To Ban... or not to Ban Bolts!

I really don't see why we can't have strict no bolt areas like Devils Lake WI or a lot of British trad crags along with "sacrificial" areas that get bolted to all hell, especially in areas already suffering from environmental impact.

I sort of doubt you can make a strong argument why an abandoned quarry shouldn't have bolts if the rock is safe without resorting to slippery slope arguments. Similarly, if Arches National Park wants to ban all fixed anchors, that's their prerogative. 

I think a real problem is the tendency of overbolting to occur when the best lines are done at an area and people start adding in contrived or squeezed-in lines that really never needed to exist. Sure, there might be unclimbed rock 6 ft left of an existing classic line, but does it need a whole new set of bolts on it? There is a very contentious bolt war going on right now in Frankenjura, one of the cradles of sport climbing, over this very issue, and it sounds like it's getting very heated with people threatening legal action. lacrux.com/klettern/route-v…

Mike Preiss wrote:

FC was intended to be maximized to keep the burgeoning population of outdoor recreationalists occupied with physical challenges in order specifically to mitigate the impact to Backcountry.  

So you are saying if there is plenty of climbing at the crags, smith, index, ect..ect.. then it will midigate the impact to the backcountry (wilderness)?

Yes, that was the theory. At least how it was explained to me. 

Claudine Longet wrote:

Yes, that was the theory. At least how it was explained to me. 

I believe that's true but the(my) problem is that they are taking the rap bolting into the wilderness more and more

Claudine Longet wrote:

Bottom line: bolting opened up a whole new range of climbable stone, brought athleticism to rock climbing, made rock climbing vastly safer, therefore increased accessibility.

To want to deny all that productive societal growth is horribly elitist and tyrannical. This is white privilege on steroids, the desire to rip away an immense source of purpose and enjoyment from the masses to serve the vanity and prejudices of a tyrannical few.

This guy should be inactivated from here for spreading hate speech and thought.

Little extreme?? hate speech?? I will say his no bolts period stance is fairly extreme and I am sure there are some who agree but there are many more that do believe in a compromise and to regulate/limit bolting in the wilderness because there will always be a few who cannot control themselves and limit bolting 

Mike Preiss wrote:

Little extreme?? hate speech?? I will say his no bolts period stance is fairly extreme and I am sure there are some who agree but there are many more that do believe in a compromise and to regulate/limit bolting in the wilderness because there will always be a few who cannot control themselves and limit bolting 

Not the point. What this guy is promoting is all bolts, everywhere, gone. Of course we are dealing with an unrealistic thought experiment with zero basis in reality.  As a 35 year Anarchist I've been engaging in those as long as social media enabled the era of argument. His stance is almost identical to Bolshevikism.  Placing himself and his personal ideals above all others and imposing that will unilaterally.  

Still, the idea of Front Country operates that if close in, non-spectactular outdoor spaces (as opposed to the places that are so spectacular and special they get elevated protection) are open for development they will recieve the vast majority of effort. If things stayed where everywhere was closed down, then it is no more illegal to bolt a wilderness peak than the canyon 10 miles away.  Too many laws leads to disregarding all of them. I personally don't know of wilderness rap bolted routes after a debacle some years back where some guys hand-tapped some bolts on a small crag along a trail in RMNP. Peer pressure quickly pushed them into removing their hardware. 

I guess my point is by allowing some bolting in accessible areas occur, it makes the illegality of doing it in the remote areas more justifiable and facilitates better enforcement by the community which is far more effective than some over extended rangers

The difficulty of a task does not change it's ethics.

Ok, let's assume we no longer bolt anything and every climber becomes a trade climber. Far more public land will be decimated, and I mean destroyed beyond recognition to mine aluminum and oil to create a trade rack for every climber every few years.  As far as gross environmental impact bolts and quickdraw are far less impactfully in the global picture than a trad rack.  

Justin Brown wrote:

Ok, let's assume we no longer bolt anything and every climber becomes a trade climber. Far more public land will be decimated, and I mean destroyed beyond recognition to mine aluminum and oil to create a trade rack for every climber every few years.  As far as gross environmental impact bolts and quickdraw are far less impactfully in the global picture than a trad rack.  

All of these absurd counter arguments only make my argument better.

ADAM GRANT wrote:

Ethics are just like religion. Everyone has their own and theirs is the only righteous and true way. Everyone else is simply wrong.

You're mistaken, ethics are the antidote to religion.

Tradiban wrote:

They do. Morals have bearing on ALL situations. In this situation that we are in, morals are what stop people from chipping all climbs.

They have no bearing because your moral stance that bolts are amoral is not going to change anything.

So where do you draw the line? How could you draw up a law to establish the rules you are thinking of?

No! You wouldn't have a law, it would be an accepted standard. The last thing I want to do is to add a bunch of laws to regulate things. Especially because the people who can make laws are not climbers.

No, I don't think it would "destroy" the sport. Actually I think it would help the sport overcome ego problems and refocus climbers on what its actually important, the experience of climbing. Number chasing is a hollow existence. 

As for continued challenge, there is easily infinite challenge from bolt-less climbing. If you personally need to chase numbers there's always bouldering.

It saddens me that people think that way, there's so much more to climbing than the grades.

The grades are not what I'm talking about. It's the challenge. Take away bolts and there is less athletic challenge possible. That is not a good thing. Also, some people like climbing on entirely smooth slabs, bouldery overhangs, or crimpy face climbs, all of which are unprotectable traditionally.

Place good cams, whip all you want.

....but only on climbs with good cracks.

Trevor Puppy Lovr wrote:

You're mistaken, ethics are the antidote to religion.

You're mistaken. Ethics are from religion.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

You're mistaken. Ethics are from religion.

This is dumb. Whether or nor you are religious, it should be fairly self-evident that plenty of non-religious people and society have moral/ethical codes, because these things are socially-constructed by consensus. 

Now back on topic:

Arguments that banning bolting will result in an explosion of trad climbing are pretty suspect, in my opinion. There can be little doubt that the explosion in popularity of climbing in the last few decades was largely driven by the proliferation of bolts and sport climbing, along with sport climbing's child, gym climbing. I know loads of people who would stop climbing outside tomorrow if you told them they had to learn how to place gear if they were to keep climbing, though some would switch to bouldering. Look at how popular bolted routes like Flyboys are in the Washington Cascades (Top 10 classics of all time on MP, lmao) despite the proximity of trad climbs that are so much better that comparing them feels cruel. 

Bolts drive traffic. Imagine a crag a one hour drive from a medium-sized city, and I announced on MP that I'd bolted it with 15 routes 5.8 to 5.10c. Probably it would immediately get mobbed to the point of being a pain to get on the route of your choice on a weekend day. Now imagine that same crag instead was host to 15 entirely trad routes in the same grade range. I'd be surprised if more than a quarter of the first crowd bothered to show up.

Now is this always a big problem? Probably not. The last crag I know about this happening to in Oregon is surrounded on all sides by hideous clearcuts, so claiming that some kind of wilderness character is being damaged is laughable. Big corporations ruined the landscape beyond repair in any of our lifetimes already. A few bolts and some climber traffic are a drop in that bucket. 

Now bolting in wilderness I think should be a rare thing indeed, but there are some routes that would not exist without it that are surely among the best in the world. I would not be opposed to needing permission from the relevant authorities to go bolting in wilderness alpine areas just to ensure that some kind of wilderness character is maintained. It's worth noting that Jumbo Love, the hardest sport route in the Americas, is located in a designated wilderness area. I don't object to the presence of those bolts, as long as they don't have tons of fixed rotting tat on them. Bolts on otherwise protectable terrain should remain anathema, though I realize one person's idea of "perfectly safe without bolts" is going to be unacceptably dangerous to other people, so I won't claim to have an easy solution there.

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

They have no bearing because your moral stance that bolts are amoral is not going to change anything.

I believe they told Frederick Douglass the same thing.

No! You wouldn't have a law, it would be an accepted standard. The last thing I want to do is to add a bunch of laws to regulate things. Especially because the people who can make laws are not climbers.

So how would you arrive at this "accepted standard"? Perhaps ethics would have a role?

The grades are not what I'm talking about. It's the challenge. Take away bolts and there is less athletic challenge possible. That is not a good thing. Also, some people like climbing on entirely smooth slabs, bouldery overhangs, or crimpy face climbs, all of which are unprotectable traditionally.

Obviously you're not a trad climber. THE most difficult climbing can be found on un-bolted routes, I encourage you to try some. All of the features you mention can be found in bouldering and most in trad too. Many of the best sport climbers in the world get shut down on trad well below their sport grade limit.

Claudine Longet wrote:

Bottom line: bolting opened up a whole new range of climbable stone, brought athleticism to rock climbing, made rock climbing vastly safer, therefore increased accessibility.

To want to deny all that productive societal growth is horribly elitist and tyrannical. This is white privilege on steroids, the desire to rip away an immense source of purpose and enjoyment from the masses to serve the vanity and prejudices of a tyrannical few.

This guy should be inactivated from here for spreading hate speech and thought.

Holy shit that’s a far stretch to make! 

The grades are not what I'm talking about. It's the challenge. Take away bolts and there is less athletic challenge possible. That is not a good thing. Also, some people like climbing on entirely smooth slabs, bouldery overhangs, or crimpy face climbs, all of which are unprotectable traditionally.”

you’re high af right now aren’t you? You’re saying there’s no hard trad routes? 

Pro damaging rock is only an issue on things like soft desert sandstone, you can whip all day on cams in good granite and it won't do shit to the rock. There is a conversation to be had about the best way to preserve fragile climbs in places like Indian Creek and Zion, but that's mostly a regional issue with little broader impact. 

I don't really like the argument that trad routes should be bolted solely because people can't afford racks, it's the same argument that says that it's unfair to people with health issues that prevent them from walking far that mechanized travel in wilderness is banned. Yeah, it's unfair, but there are other considerations than just accessibility when it comes to managing outdoor spaces. Also, there are bolted routes, so it's not like people who don't have trad racks have nothing to climb. I don't think it's terribly elitist to say that while bolts have their place, not every climb needs bolts, especially if there are otherwise protectable.

