- This topic has 25 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by tom.
29 April 2015 at 12:59 PM #153051MikeGuest
My name is Mike Taylor. I’m a climber in Denmark. Over the past few years I’ve been spending a fair amount of time climbing West Cape Howe, and one of my favourite climbs there is “Harry Humpkin and the Exploding Pumpkin”.
Speaking to Jim Nevin, there have been very few people to lead this route and they have only led it once due to the scarcity of sound gear and the obvious danger. (I’ve been trad climbing more than 20 years and wouldn’t lead it without a few bolts.) The gear on the lower part of the route is sparse at best, and most likely would pull on a fall. The fall would cause someone to hit the belay ledge and cause major injuries. After reviewing the climb with a few other locals, including Jim Nevin, I decided to contact Simon Yates who put up the first ascent to get his permission to put in a few bolts. Surprisingly it was easy to track him down and his response was that it was up to the locals. He said, “it’s your rock, it’s your decision”. After a few months of top roping it, Jim Nevin and I decided to put in two bolts for an anchor at the ledge and four bolts on the lower portion of the route. We still are uncertain if it needs one more bolt near the crux up top of the route. We’re still working on the gear placements. This is an amazing climb and in my opinion needs to be led by everyone that visits West Cape Howe.29 April 2015 at 3:08 PM #153063PhillipGuest
I’ve lead HHATEP at least 5 times and I’m surprised that you think that the belay on the ledge and the protection on the way up is inadequate.
I find it’s no problem putting in more than enough nuts and cams for the belay on the ledge, and on the way up, while it is a bit thin for gear, if you look around I think it’s fine.
If anything, if it’s bolted I’d possibly be less tempted to do it again. (Having said that, the next time I’m there I’ll give it a go.)
By the way, I was there on the day that Simon first did the climb. I was also at Willy’s when he did Porky Pigsville – now THAT is a climb that needed more than one bolt! To freak me out even more, as I was leading it, he was telling me the story about how a couple of months previously he went climbing in South America with a friend and had to cut the rope…
Phillip29 April 2015 at 4:07 PM #153067NeilGuest
To be honest that’s a bit dissapointing. It’s been led a bunch of times by me and my friends and whilst no bumbly lead, the gear seemed appropriate. Not all routes need to have the same risk level. Variety and routes you maybe don’t have the guts to lead make rock climbing the sport it is.
Can you reconsider?
WCH has no shortage of stuff to do and this was an easy TR if you didn’t want to lead it. Shame it was reduced to a lower level in my opinion. Reading Richards post about the Spartacus bolt in the peak Charles thread reminds me WA has more to worry about than carrots…..
What sort of bolts and glue did you use?29 April 2015 at 8:03 PM #153087RossGuest
I’ve climbed this route 3 times on lead. The last time was 10years ago so my recollection is a bit hazy but I seem to remember that there are (or were!) two(ish?) very rusty bolts in the bottom part…..looked like a zinc placed bolt with stainless hanger! hard to believe….The bolts were falling apart and may not be there any more…..obviously these need to be replaced. Other than that, the route is well protected with small, yet spaced gear. There are no ledges to hit so falls may be long but not dangerous. I fail to see what more bolts would do for safety…they do change the character of the route as they make it a brainless clip and go exercise. There are NO NASTY SURPRISES as any potential leader lowers right over the route so if one feels so inclined one can research and label with chalk all the tiny gear placements. So like Neil, I do NOT want to see more bolts on what is a protectable route (if you have the right gear and know how to use it).30 April 2015 at 12:34 AM #153105RemiGuest
Sorry but I also think the bolting is inappropriate. I have led the route too. It took me several years and multiple visits to WCH before I decided I was ready to go for it – that’s what I liked about it.
I second Ross, Neil and Phil who made some really good points.
I’m not too sure what ledge you are referring to and why would any anchor point be required?
