CAWA

a long dead agreement perpetuated by an out of touch heirachy. the old rules still stand - those who bolt will keep bolting regardless....

thanks, i heard that this adventure climbing zone was declared by a small group of local south coast climbers a long time ago

perhaps its time to revisit the policy especially if as you say climbers will carry on bolting regardless

My hope is that CAWA might support climbers wanting to develop new areas, indeed advocate for development of new areas wherever possible

I have heard that local climbers have bolted 2 new routes at Peak Head - though I cant confirm this.

wow perths wierder then i thought..

chip and climb a new route in the quarries and expect a storm of controversy...

talk about developing a whole REGION of non chipped, wild climbing and almost complete silence

weird man

oh well see you down south some time

I always scratch my head wondering why people are always so keen to put up new bolted lines when more often than not they have not yet done (and do not have the skill/courage/ability to do) all the available routes in the area? (eg - what is the point of putting up a 15mt over bolted contrived sport route when there are perfect majestic trad routes triple the length within a five minute walk you have not even done??????)

When asked about their need to bolt, these people often answer `to make climbing more available to the wider community..`

If you have just walked out of 6 months of gym climbing and you have a nervous `drilling finger` and are keen to immortalise you place in climbing history by getting your name in a guide book, I urge you to take a deep breath count to five and ask yourself what the outcomes of your actions will be. Previous recommendations to stop bolting in wilderness areas are there for good reason. Why? - because it is a wilderness area and favours a style sympathetic to the environment. If this wilderness is continually compromised it will eventually be lost and never regained. I agree that sport climbing is popular and well followed but it is a style unsuited to many environments (eg Sport Climbing is totally unsuited to most parts of SW WA sea cliffs).

I am originally from SE Queensland and I can think of two occasions where bad behaviour by climbers has caused crag closures. During the 80`s at a spot called Western Wall near Boonah - climbers behaving badly and not following requests of local property owners caused access to be closed forever (the location is said to be amazing and due to the closure I will never have the opportunity to climb there due to the actions of others)

The second crag closure unfolded about 18 months ago at a crag called Flinders Peak. To cut a long story short National Parks Qld requested climbers to stop bolting in one of the steep caves near the summit, instructions were not followed, bolting continued and hey presto another crag has been shut.

Whether or not the bolting ban is official or unofficial the recommendation should still be respected. It is there for a good reason - to assist in CONTINUED ACCESS for the climbing community. Failure to respect it WILL result in the closure of these areas to climbers. Do not think for a second that these types of closures will not happen here in WA.

If one member of CAWA even contemplates supporting bolting in the wilderness/adventure climbing zone they should hand their head in shame.

nice one, thanks for the reply Scott

Ive probably spent less then 6 days in a climbing gym but have spent close to 30 years climbing outdoors in a wide variety of styles, locations and countrys ... so no my trigger finger isnt 'itchy or nervous' thanks for the concern

i think you are confusing a few issues though

i have done a bunch of stunning classic trad routes on the sea cliffs, and they were/are awesome routes

i have also looked at some wild cliffs , completely devoid of natural protection possibilities, unable to be viewed or accessed by non-climbers (which would tend to void objections about visual disturbance) which could provide outstanding bolt protected climbing ( or if youd prefer death on a stick solos)

why do you believe that sport climbing is totally unsuited to WA sea cliffs?

while i completly agree with you that climbers should conform to wilderness regulations i understand that the area in question was declared an adventure climbing zone by climbers... not by the land managers, the land managers are taking their lead from climbers.. and in this case that seems to be a small core of locals in the Albany area who decided that they werent into sport climbing.

My information is that this area was declared a long time ago, and many of those involved in the decision have quit climbing since, others are still active but i have heard are reconsidering their opposition to bolting.

CAWA seems to be unable to see the positive benefits in reviewing the no bolting status of the area for climbers

and isnt CAWA about promoting climbing for climbers?

shouldnt CAWA be looking at supporting the future of climbing in this area especially if areas can be developed that dont conflict with other values ie. significant ecological concerns

I believe that climbers get a bad rap for the visual disturbance provided by bolts... especially from people walking on a manicured walkway to scenic lookouts with signage, posts, fences, rubbish bins etc..

all the sea cliffs in WA and elsewhere that i have climbed on bolts have been extremely hard to spot even when your on the route, so why climbers worry about the visual impact of bolting is beyond me..

and yes I know that a new route will have shiny hangers/rings etc but they weather very very fast and within a few months they will be very hard to see.

To assert that the bolting ban 'assists in climbing access' is ludicrous

the bolting ban is a relic of a few well intentioned hard core locals, picked up by land managers and supported by CAWA

the bolting ban limits the future of climbing in the state, places CAWA in the situation of supporting regulations that diminish the opportunity for climbing and climbers and should be challenged

in the meantime while the climbing community bickers about chipped routes in the quarries a few committed , talented and quiet climbers are going to be out there putting up routes despite the ban

and to be honest some of these routes are simply superb, and they are most definitely NOT contrived over bolted 15m sport routes... try 3 pitches of immaculate face climbing with very engaging runouts between well placed ring bolts and wherever possible natural protection

Climbing is not a static sport and should not be defined by a rigid set of ethics that are forever set in stone, you have a reasonably traditional mindset and that is fine, but why should your view limit others?

climbings a dynamic sport and new climbers (and some of us older ones) are looking at broadening and improving the sport by providing new challenges for ourselves and others

this shouldnt be considered unreasonable, nor a reason to hang my head in shame

climbers by their very nature are going to be always looking for new challenges, why are you prepared to limit this?

CAWA as the peak body representing climbers should take the lead in discussing the relevance of the Adventure Climbing Zone

Anyone from CAWA want to comment?

I agree. Back in NZ we all got over the "bolts are bad" and have found ways to expand the sport and help it grow, in a healthy way, moving forward for safer climbs but not taking away the experience of climbing.

