Retrobolting

caesar.salad wrote:Wait, 15 feet? That's bouldering territory. I'm a sport climber through and through, but come on.

This right here. Maybe just bring a crash pad.

Thomas Beck wrote:I see in ElDorado(Boulder) climbers are posting polls online for protection changes on established routes.

+1 for an excellent post.
Regarding Eldo, it's a somewhat different animal: any new fixed protection on either existing or new routes needs to go through an application and approval process, hence the polling.

Overall, my answer is, consult with the local climbing community, including the FA if available. If there's more-or-less consensus that bolts are poorly placed and you have the skills to improve it, go ahead. Try not to make these decisions on your own, and when in doubt be conservative.

As a postscript to the thread,

I was remembering a couple areas I have climbed where the first ascentionist (who could probably onsight 5.10d to 5.11d) put up single to 3 pitch "x" or seriously "r" rated climbs at a 5.8 to 5.10a grade. The City of Rocks, Joshua Tree and the Needles in California are among some places I have seen this behavior...There was a time in the Needles when Lechlinski and Gilje were in a rivalry to see who could run it out more and so a number of very bold/run out face climbs were established. These routes are in the 5.10b/c and up range. They are not 5.8 or 5.9.

All things being equal, I'd either top rope a route like this or find something else to climb.

Yet I was bothered some by this behavior at the City of Rocks. And I ask myself why? Maybe because to my "developers eye" an otherwise esthetic face climb is rendered "to risky" by most climbers who are leading at the climb's difficulty grade.

City of Rocks has a bolting moratorium, climbing rangers and maybe local rock ethics police. It's also a world class destination zone. The City gets a lot of seasonal traffic concentrated in a small area. In any case, developing "x rated" 5.9 routes there (as was done before the moratorium) seems to me akin to "stealing" climbable real estate from the generation of starting climbers coming out of a gym culture.

Years back...I saw similar behavior prior to the issuing of a new Joshua Tree guidebook that a few climbers would go out and do new "bold x and r rated" climbs way below their lead grade and turn their route in for the guidebook.

Maybe I'm bothered because over the years my personal viewpoint has changed regarding boldness and I am less bold, especially on less than vertical limestone. Maybe because I have been influenced by the prolific top down bolting ethic around Las Vegas more than I realize. I do know it is often difficult to go back and add bolts to a bolted route while preserving the rhythm and esthetic.

Nevertheless I am not suggesting power drill owners go out and re-craft established 5.8/5.9 lines to their own perception of what is "safe".

But from a developer's point of view we might want to keep in mind who is getting on one of our 5.8 to 5.10 routes (especially if it's an esthetic sport route) and protect it so that a climber leading at that grade could reasonably and safely get up it....or not depending on your mind set and motivation.

It's likely the local climbing community will vote with their feet and your line will get done a lot or pass into obscurity and out of the databases unless/until some brash climber comes along with his Bosch and "safes it" for you. That just seems to be the way things are evolving.

About twelve years ago I was that "brash individual". I found a potential route in an otherwise obscure area, soloed up something easy to get to where I could rope down on it and found 3 quarter inch Rawl studs with no hangers slightly off to the side of where I saw the line. I asked around but no one knew anything about it. I pulled the old Rawls with not a bit of guilt; took some friends up there to top rope and mark ticks for the bolt placements. I ended up with an area classic which is a testpeice at the grade 5.9+
Absolutely Foolproof 5.9+ about 27 m.... A friend onsights it well

We have that problem in this area with a certain developer. He climbs 5.13-, and when he puts up a 5.12+ or 13- he bolts them in project distance (like 6'-8' apart), but when he bolts a 5.11 or 5.10, he barely bolts them at all, and typically leaves them R rated and just does them with limited pro simply because he can. He has some 5.11 routes that have great movement that never get done because they are R rated, when just one or two bolts would make it just safe enough to be spicy, and they would get climbed! That double standard is really frustrating for the climbers around here. And when climbers ask if they could put a bolt on his R rated 5.10 routes, he gets really upset about you just having the nerve to ask, let alone allow the bolt be added.

