Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Ben Lomond Bolts Removed


nmonteith

18-Apr-2007
9:35:15 AM

On 18/04/2007 Ronny wrote:
>Yeah but its not about what's 'unsightly'. Its about having an area where
>you have to deal solely with the natural form of the rock - no changing
>(drilling holes) allowed.

Exactly Ronny. This is not about aesthetics but ethics.

18-Apr-2007
12:43:10 PM

On 18/04/2007 nmonteith wrote:
>On 18/04/2007 Ronny wrote:
>>Yeah but its not about what's 'unsightly'. Its about having an area
>where
>>you have to deal solely with the natural form of the rock - no changing
>>(drilling holes) allowed.
>
>Exactly Ronny. This is not about aesthetics but ethics.

What's the point of ethics then?

A bunch of useless rules ...


Sabu

18-Apr-2007
1:25:02 PM

On 18/04/2007 kp wrote:
>On 18/04/2007 nmonteith wrote:
>>On 18/04/2007 Ronny wrote:
>>>Yeah but its not about what's 'unsightly'. Its about having an area
>>where
>>>you have to deal solely with the natural form of the rock - no changing
>>>(drilling holes) allowed.
>>
>>Exactly Ronny. This is not about aesthetics but ethics.
>
>What's the point of ethics then?
>
>A bunch of useless rules ...

but without them everything would go down the toilet (so to speak) no eithcs, everyone does as they please, bolts everywhere, chopped bolts everywhere, chipped routes. without them no one would know is acceptable and wat isn't.


BigMike

18-Apr-2007
1:26:48 PM

On 18/04/2007 Sabu wrote:
without them no one would know is acceptable and wat isn't.

As opposed to the current crystal clear situation!

Ronny

18-Apr-2007
1:47:33 PM

On 18/04/2007 kp wrote:
>
>What's the point of ethics then?
>
>A bunch of useless rules ...

Its not a bunch of ethics for ethics sake - that would be useless.

The 'ethics' of a particular area affect directly the experience of climbing at that place, and the effect that climbing there has on the environment. They (personal experience and environmental effect) are really what its about.

In the case of Ben Lomond, the decision has been taken (leaving aside question of who can validly make such a decision) to maintain the area in a particular manner so as to provide for a particular experience (climbing at an area without any bolts), and particular environmental effect (no holes).

Neil has described this as 'ethics', cause that's what climbers call it. Arguing over the sematnics of it isn't going to advance things very far.

(Suggesting that aesthetics are in fact relevant would be more useful - that was the point I was arguing agasint above).

James


westie

18-Apr-2007
2:46:46 PM

On 16/04/2007 n00bpwn3r wrote:
... but if I went there and felt that I had to really do a new route and it needed a bolt, I would put it in and not give a rat's arse what other people have told me what I could and couldn't do.

Noob,
I see where you're coming from, you seem to be of the opinion that the ends justifies the means .ie. if you can get up the climb (with a bolt or two) than its worth the effort. Historically the mountaineering / climbing community have found the challenge to be reaching the top with what nature provides and that alone. People pushing the grades and abilties was therefore an admirable and impressive progression. If a route couldn't be done it took a special talent to do it. Do grades have to increase for the sport to stay strong? How many people climb 30+ anway? a few hundred around the world? There will be a point where we can't climb at a higher grade on natural gear and the sport won't die off. Is it really that important to get an extra 2% out of ourselves and get up that climb with some bolts in place?
Ultimately, for a lot of people the attraction of climbing is the unspoilt nature of the crag and the (for the most part) intrepid approach we take. The sight of a fat bolt on a sparse wall is just a reminder that its just another day for the crag and you're just another climber. Its not just a matter sport vs trad but a whole different mindset and approach to climbing. There's a bunch of rhetoric here but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

Warren. (I'll send you a snap if it helps you 'spot me at the crag' but I think we climb different crags anyway...haha)


Doug

18-Apr-2007
8:31:36 PM

You're confusing "ethics" with "style". People often misuse the term "ethics" because it has connotations of morality. See what Webster has to say:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/style
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/ethics
Is it either right or wrong to have bolts at the top of a crag? I don't think so. Preferable or not is perhaps a better way to look at it, based on a consensus (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/consensus) arrived - hopefully - after considering as wide a range of factors as possible.


Doug

18-Apr-2007
8:41:24 PM

The discussion is getting a bit sidetracked on to whether bolts should be used for climbing, The point at issue is whether bolts used for abseiling - and only abseiling - should have been removed.
It is a deception for Gerry to cite consultation with Parks. In fact, Parks did not authorise the removal of the bolts (Gerry "consulted" with one ranger) and have not suggested that people placing bolts could be prosecuted. As a consequence of Gerry's actions, Stan Matuszek, the director of Parks in northern Tasmania, has suggested a moratorium on both the placement and removal of bolts in National Parks until a discussion can be held to try to develop a consensus view on the placement of bolts in National Parks.

climberman

18-Apr-2007
9:31:03 PM

On 18/04/2007 Doug Bruce wrote:
>until a discussion can be held to
>try to develop a consensus view on the placement of bolts in National Parks.

That should be a fun process. G'luck.

drdeviousii

19-Apr-2007
1:29:53 AM

>Exactly Ronny. This is not about aesthetics but ethics.

aesthetics & ethic are intrinsically related though! The visual impact of fixed gear & tat is the same - if there's no fixed gear then the climbing experience feels "more pure". But if there's fixed gear, whether bolts or tat, then the experinece is "less pure".

