Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

CLIMBING Editor Chops Route

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Patrick Seurynck

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 2:36:20 PM9/6/02
to
We set out to the base of the climb at arount 7pm. It was late June so
there was still plenty of sunlight. This route has totally consumed us
for the last 12 months. It had to be perfect, a multi-pitch mixed
sport & trad line on clean granite with fantastic exposure and solid
equiopment. The quality of this route rivals those in Tuolomne Meadows
with the exception of the overhead high tension power lines. We have
spent countless hours thinking, planning the bolt placements, drilling
and installing the best equipment we could buy. Through all of this
effort we were looking forward to the day when we could walk to the
base and head up.
Ralph took the lead on the first pitch. It is about 60 feet of slab
climbing followed by a fine 5.8 trad protected finger crack. This is
what we had waited and worked for. He cruised to the first set of
anchors. Or where the first set of anchors had been. Ralph yelled down
to me that "the anchors are gone". "What?" was my reply. "Somebody has
removed the anchors".
He climbed, unprotected for about 30 to 40 feet to reach a tree that
we intentionally did not factor into this climb because of safety
issues and the long term and aesthetic impacts of slings wrapped
around trees. Fortunately the exposure didn't bother him. As he
belayed me up my mind was filled with all kinds of conflict. Who did
this? Who would do this? Why? Fuck! Then I thought of all the
perfectly healthy trees that we have seen lately, blown over and
uprooted by the wind. The draught had dried the ground out to such a
degree that the trees and their roots just pull out. Big ones! I am
being belayed from a tree. This is not what we had done all this work
for.
We sat at the top of the first pitch for quite some time pondering our
situation. We decided that we could not continue up because we didn't
know how much equipment had been removed. We could see a few bolts
above us but the next set of anchors were not visible. We rapped off
the tree, furious. Upon reaching the ground we inspected the route
through binoculars and saw that the rest of the route was intact.
Sadly, this same scenario was played out a couple of weeks later. This
time we made it to the top of the second pitch, again using the tree
as a belay. All of the bolts had since been removed from the third
pitch with the exception of one.
This was the start of a long investigation. Phone calls were made to
the few climbers that frequent this crag. Surprisingly, the name of
Jonathan Thesenga came up right away as someone we needed to talk
with. While we had his name, we only had rumors. In our first two
conversations with him we met with denials of any knowledge. We
finally met a climber on the route re-setting anchors. He, of course,
was met with considerable on our part. He apparantly felt threatened
and blurted out Thesenga"s name as the culprit. Now we had a witness.
Indeed, our witness's report helped us get the confession we were
after.
Jonathan Thesenga replied, in writing, as Editor of Climbing Magazine
and admitted to the removal of bolts from a route that he did not put
up. By virtue of association most climbers, and rightly so, will
connect his actions with Climbing Magazine. Climbing Magazine is a
supporter of the Access Fund whose stance on route modification is
very clearly stated on their web site; "Chopping or removing of bolts
invariably results in damage to the resource and should not occur
until and unless a consesus has been reach between all parties".
Jonathan did this without the slightest effort to find us to discuss
his intent or even his dislike of the route we had established.
Jonathan still does not want to meet with us, nor, does he want to
debate the issue.
I know that there will always be people that will disagree with a
route that has been established by somebody else. But how can a person
take it upon themselves to dismantle or add to, what, in this case,
amounts to a considerable amount of time, effort, energy, money and
devotion without so much as a phone call. Jonathan could have
contacted us with a minimum of effort. Maybe, through discussion, he
could have come to understand our idea for this climb. Maybe he could
have convinced us to reconsider our line placement and modify it
ourselves. Maybe he didn't even climb the intended line.
There are certain levels of danger in Jonathans act. In a physical
sense, the removal of these anchors and bolts could easily have led to
personal injury. In a philosophical sense he has set a precedent that
has and will continue to deteriorate relations among the climbing
community. Also, based on his position with Climbing Magazine,
Jonathan has, through his actions, implied that it is the policy of
Climbing Magazine itself to support bolt chopping.
Basically, what I want to say to Jonathan and anyone else that is
contemplating the modification of a climbing route that they did not
establish, whether removing or adding bolts, be responsible and
upfront about it. Contact the person or people that established the
route. Find out their intent and strive to reach a mutual, not a
unilateral, resolution.
Embrace and respect diversity!

Nate B

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 3:09:38 PM9/6/02
to

"Patrick Seurynck"

> Jonathan Thesenga replied,

Jonathan is a good climber with a lot of experience. You, however, seem to
be crying about your chopped, bolted 5.8 route. Not having actually seen
your little Picasso - I'm going to err on his side.

> Editor of Climbing Magazine

WTF does his employer or their sponsers have to do this this issue? Stop
your pathetic, whiney-ass crying before someone passes out.

> But how can a person take it upon themselves to

> dismantle or add to, [blah blah - waaaahhhhhh]

If your route was a piece of crap - if its nature and its bolt quality and
placement flew in the face of other routes established in the area - it will
get chopped. Thanks for playing, and for supplying a better climber with
some hangers. I hope he puts them to good use and your childish ego is too
damaged to do this again until you get a clue.


- Nate


Mike Garrison

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 3:34:25 PM9/6/02
to
Nate B wrote:
>
> "Patrick Seurynck"
>
> > Jonathan Thesenga replied,
>
> Jonathan is a good climber with a lot of experience. You, however, seem to
> be crying about your chopped, bolted 5.8 route. Not having actually seen
> your little Picasso - I'm going to err on his side.

"Not having actually seen" this thing you have a pretty
strong opinion, Nate.

> > Editor of Climbing Magazine
>
> WTF does his employer or their sponsers have to do this this issue?

I'd say it is possibly relevant. What if he were president
of the Access Fund or a board member of Wild Wilderness? If
he sold cars down at Jerry's Corner Creampuffs, it wouldn't
be relevant. In this case -- somewhere in between.

> If your route was a piece of crap - if its nature and its bolt quality and
> placement flew in the face of other routes established in the area - it will
> get chopped.

Gosh, aren't bolt wars fun? Beneficial to all of us, too.

-Mike

Nate B

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 3:59:21 PM9/6/02
to

"Mike Garrison"

> Gosh, aren't bolt wars fun? Beneficial to all of us, too.

Yeah - neophyte morons with drills. From his post alone - this guy is
clearly a fucking idiot.

Off the Western Slope for me...


- Nate

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 4:02:06 PM9/6/02
to
Nate B wrote:
>
> "Patrick Seurynck"
>
>
> Jonathan is a good climber with a lot of experience. You, however, seem to
> be crying about your chopped, bolted 5.8 route.

Apparently they were able to climb the entire first pitch without
noticing that the bolts had been chopped. Should all routes with
bolted anchors be chopped? Or only the ones that are 5.8?

Dawn

Nate B

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 4:46:08 PM9/6/02
to

"Dawn Alguard"

> Apparently they were able to climb the entire first pitch without
> noticing that the bolts had been chopped. Should all routes with
> bolted anchors be chopped? Or only the ones that are 5.8?

Dawn,

I read this guy's post, listened to his reasoning, clearly saw his utter
lack of maturity on the issue, and his inexperience as a climber. It pisses
me off that guys like this are out there drilling holes in our rock.
Apparently, I'm not the only one.

Now I'm really off to the Western Slope...


- Nate

GREGORY KNESER

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 5:17:03 PM9/6/02
to
Nate B (na...@nospam.com) wrote:
: Now I'm really off to the Western Slope...


You are an idiot or a troll. I hope the latter.

I liked it better 3 posts ago when you were "off the western slope."


Jason Liebgott

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 6:03:33 PM9/6/02
to
"Nate B" wrote ...

>
> "Mike Garrison"
> > Gosh, aren't bolt wars fun? Beneficial to all of us, too.
>
> Yeah - neophyte morons with drills. From his post alone - this guy is
> clearly a fucking idiot.

Why is he an idiot? Greg Barnes put up a 5.8 that has 10 bolts per pitch on
5.7 160' and 5.8 140' foot pitches last year. I'd call that well protected
(as does he) for Tuolumne. Should he have put one or two bolts in the middle
to make it similar to other climbs of the area? Greg is obviously more
experienced than Patrick (and most everybody else in the world) but he had
to put up his first route at some point!

For Jonathan Thesenga to chop the route, then lie about doing it... That's
crap and shows that he was either not proud of his actions or thought it
would bring heat to Climbing Magazine. If he did it because the thing was a
total botch job then fess up and publicly say why. If he feels it's his
right and job to chop routes - he shouldn't be sneaking around and lying
about doing it.

As for bringing heat to Climbing? Climbing magazine probably doesn't have
space to cover a story like this with all the adverts, comps, and HOT TICKS
crammed in there.

For Patrick - if it was a botch job (being totally honest) it would get
chopped sooner or later. Overbolted 5.8s... eccchhhhh. If it was a good
route, and well protected - I'm sorry your hard work was ruined. FAing is a
tough enough job without people working against you.

Now stand back Patrick and watch the blow torch level on me for comparing
you to Greg!!!!

HA!
j.


Brian in SLC

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 7:42:21 PM9/6/02
to
cl...@rof.net (Patrick Seurynck) wrote in message news:<9cd1b96d.02090...@posting.google.com>...

> "Somebody has removed the anchors".

I'd be curious about some details you've left out.

Where was the route? What is the local consensus (or, is there one?)?

Was is possible that the route had been done prior without the fixed
protection?

I don't think just because a guy works for a livin' you can associate
his actions with his work place...unless he worked for "ground up, no
fixed pro" magazine or the like. Might be an unfair association.

Most recent edition of "Climb!" reissued by Jeff Achey etc has some
interesting statements toward the back of the book concerning the
direction of climbing in Colorado. Worth a look.

Brian in SLC

N42461

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:24:17 PM9/6/02
to
>Dawn Alguard wrote:

>Apparently they were able to climb the entire first pitch without
>noticing that the bolts had been chopped. Should all routes with
>bolted anchors be chopped? Or only the ones that are 5.8?

No, but maybe the 5.?'s with a big ole tree on them that have probably been
climbed 30+ times without the convenience bolts. But of course I'm just
guessing....

nathan (the tree might fall over.....that's a good one. Methinks it may have
been the 30-40 feet TO the tree that was the real Bosch motivation here) sweet

Mike Rawdon

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:47:08 PM9/6/02
to
>
> I'd be curious about some details you've left out.
>

There's definitely insufficient info for ANYONE not familiar with the
situation to say who is being the idiot here. As with most bolt wars,
there's ample shame to go around, though it is not always universally
deserved. I for one wouldn't make a call on this incident based on the
sketchy info in the original post.

But my $0.02 - why the bashing because this was (only) a 5.8? Yes, the
area's standards come into play, but absent that information, realize that
5.8 climbers deserve a safe 5.8 route every bit as much as a 5.11 climber
deserves a safe 5.11. Gravity and the ground are grade-independent.

Mike


Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 9:41:00 PM9/6/02
to
Obviously we don't know the whole story here, so it's hard to judge
until we hear both sides. I'm interested in all the issues involving
the route and Jonathan's side of things. Did he lie about chopping the
route. Why didn't he take the time to erase it completely, fill the
holes and whatknot?

