Funarama not so fun anymore

[rolfr]

A pox on both houses, Robin and the SAS. Yes Robin is being overly reactive for removing his bolts because of a perceived intrusion into his style of creating routes, but SAS must have realized that removing staples and anchors on Robin’s routes would have only escalated an already volatile situation.

For a group that supposedly represents the interests of Squamish climbers, I am embarrassed by the SAS reactive short sighted approach in dealing with this situation.
So what is the outcome? A loss of climbing routes because both parties are to entrenched in their beliefs instead of looking for common ground.

SAS words like “non-redundant” bolts and “best practice” are just rhetoric for imposing personal style preferences on established routes. Should a best practice for gear routes be the addition of bolts by committee?

The escalating argument originated with Robin’s anchors, which are adequate but not preferred by some. If you climb in others areas on the continent you will quickly realize that ” just adequate “ anchors are quite common. In areas like Mt Lemon thin chain anchors are the norm.

Robin’s argument that the staples were engineered to be used for climbing and the SAS argument that they were easily removed with a pry bar,are both subjective arguments until backed by scientific data.

SAS has openly accused Robin in a public forum, of installing inferior bolts without supplying supporting documentation or testing. At the very least, a few drop tests with 150 lb. weights on the staples should have been conducted before you remove someone’s fixtures! Given a good 3’ pry bar, I am sure we all can remove any badly placed bolts. 3/8” or staples! When you accuse someone (directly or indirectly) in a public forum of using sub-standard fixtures you have a duty to supply supporting evidence.

Justifying SAS re-bolting behind “In our estimation this is all the more important for not only safety considerations, but also in light of the municipal and provincial status of most of our rock climbing resources.” is just an opinion! The reality is that in this current economic climate the BC Ministry of Environment , Parks BC and most municipalities are underfunded and overworked and don’t have the resources or funding to address these, climbing special interest group, issues. Let’s stick to the important environmental issues and stop making a tempest in a teapot over liability and style issues.

No party is right here! To paraphrase a famous quote “ I may not agree with Robin’s bolting practices but I will defend to the death his right to do it. ”

I applaud SAS for contributing to the climbing community, but I believe, we do not need a committee telling us how, where or in what style we can climb.

Rolf Rybak
Former Access Society President
Current Scofflaw

[Aaron]

A pox on both houses, Robin and the SAS. Yes Robin is being overly reactive for removing his bolts because of a perceived intrusion into his style of creating routes, but SAS must have realized that removing staples and anchors on Robin’s routes would have only escalated an already volatile situation.

For a group that supposedly represents the interests of Squamish climbers, I am embarrassed by the SAS reactive short sighted approach in dealing with this situation.
So what is the outcome? A loss of climbing routes because both parties are to entrenched in their beliefs instead of looking for common ground.

SAS words like “non-redundant” bolts and “best practice” are just rhetoric for imposing personal style preferences on established routes. Should a best practice for gear routes be the addition of bolts by committee?

The escalating argument originated with Robin’s anchors, which are adequate but not preferred by some. If you climb in others areas on the continent you will quickly realize that ” just adequate “ anchors are quite common. In areas like Mt Lemon thin chain anchors are the norm.

Robin’s argument that the staples were engineered to be used for climbing and the SAS argument that they were easily removed with a pry bar,are both subjective arguments until backed by scientific data.

SAS has openly accused Robin in a public forum, of installing inferior bolts without supplying supporting documentation or testing. At the very least, a few drop tests with 150 lb. weights on the staples should have been conducted before you remove someone’s fixtures! Given a good 3’ pry bar, I am sure we all can remove any badly placed bolts. 3/8” or staples! When you accuse someone (directly or indirectly) in a public forum of using sub-standard fixtures you have a duty to supply supporting evidence.

Justifying SAS re-bolting behind “In our estimation this is all the more important for not only safety considerations, but also in light of the municipal and provincial status of most of our rock climbing resources.” is just an opinion! The reality is that in this current economic climate the BC Ministry of Environment , Parks BC and most municipalities are underfunded and overworked and don’t have the resources or funding to address these, climbing special interest group, issues. Let’s stick to the important environmental issues and stop making a tempest in a teapot over liability and style issues.

No party is right here! To paraphrase a famous quote “ I may not agree with Robin’s bolting practices but I will defend to the death his right to do it. ”

I applaud SAS for contributing to the climbing community, but I believe, we do not need a committee telling us how, where or in what style we can climb.

Rolf Rybak
Former Access Society President
Current Scofflaw

I respectively disagree Mr. Rybak. The SAS is not short sited. Not in the least. Stainless steel bolts don't last for a short while, they last for a very long while. So long in fact that I suspect future generations of climbers will look back at anyone using anything but in this current day and age and see them as some eccentric irresponsible weirdo. I'd put them in the same camp as a guy who refuses to use electric light bulbs, instead choosing to light their home with lamps fulled with whale oil. Sure using whale oil lamps and home made fixed gear work, but we've got some thing better now, and we've had it for a long time. More importantly your "style" isn't going to infringe of others i.e. I look at my safety and the safety of my fellow climbers the same way Green Peace looks at wales. i.e. I value it. I value it so much that I take actions to ensure it.

What that action should have looked like between the SAS and Robin remains debatable but the end product was going to result in the removal of the offending mank, either by the appointed members of the SAS or by some self appointed anonymous climber.

I like my bolts like I like my bomb shelters. Bomb poof!

For me and for the climbing community at large "adequate" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Aaron Kristiansen

[mcfly]

What a shame.
Hope not too many routes are lost.
I've always enjoyed finding new (or old) Barley routes and climbing them.
If you don't like a climb - don't climb it.
It's a slippery slope.
Maybe all our mothers should get together and add bolts to those "scary" runout routes on the Apron.
Maybe the DOS should require climbers to wear safety glasses while lead climbing in case a squirrel should crap in their eye and cause them to fall and get injured.

[Optimally-Primed]

The "if you don't like it, don't climb it" is a weak argument when it comes to the matter of whether the hardware is safe. A climber can judge for his/herself whether the number and spacing of the bolts are to his/her liking and choose to climb or move on accordingly. But I believe that route developers have a duty of care when it comes to installing appropriate hardware.

At this time, Squamish has no publicly available Best Practices. However, an unwritten community standard, representing the practices of about 99% of route developers, does exist. The galvanized steel, modified logging staple bolts are clearly at variance with that unwritten code. I trust that that point is universally agreed upon.

Should all new hardware be held up against the unwritten code? This seems to be the foot on which SAS is standing right now.

Whether or not the bolts are actually safe is something that should be determined by a qualified professional. Their report should be made public... I agree with the sentiment raised above. Given the anecdotal evidence regarding bolts removed by hand/crowbar, further investigation seems appropriate.

I know too well how much it sucks to have ones volunteerism criticized. In my opinion, route developers deserve the benefit of the doubt and a pat on the back. But public safety needs strong consideration too. Having an anchor (lone bolt) rip out in a rappelling situation would be fatal, avoidable, and tragic.

[rolfr]

Hi Aaaron

I totally agree with you on the superiority of stainless steel bolts. No argument.

My disappointment with both camps, is in allowing the situation to escalate to the current point. Removing the staples from Robin’s routes was obviously going to inflame the situation even more. I expect a more adult conciliatory response from a group purporting to represent the interests of climbers. It is blatantly obvious that Robin would respond in some way and the continued escalation doesn’t benefit either side or the climbing community.

I am not supporting the use of staples , but criticizing the way the issue was handled.

In reference to Robin’s anchors, they are adequate and serve their purpose and are not unsafe. They may not be the Porsche of anchors but there is no community entitlement to” best practice anchors” as long as they are safe. So it takes you a few more minutes to thread a bolted chain,no great inconvenience! The community didn’t develop these new routes, Robin did, with his time and money.

If " adequate doesn’t cut it any more for you or the climbing community", you are welcome to the Squamish "Nanny State". Obviously you have differing Socialism, common ownership beliefs, but I have conservative values, which believe in minimal intervention by the state and society, including my climbing!

There is no climbing issue here, rather a difference in political ideology, which obviously will not change.

Respectfully
Rolf Rybak

[Anders Ourom]

There is insufficient information to comment on who may now have done what, and related matters. For example, to clearly link the removal of some hangars and/or anchors to any individual.