Id go as fast as saying that Perth are still in the dark ages of modern climbing and it seems everyone is happy to live in the past and re-living the glory days, when ever they were.

If your the same Ed from the Wanaka region... Id be happy to climb any of your lines again!

Ed, while we probably don't agree on every issue, I am a strong supporter for your vision and enthusiasm to go and bolt and develop new areas in the ACZ. Here is 1 vote from a past CAWA member (respectful bow of head)…

Sweet, nah i dont expect that we have to agree on everything, be a boring old world if that happened eh..

thanks be really good to hear from yous current CAWA peoples as well

cheers

.

Ed – Let me apologise for the `shoot from the hip nature` of my response. I intended no offence or insult to anyone posting previously (yourself included).

It just seems that in many cases when most people mention bolts along with that come other things like sport climbing, cragging, short spacings, lower-offs, crowds and sometimes poor quality. Are these things bad? – depends on what you are into. Do I think those things listed above belong in a wilderness/adventure setting like the SW WA sea cliffs – no. And it is this point that is the foundation of my argument. It is all about context and style.

I realize that sometimes bolts may also bring all the things you expressed ` try 3 pitches of immaculate face climbing with very engaging runouts between well placed ring bolts and wherever possible natural protection` . Climbing a route like this sounds interesting (and perhaps more difficult than I am able) especially in a remote spot like the south west.

So no, bolts do not always equal sport climbing – how can they? There are bolts on the Bachar Yerian - clearly this is not a sport route. The style of its ascent was unique, a true test piece which has stood the test of time.

www.vimeo.com/6102968

John Bachar touches on the idea behind the style of the ascent in this short clip

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1SealpQ4w

I agree100% with your point that most fixed protection has zero visual impact on the natural environment when compared to the horrible blight created by other National Park infrastructure such as, walking trails, carparks, signs, rubbish bins, etc etc etc. The saying `give an inch and they will take a mile` applies perfectly in this instance. If there is a bush track, soon someone will get lost, they will blame the authorities and the bush track will turn into a signposted concrete 2mt wide footpath.

As climbers the notion of wilderness is now probably only a theoretical concept and never truly obtainable – as soon as you walk there and see it perhaps it is no longer wilderness? But what is wrong with retaining wilderness attributes where possible?

Ed I would love to head out with you for a climb some time to talk about this further. Whether or not we agree there are always two sides no matter how thin the issue is sliced and we can all learn from each other.

Please get in touch via my email scfielding@gmail.com

cool

I am fully in support of the notions of wilderness, and wild places and agree with the general sentiments attached with non modification of the area

but it seems we are talking bit about 2 different general issues

1. The Adventure Climbing Zone

2. Wilderness areas

I guess my views and questions about the ACZ are clear, but I'm not certain about wilderness?

Where i come from Wilderness areas are gazetted by Act of Parliament and human usage is heavily prescribed.

Are areas of the SW coast declared wilderness or is this your descriptor?

Like I said in my original post I am hoping for some clarification about the ACZ

its history and relevance today but the CAWA folks arent responding .

the negative aspects of climbing that you mention are not exclusive to sport crags, over crowding, pollution etc.. happen at every crag to a greater or lesser extent. You seem to have an aversion to terms like cragging, sport climbing etc fair enough but is the basis of your aversion simply that the climbs are bolt protected?

over bolted routes is another issue, but i think experience shows that 99% of routes are sensibly bolted not over bolted.. and as in the bachar yerian bolted routes can be very bold

in fact you could argue that bolted climbs on clean faces are less environmentally damaging then trad routes in cracks... most cracks are home to plants, lichens, invertebrates, lizards, birds nests etc

Lower offs are an extremely sensible solution in some areas as they can minimise damage to trees etc used as rap anchors, avoid building descent trails through native vegetation etc. But not every route need have a lower off, its just another effective way of managing use in some cases. the CAWA bolting code supports this

Over crowding would be an issue if there was a huge pool of local and visiting climbers ... as you know the SW is a wild place and the weather not to mention the long drive, difficult access etc will help minimise crowds.. its never going to become Nowra or Arapiles

Earlier this year when the new CAWA bolting code was introduced, a couple of us communicated our dismay re the ACZ to the powers that be. In the draft copies of the code, the ACZ was conspicuously absent and we gratefully thought it was gone and forgotten.

The response I received about it's reanimation was due to the fact that it was in shane's guide for the area and therefore still exists. Nevermind that the premis for the ACZ was long dead, that no DEC documentation for Albany environs references it (that i can find) nor that people have been bolting in the supposed ACZ for years.

Years of lingering ACZ fug have meant that development of Albany's many cliffs slowed. In beautiful irony, the few climbers left in Albany now bolt cherry lines left for years - the ACZ was originally introduced to stop Perth climbers from despoiling the Albany climbers' home crags!

As a couple of posts on this thread have alluded to, people are bolting some wicked lines in these areas. As for concerns about the bolts bringing wanton anarchic destruction from gym-virgins - it just wont happen. We have established routes in the SW that have still not had a second ascent, some after almost 10 years.

The reality is that a handful of WA climbers with passion, ability and drive develop new routes, that are thoughtful, engaging and wild in their own right. ACZ or no, they will continue to do so, but will never communicate their existance while such restrictions exist.

can anyone from CAWA comment on the ACZ please ..

Ed, I don't personally know the details of the ACZ. I expect the committee members that do are Ross, Phillip, Dena and Toc. I have emailed them to ensure they are aware of this thread. I can also ensure that this issue is tabled for the next committee meeting on Wednesday 25th November.

thanks for that, seems this isnt the first time this topic has been discussed

it would be awesome if CAWA could re-examine the ACZ , I struggle with the notion that our peak body is prepared to limit the climbing opportunities available to WA climbers through its bolting code

Emil was spot on, The SW sea cliffs will never become over crowded sport crags but instead can offer a variety of routes.. trad, mixed, bolted which will always be wild and fairly intense adventures

my vote...ditch the ACZ

I am the Secretary of CAWA, hear me roar and tremble before me!!