But I have a few remarks based on Nate's comments. Sounds like he might
have been overdue for that Front Range Vacation.

I don't think anything Patrick wrote branded him as an idiot or moron,
much less a "fucking" one! It's clear that he doesn't have the
experience or skills of many "experienced" climbers, but us
"experienced climbers" have a piss poor record for putting up 5.8
climbs for 5.8 climbers. Few talented climbers are willing to take the
time and expense to equip a route that needs bolted pro in a way that
moderate climbers will feel OK on it. When they put up routes at their
level though, there is no shortage of pro! Tuolomne Meadows, homeland
of runout 5.7 to 5.10 face climbs hardly has any 5.13 r/x faces!

The fact is, the vast majority of trad climbers climb 5.10 or easier,
If I said 5.9 or easier, it would still be true. I refuse to look down
on folks who climb 5.8 because they're starting out, or have a job and
family. If Bachar's not putting up routes for them, I'll pat em on the
back for doing it themselves. (it still pisses me off that a Three Star
Tuolumne Meadows 5.9 face climb "Solitary Confinement" never gets
climbed so it can remain a no-pro testament to Bachar's skills/ego)

There are probably bolted routes that shouldn't be there, but just as
often, bolt choppers can be self-righteous, arrogant egotists making a
statement of self-proclaimed superiority.

So which is it. what's the rest of the story?

Peace, and equal bolts to the People!

Karl

--
Guide Guy
http://member.newsguy.com/~climbing/

C_Kryll

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:16:40 PM9/6/02
to
<<Ralph took the lead on the first pitch. It is about 60 feet of slab
climbing followed by a fine 5.8 trad protected finger crack. >>

Ok, so if I read this right, it's a mixed sport route. Part of it being
protected by bolts (note:slab) and then gaining the trad portions of the
climb. This sounds more then resonable to me, I'm all for a bolt or two on
a long slab as long as there is NO place to set pro to make it safe(er).
Now as to the grade of the route, Patrick only describes the 5.8 pitch,
perhaps other pitches are harder, we just don't know.

<He cruised to the first set of anchors. Or where the first set of anchors
had been. Ralph yelled down to me that "the anchors are gone">>

I think this bother's me more then anything. If your going to rip someone
else's route down, wouldn't you pull the bolts right off the ground first?
Why let them think the route is good only to create a dangerous situation by
pulling the Anchors and leaving the bolts up to it in? Sounds very
irresponsible to me, and downright criminal

<<He climbed, unprotected for about 30 to 40 feet to reach a tree that
we intentionally did not factor into this climb because of safety issues and
the long term and aesthetic impacts of slings wrappedaround trees.>>

<< Then I thought of all the perfectly healthy trees that we have seen
lately, blown over and
uprooted by the wind. The draught had dried the ground out to such a degree
that the trees and their roots just pull out. Big ones! >>

Sounds reasonable to me (if true) to want to place bolt anchors instead of
trusting a tree which may or may not have been affected by the drought.

Ok, now that that's all said, and I've got my flame resistant undies on,
Flame away!!

Chris


*

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:15:09 PM9/6/02
to
Nate, you ARE a loser. I can't believe how you raped this guy without
knowing anything of substance about him or his story. I'm blown away by
your ability to sum this guy up as a loser in the 1 minute you took to read
his post. What's even more uncanny is my ability to sum you up as a fucking
hot headed, irritating, "whiney", little asshole who wants to spout off to
make him feel important in about 15 seconds.


"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:alaufu$1p76sm$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de...

Dave Schuller

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:27:42 PM9/6/02
to
Karl Baba wrote:

Good point Karl. I too would like to hear the rest of the story.

Or ... we could lynch them both. A little corporal punishment goes a long
way toward policing these kinds of actions... Or fence in Colorado (no
barbed wire please). I'd prefer Nebraska but the inmates should have some
rock.(idle minds are dangerous, this post is evidence of that). I sure
some sort of modest proposal can be worked out.

Sarcasm aside, I wish ya'll would work it out in a less destructive, less
visible to the Forest Service kind off way. They do monitor this and other
groups. This kind of thing causes us or can cause us problems when orgs.
, like the Access Fund, go to bat for us.

Climbing is what it is for all off us until someplace gets shut down, then
climbing is the same to ALL of us...gone. Chopping bolts, over bolting,
and bolt wars in general paint us in a negative light, something we don't
need when we're telling the courts why we deserve to climb on public land.

We all know who the looser is in the battle.

Dave (this dead horse is getin rank) Schuller


Roughit3

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:53:16 PM9/6/02
to
Jonathan Thesenga seems to be quite the little prick to me from reading the
initial post.

Can't wait to hear his self righteous bullshit justification in the next
edition of Climbing, which by the way needs all the publicity it can get (good
or bad) sinces it's last few issues have been utterly steaming piles of crap.

Aaron Rough

Geoff Jennings

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:58:10 PM9/6/02
to
> I read this guy's post, listened to his reasoning, clearly saw his utter
> lack of maturity on the issue,
Huh?


> and his inexperience as a climber. It pisses
> me off that guys like this are out there drilling holes in our rock.

You're an idiot. What in the post, specifically labels him inexperienced?
If you have more information share, but I think he's justifiably pissed.
Even if the route is out of place, based on the location, ethics,
whatever...there are better ways to deal with it than chopping. For
somebody that hasn't seen the route, you're sure sprouting off there Nate.
What gives?

Geoff

Dave Schuller

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 12:10:05 AM9/7/02
to
> Climbing, which by the way needs all the publicity it can get (good
> or bad) sinces it's last few issues have been utterly steaming piles of crap.
>
> Yea, since like 1988.

Dave

andy T.

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 12:38:52 AM9/7/02
to
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 23:16:40 -0400, "C_Kryll"
<C_Kryll@*nospam*compuserve.com> wrote:

>I think this bother's me more then anything. If your going to rip someone
>else's route down, wouldn't you pull the bolts right off the ground first?
>Why let them think the route is good only to create a dangerous situation by
>pulling the Anchors and leaving the bolts up to it in? Sounds very
>irresponsible to me, and downright criminal

true. But you also said that you can accept the bolts on the slab "as
long as there is NO place to set pro". Perhaps that is the case for
the slab, while at the anchors the pro is bomber. (but no, i don't
think you should chop without contancting the FA. I'm just the
devil's advocate...)

Of course not knowing the route, FA, chopper, or local ethics- it's
all supposition anyway.

andy T.

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 12:59:48 AM9/7/02
to
On 6 Sep 2002 16:42:21 -0700, bead...@yahoo.com (Brian in SLC) wrote:

>I don't think just because a guy works for a livin' you can associate
>his actions with his work place...unless he worked for "ground up, no
>fixed pro" magazine or the like. Might be an unfair association.

If there were absolutely no relation to the actions he took and the
employment he has, I think your argument would be very valid. If he
worked the graveyard shift at Burger King, I don't think this action
would reflect on that.
But since he works for a magazine that prints and thrives on climbing
and its associated trials and successes, I think that it happens to be
related. Climbing (the sport) has a whole side of it that is not
related to the pure joy of the sport: ethics. How to do this and that
and do it without hurting someone else's feelings. As the Editor (of
all things) of a major rag that is based on the sport, you would think
that he ought to be a little more sensitive to the implications that
such actions would have. Like it or not, he has power of persuasion
through his position. If the anit-bolting committees (or whoever they
are) decide that his actions are indicative of the general concensus
of climbers, then the climbing community may be in a world of hurt.

This only reminds me of when Clinton was caught with Not His Wife.
Some people thought it wasn't the nation's buisness to hear about, and
others were worried about what might happen to the standard of morals
when the man holding the highest position of authority in the US was
doing things like this. When that was the latest news, I personally
didn't care about clinton's personal life- but I understood the
implications that might have.

Is the editor of Climbing Magazine the fearless leader of the climbing
community? no- it was a rough example. I happen to not be concerned
with what he does when he goes home. If he abuses his family (i'm
making this up...) it does not shine poorly on the climbing
community. But his actions of chopping without contacting the FA, nor
the locals who might give permission to chop routes (I'm assuming the
FA had permission to set the route) and then lie about doing it only
to confess when cornerned does not bode well for those of us who would
like to keep climbing permissable by maintaining a reasonable amount
of report with locals as well as environmentalists.
We don't need someone who is in the spotlight doing things like this.

Andy T... wordy bastard aren't I ...

Hugh McNeil

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 12:09:58 PM9/7/02
to
Nate, maybe you missed the part where he pointed out that the option
remaining was to sling an already imperiled tree. Yeah, I know... there are
a jillion trees out there... but don't ya like sitting in their shade on
really hot days?


"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:alb467$1p7js0$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de...

Greg Barnes

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 1:55:25 PM9/7/02
to
At the ASCA we're all too familiar with bolt controversy and it's
number one source - incorrect information, rumors, etc.

Patrick, could you please tell us:

1) exactly where this route is

2) have other routes been done on this formation

3) if so, who did the FAs and when?

4) exactly how did you establish the route?

5) is that in conflict with local ethics?

6) are there any other factors involved - for instance, did a new
route in that same area get chopped anytime in the last 15 years?
Personality conflicts (maybe not you, but the chopping party could
have thought it was someone else)?

The lack of details is what gets rumors flying and everyone all pissed
off. Sometimes routes get chopped that were put in in the best style
(ground-up hand drilled from stance) just because rumors start flying
about a rap bolt job (that turns out to be somewhere else, or that
never existed to begin with).

So please give us all the details (and maybe we can hope people hold
off on the responses until we actually know something...).

Greg

Earthlink

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 2:59:35 PM9/7/02
to
in article ef17b071.02090...@posting.google.com, Greg Barnes at
safecl...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/7/02 10:55 AM:


> (and maybe we can hope people hold off on the responses until we actually know
> something...).


That would be something of a first.

Lg

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:07:22 AM9/8/02
to
roug...@aol.com (Roughit3) wrote in message news:<20020906235316...@mb-ba.aol.com>...

> Jonathan Thesenga seems to be quite the little prick to me from reading the
> initial post.

Can't argue with that . . but I hear he's a good climber with lots of
experience. AS IF these are any reasons to support his actions!


>
> Can't wait to hear his self righteous bullshit justification in the next
> edition of Climbing, which by the way needs all the publicity it can get (good
> or bad) sinces it's last few issues have been utterly steaming piles of crap.
>
> Aaron Rough

Think he'd be so bold? Well, if Patrick's report (thanks btw) is
accurate, I would expect a public apology more than anything else. If
who he works for does not matter, why was he hiding in the first
place? Busted! Jonathan Thesenga plays a main role in providing a
product to the climbing communities. When a person in his position
acts this way towards/within the climbing community, these actions
clearly spell out who this person is and their ideals. That's why it
matters.

Lg

Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:23:47 AM9/8/02
to

"Karl Baba"

> Obviously we don't know the whole story here, so it's hard to judge
> until we hear both sides.