Robin has done a great deal for climbing at Squamish and elsewhere. Perhaps sometimes his energy betrays him, and he could put a little more effort into quality, and less into quantity. His fixed belays/rappel stations sometimes inspire little confidence. But for all that he's done a lot for our community.

We've come a long way since the days when a 1.5" x 1/4" Rawl compression bolt was considered bombproof. Fortunately. And Squamish has done well in terms of climbers taking the initiative in the later 1980s, when power drills and 3/8" expansion bolts became available, and replacing many anchors. Yes, some to begin with were galvanized, and there has been some unfortunate 'convenience' retro-bolting (guilty - once). And we now know to use 12 mm stainless - although it's doubtful that anyone is in a hurry to replace all the quite sufficient 3/8" stainless ones from the last 20 years.

But the "industry" standard for creators of routes at Squamish has long been UIAA/CE rated gear. It's made and rated for climbing, and widely if not universally accepted. If someone wants to use something else, they should make a convincing case for it first.

Also, the Little Smoke Bluffs park is somewhat more managed than most other climbing areas. More users, more scrutiny. I believe it is the park committee as a whole that makes the decisions, not just the local access group. Although as climbers we like to feel we should be able to do what we want, where we want, that park has become one of those places where it's no longer the case. Times have changed. There are a lot more people climbing than formerly, often for different motives, and with different expectations. Behaviours that in the past might have been tolerable may no longer be so.

There is an informative discussion of these anchor standards at http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... ap-Anchors

You can also see the Bolt Products website, which has a lot of hard information on bolt and anchor types, placement, strength, and so forth.
http://www.climbargolis.com/Glue-inBoltDesign.htm

I believe that there's information on the UIAA website, but don't know where. Suffice to say that they've done a lot more scientific and engineering testing in Europe than here, at least in terms of the various anchors used for climbing applications.

(My pet peeve is belay anchor bolts placed close together. The sources suggest a minimum separation of 20 cm, assuming sound rock without observable weaknesses. Essentially, each hole somewhat weakens the rock - and then you slam an expansion bolt into it.)

[psi4ce]

There are a variety of issues with route development. We all know it's an essential part of the climbing experience and a necessary one. But, it is no longer the 1950's where everywhere in Squamish was a sea of undeveloped granite.

Route development is a creative process, but it is also destructive. As more and more climbers engage in the sport, more and more pressure will be put on climbing areas in Squamish. As a result, more and more route development will occur. In heavily used areas such as the Smoke Bluffs, I do not believe that we can afford for people to develop routes that aren't up to the accepted standard.

Such a standard should be agreed upon by members of the local climbing community, access groups, and other interested parties as necessary such as municipalities and parks authorities.

It's not going to be easy. I think the SAS was taking some steps towards doing this, and not everybody is going to like it or agree with it.

Personally, I think we need to also consider the rock itself and keep scarring, alteration, and intervention to a minimum.

--Robbie

[raingod]

...... The community didn’t develop these new routes, Robin did, with his time and money.....

I agree with much of what you said but while Robin did invest the time and money in these routes, they were developed on a shared community resource and so the community should have some say about standards.

That being said I have enjoyed many routes developed by Robin and hope to continue to do so in the future.

[Dru]

Don McPherson was one of the primary builders of the Grouse Grind. If, one day, he wakes up and decides he doesn't like Grouse Mountain Resort, would then it be legitimate for him to go and rip all the staircases and stone steps out of the trail with a crowbar?

[gearheart]

Some interesting discussion and some very good points made by many who have posted.

I do wish that Rolf had undertaken some more fact checking before posting his initial comments.

The SAS did not remove any of the home-made glue in anchors or modified (shortened) Fixe bolts. The SAS was advised in some detail about the situation Robin Barley created and the actions that were taken by some local climbers in response to it. A position was then developed and posted on the SAS website here:
http://squamishaccess.ca/

Rolf also suggests in his post that concerns based on "the municipal and provincial status of most of our rock climbing resources.” is just an opinion!" and that "The reality is that in this current economic climate the BC Ministry of Environment , Parks BC and most municipalities are underfunded and overworked and don’t have the resources or funding to address these, climbing special interest group, issues." Rolf is certainly entitled to his opinion.

That said, there are currently at least two active committees in the Squamish area dealing with climbing issues; BC Parks has the “Crag” group (see SAS web-site for some details) and the District of Squamish has the “Smoke Bluffs Park Committee”. The By-law that creates that Committee is on the District of Squamish webpage and sets out some basic details like name, membership, meeting frequency etc.

Better yet, you can also read all of the Smoke Bluffs Committee minutes since its formation in 2007 and you can see who is there to represent which groups (SAS, CASBC, FMCBC, members at large, etc). The minutes are posted on the District of Squamish web-site here:
http://squamish.ca/city-hall/committees ... bluff-park

which will take you through to here to see the documents at issue:
http://squamish.ihostez.com/Documents/D ... x?ID=58020

Those interested in learning about what’s actually gone on with this particular issue should really read the minutes from the fall of 2010 (November 2010 may be of the most interest) when these issues are discussed by a Committee of the District of Squamish. You will see that District staff are present and you can see whether the assigned member of municipal Council is present that day or not.

Rolf’s opinion may be true about municipalities elsewhere, but are at odds with the reality in Squamish where you can read about these issues being debated on the District of Squamish web-site.

Lastly, if you look through the minutes you will see that the Smoke Bluffs Park Committee was also over the years dealing with the upgrade of various anchors that any climber with a guidebook can figure out were “washer” anchors placed by Robin Barley. It is his reaction to those anchors being upgraded that Rolf refers to as starting the whole glue-in thing. Probably worth realizing that once an anchor or bolt (a “fixture”) is placed it is the property of the owner of the land (here, the District of Squamish). Think about it – the whole thing is really no different than Robin telling you he doesn’t like you trimming that tree he planted in the middle of your back yard. Where’s McCoy when you need him? “Damn it Jim, I’m a doctor not a lawyer”.

Hope that helps people get better informed and hopefully encourage your support of the various climber groups involved such as the SAS, CASBC and FMCBC.

Todd

[rolfr]

Thanks for your comments Todd, but before you post comments that I should do more fact checking, follow up with your own.

To clarify, I contacted one of the SAS directors / member for more information and even offered to mediate as a third party. I was told the issue was too complex and advised to read SAS web site articles instead. I also contacted another route developer of that area to gain his perspective. In addition I have an interest as a climber, and as the original route developer of Funorama in the 80’s.

Your analogy between bolts, and a tree Robin plants in your yard, doesn’t wash.
The district of Squamish doesn't own the land, it administers the land on behalf of the Crown, for use by the public. There is no right of ownership in this issue, just a stupid pissing match!

SAS issuing a “Statement of Position” on bolts with the comment. “As such, SAS fully supports the remediation of any bolts that do not adhere to these local, well-accepted best practices.” is confrontational and encourages continued bolt chopping and escalation.

Granted Robin is an opinionated headstrong a$% at times,but his investments of time and money have added value to a common climbing resource, and we the climbers get a free ride on that new resource. His community contribution should have dictated a more measured “Statement of Position Regarding Bolts” from SAS, or preferably non at all.

[Fre]

I was out yesterday morning to take a look at Funarama and saw that just the hardware was removed, but the screws are still there. I'm not really interested in the guilt game but what's gonna happen now? Can anyone just go up there and stick new bolts on the screws and then climb them again? Should we clean our bolts off when we're done, so no one gets upset?
Is the SAS gonna deliver some flowers and a fruit basket to Barley's house so we can all be friends again?

[supafly]

is robin barley the dude with the purple hair who appears briefly in the movie first acsent.. just interested like.

[smallman]

Supafly: No, that is not Robin Barley.

[Aaron]

regardless of whose "fault" it was ...

is there a list of climbs where the bolts/anchors have been removed and are there any plans in the future to rebolt them?

it would be nice for a list to be made available to the public, so that they don't get too surprised when climbing season starts

Well, I tried my hand at a few of his new route on the Bughouse Heights. I liked them and will happily add anchors and hangers to those stripped lines. I suspect I won't be alone in this effort and this issue of who should have done what, when and to who will soon be moot.
Now if the hardware I place disappears what then? Who owns the hardware? Does the district of Squamish own it? Because if it's all "Crown Land" as suggested and everything found could be assumed to be abandoned, I for one call dibs on the concrete pick-nick tables south of Neat and Cool.