalence with an 'undeniable objective fact' - which is where this all started.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

>
> A reputable philosopher wouldn't state that their belief had equivalence with an 'undeniable objective fact' - which is where this all started.

I thought is all started with a report about bolts and rubbish, but it some how transmogrified to be just rubbish!


Chris
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to samrad) Suprisingly enough I am not sat inside debating on UKC by choice.....
really?
 mikesuth 11 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

I'm surprised at the main focus on the changes to the climbing.

What about the irreversible environmental damage caused by bolts? That is objective...
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to simondgee:
> (In reply to tradattack)
> [...]
> really?

yep my evil employers force me too, ive begged them time and again to let me work but if I ever leave UKC they whip me and beat me with sharp sticks.
 Offwidth 11 May 2011
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Sad isn't it. Maybe all but the OP should have an upper limit of posts per thread: everyone wins, the normal folk get to read less crap and the overly argumentative folk can get even more angry being unreasonably forced to listen exclusively to themselves.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
>
> Sad isn't it. Maybe all but the OP should have an upper limit of posts per thread: everyone wins, the normal folk get to read less crap and the overly argumentative folk can get even more angry being unreasonably forced to listen exclusively to themselves.

yes because that was clearly a well thought out on topic post addressing the OP and the heart of the issue
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Okay, should have just let R Durran continue to spout nonsense and not even attempted to defend my position.

 Offwidth 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Your as bad as each other. As I see it, your only advantage is your name sounds less silly if someone adds a 't' on the end by mistake.
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to Offwidth: And your no better!
hakey 11 May 2011
In reply to mikesuth:
> (In reply to UKC News)

> What about the irreversible environmental damage caused by bolts? That is objective...

Okay, I agree that is the case, so explain how the climbing community think it's okay to cause such irreversible environmental damage to an iconic piece of natural rock like Malham Cove.

Then explain how it's okay for the decision to do so to be made more-or-less unilaterally by the climbing community, with scant regard for the views of the wider public (who greatly outnumber the climbers at Malham).
 samrad 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

hahaha!!! nice troll.

firstly it seems from many of the stupid comments on this thread some people do need to 'learn about climbing' and general ethics that are accepted in the uk.

and your sure right in saying "is off topic but its a fairly BS thread anyway with all the main points already said" so its quite simple if you don't have any more useful points then don't bother posting.

"If a few of us fancy wasting our work day by having an interesting if pointless debate then wats it to you?"

all i'm gonna say is i'm glad i don't work with you, as you cant be getting much 'work' done

and checking UKC headlines quickly isnt the same as arguing about s**t for hours

anyway you can be sure i wont post on here again
peace out
sam
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to mikesuth)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Okay, I agree that is the case, so explain how the climbing community think it's okay to cause such irreversible environmental damage to an iconic piece of natural rock like Malham Cove.
>
> Then explain how it's okay for the decision to do so to be made more-or-less unilaterally by the climbing community, with scant regard for the views of the wider public (who greatly outnumber the climbers at Malham).

not to mention the general environmental damage we do in 'cleaning' crags for our use disrupting important habitats for flora and fauna
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to mikesuth:
Back on topic...
Have to say i'm not a pro bolter but 2 belay bolts on the top of a crag have such infinitesimally small environmental impact in both the local environment and global environment it just doesn't hold water. Environmental concerns of belay bolts are shuffling deck chairs on the titanic of environmental carnage of the the last 50 years.
The aesthetic impact, intrusion and industrial presence in a natural environment that most of us use for escapism is imho where the grey area of belay bolts falls for most climbers. They do make functional sense and don't really detract from the route but they do change our view of the 'landscape'. I don't like them but I will put up with them where they are a result of a measured response.
I am more concerned the effect of indoor only climbers moving outside and needing quick fix fixed pro solutions to climbing...in 15 years time when most climbers will have accessed the sport quickly and easily through walls but found the transition to trad...awkward what will be the view?
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to samrad: Ahh i see you have a general sense of humour failure.

Its a bit of light entertainment on a wednesday afternoon - whats so wrong with that. the debate moved on from bolts to something else, so what?

if your so easily offended by a bit of BS in a thread then dont come on the UKC forums. its not like ive come and sat in your home for four hours and chatted shit, in that instance you have a right to be annoyed.

its harmless entertainment, the irony is that all you people wasting your time posting just to tell us were wasting our time are no better!
tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to simondgee: If the sport moves on to become something else in 15 years time and the majority of climbers believe that bolts are the way forward than so be it. the same arguments we propose about the majority consensus against bolting work the other way.

if it really genuinely concerns you then go and educate the new generation of climbers about the joys of trad, i love taking out as many new climbers as i can and introducing them to trad and they generally love it. personally i think we will have the trad ethos in this country for many years to come.
 Offwidth 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

Not quite sure what your (sic) getting at so I'll try and help:

I agree offwidtht isn't an especially funny misspelled name. The people who put the bolts in shouldn't have but are probably not climbers nor evil. Its best to find out who did it before any chopping. Its sometimes hard for climbers to get their ethical message out to normal humans. UKC are very naughty for using tabloid tricks. I like the odd argument and arguing is part and parcel of a forum but there are limits and some don't realise this when they passed the limit 10 posts ago!

Plenty to start a one-sided argument with there as I'm off home now
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to simondgee)

I agree with everything you say (from my profile you will prob appreciate I love introducing folks and supporting/encouraging novice leaders at the crag...that subtle role should not be underestimated). I think its the transition we have from clip up walls and bouldering producing big numbers of people who can do moves but have little self reliance for gear/environment. Going outside is then a whole different ball game and leader protected routes will always feel like step backwards with grade drop. Its a shame that NICAS and wall developers don't have more innovation for blending indoor climbing with the strong trad protected climbing style of the uk.
I really don't see Stanage being bolted in 15 years time but I do see it as bigger challenge matching fast food access to climbing to vast numbers of established leader protected crags. (sorry...I hate the word 'trad'...dont take it personally )

tradattack 11 May 2011
In reply to simondgee: very true. seems to me that a huge number of the indoor wall monkeys arent even leaving the walls though so its less of a problem. i think indoor climbing will grow in itself into its fully developed mutant version of the sport with events like the x-games and possibly one day the olympics creating a new breed of fully indoor climber.

hopefully those who are adventurous enough to start outdoor climbing will have enough of an appreciation of the outdoors to invest the time and effort required to learn about our climbing heratige and the 'leader protected crags'.

whats wrong with trad? trad is rad no? (i died inside a little just typing that)
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

> whats wrong with trad? trad is rad no? (i died inside a little just typing that)
he he I should hope so
 mikesuth 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Ok, having never climbed at Malham Cove I'm unable to comment. What I had in mind was more the Scottish scene. The same principles apply regardless.

As I see it, bolting of routes would only lead to an increase in the erosion and damage caused due to the resultant increase in numbers using crags.
 mikesuth 11 May 2011
In reply to simondgee:

Well I agree in part. Bolting of routes has, and I don't doubt, increasingly will have a role to play in the British climbing scene. I think however, to quote "not adventurous in nature, do not have a history of established traditional routes and have been agreed to be better suited to sport climbing by the local climbing community" should be the foremost considerations proir to any rock being bolted.

These things we must remember set precedents and influence mindsets. If it's Ok there, why won't it be Ok here too? If bolts could be removed and rock repaired to its initial condition, the case may be a different one. Unfortunately that's not the case.
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to mikesuth:
you think so? It may do the converse...
spread the load...sport is inherently associated with redpointing and working so you could go anywhere...trad...oops i mean leader protected is inherently onsighting so you tend to choose venues for your places where selecting the route to suit your grade is more limited and skilled
and
reduce the formation of descent paths,top of crag erosion...see stuff about seargent slabs on the other threads.
TBH my usual reaction if I see a bolt on anything other than slate or limestone is WTF! and queasiness ...but I feel like that when I look at what I used to wear!
 simondgee 11 May 2011
In reply to simondgee:
sorry mike my last post was in reference to environmental affect..
 yer maw 11 May 2011
In reply to today's prolific posters: it really is evident that the economy and employment is suffering when some on here have nowt else to do all day. Get a job, pay some bills, have a family, then see the futility of it all.

That said when you're ambition is to sit on your backside posting nonsense all day then you are clearly a success.
 mikesuth 11 May 2011
In reply to yer maw:

Hmm. I'm currently at work (or so they think, ah ha ha) in Angola.
Supposed to be going home today however due to ineptitude/inefficiency of immigration it's been delayed.
This passes time nicely. My conscience is therefore clear.

 Dave Garnett 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
>I have no access to absolute truth about the existence of the moon, or indeed anything.

I post therefore I am?
 whispering nic 11 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Can't be bothered trawling all the responses but these bolt stubs are right next to slightly smaller bolt stubs which have been there for 20 odd years (visible in piccy) without people getting their knickers in a twist.

