Jacked up Bolts

Post by **the lurkist** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 6:15 pm

You pussies! Since when did climbing become a fail safe sport? All of those routes you mentioned are fine (including Danita Dolores shich has already been retro bolted once to appease the groanings of the masses).
Routes with clearly poor placements with obvious better clipping stances are one thing and said bolts should and are moved. But this notion that all human error (i.e. people getting in over their head on a route) should have a protective mechanism designed into the route is a fallacy and too high of an expectation for the sport. This has gotten to the point that people complained about the bolt placements on routes at the Pocket Wall. Give me a break!

Post by **merrick** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 6:30 pm

the fall at the crux of Henry is probably what they are refering to. the bolt(i think the second) is on the right side of the arete and you climb around to the left. so when you fall you whip and spin around the arete. it is definately a fall that gets your blood pumping.

Post by **Steve** » Fri Nov 22, 2002 6:37 pm

Thanks for the killer beta on C Sharp, maybe now I can go out and climb it safely.....if I can just figure out what color of Camalot to buy.

Post by JR » Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:10 pm

Hey Lurkist,
What is getting over your head on a sport route?
Are you one of those really cool dudes that sprays about how you risk life and limb every weekend? sport climbing? Come on...
I can hear you now "So there I am. Look'in right at the incredibly dangerous and illusive second bolt. If I pull up too much rope right now and then jump off, I could be killed to death. But shit man that's why I do it, the fuckin thrill of Flirt'in with Disaster"

Oh and by the way Danita Dolores is not FINE. It still sucks.

Post by **Johnny** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:52 pm

Would you really consider these routes to have an R rating? Come on weenies!

Post by **deleted username** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:26 pm

Blood Money, Jump For Joy

Post by **the lurkist** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:39 pm

JR
Monday morning quarter backs always have two cents to put in. Do they put in any funding to help replace any of the bolts they disparage? If they have I've seen only a very little of it. How about the work involved in establishing these much maligned routes? Did it occur that you climb because of this volunteer effort. What have you given back to the community?
Furthermore, I would bet that if you took ten people who would qualify themselves as having an informed opinion on bolt placements, 30% would voice an unfavorable opinion on some of the bolts of any route reviewed in the Red.
My point is that you can't make everyone happy.

It is that cry babies like you will always find their voice in mediums like this bbs.

Finally, if you think Danita Dolores is poorly bolted, check with me on your proposed changes, and if I approve, we'll run it by the Forest Service, and then if you ask me real nice and "pray for me real good", I'll let you do the work to appease your bitching. Let me know when you have some free time and we can work out the details.
Hugh

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 5:55 pm

To re-equip a route does not require FS approval.

Post by **the lurkist** » Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:06 pm

The route in question, Danita Dolores, being essentially on top of the "arch site" just under Thirsting Skull probably justifies informed consent by the Forest Service.

Post by JR » Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:24 pm

Hugh, I didn't mean it should be retro-bolted again. I was just pointing out it is just a very one star route in a area that has many 3 star routes. But in your defense it is a very obvious feature that looks like it would be cool to bolt.

Just out of curiousity. Did you have to ask permission to bolt Danita Dolores? No pun intended.