UKC

The new bolts on the Hawkcraig have been removed. Whodunnit?

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62168

In reply to UKC News:

*beer poured*

In reply to UKC News:
Haha yeah right completely detrashed! Well done ukc for another controversial thread

In reply to UKC News:
Someone should use the holes to plant a tree and belay off that.

In reply to UKC News: im pretty sure this is the end of the affair though

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3196821425_7d147ed49e.jpg

In reply to UKC News: The bolts looked better.

In reply to UKC News: I'm sure whoever did this...

*Puts on sunglasses*

Ce-ment no harm.


YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

In reply to UKC News: What a mess, like to get my hands on the idiot who dug them out. Looks even worse now.

In reply to UKC News: on the top pic theres a bolt just right of the other ones, i think they missed some.

In reply to UKC News: "They caused an uncontrolled outbreak of tabloid headlining, consternation, indifference and one of the daftest UKC forum threads for some time" ...concerning "one of the daftest UKC forum threads for some time", did you think it was a serious thread?!?

In reply to UKC News:
all chant together-
hakey hakey hakey
robert robert robert

In reply to UKC News:

I'm now waiting to see when someone puts them back in, gotta be a matter of time . . . . .

now I'm not sure which I prefer, I like the bolts in but I also like them out - there's only one way to find out whic h is best . . . . Harry !!!

In reply to UKC News: i'm sorry but this looks worse than it did when the bolts were there, and less safe. why ruin the look of the crag and make it less safe? better with just ruining the look on its own than doing what has been done here. not that i approve of putting them there in the first place.

In reply to UKC News: a nice tactical 'detrashing' I see. Not that I am supporting bolts going in at a trad crag but really this looks much worse than before. Cutting the bolts off at the base would have been a better option. Does UKC endorse this?

In reply to UKC News:

Its not the point that they looked better in than removed, they should never have been there in the first place, so whoever put them there is still to blame for any mess. It's not exactly difficult is it? You do not bolt trad crags without popular consensus, and even then you probably shouldn't as it seems that a rather large number of "climbers" (especially on this site), whilst clearly having no real idea what the f*ck they're actually talking about, are still entitled to their opinions (which unfortunately are trending more and more towards making trad climbing more convenient, safer, logistically easier and faster, and colossally missing the point of trad climbing, in that it is, well, traditional). Think about it.

In reply to bomb: indeed it may have been a silly idea to put them in in the first place which by the looks of things it was, but how can you justify making it less safe and look worse by pulling them out? better to just accept them and get on with life i would have thought. you can still climb it as a trad crag if you want to. however this does skirt the issue of stopping it happening elsewhere...

In reply to UKC News: This comic deals with the subject. Perfectly?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5617456/hawkcraig.png

In reply to UKC News:
CSI Simon
It would be my logical assumption that the bolts were removed in response to
1) UKC forum comments...questionable as anybody putting them in will not have seen a consensus view from the thread that they will be castrated when it is discovered who they are.

2) the result of 'investigation' (for example by Kev at MCofS) and the inappropriateness of them at a climbing venue being pointed out especially if there intended purpose was to mount a new dustbin for somewhere for the local 'yuuves' to dispose of there glue pots

I suspect somebody on here knows more about this than has been let on.

In reply to James91:

Well put!


Hawkcraig is just as much a trad crag as it always was. There were only two bolts over the top at one end of the crag. They'd been there for a few weeks already before this storm in a teacup erupted. I have to admit - lazily! - that I was rather looking forward to using them. Now it's just a mess - how pointless and pedantic!

In reply to paulipauli:
I don't think that removing the bolts is either pointless or pedantic but rather it is a good thing. This route has had countless ascents with out the need for bolts at the top; i have climbed it several times and never felt the need for bolts. As to it looking worse, it is not the fault of the person who removed the bolts but the person who put them in and to be frank i would rather aesthetics suffer than the game.
Well done to the person who removed them; good job.
Many thanks
James

In reply to James91:

I concur.

In reply to James Edwards:

I've climbed it a number of times too and have never seen the need for bolts either. I agree that they weren't necessary and shouldn't have been put in. But to remove them is, in my view, an equally pointless act of vandalism. Although ethics can be black and white, sometimes pragmatism and compromise work better in reality.

In reply to paulipauli:
I disagree the bolts should never have been there. There are sufficient belays in that area. Letting them remain sets a precedent.

In reply to James Edwards:
I wasn't sure whether I was for or against removing them, but I am happy that they are gone.

In reply to eugeneth:

With weather up there, you soon won't notice them at all.

Bit o' resin on top then sprinkle rock dust on the resin. Wind, rain, frost, lichen growth. Almost as good as old!

In reply to paulipauli:

Go on then, explain to me why their careful removal is an act of vandalism.

Would you be happier if I went over to Fife tomorrow evening and filled the holes in with rock filler mixed with rock dust of the right type to make an invisible repair?

In reply to paulipauli:
I understand your point but then if you follow that philosophy to its end then you would never remove anything. Whilst such a believer may be happy to hand ring and castigate from a far, sometimes intervention is needed i believe.
I don't think that this situation warrants pragmatism and compromise, but i understand that other situations might warrant that perhaps.
Basically, putting nilistic philosophical arguments aside and using play ground language, which is probably more popular here abouts, when someone punches you in the face, some times the most expedient course of action is to punch them back.
Many thanks
James e

In reply to Removed User:
"careful removal"...are you loooking at the same pictures?

In reply to UKC News: From what I am seeing those holes do not look big enough to have been an effective anchor. About a 30mm height of mortar holding a bolt, that has death written all over it.

This is just an observation from the picture but if that is the case then we should thank the lord someone had taken those bolts out.

In reply to eugeneth:

UKC isn't a single being. I'm sure the staff at UKC/UKH: Alan, Jack, Sarah, Dan, Nick, Fatboy, Paul, Mark, Chris and myself have a variety of viewpoints.

Just like those who post on UKC/UKH forums and those who are silent but visit/read/watch.

Mick

In reply to James Edwards:
just to be clear, i'm not asking paulipauli for a fight! It is supposed to be metaphorical. (i can almost feel the enthusiasm that people look for an opertunity to mis quote and jump all over sematics)
Yours not wishing to be misquoted, and wishing paulipauli a happy life etc etc
James e

In reply to Removed User:
Eric.
Noone knew who placed these anchors or what they were for.
A unilateral decision has been taken to hash them back out of the rock.
In all all likelihood they were for use in some activity other than climbing - what right do you/I/we have to demand their removal? None.
They did not affect our hobby one jot but we may have now ruined someone elses activity.
What an embarrasing lot.

In reply to James Edwards:

That's ok James

Didn't take your point wrongly. (and you'd beat me in a fight anyway!)

I'm going to go home and have a glass of wine now and forget all about the bolts!

In reply to UKC News: They look like two rather large grey nipples in the first photo. Stone love!

In reply to UKC News:
The fact that it now looks messy and all isn't the point, they needed to be removed. I think someone above me said that leaving them there sets a precedent and that's absolutely bang on as far as I see it.
Sure in this case the removal was ugly, and could maybe have been less so, but by stamping authority and showing that this will not be tolerated, a message is sent, and the tide is held back.
If no one removed the bolts, then the stainlord who did it in the first place will go "great, I'll do it again, because I'm a tw@" (or words to that effect).
Good show, de-bolter, hopefully your skills are improving.

In reply to JohnnyBee:


Most of the problem is with the resin that wasn't cleaned from around the studs when they were first placed. As I said the holes could and probably should be filled in and the damage, caused by the person who placed the bolts in the first place, would be mostly repaired.

In reply to hexcentric:


I would say it was pretty clearly climbers. A bit of a coincidence if non-climbers had placed bolts so perfectly located at the top of Pain Pillar. Good riddance, although a bit of effort to disguise the holes would be welcome.

In reply to UKC News:

it gives the rock a sort of shocked look

In reply to hexcentric:
You're always piping on about climbers being so selfish and horrible and naughty etc etc it's so bloody predictable. If someone decided to bolt a via ferrata onto the side of cloggy you'd find a way to stick up for them. It's so self righteous it makes me nauseous.

