New Barley Routes
Did Squeamishness today. I'd give it 5.10burly. Robin wasn't kidding about the 4" gear. First two pitches were ok, next two were memorable and the fifth was a joy. Hopefully it gets continued traffic and stays clean.
Rapping Dean Channel with a single 60 JUST makes it. Two rope stretching raps (the second and third) had us a little nervous.
A party just finished the feather when we showed. They said the feather pitch was great and that the bolted traverse was pretty hard.
Thanks to Robin for resurrecting the area - Squeamishness is the old "pinline" I believe and had a few vintage pins to prove it.
Rapping Dean Channel with a single 60 JUST makes it. Two rope stretching raps (the second and third) had us a little nervous.
A party just finished the feather when we showed. They said the feather pitch was great and that the bolted traverse was pretty hard.
Thanks to Robin for resurrecting the area - Squeamishness is the old "pinline" I believe and had a few vintage pins to prove it.
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Somewhere upthread, I said: "I gather that the Little Smoke Bluffs committee has told Robin that his staples are unacceptable there, and will be replaced." I'd heard this from what I thought to be a reliable source, but it turns out to be incorrect, as I was informed by an undoubtedly reliable source.
I tried to find out just what the Little Smoke Bluffs Advisory Committee's views are on fixed anchors in that park, by looking at the District's website, but was unsuccessful.
Climber behaviours in the Squamish area, including things like cleaning practices, tree removal, trundling, lichen/moss removal, and fixed anchors, remain a subject that we need to discuss, and if possible resolve ourselves.
I tried to find out just what the Little Smoke Bluffs Advisory Committee's views are on fixed anchors in that park, by looking at the District's website, but was unsuccessful.
Climber behaviours in the Squamish area, including things like cleaning practices, tree removal, trundling, lichen/moss removal, and fixed anchors, remain a subject that we need to discuss, and if possible resolve ourselves.
Pinline is way the hell to the right - it is the prominent curving crack that circles around on the headwall left around the arete from the middle of Birds of Prey.Tenn wrote:
Thanks to Robin for resurrecting the area - Squeamishness is the old "pinline" I believe and had a few vintage pins to prove it.
Squeamishness is over in the vicinity of Halley's Comet and Klooch Buttress. Straight outa Squampton took the original line of Klooch Butt though so who knows what these pins are from?
What are the odds that Fixe (or Petzl, or...) would donate some hardware to Robin upon receipt of a CV of his routes developed in Squam, Skaha, and elsewhere, and a summary of the long-time debate surrounding his hardware placements, written by someone knowledgeable enough of his routes to compile this (anyone other than Robin himself? surely there are some of you out there!) and eloquent enough to frame the situation in a way that screams "Philanthropy! Beneficence! Brand Exposure!", perhaps with a tease about a future articles about the donation?
Slim, or none? ( the odds, that is, from the start of the post - my that's quite the run-on I've created.)
Slim, or none? ( the odds, that is, from the start of the post - my that's quite the run-on I've created.)
-
Optimally-Primed
- Senior Member
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:04 am
I've been involved in too much controversy as of late so let it be known that I have no official opinion on the matter of Dr. Barley's bolting or any other of his practices. I do have a good relationship with Robin and intend to keep it that way. But I am neither backing him on this nor opposing him.
That said, seeing as how he has neither the technological know-how nor interest in frequenting these forums, I thought I'd repeat some of the reasons he provided for these "staple" bolts. The rule here is that no one blames the messenger. I'm not taking sides here: just adding some context that's been missing so far in this thread.
Robin told me that about 25% of his bolts and anchors get chopped. Word has it that the "Wayne Gretzky of bolt chopping" has returned to Squamish after a brief hiatus. So that 25% figure may increase in the near future. Robin doesn't appreciate his bolts being chopped. These "staple" bolts, he believes, are much harder to chop than normal bolts (power tools would likely be needed). So part of his motivation is to deter "Wayne Gretzky" and get old #99 to move on to someone else's hardware.
