Ethics of a FA and retro bolting

I’m guessing this has been talked about before, but I’m relatively newish to climbing so bear with me.

Can someone explain why FA’s who are clearly 5.12+ climbers bolt 5.10 lines with ridiculous run outs requiring many feet of essentially free soloing 5.8?

A. Why bolt a 5.10 route that the average 5.10 climber wouldn’t feel relatively safe on? Just like “I won’t die if I fall at any point on this route”

B. Why do FA’s throw hissy fits after they are bragging about how their 120ft route back in the 80’s only had 3 bolts and now on MP it’s showing 8 or so bolts. Like dude, maybe because people believe in ethical bolting practices and you were bolting on lead and clearly climbing at a level NOWHERE CLOSE to the actual climber who would walk up to a 5.10 and think “I can climb that probably”.

C. Is it unethical to retrobolt routes? With consent of the FA? Without? Who “owns” the route? How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years? Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route? 

For A/B: Not always, but usually...

and their egos.

This is a can of worms. Why not just inquire on the route/s you wish to be retro bolted and go from there? 

A: You can't make every one happy. Less bolts isn't terrible to everyone. Where I feel comfortable doesn't translate to where other's feel comfortable.. 

B: There's always been bravado in climbing, and sports for that matter. 

C: Depends on the area. The idea of ownership comes from the work and foresight it took to create what is generally taken for granted by others. I do believe there is an inherent responsibility to not kill others with crappy development, but it is an inherent risk climbers should not be obtuse to. To say someone who bolted a route should somehow bow to a critic is silly. 

If you climb a long 5.8 alpine route, do you want the runout 5.1 slabs or the 4th class traverses to be bolted every 3 feet? If not, why? 

If the rock quality is too bad to have closely spaced bolts should you put in flawed protection every 3 feet just to make other's feel safe?

Nobody is forcing people to climb routes.. If you don't like the runout don't lead it. 

Here’s a partial answer.

Wide bolt spacing on a section of 5.8 within a 5.10 climb isn’t necessarily runout (because the 5.8 section is sufficiently below the grade of the climb).

Just to be clear, are you talking about sport routes? Or trad routes that have a few bolts on them?

A sport route is "supposed" to be safe so you can focus on the climbing, but trad routes are "supposed" to be the full deal.

 Is it unethical to retrobolt routes?

Yes.

With consent of the FA?

Maybe. Area-dependent.

Without?

Maybe ethical, maybe not. FA climbers may be dead, for example. Also area-dependent.

Who “owns” the route?

No one. Which includes all of us here on M.P. No one owns the route, not the FA, not the "community," and definitely not some crowd-sourced for-profit business like MP.

How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years?

Dramatically, with respect to sport routes and not all that much really, with respect to trad. As has been a continuous issue over that 40-years however, is not changing ethics but rather competition and clashes between differing groups of ethics. Climbing has shifted a lot from a DIY culture to a consumer-oriented sport. The biggest clashes of ethics are usually centered on areas with limited resources and too many people, tragedy of the commons stuff.

Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route?

Sometimes yes, a lot of times, a resounding no. It really depends, and on a lot of things. A new sport route at a sport climbing crag? Absolutely, the FA team owes subsequent climbers a good and consistent job of bolting, for example. A ground-up wilderness first ascent? A resounding NO, the FA team owes subsequent climbers NOTHING, not even a route description, name or topo.

Have a good one!

I think Amy is right about A and B - not always, but usually.

For C: 

Is it unethical to retrobolt routes? With consent of the FA? Without? Who “owns” the route?

I think it depends on "local ethics" and there is no true answer. Some factors that come into play are how much rock there is, how many well-protected routes of a similar quality exist in the area, whether or not there is community consensus, and land owner rules about adding bolts vs replacing like-for-like. It's been my experience that in the large, C is handled fairly well in most communities, generally being handled better the bigger the user-group is.

How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years?

I think there has been a greater understanding that what worked in the past does not always scale to larger populations of climbers. I would say that consensus is moving towards the LCOs having more of a say, vs FA parties.

Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route? 

It depends on how likely a repeat ascent is and how popular an area is. Obviously these factors can change over time so it's not so clear. 

