Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Fixed gear guidelines in the Grampians


Duang Daunk

14-May-2018
7:12:08 PM

One Day Hero

14-May-2018
7:16:58 PM

On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are stopped
>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope to
>set boundaries.

This is how I approach things these days. There is a poxy toprope cliff in Canberra which was getting incrementally sportified. For various reasons which I won't go into, this was thought by many locals to be a bad idea. We drew a line on the slope and told people that if one more bolt went in they'd all get chopped. More bolts went in, they all got chopped. If they go back in, they'll get chopped and we'll go debolt a legitimate sport crag too.

Same deal with retro loweroffs at Araps. There were enough ten years ago, I drew a line two years ago, this time there were more. Next time I'm down, I'll pack a tool kit.

The odd thing is, if you talk to Nati climbers about endless growth with finite resources relating to any topic other than climbing, they're a raving bunch of sustainable, anti-kid, low-carbon, commie loons. But bolting? Yeah, that can go on forever.

Wendy

15-May-2018
5:22:23 AM

On 14-May-2018 Duang Daunk wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>With the odd exception such as the bolt on Blimp, I think most climbing
>>ethical concerns will overlap with PV concerns. Climbing ethics also
>involve
>>minimising environmental and aesthetic impact. I'm fairly sure that
>my
>>issues with Dreamtime Wall and potential for something similar to happen
>>at other obscure crags would be shared with PV. Whilst PV might not care
>>if Rosea is a bolt free cliff, I'm guessing they would if it turned into
>>a high traffic sport area.
>
>I'm calling hypocrisy sis, as I think you just put another twist on the
>definition of slippery slope.

What, you don't think that the spread of DW style development would lead to PV involvement? I'm not saying that I think a few mixed routes at Rosea will lead to wholescale bolting there, but that if it did, it would probably come to the attention of PV.
>
>>This discussion isn't really about individual
>>events like Blimp, but the overall future management of route development.
>>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are
>stopped
>>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope
>to
>>set boundaries.
>
> Like Dreamtime?

No one ever set boundaries for Dreamtime. If anything, people raved about this new sport climbing area and went in their hoards. I haven't been there for over 6 years, but I don't reckon removing half the cliff to try and find solid rock and turning an erosion prone remote area into a sport crag, with people driving around the gate and clearing new bush camping areas is a great precedent. I've never found Joe to be an unreasonable person. Extremely enthusiastic, yes, possibly his judgement can be a little overwhelmed by that, but he won't bite if you talk to him about stuff.
>
>> Kieran is suggesting doing so by categorising individual
>>crags for certain sorts of development. I am suggesting general principals
>>that can be applied across the board. Maybe someone has some other ideas.
>>But either which way, the question remains, what happens when people
>don't
>>comply?
>
>Chopping rightly starts of the offending bolts as well as including other
>routes the offender may have put up elsewhere, irrespective of if the bolter
>is a 7 ft tall giant because confrontation is no loss of energy, and besides
>it takes more effort and cost to put them in than to remove them.

I'm asking for ideas other than bolting wars! Can we please think outside the box? Surely that past 50 years or so have demonstrated that playground antics aren't really effective. Imagine you and/or Damo up against Gordy in a bolting war. It would be never ending.

>>
>>If we don't utilise existing legal frameworks for causing damage in national
>>parks, how do we deal with recalcitrant offenders such as the guy who
>appears
>>to have not learnt from having his previous bolts chopped? I really don't
>>think bolting wars are a good solution, even though I know there are
>people
>>on here who love them.
>
>You got the last part right sister.
>
>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are
>stopped
>>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope
>to
>>set boundaries.
>
>There's that hippo thing again, but at least it seems you admit to them
>existing, because I was beginning to think you were a denialist.

I am a denialist of their validity! everything exists on a slippery slope. It's just that we make choices about where to be on that slope. I eat chocolate. I could keep eating more chocolate, I mean, eating chocolate is pretty damn good, but at some point I decided to stop eating chocolate before I make myself sick.

