From: jmorton@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Morton)
Subject: Re: CRAGMONT BOLTING
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:00:53 GMT

In article <lme52mINNpf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> bhilden@bigriver.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Hildenbrand) writes:
>In article <1k6kvc$ar9@agate.berkeley.edu> elmar@ocf.berkeley.edu (Elmar Stefke) writes:
>>I recently checked out Cragmont (Berkeley) after a period of not climbing
>>there, and to my horror found that the easy climbs on the East side had
>>bolted toprope anchors.  Does anybody know who is responsible for this
>>absolute bullshit???  These bolts are more then an eyesore, they are comletely
>>UNNECESSARY!  People have been toproping and bouldering/soloing at Cragmont
>>since the 1930's without resorting to the use of bolts (except for early aid
>>routes).  The East side routes have multiple possibilities for natural anchors
>>(slinging trees, exposed roots, and rocks) in addition to providing a crack
>>for pro on the left side of the face.  I can't imagine why there should be
>>bolts.  They are more convenient (speak faster), but does that make them  
>>in anyway necessary?  Did somebody live out their first practice bolt
>>fantasy?  Are they safer (not with all the other anchors available)?
>>Elmar Stefke
>>
>
>As someone who has placed a few bolts that may have seemed unneccessary,
>let me add a different perspective.
>
>I added a 3-1/2" x 3/8" bolt at the base of the Monolith Direct route
>at the Pinnacles National Monument because people were tying off a tree
>about 10 feet away and they were trashing the undergrowth and creating
>potential erosion problems in their attempts to put slings around
>this tree(more like a very big bush).  Rather than see the area around
>the climb degrade, I decided a bolt would help matters.  Before the
>bolt was placed, someone pointed out to me an alternative anchor
>using a Friend, but the placement was pretty manky and I did not
>feel that it was sufficiently good to trust it as the only anchor.
>
>This, of course, is my view of the situation, it is not clear to
>me in this situation if one view is right and another is wrong,
>just the way I interpreted the situation and others who are knowledgeable
>of the ethics of the area agreed.
>
>Bruce
>
>ps - one of the problems with natural anchors is that they can degrade
>with over use or misuse(so can bolts for that matter, but that's not
>the point).

With regard to Cragmont Rock, I think Bruce's view should be
considered here.  There is often traffic along the top of the
wall at Cragmont, and the extended anchors cross the path.
I always used to wonder what was going on up there, because 
beginners would do things to the rat's nest of anchor ropes 
without telling you, not to mention stepping on them.

Of course the trees don't thrive under those circumstances.
However the worst problem might be the probable ensuing bolt
placement/removal war, such as happens at Indian Rock.  The
bolters and choppers have uglified that place so much that
many regulars favor the return to the anchors of the
thirties:  12" tall sections of 1" galvanized water pipe.

John Morton					University of California
jmorton@euler.berkeley.edu			Mechanical Engineering
{decvax,cbosgd}!ucbvax!euler!jmorton		Machine Shop
Newsgroups: rec.climbing