Great question, always ask the route/area developer first!... They spent the money on hardware and time to install and clean.  That may or may not be the FA.  Also if uncomfortable to you just skip poorly set/unsafe routes, more than likely the route doesn’t get climbed often and may have bolts that are old/route dirty.  Some times the rock quality may be bad in a section, leading to no bolts.  Example,  I was setting a new route yesterday and had new Fixe SS bolt spin in the hole, got unlucky and hit a pocket of loose materials behind a solid exterior.  4 ft down was solid granite again and took a perfect bolt but longer distance.  Finally with time/experience comes comfort at longer run outs between bolts.  

Not every route is made for every climber, and I am ok with that.  Its unfortunate to back off from a climb that I don't think I can safely lead, but I'd rather not change the nature of a route.  There are plenty of closely bolted routes out there. 

Retro bolting is definitely not OK without the FA's consent.  I'd say its totally fine with the FA's consent.  If FA is dead or cannot be reached, I'd rather see routes unchanged.  

And yes all of this is because of ego.  I am also ok with that.  

Is there a shortage of safe, well protected sport and trad routes in the United States?

A. Why bolt a 5.10 route that the average 5.10 climber wouldn’t feel relatively safe on? Just like “I won’t die if I fall at any point on this route”

Sport climbing: The New River Gorge and Kalymnos both have completely safe sport routes. The sport routes in Kalymnos 'feel' safer than those at the NRG. The sport is better for having both of those places and their different styles of bolting for people to experience.

Trad climbing: Not everyone is seeking the same experience. Sometimes I want to plug gear up something moderate and safe. Sometimes I want to challenge my ability to make a route safe using my climbing skill, even if the gear isn't great. This can be really satisfying. I am glad both types of routes exist.

B. Why do FA’s throw hissy fits after they are bragging about how their 120ft route back in the 80’s only had 3 bolts and now on MP it’s showing 8 or so bolts. Like dude, maybe because people believe in ethical bolting practices and you were bolting on lead and clearly climbing at a level NOWHERE CLOSE to the actual climber who would walk up to a 5.10 and think “I can climb that probably”. 

Because they put time and effort into equipping the route? In addition, this has nothing to do with ethics - how a route is bolted is a style thing. If something was bolted on lead it is in all likelihood actually a trad route. This doesn't mean routes like this should never be retrobolted, IMO.

C. Is it unethical to retrobolt routes? With consent of the FA? Without? Who “owns” the route? How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years? Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route? 

This is totally a case-by-case basis thing. No one owns the route, but developers (not necessarily FAs) put in RIDICULOUS amounts of work to create climbing areas. Giving extra weight to their opinions doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Consensus should be reached through community dialogue, but the idea that every voice should have equal weight is not tenable.

Yes, route developers have a responsibility to people who climb their route (IMO-this could be argued). However, they have no responsibility to create something that is safe and homogenized in the manner this post implies all 5.10s should be.

Emily Thompsonwrote:

I’m guessing this has been talked about before, but I’m relatively newish to climbing so bear with me.

Can someone explain why FA’s who are clearly 5.12+ climbers bolt 5.10 lines with ridiculous run outs requiring many feet of essentially free soloing 5.8?

A. Why bolt a 5.10 route that the average 5.10 climber wouldn’t feel relatively safe on? Just like “I won’t die if I fall at any point on this route”

B. Why do FA’s throw hissy fits after they are bragging about how their 120ft route back in the 80’s only had 3 bolts and now on MP it’s showing 8 or so bolts. Like dude, maybe because people believe in ethical bolting practices and you were bolting on lead and clearly climbing at a level NOWHERE CLOSE to the actual climber who would walk up to a 5.10 and think “I can climb that probably”.

C. Is it unethical to retrobolt routes? With consent of the FA? Without? Who “owns” the route? How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years? Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route? 

Yes this has been talked about quite a bit, you can go down the MP rabbit hole for days if you are really interested in the wide range of opinions on this subject. 

I recently applied to ACE (the fixed hardware review committee for Eldorado Canyon) to retro-bolt an old route I put up in the 80's. We put four bolts on it and there is a good gear placement as well, bolts were placed on rappel and hand drilled in 1986. Both the FA's and the majority of on-line votes were in favor of our application to add two additional bolts. We were turned down by the committee which basically felt that the hard moves (5.11) protected and the runouts were easy enough (5.9) that the leader would not fall there. They felt that the route was in character with the climbing in Eldo and should be preserved as is. I was disappointed in the decision but I respect the process.

