This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I can't decide if this is worth getting worked up about or not, but interested in opinions...
5 times over my summer guiding season I've put a loop of old (but sound) rope around the big block above the (normally abseiled) steepening at the bottom of Sgurr nan Gillean West Ridge, and donated a maillon or ageing screwgate to the cause of convenient descents and easy rope-retrieval. On every single occasion this gear has disappeared, sometimes after 2 days (?!) Other guides and instructors have had the same experience.
I've always been self-sufficient in the mountains, always carry more tat and encourage others to do so too. But for myself and others who are going up and down the West Ridge every week this is really annoying! I'm just wondering whether people are motivated by a desire to "clean up" the mountain, or it's just raw acquisitiveness! If so perhaps you could explain how useful to you 5m of ageing 9mm and a 20-year old krab is going to be?
Not sabre-rattling here, just hoping to encourage a more community-minded approach!
5 times over my summer guiding season I've put a loop of old (but sound) rope around the big block above the (normally abseiled) steepening at the bottom of Sgurr nan Gillean West Ridge, and donated a maillon or ageing screwgate to the cause of convenient descents and easy rope-retrieval. On every single occasion this gear has disappeared, sometimes after 2 days (?!) Other guides and instructors have had the same experience.
I've always been self-sufficient in the mountains, always carry more tat and encourage others to do so too. But for myself and others who are going up and down the West Ridge every week this is really annoying! I'm just wondering whether people are motivated by a desire to "clean up" the mountain, or it's just raw acquisitiveness! If so perhaps you could explain how useful to you 5m of ageing 9mm and a 20-year old krab is going to be?
Not sabre-rattling here, just hoping to encourage a more community-minded approach!
27
8
30
14
10
7
In reply to Jamie B:
I suspect that you're right in your suspicions, and the tat is being disappeared by those who wish to preserve the pristine, wild nature of our mountains. I suppose the real question here is whether this is more important than your convenience/expense - those taking the tat in the first place probably think that it is, but if you and other guides are simply going to keep replacing it then it would seem like a rather quixotic endeavour. I can just picture it; the crusty, bearded defenders of our mountains in the role of Heracles, frantically hacking at the many-headed hydra that is twenty-first century accessibility, vaingloriously fighting the onset of grim modernity.
I suspect that you're right in your suspicions, and the tat is being disappeared by those who wish to preserve the pristine, wild nature of our mountains. I suppose the real question here is whether this is more important than your convenience/expense - those taking the tat in the first place probably think that it is, but if you and other guides are simply going to keep replacing it then it would seem like a rather quixotic endeavour. I can just picture it; the crusty, bearded defenders of our mountains in the role of Heracles, frantically hacking at the many-headed hydra that is twenty-first century accessibility, vaingloriously fighting the onset of grim modernity.
19
2
In reply to Jamie B:
It sounds like a lesson in etiquette is required for the person who keeps removing it. I always thought the rules over abseil tat are:
- If it's safe and you are happy with it then use it.
- If it's dangerous/worn out - replace it.
???
It sounds like a lesson in etiquette is required for the person who keeps removing it. I always thought the rules over abseil tat are:
- If it's safe and you are happy with it then use it.
- If it's dangerous/worn out - replace it.
???
14
2
In reply to springfall2008:
And the rule over littering is "take your litter home" and "leave nothing but footprints".
The question is where you draw the line!
And the rule over littering is "take your litter home" and "leave nothing but footprints".
The question is where you draw the line!
27
2
9
2
In reply to Jamie B:
Inevitable outcome of the long standing crap British compromise of no safe drilled fixed gear but plentiful tat left of questionable safety? You know you put it there last week but Joe Blogs on his first holiday to Skye in 15 years doesn't so removes and bins your perfectly decent tat thinking he is tidying up.
Inevitable outcome of the long standing crap British compromise of no safe drilled fixed gear but plentiful tat left of questionable safety? You know you put it there last week but Joe Blogs on his first holiday to Skye in 15 years doesn't so removes and bins your perfectly decent tat thinking he is tidying up.
16
4
In reply to Jamie B:
My money is on people having a grand day out going up the west ridge & down the "tourist route" nicking it as swag because at their particular level a screw-gate is desirable & they don't get mountain etiquette.
My money is on people having a grand day out going up the west ridge & down the "tourist route" nicking it as swag because at their particular level a screw-gate is desirable & they don't get mountain etiquette.
2
11
In reply to Jamie B:
I think we need to catch up with the Europeans and stop with the 'pristine, ethical mountain' talk so many come out with.
Why not leave the tat in place and make everyone's life easier. Agree that you shouldnt rely on it being there and take your own tat but removing it just smacks of taking the pureness too far.
I think we need to catch up with the Europeans and stop with the 'pristine, ethical mountain' talk so many come out with.
Why not leave the tat in place and make everyone's life easier. Agree that you shouldnt rely on it being there and take your own tat but removing it just smacks of taking the pureness too far.
10
20
In reply to Jamie B:
You might have answered your own question there, Jamie? If it's not worth 'nicking' then I would guess that the removal is prompted by 'who the hell has left this rubbish here'!
> I'm just wondering whether people are motivated by a desire to "clean up" the mountain, or it's just raw acquisitiveness! If so perhaps you could explain how useful to you 5m of ageing 9mm and a 20-year old krab is going to be?
You might have answered your own question there, Jamie? If it's not worth 'nicking' then I would guess that the removal is prompted by 'who the hell has left this rubbish here'!
9
In reply to greylag:
Really? You honestly believe that?
The mountains are simply a 'utility' for our pleasure and can be adapted in any way we see fit to make life simpler, less complicated and wearisome for those who seek their thrills amongst them?
Roll on the Cuillin traverse VF........
> I think we need to catch up with the Europeans and stop with the 'pristine, ethical mountain' talk so many come out with.
Really? You honestly believe that?
The mountains are simply a 'utility' for our pleasure and can be adapted in any way we see fit to make life simpler, less complicated and wearisome for those who seek their thrills amongst them?
Roll on the Cuillin traverse VF........
Post edited at 14:20
13
3
In reply to TobyA:
I'd tend to agree that a couple of bolts is tidier than abseil tat, but then someone has to maintain the bolts.....
I'd tend to agree that a couple of bolts is tidier than abseil tat, but then someone has to maintain the bolts.....
3
7
In reply to Jamie B:
After the Inn Pinn, the foot of the west ridge of SnG must be the mosty popular abseil point on the ridge. Why not club together with the other guides and sling a chain around the block? Just like on the Pinn. A chain is removable (unlike bolts which are permanent vandalism) yet unlikely to be removed. Thin end of the wedge? Maybe. I must confess to being unsure.
After the Inn Pinn, the foot of the west ridge of SnG must be the mosty popular abseil point on the ridge. Why not club together with the other guides and sling a chain around the block? Just like on the Pinn. A chain is removable (unlike bolts which are permanent vandalism) yet unlikely to be removed. Thin end of the wedge? Maybe. I must confess to being unsure.
21
2
In reply to Jamie B:
The trouble is that climbing folk love to remove abseil points if they don't need them, but quite happy to leave them if they do. I can recall discussion over the sling for aid to protect a second or client into Tower Gap (which side were you on?). Also someone who removes all abseil tat on sea-stacks (smaller ones) because they are good at simultaneous abseiling. And no doubt many other discussions.
The trouble is that climbing folk love to remove abseil points if they don't need them, but quite happy to leave them if they do. I can recall discussion over the sling for aid to protect a second or client into Tower Gap (which side were you on?). Also someone who removes all abseil tat on sea-stacks (smaller ones) because they are good at simultaneous abseiling. And no doubt many other discussions.
8
In reply to Andy Say:
Yes I do.
I'm trad through and through and believe I'd you don't have the skills to arrange any set up then you shouldn't be there. No argument there and whilst I also don't believe slapping abseil bolts should be here, there and everywhere (like the Europeans) Jamie B clearly has more right to say what is right or wrong than any of us.
Why remove abseil tat? Apart from looking tatty which I'm sure the guides wouldn't allow it to, I really don't get why (apart from arrogance) would someone remove tat for all?
Educate me....
Yes I do.
I'm trad through and through and believe I'd you don't have the skills to arrange any set up then you shouldn't be there. No argument there and whilst I also don't believe slapping abseil bolts should be here, there and everywhere (like the Europeans) Jamie B clearly has more right to say what is right or wrong than any of us.
Why remove abseil tat? Apart from looking tatty which I'm sure the guides wouldn't allow it to, I really don't get why (apart from arrogance) would someone remove tat for all?
Educate me....
9
In reply to Jamie B:
If I find slings lying around I usually take them home and bin them. Seems the public spirited thing to do. They're often in places with good descent paths, like the top of Quiver Rib.
Never considered commercial users and their needs; assumed they are always equipped to equip...
If I find slings lying around I usually take them home and bin them. Seems the public spirited thing to do. They're often in places with good descent paths, like the top of Quiver Rib.
Never considered commercial users and their needs; assumed they are always equipped to equip...
4
1
In reply to greylag:
In the US we are less enamored of bolts than the Europeans but more likely to use them than you Brits, although we seem, unfortunately, to be heading in the Euro direction. In many cases, it is pretty hard to argue that a good set of rap bolts isn't a much better, cleaner, safer solution than piles of rotting old tat.
But there are downsides, which come from a "leakage" from bolts just for rapping to bolts for belay anchors---which enable rapping from anywhere and also encourage top-roping of first pitches. The bolted rap stations seem to be a desensitizing effect, soon people are clamoring for bolts at belay stances, and self-appointed supporters of the community are only too willing to oblige. Once a multipitch climb can be rapped from anywhere, the crowds go up, people feel much more comfortable with late starts, people who may not be up to the route have no qualms about giving it a try and bailing if necessary , and the route becomes a crowded two-way thoroughfare with a few parties having major epics.
The UK has admirably strong traditions to retard these developments, but whether those traditions can withstand an encroaching bolting ethic is not entirely clear. I'd say the US experience gives no cause for optimism.
One of the things some of us have done short of bolting for certain well-used raps with natural anchoring possibilities is to install really good anchors that don't look like tat (for a year or two anyway...). I use lengths of retired 8.5mm half rope in good shape, tie two completely independent loops with bounce-tightened triple fisherman's knots (you will not be untying these---cutting is the only option), and add two maillons or solid rap rings.
These installations are still subject to predation by dedicated environmentalists (with whom I have some sympathy), but no one can mistake them for unreliable tat, and people do not generally feel the need to back them up with stuff that is a lot worse. A few guides or committed locals can switch out the ropes every 2 years or so (depending on weather and usage).
