Responsibility of route setters in the modern sport climbing age?

I would like to hear from the community what they think are the responsibilities of those who bolt routes. A recent trip to a local crag with mostly easy sport routes got me thinking about this.

We were climbing at a very popular crag that has a half dozen or so 5.8s, several 5.9s, some 5.10s and two 5.11s. All are fully bolted with the exception of one trad route (with one bolt high on the route). Most people who go to this crag do not bring gear, and the crag attracts new climbers. Most of the routes are listed in the newest guidebook; two new routes were added after the guidebook was published. One of the routes is fully bolted and listed on MP. The other route has no information (route setter did not submit it to MP).

I was with a small group and ran into a friend who was with some other people. He leads around 5.9. The crag was busy, and we saw this route that was not on MP, and the party on it was about to pull the rope. We asked them how hard the climb was and they told us it was around a 5.9. My friend hops on it and starts up.

The route starts out low angle and then gets steeper at the top. The anchor is not visible from the ground (unless you saw the rope hanging off it). We had a 70m rope, so no problems there. The issue was that it was somewhat run out on the lower angle area, but had some gear placement opportunities that could not be seen from the ground. What was worse was that on the steeper part at the top, there was ledge fall potential to get to the next bolt, but a cam would mitigate that if you knew that there was a placement for it and had brought the right sized gear. My partner did not want to risk an injury from a ledge fall and lowered. Luckily, he had brought a rack, and I was able to place some gear and finish the route.

I understand that route setters use their own money to develop routes, and I know a few that have gotten sick of the shitstorm that follows when they submitted their route to MP, so they have stopped adding them to the database.

So what duty does the route setter have to the climbing community?

1. Caveat Emptor. If a beginner climber has to bail because they didn't know anything about the route, tough luck.

2. Route setter makes the route fully bolted and safe for a climber at the grade if gear placements can't be assessed from the ground (especially at a crag where all but one of the routes is fully bolted).

3. Submit the route on MP with the grade, length of rope needed, number of bolts, and gear sizes (optional or necessary), and make it a trad/sport route.

4. ???

What do you think?

"Route setters"? I think they belong in a gym.

A route setter sets routes in a gym. For outdoor climbing the onus is on us as climbers to be responsible for our own safety. If you aren't comfortable going up a route, whether bolted or not, don't go up it. If you aren't sure what the gear is, and aren't willing to take the risk, don't climb the route.

If the route requires gear, it's up to the climber to know that, rather than start up it blindly. No beta on MP or in the guidebook? Climb at your own risk and take some gear, just to be sure.

Doesn't sound like the route developer did anything wrong to me.

George Perkins wrote:If installing bolts, do so correctly and use proper equipment. End of responsibility of "developer". All other responsibility is on the climber.

Winner! End of thread.

Other than installing bolts properly and using the correct hardware a first ascensionist doesn't owe anything to those who come after them. It's up to climbers to take responsibility for themselves. The fact that this is even a topic is really disappointing.

(Edit to add: I'm glad in the time it took me to write that four people essentially said the same thing.)

FrankPS wrote: No beta on MP or in the guidebook? Climb at your own risk

Even if there is beta on MP or in the guidebook, you need to climb at your own risk and be smart about it.

The fact that you are asking this question shows that you do not understand the responsibility of a climber. The climber bares all responsibility. No one is forced to go 1 inch off the ground or 1 inch above their last piece. If they do they are assuming all risks associated with this choice. Yes it is a choice. Beta from MP or beta from a guidebook has nothing to do with it at all! Guidebooks and MP can be inaccurate and flat out wrong. Again, the responsibility falls on the climber.!!!

Additionally, you should never flat out trust a bolt. You have no idea the competency level of the installer and you don't know it's age or condition, only what you can see on the surface. And yes bolts do fail. Lots of them have failed. Some with injury and even a few with deaths. So don't assume more bolts would be the answer.

Thanks everyone for the quick replies. I was expecting this answer, and MP didn't disappoint! I was asking more as a rhetorical question as a lead into another development in the climbing world: the increased management of wilderness areas with regard to climbing, especially sport climbing. With land managers requiring permits to bolt new routes in the future, will the "responsibilities" that route developers* change in the eyes of the land managers, and will this change the opinions of the climbing community over time?

If a new climber has an accident due to their own misjudgment, will land managers (who may not understand climbing) be the ones to decide what is acceptable with regard to development? Will they rebolt routes? Will developers* will become over regulated or prohibited from developing certain areas?

I am also very grateful for all the time and effort put in to develop routes. Thank you, all route developers*!

• developers=\=route setters. I know! My inner Gumby was in control when I wrote that.

Greg D: "The climber bares all responsibility"? Well, I am not going to climb naked, and you really wouldn't want me to.

I actually agree with most of what everyone said about the climber bearing the responsibility, but it didn't sound that way from my original post, apparently. (I suck as a writer, so sue me). I do think that a developer does have a duty to install hardware correctly. If they can't do that, they should not develop routes. Of course bolts can fail, but there should be a reasonable expectation that a new bolt will be installed according to a certain standard.

I have finally succeeded in having the people of MP think I am a moron! What a milestone. I guess I just lost my MP virginity. Sweet.

Magpie79 wrote:If a new climber has an accident due to their own misjudgment, will land managers (who may not understand climbing) be the ones to decide what is acceptable with regard to development? Will they rebolt routes? Will developers* will become over regulated or prohibited from developing certain areas?

Why would it be any different than it has been for the last umpteen years? There are climbing accidents all over the country, but we don't hear about bolting guidelines from land managers, do we?

I know some areas require permits for bolting, some climber coalitions review proposed bolting, but I think land managers stay out of "how to properly bolt routes" (as far as where to place them and how many) issues.

Maybe someone else knows otherwise?

FrankPS wrote: Why would it be any different than it has been for the last umpteen years? There are climbing accidents all over the country, but we don't hear about bolting guidelines from land managers, do we? I know some areas require permits for bolting, some climber coalitions review proposed bolting, but I think land managers stay out of "how to properly bolt routes" (as far as where to place them and how many) issues. Maybe someone else knows otherwise?

I think both the Flatirons and Eldo FHRCs review the number and location of proposed bolts.

Jefferson County (which I would guess is the location of Mp79s route) has requirements wrt gear quality- i.e. stainless steel bolts, cable or chain fixed draws only, etc. Pretty sure they have removed substandard highlining installations. And would do so for sketchy climbing bolts too.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I think both the Flatirons and Eldo FHRCs review the number and location of proposed bolts. Jefferson County (which I would guess is the location of Mp79s route) has requirements wrt gear quality- i.e. stainless steel bolts, cable or chain fixed draws only, etc. Pretty sure they have removed substandard highlining installations. And would do so for sketchy climbing bolts too.

Thanks for the info, Mark.

flatironsclimbing.org/fhrc-…

#1

Just posing the questions you do along with acting like MP is a significant/important/critical resource is a slippery slope. But I guess it is what it is.

I couldn't find the appendix on civil/criminal/societal responsibilities in "The Murder of the Impossible" so I'm not sure how to vote.

Eric Carlos wrote:A route setter sets routes in a gym. For outdoor climbing the onus is on us as climbers to be responsible for our own safety. If you aren't comfortable going up a route, whether bolted or not, don't go up it. If you aren't sure what the gear is, and aren't willing to take the risk, don't climb the route.

So what you're saying is that I have to think for myself and be responsible for my own actions?

There needs to be a balance not everything needs to be in the database

Yes the Flatirons Eldo and Clear Creek have gear review committees. I would not be surprised to see this as standard elsewhere. The cowboy days of sketchy half-baked fixed anchors and huge built-in runouts are over. 1/2" stainless steel bolts, solid hangers, and durable lowering stations are required for most public lands near Boulder and the routes in BoCan mostly follow this model too.

Protect the 2nd.

Peter Beal wrote:Yes the Flatirons Eldo and Clear Creek have gear review committees. I would not be surprised to see this as standard elsewhere.

These are exceptional, but are definitely not the norm outside of a few larger and better organized areas. Feral cats typically self-organize a bit better than climbers in most areas.

John Wilder wrote: Route developers don't owe anything to anyone. That they donate their time, money, and effort to developing is something we should all be grateful for. I would like for developers to properly clean routes and use solid, modern hardware and install it correctly, but even then, they don't have any such duty to do so, imho.

That's it.

So, if I can segway here a bit - since the OP has been answered - what about retro bolting.

Based on some recent threads it seems retro bolting is somewhat looked down upon. Basically:

> Retro Bolter should gain permission from FA to add bolts to a route.

but:

> Sport climbing is all about the purity of climbing, no about the protectin, so no sport climb should be "dangerous".

and:

> Arbitrarily bolting a "spicy" route is stupid.

and:

> The original bolter bears no responsibility to the climbing community.

So, why is retro bolting so looked down on? If the original bolter bears no responsibility, and the route is perceived as dangerous, and sport climbing is all about the climbing moves anyway (not the danger aspect), then why can't someone add a bolt to a route without a proverbial shit storm happening after?

I understand there are times the community agrees with the retro bolter, but that seems to be pretty rare.

Brian L. wrote: So, why is retro bolting so looked down on? If the original bolter bears no responsibility, and the route is perceived as dangerous, and sport climbing is all about the climbing moves anyway (not the danger aspect), then why can't someone add a bolt to a route without a proverbial shit storm happening after? I understand there are times the community agrees with the retro bolter, but that seems to be pretty rare.

Uh-oh, here we go.