Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 2 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 224
Author
Fixed gear guidelines in the Grampians
Wendy
13-May-2018
5:09:13 AM
My sample guidelines for route development:

All new routes to be developed with consideration for the style of the crag and its historical development

All new routes to consider the environmental and aesthetic impacts of the development.

All new routes to consider indigenous cultural concerns.

All new routes requiring cleaning or bolting to consider if the value of the route justifies the damage.

All new routes to consider impact of the route on adjacent routes.

All new routes to consider possible impact on other park users.

All new routes to be equipped safely with most appropriate modern equipment for the rock type.

All new crag development to consider the potential of the site to handle increased traffic.

All new crag development to undertake measures to manage erosion and vegetation loss from increased traffic.

All new anchors to consider if they are the safest and least impact solution to the situation and if other anchors are sufficiently inaccessible to justify a new set.


Feel free to add to them. The idea is that they are general enough to apply to any crag but specific enough to identify issues to be assessed each time.

Duang Daunk
13-May-2018
6:07:01 AM
On 13-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>My sample guidelines for route development:
>
>All new routes to be developed with consideration for the style of the
>crag and its historical development
>
>All new routes to consider the environmental and aesthetic impacts of
>the development.
>
>All new routes requiring cleaning or bolting to consider if the value
>of the route justifies the damage.
>
>All new routes to consider impact of the route on adjacent routes.
>
>All new routes to consider possible impact on other park users.
>
>All new routes to be equipped safely with most appropriate modern equipment
>for the rock type.
>
>All new crag development to consider the potential of the site to handle
>increased traffic.
>
>All new crag development to undertake measures to manage erosion and vegetation
>loss from increased traffic.
>
>
>Feel free to add to them. The idea is that they are general enough to
>apply to any crag but specific enough to identify issues to be assessed
>each time.

... Sister Wendy wrote: mostly fluffy feel good politically correct cliche mantra stuff.

Since when have bolters looking through rose coloured glasses at their starry new projects actually adhered to any of those sensible suggestions?

You have more faith in humanity than me, if you expect them to abide by the rules made by the masses for the masses, and yes, I acknowledge that you may be an exception.

What do you think the Natmukians would make of the dude who bolted the shit out of Mt Kiera (a local to that area at the time), and according to bro dalai has now turned up in Vic, if he ever visits the piles?
Wendy
13-May-2018
6:37:30 AM
On 13-May-2018 Duang Daunk wrote:

>
>What do you think the Natmukians would make of the dude who bolted the
>shit out of Mt Kiera (a local to that area at the time), and according
>to bro dalai has now turned up in Vic, if he ever visits the piles?

I have no idea who the guy is, but i expect from the implication, that he wouldn't pay any more attention to a blanket rule either.

How about adding that serious breaches of the guidelines will be referred to parks vic for consideration of legal action/fines?
dalai
13-May-2018
7:44:57 AM
On 13-May-2018 Wendy wrote:

>How about adding that serious breaches of the guidelines will be referred
>to parks vic for consideration of legal action/fines?

Quickest way to get climbing banned is to get the Government involved!

The Mt Kiera bolter is indeed now in Vic, and his lower offs added at Camel's Hump will be removed by me shortly. He too denied the slippery slope argument, came up with lost of bad points for adding them which ended up just being for convenience under the guise of modernisation and progress. Not on my watch!
Wendy
13-May-2018
8:35:53 AM
On 13-May-2018 dalai wrote:
>On 13-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>
>>How about adding that serious breaches of the guidelines will be referred
>>to parks vic for consideration of legal action/fines?
>
>Quickest way to get climbing banned is to get the Government involved!

They already are involved! See Tracey's post. At least if we are referring noncompliant climbers to PV, we are demonstrating that the majority of climbers are self regulating and we do acknowledge climbers behaviours that have excessive impact on the park.
>
>The Mt Kiera bolter is indeed now in Vic, and his lower offs added at
>Camel's Hump will be removed by me shortly. He too denied the slippery
>slope argument, came up with lost of bad points for adding them which ended
>up just being for convenience under the guise of modernisation and progress.
>Not on my watch!

I don't know Camels Hump at all, so I'll have to take your word that his bolts wouldn't meet my suggested guidelines. Despite being one of the more liberally minded towards anchors of people around here, even i don't see how modernisation and progress apply here! Sounds like you've tried the adult approach and are moving onto step 2. Do you think either action will actually prevent him repeating it? it sounds like he might remain a serial offender. Chopping his bolts at Keira dd not stop him moving on to do it again. So what's the next answer if he does it again? Is this where threatening legal action through pv could apply?

I really think people should drop the slippery slope argument. It's not the strong point of your argument. It's not going to be meaningful to the people you are worried about anyway. Talk about your concerns in more concrete terms - they are unsightly, unnecessary, excessive, against park regulations, retro an existing route, impinge on neighbouring routes, out of keeping with the tradition of the crag, unsafe etc etc. This is really where the strength of any case will lie.

Out of keeping with the tradition of the crag is always going to be a grey one, but you could use it to argue that a multipitch sport route at rosea would be, because there clearly isn't anything even close to one, whereas a discrete mixed climb would still fit in as there are routes with the odd bit of fixed gear. You could then add that uncamouflaged bolts and many bolts would be unsightly on a cliff where you can see very few bits of fixed gear from the ground to reinforce the discrete and minimal approach.
armstp
13-May-2018
11:09:35 AM
I quite like Wendyís guidelines because they take into account the different considerations required on cliffs in different areas. Which is the difficulty with trying to come up with one size fits all guidelines. What you would take into account when deciding whether to add a bolted route to an urban cliff like say Kangaroo Point with no real environmental or aesthetic qualities is vastly different to the considerations involved in bolting a line on the left hand side of Central Gully at Araps. As it should be. And you can find those considerations in these guidelines if you are sensible.

However, it does require judgement and an understanding of the norms at each cliff. I think in general self regulation works in Victoria because there are really only a relatively small number of new route developers using bolts and they are for the most part reasonably imbued with an understanding of traditional climbing norms and are mostly responsive to the views of other climbers. In quite a number of cases they are the old trad climbers who were establishing routes 30, 40 or 50+ years ago. And most of them have always used bolts as they saw necessary.

However, as noted, someone arriving from outside of the area with a bolt drill may well bring a different understanding of those considerations. As indeed may someone with an urge to de-bolt climbs.

On a different point, the PV legal argument is actually pretty toothless. When you talk to Rangers they believe it is too hard/too expensive/too time consuming to prosecute people for almost any kind of infringement. They find it much easier just to ban whole activities as they can do this administratively without having to use the unpredictable and expensive court system.


gfdonc
13-May-2018
11:52:56 AM
On 12-May-2018 JamesMc wrote:
>If there's to be "No Bolt" areas in The Grampians, better to put them where
>there's no decent climbing. Say Serra Range between Teddy Bear Gap and
>Cassidy Gap or Mt William Ra south of Boundary Gap.

Great suggestion James.
dalai
13-May-2018
11:57:15 AM
On 13-May-2018 Wendy wrote:

>They already are involved! See Tracey's post. At least if we are referring
>noncompliant climbers to PV, we are demonstrating that the majority of
>climbers are self regulating and we do acknowledge climbers behaviours
>that have excessive impact on the park.

Already aware but as yet no official action undertaken by PV rangers. As mentioned by armstp, most likely and easiest approach will be to just ban rather than fine if they are approached and forced to play their hand!

> Chopping his bolts at Keira dd not stop him moving on to do it
>again. So what's the next answer if he does it again? Is this where threatening
>legal action through pv could apply?

No, it didn't stop him adding a lower off to an old existing route now at Camels. He suggested the chopping at Mt Keira was done by one person with a grudge so doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong there!

But if we all quickly take note of such retrobolts and make a stand for each area we climb in, surely people like this will hopefully finally get the message?

I still stand by the slippery slope argument - Mt Arapiles as prime evidence! One of the most perfect predominately trad climbing venues in the world where bolts were placed only when trad gear wasn't available. Now it is covered in multiplying loweroffs and many new bolts!
dalai
13-May-2018
11:59:56 AM
On 13-May-2018 gfdonc wrote:
>On 12-May-2018 JamesMc wrote:
>>If there's to be "No Bolt" areas in The Grampians, better to put them
>where
>>there's no decent climbing. Say Serra Range between Teddy Bear Gap and
>>Cassidy Gap or Mt William Ra south of Boundary Gap.
>
>Great suggestion James.
>
Very amusing. Suggest an area with no decent climbing - that way we look to be doing something but in reality business as usual...
Dave_S
13-May-2018
1:06:20 PM
What climb(s) have been retrobolted at Camels?
dalai
13-May-2018
1:16:49 PM
So far confirmed is a lower off on Notes on Pillows. Though there are now bolts on Celia and a ring at the top none of which will be original...
Olbert
13-May-2018
2:13:49 PM
On 13-May-2018 dalai wrote:
>On 13-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>>...
>> Chopping his bolts at Keira dd not stop him moving on to do it
>>again. So what's the next answer if he does it again? Is this where threatening
>>legal action through pv could apply?
>
>No, it didn't stop him adding a lower off to an old existing route now
>at Camels. He suggested the chopping at Mt Keira was done by one person
>with a grudge so doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong there!
>...

I can attest there was no grudge. The closest I came to meeting the dude was when I wandered underneath him when he was doing some (retro)bolting at Mt Kiera on the Brigetta wall. At that stage I wasn't aware of his work and didn't talk to him. The only reason I would have a grudge would be because of his rampant retro-bolting.

I had issue with lots of the bolts he placed (not all) but only actually pulled his bolts from the one route directly above the walking track. The reason for this was because the bolts stuck out like a sore thumb on a well used tourist track and required the belayer to be standing on the walking track. Further - the route was worthless - even by Mt Kiera standards.

I'm disappointed to hear top-roping bolts are back but aren't a local anymore so I won't be going and chopping them anytime soon. Although the top-roping bolts largely address the bolt-visibility issue, it does not address the belayer-standing-on-walking-track issue.

I really do think there is a chance that the rangers will ban climbing at Mt Kiera if this sort of behaviour becomes the norm. If they get a complaint from a walker who has to walk around a belayer, it could be the knee jerk reaction. People sure do love to complain about the mountain bikers...

Back on-topic, Dalai, I can really sympathise with you over the 'discussions' you've been having. Arguing with him is like arguing with a stubborn self-righteous teenager. You go round and round in circles and he never actually addresses your real point but somehow he thinks he's got the moral highground.
kieranl
13-May-2018
6:57:23 PM
On 12-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 11-May-2018 kieranl wrote:
>>Why 500m? I think it covers the majority of the remote areas in the Grampians.
>>But, open to suggestions on another measure.
>>
>I was wondering the same thing. Where did this arbitrary altitude come
>from? Then I went into the nati cafe and started browsing the collection
>of argus mags up on the wall. Wouldn't you know it, most of the new routes
>at araps in the last year have kieranl, a couple of bolts, and a loweroff
>in the description.......and araps is lower than 500m. What a tremendous
>coincidence!

Sorry to report that the 500m mark is not related to any devious plan to exclude Arapiles from the discussion. I thought that I'd achieved that end up-front by including the word "Grampians" in the thread title (this is a joke BTW).

While somewhat arbitrary it includes a significant number of cliffs, including Rosea and Bundaleer. Enough other cliffs are also close enough to this mark to hopefully make people take notice of it.

I can't see any real problem with people working out if their new route is in the moratorium range; just drag out the mobile phone and check the altitude. Even I can do that.
kieranl
13-May-2018
7:15:45 PM
Thanks to Wendy for her sample guidelines.

I added a couple of suggestions to my list this morning but got called away while I was preparing a comment about them.

I left off the original list the next step beyond no fixed gear, this no climbing or bouldering. There are already such areas in the National Park where no public access is allowed. Some of these are Reference Areas, though I don't think there are climbing possibilities in the existing ones. There is also at least one area closed for environmental reasons which does contain climbing; Eastern Wall. Indigenous cultural sites are also closed to climbing by default. It may be that some areas with a number of non-public indigenous sites might be designated as non-climbing/bouldering to avoid accidental damage. I have one candidate area in mind, which currently has no climbing/bouldering that I know of, but I'll need to discuss with more knowledgeable people before I identify it.

The other option I added is to have hand-drill only areas. Maybe an option for predominantly trad areas where the odd bolt is useful. Those who have not had the joy of hand-drilling don't know what they've missed.
dalai
13-May-2018
7:16:50 PM
On 13-May-2018 Olbert wrote:
>I can attest there was no grudge.

Of that I have no doubt Olbert! Given the subterfuge he continually replied with always avoiding my questions was unbelievable!

>Back on-topic, Dalai, I can really sympathise with you over the 'discussions'
>you've been having. Arguing with him is like arguing with a stubborn self-righteous
>teenager. You go round and round in circles and he never actually addresses
>your real point but somehow he thinks he's got the moral highground.

From safety, progress, too hard to find the FA (which it appears he gave a half hearted attempt AFTER he retrobolted the anchors) to trying to discredit my opinion by suggesting that I was only a boulderer given my thecrag updates. Then there was the suggestion I was changing the ethics at Camels by finally adding the boulder problems which I developed 20 years ago which weren't the first by a long way either. Best was that I must be against Cliffcare as I didn't agree with his retrobolting??!!

IdratherbeclimbingM9
13-May-2018
7:27:26 PM
Youíre a bad man dalai...











Heh, heh, heh.
:-)

By the way, you asked earlier (probably on another thread) about patching pulled-bolt holes.
~> Epoxy putty, cheap, comes in various brands and colours, waterproof, heat and cold proof, mix part A with small portion of part B, (working time depends on how much of part B thatís used), knead by hand, backfill-plug hole, and rub on / poke in granular particles of the local rock medium.
Holes disappear like magic.
dalai
13-May-2018
7:53:05 PM
On 13-May-2018 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>By the way, you asked earlier (probably on another thread) about patching pulled-bolt holes.
>~> Epoxy putty, cheap, comes in various brands and colours, waterproof, heat and cold proof, mix part A with small portion of part B, (working time depends on how much of part B thatís used), knead by hand, backfill-plug hole, and rub on / poke in granular particles of the local rock medium.
>Holes disappear like magic.

Thanks for the tip. I had bought a cartridge of Selleys Mortar works mortar filler in Charcoal for the job, but will head back into the hardware store for Epoxy putty as you suggest.
gfdonc
13-May-2018
8:25:20 PM
kieranl wrote:
>Sorry to report that the 500m mark ..[snip]
>..While somewhat arbitrary it includes a significant number of cliffs, including Rosea and Bundaleer. >Enough other cliffs are also close enough to this mark to hopefully make people take notice of it.

Hold on there, cowboy. If you want to make a moratorium about specific cliffs then just list them. There are lots of 'forgotten' crags above the 500m mark that are getting revisited as part of a forthcoming guidebook. I doubt most of the current crew have ever heard of them.

and:
> There is also at least one area closed for environmental reasons which does contain climbing; Eastern Wall.

The wallabies were moved from Eastern Wall a while ago (to Western Bloc and Moora Rocks, which means they are now closed). Eastern Wall is open and worth a visit; access via road has been a bit patchy as the gate just past Bundaleer didn't seem to get opened this year and the Moora Moora Track access was impeded by Glenelg River Rd being closed as well.
kieranl
14-May-2018
6:38:34 AM
On 13-May-2018 gfdonc wrote:
>kieranl wrote:
>>Sorry to report that the 500m mark ..[snip]
>>..While somewhat arbitrary it includes a significant number of cliffs,
>including Rosea and Bundaleer. >Enough other cliffs are also close enough
>to this mark to hopefully make people take notice of it.
>
>Hold on there, cowboy. If you want to make a moratorium about specific
>cliffs then just list them. There are lots of 'forgotten' crags above
>the 500m mark that are getting revisited as part of a forthcoming guidebook.
> I doubt most of the current crew have ever heard of them.
>

The remark about Rosea and Bundaleer was a comment as they were the prime topics of the other thread, not a reason for the 500m limit. Your second sentence is more to the point as to why 500 was plucked from the sky. The proposed moratorium isn't about specific crags and isn't an end in itself, it's just intended as a circuit-breaker.
kieranl
14-May-2018
6:57:47 AM
Just to be clear, it's a moratorium on placing fixed gear above 500m, not on new route development. The two are not synonymous. I just checked that I did say this in the OP but it's worth restating.

If there's something that indicates the point of the moratorium, it's that the 500m line sits (probably) just above Eureka Wall so the line of crags high on the Vic Range, inclding Eureka Towers, would be included.

 Page 2 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 224
There are 224 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints