Well, there have been a lot of postings to this thread, with some thoughtful kernels amongst the chaff, the ad hominem remarks, and the over-generalizations.

It’s hard to know how to take anonymous postings, or at least postings that don’t provide any context. Who we are, our abilities and backgrounds, and our experience of climbing and the world, all are relevant. I wonder what response my postings would have elicited had I made them anonymously?

More routes at the Smoke Bluffs now have anchor bolts on top than was formerly the case. Perhaps convenience, top-roping and climbing schools and gyms have something to do with it. Many of those bolts are unnecessary, in the strict sense - there are good natural anchors available nearby. Some are commonly used for rappelling, although relatively simple walk-offs are usually available. (I agree that anchor bolts are generally appropriate on routes that must be rappelled, but most Smoke Bluffs routes aren’t in that category.)

When I began climbing in 1971, equipment and techniques may have been closer to what Vram’s grandfather used than what we have now. We tied in on a bowline on a coil (nylon rope), used pitons (hard steel), did body rappels, and had vibram soled Robbins shoes. Bolts weren’t very good, were a lot of effort to place, were generally discouraged, and had we known weren’t reliable anyway. Guidebooks were perfunctory compared to those now available. Pretty soon things changed - the clean climbing revolution, plus the introduction of the EB shoe, sit harnesses, etc etc. Then Friends, then sticky rubber, good guides, and so on.

My own ethos is that climbing always should involve multi-faceted challenge. It almost always implies some risk, sometimes a lot. (Mountaineering more so than rock climbing, of course - class 3 in the mountains often implies a multitude of frightening possibilities.) It is often not convenient, and sometimes involves considerable inconvenience if not hard work and suffering. Though it can bring great joy also. Most important, climbing involves respect for the environment (natural and human), oneself, and others.

There are some fundamental issues in all this, such as:

1. To what extent are adventure and risk part of our game? To what extent should they be part of our game? Is safe climbing an oxymoron?

2. Should conscious risk-taking in rock climbing be inherent or optional? (Bearing in mind that the actual risk often differs from the apparent risk.)

3. To what extent is it permissible to alter the natural or human environment we enjoy, and in what circumstances?

4. How can we resolve these questions in a mature manner, within our community?

5. How do we allow for evolution - in technique, environment, skills, our community? (Those who believe in intelligent design may ignore this question - not that the concept seems to apply to climbing anyway.)

I don’t own Penny Lane, nor does John Arts. You might say that the climbing community is its caretaker. So the question is how we should look after it, and how to decide. Has there been such change in the climbing community that there is now a consensus that there should be anchor bolts at the top of Penny Lane? That doesn’t appear to be the case, and would be determined by much more than postings to this forum. If there is such a consensus, is it in fact a good thing in terms of our community in the world - the majority isn’t always right. Vocal minorities are sometimes wrong, but do act as a conscience and corrective.

So, further intelligent and informed debate welcome. But please try to stay on topic.

Anders

I was going to respond to Anders, but I kind of feel that there are people on the forum that are finally speaking for me and include my opinions. I wanted to answer Anders about one thing (but I’m not talking to him only):

Should climbing involve inherent risk?

No, not necessarily, although I have heard similar values espoused by Yvon Chouinard. The climbing gym is proof that rock climbing can reduce injuries and fatalities to levels so far below any other sport that Ultimate Frisbee is basically more dangerous. Does that piss people off? Why? John Gill did say that he saw free climbing evolving more into gymnastics than mountain climbing and adventure.

Having said that, I do love trad. I have since I began climbing. In fact I couldn’t even see the appeal of sport climbing until I started cranking hard. But, Anders, your analogy of hard work in the mountains in comparison to a backyard crag is indeed skewed.

How can I put this? Your analogy is basically like saying after you hike up the grouse mountain, you shouldn’t take the gondola down. It’s the EXACT same analogy. Think about it. The business is done. You are standing on top. You may be tired, satisfied, and if you went to the restaurant, drunk. It’s great to have the gondola ride down. WHY? Because it’s a pissant mountain in North Van that deserves a gondola. Now. If they put one on Garibaldi, I can imagine the displeasure it would create. But it aint on Garibaldi. It’s on Grouse. And the Penny Lane anchors would be like a Grouse Gondola.

Now. I understand your spirit of adventure. In January I made a winter attempt on Crown Mountain. After the summit, I was so tired from breaking trail in six foot deep snow that I would have given anything to pay for an easy descent. But I had no choice. I had to walk back down the avalanche slopes and the 400m elevation loss before the cruel gain again to reach Little Goat col. By the time my friend and I made it back to Grouse we were so tired that both of had fallen asleep walking back. Twice. Was it hard? Yes. Was it worthwhile? Definitely. But to compare it to Penny Lane is… absurd.

