[Tony]

Simon and I are meeting later so I'd like to avoid damaging the goodwill shown by Simon in agreeing to this meeting.

I will not write further than the clarifications below.

Tony, you emailed Shark about Fantasia recently, before doing any chopping? He didn't reply but then bolted Storming, correct?

No. As I wrote previously in response to one of El Mocho's posts (see https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,34080.msg696422.html#msg696422):
I wrote on this thread before the FA of Storming my beliefs regarding: (1) bolts and their proximity to existing trad routes; (2) highlighting the BMC position statements regarding (1) and other matters.

Did you chop that one [the first bolt on My New Hat] too Tony?

Yes, I removed this bolt also.

And by 'chopping' are we talking removing hangers and knocking stub in, or angle grinding off?

I hacksawed the stub to reduce its length and then knocked the remaining stub in.

[Johnny Brown]

Many thanks, that is much clearer.

(Simon had mentioned not receiving emails)

Is the new bolt on My New Hat like-for-like for an old one, or an additional one?

[shark]

Tony only emailed me and others after the chopping but had made a generic post on UKB before. I actually found at first from someone else who had been emailed

I’m just back up having abbed down Big Cigar. Some observations:

He’s angle grinded the stubs flush with minimal scarring. I’m not sure why that was necessary as I’m sure they could have been hammered in flush as latterly I’ve overdrilled so this can be done in the future when bolts need to be replaced in line with good practice. Maybe he didn’t try.

Re how much the bolt affected Fantasi I’ll put that in a NSFW as there’s beta

NSFW  :

The belay of Castellan/Fantasia was much closer than I remember to my top bolt on Big Cigar - 5 or 6 feet away from the right side of its flakes - so you could have reach edor make a move to clip it then scuttle back to the belay. Without it there is an even closer slot which takes a good small cam. Blue alien fitted perfectly again and looks placeable from the belay. 3 feet above where my bolt used to be there is the Hot Gossip peg which can be backed up. It’s initially hidden when you start traversing across on Fantasia. I can see why John Codling said he didn’t think it was bold there but it is pretty airy and exposed and the moves look awkward and you can go at two levels. I have a few photos of anything needs clarifying.

There was plenty of chalk and tick marks on Big Cigar. Somebody has clearly been working it. Whether that’s pre or post chopping I obviously don’t know. I’ve often wondered how it would stack up as a headpoint route and whether to try it this way as whilst the falls could be huge it would be into free space.

The conditions were greasy but playing on the moves of Big Cigar on an ab rope reminded me how tough it was - typically pulling on shallow two finger pockets. Neither Nick (Conway) or I are good on pockets but still thought the top rib in isolation would be 7b+. The hardest moves are at the bottom but it is fluffable all the way up. The key is how high up would people put side runners in the easier finishing crack of Castellan before pulling round the rib. That could make a significant difference to how bold the route would be. If you went as high as the belay it would virtually be a top rope.

Another alternative would be to pull across from Party in the Park above its hanging flake. This would skip a couple of hard moves coming out of Castellan and would I think feel more eliminate, effectively stepping out of a groove / flake line then stepping back into it 20 feet higher.

Anyway the challenge is there now. I’m not currently minded rebolt it as there have no repeat ascents in its hybrid form. Perhaps it will be more popular as an E7 or E8 headpoint. It couldn’t be less popular than it has been so far.

[Fiend]

Fucking spadpointing.

Talk might be cheap but clearly written publically posted explanations justifying fixed gear actions are nearly free and potentially priceless.

[El Mocho]

Many thanks, that is much clearer.

(Simon had mentioned not receiving emails)

Is the new bolt on My New Hat like-for-like for an old one, or an additional one?

I don't really know any of the history here but I have abbed down and tried it - really hard! There are/were 2 bolts on the lower wall. You would clip the first bolt on Bastille and make a hard trav out left and a hard clip of the first (independent) bolt. There were v hard moves past this and a run out to the second bolt, another hard sequence past this and another run out to the flake of Bastille where there was one of the old bolts... The 2 lower bolts were both of the same era - they looked to me (without paying much attention) similar age to the 'new' bolts on Bastille so if these were old aid bolts which got replaced at the same time as the lower bastille bolts were replaced, or if they were placed on the FA in 1995 I wouldn't know.

I'm not sure which of these 2 has been chopped or which would be called the 'new' bolt of the 2. With the 2 bolts I thought it was the hardest E6 I had ever been on, maybe harder than any E7 I've done, so if there is a bolt less it will be pretty full on and I honestly find it hard to imagine Malc did it without these bolts and gave it E6 (I'm sure he could have done it. but E6 would be a massive, massive sandbag)

[Neil F]

To my knowledge, Malc placed those 2 bolts and did the FA using them for protection shortly afterwards.  He was certainly climbing well enough at that time for the difficulty to be as Ben now suggests.

I was under the impression that a 3rd bolt had been added (by persons unknown) very recently (in the last week?) lower down, and this is the one Tony chopped, but I'm sure he will confirm this in due course.

I abbed this piece of rock a few years ago, contemplating an independent start to MNH, pulling out right onto the wall from the base of Supersonic's starting groove.  But it needed bolts and I wasn't prepared to add any so left it.

The fact it would have been way too hard for me is neither here nor there.... 

Neil

[El Mocho]

To my knowledge, Malc placed those 2 bolts and did the FA using them for protection shortly afterwards.  He was certainly climbing well enough at that time for the difficulty to be as Ben now suggests.

I was under the impression that a 3rd bolt had been added (by persons unknown) very recently (in the last week?) lower down, and this is the one Tony chopped, but I'm sure he will confirm this in due course.

I abbed this piece of rock a few years ago, contemplating an independent start to MNH, pulling out right onto the wall from the base of Supersonic's starting groove.  But it needed bolts and I wasn't prepared to add any so left it.

The fact it would have been way too hard for me is neither here nor there.... 

Neil

Ah that makes sense re new bolt, I was struggling to see either of the other 2 bolts as particularly new... although it does sound like, from you recollection, that they were bolts added for free climbing and not old aid bolts that had been replaced.

I also looked at the same direct start to MNH - it actually turned out it was easier than the original start and like you I felt it needed an extra bolt so didn't bother.

Just seen an email from Tony asking about this line and some wire brushing. I brushed MNH with a stiff brush (non wire, same one I also use for grit) and it had a fine dust on the holds which came off and might have given the impression of a more heavy job. When I looked at the direct start I only had a tooth brush with me. I thought this was quite recently but was actually last year before winter. It might be whoever placed the bolt had simply cleaned the holds of this dust. A first bolt in that area would feel very close to supersonic.

[Tony]

It is probable that I inadvertently removed Malcolm’s original first (lowest) bolt on My New Hat.

The description of MNH only mentions 2 bolts where there is 3 on that wall, all with different hangers.

If it was the original (1994) bolt it was very high quality stainless bolt, hanger and nut (all were unblemished). I’m still trying to get the two possible hangers aged by Lyon/Petzl.

I agree with El Mocho that - whilst I (from experience) do not doubt Malc climbed it - it would be desperate for E6.

[shark]

Thanks everyone who took time out to watch the video. I had a meeting with Tony. It did not go well. I’m withdrawing from the whole affair. I understand he is presenting at the meeting. I won’t be attending.  

[Johnny Brown]

Tony, I used to work for Lyon and know how to date Petzl kit (easy if it has date codes, vague if not). Post or email me a pic.

[Tony]

Thanks everyone who took time out to watch the video. I had a meeting with Tony. It did not go well. I’m withdrawing from the whole affair. I understand he is presenting at the meeting. I won’t be attending. 

I’m sorry you didn’t feel able to continue with our conversation. As I wrote to you shortly after you left:

Hi Simon, if you’re willing to go through this stuff again, my door is always open or if you have any specific questions I’m happy to speak with you.

Tony, I used to work for Lyon and know how to date Petzl kit (easy if it has date codes, vague if not). Post or email me a pic.

You have mail. Pre-dates LOT markings.

[Johnny Brown]

Thanks, got them. As you say, limited markings but I can compare to others at work tomorrow and give a better idea. The use of kg not kN would suggest nineties.

[stone]

I'm not sure the exact nature of Tony's proposed bolting guidelines.

What would appeal to me would be some sort of "trad preservation order".

That would be a rule that no new equipment should go in a certain section of cliff. Some sections might be quite narrow such as between the two sport routes to either side of Ninth Life. Others might be wide such as the one Jonny Brown suggested here covering the whole central section of High Tor. Or most of Beeston Tor etc. I'd like those to be used fairly sparingly myself -so not just blocking out sport development on never climbed grotty stuff such as how Lamergyer used to be.

I think that would be far better than the current ambiguity around "not placing bolts that interfere with trad routes". The consequence of the current system is weirdly bolted sport routes and loss of trad climbing opportunities for everyone for whom trad is about the impenetrable expanses of rock to either side as much as the line actually followed.

But I guess the current system is the only one for some examples. The Spider is apparently great. I did Surplum before The Spider existed but apparently Surplum hasn't been effected at all (bolts are out of sight).

[petejh]

Of course an ‘order’ and rules would appeal to you.   From the politics threads it’s obvious you’re a lover of authority and having someone - anyone - with a badge tell you what to do.

There are ethics, not rules. And guidelines, not orders.

We’re engaged in a recreational pursuit of distraction and freedom that is climbing about on rocks. Self-policing is a system we use to navigate ethical disagreements. It shouldn’t be any other way imo - except where activities are on land controlled by bodies with legal powers of enforcement. Even then, climbers often transgress, pretend ignorance or simply don’t seek to ask permission in the knowledge it wouldn’t be ‘officially’ granted (mines act and various SSSI’s).

Guidelines are messy, sometimes nonsensical and often transgressed and pushback can be messy. It comes down to trusting your fellow recreational climbers and whatever vague consensus arises.

I think that’s about as good an imperfect system we can have which balances freedom of expression with protecting different ways of climbing.
An alternative might be sporting bodies with powers of enforcement 

Did you read the comment about the legal situations that the German climber mentioned on that ukc thread?

[Fiend]

Thanks everyone who took time out to watch the video. I had a meeting with Tony. It did not go well. I’m withdrawing from the whole affair. I understand he is presenting at the meeting. I won’t be attending. 

I’m sorry you didn’t feel able to continue with our conversation.

I'm guessing the only "resolution" you intended was for Shark to give in and accept your actions??


You fucked up here. "Winning" at chopping bolts (on 8 year old sport with only 1 bolt known to be interfering with trad, on a belay that's not on the actual route climbing, and a bolt 10' from a trad route that "may" interfere with it) by presenting it as a fait d'accompli, not engaging with discussion, and assuming you'll get away with it.....is not quite as bad as "winning" at retro-bolting a load of protectable cracklines / flakelines by presenting it as a fait d'accompli, not engaging with discussion, and assuming you'll get away with it. But it is close, and can give the potentially important activity of bolt-chopping a bad name.


Imagine if there had been a post like this:

"High Tor - interfering bolt removed, proposal for more removal, consensus needed

I have been increasingly concerned about the spread of bolts at High Tor in recent and previous years, in contravention of the Peak Area Fixed Gear guidelines

(link and quote)

This is starting to spoil the trad nature of the crag and needs to be halted and resolved.

To this end I have removed the top bolt of Big Cigar as it directly interferes with Fantasia and should never have been placed. I intend to remove the following bolts as they are also impinging on the High Tor trad too much:

The rest of Big Cigar - rarely climbed sport that already interfered with Fantasia and is likely defunct without that bolt.

The Dementia bolted belay - unnecessary as it's an easy pitch to the top.

The new bolt on Storming - compromises the start of Bastille as it's easy to use a side-runner. Alternative gear as follows (etc)

Various other sport routes that aren't just Shark's bolts - more reasons.

If people can justify these bolt placements given the reasoning above then feel free to discuss it here or raise it at the area meeting but unless strong reasons can be given to keep them then I will remove them to preserve High Tor trad, and I will aim to be be tightening to bolt guidelines at the next area meet too."


Would that have been so hard?? It could well have got mostly the same result, but done with justification, openness and consensus....

[Johnny Brown]

Good post Fiend.

I think this thread has also demonstrated that while forums aren't perfect, they can be the least worst way of debating these issues.

By nature the debate is much slower online, which gives time to reflect and gather thoughts. Decent information has been also been slow to emerge, but I have a much clearer picture now. The downside of course is the sort of uninformed pile-on we saw at the start of the UKC thread, but similar can happen at area meets too, plus certain voices tend to dominate whereas I think text has a levelling effect.

I won't be able to attend the area meet either, due to a family holiday.

This episode has made me feel the guidelines as they stand are rather pointless. They weren't included in the guide and are barely accessible online. The main Peak bolting protagonists weren't involved in the process, as I remember, and I'm sure will continue to apply their own judgement as they see fit, as we see at less hallowed venues like Central Buttress. Simon claims he followed them, except for the 'limited and specific' unintentional retrobolting of Fantasia - I'm sure we've all similarly had the 'three-star' first ascent blinkers on at some point, if not with such ramifications.

So whether they are strengthened or not, there is a question of who are they for? We don't know whether they've held back a tide of otherwise uninformed bolters, but I suspect not. But the other recent bolt-issue-which-should-not-be-named suggests there does need to be a raising of the profile of certain areas where it is an access issue. So a re-issued document should have these at the top in bold.

