Those two guys removed an established easement. Sure one can argue that it should never have been installed in the first place, but it was and apparently it became widely used. They had no business taking it down.
Mountain didn't come with the easements at first and it was still possible to summit. It should be possible to do it without them again. The bottom line is anything else besides that is lazy. As the article says, there's many alternate mountains for more inexperienced climbers.
That stood out to me... I understand that rock climbing is Serious Business to its practitioners and people on internet forums, but these two guys actually got arrested for removing those bolts, which is a whole new level of serious.
Was it really some kind of crime to do that? What happened to those guys after that?
One of the things I appreciate about the Andes Mountains is that in this age of social media ruining everything most areas are still pretty wild. You don’t see long queues of people waiting to take selfies. You may not see other people at all. They are second in height to the Himalaya but in most other ways are more interesting.
I feel like the governments there low-key try to keep it that way.
im sure that the Andes are far more remote and wild than anything I have experienced in my life as a European, and I would dearly like to be fortunate enough to see them some day, but I would note that "long queues of people waiting to take selfies" hasn't been my experience in nearly every mountain or hill ive been to save a couple extremely touristy spots in the height of summer (uk examples: snowdon peak, mam tor, stanage edge etc). Ive been able to go entire days without seeing another group of hikers many places in norway, sweden, uk, even while following hiking guide books
My first reaction to the title was "how can a mountain be controversial?!", and, even after reading the article, the title still sounds wrong to me. I mean, a mountain is a mountain, it just... exists in a very undisputable way. What climbers did or didn't do on that mountain can be controversial, but not the mountain itself.
Mountaneering nerdery is in some sense nobler, since people practising it put their health and lives at stake. Debates about C++ undefined behaviour would get a different flavour if every now and then some high-profile developer were killed by nasal demons.
If you like this story, I highly recommend “The Tower”, a book on this topic by Kelly Cordes. This book, although history, reads like an outdoor adventure mystery thriller.
Maestri's claimed first ascent and his compressor route made the history of Cerro Torre controversial, and the later removal of the bolts added to this controversy. However, the unfortunately now deceased climbing prodigy David Lama also had his own scandal on the compressor route while sponsored by Red Bull.
It reads like the scandal was only from the first attempt at the free climb, where a bunch of belays and bolts were left behind. He since went back and on attempt 3 was able to free climb the compressor side completely. This was after they removed the 120 bolts.
Curious to know the basis on which they were arrested. I guess it's something in the realm of criminal damage to public property. But that would imply that Maestri's bolts had become part of the public property that is the mountain. I assume Maestri was not arrested for inserting the bolts.
Not being a mountain climber at all I don't really have an opinion on this, but I do naturally sympathise with the anti-bolt guys because I am fond of the idea of leaving no trace.
They didn't remove the bolts for "leave no trace" reasons. They removed them because the style they were put up was considered "poor climbing ethics". They felt it could go "free" and on gear.
This would have made the summit unobtainable to all but the strongest climbers in the world... Which would have upset many people who had traveled far and spent a lot of money to attempt the summit.
Alex Honnolds "climbing gold" podcast has like a 3 part series on this history if your interested to learn more.
20 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 19.8 ms ] threadThat stood out to me... I understand that rock climbing is Serious Business to its practitioners and people on internet forums, but these two guys actually got arrested for removing those bolts, which is a whole new level of serious.
Was it really some kind of crime to do that? What happened to those guys after that?
The debate that it is an established route and thus should be left up comes from a place of entitlement.
If you can’t climb the mountain, what are you even doing there? There are plenty of mountains in the area that can be climbed instead.
Same can be said about the Dawn Wall of El Cap. Harding should have never bolted it. Removing his bolt ladder was the ethical move by Robbins.
I feel like the governments there low-key try to keep it that way.
Check out Kelly’s intro on his blog, where he also shares his famous Marg recipe: https://kellycordes.com/2014/11/26/my-cerro-torre-book-and-m....
I can personally attest, that Kelly makes the best Margs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lama#Cerro_Torre
Not being a mountain climber at all I don't really have an opinion on this, but I do naturally sympathise with the anti-bolt guys because I am fond of the idea of leaving no trace.
This would have made the summit unobtainable to all but the strongest climbers in the world... Which would have upset many people who had traveled far and spent a lot of money to attempt the summit.
Alex Honnolds "climbing gold" podcast has like a 3 part series on this history if your interested to learn more.