For all interested—
There are a few of you in the Pinnacles community who have seen at least part of what follows (or spoken to me directly) but for the benefit of those who have not I have pieced together the email thread regarding the bolts set by Greg and myself on Discovery Wall. I have redacted the email addresses, removed some verbiage and gave Brad a copy before posting since half of what was written are his words.
Note: Brad has only proofed the parts between the “begin” and “end” thread markers.
*******begin thread*******
-----------
On Sep 9, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Matt wrote:
Hi Brad,
I was out in the Pinnacles a ways back with Greg looking at routes and we got to looking at Roof, we reckoned there was a perfectly good face climb just to the right of it. To make a long story short we set some bolts and it's a nice climb despite not being terribly long. FA was undoubtedly by TR using an anchor in Roof's roof (hopefully not using just the pins!) and we reckoned that due to the lack of an easy off it's never been soloed. We set the bolts on Aug 29 . . . The first 15' can be protected by small cams. About 20' up is the first bolt. A second one is around 6' above this and it protects the crux. We think the route is 5.8. Bolts are standard 5 piece 3.5 inch SS rawls and hangers, rings on top. We've named it "Straight Up" unless someone already has a name for it. . . in which case we might have to remove a few bolts. Photos of the route . . .
Matt
-----------
From: Brad
Sent: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: New Pinnacles Route
Hello Matt,
As you might know I've kept a list of all newly established and newly discovered routes at Pinns since the '07 guidebook came out. The list has its own "sticky" thread on the Mudn'Crud, Pinnacles website kept up by my friend Dennis. Here's a link:
http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=886.0. . .
As for making it a lead climb, before I post it to the "new routes" thread, I wonder whether you're aware of one of the few "hard and fast" rules that the climbing rangers at Pinnacles have passed down? Actually I don't know how you feel about climbing regulations at Pinnacles either. I for one think we're blessed there; the NPS staff at Pinns understands and embraces climbing. Climbers are friends and welcomed users of the park. In my mind this contrasts markedly with other places where climbing is common, and not so welcome. So, I think it is imperative that we as climbers try hard to work with the rangers at Pinns. Which brings me back to one of the few very serious rules that they have asked us to follow, which is "no new climbing routes are to be established over trails." I'm very concerned that your route will be seen as a violation of this rule, and thus that it might affect climber/staff relations there.
Also, although not a Park Service rule, climbers at Pinnacles (and, in my experience at most climbing locales) have, by consensus, agreed that adding bolts to already established climbing routes is to be avoided at all costs. This ethic, which I myself strongly embrace, saves our cliffs from becoming grid bolted nightmares. I think it saves the style and history of a climbing location, by preventing (or at least strongly discouraging) the alteration of routes by the addition of bolts by others (without such a limitation, I think, all routes at a location would eventually be "dumbed down" to a "milktoast" level equal to an indoor gym; all the adventure element in climbing would then slowly be squeezed out. The history of the sport would be destroyed and climbing would be very different forever). I share my opinions is such detail because I think that the vast majority of climbers, especially at Pinns, share these views. Unfortunately, as I view your photos, it looks like your new anchor is actually on the existing route "Roof." I worry that this will deeply offend people who have previously climbed Roof without having the ease of bolts to clip while making the traverse. I haven't been there to view it, but it looks like you may have fundamentally changed Roof; you may have seriously "dumbed it down" without really meaning to.
I hope my email isn't too harsh. Other than sharing it with Jim, I haven't forwarded it to anyone. Instead I thought I'd share my thoughts with just you. I'd be happy to hear back from you on any issue I've raised.
Sincerely, Brad
---------------
On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Matt wrote:
Hi Brad,
Sorry for taking so long for a proper note, it’s been a long week. I’ll start by saying that Greg and I spent several weeks talking about the route before we decided to go and set it, that is to say, we didn’t just walk up and decide to bolt without some research and thinking. We checked your book and took a look at several web sites you write for as well as the NPS web site regarding route setting at Pinnacles and found that there was no information to be had that was contrary to what we had already found. We also are sensitive to the routes set by others and think that we all should be—if there isn’t common decency and a few “rules” then every crag in the country will be a wasteland and I’ll have to go back to hiking backcountry as a past time. Or people will leave “disco balls” like they did at the Grotto and just get us all kicked out.
Route location: I was lead to believe that there is no climbing over hiking trails at all, which includes bolting. I think this is a good rule and one that we should adhere to. A month ago when I was climbing on the East Wall at Lover’s Leap I witnessed someone pulling off a chunk of rock the size of my head from a well climbed route about 150 feet up. It would have killed someone had it hit them even if they were wearing a helmet. Pinnacles rock isn’t quite as consolidated as the granite at the Leap. Our route is well off of the hiking trail that goes past Discovery wall and is directly on the climbing (carabineer) trail. I believe that the climb is over 10 yards off of the hiking trail. The only potentially loose rock on the climb is the detritus near the shelf on Roof which is less than 8 feet off the ground. There is no chance of rock fall harming a hiker. Given that the route has a bolt about 20 feet or so off the ground there is no chance of climber fall harming a hiker either—this would also require the climber go over a bulge to the right of the climb which isn’t possible. However, I have no desire to upset the rangers and harm climbing at Pinnacles. I have tried several times to contact the rangers there but with no luck so far. I’ll continue. If you have some decent contact info and care to pass it along I’ll be glad to speak with them directly.