As above, I'd also suggesting a debate and vote on whether people feel this main section of High tor needs any more bolts. From where I'm sat it's very hard to see there is room for anything but the 'inferior filler-in' lines recommended against in the guidelines.

I don't think there is any place for lower-offs either, but I would not chop any myself without first making a thorough assessment of the alternatives.

[Duncan campbell]

+1 to fiend

Whilst I don’t disagree with the act of taking out bolts that likely shouldn’t have been placed, I do agree with Fiend and that it could have been gone about in a much better way that would open up future bolters to act in the way we would like them to, ie ask for permission rather than forgiveness.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because the bolter(s) didn’t ask for permission doesn’t mean the debolter(s) couldn’t have risen above and said “look this is how we should do things” rather than engaging in a tit-for-tat “well you didn’t ask for permission so why should I?”

I think maybe Stone suggested higher up this thread that maybe a new rule/ethic/understanding/whatever should be that no new bolts are placed at specified classic trad crags? This prevents bolts being misplaced and changing the character of the already existing trad lines…

It’s tricky because in some parts of the world this stuff doesn’t seem to be an issue but maybe the rock in the UK just doesn’t work so well for it?

I do feel like Shark has acquiesced to much/some of his mistakes… maybe it would be good if Tony you could come forward and say publicly that it would be better to have asked the wider community what they thought? Seems like you have much support here anyway. Obviously I don’t know what was said privately which I guess is the tricky thing with you consistently asking people to DM you/meet up/etc as then it is just both parties accounts of the exchange rather than the facts. And we all know there are 3 sides to every story; side A, side B and the truth.

Anyway just a few thoughts from someone who has never placed a bolt recreationally and who has had some of my previously held opinions challenged by NY… UK trad is pretty fantastic imo but I think kindness and openness to others is something we need more of rather than less of right now

[grimer]

Fiend I think your post sums up how i feel about all this. I would probably (not strongly) prefer no new sport or hybrid routes on High Tor but i think the way this has been done and dealt with has left a lot of bitter feelings. So a +1 for the outcome, -1 for the action.

[Johnny Brown]

Thanks, got them. As you say, limited markings but I can compare to others at work tomorrow and give a better idea. The use of kg not kN would suggest nineties.

Have had a dig around. The oldest one I can find is the same shape (which was produced up to 2016) but has 25kN and ø10mm where the 2500kg is on the one from MNH. On the reverse is a three digit date code of 02.4 = April 2002. That would fit as it was 'reclaimed' from ATL (next to the Foundry, now Jagged Globe) in 2010. EN 795 came out in 1996 and likely precipitated the switch from kg to kN.

NB, the above hanger in great shape and I'd happily use it, so a note of caution that the date of manufacture may have little relation to date of installation.

[Tony]

Simon and I had a private conversation. I can write that I came with the following agenda, as written in my notepad:

Agree the “facts”
Where do we agree
Where do we still disagree
Any open questions

We talked in a place open to the public for approximately 40 minutes.

I will not detail the contents of a private conversation.

I hold no bitter feelings towards anyone.

[Tony]

You should be aware that I have previously highlighted a bolt (which I subsequently removed this year) on this forum back when I discovered it:
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31122.msg630785.html#msg630785

[Will Hunt]

We talked in a place open to the public for approximately 40 minutes.

Open to the public but regrettably not advertised beforehand. I feel that the public have been deprived of the sport.

[Tony]

Where's Willy?

[stone]

Petejh, you are totally right. It has to be guidelines not "orders".

I did read that post on ukc about the Austrian situation with the law involved, and like you, I read it with consternation.

I only used the word "order" by way of analogue to a "tree preservation order". But that was just in my own head and anyway messed up since I didn't want it to be legalistic anymore than you do. It was thoughtless language on my part.

It's off topic, but where is there an example of me advocating other sorts of orders or legal restrictions on people in a politics thread?

[stone]

Fiend, I'm not sure I'm convinced that what Tony did cause avoidable upset.

Ramon and Shark would I guess have felt set upon even if this had been done by way of some guidelines meeting. Anyway, as Tony has said, much of what he chopped was in contravention of existing guidelines anyway. A guidelines meeting may very well have gone off in a way that didn't make sense to most climbers since meetings go weirdly often.

As Tony says, he has been bringing this subject up over the years and as a community we failed to rally round and resolve what we thought about it.

The action that he took (and the flack he has taken for it) seems to me to have been needed to galvanise everyone into not continuing to avoid the awkward subject.