And as for whoever said that the bolts being taken out has just made the crag less safe, then read my last post, and if you still don't get it, don't go trad climbing.

In reply to bomb:

And I would just like to add my congrats to the bolt remover, and it's good to know people still have ethics. And common sense.

In reply to bomb: Yep. Someone on this thread maybe?

In reply to MG:

I hope so.

In reply to bomb:
You are one deeply uncool cat.

i've never been to this crag but it looks totally traditional sea cliff climbing. in my opinion they needed removing on principle and to send a message that this in't acceptable...thin end of wedge etc.

In reply to UKC News:

Removal of these bolts is typical of the unilateral vandalism perpetrated by rabid anti bolters with a one dimensional perspective of what climbing is and who has inetersts in and ownership of crags and cliff tops.

The smaller vintage studs are still there so there is no real ethical statement in removing the new ones, and all the hacking out of the two bolts shows is a myopic reactionary with a poor grasp on reality and an unwillingness to acknowledge any other perspective than the one they have been brainwahsed into by narrow minded and dogmatic elements of the Uk climbing community and media. Shame.

In reply to whispering nic:

Unlike the unilateral vandalism perpetrated by the people who placed them?

Chris

In reply to bomb:

A big problem is that there are two more or less separate and sometimes incompatible "anti-bolt" arguments. There is the ethical/spirit-in-which-we climb argument and there is the environmental/visual argument. Those who feel strongly enough about the ethical argument (and I fall into this category) will be prepared to tolerate bunches of tat or (as at Hawkcraig) bolt removal scars since for them the non-presence of bolts easily overrides the negative visual impact. The same people will not in any way be worried about the limited environmental impact of bolts at established sports climbing venues such as Malham. Those who feel strongly about the environmental impact are more likely to worry about Malham but perhaps be in favour of a couple of bolts on the Inaccessible Pinnacle (god forbid!) or to reduce erosion on a descent path such as apparently exist at a location or two in the Lakes.

The real argument on the Hawkcraig threads has been between these two camps. Both positions are perfectly defensible (unlike Hakey's) and it is right that the debate should take place. However, I think that there is a danger that we take our eyes off the ball and forget that the real danger to the general anti-bolt concensus is that the Hakeys of this world exploit the relatively minor disagreements (in particularly, in my opinion, the willingness of the environmental camp to tolerate bolts in certain circumstances) to promote their genuinely pro-bolting views. The situation reminds me of the way creationists tried to exploit the disageements on details of Darwinism between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.

This is why I took Hakey to task in the other thread (and yes it did get all rather silly in the end). At the moment the concensus is probably still pretty strong and the odd bolts like those at Hawkraig are in themselves not such big deal. However, in my opinion, we should not let complacency creep in and that is why I support their removal.

In reply to UKC News: It’s a great wee crag, I've climbed Pain Pillar and many other routes there and never been stuck for an anchor at the top. If you can’t manage to secure an anchor go on a climbing course not a bolt fitting one. Let’s look after our climbing venues.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

It's all a question of perspective Chris.

In reply to paulipauli:


They were definitely not there on 27th April when I was last there. The original article was dated 9th May. That's less than two weeks. If you're trying to argue that they'd been there for a while before people started complaining then I don't think that's right.

In reply to James91:

Yes the result is a bit unsightly but there's nothing to prevent anyone who minds the mess from doing something to repair the scars. The people who are primarily to blame are the ones who decided to drill holes in the rock in the first place.


Removing the bolts has made the top of the crag no less safe that it was before the bolts were put in.

In reply to Roberttaylor:
Love it!!!!

In reply to Martin W:
They were there on the 20th of April.

In reply to Martin W: They were there on the 12th of April... I used them when the blocks on top were already full of nuts.

In reply to whispering nic: Are you joking??

I was climbing there in early April and the bolts were there, some kids had a line set up from them and were abbing and jumaring the line of pain pillar which I thought was a bit odd. As others have said, it is hard to understand why these were put in, since there is an abundance of belay spots right at the top and anyone with even an elementary understanding of how to place a wire wouldn't have any trouble. Taking the effort therefore to put in bolts seems unnecessary and pointless.

I'm glad someone has removed them and done an OK job of it by all accounts. I hope this doesn't happen again, any rogue bolting like this should and will always be removed.

In reply to UKC News: Ah damn, I can't satirise your article this time

In reply to UKC News: they were there on the 20th march when I visited

In reply to hexcentric:

Absolutely. What difference did they make, plus how can anyone be arsed? Go climb a route

In reply to whispering nic:


...or alternative it MIGHT just have been the bloke that originally placed them realising that he'd made a terrible mistake? Just a theory like..

In reply to UKC News: Vandalism to place, vandalism to remove and leave such a mess. In my mind there is no 'worse' and its futile to keep trying to say which is worse.

The bolts shouldn't have been placed and outrage is correct. But once they had been placed it became a whole lot worse to hack them out and leave great big holes.

To be fair as well at least they were only at the top of the crag to use as belay anchors

In reply to Robert Durran:

con-sen-sus

In reply to UKC News: I'm not particularly keen on bolts, but surely having that massive hole at the top of the crag isnt much better.

Whats the gear like at the top of the crag? if putting some bolts in was better than belaying your partner on 3 dodgy placements then whoever removed the bolts is a bit of an arse, however if theres decent placements for decent size wires then whoever put the metal work in is a penis or large and unsightly proportions.

maybe next time we might get all the information so we can make up our minds. this article was worse than the BBC! Id like the facts so i can form my own opinion, not the opinion of the reporter, thanks all the same.

In reply to Robert Durran:


HAHAHAHAHA. i really hope you are taking the piss here! yes a silly bolting debate on UKC is EXACTLY like a Darwinism/Creationistawkins and Gould. Yes Hakey was definitely serious in his views and not just taking the piss out of someone taking forums to seriously and boy did you school him.

In reply to RachelP: there is a good belay assuming you have gear, it is closer to the edge so more practical in many ways. being a beginner crag some people might want simple setups because they don't have a full rack? who knows. i still think it was crazy to assume it was for climbing because it was so unnecessary.

In reply to UKC News:
what about the bolt at the other end of the crag, (above Urmi I think)?
can someone hack chunks out of the rock to get rid of this one too please.

In reply to tradattack:

No, I am being absolutely serious. This was my carefully considered and measured response to the whole issue having calmed down a bit. Though, having slept on it, I think I should probably have been more forthright in applauding the bolts' removal.


I don't think the bolting debate was at all silly - it was the liguistic/philosophy stuff that you got involved in that went a bit silly.


Thanks for the compliment!

In reply to Robert Durran: oh dear....

In reply to UKC News: Oh yeah, that looks much better!!!

In reply to tradattack:

Would you like to expand on that?
Why did you think I was taking the piss?
Are you?

In reply to franksnb:

who climbs without gear? daft comment.

In reply to tatty112:

Having read both threads, it still doesn't seem at all clear to me what the bolts were actually intended for by whoever placed them. Everyone seems to be assuming they were intended as belay anchors, but they weren't the kind of bolts you'd expect a competent bolter to place for that.

Everyone also seems to be assuming they were totally sound, but without knowing who placed them and how they went about it isn't that quite a big assumption too? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't notice they'd been evaluated by anyone qualified to judge whether they were any good or not. I've never climbed there and don't know what the natural anchors are like, but I do know what's dodgier than a dodgy natural anchor - fixed gear that looks bombproof but isn't. Self reliance is an important part of climbing - you place gear, and then you assess for yourself how good that gear is.

Sports climbers are also supposed to be assessing the (fixed) gear they use, and accepting responsibility for themselves should it turn out to be no good. Of course its difficult to assess how sound a bolt is just by looking at it though. To a degree when you clip a bolt you're forced, to a degree, to trust the person who placed it.

Also there seems to be a relatively new trend developing where people start to climb indoors and then move on to sport routes before they have the gear or experience to lead on natural gear, which also tends to reinforce the notion that fixed gear is something that someone else is responsible for, and can just be trusted implicitly.
(Because indoors it is, and it can - and to a relatively inexperienced climber its tempting to think of 'sport' climbing as just like climbing indoors, but outdoors and for free.)

