It looks like my new illegal abseil station on top of India Venster has encountered the wrath of the MCSA. what's your opinion?
Read the MCSA rock climbing subcom press release below:

A bolt was placed illegally at the top of Bombay Duck on Venster Buttress last month and as it will jeopardise relationship with Sanparks, it will be chopped.
Some background: Bolting on the Cape Peninsula has been a contentious issue since SanParks took over control of the land in the late-nineties. The MCSA rock climbing sub-committee then had to fight hard to prevent every bolted route on the peninsula from being chopped.
Since then, climbers who want to open new routes on the Peninsula's sport crags have to get permission through an easy application process. Table Mountain itself has always remained a bolt-free area except for a small number of strategically-positioned rap stations to be bolted on Table Mountain eg the ones on top of Africa and Fountain Ledge.
Given that people were already abseiling off a (rather
dubious) sling point above Bombay Duck, and that this is one of the most popular climbing venues on the mountain, the subcommittee feels there is a case for bolting a (legal) rap station that could serve all of the routes on Venster Buttress.
This will mean less traffic on the walk-off path, which is good for the environment and reduces the chances of rocks being trundled down on climbers below. They will be approaching SanParks on this issue and will keep climbers posted.

MCSA should remove the bolts once, Table Mountain National Park has permanently removed all the alien veg & the police have stopped all the muggings.

How can National Park Board worry about a few lousy bolts, but leave the cable car, all the paths, rubbish, alien veg, muggers & rapists. Does anyone care about a few lousy bolts? Do they even exist to 99.99% of the population of CT? Its an issue that will affect much less than 1000 people of 42M in SA per year, that 0.0000023909%. This is no issue. Its a pity that we didn't just keep quiet. Its the-love-of-storms-in-a-tea-cup that bring these issues to the \"authority's ears\". Who would have known?

Marshall actually has a point...

Totaly ANTI bolting on Table mountain. I may not do trad climbing as often as i like, i am a bit of a sucker for sport climbing. but i like the challenge of a trad climb, the fact that it is in its own way unique, that the level of saftey is completly dependent on how much gear you choose to place, that you can go to more places and climb more mountains if you are a trad climber because you are not reliant on pre bolted routes and because Of the peace and quiet on can get at Table Mountain because not EVERYONE can climb there.

NO BOLTING!!!!!

I totally agree Bub, but surely there's a difference between abseil anchors and a bolted line.
If you're that much against bolts than the other abseil lines should be removed as well.
There are only so many abseil points required, so it's not like anymore would be needed anyway...

Everyone's reacting like TM is made out of delicate English china, and yet there's a steel beast ferrying toursists up and down the mountain every day - if there was money to be made they would have no problem.

I agree that that the abseil anchors above Bombay Duck are, by themselves, insignificant in the light of the surrounding environmental blight, but it's a principle thing. Thin end of the wedge. I can think of dozens of trad areas, both on TM and elsewhere, where the walk-off can be a real pain, and ab anchors would be oh so convenient, but then I remind myself that part of the appeal of trad is the greater effort one needs to make, as that is what keeps the crowds away. So, one set of anchors in an already busy area like Venster Buttress is probably no big deal but where does one draw the line? It's so simple if we keep bolts away from trad areas. And yes, I would support removal of all the other bolted anchors on TM if that was demanded. You know, we coped admirably without them for years, and were probably fitter and better able to deal with country routes etc.

I think you have to look at the entire area, and what it represents.
The cable car, abseil africa, the many pathways, a restaurant, etc. - it's the main tourist attraction in Cape Town! Not some pristine delicate reserve.
A few ab points would most probably reduce any unnessary erosion from the descent as well.
Having said all that, bolted routes should not be allowed and the ab stations should be limited.

What diffrence would a via ferrata make at an venue where you can hear the city traffic, a cablecar passes every 15 minutes, paths are built for thousands of tourists, \"grey water\" from blocked drains run down Jacobs Ladder, muggers lurk, Abseil Africa operates, jumpers jump, wattles & pines encroach, alien buck get shot from helicopters....

& climbers climb to be seen by tourists (go deep guys)

So the Mountain Club decides to chop 2 lousy bolts. A silent <250g that was placed by a valid mountian user group. Why doesn't MCSA remove the pipes below the cable station, the rails on top or the restaurant or Abseil Africa or the path down Platteklip? How come these are allowed to remain & are acsepted? How are some folks allowed to exploit the mountain to make money, but 2 lousy bolts are an ethical issue?

Get over it TM is not a wilderness area. Nor is it unspoiled. It is used. For all sorts of things. Dams. Especialy next to the cable car its part of the city.

MCSA should spend more time discussing how they will force CNC to recognise our right to use the mountain as well.

The man speaks truth, and someone earlier in this thread said that it was an obsession with storms in a teacup mentality that has turned these 2 bolts into the stupidest non-issue. Two bolts, two frikken holes in the rock, on top of everything that has been done to the mountain for nothing but tourist $$$. Please, spend time om real problems. Like crime.

Oh Bubbles, read the thread. No-one is turning India Venster into Hallucinogenic. These are TWO. BOLTS. Not a new route, or a retro-bolted trad classic. Just one abseil anchor.

I am not been retarded with the bolting saga, i know that it is only two bolts and not a whole line of bolts that cover the face of table mountain!

As Richard said, it is the Principle behind it! if one person was allowed to bolt with out going through the proper lines of communication then that means almost any idiot with a bee in his bonet and a relativley strong drill can go slapp bolts anywhere they please... now who controls the saftey behind the bolting, how the bolting is done, how many are done etc... we will lose control and it may potentially become dangerous.

Also, those of us who would ike to slapp up a few bolts BUT who do so in the correct manner by getting permission first will now most probly, by pissing of the right people, now no longer be allowed to bolt.

It only takes one inconsiderate individual who thinks they are better than the \"law\" to go and screw it up for the rest of us!
Who knows, because of one small action (not that i am saying these bolts will be the cause) either from the past or yet to come in the future from a climber who simply does not think things through may mean ALL climbers will be banned from doing the one thing they love most from ALL climbing routes.. you only have to piss of the one wrong person.... Think about it.

Really? Any idiot with a bee in his bonnet? How many climbers do you know who own a proper drill? 5? 10? These anchors (the issue at hand) weren't placed by any old idiot with a drill.

Really?

Seems you're contradicting yourself. The NO BOLTING stance on Table Mountain is excepted (look it up) when there is money to be made. You're right, it's the principle of it. Many people are allowed to do whatever the f%&k they want on TM (see Marshall's previous posts regarding grey water, etc). But then CNC crap themselves because of 2 bolts? That's stupid.



So you know who drilled the hole and turned the nut on every single hanger you've stuck a draw though? No. I'll bet you don't know who bolted even 10% of the routes you've climbed. Yet you think they're safe? This particular argument of yours, that these two bolts are potentially unsafe because CNC didn't hold the hand of the dude that put them there is lacking, to say the least. Here's a good question, who ultimately controls the safety behind the bolting? If a bolt blows, and it was approved and stamped, do I get compensation from the approvers?

Wake up, climbing IS dangerous. Go read that on any piece of gear you own. CNC paper doesn't make the bolts safe. If they approve the bolting, do they go test them?

What was that about storms in a teacup? Who the hell wants to climb with a rope, climb choss, climb trad, especially there, anyway??????????????????

What a waste of time guys. Marshall is right. There are far moree serious things to worry about and even more importantly, far greater things to engage oneself in. Let that pent up tension free.

Have you ever seen what they (CNC) allowed to be done with the Cango Caves. Its a disgrace. Totally disgusting. But it makes money. Like the cable car.

They have two standards. One for stuff that generates cash, the other for tiny diligent user groups, like climbers or MCSA, who listen, care & obey.

So what Marshall? Nothing in this world is FAIR. Cango and TM's cable car both generate money and create jobs, so stop complaining.
The rules set out by CNC are that no bolting and route development is allowed without prior consent. This was not done. A climber took it into his/her own hands to place bolts on a route that didnt need any, in an area where bolting is not allowed. Sure, it's just two tiny specs of steel that will never be seen and in 15 years will have rusted away, but it's the PRINCIPLE of the matter. Where does one draw the line? Next thing we'll have guys bolting anchors all over the place, or placing bolts on dodgy areas of climbs. It will get out of hand and climbing will be banned in these areas.

Andrew P, it is irresponsible for you to fob off an issue like this, especially since you are actively developing routes in our country. It would be interesting to see how land owners will feel about this attitude and disregard for the rules, as stupid as they may seem to be.

Unfortunately, I have been stuck in Jo'burg on business for a few months, but as soon as I return home to CT, I will be heading up to the top of Bombay duck and I will chop those bolts. If some anonymous bolter can go and freely place TA's in an area that is forbidden to do this, then I have just as much right to chop them.

Lets not carry on about the cable car and caves etc being so bad and such an obstruction to nature. Marshall even brought up the alien vegetation. SO WHAT!!! We've built cities all over the planet. I know it seems like a contadiction, but with those cities, we've also created rules. The bottom line wrt this issue is that as a MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, the bolts must go.

MCSA??? No comments as usual I suppose.

Go get 'em!!

This is how you dismiss his argument - very constructive.


So you agree, it's got nothing to do with the PRINCIPLE as you pointed out so vehemently.


Damn dude have your read nothing that has been written here - NO ONE is suggesting this. Just a number of rap points to accommodate the various walls.


And what about those few hundred illegal bolts that were placed that extra long route at \"shall-remain-unamed-area\". Are you going to chop those. I think not.


You've contradicted yourself so many times on the issue that your PRINCIPLE has been lost.

I'd love to know what you are on about. What few hundred illegal bolts?
Stu, you've been so quick to pounce on my comments, so quick in fact that it seems you have become confused. I'm not the only person here who has called this a matter of principle.

In any case, it's fantastic that you've exercised your right to freedom of speech, and I hope that you feel better getting your 2c in. Bottom line tho, I'll be chopping those bolts above Bombay as soon as I get home, so, make the most of them now while they're still there. I'm not against bolting at all, but I for one would like the CNC to look at climbers as people who respect the rules. Many folks will be crying when climbing has been banned because of renegades such as yourself Stu.

So what st0ner? The oilfields in Iraq also generate money, and when your insurance replaces all the stuff you lose to crime, that also generates money, and when people die in car accidents, that also generates money. WTF is your point? Does the fact that it generates money make it ok? Lacking argument, boet. Rethink.

Now this requires some skill: READ the beginning and even you will realise that the BOLTER started this thread, asking the question with his REAL NAME. Hard hey?

Not if Abseil Africa uses them TO GENERATE MONEY.

Yeah man, according to your primary school reasoning SO WHAT about 2 bolts!

You're the authority. Ha. Ha.

Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean they're not there.

Hahahaha. Intellect lacking? Just swear rather. Hahaha. Justin, I don't mind, you shouldn't ban him. I find it funny.

okay, let me put this into words that someone of your ilk might grasp. Why complain about the cableway when your are surrounded by a city. This cableway creates jobs for people, thus, removing it would not be such a good thing (got it so far nosmo?). That said, Abseil Africa has acquired permission to set up an operation on the mountain. The bolter who placed TA's above Bombay DID NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION. Are you with me so far, boet?




Nowhere in this thread does it say that robertbreyer was the one who placed these anchors. He started the thread, but does not own up to it. Not so hard, hey nosmo?

Nosmo, if you had read what I had said...



...then you would not have taken the time here to prove to everyone what a big boykie you are hey, boet.

I'm not going to mention the area, but think about it. They weren't placed in the last while but they were climbed recently.
Sure, I might be confused, but not about this issue. Yeah other people have commented about principles but you are the only one to contradict yourself.



Renagade? I never placed them. I'm arguing priciples here Like you said - the cable car makes money, so if somehow we could make money out of placing anchors it should then be acceptable?
I never said placing those bolts was correct, I simply tried to make the point that it was not such an evil act as that you have portrayed. Two bolts that will never be seen by anybody other than climbers. So If I went and placed ten pitons at the same spot as a safe rap point this would be acceptable?

Hey b0ner, if you've got something to say on the subject, have the st0nes to say it out loud, don't send me private messages...


Thanks man.

On the one hand you say I have the right to freedom of speech, and say my 2 cents, blah, blah, blah, but then can't take what I have to say when my opinion differs from you? Another contradiction?

You remind me of our current bunch of politicians, and our friend accross the border...

haha Nice one nosmo. I mean what I said btw. Remember this little laughing guy \" \", cos that's me.

Stu, sorry, I've no idea what you are on about, but sure, if someone has placed bolts illegally then they should be chopped. Just the same as guys who think it's ok to bolt things that were trad pieces. I'm referring to places like Spitzkoppe here. Many bolts were chopped here because of this.

I'm not talking about MORALS here. I'd love the rules to be lifted so that we can bolt the entire TM, but until then, we need to obey the rules and ask for permission. This way, the bolts can be properly placed and we wont be banned from the hill.



Hilti makes money! Nobody is going to see any form of sustainability when it comes to a tiny niche sport like climbing. Sure, gear shops maybe, Cityrock maybe, but nothing on the scale of the cableway.



bla bla bla. Now lets start an argument about pitons v bolts. Stu, if you placed 10 pitons at the anchor, they's be pulled out by climbers within a few weeks. I need a few extras, so go for it.

You can't read, just I don't have to send private messages to get my point accross. Shame.


*Emphasis added for those learning to read.

things are getting a bit emotional here guys and gals. please go back and read the original MCSA post on the topic --> Illegal bolting on Table Mountain
The decision that the MCSA has made is to chop now, apply for permission and if/when granted, to rebolt an abseil station again. after you have read it, cast your vote and add your comments please.

point taken, I read the original post a while ago, so replace the \"anonymous bolter\" part with Robert Breyer's name.

Still, nosmo, don't forget the \" \". It might come when you fall off your high horse hey boet?




Stu, I don't know what you are on about here. If it's a game of \"guess the crag\", can I get another clue? Is the rock red or brown?

My point was never that they were correct in placing those bolts.
I was arguing about why they SHOULD be allowed to place a limited number of anchors. It seems YOU are confused and the one to pounce on MY comments.
Next time read the entire thread before so easily throwing around abusive comments.



You're missing the point...



You're missing the point... again.

Stu, it seems I'm missing the point.

THE POINT IS (according to your logic): if TMNP can make lots of delicious cash (like the cable-way) out of bolting on TM, then they should be allowed to.



It's not a pitons vs bolts thing it's a piton and bolts debate! Get it?