OK, seriously, this is my personal opinion here, and not the opinion of CAWA Committee, which has not discussed this item as yet, but I have been in CAWA for 15 years or so so have some idea.

Some facts. Once upon a time when the Earth was younger(around '93?, just before my time on the Committee....see the old papyrus "Redpoint" issues on display in the climate controlled rooms of the State Library in Northbridge), a bunch of (young, rebellios) Perth climbers went and bolted (very sparsely) some lines on Peak Head. Not only that but they whacked in some Petzl long life bolts with fixed hangers which are rather big and visually offensive. As Emil points out, the Albany locals (traditional, stout fearless fellows) who were active then were very anti-bolting, got upset and there was a follow on discussion with CAWA, which was then also very anti bolting (the whole discussion was raging in the early 90s here and there were no climbing gyms in Perth and probvably 5 sport climbs in the qarries) and the ACZ was agreed. Since that time, the ACZ has included Mermaid Point, Peak Head, the Albany Area Crags on the peninsula and the area east of Chester Pass Road in the Stirlings. It has never included WC Howe, Mt Frankland and Lindsay. The map is in the old CAWA guilde and the Richardson South Coast Rock guide. The bolts you see in there were placed before the ACZ was agreed mostly, except for a couple of lines on Bluff Knoll placed in doubtful ignorance (the ACZ is identified on the sign at the entrance to the Nat Park). Things quietened down for a while.

Since then, the mood in Albany has shifted, and some Albany climbers have now gone and bolted some lines in the ACZ without consulting anyone, as one of them admitted to me last year at West Cape Howe. Clearly, they see the area as their back yard and feel no need for a state-wide engagement, pretty much the same as we would not talk to them if we were developing access regulations for the quarries (eg. the new Canning Dam Quarry, which is under way now). And it gives them a great head start, with some plum lines to be picked...an added advantage of keeping mum. So this is understandable, although, in the view of history, a bit hypocritical.

What is required, is that Albany and CAWA engage again, and the issue is made clear to all. To me, the wishes of Albany climbers need to be respected, as it is their back yard and they climb there every weekend, we don't. I also believe that the ACZ is too large, and some of the places with large blank faces are clearly an under-utilised asset and can and should be sensibly bolted, with minimum visual impact techniques such as GIMBs.

Perthaps this is a place to highlight that carrots are no longer allowed in WA, as per the Codes of Conduct and Bolting which (at least as carrots are concerned) reflects the wishes of the great majority of WA climbers, as documented by discussions on this web site. The Codes tend to be referred to by DEC in their management plans which makes them mandatory, plus there are now added legal ramifications exposing carrot bolters to litigation in case of injuries.

I will table the Albany ACZ issue at the CAWA Comm meeting for discussion....this take place in about 3 weeks. It would be useful if (additional) people described their position re: this on this web site, as well as the rationale behind it, so this can be included. Thanks to the contributors so far and to Ed for starting this useful discussion. It is the Committee's intention to promote climbing in WA (this is in the Constitution), and this always includes avoiding conflicts of interest though, and to engage the outdoor climbers active in the ACZ areas on this in this case.

BTW there will be a Committee election in Jan'10, so if people have strong feelings and actually want to make a difference, please nominate yourself. There are almost always vacant spots on the Comm (2 now).

Also, DEC area Rangers are not blind and do see new bolts. The sensible behaviour of climbers in this state has resulted in no climbing bans other then Mt Chudalup where selfish individuals went and bolted and the area was then closed. The rangers recognise that climbing is a legit activity and climbers need "trails" just like bush walkers. It is not a black and white issue but one of management, engagement, and cooperation.

And lastly, while opinions on the web are useful and definitely engage the community, we need doers to realise things like agreements...... anyway, enough moanings.

The Secretary has spoken, you may sit down.

PS: ...just as well you were not at Blackwall Reach yesterday Ed, I was soooo crap....am going to the Grampians in a week so we'll see just how crap. Last time I was there I onsighted "Sandinista".....mmmm.

nice one Ross, great to get the historical perspective and thanks for agreeing to table it at the meeting

sorry i will be out of town in three weeks otherwise i would have liked to attend and discuss

i support engaging the albany crew in the discussion however i dont support them dictating what the result should be

in essence the climbing resource belongs to everyone, and although they are lucky enough to live close by that dosnt grant automatic rights in my view

especially if ,as you say, they have proscribed restrictions on bolting then quietly ignored them as it suits them ... hypocrisy has a price afterall

as far as bolting styles are concerned my vote is that 'the best possible anchors are used' and to me that means fixed hangers or ring bolts rather then GIMB

any hanger or ring bolt will quickly merge into the rock once its weathered

maybe you'll have to settle for an amnesia flash of Sandinista? Bloody good route eh!

Some of the concern in years past was that visually obvious bolts should not appear in tourist areas. Particularly the Gap. We have been told that we’re not supposed to climb at the Gap, but no one goes out of their way to enforce this. There’d have to be some voluntary restrictions so as not to get banned from the whole peninsula. When you talk about carrots that’s bashin carrots. GIMBs are the least obtrusive and strongest bolts. Though if they’re not visible from the ground it doesn’t matter. On the south face of Peak Head the biggest rings and hangers would never be seen by tourists or DEC; the only people that might be offended are other climbers.