Quite apart from the 'ethical' debate about whether or not bolts should be placed on any given crag or buttress that's another reason for a discussion to take place, as widely as possible, first. Its vital that any bolts that do get placed should be as sound as they can possibly be, and there's no way we can know that's the case if they're placed illicitly by some anonymous chancer.

The process of building a consensus about whether a bolt should be placed also develops a consensus about who should place it.

In reply to Robert Durran: To be honest I cant really decide if you are in fact seeing this all as one large joke or if you genuinely have taken it all that seriously.

If you read Hakey's posts its pretty clear that he understands what everyones saying - hes far from stupid. He understands all the stuff about trad 'expereince' etc and he is pedantically arguing certain points for a bit of amusement and to wind up those on the forums who take it all so seriously that they genuinley believe hes that blinkered.

sooo.... either you do fully understand this and you are entering into the spirit of the debate

or.... you genuinely belive that a bolt debate on UKC is equivilant to some of the greatest scientific and philosophical arguments of all time and that Hakey is a dangerous evil akin to the climbing Hitler sent to destroy our climbing heratige, and you, our bold saviour must go forth and fight the good fight lest we read Hakey's villanous bile and all suddenly run out and bolt Stanage.....

In reply to tradattack:
Although Hakey clearly was arguing partly for amusement, and certainly wasn't taking the whole thing that seriously I think you are wrong to assume he is not pro-bolt.

In reply to CurlyStevo: Right, not denying that at all. And there is nothing wrong with being pro bolt. If someone prefers sport climbing it is their right to argue in favour of bolts. As has been said many times we are currently anti bolt in the UK because of a common concensus - this works the other way round too so he is well within his right.

My point is that Robert appears to of taken everything hes said at face value and his language of 'dealing with' etc is rather comical.

In reply to UKC News:

Thanks for deleting my post containing a valid point of view!

I am disgusted that UKC have fanned the flames (in the name of generating site traffic) and caused this to happen, then posted an article referring to it as 'de-trashed' with pictures showing it looking an absolute mess.

In reply to chris_j_s:

How do you know that? There are plenty of people out there who don't read UKC, and whose first instinct on seeing those bolts would have been to chop them.

In reply to chris_j_s:
yes you don't have to be that cynical to guess the motivation behind the stories.

I admit it, it was all me. It was the anchor for my extreme sex swing. We have different ethics in our sport.

In reply to tradattack:

I have genuinely taken it seriously. For some reason you may doubt me, but I have.

I do not think it actually matters whether he is for real or not; the debate is still worth having - the variety of views expressed by others does, I think, confirm this.

No I do not believre it is, but THIS IS A CLIMING FORUM and is therefore an appropriate place to have a serious debate about a topic which I strongly believe is serious in the context of climbing.

In reply to Robert Durran: The problem is you can only have a serious and worthwhile debate when both sides are taking it seriously.....its just a bit of a farce otherwise with Hakey presenting views to get a reaction or to argue sideline linguistic points which does not create a constructive or remotely useful debate.....so yes it does rather matter wheter he is for real or not

Yep this is a climbing forum, you seem to of lost a touch of perspective though when comparing a UCK debate which is fairly pointless for the reasons stated above to Darwinism vs. Creationism.

Anyway.... lets not sidetrack this thread just yet. you carry on saving the world from evil, apparently i actually have to do some work today.

Just dont forget its all meant to be fun!

In reply to CurlyStevo: What's your guess Stevo?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
what chris_j said, although I'm not suggesting we know the UKC article caused the bolts to be removed, however it does seem likely it played some part in this.

In reply to CurlyStevo: Since I don't know who put them in or who took them out, or why, I've no idea if we've 'played some part' in this or not. Neither do you or Chris J. Personally I'm pleased the bolts have gone and I'm hoping someone competent will now be willing to fill in the holes properly. But there's no UKC party line; the reports are my own words and other UKC peeps might have written them differently. We did not sit down and say 'how are we going to boost site traffic this week?' either.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Whilst you may not have a 'party line' you have to accept that if you publish an article written by a UKC staff or regular contributer you represent UKC so your article becomes to some extent a 'party line'.

In reply to UKC News:
Does it really matter?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: If something is presented in the format of an article in a formal way then people are more likely to take that as fact rather than speculation or opinion.

In reply to paulipauli:

I agree. Should have been left. The mess is worse now.
some crusader acting as self appointed ethics police will be sitting smuggly at home muttering to himself "i showed them"

In reply to muppetfilter: I'm not sure what you're saying. Bolts put in - fact; bolts removed - fact. Speculation and opinion flying around all over the place, plenty of heat but little light.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Does it matter if you posted a sensationalist headline because you realised you were trying to boost the number of hits to the site or because you were emulating other media which has realised the reason for this?

In reply to UKC News:

I'm just glad that they are gone. They were clearly a hazard. I mean look at them...somone could have tripped over them and come to some serious grief.
I think it's an important point that we've all overlooked.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Would have been a little better like that but its not quite what you said though is it?

I believe the words were trashed and de-trashed which is very much indicative of an opinion or 'party line' on behalf of UKC/UKH.

In reply to tradattack:

It would be better if he had been taking it seriously but it was still an opportunity to make some worthwhile points to anyone who happened to share Hakey's "views" and happened to be reading the thread.



I do not think it is pointless. I am sure many others do not think it is pointless either.

Of course I am not in any way comparing the importance of the debate to that of the Dawinism vs Creationism debate*; I was just drawing a parallel in the way it is being conducted.


One can conduct a serious debate and have fun at the same time!


*Actually the Darwinism vs Creationism debate is in some respects far less serious since it is as ridiculous as arguing over whether the moon is made of cheese. "Hakey" is entitled to his viewpoint. Creationists are just laughable (but slightly scary when they gain influential positions...).

In reply to UKC News:

A lot of people on this thread have said that the removal of the bolts has left a mess, it's difficult to tell from photo's obviously but how is this:
https://ukc2.com/i/173240.jpg
worse than this:
https://ukc2.com/i/172972.jpg ?

To my eyes it looks like the removal hasn't necessitated major chipping/excavation of the rock, the small shallow area of damage around the hole could well have been caused by the wandering drill of whoever put them in and then hidden under the huge splodge of resin. It appears that they've just been pulled straight out, which also raises the question how secure were they in the first place?

In reply to CurlyStevo: Or could it have been because I have a personal opinion on the story? No thoughts to boosting hits, or secret desire to write for The Sun...? I would not try to gainsay your motives for doing things Stevo.

In reply to jazzyjackson:

No it isn't.

Why not just be honest and say that you were in favour of the bolts being placed. At least then it's possible to have a sensible discussion.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Coming next week: BOLTING! Does it cause cancer?

:-D

In reply to EddInaBox:


It looks to me as if plain studding was bonded into a drilled hole. Provided the depth of the hole is enough then the bolt would be perfectly secure...until someone ran a nut down the length of the stud and tightened it at which point the nut would try and pull the stud out of the hole.

I imagine that whoever removed the bolts did so by putting a spacer over the studs and then used a nut to jack them out. Hence the absence of any more damage to the rock from their removal.

In reply to chris_j_s:

'Trashed' - very much indicative of my personal opinion.
'de-trashed' - well once I'd done the first headline what else was I going to say? Was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek but if you have to start explaining your jokes then something's gone wrong somewhere.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: ok to clarify it

"Look Look Look I dont like that.....Nothing to do with me"

To highlight one set of bolts on one crag in an article entitled "Trash-ed" could quite easily be seen as journalistic bias by some. Obviously there was absolutely no ulterior motive at all whatsoever on the spotlighting of the bolts and the consensus of the UKC team is to be completely on the fence on this issue at all times ..... And the fact that someone completely uninfluenced by the article has come along and just so happened to be carrying the correct bolt removal impliments to the very point on the crag where the bolts are is superb luck indeed.

