UKC

Yesterday my partner and I chopped the slack liners bolt at the Old Man of Stoer. We also removed the latest in-situ rope. Please don’t leave in-situ ropes here as they very quickly become dangerous.

Background thread is here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=410368&v=1#x5879727

In reply to Ean T:

Good work.

In reply to Ean T:

Well done

Also worth noting that North West Corner is nearer E3/4 6a than E2 5c and Tall Stories is very good, though high in the grade.

Good work...no place for bolts.

In reply to Ean T:

Glad you liked it. Sorry if it felt like a sandbag....

In reply to Brown: No sandbag, but not a soft touch. Some pics here http://www.flickr.com/photos/7538425@N05/7493404108/in/photostream

In reply to Ean T: and what gave you the authority to do that...? There are bolts i would like to chop all over the UK, but dont, because its no more mine to chop than it is theirs to bolt. Whats the ethic for bolt chopping these days anyway?

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

the spirit of adventure

In reply to Pylon King Liberation Front:
??? presumably slacklining is a non adventurous sport?

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

I gave him a certificate. It looks really nice.

In reply to Ean T: Great Work! More of us should chop bolts.

In reply to Ean T:

Nice one. I wonder if the slackliners really did make any efforts to arrange their removal, as per their promise in the thread.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:


Read the history - it's an adventure climbing location and bolts are considered unnecessary and incongruous there.


If everyone took that attitude nothing would ever get bolted or chopped!


As far as I can see everyone has their own, and the prevailing ethic is the one that can get it's finger out to actually do something.

It's all pretty self-regulating really - if either bolters or choppers over-step the mark someone will generally reverse that action.

I can't believe that it has lasted this long!

In reply to bigdrew:


I can. People are quite lazy and Stoer is a long way from anywhere.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
and the bolters promised to remove it so it rather fell off the radar

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

I think that consensus is quite clear. Trad routes in the UK should not be retro-bolted therefore bolts on the Old Man of Stoer should be removed.

In reply to timjones:

So you think someone retro bolted a route on the Old Man ?

In reply to biscuit:

Technically, yes ... since they bolted the tyrollean.

In reply to zebidee:

So anyone who has used a dinghy to get across has used aid on the route ?

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

It's as much his to chop as it's theirs not to bolt.

In reply to zebidee: I wouldn't class it as retro bolting a pitch or route, but it quite clearly shouldn't have/doesn't need a bolt...

Saying that the Tyrollean is a significant and unique part of the whole experience..

In reply to jacobjlloyd: as a climber of mature years that remembers when climbing was mostly necky ...I told him to as well..

In reply to bigdrew:

I don't think the bolt should be there either tbh i was just picking up on Tim's point about retro bolting. This is not retro bolting but it is also no place for a bolt.

In reply to Ean T:

Top work that man!

In reply to Ean T:

This is sensible as it wasn't needed... you can swim, boat, or easily boulder hop on a calm day at low tide (you don't need spring tides but dont forget to set up the tyrollean for the return!).

I found crossing a half shredded rope quite exciting. Frankly the classic VS line was the least scary part of the day...the loose and wet descent felt worse.

In reply to biscuit:

Sure - I used aid, and I reckon the bl**dy thing added at least a grade. Much better to have swum it...

+1 for the choppers. I didn't go there (in my time) to clip bolts. What'll they be bolting next, Skeleton Ridge ?

Y

In reply to Yanchik:

It was bolted for a slack-line not the Tyrolean... catch up.

In reply to Offwidth:

Exactly.
So the only argument against those bolts being there is... aesthetics?
Get over it.
Highlines dont work without bolts. Trad climbs do. The arguments are different. Whatever opinion you have, recycling tired arguments to set up a straw-man in defence of a different point is a bit off.
That said, Im not for bolting. Just for reasoning.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:
Reason it out, aesthetics seems a good enough argument to get rid of the offending ironwork don't you think?

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

Slacklining/highlining is a new activity and in this case is being conducted in an area designated as bolt free by the existing users.
Slackliners should respect this and either go elsewehere or learn to set up anchors using the local ethics. If it isn't possible to set up a slackline without bolts, then so be it.

In reply to MJ:

If the slackliners had no understanding of climbing ethics (and why should they?) they would be able to plead ignorance. But they were also capable climbers who managed to get themselves up and down 3 Scottish sea-stacks without placing any bolts, so it seems strange that they placed one for the tyrolean when there is a gear-swallowing crack alongside it.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

???

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

The consensus is no bolts in mountains or sea cliff areas in general. This is not just for climbing.

In reply to Toreador: you have to laugh dont you I thought 2 trees worked quite well..

In reply to victorclimber:


trees on a sea stack..?!?
Im all for a bolt free climb. But a bolt fre highline is a different thing. Highlines need bolts. Anyone who says otherwise is shamefully optimistic, and clearly doesn't highline. And the highline bolt doesn't affect your climb. So get over it.

I have half a mind to re-ignite this whole thing by replacing the offending bolt. Never been up Stoer, could be a laugh.
Next time I'm in the area..

In reply to jacobjlloyd:


Surely they just require a strong anchor, be that bolt or something else.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

Not sure if you're trolling now.

If slackliners discover a brand new venue, then they can pretty much do what they want and establish their own ethics for rigging etc.
However, in this case, other users of the area have been using it for years and have established an agreed ethic. Sackliners, as "newcomers" to the outdoor environment that they are using, need to learn and respect these accepted ethics.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

You never heard of the Countryside Code young man?

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/countrysidecode/

Third bullet point - Leave no trace of your visit........

In reply to Calder:
Carefully laddie Soar Alba will be along to correct your geography. Which will quickly lead to this thread encompassing two classic UKC shouting matches...bolts and Scottish Indepedance. May as well get the ball rolling:

I suspect the SNP would be all in favour of retro bolting all of Scotlands mountains and crags to encourage increased tourism.............

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Bloody scots. Always got to be different.......

Still, they have their own, of which this responsibility is one:

Care for the environment: If you are exercising access
rights, look after the places you visit and enjoy, and leave
the land as you find it.......

Pretty much the same thing. Still, this thread will no doubt rumble on whatever.

In reply to MJ:

I'm not sure they "need" to, although certainly it would be good manners, and where different activities share the same environment it is surely in all their interests to co-operate to minimise the impact they have on each other. However I'm uncomfortable about the assumption that climbers' interests and ethics should automatically have priority where the use of crags and mountains is concerned. Our issue about bolting routes is entirely concerned with protecting the purity and adventure of our own activity, and I don't think that gives us the right to object to bolts which are placed for different purposes and which don't affect climbs.

In reply to Howard J:

Climbers interests don't have priority. These ethics are also laid down by MCOfS and bmc as well who do not just represent climbers. These people secure access rights and maintain working relations with land owners for all users. Bolts are destructive and have no place outside agreed on venues. There are probably many sport climbers and bolters equally annoyed because it compromises the work they have put in to establish bolted areas.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

"Im all for a bolt free climb. But a bolt fre highline is a different thing. Highlines need bolts. Anyone who says otherwise is shamefully optimistic, and clearly doesn't highline."




Nonesense! Highlines do not need bolts. They just need strong anchors with 5 Tonne being a bare minimum figure and 7.5 Tonne more ideal. I've walked ALOT of highlines including the Lost Arrow (onsight). The rigging for this was off bolts on the spire side and 2 nuts and 4 cams on the flake side, all equalised with delta maillons, industial polyester round slings connected to a large bow shackle.

I have placed bolts for highlines in more than one country and have always been respectful to local ethics and would not place one at the Old Man (which I have climbed!). For one thing, the seaside environment will compromise most bolts suprisingly quickly which could lead to someone having an accident (even 316 grade stainless does not last forever!)

These are a couple of my highlines.

Trad: youtube.com/watch?v=wyyO9ynxqmE&

Bolted: youtube.com/watch?v=H6OeGhFfqbQ&

The Baron

In reply to Howard J:

However I'm uncomfortable about the assumption that climbers' interests and ethics should automatically have priority where the use of crags and mountains is concerned.

I didn't say climbers interests, I said "other users" i.e. everyone else who uses that particular environment and do so in an agreed manner.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:
"Im all for a bolt free climb. But a bolt fre highline is a different thing. Highlines need bolts. Anyone who says otherwise is shamefully optimistic, and clearly doesn't highline"

Well this is clearly rubbish as the slack liners connected to the rotting tat on the other end ( http://www.wendmag.com/magazine/digital/05-05/ ). This tat in it's current state is IMO no where near as safe as the naturally placed gear that can be arranged on the landward side. There is multiple nut placements and a very long perfect horizontal crack that would take as many cams as you'd care to put in it!

In reply to MJ: I'm not sure first come first served is a valid argument after junior school?

In reply to AlisonSmiles:

Indeed. It isn't really anything to do with climbers vs slackliners, in fact there's probably more than a little bit of crossover. Our wild places do deserve some respect though, so it's best to heed this mantra -

If you don't own it, and you don't have permission, then don't f*ck with it.

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

???