Another trend (that I'm not really a fan of) is to install suitably weather-resistant steel cable rather than using rope or webbing.
In the US we are less enamored of bolts than the Europeans but more likely to use them than you Brits, although we seem, unfortunately, to be heading in the Euro direction. In many cases, it is pretty hard to argue that a good set of rap bolts isn't a much better, cleaner, safer solution than piles of rotting old tat.
But there are downsides, which come from a "leakage" from bolts just for rapping to bolts for belay anchors---which enable rapping from anywhere and also encourage top-roping of first pitches. The bolted rap stations seem to be a desensitizing effect, soon people are clamoring for bolts at belay stances, and self-appointed supporters of the community are only too willing to oblige. Once a multipitch climb can be rapped from anywhere, the crowds go up, people feel much more comfortable with late starts, people who may not be up to the route have no qualms about giving it a try and bailing if necessary , and the route becomes a crowded two-way thoroughfare with a few parties having major epics.
The UK has admirably strong traditions to retard these developments, but whether those traditions can withstand an encroaching bolting ethic is not entirely clear. I'd say the US experience gives no cause for optimism.
One of the things some of us have done short of bolting for certain well-used raps with natural anchoring possibilities is to install really good anchors that don't look like tat (for a year or two anyway...). I use lengths of retired 8.5mm half rope in good shape, tie two completely independent loops with bounce-tightened triple fisherman's knots (you will not be untying these---cutting is the only option), and add two maillons or solid rap rings.
These installations are still subject to predation by dedicated environmentalists (with whom I have some sympathy), but no one can mistake them for unreliable tat, and people do not generally feel the need to back them up with stuff that is a lot worse. A few guides or committed locals can switch out the ropes every 2 years or so (depending on weather and usage).
Another trend (that I'm not really a fan of) is to install suitably weather-resistant steel cable rather than using rope or webbing.
Post edited at 17:14
27
In reply to rgold:
Good point about people backing off first pitches or the third etc. I just don't think this would occur that often in the UK though. Reasons for this is partly due to the nature of the vast majority of climbs and also the detail guidebooks give us.
Just to avoid the age old argument of bolts in the UK environment which has been done to death. I'm arguing in support of tat (commercial or not) in places where it benefits the few rather than the masses and against those who nick it!!
I believe there's a difference between tat on Shepherds and tat on Skye or even on Ben Nevis (I recall a similar discussion on here a year or two back re Tower Ridge??).
Tat is rarely included in UK guidebooks and it's only those well travelled amongst us that know the location of it. If you come across it and are in need of it then bonus, if not, then sort yourselves out boys and girls.
Good point about people backing off first pitches or the third etc. I just don't think this would occur that often in the UK though. Reasons for this is partly due to the nature of the vast majority of climbs and also the detail guidebooks give us.
Just to avoid the age old argument of bolts in the UK environment which has been done to death. I'm arguing in support of tat (commercial or not) in places where it benefits the few rather than the masses and against those who nick it!!
I believe there's a difference between tat on Shepherds and tat on Skye or even on Ben Nevis (I recall a similar discussion on here a year or two back re Tower Ridge??).
Tat is rarely included in UK guidebooks and it's only those well travelled amongst us that know the location of it. If you come across it and are in need of it then bonus, if not, then sort yourselves out boys and girls.
2
1
In reply to rgold:
For a second there I read " The UK has admirably strong traditions to retards" and I was thinking hmmm that's a bit much...
> The UK has admirably strong traditions to retard these developments, but whether those traditions can withstand an encroaching bolting ethic is not entirely clear. I'd say the US experience gives no cause for optimism.
For a second there I read " The UK has admirably strong traditions to retards" and I was thinking hmmm that's a bit much...
7
In reply to Jamie B:
If permanent abseil placements are unethical, why would you consider leaving tat to be ethical?
Because you do it in the course of your business doesn't give you the right to leave it does it?
If it's really "unavoidable" then why don't you go back later and retrieve it? Those who you are moaning about clearly seem able to retrieve it and get down safely, so why can't you?
I'm not sabre rattling either just flinging out some thoughts.
If permanent abseil placements are unethical, why would you consider leaving tat to be ethical?
Because you do it in the course of your business doesn't give you the right to leave it does it?
If it's really "unavoidable" then why don't you go back later and retrieve it? Those who you are moaning about clearly seem able to retrieve it and get down safely, so why can't you?
I'm not sabre rattling either just flinging out some thoughts.
12
3
In reply to Valkyrie1968:
That got a like Although I've never really seen myself as grim or modern...
> I can just picture it; the crusty, bearded defenders of our mountains in the role of Heracles, frantically hacking at the many-headed hydra that is twenty-first century accessibility, vaingloriously fighting the onset of grim modernity.
That got a like Although I've never really seen myself as grim or modern...
In reply to Trangia:
Ethics or business don't really come into it - just steep ground that I don't want to downclimb...
They're probably going down a different way. If I had a few more summer days off I might consider doing laps of Sgurr nan Gillean to retrieve gear, then again...
> If permanent abseil placements are unethical, why would you consider leaving tat to be ethical?
> Because you do it in the course of your business doesn't give you the right to leave it does it?
> Because you do it in the course of your business doesn't give you the right to leave it does it?
Ethics or business don't really come into it - just steep ground that I don't want to downclimb...
> If it's really "unavoidable" then why don't you go back later and retrieve it? Those who you are moaning about clearly seem able to retrieve it and get down safely, so why can't you?
They're probably going down a different way. If I had a few more summer days off I might consider doing laps of Sgurr nan Gillean to retrieve gear, then again...
5
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
Remember it well. Also remember deciding to stay well out of it!
> I can recall discussion over the sling for aid to protect a second or client into Tower Gap (which side were you on?).
Remember it well. Also remember deciding to stay well out of it!
In reply to springfall2008:
You forgot the third rule - if it looks flash and you're going down another way then have it
Which is why I've tried to leave non-flash gear. Unsuccessfully it would appear...
> It sounds like a lesson in etiquette is required for the person who keeps removing it. I always thought the rules over abseil tat are:
> - If it's safe and you are happy with it then use it.
> - If it's dangerous/worn out - replace it.
> - If it's dangerous/worn out - replace it.
You forgot the third rule - if it looks flash and you're going down another way then have it
Which is why I've tried to leave non-flash gear. Unsuccessfully it would appear...
1
In reply to Trangia:
I think that here the people removing stuff are those going up, not down. All depends which way round you're going Gillean.
I think that here the people removing stuff are those going up, not down. All depends which way round you're going Gillean.
2
In reply to Jamie B:
It's easy enough to downclimb the whole of the west ridge so I wouldn't assume those taking the tat are necessarily going up the way, and can understand why many would deem it unnecessary.
It's easy enough to downclimb the whole of the west ridge so I wouldn't assume those taking the tat are necessarily going up the way, and can understand why many would deem it unnecessary.
3
In reply to Jamie B:
Maybe those who remove it to protect the environment could (in the interests of the environment) drop it off at the Slig for you to collect and recycle!
Maybe those who remove it to protect the environment could (in the interests of the environment) drop it off at the Slig for you to collect and recycle!
1
In reply to Jamie B:
The abseil tat atop the main buttress on Dinas Mot looks like a pile of sh**e. A discrete ring bolt, ala Dolomites, would be a lot less wasteful and less intrusive.
But this is the UK, so let's keep the bundle of sh**e. Because we're special.
At Tremadog people relentlessly use the trees to belay, leading to ring barking and the consequential death of the tree, but hey, that's a lot more ethically sound than a ring bolt to belay off.
The storm is raging in that pathetic old teacup.
The abseil tat atop the main buttress on Dinas Mot looks like a pile of sh**e. A discrete ring bolt, ala Dolomites, would be a lot less wasteful and less intrusive.
But this is the UK, so let's keep the bundle of sh**e. Because we're special.
At Tremadog people relentlessly use the trees to belay, leading to ring barking and the consequential death of the tree, but hey, that's a lot more ethically sound than a ring bolt to belay off.
The storm is raging in that pathetic old teacup.
21
16
In reply to sfletch:
Or scramble down one of those two conveniently situated gullies?
> But this is the UK, so let's keep the bundle of sh**e. Because we're special.
Or scramble down one of those two conveniently situated gullies?
13
2
In reply to sfletch:
What would be ethically sound at Tremadog would be to walk down or use the couple of ab stations which have been set up. I'd rather the ab stations weren't there but as it's seen as a convenience crag by many then it's a better option than using the trees directly.
No bolts needed!
What would be ethically sound at Tremadog would be to walk down or use the couple of ab stations which have been set up. I'd rather the ab stations weren't there but as it's seen as a convenience crag by many then it's a better option than using the trees directly.
No bolts needed!
12
1
Ah, the bolt/tat paradox, as always..
It is utterly useless for someone to remove a good tidy piece of tat and maillon where it will inevitably be quickly replaced, quite possible by something substandard - in which case there is strong potential for a shitty clump of tat sphagetti to develop.
So, tat removers, pretty convenient to pocket the rope from the WR of Gillean but why don't you then go and tidy up King's Cave Chimney? You'll need a big rucksack! In fact that's exactly what I'm going to do in the springtime.
4
1
In reply to sfletch:
Dinas Mot, a crag with two moderate descent options.
Tremadoc, a crag where there are easy paths with wooden steps on the steep bits to walk down.
Maybe the choice of abseil anchor is not the real issue here...
Dinas Mot, a crag with two moderate descent options.
Tremadoc, a crag where there are easy paths with wooden steps on the steep bits to walk down.
Maybe the choice of abseil anchor is not the real issue here...
11
In reply to sfletch:
that's because they are lazy, the paths off tremadog have improved immensely over the years. I just don't see how abbing off is quicker anymore. Apart from saving the trees, other climbers don't get some muppets rope on their head when they throw it off the edge and it tangles in a tree.
> At Tremadog people relentlessly use the trees to belay, leading to ring barking and the consequential death of the tree, but hey, that's a lot more ethically sound than a ring bolt to belay off.
that's because they are lazy, the paths off tremadog have improved immensely over the years. I just don't see how abbing off is quicker anymore. Apart from saving the trees, other climbers don't get some muppets rope on their head when they throw it off the edge and it tangles in a tree.
10
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Somewhat less so with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end!
> It's easy enough to downclimb the whole of the west ridge
Somewhat less so with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end!
1
1
In reply to greylag:
Why is that? I'd think you or I have as much right.
Because for some the leaving of an abseil/belay station on a mountain like Sgurr nan Gillean, on a route like the West Ridge is simply 'littering' in what they would consider should be a 'clean' environment.
> Yes I do.
> Jamie B clearly has more right to say what is right or wrong than any of us.
Why is that? I'd think you or I have as much right.
> Why remove abseil tat? Apart from looking tatty which I'm sure the guides wouldn't allow it to, I really don't get why (apart from arrogance) would someone remove tat for all?
> Educate me....
> Educate me....
Because for some the leaving of an abseil/belay station on a mountain like Sgurr nan Gillean, on a route like the West Ridge is simply 'littering' in what they would consider should be a 'clean' environment.
5
In reply to Jamie B:
So, Jamie, do you get your clients to abseil down? Or do you top-rope them down the steep bit and then abseil after?
> Somewhat less so with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end!
So, Jamie, do you get your clients to abseil down? Or do you top-rope them down the steep bit and then abseil after?
1
1
In reply to Andy Say:
I used to lower the clients down, drop the rope for them to coil and then solo down (it's a different route to climb compared to the abseil).
I used to lower the clients down, drop the rope for them to coil and then solo down (it's a different route to climb compared to the abseil).
2
In reply to Andy Say:
I generally do a stacked abseil. Lowering is not very empowering for clients and knackers ropes - I only really do it if we're time pressured or a client can't cope with abseiling.
I generally do a stacked abseil. Lowering is not very empowering for clients and knackers ropes - I only really do it if we're time pressured or a client can't cope with abseiling.
2
In reply to Jamie B:
Stacked abseil is a bit time consuming and as you say, needs the clients to have abseiled before. Depends what else you are doing that day and how much time. And I don't think that place has room for three to be stacked. Not that I know exactly where your abseil point is, but if you're going to used it also, then well back could be difficult. Lowering doesn't require anything to be left.
> I generally do a stacked abseil. Lowering is not very empowering for clients and knackers ropes - I only really do it if we're time pressured or a client can't cope with abseiling.
Stacked abseil is a bit time consuming and as you say, needs the clients to have abseiled before. Depends what else you are doing that day and how much time. And I don't think that place has room for three to be stacked. Not that I know exactly where your abseil point is, but if you're going to used it also, then well back could be difficult. Lowering doesn't require anything to be left.
3
In reply to summo:
In the US, convenience rappelling has reached epic proportions. There is no walk-off (forget about easy downclimbing) too short or too easy to forego rappelling straight down to your pack at the base of the route. Too bad if you throw your ropes or drop things on the folks below. Add to this the fact that certain routes with offensively easy upper pitches get midway bolted rap stations so that the climbing public can enjoy the delectable bits without having to slog up merely ordinary pitches, and you have what is really a new ethic that ignores whatever the "mountain experience" might have meant---detaching the climbing from its natural context and certainly from anything remotely resembling its original raison d'etre---and leaving in its stead a sort of supermarket of "rock challenges" to pick and choose from, unencumbered as much as possible by the realities of the natural setting.
My sense is that the UK is the last bastion of resistance to this trend, with powerful traditions and a strong, if wavering, consensus impeding what seems in other places to be the relentless multiplication of bolted anchors on trad climbs, so bully for you lads, and keep it up please, realizing that once Pandora's box is fully open, there is no getting things back inside.
In the US, convenience rappelling has reached epic proportions. There is no walk-off (forget about easy downclimbing) too short or too easy to forego rappelling straight down to your pack at the base of the route. Too bad if you throw your ropes or drop things on the folks below. Add to this the fact that certain routes with offensively easy upper pitches get midway bolted rap stations so that the climbing public can enjoy the delectable bits without having to slog up merely ordinary pitches, and you have what is really a new ethic that ignores whatever the "mountain experience" might have meant---detaching the climbing from its natural context and certainly from anything remotely resembling its original raison d'etre---and leaving in its stead a sort of supermarket of "rock challenges" to pick and choose from, unencumbered as much as possible by the realities of the natural setting.
My sense is that the UK is the last bastion of resistance to this trend, with powerful traditions and a strong, if wavering, consensus impeding what seems in other places to be the relentless multiplication of bolted anchors on trad climbs, so bully for you lads, and keep it up please, realizing that once Pandora's box is fully open, there is no getting things back inside.
20
In reply to Jamie B:
Likewise motorbike chains covered-in plastic plus super glued maillon around tree (s)that, people regularly lower off. One of the trees in question is regularly festooned with several bands of tat . A person could be forgiven for giving up after a few tries .
Likewise motorbike chains covered-in plastic plus super glued maillon around tree (s)that, people regularly lower off. One of the trees in question is regularly festooned with several bands of tat . A person could be forgiven for giving up after a few tries .
Post edited at 13:19
In reply to rgold:
Not sure whether a 'like' is required for your sentiments or a dislike for the news you bring.....
Not sure whether a 'like' is required for your sentiments or a dislike for the news you bring.....
2
In reply to Jamie B:
Hi Jamie, I wasn't really suggesting you lowered them down. If they have scrambled up there then surely they can scramble back down with a secure top-rope?
Stacked abseils with 'with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end' sounds interesting!
Hi Jamie, I wasn't really suggesting you lowered them down. If they have scrambled up there then surely they can scramble back down with a secure top-rope?
Stacked abseils with 'with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end' sounds interesting!
In reply to Andy Say:
A bit of tat is hardly littering? Come on, let's stop being so British. I'm not personally referring to you Andy but have those saying it's littering never had to ab off before and leave stuff behind?
Jamie has more right as those do who have knowledge of 'their' area. If Honnold says "this or that" should happen in Yosemite then I'm going to respect his thoughts more than Daves from Timbuktu.
A bit of tat is hardly littering? Come on, let's stop being so British. I'm not personally referring to you Andy but have those saying it's littering never had to ab off before and leave stuff behind?
Jamie has more right as those do who have knowledge of 'their' area. If Honnold says "this or that" should happen in Yosemite then I'm going to respect his thoughts more than Daves from Timbuktu.
2
5
In reply to greylag:
Nonsense.
To the OP: 'I've put a loop of old (but sound) rope' - how do I know whether or not your 'old' rope is 'sound' when I come across it? And, if I can't tell, isn't it just litter?
More generally: If we have to have 'guided parties' in these hills, I think I'd go along with other comments above: lower those unable to downclimb; then downclimb yourself.
> Jamie has more right as those do who have knowledge of 'their' area.
Nonsense.
To the OP: 'I've put a loop of old (but sound) rope' - how do I know whether or not your 'old' rope is 'sound' when I come across it? And, if I can't tell, isn't it just litter?
More generally: If we have to have 'guided parties' in these hills, I think I'd go along with other comments above: lower those unable to downclimb; then downclimb yourself.
Post edited at 14:38
7
3
In reply to rgold:
I agree, I think it stems from those who climb indoors first and see climbing on par with a trip to the gym, just a bit of exercise. Where as those with 'ethics' might have progressed from walker, scrambler, summer then winter climber, alpinist etc.. they appreciate the whole experience; walk ins to somewhere remote, a nav off the top in cloud etc.. not just the fact they pulled a really cool 6a move on the 3rd pitch and their mate shared it on snapchat.
I see it in Sweden too. There is no open sharing of crag knowledge, just masses of pet projects, my club also own the local wall and there are a few semi secret crag development projects. Very few people climb trad, the first thing a guy said when discussing a crag he told me about was that he would happily bolt any route I put up, but I could of course use gear as there were plenty cracks there, but the landowner has no issue with bolts, so he'd happily plaster it. There is no desire among many newer / younger climbers to climb things in their purest form. It's about grade and difficulty, not the experience in itself.
Sad times ahead I think.
I agree, I think it stems from those who climb indoors first and see climbing on par with a trip to the gym, just a bit of exercise. Where as those with 'ethics' might have progressed from walker, scrambler, summer then winter climber, alpinist etc.. they appreciate the whole experience; walk ins to somewhere remote, a nav off the top in cloud etc.. not just the fact they pulled a really cool 6a move on the 3rd pitch and their mate shared it on snapchat.
I see it in Sweden too. There is no open sharing of crag knowledge, just masses of pet projects, my club also own the local wall and there are a few semi secret crag development projects. Very few people climb trad, the first thing a guy said when discussing a crag he told me about was that he would happily bolt any route I put up, but I could of course use gear as there were plenty cracks there, but the landowner has no issue with bolts, so he'd happily plaster it. There is no desire among many newer / younger climbers to climb things in their purest form. It's about grade and difficulty, not the experience in itself.
Sad times ahead I think.
5
In reply to Rob Parsons:
you inspect it, look for wear on any edges where it contacts rock, and if without krab for signs of wear caused by ropes pulled through.
If you intend to ab off that point and don't trust it, you either replace or back it up. If you don't intend to do either, then you leave it. Just like in alps, you don't go chopping prussik cord / tat off, unless you intend to improve it by leaving something better behind. Exactly the same ethics applies with in situ gear in caving, replace or improve, never remove as someone might need that gear, plus it was obviously placed there for a reason.
Generally even if it's faded it's sound, I've got the kids swings hanging off trees and the same sling/s have been there nearly 10 years now, UV'd to death and it's still fine.
> To the OP: 'I've put a loop of old (but sound) rope' - how do I know whether or not your 'old' rope is 'sound' when I come across it? And, if I can't tell, isn't it just litter?
you inspect it, look for wear on any edges where it contacts rock, and if without krab for signs of wear caused by ropes pulled through.
If you intend to ab off that point and don't trust it, you either replace or back it up. If you don't intend to do either, then you leave it. Just like in alps, you don't go chopping prussik cord / tat off, unless you intend to improve it by leaving something better behind. Exactly the same ethics applies with in situ gear in caving, replace or improve, never remove as someone might need that gear, plus it was obviously placed there for a reason.
Generally even if it's faded it's sound, I've got the kids swings hanging off trees and the same sling/s have been there nearly 10 years now, UV'd to death and it's still fine.
1
In reply to greylag:
Why not just put in two bolts and stop leaving grotty bits of rope about that degrade? Safer and more discrete IMO.
> I think we need to catch up with the Europeans and stop with the 'pristine, ethical mountain' talk so many come out with.
> Why not leave the tat in place and make everyone's life easier. Agree that you shouldnt rely on it being there and take your own tat but removing it just smacks of taking the pureness too far.
Why not just put in two bolts and stop leaving grotty bits of rope about that degrade? Safer and more discrete IMO.
3
10
In reply to ianstevens:
Bolts in the Cuillins? is nothing sacred? FFS......... Sad that anyone would even contemplate it. I'd be near the front of a (I hope long) queue to chop them.
> Why not just put in two bolts and stop leaving grotty bits of rope about that degrade? Safer and more discrete IMO.
Bolts in the Cuillins? is nothing sacred? FFS......... Sad that anyone would even contemplate it. I'd be near the front of a (I hope long) queue to chop them.