In fact with that kind of luck maybe the protagonist/s would be good enough to give me some lottery numbers for tommorow please ;0)

In reply to muppetfilter:


Or... and I realise the insanity of this conjecture... someone who doesn't spend all their time posting ill informed pretentious pish on UKC and actually goes climbing once in a while, came across these bolts on their own and came back another day with the tools to pull them out.

In reply to UKC News:

Great to hear the bots have been removed ! Cheers to the choppers.

In reply to UKC News:

To all those whose argument is as follows:

I would rather the bolts hadn't been placed.
However they have been.
Therefore I now think they should have stayed.

Please think through the argument again, with special consideration of the precedent that you would have been willing to have seen set. And please stop quibbling over whether a little hole in the rock is more offensive to your eyes than a bolt.

I really do despair sometimes.

In reply to UKC News:
NEWS: Hawcraig Bolting Exponent Revealed
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62186
Fair enough
- he's young keen and an overseas visitor so doesn't really understand our ethics

In reply to EddInaBox:

Lottery numbers if you will, and this being friday the 13th after all...

In reply to UKC News:

Conclusions
They shouldn't have been placed. Having been placed they should have been removed as well as possible. The message is don't place these again.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
if you have to start explaining your jokes then something's gone wrong somewhere; usually it's that the joke isn't funny.
why not add a helpfull emoticon to your headline

In reply to UKC News:

Cannot be arsed to read all this (again), but WHAT A F***ING MESS HAS BEEN MADE AT THE TOP OF A LOVELY CRAG.

Whoever took there out has caused much more damage then there was in, and should be thoroughly ashamed. Wasn't too keen on the bolts but better then craters- if you were guna do something about it could have been more careful about it. Or was it just a rash, thoughtless decision to teach someone a "lesson"?... Yeh thought so. Ethics my arse!

In reply to Nic DW:

You need to understand there is a general consensus in Scotland that sea cliffs are to remain adventurous, bolt free venues. Check the mcofs website for further details.

In reply to sphagnum:

I think you have rather missed the point i was making...

In reply to Nic DW:

Some may agree, others may disagree, but that is beside the actual point;
the rock can be unobtrusively repaired anyway.

Do you think they should have been placed in the first place?
If the answer is yes, then please come clean and say so.
If the answer is no, then please stop quibbling and be grateful that they are no longer there.

In reply to Nic DW:

Are you looking at the same pictures I am?
https://ukc2.com/i/172972.jpg
https://ukc2.com/i/173240.jpg

The holes look to be pretty much the same size as the bolts, they've just been pulled out, where's this extra damage? There's a small shallow area around the right hand bolt that could equally have been caused by the bolter's drill wandering about as he was trying to start the hole and then hidden by the huge splodge of resin.

In reply to Nic DW:

Your post indicates a lack of understanding on the issues here.
I suggest you consider the effect such a president could have for the future of sea cliff climbing and the fact there is a general consensus against bolting sea cliffs.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm glad they are gone. I just hope that there wasn't some perfectly legitimate reason why they were placed. However, I'm sure that the public-spirited bolt removers checked first.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I very much doubt they checked. In fact I'd place a large bet on it that they didn't.

I fail to see how removing the bolts is public-spirited. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Removing them is no more or less public-spirited than putting them in.

In reply to sphagnum:

Except there are lots of bolted seacliffs ... Portland, swanage, filey brigg, st bees etc etc.

UKC is not the place for bolting rights and wrongs to be decided, thats for the BMC/McofS and land owners to do. It is not for a privately owned website to decide that is regularly accessed by a minority of climbers.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Do you think they should have been put in in the first place?
If not, do you think they should have been removed?
Or are you just commenting as a disinterested observer?

In reply to muppetfilter:

The point is that Hawkcraig isn't one of them!


Absolutely, so removing the bolts and getting back to the status quo is the correct course of action.

Or are you suggesting that the bolts might have been placed with the blessing of the MCofS after consultation with the membership whom they represent (and which might or might not be more representative of climbers than UKC users)?

In reply to sphagnum:

spot on sphagnum - you get my vote.

bit more than two lumps of metal at stake here.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Sorry, I should have made the irony clearer. There's a degree of self-righteousness on display on both sides of the argument here. My point was that the bolts might have had nothing to do with climbing.

In reply to EddInaBox:

I assume he was looking at the close up in the UKC article, but fails to understand that if you look at something close up it can appear a lot bigger thgan if it is far away. Just like Father Ted's cows!

In reply to barney_edin, David Stevens, franksnb and others:

I stand corrected. We climbed Slack Alice and walked right past the top of Pain Pillar on our way back down. How I and my partner both failed to see the bolts I cannot imagine, having seen the photo of them in place.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That was not actually the argument though.
We didn't know who placed them or what they were intended for (could have been anything....sign post, memorial bench, piece of public art).
There was an enormous knee-jerk over-reaction, a retrobolting strawman was erected and the bolts have been removed by some cack-handed fundamentalist.
Not our finest hour.

I'm not keen on bolts myself, but.........

Aren't we all forgetting that the crag had bolts in the early 80s! There was no fence then either to stop the local pi***eads falling off the edge whilst they were chucking stuff at you. Rosyth Quarry? You only ever went there in groups of at least 4. Ah, those were the days.

Why not re-bolt & chop the fence because that has far more visual impact than the bolts? Actually, forget the re-bolt, those stubs of the "vintage" ones are more than enough for a real hard man to get a belay on.

In reply to hexcentric:
There was an enormous knee-jerk over-reaction, a retrobolting strawman was erected and the bolts have been removed by some cack-handed fundamentalist.

Too bloody right!

And to the chap/chapess who thinks i don't understand the issues i do, and would hate to see our wonderful natural trad crags disappear (as an aside thats perhaps an overreaction, the things looked bad but they hadn't exactly bolted it to make "pain pillar F5+", but anyway). But really going round hacking the things out in the dead of night (i presume) is as bad as putting them in (dare i suggest both acts constitute criminal damage?). Except perhaps worse as if you're supposedly in the right then maybe should have known better, and waited for the likes of the MCofS (whose website someone so helpfully referd me to earlier) to investigate, come to a decision, and if deemed fit professionally remove the bolts.

Anyways personally i've had enough of this discussion, but just for those of you who are still relishing it: "What president did the old bolt which has been there for years set?"

In reply to Nic DW:


That it was OK to come along and shove in a load of new ones?

In reply to Robert Durran:

When Scotland gains her independence we will revive the auld alliance and bolt every steep meter.

When the Hawcraig eventually falls down are we going to glue it back together again? Will we use resin or cement?

In reply to muppetfilter:

You should note I refer to Scotland in my previous post and the mcofs. As you know the mcofs has established the presedent for sea cliffs in Scotland. Im not looking to decide the rights and wrongs as it has already been established ie the consensus is that bolts shall not be placed on sea cliffs. Please read the mcofs website for the current stance on bolts in Scotland.

In reply to Nic DW:


Um, I know one who admitted to chopping down a tree...

In reply to Robert Durran:

I wish we did not tollerate tat.

1. For environmental reasons I dislike tat - it is unsightly litter.

2. Tat degrades and becomes unsafe - so invariably it worsens problem #1.

Why could we not be organised and use chains or wire rope instead of tat? It would be less visible and safer.

The old man of hoy is a good example, all the rap stations are just a mess of old tat, bolts, pegs, etc. The whole thing needs cleaned - especially the tat on the crux (including the old wooden blocks) as it detracts from the best climbing on the whole route.

In reply to hexcentric:

Yes, I was admittedly arguing from the point of view of assuming the bolts had been placed for some sort of climbing related activity, and I took it that the people I was taking to task were also arguing from that viewpoint and, if they were, I stand by my right to have a go at them. If anyone felt that I was having a go at them when they were not arguing from this viewpoint, then please ignore me and I apologise.


It is possible they were not climbing related, but given their position on the cliff edge at the top of the classic of the crag, it does seem a bit unlikely.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Do I think they should have been put there in the 1st place? No.
Do I think it was wrong to put them there in the 1st place? Not necessarily. (Not the same question as above).
Do I think they should have been removed? Given that it caused more damage, no.
Am I just commenting as a disinterested observer? No, not at all. Strange question, I don't see why you asked that.

