Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Ben Lomond Bolts Removed


nmonteith

19-Apr-2007
3:36:24 PM

when do you stop though? Belay bolts at the top of every route? Rap anchors at the end of every pitch?
Half pitch rap anchors so people with single ropes can enjoy a quick fix without requiring seconding? This
is what will seep in eventually (as it has at Arapiles).

dalai

19-Apr-2007
3:43:56 PM

On 19/04/2007 nmonteith wrote:
> This is what will seep in eventually (as it has at Arapiles).

If it's only been a few anchors at Ben Lomond, and the status quo has been just these anchors for all this time. It looks like it was pretty stable before these latest events...


nmonteith

19-Apr-2007
3:50:07 PM

On 19/04/2007 dalai wrote:
>If it's only been a few anchors at Ben Lomond, and the status quo has
>been just these anchors for all this time. It looks like it was pretty
>stable before these latest events...

Arapiles locals probably said the very same thing in the 90s before the NBF onslaught. It only takes a
few individuals to with a need to modernise and away you go... (ps I am very guilty of being one of these
modernisers myself!)


mousey

19-Apr-2007
4:16:06 PM

On 19/04/2007 bomber pro wrote:
>How many trips to the ben have you done Josh?

only 1, i spent over a week waiting unseccessfully for a partner. while this is unfortunate, i don't believe it devalues my opinion


The good Dr

19-Apr-2007
4:26:54 PM

There have been some complex issues raised by this, particularly for the climbers from Tas. Of particular interest has been the response of Parks to this event...

From Thesarvo

"I have just received the following email from Stan Matuszek, the Operations Manager for Parks in the north of the state. I think it clearly shows that Gerry has acted without the authority of the Parks and that he has presented a distorted view of the bolt anchors on the Ben:

Doug,
Thanks for the update...
I spoke with Gerry this morning and also to Chris Emms from Parks who Gerry spoke to about the bolts on Ben Lomond. Chris expressed concern about the structural integrity of the bolts being used and Gerry has interpreted that as an open invitation to remove the bolts from the Ben.
I said to Gerry that it would be dangerous for him to use the idea that parks said the bolts were illegal and so should be removed as an argument as it then applies to all bolts in any reserve managed by Parks in Tasmania.
The way forward with this is to develop a policy position through consultation and debate. I don't believe that Parks have either been actively involved in this debate so far, nor have clearly stated that they don't want to be involved.
I suggest a moratorium on any further bolting or bolt removal until this process has been gone through.
This should be addressed at a statewide level.
cheers
Stan Matuszek
Regional Operations Manager North
Parks & Wildlife Service
Posted by Doug Bruce at Apr 17, 2007 20:11 | Permalink | Reply To This "

The comments of Bisso are also interesting reading.

Having climbed at the Ben, I like the idea of the lack of fixed gear on the climbs, though do not agree with Gerry Narcisist's actions.

It is easy to crap on about the pros and cons, have tedious ethical debates where people paraphrase and use out of context snippets of other peoples (often porrly thought out) diatribes, and generally snipe at each other. Actually it is a blood sport that has significant satisfaction for the observer, but I digress. Discussing the issues is good. There may be no right or wrong, and there is most definately crap loads of grey.

How you climb is your responsibility, how it affects others is also your responsibility. Because freedom isn't free, for folks like you and me.


tnd

19-Apr-2007
4:27:19 PM

On 19/04/2007 mousey wrote:
>On 19/04/2007 bomber pro wrote:
>>How many trips to the ben have you done Josh?
>
>only 1, i spent over a week waiting unseccessfully for a partner. while
>this is unfortunate, i don't believe it devalues my opinion

bomber, this helps reinforce mousey's point that "it does not see enough traffic for erosion to be a real concern" :-)

Duncan

19-Apr-2007
4:45:10 PM

On 19/04/2007 mousey wrote:
>>Having an area bolt-free for the sake of being bolt-free is moronic.
>
>i disagree. being 100% bolt free maintains a certain repect that would
>be lost if it were 'bolt free, except for...' - the local ethic dictates
>no bolts, and there is no REAL reason for the bolts to be there- if convenience
>is your thing, you probably shouldnt have chosen the ben in the first place
>& it does not see enough traffic for erosion to be a real concern.

If having it bolt-free means having unsightly tat, solely so you can say "there's no bolts at ben lomond", then its plain stupid. Trashing a descent gully and having manky slings all over the place doesn't maintain respect for a place. This arguement is not just about convenience, it is definitely about aesthetics too. Its not a matter of gridbolting the place, no one is suggesting that, its a matter of having well placed rap stations that mean that fragile ecosystems are preserved and ugly slings aren't all over the crag.