Micah,

I took a look at your profile and tick list. Impressive! I began climbing around Horse-thief Butte, across from the Dalles way back when 5.8/5.9 was pretty leading edge and the only ethic was ground up/onsight. I know semi-sound rock is at a premium in your locale.

I remember looking at Broughton Bluffs and thinking total choss pile. Except for the Bat Wall, I am guessing most of the stuff now developed was done top down cause I know there is a lot of cleaning/gardening involved around those areas you have ticked. Am I wrong?

If as you state, you have a developer going around putting up run out top down bolt developed climbs in the 10 and 11 range - 2 number grades below what he can lead and he's doing them often, then you have to question his motivations????

To my mind you have limited options. Be patient...Hope he/she moves out of the area; rehearse the line till you can head point it; from the top lay in a static line with butterfly knots you can clip into to lead his route; on the down low, drill holes you can use removable bolts in.

Micah Klesick wrote:We have that problem in this area with a certain developer. He climbs 5.13-, and when he puts up a 5.12+ or 13- he bolts them in project distance (like 6'-8' apart), but when he bolts a 5.11 or 5.10, he barely bolts them at all, and typically leaves them R rated and just does them with limited pro simply because he can. He has some 5.11 routes that have great movement that never get done because they are R rated, when just one or two bolts would make it just safe enough to be spicy, and they would get climbed! That double standard is really frustrating for the climbers around here. And when climbers ask if they could put a bolt on his R rated 5.10 routes, he gets really upset about you just having the nerve to ask, let alone allow the bolt be added.

You could try publicly(locally) shaming this person but if his righteousness quotient is set high then that is not likely to work and will start a flame war.
If I laid in a fixed line to lead from then I'd post the picture on the route page site with appropriate comments. Sometimes peer pressure can be effective; the devil is in the details and how you do it

Micah Klesick wrote:We have that problem in this area with a certain developer. He climbs 5.13-, and when he puts up a 5.12+ or 13- he bolts them in project distance (like 6'-8' apart), but when he bolts a 5.11 or 5.10, he barely bolts them at all, and typically leaves them R rated and just does them with limited pro simply because he can. He has some 5.11 routes that have great movement that never get done because they are R rated, when just one or two bolts would make it just safe enough to be spicy, and they would get climbed! That double standard is really frustrating for the climbers around here. And when climbers ask if they could put a bolt on his R rated 5.10 routes, he gets really upset about you just having the nerve to ask, let alone allow the bolt be added.

Are these ground up onsight or top down efforts?

@Thomas Beck:
Thanks! Broughton is actually pretty solid, some of the most solid rock in the gorge, believe it or not. Many of the original trad lines from the 60s-70s there were done ground up, but 90% of the routes were done top down, as the cracks require gardening, and sport routes, well, need bolts. haha
All these climbs I was thinking of were done top down. I think the motivation is simply because its easy and cheap for him, and it adds another FA to his list. And I'm less concerned about my doing those routes. I've done one, because it was a cool route and worth the risk and well within my abilities. The rest I could bother less with, except for the hypocrisy of it (bolting his hard lines close together with totally different ethics.)
@John: these are all top down.
There are enough lines around that it doesn't bother me much, and I'm not one to go adding bolts without FA permission in most cases. Mainly I was just pointing out that developers do that all over the place (prior post mentioned it happening in Jtree and City of Rocks).

Micah Klesick wrote: @John: these are all top down. There are enough lines around that it doesn't bother me much, and I'm not one to go adding bolts without FA permission in most cases. Mainly I was just pointing out that developers do that all over the place (prior post mentioned it happening in Jtree and City of Rocks).

In that case it seems a bit silly .

The route in question is a rap bolted sport route. Had the first bolt been placed 2' higher next to a large jug, about 12; up, a good belay would likely avoid a ground fall. Instead it's low and the ground fall from bolt two is unavoidable.

I am no stranger to run out trad routes. They have their place. I also like to sport climb.

With the exception of adding a Rap Anchor I wouldn't even consider changing a trad route or a boldly established, drilled on lead, "sport" climb.

But we're not talking about one of those.

This is a rap bolted, modern, sport climb in a sport climbing area. Unfortunately the genius FA couldn't do the simple math for bolt placement.

I agree you should ask the locals. I agree a serious effort should be made to ask the FA. Of course, context matters. The area ethic, neighboring routes, time period of establishment all matter.

Thanks everyone for your two cents. I know what to do.

John Byrnes wrote: I've added and/or moved bolts on my own routes too. And I've added bolts to others' routes to eliminate 20' ledge-falls and factor-2 falls onto the belay in places where rescue isn't an option. So I know I'm gonna get tons of shit for admitting that in public. How's that for balls?

To that I say well done. We used to have a guy doing good work like that around here, but he got shouted down for turning ancient crapfests into fairly safe climbs. Luckily some of his work didn't get erased.

First of all, thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. (Special thanks to Thomas Beck). It covers many situations (not all) that we all run into on a regular basis.

I guess I still have one question though... Should this discussion be distilled down to guidelines (perhaps peer-reviewed) that can be added to the School of Rock? My hope is that bolt wars might be mitigated/avoided if this information were widely disseminated.

For example, the thread "New Sport Routes on Duncan's Ridge" might not have gotten so heated and the rock and our sport, not suffered so much, if there were a checklist (or some other method) of things to verify/learn before bolting an existing area. Or a new area. Or a new route... What are the approved options when a 5.13 climber puts up 5.10X routes at a sport area?

Does anyone else think this is something worth creating on MP? Or are bolt wars just a persistent nasty reality?

Micah Klesick wrote:We have that problem in this area with a certain developer. He climbs 5.13-, and when he puts up a 5.12+ or 13- he bolts them in project distance (like 6'-8' apart), but when he bolts a 5.11 or 5.10, he barely bolts them at all, and typically leaves them R rated and just does them with limited pro simply because he can. He has some 5.11 routes that have great movement that never get done because they are R rated, when just one or two bolts would make it just safe enough to be spicy, and they would get climbed! That double standard is really frustrating for the climbers around here. And when climbers ask if they could put a bolt on his R rated 5.10 routes, he gets really upset about you just having the nerve to ask, let alone allow the bolt be added.

Call him out - who is it? Putting up runout rap bolted lines is as lame as it gets IMO.

Marc801 wrote: +1 for an excellent post. Regarding Eldo, it's a somewhat different animal: any new fixed protection on either existing or new routes needs to go through an application and approval process, hence the polling.

Not to mention that there is a guideline to the charter of the group specifying that they replace like for like with failing fixed anchors, or place to save trees, etc... but that convenience anchors and retros are considered undesirable, and that the public's accumulated on-line vote counts as a single vote on the board...

So the polling is light weight and more for discussion than for dictation.
that said, the board does appear to listen carefully to that discussion when informing their own votes.

The existence of the FHRC more or less can go to evidence that guidelines published don't justify anything or stop a bolt war. A sanctioned governing body was still appointed to oversee and review the approvals and processes, and differences in opinions about how a climb may fair when compared to those guidelines are commonplace.

Running out the end of a climb is fine by me as long as its a cruise after the crux. Blanket statements about bolting everything as safe as the gym on rap is ridiculous.

T Roper wrote:Running out the end of a climb is fine by me as long as its a cruise after the crux. Blanket statements about bolting everything as safe as the gym on rap is ridiculous.

Agreed. I'm not against run-routes from the last bolt to the anchor, or in the middle of the route if it is a safe fall. I often do that in the routes I develop. I don't think the issue is run-outs, its run-outs on a rap bolted route that cause it to be rated "R".