The apparently sound wire placements in the flakes next to tese bolts are also an accident waiting to happen but that is another story...
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to samrad:
> You guys are such sad buggers!! if you want to find more out about climbing then get out and go climbing .

I've just been out climbing (trad, of course) but now I'm back but resolved to stay away from the interesting debate on this thread.

> You have spoiled this thread arguing about a load of unrelated BS.

That is just your entirely subjective view. Anyone is free to take the thread where they want. Feel free to return it to the original discussion about the Hawkraig bolts.
 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> Anyway maths has got more than its fair share of wacked out mind bending concepts which frankly make me want to cry just thinking about.

A good analogy is physics; without serving a thorough apprenticeship in the "language" of mathematics, you just can't get terribly far with it. I remember seeing a film with Feynmann talking typically eloquently on the subject.

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
>
> Okay, should have just let R Durran continue to spout nonsense and not even attempted to defend my position.

"Attempt" is a very appropriate choice of word. There was certainly no way I was going to let you get away with the nonsense you were spouting. You didn't get away with it; hardly anyone agreed with you.

 Robert Durran 11 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to simondgee) If the sport moves on to become something else in 15 years time and the majority of climbers believe that bolts are the way forward than so be it. the same arguments we propose about the majority consensus against bolting work the other way.

Back on topic!!
The most interesting (I use the word subjectively) on topic thing about this thread is the number of people who seem ready to shrug their shoulders at the appearance of these bolts (never mind whether or not climbers placed them). I really do not think that we would have seen this, say, 20 years ago. I do get the impression that the anti-bolt concensus might be subtly weakening and I do not think that there is any room for complacency among those of us who love and value this country's climbing tradition.
 kevin stephens 11 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

Nah, I think it's simply because most folk's horizon doesn't extend beyond their sacred crag Stanage. If the same bolts had been placed there, there would have been a right kerfuffle.
 minirollsrule 12 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: may i suggest measuring the distance between the bolts center axis. as an engineer we like nice round numbers, easy to remember. if it was indeed for a purpose other than climbing, such as to hold the base of a cantelevered gantry or some such construction, then the bolts would be a specific distance apart.
if they are not a specific distance apart then it may well be an uneducated (in the capasity of diameter and equipment used on most sport routes) phantom bolter.
this is the only rational way of identification that i can thinnk of to determin the intended use....??
 Dave Garnett 12 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tradattack)

> The most interesting (I use the word subjectively) on topic thing about this thread is the number of people who seem ready to shrug their shoulders at the appearance of these bolts (never mind whether or not climbers placed them).

Not my position. If these had clearly been protection bolts placed on a route I think the condemnation would have been pretty much unanimous and swift restorative action would have followed.

However, in this case it very much is relevant whether the bolts were placed by climbers or not, why they were placed and whether the landowner knows about them. I would also say that belays are a slightly different issue to protection and there can at least be an arguable case (although I would take some convincing that discreet stakes wouldn't almost always be the preferred option).
 Sir Chasm 12 May 2011
In reply to minirollsrule: What if it's an even number in metric but an uneven number in imperial?
hakey 12 May 2011
So considering countries like Spain and France where sport climbing is the norm and trad considered a quaint foreign eccentricity are the climbing and climbing cultures in those countries poorer, richer, or just different?

If France had a trad climbing culture would French climbing be any the better for it (better in this case meaning increasing the good rather than producing more technically proficient climbers)?
 minirollsrule 12 May 2011
In reply to Sir Chasm: most engineering is done in metric these days. in america they still use imperial for architechture. im suggesting if they are a nice round number such as 600mm apart then it may not be to do with climbing atall. whereas the top anchors for a sport climb are no specific distance apart and usually one higher than the other and usually places on vertical faces rather than on an easy top out
 Offwidth 12 May 2011
In reply to minirollsrule:

Some UK stuff still comes in imperial measurements. I even know a clever engineer who got so pissed off with system changes over the years he developed the firkin, furlong, fortnight number system (SI being kg,m,s).
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> So considering countries like Spain and France where sport climbing is the norm and trad considered a quaint foreign eccentricity are the climbing and climbing cultures in those countries poorer, richer, or just different?
>

Either poorer or just different. I think few people (in the UK) would say it was richer. We for example tend to value our climbing history much more.

> If France had a trad climbing culture would French climbing be any the better for it (better in this case meaning increasing the good rather than producing more technically proficient climbers)?

I think so, though no doubt others would disagree.
In reply to Michael Gordon: Valuing history is often cited as something that supports the UK's anti bolt stance. This seems to be a case of wanting to have our cake and eat it - just because on balance the UK is against bolting, that does not mean we value our climbing history much more!
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> We for example tend to value our climbing history much more.

What makes you say that?

Where's the British equivalent of the statue of Balmat and Paccard in Chamonix?
 MG 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey: Since you seem to enjoy pendantry, can I point out that that ascent isn't part of French climbing history, Chamonix and Mont Blanc not being part of France at the time of the ascent and Piccard and Balmat not being French.
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

I was talking about crags, not the Alps (which I'm pretty sure was what you meant when you said "sport climbing"!)
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to MG:

> (In reply to hakey) Since you seem to enjoy pendantry, can I point out that that ascent isn't part of French climbing history, Chamonix and Mont Blanc not being part of France at the time of the ascent and Piccard and Balmat not being French.

Well done.

I'd still argue that the history of what is now a part of France is French history.

hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I was talking about crags, not the Alps (which I'm pretty sure was what you meant when you said "sport climbing"!)

Plenty of sport climbing in the Alps...

 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon) just because on balance the UK is against bolting, that does not mean we value our climbing history much more!

No, it's partly because we value our history that we have a stance against bolts on the majority of our crags.

hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains)
> [...]
>
> No, it's partly because we value our history that we have a stance against bolts on the majority of our crags.

Hmm - not sure how that has anything to do with valuing history. You could bolt every crag in the country and at the same time still value the history of the climbing that went before. One need not negate the other.

Valuing and preserving trad culture maybe - but that is a different thing.
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> [...]
>
> Plenty of sport climbing in the Alps...

Which is not what you were referring to in the example you gave.

So do you really think there is an important and long-standing history of big sport routes in the Alps?

 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> [...]
>
> Hmm - not sure how that has anything to do with valuing history. You could bolt every crag in the country and at the same time still value the history of the climbing that went before. One need not negate the other.
>
> Valuing and preserving trad culture maybe - but that is a different thing.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> Where's the British equivalent of the statue of Balmat and Paccard in Chamonix?

I can't remember if it actually went ahead or not, but a statue of John Mackenzie and Norman Collie was proposed for Sligachan (Skye).

hakey 12 May 2011
So, I'm thinking that as there is a fair amount of unclimbed rock in France - orders of magnitude more than we have here - why aren't Brits going over to put up new trad routes and simultaneously enrich continental climbing culture?

That would be in everyone's interest, wouldn't it?

I mean surely, an evidently good idea being universally recognised, the trad meme would spread through French climbing like a virus?
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Which is not what you were referring to in the example you gave.

I talked about sport climbing within the wider context of French climbing culture.

> So do you really think there is an important and long-standing history of big sport routes in the Alps?

No, but there is a celebrated history of rock climbing in the French Alps, which seems to undermine the idea that we 'tend to value our climbing history much more'.

 Robert Durran 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> ...are the climbing and climbing cultures in those countries poorer, richer, or just different?

Please could you give me extremely precise definitions of "richer" and "poorer" as used in this context before I risk replying.
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> So, I'm thinking that as there is a fair amount of unclimbed rock in France - orders of magnitude more than we have here

Quite possibly!


- why aren't Brits going over to put up new trad routes

I don't know. Maybe they are?

> and simultaneously enrich continental climbing culture?
> That would be in everyone's interest, wouldn't it?
>
> I mean surely, an evidently good idea being universally recognised, the trad meme would spread through French climbing like a virus?

I don't think it quite works like that. When sport climbing is developed in an area previously only associated with trad climbing it tends to get popular quickly. The opposite is not really the case. This has a lot to do with the convenience and ease associated with the act of going sport climbing.

In a country where the vast majority of climbers only go sport climbing and have never worn a rack before, can you really see them getting psyched for big trad routes?

 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> No, but there is a celebrated history of rock climbing in the French Alps,

Agreed, but I thought you were trying to make a point about sport climbing? It seems you'd agree that the only valued and longstanding part of French climbing history is the Alpine routes?
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Please could you give me extremely precise definitions of "richer" and "poorer" as used in this context before I risk replying.

If I don't do you promise not to reply?

 LakesWinter 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey: They are going over to put up new trad routes route the MB massif for one. Are you still going? Any chance of you shutting up soon?
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Agreed, but I thought you were trying to make a point about sport climbing?

I was talking about sport climbing, trad climbing and continental attitudes to both.

> It seems you'd agree that the only valued and longstanding part of French climbing history is the Alpine routes?