I have an angle grinder, should you need it to fix this 😉
Remi30 April 2015 at 12:57 AM #153107RemiGuest
I climbed Sunshine Superman 15* early 2014 and had to skip the bolts on the second pitch to get the experience I was looking for… I would hate to have to skip more bolts every time I go down to WCH.30 April 2015 at 4:06 PM #153164RyanGuest
Yes it’s a nervous lead but as said already, easy to set up a top rope or pre place gear on the way down. If you want to do some practice laps first it is as easy as can be to set up. If you’re bold enough to take on the challenge of onsiting it then kudos to you (gear beta alert—- just be sure to take rp’s and c3’s) Keeping a cool head on small gear is one of the challenges of climbing and as this route has no ‘nasty surprises’ I say leave it be.30 April 2015 at 4:25 PM #153166ChrisGuest
“(gear beta alert—- just be sure to take rp’s and c3’s)”…. Thanks Ryan… Did I just loose the onsight? 😛
My two cents worth is that I think a lot of the recent bolting at WCH is unnecessary, especially on routes such as HHEP. Not only are nice big shiny ring bolts kind of ugly against the nice black rock, the routes are crap (for WCH). If you want to bolt stuff, replace some of the old ones on some classics, like Mike Law’s routes, and put a second bolt on Didi Wa Didi (I can’t find it). There are plenty of routes at WCH to last a life time. Lets not wreck the place with excessive bolting. It is suppose to be a place of adventure!6 May 2015 at 8:52 PM #153502John boyGuest
A bit harsh calling all the new stuff crap in the last couple of years I think Jim nevin.remi vignals.pattrick maher.Ron master.Jonas Hollingsworth and Ross weiter have put up some real classics out there some with no fixed gear at all. they have my respect perhaps you should show some Chris.6 May 2015 at 9:38 PM #153503KrishGuest
I too led this climb on sight and had no issues with the gear, yes it is small gear but adequate. Each climber has a different opinion on what is adequate but it doesn’t mean we need to fix up every line to match all needs. The intention of route descriptions are to advise whether routes are runout, sketchy, well protected, sustained, etc. So I too am not keen on the idea of retro-bolting such a classic slab climb as HHEP.11 May 2015 at 7:42 PM #153856Ron MGuest
Putting the Bolting of HHEP to one side, Chris calling all the new climbs at west cape crap is bullshit. Maybe he needs to show a little more respect to those who are willing get of their arse and put up new climbs. You want to Replace dodgy bolts, maybe you should do it yourself!13 May 2015 at 10:48 AM #153979AdamGuest
I think we should all stop attacking Chris and concentrate on the real issue here. He didn’t say all the new routes at WCH are crap, he said that these new bolted lines are crap for WCH. My impression is that this is referring to the ethic of the crag as a whole rather than ripping on everyone that has put a line up recently. I’m of the opinion that at a place like WCH, bolting should be kept to an absolute minimum and I’m a little sad to see people whacking bolts in everywhere they think the gear is potentially a little thin or flaring (i.e. Dark Arts).
As far as Simons comment goes “it’s your rock, it’s your decision”, I fail to see how the opinions of two people plus a couple of locals is enough to warrant a retro bolt. It’s been shown in the previous comments of this thread that quite a number of people have lead the climb and are sad to the level of it brought down. If you really want to put a bolt in an existing line then why not put it up on this forum first and see the general consensus before getting the power drill out. Unfortunately in this case, regardless of climbing populations opinions, the bolting is already done.5 February 2016 at 11:25 AM #156320NumbatGuest
Hi Mike and everyone else,
I was down at WCH not too long ago and did a few climbs.
I’ve done Harry several times before (without any bolts), so I thought I’d check out the new bolts.
I think the two belay anchor bolts are not needed – there is a perfectly good crack one metre to the left where you can whack in a few cams.
As for the other bolts, I don’t see the need for any of them – they are all within half a metre or so of horizontal cracks where you can place small cams or nuts.
If any bolt was really needed, the place to put one would have been a single bolt in-between the two that are fairly close together.
Numbat3 April 2017 at 10:51 AM #158631Mark EdeleGuest
A slightly belated addition to this thread. I was down at WCH on the weekend, and onsighted HHEP. I did clip all the new bolts. My reactions are mixed.
On the one hand, I would not have attempted an onsight of a route at this grade described in the guide as “with thin protection”. Given that my ability to spend much time down there is limited, I might never have climbed it without the retro bolting. I agree that it’s a great route and that it deserves to be climbed by many. I’m glad I climbed it.
On the other hand, I did feel that the route is now over-bolted for West Cape Howe. One of the bolts is right next to a small vertical crack, which would take gear. Other bolts are, as pointed out by others, very close to horizontal cracks which take gear. It would take longer to climb the bottom part without the bolts, and it would be a more nervous endeavour.As I climbed it, I thought how hard this must have been to protect back in 1989, with no micro cams. With modern equipment, the thing is much better protected than it was for the first ascent (I had a rack of “basic cams”, i.e. ripped-off Aliens, the three smaller sized of BD X4s, and the smaller sizes of normal cams, plus a good rack of small wires).
As for the question raised in Mike’s original post: I don’t think another bolt at the crux is necessary. If we are talking about the same crux section, there is a good placement on the level where your feet are before you commit to the move, and once you have done it, there’s a crack right in front of your nose. So at best you slip some meter and a half or two meters into good gear.
Overall, I do worry, like everybody else here, about retro-bolting becoming a trend in this area. WCH is quite a special place. It’s scary and it’s remote, and it’s beautiful. You are often on your own, and most of us climb lower grades here than elsewhere. It takes longer to be ready for a harder climb here, and mostly even easy climbs give you a run for your money. I would hate to see this spoiled for the next generation of climbers.27 March 2018 at 12:52 PM #188665NeilGuest
What is the current opinion of the bolts on this route ?
The consensus above (including my post) seems to be that they are unnecessary. I am pretty keen to remove them this easter for reasons outlined above by myself, Remi, Phil, Ross etc etc
My ears are open to educated opinions either way.
Neil28 March 2018 at 8:47 PM #188668J NevinGuest
It would be appreciated by the locals if you dont chop the route. If there is enough concern about the issue within cawa it might be a good idea for the organisation to contact the local climbers. J. Nevin28 March 2018 at 9:40 PM #188669NeilGuest
I don’t represent CAWA. With respect, If the locals could share their thoughts in an open forum, that would be welcome.
There are several articulate posts above explaining why people disagree with the bolts for a variety of reasons. I don’t see any posts in support of the thread’s originator.
I’m not trying to provoke some meaningless bolt saga for the sake of it. If no one cares, no one cares !!
My 25years of climbing have taught me that mistakes are made by locals, bolters and myself. I have also learnt that the ethic is set by those out climbing, not typing.29 March 2018 at 7:56 AM #188670Ross WeiterGuest
I have also done the route onsight and several time since then; I think it is quite fun, requires good slab technique and very little power. I used double ropes as the protection can be a bit zigzaggy. Any falls seemed safe as the slab is essentially flat. The bottom part is easy so ledge fall is highly unlikely. You need to abseil right past the route before climbing it, you get to see all the placements and if you don’t like what you see, there is a grade 15 right next to it that you can climb instead (Andromeda). The route is easily top ropeable and I have done that too when not feeling fit. So people placing bolts are not trying to make the route climbable, they just want to make it less scary, to a level they can cope with. That is not OK. I say get rid of the bolts.29 March 2018 at 2:29 PM #188673RemiGuest
Bolts on Harry H don’t really comply with the idea vehiculed in CAWA code of bolting (item #2):
Also, I’d rather you do a neat job at chopping them than someone else.
Remi29 March 2018 at 4:48 PM #188674Stuart MathesonGuest
I have climbed the route a couple of times (with bolts in place) and have a few thoughts and questions.
In Ross’s first post it is mentioned that the route originally had “two(ish?) very rusty bolts in the bottom part”. Did the route originally have some bolts in the bottom section? If so, then all other ethics aside, its current condition would be more similar to the original (having some bolt protection), than if the bolts were removed.
As I interpret peoples responses the main objections to the bolts and the reason explained why they are unnecessary seem to be that the route – “can be easily top roped”, “easy to inspect / protect on abseil” and they feel for them personally the available gear is “adequate”.
If this same logic and reasoning was applied to the rest of the routes at WCH (and throughout the climbing areas in Perth and the whole South West) that contain some bolt protection, then many bolts on many routes could also be removed on the same grounds.
Given that the route is described in the guidebook as having “thin protection” and that various very experienced and competent climbers (who I imagine climb much higher grades) have described it variously as – “no bumbly lead”, “taking several years and multiple visits before being ready to go for it”, “a nervous lead”, then clearly some of the protection is marginal and the bolts at the start of the route would make it safer by reducing the risk of ground fall that could be caused by a silly fall combined with gear ripping.
My personal opinion on the gear (especially some start sections) is that some of it is certainly marginal, and whilst I could place it I wouldn’t be to keen on falling on it.
With the established ethic in WA of routes with a mixture of trad protection and fixed protection I think bolting ethics and approaches become much more debatable and less clear. I personally do not see what positives will come from chopping the bolts on this route given the current context and ethics. (In my experience bolt chopping rarely has positive outcomes).
Personally I come from a very trad climbing background, where trad routes do not have fixed protection (no matter how bold) and bolted routes are sports routes (big shiny safe bolts), if the concept is wider than just this individual route and is based on removing the bolts from the rest of the “mixed” routes as well, that meet the same logic and reasoning (can be top roped / inspected, have “adequate” protection in a personal opinion) then that is something I could be open to.
Though that wouldn’t be very fair on those who just want to go and enjoy those “mixed” routes and climb at a level that they are happy with.
As I mentioned I do not see what positives will come from chopping the bolts that are in place.
Generally I try to avoid bolting debates also (especially on online forums) but as I am down this way if anyone would like to discuss things further then I am always happy to catch up for a climb, coffee or beer.
Thanks, Stu29 March 2018 at 5:24 PM #188675RichardGuest
Interesting considering the fuss over the Peak Head retro bolt of solo ‘Woo Woo Woo”. Where bolting of a never repeated solo was universally condemned. Now bolting of a frequently climbed trad route is thought possibly defensible?
Well ethiks are set by those who act. Either putting in the bolts or taking them out. Interesting that putting them in usually requires no typing but taking them out, a lot.
As for territorial claims; for WCH the term ‘locals’ could include a slab of Perth climbers (no, not me). Geographical propinquity does not always correlate with frequency of visits.
Anyway, I’m not going to do anything so any opinions would count for nothing. (but hey I did once manage a lead – if I could do it, it shouldn’t be bolted, and probably needs to be downgraded).29 March 2018 at 5:54 PM #188676NeilGuest
I think the correct interpretation of why people think the bolts are not required, is that adequate protection is available if your skill level and risk tolerance is appropriate for the route. If your level is not appropriate, don’t do the route. There are lots of other choices as you say.
Isn’t this balance of risk, reward and skill what makes climbing so amazingly good ????30 March 2018 at 12:40 PM #188677Stuart MathesonGuest
My apologies if I incorrectly interpreted peoples responses, I am quite happy with the interpretation you give as to why people think bolts are not required, it fits pretty closely with the more purist ethic that I am used to from other areas.
My core thoughts on the current situation remain the same though, that being,
Did the route originally have some bolts in the lower section as alluded to in the first post by Ross? I feel it is quite relevant to establish this one way or the other, as it has quite a bearing on the current situation.
If we are happy to support the more purist ethic in this case, expressed as “..bolts are not required, is that adequate protection is available if your skill and risk tolerance is appropriate for the route, if your level is not appropriate don’t do the route…”
Then are we also happy to support the same purist ethic applied to every other route? So if a person climbs a “mixed” route and they feel it has adequate protection for their skill and risk tolerance without the fixed protection, they have every right to remove that fixed protection?
I think that if the same logic, reasoning and ethics were applied across the board there could be lots of bolts removed from lots of routes in WA.
I am a purist at heart, and quite happy for purist trad ethics to be applied to climbing. I do think though that whether purist ethics or more pragmatic ethics (as seems common for WA at the moment) are applied, then they should be applied to all routes equally.
Hopefully we can catch up at a crag sometime, cheers, Stu31 March 2018 at 8:36 PM #188680Ron MGuest
To the best of my knowledge the original first ascentionist was consulted first and gave permission which is more then can be said for the climb at peak head. I live and climb down here and would like to know if lines are going to be chopped at what is our local crag, though this should not be a pissing contest on who is more local. I am not a fan of retro bolting in general and have had some of my lines in Perth vandalised in such a manner, but if done with the consent of the original lead, don’t have a problem with it necessarily. West cape is special and I climb there often. In my opinion bolts generally should only be used if there is no other options that are safe and on some lines at West cape they are needed, after all I have placed a few of my own on new lines there. Anyway maybe the best way to solve this is over a beer when the interested parties are down next.31 March 2018 at 9:45 PM #188681John boyGuest
Sorry richard but We had to chop the bolts on woo woo woo.I hate wrecking people’s creations but they didnt ask Scott put up a bolt ladder in a very sensitive area on a popular hike.Albany climbers coped a lot of flack for that going up. belay bolts pulled straight out with just vise grips a real death trap .holes to big for the dynabolts he used.what remi and Neil found of his stuff on Gibraltar rock made me cringe.I’m not a fan of what’s been done on Harry I wish they just left it we have so many other projects.but in jims and mikes defense they did get permission .