In reply to sebrider:

I don't particularly like tat either, but I am prepared to tolerate it if the alternative is fixed gear such as chains, bolts or wire rope (by which I mean fixed with the express intention of others other than oneself using it)


Indeed. I would welcome a bit if a clean up operation, and then for future climbers to only leave what is necessary for their own descent, removing old tat they do not trust.

You seem to be more towards the environmental end of the anti-bolt consensus, whereas I am very much towards the ethical end. I have no major issues with your viewpoint; the issues should be discussed and addressed in the way which keeps most people happy.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:


What extra damage? I see a bolt sized hole where there was a bolt, and a patch of resin. The person who used a drill on the rock and applied the resin is responsible for both of those, not the person who pulled the bolts out.

In reply to EddInaBox: About the damage or not, whatever. Even if removing them did not cause damage, I do not think they should have been removed.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Please could you clarify why the two questions need answering separately?


As far as I can see from the photos it didn't actually cause any more noticeable damage and certainly removed the damage of the bolts'existence.
Hopefully the bolt holes and messy concrete or resin will be filled in unobtrusively.


I was just wondering what your viewpoint was.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

In reply to my post, you said the reason you disapproved of their removal was the supposed additional damage. Do you have another reason?

In reply to Robert Durran: My viewpoint?

I'm not commenting on whether or not putting them there was acceptable. I can see why someone might put them there (that does not mean I support putting them there) and I can see why people are against it.

But, given that they were put there, removing them in a tit for tat fashion before finding out who put them there and why is not the way to make progress here. It reeks of the "might is right mentality in climbing" that is far from being inclusive. I think we should be encouraging inclusion in climbing, not encouraging a them and us mentality.

In reply to Robert Durran:
>

The tit for tat bit...I am against removing them without finding out who/why. What is to stop someone putting them back in now that they have been removed without consultation?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Thankyou for your measured response (I have tried to be measured in all mine, but probably havn't always succeeded!) I can see where you are coming from, even though I obviously have reservations about your views.

In reply to Robert Durran: Fair one buddy, thank you. It is not often on UKC that differing views can be met with a bit of respect for the other - I raise my Friday evening glass to you! Gimme a shout if you want to get out to Hawcraig at some stage.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Thankyou for posting those; it helps clarify the respective levels of 'damage'! It's a pity the news article didn't have similar photos as that would probably have stopped folk getting their knickers in a twist about these enormous holes in the ground!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Most of the 'mess' is the original resin, that will weather.


Chris

In reply to Hexcentric:


I can live with that. I would rather have my principles (and be a deeply uncool cat) than your holier-than-thou pedestal.

In reply to bomb:

I think you are a cool cat, because you do stick to your principles.

In reply to UKC News: Disgusting vandalism - how am I going to fix the bat box to the crag now?

In reply to UKC News:

It may sound odd, but I quite like the second photo in the article - nice depth of field!

Also, are there now tri-cam placements up there? Mine have been neglected since Joe Brown started selling off C4U's on the cheap...

In reply to hexcentric:

seconded except this could cause an equal or greater reaction. Not by me I hasten to add.

In reply to whispering nic:

seconded again.

thirded

In reply to hakey:

Ok then, I'll fourth it.

Anti-bolt vigilantes never get it wrong...

http://willhunt.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/discussion-of-ethics/

In reply to hakey:

Correction - very rarely get it wrong.

In reply to bomb: Seconded!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Thirded!

In reply to JLS:

I can understand reservations about the bolts being unilaterally removed before the reasons for their placement have been established, but if they had not already been removed and it then turned out they had been placed for climbing related activities, would you all have still been in favour of them staying?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Storm in a teacup are folk sure it wasn't bolted for a cliff warning sign?

To be perfectly honest within my knowledge of these crags from 20 to 30 years ago the damage caused to the trees bushes and vegetation over this period is of more of a concern.

The SMT Lowland Outcrops front cover (from the past 1980's) is a typical example with Nijinsky in Auchinstarry and the now defunct flowering tree previously used for top roping...!

Hawcraig has had bolts and even stakes placed in the past.
Some of these were removed resulting in climbers belaying off bushes which then died and has now now resulting in the eroded ground exposing the boulders. From what I gather these same eroded boulders now seem to have been used recently as belays.

I can mention a similar situation on crags in the NE of Scotland where I now live. It's no doubt a similar situation throughout the UK and IMO fixed anchors are often better than the alternatives in protecting the climbing for future generations.

Ron

In reply to Ron Walker:

Do you have any ethical reservations (from an actual climbing perspective) about fixed anchors in such situations. If so, is it just that, for you, they are overridden by environmental situations.

In reply to UKC News: Should I have cereal or toast for breakfast?

In reply to Drexciyan:

Neither, you should have a kipper.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've no ethical or egotistical reservations at all and can honestly say that sport and trad climbing both to a degree change or damage the environment!

I spend 3 to 4 months climbing abroad and enjoy multi-pitch sport AND trad and enjoy and can see the benefits of both.
I really don't like the ignorant UKC kneejerk reactions to tabloid headline posts.

I'm not pro or ant-bolt and can see the benefits of ab and belay stations at certain venues. That also includes many mountain multi-pitch venues where we have had insitu pegs and tat for generations.

I deliberately say generations as I've often had to inform horrified younger climbers that the tat and pegs they are happily abbing off has been there for a good number of years. That includes rope and faded tape that I or folk I know left over 20 years ago. The tat was often tied to pegs or old bolts that were considered old and dodgy at the time!!!!

Unfortunately the grass we stood on and trees and bushes we used all these years ago are often now long gone...

In reply to bomb:
What a strange illogical statement. Maybe you should go for a lie down.

In reply to Ron Walker:

You mean a ned-proof steel sign securely bolted to a nice big chunk of rock? Surely not?!

A bit like this perhaps? http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/185/05signji1.jpg/

Is Hawkcraig not on the route of the Fife Coastal Path?....

In reply to Mither Tap:

Apparently there's been recent work to the path just round the corner near Silver Sands, so maybe improved signage at Hawkcraig was due to be part of that upgrade work?

http://www.fifecoastalpath.co.uk/news_14.html?news=86

In reply to Mither Tap: I don't think that's likely but I'll see if I can find out. The bolts went in at a bit of an angle which I'd think would make it difficult to use them for any sort of sign/bench fixing.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Fair comment, but the original UKC article has this; "They have been messily cemented in place and are of an unusually wide diameter compared with bolts conventionally used by climbers"

Given that and the proximity of the Fife Coastal Path, I think it's just as valid to question the bolts intended use. Certainly Ron and one other poster have raised the question.

Just out of interest, would UKC still have run a 'Hawcraig Trashed' article if people turned up at Hawcraig and found a cliff warning sign bolted to the rock?

I've thought of your UKC posts over the years to be sensible, I even have one of your books on my bookshelf, but the use of "trashed" in the title was, well, a bit pathetic to be honest.
"Hawkcraig Bolted?" as a title would have drummed up just as much interest, but without sounding like an OTT tabloid headline.

In reply to Mither Tap: You're not the first to say that. I explained the headline in the thread, but it'd take some trawling through the posts to find and as I said to someone yesterday (?) if you've got to explain your jokes then they've obviously not worked as intended. It's a shame and a bit odd that a wee word caused more outrage than two big shiny bolts and a few piles of phone books but I guess you live and learn (well, maybe). Being too bland and inoffensive would just be boring wouldn't it? But it's a fine line alright.

In reply to Mither Tap:
I'd have to stick up for Dan here - it was all a bit sensationalist but it did it's job. Like a sting operation to identify the beardiest of weirdies (step forward Erc9Points).
There was also some entertaining chat from Robert, who is always worth listening to.

Will there be a follow up to capture the moment of arrest?
Some Ron Hiller bundled in to a black maria for vandalising a Cooncil bin (or whatever it turns out to be).

In reply to UKC News: I'm gonna laugh my ass off if some council type somewhere is cursing the fact the bolts they had set for signage or some other use have been dug out.

