Virginia Bolting Ethics

Kennedy Carey wrote:

I’ve been out to local crags about 20 times over the past few months. Haven’t run into a single other climber. As of now, There’s been nothing to observe. So I went searching for information at the only other place I knew I had access to. You’re contradicting yourself. Everyone’s like “why don’t you take the time to learn and do some research before you ask these questions....” - posting on a forum in hopes of finding more information on a topic and the best sources to reach out to sounds exactly like learning and researching to me. 

No contradiction.  I apologize if I did not make my earlier comments clear, so here it is: inquiring locally is better than asking for advice on a national-level forum like mountainproject.  

Even though we have regional discussions on this site, these threads tend to usually get the regular post-fiends and trolls who just want to hear themselves talk, and usually have their responses thought out even before they've read the entire thread, often as they are clicking the title. It's not the best way to ask a question like yours.

You're way better asking around at local gear shops, climbing gyms,hell, even regional-level facebook climbing groups.  Just try not to have the same entitled air that you're exhibiting in this thread as you ask some local why it's so bad to retrobolt routes.  Cheers.

Pnelson wrote:

I've climbed at a lot of areas around the US through the past few decades.  I've been a "local" at three major areas.  The cool thing about climbing is that it can be as safe or as dangerous as you want it to be.  At the New River Gorge, where I live not, we have faces that would have been beautiful sport lines that are blank, boltless canvases of bold gear-protected climbing.  We also have a few splitter cracks that would be G-rated on gear, but which are totally bolted.  Not to many people get butt-hurt about this, because we all default to...

wait for it...

RESPECTING THE FIRST ASCENTIONIST

Honestly? G-rated splitter cracks bolted and that's normal and accepted?

Notapplicable wrote:

Haha. Yeah, same person.  It's my FB profile pic too.  I think it's good to have a regular reminder of what happens when you make simple mistakes in climbing.

Clearly this guy is in need of more bolted routes! He could probably even use some routes that have bolts that are 2-3 feet apart.

Jake Jones wrote:

It's not the norm, as in it doesn't occur frequently.  The vast majority of splitter cracks at the NRG don't have bolts, except for the top anchor, but there are exceptions, and yes, everyone is more or less ok with it.

So I've only spent 3-4 weeks climbing the NRG  but from what I have seen, nelsons statement was greatly exaggerated.

Josh wrote:

Clearly this guy is in need of more bolted routes! He could probably even use some routes that have bolts that are 2-3 feet apart.

That's why I was so happy when Manchester was retro-bolted. I used to deck out there all the time and those fellas probably saved my life.  Obviously 2'-3' apart would have been ideal but the 4' they went with was good enough.

Mobes Mobesely wrote:

So I've only spent 3-4 weeks climbing the NRG  but from what I have seen, nelsons statement was greatly exaggerated.

How was it exaggerated? I said that we have "a few splitter cracks that would be G-rated on gear, but which are totally bolted."  Please go climb China Crisis, Specter, Disturbance, and hell, even throw in Just Send It.  All would be g-rated gear leads, all are prominent cracks, and all are fully bolted.  

Jake Jones wrote:

Here we go.  Not that anyone gives two shits, but I'll offer my philosophy, which kind of reflects the generally accepted philosophy at my favorite crag.  One need only to look at my to-do list to figure out where that place is.  Necessary is subjective, so that's not a good word.  This young man Kennedy, who is new to climbing would define necessary in a far different context that someone that is some old school strictly trad climber.  One thinks that bolts might be "necessary" anywhere the climbing is hard to protect, or where removable protection can't be found.  The other on the opposite end of the spectrum believes that zero bolts are "necessary" anywhere at any time, and if you can't both climb it and get off it using only removable gear, then it should be left alone.  Most of us lie somewhere in the middle.

With regard to what is referred to "retro-bolting" existing routes- i.e. adding permanent fixed protection (bolts) en route where none were before on an established line- opinions vary as well.  Nick (Tradiban) has made his philosophy somewhat clear in other threads (assuming he wasn't just trolling) in that he thinks in certain cases, it should be allowed and in the grand scheme, isn't that big of a deal.  Whereas Paul and I and others are in a different camp, where you leave the state in which it was ascended first.  If it was runout and protected by gear when the FA did it.  Leave it.  There are plenty of climbs out there, and at the risk of being egregiously redundant, I'll state again that if everything is watered down and diluted so that it's "safe" then there's nothing to aspire to and climbing will eventually be some nuanced "yuppie fitness craze"- to quote Porter Jarrard.  So, philosophically, one perspective has the potential to change the sport intrinsically (just as bolts did) while the other leaves available options more diverse and leaves it up to the climber to be competent and self-reliant enough to assess risk and mitigate it accordingly- which is a big part of the allure for most climbers.  Essentially, one allows for options, and the other turns climbing into some amalgam of physical, nanny-state group think.  This is just my opinion though, so do with it what you will.

Regarding the necessity of bolts and when to use them in a FA and when not to- I think that should totally be up to the FA.  There is some historical precedence for bolted lines that could easily be protected well with just gear.  There is also the same precedence the other way- hard, dangerous, runout gear lines that would be perfectly legit for the FA to bolt instead of do on gear.  That diversity is important to me and it puts the emphasis on the FA and the freedom that I think the FA should have.  You want to bolt a crack?  If you're the FA, have at it.  You might get some flack for it, but so what.  You were first.  You want to FA a scary ass trad line with terrible fall consequence that isn't likely to have many if any repeats?  Have at it, and you'll likely get some shit for that too, though not nearly as much as you would for the former scenario.

The reason why this is important is because there are two opposing viewpoints as I mentioned upthread- and I find myself repeating once again.  It cannot reasonably be decided who has more justification for their opinion morally or otherwise- I'm referring to the anti-bolt crowd vs. the pro-bolt crowd.  So you leave it up to the FA and once an FA is established, you don't alter it.  It's the best available compromise we have and there's a reason why that's sort of the unspoken rule that the vast majority of climbers follow.  I'm stating it again because for a long time, I never thought that deeply about it, I just adopted it as a rule for myself because all my mentors said "this is the way it is".  It's my hope that anyone that doesn't know the chief reason why this "unspoken" or "widely accepted" rule exists, this drawn-out explanation offers some education.  It's a good compromise and the only real one we have.

People that don't adhere by the "don't change the FA style or nature of a route" rule, feel like they can impose their standards for everyone.  If the FA was put up with bolts every four feet, so be it.  Leave it.  If it was put up by some badass that ran out 5.13a on ballnuts, leave it.  Because if not, we're left with no standard at all, and the ability to chop or add to anything we want, and no one really wants that- or at least they shouldn't.  Again, this is only my opinion and my perspective on why we should leave First Ascents alone.   

Top anchors are a different animal because they don't really affect the character of a climb in the overwhelming majority of cases (if you're talking about a single pitch crag).  This doesn't mean I endorse throwing in two bolts at the top of every pitch of a strictly gear-protected multi-pitch climb.  What I mean is that at a single pitch area, once you've reached the anchor, the climbing is essentially over, and there are other factors at play that may be conducive to top anchors, such as the aforementioned protection from erosion and protection against destruction of vegetation, among others.

I know that to most people in this thread, this is repetitive and downright monotonous.  This is common knowledge and seems like "climbsplaining" to guys like Paul, Bryan, Nathan, Brian et al.  My main goal in writing this is to impress upon Kennedy the importance of not altering FAs and not just to say "I HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE THAN YOU SO LISTEN TO ME" but to actually explain it in logical, sensible terms without imposing authority.

As usual "Jake Jones", if that is your real name, you make a good point but it's buried in the middle pages of a 1000 page novel. 

However, I need to once again clarify my position because of the cherry picking my adversaries participate in. My ethical bolting stance is that the FA style shall be respected in all cases. For example and for those scoring at home, if it's a ground up FA then bolts may be added in that same style. Is that not a beautiful standard we can all agree on?

This is a remarkably civil thread on the previously heated topic of bolting, good work MP!

Jake:  I wanted offer a different perspective on your comment about the FA determining to bolt or not to bolt, from your post:

"Regarding the necessity of bolts and when to use them in a FA and when not to- I think that should totally be up to the FA.  There is some historical precedence for bolted lines that could easily be protected well with just gear.  There is also the same precedence the other way- hard, dangerous, runout gear lines that would be perfectly legit for the FA to bolt instead of do on gear.  That diversity is important to me and it puts the emphasis on the FA and the freedom that I think the FA should have.  You want to bolt a crack?  If you're the FA, have at it.  You might get some flack for it, but so what.  You were first.  You want to FA a scary ass trad line with terrible fall consequence that isn't likely to have many if any repeats?"

I started climbing in the early 70's before sport climbing but at this point I climb more sport than trad. I saw rock climbing evolve from "mini-mountaineering" toward gymnastic difficulty and I have enjoyed that transition.

I think the time has come to reconsider the sacred nature of the first ascent. When the bolting/chopping wars in Boulder resulted in the bolting bans I was disappointed, but not unhappy; the wars left a real mess on a few crags. When Eldo went to a community-based bolting review process I groaned at anticipated bureaucracy but it has in fact worked out very well. While you can't make everyone happy, the ACE fixed hardware review process allows for climber input into the land manager's decision making, allows for new routes, and builds something like consensus. The protection placed by the FA is an important criteria, but not the only one. This process has shifted my view of the rock as a blank canvas for the FA's vision to a community resource that is best managed in a collaborative way.

Respectfully, David

Pnelson wrote:

How was it exaggerated? I said that we have "a few splitter cracks that would be G-rated on gear, but which are totally bolted."  Please go climb China Crisis, Specter, Disturbance, and hell, even throw in Just Send It.  All would be g-rated gear leads, all are prominent cracks, and all are fully bolted.  

So out of thousands you give examples, I was wondering if you would . I put the NRG on my list of chill crags many years ago but I had no idea it was that chill. Probably too chill but since it's in the middle of nowhere i guess no worries?

Jake Jones wrote:

That is my real name.  

Sure? Sounds more fake than Tradiban, like Jane Roe.

You should try posting with yours.  You might like it.  \

Not as fun xoxox

No one’s forcing you to read my novel.  But if you want to comment intelligently (and you do, as far as I can tell) on things people say then it behooves you to read the entire comment.  Whether you do or don’t, or simply take a jab because someone writes a well thought out, albeit lengthy post is of no consequence to me.

I honestly don't have the time. I guarantee more people would read your posts if they were shorter, just ask Trump.

I’ve made my opinion clear so I’m not going to state it again.  

I know your opinion, it seems to be based on tradition? What's wrong with respecting the style of the FA instead of a draconian, "No changes, EVER!" approach?

In the end, I’m not a developer and people will always have different opinions and the immediate community will issue the final verdict.

Define "immediate community" and how will they issue a final verdict? Sounds like a decree from a few select individuals to me,

Jake Jones wrote: Cool.  I don’t either then.

You don't have time to read your own posts?!? It's a sign from God.

I don’t care what you guarantee or read.

10-4

I know yours too.  Hope you got the attention you sought.

All I want is an answer regarding FA style.

Jake Jones wrote:

That is my real name. 

Your parents named you that?!

It’s saturday boys. Go climb. 

Jake Jones wrote:

Just read.  The answer you want (which again matters exactly zero to me) is already there.  I’m not gonna help you derail this thread like you do every other one- just because it satisfies some juvenile mischievous compulsion you have.

Ok, all I'm seeing is that you think the first person to climb it sets all the rules and that there are plenty of other climbs to do.so why the need to change any route. Is that the gist of your argument?

Chris treggE wrote: It’s saturday boys. Go climb. 

It's triple digits today and my local area might burn down. Rest day!

 Jake, you should know better

 Trad, another amazing job as always

 It is Saturday but I work every day. I don’t know what happen. Was a slacker who got out more than most. I got offered a job, got greedy and now I’m a workaholic. It’s like Ghostbusters.. There is no Dana only Zull. 

Bill Kirby wrote:  Jake, you should know better

 Trad, another amazing job as always

 It is Saturday but I work every day. I don’t know what happen. Was a slacker who got out more than most. I got offered a job, got greedy and now I’m a workaholic. It’s like Ghostbusters.. There is no Dana only Zull. 

Bill, I'm serious. Retro-development is the idea we've all been looking for to finally end the bolt wars. 

I'm like the Gandhi of climbing.

Well, there has to be a logical extreme limit to the FA’s precedent rule.  Are we saying that in 200 years, no new bolts (or whatever crazy future tech they’re using) can be added?  Plenty of routes were put up prior to the invention of active cams...does that mean everyone should go lead Supercrack on hexes?

To me, the style of climbing (trad/sport) should dictate the future of development, which brings up the old (tiresome) R-sport/bolted trad debate.  It’s honesty kind of silly that there are X-rated “sport” routes in Eldo just because of a compromise between people who thought there shouldn’t be any at all.  I love Porter Jarrard’s routes and he’s probably one of my favorite FAs in the Red, but I don’t think the climbing on A.W.O.L. would be diminished if someone added a bolt in that runout section (he would, of course, strongly disagree).

Bill Kirby wrote:  Jake, you should know better

 Trad, another amazing job as always

 It is Saturday but I work every day. I don’t know what happen. Was a slacker who got out more than most. I got offered a job, got greedy and now I’m a workaholic. It’s like Ghostbusters.. There is no Dana only Zull. 

All work and no play makes Bill a very dull boy.

Ted Pinson wrote:  I love Porter Jarrod’s [SIC] routes and he’s probably one of my favorite FAs in the Red, but I don’t think the climbing on A.W.O.L. would be diminished if someone added a bolt in that runout section (he would, of course, strongly disagree).

And who do you think might be in a better place to judge whether a route’s climbing is “diminished,” you or the guy with 100s of FAs who climbed 5.14 in his mid 40s?