Removed two bolts from the last drop in the Mindbender Fork. One came out very easily without tools. The other required the chisel. We installed a big rock as a deadman anchor and buried it in the sand. There are lots of materials for building cairns or deadmen in the area, plus also some trees and bushed above the drop that could be used for an anchor if the last pools have water in them.
Final drop length is 100 feet, not 155 as Steve describes. The deadman is bomber, but the sling around the rock should be checked carefully for wear, and to make sure it is still secure around the rock.
MBC
Kris Nosack
OK, I’ll weight in on this issue (I’m a sucker).
While I agree that exposing new-commers to the issue of bolts via the debates that flare up on this list with (just a bit too frequent for me) regularity is a good thing, I personally don’t take much interest in the debates anymore because I feel I’ve heard enough of each side to form my own opinion. Also, this is a tough issue to get any agreement on so it tends to degenerate into fine points of what people feel is acceptable and not acceptable, which to me is like saying my favorite color is the best.
It seems to me that the best we can hope for is to rally around a moderate stance that would be something like: as a canyoneering community we oppose placing new bolts except in situations where the risk of death or injury is too high. There are plenty of canyons that are bolted up so clip-n-go youngsters like me can have their fun. But let’s leave some canyons “wild” for those who want the challenge and it just seems like the right thing to do.
Once we can agree to something like the above then over time we might move into de-bolting projects to return canyons to a more au-natural state. I fear the vocal anti-bolters are turning-off pro-bolters by their uncompromising stance. Let’s start with something people on both sides of the fence can agree to. And that almost always means a compromise, moderate, somehere-in-the-middle position.
Reality check: While it’s fun for us to kick the bolt debate around every so often (doing some good), I’d guess that more than 2/3 of the people out there canyoneering have no idea this forum even exists. The ACA canyoneering booklet is a great concept for trying to reach more canyoneers, but because the bolt debate is so device, the ACA board is forced to take a very low-key stance on bolts because they’re only reflecting what the members and community feel, and we can’t come together on the issue. Perhaps with a majority agreement on bolts from this group, the ACA could promote a more definitive bolt position.
It’s all in our hands, folks. We can nitpick with each person stubornly sticking to his/her own opinions on bolts and refuse to give any ground, or we can see the bigger picture and give an inch or two to reach a moderate compromise that becomes a place to start. As a realist (or is that pessimist?), I don’t see this happening any time soon.
That’s why I’m tired of the bolt debate – it’s interesting, but it’s not getting us anywhere, really.
– Kris Nosack (do they make flame-proof wetsuits? 😉
hmoon@petzl.com
Yeah, I wasn’t very clear in my last post. What I meant to say is that I bet a SAR team won’t trust any artificial anchor in situ w/o knowing its history, length of bolt, etc.; they’ll just put new ones in to be sure (I know I would).
hank
wpick87506@aol.co m To: Yahoo Canyons Group cc: 05/08/2002 05:38 Subject: Re: [from Canyons Group] BETA~ Removed bolts from Mindbender PM Please respond to canyons
Hank
That’s true, if the team responding doesn’t like the anchor, they’ll make their own. What the intent of my question is to influence people who are making/building/replacing bolt anchors with anchors that are more than bombproof for personal loads, ‘attractive’ enough to discourage bolt anchors as well as bombproof for use in rescue so additional anchors won’t be needed.
Walter
Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT (Embedded image moved to file: pic24102.gif)
(Embedded image moved to file: pic23560.gif)
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
Bombastic Bolt Debates are allowed to only a limited extent. Folks should go to the Canyoneer Group for a truly un-moderated forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyoneer
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages.
Your use of Groups is subject to the Terms of Service.
Shane B.
>>In caving, I was trained to “rig high” & more than bombproof in case you have to use the anchor later for rescue purposes.
hmoon@petzl.com
>Because of my background in rock climbing, caving & search & rescue, the >anchors I sometimes have to make can be ‘interesting’. In caving, I was >trained to “rig high” & more than bombproof in case you have to use the >anchor later for rescue purposes. >That’s maybe something canyoneers ought to think of when creating anchors.