Wendy

15-May-2018
5:27:24 AM

On 14-May-2018 Duang Daunk wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>>Why do I feel like people have PV paranoia? PV know we place bolts.
>They
>>>know there are lots of them. They have had the public complain about
>>>them before. If they were going to blanket ban climbing because of the
>mere
>>>existing of bolting, they would have done so already.
>
>They have in at least one other State.
>>

Really? I can't think of an entire state where bolting is banned because of existing inconsiderate bolting, and there are only 6 to choose from.

Wendy

15-May-2018
5:35:15 AM

On 14-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are
>stopped
>>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope
>to
>>set boundaries.
>
>This is how I approach things these days. There is a poxy toprope cliff
>in Canberra which was getting incrementally sportified. For various reasons
>which I won't go into, this was thought by many locals to be a bad idea.
>We drew a line on the slope and told people that if one more bolt went
>in they'd all get chopped. More bolts went in, they all got chopped. If
>they go back in, they'll get chopped and we'll go debolt a legitimate sport
>crag too.
>

Did you actually talk with people and reach an agreement? Or just wander in with your usual style and piss them off further?

So, when the bolter turns out to be as stubborn and antagonistic as you are, the bolts will go back in again. You take it out on some irrelevant crag and spread the damage further. Pissed off bolter will go and find somewhere else to bolt in revenge.Will probably go to your favorite crag and chip off all the holds in a similar act of irrelevant retaliation. Pours oil down the slabs at Booroomba. Stuffs faeces into a few cracks. Continues ad infinitum. See, I can create slippery slopes too! But once you start drawing irrelevant crags into the equation, this playgrund game is getting really dumb. Imagine Gordy on the other end of your game?

>Same deal with retro loweroffs at Araps. There were enough ten years ago,
>I drew a line two years ago, this time there were more. Next time I'm down,
>I'll pack a tool kit.
>
>The odd thing is, if you talk to Nati climbers about endless growth with
>finite resources relating to any topic other than climbing, they're a raving
>bunch of sustainable, anti-kid, low-carbon, commie loons. But bolting?
>Yeah, that can go on forever.

So did you talk with Geoff, Glenn or Muki whilst you were down here (about bolting, not commie lunacy)? You can draw all the lines you want. You have to also communicate them constructively before there's any great point to them.

Wendy

15-May-2018
5:49:14 AM

On 14-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>Why do I feel like people have PV paranoia? PV know we place bolts. They
>>know there are lots of them. They have had the public complain about
>them
>>before. If they were going to blanket ban climbing because of the mere
>>existing of bolting, they would have done so already.
>
>This is incredibly naive. I honestly think a bolt war is less harmful
>than involving the authorities.
>
>Fatboy pretty much covered the basics, I'll add a dash of harshness.
>
>People who are bolting highly visible crags in national parks are playing
>chicken with a train, and the rest of us are stuck in the car with them.
>For example, I know you reckon Joe Goding is a nice bloke, but he's developing
> junk which offends lots of climbers, and could potentially affect broader
>access. The risk vs reward is unbelievable. It's selfish, stupid, and I
>frankly struggle to see how he can be a good person.

I don't know that people's bolting behaviour reflects their intrinsic goodness....

If Joe's development is offending lots of climbers, why aren't they approaching him to have a constructive conversation about it? How about people don't put the crags in guidebooks and don't go to the crags as well? Instead, I would say he is getting a lot of positive feedback from the hoards that dream of easy sport crags (another pet bug bear of mine). Hence he continues. I don't think Joe bites. I think Joe actually likes to make people happy and would be upset that people were angry at his work.

Maybe we aren't really expressing the views of lots of climbers. Maybe it's actually just a few of us (with varying degrees of extremism about it). Perhaps calling to "climbing ethics" is no longer really going to be a very effective call, because the population and the culture is changing. What the majority consider normal has shifted. Can we really insist they all shift back to what it once was for the arbitrary reason that it is how it was (in some idealised view of the past)? Or maybe we need to ground our concerns in more concrete terms such as environmental, cultural, aesthetic, safety and legal issues?