I would think so. Though achievements in sport climbing and bouldering are also celebrated these days (but I guess that's a relatively recent thing).

hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to MattG:

> (In reply to hakey) They are going over to put up new trad routes route the MB massif for one.

Completely kosher, ethically sound British trad - absolutely no bolts or pitons?

> Are you still going? Any chance of you shutting up soon?

Why? What's the problem? It's an open forum, a place for discussion - or are the only valid opinions those that wholly subscribe to the group think?

hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I don't think it quite works like that. When sport climbing is developed in an area previously only associated with trad climbing it tends to get popular quickly. The opposite is not really the case. This has a lot to do with the convenience and ease associated with the act of going sport climbing.

Not much to add to that except, that being true, it's fairly clear that, given a free choice, people prefer sport climbing to trad?

> In a country where the vast majority of climbers only go sport climbing and have never worn a rack before, can you really see them getting psyched for big trad routes?

No.

 LakesWinter 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey: Yes to point one and to point 2 coz this debate is going round in a biiiiiiiiiiiig circle
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to MattG:
> this debate is going round in a biiiiiiiiiiiig circle

nah, I think we're just getting somewhere.

 CurlyStevo 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> So, I'm thinking that as there is a fair amount of unclimbed rock in France - orders of magnitude more than we have here - why aren't Brits going over to put up new trad routes and simultaneously enrich continental

Can you name where this rock is or are you assuming it exists. I know there is tonnes of unclimbed rock in Spain and there are British people developing trad areas there, Al Evans from this forum has been involved in this.
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> (In reply to hakey)

> Can you name where this rock is or are you assuming it exists.

Come on, all over the Alps there are smaller crags that pass unnoticed overshadowed by much more impressive rock faces, but which, were they in Britain, would be well known climbing venues.

Seen them with my own eyes - even once and had that assumption confirmed talking to a local (in the Aravis).

 CurlyStevo 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
Seeing as you didn't name one I'll take that as no then.

Even if you had named a crag you can't assume there is an order of magnitude more unclimbed rock in france based on a sample of 1 anyway can you.

There is a fair amount of unclimbed rock in scotland BTW.

The way I see it the further from the road it is the better, more independent and longer the lines need to be, to be worth developing.

Spain has a fair amount of stuff that in UK terms isn't miles from the road but is fairly undeveloped.
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> (In reply to hakey)

> Seeing as you didn't name one I'll take that as no then.

Take it how you like. Makes no difference.

> Even if you had named a crag you can't assume

I'll assume it if I like and it makes sense to me.

> There is a fair amount of unclimbed rock in scotland BTW.

> Spain has a fair amount of stuff that in UK terms isn't miles from the road but is fairly undeveloped.

I'm sure that's true.
 CurlyStevo 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
that was one of your poorest responses on the thread so far IMSO. (In My Subjective Opinion
hakey 12 May 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> (In reply to hakey)
> that was one of your poorest responses on the thread so far IMSO. (In My Subjective Opinion

Oh well... it's not like it's a competition or anything.



 Midgeslayer 12 May 2011
Hanging, drawing and quartering is too good for 'em
 Michael Gordon 12 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
>
> Not much to add to that except, that being true, it's fairly clear that, given a free choice, people prefer sport climbing to trad?
>

French people maybe!

hkstu 13 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: We were there a couple of weeks ago and they really aren't necessary. There are very solid natural anchors close to where the bolts have been placed and there is no need to ab in except at high tide. It only takes five mins to walk down at either end to regain the base of the crag. Anybody have a grinder or one of those pully-outy tools?
 irdial 24 May 2011
i'm planning to bolt all the routes at Hawkcraig folks.
 JLS 24 May 2011
In reply to irdial:

>"i'm planning to bolt all the routes at Hawkcraig folks."

Cool! Let me know as soon as you've got the bolts in Pain Pillar. I'd love to do that route. It's just unjustifiable in its current boltless state.
mattgc2 24 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Really don't understand the problem with bolts . If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all . Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural . Get off your "trad" high horse just because it's different you don't like it . It's not your rock .
 aln 24 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to UKC News) Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural .

What does that mean?
 Milesy 24 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to UKC News) Really don't understand the problem with bolts . If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all . Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural . Get off your "trad" high horse just because it's different you don't like it . It's not your rock .

Away back to Ratho.
 deepsoup 24 May 2011
In reply to aln:
> What does that mean?
It means he's a numptie.
 irdial 24 May 2011
In reply to JLS:

Cool JLS. See you there Sunday and all you anti-bolts nazis. Limekilns is quite near as well i can think of some lovely polished routes there needing bolted.
 awwritetroops 24 May 2011
In reply to irdial:

you touch limekilns son and i'll bolt you tae the bottom of the sea.
 Robert Durran 24 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to UKC News) Really don't understand the problem with bolts . If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all . Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural . Get off your "trad" high horse just because it's different you don't like it . It's not your rock .

Please could you go away and learn English, then come back and translate your post into that language for us so that we can all tell you to shove it back up your arse where it came from without any lingering doubt that we might have misunderstood what you are on about.

 Robert Durran 24 May 2011
In reply to awwritetroops:
> (In reply to irdial)
>
> you touch limekilns son and i'll bolt you tae the bottom of the sea.

No you won't because I'll have got to him first.
Incidentally the idea that one would bolt up a route because it was getting polished shows a particularly spectacular level of ignorance.

 irdial 24 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Ignorant or not, they're all getting bolted kiddies.
 irdial 24 May 2011
In reply to awwritetroops:

Mental an that naw ma main man kick it back an that
 Jamie B 24 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

> Really don't understand the problem with bolts .

There is no problem, as long as they're in the right place. Well-established and popular trad crags are not that place.

> If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all . Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural . Get off your "trad" high horse just because it's different you don't like it . It's not your rock .

I think you'll find that some of the most vehement opponents of bolting at places like Hawkcraig are also very keen sport climbers. It's not an entrenched "us and them" confrontation here.

mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: The word sanctamonius sums it up perfectly going by the responses
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

> Really don't understand the problem with bolts . If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all . Clean polished covered in sanctamonius arseholes rock is not natural . Get off your "trad" high horse just because it's different you don't like it . It's not your rock .

+1

Oh noes!!! - he didn't spell a word correctly, so there's no way anybody could possible guess what he meant. Consequently anything he says can be dismissed as bollox!

(btw, I agree Matt, sanctimonious definitely sums up much of this thread!)
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> Really don't understand the problem with bolts .

Evidently not. Perhaps you should go away, familiarise yourself with the issues (reading this thread, the follow up "untrashed" one and the "changing attitudes to bolting" one might be a start), perhaps even do some climbing, trad and sport, in various areas, and then come back when you know what you are talking about and people might be prepared to engage you in serious debate. Barging in and branding experienced climbers with carefully considered views sanctimonious arseholes is not the way forward.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

Same goes for you. Obviously.
On second thoughts, don't bother coming back - earlier in this thread you demonstrated that you are not actually capable of understanding the issues.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> don't bother coming back.

In other words - would all those who don't agree with you kindly refrain from expressing an opinion?

> earlier in this thread you demonstrated that you are not actually capable of understanding the issues.

Funnily enough, I thought it was you who showed yourself to be quite incapable of understanding some very simple concepts - like the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact (and this bolt vs no-bolt issue is the former).
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> In other words - would all those who don't agree with you kindly refrain from expressing an opinion?

No. I would just rather discuss the issues with people with intelligent and informed opinions.

> Funnily enough, I thought it was you who showed yourself to be quite incapable of understanding some very simple concepts - like the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact.

The precise meaning of words does not actually change the facts which are independent of language. The original debate was about climbing. The language thing was a sidetrack. I really don't think there is any need to go over all this again though.

hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The original debate was about climbing. The language thing was a sidetrack.

No, it was about your ridiculous claims to have 'won' the argument based upon so-called 'facts', and just not getting that your opinion, like mine, is subjective. Neither opinion being right or wrong, neither argument 'winning'.

> I would just rather discuss the issues with people with intelligent and informed opinions.

A prime example of you arbitrarily imposing your own subjective value judgements. I suppose you can prove that my opinions are ill informed and unintelligent? That my subjective opinions are objectively less valid than yours?
 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to UKC News) Really don't understand the problem with bolts . If it was care for the environment you would not climb at all .

The main concern with most climbers over bolting is the nature of the climbing, and the overall long term effect that some bolts may have on the future of the nature of all British climbing, rather than the visual impact of a couple of bolts.
tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey: bloody hell ive been away for a week and you two are still going on the same points. excellent work!
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:

The question was: "Is it the same experience to set out to climb a bolted route with the intention of only using leader placed protection as it would be if the bolts weren't there."

The answer is "no". I know it. You know it (unless, of course, you are either a moron or not actually a climber) so don't go on pretending you don't and muddling the issue with pointless sidetracking about language. Everyone with any sort of climbing experience knows it. So really there is nothing further to discuss.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm:
> The main concern with most climbers over bolting is the nature of the climbing, and the overall long term effect that some bolts may have on the future of the nature of all British climbing, rather than the visual impact of a couple of bolts.

