Releasable anchors……was to bolt or not to bolt

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “tom” wrote:

This may be so, but do you agree that regardless of your ability to > evaluate the anchor, you have more knowledge about its construction, > components, and the way it works if you build it yourself? Don’t you > think that the act of creating an anchor who’s failure could kill you > or your friends and family would *DEMAND* your care and attention?

No doubt, I don’t think many people disagree with that idea (the last sentence). Just how to measure care and attention seems noticeably subjective. Is there an honest way to separate natural from artificial, or built or existing in such generic ways as S.B. prescribed.? I think not. Most of us develop methods for incorporating care and attention into all those form of anchors and rigging, we just do it differently.

The component of building it yourself? I think that more often not just gives a better sense of comfort (beyond replacing obviously worn existing anchors). I can’t objectively build or support an argument that just because I build an anchor it is better. I evaluate existing anchors with the same knowledge I use to build: is the knot tied properly, etc. The most obvious deficit is the age and abuse from the environment, which I think many of us have developed certain means of surmising but doesn’t likely ever fully compensate for brand new. But how many of us actually replace every anchor, honestly?

You mentioned Heuristics. Trial and Error is a great way to see the > results of your actions (when not in-the-field I call this > “practice”). Backing-up the anchor with meat is a way to reduce the > consequences while observing the anchor in use.

Practice helps with buildng the structure of the rigging, yes. This definitely can’t be replaced. And with this stoutest of trees and rocks I can’t dismiss this argument, which I think is comparable to many glue ins in “strong” rock. But with regards to so many other anchors? Small/medium sized chokestones? Flimsy trees, deadmen, many bolts?

I think there is a difference between evaluating rigging and the anchor material itself that is important to note as well. I may understand some important basics about rigging but there is often a noticeable act of faith in regards to anchor material, bolt and natural alike. How do we accurately measure the strength of anchor material itself? Look at deadman anchor? Slope, substrate, weight of material, direction of pull, etc all should go into the equation. If I say so myself measuring this is at best a guestimate, the same critique of bolts. I can apply the same tests to bolts as many natural anchors, or very close.

While we may try and justify our choices I think both tools are often applied with similar levels of skill and faith. Seems that there are too many variables to account for in every situation. And I am strong believer that the knowledge gained through experience is useful but flawed in the fact that it is only best suited for the specific experience it was gained in. Though we have few choices but to apply it in a forward manner.

I think an important point can be made about partners. In my > experience, the more experienced partners will always check the > anchor, they will check your harness, they will question something > they don’t understand or don’t like. It is unspoken, > un-confrontational, and I for one, expect it. A human mind is often > the “weakest” link in the safety chain, more eyes/minds helps a lot.

Never hesitate to ask! >

No doubt, much agreed, and practiced most of the time myself. But come-on… I have observed even the most staunch of practitioners lapse on this philosophy in application. Or how many of us go in large groups. Does every person actually check the anchor? I doubt it. So I think most of us develop an unspoken trust in our partners which I think it fundamental to adventure. But this has its noteworthy weaknesses.

To summarize my long winded opinion…while I agree there are tools to account for the some of the weakness to our tools and techniques I don’t think they ever make natural, artificial, existing, or personally built anchors fundamentally safer or easier to evaluate. Seems to dogmatic to me to apply. But to each their own. I will disappear to cooking my Thai tart chicken soup.

Phillip…

P.S. Buyer beware. You may want to reconsider trusting the moron who somehow managed to rub green pepper extract into his eye just now. Eye!

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Stevee B” wrote:

It is far easier to assess the safety of anchors you build yourself > then to assess drilled anchors you find in-situ. I find the > confidence placed in found bolted anchors to be mystifying. Unless > perhaps you lack the ability to assess either in which case you are > playing a rather scenic game of russian roulette everytime you go out. > Careful out there, you only have one big coin to bet – better be a > winner everytime.

I can subscribe to the idea that confidence in anchors is mystifying but I struggle applying that only to bolts. I think that is founded in my disbelief of your first statement of assessment of natural anchors, i.e. they are easier to judge than (because they are built yourself). I believe that there is more faith involved in our sport than any of us like to admit. Wether natural or artificial anchors we put faith in testimony of experts, the heuristics of experience, or the accuracy of our judgement. Why??

Because I think most of us, most of the time, operate by shortcuts. How many of us actually know the math and physics of our sport well enough to judge anchors? I am guessing it is a low percentage. How many of us rely upon the testimony of experts in the field to justify our choices? I am guessing that is rather high. How many of us trust the choices of our leaders and partners without testing anchors ourselves? How many of us assume a specific anchor is safe because of our use of it (type or same anchor) in the past?

Seen avalanche studies recently? Many orgainzations are rethinking the way the teach assessment because evidence is increasingly showing that the human dynamics are more dangerous than the environmental factors. Our judgement and assessment of conditions (snow, flashflood, anchor quality) more often than not relies upon subjective social components than we realize. Apply to canyoneering? I strongly think so. We make decisions based on wildly complicated factors, often unconsciously. Our environment is different but so many of the processes of decision making are the same.

We all develop shortcuts and subjective means to assess our choices but I think they all rely upon some aspect of faith. Mystifying? Yep, but it is too time consuming to do otherwise (each canyon differs on this scale). Hopefully it doesn’t become to dogmatic to become hurt by probability in the future. Russian Roulette? Yep, but I think there are more chambers and fewer bullets in that weapon than most conservative people like myself like to admit. But I will keep putting faith in certain chambers (I still think there are more bullets in the deadman chamber than most artificial anchors…but only time will tell) over others. For me I try to occassionally reevaulate why I trust certain aspects of the sport over others and be flexible enough to necessary changes. Rules of thumb need to be updated and constantly recreated. Fallible and subjective.

Phillip