21
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
Why is dirty old rope percieved as more acceptable then? Bolts would be safer, cheaper (in the long run), more discreet and can't be nicked. I'm not suggesting widespread bolting, just an abseil station instead of using tat.
Why is dirty old rope percieved as more acceptable then? Bolts would be safer, cheaper (in the long run), more discreet and can't be nicked. I'm not suggesting widespread bolting, just an abseil station instead of using tat.
Post edited at 15:15
3
15
In reply to ianstevens:
So every standard abseil point going in both directions on the main ridge? Then what about other areas. If ever any bolting could potentially be the end of a very thick wedge, this would be it. Absolutely unthinkable. The Cuillins are just about the most traditional mountain area we have and it is outrageous to suggest dumbing them down in this way. It's not going to happen.
> I'm not suggesting widespread bolting, just an abseil station instead of using tat.
So every standard abseil point going in both directions on the main ridge? Then what about other areas. If ever any bolting could potentially be the end of a very thick wedge, this would be it. Absolutely unthinkable. The Cuillins are just about the most traditional mountain area we have and it is outrageous to suggest dumbing them down in this way. It's not going to happen.
23
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Only to replace those with semi-permenant gear. There is no reason it would be impractical in other areas either.
Bolts are not "dumbing down" when compared with using semi-permenant tat. It's no easier to thread rap rings than in-situ tat, they just happen to be more sustainble. You should (and I would) inspect any in-situ kit, bolts, tat or otherwise. I personally see no difference between littering the hills of the UK with old nylon rope or aluminium bolts, except that the latter is safer and more discrete. For some reason there is the view in the UK scene that placing any bolt at all is desecration - it's no worse (and in fact better IMO, for reasons listed above) than leaving old rope around the place.
I'd rather see no in-situ material at all, but accept that this approach is often impracticle.
Only to replace those with semi-permenant gear. There is no reason it would be impractical in other areas either.
Bolts are not "dumbing down" when compared with using semi-permenant tat. It's no easier to thread rap rings than in-situ tat, they just happen to be more sustainble. You should (and I would) inspect any in-situ kit, bolts, tat or otherwise. I personally see no difference between littering the hills of the UK with old nylon rope or aluminium bolts, except that the latter is safer and more discrete. For some reason there is the view in the UK scene that placing any bolt at all is desecration - it's no worse (and in fact better IMO, for reasons listed above) than leaving old rope around the place.
I'd rather see no in-situ material at all, but accept that this approach is often impracticle.
Post edited at 15:43
4
8
In reply to ianstevens:
Haha I won't bite on that one and like I said earlier I'll leave the non-agreeable bolts discussion to others.
Haha I won't bite on that one and like I said earlier I'll leave the non-agreeable bolts discussion to others.
In reply to Jamie B:
My favourite ab points:
The chain at the top of Gimmer that gets you straight back to the Ash Tree Ledge without walking around, down to the base of the crag, then scrambling back up the grassy rake.
That tat on the tree at the top of Lower Falcon which allows you to climb on the crag during the bird ban (walking off takes you past a peregrine's nest). Having the tat in place stops the tree from dying.
The chain near the top of Broad Stand which avoids an awkward and dangerous descent down the aforementioned route itself for those who've just climbed on Scafell.
The chain at the top of Ichabod which avoids a very long walk around.
Various bits along the Cuillin Ridge.
The tat on the tree at the top of Epitaph at Baildon Bank which allows you to get off the crag without walking through someone's garden.
These ab points aren't ugly - they're all in very climber specific places. They're not going to be seen by your average walker. Which climber is it who is shielding their eyes from the visual horror of a loop of rope around a block?
These ab points don't encourage punters into the mountains. Do we seriously believe that there are people out there who would love to go scrambling or climbing but can't because they might encounter a situations where an ab point was missing and they couldn't figure out how to either put a sling around a tree/block, or else walk down the long way round (causing footpath erosion in the process)? People using ab points can obviously rig them themselves - it's not difficult - but it's senselessly inconvenient and wasteful to expect every person who uses an ab point to rig and leave their own tat.
If it's not in a serviceable condition then remove it. If it's useable then FFS leave it alone.
My favourite ab points:
The chain at the top of Gimmer that gets you straight back to the Ash Tree Ledge without walking around, down to the base of the crag, then scrambling back up the grassy rake.
That tat on the tree at the top of Lower Falcon which allows you to climb on the crag during the bird ban (walking off takes you past a peregrine's nest). Having the tat in place stops the tree from dying.
The chain near the top of Broad Stand which avoids an awkward and dangerous descent down the aforementioned route itself for those who've just climbed on Scafell.
The chain at the top of Ichabod which avoids a very long walk around.
Various bits along the Cuillin Ridge.
The tat on the tree at the top of Epitaph at Baildon Bank which allows you to get off the crag without walking through someone's garden.
These ab points aren't ugly - they're all in very climber specific places. They're not going to be seen by your average walker. Which climber is it who is shielding their eyes from the visual horror of a loop of rope around a block?
These ab points don't encourage punters into the mountains. Do we seriously believe that there are people out there who would love to go scrambling or climbing but can't because they might encounter a situations where an ab point was missing and they couldn't figure out how to either put a sling around a tree/block, or else walk down the long way round (causing footpath erosion in the process)? People using ab points can obviously rig them themselves - it's not difficult - but it's senselessly inconvenient and wasteful to expect every person who uses an ab point to rig and leave their own tat.
If it's not in a serviceable condition then remove it. If it's useable then FFS leave it alone.
10
3
1
7
In reply to Will Hunt:
But how do you know what is safe or not? Jamie says he purposely uses old bits of rope, for good reason. But when you see a bit of insitu rope how do you know if it has been there days, months or even years?
> If it's useable then FFS leave it alone.
But how do you know what is safe or not? Jamie says he purposely uses old bits of rope, for good reason. But when you see a bit of insitu rope how do you know if it has been there days, months or even years?
1
In reply to greylag:
Greylag - and Will Hunt.
I've no real problem with being 'British' in this regard Though the 'British' approach does seem under some threat.
My reading of this specific situation is that someone working on this route frequently would like to have an ab station in place for his clients who are not capable of down-climbing Moderate on a top-rope (but are capable of abseiling). There is an alternative that requires no gear left behind (viz Andy Nisbet's solution). Apologies to Jamie, but his approach and the placing of in-situ gear sounds like a convenience rather than a necessity. The blunt fact is that an ab station is not needed here. I stand ready to be corrected, of course!
Will. I think it's really nice that you have favourite ab. points. I've never really managed to get that fond of abseiling myself. Although, of course, the majority of the ones you cite are there as a result of sheer laziness. Gimmer, Broad Stand, Ichabod - you can walk. FFS Samuel Coleridge got down Broad stand!
Climbing routes on Lower Falcon during a bird ban 'cause you aren't actually going to go past the nest I won't comment on.
As for the horrendous mountaineering epic that is the descent from the top of Baildon Bank? I agree that an ab is convenient but you don't actually need to go through someone's garden to get off you know.
> Come on, let's stop being so British. I'm not personally referring to you Andy but have those saying it's littering never had to ab off before and leave stuff behind?
Greylag - and Will Hunt.
I've no real problem with being 'British' in this regard Though the 'British' approach does seem under some threat.
My reading of this specific situation is that someone working on this route frequently would like to have an ab station in place for his clients who are not capable of down-climbing Moderate on a top-rope (but are capable of abseiling). There is an alternative that requires no gear left behind (viz Andy Nisbet's solution). Apologies to Jamie, but his approach and the placing of in-situ gear sounds like a convenience rather than a necessity. The blunt fact is that an ab station is not needed here. I stand ready to be corrected, of course!
Will. I think it's really nice that you have favourite ab. points. I've never really managed to get that fond of abseiling myself. Although, of course, the majority of the ones you cite are there as a result of sheer laziness. Gimmer, Broad Stand, Ichabod - you can walk. FFS Samuel Coleridge got down Broad stand!
Climbing routes on Lower Falcon during a bird ban 'cause you aren't actually going to go past the nest I won't comment on.
As for the horrendous mountaineering epic that is the descent from the top of Baildon Bank? I agree that an ab is convenient but you don't actually need to go through someone's garden to get off you know.
5
1
In reply to Andy Say:
I couldn't agree more. Next time I'm there I'll take a knife and rid us of this blight. Similarly the tat on top of left wall on the Cromlech, the tat above the embankment at Millstone; but of course we shall leave the bolt on the Froggatt pinnacle, because we don't want to look inconsistent now do we. However... If people cannot down-climb the severe off the back of the pinnacle they shouldn't be up there! We shouldn't allow people to bring the rock down to their level like this. Discuss.
I couldn't agree more. Next time I'm there I'll take a knife and rid us of this blight. Similarly the tat on top of left wall on the Cromlech, the tat above the embankment at Millstone; but of course we shall leave the bolt on the Froggatt pinnacle, because we don't want to look inconsistent now do we. However... If people cannot down-climb the severe off the back of the pinnacle they shouldn't be up there! We shouldn't allow people to bring the rock down to their level like this. Discuss.
Post edited at 17:52
3
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Anyway.
Walking down is usually preferable to abbing down through following climbers. Especially since you don't require nice tidy ab stations to facilitate that.
Most routes in the UK can be walked off very easily.
I agree that when in extremis it makes absolute sense to create an anchor that will not kill you with spare tat/krabs even if it isn't retrievable (but also accept the fact that it is 'lost' and someone may well bag it).
However I would also contend that leaving shit in the mountains - and that's what we are talking about here, not some convenience crag - is not a good thing.
In terms of aesthetic (and environmental) impact what is the difference between a coke can, a pizza box and a couple of loops of rope and bits of metal?
I've probably made my stance clear. So its probably time to tiptoe away as this is the sort of thread that can get very polarised and just meander on getting more and more heated.
Anyway.
Walking down is usually preferable to abbing down through following climbers. Especially since you don't require nice tidy ab stations to facilitate that.
Most routes in the UK can be walked off very easily.
I agree that when in extremis it makes absolute sense to create an anchor that will not kill you with spare tat/krabs even if it isn't retrievable (but also accept the fact that it is 'lost' and someone may well bag it).
However I would also contend that leaving shit in the mountains - and that's what we are talking about here, not some convenience crag - is not a good thing.
In terms of aesthetic (and environmental) impact what is the difference between a coke can, a pizza box and a couple of loops of rope and bits of metal?
I've probably made my stance clear. So its probably time to tiptoe away as this is the sort of thread that can get very polarised and just meander on getting more and more heated.
2
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Yeah I'm about done too.
I guess life will carry on and we will look back in 20 years and that will give us our answer.