Absolutely.

tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: your statement was equally bullshit.
 Duke_Haphazard 25 May 2011
Arn't sport routes normally bolted into place anyway?
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) your statement was equally bullshit.

What statement? Would you care to give me a quote?

tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: not really. there are now nearly 400 posts which i have no intention to trawl through. the bullshit about fact followed by a long argument about language followed by you claiming thats not what you meant so it didnt matter if you used the wrong language.....that bit
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
>
Oh, and it might be for the best if you refrained from stirring things up again. You do, after all, as you admitted last time, know I am right about the climbing issue.
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to IanMcC: thanks you have proven my point
bull2010face 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: Don't be a turd
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

> (In reply to hakey) bloody hell ive been away for a week and you two are still going on the same points. excellent work!

No, it's only just kicked off again.

tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tradattack)
> [...]
> Oh, and it might be for the best if you refrained from stirring things up again. You do, after all, as you admitted last time, know I am right about the climbing issue.

haha. its just too easy and amusing with you!
tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey: ahh. a well timed return then!
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
>
> The question was: "Is it the same experience to set out to climb a bolted route with the intention of only using leader placed protection as it would be if the bolts weren't there."

No, the original statement was that climbing a retro bolted route is a *completely* different experience than would be the case were the bolts not there.

My *subjective* opinion was that 'completely' was too strong a word, that the phrase 'somewhat different' would be more accurate.

Now, as the words 'completely' and 'somewhat' in this context are subjective, you can't prove my statement to be objectively wrong any more than I can prove it to be objectively correct.

IT'S.A.DIFFERENCE.OF.OPINION!

Get it?

tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey: why wont you just be dealt with? he is right. OBJECTIVE FACT!
 JimboWizbo 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Loud noises!
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:
> (In reply to hakey) why wont you just be dealt with?

Absolutely! I really should be dealt with most severely!

(hehe...)
tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to tradattack)
> [...]
>
> Absolutely! I really should be dealt with most severely!
>
> (hehe...)

anyone just coming into the thread will probably think you into s&m now
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm: This is what I'm getting at tim. Why should one group of climbers get to decide what happens on a rock face?. I've heard them all , tradition, environment ect . It's all bull. The truth is they don't want bolts because they like trad . That's fair enough but too cut other peoples bolts because they don't like them is just rude. Please no halfwit spelling/grammar insults , I'm on a crappy phone
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> To cut other peoples bolts because they don't like them is just rude.

Not if they were placed against the consensus on a crag which, by consensus, is bolt free. Placing the bolts is what is "rude".
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Well i'll be bolting Hawcraig and then others ...end of.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tradattack:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> anyone just coming into the thread will probably think you into s&m now

No comment...



 jadias 25 May 2011
In reply to Beardyman:
> In a similar vain to the group of geology students with rock hammers I met at Bowden Doors, they were finding it hard to understand why bashing a small bit of rock could possibly cause such outrage!!

As both a climber and a geologist I find myself tied here! I ended up doing some (horrible) fieldwork at Trowbarrow recently (and just spent the time wishing I was climbing it!) and thankfully had no need to bash anything open, but frequently it really is necessary. There are often quite discrete places to do it, rather than on a huge face, but not always.

Who really comes first? Climbers who are using the walls for fun, or geologists who are using the walls to further scientific understanding (although maybe not school groups!)? I'd argue that the geologists should have higher priority - after all, a lot of geology (especially in my field of volcanology) may actually be useful in safeguarding lives - but the climber in me disagrees!
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias:

whatever, i'll be bolting...
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias: Your right bud if you need samples why should climbers complain? Like I say it's not our rock
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: Who's consensus ? I can't remember any poll, do you assume for all?
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

> (In reply to Robert Durran) Who's consensus ? I can't remember any poll, do you assume for all?

The self-selecting, self-appointed consensus, silly!

The same group who decided it was okay to bolt Malham, Goredale and Kilnsey, with next to no wider public consultation about what was, in essence, environmental damage to highly visible, iconic, nationally famous natural rock features.

Funny how 'the consensus' thought it okay there, but elsewhere it's unacceptable (partly because it's environmental damage to natural rock... ).
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:

> whatever, i'll be bolting...

like!

hehe...


 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to tlm) This is what I'm getting at tim. Why should one group of climbers get to decide what happens on a rock face?. I've heard them all , tradition, environment ect . It's all bull. The truth is they don't want bolts because they like trad . That's fair enough but too cut other peoples bolts because they don't like them is just rude. Please no halfwit spelling/grammar insults , I'm on a crappy phone

They? Hmmmm.... I guess if anyone just wants an arguement, then it can be difficult to see different perspectives. At the end of the day, one group will decide, because a route can't be both bolted and trad. It will be where the weight of opinion is, and over time, this will probably become more and more pro bolt - that is what has happened over the last 20 years. I guess I think it is a bit of a shame for climbers of the future to throw away a precious trad heritage, which would be impossible to regain, without fully appreciating the implications of what is happening. Fair dos if it is well thought out and a deliberate decision, but I'm not so sure that is the case
 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Well i'll be bolting Hawcraig and then others ...end of.

Wow! That is so.....

insightful?

 awwritetroops 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:

the only thing you'll be bolting is fae the troops.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm:

> At the end of the day, one group will decide, because a route can't be both bolted and trad. It will be where the weight of opinion is, and over time, this will probably become more and more pro bolt - that is what has happened over the last 20 years. I guess I think it is a bit of a shame for climbers of the future to throw away a precious trad heritage, which would be impossible to regain, without fully appreciating the implications of what is happening. Fair dos if it is well thought out and a deliberate decision, but I'm not so sure that is the case

That's actually a pretty fair presentation of the status-quo and the pro-trad case.

(@The Durrant: see how it's done?)
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm: As it should be. But as far as I can tell the majority of what I hear is " bolts trash the rock ,cut them down " . I have the view they don't cause anymore or less damage than years of sustained trad climbing . Admitidly they are unsightly from close up. But that's not my argument . My argument is with the trad bully boys refusing to accept there way is not best, but different and as such trad climbing should not be forced on everyone that wishes to climb just because it's traditional in this country
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Well i'll be bolting Hawcraig and then others ...end of

End of you.....

 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

Where's your local crag Robert and i'll bolt that too. We can meet for a coffee to discuss the arrangements.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (@The Durran: see how it's done?)

I know perfectly well how its done. If you had read my posts in this and the other "untrashed" thread you would see that I am as capable of reasoned debate as anyone. Unfortunately I have allowed myself to become distracted by the need to rubbish your preposterous imbecility on a couple of occasions.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Where's your local crag Robert and i'll bolt that too. We can meet for a coffee to discuss the arrangements.

Hawcraig and Limekilns are roughly equidistant.
Arrangements for what? The shoving of a Camalot 6 up your arse?

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
>
My argument is with the trad bully boys refusing to accept there way is not best, but different and as such trad climbing should not be forced on everyone that wishes to climb just because it's traditional in this country.

It's not forced on anyone. You can go to sports crag which is bolted by consensus.

 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well there's also my desire to dry tool these venues. We could discuss that too. Cam 6 up my arse - oh rather.....
 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to tlm) As it should be. But as far as I can tell the majority of what I hear is " bolts trash the rock ,cut them down " . I have the view they don't cause anymore or less damage than years of sustained trad climbing . Admitidly they are unsightly from close up. But that's not my argument . My argument is with the trad bully boys refusing to accept there way is not best, but different and as such trad climbing should not be forced on everyone that wishes to climb just because it's traditional in this country

It isn't about 'bolts trashing the rock'. It is about bolts reducing the 'head' aspect of the climbing. In hard sports climbing, this is exactly what you want - not to have to worry about gear, and rope management and exposure, but just to be able to concentrate on the moves.

However, the fun part of trad is often the head games.

Putting in bolts gets rid of this elemental part of climbing, often leaving it a thiner experience, particularly when the climbing itself isn't that hard. It just all becomes a bit... flat.

One bolt might seem nothing at all to worry about, but each bolt that is placed makes bolts more ordinary, more normal, more expected. Each bolt makes trad climbing seem 'dangerous' or out of the reach of beginners. In many countries, trad climbing is almost unheard of for an ordinary climber, and it is simply luck that has left us with such a rich heritage in the UK.
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

Once these venues are bolted i'll also be dry tooling them too.
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: I no longer wish to converse with you . I can't stand people who threaten violence . I will be at aberdour tomorrow around 5ish tides and weather dependent I will ask around for you . Then you can threaten me big man
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Who's consensus ?

The consensus of the vast majority of the climbing population.

> I can't remember any poll, do you assume for all?