As for Roof. Yes, we were concerned that it could alter the experience on Roof. My first thoughts were to join with Roof after the second pin and then traverse to the right and use Roof’s chains for lower off. Greg and I discussed this for quite some time. For many reasons I am of the mind that it’s best to set as few bolts as possible and that some routes aren’t worth bolting at all—even if they can’t be climbed “safely” without bolts. Greg brought up the point during this deliberation that the climb is very nice on it’s own and that Roof is a completely different experience. The lower part of Roof is about crack and traverse, and I have to say that I do enjoy it very much. And yes, it’s entirely possible to build a proper anchor (without the pins) to TR the entire face. But the face is an entirely different climb with moves that lead you into territory that are devoid of placements. We briefly thought of placing a bolt lower “to keep people on route” but we both agreed that a climb is part what you make it. If you want to take the more direct route you’ll need to just take it and place gear unless you want to go out onto an R rated route.
Currently there are 2 pins on Roof. I’m guessing that every person treats these as fixed pro when climbing Roof and use them either alone or with additional cam placements. Personally, I placed several cams in that thing. To be completely honest I don’t recall how far below the roof the anchor is but I placed it knowing that I should stay out of Roof’s way. There is a chance that I’ve placed it too close for comfort for some and I’m certainly willing to talk about that. When I was placing it I wanted to keep it out of Roof’s way and I didn’t want it to be very useful even if you did clip it. To that end it is between the pins. If you attempt to skip some placements and head straight to the anchors you risk a pendulum swing that will probably send you to the hospital. So topping out on the vertical crack and trying to avoid the traverse isn’t a good idea—especially if you don’t have the balls and ability to place some gear overhead. Not that I intended to hurt anyone but I did intend on you not using the anchor in lieu of your own gear. The anchor is also before the last pin which means that you need to continue to place your own gear to complete The Roof. And if you do use the anchor as gear then it’s not in a very good location compared to cams in the crack. Yes, you can clip them but it will be low clip and I would assume that if you’ve just climbed Roof’s vertical crack that you have the ability to place the easy placements in the traverse—if you don’t you’re taking a risk. Yes, it’s possible to safely lower off without finishing the roof traverse but given the number of biners I keep finding on fixed pro people are doing this sort of thing all over Pinnacles and Yosemite. Again, if you attempt to use the anchor to lower off without first placing any pro on the traverse then you’re putting yourself in danger of a nasty swing, and rightly so; you’re not supposed to be using those. The traverse is a great part of Roof and I can’t imagine not wanting to complete it once you’ve started it. Greg is of the mind that we should ask people to climb the routes and see what they think. I think this is a great idea and I think that you should be one of those gives it a try and weighs in. I’m not opposed to also asking the FA team what they think. I’m also curious to know what people think about the fixed pins.
One last note. Greg and I were on the same page that many people are when it comes to routes. If it’s not good then don’t set it. Who the hell wants to set a hunk of crap when no one will climb it? Everyone I know who’s climbed Roof lowers off once they reach the chain anchors. Sad thing is, not many people even climb it despite it being a very fun crack and traverse with good placements. Of course, once you’ve climbed Roof there’s nothing stopping you from using your traverse gear as a TR anchor. Yes people have done it but they are few and far between. I don’t think I’m far off when I say that having another good route on that crag will make Roof a more attractive route to climb. Greg and I both believe this. Instead of having just one short climb you now have 2 short climbs. We don’t believe that one lessens the other. To make it even better both climbs are completely different with different moves that evoke different feelings. One is trad (with a couple of pins and a BOMBER 1/4 inch spinner that makes me chuckle) and one is a mixed climb requiring trad placements down low or else it becomes an R rated sport climb.
Thanks for reading, Matt
---------------
From: Brad
Date: September 16, 2011 6:44:58 AM PDT
To: "Matt
Subject: Re: New Pinnacles Route
Matt,
Well, it is clear that you gave the route some thought before setting out to do it. Thanks for the description. My comments are made, of course, from the photo, which does make the route appear to be right over a normal, but less-used hiking trail. I haven't seen the climb though, and photos are notoriously fickle when it comes to perspective.
If you really want to run it by the Pinnacles staff, then Gavin is the one to contact. He is a lead raptor biologist and the lead climbing ranger. As an example of his duties, he makes the decisions about what gets closed for raptors when ( and I think he does a remarkably wonderful job of balancing climber and bird interests). He also climbs at Pinns a lot and hard, including first ascents of his own (you'll see his FAs on the list I linked to you in my last email). He knows climbing there as well as anyone I've met. He's also just a very nice person. We're very lucky to have him. He also lives right near the East Side (or in it, I can't recall if he just moved into or out of the park). Gavin would be willing to look at the route and give you opinions about both issues. Contact him at: . . .
I'd like to hear any opinions he expresses, so, if you are willing, feel free to copy me on any emails, or forward these present notes to him.
BTW, I'll also mention a personal preference. When I started climbing, new routes were first ascents. First ascents were "made," or "established." Nowadays everyone learns to climb in a gym where routes are "set." I know I'm old and old fashion. But describing a first ascent as "setting" a route sounds to me like fingernails on a chalkboard (but then, like, so does, like, kids who, like use the word "like" as a placeholder to show how, like, poorly they have been educated; I guess I can't change the world and will have to suffer in silence).
Sincerely,
Brad
---------------
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 12:51 PM
From: Matt
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the note. Yes, I believe I'll drop Gavin a note, he sounds like the perfect person to talk to and it'd be great to get a chance to speak with him in person some day. It's good to have rangers who deeply appreciate the outdoors and want to preserve it and all we do with it including climbing, hiking, hunting and even just staying the hell out.
I share your opinion on FAs. While climbing a route by TR using a 24" oak as an anchor might not be an FA I'm inclined to think that setting an anchor in Roof and climbing the face might be--after all you had to go out on lead to do it--you were just on a different route. The face has been climbed before using such a method, maybe even by Roof's FA team. Setting it merely makes it "safe" to lead. . . .
Thanks, Matt
------------
To: Gavin
From: "Matt
Date: 09/18/2011 11:29PM
Subject: Re: New Pinnacles Route
Hi Gavin,
I've been talking with Brad a bit about a route that Greg and I set last month. Brad has some concerns about it and to be honest I'd prefer to remove a few bolts rather than do something that's against park policy or that steps on folks toes. From what Brad says you seem like the perfect person to give the route a look and offer a critique. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at it next time you're up that way I'd appreciate it. It's located directly under the traverse to The Roof on Discovery Wall. If it'd be easier to speak on the phone I'd be happy to call if you wanted to give me some times and a number. Our email thread is located below for your information. One look at the photos in the link and you'll know exactly what's going on. Feel free to copy Brad.
Regards,
Matt
-------------
Gavin’s response (double checked by Brad before publishing) includes several points:
1) The location of the route is not a problem since there are already routes in the same spot and this is not a major hiking trail.
2) He found the route’s protection bolt placements good all around.
3) He noted the anchor placements pros and cons and recommended contacting the first ascentionists of The Roof but did not find them personally offensive.
------------------
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Matthew Footer wrote:
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the input. I'm glad you had a chance to climb the route and appreciate your comments. I agree that it would be nice to get in touch with Jim Bridwell and Craig Little and ask them what they think. I'm guessing that Brad might have some contact info for Jim but I've not read anything about Craig recently. There's a chance that my climbing partner, Greg, might know how to get in touch with these guys as they were all climbing in Pinnacles in the early 60's--in sneakers with no harnesses of course. If the route should stay I'd be happy to give the bolts a little patina to make them blend in. . . .
Regards, Matt
----------------
From: Brad
To: Matthew
Cc: Gavin
Sent: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: New Pinnacles Route
Matt, if Gavin is good with it I am too. Seeing the route (and climbing it) is much better than giving an opinion based on photos.
I'll add it to my list. There were 12 Pinnacles routes easier than 5.10 that I hadn't done. Now there are 13. I normally wait to post a route on the Mudn'Crud site . . .
------------------
Tue, Sep 20, 2011 10:03 PM
Hey Brad,
. . . I'd like to hear what you think about it. Actually I'm sort of surprised neither you nor Gavin have climbed it before but then again how often are things hidden in plain sight, . . .
Best, Matt
*******end thread*******
I hope this has answered your questions or at least addressed a few concerns. Greg and I are not averse to criticism about this route; or ourselves in general. What we would like is for folks to actually climb it as well as Roof and make an informed decision, not one based on photos or a knee jerk reaction. Greg and I have personal knowledge of 7 individuals who have climbed the route. None of these individuals have made any comments in this thread and given the nature of blogs no one can expect them to.
And about your lead on Roof, how about leading it without clipping the pitons—they were left there for the benefit of those without cams, you probably own a few.
One last point. I rarely enter into any internet open forums for numerous reasons, I can count my posts on one hand. The times when I do and chose to remain anonymous are when I’m merely providing data, references, and the like which are readily confirmed elsewhere; it’s when I act as an aggregator and provide the proper references letting future readers use my time/expertise without credit or attribution. The times I chose to express my views/opinions I use my proper name, I appreciate it when others do the same.
Regards,
s/Matt J Footer
w/Greg L Schaffer
