Retro on Right Wing?
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Well, it's really Jeremy's idea, and his call. He's well aware of the issues, and isn't the sort of person to place "convenience" bolts. He's also planning to get the route cleaned up, and figure out what makes most sense, before doing anything.
The wet section, even if completely dry and clean, looked like it may require two bolts, and perhaps three, by "normal" Squamish standards. If they're well placed, they'll be in good positions for both free climbing when dry, and a few moves of aid when wet. There's an intermittent seam, and I'm sure Jeremy will have a good look to see if cams or nuts would work, to minimize/eliminate bolts. It didn't seem likely, but you never know.
Of course, I'm sure Jeremy would welcome company and help in cleaning the route, and working out these details.
As Elephantiasis, the Snake traverse, etc follow cracks that can easily be aided, and are well-established, they may not be quite comparable.
Anders
The wet section, even if completely dry and clean, looked like it may require two bolts, and perhaps three, by "normal" Squamish standards. If they're well placed, they'll be in good positions for both free climbing when dry, and a few moves of aid when wet. There's an intermittent seam, and I'm sure Jeremy will have a good look to see if cams or nuts would work, to minimize/eliminate bolts. It didn't seem likely, but you never know.
Of course, I'm sure Jeremy would welcome company and help in cleaning the route, and working out these details.
As Elephantiasis, the Snake traverse, etc follow cracks that can easily be aided, and are well-established, they may not be quite comparable.
Anders
-
Optimally-Primed
- Senior Member
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:04 am
Each those examples have perfectly adequate protection. Perhaps had you seen the access pitch to Right Wing, you would take a different tack. A better comparison would be like climbing Popeye and the Raven just after a rainfall, without the bolts. Like that, a fall off the approach pitch to Right Wing would result in two broken legs... if you fell off facing the right way... much worse otherwise. Wet, run-out 10+/11-. I don't know where that line is but I think that the pitch in question is quite safely on the retrobolt side of the line.
Good work Jeremy, you started a valuable thread... I'd like to offer a few thoughts, starting with what Will addressed: claiming authority to bolt-up what is essentially a gear climb because the First Ascentionist "gave permission".
Quite how to go about retro work of any kind has often been a delicate matter, given how some first ascentionists actively claim ownership of their routes, some are ambivalent, and others are long disappeared.
As I see it, when a retro project is considered, seeking the opinion of the first ascentionist is a courteous thing to do, particularly if they are still active on the crags, but no more. I have argued for many years that the establishing of a new route does not give anyone ownership, or "rights", or power to grant "permission" that supercedes communal interests or the future interests of successive generations. Such claims of defacto ownership are absurd.
If there were still Rutabags's and Freeway's and Pet Wall's out there untouched, there would be no retro debate, but after near 50 years of increasingly intense activity, Squamish has become largely gridded-out in the popular areas, and high-quality new pickings are very few. This is a very real dilemma. Successive generations always want to make their mark, but options today are few and at Squamish a natural avenue is retro work. That can encompass a wide range of activity, including adding or removing bolts, re-siting them, and digging out old climbs. There is a lot that can be done.
Gear pitches are a core aspect of this debate; protecting their values, and keeping them in as natural an experience as is reasonably possible. Beyond Squamish, 90 per cent of rock climbing activity in BC is clipping bolts, and the gear routes of Squamish (whatever their current condition) are a priceless asset to Canadian climbing. Fast forward yourself 10 or 20 years, and consider how much more valued they will be then.
At the root of the inertia and lack of solutions over what to do is the struggle between the long-entrenched demand for unfettered individual liberty, and on the other, the needs, values and communal interests of climbers (which is all of us), centred on "what's best for the future of Squamish?". The times are changing, and unless we start to take some small steps in the direction of a commonly-held vision for the future of Squamish, conflict and the erosion of everyone's values will result.
It is young climbers who have the most to gain or lose because they will still be climbing here 30 years from now. What kind of Squamish do they want ? And for older climbers, what kind of Squamish climbing experiences do they want to pass on to them?
Kevin McLane
Quite how to go about retro work of any kind has often been a delicate matter, given how some first ascentionists actively claim ownership of their routes, some are ambivalent, and others are long disappeared.
As I see it, when a retro project is considered, seeking the opinion of the first ascentionist is a courteous thing to do, particularly if they are still active on the crags, but no more. I have argued for many years that the establishing of a new route does not give anyone ownership, or "rights", or power to grant "permission" that supercedes communal interests or the future interests of successive generations. Such claims of defacto ownership are absurd.
If there were still Rutabags's and Freeway's and Pet Wall's out there untouched, there would be no retro debate, but after near 50 years of increasingly intense activity, Squamish has become largely gridded-out in the popular areas, and high-quality new pickings are very few. This is a very real dilemma. Successive generations always want to make their mark, but options today are few and at Squamish a natural avenue is retro work. That can encompass a wide range of activity, including adding or removing bolts, re-siting them, and digging out old climbs. There is a lot that can be done.
Gear pitches are a core aspect of this debate; protecting their values, and keeping them in as natural an experience as is reasonably possible. Beyond Squamish, 90 per cent of rock climbing activity in BC is clipping bolts, and the gear routes of Squamish (whatever their current condition) are a priceless asset to Canadian climbing. Fast forward yourself 10 or 20 years, and consider how much more valued they will be then.
At the root of the inertia and lack of solutions over what to do is the struggle between the long-entrenched demand for unfettered individual liberty, and on the other, the needs, values and communal interests of climbers (which is all of us), centred on "what's best for the future of Squamish?". The times are changing, and unless we start to take some small steps in the direction of a commonly-held vision for the future of Squamish, conflict and the erosion of everyone's values will result.
It is young climbers who have the most to gain or lose because they will still be climbing here 30 years from now. What kind of Squamish do they want ? And for older climbers, what kind of Squamish climbing experiences do they want to pass on to them?
Kevin McLane
-
Optimally-Primed
- Senior Member
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:04 am
those are all easy climbs... and are easily freeable wet or dry!!XXXX wrote:If we're gonna start bolting through sections that are always wet what about the flaring sopping a$% cracks at the bottom of Elephantiasis etc.? What about the Snake traverse? Maybe bolt Mercy Street and the last pitch of Rock On? Where will it end?
[quote="Brendan"]those are all easy climbs... and are easily freeable wet or dry!![/quote]
easy is a relative term. there will always be someone on them climbing at their limit. what is decided cannot be based on subjective terms like 'easy' or 'hard'
wet/dry on the other hand, although not completely objective, can be a reason why some climbs don't see much traffic and get overgrown. it's easy to get a concensus of whether a climb takes a long time to dry or not and maybe that should be considered when deciding whether to bolt or not? could it be part of the solution?
easy is a relative term. there will always be someone on them climbing at their limit. what is decided cannot be based on subjective terms like 'easy' or 'hard'
wet/dry on the other hand, although not completely objective, can be a reason why some climbs don't see much traffic and get overgrown. it's easy to get a concensus of whether a climb takes a long time to dry or not and maybe that should be considered when deciding whether to bolt or not? could it be part of the solution?
-
CrackHead Brad
- Casual Observer
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:40 pm
- Location: SQUATAMALIA
Great post Kevin, your contributions to the greater Squamish climbing scene are appreciated and respected. You have given us a lot to think about, particularly on the legacy we want to leave and the condition of the rock in twenty or fifty+ years.
That being said, I am a little unclear on your position in this matter. Keeping the Squamish gear routes as natural as possible may be an asset in the future when everyone owns the latest titanium expanding chimney protection but that does little for our already gridded out crags. How is Penny Lane going to look in 20 years. On the other hand, does retroing old and runout climbs that rarely receive traffic with a few bolts set a bad precedent for "what's best for the future of Squamish" and a slap in the face of tradition, particularly the first ascensionists.
Is this the vision we are looking for? Do the means justify the ends?
This is a great venue for Developing a vision. Care to give us your view on the Right Wing debate
That being said, I am a little unclear on your position in this matter. Keeping the Squamish gear routes as natural as possible may be an asset in the future when everyone owns the latest titanium expanding chimney protection but that does little for our already gridded out crags. How is Penny Lane going to look in 20 years. On the other hand, does retroing old and runout climbs that rarely receive traffic with a few bolts set a bad precedent for "what's best for the future of Squamish" and a slap in the face of tradition, particularly the first ascensionists.
Is this the vision we are looking for? Do the means justify the ends?
This is a great venue for Developing a vision. Care to give us your view on the Right Wing debate
-
CrackHead Brad
- Casual Observer
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:40 pm
- Location: SQUATAMALIA
lol... i did os it when it was wet. well, the bottom 15ft were wet, the rest was dry... i think my hands would be too cold to climb that in feb so i'll have to decline the challenge...CrackHead Brad wrote:Brendan,
"those are all easy climbs... and are easily freeable wet or dry"
We would all love to watch you free Elephantiasis around Febuary/March when its really dry...good luck
hehebesides, i'll be enjoying sunny weather down under in feb.
Hello CrackHead,
Right Wing... What would I do?
I've been on it but was turned back like many other climbers by the nasty wet corner at the bottom. It's usually soggy outside of summertime heat.
I think the end of Jeremy's work is a bit too far off to declare the route should have bolts added, have no bolts, or somewhere between, so my answer is ...it depends. But from what I know I think it will probably go fine with natural gear, and without needing a rack of Really Big Ones. I'd like to think it will also go with gear belays. Although there are many good reasons why bolts belays can be essential, we need every decent gear belay we can hold onto. You could call them the spotted owls of Squamish climbing.
I think the bottom section should be sorted out to offer "good-enough" protection instead of the old bolt and two iffy pins that are barely still in contact with the rock. Perhaps two new bolts, perhaps three. It would be no bad thing to be able to A0 it, but I'd place the bolts where best for protection needs rather than laddering it.
It's worth noting that Jim Campbell's 1985 guide listed the route as "5.10c thin" at the bottom, then 4 pitches to the top: 10a, 10b, 10b, and 10b up the final steep pitch with the big flake. That all sounds very promising. The last pitch was FA'd by Don McPherson (in September 1983), when he and Richard Suddaby did the FFA of the route. Beckey's original top pitch of RW was just to the right where God Forsaken Land goes now. Jim was careful about details, and those pitch grades would have come directly from Don and Richard. Even if they are old school, they are well within weekend warrior levels, and it's very unlikely Don and Richard would have been pushing big runouts. The biggest gear people usually carried in those days was not much more than a handjam-size cam or hex. Tube chocks were uncommon, and the days of bongs and hammers had passed.
I can't wait to get on it.
Kevin McLane
Right Wing... What would I do?
I've been on it but was turned back like many other climbers by the nasty wet corner at the bottom. It's usually soggy outside of summertime heat.
I think the end of Jeremy's work is a bit too far off to declare the route should have bolts added, have no bolts, or somewhere between, so my answer is ...it depends. But from what I know I think it will probably go fine with natural gear, and without needing a rack of Really Big Ones. I'd like to think it will also go with gear belays. Although there are many good reasons why bolts belays can be essential, we need every decent gear belay we can hold onto. You could call them the spotted owls of Squamish climbing.
I think the bottom section should be sorted out to offer "good-enough" protection instead of the old bolt and two iffy pins that are barely still in contact with the rock. Perhaps two new bolts, perhaps three. It would be no bad thing to be able to A0 it, but I'd place the bolts where best for protection needs rather than laddering it.
It's worth noting that Jim Campbell's 1985 guide listed the route as "5.10c thin" at the bottom, then 4 pitches to the top: 10a, 10b, 10b, and 10b up the final steep pitch with the big flake. That all sounds very promising. The last pitch was FA'd by Don McPherson (in September 1983), when he and Richard Suddaby did the FFA of the route. Beckey's original top pitch of RW was just to the right where God Forsaken Land goes now. Jim was careful about details, and those pitch grades would have come directly from Don and Richard. Even if they are old school, they are well within weekend warrior levels, and it's very unlikely Don and Richard would have been pushing big runouts. The biggest gear people usually carried in those days was not much more than a handjam-size cam or hex. Tube chocks were uncommon, and the days of bongs and hammers had passed.
I can't wait to get on it.
Kevin McLane
Jason, i wasnt implying that u wall was easy or hard, i was merely stating that is has a wet start! and if it was worthy of bolting due to this? i dont think so... do u?Jason wrote:Some consider U Wall to be 'easy' too, Brendan...
Maybe read your posts out-loud to yourself before submitting them, then you won't be surprized when someone calls you on being an idiot!
wait dont answer... its too easy for you right?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests
