Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

The Irish Solution to The Ben Lomond Problem 13-Oct-2017 At 5:19:25 AM Wendy

Message

On 11-Oct-2017 johny wrote:

>For the Nth time I agree that it is a weak argument that abseil bolts
>lead to sport climbs. However, this argument IS being used by certain people.
>You can froth all you want about how stupid these people are but it doesn't
>change the fact they believe it. Gerry reacted to a real threat from a
>certain bolter by chopping the abseil bolts.

But why is this a better solution than just explaining to that person that "because A exists, more A may as well exist" is not an argument? And then if they go and bolt routes, go and remove those.
>
>>>So why doesn't this convenient slippery slope start earlier then?
>
>Well... Because... IT DOESN'T! Some areas are fully bolted, some are not.
>The slippery slope was stopped in England at no bolts pre 1970s in most
>areas. Later crags were bolted. Is this so hard for you to understand?
>In your black and white strawman only debate style I guess it doesn't work.
>But in the really existing world it is pretty common.

I do object to this amazing capacity to generalise. Everyone keeps telling me, but it happens, it happens all the time, we have to stop it at the start of the slope, and then give me a few not very good examples. Bolts proliferated after the 70s for a variety of reasnas, not the least being that technology improved so they were easier to place, and people ventured onto faces without trad protection. Despite the proliferation of bolts over the years, most people still accept that we only place them when trad gear is lacking. Hence why we don't have a bolt ladder up D Major, despite the existance of many anchors at Arapiles. And if you are going to argue that the bolts ruin a traditional approach, then a fixed line from the top does just as much and may as well be seen by some equally illogical person as the start of a slope to fixed anchors and bolted routes.
>
>There never was much tat at Ben Lomond. There never were any sport climbs.
>Sure it COULD have been different. But... it... wasn't! Jesus Holy Christ
>On A Crutch! This is the tradition of Ben Lomond! As opposed to Smith Rock
>or Ceuse or any other crag. There is no universal application of Wendy's
>perfect rational white and black application of bolting ethic. You are
>just yelling into a self -constructed bermuda triangle of semantic bullshit.

It's not semantic bullshit! It's about conveying meaning. It would do your argument a massive favour if you just based it on wanting a boltfree Ben Lomond in principle rather than arguments you admit are actually weak. The anchors were in for 8 years or so without any other bolts appearing, suggesting that people were quite happily agreeing with the division between having an anchor and having bolted routes. 1 person mumbles something else, and the knee jerk reaction is to take the anchors out, rather than just talk with people about your ideal of trad protection only at Ben Lomond. Talking. Such a complicated idea. If only we did it more we might have less bolting wars.
>
And Karl, I don't think that bolt on WC is the bottom of the slippery slope. The bottom would be when you only need a rack of 10 quickdraws to do the route :)