Bob Saki

19-Apr-2007
5:00:16 PM

ban tat as well then
everybody walks down.

then perhaps look at having no more than 3 ascents of this area per week if we are to care for the descent gully as well.

though highly impractical that would show due care for the cliff if everyone is so worried about it.


mousey

19-Apr-2007
5:02:34 PM

i agree duncan, and i dont support tat sligs being left all over the place. nor do i think thats its ok to trash the desent gullys.
if there is a valid concern (ie. one based on fact or properly educated opinion as opposed to speculation) that the traffic at ben lomond is causing/going to cause unsustainable damage (ie. traffic is damaging it faster than it can repair itself) then yes, something should be done. and maybe the answer will be to put a rap station in? but that will be up to the locals to deal with that & make an appropriate judgement at that time.
keep in mind that im neither strongly supporting or strongly dissing the fact that the bolts have been removed, simplly making comment on the situation considering that there are currently no bolts there.... if that makes sense?


harold

19-Apr-2007
5:27:03 PM

with all this talk of erosion to decent gullies - could someone who has been walked down the decent at the flutes a few times please!! comment on its condition or sensitivity to erosion so we can put this part of the argument to rest. My memory is a bit hazy and I could be wrong but as far as I can remember it was all blocks of rock which obviously doesnt wear out. I cant remember any dirt. All the loose dirt which I remember was at the approach to the base of some of the climbs. I would think that abseil stations attracting traffic to the base would cause more erosion and choss. I could be wrong so someone tell me, is the decent walk just rocks or is it sensitive alpine dirt and vegitation. If it is rocks then surely its better for people to walk?


nmonteith

19-Apr-2007
6:46:46 PM

It is certainly not eroded currently and my memory is mostly of rock hopping, scrambling and hardy
stubby bushes.

Here are some photos of Frews Flutes area (including the top plateu). You can see it's mostly jumbled
rock.

JakeB

19-Apr-2007
8:38:07 PM

well i think this all started when a few of us were keen to get the petrol drill cranking and put up some amazing routes. mainly keen on the stacks bluff area. then the question came up about the bolts on frews flutes. if there is bolts (even for a rap) why can't we put them in to climb. so we asked the question is it Bolts or No Bolts. my mind has changed so much on this topic. but now for me. gerry did the correct thing. this state has so much god damm rock why f*&k the ben. oh and the tat. why has this become such an issue. because even before the bolts were removed there is was heaps of it about. because there was only one rap, which was on the left. i am sure we as climbers could clean the tat issue up. but i do think that when people were climbing of to the right on barb di, master blaster ect... they just do the first 1 or two pitches. and then rap.
over the next trips i will be doing my bit to clean this up. (weather looks good this weekend).
(can't see much tat in the photo neil, you must be good at photoshop :)
jake bresnehan

garry

19-Apr-2007
8:45:40 PM

hi jake would it be possible to give me a belay on that awesome crack over there, you know the 80 meter one
cheers
garry

garry

19-Apr-2007
8:46:47 PM

hi jake can you give me a belay on that one over the left on saturday
cheers
garry

check that 2nd photo out of neils, where is it. Im going there sunday

JakeB

19-Apr-2007
9:14:42 PM

not sure if i can give you a belay. i think i might go to blackwood rocks.

spicelab

19-Apr-2007
9:44:05 PM

On 19/04/2007 nmonteith wrote:
>It is certainly not eroded currently and my memory is mostly of rock hopping,
>scrambling and hardy
>stubby bushes.

Neil, it's great to observe that you are one of the few people capable of seeing both sides.

Erosion is the great straw man for the bolting fundamentalists. Evil of all evils.

It HAS to be this way for them to push their relentless incremental agenda and for their pseudo-pragmatic arguments to stand.

kieranl

19-Apr-2007
9:53:28 PM

I've steadfastly declined to give an opinion on this one because while I've got lots of opinions they're not informed. I've climbed at the Ben but not on Frews and I don't know the environment or the local politics.
The one thing I will comment on is fixed tat.Tat is fixed gear. You may not have drilled a hole or scarred a crack but you've left a physical trace. An article by Dougal Macdonald in Climbing or Rock&Ice described climbing on desert towers in Canyonlands where fixed gear was banned. They thought they had done the right thing by leaving camouflaged fixed slings but were told clearly that the ban was on fixed equipment in a wilderness area and that included slings. Perhaps a bit tough but why ban bolts if you allow other fixed garbage?

Duncan

20-Apr-2007
11:10:51 AM

On 19/04/2007 kieranl wrote:
>An article by Dougal Macdonald in Climbing or Rock&Ice described climbing
>on desert towers in Canyonlands where fixed gear was banned. They thought
>they had done the right thing by leaving camouflaged fixed slings but were
>told clearly that the ban was on fixed equipment in a wilderness area and
>that included slings. Perhaps a bit tough but why ban bolts if you allow
>other fixed garbage?

I wonder if spicelab would call that a pseudo-pragmatic argument as well?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

20-Apr-2007
12:17:10 PM

>Tat is fixed gear.
I suggest that this statement would have several degrees of interpretation, depending on location, ones climbing history and attitudes to bolts etc.

In a wilderness area with a very strict code of ethics /aesthetics(?) then it probably is; but I wonder if those same authorities reckon that cleaning up the mess of a broken climber/s (or cost of rescuing same), is a viable alternative to a 'tat'-enhanced retreat?
... It is little wonder (therefore), that they take the expedient option of simply banning climbing in such areas!

gfdonc

20-Apr-2007
2:23:42 PM

My 2c worth.
I don't see the issue as one of having "bolt free" areas. I do advocate minimal use of bolts, and in particular find the installation of bolts next to trad placements (read: cracks) to be abhorrent. And generally would be quite happy to walk down rather than rap.

But on the other hand not having rap stations where needed, or not establishing new routes because they would need a bolt, is hardly helping serve the climbing community either. That is, place them where needed regardless of the use (or not) of bolts elsewhere on the same crag (or region for that matter).

For "bolt" read any fixed gear - I agree that old tat is more unsightly (as well as more dangerous) than a bolt head.

There are 114 messages in this topic.