Accident in Constrychnine

Quote:

---

if you are advocating cutting of existing bolts that add to the safety of me, my family, and friends, I'd say that is closer to vandalism than a moral choice based on community consensus.

---

If you're taking friends and family down a canyon and you need bolts to be present in that canyon in order to be safe... you should reconsider your choice of canyon.

The way I see it, most bolts are in canyons because it's just more convenient for humans.
If I finished drinking a soda, it would be most convenient for me to drop the can on the ground where I stand rather than find a trash can, it's the same way with bolts.
One could build a natural anchor, it's just easier and requires less personal responsibility to rely on a hole in the wall with some steel in there.

Please take the time and practice and get your skills up rather then making our beautiful canyons pay the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unimog

I guess if you consider bolts as "trash", then maybe the "vast majority" of the community might not be in agreement. I hear the argument about whether to put in new bolts, but if you are advocating cutting of existing bolts that add to the safety of me, my family, and friends, I'd say that is closer to vandalism than a moral choice based on community consensus.

---

Thousands of canyoneers enjoy North Wash canyons, Robbers Roost Canyons, etc. (outside Zion) and very very few bother to install bolts. Even the outraged Mr. Thompson does not bolt up every 5 foot downclimb (ala Yankee Doodle) every time he goes there.

De Facto, the ethic is bolt free.

There are a few bolts here and there in the area, but more noted for their novelty than for other attributes.

I fully support your right to install whatever bolts you feel are necessary for the safety of your party. If that amounts to more than zero in THESE areas, then you are, de facto, lacking in the skills necessary to safely canyoneer in this area. Go to Zion. Go hang out with canyoneers that know what they are doing. Take a class from Rick Green. Do something, but don't add bolts to these canyons that have been traversed safely by thousands of people including little girls.

Thank you.

Tom :haha:

Wow! I never proposed adding any bolts, just not ripping out existing anchors.

Maybe I misunderstood the controversy, iceaxe. The real reason for removing existing bolts is because of how dangerous they are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

De Facto, the ethic is bolt free.

---

De facto ethics. Is that like moral culpability?

Insert your laughing emoticon here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unimog

Wow! I never proposed adding any bolts, just not ripping out existing anchors.

---

The point is... they shouldn't have been placed at all.

Not all bolts are placed in ridiculous spots, but some are. Sometimes the absurdity in not readily apparent, especially to the untrained eye.

Do ridiculous bolts breed more ridiculous bolts? Perhaps, because it's human nature. It's easy to add a bolt to a bolt garden because there is such little weight on one's conscious. It's like throwing a soda can into a landfill. But scarring the wall of a beautiful and pristine place? It might make you pause and think. Would it not?

Also, another point of view to consider… imagine coming across a bolt in a pristine canyon at an obstacle that is easily defeated. Would you not see it as garbage? Wouldn't you be compelled to restore the canyon to its original state?

:hmm2:

Bolts - an interesting pandoras box -with views from many angles and dimensions. Zion and zion regions surrounding - who and what said it was OK to bolt many/most of the canyons in zion? And who said it was OK to add or pull bolts in that area in the past decade? Who put bolts in Water Cyn, Oaks, and of recent vintage Birch Hollow? (Commerical guiding outfits for the most part)

What about Glen Canyon? Bolts in that area OK? When they go in there is often an authoritarian statement that they were needed. Capitol Reef, Canyonlands....bolts sometimes appear.

Pick your area folk, and ask what type of visitors appear. Some commerical groups, youth groups, adults/experienced/rookies/moderate experience. What is the terrain in the canyon AND what is the rate of visitation?

A decade ago it was probably reasonable to suggest that many areas/zones be largely bolt free. I still generally feel this way.
The escalating promotion of some of these areas though, the exponential growth in the number of visitors - at times, and then those unique spots where folk "blindly" follow after the one in front and do as they did.

That rap in K-9 where Bruce fell. I probably went off that piton a dozen times. Sketchy but it always held. And then after the piton and bolt went, webbing cross the "floor", sometimes sunk in the mud or dirt and sometimes above (so it can be viewed). In my view, some are living in a time warp. K-9 these days is not like it was a decade ago. Folk of all shapes and sizes go through the canyon, and some commerical groups too. If folk shout from one side they want bolt free corridors, is it also respectful to ask about VERP - visitor experience and resource protection? Once upon a time, some of us had solitude in those canyons - you want to give that back to us? Or maybe that doesn't matter? And how many more accidents occur before public safety and land managers confer and slap limits and permits on areas - SAR/helicopters cost money. I'm concerned though re that drop. Most don't/won't inspect the webbing at the spot, particularly on a busy day. (the day of the accident, others had been ahead of Bruce and went down the same webbing.)

Anyway, who's the culprit in all of this, what are the interests of the parties and how does safety factor into the equasion? Moral high or low ground I'll try to avoid even though I feel I could easily weigh in on the issue of contributory negligence.

Take a breath (or maybe I should, and avoid this rabble); what are the compelling concerns in all of this? In my view, if the canyons are going to be continued to be promoted to death, and that at times, 25 or more travel through a canyon in a day, then heightened safety should be a concern for experienced canyoneers and leaders? Is the spot of the accident an easy one for most any group to stop and re-set a new/old station, new webbing, links and make certain it's viable and safe. If you think so then I guess the status quo remains. In my view I've had too many tours through those canyons; even lots of experienced folk, they see someone ahead of them "go", and they follow....don't want to bothered with a 15-20 minute stop. (I'm talking about normal practice here, and I guess that practice could stop/change). Anyway, I think a two bolts/chain on the wall would fit for that rap, it's such a pretty drop from the wall, and if regularly checked the station could be safe for a good while. And those wishing to set up a long sling and link, maybe they/you could choose that course. Take a poll? Doesn't work for me. The future, that's more important. More accidents put the canyons on planners radar - some folk in Wayne county, GCNRA and at Hans Flat, have had their fill of rescues. So which trumps, bottom line/bolt fee - I dislike that term botom line - or safety, or do we all have a blind eye to a degree and can't see what's happened to some of these very accessible and classy canyons in the past decade?

I think about the prevalence of accidents in N Wash/Poison Spring and the Roost in the past 5 years or so. I've been there a couple of times when Wayne County and a chopper appeared, and once when NPS folk were out (they cussed afterwards about messing their packs and gear up). What happens after the accidents? Canyons get safer? What I see is that the canyons get increased promotion and that's mostly it (with a fair amount of discussion re safe canyon practice by a very small component of the community).

I'm guessing that if the accidents continue, the instinct will be to tighten or focus on limits....and the same came be said when folk mess up their at large camping zone. Too bad really, in the 2000's I spoke with so many BLM folk, they didn't know or care about canyoneering, they were bothered by contentious BLM/ATV travel plans cutting cross forests and deserts. Oh the unintended consequences of our actions. The front country discovered and conquered and the backcountry, some small slivers of it, still semi wild. A broken pelvis, yikes, periolus, I'm happy that folk quickly followed up and that he's alive. More heading down to N Wash area, this week, next week, how attentive to each rap, circumstance and situation? Most folk engaged in safe anchors, (if someone passed by just before them) or looking around, chatting and detached?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Not all bolts are placed in ridiculous spots, but some are.

---

Were these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Also, another point of view to consider… imagine coming across a bolt in a pristine canyon at an obstacle that is easily defeated. Would you not see it as garbage? Wouldn't you be compelled to restore the canyon to its original state?

---

Kinda the beauty of bolts, in a sense. Easy to remove and patch the holes.

Now, how do you fix those rope grooves? How 'bout all the material dispaced, over and over again, to build an unnatural anchor?

Pristine is pristine. 50 feet of webbing from a deadman anchor isn't pristine either. Nor are rock stacks. Nor is transporting sand, digging, constructing...

Any anchor requiring being "built" isn't natural either.

I think for most, I'd guess I'd call them "hardcorp" anti bolt canyon folks, they're more about the anchor solving and building game than they are about not impacting a "pristine" canyon. "Leave no trace"? Doesn't apply to a contructed anchor, even one built from natural materials.

The "leave no trace" ethic might drive the ghosting type techniques, which, I think is a good thing. But, at some point, for canyons that become popular...its hard to force what in some cases is a huge amount of risk onto someone who just wants to safely descend a canyon. Yeah, get some skills. Ok, then what? Post the canyon as off limits to those who lack the skills? That's a tough thing to do.

In this desert sandstone, even repeated down climbing is going to show wear and tear on the canyon. Look at old versus recent photo's of popular trails in canyons, or, even more glaring, look at rock climbs on sandstone that have seen many ascents...

Incredible Hand Crack had no "rub" marks on the wall in the mid 80s:

Attachment 65654

Now it does:

Attachment 65655

Even social trails in the desert are hard to restore.

I think the most annoying bolts/other anchors are when they are somewhere that is easily downclimbed.

In Keyhole, for example, even the class 2 approach is (or was) bolted. At least some of the drops bolted in Mystery are class 3 at best. I was able to climb at least some of them one handed (with photographs) and I'm not a very good climber. Main Fork Bluejohn is another place where people leave a bunch of (not bolted) anchors and the slot is fairly easy to do by leaving nothing behind.

Quote:

---

What about Glen Canyon? Bolts in that area OK?

---

From a legal standpoint, it is always illegal to place a bolt there.

Quote:

---

Capitol Reef, Canyonlands....bolts sometimes appear.

---

From a legal standpoint, it is illegal to place new bolted stations, but legal to replace existing ones when in poor condition.

================================================== ===========================

Beyond that, I won't say much about the bolt debate other than everyone should make an effort to tread as lightly as possible and if you must leave something behind, make an effort to leave behind things that are easily removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjp

Were these?

---

Sure appears that way. Looking at photos on bluugnome.com it appears that anybody with the ability to tie an overhand knot should be able to rig it. See photos #14 and #17.

http://www.bluugnome.com/bluugnome_g...anyon_11-14-10

Shoot, I'd bet it's ghost-able, with a little thought.

Yearly BOLT WAR!!!!!! :rifle::bash::kicknuts::2gun::facepalm::wallbash:: amazon::assault::duel::flamer::2guns::deadhorse::v ader: I think that about covers it. :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjp

Were these?

---

You mean, "it". If you are referring to Constrychnine.

"It" was a drilled baby angle. For quite a few years, not sure when it was placed. I'd say before 2004 which is about when the area was publicized by Shane and Ryan (or so). It flexed, a lot.

A couple years ago, in November, I decided I would no longer rap off that flexing pin. After some consideration, I placed a 1/2" x 3-3/4" Powerbolt next to the pin, and removed the pin and filled the hole. Discussion ensued. It made it the first bolt IN a canyon in the area. Sometime over that winter, someone came in and removed the bolt and built a deadman for that rappel. Some variation on that deadman has been the anchor for a couple of years.

The geometry there is kinda weird, with or without a bolt for an anchor. Kinda why this conversation has been really ridiculous. The webbing from the pin, then from the bolt, also went up and over this rough diagonal buttress, and the way each rappeller starts the rappel slides the webbing across the rough rock. And if they dance to avoid the water at the bottom, it slides the webbing again. So in any case, the webbing would need to be replaced fairly often. Thus, it requires the canyoneer to have a couple-a neurons firing and do their job and inspect the webbing EVERY TIME.

"Not all bolts are placed in ridiculous spots, but some are."

There are no good places to place bolts for this rappel, that can be accessed reasonably for drilling. There is a shortage of good natural-anchor building material in the area, but that just makes it a little more difficult, not ridiculously difficult. The difficulty of building an anchor from natural materials is on a par with other anchors in the area. From that point of view, it is a ridiculous spot to put a drilled anchor.

It is actually a rappel - so it is not ridiculous from that point of view.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unimog

Maybe I misunderstood the controversy, iceaxe. The real reason for removing existing bolts is because of how dangerous they are?

---

The piton in Constrychnine was removed for two reasons. Number one being it was dangerous. A flexing piton in NOT a good thing and will eventually break out.

The second reason is "bolts bread more bolts", I think they must be related to rabbits. It's strange that an area can go bolt free for 10 years and someone will place a bolt, and the next thing you know there are 10 new shiney bolts.

I think it's well understood the area is bolt free, so if bolts are placed it's not unreasonable to expect they will be removed.


:cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

In Keyhole, for example, even the class 2 approach is (or was) bolted. At least some of the drops bolted in Mystery are class 3 at best.

---

These instances were done with the Park's approval to solve specific impact problems in these high-use canyons.

Tom

Brian,
Good point about the rope grooves.
In certain very popular frontcountry canyons with terrible rope grooves(Leprechaun comes to mind), it's a tough sell that a well placed bolt is more of an impact than all those gnarly grooves.

The rub marks on that particular climb are pretty ugly, as are social trails around the head of a canyon, which seems like a good comparison.
Regarding the impact of bolts... I think a good comparison would be if someone wasn't comfortable climbing Incredible Hand Crack on gear, so that person installed bolts and turned it into a sport route. This would not be be okay and those bolts would be gone immediately.
Sam

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRG

Regarding the impact of bolts... I think a good comparison would be if someone wasn't comfortable climbing Incredible Hand Crack on gear, so that person installed bolts and turned it into a sport route. This would not be be okay and those bolts would be gone immediately.
Sam

---

I like that comparison.

If a bolt eliminated heavy rope grooves, than I'd be for it. A hole is much better than a deep groove. But my admittedly limited experience is that bolts are rarely (ever?) placed for this reason. Hell, Spry has a ton of both. Preventing rope grooves requires care, skill, and experience. Maybe, rarely, a bolt.

Quote:

---

These instances were done with the Park's approval to solve specific impact problems in these high-use canyons.

---

I'm somewhat confused by this. What impact problems did bolting the class 2 approach to Keyhole resolve? Or the bolting of some of the easy downclimbs in Mystery (which are already in the watercourse)? :ne_nau:

Let me fix this for you, Shane. :nod:

“Please don't vandalize canyons that lie above your skill level. You may want to experience them in their undamaged state someday. They will always be there and you have plenty of time. It's not about ego or risk, it's about humility and respect.”
Stevee B., 2007, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/36972

“Responsible canyoneers should always come prepared to replace anchors in canyons--preferably with natural anchors. To assume the existence of bolts or other fixed anchors is irresponsible. To curse their replacement by a natural anchor is absurd. Steel fasteners can fail and when they do, it will be suddenly and without warning. If predictability is desired then perhaps a climbing gym would be more appropriate for your recreation instead of a natural and dynamic canyon.”
Brendan Busch, 2011,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/59694

Jenny West

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian in SLC

Pristine is pristine.

---

Oh man, you are so right. What was I thinking?

So all things not pristine are equal? No shades of grey, eh?

A bolted ladder would is so equal to that horrible rub mark on the wall. :haha::lol8::haha::lol8::haha:

Attachment 65661