One would hope this issue would be discussed only among the climbers. DEC is fairly unpredictable and their safest and most likely response is restrictions on climbing. It’s a quaint idea that bashins might be viewed differently by the legal world. DEC are the only ones who attempt to have any traceability on their bolts, with id tags and paperwork for each bolt. The engineering audience will know that on failure you get no points for undocumented diligence with no quality assurance or control, no qualification of procedures or materials, and no maintenance. Which is why bolting is best done on individual initiative

Correction- the bew bolted routes at Peak Head were put up by Perth climbers

WA must be about the only place in the world which still advocates placing GIMB

supposedly because they are less visually intrusive, but its worth having a look around the rest of the world, no one else is using them (ok maybe in australia they are)

ring bolts or fixed hangers are standard everywhere where bolting occurs

they arent visually offensive

theres thousands of them in scenic, tourist areas world wide, nah make that tens of thousands and no one (except climbers) notices them

chalk is far more visually distracting

have a look at the pic above of the promenade, you can see the blobs of chalk but bolts? have a look at the photos on the site, esp the promenade, big white chalk marks all over but can you honestly spot the bolts? and thats when your looking for them.. not when your a passerby whose looking at the whole landscape

WA cargs are not unique in their use by climbers , tourists and others.. i bet most non climbers cant even see a single bolt on most crags

how ofetn have you as a climber stood at the bottom of a route trying to spot the bolts? and again thats when your looking for them...

GIMB are dated and should have fixed hangers wherever possible,

some folks on this forum have previously suggested that GIMB are fine up to grade 25 after which fixed hangers or rings should be used.. this is completely illogical as it suggests that only expert climbers need the safety of fixed gear wheras those climbing more modest grades should have to struggle and stress placing removable hangers

Time WA got over GIMB i reckon and joined the 21st century

Ed,

What do you mean by "rest of the world"? Where is this place? Every place has its own ethix.

In Europe they bolt everything without batting an eyelid, cracks, everything. Noone cares if it has trad placements. they even fix chains between bolts and call these "via ferratas", i.e. "steel paths".

In UK on grit if you plase a bolt you will get shot. In the same country on limestone you can bolt away.

In Yosemite you can bolt new rotes any way you want but not if they have trad gear and not if you use a powered drill. Hand drilling only.

In East Germany in Elbsandstein they use massive ring bolts.....8m apart....and so on.

So the point is, what we use here is up to us, and out own considerations of what is good for climbing here, based on our own experience with access problems. This is not New Zealand. The land managers are twitchy and secretive...a lookout get bid for Castle Rock in the porpongurups without consulting any climbers. Our approach is to be inobtrusive and with the exception of a few me-first wallys, it has worked great so far, so let's keep it that way.

Someone else made a comment about the quaint legal angle about carrots. Rest assured if someone kills themselves off a pulled carrot, the investigation will look at that carrot. It will also find the CAWA code of bolting on the web. It will then ask the bolter, proudly listed in the guidebook, "why did you place a bolt when the peak body in this state forbids it"....and when tests consistently show this is the weakest and worst way to bolt. That is the legal aspect. Of course the idea of the CoB is not to nail people in courts but to stop this kind of thing happenning. There have been at least two accidents in the quarries over last few years where a carrot has pulled and the climber decked out. In engineering failures ( I have a degree in chemical engineering) people ask "did you use the best practice" and "did you obey the safety guidelines" and if not then why not.

totally agree ed....

* I doubt as Richard states above that GIMBs are in fact stronger than glue in ps or decent expandos. In fact I would hazard to say that they are weaker or at least not as safe for the following reasons:

-- The weakest link in the chain is likely the hanger, which is a necessary part of a GIMB.

-- If you look at the accidents that occur around Oz, there are an inordinate number as a result of using bolts that require hangers. This is becasue of incorrect placement of hanger or using small or wire gate biners with them. Human error yes, but it means the same - theyre simply less safe.

Thus if you are bolting with the best possible system around, GIMBs (or carrots) are not it. To have stated in the bolting code that GIMBs are preferred seems illogical.

*look at any of the issues between land managers and climbers in this state (or others) and the central issue is not the visual impact of the bolts. bolts have certainly been a concern for CALM or DEC but moreso that they have been placed without consultation and they are concerned about litigation.

The chudalup issue mentioned earlier is a classic example. GIMBs and carrots were used, but the objection by DEC was to the fact that people were climbing in a sacred area...

Trying to lay low out of land managers' field of view by placing GIMBs is missing the point. The stuff they are interested in is traffic, erosion, shit and toilet paper in the bushes, conflicts and of course, money.

*We have bandied about this idea of GIMBs in highly frequented tourist areas. Where exactly is this? If we mean The Bridge and Gap area, well i thought we're not meant to climb there. So where else? I cant really think of another place were we climb and tourists frequent. So is the stress on placing GIMBs necessary?

*Ross, you say that each area has its own ethics, and implicitly that GIMBs are a part of these ethics. However it seems that outside of your coterie, no one else uses them. I cant think of one person that I have climbed with locally that doesnt curse them routinely.

Adding this all up, can we just forget about GIMBs versus everything else and just call it bolting? As long as it's safe, each party will use their preferred method.

For reference, here are some other threads that discuss the ACZ:

forum.climberswa.asn.au/?view=message&id=547

forum.climberswa.asn.au/?view=message&id=550

Sucked in by Ed Nepia.

Visibility of rings I think depends on the size of the crag. I believe Eaglestone rock bears a comical resemblance to a hedgehog. Anyway the point was don’t bolt at the Gap. Climbers can squabble amongst themselves elsewhere out of sight of DEC. Regarding legal liability it’s clear that in case of catastrophic failure the cawa bolting guidelines will give no protection. They aren’t construction standards. In court the best undocumented bolting would fare no better than plastic gardening fittings. The protection that the bolting guidelines give is to greatly reduce the probability of failure. On bolt strength , outside of granite areas the weakest link is often the rock. So hangers are not good as they are continually under stress. Glue in U-bolts are best or Ps if you must. (but where the clip I comfortable, of course nothing beats a GIMB:). Anyway Ed, thanks for playing the ball and not the man. Makes a change on this site.