It's not true that "no one owns the routes", in this case the State of Colorado owns the route and it has set up a group of Park Rangers and climbers to make decisions about the fixed hardware. Staunton State Park has a very different set of bolting standards and expects climbers to bolt routes fairly tightly. 

Bear in mind that all climbing is dangerous and sport bolting will not prevent all accidents, I think it is a mistake to place "ethical" expectations on bolting. Climbers need to make their own decisions about risk and responsibility. There is room in the sport for both run out and closely-bolted climbs; each has its own challenges and rewards. There does seem to be a consensus that if there are moves that are two number grades below the crux they do not need to be as well-protected. Fortunately there are many routes of different styles available to choose from as well as lots of information available about how good the protection is so you should be able to know what you are getting into before you jump on a climb.

Even with permission from the FA or person who bolted it, you might need a bolting permit, or bolting might no longer be allowed in that area. 

Emily Thompsonwrote:

I’m guessing this has been talked about before, but I’m relatively newish to climbing so bear with me.

Happens on the regular. But I'm not willing to search for those threads, either. Instead, might I recommend "Tricksters and Traditionalists" by the late Tom Higgins, regarded as having coined the term "trad climbing."

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php/style-commentaries/13-tricksters-and-traditionalists?showall=1&limitstart=

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php/style-commentaries/33-tricksters-traditionalists-revisited-2006?showall=1&limitstart=

Can someone explain why FA’s who are clearly 5.12+ climbers bolt 5.10 lines with ridiculous run outs requiring many feet of essentially free soloing 5.8?

This depends on how many feet "many" feet is and what a "ridiculous" runout is, which is obviously both relative and a value judgment. 

A good place to start might be to examine the year and style of ascent. Something established ground up before sport climbing really took off is likely to feature this, in part perhaps due to bravado, in part personal challenge/growth, and in part practicality: how many bolts can you carry with you? How long can you manage that stance while placing them by hand?

A. Why bolt a 5.10 route that the average 5.10 climber wouldn’t feel relatively safe on? Just like “I won’t die if I fall at any point on this route”

Who is the "average" 5.10 climber? Again, context is really important here. Is this at a sport crag? Trad crag? Out in the mountains somewhere? A 5.10 climber should probably be reasonably safe on 5.8 moves. But that also depends on how you define "5.10 climber." Does that mean onsighting any 5.10 anywhere, anytime, any style? Or redpointing a singular 5.10a?

B. Why do FA’s throw hissy fits after they are bragging about how their 120ft route back in the 80’s only had 3 bolts and now on MP it’s showing 8 or so bolts. Like dude, maybe because people believe in ethical bolting practices and you were bolting on lead and clearly climbing at a level NOWHERE CLOSE to the actual climber who would walk up to a 5.10 and think “I can climb that probably”.

Define ethical. I fear that in many of these conversations we conflate ethics with style, to the detriment of...both, and all comers. Intent starts to matter. If the thing was put in ground up on the lead back in the '80s, well, maybe it was a personally meaningful experience to the FA precisely because it was mentally challenging. Some people climb for the mental challenge and have done so for a long time. And perhaps they didn't have to consider other parties because climbing was a much smaller scene 40 years ago. And perhaps, even if they did, they left it to the individual climber to determine if they had the skills to safely climb the route. If not, they could always return at a later time when they'd developed the needed skills.

C. Is it unethical to retrobolt routes? 

Again, I think this starts to conflate ethics with style. But if you want to start following that thought train down to its logical end, you probably end up arguing a personal slight to the FAist against risk of injury to potentially hundreds/thousands of subsequent climbers. In that case, is it ethical *not* to retrobolt everything?

With consent of the FA? Without? Who “owns” the route?

Routes on public land are own by the public, plain and simple. In many cases, this doesn't even include climbers as a significant fraction.  

 How have ethics around this changed in the last 40 years? Do FA’s have a responsibility to others who climb “their” route? 