Just another point that was brought up about walking passed a nest. Fair play but it's no worse than climbing within metres of a ring ouzel nest at Stanage - maybe I'll start another thread about that though
Cheers.
Yeah I'm about done too.
I guess life will carry on and we will look back in 20 years and that will give us our answer.
Just another point that was brought up about walking passed a nest. Fair play but it's no worse than climbing within metres of a ring ouzel nest at Stanage - maybe I'll start another thread about that though
Cheers.
In reply to ianstevens:
Old rope is perceived as more acceptable as it relies on a natural feature on the crag/mountain to place it, whereas a bolt can go in wherever is most convenient and removes some part of the natural challenge of the route.
Personally I'd agree with your other point and I'd rather not see any tat on a mountaineering route like this so on such a route I'd always look to remove any such tat and retire it to a bin or recycling point. (whereas being a lazy climber, I'm perfectly happy with the in situ ab points on Gimmer for example, as long as they use natural rock features e.g. cracks, spikes and the like).
> Why is dirty old rope percieved as more acceptable then? Bolts would be safer, cheaper (in the long run), more discreet and can't be nicked. I'm not suggesting widespread bolting, just an abseil station instead of using tat.
Old rope is perceived as more acceptable as it relies on a natural feature on the crag/mountain to place it, whereas a bolt can go in wherever is most convenient and removes some part of the natural challenge of the route.
Personally I'd agree with your other point and I'd rather not see any tat on a mountaineering route like this so on such a route I'd always look to remove any such tat and retire it to a bin or recycling point. (whereas being a lazy climber, I'm perfectly happy with the in situ ab points on Gimmer for example, as long as they use natural rock features e.g. cracks, spikes and the like).
6
In reply to Andy Say:
Just to address your points in turn...
It's not laziness, it's a desire to maximise climbing time and minimise the time between climbs. I.e moving efficiently through a mountain environment. If you're particularly fond of descending on foot then by all means continue, but please don't spoil the fun for those of us who wish to avoid the longer, more drawn out descents.
You're showing your ignorance there, Andy. The birds nest on Upper Falcon, which is banned full stop. Climbs on lower Lower Falcon within sight of the nest are banned, and the BMC guidance requests that the foot descent (which passes the nest) is avoided by using an abseil on the other side of Lower Falcon. But of course you knew all that I'm sure.
I do know, and I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance again. The descent from Epitaph and the surrounding routes is either to cross into the garden of a children's nursery, which the nursery had specifically asked climbers not to do, or to abseil. It may just be possible to hack your way through the very thick and very spiky vegetation with a machete and avoid trespass. I'll leave you to ponder on whether the destruction of the vegetation or the installment of a discrete semi permanent ab station is the less impactful option.
How to assess the quality of fixed rope? In the same way that you would assess your own rope - a visual and physical inspection which takes approx 10 seconds. If in doubt, replace or back up. Simple.
What's the difference between an ab station and litter? Litter serves no purpose in the mountain environment and potentially could cause harm to local wildlife. An ab station is much like a footbridge - it serves a purpose in making passage through the mountain environment easier. I assume that you never use footbridges, Andy, and either wade the river on foot, or else construct your own footbridge and remove it after crossing? Anything else is a result of sheer laziness, to use your own phrase.
Just to address your points in turn...
> Will. I think it's really nice that you have favourite ab. points. I've never really managed to get that fond of abseiling myself. Although, of course, the majority of the ones you cite are there as a result of sheer laziness. Gimmer, Broad Stand, Ichabod - you can walk. FFS Samuel Coleridge got down Broad stand!
It's not laziness, it's a desire to maximise climbing time and minimise the time between climbs. I.e moving efficiently through a mountain environment. If you're particularly fond of descending on foot then by all means continue, but please don't spoil the fun for those of us who wish to avoid the longer, more drawn out descents.
> Climbing routes on Lower Falcon during a bird ban 'cause you aren't actually going to go past the nest I won't comment on.
You're showing your ignorance there, Andy. The birds nest on Upper Falcon, which is banned full stop. Climbs on lower Lower Falcon within sight of the nest are banned, and the BMC guidance requests that the foot descent (which passes the nest) is avoided by using an abseil on the other side of Lower Falcon. But of course you knew all that I'm sure.
> As for the horrendous mountaineering epic that is the descent from the top of Baildon Bank? I agree that an ab is convenient but you don't actually need to go through someone's garden to get off you know.
I do know, and I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance again. The descent from Epitaph and the surrounding routes is either to cross into the garden of a children's nursery, which the nursery had specifically asked climbers not to do, or to abseil. It may just be possible to hack your way through the very thick and very spiky vegetation with a machete and avoid trespass. I'll leave you to ponder on whether the destruction of the vegetation or the installment of a discrete semi permanent ab station is the less impactful option.
How to assess the quality of fixed rope? In the same way that you would assess your own rope - a visual and physical inspection which takes approx 10 seconds. If in doubt, replace or back up. Simple.
What's the difference between an ab station and litter? Litter serves no purpose in the mountain environment and potentially could cause harm to local wildlife. An ab station is much like a footbridge - it serves a purpose in making passage through the mountain environment easier. I assume that you never use footbridges, Andy, and either wade the river on foot, or else construct your own footbridge and remove it after crossing? Anything else is a result of sheer laziness, to use your own phrase.
7
3
In reply to ianstevens:
Yes, as I said, all the standard abseil points on the main ridge.
Absolute nonsense. Bolts would be placed in the optimum position for the abseil (retrieval of ropes etc.), removing much of the skill in safe abseiling, as well as removing the need for good judgement in anchors.
Modern bolts would be absolutely bombproof and people would treat them as such - they are effectively permanent, not semi permanent. Nobody traversing the Cuillin ridge can rely on abseil tat, semi-permanent or otherwise and should carry tat and place it where they judge appropriate for safety.
The Cuillin Ridge is the most iconic traditional mountain expedition in the UK. It must not be desecrated and dumbed down by permanent bolted anchors removing some of the skills of self-reliance required for its completion.
> Only to replace those with semi-permenant gear.
Yes, as I said, all the standard abseil points on the main ridge.
> Bolts are not "dumbing down" when compared with using semi-permenant tat.
Absolute nonsense. Bolts would be placed in the optimum position for the abseil (retrieval of ropes etc.), removing much of the skill in safe abseiling, as well as removing the need for good judgement in anchors.
> You should (and I would) inspect any in-situ kit, bolts, tat or otherwise.
Modern bolts would be absolutely bombproof and people would treat them as such - they are effectively permanent, not semi permanent. Nobody traversing the Cuillin ridge can rely on abseil tat, semi-permanent or otherwise and should carry tat and place it where they judge appropriate for safety.
> I personally see no difference between littering the hills of the UK with old nylon rope or aluminium bolts........ For some reason there is the view in the UK scene that placing any bolt at all is desecration.
The Cuillin Ridge is the most iconic traditional mountain expedition in the UK. It must not be desecrated and dumbed down by permanent bolted anchors removing some of the skills of self-reliance required for its completion.
13
First of all, permanent or semi permanent anchors on the Cuillin Ridge is a separate issue from that of anchors for convenient descent from cragging routes; we are talking about a absolutely classic mountaineering expedition, as traditional in nature as they come, where general mountaineering skills are of the absolute essence.
Secondly, those who make their living from the mountains are in a privileged position and their views on such matters should carry no more weight than any other individual mountaineer (indeed I would treat their views with, if anything, greater scepticism, since they may be tainted by commercial interests).
As to the actual question, in an ideal world, no abseil tat would ever be treated as "semi permanent" - individual climbers would place abseil tat, as required, for their own use and subsequent passing climbers would either use it if they see fit, or else remove it (either because they deem it unsafe and replace it, or because they are in ascent and don't need it). In this ideal world, nobody could depend on any abseil tat being in place anywhere on the ridge and would have to be competently self-sufficient. But it's not an ideal world and semi-permanent tat inevitably appears at some abseil anchors. But this does not mean that anyone should actively encourage the existence of further semi-permanent anchors - Jamie should not be deliberately trying to create them and anyone else in a position to do so should make a point of removing them, thus helping to preserve the mountaineering challenge of the ridge for others.
Edit: I traversed the bulk of the ridge from north to south a week ago. I was (pleasantly) surprised to find no tat for the abseil down King's Chimney off Sgurr Mhic Coinnich. I found an anchor and placed some. I hope the next person going up that way removed it.
Post edited at 20:45
7
In reply to BnB:
No, the chain on the Inn Pinn is the thin end of the wedge - a further chain would be the start of the thick end.
> Why not club together with the other guides and sling a chain around the block? Just like on the Pinn. A chain is removable (unlike bolts which are permanent vandalism) yet unlikely to be removed. Thin end of the wedge? Maybe. I must confess to being unsure.
No, the chain on the Inn Pinn is the thin end of the wedge - a further chain would be the start of the thick end.
3
In reply to Will Hunt:
It's not simply about laziness. I think that this "efficiency" argument is one of the attitudes that doom traditional climbing, and I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Of course, if enough people misunderstand the concept, then the concept itself will be redefined, and that's what I mean by "doom."
Trad climbing is, or used to be, about dealing with what is. "What is" might involve some chossy pitches, it might involve a descent of some complexity, it might involve poor protection, it might involve wet rock or greasy vegetation, etc. Whatever is there, you deal with it. The exceedingly narrow and, I think, wrong-headed definition of trad climbing is climbing protected by gear rather than bolts, with none of the manifold other aspects of dealing with "what is" involved. When that happens, the climber feels free to say, for instance, that the features of the natural world that impede his or her ability to get a lot of climbs (meaning a lot of the good parts of the actual climbs) in during the day are fair game for eliminating and/or circumventing. So first we get tat all over the place, and when the tat becomes intolerable it is replaced by bolts.
Now people will say that redefining the meaning of trad climbing is not a new phenomenon, and the older generation has been wringing their hands over the demise of the enterprise for, well, many generations. This is certainly true, and to some extent it is the job of the older generation to try to keep alive the values and virtues that motivated their youthful days, even knowing that this endeavor is itself doomed to failure.
What I think is different now is the immense pressures resulting from the increase in climbers, crowding not only the climbs themselves, but also diversifying the population so that traditional understandings and viewpoints can no longer be taken for granted. Add to this the advent of practical motorized drilling (no need for Maestri's Cerro Torre compressor), and the ease placing good anchors wherever one wants makes it much harder to argue for the traditional alternatives.
I've mentioned replacing bad tat with good tat. But good or bad, I have to confess a certain fondness for tat, precisely because it is utterly temporary. It may or may not ever happen, but a team with a knife can return a climb to its original state, and so beneath the ugly layers of rotting fabric, the potential for a pristine environment still lurks. But once the bolts and chains and rings go in, the environment will never be the same again. Yeah, we will be getting more climbs into our climbing day, but the climbs themselves are now more of a manufactured amusement, and something about the natural world, something that used to be intrinsic to the activity, will have been lost.
> It's not laziness, it's a desire to maximise climbing time and minimise the time between climbs. I.e moving efficiently through a mountain environment. If you're particularly fond of descending on foot then by all means continue, but please don't spoil the fun for those of us who wish to avoid the longer, more drawn out descents.
It's not simply about laziness. I think that this "efficiency" argument is one of the attitudes that doom traditional climbing, and I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Of course, if enough people misunderstand the concept, then the concept itself will be redefined, and that's what I mean by "doom."
Trad climbing is, or used to be, about dealing with what is. "What is" might involve some chossy pitches, it might involve a descent of some complexity, it might involve poor protection, it might involve wet rock or greasy vegetation, etc. Whatever is there, you deal with it. The exceedingly narrow and, I think, wrong-headed definition of trad climbing is climbing protected by gear rather than bolts, with none of the manifold other aspects of dealing with "what is" involved. When that happens, the climber feels free to say, for instance, that the features of the natural world that impede his or her ability to get a lot of climbs (meaning a lot of the good parts of the actual climbs) in during the day are fair game for eliminating and/or circumventing. So first we get tat all over the place, and when the tat becomes intolerable it is replaced by bolts.
Now people will say that redefining the meaning of trad climbing is not a new phenomenon, and the older generation has been wringing their hands over the demise of the enterprise for, well, many generations. This is certainly true, and to some extent it is the job of the older generation to try to keep alive the values and virtues that motivated their youthful days, even knowing that this endeavor is itself doomed to failure.
What I think is different now is the immense pressures resulting from the increase in climbers, crowding not only the climbs themselves, but also diversifying the population so that traditional understandings and viewpoints can no longer be taken for granted. Add to this the advent of practical motorized drilling (no need for Maestri's Cerro Torre compressor), and the ease placing good anchors wherever one wants makes it much harder to argue for the traditional alternatives.
I've mentioned replacing bad tat with good tat. But good or bad, I have to confess a certain fondness for tat, precisely because it is utterly temporary. It may or may not ever happen, but a team with a knife can return a climb to its original state, and so beneath the ugly layers of rotting fabric, the potential for a pristine environment still lurks. But once the bolts and chains and rings go in, the environment will never be the same again. Yeah, we will be getting more climbs into our climbing day, but the climbs themselves are now more of a manufactured amusement, and something about the natural world, something that used to be intrinsic to the activity, will have been lost.
Post edited at 22:37
17
In reply to rgold:
You seem to have confused me with someone who was advocating for bolted abseil stations. I wasn't. Tat is fine.
You seem to have confused me with someone who was advocating for bolted abseil stations. I wasn't. Tat is fine.
In reply to Will Hunt:
No, I was arguing that the idea of "improving" the environment in order to get more in the day is an argument that I've seen lead first to lots of tat and then to bolts because the tat is ugly and unsafe. For those who know, this describes, for instance, the decline of the Shawangunks as a trad area. (That is if you see the continual adding of bolts and chains as a decline, which many ---perhaps most---do not. The head of the committee responsible for much of the bolting got a standing ovation at a recent film festival for such efforts, which should make it clear how out of touch I am with contemporary sentiments.)
No, I was arguing that the idea of "improving" the environment in order to get more in the day is an argument that I've seen lead first to lots of tat and then to bolts because the tat is ugly and unsafe. For those who know, this describes, for instance, the decline of the Shawangunks as a trad area. (That is if you see the continual adding of bolts and chains as a decline, which many ---perhaps most---do not. The head of the committee responsible for much of the bolting got a standing ovation at a recent film festival for such efforts, which should make it clear how out of touch I am with contemporary sentiments.)
In reply to rgold:
Superbly put.
> I have to confess a certain fondness for tat, precisely because it is utterly temporary. It may or may not ever happen, but a team with a knife can return a climb to its original state, and so beneath the ugly layers of rotting fabric, the potential for a pristine environment still lurks. But once the bolts and chains and rings go in, the environment will never be the same again.
Superbly put.
15
1
In reply to Robert Durran and rgold:
Agreed. A brilliant expression of why I have a certain soft spot for tat as well. I'm spending a lot of time at Arapiles at the moment, where bolted abseil stations are plentiful. Sure this is convenient, but it doesn't need one stop every route. By travelling here and climbing here I've loved the climbing, but also gained an appreciation for our bolt free ethic in the mountains, it is truly special.
Agreed. A brilliant expression of why I have a certain soft spot for tat as well. I'm spending a lot of time at Arapiles at the moment, where bolted abseil stations are plentiful. Sure this is convenient, but it doesn't need one stop every route. By travelling here and climbing here I've loved the climbing, but also gained an appreciation for our bolt free ethic in the mountains, it is truly special.
4
In reply to spidermonkey09:
Yes, cos this looks soooooo much better.
http://www.cragsadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/21.jpg
Yes, cos this looks soooooo much better.
http://www.cragsadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/21.jpg
3
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Not easy. The scramble route requires making exposed traverse moves down through a couple of pinnacles - only really an option if people are moving well.
Entirely do-able, I just wait at the small ledge 4m down while they each get past the point of no return. But if I feel that they're on the edge of their stretch-zone I'll lower.
> Hi Jamie, I wasn't really suggesting you lowered them down. If they have scrambled up there then surely they can scramble back down with a secure top-rope?
Not easy. The scramble route requires making exposed traverse moves down through a couple of pinnacles - only really an option if people are moving well.
> Stacked abseils with 'with 2 or 3 Munro-baggers who found going up it the living end' sounds interesting!
Entirely do-able, I just wait at the small ledge 4m down while they each get past the point of no return. But if I feel that they're on the edge of their stretch-zone I'll lower.
In reply to Oceanrower:
Did you chop it all away after taking the photo? If so, great, problem solved. if not, don't complain.
Anyway it's as much, if not more (almost entirely for me) about preserving a non dumbed-down bolt free ethic as it is about superficial aesthetics.
> Yes, cos this looks soooooo much better.
Did you chop it all away after taking the photo? If so, great, problem solved. if not, don't complain.
Anyway it's as much, if not more (almost entirely for me) about preserving a non dumbed-down bolt free ethic as it is about superficial aesthetics.
6
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
Thats an extreme example, as youre no doubt well aware.
In any case, I'm not actually talking about how it looks. I admit bolts look cleaner, but as someone else said higher up once you place them the character of that route is changed in a way that a bit of tat doesn't do.
Thats an extreme example, as youre no doubt well aware.
In any case, I'm not actually talking about how it looks. I admit bolts look cleaner, but as someone else said higher up once you place them the character of that route is changed in a way that a bit of tat doesn't do.
3
1
In reply to sfletch:
You're completely right of course, but the reponses to your comment show how insular and backward the commentary on this subject in forums really is. Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully. Someone just above suggested that a bolt abseil point instead of a pile of rotten old tat and rusty krabs would change the character of a route. This is the kind of binary thinking that litters these discussions. Clearly that's nonsense, because you still have to climb trad to get there, but it would certainly change the character of the descent. It would also mean you could do more trad in the day.
Hopefully - in a decade or two - some pragmatism will have crept in. This whole issue is like everyone in the Soviet Union pretending that their system is infallible and perfect, even though they all privately know it isn't but everyone is too scared to say anything.
> The abseil tat atop the main buttress on Dinas Mot looks like a pile of sh**e. A discrete ring bolt, ala Dolomites, would be a lot less wasteful and less intrusive.
> But this is the UK, so let's keep the bundle of sh**e. Because we're special.
You're completely right of course, but the reponses to your comment show how insular and backward the commentary on this subject in forums really is. Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully. Someone just above suggested that a bolt abseil point instead of a pile of rotten old tat and rusty krabs would change the character of a route. This is the kind of binary thinking that litters these discussions. Clearly that's nonsense, because you still have to climb trad to get there, but it would certainly change the character of the descent. It would also mean you could do more trad in the day.
Hopefully - in a decade or two - some pragmatism will have crept in. This whole issue is like everyone in the Soviet Union pretending that their system is infallible and perfect, even though they all privately know it isn't but everyone is too scared to say anything.
7
12
In reply to Robert Durran:
If that's where the tat is, then yes, all the standard abseil points.
Why would be people want to be safe and be able to retrieve their ropes? My impression is that most issues on the Cullin arise from people being slower than expected and getting cold, tired and hungry. Less faff at abseils would reduce this.
But yet you've claimed that there is always tat at the main abseil points - which basically makes it permanent, just less safe, uglier and requiring regular replacement compared to bolts.
We don't have mountains in the UK really, they're just hills. It's not exactly hard to complete either - it's what, VDiff with a large amount of abseils/scrambling and about 12 hours in total if you don't fanny about? As I've said, I don't see bolts as "desecration" in any way, especially when compared to manky bits of rope.
But don't worry, you can keep your chisel away as I appreciate that I'm (currently) in the minority.
> Yes, as I said, all the standard abseil points on the main ridge.
If that's where the tat is, then yes, all the standard abseil points.
> Absolute nonsense. Bolts would be placed in the optimum position for the abseil (retrieval of ropes etc.), removing much of the skill in safe abseiling, as well as removing the need for good judgement in anchors.
Why would be people want to be safe and be able to retrieve their ropes? My impression is that most issues on the Cullin arise from people being slower than expected and getting cold, tired and hungry. Less faff at abseils would reduce this.
> Modern bolts would be absolutely bombproof and people would treat them as such - they are effectively permanent, not semi permanent. Nobody traversing the Cuillin ridge can rely on abseil tat, semi-permanent or otherwise and should carry tat and place it where they judge appropriate for safety.
But yet you've claimed that there is always tat at the main abseil points - which basically makes it permanent, just less safe, uglier and requiring regular replacement compared to bolts.
> The Cuillin Ridge is the most iconic traditional mountain expedition in the UK. It must not be desecrated and dumbed down by permanent bolted anchors removing some of the skills of self-reliance required for its completion.
We don't have mountains in the UK really, they're just hills. It's not exactly hard to complete either - it's what, VDiff with a large amount of abseils/scrambling and about 12 hours in total if you don't fanny about? As I've said, I don't see bolts as "desecration" in any way, especially when compared to manky bits of rope.
But don't worry, you can keep your chisel away as I appreciate that I'm (currently) in the minority.
2
6
In reply to Robert Durran:
Bolts are not dumbed down FFS. It's as easy to rig an abseil on dirty tat as it is to rig a ring bolt.
> Did you chop it all away after taking the photo? If so, great, problem solved. if not, don't complain.
> Anyway it's as much, if not more (almost entirely for me) about preserving a non dumbed-down bolt free ethic as it is about superficial aesthetics.
Bolts are not dumbed down FFS. It's as easy to rig an abseil on dirty tat as it is to rig a ring bolt.
2
5
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I thought it was more that the impermanence of tat means that we can return to climb/crag/mountain to it's original state with the just a seconds work with a knife. It's the permanence of bolts and the lapse into convenience described by rgold that is the concern, that to pass the point of no return puts you atop a very slippery slope with no means of turning back.
I thought it was more that the impermanence of tat means that we can return to climb/crag/mountain to it's original state with the just a seconds work with a knife. It's the permanence of bolts and the lapse into convenience described by rgold that is the concern, that to pass the point of no return puts you atop a very slippery slope with no means of turning back.
8
In reply to spidermonkey09:
It's an abseil station. How the hell is that changing the character of a route?
> once you place them the character of that route is changed in a way that a bit of tat doesn't do.
It's an abseil station. How the hell is that changing the character of a route?
2
1
Wow - I'm feeling like a troll now, seeing how much impassioned (and sometimes tangential) debate this thread has provoked!
Thanks to all, the response certainly proves that these are complex issues without black/white answers. I'm happy that leaving a loop of cord around an abseil block is not the crime of the century, but equally if others choose to lift it that's their call and I'll travel prepared for that.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that removing a frequently-used anchor for environmental/ethical reasons is going to be a short-lived fix, and doing so to gain a bit of cord and a maillon seems petty. But you do what you like and so will I (and other instructors/guides). As long as nobody takes out a drill no harm will be done.
Slainte.
Thanks to all, the response certainly proves that these are complex issues without black/white answers. I'm happy that leaving a loop of cord around an abseil block is not the crime of the century, but equally if others choose to lift it that's their call and I'll travel prepared for that.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that removing a frequently-used anchor for environmental/ethical reasons is going to be a short-lived fix, and doing so to gain a bit of cord and a maillon seems petty. But you do what you like and so will I (and other instructors/guides). As long as nobody takes out a drill no harm will be done.
Slainte.
3
In reply to Oceanrower:
This is the top of The Old Man of Hoy, not somewhere you could scramble down from, so a UK special case. It does need sorting out as the picture shows, there is so much crap it's hard to know where to start pruning the tat. Clearly most people don't and the more fearful add (yet another) sling and carabiner.
My suggestion would be stainless steel chains for the Pitch 2 and Pitch 5 anchors, like the ones at Sharpnose: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=576391
The TV broadcast bolts atop Pitch 3 and 4 also need replacing with something more suitable:
http://www.titanclimbing.com/titanium-anchor-set.html
Chop the intermediate pegs and single bolt anchor.
All 'like-for-like' replacement and therefore uncontroversial (ho ho ho). I'd donate £50 towards the materials.
This is the top of The Old Man of Hoy, not somewhere you could scramble down from, so a UK special case. It does need sorting out as the picture shows, there is so much crap it's hard to know where to start pruning the tat. Clearly most people don't and the more fearful add (yet another) sling and carabiner.
My suggestion would be stainless steel chains for the Pitch 2 and Pitch 5 anchors, like the ones at Sharpnose: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=576391
The TV broadcast bolts atop Pitch 3 and 4 also need replacing with something more suitable:
http://www.titanclimbing.com/titanium-anchor-set.html
Chop the intermediate pegs and single bolt anchor.
All 'like-for-like' replacement and therefore uncontroversial (ho ho ho). I'd donate £50 towards the materials.
3
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
It is. You can get half a dozen parties at a time going down that way but only one person at a time abseiling. Once you make an ab point an almost essential part of the experience in most peoples minds, it becomes an unecessary and dangerous bottle neck.
> You're completely right of course, but the reponses to your comment show how insular and backward the commentary on this subject in forums really is. Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully.
It is. You can get half a dozen parties at a time going down that way but only one person at a time abseiling. Once you make an ab point an almost essential part of the experience in most peoples minds, it becomes an unecessary and dangerous bottle neck.
2
1
4
1
In reply to ianstevens:
Oh dear. Please read my posts again and reply when you have at least tried to understand the issues. FFS.......
Ok, for the hard of understanding:
Solid, modern bolts don't need assessing for safety. Tat does.
Bolts will be at the optimally convenient point. The position of tat is dictated by the natural features of the rock, so might, for example, not be ideal for pulling the ropes, or might be awkwardly low to start the abseil.
So tat requires some self reliance and competence which bolts do not.
So bolts are dumbed down.
> Bolts are not dumbed down FFS. It's as easy to rig an abseil on dirty tat as it is to rig a ring bolt.
Oh dear. Please read my posts again and reply when you have at least tried to understand the issues. FFS.......
Ok, for the hard of understanding:
Solid, modern bolts don't need assessing for safety. Tat does.
Bolts will be at the optimally convenient point. The position of tat is dictated by the natural features of the rock, so might, for example, not be ideal for pulling the ropes, or might be awkwardly low to start the abseil.
So tat requires some self reliance and competence which bolts do not.
So bolts are dumbed down.
Post edited at 11:05
10
3
In reply to flaneur:
Agreed, pretty crappy looking. What would be good there would be wholesale removal and replacement with a double-looped anchor of black static (lasts for decades) and a large maillon super-glued shut. However I understand that is not everyone's priority after an ascent of the Old Man!
Agreed, pretty crappy looking. What would be good there would be wholesale removal and replacement with a double-looped anchor of black static (lasts for decades) and a large maillon super-glued shut. However I understand that is not everyone's priority after an ascent of the Old Man!
In reply to Oceanrower:
I do accept that it doesn't affect the climbing as such, it just seems a shame to me to pump bolts into mountain rock for the sake of convenience. I'm well aware that the practical reasons make sense. However I don't go climbing just for practical reasons, and for me I really like the self sufficiency of either a) walking off a la tremadog or b) abbing off a tree/ boulder. Having bolted stations on top of every route would be really sad, IMO. But I do understand others see it differently. I think climbing at Araps has changed my view on this for some reason!
I do accept that it doesn't affect the climbing as such, it just seems a shame to me to pump bolts into mountain rock for the sake of convenience. I'm well aware that the practical reasons make sense. However I don't go climbing just for practical reasons, and for me I really like the self sufficiency of either a) walking off a la tremadog or b) abbing off a tree/ boulder. Having bolted stations on top of every route would be really sad, IMO. But I do understand others see it differently. I think climbing at Araps has changed my view on this for some reason!
2
In reply to rgold:
It can be worse... Red Rocks is seeing new bolts on slight run-outs that any reasonable trad leader at the grade should have little worry with. Also this terrible practice we discovered last year... https://www.mountainproject.com/v/lucky-charms/.. a new rap point at the crux of a trad route.
It can be worse... Red Rocks is seeing new bolts on slight run-outs that any reasonable trad leader at the grade should have little worry with. Also this terrible practice we discovered last year... https://www.mountainproject.com/v/lucky-charms/.. a new rap point at the crux of a trad route.
In reply to rgold:
It can be worse... Red Rocks is seeing new bolts on slight run-outs that any reasonable trad leader at the grade should have little worry with. Also this terrible practice we discovered last year... https://www.mountainproject.com/v/lucky-charms/106810387 .. a new rap point at the crux of a trad route.
It can be worse... Red Rocks is seeing new bolts on slight run-outs that any reasonable trad leader at the grade should have little worry with. Also this terrible practice we discovered last year... https://www.mountainproject.com/v/lucky-charms/106810387 .. a new rap point at the crux of a trad route.
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to Offwidth:
Red Rocks has no uniform tradition at all. You can find extensively bolted trad climbs, sometimes right next to run-out gear-protected trad climbs of the same difficulty. Climbs like Chrimson Chrysalis, that started out with a very small number of bolts, have sprouted a whole bunch more. U.S. climbing in general is wandering in a wilderness of contradictory impulses, but there can be little doubt that the overall trend, for better or worse, is heading in the direction of European plaisir climbing, although we haven't yet started to see bolting of continuously protectable cracks.
Rather than losing the entire game (which seems likely in any case), I've started proposing , for the Shawangunks, that a relatively few special climbs be identified as classics, and that those routes be returned to their original state, meaning no tat and no bolts, no nothing except what nature provided. There seems to be absolutely no hope of convincing any but the tiniest minority of climbers to take the short walk back from the top, so such a plan has no chance of success unless there are also dedicated "rap highways" that climbers can use to "commute" back to their packs at the base. The point is that the rap highways be placed where there are no or mostly uninteresting routes, so that two-way traffic and top roping the first pitches of classics is eliminated. So the crag in general would be "equipped"---at this point this is unavoidable---but there would still a few really good climbs that would be free of all human intrusions. (To which it must be added that the environmental wear and tear of many parties can only be modestly slowed.)
One of the problems going forward is that we now have generations of trad climbers in the US who may not actually know what a trad climb is really like, having been raised on bolted belays and convenience raps. They've been attracted to and "grown up" with a sport that embraces modifications of the environment, and that's they way they want things---it is their reality.
Red Rocks has no uniform tradition at all. You can find extensively bolted trad climbs, sometimes right next to run-out gear-protected trad climbs of the same difficulty. Climbs like Chrimson Chrysalis, that started out with a very small number of bolts, have sprouted a whole bunch more. U.S. climbing in general is wandering in a wilderness of contradictory impulses, but there can be little doubt that the overall trend, for better or worse, is heading in the direction of European plaisir climbing, although we haven't yet started to see bolting of continuously protectable cracks.
Rather than losing the entire game (which seems likely in any case), I've started proposing , for the Shawangunks, that a relatively few special climbs be identified as classics, and that those routes be returned to their original state, meaning no tat and no bolts, no nothing except what nature provided. There seems to be absolutely no hope of convincing any but the tiniest minority of climbers to take the short walk back from the top, so such a plan has no chance of success unless there are also dedicated "rap highways" that climbers can use to "commute" back to their packs at the base. The point is that the rap highways be placed where there are no or mostly uninteresting routes, so that two-way traffic and top roping the first pitches of classics is eliminated. So the crag in general would be "equipped"---at this point this is unavoidable---but there would still a few really good climbs that would be free of all human intrusions. (To which it must be added that the environmental wear and tear of many parties can only be modestly slowed.)
One of the problems going forward is that we now have generations of trad climbers in the US who may not actually know what a trad climb is really like, having been raised on bolted belays and convenience raps. They've been attracted to and "grown up" with a sport that embraces modifications of the environment, and that's they way they want things---it is their reality.
3
In reply to rgold:
How depressing. All the more important to nip all this sort of thing in the bud in the UK.
> One of the problems going forward is that we now have generations of trad climbers in the US who may not actually know what a trad climb is really like, having been raised on bolted belays and convenience raps. They've been attracted to and "grown up" with a sport that embraces modifications of the environment, and that's they way they want things---it is their reality.
How depressing. All the more important to nip all this sort of thing in the bud in the UK.
9
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Here again is the type of reasoning I cited earlier as misunderstanding what trad climbing is (or used to be). The "shitty gully" in question is a natural feature of the route, part of the totality of what the undertaking requires. An increasingly prevalent contemporary attitude is that features that are, for some reason, deemed "unworthy" of the climber's precious time be somehow removed from experience, which is only to consist of the most delectable bits.
Once these attitudes take hold, there seems to be to be an almost unbridgeable gulf of understanding, out of which comes characterizations like "insular" (meaning, I suppose, not in keeping with European plaisir climbing norms) and "backward" (meaning referring to past situations, viewed as intrinsically bad simply by virtue of being in the past). On the other side of the chasm, those of us advocating restraint (which is what it all comes down to technically) do not advance the cause of understanding by speaking of "laziness" and "vandalism" either.
Although I expressed a certain perverse fondness for the possibilities of removal tat provides, the real question, I think, is whether there should be established rap stations of any kind in a particular locale. That said, what seems to be a rational argument for replacing this or that particular nest of tat with bolts has, in my experience on this side of the pond, ultimately gone haywire, opening the doors to more and more bolting, even where there was never any tat. Meanwhile, here again is the "you could do more trad in the day" claim, which of course doesn't even recognize the "shitty gully" as "doing trad," because if it did, there would be no change in the amount of trad the day held.
"Pragmatism" means activity uninformed by any overarching principles, so my undoubtedly vain hope is that "pragmatism" never prevails. As for the presence or absence of perfection, that once again goes back to the basic understanding of what the soul of the activity really is, and once that is grasped there is nothing like Soviet double-think involved.
> ... the reponses to your comment show how insular and backward the commentary on this subject in forums really is. Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully.
Here again is the type of reasoning I cited earlier as misunderstanding what trad climbing is (or used to be). The "shitty gully" in question is a natural feature of the route, part of the totality of what the undertaking requires. An increasingly prevalent contemporary attitude is that features that are, for some reason, deemed "unworthy" of the climber's precious time be somehow removed from experience, which is only to consist of the most delectable bits.
Once these attitudes take hold, there seems to be to be an almost unbridgeable gulf of understanding, out of which comes characterizations like "insular" (meaning, I suppose, not in keeping with European plaisir climbing norms) and "backward" (meaning referring to past situations, viewed as intrinsically bad simply by virtue of being in the past). On the other side of the chasm, those of us advocating restraint (which is what it all comes down to technically) do not advance the cause of understanding by speaking of "laziness" and "vandalism" either.
> Someone just above suggested that a bolt abseil point instead of a pile of rotten old tat and rusty krabs would change the character of a route. This is the kind of binary thinking that litters these discussions. Clearly that's nonsense, because you still have to climb trad to get there, but it would certainly change the character of the descent. It would also mean you could do more trad in the day.
Although I expressed a certain perverse fondness for the possibilities of removal tat provides, the real question, I think, is whether there should be established rap stations of any kind in a particular locale. That said, what seems to be a rational argument for replacing this or that particular nest of tat with bolts has, in my experience on this side of the pond, ultimately gone haywire, opening the doors to more and more bolting, even where there was never any tat. Meanwhile, here again is the "you could do more trad in the day" claim, which of course doesn't even recognize the "shitty gully" as "doing trad," because if it did, there would be no change in the amount of trad the day held.
> Hopefully - in a decade or two - some pragmatism will have crept in. This whole issue is like everyone in the Soviet Union pretending that their system is infallible and perfect, even though they all privately know it isn't but everyone is too scared to say anything.
"Pragmatism" means activity uninformed by any overarching principles, so my undoubtedly vain hope is that "pragmatism" never prevails. As for the presence or absence of perfection, that once again goes back to the basic understanding of what the soul of the activity really is, and once that is grasped there is nothing like Soviet double-think involved.
9
In reply to rgold:
I really, really hate this term "plaisir" (as opposed to "extreme") which seems to have taken hold in Europe. It creates an artificial "them and us" division between climbers who are apparently climbing for pleasure and those who, somehow, are not: one guidebook for "us", another for "them", one set of ethics for "us", another for "them" etc. It is eroding the communal sense that we are all, from the humble beginner to Ueli Steck, playing the same game in the same mountains, but simply at different levels, and, of course, is used to justify the dumbing down of designated areas into "plaisir" areas for us while leaving "extreme" areas for "them". I imagine it started as a commercial ploy to sell guidebooks and promote hut use in the Alps, but is now an insidious threat to climbing as we know it. It needs stamping out.
> .........not in keeping with European plaisir climbing norms
I really, really hate this term "plaisir" (as opposed to "extreme") which seems to have taken hold in Europe. It creates an artificial "them and us" division between climbers who are apparently climbing for pleasure and those who, somehow, are not: one guidebook for "us", another for "them", one set of ethics for "us", another for "them" etc. It is eroding the communal sense that we are all, from the humble beginner to Ueli Steck, playing the same game in the same mountains, but simply at different levels, and, of course, is used to justify the dumbing down of designated areas into "plaisir" areas for us while leaving "extreme" areas for "them". I imagine it started as a commercial ploy to sell guidebooks and promote hut use in the Alps, but is now an insidious threat to climbing as we know it. It needs stamping out.
3
2
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Martin, I can't decide whether you are just being ornery, winding folks up, have completely lost touch with your climbing roots or are a messiah of the new dawn of convenience climbing.
I would wholeheartedly agree with your proposition that scrambling down either gully on Dinas Mot (who are you to say it's 'shitty' - its actually a valid scramble in ascent and is just a part of the mountain) IS a better alternative to creating an abseil station, of whatever description, to enable folks to abseil back down the routes. Bloody hell, climbers have managed to get off that way for 60 years without coming to harm!
Andy
> Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully. Someone just above suggested that a bolt abseil point instead of a pile of rotten old tat and rusty krabs would change the character of a route. This is the kind of binary thinking that litters these discussions.
Martin, I can't decide whether you are just being ornery, winding folks up, have completely lost touch with your climbing roots or are a messiah of the new dawn of convenience climbing.
I would wholeheartedly agree with your proposition that scrambling down either gully on Dinas Mot (who are you to say it's 'shitty' - its actually a valid scramble in ascent and is just a part of the mountain) IS a better alternative to creating an abseil station, of whatever description, to enable folks to abseil back down the routes. Bloody hell, climbers have managed to get off that way for 60 years without coming to harm!
Andy
3
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Since when was climbing about pragmatism?
> You're completely right of course, but the reponses to your comment show how insular and backward the commentary on this subject in forums really is. Bolts are variously described as "vandalism", "convenience climbing" and "lazy". The better alternative to a bunch of rotting slings is apparently to scramble down some shitty gully. Someone just above suggested that a bolt abseil point instead of a pile of rotten old tat and rusty krabs would change the character of a route. This is the kind of binary thinking that litters these discussions. Clearly that's nonsense, because you still have to climb trad to get there, but it would certainly change the character of the descent. It would also mean you could do more trad in the day.
> Hopefully - in a decade or two - some pragmatism will have crept in. This whole issue is like everyone in the Soviet Union pretending that their system is infallible and perfect, even though they all privately know it isn't but everyone is too scared to say anything.
Since when was climbing about pragmatism?
1
In reply to Jamie B:
I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise cleaning tat off a mountain, for environmental reasons, when there's literally tonnes of plastic lying about on seashores that really is causing a massive problem... the oceans are dying, get off the mountain tat clean up trip and spend a day filling a wheelie bin with plastic crap, that really will make a massive difference to all manner of marine life that are choking to death because of human carelessness.
I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise cleaning tat off a mountain, for environmental reasons, when there's literally tonnes of plastic lying about on seashores that really is causing a massive problem... the oceans are dying, get off the mountain tat clean up trip and spend a day filling a wheelie bin with plastic crap, that really will make a massive difference to all manner of marine life that are choking to death because of human carelessness.
7
3
In reply to richrox:
Rather a straw man argument. Is anybody actually prioritizing things in that way?
> I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise cleaning tat off a mountain, for environmental reasons, when there's literally tonnes of plastic lying about on seashores that really is causing a massive problem ...
Rather a straw man argument. Is anybody actually prioritizing things in that way?
1
1
In reply to richrox:
I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise clearing plastic from seashores when there are literally thousands of people dying in Syria. Mind you I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise saving refugees from Syria when there are literally millions of people dying from starvation...
I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise clearing plastic from seashores when there are literally thousands of people dying in Syria. Mind you I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise saving refugees from Syria when there are literally millions of people dying from starvation...
3
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Why would anyone want to save anyone dying of starvation when the earth is going to be incinerated by the sun in a few billion years time. Let's face it, everything is utterly pointless.
> I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise clearing plastic from seashores when there are literally thousands of people dying in Syria. Mind you I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise saving refugees from Syria when there are literally millions of people dying from starvation...
Why would anyone want to save anyone dying of starvation when the earth is going to be incinerated by the sun in a few billion years time. Let's face it, everything is utterly pointless.
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Ah but these are two different issues (environmental vs humanitarian), so it depends where your priorities lie!
> I can't understand why anyone would want to prioritise clearing plastic from seashores when there are literally thousands of people dying in Syria.
Ah but these are two different issues (environmental vs humanitarian), so it depends where your priorities lie!
In reply to Rob Parsons:
If i was up a mountain, and saw plastic rubbish / litter i would clear it up, ... If it was knackered tat i would remove it , but if it was good + had been left to serve a purpose i would leave it. .. Someone removing good tat for environmental reasons could find a better place to make a difference, such as any beach.... Fishing line, net, and pretty much most plastic items that humans leave as litter.
If i was up a mountain, and saw plastic rubbish / litter i would clear it up, ... If it was knackered tat i would remove it , but if it was good + had been left to serve a purpose i would leave it. .. Someone removing good tat for environmental reasons could find a better place to make a difference, such as any beach.... Fishing line, net, and pretty much most plastic items that humans leave as litter.
4
In reply to richrox:
Yes, but at that moment they are on the hill, not at the beach.
> Someone removing good tat for environmental reasons could find a better place to make a difference, such as any beach....
Yes, but at that moment they are on the hill, not at the beach.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...