Saying that tat can be removed therefore its ok is bollocks, because in reality its never removed. Same with chalk, in theory it can be removed but it practise it is never washed off. In many ways the impact of chalk is just as bad if not worse than bolts, but that's another argument.

IMO, the Ben can be a great trad crag even with select rap anchors. But I'm not an arrogant self-appointed guardian of Tasmanian climbing who's been climbing for 30 years, so what would i know.

uwhp510

19-Apr-2007
6:04:21 AM

On 16/04/2007 n00bpwn3r wrote:
>the notion of a no fixed protection area is
>both alien and intrusive to "Traditional" Australian ethics.

Um... not all cliffs in Australia have the exact same set of ethics...?

Blue Lake in Kosciusko NP is completely bolt free (ie no rap or protection bolts) as another example.


Neil

19-Apr-2007
10:47:16 AM

an interesting discussion.
i've been to the ben a few times and used the rap bolts.

it's a shame they are gone. I hope the place does not get covered in fixed tat from people rapping off slings etc now that the rap bolts are gone. i.e belays on rajah, barbe vi vendete etc etc anyone been to the warrumbungles and done flight of the phoenix - the massive pile of tat there is an eye sore lots worse than a pair of rap anchors..... araps before the NBF - tat everywhere and fixed mank galore.

what about the fixed ropes and environmental damage at the base of the climbs at ben lomond ?
the fixed ropes used to climb up through the scrub on the eroded approaches are pure convenience - will they be removed ?

i fully support the "ethic" of a trad cliff with no bolts. but surely climbers are mature enough to see the difference and accept a compromise between bolts for climbing and bolts for other reasons.

anyway, its nice to see some passion from the locals over what is a fantastic cliff. it all looks a tad hypocritical from the outside when you consider what was done at hillwood. sometimes less is more !!!!


oweng

19-Apr-2007
11:27:31 AM

Bisso has weighed in spectacularly over at thesarvo.

http://www.thesarvo.com:8080/confluence/display/thesarvo/2007/04/15/Ben+Lomond+Rap+Stations+Removed?focusedCommentId=1540#comment-1540


IdratherbeclimbingM9

19-Apr-2007
1:14:58 PM

Dr d wrote
>Saying that tat can be removed therefore its ok is bollocks, because in reality its never removed.

& Neil wote
>anyone been to the warrumbungles and done flight of the phoenix - the massive pile of tat there is an eye sore lots worse than a pair of rap anchors..... >araps before the NBF - tat everywhere and fixed mank galore.

It is a shame that many climbers are too lazy to remove tat. I regard them as 'trophies' of the climbing experiences in those places, and don't find it difficult to pack them out; ... after all they simply replace (in my pack) the one/s I left behind.
Additionaly it is truly scary what others are often prepared to abseil off. IMO a bunch of sunbleached tat is generally no stronger than a single strand of old tat, and close inspection often reveals cuts and nicks due to additional wear and tear on that mank; ... just waiting as a time-bomb for the unwary.

Duncan

19-Apr-2007
1:30:29 PM

On 19/04/2007 drdeviousii wrote:
>aesthetics & ethic are intrinsically related though! The visual impact
>of fixed gear & tat is the same - if there's no fixed gear then the climbing
>experience feels "more pure". But if there's fixed gear, whether bolts
>or tat, then the experinece is "less pure".

A fine point. Having an area bolt-free for the sake of being bolt-free is moronic. If it can be bolt-free without tat or an eroded descent then its a laudible idea, if not its bloody stupid.

Bruce Cameron

19-Apr-2007
2:43:05 PM

Gerry Narkowicz has hit the spot. Ben Lomond should never be bolted. This is a magical wild cliff that should remain bolt free. There are plenty of other locations in Tasmania where sport routes are numerous.

It will be a sad day for Australian climbing if The Ben becomes a bolt farm.

Please respect the Park rules and the traditional ethics that have made this cliff Australia's greastest crack climbing location.

Bruce Cameron


mousey

19-Apr-2007
2:54:50 PM

>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.


muki

19-Apr-2007
3:13:16 PM

How many trips to the ben have you done Josh?


sticky

19-Apr-2007
3:13:52 PM

>
>It will be a sad day for Australian climbing if The Ben becomes a bolt
>farm.

I don't think the issue here is the Ben becoming a bolt farm. I think it's people chopping abseil bolts that have been there for decades. No-one's seriously sugggesting adding bolts, and it's disingenuous to say that that's the issue.

>
>Please respect the Park rules and the traditional ethics that have made
>this cliff Australia's greastest crack clibing location.

Wouldn't that also include preserving the fixed abseil anchors that climbers used while establishing many of the lines at said great crack climbing location?

dalai

19-Apr-2007
3:19:41 PM

On 19/04/2007 mousey wrote:

>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.

The anchors have been there for over 10 years? You would have to think that the area wasn't a bolt free zone if they were there for as long as they have been?

As for not enough traffic for erosion. Gully ecology especially alpine and sub alpine is particularly fragile!

I would rather a few well placed bolted abseil anchors than layers of useless tat (M9 - you would have to one of the few that replaces the tat) but regardless it is very visible and distracts more from the experience for me. Instead of knowing somewhere up on the buttresses are a few well placed anchors!

There are 114 messages in this topic.