SOUTHERN ARIZONA CLIMBING ETIQUETTE—PART III—NOVEMBER 2010--- Variations and crossing routes.

September—Adding bolts to existing routes
mountainproject.com/v/arizo…

October-------Publishing routes
mountainproject.com/v/arizo…

November--- Variations/Crossing existing lines
December----Proliferation of sport routes
January-------Subtracting bolts from existing lines
February-----Who maintains routes
March--------Perma-draws
April---------Mentors
May----------Minimizing Impact

NOVEMBER 2010---TOPIC: VARIATIONS AND CROSSING ROUTES

Is it OK to create variations or cross existing routes?

Is this just a matter of aesthetics?

Does a variation branching off or crossing dilute the existing route?

Does it make a difference if the routes are sport, trad, or multipitch?

Should variations on bolted routes use different colored hangers?

Should the first ascentionist of the existing route have any say?

Is there any guideline we can formulate?

MY VIEW

I think these are the issues. I am not sure of the answers.
I think “do as you would be done by" is a good rule of thumb.
I think on multi-pitch that if the both the variation and the original route are sport and the variation is harder than the original route then the hangers should be a different color so we do not blunder on to something beyond our abilities.

I'm not from Arizona, so I apologize if I'm out of place. I just want to say that one of my favorite climbs outside is a variation and a squeezejob. It is a pretty sketchy climb if you are less than 6' tall, you have to clip bolts on the two adjacent routes. I guess I like the variation, but I don't want it bolted. It would be too much steel for my tastes. It would only be two extra bolts, but there are already twelve up.
With that said, I think of it this way. When the fa's of the two lines around this squeezejob bolted the routes, they made it unlikely for this third line to be bolted. This is true I'm sure with a lot of routes. I can see how some people would want to bolt this line or others similar, and I also understand the, "you haven't climbed it if you haven't led it" mentality, but there are always more routes to climb. Do we need to establish every conceivable climb we can?

Variations to routes have been getting done since the beginning. Granted it used to be you had to link up with that feature over there, where the gear was. Now you just smack in some bolts and climb where you want. If the variation is as good or better than the original line then all the better. More good climbing for all of us.

The safety issue on today's sport routes is a none issue. So you get on a variation that is harder than you thought. You take a 10 foot whipper and lower to the belay. Then follow the other line of bolts. Not exactly death on stick, and mistake costs you 1 leaver biner.

Different colored bolts is a very good idea. If your doing a variation you've done the other route so paint your hangers a different color then go put them on the variation.

Diluting a route is a sticky issue. Some would say any line of bolts going to top of a formation, that previously required the ability to climb trad, is diluting the experience of climbing that formation. Sheepshead and the Rockafellow group are good examples of this.

Why would the first line of bolts up a wall be sacrosanct but a better variation off that line be taboo? Anyone crying about someone obscuring their line needs to get a life. It ain't the Mona Lisa it's a friggin sport route.

In a perfect world you should talk with the first ascensionists out of common courtesy, but is it required morally or ethically? Of course not. We're back to no one owns the rock.

Crossing an existing line with a row of bolts is a problem. If I can clip a bolt where I used to have to run it out 40 feet then that new bolt has completely changed the original line.

Just skip the bolt then, right. Wrong, having the option to protect a big run out is not the same as having to commit to the climb knowing there is no pro.

Generally speaking, I think variations are just fine. It would be nice if the variation improves the route. An example would be the 3rd pitch variation on Endgame in Cochise Stronghold. This particular variation is super-exposed, has terrific moves, and takes a much more exciting line. Moreover it would be virtually impossible to follow this variation by accident as you have to pull over a bulge to find the bolts. I don't view this variation or similar ones "diluting" the original route. If anything, it makes the route more appealing by improving upon it.

Scott brings up a good point in the OP - for me it would seem odd to have a bolted variation on a traditional climb. I am partial to traditional climbs, though, so this may be a personal view which is not shared by others.

I do agree with the OP that using a visually different bolt will help to identify variations on routes. It will also help in describing the route in online posts and guidebooks.

Also, I agree with Jim's comment that it's not required to consult with the FA of the original line to put up a variation. If possible, contacting the FA would be reasonable as a courtesy.

It's a symbolic representation of a giant runout? :-)

Variations are wrong and should never be done.
Lizard Marmalade Direct, Orifice Politics is a Var. to Coup De Tat, Golden Beaver Left and those are off the top of my head. Endgame has three variations. Folks from other climbing areas can mention a few variations that create more climbing options. There is an alternate finish to Thin Ice in the needles that is stellar and I am sure hundreds of others. Seems to me I saw Dean Potter solo an alternate finish to the Rostrum with a parachute. Variations are wrong, very wrong. They are obviously a gate climb to insane behavior. More climbing options and possibly better starts, finishes or middle sections to a climb. That is definitely a bad idea.

Chimney rock has a number of variations as does Abracadaver. Pair of Grins is a Variation. Direct What's My Line, is another example that variations have been around forever. The idea that variations need to be discussed seems unnecessary. Variations have been around forever.

Crossing lines should never be done either. Endgame is a good example of the problem with crossing 4 other routes. The third pitch has a bolt ladder 10 feet right of the old Grossman route so a climber can escape the last R section of Great Gig in the Sky as well as the last pitch of the other scare fests on that face. This has changed the nature of climbing these domes completely. So maybe one should think about the nature of the other routes if they cross or put up a bolt line that allows people to bail on R/X routes. If you put a bolted route ten feet right of Bachar/Yerian a lot more people would try it.

Like what Jimbo said. "Crossing an existing line with a row of bolts is a problem. If I can clip a bolt where I used to have to run it out 40 feet then that new bolt has completely changed the original line."

"Just skip the bolt then, right. Wrong, having the option to protect a big run out is not the same as having to commit to the climb knowing there is no pro."

Sport, trad, Multipitch. Think the last paragraph speaks to that. But variations are not in and of themselves a bad thing.

Blur the route. "That is what guidebooks are for". I had a beginning climber woman from the UofA climbing club tell me that when I suggested putting a small plaque at the junction of the first pitch variation to endgame.

The FA of the original route might have too much ego to objectively consider the value of a variation. I think the community will determine if a variation is worth doing with chalk and sticky rubber.

History is our guideline Scott!

What about routes like these?
Beautiful Flyaway
Irrational Inquirer

Seems pretty clear what some would like to see happen.

I posted the following question in Part 1 of this thread and scott made it a topic for this part

"I'm curious about what the community feels is an acceptable way for the FA of a variation to go about placing fixed gear. I'm am also curious about what people think of bolts on routes that cross existing lines."

My question is really about how the variations/crossing routes are established, not if variations/crossing routes are acceptable in general. It's not just a question of how we treat the rock. It's also about how we treat each other.

I added that FWIW I think the least destructive (of rock and the cahracter historical routes)is for the FA of the variation to contact the FA of the original line and ask if they have an issue with it and then respect that opinion.

"I'm curious about what the community feels is an acceptable way for the FA of a variation to go about placing fixed gear. I'm am also curious about what people think of bolts on routes that cross existing lines." My question is really about how the variations/crossing routes are established, not if variations/crossing routes are acceptable in general.

I think the majority of the climbing community stopped caring about how fixed gear was put in 15-20 years ago. Don't think it matters if it is a Var. or a new route.

It's not just a question of how we treat the rock. It's also about how we treat each other. I added that FWIW I think the least destructive (of rock and the cahracter historical routes)is for the FA of the variation to contact the FA of the original line and ask if they have an issue with it and then respect that opinion.

For discussions sake we will say that John stieger did not do the FA of Lizard Marmalade and LM Direct. We will say Steve Grossman did the FA of Lizard Marmalade. Steiger asked him if it was okay to do the direct finish. Grossman said no you can't. It is a great finish and if Grossman said no we would not ever climb it. Doesn't really make sense for the FA to have any say at all.

I ask you Hampton and anyone else who would like to chime in. Does that person have the right to tell me or you where and what we can climb based on the Lizard Marmalade example?

Lets now say that the variation did not take trad pro so Stieger put the variation up and rap placed bolts 5ft. apart to protect it. So what. How does that take away from the original route? It may get climbed more but so what.

I ask you Hampton and anyone else who would like to chime in. Does that person have the right to tell me or you where and what we can climb based on the Lizard Marmalade example?

Now lets say that it is the variation that exists today and it got bolted instead of done on trad gear. (Same question) I would be bummed but I would not touch the bolts or chop them. I might skip them and lead it on gear but it is the prerogative to do what they want.

If putting the bolts in were to affect the nature of routes near by I use Jimbo's quote again.(Crossing an existing line with a row of bolts is a problem. If I can clip a bolt where I used to have to run it out 40 feet then that new bolt has completely changed the original line.)

Endgame does this by putting a bolt ladder next to the Original R finish of Days of future past and Great gig In The Sky. Endgame changed the boldness needed to climb this dome. Now any reasonably competent 5.10 climber can safely get up to the summit. Should we chop endgame? It is okay that the nature of the climbing of that dome has changed because of that route? If the FA's of the other four routes said don't cross my route would the route have been left undone? I am glad endgame is there. It really wanders around and doesn't take the most direct line but I like climbing it and don't think it should be chopped

Do you really believe that anyone whether it is the FA, Chouinard, Robbins, Honnold, Lynn Hill, (insert a name) should have the right to tell us what we can and cannot climb and how we should or should not protect it? Hampton, if a person told you that you could not put in a variation or cross her route despite doing variations and crossing others routes would you listen to them?

Would really love it if you could answer all of the questions I pose.

Interesting scenarios Eric- the only reason that I brought it up is that your chopped variation to endgame was the topic of one of the two most notable recent S.Az ethical debates.

In each case you ask if the FA has the right to tell you what to do, and I'd say yes, but you have an equal right to ignore them.

But the point I'm trying to make isn't about rights, it's about courtesy and respect. If I wanted to bolt a variation to one of your routes, i'd ask you, because i'd want to know what you thought about it first (even if you gave me carte blanche to do whatever I wanted, I'd be curious to hear what your opinion of the line was and if you'd ever considered it). If you said no, I'd pester you about it until you killed me or yourself...

So I think that really answers all your questions but for the sake of debate i'll comment on each scenario.(these are just opinions-they'll probably change so don't take them too seriously)

In the first scenario, I'd say that if both the lines are all natural there would be no alteration to the original route and the FA of the first line would be making an unreasonable request.

In the second, things are getting grayer for sure. To some degree I think it would depend on the circumstances. If someone bolted all of the possible face variation to the trad routes at chimney rock, i'd be pretty pissed. I guess I'm a segregationist when it comes to climbing styles. I like that some areas are mostly sport, some mostly mixed, and some primarily trad.

In the third scenario, someone finds a crack on mt. lemmon that has not been climbed and bolts it. Let's say you bolted the Blood Book at the forgotten wall. I wouldn't chop your bolts but i'd cuss you like a red-headed stepchild every single time I saw you from that point on.

The final scenario is the meat and potatoes of this debate. Endgame is fun no doubt, but in my opinion, it dilutes the experience of anyone who has climbed Days of Future passed or any of the other lines on that pinnacle. Were the FA's of any of those lines that Endgame crossed upset? Ultimately, I don't think chopping any route is a good move. I think the rockfellow dome is cooler mainly becase there is no low-committment way to the top.

Anyway, hope I answered your questions

In each case you ask if the FA has the right to tell you what to do, and I'd say yes, but you have an equal right to ignore them.

Did you mean to say "...right to tell you what to do". Steve Grossman once made some suggestions to me about how I should be putting up routes. I listened and then did what I planned anyway. I still have a lot of respect for him for that. He never told me what I could or could not do.

If you found an area and put up a routes and I showed up later I should out of courtesy talk to you and possibly but not always try to maintain the flavor of the area. The Forks is a good example. If there are good aretes to climb then I say bolt and climb them. I would do it at the Forks but the local ethic there is really adamant that no bolting occurs.

The Stronghold is no ones area. In fact I may have set the Variation precedent with Pair o Grins in the 80's. It breaks off of Forest Lawn's second pitch. I never heard a bunch of whinning from Grossman, Steiger, Ringle, Mike MCewen or anyone else about how I should have talked to Mike before I did it.

But the point I'm trying to make isn't about rights, it's about courtesy and respect.

You have to understand that I have little respect for some climbers opinions regarding where and what I can climb. Respect is earned and over the years and particularly the year before those variations were done any respect I had was lost.

I think it is better to look at the first ascentionists record to decide whether you need to talk to them or not.

I have been climbing for thirty five years and I can tell you I have never heard of anyone asking an FA party if they could do a Variation. Maybe I am a little too old school. Pretty sure I will not be asking anyones permission to climb where and what I want the way I want.

"The times, they are a changing"
-'ol Bobby Dilon.

My question is this; If everything ends up getting bolted (which seems inevidable), then why did I spend so much money on my Trad Rack?!?

As far as the O.P. goes, I think each situation is different and the outcome will depend on the factors present. Some variations are great and some suck. But that goes for whole routes too. The things that bother me are when outdoor climbing areas start to adapt the "gym" feeling, and massive tick marks ;)

I do appreciate that climbing can be dangerous, and that there are still routes out there that make you scared. I also find value in super safe sport routes. I feel like if you are going to add a variation to a route, the route would be better off if you kept it the same consistancy.

EFR-

I've heard you and Scott Ayers have a strange symbiosis I don't understand and don't want to know the details.

As an outside observer, it seems you (we) might be much more worried about what land managers (i.r. USFS, NPS, BLM, Private Landowner) think about (y)our efforts than another climber. They are far more likely in the foreseeable future to determine where and how you (we) can climb.

I am so lucky to have had adventures and feel sorry for the state of affairs we are leaving for future generations seeking to escape into the wilds.

Brent, everything is not going to get bolted. The trad climbs will stay trad climbs. This is the same fear mongering we've been hearing for years. (By me back in the 80's)
While sport climbing is the major factor in the large increase in climber numbers in recent years, the fact is the proliferation of sport routes has resulted in a spreading out the climbing population to all the new areas.
Indeed as a trad climber sport climbing has virtually eliminated pressure on all my favorite trad lines. Just go to Smith rocks and climb trad. There will never be a be another party on any line you want to climb. I can't think of a time there's ever been another party on any trad line I wanted to do on Mt. Lemmon.
Tick marks do suck and ruin it for anyone that wants to get the on-site. Clean your tick marks people!

Albert,
So sport climbing is going to be the down fall of the wilderness?? Most sport climbers bitch about a 20 minute approach. I don't think we need lose any sleep worrying about the Incredible Hulk or Mt. Russel turning into a sport climbing haven.
I also contend that of all user groups on public lands, climbers are probably the best stewards of them all.
Most hikers wouldn't notice a bolt on a rock if it was painted day glow orange, and usually rather enjoy watching us climbers clinging to the stone when that stone is close to a hiking trail.
I also think the forest service notices the new ATV tracks more often than a climber trail.

Actually Jim, I know of at least 3 climber's trails that have created some very serious issues with land managers. If I recall correctly, 2 were on FS land and one on NPS.

It seemed that as long as the trails stayed as old style climber trails, there was no issue. Probably because they were under the radar. But once some locals started doing trail maintenance to reduce errosion, etc... the local admins flipped a gasket. It appears that walking over other's footprints is allowed but as soon as you work the trail, then you have crossed a line and are now "creating a new trail" and I guess that opens up a whole can of worms. In one case, if I really heard the story correctly, which is a question mark, there were threats of federal prosecution, etc... Eventually it all worked out and the trail received local admin blessing but the incident put climbers in the crosshairs of that land manager and he continued to poke around with his spotlight every chance he had to harass climbers.

My take on the main topic, if you can determine what they are, follow the local ethics. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that climbers are a fairly stubborn user group and there is a strong history of individualism and Fxxx You, I'll do what I want. The old west lives on...

The one thing some climbers forget about when lost in the haze of the FA hunt is that when it comes to crossings and variations, history will out the junk and praise the stellar. As I recall, Eric took some initial grief for Pair a Grins. Until the naysayers climbed it (shades of Dawn Wall.) I doubt anyone criticizes it now and of course, it's known as a stellar climb. Pissant variations abound and usually fade into obscurity. Othertimes, variations end up becoming the standard way to do a climb. The guy who wants to add worthless variants to climbs just to get his name in lights, becomes known as just that guy.

Paul Davidson wrote:Actually Jim, I know of at least 3 climber's trails that have created some very serious issues with land managers. If I recall correctly, 2 were on FS land and one on NPS. It seemed that as long as the trails stayed as old style climber trails, there was no issue. Probably because they were under the radar. But once some locals started doing trail maintenance to reduce errosion, etc... the local admins flipped a gasket. It appears that walking over other's footprints is allowed but as soon as you work the trail, then you have crossed a line and are now "creating a new trail" and I guess that opens up a whole can of worms. In one case, if I really heard the story correctly, which is a question mark, there were threats of federal prosecution, etc... Eventually it all worked out and the trail received local admin blessing but the incident put climbers in the crosshairs of that land manager and he continued to poke around with his spotlight every chance he had to harass climbers.

Worth reposting to the Vote: Worst approach trails on Mt. Lemmon??? thread.

Welcome to the fray, Paul.

Jim-

I like sport climbing and clipping bolts. One of my concerns is that bolts are so damn visible if the wrong person starts noticing them. At this point in my climbing I am thinking a lot about any bolt that goes in. I would hazard to guess that many of my contemporaries are placing more bolts than ever.

More startling is seeing posts online where people are talking about bringing chain saws and machetes to do trail work. What is a land manager that might read that supposed to think? It is illegal for us to build trails (or improve roads) without permission. So far we are lucky to still have the freedom to create bolt "trails" (routes).

I am not so certain that trad routes are safe. I recently did a Baxter/ Davidson, et. al. route originally established with 8-9 bolts and lots of thin nutting. The route now has 23 bolts. Other Baxter natural lines are sporting convenience anchors. A Davidson route at West Elden has been retrobolted. There are far uglier bolt jobs going on in northern Arizona and I'm not talking about whether a route has 4 bolts or 10 bolts.

I believe that many "Tucson" climbing areas are on land administered by the Coronado National Forest, a Federal land management agency. If I screw up somehow around Flagstaff on Coconino National Forest land, it is not unheard of for all of the National Forests in a Region to enact some sort of ban on their Forests. I think there are 11 Forests in AZ / NM. Wasn't there a issue on the Tonto Forest in the early 90s (was it bolting in "Zonerland"??) which had national ramifications for a while?

As much as I live for personal freedom, a forum such as this perhaps gives us the opportunity as a community or culture to establish some sort of guideline or standards of behavior.

I have put in a few too many bolts on new lines over the years, but in the last 9 months have seen more retro or whatever bolts than in the previous 25 years.

The following link is downright spooky:

mountainproject.com/v/arizo…

Hopefully we can police ourselves as a very diverse community before big brother steps in and takes command.

So Albert and Paul, what is the solution? Stop bolting and stop trying to create reasonable trails to climbing areas?

There are not going to be less climbers in five or ten years, there will be more. So we should, as a climbing community, limit the amount of climbing areas for all these future climbers and let them cut a labyrinth of trails in to these areas??

I'm not trying to be cantankerous here, I really don't see how your self imposed limitations will, in the long run, help the land and the land users. There are millions of climbers now and many more lacing up their shoes every year. Less climbing and no quality established trails for all these folks is not the answer. IMO.

There are currently so many nifty areas and crags on Mt. Lemmon that the climbing population can spread out. It's not just Windy Point or Munchkin Wall any more. This is a good thing I would think.

You could argue that by keeping everything hard and trad, the area will see little traffic. The Forks would prove that theory incorrect. I would guess that the new routes at the Water Fall and Mt. Elden have taking some pressure away from the Forks and the Pit. Also a good thing.

It kind of like crop rotation. Give the land a break and in the long run it will be healthier. Areas come in and out of vogue. The more areas there are to rotate to, through the years, the more likely each area won't get totally trashed.

This is just my thinking. Love to hear other ideas.

"It is illegal for us to build trails (or improve roads) without permission."

I visit AZ from time to time, so not as big a stake in this debate, but do you have a citation for this?

thx,
M

thx Michael. i'll check it out.