Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

THE AUSTRALIAN RE, RETRO-BOLTING OPEN FORUM 18-Apr-2004 At 10:10:02 AM rolsen

Message

On 17/04/2004 hex-TROLL wrote:
>With the high numbers of newbies (and others) being injured on 'easy'
>climbs , there may well be a strong case for 'sacrificing' D-Minor , to
>be RETRO-BOLTED WITH BIG, JUICY, RING-BOLTS.
>
>ONE , well-known , introduction/TRANSITION climb , could well be a very
>good climbing-community 'investment' ; especially as D-Minor is already
>used for this purpose...

If it wasn't for the follow up posts of others - I assume this was a joke.

A short story (untrue)
A new cliff in inner suburban Melbourne has been found! Its discovery was made by the Huber brothers noted European hardmen who proceed to mop up all the concievable lines. The Huber brothers soloed all of the 45 climbs, giving them all 3 star ratings and ranging in grades from 13 to 28. All of the climbs are 50 metres high and have no worthwhile protection. The Huber brother's have repeated denied the requests of re-bolting Victoria to retro-bolt the climbs, this is dispite though the local council supporting such an action.

The first post of this thread pondered the ownership of climbs - this is the main problem: we somehow perceive the ownership (or first accensionist) to be revelevent. A bit like a dog pissing on a tree or kids touching cup cakes at a three years old's birthday party. In my view the person who climbs a climb first opinion on the state of that climb's protection should be no more important than any other person.

In my opinion, we let the first accentionist be the holder of the climb so that we as a climbing community can absolve ourselves of responsibility. In the same we embrace capitilism and absolve oursleves of the responsibity to the poor. Hence, Mark Latham wanting the poor to work harder - oh, that the Labour party would return to itself. If you climbed as hard as the first accencionist - no one would ever fall!

So if the first accencionist is irrelevant then what factors are relevant?
Maybe (and we can only choose one)
* whether the climb is safe for everyone, should someone/anyone take it upon themseleves to jump onto every piece of gear to make sure it holds and doesn't result in a ground fall. Placing bolts to supplement the dodgy or non existant places. Obviously the fall would come trying to clip the next piece.

* whether the climb doesn't damage the environment. Go to the gallery look at the mess there, the bolts the slings the chalk - in my view its a disgrace. Maybe there is an argument for its appearance in that location - but just imagine if all of cliffs looked like that. Compare it to the watchtower climbs, there are bolts on those but they are high and wide, out of view and do not diminish the experience of others.

Facing up to the challenge about how the climbing community relates to the cliffs/protection/destruction/safety requires us to do away with any property ownership rights of the first accentcionists.

Richard

ps. sorry this is another long ramble