UKC

22 years after it was first climbed the route Laughing Arthur at Blacker's Hole in Swanage, has finally been repeated - well sort of.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=58747

In reply to UKC News:

Nice one chaps.

Whats' Pete Oxley up to down under? Still climbing I hope. Still amazed by the number of shifts he put in at Swanage and Portland over the 20y period he was active there.

In reply to UKC News:
Love the T-shirt, is it genuine(plausible with Tom's history) or just a bit of photo-shop ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Genuine, specially made for Tom!

Alan

In reply to UKC News:

That T-shirt is the forst thing I notices, LOL

In reply to UKC News:

So just for fun, then, is the Dorset Bolt Agreement actually on line anywhere?

jcm

In reply to UKC News: Impressed to hear it is finally done! Nice one.
Bob - glad to see you are keeping up your prolific Dorset activity despite moving to the underbelly of climbing 'nowhere' ; )

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: no because it doesn't exist or if it does it's blatently ignored by the locals, Mr Oxley paid it scant regard.
also see Bob Hickishs recent ascent of Fuel My Fire at Unknown Ledge

I wonder how the bolts will fare after a couple of winters in this sea cave.

Still cimbing LA is a pretty impressive achievement, eyes on stalks territory.

In reply to Mark Lloyd:

The DBA isn't online anywhere (to my knowledge).

However, Blackers Cave is a "bolts accepted" area, and as PO has the first ascent, and has given permission, it was OK to bolt the roof pitch.

Not sure what point you're trying to make re: Fuel my Fire, but Bob used only those bolts that were left following some of them being removed/smashed flat, he added nothing to the route before climbing it. You say "ignored by the locals" - that's a very unfair and inaccurate generalisation.

In response to the original post, it's a shame that the first pitch of LA is so grotty - it goes through some impressive territory, but so does the alternative start, up the first half of Infinite Gravity. Good effort Bob and Tom on the repeat.

In reply to UKC News:

are there any easier routes in Blackers Hole that have been ignored for 22 years, I fancy bolting up some unpopular HVS's to make some nice 5's. I'm then off to Devon to put pegs in some new routes if the elite can do it so can I. Just a few sport routes in Cornwall that I want to bolt too. Glad it's not the thin edge of the wedge!!

In reply to Mike Raine:

Depends on what you mean by "easier" Mike. Those in the "bolts accepted" area start at E6, and Martin Crocker probably won't be giving permission for that to be bolted (Procrastinating Giant).

After that, the remaining few routes in the cave area are all Pete Oxley's, and harder than E6.

In reply to steve taylor:

so the rock actually belongs to Pete Oxley?

In reply to steve taylor:

>After that, the remaining few routes in the cave area are all Pete Oxley's, and harder than E6.

Well except his E5 which they've also retroed to provide a finish to this new multi-pitch sport route, of course.

jcm

In reply to Mike Raine:

NO but the rules above E5 are different. You can bolt them where lesser climbs are trad only. They get stars; defo in rockfax guides where everything above E5 gets 3*. You can headpoint them; Severe leaders head pointing E1s is just weak and polishes the rock, surely we all know that?
Hope that clears it all up and we lower grades climbers can just do as we are told.

In reply to Mike Raine:
So where do you stand on Dave Birketts route at Dyers point with pegs in to hold the rope in place for top-roping?
Can I do that on some new line I fancy in N Cornwall/Devon?
Get with it!
cheers

Geoff.

In reply to UKC News: isn't that a bit european putting bolts next to what looks like a perfectly protectable roof crack? i'm assuming that if you can bat-hang from it you could place a couple of Friend #4 in there too?

In reply to GeoffG:

Does get with it mean we've lost the arguments against retro-bolting and putting pegs in sea cliffs? Seems a shame to me. But I guess it's a new generations way forward now, I'll go find me tweeds...

In reply to Mike Raine: Remember Tom Randall - I assume the same one - referring to "bolt clipping fairies" after removing the bolt from Thai Boxing? http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=57006

In reply to graham F:

Nice one Tom. A bold ascent.

I enjoyed reading your account.

Always good to hear from those actually at the coal face, doing the job - and sounds like a dangerous one - rather than from the theorists.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Just wondering. How is a bolted ascent a bold ascent?

In reply to Removed User:

Simple...just remove the 't' and the 'e'...

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Agree entirely with Mick and Steve's comments. A seriously fine effort in a style agreed by the FA.

It's achievements like this (and the huge effort it must've taken to bolt, rig, work and climb) that still inspire me to climb.

In reply to Removed User:


Go and do the Bachar-Yerian?

Don't mix up bolts with lack of boldness. It depends, it's complicated, it's not black and white.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Quote from your article:

"Tom Randall and Bob Hickish have repeated the main second pitch as a sport route after the route had been bolted by Andy Long, Bob and Tom."

You are deliberately being obtuse by comparing this to a ground up USA style bolting from a stance ethic.

Get on the route Hardonicus and report back. Read Tom's account first about loose blocks etccc....

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


....which were by passed, presumably on account of the danger they posed. So what was your point again?

How was this route originally protected, was it all in situ or was it lead originally on entirely removable pro?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

"Get on the route punter blah, blah, blah..."

The fact is it is a good effort.

It is just a shame that routes that are repeated in a lesser style 22 years after the first ascent should be so celebrated.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC: do they bolt a lot of crack lines over in the US then? that's a disappointment to me.

In reply to everyone:


Ok, so many issues here to try and clear up and address - I'll try and be brief and bullet point as I really must get off to work (apologies for typos as I'm trying to go fast)! With any luck Pete Oxley or Bob Hickish might put their bits in - but the internet can be a bit funny sometimes so I also know how it's appealing to not get involved in forums.

1. It's excellent that many of you raise the point about it being retro-bolted. Is it the right choice? Who knows.... It's certainly one of the most uncomfortable things I've done over recent years. After all, it was me that risked themselves trying to groundup this route over the last 10 years - did I try and bolt it up when I failed? No, because that isn't and never will be my approach. I just enjoy going climbing and I try to piss off as least number of people possible whilst doing it - admittedly contraversial things like this are going to upset some people, so I've tried to be fairly diplomatic.

2. I was simply keen to finish off a half-finished job with the bolting - I didn't like the fact that the route was in stasis. Sure I could have gone and chopped the already placed bolts, but seeing as I knew Pete Oxley had given permission and had spoken at length to Andy Long about the state of the original route - it seemed the wrong decision.

3. I'm certainly accepting of the hassle I'll get from this, as it's me who's sat in the spotlight - but do remember there are other people involved in this process.

4. The Dorset Bolt Fund knew about the bolting and provided the bolts, glue and drills for the task.

5. If someone wants to go and bolt up an HVS and make a 5+ in Blackers Hole, I'm sure there's no problem. I always notice there's a tendency to say only the elite going do "outrageous" things like this, but really I'm just a keen climber who's actually doing what they're thinking. If I make mistakes, then so be it. The level of my climbing has very little to do with my ethical stances; in fact they're probably better than they used to be 10 years ago!

6. I'd really not say it was a bold ascent, more of a jibbered ascent! It's definitely not your average sport route and whem Bob and I got to the top, it felt more like the experience of ground-upping an E7 than redpointing an 8a to be honest. The bolts are a little run out sometimes and the rock is quite loose, but that's part of the character for the moment!

7. The route was originally lead on mostly fixed gear - I think Pete only placed one piece on the route??? Hearsay... but that's what I've been told. It's very similar to trying to repeat some of George Smith's hard routes in Wales; they were so well prepared with fixed gear (a good effort and hardwork by the FA!) that 10-20 years later it's just not viable to climb in the same way. It's hard to explain in some ways until you've been up there and done these routes - sorry!

8. I'm not sure our repeat should be celebrated UKC stylee - but I just went with the rolling ball.... It's for the reasons of the ethics that in many ways I didn't say much about it when we did the route as people like Pete Oxley needed to get involved. However, for delicate issues like this UKC might be the best stage as at least people can debate somewhat. I could have just kept out of the whole thing and kept it quiet, but I'm prepared to stick my neck out a little (it's only a skinny neck though...).

Right, can't remember any more of the questions.

I'm off out!

In reply to Removed User and Tyler:

Get out there guys then comment.

Tom Randall has an impeccable trad pedigree, in fact, and he would probably deny this, he and Pete W are at the forefront of hard onsight new routing, clean-as-you-go adventure climbing in the UK and elsewhere (Italy for example).

He made judgement calls, he knows the terrain and the climbing, it's his life.

Great ascent and with Pete's consent.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Well Tom has put his point of view across very well and amiably.

You are still sticking to the same tired old routine however. There is nothing wrong with people raising questions about the nature of ascents.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


What's that got to do with what I said, I know who he is? You made a comment to Hardonicus to imply this was far more adventuorus than the average bolt route (it may well be) and cited the lose blocks mentioned in the report as evidence of this, all I did was point out that these were avoided on this ascent and therefore irrelevant (as was your completely fatuous reference to the Bachar Yerian).

In reply to Ben Thorne:


Totally agree. The cleaning and equipping sound scary as f*ck. I bet there were days in there when peoples' eyeballs were out on stalks.

It's fantastic that, all these years later, Pete's vision is finally being celebrated.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Do you (or more importantly, does a representative body rather than a media editor) publish a list of those who are considered qualified to make these 'judgement calls' and those who aren't qualified, who presumably do have to abide by ethical norms ?

In reply to Removed User:

Exceptionally so.


Right on, post away.

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training: Seeing a photo in the Rockfax guide of Laughing Arthur was a real 'wow!' moment for me, and I think your ascent hasn't spoilt that at at.

Well done on a hard-sounding climb - inspiring stuff!

I tried to write everything i wanted to say nice and coherently as tom did, but i couldn’t do it. If i sound like im lecturing or getting argumentative, i promise im not, just not very good at writing.

We did not think that because we were experienced climbers we could change ethical rules and do things differently to a less proficient climbers . We just did what we thought right. And anyway im not sure what these rules you speak of are.

The route has not been done in lesser style than it was before, (I have absolute respect for Pete, and I hope he will correct me if im wrong about any of this information Ive been told); Pete did the pitches on different days, ie did not free the route in one push. In regards to the bolts vs trad thing, the roof pitch was basically a clip up, it had about 16 pieces of fixed gear in it (mostly wooden pegs) which were bomber in my view (i spent a fair bit of time dangling around on them whilst rebolting). You may ask why rebolt it then? Well it seemed stupid to bolt all the other pitches and not this one (lets be clear, this is THE pitch of the route, you probably wouldn’t bother if this pitch weren’t here), and by bolting it that meant we could remove most off this fixed gear and all the manky threads around it etc. This made the whole thing a lot nicer to climb as it meant you don’t have long green bits of rope in your face the whole time.
Why bolt the other pitches? Otherwise no-one would ever do it. That is not always a good reason for bolting something, but in this case where the roof pitch is sooo good and the objective danger still pretty high so the character hasn’t been ruined i think it was a good decision. Though I think we all had our reservations about bolting it at the start.

Climbing this route was the easy part, the bolting was the real effort.
It’s taken 7 days of really hard gut busting work over the last two years. There was a fair bit of danger whilst bolting (cleaning BIG loose blocks, dangling around on less than perfect gear, abseling off the top knocking large rocks onto yourself, ropes going over sharp edeges, abseiling off dodgy stake(see photo!), jumaring up on dodgy fixed lines, bird flu from “emerald ledge”....). What im trying to say is that bolting this route was not the easy way out.

The danger encountered whilst repeating the route will still be high too, the first pitch whilst all the bolts are in solid rock, you have to climb on petty chossy rock (you pull off a lot of handholds and are climbing on big 1 ton flakes just waiting to come off). Also the first pitch is quite run out, your not going to hit the floor but you are maybe going to clatter down a gulley and swing into a wall. Access into the cave is tidal and can be dangerous in moderate swells. No mobile reception, and anyway a rescue would be very unfeasible. All in all whilst it may be bolted climbing, i don’t think its sport climbing.

The bolts used were marine grade stainless steel , which will last at least 25years im told.

If someone is going to remove the bolts make sure they cut them and file them so they are flush with the rock, (i don’t know what is right but i do know ugly smashed over bolts that are no use to anyone are wrong.)

In reply to steve taylor:

>Not sure what point you're trying to make re: Fuel my Fire, but Bob used only those bolts that were left following some of them being removed/smashed flat, he added nothing to the route before climbing it.

I imagine the point Mark L was getting at is that reclimbing a rogue bolt line on the remaining bolts, naming the route as s sports route, blazoning your ascent forth to the world and so forth, is kinda not much better than placing the rogue bolts in the first place. Or at any rate you can see why some people might think so.