Its all a bit silly really.

Surely the sensible thing to do would have been to leave the bolts for a few weeks to see what they were going to be used for?

In reply to hexcentric:

Aye, having a second skim through both threads, right enough there are people taking it with a pinch of salt.
Initially I was mainly reading comments from friends of friends (Robert being one of them), and came to the conclusion it was yet another heated bolting/anti bolting thread.

When I first saw the title, I thought maybe it was about how Hawkcraig had turned into another Rosyth quarry overnight... complete with spraypainted slogans on the rock, but then noticed the main subject matter was two odd bolts which may or may not have be placed for climbing purposes.

Serves me right for not reading all 500+ posts from both threads I guess :-|

I really do hope this does turn out to be the site of a proposed bolted sign / memorial plaque / litter bin etc, so there can be a heated ethics debate about council installed street funtiture at the top of established routes...

In reply to Mither Tap:

Presumably not. Why would they? UKC is a climbing website. A sign right at the top of Pain Pillar might not be especially welcomed by climbers, but it would not exactly be calamitous. It might even have provided a convenient belay!

In reply to hexcentric:

I'm flattered! Do I know you by the way?

In reply to Ron Walker:

I read your post this morning, but in order to avoid any danger of a knee-jerk reaction, decided to go climbing for the day before replying. I am still feeling a bit shocked (by your post, not the climbing that is), so I shall now go for a run and then reply as calmly as possible when I get back.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Brilliant! 10/10

In reply to Robert Durran:

My point exactly! it was really a rhetorical question.
Yet here were two bolts that could have been placed for exactly that very reason; given that the bolts were "...of an unusually wide diameter compared with bolts conventionally used by climbers"

Ron's comment about 'knee jerk' reactions was spot on. If these bolts were standard climbing bolts half way up the Rannoch Wall, there would be no doubt about their intended purpose, but these aren't.
These are non-standard bolts that also happen to be close to an area Joe Bloggs might be out with his family walking their dog... the car park and other facilities at Silver Sands weren't built purely to provide climbers parking believe it or not.
When I lived nearby in my youth, the vast majority of people who visited the Hawkcraig area were not climbers; they were dog walkers, people out with their families, people out for a run, people looking for a spot of fishing, neds up to no good, people looking to commit suicide, etc etc

The bolts were obviously intended for climbing use in your eyes, but then you appear to be so worked up and angry, I doubt you could ever accept that at this location, it's just as likely they could have been placed for another reason.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Ok, I'm back from my run in the Lomond Hills now and feeling somewhat calmer having watched the Bass Rock floating in the distance on a brooding sea like a golden nugget in a chance sun beam with sheets of rain before it and thunderous black clouds behind. Then I remembered it is all shit. Which brings me nicely back to the bolts.

So you are clearly an experienced time-served climber, unafraid to post your legitimate views under your own name and so deserve the respect which the persona of Hakey (real or imagined) does not. You are a guide/instructor and I usually treat such people's views slightly circumspectly in case they have been tainted by commercial interests which can certainly sometimes be associated with bolts, but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

Do you really see a place for bolted belay or abseil stations on our mountain crags? I don't think, in thirty years of climbing in the Scottish mountains in summer I have ever come across a situation where it was not possible to arrange a perfectly adequate belay. Maybe you could give me a few examples of places you think bolts would be appropriate. Bolts in such situations would fly right in the face of our long tradition of self-reliance, would certainly be opposed by the vast majority of climbers (though perhaps not by the overwhelming majority I would have assumed before seeing the disappointing reaction to the Hawcraig bolts on UKC), and would be completely counter to MCofS guidelines. Now you may argue that bolts are a like-for-like replacement for rotting pegs, but this is simply not the case (pegs require a natural weakness in the rock) and, anyway, the range of modern protection devices usually provides an acceptable alternative. Anyway, even if one did have to occasionally make do with a less than perfect belay (just as most of us probably do on fairly regular basis in winter - I assume you would not advocate widespread bolting of Nevis belays), surely that is all part of the game; no one has to play it.


As an instructor, I assume you teach inexperienced climbers to treat all insitu gear with the greatest suspicion and to cut away and if necessary replace old tat. I would have hoped to be able to assume that you would make them aware of the traditions of self-reliance and resposibility for their own safety that most of us value highly. Education and carefully gained experience are what you should be promoting, not the dumbing down of our mountains with bolts.

I think I have managed to remain fairly calm. Maybe Bomb will come along with a more impassioned response; he does that sort of thing so much better than me anyway.

In reply to Mither Tap:

If you read some of my earlier posts you will see that I have already accepted the bolts might have been placed for a purpose unconnected with climbing. My argument was with people who expressed a pro-bolting stance of some sort which just happened to be stated or implied in response to the UKC article; whether or not they or myself had made assumptions about the Hawcraig bolts is not relevant to the more general debate.

ps I am intrigued who our mutual friend might be! (and indeed who you might be).

In reply to Robert Durran:
There is probably a bias in some guides and instuctors in favour of insitu equipment in the mountains. There could be a couple of different reasons for this. In places such as sneachda and lochain in the cairngorms there is a LOT of insitu equipment indeed on many popular routes it is un avoidable and one may become used to it. It is convenient and I will admit that I have clipped it when guiding on popular routes such as savage slit, fall out corner etc. I haven't beaten my chest in horror as I have brought my clients up or pointedly not used to make a statement. However I do often remove it.
I usually work in the nw or the loch Avon basin where there is less and it is easier to be an ethical purist and when I climb for myself i never find insitu stuff (if I do it means that it might be a second ascent).
So basically I perhaps have a foot in both camps. I do think it is entirely right for people to take direct action and remove retro bolts that appear without prior warning and agreement. But maybe even here it is shades of grey as there could be statistical outlier people who would say that even Places like my local Moy rock should be led on trad ( I would be happy to prewarn the Dingwall ambulance centre for them if they have the courage of their convictions mind).
Sometimes I do worry about the growing commercialism in the outdoors (and everyday life) and perhaps there will come a day when I nolonger recognise the game but hopefully we are still a long way one off. For a guide or instructor there is a possibly unrecognised burden of responsibility in the initial impression and ethical approach that you demonstrate when taking people out. This may be down in the list of things to think about after safety, enjoyment etc but we shouldn't forget it. I well remember in the 90's when climbing with Dave McGimpsy we met some old boys from the craig dbhu and I was gently educated as to what they considered true winter conditions and ethics to be. Things have a tendency to drift over time.
James e

In reply to James Edwards:

I certainly clip it too, and, if possible, remove it, especially if it is good booty. I see nothing hypocritical in that. I admit that I am not scrupulous in removing surplus tat; I shall try to be in future.


Yes, there will always be grey areas, especially in establishing approporiate sport crags such as Moy, but Ron specifically mentioned bolted belays on mountain crags which is about as black and white as it gets.


I worry too; indeed I see commercialism in all its forms (by no means just or by any means most signidicantly the guiding industry) as by far the biggest threat to climbing as we know it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Nonsense.

'Climbing as we know it' is as we know it because of commercialism - where do you think all of the lovely climbing gear we use comes from?

In reply to James Edwards:

It is definitely convenient and to my mind makes those routes the nearest one gets to winter 'cragging' in Scotland (especially the Slit which is particularly easy to ab off from). I don't think this is a bad thing necessarily (who climbing these routes isn't grateful of the convenient means of descent offered?) though there is probably more in-situ rotting tat than there perhaps needs to be. The Slit for example has 4 multiple point belays (at 12m(?) intervals) when one halfway up and one at the top would be quite sufficient. Fallout Corner is similar - is there really need for in-situ gear at the bulge and just above when one can reach the top of the main corner in one 40m pitch?

In reply to UKC News: Robert. Are you the person who did this as well as remove the bolts? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13404042

Tongue slightly in cheek!

In reply to yer maw:

In fact I did neither. I am not sure why you would somehow relate the two things.

In reply to hakey:

I was more thinking of the way commercialism affects our attitudes and the spirit of mountaineering; commercially motivated bolting in the Alps, sponsored heros on pedestals, marketing of a lifestyle to boost gear sales etc. Obviously all this is interrelated and could provide a most interesting topic for several other thread. Maybe some other time - I am currently rather threaded out!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Convenient, yes. Necessary no! The place could do with a good clean up - excellent belays are available without any of the stuff.


Me for a start! I've always gone to the top. No doubt if removed it would reappear - it should at least be kept as discrete and minimal as possible.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Who is 'we'?

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

It's just an expression! Replace with "climbing as pracised now" if you prefer.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Someone, who doesn't like an activity that others partake in as it conflicts with their own enjoyment/morals, decides to try and ruin that activity which others want to do.

In reply to yer maw:

The tacks presumably both ruined the race and endangered people. The removal of the bolts(assuming they were intended for a belay, and, yes, I know they might have been for something unrelated to climbing) did neither - other perfectly safe belays are by all accounts available.

In reply to UKC News:

As an active climber, nobody spoke for me when they chopped these threaded steel rods, nor by subsequently condoning chopping them: They just embarassed the climbing community, especially in the eyes of non climbers, with a petty and inconsidered act of vandalism, which may or may not affect future access to one of the best crags in the central belt.

Much as I hate using caps, WE CLIMBERS DON'T OWN THE BLOODY CRAGS! Showing some patience and taking on board a vareity of views rather than those which back your own position would be a good starting point before hacking away at anything which confuses your fragile grasp on poorly thought out 'climbing ethics'.

In reply to whispering nic: Should the bolter not have shown that same patience, taking on board a variety of views, before bolting in the first place?

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Thank you for reinforcing the point about climbers with contrived and insular 'ethics'.

We don't know who the bolter is. If he/she is not a climber with a particular inherited/contrived/ insular perspective on drilling holes into pieces of rock, he she won't understand what the problem is.

In reply to whispering nic: I know we don't know who the bolter is and why the bolts were there. I actually emailed MCofS to see if they knew/had found out anything about it, but have not received a reply. But as Kevin Howett mentioned that he would post as soon as any info was available I assume they don't know who placed it. Now, if it was placed for some sort of emergency service or by the council for a sign or such like, then I should think that would be fairly easy for MCofS to find out.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

I think we're in agreement - nobody knows why, or by who, the thick big threaded rods were placed (they are not 'bolts' as we know them) so jumping to conclusions and hacking them out is a bit hasty.

I do think you over estimate the human resources of the MCofS in being instantly able to establish why somebody has drilled a couple of holes in a bit of rock in Fife though!

In reply to whispering nic: Well said

In reply to whispering nic:

Neither do we know by who or why they were removed?

In reply to Vince McNally:

These bolts did not look to me as if they were placed by or for climbers. They looked as if they were for the base of a sign or something. As has been said earlier this is on the Fife Coastal Path

If so, the removal amounts to criminal damage and perhaps the initial reporters ought to have investigated further before publishing such an article?

In reply to JimR: Probably was going to be some damn infernal interpretation panel pointing out the delights of yonder landscape or sign saying "danger of death - steep cliff"

In reply to Lone Rider:

Probably….

Does that make it right to dig it up though? You might not appreciate such items, but as said, the majority of people visiting the Hawkcraig area are not climbers. The area is also not exactly unspoilt wilderness either, it's a stones throw from where the people of Aberdour live.

Fck the wishes of the people who live in Aberdour or use the Fife Costal Path eh?

Just for a second imagine this was the intended site for a non-climbing application, and later the public or press find out it was ripped out by some climbers… then they stumble across this thread (and comments like yous)… It's hardly going to paint the climbing community in a very positive light, is it?

In reply to Mither Tap:

As I said above, how do we know it was ripped out by climbers?

In reply to Lone Rider:

Or possibly pointing out the penalties for fly-tipping?

In reply to hakey:

Second hand or found

In reply to Robert Durran:

It doesn't affect us all. You can still escape the rat race but you've just got to walk a bit further !

In reply to Vince McNally:

Precisely. There's some hypocritical 'knee jerk' reactions on here. Talk about establishing the facts first eh ?

In reply to sphagnum:

Assuming that's directed at me...

I think you'll find if you look back at what I've posted, you'll notice I'm on the side of the people suggesting it 'could have' equally been bolts for a non-climbing use. I don't think anyone has said they were definitely for a sign etc, it's just that a non-climbing use is just as likely.
You'll also notice I say "Just for a second imagine this was the intended site for a non-climbing application" - does that sound like I'm definitely saying they were for a sign and nothing else??

There are plenty of people who place bolts into rock besides climbers, but rarely do they go back and remove them not long after they're placed.

If no-one came forward to say they chopped the bolts, given the outrage posted on this, and the calls for the bolts to be immediately chopped (which happened soon after), yeah, it's ridiculous to imply one of the climbing community 'might' have done it.

Ok, my view is; due to the history and actions of anti-bolting climbers together with the comments on this website, it's 'most likely' a climber chopped the bolts... and that given their location and size, it's 'just as likely' the bolts were placed for a reason other than climbing. That 'if' the bolts were for a non-climbing use and subsequently chopped by one of the climbing community without checking what they were for, it wouldn't look very good in the eyes of the public... happy now?

Even if the bolts weren't removed by a climber, plenty of people posting on this look like they would have happily got in there first and chopped them without checking what they were for.
There might be doubt about who chopped them, but there is no doubt there was intent from some climbers to chop them - given that, there doesn't need to be any proof to pose the question whether or not chopping them was a good or bad thing to do.

In reply to Mither Tap:

Right, it's all crystal clear now.

In reply to Mither Tap:

None of that alters the basic fact that:

We dont know who or why the bolts were placed.

We dont know who or why they were removed.

In reply to Vince McNally:

People have posted on here calling for them to be chopped without finding out what they were for, that's also a fact.

I see you chose to ignore that part of my post.

Whether it was a climber or a contractor who placed them, if they were left in place, a climber would have removed them sooner rather than later - you might view that as a 'maybe', but I view that as a fact too.

In reply to UKC News:

Dan Baily, this is a mess. How can you describe these ugly gouges in the rock as anything other than reckless vandalism? As author of such a biased, emotive and inciteful article that preceeded this act of destruction, you must accept some responsibility.

In reply to Mither Tap:

Well in that case im happy to inform you, that you are wrong.

In reply to ruaidh: I agree Ruaidh; I think the pics speak for themselves. But the responsibility is a debatable point. The bolters (whoever and why-ever) actually made the holes in the first place. I've no idea who removed the bolts; what makes you assume they even read UKC, let alone take their cue from it? When they surface and say 'I did it because Dan Bailey wrote a headline, I've no mind of my own' then I'll gladly hold my hands up.

If someone can now properly fill the holes then the mess that's left will be cleared up as best it can - if I'm 'biased' for suggesting that then fair enough.

In reply to Mither Tap:


like the other old one in the picture or the other one at the end of the crag...so factually they exist and haven't been removed...you are talking twaddle...are you Hakeys brother?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
I think that’s called the “Fox News” defence.

In reply to simondgee:


I thought I was the one talking sense in the other thread, but there you go.

None so blind as them that won't see...

In reply to ruaidh: I have to agree. I've not climbed there for about 3 years but i remember bolts being there before. These self -appointed guardians of the crags should really get a life.

In reply to simondgee:

Care to give me examples of recently placed bolts that have been put in against the general consensus and not been chopped?
because that doesn't seem to be the general trend...

Can I also assume all the people talking about having the Hawkcraig bolts chopped were all hot air and wouldn't have done so?...

Fck me, even when I went for a quiet pint in my local up in Ballater, the three guys sat at the table next to me mentioned the 'bolt belay' at Hawcraig...

I'm bowing out of this thread - somehow I've gone from trying to inject a little santiy into this, by pointing out the possible non-climbing purpose of the bolts is actually quite likey, to arguing about how climbers never chop disputed bolts (apparently).

In reply to Robert Durran:

YHM (re. Mutual friend)

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: Hopefully whoever put the bolts in will put some more in and use them for whatever was going on. As has been pointed out they were the worng sort of bolts for 'bolts'.