(removed)

15-May-2018
6:28:12 AM

On 15-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>I would say he is getting a lot of positive feedback from the hoards that
>dream of easy sport crags (another pet bug bear of mine). Hence he continues.

This is the problem !! I don't think anyone is suggesting there isn't a market for sport climbing in the Grampians. Build it and they will come. But I am challenging our right to (or more accurately responsibility not to) do so.

The fact that people want to climb sport and do so in droves is not an argument for establishing these routes - for the simple reason that we are dealing with a shared resource.

Regardless Wendy, your central arguments appear to be that you trust the climbing community to self regulate, that it's currently working, and there's nothing to suggest that we're heading down a slippery slope.

And I disagree on all 3 points.

chalkischeap

15-May-2018
6:54:24 AM

What's wrong with Dreamtime? (serious question, haven't been yet but I expect that I will enjoy it)

Here are some options, choose one or more and maybe add some of your own:

1. A few unpopular trad climbs, now lots of sport
2. Loose rock
3. Popular
4. Developed by people that you don't know
5. Retro bolting of classic trad cliffs will surely follow

1. to 4. are mainly issues of prejudice.
5. Even as a slippery slope believer, I have no concerns.

We have a complicated and somewhat flexible bolting ethic in Victoria. Different crags have different structure and styles.Sounds like Joe has done a great job to me.

kieranl

15-May-2018
7:50:25 AM

Principles are great but the devil is in the interpretation. For example, Fatboy and I share essentially the same principles about Rosea but we differ strongly about what the end results should be. That's the problem with self-regulation, everyone gets to regulate according to how they see things. And inevitably reasonable people will self-regulate with different results and ensuing conflict.

In the Grampians we have a number of frameworks to work within to decide how different cliffs and areas are managed. The first, often ignored in climbing circles, is the Grampians National Park Management Plan 2003 .

Here are some relevant bits to work out what management applies to climbing areas. It's very broad-brush stuff but I don't think we can move anywhere without understanding this.

Table 2 : Management Zones and Overlays, Page 18
Figure 2: Management Zones Map, Page 79
Appendix 2 : Special Protection Areas, Page 64

kieranl

15-May-2018
8:01:43 AM

On 15-May-2018 chalkischeap wrote:
>What's wrong with Dreamtime?

I think that's the wrong question to ask at this stage. To me the question is : How do we decide if the Dreamtime or any other climbing/bouldering development is OK or not?

If we can't answer that then how do we reconcile opposing views?

Wendy

15-May-2018
8:11:33 AM

On 15-May-2018 FatBoy wrote:
>On 15-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>I would say he is getting a lot of positive feedback from the hoards
>that
>>dream of easy sport crags (another pet bug bear of mine). Hence he continues.
>
>This is the problem !! I don't think anyone is suggesting there isn't
>a market for sport climbing in the Grampians. Build it and they will come.
> But I am challenging our right to (or more accurately responsibility not
>to) do so.
>
>The fact that people want to climb sport and do so in droves is not an
>argument for establishing these routes - for the simple reason that we
>are dealing with a shared resource.

I never said it was. In fact, I am an advocate of the opposite - in case you havent encountered my earlier rants on here about how just because people want easy sport, doesn't mean we should make it, for the simple reason that it doesn't exist because easy rock is accessible via learning trad climbing and these people should either learn trad or start climbing harder.
>
>Regardless Wendy, your central arguments appear to be that you trust the
>climbing community to self regulate, that it's currently working, and
>there's nothing to suggest that we're heading down a slippery slope.
>
>And I disagree on all 3 points.

So if we aren't trusting the climbing community to self regulate and we aren't going to use PV/legal frameworks, WTF are we doing?

(removed)

15-May-2018
8:52:18 AM

On 15-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>So if we aren't trusting the climbing community to self regulate and we
>aren't going to use PV/legal frameworks, WTF are we doing?

We need actual measurable rules established by the relevant authorities (VCC in conjunction with PV) which are enforced by the climbing community.

At the moment either the rules don't exist, we don't know what they are or they aren't being enforced. Which simply leaves 1,000's of different interpretations and no consequence for any violation.

If I can quickly weigh in on Dreamtime. I might sound like a hypocrite, but I have less of an issue here (bush camping and driving around the gate issues aside) than Rosea. It's only ever accessed by climbers, it would barely work as a crag without the bolts, and like Spurt wall and The Ravine) fills a niche of climbing within the Gramps. I just don't want it everywhere. Rosea by contrast is ON the Grampians Peaks Trail and when finished will be visible by many thousands more non climbers per year. The two crags are not the same.

Which is why the suggestion of per-crag ethics become an important factor in any solution. I'm happy for some areas to be sport areas - the less frequented by other park users the better, mind you - but in return I want some areas to have a completely different ethic (i.e a decent area or three of 100% no-fixed gear). I just can't subscribe to a "one rule for every crag" ethos.

kieranl

15-May-2018
9:11:22 AM

On 15-May-2018 FatBoy wrote:
>Rosea by contrast is ON the Grampians Peaks Trail and when finished will
>be visible by many thousands more non climbers per year. The two crags
>are not the same.
>

That section is already in and goes over the top of Rosea. So there is a limited view of the climbing area from the top. And yes lots of people are walking the trail.

gfdonc

15-May-2018
9:11:33 AM

On 15-May-2018 FatBoy wrote:
>If I can quickly weigh in on Dreamtime. I might sound like a hypocrite,
>but I have less of an issue here (bush camping and driving around the gate
>issues aside) than Rosea. It's only ever accessed by climbers, it would
>barely work as a crag without the bolts, and like Spurt wall and The Ravine)
>fills a niche of climbing within the Gramps. I just don't want it everywhere.

I find myself agreeing with FatBoy. (I'll try not to make a habit of it).
& I also commend Wendy for her comments regarding Joe and crag development.

>Rosea by contrast is ON the Grampians Peaks Trail and when finished will
>be visible by many thousands more non climbers per year.

Not really. The Peaks trail will go over the top of it. Climbers will not be seen and mostly not heard.

>Which is why the suggestion of per-crag ethics become an important factor
>in any solution. I'm happy for some areas to be sport areas - the less
>frequented by other park users the better, mind you - but in return I want
>some areas to have a completely different ethic (i.e a decent area or three
>of 100% no-fixed gear). I just can't subscribe to a "one rule for every
>crag" ethos.

I think the real underlying issue is of sport crag development. Which echoes the "per-crag" sentiment.
I'm not fussed (and I don't think Kieran was) about a single bolt here or there. Less so if it replaces old fixed gear or provides an environmentally sound benefit (prevent erosion, getting rid of tat). The "Victorian Ethic" in my view has been about using bolts sparingly.

I see Wendy's earlier comment about lower-offs spaced 3m apart and it also rings (huh) of sport-climbing ethos.

Currently, most crags in Central Grampians are basically 'trad'. There are a few exceptions.
I would like to see some consensus before anyone develops any new sports crag - no, wait, it's the Internet, consensus is unlikely. Never mind.

SO curiously, the very north end of Rosea (called "The Far Right" by some) HAS been redeveloped as a sports crag. (And: who noticed?)
Unlike the rest of the cliffline, there's not much opportunity for natural pro there.

kieranl

15-May-2018
9:16:30 AM

On 15-May-2018 gfdonc wrote:

>SO curiously, the very north end of Rosea (called "The Far Right" by some)
>HAS been redeveloped as a sports crag. (And: who noticed?)
>Unlike the rest of the cliffline, there's not much opportunity for natural
>pro there.
>

That north end I think of as a scree slope that hasn't realised it yet. I went there once with Kevin and won't be back. Scared the daylights out of me.

widewetandslippery

15-May-2018
10:08:08 AM

Above Wendy used the term shared resource. That term is idealistic and bullshit. Resources are compromised to a non mutual benefit, where an entity with content of lower expectations of entitlement , sharing is selfless. This is not.

