Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Topic Date User

biner breaks on Forever Young 9-Dec-2011 At 2:54:31 PM Will_P

Message

On 9/12/2011 jammin wrote:
"Its one thing to be such a prolific bolter as to rob the coming generations of any climbs left untouched by this compulsive new router, (think the Ruined castle,Sentinel cave,Guernica block,Espanol pinnacle,Red rocks tower & pinnacle,Ravine,Cut Lunch, Bad moon rising,etc etc I could go on)..."
"...what will the future generations have left for them after NM has searched and destroyed all potential new climbs for the ones who come after us? its a finite resource, and if its all gone then there will be no more new climbs."

I'm having trouble getting my head around this argument. Is this point of view isolated to NM, or do you feel the same way about anyone who puts up a high volume of new routes? When is "the right time" to do a new route, which generation is the chosen one? Is it a sport vs. trad argument, in that the above-mentioned areas shouldn't have been bolted because later generations were being robbed of the trad FA? I've climbed at most of those areas (as I'm sure you have too, or at least seen them) and I'd question whether the majority of the routes there would ever be a reasonable trad lead (hence the bolting). Or is it that these bold future generations would perhaps place less bolts, and it's the number that are on these climbs that you find objectionable?

I'm not criticising your position, Jammin, it's just that I don't understand it, and to start / continue an honest dialogue about an issue which you clearly are passionate about, your position needs to be clearer.

[Disclaimer - I've enjoyed the majority of NM's sport routes that I've done, and I've been appreciative of the hard work and effort he has put into developing sport climbing areas.]