That was the 3rd ascent.

Jon and I did both of your routes Matt just after they were put up. We also did Lunatic Broth on the same wall…..a rather interesting Mike Smith classic.

I’m watching this from self-imposed exile in Oman. New bolted routes sound great, well done, many will appreciate. I have a comment about the glued P-bolts, please just make sure thay are not too visible as highly visible bolts&glue in wilderness areas may offend some people, causing access trouble further down the line. There are alternatives – glued in hex bolts are tiny and safer than carrots or painting the bolts to match rock colour is also popular in the US, they even sell “camouflage” hangers which do not shine in the sun. This then gives others the message “we are doing all we can” and sets precedent for others. Food for thought, also CAWA could have a position on this.

Mark, I apologise fully for being a dickhead and failing to follow the thread of you posting. Thus the comment should not have been directed at you but the route description. Looks like it was I who failed to let a sleeping dog lie and thus chastise myself. Apologies also to Matt and Jim who it seems were letting a sleeping dog lie. Unfortunately I was half way though reading this when distracted by an IT guy. Doh… Live and learn… Look before hitting send…

safe climbing

In 2001 Jim Truscott and I climbed a new line on Bluff Knoll. The line was called Mark of The Lion and was on the feature called Sophocles Pillar. The Pillar contained one other line put up some years earlier by Peter McKenzie and Anthony Bells.

Prior to climbing MOTL I spoke with Peter. I explained that we intended using carrots on a new pillar line and asked his views. His comments were encouraging and positive – Peter has also placed carrots on the Bluff. He said the Pillar contained some of the most exposed climbing in WA but was not utilized due to the marginal protection and it would be good to see others enjoying the place.

We subsequently climbed MOTL. We took Peter’s route description with us and used great care to ensure MOTL was different from his line. To the best of my knowledge Peter’s line remains untouched and can be climbed in its original state.

Ross

When Peter Mackenzie placed carrots on the Great Roof route (no disrespect to Pete), the route was hailed as a breakthrough in WA climbing. Are there different rules in the Adventure Climbing Zone for bolts placed on lead?

In order to gain clarity on this subject, we consulted the Stirling Range NP management plan on climbing and turned up the following….

———————————————————————-

Stirling Range

Fixed protection is not permitted other than in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct on Bolting’ (except in emergency situations) (CAWA Bolting Ethics can be viewed at https://www.climberswa.asn.au/info/bolting/)

STRATEGIES

1. Require all rock climbers in the Parks to adhere to the Climbing Association of Western Australia’s ‘Code of Climbing Ethics’.

2. Designate an ‘Adventure Climbing Zone’ in SRNP including the eastern Bluff Knoll faces (commencing with the ‘Main North Face’) and extending to the eastern end of the main range.

3. Allow low impact climber’s access where it is necessary and not causing unacceptable negative impacts.

4. Set maximum sizes for groups of climbers permitted to bivouac at climbing sites. Require groups larger than the maximum size to leave Stirling Range and Porongurup National Parks Management Plan climbing sites at the end of the day and camp at designated camping areas.

5. Require commercial rock climbing groups to notify Departmental staff before undertaking any activities.

6. Require all rock climbers to record the details of proposed climbing activities in the registers provided in the Parks prior to setting out.

7. Make other Park users aware of the presence of rock climbers and warn them of the dangers of throwing any objects over cliffs or down slopes.

———————————————

The plan decrees an “Adventure Climbing Zone” but also indicates that any bolting that occurs must be in accordance with the CAWA bolting ethics. This dichotomy is the root of the problem – What does the ACZ actually mean? Who mandates it or is it just an agreement between climbers?

The ACZ in my view is a product of the early 90s when new routes on the Bluff were still going up and the number of climbers actually climbing there was significantly higher. New route activity has slowed considerably over the last 10 years, mostly because of the fact that the much of the remaining terrain needs bolts to protect the blank faces and large roofs.

Bluff Knoll is a resource for all climbers and could have a number of long, sustained, quality routes both on gear and bolts, something that is rare in WA. Can we resolve this issue to be beneficial to all parties?

Have any of the above 7 strategies been actioned? Has the ACZ been defined, designated and listed in the Government Gazette? Has there been any public consultation? Is the ACZ a rhetorical device served up to bolster a particular view of the world? Are the No Bolting Zones the same as the ACZ?

I believe the concerns over bolting were predominantly a backlash against the unreasonably large and highly visible Mammut bolts placed in the 1990s in areas like Peak Charles. These can be seen from some distance and they have not lost any of there sparkle over the years. If low visibility techniques are used in highly visible situations (where routes are crowded or where walkers can see them) is the problem largely sorted? The issue may never have arisen if people had painted the offending bolts?

Before we dismiss agreements with CALM out of hand we should remember who has the power. Trying to get along with those who could make life difficult for us is not a futile persuit. In the past a broad consensus to respect no-bolting areas was sufficient and small indiscretions were not widely advertised. This website may do us a great disservice in providing a platform for those who might wish to escalate the few exceptions into a war we can not win.

Since we’re on the topic of mark of the lion, when we climbed it in may ’05 i noticed a bolt placed in thin crack (below the first roof on the pillar), and have been curious about it ever since. Matt – why did you put a bolt in a crack?

Emil,

http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/management/pdf_files/stirling-porongorup_nps.pdf

I agree that if one reads the park Management Plan then one logically concludes that it is indeed possible to bolt in the ACZ, as long as this complies with the CAWA Bolting Ethics of which the main relevant point is that no natural pro available + no existing route = allowed to bolt. The terminology of “ACZ” is used but not defined in the management plan in any way, which is confusing.

The key point here is that I believe that the time the ACZ terminology was agreed (15 years ago?) the CAWA Bolting Ethics did say “no bolting in ACZ”. So ACZ was meant to be = no bolting.

This understanding about the situation on Bluff Knoll was gained from reading the old Redpoint magazines (now in State Library), as I have joined CAWA after this issue took place. When I discussed this with any of the “old climbers” who were around at the time when the ACZ came about and especially the Albany crowd (see Jim Nevin), the words “no bolting” were freely associated with the term “ACZ”. In other words the term ACZ came to me to mean “no bolting.” That is certainly how it is being applied in the Albany granite cliffs, the Gap, Peak Head, Mermaid Pt etc.

So it would would be worthwhile if someone revisited the old Redpoints (in State Library in Northbridge) and checked on what was actually reported there as agreed. This should be as odious as it sounds, the old redpoints are mostly a bloody good read.

As an aside, of main concern to me is the rockthrowing by tourists at the summit of Bluff Knoll. Me and Jon narroly escaped death on Coercion when a barage of rocks hit the spot where we were belayed 10 minutes earlier. CALM has consistently failed to act to requests that a big sign “DO NOT THROW ROCKS” is erected at the summit (not at the start of the walk track). This is underlined by the fact that the summit marker “Bluff Knoll summit 1073m”) can now be found located near the base of Hell Fire Gully. This is a major danger to climbers.

Another thing, there are maybe 50 climbs on Bluff Knoll, and they are either undocumented or poorly documented. So how is any new bolted route not going to impact on existing trad routes (as per Ethics)? Someone should produce a guidebook first?

Also, most of the Stirlings rock has plenty of natural protection, hence bolts are not allowed even by the current CAWA ethics.

I’m not angling to be telling anyone how to live their life but I believe that we either (a) honour what was agreed in the past of (b) reach a new agreement on this matter, say via a referendum of all climbers, conducted by CAWA, who can then interface with CALM if necessary. I mean CAWA is here to meet the needs of present climbers. But the old ground rule of “trad gear available = no bolts” should be always applied.

We should work with what nature gives us and if this is not good enough for us then it then that is an opportunity for someone else at some other time, there is plenty of time ahead. Bolting shuts that door.

*cough*

not much happening here is there….