>Any comments, or suggestions???
Good question, Walter. I think most SAR teams tend to place their own anchors as needed in most situations, unless there is a suitable BFR or BFT handy. This is just my experience from active membership in a southeastern cave/cliff rescue team…
hank
Wm. Bees
I’d love to join in Brian, but I’m in the middle of moving back to Southern California and can’t devote any time to this right now. I think that intelligent and positive debate over the bolting issue here has done a lot of good. The people who degenerate the discussion should be moderated, but what harm does a (intelligent) discussion cause? Really, reading headers is sooo difficult.
Here’s one for the anti-bolt-discussers, get some (reading and skimming) skills. This is a written medium, and there’s more to life than just TR’s, what we do has impact. Sticking one’s head in the sand will not make our impact go away and it’s a lousy way to learn new skills.
-Bill
Shane B.
Golly-g-whiz…..I am with Brian on this. As long as the bolt discussion is intelligent, positive and constructive I say it has a place on this forum. The moment it degenerates into name calling, personal attacks and just being a general jackass it should be moderated immediately.
The bolt debate on this forum has resulted in a tremendous amount of good in the canyoneering community. Many have been educated and altered their skills as a direct result of the bolt war debates.
The bolting topic is a major issue in the canyoneering community. As long as the discussions stay positive I vote the thread stays. Sticking your head in the sand solves nothing.
Shane Burrows Climb Utah – Canyoneering & Mountaineering http://Climb-Utah.com
mike_dallin
— In canyons@y…, “beadysee” wrote: > Everyone is welcome to post freely at the Mtncommunity site. Open > debate. Moderation policy is posted and reasonable. No pesky ads > either and a nice format.
Viva la resistance!
Mike “Drunk on power, and with apologies to Dean” Dallin dallin@on-line.com
s_mestdagh
just great… now we have 2 yahoo groups, rich’s forums and this new one. I check the canyoneer group occasionally and if I have something specific I’m looking for I might check Rich’s site but no way am I going to monitor YACG (yet another canyoneering group). I vote w/ Mike. Put it in Canyoneer and see who bites. We don’t need YACG. steve
— In canyons@y…, “beadysee” wrote: > OK, anyone that wants to debate this in greater detail, head to: > http://www.mtncommunity.org Click on the “canyoneering” portion of the > site.
beadysee
— In canyons@y…, “mike_dallin” wrote: > — In canyons@y…, “beadysee” wrote:
Mike, sorry if this bores you or you’re just not interested. Why > not skip this thread?
No, it’s not that it bores me or fails to interest me. In fact, I > always look forward to reading bolt debates. They are truly magical.
> However, the Emporer has bestowed my lowly account with moderator > permissions, which means I have some duty to ensure we all follow the rules and play nice. And one of the rules is that the bolt debate will only be tolerated in a limited form. I have no problem someone posting beta saying bolts have been removed or added or whatever – that’s cool, and perfectly acceptable given the rules, plus a “thanks for the heads up” – but all the followup bolt discussion is technically out of scope for this discussion group. If you disagree with the egroup policy take it up with Tom.
I’ll take it up right here. I disagree. Seems the moderation policy applies to everyone but the moderators. Soon, when everyone who’s been moderated gets tired of same, then you can read all about, “gee, what size rope should I buy” threads.
Moderate me if you feel the need. But, this bolt discussion is interesting especially on several fronts.
1) Someone (ha ha ha) has chopped bolts in a canyon and bragged about it to the egroup. That is called a “troll”. If it wasn’t done to solicit a bolt discussion, then, I’d be surprised. Especially given the “handle” of the poster, Mr, “MBC”. More on that below…
2) The motivation behind the bolt choppin’ is worth discussion. Why chop? Then, why brag about it? Ego? Tryin’ to impress somebody? Penance for past bolting sins? Is there a hidden message? All worthy of debate.
3) I think there’s liability on the part of the chopper. Safety issue. You chop, you’re responsible. Also worthy of debate.
4) Who’s goin’ to “out” the mad bolt chopper? Like I said, “moderation” doesn’t apply, apparently, to the moderators. Honestly, would you let me join this egroup with that “MBC” posting handle? Of course not.
When “moderation” is not spread fairly, then its no fun.
> The proper forum for bolt debating is the canyoneer egroup.
Huh? Have you checked with that egroups owner about that? BS. Proper place is here, where the traffic is.
> Now, I > really don’t want to moderate anybody or block them from posting as > that is just ugly. I’d rather just ask nicely and go from there. > So, once again, would you guys mind moving this off to the canyoneer egroup?
And, gee, I’ll ask nicely, won’t you tolerate a thread you don’t have to read?
This thread is a troll!
OK, anyone that wants to debate this in greater detail, head to:
http://www.mtncommunity.org Click on the “canyoneering” portion of the site.
I’ll repost the thread there and see what boils up!
“Canyoneer” egroup site is very low postings. Dry’rn a popcorn fart.
I challange Bees to debate this in a 50 word essay or less!
Everyone is welcome to post freely at the Mtncommunity site. Open debate. Moderation policy is posted and reasonable. No pesky ads either and a nice format.
I’m typin’ this with a huge grin, by the way, so don’t take me too seriously…
Brian in SLC
mike_dallin
— In canyons@y…, “beadysee” wrote: > Mike, sorry if this bores you or you’re just not interested. Why not > skip this thread?
No, it’s not that it bores me or fails to interest me. In fact, I always look forward to reading bolt debates. They are truly magical.
However, the Emporer has bestowed my lowly account with moderator permissions, which means I have some duty to ensure we all follow the rules and play nice. And one of the rules is that the bolt debate will only be tolerated in a limited form. I have no problem someone posting beta saying bolts have been removed or added or whatever – that’s cool, and perfectly acceptable given the rules, plus a “thanks for the heads up” – but all the followup bolt discussion is technically out of scope for this discussion group. If you disagree with the egroup policy take it up with Tom.
The proper forum for bolt debating is the canyoneer egroup. Now, I really don’t want to moderate anybody or block them from posting as that is just ugly. I’d rather just ask nicely and go from there. So, once again, would you guys mind moving this off to the canyoneer egroup?
Thanks a gazillion,
Mike “I’m only bored because I’m at work” Dallin dallin@on-line.com
wpick87506@aol.com
Hank
That’s true, if the team responding doesn’t like the anchor, they’ll make their own. What the intent of my question is to influence people who are making/building/replacing bolt anchors with anchors that are more than bombproof for personal loads, ‘attractive’ enough to discourage bolt anchors as well as bombproof for use in rescue so additional anchors won’t be needed.
Walter
beadysee
— In canyons@y…, Kris Nosack wrote:
Just wanted to jump in with Charly to say that I’m glad the change in > anchor beta was posted. It would be easy to chop or add a bolt and not > make it known because of the reprocussions (aka flames). Thanks for the > heads up.
I’ll ditto the thanks on the heads up.
But…I’ll bet the folk who placed the bolts won’t know that they are gone. And, if they lacked the skills to establish a natural anchor when they placed them, then what? Next time they do the canyon, or their friends do, they’ll be expectin’ a bolt anchor. They might not have a bolt kit. They might not have good natural anchor skills (especially as evidenced by the placement of the bolts in the first place). I shudder to think of the consequences. Especially for the family who has to cope with a loss. I know this sounds heavy, but it is. I’ll nominate the mad bolt chopper to go to the funeral and give a little eulogy. Maybe mention that the dead folk, “should get some skills”. Yeah, that’ll fly.
Perhaps a better solution would be to send a subtle message, say, a lamintated card attached to the offending bolt that says, “please do not place additional fixed anchors in this area, as natural anchors are available and fixed anchors are not required”. Or something.
Ever talk to someone who’s bolts have been chopped? Can you convince them, without some level of anger in either party, that you are right and they were wrong? Not an easy task. Does choppin’ their bolts usually send a postive message? You think folks learn their lesson? I’ll bet not usually. (reference Neon).
Mike, sorry if this bores you or you’re just not interested. Why not skip this thread?