In reply to MJ:

Although I was quoting you, my remark was intended as a more general one based on the tone of many of the comments in this and the related thread.

Why should we expect slackliners, or anyone else, to pay attention to what guidelines the MCoS or BMC issue for climbers? Of course we are entitled to complain if their activities directly affect a route, or if they affect climbers indirectly by putting at risk access arrangements negotiated on behalf of climbers. But why should we expect them to buy into our code of ethics, which is no more relevant to their own sport than the off-side rule?

Climbers chopping other climbers' bolts on routes is the sport regulating itself. When we take it upon ourselves to impose our values on other activities it moves into the realm of confrontation, when these matters would be better dealt with by negotiation and a mutually agreed consensus.

In reply to Howard J:
Conversly I guess why would the slack liners expect climbers to pay any attention to their ethics, when a bolt compromises the experience of a climb as this one clearly did then we chop it, where it doesn't we don't care.

In reply to Howard J:

It isn't just about climbers and climbing. It is about leaving no trace and not destroying the natural environment. Slackliners like walkers, climbers, canyoneers, coasteers and even picnickers should all recognise, protect and savour the natural environment as it is. This is not annoying from a route point of view. It is annoying that someone has drilled into rock in land which is not theirs. Land Access rights only apply if you respect the land.

Tat is definately unslightly which is why I am always happy when someone has the balls to cut old tat away (Tower Gap etc). People will moan but if you get to somewhere expecting something to be in place and then find yourself in bother then you shouldn't really be up there. Sometimes leaving something behind can't be helped but it is up to the person to judge the safety of what is in place and decide to remove or replace what is there. I am not buying the bolts or chains instead of tat argument at all. You are right about pegs as well.

In reply to Milesy:
(sorry deleted post as was adding to it)

Playing devils advocate do you really think all the tat on the old man is less unsightly than the bolt on the landward side was. Also all the old broken off and rusting peg stubs in the crack are in my mind pretty much as destructive as bolting, they often damage the rock and leave old decaying iron mongery behind.

I think the use of rope for the absiel stations is good as there is almost no damage left each time it needs replacing unlike pegs / bolts.

In reply to Howard J:


Confrontation with the hordes of slackliners descending on the Old Man of Stoer? The only people who might miss it are climbers, and only those unable to set up an alternative. Given that an ascent of the Old Man requires a fair spread of technical skills, I can't see there being many of these.

In reply to Calder:


The slackliners who placed the bolt also climbed the stack, so yes you're right about the crossover. It does make me wonder why they didn't have the skills or inclination to set the line up on gear though.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
perhaps they didn't have enough cams to utilise the good horizontal crack and climb the stack. I must admit the other protection possibilities are more limited especially for 100% bomber pieces.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Pretty sure I rigged it entirely on static gear, but many Yanks do seem to have a predilection towards cams.

In reply to Calder:
If you don't own it, and you don't have permission, then don't f*ck with it.

'nuff said really

In reply to Milesy: oh. how about portland?

In reply to Removed UserJames Hotchkis:

Are you going to get started at Malham this weekend then? I would pay to see that. Idiot.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Tough on climbers, tough on the causes of climbers?

In reply to Milesy:

But climbers are more than happy to drill into rock on land which we've decided is OK to bolt.

The climbing community has decided, for reasons which are entirely related to the way it pursues its own esoteric activity, that some places should not be bolted, but that in other places it's allowed, so drill away boys. That's fine, so far as climbing is concerned, and to be clear it's a position I support. However I question whether we have the moral right to impose the rules of our game onto the activities of others, even if they share the same space, where they are not actually interfering with us. And where they do interfere with us, is unilateral action the best way to deal with it, or would it better to work towards a consensus that meets both sets of users requirements?

For what it's worth, I think that the slackliners who put the bolt on Old Man of Stoer were at fault for not considering the likely views of other users ie climbers. But to say that they shouldn't have done it because of of a decision by the MCofS or BMC is illogical - those bodies have no jurisdiction outside climbing, and a participant in a different activity is entitled to ask "what's that got to do with me?"

The climbing community is entitled to ask participants in other activities to take account of our concerns and to explain our reasons for objecting to bolts and to suggest alternatives. What we have no right to do is to demand that they comply with the "rules" we have made to regulate our own activity, which is what some of the opinions expressed here have come close to doing.

In reply to Howard J:

Good post.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Apart from thr fact that a climber would have to climb the Old Man to rig the slackline

In reply to Ean T: I was able to walk across on a low spring tide, but a Tyrolean was necessary for the return in order to keep the gear dry. I agree that the traverse is an exciting part of the Stoer experience but all gear should be removed on completion. Obviously the bolt is useful for the traverse and I'm sure that someone will soon replace it. If you see any slack liners on there whilst climbing, it is possible to piss on them from the belay point on the summit.