Bolt visibility is a non issue for land managers

its raised and discussed by climbers

as Emil states DEC are way more concerned about shit, erosion and i might add fire, dogs and all the usual stuff

if CAWA is serious about promoting the best bolting practice then as you say Rings are the bomb (U bolts are pesky to place)

Im interested in why hangers are under continuous stress? is that because of the force exerted on them by the nut?

I have never ever heard of a commercial fixed hanger failing under any circumstances (except if the nut wasnt tightened and the hanger fell off!)

Ross all I'm trying to say is that the perceived issues around bolt visibility which have led you to advocate GIMBs arent significant. Most climbers dont like them,

hard climbers dont use them and they are (as Emil pointed out) less safe because of the need for removable hangers.

Climbing is a legitimate use of public estate and i dont understand why we try hard to make our anchors invisible, at the cost of a loss of safety, so as not to offend other users. Weathered hangers, rings, u bolts are all virtually invisible especially on granite (less so on limestone though)

GIMB are, however, a thousand times better then carrots!

Most DEC placed bolts are P's correct?

yep complete with shiny tags ... and that kind of adds to the argument against GIMBs

the only bolts that are obvious to non climbers that I know of are the swag of shiny rings at the top of Willyabrup (DEC?) and on the boulders in the middle of mountain quarry

they dont seem fussed at all about using non intrusive anchors so why should we?

It is refreshing to see some considered debate over the climbing ethics of arguably one of Australia's most underrated climbing regions - the Western Australian South Coast. Indeed, some would argue, it is the scarcity of 'consumer friendly' climbing along the coast & it's hinterland that has kept it this way, this point may have some validity.

But within this climbers perspective debate, I feel some important points around conservation & natural values are being missed.

* As already eluded to, the South Coast is neither Europe, the east coast, nor Wilyabrup or Mountain Quarry, & hopefully will never see the volumes of traffic or dubious practices which occasionally raise their unsightly heads at these last two locations. The South Coast Region as a whole, represents extremely high conservation values of international significance, as well as being a wild & atmospheric area to climb with many large & varied cliffs often in superbly beautiful locations.

* The actual physical act of bolting has little substantial environmental impact, as previously noted, it is the other associated activities of human visitation that impact more significantly affect the environmental integrity of an area. Bolting style is probably less relevant to these impacts, although potentially making climbs more user friendly could be perceived to encourage more climber visitation.

* This argument could then be distilled down to centering around the impacts on less tangible, but also important values such as visual & spiritual amenity, local climbing styles & ethics. The values, as mentioned, are not so readily assessable & will frequently be not considered or discredited in discussions like this, but are very much a part of contemporary land management.

* The South Coast is an extraordinary place to climb, where for many like myself, the importance of the natural environment should always precede the actual climbing. It is also blessed with a huge amount of beautiful rock, many superb faces curiously or frustratingly devoid of natural protection features & this along with the size, remoteness, wild ocean & weather create climbing much more serious than many other areas.

* Bolting styles are contentious, especially when concerning a special region like this, but GIMB's should not be ruled out just because things are done differently elsewhere, we should not blindly seek a homogenous, sterilized climbing experience. From what I've seen the recent bolting efforts have attempted to respect this while still using P-bolts. Many of the South Coast cliffs attracting attention are slightly off vertical, with thin balancy climbing the norm, GIMB's are suitable for this type of climbing. The structural integrity of well placed GIMB's also shouldn't be questioned in the intrusive igneous geology of the coastal cliffs. The points mentioned previously about the 'dangers' of GIMB's also seem to relate to human error rather than the actual bolts, given the serious, committing nature of many off these cliffs, is this relevant.

* Various misguided points have been made about visual impacts. Firstly climbers & non-climbers alike do spot bolts, it is faciscious to consider that 'lowly' non'climbers will not spot bolts. Many won't, but also a large number of hawk eyed naturalists will. Many potentially bolted climbs will certainly be in locations only safely accessible by those with strong roping skills, but again here I raise the intangible natural values flag. Secondly, like Wilyabrup & MQ, one cannot compare the Promenade with the South Coast. Off course a majorly overhanging cliff in a sheltered gorge with low rainfall will see white chalk marks against oxide stained sandstone on heavily 'worked' climbs.

In summary, I seek not to antagonize people but simply raise valid points from a perspective well outside the 'mainstream' climbing community that may not have been considered. Personally, I see a place for some limited bolting on some of the bigger cliffs of the South Coast, but it must done with strong consideration for the integrity of the area. Maybe we'll see GIMB's with ring bolt belays, maybe some widely spaced P's mixed with natural pro, but I pray we don't see 'consumer friendly' classics peppering these wild places & keep the unique 'out there' climbing atmosphere of our special South Coast.

When I'm not in the dust, water or snow I might see you down there some time.

spoken well guru. i seek not to antagonise either. you wanna get high?

some good points for sure, the natural values flag that your advocating must be heard

i completely accept that some areas will have such outstanding ecological or spiritual values that climbing will not be a viable pursuit

however there will be other areas where such conflicts do not exist and climbing should be considered as a viable, legitimate recreational use in these places

why shoudnt there be consumer friendly crags? Couldnt school groups for instance get value from a well equipped 'sector initiation'? It dosnt have to be on the biggest baddest cliff, maybe a 15m outcrop convenient to a road end?

