Bolted belay anchors

What we have here is Classic MP of people talking past each other.

ie Rich Gold in the Gunks sees a mature climbing area that is paying the price for convenience anchors and resulting over-use of some routes. Valid concerns.

Jeffrey Constine is in the limitless wonder of Southern California where he will never run out of new routes to do and convenience is essential to getting repeats. Valid concerns.

Opposite ends of the need for bolts spectrum.

Its complicated and not a one size fits all problem. Too many bolts are degrading some climbs through overuse, others need to make them as convenient as possible or the routes will return to munge and rust without a single repeat.

What isn't needed is more bolts on popular climbs.

Some less popular climbs need more bolts if nothing more than to spread out traffic. This is reality.

Someday there will be a permit system for The Nose and The Salathe and Madam Grunnebaum's Wulst....whereas some will be begging people to get on their obscure rigs.

This is one of those bird nest topics where the droppings come from on high. There’s some very fine, very fun “comfortized” routes out there. There’s others you gotta know your nutkraft a little more. What do you want? An award?

Edit: I’m talking about routes but up all comfortized. Retro comfortizing is a little dicier topic. Too lazy to figure out which one we’re talking about.

Hobo Greg wrote:

But still free to climb on by. Cmon man. Everything besides naked free soloing is some sort of compromise.

Don't kid yourself. By this notion can I chip hold because everybody can just climb on by?  Trad climbing is about climbing the rock on its terms, not about altering the rock to suit you.

I know "convenience" seems to be a bad word here, but if the anchors were just a matter of convenience, I would be much more in favor of them.  There is a lot to be said for always belaying at the most comfortable stance, and not having to faff around finding placements with what gear you have left.  

The bigger issue I think is the commitment.  It's a very different experience climbing a long route knowing it will take a lot of time and money to get down without finishing, vs. knowing that at any point if you can't hack it you can bail consequence free.  Similar to the wars about bolts on lead, I think it's reasonable to want both styles to exist, but it should be acknowledged that by bolting an anchor, you're taking something away from the experience beyond just removing inconvenience.  "Not clipping it" is if anything even more ridiculous than not clipping a bolt on lead when the issue is viewed as commitment rather than convenience.

Remove all comfort lowering bolts from Indian Creek. 

Ian Fenimore wrote: 1. Don't feed Tim Lutz the troll.

Agreed.  Arguing with a zealot is not best practice.  He's funny as hell though, so I'll give him that.

2. If you really think that bolted belays aren't trad then don't use them.

This argument has been obliterated for decades.  It has even been stated in this thread that it changes the character of a route.  Just like bolted cracks- "Don't like the bolts?  Just use gear and don't clip them!"  AMIRITE??!!! No.  Not right.  Because knowing that you have an out, and CAN clip the bolts changes the commitment level needed to do the route, and it changes the character of the route.  That "don't clip 'em" argument is more dead than the "is pinkpointing still a thing?" debate.  

 You go ahead and wedge some finicky micronuts and poor horizontal placements or what have you and build your own anchor next to those bomber bolts.

Fallacious argument here as well. It's already been stated that MOST climbs HAVE stances and gear placements.  I don't think anyone is arguing against fixed gear where there is NOTHING else, but that's what you'd have us believe.  It's nonsense and you're making the "shit gear vs bolts" argument, when in reality it's more like do you have the skill to build a solid anchor on the 98% of multipitch trad routes that will accept just that, or not.  The answer is, if you're climbing a route that is gear-protected, it's a reasonable expectation that you'll have the skill to tie together three good pieces of gear for an anchor.

 Then when you get back from climbing you can let everyone know how you have the biggest ethic and everyone uses those bolts is a villain to clean climbing.

Uh- if using only gear is an "ethic" then so is eschewing gear to install "bolts".  They're both "ethics".  So whose is bigger?  If you're into "clean" climbing, meaning leaving as little permanent evidence as possible, then of course the "clean" ethic is bigger.  But, if "clean" can be considered an "ethic", then why in the world isn't "bolt the world" an ethic too?  It is.  So put your feet in the stirrups of the really high horse you're on, and dismount.

 Even better go ahead and put up your own routes and then you can decide that you've got the biggest ethic around and then you can come back to a forum and slap everyone across the cheeks with your big throbbing ethic. 

In total agreement here.  This is why the "FA in your own style" generally agreed upon "ethic" is a good one.  That way everyone can have variety.  The guy or girl that gathers the gumption to go new-routing is rewarded by establishing it in whatever way they choose as long as they actually sent, and are honest about the means.  Old "clean climbing" crusties can put up 10 pitches with nary a bolt, that is scary and no one will ever repeat and serves as nothing more than a landmark of how much balls they had "BITD" and hardcore #BOLTTHEWORLD sportos have that same opportunity and can bolt cracks and have fixed gear every 4 feet if they want and have a super duper safe diluted experience that hordes of gumbos will enjoy decades into the future- and everything in between.  And everyone just deals with it because it's the best solution, and certainly beats the hell out of senseless bolt wars.

curt86iroc wrote: for all the people who think bolted belays should not be considered trad, what do you call it then?

It's called a bolted belay.  

When you hear the term "trad anchor" it is expected that you need to place protection (cams/nuts/hexes/etc) and have the skills to build an anchor.  Nobody who knows anything about trad would call a bolted anchor a trad anchor.

rgold wrote: Not using them doesn't eliminate the problems caused by bolted belays that I already mentioned.  And it is also besides the point, because one can easily accept bolting what would otherwise be totally sketchy stances on micronuts, as well as on climbs without any cracks for belay anchors.

But in this regard, there is also the fact that unskilled leaders can't construct a good anchor where skilled leaders can, and unskilled leaders are often unaware of possibilities that aren't directly in front of their noses or are located above or below the most pleasant place to stand.  In those cases, bolts are a substitute for the skills that should be appropriate to the route.