Feel free to organise one, polling a representative sample of the climbing population (not, of course including people who only climb indoors, because they are not in a position to have a considered opinion). I'll accept the results.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) I no longer wish to converse with you . I can't stand people who threaten violence . I will be at aberdour tomorrow around 5ish tides and weather dependent I will ask around for you . Then you can threaten me big man.

I have not threatened you. My threats are against "irdial" who is clearly just being provocative and taking the resulting threats in the tongue in cheek spirit in which they are intended. Do you seriously think I would actually shove a Camalot 6 up someone's arse? A Friend 1/2 maybe.....

 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

Matt, he'll probably try to ride you.
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert - i see your gay tendencies for what they are pal. There's a place for us all including bolts and dry tooling popular crags.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> ........ *completely* different........... 'somewhat different'...........

Whatever. So we agree it is different. I'm not too bothered by the precise words one or other of us might use to describe the degree of difference we (subjectively) experience. As long as we agree it is "different" then I am prepared to end this particular strand of the debate.
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: People that climb indoors only should be included. I will hazard a guess there are a few who only climb indoors because they hate trad and the bolted routs are few and far between . I know of a few guys and gals where this is the case . And as I've said 4 times now why should they be prohibited in climbing by a group of tradists
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Robert - i see your gay tendencies for what they are pal. There's a place for us all including bolts and dry tooling popular crags.

There is a place for us all (including gay people) to go trad climbing, sports climbing or dry-tooling. You just need to accept the consensus as to where each type of climbing is acceptable.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) People that climb indoors only should be included. I will hazard a guess there are a few who only climb indoors because they hate trad and the bolted routs are few and far between . I know of a few guys and gals where this is the case .

How do they know they hate trad climbing if they havn't given it a fair go? That is my point - they are not in a position to reach a balanced point of view.
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm: I completely agree with you tim as regards to the climbing experience . But the argument is moot you can't stop people doing what they love because others don't like it . Unless it's illegal
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: I don't like cabbage because of the smell
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't accept the consensus, i'll bolt and dry tool wherever i want.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) I don't like cabbage because of the smell

You've lost me there.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> I don't accept the consensus, i'll bolt and dry tool wherever i want.

And I'll shove my triple set of camming devices wherever I want. Mostly into your various orifices.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

Have you looked at that the "Changing Attitudes to Bolting" thread. There is a sensible debate going on there there with some excellent, balanced posts (and no mention of violent threats involving protection devices!)
 jadias 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

What a strange thread.

Aside from my previous geology-related comments (that one reply caught my eye, really), as a new trad climber, I can't say I mind bolts... within reason. If solid anchors are hard to find at the top, to a degree where trad climbing there is unsafe (more so than usual...) then great, the bolts serve a purpose. However, if there are lots of natural anchors around then they are truly pointless.

That being said, I've been to a couple of crags now where bolts have been placed and then chopped. The bolts are unsightly (from up close), yeah, and maybe they're unnecessary, but if they're already there then why not leave them? If you chop them, they're still there and just as ugly, just without the functionality.

If the presence of bolts at the top of a climb really 'messes with your trad head-games' then, well, maybe you need to take things a little less seriously. No offense to anyone, but honestly, if you don't like bolts then just don't use them!
 jadias 25 May 2011
Also I should add that I've never used bolts, but they've never 'thrown me off my game' or anything. They're there, whatever, climb on.
 Sir Chasm 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias: Isn't the internet lovely and egalitarian? Even idiots can post opinions.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
> Unfortunately I have allowed myself to become distracted by the need to rubbish your preposterous imbecility on a couple of occasions.

Hahaha! Brilliant! You're just about my favourite comedian right now.

Loving the material! It's as if you've really inhabited the skin of this pompous, slightly dim witted, humourless, bore - 'The Durrant'. It's the lack of self-knowledge, the yawning chasm between his own perception of himself and how others in fact perceive him that really cracks me up.

Have you come up with a funny voice to go with the character, or do you only bring him out on the internets?

In my head he sounds like a cross between Mr Bean and Rimmer from Red Dwarf - so if you haven't got a voice for him and you're looking for one, maybe you could use that as a spring board?
tradattack 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey: I had boycie from only fools and horses in mind for a voice.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> What a strange thread.
>
> If solid anchors are hard to find at the top, to a degree where trad climbing there is unsafe (more so than usual...) then great, the bolts serve a purpose.

You will find that many of us disagree. Hence this whole thread.

> The bolts are unsightly (from up close), yeah, and maybe they're unnecessary, but if they're already there then why not leave them? If you chop them, they're still there and just as ugly, just without the functionality.

To many of us their functionality (or lack of) is the real issue, the unsightliness being a relatively minor issue. Hence the debate over chopping them.

> No offense to anyone, but honestly, if you don't like bolts then just don't use them!

The trouble with this is that the same argument could be used to justify the wholesale bolting of every crag in the country. A serious counter-argument is the "thin end of the wedge" argument.



 Niall 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> I don't accept the consensus, i'll bolt and dry tool wherever i want.

At risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, you HAVE noticed that nobody's rising to it, haven't you?

Must try harder.
 Milesy 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias:
> If the presence of bolts at the top of a climb really 'messes with your trad head-games' then, well, maybe you need to take things a little less seriously. No offense to anyone, but honestly, if you don't like bolts then just don't use them!

You just do not understand it do you? The reason I love trad is the adventure, the danger, the self reliance, and the outdoors. This is the spirit in which climbing was developed in this country. Ask Joe Brown, Doug Scott or Chris Bonnington what they think (if you even know who they are, what they done for climbing in the UK, or even care). Bonnington for example makes it perfectly clear what his thought on climbing walls and wall bred climbing today is. These guys are a more public face of the many people who represent what climbing is now. The routes, the gear, the shops, the clubs, the BMC/MCofS. Without the way in which climbing was developed here, none of these would probably exist in the way you know them (if at all).

If you care nothing about the history or the heritage of it then why bother at all? There is no "laws" regarding football, but everyone respects the rules by most part and there is agreement by the majority to do things in a certain way, and there are bodies which are set up to head these rules in a professional manner just like the BCM and the MCofS.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Niall:

> (In reply to irdial)
> [...]
>
> At risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, you HAVE noticed that nobody's rising to it, haven't you?

The Durrant was. I suppose you're only counting real people not made up ones?

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> Hahaha! Brilliant! You're just about my favourite comedian right now.

Thanks! I think this is the greatest compliment anyone has ever paid me since one of my pupils asked me whether I had ever considered an alternative career as a stand up comic (when all I was trying to do was teach him some maths).

> Loving the material! It's as if you've really inhabited the skin of this pompous, slightly dim witted, humourless, bore - 'The Durrant'. It's the lack of self-knowledge, the yawning chasm between his own perception of himself and how others in fact perceive him that really cracks me up.

Goodness gracious! All I'm trying to do is stand up for the great traditions of climbing in this country by means of reasoned debate.

> Have you come up with a funny voice to go with the character, or do you only bring him out on the internets?

I'm very happy with my own voice, thankyou.

ps Please do spell my name correctly.
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Niall:

Ok Niall, your obviously the man, i'll try harder sorry.
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Milesy:

> Bonnington for example makes it perfectly clear what his thought on climbing walls and wall bred climbing today is.

Yes, Chris Bonnington is my God! Never mind thinking things through for myself, I just adopt his views on climbing and how it should be practised in Britain as if they were my own...

What are his views on climbing walls? It's obviously important that I know so that I might effect a readjustment of my opinions on the matter.
 irdial 25 May 2011
In reply to Niall:

What's with the earring? You look like an ex prog rocker with an identity crisis?.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to Milesy:
> There is no "laws" regarding football, but everyone respects the rules by most part and there is agreement by the majority to do things in a certain way, and there are bodies which are set up to head these rules in a professional manner just like the BMC and the MCofS.

I think your analogy fails here; there are neither laws nor rules in climbing. God forbid that the BMC orc MCofS should ever try to enforce any. Climbing has always got along pretty much by an anarchic self-policing of a rough consensus and long may it continue to do so.

 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Niall)
> The Durrant was. I suppose you're only counting real people not made up ones?

Unlike you, I am completely real. Real people are perfectly entitled to a bit of banter. And you're still spelling my name wrong!

hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Milesy:

> If you care nothing about the history or the heritage of it then why bother at all?

You know it's perfectly possible to enjoy climbing on it's own terms (as I do) without buying into this 'we must pay due respect to our wonderful heritage' guff (as I don't).

The history of climbing in Britain would not disappear into some black hole, even were all the crags to be retro bolted overnight.
 Hat Dude 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Milesy)

The future of climbing in Britain would disappear into some black hole, were all the crags to be retro bolted overnight

hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Hat Dude:

> The future of climbing in Britain would disappear into some black hole, were all the crags to be retro bolted overnight

nonsense...

 Niall 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:
> (In reply to Niall)
>
> What's with the earring? You look like an ex prog rocker with an identity crisis?.