Its hard not to conclude that much of the objection to bolting stems from a fear that the area might turn into a grid bolted crowded shit pile

but I just done believe that will ever be the case, wild weather, long drives, difficult access, high seas, spray, wind and the generally epic nature of the area will act as natural deterrents for the masses

sensitively bolted routes , as in the case of the recent additions, have created stunning, adventurous lines which will become classics, not easy ... hard... and a tad scary

the developers have used the best possible gear (p bolts) augmented by trad gear where it exists and their routes may well be among the best the region has to offer

as discussed the ACZ is a historical relic which deserves (in my view) scrapping

at persent climbers are forced to sneak around opening new lines, and wont publicise their efforts because of the fear of censure or fines

as a result it may well be that the natural values you seek to preserve are inadvertently trampled

far better to have an open discussion about which areas are suitable for development and which are not

climbing is not the threat to conservation or wilderness values that it may seem

i and almost every single climber i have met rate conservation, wilderness, natural scenery and associated values as critical

climbers can be a force for good in wild areas

and by recreating in such places they can benefit wider society as well

Thanks Ed for renewing this discussion . I was a bit surprised as I thought it was resolved by Ross and the cawa comittee. I am a local climber in Albany and would just like to add a few personal observations. I agree with the general view that the ACZ is redundant and should be dropped, with a new set of guide lines similar to Ross's suggestions.

While I don't consider locals should have any greater say in these matters, experience from the original ACZ discussions show that their agreement to a proposal is vitally important.

I think Brett has said it all regarding the conservation values along the South Coast. People do notice bolts and as much as the P bolts are generally superior they are probably better used where they can't be seen by the casual tourist or walker such as on the South of Peak Head. It would be pragmatic to veto bolting in highly visited areas and also places of high conservation value.(The Gap etc.)

Regarding the history of the ACZ; it was negotiated for good and valid reasons at the time. The intention was for the thing to be flexible and adapt to changing circumstance. For various reasons this didn't occur and has hamstrung progress for all climbers including locals. What is important is getting some guidelines which work now. On the subject of ACZ's , the one in the Stirlings is solely a CAWA and DEC agreement and Albany locals weren't involved.

One thing that is noticeable in these discussions about the ACZ is the lack of input by the locals it concerns. It would be helpful to have the views of those who are most affected by any changes to the ACZ, aired in a forum such as this so other climbers can get a feel for the local point of view!

The ACZ concept as it stands has broken down , however adventure climbing has not. If you dig a bit deeper you will find the bolting and lines envisioned and those actually done are where there is no natural protection and seem to be fairly adventurous in their own right.

I hope these opinions help further the discussion.

I am also a local climber. On a personal note I think we need to have a little balance in the debate. I see no problem in bolting in areas not subject to large tourist populations. My feeling is that the Gap area and probably Castle rock would be a bad idea. The concern is more the rangers and the possibility of crag closures which DEC is well within its powers to do (I have a had a couple of negative comments myself). The other consideration is areas of very high conservation value. I would suggest that Two peoples bay should be avoided due to the Noise Scrub bird the absence of dieback. This is an A class reserve and DEC is very touchy on this area.

I was not in the Albany area when the zone was instigated however as Jim has said it was for valid reasons. Trad rules should where possible apply to maintain the wild feel of the area, bolts should be the last option not the first. It is the locals in the area that will be left to deal with any ramifications of any rash action. It is good however to have some discussion on the issue, we will discuss it at a local level for sure.

Regards

It does seem this topic pops up once a year or so.

Ross and Jim’s comments with respect to the origin of the ACZ seem pretty much correct as far as I can recall.

On two separate occasions I have been at the top of a cliff in the ACZ; with a pack full of bolts, glue and a drill. On both occasions I have wimped out at the last minute. Despite the routes (crags) being great and worthwhile additions, I just didn’t have the heart to do it.

The ACZ represents something special and I have enjoyed every route I have done on these minimal or non bolted cliffs. Somehow I felt that more bolted routes would diminish the feeling of adventure on other nearby routes. I also felt that there was some value in leaving the lines to be discovered, explored, top roped and maybe led on natural gear by others in the future. Less is more, to a point. The adventure’s I had bush bashing, exploring, abseiling and leading up into the unknown were great fun. Maybe it’s a bit naff, but it is worth considering leaving some “adventure” out there.

Rather than a blanket lifting or relaxing of the ACZ I would propose a lifting of the ACZ on certain crags only – new or existing. Aside from the rhetoric on types of bolts, consensus shouldn’t be that hard to obtain on which crags are suitable for bolted routes.

There is no “rest of the world” as Ross pointed out. WA has something a bit special in the ACZ and we need to be very careful that it is not lost.

Hi All

It's great to see some constructive discussion going on.

Thanks to the local Albany climbers for their input. We will need to liase with you further about the ACZ.

Access and DEC: Those who have been observing our activities over the last couple of years will be aware that we (in particular me) have worked very hard to develop a relationship with DEC where there is consultation. I admit this did not happen with Castle Rock, we were not consulted and they have admitted in writing that they were wrong not to do so. However, increasingly CAWA is being recognised as the peak body representing climbers' interests, which is exactly what we are trying to do. It takes a lot of time and hard work to develop a relationship and in the case of climbing, we have had to educate people who know nothing about the sport and therefore may be inclined to make decision based on fear. However, I can say that in neogiating access to Canning Dam Quarry and dealing with other issues, I have had a lot of assistance from DEC representatives. There are certainly people opposed to climbing, pasrtly because they don't understand what it involves but you will find that many of these people are keen sporting people themselves and when approached in the right way and given the right information, are keen to help.

DEC has shown a willingness to undertake joint projects with us. If there are any problems with DEC in the Albany region then I would suggest that we need to enagage with them to resolve and issues. Local climbers are welcome to contact me at any time to talk about concerns they may have or comments made by DEC staff.

Ed:'CAWA seems to be unable to see the positive benefits in reviewing the no bolting status of the area for climbers'. I don't believe that anyone actually made this statement nor had their been much opportunity for anyone to comment at the time of its writing. May I suggest that if you feel strongly about something, then send us an email. Or feel free to phone me. I certainly don't check the forum regularly because my job as president is extremely demanding and I just don't have the time. And I know that the other committee members do participate more than I do and will keep me informed. I have been watching this particular thread.

Emil: I remember that you talked to me about this some months ago when we in Margs, I think. The ACZ was not something that had been discussed by CAWA in recent times and I had very little knowledge of what it actually was at that time. This may sound strange, but the VP and president's job does not come with an instruction manual and there is no handover of ongoing concerns or issues from one committee to the next. I can understand that you may have felt that nobody was listening and I'm sorry for that.

In addition to posting on the forum, I really would encourage anyone with something they want to discuss, to contact one of us directly. Please don't expect to raise an issue here, rather than actually contacting us and get an automatic response. I see a lot of you around regularly-take the opportunity to talk to me if you want something addressed or you have a concern.

The ACZ has been tabled for discussion at next week's committee meeting. I will keep you posted.

My personal opinion is that appropriate route development should be able to take place and that the ACZ is outdated. No climber owns any particular area unless it's on their own private property and whilst we definitely need to respect the views of the local climbers in any area, development of the sport is also important and continuing to follow an outdated set of rules just because it's there is not really appropriate. Respect for the wilderness should be observed wherever we go and I'm not even going to get into the GIMB thing. There is always going to be a difference of opinion and my primary concern is that bolting is conducted safely.

Please also remember that the committee is composed of volunteers. We have been beavering away to try and improve things and I get really tired of seeing criticism for all of the things we haven't done from those who are not willing to give up some of their time to help achieve change. We are certainly happy to have constructive feedback. That way we know what you want. But remember that some of us are spending many many hours of our not so spare time to improve the association and work on access issues. The changes that you see happening actually require a great deal of hard work behind the scenes. If you feel so strongly about climbing, then it would be great to see you nominate for a committee position at the next AGM. We need people on the committee who want to effect change and are willing to give up some their time to help make it happen.

On the subject of input: we would really like to hear from more of the local Albany climbers before the committee meeting next week. I know that Ross has emailed a couple of people but I am uncertain as to whether he has had any response yet, as he is currently away. Please help us to have a balanced discussion by sharing your views. If you don't feel comfortable airing your thoughts publicly then feel free to email us instead.

2 cents worth:

My personal opinion for what its worth, is that the ACZ is outdated and is in desperate need of revision. Emil and i have both had conversations with "the powers that be!!" and both around the time when the new bolting guidelines were revised and publicised.

This conversation mainly prompted by the disbelief that it wasn't tackled at the same time, while public input was being sort.

The initial response was similar to that when i started seeking assistance for SCWA. The condescending line of "who are these supposed people you are talking about that are keen for revision and change......are they JUST your friends".

These were the initial responses, which after a bit more conversation and alot less elite posturing were on the same track.

Im not attacking CAWA or any one individual, but it seems that this whole process that all climbers (not just the native albanians)have a right to be a part of, is held up by misinformation and fear. There is no reason it cant be handled in a similar open forum to that of the bolting guidelines. But this time i strongly believe it should be something that is reviewed and agree upon by all WA climbing fraternitys. Meaning CAWA members, Non-members, Local albany/stirling ranges climbers, new routing individuals.......you get the picture. Not just the handful of CAWA members who turn up to annual meetings. that isnt a dig at CAWA, as i for one appreciate the efforts of the volunteers involved, but i thinnk is it easy to become strongly influenced by the opinions of individuals and not truely have a balanced view of the history and ethics being discussed.

That aside, i believe that the ACZ does have some merit in sensitive areas like The Gap where the visual nature of certain routes MIGHT! have a negative impact on climbing. Also in areas were the environmental impact of such activities many simply not be worth it!(dieback, endangered flora and fauna). But these issues really need to be looked at realistically and not just taken on face value alone.

I think it is sad that some people through fear and lack of experience, would rather lump "bolting" in one big basket and imagine the worst case grid bolted scenario, than too actually look at the creative way in which we as "Australians" have embraced the genre of mixed climbing and written it into our policies and guidelines.

Brett D wrote:

"maybe some widely spaced P's mixed with natural pro, but I pray we don't see 'consumer friendly' classics peppering these wild places & keep the unique 'out there'experience alive"

this pretty safely sums up the right way forward(IMHO)and i have no doubt that all these areas will be still just as "out there" with the careful addition of a few well thoughtout mixed/bolted routes.

In terms of GIMBS, I dont really care to argue, as there really is only a few individuals that place them and that is a personal choice. My personal opinion is that it is kind of pointless putting them on harder routes as most people end up pre-placing hangers/draw anyway, which in the end vetos any hope of a real onsight.

.In terms of rings/hangers sanitizing the experience, thats just crap!, get over it!, they may be the "neuvo carrot" and we should all see some historical significance in them. But the truth is it has still altered the rock and people will still bail if they really need too!(whether through being scared or necessity, it doesnt matter!).

as many have said before, its all hot air and the people bolting will continue to do so with what ever is floating their boat at the time.

I really hope this discussion is the last time we have to discuss the ACZ in its current form and look forward too being a part of process.

its been great watching this discussion unfold, seems to be broad agreement that the ACZ needs review

excellent

and thanks to CAWA for agreeing to table this issue at a meeting

as for reaching a decision about the ACZ my view is that the discussion should include as many players as possible.. CAWA Albany climbers, perth climbers any climbers

Dena my comment about CAWA being unwilling to discuss the ACZ was based on;

the recently published CAWA bolting guidelines which ban bolting in the ACZ,

the lack of CAWA response to my initial questions,

comments from active new routers as being excluded from discussions about the ACZ/bolting guidelines

I'm happy to put my views in email if you'd prefer but felt this issue is best discussed in public on this forum to engage as many folks as possible

Once again thanks for the positive discussion and I look forward to hearing the results from the CAWA meeting

What pisses me off in WA is people from elsewhere coming to WA and then criticising climbing and climbers in WA.

If you went to the UK and started bitching about the lack of bolts in gritstone and started putting bolts in, the locals would just beat the crap out of you.

If you went to Spain and bitched about the bolt every half a metre and told the locals they should be using cams and nuts and you started chopping bolts, they would more than just beat the crap out of you.

So why do you tossers come here and bitch about things here? Why don’t you piss off back to New Zealand or Europe or wherever you come from if you don’t like it here and have no respect for the local customs and traditions?

Such anger can only come from a man with a very small penis.

If ethic's didn't change over the times we would still be aid climbing on wooden pegs warming up for the proper mountains. Perhaps I should go down and rip out all the carrots and install some old pitons.

Good thing we live in a society with free speech and open opinions.

Well so much for constructive discussion ... I actually really like the climbing here, and all the locals Ive climbed with have been awesome

So WA Climber do you have anything useful to add?

Or would you rather just bitch from the safety of your pseudonym?

Terribly sorry old chap. I seem to have made an error somewhere, although I not sure where. Maybe you can point it out to me?

When I lived in Europe, I found many of their climbing practices rather strange, but I abided by their ethics and traditions. In Swiss Saxony, I used tape knot ‘nuts’, just like everyone else. In Spain I happily used the ringbolts that were every metre. In the UK I used nuts and cams like everyone else. And I happily discussed Australian, WA and local climbing ethics and methods with the local climbers.

But I did not ridicule the local climbing ethics and methods or try to push my own climbing ethics and ideas on the locals, which is what you are doing and which appear to have come from elsewhere .

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in WA, climb like the locals do. If you want to bolt every national park in sight and have no respect for other people (including, heaven forbid, bumbly tourists, who also have rights. Well, maybe.), then do so back where you came from and let us climb how we want to here.

If you feel so strongly about this why aren't you big enough to use your real name?

if you want to be taken seriously why not avoid insults?

And if you are a WA Climber the you will know that many of the contributors to this thread have made huge contributions to WA Climbing, and as I said there seemed to be broad agreement amongst them that the ACZ deserved review

If you can read carefully you'll note that I have'nt ridiculed WA climbing or climbers, I have just asked some questions about the ACZ and bolting styles

Unlike you i have great respect for others, nor do i have a desire to offend or bolt every national park in sight

Perhaps you could tell me how a WA Climber climbs? What ethics a WA Climber abides by? Or even where I could see the mythical WA Climber in action?

As far as i can see there is a fair bit of variety in the WA Climbers i have seen, and a fair bit of difference in their points of view, ethics etc

So I'm struggling to understand how to 'climb like one'

To WA climber...I dont think Ed is trying to push his ethics etc on to you or WA. What he is trying to do is bring WA into the 21st Century(I am from WA and lived here all my life). It seems to me that the WA climbing scene is dictated and refects the ethics and more importantly the (in)abilities of a chosen few. No one here is pushing the boundaries because the 'powers that be' who dictate are happy to climb only within their abilities and therefore happy to force upon the rest of us their mediocre standards. BOLT ON ED...

I think the above comment says more about the author than about anyone else; no further comment required, eh?

The ACZ was discussed at the comm mtg, there have been emails, phone calls etc with the Albanites, and there will be a news item on the ACZ by end of this week so stand by.

And finally, I do appreciate any comments, even anonymous ones. In fact I far more respect the ones that are anonymous and respectful than the ones that are signed and arrogant.

I would like to remind everyone that inappropriate comments about other people's appendages are not appreciated. Likewise, any comments made that are considered offensive will be removed as per website conduct policy. And I would consider some the comments above to be coming pretty close.

nice one, be good to keep the discussion constructive

look forward to hearing the result of your deliberations

cheers

Hi Everyone

Before posting the resolution passed at the recent committee meeting, we wanted to make sure that there was not going to be any conflict with existing management plans for the areas in question. And there isn't, so here it is:

RESOLUTION:

The Albany Adventure Climbing Zone (AACZ) is henceforth redefined as including the following areas only: The Gap, Natural Bridge, Blow Holes and all areas within or between any of these locations; also Stony Hill boulders, and any location within the Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve. These areas are either highly environmentally sensitive areas or have high tourist traffic. No further fixed protection may be placed in the AACZ. The CAWA Code of Bolting and New Route Development and the CAWA Code of Conduct are to be applied to the South Coast, same as per the rest of the State.

thanks very much for reviewing the ACZ, excellent news!

Right, now that pesky ACZ is out of the way, lets hear the truth about some of the recent pieces of stainless steel that have been popping up at certain South Coast cliffs.

From up here on the 'roof' of WA, I can hear the shuffling of heavy packs, charging of drills & idling of small trendy AWD's as a south coast stampede looms...

After the juxtaposition of recently wandering up a sparsely bolted 'wilderness' crag on the said coast & casting eyes on the new P-bolt attrocities at Darlington that made my boltcutter arm twitchy, I implore the the brigades from the 'burbs to treat our wild coast with the respect it deserves....

Weird how two peoples nature reserve is still in the Adventure Climbing Zone, when there are comments clearly stating that it has issues regarding the Noisy scrub bird and Dieback.

So its clearly fine too traditionally climb in such an area, but not too add mixed/bolted routes. What difference does a few bolts make, when the real issue seem too be access. After all Albany climbers have been climbing routes in at Cape Vancouver for the last decade!.

WHy havnt CAWA attempted to resolve access issues, as climbers are still going in there regardless.

BUt i guess CAWA are still dining out on saving Wallcliffe and getting Canning DAm.

You answered your own question in the first sentence.

How so Ross??

So adventure climbing doesn't affect the Noisy scrub bird and dieback.

please explain

Nah, you offended me with your last sentence. Get lost.