I don't like Patrick's side based on what I read:

1) He was unable to justify any need or correct use for the bolts in his
post, other than for the anchor. Fine - save a tree. However, there were
more bolts than that, and he gave no indication to even knowing for himself
what is acceptable bolt use. This is bad. Given the context, and who he
is slamming, I would expect a valid justification for his actions and his
perspective. His post completely lacks it - but there is no lack of
slamming. Sorry - the whole "I found this piece of rock so I can do what I
want with it" thing doesn't do much for me or anyone else these days.

2) He seemed proud of himself that he personally threatened the guy who came
later to fix the route. It reaks of ego and selfishness.

3) He must have completely wet himself when he found out a nationally
recognised and experienced climber chopped his route. If the climber was
unknown - would this post have appeared here? Why or why not?

Sorry Karl - asshole is my take. It has absolutely nothing to do with the
grade of the route, who he his - whatever. Garnering attention to his own
local conflicts by slamming a national figure in front of many people as
possible is just sorry, pathetic and lame-ass. Frankly, I feel really very
sorry for J. Thesenga to have this garbage made known. I hope he completely
ignores this idiot rather than jumping into the mud.

Guys - prove my perspective wrong and I'll eat some dog crap and post the
pix. Patrick - name and location of route? Also - theorize for us about
why you think your route pissed off the locals, while you're at it. Anchors
to save trees usually doesn't do it. Thanks in advance for your time - or
sell your drill and go away...

- Nate

Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:37:17 AM9/8/02
to

"Geoff Jennings"

> For somebody that hasn't seen the route,
> you're sure sprouting off there Nate.

For someone so eager to slam a national climbing figure - he didn't give
much information about the route or why someone would be inspired to chop it
either. How about that? I wasn't born yesterday Geoff. Sorry - saving
trees doesn't piss people off. He told us a hell of a lot about his
conflict in his post.

Hey Patrick - how about the full text of JT's letter to you while you're at
it? It's only fair given your scathing and asinine post.


- Nate


Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:18:21 AM9/8/02
to

"Jason Liebgott"

> If it was a good
> route, and well protected -
> I'm sorry your hard work was ruined.

What a shame - because good, well bolted routes get chopped all the time -
by guys just like Jonathan. Yeah.

- Nate


Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:49:58 AM9/8/02
to
In article <alejc6$1p37ig$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de>, Nate B
<na...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sorry Karl - asshole is my take. It has absolutely nothing to do with the
> grade of the route, who he his - whatever. Garnering attention to his own
> local conflicts by slamming a national figure in front of many people as
> possible is just sorry, pathetic and lame-ass. Frankly, I feel really very
> sorry for J. Thesenga to have this garbage made known. I hope he completely
> ignores this idiot rather than jumping into the mud.

I hope Jonathan fully and thoughtfully responds. It might show folks
there are two sides to every story. I too want to know the other side
and I hope Patrick answers your question regarding the circumstances. A
response would have been more likely if you didn't torch him from the
get go. His post was obviously meant to public slander Jonathan. An
understandable reaction but one sided, a bit like your reaction. Us
damn humans.

He also posted to rockclimbing.com where he later responded to a
number of posts supporting him. That makes me feel that he is ignoring
some of the issues and I called upon him to clarify things. I'll copy
my rc.com post below. I'm kinda not on the side of bolt choppers but
there are exceptions.

Peace

Karl
++++
from rc.com
I'm very disturbed by bolt chopping in general. On the other hand, I'm
also concerned that Patrick is stirring up a lot of negativity towards
Jonathan (I'm feeling it too) but not answering the very reasonable
questions regarding the area and circumstances involved in the event.

You are obviously monitoring the forums in which you posted, Patrick,
since you have responded to several posts. It's time to elaborate on
the questions folks have raised about why anyone would care to chop
your route. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and defended you on
rec.climbing, but I'm concerned about your silence

Peace

Karl

Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:14:45 PM9/8/02
to

"Karl Baba"

> A response would have been more
> likely if you didn't torch him from the
> get go.

His post was pretty negative. In fact - very negative, slanderous and
egotistical. I'll admit my reply probably stepped it up (down?) a bit - but
I don't feel such a response should have been unexpected by Patrick given
the content of his post. If he's going to play this game, he should be
ready stand firm with a very strong and valid position.

> His post was obviously meant to public slander Jonathan.

No kidding. Tying the Climbing Magazine and Access Fund into his own
personal conflict is beyond reproach.

> An understandable reaction but one sided, a bit like your reaction.

Karl - I want you to know I have a great deal of respect for your diplomacy,
social understanding and mellow approach to things. I do appreciate your
time and your perspective in all of your responses here. I'm different,
however.

Patrick - please answer Greg Barnes' post, and provide us with a first hand
perspective from JT, preferably in the form of the full text of the letter
he sent you. You owe this to the community after your slanderous post. If
you are unable to do this, please sell your drill and go away.


- Nate


Adam

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:42:38 PM9/8/02
to

"Roughit3" <roug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020906235316...@mb-ba.aol.com...

> Jonathan Thesenga seems to be quite the little prick to me from reading
the
> initial post.

No wonder Nate is able to defend and identify with him so well!

A.


Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:00:26 PM9/8/02
to

"Roughit3"

> Jonathan Thesenga seems to be quite the little prick to me from reading
the
> initial post.

There are quite a few other places where you can get to know JT through is
writing. Try Google.

> Can't wait to hear his self righteous bullshit justification in the next
> edition of Climbing, which by the way needs all the publicity it can get
(good
> or bad) sinces it's last few issues have been utterly steaming piles of
crap.

Nice to see you are able to think for yourself on this one. You read a post
designed to slander him, and came to the conclusion that he is a prick -
which supports your own unhidden bias. Thanks for your unique and valuable
contribution to this thread.


- Nate


Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:02:02 PM9/8/02
to

"Karl Baba"

> I hope Jonathan fully and thoughtfully responds.

One more post will complete my perspective on this issue:

It would also be nice if George Bush responded to every post about him over
in rec.backcountry.

Jonathan owes nothing to clear this up. Patrick owes everything to complete
the story and actually make a valid and mature point that will justify his
slander. Like I said, I feel badly for Jonathan that a local and personal
conflict was made widely known. This isn't El Cap, S. Astrodome, or Rainbow
Wall we're discussing here.

I do not blame Jonathan for blowing off and lying to this guy on his first
encounter. I can only imagine the anger and demands expected in that
conversation. I, too, would say anything to make a person like this
disappear ASAP. When that first approach clearly didn't work, a written and
personally delivered reply followed. Issue done - right? Obviously, the
reply wasn't what Patrick wanted to hear.


- Nate


Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:38:38 PM9/8/02
to
Nate says...

>Karl Baba said:

First off, I haven't seen much here that supported Nate's position and I'll
speak up and say that I had a similar reaction to the original post. Why?
Because it was sort of mysterious and that alone made me think there was
dishonesty in the mix. As time has passed and Patrick has been silent, I have
not seen anything to make me think different. Partick could have been up front
in his initial post - giving us all of the details such as the location of the
route, the gear placed, the history (if any) of that crag, etc. I sat there
wondering if this was about a route in Boulder Canyon, possibly a route that had
been climbed without the bolts. Who knows? Without the facts, all we can do is
speculate. And about the chopping - I want details. Were the hangers removed
and does Patrick consider that chopping or was the rock further scarred. Were
the holes patched?

Nate's approach in his first reply turned people off and that is understandable,
but I can appreciate that approach. If you think someone is being dishonest,
then often, going the aggressive, name-calling route can troll them into the
open and some folks (references supplied upon request) will say something even
more incredibly ignorant than their initial post. So trolling with fire is a
workable strategy. For Nate, it might have just been a reaction.

>Karl - I want you to know I have a great deal of respect for your diplomacy,
>social understanding and mellow approach to things. I do appreciate your
>time and your perspective in all of your responses here. I'm different,
>however.

Yea, Karl and Nate are different people and from knowing them each a bit, I can
see that they have found their own pathways to happiness. And they know a
little bit about climbing, too.

>Patrick - please answer Greg Barnes' post, and provide us with a first hand
>perspective from JT, preferably in the form of the full text of the letter
>he sent you. You owe this to the community after your slanderous post. If
>you are unable to do this, please sell your drill and go away.

Maybe Patrick went climbing this weekend. If he doesn't reply by Monday p.m.,
I'll consider him to be a total loser troll.

Nate B

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 4:30:17 PM9/8/02
to

"Mad Dog"

> First off, I haven't seen much here that supported Nate's position

Alrighty then - so I haven't made my perspective clear.

I found Patrick's post to contain enough information to establish, in my
mind, the following fact: Patrick does not know enough about bolting and
its ethics to do what he is doing - bolting and blabbing. My opinion, as
expressed, is that he needs to stop and/or get a clue.

Consider these facts as presented:

1) Patrick does not have a mature understanding about why routes get
chopped. He only blindly quoted something he read from the Access Fund, and
then spent many paragraphs intellectualizing his own reasoning using
language that, in my conclusion, pegged him as a complete rookie.

He does not understand his community. He clearly needs to understand that
placing bolts in rock we all share can not be done in a vacuum, and as he
pleases as long as he was there first. He does not hold exclusive right to
the route and the rock it travels in today's world. These ethics have been
well established and accepted. Routes need to be established first and
foremost considering local ethics and rules. Individual discretion and
style comes second. For Patrick, his own reasoning is clearly all that
matters, as it is his only defense.

Contrast Patrick's reasoning and language with the few sentences presented
in Greg Barnes' post. Who establishes the most credibility and how?

2) At least two experienced locals did not like his work. The route was
chopped and a repair was attempted. The reasons for these actions were put
in writing and delivered to Patrick. The repair included bolts. Jonathan
and the other climber, therefore, took Patrick's perspective on the route
into consideration - ie, it could use a few bolts.

3) Patrick acted very aggressively toward Jonathan and the other repair guy,
ignoring and completely dismissing their stance on the issue.


I know nothing of the route, its location or its history - nor do I need to.
I formed no opinion out of speculation or bias. I know from years of
climbing experience that this kind of person should not be drilling holes.
This kind of person always creates conflict and damages rock. I accept that
other experienced climbers may come to a different conclusion from the same
facts. I welcome open discussion with them.


- Nate


Anyone

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 11:57:46 PM9/8/02
to
On 9/6/02 6:41 PM, in article 060920021841002185%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com,
"Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:

> (it still pisses me off that a Three Star
> Tuolumne Meadows 5.9 face climb "Solitary Confinement" never gets
> climbed so it can remain a no-pro testament to Bachar's skills/ego)


Karlee-

While I sympathize with your feelings, I still stand by the axiom of "First
Ascent = Right to set the style". Sure, there are many climbs that I'll
never be able to lead, but that doesnšt' mean I can't follow. Contrary to
most rants, there is still an ocean of rock out there for people to FA.
Hell, I just passed MILES of it on my way back from Lake Powell today, all
within a 15 minute hike from the road. That's not even mentioning the MILES
of rock on the lake just waiting for someone's daring vision.

Routes that are put up in Low/No Pro style are testaments to the spirit of
climbing & pushing the limits of what we can achieve with some adrenaline
and cajones. But that's just one person's opinion.

Nobody Really.