Trad climbing is all about using physical and gear skills to mitigate risks.  If you are going render those skills unnecessary even when they would be perfectly effective, then yes, it ain't trad.

+1.  There is much more to trad climbing than just the physical skills.  Unfortunately too many don't take the time to learn the "soft skills".  And many end up with unnecessary rescues.

rockklimber wrote:

It's called a bolted belay.  

When you hear the term "trad anchor" it is expected that you need to place protection (cams/nuts/hexes/etc) and have the skills to build an anchor.  Nobody who knows anything about trad would call a bolted anchor a trad anchor.

i was referring to the route, not the anchor

trad climb + trad anchor = trad
bolted climb + bolted anchor = sport
trad climb + bolted belay = ??? (IMO this should be called trad also)

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote: What we have here is Classic MP of people talking past each other.

ie Rich Gold in the Gunks sees a mature climbing area that is paying the price for convenience anchors and resulting over-use of some routes. Valid concerns.

Jeffrey Constine is in the limitless wonder of Southern California where he will never run out of new routes to do and convenience is essential to getting repeats. Valid concerns.

Opposite ends of the need for bolts spectrum.

Its complicated and not a one size fits all problem. Too many bolts are degrading some climbs through overuse, others need to make them as convenient as possible or the routes will return to munge and rust without a single repeat.

What isn't needed is more bolts on popular climbs.

Some less popular climbs need more bolts.

Someday there will be a permit system for The Nose and The Salathe and Madam Grunnebaum's Wulst....whereas some will be begging people to get on their obscure rigs.

Sense. 

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer here! I have no problem climbing in areas where trad anchors at belays and walkoffs are the standard. Locally, there are some very popular highly trafficked areas where this is the case, ie Lover's Leap. I am glad there aren't bolted belays on Bear's Reach, etc, even though these routes see a huge amount of traffic by the less experienced.

At the same time, it was nice being able to rap from 2 pitches up on Black Wall at Donner on Saturday, even though there is a perfectly good walk off at the top of the 3rd pitch of the route we were on.

Had we been on a backcountry route in a Wilderness area, I'd be pretty disappointed to see bolted anchors next to available gear placements at belays... even if the walk off is atrocious. However, I can see the argument for an inconspicuous and long lasting rap station where necessary as opposed to leaving tat blowing in the wind.

Ryan Pfleger wrote:I am glad there aren't bolted belays on Bear's Reach, etc, even though these routes see a huge amount of traffic by the less experienced.

Precisely right. The Leap is a Traditional Climbing Area that should never have bolts added to the classic trad routes. Fantastic place to learn to place gear anchors on moderate classics that eat gear. 

All bolts would do is accelerate the degradation of the climb with more polished holds sooner. If you have known a climb over 30-40 years this degradation of the surfaces is perfectly obvious.

Point being, there will be a time when we actively need to remove convenience anchors and slow the rate of "consumption" of some rock climbs to let natural erosion restore some of the texture. Fact of the matter is a rock climb has a finite life before it becomes a POS greasy and polished mess. This is clearly the case on popular routes at many older climbing areas. See After Six or Camp 4 boulders and the polished glass...

Other newer areas need a little help to gain popularity and spread the traffic out etc.

It takes experience and stewardship with a long tern view. Put up new routes however you choose, but don't accelerate the use of older routes. They get more than enough traffic these days.

We're just muggles in a Wizard's creation muddling along.

curt86iroc wrote:

i was referring to the route, not the anchor

trad climb + trad anchor = trad
bolted climb + bolted anchor = sport
trad climb + bolted belay = ??? (IMO this should be called trad also)

Gotcha.  I guess that depends on the climb then.  Are the bolts there just for convenience or is there no possibility of building a trad anchor?  

For example:  Tollhouse Traverse has bolted belays for all 3 anchors.  There is a crack next to each of these bolted belays and adequate places to build a trad anchor.  But the trad anchors are in pretty uncomfortable locations so there are bolted belays in locations which make for a more comfortable belay.  So I'd say it's a trad climb with bolted belays.

I see and hear both sides of this issue. I enjoy climbing routes of various styles. As has been said, it really comes down to the FA and what they think is best for the style of the route, area, etc.

For example:
A friend and I put up an FA this summer in the Indian Peaks. The location of this climb is just a quick scramble off the approach trail to  Lone Eagle (a 5.7 classic alpine route for those who don't know). Our vision for the climb is that folks could bag it on their way to/from their campsite further up the valley.
While the majority of the route goes on gear, the P1 crux needed a few bolts to be safe. Atop pitch one, there is a perfect  #2-#3 crack at the belay. But we opted to put in a 2 bolt anchor. Why? Because the following pitch consumes the same pieces of gear. Many parties going to tag LE are going up with just a single rack and we felt like it made the best route/ experience to set the route for the rack folks are already bringing to the area. Because it is a pristine area, we opted not to bolt a rappel as there is an easy walk off.

All that said, when answering this question in general, I'll have to throw my vote to, "it depends."

ZZZZZ circles lol

John Wilder wrote
 First ascentionists have the right to determine whether their routes have bolted belays and frankly, it's none of anyone else's business. 

Ah, but if they leave no fixed gear behind how does one know the line has been climbed? 

If a tree falls in a forest...

Ryan Pfleger wrote:

Ah, but if they leave no fixed gear behind how does one know the line has been climbed? 

If a tree falls in a forest...

If a route in North America isn't on MP, is it even a route at all?? 

Apparently, this 4 star Tahquitz classic is "not trad."

​The Vampire​​​

Señor Arroz wrote: Apparently, this 4 star Tahquitz classic is "not trad."

The Vampire

Why would that be?