Shane, yeah, the logic does fly here. Happens all the time. Routes get retro bolted for a bunch of reasons. Safety, lack of skill, SAR efforts, lack of beta. Some climbing routes are retro bolted with and without the first ascensionists approval. You get to vote. I appreciate knowin’ your opinion.
Placin’ unneeded bolts was wrong in the first place. Is choppin’ them out always the right thing to do? I sometimes think not.
Really, I think this is just a scheme to drive up the number of egroup’s postings….har har…
Good luck! And, be careful out there…
Brian in SLC
wpick87506@aol.com
Hi There
This is just my 2 cents & curiosity. I think pulling out the two bolts & replacing it with a bomber anchor (that’s pretty ingenious) the way you guys did is an excellent idea. My question is did you guys make that anchor bomber for single loads or rescue loads.
Because of my background in rock climbing, caving & search & rescue, the anchors I sometimes have to make can be ‘interesting’. In caving, I was trained to “rig high” & more than bombproof in case you have to use the anchor later for rescue purposes. That’s maybe something canyoneers ought to think of when creating anchors. Any comments, or suggestions???
Walter
Kris Nosack
Just wanted to jump in with Charly to say that I’m glad the change in anchor beta was posted. It would be easy to chop or add a bolt and not make it known because of the reprocussions (aka flames). Thanks for the heads up.
– Kris Nosack
Charly Oliver
“Perhaps a better idea is anyone placing a bolt should ask those who have done the canyon before if there is any objection to bolting…..”
I think we all know that this simply doesn’t happen in either direction and arguing back and forth won’t get us anywhere.
I’m not here to argue whether or not MBC’s actions were appropriate. I do however, appreciate the fact that he posted the beta. (Important information on a previously existing fixed anchor that has now changed.) By the way, there is still a fixed anchor there, it’s just not a bolt.
Charly
—–Original Message—– From: edg78@compuserve.com [mailto:edg78@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:26 AM To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: Re: [from Canyons Group] Re: BETA~ Removed bolts from Mindbender
>>Any attempt made to solicit who added the bolts? How ’bout next time, before choppin’ somebodies anchor, you perhaps ask instead of assuming its a public service?
mike_dallin
Could we please move this discussion to the canyoneer forum?
Thanks,
Mike dallin@on-line.com
Shane B.
>>Any attempt made to solicit who added the bolts? How ’bout next time, before choppin’ somebodies anchor, you perhaps ask instead of assuming its a public service?
Scott Holley
> Any attempt made to solicit who added the bolts?
Sounds like a fair idea, this at least might stop them from popping up again? –scott
beadysee
— In canyons@y…, “madboltchopper” wrote: > Removed two bolts from the last drop in the Mindbender Fork.
Is this a troll? Thought we had worn out the bolting issue?
> One came out very easily without tools. The other required the chisel.
Hopin’ you patched. Bet you did.
> We installed a big rock as a deadman anchor and buried it in the > sand.
And…this is really lower impact than just leavin’ bolts that are alread there? Hmmm…
> There are lots of materials for building cairns or deadmen in > the area, plus also some trees and bushed above the drop that could > be used for an anchor if the last pools have water in them.
So…is this an advertisement for an anchor construction site? Again, low impact?
> Final drop length is 100 feet, not 155 as Steve describes. The > deadman is bomber, but the sling around the rock should be checked > carefully for wear, and to make sure it is still secure around the > rock.
I’m sure folk will dig up and check the deadman (if they have any horse sense).
Any attempt made to solicit who added the bolts?
How ’bout next time, before choppin’ somebodies anchor, you perhaps ask instead of assuming its a public service?
Safety event? Been a rash of accidents lately. I hope your newly constructed anchor doesn’t kill someone. I’ll bet there’s a court somewhere that will find you liable.
> MBC
I suspect the “MBC” is also a “mad bolt placer” as well. Penance?
Perhaps bolt choppin’ should be low profile instead of broadband? Especially concerning safety and liability?
Dunno. I wouldn’t want to get embroiled in a bolt war. You seem to be askin’ for trouble. And, for what reason?
Brian in SLC