| Name | Vote | Comments |
|---|
| | N | Nay to convenience anchors. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | I climbed the shield recently, and was less than thrilled by the options. Continuing up to top out, or traversing to penauts (which I did) are both botherrsome, and this anchor would make a convientent way to enjoy a wonderrful climb, and get down safely |
| | N | The Anchor is unnecessary and is only for convenience. |
| | N | |
| | N | |
| | Y | |
| | N | |
| | N | Unnecessary. |
| | N | |
| | Y | |
| | N | The Shield has never had permanent anchors on it and nor should it.Let's just call these what they are"convinience anchors".If a climber can get their ass up the Shield they should have no problem figuring out how to get off it. If these are intended for the proposed route above,why don't we just all suck it up and lead the thing in ONE pitch. Which is what someone is going to do anyway. Looks like a 70meter wiil do it. |
| | Y | Safety justifies this anchor. |
| | Y | Traverses on Rotten Rocks not only is dangerous for the climbing party but is also dangerous for party below them.
Safety justifies this anchor. |
| | N | There are safety anchors and convience anchor, this one seems to be for convience. |
| | N | The proliferation of fixed anchors has a sterilizing effect and opposes the long-standing and revered ethic of the canyon. Let's keep the bar high. |
| | N | |
| | N | Good gear anchor available. In favor of limiting most rappel anchors unless they mitigate or improve the safety of otherwise dangerous scenarious in heavily travelled areas. |
| | Y | The Shield is an amazing route that does not get done very often mainly because the only safe way off is to make a rotten traverse to Peanuts anchors. This route deserves it's own anchors! |
| | N | The natural gear of a Gold and Red Camalot is enough. |
| | N | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | 60 percent yes, 40 percent no is how I'd qualify this vote.
60 percent yes: the new sport-style pitch above looks hard enough and steep enough that the belayer will want and possibly need a multi-directional anchor while the climber works the pitch (do Chains of Love, for example, in two pitches, and you'll see the issue).
40 percent no: the anchor will change the commitment level on this section of the wall -- though that's not by definition a bad thing, and you could offer the same argument for having a bolted pitch in between two 5.10 X rock climbs. |
| | Y | Yes |
| | Y | |
| | N | I am assuming the anchor is to access the new proposed route...I feel this is a good opportunity to create a route situation which will be more in character with the original Eldo (climbing) tradition of being commited on a route, since it is rap-bolted after all...There is an adequate gear anchor available. |
| | N | In my opinion, we should try to keep Eldo as "pure" as possible with minimal bolting. I am opposed to placing a new bolted anchor on the top of The Shield on Lower Peanuts because it easily accepts protection in a nearby crack. |
| | Y | |
| | N | ... is there a new Top Roping guide to Eldo on the way? I hope not... |
| | N | Until each of the FA parties of the 2 routes that this changes agree to the addition of these bolts is against tradition and ethic.
We should not just go adding anchors on top of exising and serviceable gear placements on a pre-existing climb to enable a gearless belay at teh base of an extension pitch.
The 'factors against' for this proposal, as written, say it all:
1) There are good natural gear options
2) There has never been a permanent anchor here before
3) It is an easy scramble to an existing 2 bolt belay
5) This would change the charicter of 'Left Side' a pre-existing route.
I'm glad the applicant is striaght forward about this and that level of honesty leads me to believe that the water was being tested here. My answer to that is a sincere 'thank you" for asking, but 'no thank you' for the bolts. Let's continue to put our own gear in. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Good Idea. |
| | N | There is good natural gear. This is not sport park. |
| | Y | |
| | N | not necessary, natural gear in location, other anchors nearby. |
| | N | I strongly oppose this anchor proposal. I think the proposed anchor is out of character with the route (the Shield). This is one of the best examples of what I would describe as a convinience anchor. The nearby two bolt anchor allows for an easy descent, without any need to place two new bolts. The Shield is a bold climb. The current natural anchor is not only perfectly solid but is in keeping with the character of the climb. |
| | Y | We are fortunate to have folks like Joe Crotty looking out for our safety in Eldo while protecting the park for generations to come. |
| | Y | Makes sense in conjunction with the new sport route above, even if it mostly just adds convenience. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | Please consider these anchors. It will make the new pitch alot safer. Thanks |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | This makes very good sense to have fixed anchors to offer a way down after a great pitch without stupid exits that waste time and effort. |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
| | Y | |