Maybe. In modern climbing, it would be obtuse to completely fail to consider potential subsequent climbers. But context matters again. Is this an accessible sport crag? The developer probably has a pretty strong responsibility to clean the routes, place bolts intelligently, and use modern 1/2" stainless hardware. But, as noted upthread, if it's "out there" in a relatively untraveled zone, perhaps there is less responsibility to others who might come after. This says nothing of trad or alpine routes that might not have any fixed hardware at all.

Emily Thompsonwrote:

I’m guessing this has been talked about before, but I’m relatively newish to climbing so bear with me.

If that is true then why don't you do more then guess?  Actually do a little research and verify that it has been discussed endlessly for decades.  The answers will predictable fall into 2 buckets:

1. the developer/FA is an egotistical jerk.  The route should be cleaned up immediate.  Name probably needs to be "redacted" from "Only for the bold" to "Safe for all".  What if there is an accident?  How will that reflect upon us as a community?  We need to be welcoming.  Will we loose access?  Think of the poor rescuers.

2. Harden up snowflake.  Others have done it before you.  You'll appreciate it more/be prouder of your self - if you had to work for it.  Build up to it.  Do one of the 10 million other routes that are in your comfort zone.

All very predictable.  But I expect you were just bored and wanted to stir the pot.  Good job.  I'm looking forward to your next post - "Should I take my dog to the crag?"

What JonasMR asked above really needs an answer from the OP:

"Just to be clear, are you talking about sport routes? Or trad routes that have a few bolts on them?"

To which I'll add, just because a route has protection bolts does not mean it is a sport route. Are you confusing one for the other?

I'm going to answer this by saying where I think things are headed. 

-A Local Crag Organization should oversee bolting at crags that are popular, environmentally fragile, or have access issues . 

-The LCO should decide if permission is needed to begin installing bolts. 

-The LCO should decide if they wish to reimburse a developer's/FA's for a route (or contribute, replace, remove, or modify it).

-The LCO should be funded by contributions from the climbing community. 

-The LCO should create an official feedback system for the public to inform, donate, and suggest modifications.

-The LCO should decide on modifications to existing routes/bolts based on community consensus. The developer/FA should be given a chance to purpose their preferred course of action but the final decision rests with LCO. 

Ry Cwrote:

For A/B: Not always, but usually...

and their egos.

Tsoukalos is actually an alien, not a man.

Scott Dwrote:

The ethics on this are in the process of changing. I'm going to answer this by saying where we want to go, instead of where we are. 

-Bolting at crags that are popular, environmentally fragile, and/or have access issues should be managed by a local stewardship organization. 

-Stewardship Organizations should have a minimum of 12 members.

-The stewardship organization will decide if a bolter/developer needs, or does not need, permission to begin installing any new bolt or route. 

-The stewardship organization will decide if they wish to contribute to, replace, remove, modify, and/or reimburse the developer's/FA's efforts.   

-The stewardship organization will be funded by contributions from the climbing community. 

-The stewardship organization will create an official feedback system so the public can officially inform, complain, praise, donate, and suggest modifications.

-Any modifications to routes/bolts will be at the discretion of the stewardship organization based on local ethics and community consensus. If a modification has gained widespread support the original developer/FA will be given a chance to purpose their course of action, or lack thereof, but their vote will receive the same weight as everyone else's. 

-All modifications to route/bolts will be conducted by the stewardship organization.

Can the stewardship committee solely consist of straight white males over 60?  I think that will solve a lot of problems.

It's ok for climbing to be dangerous, and it's ok for you to not climb an established route if you don't want to. To answer the question, maybe the FA and you do not share the same acceptance of risk or the same analysis of the risk. If someone did a climb in better style than you can, that is something to aspire to (if you want)! Get on a top rope on it. You don't have the right to lead any route you want; you have the opportunity to grow yourself as a climber and person through the thoughtful acceptance of risks. 

If you can't handle the runout. You don't deserve to climb the route. I personally get bored on sport routes and my favorite style of climbing is runout slab. Nothing like some mental and butt puckering.

Routes are earned. If you want to climb a route with a runout. Then go train on runouts.

Apologies if this has already been said to exhaust (I skimmed, but didn't see it). A runout isn't inherently wrong, egotistical, or based on machismo. One can be attracted to climbing or establishing runout routes for the value they have as a climbing experience. Routes- yes even sport routes-with spice have their place in the world.