It's because I'm an ex prog rocker with.... oh never mind :-D
 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias:
> If the presence of bolts at the top of a climb really 'messes with your trad head-games' then, well, maybe you need to take things a little less seriously. No offense to anyone, but honestly, if you don't like bolts then just don't use them!

*Tlm crumples into a weeping pile, crumpled and incoherent in the corner of the room*

 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to jadias:

*Tlm springs back to life*

Oh!!! It's because you aren't leading the route past the bolt that you can't tell the difference!!! Phew! That will sort itself out as soon as you lead a few routes!

*Tlm blythly skips off into the distance, whistling a happy tune*
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm:

>
> *Tlm crumples into a weeping pile, crumpled and incoherent in the corner of the room*

And I get exactly the same feeling of exasperation when I hear for the umpteenth time the same subjective, flim-flamy, nebulous, it's the heritage, it's the managed risk, head games, blah blah... anti-bolt arguments.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Hat Dude)
> nonsense...

You know perfectly well what he means. And that he's right.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to tlm)
> And I get exactly the same feeling of exasperation when I hear for the umpteenth time the same subjective, flim-flamy, nebulous, it's the heritage, it's the managed risk, head games, blah blah... anti-bolt arguments.

Yes, maybe, but that is because you are either ignorant or stupid or deluded (as I've told you before).

 tlm 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> And I get exactly the same feeling of exasperation when I hear for the umpteenth time the same subjective, flim-flamy, nebulous, it's the heritage, it's the managed risk, head games, blah blah... anti-bolt arguments.

Bless.... I personally can see the attraction of hard sports routes and pushing yourself physically. I have no problem at all in seeing more than once perspective. However, I do understand that this is simply a difficult thing for some people to manage...

sphagnum 25 May 2011
In reply to irdial:

Why’d the sport climber cross the road... ?

His dick was stuck in the chicken.
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to sphagnum:
> (In reply to irdial)
>
> Why’d the sport climber cross the road... ?
>
> His dick was stuck in the chicken.

Please could you explain the connection between sport climbing and avian bestiality. I don't get it.

hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to tlm:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
> I do understand that this is simply a difficult thing for some people to manage...

Hehe. My post wasn't meant as a negative reaction to yours - more of 'yes, I understand - that's exactly how I feel when the blinkered elements of the pro-trad crowd fail to see that there is actually another pov that is equally valid'.

And, fwiw, I've done way more trad climbing than sport. In fact I've done very little sport climbing. I understand very well what trad climbing entails. I just don't see it as the holy cow that many apparently do.
In reply to UKC News:

Surely the Hawkcraig was trashed the day a pompous Victorian bumbly stepped foot on it.

I can't believe you guys are pontificating over a piece of rock as shit as the Hawcraig, it's not exactly the thin end of the wedge as some would have us believe, there is a plethora of shit bolted crags in the Central belt, even Dumby is bolted so why the big hoohaa.
sphagnum 25 May 2011
In reply to Conquistador of the usless:

Here's to the shit bolted crags of the central belt !
Long may they fester in filth !
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to Conquistador of the usless:
> I can't believe you guys are pontificating over a piece of rock as shit as the Hawcraig, it's not exactly the thin end of the wedge as some would have us believe, there is a plethora of shit bolted crags in the Central belt, even Dumby is bolted so why the big hoohaa.

I think the Hawcraig issue is important (and possibly the thin end of the wedge) because it is traditionally a beginner's crag and therefore one which will be influential in forming beginner climber's opinions(and not a shit one by the way) unlike the others which are bolted.

 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
>
>
> I think the Hawcraig issue is important (and possibly the thin end of the wedge) because it is traditionally a beginner's crag and therefore one which will be influential in forming beginner climber's opinions(and not a shit one by the way) unlike the others which are bolted.

An ideal place for the learning of trad climbing in other words.


Chris
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> you are either ignorant or stupid or deluded

"Deluded"? Says the man who is a figment of his own imagination...
hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

> it is traditionally a beginner's crag and therefore one which will be influential in forming beginner climber's opinions

Yes, I quite agree. The battle for hearts and minds, catch 'em young etc.

In other words, bolt and it would make an ideal place for the learning of sport climbing.
Removed User 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>

> In other words, bolt and it would make an ideal place for the learning of sport climbing.

Christ on a bike is this bollox still going on?

Judging from your posts and I think this is an opinion shared by many readers, you are full of manure.

Also I am 99% certain that you have never visited the Hawcraig and wouldn't even be able to tell us which guide book to look in to get directions to go there.

Of course you and your pals could prove me wrong by filling in your profiles and putting up a few photos of you actually climbing something. After that at least we'd know that you did have some kind of idea about what you were talking about and are just taking the piss.

hakey 25 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:

> (In reply to Removed Userhakey)
>
> I am 99% certain that you have never visited the Hawcraig

I'm 100% certain I've never been there, or Hawkcraig.

> Of course you and your pals could prove me wrong by filling in your profiles and putting up a few photos of you actually climbing

Pals? Haha, I don't know any of the other posters in this thread. And like filling my profile would prove anything - you know it's perfectly possible to make stuff up and add some blurry, indistinct photo - in fact much like the photo in your profile, that so obviously demonstrates your climbing prowess...

 yer maw 25 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> Christ on a bike is this bollox still going on?
>
the lunatics have taken over this online asylum. Can't believe some folk are rising to the bait.
Bunch of idiots!
mattgc2 25 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: Still all missing the point are we
 Milesy 25 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:

Did you ever find any friends to climb at ratho with you?

http://forum.eica-ratho.com/index.php?topic=665.msg1876#msg1876
 Robert Durran 25 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> In other words, bolt it and it would make an ideal place for the learning of sport climbing.

I think you will find that the consensus has determined that Benny Beg is a more suitable venue for learning sport climbing. Climbing is a broad church and there is room for everyone.
 Robert Durran 26 May 2011
In reply to mattgc2:
> Still all missing the point are we?

No

 Robert Durran 26 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> "Deluded"? Says the man who is a figment of his own imagination...

I really have no idea how you have got the impression that I am not for real; I post under my own name and have a profile (google me if you like) and I actually am trying to conduct a sensible debate. Maybe someone who knows me will come along and confirm my existence! Yes, I'm not immune to the pleasures of a bit of banter and irony, but that only makes me human. Maybe the problem with this sort of thing on the internet is that so much is missing from face to face verbal and non-verbal communication that people can easily be misinterpreted.

By the way, I'm still not sure whether you are for real or not......
 Robert Durran 26 May 2011
In reply to UKC News:

The 500th post on this thread!!
What's the record?
 Doug 26 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: Could be you're the Robert Durran I remember from Aberdeen when I lived there in the 1980s, whose name cropped up in the magazines from time to time, in which case quite real (of course you may have just 'borrowed' his name
 Quiddity 26 May 2011
In reply to the thread:

by the way, the IPCC phoned, they wanted to know who was responsible for the release of the vast quantity of hot air. I said you'd call them back.
 Robert Durran 26 May 2011
In reply to Doug:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Could be you're the Robert Durran I remember from Aberdeen when I lived there in the 1980s.

That'll be me.

> Of course you may have just 'borrowed' his name

No, it really is me.

 SonyaD 26 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran: I watched you climb at a comp at Ratho (BLCC maybe?) You were in the Vets category and apologies as I can't remember but you either came 1st or 2nd (and I remember being impressed by the vets cos you all climbed really hard up that comp wall!) So I know you're real. I remember them calling your name and thinking, 'that guy posts on UKC.'
 Michael Gordon 26 May 2011
In reply to hakey:
> I'm 100% certain I've never been there, or Hawkcraig.
>

Sorry, but that says it all really.
 Robert Durran 27 May 2011
In reply to Sonya Mc:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) I watched you climb at a comp at Ratho....

So it turns out I am real, and I even go to climbing walls and clip bolts!
 franksnb 27 May 2011
In reply to Conquistador of the usless: the hawkcraig is one of the best crags in that area, so calling it shit is a bit odd.

its a sea cliff with tons of good protection so its not a good candidate for bolting imo. if any of the routes were dangerous because of the belays i would be in favour of a bolt at the top but this simply isn't the case.
 MH 27 May 2011
In reply to UKC News: I wonder if they applied to the bolt fund for financial aid. It might give a lead in the who dun it. What do you think? You will find them advertising at the top of the article from time to time. I find it touching don't you?
Murray
 Robert Durran 27 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> Its a sea cliff with tons of good protection so its not a good candidate for bolting imo.

Good so far!

If any of the routes were dangerous because of the belays I would be in favour of a bolt at the top.

Oh dear.......
 Robert Durran 27 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> Its a sea cliff with tons of good protection so its not a good candidate for bolting imo.

Good so far!

> If any of the routes were dangerous because of the belays I would be in favour of a bolt at the top.