Robin also reports having done extensive research (talking to engineers and manufacturers) as well as extensive pull testing using a very strong pick-up truck. He reports that static line and beefy quick-links snap before these bolts even break a sweat.
I asked Robin about quality control and longevity of these bolts. He had little to say about quality control and only circumstantial evidence of longevity.
Again, I have no opinion. I'm just an amused spectator... (and the bearer of fuel for the flames).
That said, seeing as how he has neither the technological know-how nor interest in frequenting these forums, I thought I'd repeat some of the reasons he provided for these "staple" bolts. The rule here is that no one blames the messenger. I'm not taking sides here: just adding some context that's been missing so far in this thread.
Robin told me that about 25% of his bolts and anchors get chopped. Word has it that the "Wayne Gretzky of bolt chopping" has returned to Squamish after a brief hiatus. So that 25% figure may increase in the near future. Robin doesn't appreciate his bolts being chopped. These "staple" bolts, he believes, are much harder to chop than normal bolts (power tools would likely be needed). So part of his motivation is to deter "Wayne Gretzky" and get old #99 to move on to someone else's hardware.
Robin also reports having done extensive research (talking to engineers and manufacturers) as well as extensive pull testing using a very strong pick-up truck. He reports that static line and beefy quick-links snap before these bolts even break a sweat.
I asked Robin about quality control and longevity of these bolts. He had little to say about quality control and only circumstantial evidence of longevity.
Again, I have no opinion. I'm just an amused spectator... (and the bearer of fuel for the flames).
The chopper is definitely back, and Robin is not the only target, bolts @ the top of wonderland are gone too and i don't even think that barley put them in (it was a normal anchor). i guess We'll see if the great one can get the staples out. 25% seems like a lot for a dude who puts as many bolt in as he does- that sucks. I would probably use staple things too!
The chopper is definitely back, and Robin is not the only target, bolts @ the top of wonderland are gone too and i don't even think that barley put them in (it was a normal anchor). i guess We'll see if the great one can get the staples out. 25% seems like a lot for a dude who puts as many bolt in as he does- that sucks. I would probably use staple things too!
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
"Outing" the anchor chopper may not be wise, unless you have proof of his activities. It could amount to libel. But I'm happy to say that IMHO he's a coward. If he's so sure that bolts should be chopped, he should have the courage to say that he's doing it, and why. And if it's just some ego-battle with Robin, remember that it's climbers as a group who'll suffer for your behaviour.
Given that climbers have a limited resource, two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. None of us can any longer behave as though we are completely independent, free to do whatever we want on the rock. Those days are over, even if it will take some effort and education to move on. There are more climbers and climber-days. The climbing strategy from ten years ago was never more than a start. The greatest pressure for us is climber population growth, and its impacts, manifesting itself in issues such as:
- Campground space and management.
- Trail and frontcountry management.
- Public safety: trails, trail work, 'cleaning', etc.
- Fire hazard.
- Climber cleaning practices: scrubbing, tree removal, trundling.
- Commercial climbers, who sometimes don't have the same interests as the climbing community, or the public.
- Fixed anchors, including bolting practices and standards.
The existing climbing strategy and related documents are nominally voluntary. There include some general prohibitions, but the only compulsory one relates to the nesting peregrines. A responsible first step might be for climbers, as represented by the Access Society, the Squamish Access Society, and others, to develop and promote some limitations, recognizing that it's not just our park, and that we don't have carte blanche to do what we want. They might include:
- Route cleaning practices: emphasizing protecting the public, climbers, and the environment.
- Prohibition of any new fixed memorials anywhere in the park, or indeed at any climbing area in Squamish. Parks should have a program whereby the families and friends of dead climbers can donate to worthwhile projects at the Park, with some related recognition.
- Prohibition of any interference with a few cultural icons, e.g. the sculpture on the Grand Wall trail, existing plaques which sometimes predate the Park.