I'd argue the barriers to minorities and poor people to climbing probably are a lot more basic than how much a set of cams costs, though that is a factor. Ability to take time off work, crags in rural areas that may be less than welcoming, the cost of gym memberships (which can reach the price of a full rack awfully quickly), and (as frequently demonstrated in these very forums) a sometimes indifferent or even hostile climbing community are all more important barriers. 

Justin Brown wrote:

Ok, let's assume we no longer bolt anything and every climber becomes a trade climber. Far more public land will be decimated, and I mean destroyed beyond recognition to mine aluminum and oil to create a trade rack for every climber every few years.  As far as gross environmental impact bolts and quickdraw are far less impactfully in the global picture than a trad rack.  

An even bigger stretch. really?

Samuel Bona wrote:

Bolts keep the cost of entry down for climbing, meaning it is more accessible to low income communities which is what we want. The last thing I want to happen is climbing becoming a rich person sport like skiing. I think the real debate is down to how we introduce a growing population of climbers into outdoor climbing- especially with a pandemic possibly shutting down climbing gyms for 2+ years. We need to teach them about top-rope ethics, trail usage, not shitting under rocks (I hate that one) and packing out their garbage. My personal thought is that maybe we should consider bolting more trad routes to protect the integrity of the rock and open up more spaces to climbers who can't afford racks. Cams and other pro damage the rock, think of the conversation on the Supercrack of the desert page. It's wider than it used to be because of things like cams. Bolts can be painted to match the wall so you can't see them from below and they don't widen cracks. Maybe the ethics change to make bottom-up bolting more common too.

Climbing by it's basic nature and true form is actually free (or real cheap) AKA: Paul Pruess, Henry Barber, ect...

Lyle M wrote:

The grades are not what I'm talking about. It's the challenge. Take away bolts and there is less athletic challenge possible. That is not a good thing. Also, some people like climbing on entirely smooth slabs, bouldery overhangs, or crimpy face climbs, all of which are unprotectable traditionally.”

you’re high af right now aren’t you? You’re saying there’s no hard trad routes? 

You listed 4 overhanging crack lines and one route that is an overhanging face climb but is probably very unique in the world in that it has good pro at that level of difficulty, hardly a clear demonstration that bolts aren't needed to practice hard face climbing. Death routes like the kinds of things Dave MacLeod likes putting up don't count, because calling them "protectable" is a real stretch.

Also none of these climbs would exist without bolts, people were stuck at 5.12+ before sport climbing tactics and bolting on rappel became accepted. Every single one of them was first done by someone with a huge number of hard sport climbs in their résumé.

Finally, there are plenty of types of climbing like sustained pumpy overhanging faces or overhanging limestone tufa-fests which simply do not exist in trad climbing or bouldering. If humans want to climb on that kind of terrain, bolts are necessary.

Claudine Longet wrote:

Bottom line: bolting opened up a whole new range of climbable stone, brought athleticism to rock climbing, made rock climbing vastly safer, therefore increased accessibility.

To want to deny all that productive societal growth is horribly elitist and tyrannical. This is white privilege on steroids, the desire to rip away an immense source of purpose and enjoyment from the masses to serve the vanity and prejudices of a tyrannical few.

This guy should be inactivated from here for spreading hate speech and thought.

Wow that is quite the statement. Though I do not agree with tradaban I must ask how, both the desire to and ability to bolt rocks to climb is not "white privilege". Especially the idea of changing nature for pure enjoyment and not out of a basic life necessity.

Are climbers the masses or are the hikers, photographers, parkservice workers,... the masses and 'we' are the arrogant few? Not to mention the miles of trails distorting water run off, and wild animal habitat all for the needs of your so called "masses".

Tradibanned...+1 from me. Too many a-holes in the forests as it is...why make it easier for gymrats to come out and start forest fires? The amount of idiots with campfires during bans over the past 20 years has astonished me. For anyone to say that bolting sport routes hasn't impacted the environment in those areas is either ignorant or willfully ignorant. People arguing about guns in forests don't seem to understand that the animals in that forest wouldn't be there without the efforts and funding from hunters through permits and taxes on hunting gear. Many species were all but extinct before hunters/environmentalists (can be one in the same...wow!) stepped in to save and repopulate them. And, hunters are needed to keep the populations in check because the number one issue impacting wildlife is loss of habitat. If you think bringing more climbers to your cool project in the wilderness doesn't affect animal habitat, then you are an idiot. If hunters don't reduce numbers, more die of starvation...simple facts...they have no land to live on bc humans have taken it all. And those deaths by starvation, or the standard deaths by mountain lion, wolves, coyotes, badgers, etc, I would argue are typically much worse than by a skilled hunter. People, in general, are selfish a-holes and only want what benefits them at that moment. Why encourage more of them to go into the few wild areas we have left? The ones who should be there will find their way there, just like so many have...it's the dirtbags who search those areas out, not the rich...they only want to get there once it's been bolted, or ski lifts installed, or whatever...once you make it famous with your bolts, it's ruined.

Professor I agree with many of your points about the dirtbags will find their way ect.., but on your hunting points I am not so sure about