>You say "ignored by the locals" - that's a very unfair and inaccurate generalisation.

I don't suppose any more information has come to light about who retroed Giantslayer again recently, has it?

jcm

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training:

>After all, it was me that risked themselves trying to groundup this route over the last 10 years - did I try and bolt it up when I failed? No, because that isn't and never will be my approach

Well, that's exactly what you did, surely?


Ach, c'mon Tom, Puh-lease. You wanted to do the route and you couldn't do it without bolts; that's the top and the bottom of it.

>The Dorset Bolt Fund knew about the bolting and provided the bolts, glue and drills for the task.

I bet they did. Nice to know the BMC's spending my money wisely.

I do take some of your points and if you're going to place bolts by cracks this would be the place, but at the end of the day it's still continental-style bolts by cracks to make it easier, isn't it?

Why is it such a problem to place gear in this particular crack, by the way? Obviously it is, or you wouldn't have bolted it, but it seems strange. If you can hang from your feet, presumably some sort of gear could be placed.

jcm

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training and BigieBob:

Brilliant! What a route! And a cracking picture too.

In reply to JohnCoxMaliciously:

Why do they have to answer to you? You come over as a bitter old man. Are you?

On that note, although it was NOT me (it really wasnt me, though i think i, like most people around, know who it was, but im not going to say as i see no reason to) who bolted the arête left of giantslayer (on the edge of this cave) that has recently caused some controversy, i am planning to remove the bolts next summer.

I dont see any problem with climbing Fuel my Fire, I was down at promenade (where ive done most things) i went for an explore and i found this great looking line that hadnt been done before. I wanted to climb it so i did. I mean thats what we do as climbers isnt it? climb things (or do we spend all our time on the internet!). I told everyone about it because it really is an amazing route, and it would be cool if some other people did it, share the love and all.

In reply to bigie bob and tom:

congrats, & thanks for all the effort in bolting it. one of my long-term goals is to be able to do the routes at blackers hole, I was looking along the coast from winspit the other day, it looks amazing.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The article states that he did not. Somebody else did, after talking to the FA, Tom got involved later.

In reply to Papillon:

I think it says Bob H and Andy Long retroed half of it, then TR got involved and 'we' completed the bolting.

jcm

In reply to Jonathan Emett:

>"I'm climbing on Portland most weekends"

Yes, well quite.

jcm

In reply to bigie bob:

>(it really wasnt me, though i think i, like most people around, know who it was, but im not going to say as i see no reason to)

It's always better if people are prepared to own up to these things. This constant anonymous bolting is one of the things that so gets people's backs up. Like Carn Vellan.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

fixed that for you.

In reply to metal arms:

>Why do they have to answer to you?

Well, they don't of course, if they don't want to. But I suppose given they're posting at all, and that Tom R says he found his decision 'uncomfortable', they might want to answer, not to me so much as the public in general. It's always more appealing to be prepared to debate these things than just tell people to take it or leave it.

jcm

In reply to Jonathan Emett:

How you lame people love that part of my profile. I really should bother to change it, I suppose.

jcm

In reply to bigie bob:

>i found this great looking line that hadnt been done before.

And why hadn't it been done before, I wonder?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

troll. thanks for making me leave the puter and do something else more useful. I suggest you do the same.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>The Dorset Bolt Fund knew about the bolting and provided the bolts, glue and drills for the task.

>I bet they did. Nice to know the BMC's spending my money wisely.

None of the BMC donated bolts were used on Laughing Arthur. The BMC bolts, and by implication your money, were used to re-bolt other routes. The BMC were informed of what routes were ear-marked for bolting in the funding proposal put together by Steve Taylor. None of the routes in the proposal were in contravension of the DB agreement.
You should contact the BMC directly if you have any objection to their policy of funding bolt funds.

Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

>None of the BMC donated bolts were used on Laughing Arthur.

You sure? Tom R seems to think they were, and you'd think he would know.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
BMC bolts were used on Infinite Gravity, but not on LA. I small distinction you might think, but LA required expansion bolts, which were not part BMC 'give-away', therefore it was not included in the proposal.
For the record, the staples, expansion-bolts, glue and drills on LA were supplied by the Dorset Bolt Fund and Andy Long.


Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

I'm confused. I thought the BMC's way of doling out money for bolting was through the DBF. Do you mean that they also dish out directly to private individuals? Or do you mean that the DBF maintains, as it were, separate pockets for money given it to the BMC and for money given to it by private individuals, and this came out of the private pocket.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's a gray and murky area John.

The BMC take is this:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3397

and this,

BMC Drilled Equipment Policy The BMC's drilled equipment policy is essentially a statement of the organisation's position regarding the placement of drilled equipment. This policy was drafted after wide ranging and high profile consultation and unanimously agreed at the 1991 AGM.

The policy could be modified or replaced at a future AGM. The policy is that: "The BMC strongly supports the approach to climbing based on leader placed protection which makes use of natural rock features. The BMC believes that care and concern for the crag and mountain environments is of paramount importance.

The BMC accepts that in exceptional circumstances, agreed by the BMC, fixed equipment may be utilised for lower-off or abseil points to avoid environmental damage or maintain access. It is the policy of the BMC that the use of bolts and other drilled equipment is only legitimate on certain agreed quarried crags and agreed sections of certain limestone crags. Lists of agreed locations will be maintained by the local area committees.

The BMC is firmly opposed to retrospective bolting (i.e. changing the character of a route by placing fixed equipment where none was previously used). Climbs should only be re-equipped on a basis of common consent established at open forums."

This policy does not attempt to dictate exactly where bolting should or should not take place. Such a decision inevitably rests with the individual and it is up to the individual to take account of the consensus view when making a judgement.

It is vital that the consensus view is publicly agreed and accepted and this is where the open meetings come in, and it is within the guidelines agreed at such meetings that the consensus view is encapsulated.

But there again it is up to local areas these days.

Here is an article on retro-bolting on Portland,

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=2084

Here is the Yorkshire Bolt Fund in action.

http://www.theleedswall.co.uk/ymc/boltfund.htm

They used to have two funds, one for replacing old bolts, and one for new routes. I think these days the money goes into the same pot, essentially funding new routes.

I'd give up John. You don't stand a chance.

M

In reply to UKC News:

Good effort guys, looks stunning!

I remember checking out the start of LA years ago and it looked epicly choss. The idea of Forever Laughing might just keep me training through the winter.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John, I have huge respect for you but there are times when I want to weep. The contrast between Bob's post and your carping (sorry) is marked.

Clearly Laughing Arthur in whatever state - aid route, trad route, present incarnation is a considerable adventure - bolts or no bolts.

Pete is the person best qualified to proffer an opinion. He went down there on those lonely, scary days and fought the good fight. He's given his opinion. Can't we just live with it?

Re the Dorset Bolt Fund. I've contributed to it but never taken from it to do new routes. And I'm sure that's the norm. I can think of at least one person who re-equips out of his own pocket. He just gets on with it. Life's too short for nitpicking.

Mick

In reply to Rob Kennard:


I thought these were more prone to rust and staples were prefered on sea cliffs or have I got that the wrong way around?

In reply to Mick Ward:

>The contrast between Bob's post and your carping (sorry) is marked.

It's always easy to play the can't-we-all-be-friends-and-never-mind-this-silly-debate-let's-all-go-climbing card AFTER you've done something controversial, isn't it?

>Clearly Laughing Arthur in whatever state - aid route, trad route, present incarnation is a considerable adventure - bolts or no bolts.

Undoubtedly.

>Can't we just live with it?

I expect we shall, but let's be honest. It was too hard and frightening for them to repeat without bolts, so they went and drilled it. Thus making it easier for everybody else, so that the route might be repeated by more people. Which is what Pete O likes about it, and what the Portland crowd like about it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I know its been said already, and I probably don't want to get involved, but it seems to me (perhaps i am wrong) that the only real change in style of ascent between Pete's and Tom and Bob's is that Pete used wooden pegs/chocks and threads as fixed gear, and instead of replacing these (now rotten and dangerous) put in much less obtrusive and sensible fixed gear in the shape of bolts. Fixed gear in place of fixed gear. That is not a regression in style, rather a sensible step in the right direction, maintaining the character and the style of the original route. It is closer to replacing rusted bolts on an established sport route than it is to bolting an existing trad line. And as Tom, Bob and Adam did the route properly in a single push, it is in fact an improvement in style according the standard UK ethics as I understand them.
Not a huge controversy then, really. A tweaked line, and essentially an improvement on an inspiring route. Now it is safe enough to be worth trying, and won't be draped in tat and rotten wood in the name of clean ethics. Ultimately we are aiming to leave no trace, but if its a choice between rotten lumps of wood and slimy rope draped all over or a few bolts, bolts are in fact the most ethical option. And if someone ups the game and climbs it entirely on leader placed gear, that would be awesome! Until then, lets commend this massive achievement!
Yay for positivity : )

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

>Ultimately we are aiming to leave no trace, but if its a choice between rotten lumps of wood and slimy rope draped all over or a few bolts, bolts are in fact the most ethical option.

Balls. The easier option, I grant you.

I wouldn't mind knowing why you can't do it on leader-placed protection, mind you. It's a rare roof crack where this is really true, although of course it does generally make it harder. Perhaps TR and BH can tell us?

jcm

In reply to jacobjlloyd:


I couldn't agree more and it is the same argument I've used many times in favour of bolting old routes on limestone that have relied on fixed gear (e.g. much of the clean up that has gone on at Dinbren). The only problem with that line of argument is that, in this case, this doesn't seem to be the only choice.

I'm not wholly against the retro-bolting but it seems that this route is unique in that it is hard, sustained and steep but also (it would seem*) reasonably protectable by trad gear so would make a reasonable on-sight proposition of the future (contrast with Rewind at Carn Vellan which would prob never be onsighted as a trad route due to the fiddly nature of the pro).

Either way it sounds like a fantastic route, one of many excellent sport routes in the UK as against something truely unique.

* I accept that I could be wrong about this, if so then bolt away!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If you really want to know why, I'd suggest going to find out for yourself.

If you still take such exception to the bolts once you're up there, you could always chop them - nice and neatly, please!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: The BMC didn't donate any money, only stainless 'p' bolts. Therefore its easy to make a distinction as to where BMC 'funds' went to.
So no, your money did not go towards rebolting Laughing Arthur, however if you have an issue with the new bolts on Plasma Stream, Crimes Against the Soul, Infinite Gravity, Reptile Smile, Palace of the Brine, The Nolans Meet Impulse Manslaughter, Humanoid, One For The Gipper, Price Of Silence and I could go on...then I repeat you should contact the BMC.

Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

I'm indifferent to those, thanks.

I'm still interested in the procedure, though. Sorry to be so dim, but I thought the BMC gave the various bolt funds some money, which they then used to buy bolts, drills, etc., and the funds then gave/loaned those out as appropriate, along with the money they (the funds) got from donations. Is that wrong?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I thought the whole thing with the better bolts campaign was that the bmc bought about 10,000 bolts or something and doled them out as funds applied for them. I think the funds provide or borrow or whatever the rest of the kit themselves.

In reply to AJM:

Ah, OK. Assuming you're right I had the wrong impression. How strange. So the BMC provides bolts but the Funds need to raise money for drills and glue by private subscription. Maybe the BMC did it that way just so that they could identify what routes they'd helped bolt.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Just wanted to say I agree with you. At the end of the day it's a crack with bolts - not right in my opinion.

In reply to AJM: Thats exactly right. The BMC doesn't give funds directly. Presumuably that is because it makes it far easier to account for.

Rob

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Not true in Yorkshire, afaik, Mick

The bolts that the BMC gave us in the 2007/2008 splurge ended up dished out to those that were going to rebolt the agreed routes, and the 10 or so ones for Malham that we didn't use against the replacement list are sat in my wardrobe waiting for a revisit over this winter.

I'm supportive of the new routing in Yorkshire but wouldn't dream of using allocated bolts for other purposes. I don't think the other guys that got BMC bolts, and I picked them up from Guy, would do otherwise.

Whether there's been a more recent blurring of the two funds is conjecture that can be answered by Dave directly, but I've not heard anything to suggest so.

In reply to UKC News:

I have to say it is a good effort, but fundamentally, if you could get wooden wedges in a crack, you could probably get cams in, and if so, bolting it was out of order. I would never be able to climb this route, but the idea of bolting a crack, especially on a natural crag, in Britain does seem a bit sad.

In reply to UKC News:

My heart is with JohnCox...

