Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

DMM: Viper Size M (2013 model as shown) Padded Adjustable Harness, 5 Gear Loops Fits: Waist 75-91cm Legs 50-63cm   $89.00
32% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

 Page 3 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 77
Area Location Sub Location Crag Links
VIC Arapiles Mitre Rock (General) South Mitre [ Arapiles Guide | Arapiles Images ] 

Author
Rap bolts chopped above Serpent
Mike Bee
19/04/2012
2:54:11 PM
On 19/04/2012 kieranl wrote:
>2. What popular climbs does the anchor point on Serpent cut across? Ancient
>History? Renunciation? Have you even heard of these climbs, let alone repeated
>them as I have? There's simply no truth in the claim that the rap crosses
>popular climbs so why make it/

I wasn't suggesting that the anchor at the top of Serpent crosses the line of a climb, I was just saying that for my idealistic, single point of descent that serves all of the south side, if it was placed in a way that didn't affect a popular route, that would be perfect.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.
kieranl
19/04/2012
3:04:58 PM
Yep, that's fine. The problem with Mitre is not so much avoiding crossing climbs as finding suitable rap points that are safe to get to.

I find it odd that people make such a fuss about an anchor that services a real need but don't complain about long-standing convenience anchors such as those above Salem. I wonder why one OK but not the other?

Doug
19/04/2012
3:13:21 PM
This looks like just another case of people cracking a s#it because something has changed. No thought about the bigger picture, no questions about "Why put the bolts there?" to the people who put them in. And the point about the rap anchors above Salem is a very good one. You could say the same thing about the anchors above P1 of Kestrel and Skylark, and lots of other long-established anchors at the Piles. Except that it seems the new anchors above Serpent are even more justified than lots of others that are around the place in terms of reducing impact on the environment.
Mike Bee
19/04/2012
3:23:41 PM
From my point of view it's not the presence of the anchor itself that causes the fuss, its the perception (real or not) that there is a strong tend of more bolts going into Araps, and more "convenience" being brought to what is one of the proudest trad crags in the world.

By causing a fuss when new bolts or anchors that aren't universally seen as been needed are placed, hopefully it causes the bolters to think a bit harder next time before bolting.
That said, I'm neither a bolter or a chopper so I don't really know what people are thinking about when they turn on that drill.

Just throwing this out there as an idea against bolting for erosion control (I don't really believe this, but it's worth pondering I think).
A bolt changes the rock forever. One you've drilled, that piece of rock will never be the same again. But trees, shurbs and grass will grow back, soil can be moved back up hill, and so while it takes a bit of time and labour you can restore gullies to something very simliar to their original state. As a result, you could argue that the long term effects of bolting are actually more environmentally intrusive than bushbashing your way down.

White Trash
19/04/2012
3:30:35 PM
On 19/04/2012 Mike Bee wrote:
>If the climbing community is seen to be regularly adding convenience*
>bolts to the cliff, then we're going to have a hard time saying to other
>communities (in this case, slackliners) that they can't bolt.
>
the slackers are probly climbers.
kieranl
19/04/2012
3:42:45 PM
On 19/04/2012 Mike Bee wrote:
>Just throwing this out there as an idea against bolting for erosion control
>(I don't really believe this, but it's worth pondering I think).
>A bolt changes the rock forever. One you've drilled, that piece of rock
>will never be the same again. But trees, shurbs and grass will grow back,
>soil can be moved back up hill, and so while it takes a bit of time and
>labour you can restore gullies to something very simliar to their original
>state. As a result, you could argue that the long term effects of bolting
>are actually more environmentally intrusive than bushbashing your way down.
Now that's a real argument. There is also of course the damage to any flora on the abseil route. The abseil route on the Watchtower faces is a classic example of this. It used to be a moss garden.
I would contend that there's a lot more damage to flora and soil done by people scrambling up and down steep access/descent gullies than from the anchor holes and people abseiling. The damage to tracks will continue indefinitely as long as people are using them but the abseil route damage is more limited. This is just an intuitive view of course - I can see a PhD for some environmental scientist in working out the relative biomass damage :)
Obviously if climbing stops in an area it will largely recover except for the two holes in the rock and the unfortunate lesser spotted hogwart that was trampled to extinction before the rap anchors went in.
So, a long way of saying that I see your point but think that the rap anchor is often the less of two evils.
Wendy
19/04/2012
4:51:41 PM
I am flabbergasted that people can't see a difference between rap anchors off a route/area and putting in bolts for a one off slacksline. Rapping off a route is frequently preferable for all of the arguments presented a trillion times before me, but requires a permanent anchor to pull the ropes from. Slacklining, should you have a strange desire to do it, does not require a permanent anchor that you pull the ropes from, but can be easily done from removable gear in the same way that any belay you put in on gear is used then removed. There is no hypocrisy in criticising putting in bolts just for a slack line in a location abundant in other options just because you approve of some if not all of the rap stations. It as if I wanted to belay of some bolts because I couldn't deal with setting up a belay, then rip them out afterwards. That would be dumb.
Wendy
19/04/2012
5:02:19 PM
On 19/04/2012 Egosan wrote:

>
>Of more interest are the new rap rings on the ledge at the top of baptism.
>The are two new rap stations in five meters. Both within spitting distance
>of a mess of trad placements. Clearly convenience bolts for those too lazy
>to walk down the established summit track. It gets better. One of these
>new stations has already been stripped of its hangers too.

I do hate it when rap stations are put in 5m away from another one. Like the one that appeared on Blockbuster Ledge, 3m from the existing one abover Hair of a Dog. I don't like the ones above Christian Crack and Swinging for the same reason. I'm guessing these ones are a result of the new routing to the left of Skaramunga a while back.
Wendy
19/04/2012
5:09:01 PM
On 19/04/2012 Mike Bee wrote:

>*the anchors at the top of Serpent are convenience anchors because they
>save climbers from having to do the "worthless" second pitch scramble.
>Saying that they were there for erosion protection doesn't fly with me,
>I don't think.
>- The descent gully down Mitre isn't exactly a barren wasteland or showing
>massive signs of erosion.

I'm tending to think that those who don't buy the erosion protection argument are never going to buy it, no matter where it is. I've certainly heard people say erosion control is not the issues, it's all about convenience for almost every rap anchor put in. I tend to wonder if they just don't recognise erosion when they see it? Both sides of the descent off Mitre have plenty of erosion. Probably more on the Hells Bells sides these days because the other side was redirected only a few years ago. But you can see the impact of traffic of the new section leading to the rocky ramp - that's probably not even 5 years of traffic. I was never convinced on redirecting that track for the sake of a small section on rock, I think there's still plenty of space for erosion on that one, but that's another argument.

But really, I think the concern in this case was the gully from the top of these 2 routes to the summit itself, not the descent track. Making discussion of the descent track kinda irrelevant to it.

Wendy
19/04/2012
5:20:04 PM
I also hate the fact that something is bung in my computer and it keeps crashing on me, so I have to write a stack of short post to try and get something written before it goes again.

On 19/04/2012 Mike Bee wrote:
>From my point of view it's not the presence of the anchor itself that causes
>the fuss, its the perception (real or not) that there is a strong tend
>of more bolts going into Araps, and more "convenience" being brought to
>what is one of the proudest trad crags in the world.
>

Araps still is a great trad crag. If you can't place gear, there is still bugger all for you to do at the mount. You still have to belay at the top on stacks of routes. I still place a stupidly large rack in almost every route I do. It's not like I have gotten out of practice at placing gear or setting up belays from climbing at Araps. I have never felt that many of the rap stations did anything other than enhance my experience at Araps.

Araps has a long history of rap stations. It's been donkey's years since you had to down climb spiral staircase or that chimney right of French crack to get off the pharos. Surely those anchors are also "just for convenience"? The ones on the top of Spartacus were there when I started climbing, even though you can climb down the chimney next to Toga, or the gully above Crucifiction. The ones on the nose left of Ali's, when you could just climb down Ali's. Above Dylan. Above Tannin. The list could go on - these are all at least 22 years old. It's really not that far out of left field that more have gone in.


Wendy
19/04/2012
5:25:34 PM

>
>Just throwing this out there as an idea against bolting for erosion control
>(I don't really believe this, but it's worth pondering I think).
>A bolt changes the rock forever. One you've drilled, that piece of rock
>will never be the same again. But trees, shurbs and grass will grow back,
>soil can be moved back up hill, and so while it takes a bit of time and
>labour you can restore gullies to something very simliar to their original
>state. As a result, you could argue that the long term effects of bolting
>are actually more environmentally intrusive than bushbashing your way down.

I'm glad you don't really believe this, because it's a silly argument! Trees, grass and shrubs will never grow back as they were before. Weeds settle in, fussier, more delicate plants don't grow back, shovelling soil around destroys soil structure and stability. The act of trying to rebuild it is fraught with risk of doing more damage still.You just can't recreate an environment. Better to just not cause the damage in the first place. And two little holes in the rock, well, it's basically the same argument to say you could just remove the bolt and fill the whole with coloured putty. It's chances of being a sustainable repair are much greater than the chances of repairing a gully by shovelling soil and hoping stuff grows back.

Eduardo Slabofvic
19/04/2012
7:05:32 PM
On 19/04/2012 Wendy wrote:
>
>
> And two little holes in the rock

Its not two little holes in the rock, as the bolts will need to be replaced, so it becomes 4 little holes in the rock, then they need to be replaced so it becomes 6 little holes in the rock, then some one sees the bolts and thinks bolts are O.K. and put another two little holes in the rock somewhere else that become 4, then 6 ad infinitum.

Swinging has two little holes in it right? Wrong. Its got 10 from my last count, if you include that completely useless anchor that's spitting distance from the one that's been there since c--ky was an egg. So, in the 36 years since its first ascent there have been 8 more holes drilled in that one route, with more to come.

There's about 9 little holes above hidden secrets. Just because some one covered them up with glue doesn't mean they're not there. How long does that glue last before it needs to be replaced?

2 more little holes appeared above Blasphemy once someone decided they wanted to chuck laps on it after work.

4 or 5 little holes appeared on that little traverse off the top of the organ pipes once guiding became prevalent even though it takes trad gear if you feel the need to rope up.

2 little holes above Kachoong for some god unknown reason.

About 12 more little holes in the Honeycomb area (a few of those are on routes) but each of the anchors can be rigged with trad gear.

There's more, but I hear a Martini calling.

When does it stop?

Wendy
19/04/2012
7:18:32 PM
yeah yeah Eduardo ... we actually agree about most of those you know ....

But my point was in relation to the rather strange claim that bolts were somehow less destructive than trashing a gully, shovelling the dirt back up there and hoping sht would regrow. We've put a lot of effort into repairing paths and reducing erosion, but by some miracle, it also comes back. The central gully track. The Mitre track. The organ pipes gully track. repairing trashed environments is much harder than repairing a hole in the rock. Trash, repair, trash, some idiot starts up a new path because they don't want to negotiate the slippery dusty section, more trashing, close track, climb over fence, can't be fcked walking a few metres further, ignore sign, create shortcut, trash, repair ... it's an equally endless cycle. No matter how much people think there are too many holes in the rock, it doesn't change the fact that there's too much erosion around the rock as well. I am happy to take the lesser of two evils and stick some bolts in the rock to avoid old trashing the environment more. Even though I disagree with some of the choices of bolts to put in, the argument for most of them still stands.

The good Dr
19/04/2012
10:46:14 PM
Put a piece of gear in the rock, damage the surface, break away an edge, ad infinitum. Somehow the wear an tear from gear placing gets forgotten and those trashed placements do not regrow. It would be interesting to see how many gear placements have been damaged or destroyed compared to the number of bolts placed. Eduardo seems good at counting, might be the man for the job.

