anchor placement

Post by **john e aragon** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:42 am

okay, i believe that dog days needs bolt anchors instead of the dirt scramble that it has now. i know that bolt anchors will have less environmental impact than the pull on the roots of the trees dirt scramble that is there now. i know i can place bolts that will be safe and long lasting. therefore, because i can, i will. how about bolting at globle village does anyone know who to contact there.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:05 am

I think you missed the bit about Dog Days being in the Wilderness. There isn't (may not be?) the same leeway with anchors on existing routes in that area. If you are determined to add anchors even though there is not a clear need, you should ask the FS on that one - or perhaps ask the RRGCC to contact them for you since they have good relationships with the right people in the FS. Global Village is also under the jurisdiction of the FS, but it's not in the Wilderness area. The anchor replacement committee of the RRGCC is actively replacing bad bolts. If there is something specific that needs attention, you may want to work with them. They have hardware donated by Climbing Magazine specifcially for that purpose. You should contact the RRGCC on that one, too.

If any of the above info is incorrect, will someone in the know please address this?

Post by **rhunt** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:40 pm

I think this whole subject should be addressed to the rrgcc first before any action is taken

Post by **Johnny** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:39 pm

john e - It's disingenuous to say you are wanting to put in bolts to protect dirt and roots. Honestly, you just want to make it a "better" or more esthetic route, true?

Rather than taking up the FS time with this issue, how about pushing them to get approved the more than 100 new routes already submitted?

Post by **ynot** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:53 am

I bet there is another hundred not submited. Excelent point Johnny.

Post by **john e aragon** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:23 pm

yes, i want to place anchors on dog days because i hate clawing my way up through the dirt at the top. it sucks, it takes away from the quality of the route. not to mention that it is unsafe. as for the other routes that were mentioned i assume that the people who applied to put them are pushing the FS as much as possible already.

Post by **MiaRock** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:27 pm

john e aragon, aren't you in the hospital?

Post by **john e aragon** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:17 pm

na it's only a flesh wound.

Post by **Don McGlone** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:31 pm

I heard he was shittin' Louisville Sluggers...

Post by **the lurkist** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 pm

John E.
If your rationale for wanting to put bolts at the top of a climb is because it is unsafe, what stops you from bolting the whole climb? Trad climbing by its very nature is unsafe. The whole reason sport climbing developed was to facilitate the climbing of otherwise unprotectable/unsafe routes.
So you want safe? Don't trad climb. Isn't it audacious of you to change a climb that everyone who has done it has accepted as is. I'm not trying to attack you, but isn't your rationale a bit selfish. Also given that the climb is in a Wilderness area and the cliff has seen closure in the recent past, bolting there would clearly be illegal and inflammatory for relations between the FS and the climbing community. Do you want to be responsible for re- enforcing the FS's (until recently asssuaged) misconception that rock climbers were an out of control user group with no sense of self regulation?