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 3:35:06 AM9/9/02
to
In article <B9A16A49.4E3E%any...@whocares.not>, Anyone
<any...@whocares.not> wrote:

I respect, or maybe just accept, the consensus ethic in the areas I
climb. I would never add a bolt to a Meadows climb without the consent
of the first ascent parties.

It just seems unfortuate that there is so much great moderate climbing
in the Meadows that moderate climbers can't manage. It actually fine
for me since I don't mind runouts on moderate ground. I welcome Greg
Barnes doing a few new routes with better pro for mortals. There are
plenty of well protected 5.13s here but I'm saving them for my 80th
birthday.

As for the rest of this thread. I'm glad we've vented and now are
considering the issues. Hopefully someone will drop in and clear the
fog.

Bolts...I never felt right drilling 'em, but I never felt bad clippin'
em. Maybe that's similar to the way people feel about eating cows and
pigs.

Peace

karl

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 4:12:38 AM9/9/02
to
In article <alg3ad$1p7q6c$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de>, Nate B
<na...@nospam.com> wrote:

George Bush want's to chop Iraq and is doing the PR so folks will buy
it. Like it or not, Jonathan got slandered and he can let it rest and
many non-critical thinkers will assume he's a jerk, or he can state his
case. This thread looks very different on rockclimbing.com. If you chop
bolts, you're taking a crap on someone else's vision and you should be
prepared to stick up for it.

I do not accept that it's Ok to regard another human as so low that you
can screw with them and disregard their feelings and perspective
entirely. If you think you can, maybe they will feel compelled to
slander you accross the net. I'm not saying that's right, but it might
have happened.

Non of what I wrote above is about Jonathan. It's about Nate's
statements. It still remains to be seen if Jonathan will respond and if
he was justified. Maybe the whole thing is just a big lie troll and
we're all being reeled in!

Time will tell

"just one more post on this subject" I've heard that one before on
rec.climbing!

PEace

Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 8:09:53 AM9/9/02
to
Nate says...

>"Mad Dog"

>> First off, I haven't seen much here that supported Nate's position

>Alrighty then - so I haven't made my perspective clear.

You misunderstand, Nate. I mean that other rec.climbers were not supporting
your position. I understood you clearly all along.

Clyde

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 10:46:49 AM9/9/02
to
Karl Baba <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:

> Maybe the whole thing is just a big lie troll and
> we're all being reeled in!

Well R&I is counter-suing Climbing after all....

Nate B

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:09:09 AM9/9/02
to

"Karl Baba"

> Jonathan got slandered and he can let it rest and
> many non-critical thinkers will assume he's a jerk, or he can state his
> case.

He already stated his case in the right way to the right people. It is not
his fault this got spread accross the net and who knows where else. Like I
said, this did not happen at an international crag. This really isn't our
business - except for our own interest to have Patrick tell the correct
story in this forum. It is not JT's resposibility to correct the story in
all its forms and forums - nor sheperd those who can't think for themselves
into believing he's a jerk or not. I would not expect him chase down and
correct the slander against him wherever it may turn up. I defintely
disagree with you here, Karl. If he does post something - then great. My
sense is that, as a professional writer of a well known publication, he
won't.

> If you chop bolts, you're taking a crap on someone
> else's vision and you should be
> prepared to stick up for it.

If you put up a route, you darn well better be able to do it right. The
climbing community does not offer exclusive protection to every hack with a
drill - to drill, destroy and desecrate as they please as long as they got
there first. This is the well known exception clause to "respect the first
ascent." Things have always been this way. Routes get chopped all the
time, and for good reason. If Patrick or his few inexperienced supporters
over on rockclimbing.com don't understand this dynamic, then I really hope
they don't own drills.


- Nate

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:18:46 AM9/9/02
to

"Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote

> I do not accept that it's Ok to regard another human as so low that you
> can screw with them and disregard their feelings and perspective
> entirely.

Which makes you a rare bird on rec.climbing.

> It still remains to be seen if Jonathan will respond and if
> he was justified. Maybe the whole thing is just a big lie troll and
> we're all being reeled in!

That was my supposition from the start. See, while I don't like the way Nate
goes off on people, the simple fact is that this dude carefully crafted a
very long post about a chopped route and in all that while could not manage
to state where the route is. That tells me that if it's not a troll, then
Nate's suspicions are almost certainly close to the mark.

The dude won't name the cliff. The silence is damning.

DMT

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:19:45 AM9/9/02
to

"Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote


> Bolts...I never felt right drilling 'em, but I never felt bad clippin'
> em. Maybe that's similar to the way people feel about eating cows and
> pigs.

I never once drilled a cow OR a pig, and I'm even from Tennessee!

DMT


Jerem the Sumo Climber

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:21:21 AM9/9/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:unpepsg...@corp.supernews.com...

Cow, pig, sheep, horse... all the same to those of us who stick to humans.

- Sumo


Jason Liebgott

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 12:24:28 PM9/9/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" wrote ...

>
> "Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote
>
> > I do not accept that it's Ok to regard another human as so low that you
> > can screw with them and disregard their feelings and perspective
> > entirely.
>
> Which makes you a rare bird on rec.climbing.

Karl Seagull... or Babathon Seagull...

> > It still remains to be seen if Jonathan will respond and if
> > he was justified. Maybe the whole thing is just a big lie troll and
> > we're all being reeled in!

I'm starting to feel the bite of this hook...

<snip>

> The dude won't name the cliff. The silence is damning.

god, I hate getting trolled. oh well. my apologies to JT... sucks to have a
big red target on your back!

j.


BenignVanilla

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 12:40:05 PM9/9/02
to
"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:alidfk$1mp37j$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>

> If you put up a route, you darn well better be able to do it right. The
> climbing community does not offer exclusive protection to every hack with
a
> drill - to drill, destroy and desecrate as they please as long as they got
> there first. This is the well known exception clause to "respect the
first
> ascent." Things have always been this way. Routes get chopped all the
> time, and for good reason. If Patrick or his few inexperienced supporters
> over on rockclimbing.com don't understand this dynamic, then I really hope
> they don't own drills.

Nate, I agree with what you say about providing the full story and all of
it's details. What I don't understand is where you jump to the conclusion
that Patrick 1) is inexperienced, or 2) set a route improperly.

Did I miss the data supporting that?

BV.


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 12:47:53 PM9/9/02
to

"Jerem the Sumo Climber" <jpul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:alie9a$1p4j05$1...@ID-79183.news.dfncis.de...

He never mentioned sheep.

Neither did I.

I ain't saying mutton more.

DMT


Mad Dog

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 12:38:10 PM9/9/02
to
Dingus says...

>I never once drilled a cow OR a pig, and I'm even from Tennessee!

Sheep are nervous in Montana. Got any sisters?

Cartman

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 6:09:34 PM9/9/02
to
<<clipped the whole ugly thing>>


Patrick Seurynck said...

To a respondent on ClimbingBoulder.com,

"The climb is located at the upper end of the Frying Pan river valley
at a little known crag we call Hell Gate. The route has not been named
as yet but it is the line furthest to the right and climbs the
prominent arete. Jonathan says he has many reasons for removing these
bolts, all of which are arguable. The point of the letter, however, is
the fact that he did this without any discussion with us about the
route. He still refuses to discuss any of this with us."

I say it must be OK to chop a route if you tell the driller first.

A. Cairns

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 6:33:51 PM9/9/02
to

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

> The dude won't name the cliff. The silence is damning.

The noise is telling as well.

Nate B

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 7:29:54 PM9/9/02
to
Patrick,

I refuse to register with rockclimbing.com, since you started this here.
Someone else cut and paste your original post over to there. Finish what
you started here, or cease and desist.

Please answer -

1) Text of JT's letter.
2) Greg Barnes post.

and..

3) What bolts did you buy? See below...


My comments on what I just found -

1) You received an explanation of JT's actions along with what I imagine to
be what is salvageable of your gear. WTF are you doing visiting him at
work? Politely? What a joke! What are you expecting - some sort of warm
fuzzy khum by yaha - a cookie - for him to hand over his rack and quit
climbing? No wonder he is blowing you off! You sound like a psycho!

2) You used the best equipment you could buy? You've said this at least
twice now. What exactly did you buy? BTW - this is not the way it works.
You use the best equipment for the crag, that everyone else is using there,
in that specific application. If you can afford something else, then
great - buy some beer with the change. If you can not afford what is being
used - tough - and it will be chopped. Again here, you are showing your
gross incompetence in not understanding how these things work.

3) You wrote: "The point of the letter, however, is the fact that he did


this without any discussion with us about the route."

You put up the route without any understanding of bolting ethic. You should
not be drilling holes. I do not need to see anything else in this conflict
other than your display of immaturity and inexperience to come to my
conclusion.

4) You sound like an aggressive asshole who has to have things his way and
doesn't like to hear otherwise. You displayed this and then told us about
it in your encounter with the repair guy, and in your conflict with JT.

Please sell your drill. I'm over you, and apparently so is JT. Have a nice
climbing career. You're definitely getting back what you've put into
understanding your community and how you share it.

- Nate

Cartman found this:

> "The climb is located at the upper end of the Frying Pan river valley
> at a little known crag we call Hell Gate. The route has not been named
> as yet but it is the line furthest to the right and climbs the
> prominent arete. Jonathan says he has many reasons for removing these
> bolts, all of which are arguable. The point of the letter, however, is
> the fact that he did this without any discussion with us about the
> route. He still refuses to discuss any of this with us."

I found this. I was unable to find what Cartman found.

************************************
I am not going to identify the location of the crag as yet, though it's
near
Basalt Colorado. I'm protecting my favorite fishing hole.
We don't have topos available of this or the single route next to it.
There is no doubt that we were the first accentionists based on the amount
of cleaning and the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of previous
climbers. At the time we put the route up there was one other climber
working in the area. He had been working this area for a couple of years. We
discussed this line with him and he had no claim to it and did not know
anyone that did. Again, there was no evidence of anyone having been there.
We spent months thinking and planning this line. As near as we can tell JT
visited maybe three times.
The style of development at this crag is rap-bolting in an attempt to create
the most sensible route and gear placements. We used the best equipment we
could buy.
The tree is 115 feet from the ground. It is possible to rap off the side but
the talus is steep and loose.
The entire route is 5.8.
The only reason you are reading this is because JT did not/will not discuss
it. We tried calling on the phone and he lied. We wrote and he sent a letter
admitting to his act with an explanation of why and that he didn't want to
discuss it further. We asked for our equipment to be returned and received a
portion of it. We visited him and were thrown out of his office. We have
done all of this politely but persistently.
His explanation is basically that the route was over bolted and that the
bolts were next to gear palcements on the upper pitch. I don't believe he
climbed the intended line. There are no "bomber" placements on the arete.
Let me know when you are in the area and I will take you for a tour.
Patrick

************************************

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 9:22:12 PM9/9/02
to
In article <alidfk$1mp37j$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de>, Nate B
<na...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > If you chop bolts, you're taking a crap on someone
> > else's vision and you should be
> > prepared to stick up for it.
>
> If you put up a route, you darn well better be able to do it right.

"Right" meaning the way you want it? This isn't just an issue about an
inexperienced climber doing an inept job. After all, top flight
climbers like Bachar and Kauk have even come to blows after John
chopped Ron's route.

Things are changing and evolving/decaying all the time. Is a route
"Right" if the FA party does a 5.8 with Death run-outs? Isn't this a
waste of crag in the minds of many while overbolting is a waste in the
mind of others.

I don't have the answers. This is a microcosm of the human conflicts
that lead us to drop bombs instead of working things out.

The
> climbing community does not offer exclusive protection to every hack with a
> drill - to drill, destroy and desecrate as they please as long as they got
> there first. This is the well known exception clause to "respect the first
> ascent." Things have always been this way. Routes get chopped all the
> time, and for good reason. If Patrick or his few inexperienced supporters
> over on rockclimbing.com don't understand this dynamic, then I really hope
> they don't own drills.
>
>
> - Nate

Perhaps they are both guilty by their actions and innocent by their
ignorance. I only have a solution for myself. I don't drill and I don't
chop. I got permission from Kauk once to retro-bolt Space Babble in
Yosemite. It's a fine route but a death route and Ron and I thought
folks might enjoy it if it had at least some pro. A fellow rec.climber
offered to supply the bolts and help. I backed out though since I'm
lazy and figured some hot-head might chop it anyway.

Peace

NOSMALLCAPS

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 10:01:13 PM9/9/02
to
>it still pisses me off

CROTCH HERE

THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR SELF-CENTERED, CHILDISH, AND IGNORANT.

TRUTHFULLY YOURS

CROTCH


Nate B

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 10:39:52 PM9/9/02
to

"Karl Baba"

> "Right" meaning the way you want it?

There are a lot of guys setting routes out there who don't create
controversy. "Right", for starters, is putting in good hardware the right
way. After Patrick's last post - I'm having doubts about his hardware now,
too. "Right" is knowing local ethics - and what pushes them. Patrick
seems to have no sense of this. You knew you would be pushing local ethics
in your example. Many knowingly play these games and enjoy the spar. If
"Right" is totally confusing to you, then you should not play the game until
you are able to see things more clearly - at least enough to develop a solid
stance.

> This isn't just an issue about an
> inexperienced climber doing an inept job.

In the case in this thread, I think it is. I don't know about his work - I
certainly have my doubts - but I do know this kind of person shouldn't be
bolting.

> Things are changing and evolving/decaying all the time.

I'm not speaking to you directly when I say this, Karl - but my world is not
some nebulous cloud I await some higher power to come sort out and clarify
for me. We have to make real decisions in our lives about our course of
action - or sit in waste. We need to develop our sense of the things around
us in order to make these decisions good ones. We either keep pace with our
surroundings, or remain ignorant. Off topic, for sure - and not a slam to
you personally.

> Is a route "Right" if the FA party does a 5.8 with Death run-outs?

At a sport area - no. In Tuolumne - yes. Does it push the envelope in
Tuolmne? Yes. Should the FA expect controversy? Yes. Do they have an
ethical stance? In Tuolumne - yes, sport area - no.

> I don't have the answers.

Neither do I, Karl, neither do l - but I seek to know them through the
things, the events and the other people around me. I understand the need
for mystery and the unknown, but I seek a truth - not a cloud.

> I only have a solution for myself. I don't drill and I don't chop.

I couldn't agree more. I bolted my way down a big face in a storm once long
ago, and I chopped a route even longer ago. The only other bolts I have
placed are at belays - and only then for sleeping. Otherwise, IMO, bolting
one of the few remaining undeveloped chosspiles left in this world is a
waste of good climbing time. Someone 600 years from now should have the
right to enjoy something untouched.


- Nate


tom donnelly

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 12:39:22 AM9/10/02
to
"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<alidfk$1mp37j$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Karl Baba"
> > Jonathan... can let it rest and many non-critical thinkers
> > will assume he's a jerk, or he can state his case.
>
> He already stated his case in the right way to the right people. It is not
> his fault this got spread accross the net and who knows where else.

Chopping bolts unilaterally is vigilante action.
You may or may not be justified, but you are taking the "climber law"
into your own hands and deciding that you are the judge, jury, and
executioner. You are saying, "It is so obvious that the bolts are
unjustified that almost any climber will agree they should be removed."

If you want to appear justified, you will tally up a few other
knowledgeable, experienced, "locals", and present the results as "local consensus."



> > If you chop bolts, you're taking a crap on someone
> > else's vision and you should be prepared to stick up for it.
>
> If you put up a route, you darn well better be able to do it right.

> Routes get chopped all the time, and for good reason.

Yes, and sometimes bolt wars spread out into revenge against vigilante
choppers. If you don't want it to become a personal feud, you present
these "good reasons" as societal norm before you chop.

That said, let me hereby state that it is still my intention to get
around to chopping the line of bolts put up a few years ago about 3 feet
from the nice handcrack at Valley of the Moon. (Unless someone has
moved them further away) All of the bolts are easily clipped when
climbing the crack, despoiling what should be a nice trad lead.
The bolter should feel free to move the bolts or to gather his
hangers, and reclaim his common sense.
Q: "why do you have to clip them?"
A: "Because they were there."

--tom

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 10:42:23 AM9/10/02
to
In article <aljm19$1q437u$1...@ID-82914.news.dfncis.de>, Nate B
<na...@nospam.com> wrote:
snip

> > Baba: Things are changing and evolving/decaying all the time.


>
> I'm not speaking to you directly when I say this, Karl - but my world is not
> some nebulous cloud I await some higher power to come sort out and clarify
> for me. We have to make real decisions in our lives about our course of
> action - or sit in waste. We need to develop our sense of the things around
> us in order to make these decisions good ones. We either keep pace with our
> surroundings, or remain ignorant. Off topic, for sure - and not a slam to
> you personally.

What I meant is, the consensus of what is appropriate changes all the
time. Some of those EL Cap routes you suffered on would have been
considered abominations by Robbins and "others back in the day"


>
> > Is a route "Right" if the FA party does a 5.8 with Death run-outs?
>

Snip

> > I don't have the answers.
>
> Neither do I, Karl, neither do l - but I seek to know them through the
> things, the events and the other people around me. I understand the need
> for mystery and the unknown, but I seek a truth - not a cloud.

I just don't believe there is "a" truth when it comes to bolting some
undeveloped crag unless the offense is really grevious. We each have
our own truths for that and when those views conflict, we decide how to
fight or work it out.

>
> > I only have a solution for myself. I don't drill and I don't chop.
>
> I couldn't agree more. I bolted my way down a big face in a storm once long
> ago, and I chopped a route even longer ago. The only other bolts I have
> placed are at belays - and only then for sleeping. Otherwise, IMO, bolting
> one of the few remaining undeveloped chosspiles left in this world is a
> waste of good climbing time. Someone 600 years from now should have the
> right to enjoy something untouched.
>
>
> - Nate

Amen, 600 years from now we'll need power tools to unpolish the smears
where 5.9s became 10c from repeated climbing

PEace

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 10:47:55 AM9/10/02
to
FYI: Here's the lastest response from Patrick from rockclimbing.com.
There's more info here but I still feel like he's holding back on the
reasons for the chop:
++++++++++++
From Patrick S (cl...@rof.net)

Roughit3

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 12:20:57 PM9/10/02
to
You guys might find this thread on rockclimbing.com informative:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=1565
7&forum=23&start=0

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 1:30:12 PM9/10/02
to
Why is it the typical chopper will lie, cheat and if things really gets
close, run away and complain to the police, to avoid even the remotest
chance of direct and personal confrontation?

Just once I'd like to see a chopper do her thing in the light of day, in
front of god and everybody, instead of under the cover of darkness. Just
once I'd like to see a chopper stand toe to toe with one of their victims.

But route choppers really aren't made of this sort of stuff, are they?

No they are not.

DMT


stinkwagen

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 1:40:37 PM9/10/02
to
Ask and you shall receive Dingus
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000651
;p=1

They even posted some action photos of the chopping in progress but i can't
seem to find them now.

Chuck


--
http://home.attbi.com/~cspieker/


"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message

news:unsar21...@corp.supernews.com...

Nate B

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 1:46:46 PM9/10/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast"

> Why is it the typical chopper will lie, cheat and if things really gets
> close, run away and complain to the police, to avoid even the remotest
> chance of direct and personal confrontation?

Dude - gimme a break. This Patrick clown is clearly in the middle of
earning himself a restraining order - and WTF is the rest of the story he
started?

- Nate

Alex Chiang

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 1:50:32 PM9/10/02
to
* Roughit3 <roug...@aol.com>:

> You guys might find this thread on rockclimbing.com informative:

Well, it informed me that there are a lot of knee-jerk retards
out there who, if representative of the rest of the forum, make
me glad they haven't figured out what usenet is (yet).

/Alex

Keith Sharp

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 2:36:35 PM9/10/02
to
"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<

Someone 600 years from now should have the


> right to enjoy something untouched.
>

AMEN. If you must climb it, climb it clean and keep it a secret. That
way, the next party can enjoy the same adventure you did. Of course,
this doesn't work everywhere, but one can wish that it would be the
ethic more often employed.

Cheers,
Keith

Dbrayack

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 10:35:23 PM9/10/02
to
It seems kind of rude to chop bolts, the person put them in so that
someone else could have a good day of safe climbing, if you don't want
to clip the bolts, then don't clip em, good for you kinda thing. Its
only rock, don't get to wrapped up in yourself and your ego, if
someone puts bolts in, they are thinking of other climbers. By
chopping bolts, it seems as though you are being selfish, you do not
want other climbers, with less experience, to climb YOUR route.

shrug, its an interesting mixture between old school and new school
climbers....you drill em i clip em "or not"

-Dan

N42461

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 11:07:50 PM9/10/02
to
>Dbrayack wrote:

>if
>someone puts bolts in, they are thinking of other climbers.

Yeah. Like a dog thinks of other dogs when he pisses on a fire hydrant.

Try rockclimbing.com. Bunch of your types over there.

nathan sweet

rick

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 12:36:48 AM9/11/02
to
guys-

since patrick is gone, it was a troll. maybe batten is some form of
patrick. the whole story seams fabricated with vague details etc.


d

Mick Ryan

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 1:18:17 AM9/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message news:<unsar21...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> Just once I'd like to see a chopper do her thing in the light of day, in
> front of god and everybody, instead of under the cover of darkness. Just
> once I'd like to see a chopper stand toe to toe with one of their victims.
>
> But route choppers really aren't made of this sort of stuff, are they?


Ding,

I chopped some bolts on a route called Deja Vu (11c or so) at Kilnsey
Crag in the UK several years ago...they were retro-bolts. The climb
was adequetly protected by threads, the odd crack, and the odd bolt. A
good friend of mine retrobolted it (added bolts). I chopped them and
proudly let it be known far and wide.

In the light of day...

My spine full of jelly...

regards,

Mick (Ryan)

Michael A. Riches

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 2:02:28 AM9/11/02
to
in article unpepsg...@corp.supernews.com, Dingus Milktoast at none@yabis
wrote on 9/9/02 9:19 AM:

Yeah, Yeah....that's like somebody from Montana sayin they never drilled a
sheep, either, just ain't so...

Ratzzz...(love them baaaaa d jokes...)

Michael A. Riches

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 2:05:20 AM9/11/02
to
in article aliip...@drn.newsguy.com, Mad Dog at mad6...@msn.com wrote on
9/9/02 10:38 AM:

> Dingus says...
>
>> I never once drilled a cow OR a pig, and I'm even from Tennessee!
>
> Sheep are nervous in Montana. Got any sisters?
>

Great minds think alike...

Ratzzz....

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 10:55:00 AM9/11/02
to

"Mick Ryan" <roc...@yahoo.com>

> I chopped them and
> proudly let it be known far and wide.
>
> In the light of day...
>
> My spine full of jelly...
>
> regards,
>
> Mick (Ryan)

And I'm by god proud to know you too Mick!

DMT


Dbrayack

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 12:20:55 PM9/11/02
to
That's an odd analogy, do you know the person who placed the bolts
personally? I think not. How can you justify that this person is
looking for territorial pissing, I don't think I've seen this route
sprawled all over the net with the bolter's name all over it...It
sounds as though the assumption of your role is reversed. You, in
theory, do not want a climber of lesser ability to experience a route.

I can understand chopping bolts on a crack, but shoot, no one wants to
see someone get hurt. Everyone just wants to have fun, so why make it
less fun for others. If you want to have your own fun, then don't
clip the bolts. I'd love to do a sport route on gear, that would be
very exciting!...Maybe I should lead some sport routes at the New on
gear "Shutter" ok maybe not ;)

Oke, take folks,

-Dan

N42461

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 12:45:54 PM9/11/02
to
>Dbrayack wrote:

>That's an odd analogy, do you know the person who placed the bolts
>personally? I think not. How can you justify that this person is
>looking for territorial pissing,

This person? I suspect he's a troll. But that's not my point. *My* point is
many bolts get put in as some bizzare stab at immortality. "I was here. See!"
Sometimes on something that was climbed 20 years ago by someone who didnt see
the need to mark the hydrant. Some times the new guy doesn't do the homework to
find out first.

>I can understand chopping bolts on a crack, but shoot, no one wants to
>see someone get hurt.

Maybe not get hurt, but how about the potential?

Never watch a hockey game eh? How about X Games? No one? Maybe not me or you,
but no one?

> Everyone just wants to have fun, so why make it
>less fun for others.

So why not rap bolt cracks? All that gear is so cumbersome.

nathan sweet

Bill Wright

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 12:53:32 PM9/11/02
to
t92...@yahoo.com (tom donnelly) wrote in message news:<36a73a7d.02090...@posting.google.com>...

>
> Chopping bolts unilaterally is vigilante action.
> You may or may not be justified, but you are taking the "climber law"
> into your own hands and deciding that you are the judge, jury, and
> executioner. You are saying, "It is so obvious that the bolts are
> unjustified that almost any climber will agree they should be removed."

If this is true, and it very well may be, the corollary is true as
well: placing bolts unilaterally is vigilante action - defacing public
rock. You are taking the "climber law" into your own hands and
deciding that you are the judge, jury, and executioner of the virgin
rock.

Tom, you've got ot understand this. And this is why I can see the
choppers have as much right to chop as the others have to place bolts.
In fact, you could argue, if the chopping is done well, that the
choppers do less damage as they return the rock to its natural state.

I don't like the conflict of chopping, but if people can bolt
unilaterally, then they can chop unilaterally. I see no difference
between the two except that some people like lots of bolts and others
don't. People seem to think that bolt placers are angels and choppers
are criminals. This is just not logical and illogical arguments don't
aid your case against anyone you want to convince. Illogical arguments
are fine when preaching to the choir, but not for much else.

Sorry for the rant, but I hear the arugment you made above whenever
this topic comes up and it just flat doesn't make sense without the
corollary. If bolters can bolt where ever they want, then those bolts
can be chopped. No one owns these public rocks and bolters don't have
a right to unilaterally place bolts.

The other argument about "don't clip them if you don't like them" just
shows a complete ignorance of past and current climbing attitudes.

Bill

Brad Brandewie

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 1:02:57 PM9/11/02
to
"Nate B" <na...@nospam.com> wrote confrontation?

>
> Dude - gimme a break. This Patrick clown is clearly in the middle of
> earning himself a restraining order - and WTF is the rest of the story he
> started?
>
> - Nate


Nate,

While I have enjoyed many of your contributions to this group (and
agree with you most of the time), the only thing really clear from
this thread is your ability to draw strong conclusions from half of
one side of the story.

Brad (who also fights the urge to jump to conclusions sometimes)

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 1:28:28 PM9/11/02
to

"Bill Wright"

> If this is true, and it very well may be, the corollary is true as
> well: placing bolts unilaterally is vigilante action

Too bad this isn't the in-vogue thought that one can arrive at by mindlessly
listening to the spray, the conflicts, yada yada...

If you get there first, you hold the ace and can decide for all!

> The other argument about "don't clip them if you don't like them" just
> shows a complete ignorance of past and current climbing attitudes.

Rossiter hits it dead-on by calling these "dolt wars". My head hurts,
nothing changes, the cycle continues. I feel like an idiot - a mindless
dolt.

Man, am I freak'n glad I live in a place where a short hike takes me far
beyond all this. Also, thank God for the permit process that has worked so
well in Eldo.


- Nate


Tom Murphy

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 1:44:13 PM9/11/02
to

"Brad Brandewie" <br...@1visionsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:8610bb22.02091...@posting.google.com...

Oh please, the only thing Nate has done is tell the guy to put up
or shut up. He's drawn conclusions about the person experience
from what the guy's posted and has asked him to fill in the blanks.
He basically spearheading the "Anti-Witch Hunt" in his normal
ascerbic style.

So far we have ( Greg Barnes ?'s, answer from Karl's repost
from rockclimbing.com ):

>Patrick, could you please tell us:
>
>1) exactly where this route is

"near Basalt Colorado. "

>
>2) have other routes been done on this formation

"At the time we put the route up there was one
other climber working in the area. He had been working this area for a
couple of years. We discussed this line with him and he had no claim to
it and did not know anyone that did. Again, there was no evidence of
anyone having been there"
>

>3) if so, who did the FAs and when?
>
>4) exactly how did you establish the route?

"The style of development at this crag is rap-bolting in an attempt to
create the most sensible route and gear placements. We used the best
equipment we could buy."

** What specifically is the best he could buy? Rawl's or
drywall anchors?

>5) is that in conflict with local ethics?
>
>6) are there any other factors involved - for instance, did a new
>route in that same area get chopped anytime in the last 15 years?
>Personality conflicts (maybe not you, but the chopping party could
>have thought it was someone else)?

Jeremy the Sumo Climber

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 2:28:49 PM9/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:unpjv5j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jerem the Sumo Climber" <jpul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:alie9a$1p4j05$1...@ID-79183.news.dfncis.de...

> > "Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
> > news:unpepsg...@corp.supernews.com...

> > >
> > > "Karl Baba" <gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > > Bolts...I never felt right drilling 'em, but I never felt bad
clippin'
> > > > em. Maybe that's similar to the way people feel about eating cows
and
> > > > pigs.
> > >
> > > I never once drilled a cow OR a pig, and I'm even from Tennessee!
> > >
> > > DMT
> >
> > Cow, pig, sheep, horse... all the same to those of us who stick to
humans.
>
> He never mentioned sheep.
>
> Neither did I.
>
> I ain't saying mutton more.
>
> DMT

Yer baa-aad.

- Sumo, oink


Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 2:43:23 PM9/11/02
to
Patrick sprayed his complaint/maybe slander on many sites so I guess
the first ascent party is checking all the responses everywhere.
Without taking sides without hearing both sides of the issue, I'm
reposting the other side of one half of the story from
rockclimbing.com, just so we can be a tiny bit less speculative in our
lynching of one side or the other. This is from Patrick's partner:
++++++++++

Jonathan Thesenga came to a new (for him) climbing area for the first
time and immediately started removing bolts, hangers, and rappel
anchors from an existing climb that he did not approve of. He made no
attempt to talk to the route's establishers first. He later repeatedly
denied knowledge of the hardware removal when questioned. When he
finally admitted to taking the hardware in an e-mail to us, he signed
it Jonathan Thesenga Editor Climbing Magazine. He returned less than
half of the removed hardware (on Climbing Magazine's doorstep no less)
and refuses to return the rest or to discuss this issue.

I can not believe the arrogance of someone who thinks he has the right
to dictate to others what a legitimate climb is and how much risk must
be, or must not be, inherent in that climb. I have the liberty to
engage in a sport that exposes me to a certain degree of risk. How much
risk I am exposed to is a decision that I am unwilling to concede to
anyone other than myself and partners that I trust. If I am unwilling
to accept the risk inherent in a particular climb then I have the
freedom to go climb another route that I choose. Likewise, if I feel
that a climb does not have enough inherent risk in it then I have the
freedom to find another one that does.

This issue has nothing to do with bolts and hardware. It has everything
to due with respecting other climber's viewpoints and climbing
ambitions. Climbing is a poor excuse for disregarding socialy
acceptable behaviour and using any means neccesary to impose your
arbitrary standards on others. Our society will always frown on those
who extend no respect and consideration to others, take what does not
belong to them, and fabricate scenarios that do not reflect factual
events. Non-climbers do not understand these controversies for good
reason.

I have been climbing for over twenty years. I have climbed ice and/or
rock on two continents and 6 different countries and have never had an
experience like this. If it is the Climbing Magazine position to
advocate behaviour like Jonathan's then I cannot continue to support
that publication.

Ralph Mitchell

Sue

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 3:39:33 PM9/11/02
to
In article <110920021143230529%gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com>, Karl Baba
<gu...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:

> Patrick sprayed his complaint/maybe slander on many sites

Karl. As you probably realize I almost never get involved in these type
of discussions. I originally thought Nate's initial post to this guy
was unnecessarily harsh. I say this because I had read Patrick's post
as a plea for discussion, before chopping action was taken. The only
thing that didn't seem to fit my interpretation was the posting of the
alleged choppers name and occupation. That seem out of line to me.

However given the number of places he's posted, and persistant refusal
to really respond to reasonable questions (I've been following on
rockclimbing.com), like Greg's for example, Forces me to interpret his
post in a differing light. It leads me to think that Nate was right.
For Patrick to go to the choppers place of work, and to post such stuff
all over the internet, irrespective of his occupation, is way out of
line. For the accused chopper, the moral high road is not to respond,
although clearly those of us out in the cheap seats whould love to know
the other side. (Although I suspect it is as much motivated by wanting
to say ah ha! I'm right! that guy (pick whichever one you are currently
siding against) is an idiot, as it is by anything else).

It doesn't really surprise me that the tone of discussion at
rockclimbing.com differs from ours substantially, I expect it merely
reflects the differing demographic between the two groups. So such
conflicts get started.

Sue

Walter Pienciak

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 4:11:44 PM9/11/02
to
In article <110920021239330750%shopkin...@ucsd.edu>,
Sue <shopkin...@ucsd.edu> pointed out the lack of information
available on this controversy.

A few details have come out on the climbingboulder discussion list

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/messages

Walter

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 4:41:33 PM9/11/02
to

"Walter Pienciak"

> A few details have come out on the climbingboulder discussion list
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/messages


Don't miss the part about holding back JT's letter because they may use it
as evidence for some sort of legal action.

Maybe that's the source of their silence - advice from some attorney.

Sheesh - these guys, at this point, have little to look forward to in their
climbing careers except chopped bolts, alienation, and turds left in their
packs.


- Nate "dolt "

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 4:54:21 PM9/11/02
to

Yahoo groups are painful to read, but this seems like a key message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/message/2363

I was starting to think that Nate had the original poster pegged right
but Rick Thompson's name carries some weight with me.

Dawn

Sue

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 4:51:33 PM9/11/02
to
In article <3d7fa380$0$323$7586...@news.frii.net>, Walter Pienciak
<wal...@io.frii.com> wrote:

Thanks for the link Walter, but to be honest I can't wade thorugh
enough of the popups to really ready the thread. Also don't you think
if Patrick posts to this forum he should also respond to questions on
his post on it?

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 5:01:41 PM9/11/02
to

"Dawn Alguard"

> I was starting to think that Nate had the original poster pegged right
> but Rick Thompson's name carries some weight with me.

I was interested to get the hardware thing resolved. Cool. They bought
Rawls. I've very proud of them. However, he ignored everything else.
Still no answers to Barnes' post, still no JT perspective. Just one more
one-sided interpretation from a guy who clearly shares in their mission to
hang JT. Sorry - "it's a mixed route" just didn't do much for me fact-wise.


- Nate

Andy Gale

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 5:03:35 PM9/11/02
to

Nate B wrote:

> "Walter Pienciak"
>
>
>>A few details have come out on the climbingboulder discussion list
>>
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/messages
>>
>
>
> Don't miss the part about holding back JT's letter because they may use it
> as evidence for some sort of legal action.


Yeah, no shit. I saw that. And Rick Thompson, former Access Fund
mucky-muck, actually seems to think that this is a reasonable thing.
Unbelievable! I'm guessing they are already counting their millions
from suing the deep pockets of Primedia.


Andy


Walter Pienciak

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 5:11:50 PM9/11/02
to
In article <110920021351330570%shopkin...@ucsd.edu>,

Um, yeah, I guess so. But I don't know Patrick (or any of the other
principals in this episode), and that response is based mainly on
what *I* would do. Maybe he felt outraged enough to push his story to
a bunch of forums, but doesn't care much about rec.climbing in
particular and got tired of the hard-packed shitballs that came flying
right back.

It's all guessing on our part, isn't it? Maybe the week of clouds and
rain here in Colorado is stoking the fire. If we can't climb a rock,
might as well climb up someone's a--

Walter


Andy Gale

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 5:17:21 PM9/11/02
to

Dawn Alguard wrote:


> Yahoo groups are painful to read, but this seems like a key message
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/message/2363
>
> I was starting to think that Nate had the original poster pegged right
> but Rick Thompson's name carries some weight with me.


Used to with me. That post is all reasonable. But in others he seems
to be espousing legal action by Patrick and crew against JT and his
employer. That is just wrong. And my tendency is to think that chopping
is a bad idea.


Andy


jo momma

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:03:40 PM9/11/02
to
First, let me say that it's been rather amusing following this thread.
It conjures up images of the Salem witch hunts. One person crying out
someone was evil and next thing ya'know that "evil doer" was bathed in
tar or burned at the stake by a group of usually good natured folk --
normally rational people who let their uninformed emotions drive their
actions.

Rather than bicker with each poster -- a severe deviation from the web
forum norm -- I hope this single post will clear up any confusion or
misinformation. Those with even a modicum of reading savvy should have
noticed the lack of detailed info provided by the original poster.
Hmmm, makes you think doesn't it? Or at least it should. What I'm
presenting below isn't a one-sided report riddled with glaring
omissions and falsehoods in hopes of gaining a wave of momentum
against someone. I have stood aside until now, not wanting to jump
into a flame war, but some of these posts have gotten so silly (and at
times flat-out ignorant), that I'm now compelled to set the record
straight.

In my 17 years of climbing I have never pulled a bolt, or even felt
compelled to. The bolts placed by Patrick and Ralph were so egregious,
however, that I was driven to action. These are the detailed facts of
exactly what happened, where it occurred, and why:


First, I never "signed" a letter to Patrick and/or Ralph using my
position as Editor of Climbing as defense for my actions. The
signature in question is the standard email signature that is attached
to the bottom of all my email messages. They contacted me at work,
emailed me at work, and I responded from my work email. I did not
remove bolts under the guise of Editor, merely a concerned climber who
didn't want to see a couple of jokers botch a crag. As it turns out
(hindsight is a bitch), this was an erroneous assumption on my part.
If I were just a regular, low-profile climber, this thread would have
died after a day -– if it would've even been posted to begin with. I
am, however, in a high-profile position and should have realized
people would associate my actions -– incorrectly or not -- with my
work at Climbing. I am not a spokesperson for the sport, I am not a
role model, and I am not the bolting police. I am a climber, and my
actions reflect my ethics and motivations as climber, not as a writer
or editor.

Now to the actual climb. The area is called Hells Gate and is in the
high country near Basalt, Colorado, basically 90 minutes from Aspen.
It is an extremely small crag. It is however, beautiful and serene. It
is basically a sweet, bullet granite slab, in places rising to over
400 feet in length; a wonderful local place to climb. Do not lose
perspective here; no one in his or her right mind would ever roadtrip
to the crag -– it's fun, but nothing of note beyond the local climbing
community. There are probably a dozen or so routes, a handful of which
travel up the entire slab. Ralph and Patrick's four-pitch route is one
of these.

The route was not chopped, i.e. it was not erased from the crag.
Blatantly superfluous anchor bolts were pulled. Lead protection bolts
were pulled where simple gear placements would suffice. I was not
dictating the route become scary, bold, or an R-rated pant-loader that
only "rad" climbers could ball up to lead. No bolts were stripped that
would put anyone's safety in peril, as some people have posted. I am
not against rap bolting. I am not against bolts. I take a stance,
however, when people begin bolting next to obvious gear placements at
non-sporting-climbing-only areas, tarnishing a wall. The grade is
irrelevant. Be it 5.4 or 5.14 (in this case, 5.8). The details behind
the erroneous placement of bolts are relevant. Placing bolts next to
easy-to-protect cracks on sound rock is a violation of the basic
tenets of bolting. The route in question is a standard "mixed" route,
i.e. a leader will protect his or her lead using bolts as well as
natural protection. The bolts that were removed were extraneous,
placed by inexperienced climbers who felt a string of bolts and
unneeded rap anchors would make their route a "real" route.

As Patrick noted in one of his vague posts, the route begins up a 5.8,
bolted bulge to a low-angle crack. The hand crack had been
industrially mined of all vegetation, leaving behind a shallow,
dirt-filled crack. Not the coolest route-cleaning effort, but nothing
that I take much exception to. Nevertheless, it speaks to the style in
which the duo felt it was OK to establish the route. This pitch ends
at a curiously bolted anchor after maybe 100 to 130 feet of climbing,
30 feet below a large ledge that could hold a dozen people. Hmmm … why
stop here to belay on a funky stance when you can continue on to a
nice, comfy ledge? Even more curious, why belay here and then lead a
silly 30-foot pitch? Fifteen feet to the left of this anchor is
another bolted anchor from a previously established route. There was
absolutely no need for their new anchor. None. It was removed.

No bolts were removed from the 30-feet of face climbing leading to the
ledge.

At the commodious ledge there is a bolted anchor and a stout tree. No,
the tree isn't going to pull out. Ever. Dry year or not. Just another
lame excuse offered up by the duo for their drilling. Why, however,
would you even need to use the tree as an anchor? At this ledge there
is also an obvious crack that will except basically anything on your
rack, a #6 nut, a #3 Friend, whatever. There is absolutely no need for
a bolted anchor here. The duo also felt the tree's branches were
offensive and sawed off all branches from five feet down. This of
course left the tree dripping sap and scarred it permanently and
needlessly.

The next pitch follows the arête of the slab. The entire pitch is
protected by bolts. It's a fun pitch. Maybe a touch over bolted for
some, but there is no other reasonable protection. This pitch is 100
feet or so long. No bolts were removed from this pitch. It ends at a
stance, with a two-bolt rap anchor. Good idea. From this anchor you
can easily do one rap off the slab's side into a talus gully, where a
three-minute walk deposits you back at the base of the slab. This
anchor allows a simple and easy way to rap off the route with one
rope. There is absolutely no need for rap anchors below this point.
The duo obviously felt a "real" route needed to have its own rap
anchors all the way down the slab, allowing you to descend directly
down to your packs with no walking. If you wish to rap the entire
slab, there is a route just to the left with fixed rap anchors. This
is another reason why the first two rap anchors on Patrick and Ralph's
route were pulled.

The final 100-foot pitch roughly follows the slab's arête to the
rounded summit. All but one of the bolts were removed from this pitch.
This was the most ridiculously bolted pitch I've ever seen. Each bolt
was drilled within a foot of a simple nut or cam placement that even a
day-three novice could safely fish in. A standard rack of nuts and a
couple of cams (basically what you would've already used on the first
pitch) is all that is necessary to safely protect this pitch. The one
bolt that was left in protects a four-foot traverse from the crack to
the arête proper. There is absolutely no rationale for the bolts that
were drilled. None. Anyone who had spent a half a minute, let alone
"months" as Patrick writes, planning the route would see that there is
no need for all those bolts on that pitch.


I have no interest in debating my actions on the Internet. This is my
sole comment on the entire situation. I have much better things to do
than defend myself to anonymous individuals -– like, for instance, go
climbing. Bash away if you chose, but bash me. This has nothing to do
with Climbing magazine. Thrash me if you feel the need to, heck, you
can call my momma ugly if it'll make you feel better. To include
Climbing magazine in this issue, however, is an incorrect correlation.

Obviously many of you will still think I was wrong to pull the bolts,
even after reading my post. Fine. I don't pretend that I'll have
convinced everyone my actions were in the right. I merely wanted to
present the facts.

-- Jonathan Thesenga

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:12:46 PM9/11/02
to

"Andy Gale"

> Yeah, no shit. I saw that. And Rick Thompson, former Access Fund
> mucky-muck, actually seems to think that this is a reasonable thing.
> Unbelievable! I'm guessing they are already counting their millions
> from suing the deep pockets of Primedia.

He just posted something else quoting court cases, fines issued and
restraining orders of situations that were way out of the league of this
situation. That seems to be what he's after, anyway. He's definitely on a
rampage. Does he have any legal background? He seems to be representing
them somehow. It would explain some things - like still not having answers.

Some sorry-ass stuff, for sure.

- Nate

Andy Gale

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:18:18 PM9/11/02
to

Nate B wrote:

> "Andy Gale"



> Some sorry-ass stuff, for sure.

On top of that many of these jokers are actually proposing that Climbing
Magazine shoulf Fire JT!!! Unbelievable! Take away his job, his means
of earning a living, and effectively ruin his career over some bolts on
some rock face somewhere?!?! Get a grip!

Sorry-Ass indeed.

Andy

Melissa

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:23:21 PM9/11/02
to

thes...@yahoo.com (jo momma) wrote:

>I merely wanted to present the facts.
>
>-- Jonathan Thesenga

Thanks!