- Some environmental bottom lines, e.g. the peregrines.
- Limiting tree/vegetation to those that are actually on routes and obstructing progress, and under say 15 cm base diameter.
- Limiting vegetation removal at the base of climbs, and ledges. Usually limbing will do the job, if it's needed at all.
- Setting standards for those fixed anchors that are encouraged, and those which are discouraged. Whatever Robin may believe, his anchors don't meet any recognized standard, and with time that will become increasing important.
- Reining in rogues, the few who still have a frontier mentality. That will be a major challenge, but for our credibility we need to do it.
These would not be voluntary - they would be taken as having been agreed to by the climbing community, and binding.
The days of a wishy-washy 'voluntary' strategy seem over, like it or not. If climbers aren't visibly seen to be credibly managing ourselves, with the interests of the park and the public first and foremost, then eventually someone else will. Perhaps unwillingly, but it will happen - look at other areas. We've enjoyed extraordinary freedom, but once things like public safety and natural values come into play, as they gradually have, we need to move on.
Given that climbers have a limited resource, two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. None of us can any longer behave as though we are completely independent, free to do whatever we want on the rock. Those days are over, even if it will take some effort and education to move on. There are more climbers and climber-days. The climbing strategy from ten years ago was never more than a start. The greatest pressure for us is climber population growth, and its impacts, manifesting itself in issues such as:
- Campground space and management.
- Trail and frontcountry management.
- Public safety: trails, trail work, 'cleaning', etc.
- Fire hazard.
- Climber cleaning practices: scrubbing, tree removal, trundling.
- Commercial climbers, who sometimes don't have the same interests as the climbing community, or the public.
- Fixed anchors, including bolting practices and standards.
The existing climbing strategy and related documents are nominally voluntary. There include some general prohibitions, but the only compulsory one relates to the nesting peregrines. A responsible first step might be for climbers, as represented by the Access Society, the Squamish Access Society, and others, to develop and promote some limitations, recognizing that it's not just our park, and that we don't have carte blanche to do what we want. They might include:
- Route cleaning practices: emphasizing protecting the public, climbers, and the environment.
- Prohibition of any new fixed memorials anywhere in the park, or indeed at any climbing area in Squamish. Parks should have a program whereby the families and friends of dead climbers can donate to worthwhile projects at the Park, with some related recognition.
- Prohibition of any interference with a few cultural icons, e.g. the sculpture on the Grand Wall trail, existing plaques which sometimes predate the Park.
- Some environmental bottom lines, e.g. the peregrines.
- Limiting tree/vegetation to those that are actually on routes and obstructing progress, and under say 15 cm base diameter.
- Limiting vegetation removal at the base of climbs, and ledges. Usually limbing will do the job, if it's needed at all.
- Setting standards for those fixed anchors that are encouraged, and those which are discouraged. Whatever Robin may believe, his anchors don't meet any recognized standard, and with time that will become increasing important.
- Reining in rogues, the few who still have a frontier mentality. That will be a major challenge, but for our credibility we need to do it.
These would not be voluntary - they would be taken as having been agreed to by the climbing community, and binding.
The days of a wishy-washy 'voluntary' strategy seem over, like it or not. If climbers aren't visibly seen to be credibly managing ourselves, with the interests of the park and the public first and foremost, then eventually someone else will. Perhaps unwillingly, but it will happen - look at other areas. We've enjoyed extraordinary freedom, but once things like public safety and natural values come into play, as they gradually have, we need to move on.
As Anders suggests, it would be worthwhile to have create a list of acceptable and not acceptable behaviours for route creation and other related activities. However, I do not see how such a list can be made to be compulsory. For instance, if I climbed a route in the compulsory closed falcon nesting area during the closure, what recourse would Parks have against me?
What we do have as a community is the ability to hold discussions with those individuals, respectfully teach them and if necessary, and as a last resort, censure individuals publicly and privately.
Having said this, has the SAS talked to the mad bolt chopper?
What we do have as a community is the ability to hold discussions with those individuals, respectfully teach them and if necessary, and as a last resort, censure individuals publicly and privately.
Having said this, has the SAS talked to the mad bolt chopper?
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
BC Parks/the provincial government can probably prosecute someone who violates the nesting falcon closure, under the Park Act or possibly another statute, and the Offence Act. Whether they would is another matter, but I understand that from their perpective, the closure is in no way 'voluntary', although seem to believe that it is.
Those who built the ladders, with accompanying tree removal etc, last year on the first summit may have been fortunate to avoid charges.
Unfortunately, it's not a game of chicken, and experience elsewhere shows that resource managers, if sufficiently concerned or provoked, will eventually take such steps.
Those who built the ladders, with accompanying tree removal etc, last year on the first summit may have been fortunate to avoid charges.
Unfortunately, it's not a game of chicken, and experience elsewhere shows that resource managers, if sufficiently concerned or provoked, will eventually take such steps.
OK, that is interesting to know. So, how far is it, from a legal pov, to where action can be taken against someone for placing non-standard bolts/belay anchors or for chopping bolts? Do we want to go the American route where they have a backcountry/wilderness bolting ban?
I believe the Canadian approach works better--talk and compromise followed by a formal ball versus revolution and pistols at dawn.
I believe the Canadian approach works better--talk and compromise followed by a formal ball versus revolution and pistols at dawn.
Damn, I was only on here to read about my trundle and this came up.
The fact that Robin is a nice guy, works hard and has contributed probably more than anyone to climbing in BC does not escape me. I find Robin civil and good natured personally, but....... Robin HAS been offered bolts for free and let us not forget he is a retired doctor who lives in a expensive neighborhood in a massive custom built home! Robin has been asked politely, many times to not poison, bleach or place sh*t anchors. Bughouse heights is a bloody disgrace to our climbing park and has caught the attention of non-climbers as well. The stapples are NOT acceptable forms of protection by anyones standard but Robin's, they are ugly and in one case can only be clipped into with a low profile crab. Doing your own safety tests does not qualify something as safe, having a brother say it is okay does not either. I once hung myself and a friend from a solid plastic, white, flower pot chain and it did not break, does this make it okay for an anchor? A good history does not excuse unsafe climbing standards, using bleach, herbacides or putting up lack lustre routes in volume.
I for one support the "mad chopper" and I know many who do as well. The "mad chopper" has never struck a good route or removed protection that rendered a route dangerous. Robin removed a perfectly good anchor and replaced it with a stapple which is far worse behavior if you ask me. I hope the " mad chopper" gets to work soon on those stapples.
The fact that Robin is a nice guy, works hard and has contributed probably more than anyone to climbing in BC does not escape me. I find Robin civil and good natured personally, but....... Robin HAS been offered bolts for free and let us not forget he is a retired doctor who lives in a expensive neighborhood in a massive custom built home! Robin has been asked politely, many times to not poison, bleach or place sh*t anchors. Bughouse heights is a bloody disgrace to our climbing park and has caught the attention of non-climbers as well. The stapples are NOT acceptable forms of protection by anyones standard but Robin's, they are ugly and in one case can only be clipped into with a low profile crab. Doing your own safety tests does not qualify something as safe, having a brother say it is okay does not either. I once hung myself and a friend from a solid plastic, white, flower pot chain and it did not break, does this make it okay for an anchor? A good history does not excuse unsafe climbing standards, using bleach, herbacides or putting up lack lustre routes in volume.
I for one support the "mad chopper" and I know many who do as well. The "mad chopper" has never struck a good route or removed protection that rendered a route dangerous. Robin removed a perfectly good anchor and replaced it with a stapple which is far worse behavior if you ask me. I hope the " mad chopper" gets to work soon on those stapples.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 40 guests