Oh dear.......
 MH 27 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:That's my boy, get em in
mattgc2 27 May 2011
In reply to Milesy: I did thanks not on there though . There is a fantastic group thing at ratho though I've never climbed with them myself
 IanMcC 27 May 2011
UKCnews:

Scottish Government announces new penalties for sectarianism.

Those who indulge in online sectarian hate-crimes will now be subject to penalties of up to five years imprisonment under new legislation to be brought before the Scottish Parliament, a spokesman said.
Behaviour contrary to the public interest, such as threatening to bolt up Hawkcraig or expressing an intention insert no. 6 Camalots into sports climbers’ orifices were examples of activities “incompatible with a modern Scotland”, it was stated.
 hexcentric 27 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
I cannot be 100% certain that you exist.
Or that I exist.

What was I talking about again....?
 Hat Dude 27 May 2011
In reply to hexcentric:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I cannot be 100% certain that you exist.
> Or that I exist.
>

I've done Tink therefore I am

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=33681
 Michael Gordon 27 May 2011
In reply to franksnb:
> (In reply to Conquistador of the usless) the hawkcraig is one of the best crags in that area
>

Hmmm, this probably says more about the area than it does about Hawkcraig!
 Robert Durran 27 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> Hmmm, this probably says more about the area than it does about Hawkcraig!

You may well have a point....
If Pembroke were (as it were) in Fife (what a wonderful thought!) then nobody would go to the Hawkcraig and there would be no fuss!

 hexcentric 27 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:
That is quite harsh.
I met a french guy who had come to Scotland to climb at the Hawkcraig, he asked me to point out 'The Dreeping Beak'*


 Michael Gordon 28 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

If I had Pembroke or Gogarth on my doorstep I think I'd be very happy!
 Robert Durran 29 May 2011
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> If I had Pembroke or Gogarth on my doorstep I think I'd be very happy!

I wouldn't. I'd be too far from NW Scotland.

 Michael Gordon 29 May 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, I can only concur.
 ClanAdventures 15 Jun 2011
In reply to UKC News: If you want to climb trad do it. If you want to sports climb it do it. If you want to top rope it do it. Why should any other persons morals dictate what another climber can and cant do. As long as you do not destroy the route for other forms of climbing. As for it being an eyesore having bolts. That must be a personal opinion and therefore based on your own moral standing. And that laves the question. Why are you forcing your moral judgement on climbers that don't want to adopt your style of climbing. After all mother nature will clear any signs of man at Hawkcraigs. It doesn't bother if there are bolts or not. Its sees all the other shit that fills your eyes at the crag. And the same problem lies at Limekiln if a place ever needed bolted to get the most out of a venue. Just let me climb, and I as always let you climb. From a local
 sebrider 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

> and I as always let you climb. From a local

Well thank you...how considerate But what's this about getting more out of Limekilns!?
 ClanAdventures 16 Jun 2011
In reply to sebrider: If bolts where to be placed then the past-time of climbing would open up to more people and would stop being the elitist sport that some people think it is. If an individual wants to become elite at anything, then good on them. But why force this standard on others that just want to have a nice relaxing climb with his family or friends. I like nothing more than watching some climber trad up Colours Fly, but for me to trad climb this is out of my comfort zone. But I find this climb superb if top roped and so does my daughter 13. But as we have found at lots of climbing venues the minute you set up a top rope at a route, every climber in the area suddenly wants to climb where you have set up. They will stand next to the route with the guide book they will ask if you will be at this point for long. Or the whispers remarks that you are destroying the top of the climbs and why cant they learn to climb properly, what ever that could be. Take Bennybeg. I can trad, sports and top rope all the climbs and because there is lower-off's I can climb climbs that have no protection for trad. Room for everyone and every style and ability. I like just over a mile from Limekilns and would love to be able to spend my hard earned cash to open up this venue to a standard that you find at Bennybeg. But this would be a waist of cash and time as there are climbers that would cut and remove such hardware. And only on the grounds that they think they are morally better than you.
 Michael Gordon 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

Unfortunately putting bolts in at Limekilns would totally ruin the climbs and turn good E2s (for example) into poor 6a+ clip-ups. Why turn something memorable and satisfying into something totally forgettable?

The good thing about trad is that to my mind there IS room for everyone. Obviously you can't toprope the same route all day and expect those wanting to lead it to be happy about it but I think few would object to a couple of ascents just for the fun of it. If you want to push the boat out and lead one of the E2s then why not try as a headpoint challenge? I can guarantee that folk will be a lot happier with that then with bolts placed where they're not needed and which really WOULD ruin their day!
 Duncan Bourne 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
Why force "a nice relaxing climb" on to people who want to climb in a pure style? Bolting a route changes its character and would make a trad ascent a redundant exercise. If a crag is traditionally (sic) bolted then fair enough. But I disagree with bolting a line just to drag it down to a "safe" level. Is it not equally dubiously moral to want to bolt a route just so that you can have a nice day out? Why stop there? why not chip holds on a route? Why not put a via ferrata line of rungs up it? Would you climb past a ladder and have the same feeling about a route as if there were no ladder there?
I am not anti-sport but when you bolt a crag you change the very nature of it and it should not be done on a whim.
 sebrider 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy: I wholeheartedly agree with the previous 2 posts...and before I write on you must understand I am not against sport...to the contrary, I love it!
Yes indeed bolting limekiln's would would open it it to more people but it would ruin the place for a weekend trad warrior like myself and even a visiting Frenchman or Spaniard would say...why the bolts here?!
The feeling of getting to the first peg on Grasp the nettle and clipping your rope in...padding around the dust at the top of Cruel summer etc. are unforgettable experiences, just right there...half an hour out of the office. And you say it sould be bolted ...you are damn madman!!!
The rock at limekilns lends its self well to trad..this is not elitist...the rock was there before your climbing ability!
If you want easier routes you have rosyth, hawcraig, traprain, etc etc. If you want clips there is North Berwick, Dumbar (have you done those?) and Kiriemuir and your favourite. I don't expect Rhapsody, Requim, Chemin of Fer on Dumbarton to be bolted just so I can climb them!!!
Ok yes some don't like top ropes but unless you were on the crag classic for extended periods I would not care. Climb as you wish, that's entirely up to you - Limekilns is close to a city so I expect all sorts to use this crag! If I want peace and quite when I climb it is easily found, even in close proximity to Edinburgh.

You must be a lunatic, or maybe your not and that's the issue! Anyhow, I really hope this is one big troll! Damn if no its just like TESCO, another UKC finest lol UKC you sure know how to find them!
 ClanAdventures 16 Jun 2011
In reply to UKC News: Why all the miss information from everyone. If a route is bolted it doesn't mean that a trad climber cant climb it trad. Who puts bolts into where protection goes. So its back to morals you are forcing your morals onto me. Yes I can go to other bolted venues but I would like to take the bike or walk to my crag and climb how I want. And for the normal response of troll. come on lads you must try a new tact. As you can read any of my last post and you will see that Im no troll.

Hard facts is all I want. Do not bring emotions into it as some of you are clearly doing. This is clearly a matter of one group of humans dictating to other humans what they cant or can do.
And remember bolting only effects you emotionality, not fiscally.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
>
> And remember bolting only effects you emotionality, not fiscally.

I think you will find it does, the metalwork isn't free.


Chris
 TobyA 16 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
> Yes I can go to other bolted venues but I would like to take the bike or walk to my crag and climb how I want.

Suck it up or move. I'd like to be able to take a bike or walk to 50 mtr splitter sandstone cracks, but as I don't live Utah I just have to accept that I can't.

> And for the normal response of troll. come on lads you must try a new tact.

How about suggesting your argument is patently ridiculous then?

> Hard facts is all I want.

How about this then, if you bolt a route you are pushing your opinion onto another group. Are you going to chip holds on routes you can't do as well? I mean after all, as long as you mark them with paint or similar, people who want to climb the route as it originally was don't have to use your new holds.

 Duncan Bourne 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
You really don't get it do you?
If a route is bolted it fundamentally changes the nature of the route. It would be like soloing a route next to a set of steps. Knowing that in extremis you could jump off at any time affects the way you view the route.
My view is that some areas of rock should remain bolt free for the enjoyment of those who like the additional thrill of placing gear on natural rock with all the attendant enjoyment and problem solving it entails.
If that is forcing a moral view on you then I am all for it as the opposite would be to have a one sided view forced on me.
Climbing is all about emotion (in one sense) so to me that is a very important aspect of climbing
 JimboWizbo 17 Jun 2011
In reply to UKC News: This thread now reminds me of a DVD (is it The Sharp End?) in which Matt Segal and co trad climb a lot of hard sport routes, they don't even remove the bolts or anything. Imagine that.
 ClanAdventures 17 Jun 2011
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to gsg9currieboy)
> You really don't get it do you?