In reply to Dave Stelmach:

If you see any slack liners on there whilst climbing, it is possible to piss on them from the belay point on the summit.

Oh does that apply for anyone who is not a climber ? If i see someone fishing there can i piss on them or is it just for certain groups of people you don't like ?

I'm not a slackliner myself but many people we share the outdoors with have a similar negative view of climbers.

In reply to biscuit:

An awful lot of the climbers I know also slackline...

Neil

In reply to Howard J:

Excellent points, well expressed.

In reply to Neil Williams: Climber/slack liners would (I assume) know the damage that rotten ropes cause and would have the knowledge to retrieve them.

In reply to Ean T: why remove them if you want to use bolts use them if you don't don't! how hard is that to understand? I don't understand what makes you think you have the right to be judge & jury on this

In reply to Ean T: I hope someone puts another one in

In reply to tatty112:

And if they do, I hope its chopped again

Judging by the response to this thread, theres a high likelihood it will be

In reply to stricky:

And what gave the person who put it in the right to drill holes in our beautiful landscape? Come on, engage your brain.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Judging by this thread it's also likely to be replace so rather than one bolt it will end up with the remains of lots of bolts.

In reply to tatty112:
Judging by this thread several of the more vocal trash-talkers have never been there, and the bolt stayed for about two years before being removed, so I think it's fair to say this will probably be the end of things.

In reply to tatty112:

Highly unlikely as it was placed for a specific one-off non-climbing event by a group who probably didn't understand british ethics.

Serious question and not a dig - did you read the threads on this before you jumped in?

In reply to Ean T:

Finding the responses on this thread hilarious - we're not talking about a protection bolt in the middle of Cloggy or Gogarth, nor has someone smashed up Upper Cave crag. On the outrage scale both bolting plus chopping rank pretty low in this case history, summarised as follows:

1. American slackliners place bolt to assist their rigging. Reasons unknown as options exist - are they unskilled?
2. Word gets out on UKC. Usual suspects blow hot air. Nobody does anything.
3. For a couple of years people rig tyroleans to the stack. Some use the bolt, some don't. Nobody's experience is fundamentally altered.
4. Bolt gets chopped. That would have been it if choppers hadnt sprayed on UKC.
5. Usual plus new suspects blow hot air. In all likelihood once again nobody will do anything.
6. The end?

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

http://tinyurl.com/d2bna59

In reply to Ean T: Bolts of this nature demean the climb and the climber, even if only on the traverse.

In reply to Ean T:

Slightly of topic, but if the climbers who were at play on the stack on Friday 3rd of August are reading, my mum took lots of excellent pictures of you on the stack.
PM me and I'll send you some pictures of you in action.

Iain

I was there the day Ean T chopped the bolt. Leaving aside bolting/chopping ethics for now, here are a couple of observations:

1. The bolt was rusty and the bolt hanger was slack.

2. The bolt is in an obvious place where people can tie a Tyrolean rope to it, so they will. There was a rope left in place, and amazingly whoever had left it had tied the rope directly through the hanger. So, a climbing rope, under high tension, directly onto a sharp metal edge!

3. If you want to set up a Tyrolean there are many excellent sling and crack placements in the area. That counts for slacklining too.

My own thoughts are that Ean T did the right thing from just the pure safety point of view if nothing else. Personally I find bolting like this just isn't required - a profusion of trad placements is available, so why do it? We set up a Tyrolean to the South edge of the stack using a bomber sling and nut, so an in-situ bolt, rusting away merrily in the sea spray, shouldn't be there. I should add that I'm primarily a sport climber these days so I have nothing against bolts, but only where they're required.

On a separate note, a superb effort by Ean and Tess on the E2. It was blowing hard from the North so 10 out of 10 for having a go at it. Thanks for the heads-up on the grade, I was thinking I might try it next time we're on the stack, but at high-end E4 that's a bit more than I would have bargained for. Epic avoided!!

In reply to Calder:brains engaged unfortunately its not engaged for some of the idiots that get gear stuck and just abandon it flotsam and jetsum hanging everywhere on our beautiful landscape i'd sooner see a neatly fixed bolt than that any day. And having witnessed the mess left behind after chopping off stainless bolts leaving razor sharp steel edges if you feel the need to chop at least do it properly and not leave an even worse mess than you started with. having climbed for 40+ years the mess left behind by weekend warriors is getting worse and worse

In reply to stricky:

don't be too hard on them - they've provided most of my rack