Eduardo Slabofvic
20/04/2012
12:50:10 AM
And I'll go around counting how many unnecessary bolts you put in, then compare the cubic meters of rock destroyed by all those tiny little holes and the countless number of replacements holes that you seem to want to overlook to the micro chips from gear placements, then see which is the bigger number. Then I might count all the paths to the base of the routes, and the roads, and car parks, and toilets, and phone boxes, and light poles, and telecommunication towers, and rock cairns, and painted signs, and over head wires, and cleared vegetation, and chipped holds, and glued holds, and chalk stains, and garbage , and feral animals, and say "Wow, this conservation area is so pristine. I better whack in some more bolts and turn this trad climbing area into some Euro like convenience sport crag so someone doesn't stand on that bridle-vale creeper down there".
ZERO
23/04/2012
2:44:22 PM
On 20/04/2012 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>And I'll go around counting how many unnecessary bolts you put in, then
>compare the cubic meters of rock destroyed by all those tiny little holes

Just did some rough sums.
a 90mm deep hole (probably not deep enough but makes the maths easier) drilled with a 12mm bit = 10 cubic cm (roughly).
Therefore 100 holes would remove the equivalent of 1 litre of rock (yes, I know rocks aren't measured in litres, but for comparison....)
That's 100,000 bolts or 50,000 double bolted anchors (excluding staples) to remove one cubic metre of rock.
Someone else can work out the equivalent in feet running up and down gullies to remove a cubic metre of soil and vegetation.

uwhp510
23/04/2012
3:37:13 PM
On 19/04/2012 The good Dr wrote:
>Put a piece of gear in the rock, damage the surface, break away an edge,
>ad infinitum. Somehow the wear an tear from gear placing gets forgotten
>and those trashed placements do not regrow. It would be interesting to
>see how many gear placements have been damaged or destroyed compared to
>the number of bolts placed. Eduardo seems good at counting, might be the
>man for the job.

Quick everyone... we have to bolt EVERYTHING to ... SAVE (?!?!?!) the rock from the nuts and cams.

In fact, maybe we should start using camalots and super rocks to drill bolt holes since they are apparently more effective at rock smashing than a hilti.
ZERO
23/04/2012
4:05:06 PM
On 23/04/2012 uwhp510 wrote:
>Quick everyone... we have to bolt EVERYTHING to ... SAVE (?!?!?!) the
>rock from the nuts and cams.
>
>In fact, maybe we should start using camalots and super rocks to drill
>bolt holes since they are apparently more effective at rock smashing than
>a hilti.

Or drill holes big enough to take a minimum #2 camalot.

nmonteith
23/04/2012
5:02:41 PM
On 23/04/2012 STEALTH wrote:
>Just did some rough sums.
>a 90mm deep hole (probably not deep enough but makes the maths easier)
>drilled with a 12mm bit = 10 cubic cm (roughly).
>Therefore 100 holes would remove the equivalent of 1 litre of rock (yes,
>I know rocks aren't measured in litres, but for comparison....)
>That's 100,000 bolts or 50,000 double bolted anchors (excluding staples)
>to remove one cubic metre of rock.

Its a good argument I use with National Parks rangers. Think about the typical Bluies tourist track cut into the cliff - they probably cut out a metre square of rock to make steps for every 3 metres of track.
rolsen1
23/04/2012
8:07:21 PM
On 19/04/2012 kieranl wrote:
>Yep, that's fine. The problem with Mitre is not so much avoiding crossing
>climbs as finding suitable rap points that are safe to get to.
>
>I find it odd that people make such a fuss about an anchor that services
>a real need but don't complain about long-standing convenience anchors
>such as those above Salem. I wonder why one OK but not the other?

Salem is 18, Serpent is 10. Not that I agree.

Long standing? When did the Salem one go in? They weren't there when I climbed it 15 years ago.

 Page 3 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 77
There are 77 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints