To Bolt or Not to Bolt

[rcwild]

Of all the issues we have discussed with canyoneers, ACA members and non-members alike, none has been more divisive than using bolts to create fixed anchors in canyons. We have learned from hundreds of discussions and numerous surveys that the majority of canyoneers prefer to use natural anchors, but do not object to using fixed anchors when they are deemed necessary.

We understand not everyone agrees with this position; however, we feel that because this accurately reflects the feelings of the majority of canyoneers, our position on fixed anchors in canyons is as follows:

1. Safety should be the single most important consideration of any canyoneer.

2. Canyoneers should always strive to improve their skills to minimize their reliance on fixed anchors, including the ability to evaluate existing anchors, both fixed and natural. These skills will lead to the understanding that fixed anchors are not necessarily safer than natural anchors.

3. All canyoneers should strive to understand and respect their fellow canyoneers, regardless of their personal ethics or concept of good style.

4. Canyoneers should avoid placing bolts unless it is absolutely necessary in the interest of safety or to protect high-use areas.

5. Canyoneers who do place bolts should do so only if they have acquired appropriate skills and use hardware that is appropriate to the geology and hydrology of the canyon.

6. The canyoneering community should seek consensus regarding canyons that are bolt appropriate and canyons that are kept bolt free. There are enough canyons out there for everyone.

7. Pulling fixed anchors, unless they are obviously unsafe, is inappropriate and may put peoples' lives at risk. If fixed anchors offend you, ignore them. Don't assume that others possess the same skills as you.

In support of its position, the ACA will:

A. Do whatever we can to communicate this position to the canyoneering public, representing it as that of the majority of canyoneers.

B. Continue offering courses and one-day anchor workshops with the emphasis on natural anchors. We will also teach how to evaluate fixed anchors and how to place them correctly.

C. Do what ever we can to communicate to the canyoneering public which canyons or areas are deemed bolt appropriate and which are deemed bolt free.

D. Attempt to gain broader acceptance and use of the ACA Canyon Rating System. We believe this will help canyoneers avoid canyons above their ability, particularly in those areas deemed bolt free.

E. Continue to undertake anchor maintenance service projects. In areas deemed bolt appropriate, we will maintain fixed anchors as needed. In areas deemed bolt free, we will remove bolted anchors in accordance with the local ethic.

[mtngoat59102]

I am posting this just to have a public record of my own thoughts about anchor issues. Your comments are welcome. I hope this would not devolve into a devisive thread as I do not mean it that way. Hopefully, it will spurn thought from those who may not have considered this issue in a balanced light.

1.) Examples – Damaging micro-ecosystems.
Canyoneers leave the slick rock drainage to rig an anchor. The wall to be descended in the drop I know of is covered in moss. This moss at certain times of year is the thick beautiful velvet kind. In warmer months it retreats to a dry and dormant state. There is now a swath cut where descending canyoneers have removed all the moss from this wall. The small tree that is used for the anchor is now almost dead. The small tree has been backed up w/a pin due to its poor shape. I think social and erosion trails to reach any anchor would be the most obvious form. I’m not saying that ALL examples of damage mean you should place bolts.
However, it’s dogmatic to contest that anchor points impact micro-ecosystems. I’m not talking about anchors driving the spotted owls to extinction. I’m simply pointing out that anchors direct foot traffic and tend to be high impact areas. Which type of permanent damage is worse, a trail up a vegetation covered hill to a tree or a bolt next to the pour-off? I don’t think there is just one right answer but it’s a balanced question worth asking. The answer is most likely situation specific.

2.) Case in point Behunin
Behunin is an eye sore of social/erosion trails that can be easily avoided by staying in the water course. This is a further example of damage due to anchor location and the desire to stay dry. A group of thoughtful people went in and set-up natural anchor points keeping people in the drainage. To a degree this has been helping keep more people off the erosion trails. Unfortunately, the way the anchors tend to get set-up is causing really horrible rope pull marks in a couple spots. The only way to avoid this would be to turn Behunin into a canyon requiring hundreds of feet of webbing or bolt it in the correct way. Due to the canyons nature really long slings will always be replaced by people w/shorter versions and the rock damage will continue. It’s a question of practicality and managing impacts in the most efficient way possible.

3.) Proper sling length
This is the #1 culprit in needless permanent rock damage. If slings where properly extended to provide damage free pulls we would solve our largest problem. So, if it is that easy why not? People don’t like hanging over the edge to get ‘on rap’, especially newbies w/out skilled group leaders. This principle is universal despite if the anchor is natural or not.

4.) Devolution of anchors
Many anchors are well built by skilled individuals. Many examples abound of bolts being pulled and replaced w/compact and appropriate natural anchors such as dead-man style anchors. The same canyoneers return the following year to find their handy work has devolved into an abortion of strewn webbing and rope pull marks. The long term answers here are not easy. Hopefully, people will become more educated and this cycle will reduce. IMO, some of these drops will be best served by placing a good bolt station that will eliminate the guess work and protect the canyon in the long run. The evolution of the last anchor in Pine Creek is a classic example. I’ve seen that properly placed bolt stations tend to devolve slower than complicated natural anchors. It’s important to remember that infrequently traveled canyons in remote areas need a different set of rules than what I refer to as high or medium traffic area. Poorly placed bolts are not more or less evil than poorly placed natural anchors. Both are perpetrators of damage and our enemy. In my original post I said that poor anchor management was the number one problem in canyons. I think it’s telling that the reply I got was in a pro/anti bolt direction. I was meaning both bolts and natural anchors in my original post. I have no agenda but to see anchors meet the needs of the area where they are, in a way that best protects our lives and future resources. In my mind this is sometimes bolts and sometimes not. The nature of the response I get from some to this thinking is only telling of the single-minded approach of which I first spoke.

5.) Dumb down the canyon
It will be a shame if some of the gems out there get bolted. Steps should be taken to preserve these canyons as God made them, bolt free. Bolts tend to dumb down a canyon. Or at least that is the mantra. The good thing about properly placed bolts in a location where they will make the rope pull damage free is that people will use them, dumb people will use them. (The anchor over the gap in Spry is a perfect example) These same dumb people will dig up a rock to make sure it is safe (and they should) and then replace it with lord knows what. Then the next group of dumb people will place some really horrible bolts since they don’t like the mess that was left by the dumb people who dug up the rock. The past bears this out to be true, time after time. A close minded approach to these problems will only make our canyon environment pay the price.

6.) Bottom Line
Bolts are not the problem. People are the problem. So many people don’t care and will never care to learn more than they know. I think this discussion in general is a perfect example of how stubbornly dogmatic humans are. Individuals will place bad bolts and they will destroy good natural anchors and turn them into devices that cause further impacts. A careful assessment of the location, canyon and options will serve the community best while those who do care work diligently to encourage people to get more training. Understanding how to construct appropriate anchors in the appropriate place is the ultimate goal. Effective resource management for the future will never be accomplished by single-minded approaches.

[johnswelchvi]

Neil,

Thanks for the interesting post. This is a recurrent topic and well should be as it is an recurrent problem.

I agree with you and expressed similar concerns and opinions earlier on this site (http://www.canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=189). I am uncomfortable with the permanence of bolts, but accept their usefulness if a bolted anchor decreases the overall impact on the canyon. This means that bolt placement must be done not only with concerns for ease of stance while placing the anchor and getting on rappel, but also the impact of the approach to the anchor and the pull marks during rope retrieval.

I also agree that the pull marks could largely be eliminated with the appropriate use of longer webbing. However, as you’ve noted, this has not become common practice both for cost and comfort reasons. The solution to the later is, as you note, a courtesy belay on to rappel. This practice should be encouraged for those uncomfortable getting on rappel with the rapide hanging beyond the canyon lip – where it belongs.

As for weird raps to avoid water. Sorry, can't have much sympathy there. If you descend a C canyon, you came to get wet. Unless there is real risk of impending hypothermia, enjoy it.

In my original post I hoped for a solution to the problem of cost. Is it reasonable to extend the anchor using a retrievable system? Would you consider using an Omni-sling, Slick or Greasy Girth approach to add a retrievable extension, which positions the rapide beyond the canyon lip? Is this sort of thing too error prone to be recommended to the masses? By doing this you leave a short anchor. Does this encourage the less informed to rap toss-and-go style off the short anchor, thus continuing the damage? Should those who care suck it up and leave appropriately long webbing whenever possible? Are there more permanent extenders (eg something like a chain, but less ugly and less likely to scar the rock itself) that one could place to encourage an appropriate rap start?

John

[Kirk]

From the newbie perspective, it seems you're trying to wrap your arms around the question "How do you educate 'those who don't know' to travel canyons thoughtfully, with minimal overall and long-term impact?" I suggest continuing to "get the word out" as agressively as you can by discussing, publishing, and training (especially training!!) with Neil's principles in mind, and in the maximum amount of venues available.

It'd be impossible construct anchors, natural or otherwise, so that everyone would intuitively and consistently use them as designed, regardless of skill level, experience, and/or situational drivers (group size/ability, safety issues, seasonal conditions, available equipment, etc.) Education seems to be the best solution.

If repeated and disseminated, these thoughtful comments may begin to permeate conversations, literature, instruction, and practice - much in the way that the ACA techniques seem increasingly more common.

Ignorance cannot be ever eradicated, but it may be reduced.

[Paul Nelson]

Remove any mechanical bolt you find in the watercourse. Consider whether or not the bolt is actually needed. Is there a natural anchor available? If bolts are really necessary, place TWO up on the wall out of the watercourse.

In principle, I agree that bolts in a waterway should be removed. I am of the school that a bolt is installed only as a last resort. After removing, then what? Whoever put that bolt in might just put in another in the same location next month. Thus removing a bolt, without offering a better solution may not effectively result in the removal of dangerous bolts.

Little Santa Anita has single bolts the entire way down and most, if not all, are not necessary. A few are in the waterway. However, if these were removed, I am sure the person who installed them would replace it very quickly. This is an issue that is debated with much emotion and with no universal agreement.

[Edited: Earlier post said Rubio when I meant Little Santa Anita. 1/17-PDN]

[ratagonia]

In principle, I agree that bolts in a waterway should be removed. I am of the school that a bolt is installed only as a last resort. After removing, then what? Whoever put that bolt in might just put in another in the same location next month. Thus removing a bolt, without offering a better solution may not effectively result in the removal of dangerous bolts.

Rubio Canyon has single bolts the entire way down and most, if not all, are not necessary. A few are in the waterway. However, if these were removed, I am sure the person who installed them would replace it very quickly. This is an issue that is debated with much emotion and with no universal agreement.

Sometimes. In Utah, many bolts are placed by people on their first and only time down a canyon. Removing the bolt removes the bolt. If that person ever comes back to the same spot, perhaps they will have 'learned some skills' in the interim, and will no longer think placing a bolt there is such a good idea.

Even if it is a canyon regularly done by the bolt-placer, removal of the bolt should give them pause. They will hopefully look around more, and choose a natural anchoring alternative. If not, at least we will have caused them to go to the effort of placing another, single, unreliable, half-an-anchor bolt for that drop.

I, personally, believe strongly that YOU have the RIGHT to place bolts where-ever you want. I will defend YOUR RIGHT to place bolts for your descents. But the flip-side applies also - I claim the RIGHT to remove your bolts if I decide to do so. (This is sometimes referred to as Asinine Darwinism - Survival of the Biggest *******).

Without a superfluous-bolt removal process (me), eventually the canyons would get so clogged with bolts we would have trouble getting down them! Well, not really. But the Wilderness experience is degraded when bolts are placed, and such a degradation should be undertaken only when it protects other values (such as larger degradations to the environment like killing trees).

Tom

[Paul Nelson]

I have seen some popular caves in England with a half dozen new bolts, several old bolts, several anchors for removable hangers of different sizes, and evidence of bolts removed at the top of the pitch. A huge ugly mess when there were plenty of natural anchors available. Not to mention with the constant pounding the rock integrity is probably compromised. (This was before the days of cordless drills.)

In Australia, one of the local caving club at some of the very popular pull through cave trips installed glue-in stainless steel P-hangers in the perfect spot. They even installed a sign post at the entrance mentioning the type of anchor, how installed, the date of install, what to check before using them, who to contact should you see a problem with the hanger, and requested a small donation be sent to the local club.

Does it spoil a wilderness experience for some? Yes. However, seeing a half dozen ugly bolts would also be a spoiler.

If it is a very popular route, then bolts are probably inevitable, so should quality hangers be installed to reduce the probability of numerous crappy bolts? That is my moral dilemma.

[ratagonia]

If it is a very popular route, then bolts are probably inevitable, so should quality hangers be installed to reduce the probability of numerous crappy bolts? That is my moral dilemma.

Bolts are not inevitable, even on popular routes. They CAN be appropriate, but if a non-destructive natural anchor is available, people generally will not add bolts, because they take effort.

If you have a few people that are installing unnecessary bolts in your area as their 'gift to the world', then by removing their superfluous bolts, you will eventually get the message through to them that what they are doing is inappropriate. It is great if you can actually talk to them face to face, and convince them of your point of view, but this is not always possible or effective. Sometimes in spite of 'community' pressure to not install bolts, they will take the high horse and claim the "right" to place bolts. It is your job to take the higher horse, recognize their claim, and add the "right" to remove their bolts. As my friend Mark "The Chisel" Wilford points out, actually removing bolts is a persuasive way of speaking.

I am, of course, speaking a radical viewpoint here. I advise moderation in all things, including moderation.

Tom Jones
CanyoneeringUSA.com

[ratagonia]

Little Santa Anita has single bolts the entire way down and most, if not all, are not necessary. A few are in the waterway. However, if these were removed, I am sure the person who installed them would replace it very quickly.

[Edited: Earlier post said Rubio when I meant Little Santa Anita. 1/17-PDN]

Don't be so sure. Remove them and find out. Best if you do so non-anonymously. Return the hardware to the perp, but with a note suggesting that the bolting is inappropriate. If you need to, call a community meeting where both sides can shout at each other. What usually results is that most people observe how foolish both sides are, and middle ground can be found.

[rcwild]

There is another well-established nation-wide standard: NATURAL ANCHORS SHOULD ALWAYS BE YOUR FIRST CHOICE! This standard should be adhered to unless there are mitigating environmental concerns; i.e. fragile mosses (which is the case in Washington state). There do not seem to be any such mitigating environmental concerns in southern California, so the person who is doing the bolting is the one who needs to adjust to the community standard, not the other way around.

[koentje]

I started this thread with the intent to communicate: IF BOLTS ARE DEEMED NECESSARY, single bolts should not be considered safe and by no means a "standard".

There is another well-established nation-wide standard: NATURAL ANCHORS SHOULD ALWAYS BE YOUR FIRST CHOICE! This standard should be adhered to unless there are mitigating environmental concerns; i.e. fragile mosses (which is the case in Washington state). There do not seem to be any such mitigating environmental concerns in southern California, so the person who is doing the bolting is the one who needs to adjust to the community standard, not the other way around.

Keep in mind that a "natural" anchor sounds real good and gives people this warm & fuzzy feeling :D but it will almost ALWAYS do more REAL damage to nature than a well-put bolt.

I'm not talking visual damage here (which is in the eye of the beholder anyway...), but I mean real, measurable damage to fragile ecosystems and repeated littering (old webbing).

[rcwild]

Keep in mind that a "natural" anchor sounds real good and gives people this warm & fuzzy feeling :D but it will almost ALWAYS do more REAL damage to nature than a well-put bolt.

I'm not talking visual damage here (which is in the eye of the beholder anyway...), but I mean real, measurable damage to fragile ecosystems and repeated littering (old webbing).

Bullshit, Koen.

But even if you were right, the bolts we're talking about in southern California were not well placed. Poor choice of bolts. Poor choice of locations.

[koentje]

Bullshit, Koen.

But even if you were right, the bolts we're talking about in southern California were not well placed. Poor choice of bolts. Poor choice of locations.

I'm not talking about botched jobs but of well placed, durable bolts. Maybe alternating natural anchor classes with decent bolting classes would be a good idea - not politically correct in certain circles but definitely a good idea.

And for the sake of "bullshit", here are some facts, feel free to call those bullshit again, but based on facts please ;-):

Ecological damage done by bolts:
- visual damage to a few square inches of rock, I include this to humour my readers :-) but it doesn't belong here because it's not harmful to the ecosystem. Stainless steel doesn't degrade in our lifetime and that amount is easily absorbed by the ecosystem without harm.
- damage to a few square inches of lichen or moss, if any.

Ecological damage done by natural anchors (brace yourselves, this is going to be long...):
- slinging living things like trees or shrubs will eventually kill them in the long run and almost always create mayor erosion around the root systems, damage the lesser vegetation around them and on the acces slope to them. Killing the vegetation leads to accelerated erosion of the soil, which leads to mayor damage to the ecosytem: loss of habitat for organisms and animals which are the base of the food chain (see below), loss of moisture retention etc.
- slinging "dead" objects often leads to big amounts of sling left behind, which is more often than not damaged by floods, UV rays, rope burn etc and not packed out. This leads to long-lasting pollution in the canyons because the synthetic material hardly degrades. Not to speak of an increasingly "trash happy" society.
- because of the nature of natural anchors one cannot choose the ideal rappel line, the potential for damage to mosses, lichen or other vegetation not only leading up to the anchor but all the way down is greatly increased.
- burying deadman anchors upsets the delicate hydrology of the riverbed, with the potential of totally upsetting the ecosystem. Sandbanks and gravel beds (even dry) are used by all kinds of insects and fish to deposit their eggs. Disturbing them and changing them of shape (even just walking over them) makes these nesting beds prone to premature drying-up and flood-damage. Those banks are a very fine balancing act regarding to waterflow and are "linked together", changing one changes them all. Thus again damaging the basis of the food chain for birds, lizards, small mammals, fish downstream etc.

You know what ? I'm not an expert on this, but there will be one in Crete, see if you dare to call his university studies bullshit too :-).

[rcwild]

Koen, we've known each other for quite a while now and we've both participated in this American bolt debate for more than five years. You know I'm not anti-bolt. I am against bolts where safe and "environmentally appropriate" natural anchors exist. I am against poorly placed bolts that create unsafe conditions for future users. I am against poorly located bolts that do nothing to mitigate risks or environmental damage. I am against single sub-grade mechanical bolts as anchors.


I'm not talking about botched jobs but of well placed, durable bolts. Maybe alternating natural anchor classes with decent bolting classes would be a good idea - not politically correct in certain circles but definitely a good idea.

Our anchors workshop is no longer titled "Natural Anchors Workshop". It is just "Anchors Workshops" and we do discuss correct location and placement of artificial anchors.


Ecological damage done by bolts:
- visual damage to a few square inches of rock, I include this to humour my readers :-) but it doesn't belong here because it's not harmful to the ecosystem. Stainless steel doesn't degrade in our lifetime and that amount is easily absorbed by the ecosystem without harm.
- damage to a few square inches of lichen or moss, if any.

I agree with you IF: (a) The person placing the bolts understands that they can reduce impacts if located properly, but can increase impacts if located improperly. (b) The utility of the bolts is so obvious to anyone who may come along that they will not be pulled, replaced, pulled, replaced ... (c) The person placing the bolts is willing to spend a little extra money to actually use stainless steel, rather than an inferior bolt (i.e. cheap galvanized) that will degrade quickly and require replacement.

A downside to our preference against bolts is that the expertise to place them correctly is not being spread through the canyoneering community.


Ecological damage done by natural anchors (brace yourselves, this is going to be long...):

Two problems with the items on your list: (1) they are geographically specific, and (2) they make assumptions about the expertise (or lack of expertise) of the person setting the anchors.


- slinging living things like trees or shrubs will eventually kill them in the long run and almost always create mayor erosion around the root systems, damage the lesser vegetation around them and on the acces slope to them. Killing the vegetation leads to accelerated erosion of the soil, which leads to mayor damage to the ecosytem: loss of habitat for organisms and animals which are the base of the food chain (see below), loss of moisture retention etc.

An example to support your argument: Bolts on climbing routes in the Verdon in southern France saved what turned out to be very old and fragile bonsai trees. I've seen them and they're really cool. Would have been a shame to kill them due to a mis-guided anti-bolt ethic.

Another view: It's easy to use natural anchors for most of the canyons in Australia's Blue Mountans. Eucalyptus trees everywhere. They're quite stout and will hold up to repeated use IF slung properly. Whether or not there will be erosion around the base will depend almost entirely on the selection of an appropriate tree. Same can be said for the location of a bolt. In one location, the bolt could help prevent erosion by directing traffic to hardened surfaces. In another location, the bolt could increase erosion by directing traffic over fragile plants, mosses, etc.


- slinging "dead" objects often leads to big amounts of sling left behind, which is more often than not damaged by floods, UV rays, rope burn etc and not packed out. This leads to long-lasting pollution in the canyons because the synthetic material hardly degrades. Not to speak of an increasingly "trash happy" society.

This is a question of user expertise (and ethics). Several bad slings are not better than one good sling. Doesn't make slinging dead objects inherently bad. It means people need to start replacing and packing out old webbing as trash.


- because of the nature of natural anchors one cannot choose the ideal rappel line, the potential for damage to mosses, lichen or other vegetation not only leading up to the anchor but all the way down is greatly increased.

Another example of user expertise required. If use of a natural anchor will direct traffic onto fragile plants, mosses, etc., then adherence to a strict anti-bolt ethic will result in more environmental damage than bolts. In this situation, bolts become the environmentally appropriate option. But if the person placing bolts does not have the expertise necessary to recognize the impacts, the location of the bolts might make the situation even worse.


- burying deadman anchors upsets the delicate hydrology of the riverbed, with the potential of totally upsetting the ecosystem. Sandbanks and gravel beds (even dry) are used by all kinds of insects and fish to deposit their eggs. Disturbing them and changing them of shape (even just walking over them) makes these nesting beds prone to premature drying-up and flood-damage. Those banks are a very fine balancing act regarding to waterflow and are "linked together", changing one changes them all. Thus again damaging the basis of the food chain for birds, lizards, small mammals, fish downstream etc.

This one is really geography specific. Typical Colorado Plateau canyon does not have an active ecosystem in the dry sand where deadmen are typically installed. Very transient anchor system. The anchor, the sand and any ecosystem present will be drastically modified by the next water flow.

Active ecosystems are more common in the potholes that contain water. In these situations, our mere presence is enough to disturb the ecosystem.

In canyons outside the Colorado Plateau, deadmen are not as commonly used anyway. Canyons where there are very active ecosystems in the streambed (i.e. Class C) don't typically present opportunities for deadmen anchors.

In other words, it is extremely rare for anyone to use deadmen anchors in situations where delicate ecosystems exist.


You know what ? I'm not an expert on this, but there will be one in Crete, see if you dare to call his university studies bullshit too :-).

Unfortunately, it's starting to look like I won't make it to Crete. Too expensive for my budget. Perhaps you can translate your expert's university studies into English. I'm curious to know if he factored geography and expertise into his conclusions.

Love ya, Koen

[ratagonia]

Keep in mind that a "natural" anchor sounds real good and gives people this warm & fuzzy feeling :D but it will almost ALWAYS do more REAL damage to nature than a well-put bolt.

I'm not talking visual damage here (which is in the eye of the beholder anyway...), but I mean real, measurable damage to fragile ecosystems and repeated littering (old webbing).

The actual, physical impacts can and have been discussed endlessly. Local details matter. But I think it is beside the point, because what the "bolt" debate is REALLY about is social and psychological factors, rather than the physical.

This is spoken from an American point of view, and being an 'Merican, I look down my long, plebian nose at you poor Old-World Euros.

We Americans have this romantic viewpoint on Wilderness, and this is a Wilderness issue. While recognizably arbitrary, we, the canyoning community over here, have decided that drilling a hole and installing a bolt crosses an important psychological line. It changes the canyon from a "natural place" to a "human place". Whereas bolts are acceptable under the 1964 Wilderness Act, they are still permanent human installations. You certainly can claim that a 20 foot blue sling does the same thing, but this is where the arbitrariness comes in. The community has decided that in wilderness canyons, slings are OK, but bolts are over the line.

The Social Aspect is closely related to this. Bolt the Canyon, and They will Come. When a canyon becomes a Bolted Canyon, over here it becomes popular. Almost Just due to the bolts. Then the canyon gets hammered by all that traffic. This probably the #1 factor, and the #1 impact of bolting canyons.

But..... you may say, people have to canyon somewhere. Why not in Canyon X? Very grey area, especially for a populist like myself, but here's the way I look at it. YES people will canyon somewhere, and have some impact. The best way to minimize impact is to keep as many people as possible in as few canyons as possible. Additional traffic in already-popular canyons has very minimal impacts. Adding MORE canyons to the 'popular list' has very significant impacts.

Some would claim this is an elitest viewpoint - saving the best stuff for me and my friends. Well, I gotta say, I am well known as a populist, and I don't personally care if I run into people in remote canyons. For me, it tends to almost always be a positive experience. What I don't like is seeing remote, obscure canyons become tracked out and "hammered".

(The other reason to withhold canyon beta is one of safety. Information on remote, challenging canyons should not be easily available, because people with insufficient skills will wander into them and get killed. Happened last spring, hopefully was a one-time thing).

So................. get it? It is kind of like Mont Blanc. Was quite a bit more of a wilderness/adventurous experience when Gaston had to hike up from town, before the telepherique to Aig. Verte made it into a casual dayhike. Here in Utah, we think we have enough canyons with the telepherique installed, thank you very much. In the San Gabriel's????

Tom

[Slots4life]

I'm with tom on this one.....a bolt leaves a hole, a hole that can cause chipping and other damage to the rock. When placing a sling, it is simply a temporary anchor that can be cut away and thus returning the canyon to it's natural state. While for the inexperienced natural anchors seem sketchy, for someone who knows what they are doing they are clearly the way to go... :)

BILLY

[dccampen]

(The other reason to withhold canyon beta is one of safety. Information on remote, challenging canyons should not be easily available, because people with insufficient skills will wander into them and get killed. Happened last spring, hopefully was a one-time thing).
I wonder how people getting killed is a problem but I suppose that that would be a topic for a different thread.

[koentje]

The Social Aspect is closely related to this. Bolt the Canyon, and They will Come. When a canyon becomes a Bolted Canyon, over here it becomes popular. Almost Just due to the bolts. Then the canyon gets hammered by all that traffic. This probably the #1 factor, and the #1 impact of bolting canyons.

But..... you may say, people have to canyon somewhere. Why not in Canyon X? Very grey area, especially for a populist like myself, but here's the way I look at it. YES people will canyon somewhere, and have some impact. The best way to minimize impact is to keep as many people as possible in as few canyons as possible. Additional traffic in already-popular canyons has very minimal impacts. Adding MORE canyons to the 'popular list' has very significant impacts.

So................. get it? It is kind of like Mont Blanc. Was quite a bit more of a wilderness/adventurous experience when Gaston had to hike up from town, before the telepherique to Aig. Verte made it into a casual dayhike. Here in Utah, we think we have enough canyons with the telepherique installed, thank you very much. In the San Gabriel's????
Tom

Bolts don't attract people, ease of acces does. And by ease of acces I mean short distances, little positive hight difference and a light backpack. Not ease-of-acces through bolts, but ease of acces through a chairlift or a road closeby.

Bolt the crap out of a canyon which takes a day to hike to, half a day to descend and another full day hiking over rugged terrain back to civilisation and I guarantee: no crowds, probably only a few parties each year - regardless of the bolts.
Take the same unbolted canyon, but right next to a road = the recipe for crowds, dozens of parties each year, be it difficult or not.

And getting back to Rich's post about ecosystems being non-existent in dry CP canyons: you'd be very surprised at the amount of animals that live and venture in there. Look for the signs: crap :-) !

[Slots4life]

while ease of access is a player in the popularity of canyons...so are bolts....If a canyon is non bolted people who dont know what they are doing will come to the first drop or pothole and be like...darn theres no where to clip our rope to, and simply turn around, go somewhere else and forget about the dead end canyon. But put a bolt in and they will see it and continue on past the obstacle....complete their trip and tell all their friends about the fun they had in the canyon.....which lead to the expanding knowledge of the canyon and the expanding number of descents by people who possibly no very little about canyoneering other than rappelling itself, thus increasing accidents when things go wrong and bolts dissappear.

[koentje]

while ease of access is a player in the popularity of canyons...so are bolts....If a canyon is non bolted people who dont know what they are doing will come to the first drop or pothole and be like...darn theres no where to clip our rope to, and simply turn around, go somewhere else and forget about the dead end canyon. But put a bolt in and they will see it and continue on past the obstacle....complete their trip and tell all their friends about the fun they had in the canyon.....which lead to the expanding knowledge of the canyon and the expanding number of descents by people who possibly no very little about canyoneering other than rappelling itself, thus increasing accidents when things go wrong and bolts dissappear.

So far for the fairy tale, here's what happens in real life when someone with no special skills "happens" along a canyon without bolts:

- he doesn't know anything about it but it's got easy acces, so he'll return bringing something along to "acces" it, probably a bolt kit.
- he doesn't know anything about it but it's far, far away (why would he be there in the desert lugging a rope one might ask ?). It doesn't look very promosing so he doesn't return, too much of a hassle. Or if it really looks nice, he'll return loaded for bear with a serious bolt kit.
- he knows about it through topo info and it's right alongside a road. Chances are he'll respect the no-bolts ethic imposed by others (to upgrade an easy canyon :D ?) and try to do it boltless too, knowing people have done it before that way. What's the glory in bolting a canyon a bunch of people have done boltless ?!?
- Being intrigued by the entrance of that far, far away slot without bolts, he goes looking for topo info and finds it. Finding out too that it's been done before without bolts. He'll probably prepare himself (learn some skills) or go with someone "who knows".

Bottom line: ease of acces and absence of topo info leads to bolting by inexperienced people in real life. All those secrecy guru's should think twice :D

[rcwild]

And getting back to Rich's post about ecosystems being non-existent in dry CP canyons: you'd be very surprised at the amount of animals that live and venture in there. Look for the signs: crap :-) !

I assumed we were talking about self-contained ecosystems -- life that depends on very specific terrain for its existence. Yes, in dry canyons there are animals coming and going, but they will continue to come and go even if that terrain is disturbed by water flow or someone excavating for a deadman anchor. Not enough time for a permanent, self-contained ecosystem to develop in that type of terrain between periodic water flows.

Much different from the ecosystems that exist in and around continually flowing streams or in permanent or semi-permanent potholes.

[Slots4life]

koentje...the idea that the guy will come back with something to access the canyon is extremely true....once I was in a little known slot in the moab, utah area and I came to the top of a drop of about 20 feet. placed between the walls of the slot was a stick someone had sawed from a piece of debris.....and tied to the stick was a "rope" made of vines found at a seep further upcanyon.....very sketchy and dangerous.

[beadysee]

The actual, physical impacts can and have been discussed endlessly. Local details matter. But I think it is beside the point, because what the "bolt" debate is REALLY about is social and psychological factors, rather than the physical.

I disagree. Its narrow minded to not consider the physical implications, as, they can impact the other as well as being, uhh, physical.


We Americans have this romantic viewpoint on Wilderness, and this is a Wilderness issue. While recognizably arbitrary, we, the canyoning community over here, have decided that drilling a hole and installing a bolt crosses an important psychological line. It changes the canyon from a "natural place" to a "human place".

As does heavy handed constuction of non natural anchors. When you say, "we, the canyoning community", you should probably instead refer to it as "my canyoning community" because not all of us here agree with your point of view.

Bolting versus non natural anchors versus natural anchors isn't as much a wilderness issue as it is an ego issue. I'd argue that any anchor that requires "building", tarnishes the wilderness as much as a bolted anchor. Construction of anchors is anti wilderness, because, it is construction.

From the Wilderness Act:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape..."

Discreetly bolted anchors less dominate the landscape versus a huge pile of rocks near the rim of a pourover with a sling sticking out from under them.

"...with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable..."

See above example.


Whereas bolts are acceptable under the 1964 Wilderness Act, they are still permanent human installations. You certainly can claim that a 20 foot blue sling does the same thing, but this is where the arbitrariness comes in. The community has decided that in wilderness canyons, slings are OK, but bolts are over the line.

Uhh, again, no "we" haven't.

A discreet bolted anchor is more compatible for preservation of the wilderness environment than is digging, stacking rocks, leaving large amounts of sling.

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man."

The very act of constructing non natural anchors is "trammelling" and the building and rebuilding of these type of anchors is not compatible with having "wilderness qualities" as defined by the wilderness act.

"Trammel" is defined as to prevent or impede the free play of. Bolted anchors do not impede travel in a canyon. Having to construct non natural anchors does.


When a canyon becomes a Bolted Canyon, over here it becomes popular. Almost Just due to the bolts.

I agree with Koen on this. They become popular due to ease of access. For instance, there are many bolted anchors in Zion in very unpopular canyons that hardly ever see any use. Also, there are very popular trade canyons outside Zion that see a ton of traffic with no anchors, because they're close to the road.


Adding MORE canyons to the 'popular list' has very significant impacts.

Sure, but, more impact to a bolted canyon versus a canyon where invasive repeat non natural anchor techniques are used? In a bolted canyon, the impact is finite. Digging and reburying deadman over and over again is a greater long term impact, methinks.


What I don't like is seeing remote, obscure canyons become tracked out and "hammered".

Tracked out? This ain't a powder ski run. I'd rather see bolted anchors than repeated digging and reburying deadman, sling and debris piles, foliage dead from repeated usage, rope grooves, moss knocked off from poor "natural" anchor placement... Just because your damage looks natural, doesn't mean it is.


So................. get it? It is kind of like Mont Blanc. Was quite a bit more of a wilderness/adventurous experience when Gaston had to hike up from town, before the telepherique to Aig. Verte made it into a casual dayhike.

Gaston? Piccard and Balmat. You're only off by a couple hundred years though.

Casual day hike from the Midi? Whatever. Standard "dayhike" route starts at Les Houches. I note that the telepherique was built in the 20's. Closed in the early fifties but back open in a few years. If you'd bother to read Ghastly Rubberfats book on the 100 finest routes on the Mont Blanc massif, you'd note that he references the telepherique as a starting point for climbs in that area.


Here in Utah, we think we have enough canyons with the telepherique installed, thank you very much.

Oh, ye with the turd in your pocket...

Bolts can be appropriate to conserve and preserve wilderness too, as well as provide access. And that ought to be a criteria in that regard.

Anyhoo...yada yada...

-Brian in SLC

[Slots4life]

in my opinion drilling a hole into rock is more destructive than tying a spectra runner around a dead log. over time the bolt will become archaic and be removed and a new one will be placed nearby thus creating an empty hole and a new hole. Soon the rappel station will look more like something out of a war zone with holes everywhere. Whereas as long as the log remains people will replace the sling and do the same procedure of tying off a runner as before, no holes and one piece of sling (as long as they are decent canyoneers and pack out old webbing as most of us do) that is why in my opinion it is natural over bolted any day of the week.:)

BILLY

[beadysee]

in my opinion drilling a hole into rock is more destructive than tying a spectra runner around a dead log.

No disagreement from me on that point.

Unless of course you mean that by leaving 50 feet of webbing trailing downstream in the watercourse, which picks up debris every time it rains, whereby the debris gets stuck in the sling, and creates a swirly whirlpool, which causes erosion in places that the canyon doesn't usually "see"...

Ha ha. See Neon Canyon final rappel for example.


over time the bolt will become archaic and be removed and a new one will be placed nearby thus creating an empty hole and a new hole. Soon the rappel station will look more like something out of a war zone with holes everywhere.

A war zone? A bit embellished, methinks. A properly done bolted anchor won't need much in the way of maintainence. Over time, they can be removed and replaced, hole for hole. Commonly done. See the ASCA website.


Whereas as long as the log remains people will replace the sling and do the same procedure of tying off a runner as before, no holes and one piece of sling (as long as they are decent canyoneers and pack out old webbing as most of us do) that is why in my opinion it is natural over bolted any day of the week.:)

Me too. For NATURAL anchors like the one you've mentioned above. Gimme a sling on a dead log that is already in place in the stream course over a bolted anchor any ol' day. No arguement there.

How 'bout chest high rock stacks, buried deadman, buried packs, folks packing in shovels, moving materials up and down the canyon, digging, burying, moving...heavy handed construction...anything but "natural"...?

I think folks like to problem solve and build stuff. These unnatural anchor techniques being advocated by a very few canyoneers out there produce monuments to their egos more than anything remotely "natural" and "wild".

I think as a measure, anytime you take longer to "build" an anchor than it would take to sink in a solid bolt anchor, you're missing the boat.

-Brian in SLC

[Slots4life]

Brian,

Definately got some good points on the runners w/ debris. Dont get me wrong...I'm all for bolts in locations where they are the best idea (I.E. the last rappel in Heaps) but when you are above a short drop <20 feet then it is a better idea for a natural anchor because bolts are overkill for a pour-off that small. Coming from the Wetness of Washington state, I understand that deadman, stacked rocks ect. are bad ideas for anchors here because we have no dry canyons and the canyons here have delicate ecosystems. In the Colorado Plateau however in a dry ecosystem which is found in most of the canyons where the soil is eroded and changed with each introduction of water a deadman is not a bad idea, for the soil will be redistributed the next water event. However, I do agree with you, stacks of rocks are not necessarily a good idea anytime. To me these are the sketchiest thing possible to rap from, and I have seen occurances where they act like a chokestone and sand and other debris piles up behind them.


BILLY

[Slots4life]

Koentje-

"you'd be very surprised at the amount of animals that live and venture in there. Look for the signs: crap :-) !"

just wondered how an animal can live for a long enough to create an "ecosystem" in a canyon that can see flash floods up to about 40 feet high every few months (or even weeks in some cases) Just read it and didnt understand?

BILLY

[beadysee]

just wondered how an animal can live for a long enough to create an "ecosystem" in a canyon that can see flash floods up to about 40 feet high every few months (or even weeks in some cases) Just read it and didnt understand?

Pothole ecology.

Some references:

http://www.canyoneering.com/environment/potholes.html

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=19

http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/about/contact/bio/graham_tim.aspx?id=244

http://www.nps.gov/blca/webvc/potholes.htm

An interesting read is, "the Secret Knowledge of Water" by Craig Childs:

http://www.gloriamundipress.com/review_knowledge_of_water.htm

So, really, you could say that folks who disturb this fragile pothole ecology by digging, burying, and/or building rappel anchors are ruining the chance for the rest of us to learn and understand the mysteries of the universe. Shame on them!

Brian in SLC

[Slots4life]

Brian-

That's very true...I wasnt really thinking of pothole ecosystems, the mention of feces was what got me wondering about ecosystems containing larger animals such as mice, ringtails ect. Potholes are definately very fragile ecosystems that can easily be destroyed by digging and/or building of some types of natural anchors. However, even the most minute of anchor types (including bolts) can affect the waterflow of a canyon during a flood event. Think of the hanger on a bolt as a bow of a boat....when the water hits it it diverts the water elsewhere and can protect the rock below it which would otherwise be eroded at the constant rate as the rocks around it. I'm a geology major and got to thinking about that the other day.
I'm definately with you on the fact that some people build something similar to the taj mahal to rap from at the top of some drops.... to me if you can't find something to use in a six foot radius to rap from,it should probably be bolted, because slings in excess of 20 feet (neon) and humongous piles of rocks are pretty rediculous. To tell you the truth, I'm a sport climber so of course I like bolts, just not in abundance when canyoneering.If you can find another way to rap, let it be from a hook, dead log, sequencing, or even in some extreme cases (where there is not a pothole right below) a deadman, it should be done that way, saving the rock from an unneeded devirginization.

We got a good debate going here, thanks!

BILLY

[Slots4life]

Brian,

I just got done reading the articles you posted..I had no idea what really went on in potholes...pretty amazing! Now I feel guilty for the swimmers I have encountered. Next time I am going to try to climb around instead of swim through them....Thanks for the enlightenment!:)

BILLY

[Canyonette]

The bolts, on the other hand, will be there quite some time, even after we all wear the *Kloghoofer* canyoneering shoes that absorb impacts from jumps up to 80 feet (100 feet when landing on sand), and that spot is no longer a rappel.Tom

Though I stand somewhere in the middle of the bolt issue (meaning I believe in placing bolts for safety if need be), there's another thing to think about when placing a bolt, and this factor is often overlooked in these never-ending debates.

In some areas this could be years, in others a mere moment passes and the canyon has changed. Take for instance: The spot that's no longer a rappel due to the shifting sand as Tom pointed out. The nature of canyons is that they're always changing. Sand and debris are washing in and out, the changing level of waterflow in "running" canyons, the logjams and rock movement. The floor of the canyon is mobile. Next time you're going through Fat Mans, look around. You'll spot huge eyebolts 20' off the deck where the floor used to be ~ Courtesy of Bill Bees. ; ) Not the bolts! The inspiration to look for that kind of thing.

In my mind, if there's no need for a bolt, why place one? It's time consuming, and often becomes inappropriate or useless as the canyon changes. It can be downright dangerous in some instances as in Bailey: Someone has placed a bolt in the watercourse at the edge of a long drop. This bolt was obviously placed during dry times with no consideration whatsoever as to how appropriate the location would be during wet times. When water is flowing (as it was when I took my girls through) it puts anyone who actually uses said bolt into an extremely dangerous situation. The possibility of slipping and sliding right on down that chute and over the edge to your death as you're making your way to the bolt is very real!

Once a bolt becomes useless, or is deemed too dangerous to use, then what? Do educated? canyoneers coming through the canyon ignore it and choose a safer anchor? Do uneducated? canyoneers come along and assume that whoever placed it must know what they were doing, and then risk their life getting over to it? Unless someone takes the time and effort to remove the useless bolt and patch the injured rock, it becomes a permanent blight in the wilderness and a very real source of danger for others.

As far which method of decent is the bigger blight: Bolts or webbing, consider this: Tagging with spray paint in the San Gabriels is permanent (at least for a hell of a long time), yet writing "I heart this person"? with a stick in the sand is removable.

The ethics issue boils down to permanent eyesore (bolts) as opposed to easily removable eyesore (webbing).

Bolts should not be placed IN canyons for any reason other than safety! They shouldn't be placed for BUSINESS purposes, they shouldn' be placed for TRAINING purposes, and they shouldn't be placed for fear of using NATURAL anchors that are solid and viable. It's inconsiderate and it's stupid. Now go stand in the corner and pray for forgiveness if you're guilty of placing bolts where they need not be!

PS: Dead men anchors: A great way to avoid bolts! The dynamic canyon environment is such that a few displaced rocks are not going to pose much of an impact.

~MD Canyonette

[ratagonia]

Bolts should not be placed IN canyons for any reason other than safety! They shouldn’t be placed for BUSINESS purposes, they shouldn’t be placed for TRAINING purposes, and they shouldn’t be placed for fear of using NATURAL anchors that are solid and viable. It’s inconsiderate and it’s stupid.

~MD Canyonette

Bolts are also appropriate to minimize environmental damage. In high traffic canyons, they can be used to keep traffic in the watercourse and to minimize incidental damage to trees and grooves from pulling ropes. I placed a new bolt anchor in Zion's Behunin this spring because the pull off the tree was cutting big grooves in the canyon floor. The new anchor is much better, but I did not make the sling long enough, and it is chewing up the 8" of rock just below the rappel ring.

Tom

[Paul Nelson]

PS: Dead men anchors: A great way to avoid bolts! The dynamic canyon environment is such that a few displaced rocks are not going to pose much of an impact.

~MD Canyonette

In a popular canyon with frequent storm flushes, the webbing for the deadman becomes litter down stream. Over time that litter becomes significant and should not be dismissed. Some will say out of sight out of mind, but it is still litter. In some popular canyons, I see lots of old rope, cord, and webbing in the stream passage. I try to remove most of it, but the litter was so entailed under large unmovable rocks, I cut-off the part I could get to.

I am NOT saying bolt everything, but the litter issue of a deadman anchor should in taken into consideration.

[rcwild]

I split the last two posts (Canyonette and Ratagonia) from the "Deadman Anchor" thread because they sounded more generic about "to bolt or not to bolt". More discussion specifically related to deadman anchors should probably be posted in the Deadman thread.

[rcwild]

Reviving an old thread and adding a poll.

The discussion about bolts has been going on for years. As more and more people are introduced to canyoneering, I'm curious to know if everyone is aware of the discussion and whether or not attitudes are changing.

Please respond to the poll attached to this thread. Choose the options that best describe your attitude about bolts in canyons.

Thank you for your participation.

[NSchara]

Referring to choice "Working out natural anchor solutions for problems adds to the challenge and enjoyment of canyoneering. Bolts ruin the experience." it depends. If there's a lot of additonal challenges such as slides, jumps, and cold water in the canyon, bolts may be welcome. In a dry canyon with just a few downclimbs and rappels, they may ruin the experience.

[Marc McDonald]

...the litter issue of a deadman anchor should in taken into consideration.

Old webbing and cordage litter is an issue we should all be aware of. My suggestion would be if the webbing is suspect, replace it with new webbing and pack the old stuff out with you. Someone once said, never risk your life for someone else's ethics, so bolts definitely have a place as an emergency measure, but I also believe every attempt should be made to use/create natural anchors. We should not resort to bolting to avoid creative thinking. As far as preserving the natural appearance of canyons is concerned, if we are all paying attention, it should be much easier to get old webbing and cordage packed out than to repair unnecessarily drilled bolt holes.

Marc

[xr4000]

i have been canyoneering for many years. i have never placed a bolt in a canyon however, i do carry a bolt kit with me depending on the canyon. bolts in a canyon do not bother me.


i recentley did englestead which is a canyon that everyone makes a big deal out of making sure this canyon stays "natural." so i did it without pacing any new bolts the same as two years ago when i did it. but can someone please explain to me why twenty feet of differnt colored webbing, with rapid links and locking biners tied together, is less of an eyesore than two bolts tucked neatly around the corner?

[rcwild]

A topic that will not die ...

A question was posed on another forum (as though it was the first time the topic ever came up) ... "Is preserving the nature of a canyon worth risking human life?"

Obviously not a yes or no question. It depends. The direction the discussion is quite predictable. Responses will include comments like ... "If you can't do the canyon without bolts, you shouldn't be there." "Bolts are not necessarily any safer than good natural anchors." "Why are people less offended by a large tangle of webbing than they are by two small bolts?" Etc.

I'd like to revisit this topic focusing on "preserving the nature of a canyon". During our March rendezvous in Escalante, several guests from Europe asked about the logic behind leaving 50 feet of webbing on a tree and causing major rope grooves in the rock when two well-placed bolts would avoid the grooves, eliminate the need to leave so much webbing behind, cause less damage to gear, provide safer rappel starts, etc.

Hard to come up with really good arguments against their logic. The webbing and the rope grooves changed the nature of the canyon. To which someone will respond, "Yeah, but the webbing and grooves will go away. Bolts are permanent." No they're not. Especially not in sandstone. Someday, they will wash away. Water and debris will erode away the rock around the hole and all evidence of the bolt will disappear. It will just take more time to happen than it will to erase evidence of the webbing and grooves.

A group of us did Yankee Doodle on Saturday. From the parking area, we have always followed a small wash to the entry, leaving as little trace as possible. Now there is a well-beaten path through the cryptobiotic soil. Guide services have placed bolts so they can do pull-down trips without hiking 100 yards back to the entry at the end of the day. The nature of the canyon has changed. Occurred to me that the only way to avoid changing the nature of the canyon is for people to stay out altogether. Maybe there should be signs to direct people to hike in the wash ... but the signs would change the nature of the canyon. Maybe there should be signs telling people which natural anchors to use and not to use bolts ... but the signs would change the nature of the canyon.

My personal attitude hasn't changed. I'm still not pro bolt. I'm still not anti bolt. I'm offended when I see bolts placed near an obvious solid natural anchor. I'm offended when I see poorly placed bolts (especially poorly placed bolts near an obvious solid natural anchor). There are times when bolts are simply a better choice. Sometimes because they are safer. This is especially true in serious Class C canyons. Sometimes because they avoid environmental damage by steering traffic away from fragile vegetation or eliminating ugly rope grooves.

The problem boils down to reaching consensus in the canyoneering community. There will always be people who refuse to acknowledge bolts as a viable - sometimes preferred - option. There will always be people who place bolts without regard for anyone else's opinion. There will always be people who place bolts without acquiring the knowledge and skills to do so properly.

So the discussion/debate/controversy continues.

[SLewis]

I'm confused. Bolting, a prominent and primary concern? Or a theme that is vaulted to the top so as to mask other more pressing concerns. Like skill and technique training, resource protection and excessive promotion of certain canyon corners. Go to Zion for example: Last raps in Pine Creek, Mystery, Behunin, Imlay, or the first rap in Spry. What's the excuse or explanation for these bolts (that were inserted by some prominent souls) and then the explanation for example that bolts in Mindbender for example are so evil? OK to have lots of bolts in Zion, but few or NONE in the Roost? Is that the simple answer? When I speak with Europeans, they generally explain that all routes are bolted. Recently, by practice, some/many have suggested bolt free zones: North Wash, Roost, Swell and spots in Glen Canyon. So when some pontificate on this issue, it gets fuzzy to me. So warm to put a bolt in this spot and yet so anxious to pull one in another. Best practice in my view is to heighten the natural anchor training. Newbies will almost always go with bolts if offered the alternative. In the spots where natural anchors are unreliable or cause more problems than they benefit, or the risks weigh in favor of bolts - then in just few circumstances (hopefully) the bolts survive/arrive. Yes, Zion seems to be a funny exception. Birch Hollow, lots of new bolts in Mystery, and probably new bolts in Pine Creek when that lot comes loose or falls out. There seems to be a fair amount of paradox and irony when the matter is discussed. Some so ardent, and then, always an exception? Myself, mixed feelings - some drops, bolts just fine; other spots a darn annoyance that mars the landscape. And rope pull marks, user trails, dispersed camping practice and all the newbies these days in canyons. Lots on the platter that can and should be discussed.

[mountain man]

the logic behind leaving 50 feet of webbing on a tree and causing major rope grooves in the rock when two well-placed bolts would avoid the grooves, eliminate the need to leave so much webbing behind, cause less damage to gear, provide safer rappel starts, etc.

I think those might be justified places for bolts.


Guide services have placed bolts so they can do pull-down trips without hiking 100 yards back to the entry at the end of the day.

Where were these bolts? I've seen a sling around the choke stone why not use the choke stone rather than bolts to pull your ropes. Or better yet why not leave the rope.
<O:p</O:p


My personal attitude hasn't changed. I'm still not pro bolt. I'm still not anti bolt. I'm offended when I see bolts placed near an obvious solid natural anchor.
<O:p</O:p

That's about how I feel. If there is a big strong tree, rock, chock stone, etc and bolts at the same place. I just wonder why? <O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p

The problem boils down to reaching consensus in the canyoneering community. There will always be people who refuse to acknowledge bolts as a viable - sometimes preferred - option. There will always be people who place bolts without regard for anyone else's opinion. There will always be people who place bolts without acquiring the knowledge and skills to do so properly.

So the discussion/debate/controversy continues.

With a diverse community with different beliefs I think a consensus would be hard to achieve. Though I agree it would be nice to have a set of appropriate standards.

One of my favorite aspects of canyoneering is coming to a drop and wondering how to overcome it.

thats my two cents to this

[AZcanyoneer]

I find it interesting that some individuals are so anti-bolt. I have placed bolts in order to prevent extreme rock scarring, or to replace existing bolts that were either placed incorrectly, or have become damaged. I am not a bolting mad man, however I do understand that there are certain instances where bolts should be used.

I feel that if someone says that bolts should never be used, then they should stick true to their ethic and never use them. When coming to the last raps in Heaps, they should ante up and rap off an Ibis hook. That would prove to the community that bolts are indeed not necessary for canyoneering, we should never use them and we should move past this issue. However, everyone uses those bolts.

The same condition exists in Waterholes. When approaching the 'big' rap, people should bust out the Ibis and get ready for the puckering experience of their life. But this will never happen because people realize that this is extremely unsafe and they will more than likely not survive.

I understand that there are certainly instances where people have placed bolts in locations that were either unnecessary or dangerous, which is bulls--t and frustrates me too. I have also seen natural anchors that looked worse because of the 25+ feet of shredded/sunfaded webbing, or were more dangerous due to improper rigging (lack of training/experience).

So I've put myself out there now. I'm sure there will be quotes from what I've written where people will say that I'm an idiot who supports the destruction of pristine canyons. However I would like those individuals to prove me wrong. Never use a bolt when descending a canyon (ever), and I will never utter a peep on the issue ever again. Fair is fair. However to criticize bolting, then when your life is on the line, clip off to them because you are scared or uneasy due to exposure; that is called being a hypocrite, which I find much worse than a small piece of metal drilled into rock.

[rickt]

I cringe every time i see this endless debate coming around again, as most everyones opinions are already set in stone, and nothing ever changes. As often as not some forum newcomer triggers this, stumbling into this minefield with an innocent question. The arrogant and self righteous puritans immediately respond, whether it’s the old "get some skills" line, or just the current fuzzy warmth of " if you can't do them naturally just stay home". Then a specific canyon is referenced, and there is the requisite loose talk about taking a crowbar in to someplace that has been "defiled" with a bolt. Despite the wracking sense of futility of this venture, with the Lennon song Imagine playing softly in the back of my mind, as i peck this out- it would be nice if everyone could just do their own thing and leave well enough alone. I have received my share of criticism for not breaking out a rope when leading a canyon, and we come to a sling and ring. my response is- just because someone felt it necessary to rap this drop does not mean that I should treat it any differently than any other drop i come to- i evaluate it, and make my own decision. If i feel like i can climb it safely, i do so, and then, if I can, help others, less confident about their ability, to do the same. i feel no compulsion, however, to cut and remove someone else's sling, merely because i could do the drop without it; i see my role to to make judgements for myself, not OF others. Why is it so different for bolts? Why can't those of you whom prefer to do a given canyon without using bolts, just do so and be on your way, without the histrionic wailing and knashing of teeth that someone has "ruined" an entire canyon, with the simple placement of a bolt in it? so don’t use it already. Demonstrate your own superiority, or your pure devotion to unperforated rock, or whatever it is that drives your holier than thou mentality, and go for it. But please, spare us the crowbar crap! Who do you think died, and left your pure and defiled religion as the one and only way, with you in charge to interpret for the rest of us, what is right or wrong? How do you get off making pious value judgements, not just for yourself, but for everyone else too?

The last time I was through Mindbender, the 155 ft exit rap offered lots of options. There was webbing coming up out of the sand, presumably wrapped around a rock, or rocks, size and number unknown, depth unk, age unk, knot unk.. There were three other options, two of them involving a spiderweb of webbing, extending back around the corner, to another rock. and to a knot chock jammed in a crack. there was easily 70 feet of webbing, strung in these three "natural" anchor answers, with the result looking anything but natural, and the conglomeration linking these all together was anything but inspiring. What was reassuring, in this mess, was two well placed bolts high up to the left, out of the way, offering a simple, readily inspectable answer, or alternative. Hey, if you prefer the small pile of rocks under 8 inches of sand, go for it. If a 155 ft'er on a single overhand knot in a piece of webbing in a crack up on the wall inspires you, do your thing. Make your own choice, for yourself, but please spare us the arrogance of thinking it is your job to make those decisions for everybody else as well. I have heard a lot about the “local ethic” dictating what is going to be acceptable in a given area, which is an interesting phenomenon in and of itself. First of all, that’s the same line I hear from the local motorheads, who think because they live next door to a national treasure, they get to make their own rules, as neighbors, about where they drive what, in exploring or playing in this treasure box on federal lands. And yet, even as we decry the folly of those individuals, what is the difference between them wanting to impose their rules on a national treasure, and you wanting to impose your own rules, on a different national treasure, on federal land? The second aspect of that perspective that I see some humor in, is that as frequent as not, it is voices from outside of the neighborhood, and outside of the state, that seem to be the most strident in declaring what “local” ethic is to be imposed upon these places that they come to visit.

Back for a moment to Mindbender, I enjoyed the SA TR, but think that parts of it bear some careful consideration.

"We spent an hour rigging our ropes. With no secure anchor points, we ended up burying a sling under a pile of rocks at the bottom of a large pothole and attaching a rope to it.

A mistake could have meant the ultimate splat. At long last I saw Ginger’s legs emerge from the slot; she slowly spun down the rope, afraid a sudden jerk would dislodge it from its precarious anchor. "

He came to the 155 ft exit rap, in a blizzard, and in desperation, finding no secure anchor points near the drop, went back to a large pothole, and spent an hour burying a pile of rocks at the bottom of it. I would propose that this was back around the corner, not the concavity just before the drop, which hardly qualifies as a “large pothole”. Some length of webbing is deployed and left. And after safely reaching the bottom, he watched his partner make the same descent, in terror, afraid a sudden movement might dislodge the rope from its “precarious anchor”

And this “precarious anchor” is the model you propose to not only use, but to forcibly apply to everyone else as well? As more and more people take up canyoneering, the traffic levels in the canyons can only go up. Those elitists of the better to die than bolt mentality are fighting a losing battle, but will, before long will likely have a sacrificial lamb, when some trusting newbie clips his rope into the ring on the sling protruding from the sand, because its there, only to have the flashflood weakened anchor blow on him, and he falls to his death. Some of you likely will smugly shrug your shoulders and say oh well, he shouldn’t have been there, better that than me having to see a bolt in the rock at that drop. Natural anchors lead to natural selection? And the mantra, "they just need to learn", means not so much that the newbies need to learn skills to be able to make their own, informed determinations as to what the best or safest avenue may be to handle a drop, what is really meant in that phrase, has come to be that they need to learn that we are right, and bolts are evil.

These canyons are no more "yours" than they are mine or anyone elses, get over yourselves, and just go your own way, without having to tell everyone else what their way should be as well. I've been doing canyons now for a fair number of years, and never placed a bolt, I don't carry a bolt kit. I do have a few skills, thank you. There are also times and places where i am real happy to see a bolt, after examining the alternatives. I don't see people downclimbing out of Heaps, or building their little rock pile anchors on the edge of the Imlay exit rap. we all use bolts. My (maybe blind, i realize) wish for the future of the sport, as more and more people come into it, is that it will become more tolerant of other points of view, different from our own. That we can be less judgemental of others we feel have not reached our levels, and instead of attacking them, whether verbally or with our trusty and righteous crowbars, just smile and go our way, content with our personal experience, and not feel morally obligated to judge, or intrude on the experiences of others.

rickt

[rcwild]

I have heard a lot about the “local ethic” dictating what is going to be acceptable in a given area, which is an interesting phenomenon in and of itself. First of all, that’s the same line I hear from the local motorheads, who think because they live next door to a national treasure, they get to make their own rules, as neighbors, about where they drive what, in exploring or playing in this treasure box on federal lands. And yet, even as we decry the folly of those individuals, what is the difference between them wanting to impose their rules on a national treasure, and you wanting to impose your own rules, on a different national treasure, on federal land? The second aspect of that perspective that I see some humor in, is that as frequent as not, it is voices from outside of the neighborhood, and outside of the state, that seem to be the most strident in declaring what “local” ethic is to be imposed upon these places that they come to visit.

I've been thinking the same way, but could not have written it so eloquently. Thank you, Rick.

Enforce the local ethic when it fits the agenda. Don't trust the local ethic when it conflicts. Hypocrisy?

[SLewis]

Memento Mori (the latin phrase) Remember that you were mortal.
(Keep one's pride manageable.)

Ibis hook on the last rap in Heaps?
The bounds of exploration (again) remain to be explored (I guess?)

Bolts in technical canyons on the Colorado Plateau? Ethics, wilderness, technical savvy, safety, natural anchors, resource damage and potential dumbing down of canyons? Another concern is that placement of bolts can offer an "open avenue" for the non seasoned canyoneer and dramtically ramp up use patterns.

In some remote Escalante canyons I could conjur 4 out of five personal reasons to support A BOLT in a spot. But, if I knew placement of that bolt - and its advertisement - would drastically increase human use patterns in that semi remote (front or backcountry) canyon or corridor, I might finally feel, leave it bolt free.

If professional guiding, the debate seems to shade and weigh differently too. Zion's South Oak sans industrial bolts? That could be interesting, dangerous to some. Zion's Birch Hollow, with bolts, morphed into a guiding paradise and "now" justifiable? Many examples in Arizona and California too.

Discussing this is mostly a wasted gesture though? For those that do bolt, or take crowbars to bolts, seem to always be on a "higher plane" and know best what's required for a canyon. It's part of "their" identity, as "keepers of the canyons" and seemingly always, "ethic" local or not, is on their side. Still too much of a riddle to me tough.

Or "my view" is irrelevant and always, "it just depends?" It's in the hands of those that carry bolts, hammers and bars. What's your guess Rick, the two bolts on the last rap in Mindbender, will they last through the 08 season, or not? (assuming they are still there)

[Marc McDonald]

These canyons are no more "yours" than they are mine or anyone elses, get over yourselves, and just go your own way, without having to tell everyone else what their way should be as well. I've been doing canyons now for a fair number of years, and never placed a bolt, I don't carry a bolt kit. I do have a few skills, thank you. There are also times and places where i am real happy to see a bolt, after examining the alternatives. I don't see people downclimbing out of Heaps, or building their little rock pile anchors on the edge of the Imlay exit rap. we all use bolts. My (maybe blind, i realize) wish for the future of the sport, as more and more people come into it, is that it will become more tolerant of other points of view, different from our own. That we can be less judgemental of others we feel have not reached our levels, and instead of attacking them, whether verbally or with our trusty and righteous crowbars, just smile and go our way, content with our personal experience, and not feel morally obligated to judge, or intrude on the experiences of others.

rickt

Thanks to Rick for this amazing post. It speaks to the heart of the matter surrounding the bolting controversy which is intolerance. I can't fault anyone who has evaluated a drop for themselves and made the best decision they knew how for their safety and the safety of the group, but apparently there are plenty of others who have no such restraint. The phrase "it depends" may be starting to elicit groans and eyeball rolling from some of the folks on this forum, but it is about the closest thing to a universal truth there is in canyoneering.

I also don't carry a bolt kit, but I have carried a drill and baby angles just as insurance (I've never used them in a canyon). It's not that I think pins are better, I'm just such a dinosaur that they're what I know how to use. I count myself among those who are growing tired of this trend of canyon elitism. This idea that is being pushed by some of "if you can't do it my way you don't deserve to be in the canyons" will destroy the community of canyoneering faster that just about anything else I can think of. What's next, if you don't downclimb 5.9 then you shouldn't be in the canyons?

I will be the first to admit I'm far from the most skilled and as I've gotten older I've gotten less willing to just hang it out there and hope for the best. I've been descending canyons since some of you were in diapers, because I love the desert and I'm curious about what's around the next corner, not because I want to climb 5.9 or rappel off death anchors. I hope we can find a place for all of us in this community, but it won't happen until we admit that different is not the same as wrong.

Marc

[charlybldr]

I count myself among those who are growing tired of this trend of canyon elitism. This idea that is being pushed by some of "if you can't do it my way you don't deserve to be in the canyons" will destroy the community of canyoneering faster that just about anything else I can think of.

The tragically humorous thing about this statement is that it was just a few short years ago the same people who are now pushing the "if you can't do it my way..." attitude were being chastised by the old guard for placing bolts in canyons that had previously been done without them.

Anyone remember "Get some skills!"

[tylerhirshfeld]

I came upon a thought today...

I have placed anchors (natural) on all three rappels of a canyon here in Southern Utah. The canyon though, is located next to a common trail, where all three rappels can be bypassed on the side. Anchor #1 has webbing the same color as the rock and is not easily seen by hikers. Anchor # 3 is in a spot that cannot be pulled unless you have rapped down inside the mini slot to the anchor. But... Anchor #2 is right off the side of the common trail and can be easily seen and retrieved by anyone on the trail. Both times I have done the canyon since putting the anchors in, I have had to replace this same anchor on the trailside.
I was thinking that maybe if a bolted anchor is placed there instead, people wouldnt feel so obligated to tear the anchor down. Considering it takes 12 ft of webbing to rebuild the anchor each time. I do not see a problem of placing a bolted anchor there, since there are not any other excellent anchor choices "out of view". Just wondering what some thoughts are out there.

My 2 penny worth: If people are going to be canyoneering there, and not only me, why not place a couple bolts out out the way?:headscratch:

[charlybldr]

The people who nick that sling anchor are unlikely to be canyoners. It is more likely they are simply hikers who can't resist taking that perfectly good piece of webbing home with them. (who knows what they want it for...) The temptation is just too great.

One of our local canyons (Booth Creek near Vail) has a similar anchor. The natural anchor at the big drop (sling around a big boulder) is located in a conspicuous spot easily visible and accessible from a popular hiking trail. It is our practice to simply hike said hiking trail back to the anchor after finishing the canyon and remove the sling. It only takes a few minutes and is really not a problem.

This solution:

1. Keeps a good man honest by not placing that tempting sling within easy reach.
2. Avoids having to place bolts at this drop. (people just steal the hangers...)
3. Keeps yet another drop with a perfectly good natural anchor bolt free.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-bolt. My views are more "bolt appropriate". In this case the solution that avoids the bolts is a simple one. Maybe it would be a good solution in your case.

[Marc McDonald]

Anyone remember "Get some skills!"

Fair enough Charly; so when are you going to teach a Level 3 course?

Marc:teacher:

[Shane]

This was posted in anther forum:

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.

[rcwild]

This was posted in anther forum:

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.

Obviously doesn't apply in Tyler's situation as he has already done the canyon without bolts. He is being conscientious enough to ask for input about the lowest impact approach. In some cases, the answer is bolts.

Seeing quite a few canyons with vandalous rope grooves that could be avoided with bolts. Seeing quite a few canyons trashed with excessive webbing that could be avoided with bolts.

[mdd]

This was posted in anther forum:

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.

Yeah, that's an oversimplified, naive and (imho) intentionally inflammatory quote that makes the rounds every so often. It is also a red herring fallacy. It assumes that bolting is vandalism and that bolting is damage. Sorry, but that's not necessarily true. It also asserts that "it" is not about ego and risk, but sorry, that's not always true either. And finally, it implies that bolting is the refuge of the unskilled, which again is not always true.


M

[rcwild]

Nothing real scientific about this, but I just pulled off the poll responses that received at least 25 votes. Here they are in order of votes. I think it is very possible to draw some conclusions about how the majority of American canyoneers feel about bolts. They prefer natural anchors, but are not anti-bolt.

As of 18 March 09:

1. I have received natural anchor instruction. 37

2. Dependence on bolts without learning natural anchor skills is making some canyoneers less safe. 35

3. I have encountered unnecessary bolts, but did not remove them. 32

4. Removing bolts just because you don't like them may put other canyoneers at risk. 32

5. I have good natural anchor skills, but admit being relieved to find bolts on some really tough problems. 29

6. People should always choose natural anchors over bolts when the option is obvious, safe and convenient. 27

[tylerhirshfeld]

You are right Rich, that is really all I was looking for. Just some input about what others would do.
This is a really big conversation among canyoneers, climbers and anyone else in the vertical world. We all start off as rookies (the only exception is if you popped into the world rappeling on an umbilical cord). Then as we get more experience, we begin to think that bolts are a terrible thing to the eye and the evironment. I dont like to see bolts on everything. I like the idea of creating my own anchor out of natural resources I have around me. BUT... THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE TO DO THIS. A canyon that has 30 people going down a day, where only about 3 of those 30 know how to build nat. anchors, you might want to have some darn good anchors. And by golly, if that means bolts, it means bolts! Some canyons, there is just a point where you weigh out different facts, and you have to decide: To Bolt Or Not To Bolt

[dancrev]

Obviously doesn't apply in Tyler's situation as he has already done the canyon without bolts. He is being conscientious enough to ask for input about the lowest impact approach. In some cases, the answer is bolts.
I agree. If there is a BFR or BFT that everyone uses that is one thing. However, if it is a case where each group gets creative... one group digs up a rock here, another buries something in a hole there, someone else drags a bunch of logs around, etc... I think a couple good bolts could actually help keep a canyon in a more natural state. Placing those bolts would be a low-impact decision, not necessarily a who has what skills decision.

[perfectoval]

I hardly think that putting a 2 bolt anchor is low impact. Not that in the scenario that you describe doesnt mean that it doesn't make more sense, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that installing hardware and leaving it there fixed is somehow less intrusive than natural anchors... I would never call a bolt anchor "low impact".

The thing that really gets me is the pathetic single bolt anchors that I see. Most of the time, they are positioned for convenience... rap to stay out of water, it's a short rap that is more difficult to downclimb or is more complicated for partner assist progression past it. That sort of bolting is bad for 2 reasons:
1. People are putting it there because they are lazy and/or don't want to get wet
2. If you are planning on a bolt anchor, being redundant and having 2 makes way more sense, especially concerning a "safety" perspective.

It would be interesting to see what people's opinions are on pulling bolts such as this, because half of the time they can be avoided simply by staying in the slot and slinging a chockstone, or by using human anchors and then assisting the last person down.

[perfectoval]

Yeah, that's an oversimplified, naive and (imho) intentionally inflammatory quote that makes the rounds every so often. It is also a red herring fallacy. It assumes that bolting is vandalism and that bolting is damage. Sorry, but that's not necessarily true. It also asserts that "it" is not about ego and risk, but sorry, that's not always true either. And finally, it implies that bolting is the refuge of the unskilled, which again is not always true.


M

Eh, if the person to first pioneer and do the descent did it without any fixed hardware, and the route has been established and written-up as such, I see absolutely no reason why someone should add bolts to it at a later date just because they want to.

Why should a person of lesser skill decide to dumb a canyon down? Why not leave it in it's natural state and let people tackle it when their ability allows them to? It's not like there aren't other bolted canyons to tackle... seems pretty selfish to add bolts to a canyon that someone else has done clean, but you aren't willing/able to do yourself.

[nonot]

Well, conditions do change. That BFT or log used for an anchor could have washed away in a flood. That BFR could have been finally unchocked and been thrown down the drop. A pair of bolts could be placed to substantially lesson the amount of rope needed to rig a drop if the nearest natural anchor is 50 feet back from the edge. A pair of bolts could substitute for a gnarled uninspectable mess of webbing based on four or five marginal placements.

I've also seen the other way: bolts placed on logs now inaccessible in places easy to downclimb. Sand filled canyons with bolts inches above the ground. The canyon that was ghosted 10 years ago may not lend itself to such a clean descent now, or maybe those bolts no longer server any purpose because a log has conveniently wedged in a constriction making for an easy downclimb.

I'm a big fan of natural anchors and haven't done anything yet where I could imagine placing a bolt and substantially improving the route. However I'm also sure to never say never. Bolts have their place.

Frankly, the whole argument is rather humorous, canyons are miles long with millions of square feet of desert varnish to admire, but people get upset over 19 bolts covering what, 10 square inches? That's like complaining about a park lawn that has 2 dandelions.

[sonnylawrence]

Most of the time, they are positioned for convenience... rap to stay out of water, it's a short rap that is more difficult to downclimb or is more complicated for partner assist progression past it.
I was criticizing the bolting job in Greece at the rondy a couple years ago. Challenging. I could not get to the stations. There were singles and doubles off to the side. Then one just over the lip. Made no sense. Then someone pointed out how dry the canyon was that day. It had been rigged for average high water days. Made me appreciate the bolt job. It was well thought out!

[beadysee]

I would never call a bolt anchor "low impact".

I would. Especially for the scenario outlined above. I think if every group through a canyon has to spend an hour at the same rappel, digging, undigging, burying, reburying, leaving a mess of sling, repeat, over and over, then a low impact bolt anchor makes sense, especially if its placed for optimal use, and, to minimize damage from rope grooves.


It would be interesting to see what people's opinions are on pulling bolts such as this, because half of the time they can be avoided simply by staying in the slot and slinging a chockstone, or by using human anchors and then assisting the last person down.

Ok, so, say you remove a bolt. Then, a group, say the person who placed that bolt and expects it to still be there, gets hurt. How much responsibilty for other peoples' safety have you assumed?

Cheers,

-Brian in SLC

[perfectoval]

I would. Especially for the scenario outlined above. I think if every group through a canyon has to spend an hour at the same rappel, digging, undigging, burying, reburying, leaving a mess of sling, repeat, over and over, then a low impact bolt anchor makes sense, especially if its placed for optimal use, and, to minimize damage from rope grooves.
I think you are actually agreeing with me. A bolt in a given scenario may be "LESS impact" but it certainly isn't "low impact". I accept that bolts are going to be in canyons. I still don't consider them "low impact". Fixed hardware is fixed hardware. My point is about the "cheeze" bolts that I see being placed.




Ok, so, say you remove a bolt. Then, a group, say the person who placed that bolt and expects it to still be there, gets hurt. How much responsibilty for other peoples' safety have you assumed?

Cheers,

-Brian in SLC
In the examples that I am describing (let's take Icebox for example, since it is most recently in my mind), the canyon is narrowing down, but there is a shelf that can be followed on one side for a while before is slopes off to a single bolt 30' rap down a steep slope. The watercourse is full of huge rocks and logs that could easily be slung and followed. Why stick a bolt in just to avoid the water? Better yet, why leave a single bolt instead of making it redundant... it's even more of a time-bomb than not having a bolt, or having a bolt pulled and being forced into the waterway.

:D



With respect to more "difficult" natural anchors (such as creating a deadman and leaving a group high and dry if they don't have the skills) I hardly think that is appropriate. But at the same time, if someone has bolted something that was done clean before, I'd hardly think it's safe to head into a canyon thinking that the added bolts will be there. Respecting the style of the first descent is just as important as a climbing first-ascent, imo.

[rcwild]

Respecting the style of the first descent is just as important as a climbing first-ascent, imo.

How do you feel about subsequent canyoneers removing bolts that were placed during the first descent?

If someone puts up a sport climb and bolts it, then someone comes along and free solos the route, do they have a right to remove the bolts?

[JDClery]

Respecting the style of the first descent is just as important as a climbing first-ascent, imo.

I don't understand the reasoning that first group down a canyon should dictate how everyone else should descend it. What if the first descent party put in a bunch of unnecessary bolts? Should we all accept that it is a bolted canyon and use them.


Why should a person of lesser skill decide to dumb a canyon down? Why not leave it in it's natural state and let people tackle it when their ability allows them to?

Dumbing down a canyon isn't a good argument against bolts if you ask me, dont use them if you want the challenge of building natural anchors. The bolts don't make a canyon easier, the person that uses them does.

I can downclimb many of the rappels I come across in Utah slot canyons, should I consider those canyons dumbed down for canyoneers with less skill for leaving anchors? Should I expect them to stay out of those canyons until they get some skills?

[perfectoval]

I don't understand the reasoning that first group down a canyon should dictate how everyone else should descend it. What if the first descent party put in a bunch of unnecessary bolts? Should we all accept that it is a bolted canyon and use them.
Well, there is certainly a lot to be said for the first people willing to forge into a canyon, into the unknown, and descend it. I find that most of these people aren't going into a canyon with 50 bolts, rather, they go in with much, much less due to having experience that allows them to find there way without putting a bolt at every drop. Perhaps you have different observation of first descentists that put a bunch of bolts in at every possible rap? If you like the idea of simply sticking to bolts only where "needed" taking priority (assuming a first descentist who placed unnecessary bolts all over the map), I could follow that line of logic.




Dumbing down a canyon isn't a good argument against bolts if you ask me, dont use them if you want the challenge of building natural anchors. The bolts don't make a canyon easier, the person that uses them does.
I can downclimb many of the rappels I come across in Utah slot canyons, should I consider those canyons dumbed down for canyoneers with less skill for leaving anchors? Should I expect them to stay out of those canyons until they get some skills?
So you would be perfectly ok with a canyon that had every 10' or more drop bolted? You don't think it would take something away from the wilderness experience? You don't think it would be overkill? Even if natural alternatives where easily available? If you think this is unreasonable, why do you think so? Why not "just ignore them"?

How would you feel about bolt ladders left getting you out of every pothole in Imlay? Just not use them if you want to challenge yourself? Would that bother you or not?

Do you happen to be a guide JD? I can see how a guide would like the idea of having bolts on things that don't need it to make up for clients that are very non-athletic and can't scramble at all. In my opinion, the canyoneer that can't downclimb anything is the person that shouldn't be in that type of canyon in the first place.

The "just skip it if you don't like it" attitude fails on many levels, imo. It doesn't address the deeper issues. It's up to us to preserve what we have. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[perfectoval]

How do you feel about subsequent canyoneers removing bolts that were placed during the first descent?

If someone puts up a sport climb and bolts it, then someone comes along and free solos the route, do they have a right to remove the bolts? Was the bolt placed in an emergency?

So it would depend on a large number of things. New technology available that previously wasn't. Had the route actually been done before. Has the climb changed due to rockfall/protection options opening up or becoming unusable.

The climbing analogy of of "free soloing" is imperfect... can't see a comparable scenario in canyoning as lots of canyons require raps and are not "free-soloable downclimbs" aside from a 100' jump.

Overall I'd say respecting how the first people that descended the canyon is a good rule of thumb to stick with, even if there are some exceptions.

[beadysee]

How would you feel about bolt ladders left getting you out of every pothole in Imlay? Just not use them if you want to challenge yourself? Would that bother you or not?

Might be a side issue and a subtle one, but...

All the potholes in Imlay have either blown hook holes and/or useable hook holes (or remnants of the good ol' g pick daze). To me, makes no difference if I stuff a hook into one and ascend, or, ascend from a bolt placed in that hook hole. Artificial ascending is artificial. Maybe a bolted anchor would be more sustainable, and, therefore in the long term, lower impact, than a series of blown out hook holes that are unusable.

Done Imlay with a strong partner and we made a game out of trying to not use any unnatural features for ascending in very low water. We got 'er done. Do I expect, now that's it been done "clean" (sorta, we rapped from all the bolted anchors but we didn't use any of them to ascend), that folks have to have the skills to follow suit? Nope. Consequences of not being able to escape might be very severe, and, its not worth it, IMHO.

Its just canyoneering...after all...ha ha...

-Brian in SLC

[Stonefly36]

I believe that natural anchors should be the primary choice when available or safe to set up. However, a recent trip to north wash showed how natural anchors set high above the rappel have resulted in deep (up to 6") grooves cut by rope pulls. To me the deep grooves are even more of an eyesore than a couple of well-placed bolts would have been. Bolts, when removed will leave a hole for all time, but you only have a relatively small hole seen from the top, whereas the rope grooves cut long gouges into the bare rock for all to see.

I believe it needs to be a judgement call based on picking the lesser of two evils. If you built a natural anchor that ends up causing more damage than it prevents (rope pull grooves, erosion from trails, etc), what exactly did you accomplish? The welfare of the canyon should outweigh the ego of the canyoneer. Bolts should always be a last resort, but for some rappels they could prevent even worse long-term damage.

[adkramoo]

I believe that natural anchors should be the primary choice when available or safe to set up. However, a recent trip to north wash showed how natural anchors set high above the rappel have resulted in deep (up to 6") grooves cut by rope pulls. To me the deep grooves are even more of an eyesore than a couple of well-placed bolts would have been. Bolts, when removed will leave a hole for all time, but you only have a relatively small hole seen from the top, whereas the rope grooves cut long gouges into the bare rock for all to see.

I believe it needs to be a judgement call based on picking the lesser of two evils. If you built a natural anchor that ends up causing more damage than it prevents (rope pull grooves, erosion from trails, etc), what exactly did you accomplish? The welfare of the canyon should outweigh the ego of the canyoneer. Bolts should always be a last resort, but for some rappels they could prevent even worse long-term damage.


Natural anchors don't cause rope grooves. Any anchor where the webbing is not extended over the edge can cause rope grooves. They are horrible there. It's a place frequented by beginners. Beginners don't like difficult starts to rappels. That's what is causing the grooves there. It is not a bolt vs. natural anchor issue.
Ram

[ratagonia]

I believe that natural anchors should be the primary choice when available or safe to set up. However, a recent trip to north wash showed how natural anchors set high above the rappel have resulted in deep (up to 6") grooves cut by rope pulls. To me the deep grooves are even more of an eyesore than a couple of well-placed bolts would have been. Bolts, when removed will leave a hole for all time, but you only have a relatively small hole seen from the top, whereas the rope grooves cut long gouges into the bare rock for all to see.

I believe it needs to be a judgement call based on picking the lesser of two evils. If you built a natural anchor that ends up causing more damage than it prevents (rope pull grooves, erosion from trails, etc), what exactly did you accomplish? The welfare of the canyon should outweigh the ego of the canyoneer. Bolts should always be a last resort, but for some rappels they could prevent even worse long-term damage.

The rock in North Wash is terribly soft, which means it not only grooves up quickly, but also that it takes bolts poorly. Bolts in North Wash are not a good solution, because they would need to be replaced frequently, and would become unsafe quickly.

Who should make the bolt / not-bolts decision for a canyon or an area? I hold that it is the people that use that area the most, and 'visitors' should practice the standard set down by the 'locals'. The 'locals' standard in North Wash is no bolts, and attempt to do a good job with the anchors, so that grooves are minimized. But again, it is a playground for beginners, and anchors get dumbed-down quite frequently, resulting in rock damage.

Tom

[rcwild]

Correct ... it is not an issue of artificial vs natural anchors ... it is an issue about arrogance, elitism and egos.

The person who should make YOUR decision about anchors and ethics is YOU.

[kearl]

I am relative new to Canyoneering, but have been enjoying the outdoors in many ways. I am a native Utah. I enjoy hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, canyoneering, river running, mountain biking, riding ATV’s, snowshoeing, skiing, snowmobile any anything else outdoors. Its always bothers me when groups try to impose restrictions on other because of their views, especially when they actively do damage trying to impose their viewpoint on other groups (like removing a good anchor bolt someone has placed, or placing an unneeded bolt just to make a point).

Being new to canyoneering I don’t have a agenda other then having fun, being safe, enjoying the outdoors an making as little of an impact on the environment as possible. I don’t believe there is only one right way to make an anchor, but the type of anchor depends on the impact to safety and the environment. The canyons are seeing a lot of people. I was at North Wash several weeks ago and the campground looked like a small tent city, probably over a hundred people. The high traffic volume will impact our experience in the canyon.

We need to pick an anchor that results in the lowest impact and damage to the canyon. I have seen a lot of rock damage by using natural anchors that results in long pulls over several edges where the addition of a bolt could have prevented the groves. This will only get worse with more traffic in the canyons. I have also seen some very ugly natural anchors with large rock piles in the watercourse, yards of ugly webbing; piles of logs in the watercourse near pour overs. Personally I would rather have a low visible bolt than seeing this junk and damage.

I believe where possible natural anchors should be used if they are low impact. I also believe in some locations a bolt would better preserve the environment and be safer.

I would encourage the community to focus on education, training, understanding, and tolerance of others viewpoints and even where appropriate installing a few bolts. There is much one can do in the way of education to affect the behavior of others in a positive way. There is no need for negative behavior. As a newbee to the community I think there it much opportunity to unite to protect our canyons beauty, have moderation in our views an actions, and to promote our sport.

Lets pick the best anchor for the location with all things considered, not just pick a single philosophy and demand it’s the only option for everyone and for all areas.

[cyber_rager]

oh no, a new person trying to inject reason into the really old debate. This is like religion, everyone believes their way is the only way and you are wrong if you don't believe the way they do. Its just a matter of time before jihad starts.....

good luck and I hope you have your fireproof suit on.

[ewestesen]

I think Tom had a good comment about the following-


I don’t believe there is only one right way to make an anchor, but the type of anchor depends on the impact to safety and the environment. The canyons are seeing a lot of people. I was at North Wash several weeks ago and the campground looked like a small tent city, probably over a hundred people. The high traffic volume will impact our experience in the canyon.

We need to pick an anchor that results in the lowest impact and damage to the canyon. I have seen a lot of rock damage by using natural anchors that results in long pulls over several edges where the addition of a bolt could have prevented the groves. This will only get worse with more traffic in the canyons. I have also seen some very ugly natural anchors with large rock piles in the watercourse, yards of ugly webbing; piles of logs in the watercourse near pour overs. Personally I would rather have a low visible bolt than seeing this junk and damage.

I believe where possible natural anchors should be used if they are low impact. I also believe in some locations a bolt would better preserve the environment and be safer.




In response he posted the following not too long ago in this same thread


The rock in North Wash is terribly soft, which means it not only grooves up quickly, but also that it takes bolts poorly. Bolts in North Wash are not a good solution, because they would need to be replaced frequently, and would become unsafe quickly.

Who should make the bolt / not-bolts decision for a canyon or an area? I hold that it is the people that use that area the most, and 'visitors' should practice the standard set down by the 'locals'. The 'locals' standard in North Wash is no bolts, and attempt to do a good job with the anchors, so that grooves are minimized. But again, it is a playground for beginners, and anchors get dumbed-down quite frequently, resulting in rock damage.

Tom


I thought it was a good point.

As to this comment:


oh no, a new person trying to inject reason into the really old debate. This is like religion, everyone believes their way is the only way and you are wrong if you don't believe the way they do. Its just a matter of time before jihad starts.....

good luck and I hope you have your fireproof suit on.

I don't imagine you're trying to discourage kearl... but isn't a fresh opinion (even if it's the same as someone else's) helpful now and then? I don't want a jihad (I thought that was a very funny way to put it :rofl:) but I do enjoy seeing different people's point of view and reasoning.

[rcwild]

I don't imagine you're trying to discourage kearl... but isn't a fresh opinion (even if it's the same as someone else's) helpful now and then? I don't want a jihad (I thought that was a very funny way to put it :rofl:) but I do enjoy seeing different people's point of view and reasoning.

Scott (cyber_rager) was being sarcastic, pointing to the ridiculousness of this ongoing debate. For the majority of canyoneers, the bolt war is over. The majority agree that natural anchors are preferred when they are available and safe, but they are not so opposed to bolts that they will rip them out.

Most canyoneers are willing to accept bolts as the preferred option when they serve an environmental purpose, like keeping traffic in the watercourse to reduce impacts on plants and reduce social trails, when they will eliminate the need for absurd amounts of webbing, and when they will reduce rope grooves in rock. Not to mention in Class C canyons where they are often the only practical option.

There are ego issues with most of the people who continue ranting and raving against bolts. I especially get a kick out of the rants from guys who tell others they should get some skills before they attempt canyon A if they can't do it without bolts, while they themselves will bolt canyon B because they can't do it without bolts.

Or the guys who brag about doing a particularly difficult canyon without bolts when the fact is they could not have done it without a very skilled person accompanying them. Integrity would demand they be more open about it so someone else with the same skills as theirs is not lulled into attempting it without a similarly skilled rope gun on their team -- or without taking a bolt kit.

Or how about the posers who rant against bolts, suggesting they are able to do tough canyons without them. Truth be told, they have been spanked by canyons well within the abilities of average intermediate canyoneers. They survived only by having someone with them who bailed their butts out or they bailed out of the canyon when the going got tough, then lied about actually completing it.

The debate has grown old and boring. Everyone should acquire solid natural anchor skills. We all agree. We should also approach the matter practically and accept the fact that sometimes bolts are the better option. Most of us agree.

The ACA's motto on this issue: We teach while others preach.

[cyber_rager]

Well said Rich!

I was being sarcastic and I would never suppress new ideas or a new perspective on things.

Of course, if you disagree with me, I know a great drop that needs an anchor... :)

[ewestesen]

Oh. Sarcasm. Right. Turns out I'm too much of a newb to tell when people are joking around. Sigh... all in time..

[rcwild]

Oh. Sarcasm. Right. Turns out I'm too much of a newb to tell when people are joking around. Sigh... all in time..

I'll help you out with a general rule regarding my posts, emails, and all other forms of communication ... I am being sarcastic 99.9% of the time.

[thafen]

I'll help you out with a general rule regarding my posts, emails, and all other forms of communication ... I am being sarcastic 99.9% of the time.
LOL thats beautiful.

[rread]

"The ACA's motto on this issue: We teach while others preach."

I like it Rich-- I agree, it's gets real old hearing about bolt or not to bolt.
Let's get on with life. These fanatics that tell us to bolt or not to bolt, should be talking about wearing helmets instead. :)

[canyuneer]

So. do we bolt or not?

[NZRM2001]

"It Depends" :)

[rcwild]

"It Depends" :)

You're learnin'.

[bashfulbob]

Come East where in the National Forests, National Parks and National Monuments to bolt or not to bolt has little bearing. Any anchors you place have to be easily removed and in no way permanent. If you replace a bolt that has been in place you have to get written permission.

So if you want to be a good citizen and not pee in the Ranger's Cherrios you might want to practice you natural anchor skills.

Naturally there are bolts everywhere put by climbers, most before the rules were made, and I am sure they are being replaced without written permission. Not to mention the fact that most of what we do here is a lot more forgiving than canyons with really tall walls. Not any less challenging, but a lot more forgiving. Oh yeah we have an abundance of bfts too.:happy:

BB

[Branin]

Is there some special initiation/hazing to go through so I can vote on polls?

[smorga]

Is there some special initiation/hazing to go through so I can vote on polls?

ACA membership

[Branin]

ACA membership
Workin' on it...

The webpage just tells me there is no content in the join the ACA part, and Rich and I never seem to be in Cedar the same days.

[Branin]

Workin' on it...

The webpage just tells me there is no content in the join the ACA part, and Rich and I never seem to be in Cedar the same days.


Found it! It's on the Canyons & Crags page.

[rcwild]

Found it! It's on the Canyons & Crags page.

Registration on Canyons & Crags is not ACA membership and ACA membership is not registration on Canyons & Crags. Totally separate.

[Branin]

Registration on Canyons & Crags is not ACA membership and ACA membership is not registration on Canyons & Crags. Totally separate.
Okay. Are you going to be in the shop this week at all? I'd like to stop by and buy some gear and figure out what I need to do to join the ACA. Thanks!

[southswell]

I know this is an old thread, and I am a new user. But heres my 1/4 cent. I weigh 275lbs. If the description of a canyon includes the words "bush anchor"...im bringing a bolt kit. Otherwise, I will use whats there.

[Branin]

Oh. Sarcasm. Right. Turns out I'm too much of a newb to tell when people are joking around. Sigh... all in time..

The shortcomings of technology... In this day of chats, texts, etc. how many of us have had a conversation go terribly wrong because of misinterpreting sarcasm? I think we need punctuation for it. I nominate the tilde ~ because does anyone know what it is actually used for? I sure don't.