Who says it's not wanted? What would you like to do, take a vote?
As to its illegality, maybe it's civil disobedience. The blm has been grossly negligent in its addressing of the need for a climbing management plan. Years of inaction are unacceptable to many.

I have to agree with this sentiment. After a period of decades, established classic routes should not have their protection modified without at least communal approval! I find retro-bolting to be a disturbing trend in recent climbing ethics!

I could give two shits about that bolt either way. And even if I did have an opinion, who would give a shit as to what my opinion is?

HOWEVER, the bigger issue to me is the fact that placing that bolt is technically illegal. The bigger issue is in fact how the BLM enforces/restricts/manages climbing at Red Rocks. There are very postitive things that come from the climbing rangers, however, the management issues, rules and regulations I really dislike.

I realize that some of you/us are fighting to keep access (similar to Arches N.P.) But that doesn't mean that we should roll on to our back and let the powers that be (it is the damn BLM for christ's sake, they normally let anything go) screw us. Some of the management plan is bullshit, and people shouldn't be afraid to say it. The fact that that bolt can be called ILLEGAL is bullshit. That is where I get fired up.

Whether that one particular bolt should stay or go? I don't care.

Andrew, it looks like everyone except you says it is not wanted.

Even if the FA party was involved, and even if some fraction of the community says that it is wanted, it is extremely bad timing considering that the BLM is deciding how to regulate bolting. There's a fine line between being a rebel and just being dumb - and this is way over the line.

You can not deny that adding a protection bolt to the only committing section of a long standing classic easy route that many thousands of people have climbed without that bolt changes the route.

If that bolt stands, why not a protection bolt or two (or more) on scarier sections of other classic moderates? Why not make everything tightly protected? With that bolting ethic, you'd need maybe a dozen protection bolts in various spots to make Olive Oil a comfortized route.

If you want to see what will happen, visit Europe. Bolted cracks, bolted everything, rocks glued into wide cracks for footholds, glue patches with sand for friction on slick footholds, blatantly chiseled holds, etc.

This sort of trend WILL get climbing BANNED in some areas if allowed to continue. If you pit the Wilderness ethic in the US against a tightly protected bolting ethic, the Wilderness ethic will win. Many climbers will support that Wilderness ethic over a tightly bolted ethic. And the general public, especially environmental activists, view bolts as questionable to begin with.

yeah, it is not good to change the character of the long standing, well known climb. if the people replaced a bad bolt, well no problem. i am going to redrocks in one week, this is a route i have never climbed, and plan to climb it. now what am i to expect?? no excitement because someone figured it is for the best interest to keep it safe? that would be like putting a bolt in the middle runout of jules verne! grade doesn't matter, we should have safe climbs, and wild climbs.
andrew you seem to agree with this bolt?? if so, what would you think of a new bolt on one of your favorite climbs you like to do often? would this upset you?
legal stuff, ahh everyone breaks the law sometimes, but if the relationship is not good with climbers and who "runs" the place...
well then this may make us all look bad to some extent.
maybe the people really meant well, thought they were doing good.
although this seems to be a bad mistake.

Climbers who think that every route should be entirely injury-proof should take up another hobby, like paper mache, or video games, or coloring books. Make sure to get the safety scissors.

Will

Thanks Jason for the posting I guess. Although calling an able-bodied bro (I've been broken for SEASONS, so that comment is a joke) and removing it with no hoopla would, imho, been a better tactic.

I might take a lap on this one on Saturday...

"Once the cat is out of the bag, who knows what might happen?"

What a bunch of cowards.

Greg, I have not expressed my personal opinion one way or the other, only differing perspectives.
Voices on this website hardly approach a consensus of climber opinion.

Once the posse is saddled up, are you planning on returning Crimson C. to its original state?

Anyone remember the name of that Bolivian route Twight and Backes put up years back...?????

Seems pretty applicable to today's standards.

Andrew, these don't seem to add up:

"Greg, I have not expressed my personal opinion one way or the other..."

"For my part, I think it's a good thing that they decided to add a pro bolt..."

I try to stay away from bolting controversies, but adding a pro bolt to the single most popular 5.6 in Red Rocks - in the middle of a BLM decision making process on future bolt regulations - is not smart. As I said before, way over the line - even if done by the FA party, it's just dumb. Bad PR for climbers.

Hi Greg -- true, I am not being consistent here, but first, I was saying early in the thread that I didn't think it was a good idea to chop it, given the people who placed it. IMO, it should stay, but probably won't. The blm is derelict in its responsibility to manage the area and it is not surprising that fixed anchors in wilderness are becoming common. Have you talked with Larry about this since early on today? We had a good conversation. I am sure he will pitch in.

Andrew Carson says 'lets vote'.
I hear no one expressing approval except one person.
It is obviously unanimous, the bolt goes.
and so it goes...

Aside from a negative vote,
I say to give the bolt and it's installer,
(in light of Greg Barnes comment)
little if any more attention.

just chop it! - My Vote

as a climber who had one of his first 5.6 leads on that pitch, and managed to onsight the pitch in 30mph winds scared out of his mind, i'm pretty bummed out that someone added a bolt to the pitch. Every time i climb that pitch, i'm reminded of my first experience on the route and it brings a smile to my face. now, every time i climb it, it will be marred no matter if the bolt stays or goes, because some visible trace will always be there.

fairly poor form on the responsible party's part.....i'll be in touch with larry for details, but regardless, i'm concerned that all legalities aside (which should have been enough to prevent the bolt from going in), the larger trad community in RR was not consulted at all on the bolt placement....

Just not to muddy the waters further...but aren't fixed anchors allowable in wilderness areas, but motorized drill prohibited?

N'est pas?

It has been pointed out to me that the actual position may not be in the wilderness at all. I do not have blm maps in front of me, but clearly that would be an appropriate avenue for investigation, especially for the legal beagles.