People make things more difficult for themselves all the time. It doesn’t mean they should, or force everyone else to. Hermann Buhl climbed all the testpieces of the day in the forties in the Dolomites and Switzerland and Germany, and in winter too! He wanted to challenge himself. He deliberately did it in poor conditions so that he could experience that part of climbing that made him feel most alive. Tomaz Humar made that insane solo ascent of Dhaulagiri in winter. Sonnie Trotter has trad climbed sport routes with poor pro (East Monkey Face?) to show it CAN be done. But should that go for everybody? Just because it CAN be done, SHOULD it be done?

I suppose some back ground is important for perspective here. I am not the bolt station loving manic I seem to be. Thousands of times in Ontario I have sat at the top of a route, shaded by some ancient cedar, gazing into the green fields and watching the hawks circle in the sky, pulling the rope through the munter, fed into the anchor composed of cams, nuts, hexes, or slings. I have DONE THIS BEFORE. Thank you. That’s not what I’m getting at. I am looking for consistency. Just chop the whole goddamned Bluffs, and leave it like the Gunks. Or not. Allow bolt stations at the top. But don’t do it selectively just because there’s gear. There’s ALWAYS gear somewhere. I’ve found gear on so called X rated routes. I downrated an R route in New Hampshire to G after I found some excellent RP placements.

The bolt wars are so silly. Nobody is FORCING you to use the bolts, just like nobody is forcing you to clip Perrys Lieback. Shit, bring some Big Bros if it turns you on. Nobody is forcing you to clip the bolt on Pipeline. But you know each and every one of you did.

Sigh. The only argument I’m really hearing is about erosion. So why is this route so different than the others getting waxed by those newbies topropers?

iff said: and about whiney sheep and tiny balls…why is it that you so often have to degrade yourself to making personal insults? Normally it shows lack of abilty to say something intelligent, but in your case I’ve seen on occasion that you do have bright things to say. So what gives?

i guess i like to degrade myself, kinda like eating chips on the couch for a month then having to climb 5.7 instead of your regular 5.9: you de-grade yourself. either that or i’m sick of the lack of respect you insinuate for those who head out there to put all the work into developing routes…when you imply, i’m uncomfortable with this belay, i’m slapping in some bolts here

and please re read Anders initial post iff

Anders states: In about 1988, someone placed a bolt station with chains and rings at the ledge just below the top, apparently so the route could be toproped with a 50 metre rope. I don’t recall being asked what I thought about the idea, and in any case chopped the bolts, quite publicly, in early 1989. Someone later placed a bolt halfway between the top and the rappel anchors, apparently as a directional. I also removed this.

for a guy who doesn’t own penny lane, Anders sure acts like he has more say in the route than most anyone else. he acts like he has a right to decide about bolts at the top. i happen to agree with his actions. you say you think he’s humble but according to his actions you would then say he’s arrogant.

and for the frickin’ 4th time no i don’t think he owns the rock but i think he has more say (ownership) in the future of penny lane than you, or anyone else does.

and you mention consistency being important in the bluffs. well, consistency = sheep, path and predictability which has little to do with climbing.  

Well, we already know that vram has problems respecting history, as demonstrated by his claiming of first ascents for and renaming of many already established problems on his website a couple years ago. So maybe after he finishes installing a bolted rap station on top of the climb he can rename it too and claim another first ascent.

Vram–

Some good points, but I don’t quite buy the analogy between Grouse Gondola and fixed anchors.  Hiking isn’t about danger, focus and commitment (essential parts of the trad experience).

a) If you climb trad, you should know the whole package, and that includes making anchors.  You surf, you fall in the water; you skate, you bang your knees when you fall. 

b) Routes that were done before there were drills, or power drills, or rap bolting (or whatever), are worthwhile to be kept as such– as Red Dawn says, they are a testament to somebody’s vision and guts.  If you can build a gear anchor and walk off, why bolts?

c) You may think of the Bluffs as a gym, but there are some sick hard and committing lines there (unless you are one of the what, 20 people in the world? who climb 5.13+ trad).  People come from all over the world to climb there, and, believe it or not, lots of Euros (and Yanks) appreciate the chance to climb where there aren’t bolts beside cracks, bolts on anchors, ladders for access, and what have you.

d) Climbing is an experience, not just a set of moves– saying you don’t *have* to use the anchors is beside the point– the fact that there *are* anchors (or bolts, or chipped holds) changes the way you see the route, on a conscious and subconscious level, in the same way a long alpine day feels way way different when you don’t bring your cell phone, or surfing is a whole new ballgame when you are out there solo.