> If a route is bolted it fundamentally changes the nature of the route. How, please clarify
It would be like soloing a route next to a set of steps.
You need to get up the mountains more and you will find that there are hundreds of hard climbs with easy ground just off route. If you want to solo and jump for the step. Then you will thank that step for saving your life and allowing you to climb another day.
Knowing that in extremis you could jump off at any time affects the way you view the route.
If trad protection is so good then you shouldn't mind pushing the grade and falling on your placed protection.
> My view is that some areas of rock should remain bolt free for the enjoyment of those who like the additional thrill of placing gear on natural rock with all the attendant enjoyment and problem solving it entails.
So you are allowing one group of humans to deny other humans from exercising the same wrights? Remembering that placing permanent protection does not prevent the placement of removable protection.
> If that is forcing a moral view on you then I am all for it as the opposite would be to have a one sided view forced on me.
How far are you willing to force your morals on me. A fine, arrest. WILL YOU GO AS FAR AS TO PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. Because your comment just has.
> Climbing is all about emotion (in one sense) so to me that is a very important aspect of climbing.
And if climbing past some bolts is going to disturb your emotions then you need to man up and look at the bigger picture.

 ClanAdventures 17 Jun 2011
In reply to Chris Craggs: It only effect the person that buys the bolts and places them and clearly they accept the cost. And therefore it doesn't cost trad climbers a penny. Remember that emotions come for FREE.
 MJ 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

Not sure if you're serious or trolling. Either way, you're making a prat of yourself.

 Oliver Houston 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
5/10... Good effort for keeping this up.

The only reason it's not getting more marks is I'm seriously concerned you believe yourself, so IMO you've probably taken it too far (although maybe that makes it all the more worthy a troll - I don't really understand).
 Milesy 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
> You need to get up the mountains more and you will find that there are hundreds of hard climbs with easy ground just off route. If you want to solo and jump for the step. Then you will thank that step for saving your life and allowing you to climb another day.

Is there really?

As said you are either a troll or do not have a clue. Away and play with your boulders.
 ClanAdventures 17 Jun 2011
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to gsg9currieboy)
> [...]
>
> Suck it up or move. I'd like to be able to take a bike or walk to 50 mtr splitter sandstone cracks, but as I don't live Utah I just have to accept that I can't.
But you can. Move there.
> [...]
>
> How about suggesting your argument is patently ridiculous then?
> Facts not personal opinions.
> [...]
>
> How about this then, if you bolt a route you are pushing your opinion onto another group. Are you going to chip holds on routes you can't do as well? I mean after all, as long as you mark them with paint or similar, people who want to climb the route as it originally was don't have to use your new holds.
As I keep on asking keep to fact and stop using the tag of troll it doesn't work and its tiring.
As long as you do not prevent anyone else from using that rock face then you can do what you want. As long as you don't break the COMMON LAW.
I think that someone standing at the bottom of a 7m vdiff with a climbing rack that could take them up El Capitan in a single pitch, is a morally different approach to me. But so what, that's there choice....

 Milesy 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
>As long as you don't break the COMMON LAW.

if you want to go down that route you are more likely to be technically breaking the law by putting bolts in rock which is on land belonging to someone else.
 Oliver Houston 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

> But you can. Move there.
Unfortunately, most people don't really have the option of just upping and moving 3000 miles, a little thing called reality.

> As I keep on asking keep to fact and stop using the tag of troll it doesn't work and its tiring.
I called you a troll cos I thought you were joking, I'm sorry to upset you, but your OPINIONS are obviously upsetting a number of people, so consider it bitter medicine!

> As long as you do not prevent anyone else from using that rock face then you can do what you want. As long as you don't break the COMMON LAW.
What's COMMON LAW? The law as set out by the government? I'm pretty sure it covers things like vandalising national treasures/areas of natural beauty/national parks, things along those lines, new bolting in some of these places could lead to entire crags being banned for conservation purposes - Chee dale springs to mind - spoiling it for all climbers.

I'd say Boiling COMMON LAW down to it's simplest of not being a moron would dictate not doing silly things like bolting trad crags and upsetting people, there's plenty of good sport venues around (If you're good), so stick to them.
 TobyA 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

> But you can. Move there.

So if you can't be bothered to drive/bus/hitch from where you live now to places where there are sport climbs why don't you just move to Spain where you can sport climb locally to your hearts content?

At the moment it sounds likes you can't be arsed to learn how to trad climb so want the Limekilns, where people have been happily and safely trad climbing for the last - what? - 35 years, bolted for your personal convenience. And you wonder why people are asking if you are a troll? I think they are being kind - because the alternative to being an internet troll is that you're just lazy and selfish.
 sebrider 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
>> And if climbing past some bolts is going to disturb your emotions then you need to man up and look at the bigger picture.

Haha, I take comfort that you are in fact clearly a lunatic!

Man up says Mr top rope! And what's this about being on a V.Diff with a trad rack good for El Cap not being part of your morals...well I suppose not you don't need much for top rope...sorry could not help myself!

Anyway I'm just feeding this lunitic troll

 ClanAdventures 17 Jun 2011
In reply to Oliver Houston: Your first answer contradicts your own question that I answered,
You do not upset me as you do not harm me.
Learn the Law before you try to teach it.
And yes under common law yes I would have to get permission from the land owner to bolt, and with knowing a few land owners that would happily let there cliffs be bolted, lots.

And this is to all. I climb that's it. nothing more nothing less. I have never prevented another climber from climbing, EVER. I do not want every bit of rock bolted. But if someone else does then so be it. As long as it doesn't prevent me from climbing. Can you say the same?
 tony 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:

I'd guess you don't know much about access issues at Limekilns. Given previous efforts by the landowner to keep climbers away, I suspect that bolting would be the last straw, and climbers would find life considerably more difficult. And you wouldn't want that, would you?
 Sir Chasm 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy: Which crags do you know the landowners of?
 Duncan Bourne 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
>

> You need to get up the mountains more and you will find that there are hundreds of hard climbs with easy ground just off route. If you want to solo and jump for the step. Then you will thank that step for saving your life and allowing you to climb another day.

Very true but they are fundamentally different to the other mountain routes that do not provide such an opportunity. If you can jump off a route then the difficulty lies only in the technical aspect of the climb.


> If trad protection is so good then you shouldn't mind pushing the grade and falling on your placed protection.

And lots of people do this. But essentially trad protection is about the fact that you place the gear, you and no one else makes that decision, you and no one else knows how good or not that gear is.

> [...]
> So you are allowing one group of humans to deny other humans from exercising the same wrights? Remembering that placing permanent protection does not prevent the placement of removable protection.

You do not have a right (not wright) to place bolts willy nilly. And by placing bolts you RUIN, and I don't think that is too strong a word, any potential traditional ascent of the same rock. Now it may be that like at Horseshoe and other sport venues there was not much to ruin in the first place or like at Malham where traditional protection was minimal or absent so a local decision was made to bolt. But where a good traditional rock climb exists then it will be lessened by bolting. Bolting a route (I accept that "sporting" bolts with long run outs inbetween add an element of boldness) reduces a climb from a well rounded challenge to a mere physical exercise. If I chose to climb a bolted route traditionally then I am constantly aware that I can duck out at any time which creates a completely different mental out look. Going back to your climb by some steps would you say that a climb with consistent 5c climbing where you could get off onto steps at any moment was the same as a consistent 5c climb where you couldn't? By bolting a route you are permanently imposing your view on others who wish to climb that route. Trad climbing approaches the rock in its natural unaltered state and accepts the challenges it presents. Bolting changes that state and imposes restrictions on the challenge to accommodate human frailty.

> [...]
> How far are you willing to force your morals on me. A fine, arrest. WILL YOU GO AS FAR AS TO PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. Because your comment just has.

Don't talk soft. Is what I said really any worse than you forcing your moral stance onto me? I don't think so.
Actually if you were to bolt a route where no agreement exited then I think arrest would be fair. After all it would be vandalism.

> [...]
> And if climbing past some bolts is going to disturb your emotions then you need to man up and look at the bigger picture.

As do you. You are being presented with the fantastic banquet that is trad climbing and all you want is a cheap cheeseburger.
Really really you still don't get it. Such an outlook is very sad.

 Duncan Bourne 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
> I have never prevented another climber from climbing, EVER. I do not want every bit of rock bolted. But if someone else does then so be it. As long as it doesn't prevent me from climbing. Can you say the same?

No body is saying that you can't climb. Just when on trad rock climb it in a trad fashion simples
 Duncan Bourne 17 Jun 2011
In reply to gsg9currieboy:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]

> If trad protection is so good then you shouldn't mind pushing the grade and falling on your placed protection.

Now I am revisiting this phrase as it seems to imply that using hand placed protection is somehow less safe than climbing on bolts. With hand placed protection I have a reasonable idea of how safe or not it is but can you say the same for bolts? As this little news article illustrates.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=45888
 Duncan Bourne 17 Jun 2011
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I realise that I wrote exited not existed back there. I am going away to write out 10000 times "I must not make spelling mistakes on UKC"

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...