If you're rap-bolting a 5.11 climb, then leaving a 5.8 section run-out is perfectly fine. But, if you're that same 5.11 climber bolting a 5.8 climb, the 5.8 sections should not be bolted as if they were 5.8 sections of a 5.11 climb, but as if they were the 5.11 sections of the 5.11 climb -- because to the 5.8 climber, that's what they feel like.

In fact, a 5.8 climber leading a run-out climb at their limit is generally in far more danger than a 5.11 climber leading a run-out 5.11 climb at their limit. On a 5.11 climb, usually, the long fall will be into air. On the 5.8 climb, that long fall will have lots edges, ledges, etc to hit on the way down -- a 5.8 climb will rarely have a clean fall.

I know it is a traditional and strong climbing ethic, but it can be frustrating to have a climb or an entire area kept unsafe and unappealing by the FA.

We (my wife and I) are currently in the middle of a rebolting project of climbs that were put in up late 70's early 80's. These were burlymen who went pretty dang far before putting in that first bolt, and were too tired of hand drilling at the end to put in a belay station in an area with no pro. The FA said they would smoke some bad weed and lay down on the rock for more friction for the topmost belay.

That would make an awesome description, "Pro: Cams to 3", bad weed. At the third belay wear jeans and cotton and lay down flat.."

Fortunately the FA said, please, - go ahead and make it safe. The climbs are runout and will remain so, but we are focused on the groundfall potential, the grade of the climb and the grade of the climbing to the first bolt. (Heck, one of the climbs was rated 5.9 by the FA team and its 5.10? minimum sustained climbing up to the high first bolt). And we've added belay stations where needed so bad weed is no longer required. In other words, long whippers OK, death not so much.

This FA was great, but if he had said no, these climbs will likely remain obscure and unclimbed. Some would say so be it. But on public lands with building pressure on the popular areas, it would be a shame to basically lock out this area to most climbers.

I don't know the answer - I also understand the other side. We are also putting up new routes in this same area and I would absolutely want someone to ask us before changing one of our routes.

Ney

Generally you and I are in agreement. I think you did all the right things. Generically, ask permission, either of the FA or if they can't be located, the local climbing community. If a person does get permission to bolt do so sparingly. Try not to change the essence of the climb. Long falls don't routinely require added bolts. What scares someone might not be a problem for anyone else. High first bolts or ground fall potential MIGHT be a reason to add a bolt, it depends on the local ethics. As an example try adding a lower first bolt at Smith or Jtree, see where that gets you.

The truth is, I much prefer the idea of climbing a route at it's level as opposed to bringing it down to my level. This does limit me a bit because there are some climbs I won't do. As an example, years ago I redpointed "Bandsaw" on The Old Woman rock in Jtree which is a runout, nasty 10c with grave injury potential. Later that day I backed off "when sheep run scared" because it was too runout for me. One more bolt on Sheep and it would have been no problem. Did I want to add a bolt? Sure, for about 10 seconds while I was trying to retreat but once on the ground I understood the value of that climb to those that did it as is.

For the record, I no longer put up dangerous climbs and in fact have gone back and repaired a few of my really stupid ones. Also, if there is any question as to whether I would go out and bolt someone else's climb without permission the answer is absolutely, emphatically no.

This argument goes on ad nauseam. Here is my observation. Most people that want to retro-bolt have never put up a climb. Never invested the time, money or effort that goes into development. My advice: get with experienced developers, learn how to bolt and then learn how to put up a climb because the're not the same thing. Spend the money, take the time, put in the effort. After that come and talk, then your opinion will matter.

Brad

Personally I don't think anyone should retrobolt a route they think is too scary unless they have, in fact, led the route successfully in it's current state. Sometimes things that look scary turn out not so bad, and some routes have added value with some excitement.