My head totally accepts what Tom and his mate have been through to climb this very impressive route. It is a tremendous effort and for all the hard work and soul searching I'm sure you've created and climbed a fantastic route if only I were committed enough I'm sure I'd be with you,nice one lads.

In reply to UKC News:
The guys getting all anal about the re-bolting are blatantly incapable of climbing Laughing Arthur, and are just jealous that more people are now going to have the opportunity.
Give praise to Bob, Andy and Tom for completing such an audacious task. I've been across the roof crack pitch and was bricking it even on solid bolts, none of Laughing Arthur's adventurous character has been lost. Pete has given permission, The Great Cave is a bolt agreed area, accept the fact LA is now bolted.

Now get off the internet and go climbing!!!

In reply to feeko:

It's people like you who get routes chopped.

jcm

In reply to UKC News: I have to say I am a bit disappointed by two aspects of this news.
First that a trad crack has been retro-bolted.
Second that Tom Randall was involved. I had Tom down as a scion of British traditional ethics and stopping the spread of bolts on crack climbs.
With this coming so soon after Birkett placed new pegs on a route in Devon it is damaging to the UK trad ethics.

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training:

Shurley not the same Tom Randall who contributed this to a thread about bolting wide cracks a mere 3 months ago!!!

"How many "hardest offwidth in Europe" are there?? Not many. Would be a total shame to have our only example reduced to a clip up."

In reply to UKC News:

Why is bolting cracks wrong from a first principles point of view? Cams are one way, bolts another. At the end of the day, still just climbing the routes. I don't see why historical ethics should be clung onto in all cases with no good reason other then just 'because thats what we do'. Can't we just move on?

In reply to JKinsella:

You're quite right. I reckon I could get up London Wall with 4 bolts. And it would get a lot more ascents... I'll get me drill.

In reply to JKinsella:

>Why is bolting cracks wrong from a first principles point of view?

It depends, doesn't it? If you think that one imperative when using the outdoors for leisure is to leave as little damage behind you as possible, then bolting cracks is obviously crass. If you don't, then obviously bolting anything is fine and dandy.

As for moving on, it would be easy to move on if people would just leave things as they are. The trouble is that every now and then wannabes find they can't get up stuff which shouldn't be bolted without using bolts, and act in all the usual ways - they don't tell anyone first, and then when they do tell everyone, they hide behind stuff like how it will so much easier for everyone now and look at all this hard work we've done for the climbing community. What one might call Gibson Syndrome.

What I can't understand is why Tom didn't just climb this route. He's well capable of it; according to him and BH it would have been less trouble, no more dangerous, etc. So why on earth is it necessary to leave a line of bolts behind so that the likes of feeko can dog their way across it?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


From reading their posts I'm not sure where that impression comes from. I got left with feeling of the opposite. Have you seen that crack? Does it look obviously protectable with normal removable gear? If you could just stick a series of camalots in it à la Separate Reality, surely the would have done that? Both their comments and Oxley's about the original ascent make it sound as if aiding it was difficult. Did Oxley use wooden blocks because at the time big cams weren't available?

Tom's record of brave, difficult wide crack ascents made me presume the opposite, that surely this couldn't have been protected well with normal cams otherwise I'm sure he would have done so just because it would have been so much less hassle than anything else?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John,

Whilst you're giving Bob a roasting, maybe you could find a moment to applaud him for his intention to remove the giantslayer bolts?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'll just write a few replies to you and others - there's so many that crop up in massive long threads like this where people are passionate about what they think, that it's hard to go through everyone! If anyone has serious issues or the like, please feel free to email me.

1. My only reason for getting involved with the bolting was to finish a half-done job. Most of the roof crack was already done - if you want to know reasons then ask Andy Long and Pete Oxley. I didn't like the fact that it was not finished, so after much thought this seemed a reasonable course of action. As I said it's one of the most uncomfortable things I've done in climbing and no surprise as it's a very unethical action by many peoples' views.

2. It's fine to say I'm just not bold or brave enough to have done it trad - after all, this is UKC so probably quite an appropriate comment!

3. I can't directly answer the question about wooden blocks and bolting and fixed gear - I shouldn't speak for Pete or Andy. I can tell you that it is possible to do it on trad gear.

4. All of Laughing Arthur and Infinite Gravity could be done trad style. Both are well enough protected, if a little spicy.

5. LA/FL was not bolted up because of the loose rock - it was bolted as Pete Oxley gave his permission to do so. The bolts are a little spaced because of loose rock.

6. Sure I could have said I'm not getting involved in the whole escapade and I could have chopped the bolts that had already been placed. I acted with my head in this instance and not my heart.

I didn't want to write this reply as it's quite hard to do these things over the internet/computer in a public manner. However, I did contribute to the news piece when asked by UKC so I'll do my best not to just disappear of the face of the earth. As I said - really important questions are best emailed to me as I don't check everything in these forums.

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training:


Thanks Tom, now I understand your mixed feelings better.

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training:

Hi Tom

Three months ago you famously chopped bolts protecting a wide crack on a sports crag in France. Now you famously bolt a wide crack on a sea-cliff in Britain. I'm amazed that such a magnitude of change of opinion can come about in such a short period of time. The only common thread to these two actions seem to be to put the first ascensionists wishes before local consensus. Is this something you feel strongly about?

Do you still consider that stripping the bolts on Thai Boxing was the 'right' thing to do?

Don't worry btw, I'm not going to get too involved in this debate, I have unfinshed Rockfax business to attend to!

Looks like a wild route all the same!

Neil

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Don't worry, I noticed that. I'll certainly applaud him when he does it.

I'd applaud him more if he didn't sign up to this code of omerta that rogue bolters go in for. As I said before in Another Place, this is one of the things that makes Carn Vellan quite so bitter - the anonymous rebolting by someone who is known to the bolting camp but whose identity they won't divulge.

And I'd applaud even more than that if he went back and took the bolts out of the sport route he's established in a designated bolt-free area, and maybe even reclimbed it bolt-free. I guess I've already made that point, though.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

fair enough.

I like the reference to the code of omerta! Of course, just like the mafia, these kind of social constructs emerge for perfectly understandable reasons. Remember, everyone knows everyone else and people like Bob are dammed if they do tell you (thereby getting it in the neck from the actual bolter for dropping them in it), and dammed if they don't (rightly seen as closing ranks against criticism).

In that light I'm pretty understanding if people want to avoid naming names on a public forum.

In reply to nb: Quite different situations im sure you'll agree (Thai boxing being established as a trad route, repeated several times without bolts and bolted without the FAs permission,) and different situations require different approaches.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Yes, agreed. The anonymous bolters themselves deserve far sharper criticism. But it's reasonable to suppose that their mates don't tell them to man up and come forward quite as vigorously as one might think desirable, which does tend to tar the whole lot with the same brush.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:

>From reading their posts I'm not sure where that impression comes from.

I suppose from observations like these.

"It's definitely not your average sport route and whem Bob and I got to the top, it felt more like the experience of ground-upping an E7 than redpointing an 8a to be honest."

"it had about 16 pieces of fixed gear in it (mostly wooden pegs) which were bomber in my view"

"Climbing this route was the easy part, the bolting was the real effort."

jcm

In reply to Tom Randall - Lattice Training:

>if you want to know reasons then ask Andy Long and Pete Oxley

Well, I don't speak for Pete Oxley, obviously. But I'm guessing his answer would be something along the lines of 'like all first ascensionists I like my routes getting attention, and as for worrying about putting bolts next to a sea-cliff crack, I'm the man who thought Pembroke needed some sport climbs, for God's sake, d'you really imagine I'm going to be worried about a few bolts?'.

And as for AL (or at any rate Bob H); he's made his position pretty clear above. It was too hard for him and his mates to do on trad gear (even though this was perfectly possible), so they thought they'd bolt it up 'so that more people (and they themselves) can enjoy it'. There doesn't seem to be much more to it than that.

>It's fine to say I'm just not bold or brave enough to have done it trad

Actually I shouldn't have said that. I'm quite sure you could have done it and I dare say would if AL and BH hadn't bolted most of it. As someone else said, that's what so disappointing really; it's one thing when the usual suspects carry on bolting, but another thing when people like you do it. Back in the day another Gibson bolt in Pembroke or somewhere didn't cause much surprise, but if Littlejohn had done it, that would have been different.

>Infinite Gravity could be done trad style.

Hah! Where's John Dunne when you need him?

>Sure I could have said I'm not getting involved in the whole escapade and I could have chopped the bolts that had already been placed.

The best thing would have just been to do it without using them. That's what I can't understand; why you didn't do that.

>I didn't want to write this reply as it's quite hard to do these things over the internet/computer in a public manner.

I can't say I have much sympathy with that. The crags are a common resource and people who alter them really should be prepared to justify their actions in public.

jcm

In reply to edwardwoodward:

Fair enough. London Wall looks fun. What sport grade do you think it would get?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Come on John, the rest of your comments have been sensible.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

What's unsensible about that? Obviously it's not ideal, but then when someone's half-bolted your trad project there isn't any ideal solution. It would have been better than joining in something you're clearly not comfortable with.

jcm

In reply to Rob Kennard:

Rob, slightly off topic, but do the BMC/DBF know whether it was their bolts/drills/glue etc. that were used in the anonymous recent retroing of Giantslayer for the second time?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Definitely not - I can state that with confidence because all the DBF equipment lives at my house and those bolts went in after Bob had returned them.

Rob

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: For one Pete oxley spent his entire life developing portland and swanage! His own time, his own bolts and his own money! I think thats very unfair to say all he wanted from his actions was publicity, you clearly dont know him very well. Hes a very nice man,and hes done alot for south coast climbing. Without pete oxley there would be no portland or swanage for you and everybody else who loves this sport so much to enjoy! I would like to see you devote so much of your time to other people. So dont even start by giving him the selfish vote. He had the vision to go into blakers hole, which if you've never been before is a seriously commiting and scarey place and do these routes. That takes some doing and some character. I also dont think you realise how much work has gone into rebolting Infinte gravity by Andy long, Bob and the team. Bob and andy have worked very hard to clean all of these routes , and especially after the bird ban that is not pleasant neither easy! Fair enough i respect all of the trad ethics, but not some of the extremes you are going to. Laughing arthur has not been repeated for 22 years! If it was an active trad route, with regular repeats then of course these guys wouldnt have touched it! The fact is that sometimes by bolting routes as extreme as this pitch (which is the most frightening thing i have ever seen!) that yes other people may actually be able to enjoy it. Nobody wants to get into trouble, or get injured in this sport, and regardless of ethics surely we all take part in it to meet amazing people and have great fun. If you go to blakers whole and take everything into account, i think you would understand. When bob and andy started work in that cave, the thing hadnt been touched. Pete gave his permission, its been done! I think the debate about the bolted arete warrants far more attention!!!! I think Tom randell from what i have read and heard from bob seems like a very level headed guy, and has given a heartfelt description about how he feels. I dont think he has to answer for anything, he did what he thought was right so did bob! However i think you should hold back from insulting either of these well accomplished climbers abilities. They didnt bolt it because they arent good enough!!!! Both of them especially bob (who is completely under the radar) are extremely gifted climbers!You havent heard of Bob because he goes climbing for the right reason, to push himself and have good fun! He an extremely inspiring guy to climb with, hes got a good heart and would be the first one to help you out! Bob puts in more effort than you can imagine, and he has also replaced alot of dodgey bolts in his spare time throughout dorset over the last couple of summers! So be a bit more caring with your throw away comments about their abilities! As tom randell said, he finished a half done job, that was what he thought best! It has absolutely jack all to do with his climbing ability. Dont be so insulting! I would like to see you free a monster offwidth overhanging roof pitch, in a greasey gwano filled cave! Good skills boys! amazing, keep inspiring with the good work!

In reply to schof:
Jesse scof get a room! I knew you had a man crush but are you sure you want to make it this public?
I agree about holding off the nasty comments and questioning these guys in general, but I do think that this particular situation is very grey and should be discussed.

In reply to schof:

>I think thats very unfair to say all he wanted from his actions was publicity

Very unfair. What's more I didn't. I said he naturally enjoyed seeing his routes get some attention, and why wouldn't he?

>Without pete oxley there would be no ..... swanage for you and everybody else who loves this sport so much to enjoy!

Come now. Without him there'd probably be no bolts in it, I agree, but I fancy there would still be one or two routes there. I've enjoyed quite a few of them, and I don't think I've ever done one of his.

>When bob and andy started work in that cave, the thing hadnt been touched

That's not strictly true, is it? Tom R had already made two attempts to do the route bolt-free. And I suspect would have done so left to his own devices. It would be interesting to know whether BH and AL would still have bolted it if they'd known that.

>However i think you should hold back from insulting either of these well accomplished climbers abilities. They didnt bolt it because they arent good enough!!!!

Perhaps you'd take Tom R's own word for it?

"The second attempt ended with a bruised face, bruised ego and the realisation that I was probably not good enough to do this route."

>You havent heard of Bob because he goes climbing for the right reason,

Oh, but I have. He made himself famous by publicising his new sport route, climbed outside the designated bolt zone. I grant you that's all I knew about him before the present episode. I'm glad to hear you think he's a nice chap, but he's still made a bad mistake in my opinion, and if all you make yourself famous for is bolting things you shouldn't, then that's all you're going to be famous for.

>Nobody wants to get into trouble, or get injured in this sport,

Not the issue. Don't listen to me, listen to BH:

" the roof pitch was basically a clip up, it had about 16 pieces of fixed gear in it (mostly wooden pegs) which were bomber in my view"

>The fact is that sometimes by bolting routes as extreme as this pitch (which is the most frightening thing i have ever seen!) that yes other people may actually be able to enjoy it.

Obviously. You make it easier, of course more people can enjoy it. But let's say Littlejohn and Darbyshire had taken that view 37 years ago, or Fowler and Meyer 29 years ago, then we wouldn't have routes like Il Duce and Caveman which today even weekend punters like myself* can enjoy without having them cluttered up with bolts. And that's exactly what Laughing Arthur could have been and now won't be in twenty or thirty years' time.

jcm

*not that I've done Caveman. But the point is the same.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: once again your misinformed. Bob climbed a long standing project that already had bolts in it at promenade.....quite frankly he was the first because nobody else was good enough to do it! A testament to his skill. 3 star line, called fuel my fire! spread the word it is good!

In reply to schof:

>Bob climbed a long standing project that already had bolts in it at promenade.....quite frankly he was the first because nobody else was good enough to do it!

I believe you will find that this route had been bolted by your hero Mr Oxley in an area which was designated bolt-free by the Dorset Bolt Agreement, and that when this was pointed out to him and he was asked to remove the bolts he declined. Persons unknown then sought to remove them and only succeeded in smashing some of them. The route remained in that state until BH thought it would be a good idea to climb it and claim it as a sport route. I'm quite willing to believe that his less able mates were also trying and couldn't do it if you say so, but the fact is that it's a route that shouldn't have been bolted according to the agreement.

Unless I'm wrong, of course. I think that's the version that's in the public domain, but by all means correct me about any of the above.

jcm

In reply to schof:

'Fair enough i respect all of the trad ethics, but not some of the extremes you are going to. Laughing arthur has not been repeated for 22 years! If it was an active trad route, with regular repeats then of course these guys wouldnt have touched it! The fact is that sometimes by bolting routes as extreme as this pitch (which is the most frightening thing i have ever seen!) that yes other people may actually be able to enjoy it'

So is the criteria for whether a route should be bolted down the length of time and or lack of activity that a routes receives after its first ascent? On the basis of the increased traffic would you have advocated bolting a route like I.F?

In reply to TMM: i do respect what your saying, and i think this is an arguement or an interesting debate rather that could literally go on all day! I dont think these guys jumped in without a care in the world to bolt it, they did seek permission and i think it was a tough decision. The bottom pitch is extremely lose, and i honestly do think you have to go to blackers whole to just appreciate the sensory overload and serious position it gives. Add pulling on some death tatt for added spice if that isnt enough. I see arguements for and against! I was just unhappy with the comments about their abilities. granted you wouldnt just walk into a trad designated area and start bolting away, theres history there your destroying and britain is famous for its traditional approach to climbing. But blackers whole is already a bolt agreed area, and in all honesty i dont think anyone fancied yarding on that tatt whilst grappling with the fridge sized blocks that are literally waiting to come out. Maybe thats why its waited so long?....

In reply to UKC News:
Bolting the route was the wrong decision in my opinion.

In reply to schof:

I don't doubt the achievement of this ascent and the original. All the activists involved have demonstrated greater skill, dedication, fitness and bravery then I am ever going to muster on rock.

I just feel that the accolades lauded on the ascentionists would be even greater if the route was climbed in a way that matched or improved on the original in style and ethics.

This second ascent has rightly had its plaudits given the intimidating line, position and length of time since the first ascent. I can't help but feel that we have robbed the experience from someone with even greater skill and determination who may have come along next year or in another twenty years.

Kudos to climbing the route but it has inevitably once again asked some interesting moral questions.

What challenges do we leave for subsequent generations if we keep adjusting ethics to suit the expediency of our current aspirations?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You're almost correct John. Pete would have been asked, but some of the bolts had already been smashed or removed.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the roof pitch of LA was bolted fully within the conditions of the Dorset Bolt Agreement - it's in a bolts-accepted area and the FA gave his permission.

In reply to steve taylor:

>the roof pitch of LA was bolted fully within the conditions of the Dorset Bolt Agreement

Indeed it was, but that doesn't mean it was a good decision.

So the rogue bolter of Giantslayer still hasn't come forward, then?

jcm

In reply to UKC News:
Just thought I'd like to post my own opinion on this, without my DBF hat on, so to speak.
Just a little historical perspective: Laughing Arthur was climbed as an aid climb in 1970 and almost all of the fixed equipment originates from that date, give or take a few bits.
I've been climbing long enough to remember the controversy when Pete Oxley begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting started free climbing it: aid climbers were concerned that in freeing the line it would no-longer be accessible to them because some of the wooden wedges had to be removed...hard to believe now...
On the subsequent red-point ascent almost all of gear on the route was 'fixed'. The only reason it was given a trad grade was because it could hardly be described as a 'sport' route with its motley collection of pegs, threads, wedges and loose rock. So lets dispel the idea that this route is an unsullied bastion of the traditional ethic...
Since that ascent the vast majority of the fixed gear had seriously deteriorated.

And so to the crux of the argument...
What to do about routes that relied on fixed equipment that is no longer reliable? One answer to the above question would be to simply let them rot away. Or we can return them to a climb-able state with long lasting bolts.
The latter solution is the reason why bolt-funds have sprung-up all across the country.
So is Laughing Arthur any different from say, Palace of the Brine. Both are in 'bolting acceptable' areas. Both relied entirely on fixed (now rotten)equipment. The first ascentionist's permission was given in both cases.

I may be naive, but I think we have settled at a healthy considered consensus in Dorset. No bolting outside of agreed areas. No retro-bolting without first ascentionist's permission. Without exception.


And so to the exceptions...

Giantslayer: Bolted Outside of the recognised bolt area, without permission. Therefore it should be de-bolted. Bob has already stated, and re-iterated to me in person today, that he will do this when time and weather allow. The bolt-fund abseil rope and drill we be available for him when he needs it.

Fuel My Fire: Bolted outside of the recognised bolt area, for a prospective first ascent by Pete Oxley begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Pete was asked to remove them at a local area meeting(which he never did before emigrating), and then subsequently the belay and first 2 bolts were smashed flat. Bob Hickish climbed the line at 8a+ two years later. So, this route should be de-bolted. If anyone feels strongly enough about it they can contact me to borrow the DBF gear).
Personally I think it should remain 'as-is', as a testament to the vanities of the main protagonists - Pete Oxley begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting for bolting outside of the designated area before a consensus on the re-designation of Hidden Ledge could be discussed, and to the persons unknown who felt so strongly that the rock had been desecrated, but was prepared to leave the wall an ugly mess.

Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

>So lets dispel the idea that this route is an unsullied bastion of the traditional ethic...

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Everyone knows it relied on fixed gear, but then that was part of the traditional ethic.

>The latter solution is the reason why bolt-funds have sprung-up all across the country.

I find this statement rather alarming. So far as I'm aware the bolt funds are to replace bolts with new bolts. Not to replace pegs and threads with bolts.

>So is Laughing Arthur any different from say, Palace of the Brine. Both are in 'bolting acceptable' areas. Both relied entirely on fixed (now rotten)equipment. The first ascentionist's permission was given in both cases.

Well, first of all, Bob H said higher up this thread the gear on (the roof crack pitch, I assume) of Laughing Arthur was still 'bomber'. So it's absolutely not as though this needed to be done in order to make it climbable tomorrow by anyone who wanted to.

Secondly, while I don't know Palace of the Brine well enough to comment, the obvious point here is that this is a roof crack which could reasonably easily have been protected by trad gear (I think that's a fair summary of what Tom says above). So there was no need to bolt it at all.

I mean, Godfodder, for example, is in an area where bolts are designated acceeptable, is it not? Would we really think it was OK if Pete O said that should be bolted now?

>I think we have settled at a healthy considered consensus in Dorset.

Up to a point, but.....

>Therefore it should be de-bolted. Bob has already stated, and re-iterated to me in person today, that he will do this when time and weather allow.

Obviously one applauds the intention. But he also said he didn't bolt it. So there is still at least one anonymous rogue bolter out there who doesn't feel the urge to explain, apologise or put right his actions.

jcm

In reply to schof:

>and in all honesty i dont think anyone fancied yarding on that tatt whilst grappling with the fridge sized blocks that are literally waiting to come out.

What are you talking about? No-one is advocating yarding on tat. And anyway the main problem I and others have with it (as far as I can tell) is bolting the main pitch's roof crack, whereas the fridge-sized blocks are on the first pitch.

jcm

In reply to Rob Kennard:

Re Palace of the Brine, Rob, you've lost me. Looking at the CC guide, that was always a sport route, wasn't it?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously & anyone else:

If Oxley had been a hard case trad climber and done all the routes he put up as trad routes, would we be having this debate or a similar one about how to make dorset accessible to mortals?
(though I think portland would be the worlds most dangerous crag if so)

Or had Oxley bolted laughing arthur for the FA, would that be a problem now?

Personally, i don't see what the hassle is all about, though I do get others view points before a lynching comes my way.

I say well done to those with the gumption and skills. lets face it, you could still trad climb LA if you wished. The bolts have just made it wheel chair friendly (joke).

Oh and don't many owe much to those very few who do bolt and new route and compile guide books and secure access and all the other pro active things that allow us mojority to climb in comfort?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Indeed, but my point was that if Pete had added a few bolts and given LA a sport grade, would we be having this debate?
Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

Obviously not, or at least not now. But so what? The fact is that he didn't. There's a reason we've never bolted cracks (well, give or take the odd gesture at Portland) and I don't think we should have started now, especially since here was what is by today's standards a not unreasonable challenge which was obviously protectable on trad gear and which has been bolted purely and simply in order to drag it down to the level of more climbers. I think that's crap, particularly given the fact there was evidently someone who was interested in climbing it free and I dare say would have done had the bolting not happened. In fact, if those who wanted to bolt it had only done what bolters never, ever do and publicised their intentions beforehand, I dare say they'd have found out that Tom was minded to do it free and I dare say we wouldn't be having this debate then either; instead we'd be celebrating a true 'realisation of Pete Oxley's vision of 22 years ago' (or whatever purple phrase it was that Mick used).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Firstly i want to give a big congratulations to TR + BH + AL. Big effort.

Secondly this is directly to jcm - i think you are seriously out of order. Although your comments show this is something you are quite passionate about, the way you have gone about it is so completely wrong. I'm honestly a bit shocked. To take just one quote of many:

Do you understand climbing...... serious question here.... Do you really understand it? Do you understand the mental aspect, the thought processes, the people, the effort, the time, the preparation, the physical undertaking, or anything at all to do with at all?

Lets take just the most simplest understanding that a beginner would think: getting from the bottom to the top without weighting the rope, so bolts/gear/pre-placed gear/solo, whatever the style the route has still been climbed - so is it fair of your comment to say they couldn't have got up it without bolting it?? Whilst at the same time appreciating that TR certainly (and to my belief BH as well) - have both the physical ability to have done it trad? - No.
To which I'm sure your response will be - "oh but what a shame they couldn't have just done it trad way" - who are you to decide how someone else should be climbing? would you make a soloist take a full trad rack with him, on the off chance he comes across an off-width to leave some tat there for 'someone someday' to do. No.

Whilst i am known to my friends as not liking trad, i do understand its ethics, and to a point understand and encourage its inherent values of 'not taking anything and not leaving anything' - something i picked up from years of caving/waling and cycling. However as many before (including RK) have noted in this post, this is a bolting allowed area, with FA permission - and regardless of the rules that have been broken before it, and will most likely be broken again by others, bolting it is not some atrocity. It is allowed, even within those ever so strict rules.

I love this sport, i spend my spare time teaching it to others in the hope that they too will understand why so many of us are addicted to it. If this the addition of bolts to this route, makes it more accessible, then why the hell not let others share in it - "How many "hardest offwidth in Europe" are there?? Not many." (not one of your quotes i know). - so why in an appropriate area not allow it to be shared, except with that one in a million person who will ever be able to do it a particular way?
Perhaps you need to understand that change isn't always bad. Routes only ever used to be ground up ascents (climbing ethic progression), shoes/harnesses/ropes/equipment have all become safer (technological progression), and with permission this route being adapted is also good change.

Sometimes i think the whole trad vs bolts thing is a little like protestants vs catholics - trad's never going to think sport is right, and sport is never going to think trad's right - but at the end of the day, were both doing the same thing. With the addition of these bolts, its not stopping anyone going back and doing it trad - you/me/anyone - if they really wanted to and put their mind to it. Without the bolts there, your just reserving this climb to what is an even smaller group of people who THINK they have the moral highground because of some set of rules they decided and are to arrogant to possibly see it any other way.

In reply to matt.ridgway:

>Do you understand climbing...... serious question here.... Do you really understand it? Do you understand the mental aspect, the thought processes, the people, the effort, the time, the preparation, the physical undertaking, or anything at all to do with at all?

Strange question. After all, if your profile is correct I've been climbing longer, harder, in more places and in more disciplines than you. I certainly wouldn't say I 'really understand climbing', but there's a chance I've picked up at least as much insight into it as you, I'd say.

>whatever the style the route has still been climbed - so is it fair of your comment to say they couldn't have got up it without bolting it?? Whilst at the same time appreciating that TR certainly (and to my belief BH as well) - have both the physical ability to have done it trad? - No.

I'm afraid I've no idea what you're trying to say. If you like to try and say it again, I'll try and answer it.

>would you make a soloist take a full trad rack with him, on the off chance he comes across an off-width to leave some tat there for 'someone someday' to do. No.

Are you drunk by any chance? I'm not following you.

>so why in an appropriate area not allow it to be shared,

Because in my belief this isn't an appropriate area. It's a crack and we shouldn't bolt cracks.

>except with that one in a million person who will ever be able to do it a particular way?

Get real. Reasonably protected 8a pitches are by no means cutting edge even now. If they'd done it clean (ie the roof pitch) then in a few years' time it would have been a reasonably well-travelled hard classic.

>It is allowed, even within those ever so strict rules.

Quite so. But even BH and Tom understand that the fact it's allowed doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

>Perhaps you need to understand that change isn't always bad.

Goodness me. You don't say so. Perhaps you need to understand that patronising nonsense isn't always a helpful contribution to debate?

>Without the bolts there, your just reserving this climb to what is an even smaller group of people

You realise of course that this could be said of literally any climb that isn't bolted?

>who THINK they have the moral highground because of some set of rules they decided and are to arrogant to possibly see it any other way.

I don't think it was me, or indeed even 'an even smaller group of people' who decided that bolts by protectable cracks on natural sea cliffs were not something we wanted to see in this country. Seeing them now, let alone in the context of retrobolting an established trad classic, is an unwelcome development with implications beyond this particular route. TEOTW and so on.

If anyone were going to shout about arrogance (never useful; indeed invariably a badge of inadequacy in debate) I would have thought it was at least as plausible to accuse those who plan in secret to bolt routes in a way which they well know is going to be controversial. If this debate had taken place before any drilling was done, I think its tone would have been very different.

jcm

In reply to UKC News:

Well, i've skipped reading most of the thread as it's getting silly, but would like to point out that this is the biggest show of Hypocrisy i have seen in some time.

As pointed out in another thread above, a while ago there was a news report and following discussion regarding some people who climbed a crack on trad gear which sported some bolts.

Playing on the fact that the FA was done on (pre-placed) trad gear and because they were able to hoard a rack of massive cams and climb it so, they deemed acceptable to chop the bolts, thus pissing off a number of locals who had different ethics, and implying that if you cannot climb it on trad gear then you should stay away.

Now i see one of those guys heading to another crack on which the FA was done on (pre-placed) trad gear, and he decides that is acceptable to bolt it so he can climb it, even when ethics, which he openly advocates and tries to impose on foreign crags, are quite clear about not bolting cracks.

Hypocritical is the softest description i can give it right now.

Good work lads. You managed to turn the biggest, baddest, meanest line in Swanage into just one more f8a just because you wanted to climb it and didn't have the balls to do it properly.

So much for leaving the climbs you can't do in it's original state for when someone who can actually do it comes along.

I'll be taking a page from your book and will be carrying a chisel and bolt kit with me for when i want to climb something that is too hard or scary for me.

In reply to TheAvenger:

Ah, hypocrisy! I think that can sometimes be applied to the climbing style and ethics of some but often you have to dig a little deeper and look at the circumstances, but rarely can you point the finger and scream ' Hypocrite!' as style and ethics are fluid, they aren't set in stone.

You only need to look at the legacy of someone like John Bachar to realise that and he was the God of Climbing Ethics - and yet, after reflection he did apply dynamic ethics and style to different circumstances, even on the same crag!

He sometimes eschewed bolts, then sometimes he allowed himself to place them by hand on the lead, then sometimes on the lead by using a power drill: different circumstances you see determined by the nature of the rock and his skill level.

Similarly with a lot of top climbers and those establishing new routes or resurrecting old ones.

Tom Randall a hypocrite? No I don't think so, only to those who do not understand the different shades and hues of ethics and style.

Mick

In reply to UKC News:

I will never do this (too hard) - and would never have done it in it's unaltered state (too hard)...but, like many others, I can't celebrate this.

There are lots of routes on lots of crags - plenty enough for anyone at any standard without need to make them more "accessible to more people".

Shame.

In reply to TheAvenger:

Avenger,

I've just remembered an example of climbing hypocrisy - well, you tell me if the label applies.

I was living in a small norther Californian village called Calpine - lovely area but quite remote, about 60 miles north of Lake Tahoe.

Nearby are the Sierra Buttes and near that a craggy area of granite cliffs near Grass Lake. Beautiful area.

I hooked up with a good friend of John Bachar, he's called Al Swanson - a very fine musician as an aside. Al, like Bachar was a proponent of the ground up approach...in fact Al was heavily influenced by Bachar and he was a very keen new router - I think Al helped developed a sport climbing area in Yosemite - all bolts placed from the ground up I believe.

Al was planning on developing these granite crags by Grass Lake - his mother had a house nearby - and asked me to come along.

Al had his eye on this one line - about 80ft high of featured but crackless granite. He would have to bolt it with his power drill from the ground up as defined by his own personal ethics. It's a lot of work bolting from the ground up and can be quite spicy! I know as I've done it, both in the UK and the USA.

Anyway, to cut a drawn out story short - Al couldn't be bothered bolting from the ground up, but there was no way that he would drop a rope and bolt on abseil, he just wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

What did he do?

He knew I was a dirty Euro Rap Bolter.... so he asked me if I would drop a rope and bolt the wall and then he could lead it without compromising his ethics.

I bolted the route for him from a rope. Al led it from the ground up. Job's a good 'un. Al figured he hadn't compromised his ethics.

Hypocrite?

Mick

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
age has nothing to do with understanding. You dont know me from adam to be able to say why i climb a certain grade and why you are/used to climb another. Someone with an appreciation of the meaning of climbing would understand this.

Not im not drunk, but perhaps 1.30am wasn't the best time to decide to involve myself in this. You can't go around reserving parts of rock - certainly not unless you are going to go out there and climb it yourself first. The climb was climbed, regardless of the style, my point being, you can not say "find they can't get up" - when they obviously did.

>"Because in my belief this isn't an appropriate area. It's a crack and we shouldn't bolt cracks." - yet it is an approved area... that's like me suddenly coming along and saying 'oh well now, no trad routes can be on overhangs, because i believe its better to have sport climbs on them.'

>"Get real. Reasonably protected 8a pitches are by no means cutting edge even now. If they'd done it clean (ie the roof pitch) then in a few years' time it would have been a reasonably well-traveled hard classic." ..
in a few years?? - it hadn't been repeated in 22, why in a few years would i suddenly become a classic??

>"Quite so. But even BH and Tom understand that the fact it's allowed doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. "
- in your very narrow minded opinion

>"Goodness me. You don't say so. Perhaps you need to understand that patronising nonsense isn't always a helpful contribution to debate?"
- this isn't a debate - more of you showing how opinionated and closed minded you can be. I don't see a single point you have given them for the effort they have put in. Doing a bolted climb or otherwise.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Yes a hypocrite!

Your ethics aren't just defined by what you do, they are defined by what you condone!

In reply to matt.ridgway:


So prehaps you can enlighten us as to where you get your superior insight because that was quite some pedestal you put yourself on in your first post.

So you're still going with that "I understand climbing you don't" comment? Brave considering everything you've said and your profile pointing to quite the opposite.



But you are using the bolting agreement as a reason why this route should be bolted, in effect reserving it as sport climb.


It probably wouldn't but with your understanding of climbing you'll know that standards improve over time, there are also many precedents for neglected routes being reclimbed, cleaned and thrust into the limelight and enjoying a new lease of life (you could say that this is what has happened but I dare say even with bolts this won't happen)


Jesus Christ! So anything that is allowed is always a good idea then?


What's the otherwise?

And finally from your first post:


I'd have thought that with your understanding of climbing you'd know that this point is utterly cretinous? Do you think its helpful to those (including myself) who support sport climbing in the UK to have people say that a primary reason for bolting is to make routes accessible to those unable to do them otherwise, thus making *any* route in the uk fair game for bolting? Do you really think its helpful to Tom's position to say there's no difference between climbing a route in trad style with or without bolts in (think carefully here, this is someone who removed bolts from a crack climb previously).

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


If he was not, then I'm off to hire an assasin right now with a clean conscience.....

In reply to Tyler:

This is why i never come on these forums - they turn into supporting egotistical golden oldies, who want it all done 'the way we used to do it', rather than supporting the up and coming and congratulating them for their effort.

>"superior insight" - I've never claimed this, just putting the same question to jc about why he is so superior? I said i understood it from both sides, not that i was the grand master.

>"profile pointing to quite the opposite." - ok so again shall we be attacking people based on what you think they are able to achieve? you presume that ukclimbing profile is all you ever need to know about someone?

>"cleaned and thrust into the limelight and enjoying a new lease of life " - i agree this would be nice.

>"I'd have thought that with your understanding of climbing you'd know that this point is utterly cretinous? Do you think its helpful to those (including myself) who support sport climbing in the UK to have people say that a primary reason for bolting is to make routes accessible to those unable to do them otherwise, thus making *any* route in the uk fair game for bolting? Do you really think its helpful to Tom's position to say there's no difference between climbing a route in trad style with or without bolts in (think carefully here, this is someone who removed bolts from a crack climb previously). " - ok perhaps my point is a little off here.

In reply to matt.ridgway:

The attitude for bolting for accessibility (i.e. the anti-elitism stance) you have put forward on here is something that crops up on every bolt debate.

This argument didn't even exist a decade ago. One good reason for the strong reaction to dubious/borderline bolting ethics is due to this argument becoming more prevalent and taking hold in the future.

In reply to matt.ridgway:


As you pointed out yourself, this route is 22 years old....... You've not read what I've said at all have you? I like sport climbing, its what I mostly do, I have even supported retro bolting in certain instances, this has nothing to do with a them and us or a now and then. You claim to understand climbing but make out as if sport climbing is the preserve of the young and that this is a modern phenomena that is being embraced by the young and rejected by the old when it is nothing of the sort. Who places most of the bolts in Yorkshire, North Wales and Clwyd (the three places I climb most) its almost exclusively people around my age.


You did and to pretend otherwise just because you didn't use those words is disingenuous in the extreme. You patronised john asking him if he understood climbing etc and then proceeded to lecture him on what it was. I doubt anyone reading would be under any misapprehension about what you were trying to imply.


Like I said, you put yourself on a pedestal of having a greater understanding of climbing, I think its fair enough to question that. Your profile is comprehenisve enough to make some inferences.

by that logic i can make the assumption that your a tw*t! just based on how your coming arcoss in your posts. my point is im sure your not. alot of people are saying things in a way which isnt helping their cause. think before your speak (type), and your argument will be all the more strong.

ffiw i dont think the climb should have been bolted, as it seems TR was gunna do it trad style anyway and gave up when the bolting option became easier. as he has been portayed as this holy pillar of the trad ethics community in previous news (thai boxing) he set himself up there, and no amount of 'it was really hard work bolting this climb' will delete that from peoples memories.

however, the climb was bolted so these guys could climb it in a way they wanted to. its within all the agreed rules etc, and at the end of the day noone else was trying it (apart from TR but he folded so it doesnt count)so why not put in the extreme hard work to bolt it and climb it. its going to be just as hard work (easier?) to de bolt it should someone feel it necessary.

In reply to mark_wellin:


Absloutely you can make that assumption and to be fair by saying I'm probably not is giving more credit than I prehaps deserve as there's nothing I've written which I don't stand by, nor wouldn't stand by 'in real life'. Which makes me wonder what parts you take offence to considering I've not expressed any strong views on the bolting or otherwise of this route, I was more taking issue with Matt trying to patronise those who argued againt the bolting of this route, decrying John's understaing of climbing whilst demonstrating a complete ignorance of the argument; q.v. "With the addition of these bolts, its not stopping anyone going back and doing it trad - you/me/anyone - if they really wanted to"


Was this directed at me? I don't really have a cause, on balance I'd much rather this route weren't bolted but its not a cause for me.

In reply to Tyler:


>"lecture him on what it was" - as above, supporting others and expressing an opinion, not exactly a lecture. Your pointing the same holes in JC's posts as you claim to see in mine, why not pick him up on them too?

In reply to matt.ridgway:


What's the material difference between this and "expressing an opinion".

Are you autistic? Any amount of back peddaling won't alter the fact you implied John lacked understanding and the way you continued to patronise him implied that you don't.


It is by some and not by others. If John (and others) don't appreciate it why should they get the bunting out? Just to be nice and so everyone get's along?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


You weren't giving us all this talk of "shades and hues" back in August when Tom stripped the bolts on Thai Boxing. It was more "Tom and Royal Robbins are right, the locals are wrong - job well done boys!"

Always more fun when you join in the debate Mick. You can shamelessly talk such utter b*llox!

Neil

In reply to Rob Kennard:


What about Option 3?

Remove the rotting in-situ and climb it as a trad route placing and removing the gear as you go?

In reply to nb:

Thanks Neil. That's what climbing ethical discussions are usually and always have been. Still, they do provide entertaining discussions down the pub and online.

It's actions that count! They always have. That's what really drives ethics, not theories or armchair polemics.

Of course you know that. No matter what anyone says it's almost pointless as it's those at the coal face - people like Tom - who make the decisions - the rest of us just make noises of agreement or disagreement, and often outrage - nothing more.

Mick

In reply to matt.ridgway:


Matt, you said that you mainly sport climb and don't enjoy trad climbing much, but can I ask, have you climbed much outside of Dorset? I visited Dorset for the first time this summer and enjoyed my quick climbing session there - with the family so could only do a few routes. But I imagine that people who have started their climbing in Dorset and mainly climb sport might have VERY different views to most UK climbers who start off mainly doing trad. It felt very different from anywhere else I have climbed in the UK, and I've at least visited most major areas - for example bolted cracklines that would realistically only be Severe on gear. I've got no big problem with that - this was at the Cuttings - its the local ethic but it is very different from the rest of the UK.

Your statement I've quote above seems rather indicative of that difference. I often hear it in Finland where I live from people who have only sport climbed.

In reply to Tyler:
>"Are you autistic?" - possibly. are you retarded?

>"back peddaling" - I'm not back peddling, i trying to help you understand my view point. If you misunderstood what i said the first time, possibly the way i wrote it, possibly you looking for undertones that aren't there.

In reply to UKC News:

Have come to the conclusion that some of you seem to spend rather a lot of time on the internet in work hours rather than actually working or climbing.
In Partucular John Cox

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

>people like Tom - who make the decisions

Actually I think Tom has made it fairly clear that in essence he didn't make this decision and if it had been up to him would have made a different decision. He found someone had retrobolted most of a trad route he wanted to do, and in the circumstances didn't feel he could strip the bolts for understandable reasons (even I wouldn't have done so in his position). Why he didn't do what many other people have done in this situation and do it free without chopping the bolts, I don't know and I hope he'll tell us, but I think it's pretty clear he wasn't the major driver in bolting the route. As he said himself, you can say he should have walked away, but that wouldn't have taken the bolts out.

>No matter what anyone says it's almost pointless as it's those at the coal face

This is true, of course, but the main reason it is true is that bolters take care to make sure it's true by making sure they do their bolting before any talking. The first thing Tom said on this thread was that it was good that people were debating whether the retrobolting was the right decision. Well, it may be good, but it's too late now, because if it turns out that outside Portland not a hell of a lot of people think it was a very good idea, the bolts are still there.

I noticed too that Bob H said they knew perfectly well the rebolting would be controversial and 'who knows what's right', or some such expression. What always annoys me so much about bolters is how, if they know something's going to be controversial, they don't have some kind of public debate first. In the present case, it seems as though AL and BH proceeded on the assumption that no-one was ever going to do LA trad so they might as well bolt it up. It turns out that assumption was entirely wrong, but because they went about it secretly instead of openly, they didn't find out that assumption was wrong until it was too late. It would be interesting to hear whether, knowing then what they know, they would still have bolted it.

I don't think, by the way, it's as simple as saying 'it's in a bolt area under the DBA and that's it'. To read the DBA itself, you would think that any bolting in the relevant area was 'acceptable'. However, it's clear that everyone actually treats it as though what that means is 'acceptable subject to usual ethical considerations'. For example, everyone seems to agree (except whoever keeps retroing Giantslayer anonymously) that one still needs the first ascentionist's consent. I can't go out and make Revelation Chimney into a nice 4+ for everyone to enjoy. By the same token, I think everyone would feel that the usual norms - don't bolt cracks - also apply. Indeed, everyone involved seems to have felt that to at least some extent. But they persuaded themselves that nonetheless it was a good idea.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Loads of retrobolts in the UK John.

Go take them out will you.

In reply to matt.ridgway:

I don't think this question of understanding is a very sensible discussion. I never said I had a superior understanding to you. I pointed out that I had had superior opportunities to acquire understanding. I may have wasted them, of course, or you may have made particularly good use of yours. Best to let other judge based on our posts, I think.

>I don't see a single point you have given them for the effort they have put in.

I can assure you that if Tom had climbed it free as he originally intended (or if Bob H had done, for that matter), I'd have been full of admiration for the effort. Indeed, if my admiration and thanks for their hard work is important to them (doubtful, I think) all they've got to do is spend another few days going back and taking the bolts out of the roof pitch, and do it clean.

>it hadn't been repeated in 22, why in a few years would i suddenly become a classic??

Fashion. Publicity. A more amenable entry pitch being created instead of the existing horror show. All those things. We'll never know, of course. If they'd done it free, and it had turned out that no-one still did it, it could always have been bolted later. It would have been worth trying.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:

I'd agree with your assessment of bolting ethics in Dorset - it's not like the rest of the UK. In the Rockfax guide there is a VS at the Cuttings (Amen Corner), that has now been retro bolted to give an easy sport route. I was in a minority when I expressed my surprise at this move at the time.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

That's the point, though, isn't it? The ones that have consensus, I shouldn't go and take out whatever I might think. The ones that haven't and shouldn't have been done - no-one would need to take them out if the bolters had asked first.

jcm

In reply to Rob Kennard:

Rob, assuming I’m right in thinking you speak for the Dorset Bolt Fund at least to some extent, can I ask you a question?

Let’s suppose there was an individual who had had a lot of support from the DBF to carry out his bolting activities, which while sometimes controversial were not contrary to the DBA.

Let’s suppose that this individual then placed some bolts, albeit without the support of the DBF, which were flagrantly contrary to the DBA and indeed merely replaced bolts which had already been removed as contrary to the DBA.

Let’s say he then refused to come forward publicly and explain his actions or remove the bolts.

Assuming that they knew or indeed suspected the above, what would the DBF’s attitude to that be?

The DBF has some sort of public responsibility. It does after all solicit public support both from the BMC and from donations.

In my opinion, if such a situation were to arise, the DBF ought to

1. Publicly acknowledge the fact that it had given support to someone who turned out to be a rogue bolter.

2. Decline to supply this individual with any further assistance, at any rate until he’d apologised and removed the bolts.

Do you agree?

jcm

In reply to Michael Gordon: There is indeed that option. The vast majority of protection on the original line is fixed, in the shape small bootlace threads, pegs(the rusting of which has rendered their replacement problematic without drilling them out) and hammered-in wooden wedges. So it is conceivable that those placements could be replaced, and for a couple of years the route would be a safe clip-up(not a trad route in any way I recognise). Then the placements would deteriorate and we would be back to where we were a year ago.

Rob

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Bolters never ask John - they pretend to.

A consensus what's that then? in climbing

Anyway, why don't you apply law to this discussion?

Tom R has hardly set a precedent - someone free climbing old aid routes on rotting gear then eventually, later, they get bolted is hardly new..... see Peak and Yorkshire limestone for that.... loads of examples.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Of course. But those aren't sea cliff cracks which (according to Tom R himself) could be climbed in trad style while still being reasonably well-protected.

Bolters never ask, Mick - well, quite so. Consensus in climbing though, come on now, we have quite a lot of that in many areas.

In reply to Rob K:

Rob, if Bob H thinks (at least some of) the original gear was 'bomber' after 40 years, why do you think replacement gear would need replacing in 'a year or two'?

Anyway, as I understand what Tom R has said he thinks it could perfectly well be climbed on leader-placed gear (at least that's what I take him to mean by 'trad'; perhaps he'll tell us if I'm wrong).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Cams in a slippery sea cliff roof crack?

Cams in limestone are dodgy at the best of times.

Maybe hammered in hexes? Wooden stakes? Or the odd bolt?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

>Cams in a slippery sea cliff roof crack?

Seem to work OK on Horizontal Pleasures, and for that matter Godfodder, Cima Petite, etc.

Anyway, neither of us has much idea what trad gear it would take. It's a bit silly trying to second guess what Tom R says. It seems likely to me that if a wooden wedge will go in and remain 'bomber' for 40 years some kind of trad gear will also go in.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>Let’s suppose that this individual then placed some bolts, albeit without the support of the DBF, which were flagrantly contrary to the DBA and indeed merely replaced bolts which had already been removed as contrary to the DBA.
>Assuming that they knew or indeed suspected the above, what would the DBF’s attitude to that be?

Personally I would be pissed off. The DBF has no 'attitude', since it is just a group of volunteers who endeavour to put something back into climbing. You would have to ask the others for their attitude.

>In my opinion, if such a situation were to arise, the DBF ought to

1. Publicly acknowledge the fact that it had given support to someone who turned out to be a rogue bolter.

2. Decline to supply this individual with any further assistance, at any rate until he’d apologised and removed the bolts.

Do you agree?

Yes, although that has never happened to my knowledge.

Where are you going with this John?

I re-iterate what a said above: the drilling equipment was at my house when Giantslayer was bolted. Therefore I can state with complete confidence that the DBF has not supported a 'rogue-bolter'.
Rob

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>Rob, if Bob H thinks (at least some of) the original gear was 'bomber' after 40 years, why do you think replacement gear would need replacing in 'a year or two'?

Those pieces of gear(in the roof) consist of 4 or 5 placements in the context of a 60 meter, 4 pitch route.
Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

I didn't mean replacing old in-situ with new in-situ. I meant removing the old in-situ and climbing it again with removable trad gear, cams etc.

Laughng arthur has always been a dream route and one of the most inspirational in the area; i would just like to say i'm very sad to see it bolted for whatever contrived reasons.

In reply to Rob Kennard:

>Those pieces of gear(in the roof) consist of 4 or 5 placements in the context of a 60 meter, 4 pitch route

Sure, but as I say the principal objection (for myself at any rate) is to bolting the roof crack, not so much the rest of it. (It's a three pitch route, right, not four?)

jcm

In reply to Michael Gordon: You need to go and look at the original line Michael- that is simply not possible.

In reply to Rob Kennard:

>3. I can't directly answer the question about wooden blocks and bolting and fixed gear - I shouldn't speak for Pete or Andy. I can tell you that it is possible to do it on trad gear.

4. All of Laughing Arthur and Infinite Gravity could be done trad style. Both are well enough protected.

That's what Tom R said, Rob. There seems to be a difference of opinion (possibly depending to some extent on what 'trad style' means).

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the discussion then? Perhaps you would have been happier with a hybrid sport/ trad route?

That is certainly a reasonable idea, but I suppose that given the routes history as being climbed on fixed protection it also reasonable to re-equip entirely it with fixed protection?
BTW LA was originally climbed in 4 pitches, with bolt belays.
Rob

In reply to Rob Kennard:

Yes, LA was, but the present route is three. But you know that of course.

