by Jonathan Baldassare / September 20, 2023
It seems that every few years the climbing community, here in the northeast, is faced with an all too familiar conflict involving the installment of bolted belay/rappel anchors on established routes. These routes historically never used bolts as a method for climbers to anchor themselves on top of a route, but instead utilized trees or natural features for “gear anchors” (using removable anchor points in the cracks/features of the rock). The arguments for retro-installing a bolt anchor are numerous and admittedly compelling, while the opposition’s case is harder to defend and automatically has the feel of your grandfather refusing to believe that this modern “computer” is a better tool than his trusty pencil and paper. An inconvenient point to defend for sure. Coincidently, “inconvenience” is perhaps the biggest reason to keep these new anchors at bay. Let me explain.
Many a would-be-anchor-installer have good intentions. Some argue that bolts will protect a tree that’s being used on popular routes from the effects of the fixed nylon slings around it’s trunk being weighted and unweighted with every ascent. Some argue that an anchor is needed because the gear might be finicky or the anchor hard to build, especially for the less experienced climber; thus being a safety measure. There are other “good” reasons for a retro anchor, too numerous to list on any given climb. But all too often, the objective is to make lowering/rappelling to the ground easier and more convenient for the climber.
The top of the Cathedral Ledge rock climb Bombardment (5.8, 2 pitches) is a route that is often brought up as a case for a bolt anchor (and for a very short time DID have an anchor installed before swiftly being chopped). The idea is that the tree anchor that has been used time and again since it’s first ascent in 1972, is starting to show it’s age….but also…if one were to install a bolt anchor about 15’ lower down the pitch from the tree (albeit still after the “real” climbing difficulty ends), climbers would be able to conveniently climb and rappel the route with a single 60 meter rope. As it stands, climbers have to do two rappels to get to the ground, or have two 60 meter ropes to tie together to make it. This takes extra effort, as well as time that could be spent racking up more pitches. But is the number of pitches one can rack up at a historically traditional climbing area like Cathedral Ledge really what makes the day? Is problem solving and terrain management skills fading out as the popularity of the sport increases?
As one Mount Washington Valley local once stated “climbing isn’t convenient, that’s what makes it cool.” This was in response to those justifying a newly bolted rappel route for a few popular ice climbs on Cannon Cliff (New Hampshire’s largest unbroken cliff). The climbs that this rappel route catered to are nearly 600’ long and notoriously committing endeavors. Up until the installation of this 500’ rappel line, climbers had to be self reliant on these routes. The typical way to make an ascent is to hike up the lengthy approach; through the trees and up the steep talus (for what seems like forever) to the base of the climbs. Then, climb the route in 3 long pitches to the top. From the top, getting down usually means hiking down the steep climbers trail back down to the very bottom of the mountain; as the climbs are narrow, typically loose and popular (which makes rappelling down the way you come up unsafe and unpleasant). This also means that you have to climb the routes with your pack on, along with everything you brought with you. A true alpine climbing experience to be sure, and one which takes the better part of a day to complete for most people. To climb two or more of these routes in a day without rappelling requires quite an effort, as there is no easy way to get back to the base without hiking all the way down and then back up the approach trail again.
The new rappel line included the installment of two bolted rappel anchors (and one tree anchor) to facilitate the 3 rappels down a section of rock that is void of climbing routes. The intention was to make it so climbers could hike to the base, climb one of the routes, rappel back to the base via the new rappel stations, and then climb another route. This effectively takes away from the alpine challenges and obstacles that this cliff is known for. It also lessens the commitment required on these routes, as there are now bolted anchors to retreat off of should the going get tough. This was a matter of convenience at the expense of the character of the cliff, and the climbing community (in large part) agreed that the new anchors must go.
And let’s not forget the most recent debacle on the subject, this time at the “North End” of Cathedral Ledge. The climbs here are shorter (typically a single 90’ pitch), moderate in difficulty and thus a popular place for beginner and intermediate climbers to top rope (when the rope runs from the belayer on the ground up to the top of the climb through a carabiner(s) then back down to the climber). The area is also popular with guided parties. Probably the most popular route is a perfect hand crack called “They Died Laughing” (5.9). When climbing to the top of this route, one must make use of a much smaller crack to build an anchor. This anchor takes a little thought, ingenuity and skill to build properly, but if you are leading at this level of difficulty, then these skills should be well within your repertoire. Once secured, you can then belay your partner(s) from the top, or lower off your anchor to top rope the route. To retrieve the anchor and get down, one must find a safe way to deconstruct the anchor and scramble across the sloping and slabby ledge to a tree with fixed rappel rings (near the other end of this section of cliff). This process takes more time, and is far less convenient than if there were two shiny bolts one could belay/rappel/lower-off from directly on top of the route.
It is argued that bolts would eliminate the need to do a potentially dangerous scramble across the ledge, save the rappel tree from climber impact, and free up the climb for other parties more quickly. But will it really? And, even if it did, is it worth bringing the climb on this historically traditional cliff down a notch, and just a tad closer to a sport climb or gym route? Maybe mitigating a slabby traverse is part of the traditional climbing experience. Maybe the tree is doing just fine with climbers adding their body weight to its trunk. Maybe inexperienced climbers who had to forgo top roping the route, due to lack of gear and/or anchor building know-how, will now be implored to scramble over from an easier route and set up shop off the bolts -making the route even more congested? What if, with a bolted anchor installed, a group of progressive future climbers argue that it’s really strenuous to place a removable piece of protection (such as a cam) on the crux of the route, and that adding a bolt would be both more convenient and safer for everyone (a bit far-fetched, I know, but think about how much faster you could do the route and move on to the next).
Where does one draw the line on the constant creep of, in a way, the dumbing down of a cliff? Who is the “one(s)” who draw such lines when climbers are divided on issues like these? Often times, it’s the local climbers (and climber coalitions) who voluntarily put the work, time and money into the preservation of an area and the climbs therein. It’s these climbers who scrub off graffiti, maintain trails, replace aged existing hardware….. and yes… remove new bolt additions that they deem not fit for the cliff. It is not uncommon for progressive climbers to accuse these individuals as being elitist when a bolt-related controversy arises. But, is having a group of local climbers who have spent years of their lives honing their climbing abilities, earning the respect from their peers, and familiarizing themselves on the history and lore of the cliff a bad thing? I believe they are the very ones who should have the final say on cliffs such as Cathedral Ledge and Cannon Cliff.
There are sport climbing crags, there are traditional climbing crags, there are alpine crags and there are crags that are any combination of the three. I enjoy them all for whatever they are. But, I wouldn’t go to Cannon Cliff and be annoyed at the lack of sport climbing, just as I wouldn’t go to Ace Hardware and complain about its lack of food selection. If what you are looking for is convenience, and racking up as many pitches as possible, consider going to a climbing area developed as such. But if you are looking for the kind of climbing that offers adventure, traditional protection, danger and lack of convenience; then it is imperative that the climbing community preserves, honors, and defends these areas from those wanting to impose upon them their own set of ethics. Sometimes a new fixed anchor in a traditional climbing area is a good idea, but not one to be taken lightly. It should have practical purpose, local consensus, and not solely in the name of convenience.