Responsibility of route setters in the modern sport climbing age?

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.

+1

Dylan Colon wrote: So yeah, that's totally a thing that happens, see a bolt low on a route, assume there's more. One of climbing's most dangerous assumptions.

Been there... done that whipper. Not fun.

So this is at Canal Zone in CCC. I am guessing it is the route that is to the right of Holiday Road. When the guy was putting this line in I was there. He was cleaning the route of loose blocks and hand drilling the bolts. A ranger stopped by to ask him what was what. This was September 25th, 2015, right before the bolting "ban". The way it looked is that it was a trad line with some bolts. He was placing a lot of gear, sometimes adding bolts, other times going by it.

I haven't climbed it so I can't say if you need the gear but you take the risk when you go up something, line of bolts, a crack, whatever. If you have to leave gear behind then you have to. You are responsible for your own safety.

"

I'm going to disagree here. On public lands, you don't have the right to alter natural rock formations however you please by bolting with poor quality anchors and hangers or in a dangerous way. You have every right to lead routes on natural gear however you want but once you are placing fixed protection that route should be safe and high quality. On public lands, your problems become everyone else's problems. If it's your own cliff, go for it, but not on cliffs that are common property.

While I agree that climbers should be grateful for new routers, that gratitude will swiftly turn to annoyance if the route presents the climber with dirty loose rock, poorly placed and badly spaced fixed protection, and unsafe materials. Do it right the first time and check with other leading developers and land managers in the region for guidance.

"A developer has every right to establish a route as they see fit."

Based on what authority? Again perhaps for a ground-up traditionally established route this might stick but the truth is, only custom and consensus support that "right."

Up until now, public land managers have taken a laissez-faire approach to fixed anchors. That will definitely change as climbing becomes more popular. Custom has prevented retro-bolting of dangerous runouts without the FAist's permission but that will change as well, I am certain. The same goes for installing new routes.

Climbers on public land need to think of fixed anchors not as their private preserve but as a public resource that should meet a minimum standard of quality. Otherwise, don't use them. The freelance days of route developing are rapidly drawing to a close. Land managers increasingly have or can easily obtain the expertise to decide whether route hardware should be upgraded, modified or removed altogether, especially in popular areas.

John Wilder wrote: While you may think that times will change due to increased use, I would argue that the status quo is likelier to stay, as there is well established precedent that bolts are not maintained by the agency (which they would have to do if they established requirements). Especially considering falling budgets, I cannot imagine a world where land managers are going to get into the nitty gritty of route development any time soon.

They are definitely doing that in the Front Range and liability does not appear to be an issue on the table, far from it. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see land managers, if by some remote chance the city gets sued, saying in their defense that routes are established by group consensus according to agreed upon best practices and first-rate materials.

In the Flatirons the routes are monitored by a non-profit association the Flatirons Climbing Council and updated gear is installed as necessary with funding from industry and private individuals. Routes cannot be installed without public comment and council approval and the City of Boulder signing off. Interestingly this process is the result of negotiations after a lengthy bolting ban starting in the early 90s, a ban provoked in part by cowboy bolting.

I think there may be some confusion here.

Governmental agencies (generally) can assert sovereign immunity.

However, I fear that when the duty for our own climbing safety is imposed upon others, then we will be in big trouble.

My fear--- is this hypothetical:

Bad accident.

The Fed sued—asserts sovereign immunity.

Route developers sued.

The route developer probably does not have any money.

Homeowners insurance probably does not cover.

Cannot afford to hire an attorney.

Default judgement.

Recorded to eventually attach to anything the developers later make or acquire.

A body of case law favoring liability grows out of this one sided fight.

Developers say, “It just might be too risky to put up routes with fixed anchors.” or "I surely do not want my name associated with any route with fixed anchors."

Developers say, “It is definitely too risky to replace old fixed anchors on bolder routes.”

The Fed says, “Ban all climbing.” It is too much of a pain to put up with all this nonsense.

We all lose.

Peter Beal wrote: They are definitely doing that in the Front Range and liability does not appear to be an issue on the table, far from it. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see land managers, if by some remote chance the city gets sued, saying in their defense that routes are established by group consensus according to agreed upon best practices and first-rate materials. In the Flatirons the routes are monitored by a non-profit association the Flatirons Climbing Council and updated gear is installed as necessary with funding from industry and private individuals. Routes cannot be installed without public comment and council approval and the City of Boulder signing off. Interestingly this process is the result of negotiations after a lengthy bolting ban starting in the early 90s, a ban provoked in part by cowboy bolting.

I think government involvement in route development is rare, is it not? Do you know of many others?

a route with a bolt does NOT mean its a "sport climb" ... period

if folks fresh out of the gym cannot accept that they shouldnt climb up here ... period

if folks cant accept that they cant see every piece of pro from the ground then they shouldnt climb any multi ... or most lower angle climbs ... period

if folks cant accept that there may be runnouts on easy ground ... especially on mixed/trad routes ... then they should stay in the gym ... period

if folks cant accept that there might not be a topo and full gear list for every climb, and complain about it ... then they need to be better prepared or stick to the gym ... period

if folks cant accept that they are responsible for their own safety then they shouldnt be climbing ... period

it seems that you cant simply do a FA these days ... you need to sanitize it and make it absolutely safe for even little kids, even if you dont give a damn if folks repeat it

thats all there is to it folks

;)

There are three 5.11s at that crag.

So far I've learned that developers have zero responsibility to future climbers of their route. Lots of folks making this claim above...

However, I've also just learned that developers are responsible for the safety of the public if the crag is a local secret. I guess when the secret ends, so does the responsibility?

mountainproject.com/v/is-ke…

I think you misunderstood something in that other thread.

I think it is the responsibility of companies like Black Diamond develop and update hardware at the climbing areas. It is in they best interest to introduce as may new people to climbing and to keep their investors happy $$$$$$

Also the local communities
climbing.com/news/new-study…

Tony Luchetta wrote:There are three 5.11s at that crag.

I'm just curious. What is the name of the crag?

Peter Beal wrote: They are definitely doing that in the Front Range and liability does not appear to be an issue on the table...

Not a chance in hell of this occurring back East... unless the manager already has the liability insurance for their cliff.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Not a chance in hell of this occurring back East... unless the manager already has the liability insurance for their cliff.

I don't know how it is in other states, but in KY I think the Recreational Use Statute would still apply, even if guidelines were set for bolting. This statue basically limits/eliminates liability for land managers who make their land available to the public for free.

Brian L. wrote: I don't know how it is in other states, but in KY I think the Recreational Use Statute would still apply, even if guidelines were set for bolting. This statue basically limits/eliminates liability for land managers who make their land available to the public for free.

We have a strong and broad RUS in CT... unfortunately, that won't stop someone from suing and nor does it defer the costs of defense for the landowner. In most cases landowners won't want to open themselves to being sued, regardless of the law 'says'. Wilder nails it above... no agency wants to set the standard because then they have to enforce it and are responsible for it. It is easier, cheaper, safer, for them to continue with the status quo. And it's been mostly working for them... for decades now.

JulianG wrote: I'm just curious. What is the name of the crag?

If we are still talking about the OP crag it is Canal Zone in Clear Creek Canyon.

Peter Beal wrote: I'm going to disagree here. On public lands, you don't have the right to alter natural rock formations however you please by bolting with poor quality anchors and hangers or in a dangerous way. You have every right to lead routes on natural gear however you want but once you are placing fixed protection that route should be safe and high quality. On public lands, your problems become everyone else's problems. If it's your own cliff, go for it, but not on cliffs that are common property. While I agree that climbers should be grateful for new routers, that gratitude will swiftly turn to annoyance if the route presents the climber with dirty loose rock, poorly placed and badly spaced fixed protection, and unsafe materials. Do it right the first time and check with other leading developers and land managers in the region for guidance.

You need to go back to the GYM because you obviously don't understand what climbing is really about. Climbing is dangerous no matter what type you do and I would suggest that the most dangerous type of climbing is sport. The reason is people like you assuming a level of safety that isn't there. Asking the developer to be responsible for you is just stupid. You decide what route to climb and you damn well better be prepared to back off if it's too dirty, too hard or too scary for you.

There are many developers putting up climbs with varying degrees of safety but the ultimately responsible party is you. I'm going to say something that has probably never been said on these boards. If there is EVER a lawsuit that goes to court with a judgement against a developer I will immediately start chopping every climb I've ever put up and every bolt I have put in replacing bad bolts. Plus, I won't be the only one. I and other developers have had this discussion before and I can tell you the effect this would have on "sport climbing" would be catastrophic.

I don't mean to sound harsh or extremist but you should understand the consequences of what YOU believe to be the truth. I hope your notion never takes hold but if it does that may be the end of sport climbing as we know it.

rockvoyager wrote: You need to go back to the GYM because you obviously don't understand what climbing is really about. Climbing is dangerous no matter what type you do and I would suggest that the most dangerous type of climbing is sport. The reason is people like you assuming a level of safety that isn't there. Asking the developer to be responsible for you is just stupid. You decide what route to climb and you damn well better be prepared to back off if it's too dirty, too hard or too scary for you. There are many developers putting up climbs with varying degrees of safety but the ultimately responsible party is you. I'm going to say something that has probably never been said on these boards. If there is EVER a lawsuit that goes to court with a judgement against a developer I will immediately start chopping every climb I've ever put up and every bolt I have put in replacing bad bolts. Plus, I won't be the only one. I and other developers have had this discussion before and I can tell you the effect this would have on "sport climbing" would be catastrophic. I don't mean to sound harsh or extremist but you should understand the consequences of what YOU believe to be the truth. I hope your notion never takes hold but if it does that may be the end of sport climbing as we know it.

Peter has put in a lot of really good routes.
Suggesting that developers who are using a public resource ought to put in good routes seems pretty reasonable to me.