Wendy

15-May-2018
10:14:05 AM

On 15-May-2018 chalkischeap wrote:
>What's wrong with Dreamtime? (serious question, haven't been yet but I
>expect that I will enjoy it)

The rock is terrible. Half the cliff has been jimmied off in order to try and make something climbable. When you have to do that, it's a sure sign it was never meant to be a mega crag.

The base of the cliff and access tracks are trashed by traffic - it is steep and loose and eroding badly.

People keep driving around gates to get in there.

People create new bush camps there.

And this was happening 6 years ago, so I expect it is looking worse now. People tell me the rock has not cleaned up greatly with traffic either.

Basically, it was never a good area for masses of people, so to turn it into an easy sport crag brought a bunch of traffic that would have a big impact. Plus an unacceptable amount of cleaning was required to make it climbable (ish - the rock is still pretty bad). Plus people demonstrated they were typically irresponsible with access.

I love a good sport crag. Dreamtime Wall is not a good sport crag.
>

Wendy

15-May-2018
10:26:06 AM

Maybe it's because I own copies of the north gramps guide, central gramps, southeastern gramps etc etc. that I don't see per crag rules as practical. This tiny group of people here can't even agree about Rosea (or Dreamtime). How is anyone going to agree to a status of a gazzilion different crags?

Has the VCC got a route development policy? Do we even need to reinvent the wheel if they do? We could review it, promote it and work out what action we want to take when it is not followed.

Also, I can't see any sport development at Rosea on thecrag? Can anyone point me at it?


JamesMc

15-May-2018
5:35:16 PM

The far north of Rosea will probably be in Argus in the near future.


Duang Daunk

15-May-2018
7:19:22 PM

On 15-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 Duang Daunk wrote:
>>On 14-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>>>On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>>>Why do I feel like people have PV paranoia? PV know we place bolts.
>>They
>>>>know there are lots of them. They have had the public complain about
>>>>them before. If they were going to blanket ban climbing because of
>the
>>mere
>>>>existing of bolting, they would have done so already.
>>
>>They have in at least one other State.
>>>
>
>Really? I can't think of an entire state where bolting is banned because
>of existing inconsiderate bolting, and there are only 6 to choose from.

"in" sister, not "an entire".

>What, you don't think that the spread of DW style development would lead to PV involvement? I'm not saying that I think a few mixed routes at Rosea will lead to wholescale bolting there, but that if it did, it would probably come to the attention of PV.

Of course DW style of bolting spreading to other areas should rightly concern PV. The wonder is that they haven't sent heavy duty messages to us already about DW.
It also concerns ODH, and FatBoy, and me and my minions!, plus some other bro's and sisters who I will call the silent majority, you know, those ones that will whinge when their liberty to climb sport is banned by PV or other State equivalents...

Btw, I've met bro Joe G and we are on amicable terms, it just shits me his lowest common denominator sense of safetyising everything he puts up, irrespective of whether those routes are in predominantly bold-ish trad areas; and for bro bigchris's benefit, I've also met bro muki and discussed with him his retroing of Alis chains at the piles. He doesn't intimidate me and it didn't take guts to talk about it with him, so your keyboard warrior comment (New bolt on Blimp - Bundaleer thread), is way off mark.

>Perhaps calling to "climbing ethics" is no longer really going to be a very effective call, because the population and the culture is changing. What the majority consider normal has shifted.

Yes it has shifted - To the What about me, I'm entitled and it isn't fair, I haven't bolted enough and I want more share - mentality.
Irrespective of the moratorium even if it was set at sea level, some of us have had enough and are now going choppo-recalcitrant, and Gordy types are soon going to be outnumbered.
If you think it won't have an effect and work for balance eventually, then read some history on the bolt wars of Cornwall and other southern UK climbing hotspots of yesteryear. Feel free to call this attitude climber self regulation if you like!

There are 225 messages in this topic.