What would you do? All opinions are welcome

The following is a message exchange that started on Dec 31, 2013. I responded on Jan 7, 2014. This topic was dead for 5 yrs, until I received the "f%$# you" message Jan 29 this year. It is important to note that I've climbed this new route line at least a dozen times on top-rope solo over the last 8 years:

P B, Dec 31, 2013: Hey can u text me @ ur earliest convenience. Regard'n a possible route just left of Big Bad Wolf. Thanks.

Me, Jan 7, 2014: Hi Pete, I don't think there should be any new routes near BBW. I've climbed every inch of that formation on top rope solo, so I doubt you could even claim FA. I also thought more routes there would be cool, but after thinking it over, the 2 lines there are classic, (Physical  Graffiti and BBW) and anything added will detract from the 2 routes there. Others have agreed with me that there shouldn't be any more routes added as well. In addition, the terrain left of BBW is where many, (myself included) rappel from either the top of P3 or the top of P2. I bring clients down that way all the time. It would suck to not be able to do that any more. -Dan

P B, Jan 29, 2019: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/116490330/town-dogs-and-coyotes https://www.mountainproject.com/photo/116493280 

What happened to ethics in climbing? What would you do if someone bolted one of your lines? Added a line that closely hugs an existing route? Anything? Nothing? All opinions are welcome.

If you don't agree, chop the bolts.  See what happens maybe?

Let it go. The comments on the route page suggest people like it.

Are you concerned because he is claiming the FA, when it was really you?

Or is it because he bolted a route that you had done as a top rope solo?

Either way, it doesn't sound worth pursuing.

The route seems farther away than what the proximity is when looking at BBW and PG. The 5 people I've seen rappel the route though have all had serious problems getting down.... I don't know why, but the 2 separate parties I saw ended up yelling a lot and had difficulty getting to the ground and retrieving ropes. Just an observation though, I haven't tried to rap the route to see if they were all noobs or if the stations were placed awkwardly, IDK.

As to whether or not the route should exist. I think the argument would lend itself to the same prose that follows the question of "how soon after it rains can I climb in red rocks"....
One persons garbage is another persons treasure.

I'd really like to hear Kentucky Pete's story...

Super lame , always thought it was a cool juxtaposition with just the two of them ...the OG trad classic and the New school sport classic really solid snapshot of RR.

Christian . wrote: If you don't agree, chop the bolts.  See what happens maybe?

This always a cowards response. Bolting a route take a lot of time and money. Chopping bolts is almost always a dick move. 

Slogger wrote: I'd really like to hear Kentucky Pete's story...

That dude looks old school dirtbag, no 70k sprinter for him!

Richard Gilbert wrote:

Chopping bolts is almost always a dick move. 

So is bolting something despite knowing that others don't want it to be bolted. If the bolter had listened in the first place then perhaps his/her bolts wouldn't get chopped. 

The industrial revolution of climbing is upon us.

The capitalists build the gyms, the gyms manufacture the hordes with insatiable desire for accessible multi-pitch bolted lines.

Armed with their battery-powered drills - like the machine gunners of The Great War - they will mow down every inch of sandstone within range of the parking lot.

Calico Basin will be completely grid bolted in the next ten years.

Here ya go!

What would I do? Chill out, open a beer and worry about the madman running the USA.

Jim Titt wrote: What would I do? Chill out, open a beer and worry about the madman running the USA.

Stay out of our politics, Euro. :)

Jim Titt wrote: What would I do? Chill out, open a beer and worry about the madman running the USA.

Yep!

Let it be. I definitely don't think chopping is the answer. 

Add a comment to the route page? Perhaps something along the lines of:
"FA: TR solo, 2013, D. Young. Retro bolted despite community objection, 2019."

I think it's worth considering we are only getting one person's story in this.  It's possible the route-equipper talked to more than just the OP, received a wide range of opinions, etc. 

Too bad about the mixed bolts, 100% SS should be minimum these days.

As for "FA", maybe ACB (As Climbed By) or "First Led By" would be better than "FA" on a wall so popular, but I suspect this is hardly the first route in MtnPrjct, or guidebooks, that has this "error".  

Since the comments on the route seem to indicate it's a pretty well liked, why chop the bolts? What would be the "statement" you'd be making?  

I'm not a local, and although I've been to RR several times, I've been to Calico only once (with a very "local") but it did seem to me that there was "room" for a route, or maybe two, on the BBW "wall".  Recollection is the walk-off (from these 2-3 pitch climbs) was not too bad, so the "the line is used to rap" doesn't seem all that significant.

Marc801 C wrote: Add a comment to the route page? Perhaps something along the lines of:
"FA: TR solo, 2013, D. Young. Retro bolted despite community objection, 2019."

community?

Disclaimer I have never been to this area.

#1. top ropeing something gives you exactly Zero claim over it unless you put the word out that it is a project that you are working on in which case you have at the very most one climbing season to finish the project or declare it open.

#2. Top ropeing is not a first ascent. it is practice for a first ascent. See rule #1

#3. Is the route?
 A.  A squeeze job.
B.   Blatant violation of local ethics.
 If there are any other climbs in this area  with similar style bolting and the climb is not a squeeze job
there is nothing you can do about other than bitch and moan.  
  Squeeze  Job = A squeeze job is close enough to an existing climb as to change the nature of how the older climb climbs.  Slab climbs too close together cause the leader to get off route to clip existing bolts where a face climb with holds or a jug haul the offending bolts would need to be within arms reach of the holds to create the same interference. The proof is in the chalk.  People will almost always follow the path of least resistance within reach of the gear. If a new climb goes in and folks start clipping a bolt on the new climb from the old climb or getting sucked off route by the new climb then the new climb by definition is a squeeze job.

This climb on rogers rock shows how on mostly featureless slab a bolt anywhere in the vicinity will draw climbers off route. Isa on  Screaming Meany has clipped the 2 bolts  of Tom Rosecans squeeze job Between The lines. Most folks only clip the 1st of these 2 bolts.  The name suggests he knew damn well it was a squeeze job.

Does this mean theres now TWO routes on the wall i can watch Goobers from out of town f@ck up and throw ropes all over each other trying to rap through parties and ignore the blatant, beautiful, easy walk off instead!?!

Neat

Or you could as a community educate people by having a well marked trail and possibly some information available that the preferred method of decent is a walk off...