In reply to tatty112: Maybe but so far looking into non-climbing possibilities has drawn a blank (obv that may change at which point i'd look a wally and no mistake). To me at least their position on a sloping rock by the edge suggested a climbing/ab anchor more than, say, a signpost (there's already a warning sign at the access point to the top of the crag anyway). Also they went in at an angle which would make it a bit weird using them for a fixing for something like a sign wouldn't it? Seems they were around for several weeks before I picked up on them and no one came in that time to finish whatever job they might possibly have been for. But then as you say there's the size.

Why 'hopefully' by the way?

In reply to hakey:

No, you were the one talking utter bollocks.
Thanks for making me laugh though.

In reply to sphagnum:

I'm not sure it is quite as simple as that. One is affected, in that one does have to walk further both phsically and, perhaps more importantly, metaphorically to avoid all the crap.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Dan I for one thought you were bang on the money with your articles, god forbid a journalist who is passionate about their subject should actually have an opinion eh? I would honestly just shrug off all the criticism as it's mainly from skinny latte drinking, guardian reading, ultra politically correct, middle of the road, snow patrol listening, lib dem voting, organic eating, 28 in a 30 driving, 2 abreast road cycling, great slab headpointing, agnostic, bin laden was "assassinated" whining, michael macintyre loving, prussiks on a grit route carrying, logbook obsessed, anti smoking, anti cannabis, anti risk, anti drunken nakedness, danone activia chugging, expensive softshell clad, homeopathy rating, safety first, don't piss at the crag shouting, bores.
Probably.

In reply to whispering nic:

I agree. I suspect those advocating the unilateral chopping* of the bolts in the original thread might have not have read much further than the rather unhelpfully misleading headline of the original UKC article or had perhaps just skimmed the thread and assumed that there was no question that the bolts had been placed for a climbing related purpose and that it was therefore fair game to stand up for the climbing consensus and chop them. I suspect that most of them, if seriously contemplating chopping the bolts themselves, would in fact have considered things more carefully before actually doing the deed. It's all a bit unfortunate really.

However, someone did chop them. If it turns out that they were placed for climbing or a climbing related purpose, then no harm has been done and the only damage is the small holes drilled by the bolters which can be reasonably satisfactorily repaired. If they were for some other purpose, then, yes, it is somewhat awkward.

* Incidentally, I was not in fact one of those advocating unilateral chopping in the original thread, so I am a little puzzled why a couple of people have suggested that it might have been me who chopped them! In my first post of this thread, which was meant to be a thoughtful analysis of the general bolting issue, I did end by saying I supported the removal of the Hawcraig bolts. I should have not have said this and regret doing so; my mind was on the more general issue at the time.

In reply to bomb:
.......michael macintyre loving.......

Wow! surely not quite that bad though......

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: I suppose because i objected to your implication that the area had been 'trashed' because someone had set a couple of bolts at the top of the crag. It's not the end of the world after all and whilst being a bit of an eyesore is it any worse than the damage that can often be caused by people setting belays.

In reply to bomb:

Tricky! No idea whether I am that or not!

I do not drink skinny latte
I do read the Guardian and other papers
I have to be politically correct at work but I do think a lot of it has gone too far by a long way
I do listen to Snow Patrol
I definitely did not vote lib dem
I eat anything, preferably with blood dripping from it
I am rarely below the speed limit
There is a time and a place for 2 abreast road cycling
Last time I was on the great slab, it had several feet of snow on it...loh...wait...I geddit...you meant some grit "classic"?!
I am definitely atheist not agnostic
It is fair to say Bin Laden was "assassinated" and I see that as a good thing
Michael Macintyre does make me laugh but he is bloody odd
I carry prussiks
I don't understand the UK's obsession with grit
I am not logbook obsessed
I am not anti smoking but people can do whatever they like to their lungs but not to mine or my children
I am not anti cannabis but I do think drugs are for losers
I take a lot of risk
As for anti drunken nakedness, I am a student
I have no idea what danone activia chugging is
As for homeopathy rating, well, people can spend their money on whatever they want
I piss at a decent spot to piss at at the crag most times I go there

....and do think the article was deliberatively misleading and laugh at the angry froth that a couple of bolts have caused!!!

In reply to bomb:
I love this wee persona that you're building for yourself; biting, sharp and vitriolic. Not to be messed with, ethical, doesn't-suffer-fools, trad hero.
How cute.

In reply to Aonach:

If any of the locals want to contribute to a dumby related thread that has been moved re bolts:


http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=459144

In reply to bomb: F*cking quality rant!

In reply to Aonach:

I wasn't aware I was trying to build a persona. So if that's how I'm coming across without even trying then imagine how f*cking cool I could be if I actually made an effort.

In reply to Mither Tap:

When did ye get the humour bypass?
As someone who is involved in interpretation and H&S in the countryside for a LA a location of any panel in this location would A) Spoil the views for others and B)Pose a risk by encouraging people close to the edge and could lead to the owners of said panels being prosecuted for negligence if someone ended at the bottom of Pain Pillar having taken the quick way down. If the bolts were for panels it was a damn stupid place to put them.

In reply to UKC News:
I've been doing some digging around to find the bolting culprit and thought I would share the results so far...

1) Aberdour Community Council (who usually know everything that happens there!) have no knowledge of it, so it's not part of a big sign to read "A local crag for local people!" or some such.

2) The Council's Outdoor Education team definitely didn't do it as I'm pretty sure none of us even know how to drill a bolt!

3) Fife Coast and Countryside Trust who manage the Ranger Service and maintain the Coastal Path didn't do it as it's not on their 'patch'. Apparently it's the Council's statutory duty to maintain the tops of disused quarries to discourage access by the public and hence the reason they planted all the gorse in the first place!

4) Fife Council didn't do it in the process of clearing up the litter or cutting back the gorse to allow better access by the public. Yes, I know it's contradictory...

That's all I've got so far, no smoking gun but, hopefully, the truth is out there...

In reply to DuckingFesperate: The truth's out there but I doubt we'll find it. I've had this from a council employee:

'What I can confirm is that that the work was not done by either Fife Council or Fife Coast and Countryside Trust. And neither of us knows who did, but it certainly was done by some unofficial individual or group. We are assuming that it was done in connection with climbing. Although that is only an assumption, it is perhaps a reasonable one.'

It's a no from the coastguard too (a long shot).

I don't think there can be much doubt the Fife council guy is right about it being 'unofficial'. I'd imagine that his use of 'climbing' would also cover abseiling. As to the purpose I'd err more towards abseiling than climbing personally (what 'climber' would place bolts like those?).

But I reckon who and why will remain a mystery.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Nice official statement there, well done. What department was your contact in? It's good to know who to contact about climbing issues in the future.
I don't think we can blame 'abseilers' as they would have to be climbers to be qualified to instruct abseiling would they not?
I agree that it's most likely unofficial, when I mentioned some years ago about replacing the badly wobbling stakes at Rosyth, the Council bosses nearly had kittens worrying about the legal responsibility that would give them!

In reply to DuckingFesperate: You have mail

In reply to RachelP: It might be a good idea to get all the facts before expressing an opinion.

In reply to UKC News:

I did it because I read an article written by Dan Bailey, I have no mind of my own...

In reply to UKC News:


Well, i dont know this crag and will probably never go there either,

But the idiot who dug the bolts out is every bit as bad as the idiot who put them in.

What a mess!

In reply to bomb:


Aint you just the sweetest?

like Scrappy doo...

In reply to bomb:

Crap...I have a softshell jacket and read the guardian once. Is this the thin end of the wedge for me?

In reply to johnnorman:

wrong!

In reply to johnnorman:


Only of you are so blinkered as to only consider the aesthetic of the rock. Morally they are worlds apart.

In reply to UKC News: Won't it be fun if the bloke who placed them is as much of a tit as the bloke who has taken them out and replaces them? Would love to see where that ends

In reply to GrahamD:

Not even then. A hole is less of an aesthetic issue than a hole with a bolt in it. He is wrong on all counts.