Anyway, yes, I would have been much happier. I don't see that adding more bolts to Coma 2 was necessary and if it had been me I would have done the part of the first pitch that isn't IG without bolts (still going off what Tom says is possible), but those aren't big issues. To me, bolting a protectable roof crack turns the stomach and was just crass.

jcm

In reply to Rob Kennard:

>I re-iterate what a said above: the drilling equipment was at my house when Giantslayer was bolted. Therefore I can state with complete confidence that the DBF has not supported a 'rogue-bolter'.

You misunderstand me, Rob. Whoever this rogue bolter is, it seems at least possible that the DBF has in the past supported him in some of his other bolting activities. My question was: supposing you found out that the DBF had in the past supported a rogue bolter in his more legitimate bolting, what would you do?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Ha ha we are going around in circles because you are reluctant to name names on a public forum... I would certainly be reluctant to lend it to that person again. But I know for sure that the person who bolted Giantslayer has never used DBF equipment at any point. How can I be sure? Because the number of people who actually have had the use of the equipment is so small...in fact there are only 4 people who have used the gear since I became involved. And it wasn't them!
Rob

To jcm et al.

An interesting debate – I very rarely post on UKC but on this occasion I feel strangely compelled to have my 10 pence worth. No matter how unpalatable the bolts are to some it must be recognised the actions of AL, TR and BH were within the guidelines of the Dorset Bolt Agreement and therefore the bolting is in line with local ethics. Those who call for the removal of bolts that contravene the Dorset Bolt Agreement should also be prepared to accept bolts that don't – you can't have it both ways.

To argue against the bolting is to argue against a consensus reached by local climbers and documented in the Dorset Bolt Agreement (twice). Dorset may be seen as an ethical vacuum by some but different areas have different ethics and this should be respected.

Actually Swanage is one of those areas where sport climbing and trad climbing exist together in relative harmony. For example there are some beautiful and very bold trad climbs just round the corner from Blackers Hole at Fishermen's Ledge. Lulworth East was voted bolt free recently and has seen a renaissance in the trad theme.

So to bring an end to my rambling you can't decry individuals who act in line with a local bolt agreement. So it must be the local ethic you have issue with.

Ben

In reply to Ben Stokes:

For fsck's sakes man.

The issue is not with any local ethics (or disregard thereof).

The issue is the idea of bolting a crack, and a roof crack in particular.

The issue is that the bolters in question have decided to interpret the DBA as allowing the retrobolting of any route within allowed areas and with the permission of the FA, which then allows them to bolt this crackline. JCM is arguing that actually, the DBA should be interpreted as only allowing the retrobolting of routes that fall within national bolting ethics as well; generally bold face climbs that would be difficult to protect traditionally. This would exclude the bolting of cracklines, and therefore exclude this climb.

In reply to Ben Stokes:

I agree that the bolting doesn't contravene the DBA directly, but that doesn't mean I can't decry it. I could, for example, criticise Pete Oxley for choosing to give permission (though I wouldn't put the blame on him, particularly).

But anyway the main point is that just because it was within the DBA doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea. The DBA doesn't on any view say that routes in this area must be bolted (there are many trad routes in it which no-one would dream of retroing).

To be fair to Tom and BH, neither of them present it as being a simple matter of it being within the DBA and that's it. Tom's very first post was saying that he thought it was good there was a public debate (which begs the question of why there wasn't one earlier; I rather suspect he thinks there should have been), and BH says that he (and he thinks 'all of us', whatever that means) had doubts whether it was a good decision. So it's pretty clear that people are entitled to say it was a bad decision. That's not the same as saying it was in contravention of the DBA and that the people involved are Bad People. I think they've made an incomprehensibly bad decision and that it was very, very poor not to have a public debate, which I suspect would have revealed that, first of all, there was more interest than they thought in doing the route clean and, secondly, that the solution they proposed was not in any case the one which would win most public approval, but that's not quite the same as saying they're just rogue-bolting so-and-soes like the anonymous Giantslayer fellow.

jcm

In reply to JJL:


What he said

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


this "giving permission" thing seems a little odd to me - what about the permission of the guys who originally aided it. could a suitable response be something like "although I was the first to climb it x many years ago in a certain style, it's not for me to determine how subsequent ascents should be made, as I don't own the rock" ?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Hi John and Tom,

I am getting thinner and motivated for some grit action - lets make sure we do something together this winter.

It is interesting to me that there is so much dialogue here; for people who have a strong views against the bolts why dont they just go and chop them? But I think they are swimming against the tide here.

Bolts undoubtably have there place and despite being a traditionalist I enjoyed a bolt clipping holiday in Madagascar this summer, and those routes would just not exist without bolts, but the bolts are quite far apart and this probably puts a few people off which is a shame for the local economy, which is very poor - so to be clear I would support retro bolting in this instance.

But not retroing routes on limestone sea cliffs for the modern southern bolt clipping fairies!

I was suprised by what Tom did but I liked to be suprised and discover that he isn't perfect afterall

I better not be too rude as I would like some tuition from him on how to climb wide cracks; it would be good to get up Goliath, Ramshaw Crack and Right Eliminate - without trashing my hands as badly as on our ascent of Harvest? I loved the description for that route "get established at the lip, 1M of climbing remains, so near yet so far!"

Soon,

In reply to simon cox:

>Goliath, Ramshaw Crack and Right Eliminate - without trashing my hands as badly as on our ascent of Harvest?

Since Harvest is harder than the others put together, I'm sure you can do those!


Good question. Quite tempting, really.

Though actually I have a better idea. I'm going to announce that I'll be chopping one route per week on each of, say, Portland, Raven Tor and Malham until such time as Laughing Arthur has been debolted and climbed bolt free. With video evidence. By Rich Simpson.

Goodness, it would be fun. Imagine the puzzled UKC threads. (I'd do a couple without warning first, just for fun.) Then the righteous wailing. The punter points. The vigilante groups. The fights in the parking lots. (On that note, I'll be needing a couple of obedient alsatians, I suppose. Wonder how long it takes to train them up.) I shouldn't be surprised if the police were called.

jcm

In reply to stewieatb, John Cox, Jim Hamilton:

I have to say that this sentiment is not echoed in certain comments on this thread. Anyway like I said this is an interesting debate. There are a number of people who think the bolting was an equally good an idea as you think it is bad. I fully believe space must be given to both camps particularly in an area such as Dorset where sport climbing is so popular. Agreeing on areas that are “bolt-acceptable” reduces the pressure on areas that are “bolt-free”. I appreciate the idea of a bolted crack may be abhorrent to some but is it not possible to take the stance “you win some you loose some”. I support the bolting of LA but I am completely against the bolting of Giantslayer but I’m following the DBA to the letter when I make that distinction.

I understand the point you’re making but I’m not sure it has anything to do with the bolters interpretation of the DBA or the national ethic. From my perspective (as a local) the local ethic over the last 15 years has, in general, followed the approach of a crag has been designated “bolt-free” or “bolt-acceptable” and not to discriminate based on the nature of the rock features (though a first ascentionist has the veto before any route is retro-bolted). Whilst this may not be in line with what you describe as the national ethic it has certainly maintained the status quo in Dorset. It is interesting to note the local climbers twice had the opportunity to vote Blacker’s Hole Cave as “bolt-free” but they didn’t. This is not to say that only sports climbers were present for the voting. Lulworth East was voted bolt-free on the second DBA vote after the area had already started development as a sports climbing venue.

This excuse is used for people not to bolt routes. Like I said earlier it seems odd to use the “at permission of the first ascensionist” to support one side of the argument (i.e. not to retrobolt) but not the other.
Ben

In reply to UKC News:

Great effort! Seems all of that upside downer training makes that kind of climbing easy then? Despite the bolt debate between the queues of people waiting to climb the route, I'm just impressed you had the balls to get down there with all the crappy rock and dingy, damp conditions. I, for one, am not a a massive fan of sea cliff caves.....

In reply to Ben Stokes:

Do you also think it was a good decision to bolt it secretly?

jcm

In reply to Ben Stokes:

>I have to say that this sentiment is not echoed in certain comments on this thread

If that's aimed at me you'd have to help me by pointing out which ones you mean.

jcm

In reply to Ben Stokes:


This is arguably the most important route in the whole area, i will quite happily loose some choosy death climb but not this...

In reply to Ben Stokes:

>(though a first ascentionist has the veto before any route is retro-bolted).

I think quite a number of routes have been, and remain, retro-bolted at Portland without the consent and indeed against the wishes of the first ascentionists, do they not?

>It is interesting to note the local climbers twice had the opportunity to vote Blacker’s Hole Cave as “bolt-free” but they didn’t.

No, well it's understandable that no-one wanted Infinite Gravity debolted. But do you really think it was the intention of the 1993 meeting that Swanage cracks, let alone the most famous hard classic in Swanage, should be retrobolted? I would very much doubt that it was in the minds of the meeting at the time.

Am I right in thinking that since 1993 (if that was the date of the DBA), when this area, which contains a number of trad climbs, some of them quite well-known, was designated bolt-acceptable, not a single one has been retro-bolted? If it wasn't done for 17 years, why now (and why in secret)?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You cant just reserve this route, despite being a bolt-agreed area, because of its particular feature. If it was so important then in the meetings the area would not have allowed to become bolted.

In reply to matt.ridgway:

>If it was so important then in the meetings the area would not have allowed to become bolted.

Or alternatively no-one would have imagined in 1993 that it could need saying that it wouldn't be bolted. I doubt anyone was really thinking of retrobolting at the time, as is illustrated by the facts that the DBA doesn't refer to it,and that sport climbers have since felt free to retro quite a few routes on Portland both without the consent of, and I believe on occasion against the wishes of, the first ascentionists.

As I've already said, no-one would have wanted to debolt Infinite Gravity, so the question of the area being debolted would barely have arisen. Look, no offence, but you really don't know much about this, do you?

>You cant just reserve this route,

I don't know why you have to use this silly language. It's not a question of anyone 'reserving a route', let alone me. All of Bob H, Tom R and Pete Oxley accepted in what they wrote above that there was a difficult decision to be made. If they can accept that, you should be able to.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


True, there are around a half-dozen routes of this nature. I understand that the non-local responsible has been asked to remove his bolts. Regrettably this hasn't happened. No one should complain if, in accordance with the DBA, these bolts are chopped (neatly). However IMHO it is a shame the first ascentionist hasn't given his consent to retro the routes in question but like I said earlier, you win some, you lose some.


I can't speak about that - I wasn't there. Considering how passionate the anti-bolters were in this area at the time it seems unlikely it wasn't considered. Let's not forget that thanks to the DBA the whole of Boulder Ruckle, Subluminal, Lighthouse Cliffs, Cattle Troughs and Guillemot and Cormorant Ledges and all the cracks therein remain bolt-free.


There are 7 routes in the bolt-acceptable area of the cave. Infinite Gravity (more or less) and Schwarzechild Radius always were clip ups. Procrastinating Giant is a trad classic and FA consent to retro would be exceedingly unlikely. Monsters of Rock and Naked and Savage both cover the same ground as Procrastinating Giant and therefore are also unlikely to be retroed. That leaves Laughing Arthur and Coma 2 though the later is more of a variation finish to LA than a route. It should be remembered there already were bolts on both routes before either were retroed.

Ben

In reply to Ben Stokes:

>There are 7 routes in the bolt-acceptable area of the cave.

Yes, sorry, I'm an idiot. I had the Promenade area in mind (not what I said, obviously). Where Benny and Revelation Chimney and so forth are. I think it's fair to suggest that no-one thought those were going to be retroed under the DBA. And I also think that in fact no trad routes have been retroed in Swanage in the previous 17 years of the DBA, nor any protectable cracks bolted up, no?

>it is a shame the first ascentionist hasn't given his consent to retro the routes in question

Well, off topic slightly, perhaps he would have done if local activists hadn't seen fit to name routes with unflattering references to him!

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I have been reading this thread with interest over the last few days...it's been a fascinating and passionate debate which, as always, has split opinion. Whilst Mr Coxmysteriously has, it seems to me, put forward a very cogent, persuasive and, at times, somewhat forceful argument, I did find his comments along the lines that (I'm paraphrasing) 'bolters never have the argument beforehand' to be too sweeping and somewhat unfair.

Many Cornish climbers (I am not a Cornish climber, by the way) have been wanting to bolt some of Carn Vellan for many years but have refrained from doing so because they were narrowly outvoted in a BMC meeting, by a busload of visiting Bristolians. There has recently been a debate on the issue on another forum (possibly on here too, but I haven't seen it) seeking consensus on this issue. Unfortunately it seems that seeking consensus on an internet forum is nigh on impossible, so how can you gain consensus? I floated the question a while ago here about the possible retroing of Uphill Quarry (already bolted but very spaced on some routes) and some of the Brean Down mixed gear routes. About half the people posting were pro bolting, about half against. You'll never get a consensus!

So, I suppose what I am trying to say is that every decision will be deemed a bad one by some and a good one by others but at times the way to test the water is to suck it and see (and as Pete Oxley in Pembroke, Si Young on the Culm, Mark Edwards in Penwith have all found out the reaction was such that the climbing community en mass sorted it out).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


True, but this may be more related to the identity of the FAs for some of these routes - George Hounsome, Scott Tit, Gordon Jenkins - than holding faith in the ethics of the general climbing community. There was never any danger of consent for a retro!


Fair point! But I think it goes deeper than that.

Ben

In reply to tomrainbow:

Tom, you realise that the 2005 Carn Vellan debate was sparked precisely by anonymous climbers rebolting one of the routes in defiance of (at that time) an overwhelming resolution against it, don't you?

There's some force in what you say, of course, but in the present case, as I've been saying, just publicising the intention would have had the result that they'd have found out there was interest in doing the route trad, with the result, I suspect, that Tom R and perhaps Bob H would have repeated it in precisely that style. Which presumably was also what Pete Oxley wanted all along, since he didn't retro it himself.

jcm

jcm

In reply to tomrainbow:

>Si Young on the Culm,

What did happen to his clip-up down there in the end?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

...and I wonder whether, without that action, the debate would have been raised as an issue. So, someone taking the initiative (whether rightly or wrongly) sparked the debate. I know what you're implying, but I just thought that maybe the vast majority of potential bolters do wait before taking action but because they haven't done anything they haven't been considered in your statement. After all there are many potential bolters in Cornwall who haven't done anything since the vote was cast.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of the 'just do it anyway' approach, but I am someone who is confused by some of the more arbitrary rules surrounding a selection of SW cliffs and I have been frustrated when trying, unsuccessfully, to gauge opinion/consensus before taking action (and therefore have not done anything).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>they'd have found out there was interest in doing the route trad, with the result, I suspect, that Tom R and perhaps Bob H would have repeated it in precisely that style.

But what defines 'interest', and how long should it be left before someone attempts it in a less than perfect style? What interest are you referring to? the interest on this thread wouldn't seem to be an expression of actual intent to do it in a better style.

22 years and how many attempts at a fully trad ascent, some? none? that would be a, and my, measure of interest.

I'd be 'interested' in someone doing Malham from catwalk to top with trad gear, that would need some testicles, but if no-one actually intended to do it, a different scenario?

In reply to richardh:


Now there's a challenge....Yosemite Wall......New Dawn on trad gear (yes it'll go)..... and then to the top.

Headpoint of course.

In reply to richardh:

>But what defines 'interest', and how long should it be left before someone attempts it in a less than perfect style? What interest are you referring to? the interest on this thread wouldn't seem to be an expression of actual intent to do it in a better style.

You've lost me. As the news story says Tom R had tried it twice ground-up and was keen to try it some more in that style. That's the interest I mean. For sure he intended to do it in better style.

I have the impression (or more precisely, Tom says), that the first pitch is so covered in loose blocks that he doesn't think it would ever have been done or would be justifiable in trad style, so I suspect the compromise reached, which in my mind would have been much the best solution and commanded much the widest support, would have been to do the first pitch they've done and then do the roof clean. My guess is that that's what would have happened.

jcm

In reply to Ben Stokes:

Actually, I'm interested in this retroing in Portland.

First of all, is it really true that Sling Shot (or indeed Hate the Sin) was retroed by a non-local? Do you mind saying who? I'm surprised to hear it.

Second, who asked them to take out the bolts? NC, or responsible sport climbers? I don't see much mention in Steve Taylor's guide, for example, of the fact that the bolts were placed outside of the DBA and may have been removed, in the way that is done in the CC Swanage guide.

Third, you say you think Nigel ought to have given consent. presumably because these routes are better as sport routes, in a sport area, etc. I don't entirely disagree. But don't you see that it cuts both ways? You can't think that people ought to consent to having their Portland routes retroed because they're suitable for sport, and at the same time complain when people think that routes at Swanage shouldn't be retroed even though they're suitable for trad (and in this case, potentially a national classic, which also has a bearing on the issue, I'd suggest).

jcm

In reply to tomrainbow:

>...and I wonder whether, without that action, the debate would have been raised as an issue

I don't see why not. They've just raised it again, as you say, this time without bolting it up first.

If you ask first and you find out that half are for and half against, you're better informed than you were. I don't agree that this will always be the case.

And I'm sure you'd agree that what is always unacceptable is anonymous bolting. In fact the Carn Vellan bolts really deserve to be chopped on those grounds alone.

jcm

In reply to UKC News:

And I see by the way (now I look in the Portland as well as the Swanage guides) that I was wrong about the DBA at least as it is recounted in the CC guides; it did contemplate retrobolting 'being considered necessary' (whatever that meant) and said in that case the first ascentionist's consent was required, but it appears to have spoken of existing trad routes being retroed in Portland/Lulworth only, no doubt because that was where the problem was occurring at the time. Which in a way would reinforce my suggestion that people weren't thinking too much about retroing occurring at Swanage.

It really should be on line somewhere. Can no public-spirited soul scan it in and put it on the BMC site or dorset-climbing.com or somewhere?!
jcm

In reply to UKC News:

And finally, while I'm spamming the thread, this comment of Tom's:

"4. The Dorset Bolt Fund knew about the bolting and provided the bolts, glue and drills for the task."

inadvertently gives - or gave me, anyway - a slightly misleading impression. I believe that the DBF knew about, and provided the kit for, the bolting of the alternative first pitch, which Tom took part in, but not AL's and/or BH's earlier bolting of the roof crack, although at least one of the DBF people knew that PO's permission had been given for it.

So insofar as anyone thought from Tom's comment that some semi-representative body had given its blessing to bolting the roof crack, this wasn't the case.

I believe the above is correct, but Rob will correct me if I've misunderstood him, I hope.

jcm

In reply to Ben Stokes:

>Lulworth East was voted bolt-free on the second DBA vote after the area had already started development as a sports climbing venue.

And as to this, of course, I think I'm right in saying that not one single bolt has been removed as a result of the second vote?

In fact my small trivia challenge still stands: has any bolter, ever, anywhere, removed his own bolts after it was decided by some process akin to the DBA that they shouldn't have been placed? Other than reclimbing his own routes without them for look-at-me-I'm-so-clever purposes, of course, which rules out the ones Gibson did take out on Lundy.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Mike Pescod went back to remove the gear he'd placed in Five Finger Gully for canyoning - strange decision to begin with but well done the man for putting things right...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


John,

My memory is fading, but I think the story was:

Some anonymous soul (I believe - it may be that, as with the phantom bolters, the phantom smashers' (why is it so often smashing, rather than actually removing and doing the job neatly and properly, anyway. I lose all respect for people when they do that) names are known by a select few, but I don't think it ever came out) tried to smash the bolts flat, and succeeded in doing so to perhaps one of them.

I think Si then took out the remainder of the hangers, although I think posibly the rest of the bolts are still in-situ. I believe the loweroff chain used to adorn the toilet in his wall, the Barn, with some suitably ironic comment about how many more people were able to grab the chains of an 8b+ now.

This is all somewhat hazy mind you, but I think thats how it went. Whether you want to class that as voluntary bolt removal or not I don't know, but I very much suspect that even if the bolts themselves are still there he did a much neater job than the usual quality of bolt smashing that people carry out.

AJM

In reply to AJM:

I think it's fairly obvious why people smash bolts rather than removing them, isn't it? To take them out properly needs a drill, and people who are removing bolts usually don't have one. Moreover they resent, understandably, being put to the trouble of removing bolts which shouldn't have been placed, and thus taking the time to do it with a drill. I dare say smashing things even represents the way they feel at the time.

Moreover, people have been prosecuted in the US for removing bolts, and people here occasionally chunter abuot it being criminal damage/theft/whatever. It's a lot easier to understand why choppers stay anonymous than bolters. And if you want to stay anonymous and haven't got a drill, then short of buying one for the occasion you haven't much choice but smashing. (or have you? I'm no expert on bolt removal, although I'm beginning to feel it's time I learned)

Also, I think people don't necessarily perceive removal as rectifying the damage. It's bolters who tend to feel that the visual impact is bad; they look at their darling bolts all smashed and it causes negative emotions. Not everyone feels that removal rectifies the damage; it's drilling holes in the first place they find so depressing rather than the sight of bolts, smashed or otherwise. And if the drilling and gluing is what upsets them, they're not likely to feel great about going back with, er, drills and glue.

All in all I can see why people smash bolts. I can even see myself doing it. I've little sympathy - very little sympathy - with sports climbers complaining about how it ought to be done neatly. It shouldn't have to be done at all if bolters would only behave with propriety.

jcm

In reply to Tobias at Home:

Never heard of him or the episode, and I'm going to discount it as not being climbing bolts, but still, as you say, better than nothing. I presume this was for commercial canyoning?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Its certainly not obvious to me.

I'm no expert, but I'd be very surprised if you did need a drill a lot of the time. Where abseil stations have been chopped (the one at the top of p2 of King Kong for example, since the walkoff was established), those were staples and they have been neatly cut flush with a hacksaw. Lots of bolts these days are staples. Theres another type where you can in theory knock them into the hole once the hanger is removed, and then cover it over with rock dust and cement so its effectively invisible.

I have to say I disagree with your second paragraph. I would be surprised if prosecution in the UK is actually likely (theoretically possibly maybe, but not likely), and if you expect bolters to have the courage to stand up and be counted I don't see why we hold people who chop bolts to a lesser standard. Anonymity on either side of the fence is nothing more than cowardice really.

A lot of people argue about bolts despoiling the cliff and things like that. The Carn Vellan thread of a few months ago was a prime example of people going on about the special cliff environment and how bolts polluted it. Personally I often struggle to see bolts when I want them from a few feet away, but some people are obviously more sensitive to these things than me, I am half blind after all... If people believe that and then choose to remove bolts by smashing them then they are hypocrites of the highest order, pure and simple. If you have other beliefs as to why bolts shouldn't be there all well and good, but still, I don't think a job should be undertaken if you can't or can't be bothered to do it properly.

Your last sentence seems very naive - there will always be people who smash bolts against concensus just as there are people who place them against concensus (that crag in Scotland a while back, for example, with Marlene and things on it - Cave Crag or something?). Saying that, to paraphrase "its the bolters fault that people go and make cack-handed inadequate attempt to remove them and create a godawful mess in the process" is simply not always the case - those Scottish bolts were there as a part of a widely-established local concensus, and were still smashed up by some anonymous coward.

Anyway, I'm off to London for the weekend now, so I'll be offline for a while.

AJM

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The answer is "yes".

I mistakenly bolted a trad route of NC's some years ago. Once I'd realised that I'd done so, I removed the bolts and "made good".

I have also retroed another of Nigel's routes due to not reading the guide properly. I offered to remove these bolts, but Nigel said that he'd forgotton the original line of his route, so was OK with them being left in.

With Lulworth East - no bolts have been removed. The vote that made Lulworth East non-bolt was a strange one to me - most of those who voted against it being bolts-accepted had never visited the crag. It's a crag, in my opinion, where trad and sport can co-exist - as has been demonstrated over the last few years (i.e. no new bolts going in, and 10's of new trad routes being added over the last three years).

In reply to steve taylor: Blimey this threads moved on since I last posted, you pop off to hospital to see your daughter being born and miss all the action.
In response to steve taylor I was a little harsh in implying that all locals ignored the DBA,
I guess that stems from my belief that all of swanage should have remained a bolt free adventure climbing playground like pembroke or gogarth.
The dba is in place now but I bet that no ba has ever been recinded. Have all of the bolts at swanage placed outside of the dba been removed eg in the boulder ruckle ?

In reply to steve taylor: I wasn't aware that BH climbed stoke the fire as it was, a good effort but my original point remains that it shouldn't have had bolts in the first place.
If expansion bolts are corroded and the bolt head can't be undone what are the options for removing, just leave it to corrode some more then it will fall out of its own accord ?

In reply to AJM:

>Your last sentence seems very naive

I said it shouldn't HAVE to be done at all. I didn't say it had never been done where it shouldn't have been.

jcm

In reply to Mark Lloyd:

>Have all of the bolts at swanage placed outside of the dba been removed eg in the boulder ruckle ?

Many of them, although as far as I know none of them by the person who placed them.

jcm

In reply to steve taylor:

Good for you. You've been very much in the minority, though. The FA of Laughing Arthur particularly stands out for his refusal to contemplate any such thing.

jcm