Well Chris, first of all, I didn’t sling any ad hominems of a vulgar nature. I think they were mostly playful, and if anyone was really paying attention, my rants contain a good deal of climbing trivia one might find esoteric, if not interesting.

As for the specific question you posed. I answer your question with another:

If we are to minimize the usage of top roping on cliff sides for environmental reasons, say we could argue that the rock erodes at a faster rate this way (although you’d likely have to dig up some geological information to back you up), we could announce a moratorium on top roping at the Smoke Bluffs, or limit it to areas already affected by damage.

But this would be if you were in fact interested in preserving the rock as is. I think such a thing is silly. Rock erodes and become slippery, whether you allow 5,000 people per year to toprope it, or the same amount over ten years because of the inconvenience of top anchors. Make no mistake: we have witnessed less than a decade of popular Smoke Bluffs climbing in a sport that is proliferating with every Gen Y’er from here to Halifax. You think you can stop it? You can’t. Imagine Squamish boulders in a hundred years? Imagine Easy in an Easy Chair 100 years after the FA instead of the 10 it has under its belt now.

So, what is this preserving nonsense? Nature changes, erodes, breaks away. So we add bolts at the top to make things easier and it erodes at a slightly faster rate. It’s like arguing over whether the Earth will be swallowed the sun in four or five billion years. In either scenario, it’s going to take a long time to generate the polished effect. And so what if it does? As mentioned before, the area is a gym. I know if I want to go and try bigger and bolder I could foray onto the Chief, or in places where a second ascent awaits, never mind a second million ascent.

There’s a few crux issues with my point.

1. If you want to preserve the Smoke Bluffs, how would you do it? Whether or not you ban TRing is not going to affect erosion over the long term. Penny Lane is better off than Flying Circus, but both will eventually polish nicely due to the ease of access, just like Rattle Snake Point. The argument that no bolts will save this is not the greatest one I can think of, Rattle Snake Point being polished despite having no bolts at the top of any climbs (although easy top access)

2. If you are going to have bolts at the top of climbs, be consistent. The main problem I had was that I had climbed 5 routes that day and all had top anchors. I had climbed many places in the Bluffs and had never come across a route that had none. And so you get complacent that bolts will just be at the top. It throws you for a loop when you get up there and find nothing. And it’s not just the Bluffs. It’s Murrin, it’s the Chief, it’s the Apron, they’re all bolted. So why the whole big issue with retrobolting a station at the top of Penny Lane, is really beyond me. What, you wanna preserve Penny Lane, but the thousand other climbs are ok? It doesn’t go with logic my fiend.

so let me get this climbing ethic straight here…

you are not allowed to have bolts at the top of easy climbs - prevents TR parties

If you are putting up a new climb (esp a hard one) you are allowed to put in a bolted anchor so you can scrub it and then TR it death until you feel like you’re good enough to attempt it on lead.

If it is an easy multi pitch (St. Vitus Dance) there are no bolt anchors allowed.

If it is a hard multi pitch there has to be bolt anchors at the top of every pitch. (Freeway)

An easy climb is not allowed to have a bolt to protect the crux which is otherwise unprotectable and with risk of injury on fall risk. (P2 Snake)

A hard climb is allowed a bolt to protect the crux even if it is easily protected with gear and no risk of injury. (p1 daily planet)

these rules are made up and enforced by harder climbers who are in the minority for the benefit of the 5.9ers who are in the majority.

How long will it take before some assinine weenie says define hard versus easy for me!!

it doesn’t compare slavery with climbing or monkeys with apples, it compares time with time and demonstrates that time is not relevant. in fact it is not a comparison at all, it is an analogy.

And in fact sculptures have a long history of being changed, like the group that went around placing plaster leaves of the genitals of nude scuptures in europe.

nonetheless, FAs are hardly sculptures or artists, they smash and hack away at the cliff ecosystem until what was already there is exposed.  Comparing FAs to artists is like comparing apples to monkeys.

also, 20 thousand climbers haven’t done penny lane just fine, they have climbed hundreds of other climbs in squamish and used the anchor on those, and then arrived to the top of penny lane for the first time and yelled SH*T, there’s no anchors!.  So the fact that the rest have anchors, but penny lane doesn’t now that is relevant.

you’re right, the first ascentionists don’t own the rock. but it’s like a public sculpture: the city owns it but it is the artist’s work. you don’t go improving on public sculptures around vancouver. so sure, the first ascentionists don’t own the rock but they sure as hell have more ownership than the second and subsequent ascentionists. (even if the artist did a poor job.)

and comparing the history of slavery to the history of a climb is ridiculous. it’s comparing apples with monkeys. if you’re claiming this lame history of slavery example, i could then legitimately counter with something just as irrelevent…like: the 5000 year history of the golden rule make it right, just as the 30 years history of a climb make the first ascentionist’s style, right. both are irrelevant in this argument.

but the fact that 20-something thousand climbers did penny lane just fine before you came along and had your little pity party…is relevant.

Josh,

Can you convincingly argue that the FA has any ownership over the route?

I thought not.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, in all seriousness, my grandfather was putting up routes in the Dolomites back before Anders was alive, my dad was born, bolts were invented, trad was a word, and runout meant going from one soft iron piton belay along a 5.6 rocky outcropping 200 feet to the next belay with hemp rope wrapped in a bowline around his waist.

Now. As nobody has answered this question, I’ll repeat it:

Since my grandfather used hemp rope and soft iron pitons should we not all embrace his style of climbing in the Dolomites? Should we only carry pro he carried on his routes? Should we refrain from using nylon ropes and sticky rubber? Should we refrain from using safe bolted stations to avoid injury or death?

I’ll answer for you: No, No, No, No, and No

I don’t think my grandfather, were he still alive, would care either.