Patrick?

Melissa

Karl Baba

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:42:03 PM9/11/02
to
Thanks for sharing your side of the story Jonathan.

There's always two sides to the story. Rather than pass judgement on
anyone from a thousand miles away, let me just let me say I'm sorry
everyone involved in this incident got dragged through the mud.

It might be justified in dragging the first ascent folks through the
mud a bit since Patrick waged a negative PR campaign on you. Each party
risked some response and recrimination out of their actions, and
everybody got it. Don't know what the lessons to learn from this are,
but I hope we learn em.

Peace

Karl

Brian Reynolds

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 8:24:56 PM9/11/02
to
safecl...@hotmail.com (Greg Barnes) wrote in message news:<ef17b071.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> At the ASCA we're all too familiar with bolt controversy and it's
> number one source - incorrect information, rumors, etc.

>
> Patrick, could you please tell us:
>
> 1) exactly where this route is
>
> 2) have other routes been done on this formation
>
> 3) if so, who did the FAs and when?
>
> 4) exactly how did you establish the route?
>
> 5) is that in conflict with local ethics?
>
> 6) are there any other factors involved - for instance, did a new
> route in that same area get chopped anytime in the last 15 years?
> Personality conflicts (maybe not you, but the chopping party could
> have thought it was someone else)?
>
> The lack of details is what gets rumors flying and everyone all pissed
> off. Sometimes routes get chopped that were put in in the best style
> (ground-up hand drilled from stance) just because rumors start flying
> about a rap bolt job (that turns out to be somewhere else, or that
> never existed to begin with).
>
> So please give us all the details (and maybe we can hope people hold
> off on the responses until we actually know something...).
>
> Greg

For what it's worth, Patrick posted a few more details over on
rockclimbing.com:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=15657&forum=23&start=15

He pretty much remained intentionally vague, though.


Subsequently, Jonathan responded:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=15657&forum=23&start=45


So, is Patrick a troll? Apparently not.

Is he a newbie with a huge chip on his shoulder and little regard for
local ethics? It sure looks that way. Not to jump irreversibly to
conclusions, but there are now two sides to the discussion, and it
sure looks like Nate nailed this one on the head.

I found it interesting that the general tone of the posts over there
is the complete opposite as here. I don't much read rc.com because
the site is horribly slow on my computer, but I was curious about this
one. Are they all bolt-clipping sporto's? the rec.climbing posts
make Patrick out as a punter and a troll, while the rc.com posts make
Jonathan sound like the antichrist.

Here's another question, though: Why the hell did Patrick feel the
need to cross-post his complaint to every climbing-related site out
there? (ok, it hasn't shown up on supertopo.com yet). It's clear
that he doesn't generally follow or post to rec.climbing.

Patrick, next time (actually, I hope there won't be a next time) try
keeping your garbage in your own backyard -- at any rate, they seem to
like you a whole lot better than folks over here do.

br

(ain't bolt wars great?)

Nate B

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 9:36:30 PM9/11/02
to

"Brian Reynolds"

> I found it interesting that the general tone of the posts over there
> is the complete opposite as here. I don't much read rc.com because
> the site is horribly slow on my computer, but I was curious about this
> one. Are they all bolt-clipping sporto's? the rec.climbing posts
> make Patrick out as a punter and a troll, while the rc.com posts make
> Jonathan sound like the antichrist.

We did send a few of our field agents over there to try and straighten
things out. They were disguised as "belayers" with 1 post of history.
However, reports I've heard back indicated that they were completely
overwhelmed by the ignorance and gave up. Bill Wright's contribution was
pretty hilarious.

FWIW, in the process of getting completely trolled around by this clown, I
found our forum to be quite the place to be, indeed, in comparison. There
are a lot of cool and experienced climbers here sharing some unique stuff
through some very unique personalities. We have a huge, huge melting pot.
It's a great place to come and avoid work. Everything else just seemed lame
in comparison.


- Nate


Dbrayack

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 10:30:42 PM9/11/02
to
I don't really know much about the situation, but could you please
explain to me what a person could possibly get out of bolting a route.
I've considered bolting routes, but I never would have done it to put
my name in a book, I would bolt it to climb it, the only selfishness
that I think I would exercise is that I probably wouldn't tell anyone
I bolted it/where it is, so they would have to find it. I would just
let it be and hope that people would enjoy the route.

They'res certain places for bolts I suppose, I don't know anything
about the area, so I cannot really argue with the locals. Just
curious on why people take a bolted route so seriously.

I would never chop a route...even if I did lead it in a way hardcore
scarey manner. If someone bolted it, sweet, more routes for the
climbing community to enjoy. I would be happy if someone though that
my route was worth 100 bucks in bolts (Shoot thats like 2 weeks worth
of food for a college student), I'd be happy.

-Dan

N42461

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 12:35:46 AM9/12/02
to
>Dbrayack wrote:

>I don't really know much about the situation, but could you please
>explain to me what a person could possibly get out of bolting a route.

Dan, learn how to quote previous posts. Please.

To answer: What do people get out of placing ducks/cairns on a trail? "This is
the way *I* went". Sometimes they are helpful. Sometimes they are intrusive.
Sometimes they are a tribute to the ego of the rock stacker. I admit the
analogy is imperfect, but if cement came in 2 lb spray cans instead of 80 lb
bags, it might be a good one....

> Just
>curious on why people take a bolted route so seriously.
>

Methinks you are trolling. If not get thee to rockclimbing.com and be amongst
thy kindred spirits.

>I would never chop a route.

Never? How about:

A. You find a new route in which the bolts break off in your hands?

B. At a busy crag, you discover a set of new rap stations over a classic (r/x)
lead route?

C. 20 years from now, you find bolts every 5 feet on a route you
lead/cleaned/trundled ground-up on gear?

'Never' is a word the inexpeienced use often.

nathan sweet

Hal Murray

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 4:04:36 AM9/12/02
to
>Yahoo groups are painful to read, but this seems like a key message
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/message/2363
>
>I was starting to think that Nate had the original poster pegged right
>but Rick Thompson's name carries some weight with me.

cookies. ptewie.

If it's worthwhile, would somebody please summarize. Thanks.

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

Chiloe

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 8:33:14 AM9/12/02
to
n42...@aol.com (N42461) wrote:
> What do people get out of placing ducks/cairns on a trail? "This is
> the way *I* went". Sometimes they are helpful. Sometimes they are intrusive.
> Sometimes they are a tribute to the ego of the rock stacker.

Sometimes they are an effort to bring good luck. Every traveler
adds a rock or starts a new cairn, until you have thousands of
them covered by moss and standing like ghosts along the trail.
Not a US tradition yet.

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 9:41:56 AM9/12/02
to
Hal Murray wrote:

> If it's worthwhile, would somebody please summarize. Thanks.


From
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climbingboulder-discuss/message/2363

Re: (and I quote) Nate's slanderous theory [about the
route that
was
chopped]: "Home Depot Red Eye anchors, next to bomber
crack, every
3
feet. Thesenga loses his mind and goes absolutely nuts
with
crowbar.
Our man Patrick gets picked up and put in a straight
jacket after
one
too many "polite" visits to the office of Climbing
magazine. Stay
tuned, folks."

Nate goes on to call the story a smear and says: "and
I have come
to
conclude that you [meaning Patrick?] are a retard
deserving of a
restraining order. I can only hope you've sold your
drill."

Enough baseless ranting Nate - as a climber of nearly
30 years I
consider this to be a horrible precedent. It's an
alarming day
when the
editor of the leading climbing publication in the
nation becomes a self
appointed rock sheriff. How can we as climbers trust
the media to
provide unbiased reporting if they are in fact
vigilantes in disguise
out to further their own "ethical" beliefs?

So let's stick with the issue(s) at hand and center
our discussion on
the facts. The story, as reported is factual, my
sources outside the
immediate group involved have substantiated that. In
addition, I have
had a copy of Thesenga's response for well over a
month and indeed it
says precisely what Patrick and Ralph's postings have
stated - they
didn't just make this story up, or sugar coat to sway
opinion in their
direction. I believe Patrick's account accurately
describes what
happened.

On the issues:
a) In the professional environment when one signs a
letter in their
official capacity as an employee of a company they are
representing the
company (whether they think they are or not) - this is
a simple rule of
business. Mr. Thesenga's response in which he admitted
what he had done
was signed as the Editor of Climbing Magazine - there
is no confusion or
lack of clarity about this.

b) The route (re: Nate's comment about the route being
equipped with
"Home Depot Red Eye anchors, next to bomber crack,
every 3 feet). The
subject route is a 4 pitch 5.8 - pitch one is a gear
protected cracks
that leads to a bolt protected slab. The next three
pitches use both
gear and fixed anchors (bolts). The route was NOT a
sport climb - it is
a MIXED ROUTE. As for the gear quality - it was all
top notch - Rawl 5
pc. bolts, Fixe' hangers, and Fixe' rap rings.

c) Regarding the local ethic, the route was equipped
in precisely the
same style as the majority of the routes at nearby
Independence Pass,
where mixed routes have existed for decades.

The Bottom Line: What Thesenga did was entirely wrong
and unwarranted.
As a professional in the communication business he
failed to communicate
and instead took matters into his own hands. This
stands as one of the
worst examples of the media attempting to further its
personal bias that
I have seen in many years in our tiny sport. So, I'm
canceling my
subscription - I won't patronize a magazine that
support the kinds of
actions demonstrated here.

-Rick Thompson

Dawn Alguard

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 9:51:00 AM9/12/02
to
Nate B wrote:
>
> "Dawn Alguard"
>
> > I was starting to think that Nate had the original poster pegged right
> > but Rick Thompson's name carries some weight with me.
>
> I was interested to get the hardware thing resolved. Cool. They bought
> Rawls. I've very proud of them. However, he ignored everything else.
> Still no answers to Barnes' post

from Rick Thompson?

>, still no JT perspective.

from Rick Thompson?

> Sorry - "it's a mixed route" just didn't do much for me fact-wise.

How about the sentence before that: "The subject route is a 4 pitch


5.8 - pitch one is a gear
protected cracks that leads to a bolt protected slab. The next three
pitches use both gear and fixed anchors (bolts)."

I'm not saying the route should have been put up, but it sounds very
much like it shouldn't have been chopped without discussion. All of
your original assumptions about why chopping this route without any
consideration for the FA'ists was OK (poor bolting, overbolting, bolts
next to gear placements, previous line, against local ethics) have
been disproved. We've also got the word of a well-known,
well-respected climber confirming that JT has admitted to having done
the chopping. What, now, are you arguing?

Dawn

Nate B

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 10:02:01 AM9/12/02
to

"Dawn Alguard"

> What, now, are you arguing?

My slanderous theory didn't turn out to be that far off now, did it? It
sounds like you haven't even read JT's reply yet.

To answer your question even more directly - these clowns don't deserve the
time of day, much less a discussion, for their visible actions. Further,
they've since demonstrated a level of maturity, aggressiveness, and utter
lack of experience that proves themselves completely incapable of a mature
discussion on the topic at hand anyway.


- Nate


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages