Retro-Development in Idyllwild

I've been climbing alot in Idy and been getting into the forgotten routes often. I've come across quite a few routes that A. Need bolt replacement and B. Could use what I call "retro-development". 

What the hell is "retro-development", you ask? It's the reimagining of a route done long ago and since forgotten. Meaning, with a few extra bolts placed, on lead and from a stance of course, and a little re-routing of the line, some "new" gems could emerge. There's quite few but I think my best example is The Passover.

Frankly, I probably won't get around to this in the near future but if any dirty bags have got some gumption, I've got the info.

Objections? Encouragement? Banter?

I have some spare HILTI batteries if you need them. 

If you come across climbs that are in need of bolt replacement, are motivated to rebolt them, and have the experience to do so, that's great.  However, you previously brought this so-called concept of "retro-development" up a year or so ago with regard to Torque Wrench.  I really think it's a non-starter.   Existing routes should be left alone aside from one for one bolt and anchor replacement.  Not everything needs to be "improved."  

I'm all for keeping routes clean and pure, but I do hear you when you say that there are potential gems out there that are dirty, X-rated, and without a second ascent.  If they became clean and say PG-13 rated instead, then that's not so bad actually. 

"Dirty, X-rated, unrepeated routes" at Tahquitz or Suicide are in very short supply if they exist at all.  One person's PG13 is another's X.  Leave it alone already.  

Routes done 30-40 years ago do not need any added bolts.   Climbers need to slowly work thru the grades.

I'm not sure if you've heard of it, but there's a route called "el camino real" that's really scary and poorly bolted. My quick-draws rarely stay in when I place them in the crack. Placing trad pro is impossible since its a lay-back and you can't see since you're lay-backing.  Also, the tree on finger trip is at least 100 years old and needs to be replaced. If you could add a couple more tree belays on that route while you're at it I think the climbing community would really appreciate it. I'm not going to be able to get to it this season, but I'd really like to make sure the baloney slicer on the vampire stays intact for generations to come. Just adding a bolt through the flake and some glue every four feet should do it. 

If anyone has bolts or a drill or a trad rack or a car it would be greatly appreciated. 

Jon Clark wrote:

If you come across climbs that are in need of bolt replacement, are motivated to rebolt them, and have the experience to do so, that's great.  However, you previously brought this so-called concept of "retro-development" up a year or so ago with regard to Torque Wrench.  I really think it's a non-starter.   Existing routes should be left alone aside from one for one bolt and anchor replacement.  Not everything needs to be "improved."  

What's the problem with the improvement if it's done within the local style and ethic?

Mike Womack wrote:

I'm all for keeping routes clean and pure, but I do hear you when you say that there are potential gems out there that are dirty, X-rated, and without a second ascent.  If they became clean and say PG-13 rated instead, then that's not so bad actually. 

To clarify these routes aren't really "dirty, x-rated". It's more like these were good routes where happenstance created a lack of pro. Maybe on the FA they would have put a bolt in but they didn't want to burn one up in that particular spot, or maybe some holds broke and it now climbs differently, or on the FA they simply zigged when it's obvious they should have zagged.

I understand being beholden to the classic ethic but why be beholden to a happenstance?

Tradiban wrote:

To clarify these routes aren't really "dirty, x-rated". It's more like these were good routes where happenstance created a lack of pro. Maybe on the FA they would have put a bolt in but they didn't want to burn one up in that particular spot, or maybe some holds broke and it now climbs differently, or on the FA they simply zigged when it's obvious they should have zagged.

I understand being beholden to the classic ethic but why be beholden to a happenstance?

I thought the general rule was to get permission from the first ascentionist to add bolts to a climb? What's wrong with that?

FrankPS wrote:

I thought the general rule was to get permission from the first ascentionist to add bolts to a climb? What's wrong with that?

They aren't reachable or dead and even if they were would they have a clear memory of a forgotten route and details from 30 years ago?

In other words the statue of limitations has run out, no pun intended.

Tradiban wrote:

They aren't reachable or dead and even if they were would they have a clear memory of a forgotten route and details from 30 years ago?

In other words the statue of limitations has run out, no pun intended.

Do you have a few specific routes in mind you could identify? In addition to the Passover?

For all the spraying you do on here about your ethics, it is hilarious that you're trying to justify retro-ing routes.

Get FA's permission, if it is really worth the effort...

For the most part, are they really that rad?

Isn't the only thing exciting about them that they tend to be a bit run out?

Aren't there enough safe routes through the grades that are generally the same in character as the run out ones?

Lots of people enjoy climbing routes for the history associated with them.

Lots of places out there to put up your own routes.

I believe it to be insensitive to the FA as well as un-reflective of the history associated with the climb to do any  "retro-development".  Some folks really enjoy those non crowded bold lines.  Rebolting (if needed) with new Ti or SS 1/2 inch...well now, that is another thing. There is so much rock out there for you to develop that has no history, why not work there?

Eli wrote:

For all the spraying you do on here about your ethics, it is hilarious that you're trying to justify retro-ing routes.

The ethic is ground up bolting, I'm not suggesting to change that. I'm talking about improving the area.

FrankPS wrote:

Do you have a few specific routes in mind you could identify? In addition to the Passover?

Yes, off the top of my head, P2 of Wild Gonzagas and P2 of Gates of Delirium.

I will post more.

GoBoy wrote:

Get FA's permission, if it is really worth the effort...

As I noted above, this might be impossible and just because someone was born earlier doesn't make their claim to the rock forever.

For the most part, are they really that rad?

Yep, they could be good pitches.

Isn't the only thing exciting about them that they tend to be a bit run out?

Nope, good moves on them and I love a little spice as much as anyone but there's a limit to that.

Aren't there enough safe routes through the grades that are generally the same in character as the run out ones?

Other routes yes, but no two routes are exactly the same and I enjoying climbing new things.

Lots of people enjoy climbing routes for the history associated with them.

Good for them but I'm positive most people would appreciate better pro that fits within the FA ethic.

Lots of places out there to put up your own routes.

It's not about putting up my own routes, I don't really care about that, I want to resurrect old forgotten routes, that are actually pretty good. Also most rock in Idy has been climbed in some form or fashion.

You go do this, and someone will undo it (me, for one). I love that climbing is democratic that way.

This is just one more steady degradation of the mental aspects of climbing as every route is retro'd down to the lowest common denominator for the most ludicrous rationalizations.
Being scared is just not fair. Coming soon to a crag near you.

Russ Walling wrote:

Just making my NO a little louder after reading your justifications.  NO

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but you need to offer a valid argument as to why not. What's the benefit to y'all's position?

lloyd wrote:

You go do this, and someone will undo it (me, for one). I love that climbing is democratic that way.

This is just one more steady degradation of the mental aspects of climbing as every route is retro'd down to the lowest common denominator for the most ludicrous rationalizations.
Being scared is just not fair. Coming soon to a crag near you.

Again, these bolts would be from a stance, why is that so offensive? The only justification to not do it is to deliberately make a dangerous route, what's the point of that besides ego?