Ethics of a FA and retro bolting

You top top rope 5.9. Maybe get more experienced and a wider perspective on the topic and revisit your opinion on it later. The you climbing now. scared to lead. top roping moderates thinks those run outs are long and scary. The future you leading 5.11 won't feel the same way.  You lack enough experience and a proper perspective to have an informed opinion on how climbs should be bolted. 

Emily Thompsonwrote:

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

There are many threads and articles on this topic for you to find and read.

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?

That may have been the case 40 years ago, but I don't think it is very common now.  I know a few prolific first ascensionists bolting sport routes now, and in general their philosophy is to bolt things to current local area standards of "safety" and with the full awareness that someone doing a 5.10 route these days is probably a 5.8 onsight climber who may be going bolt to bolt on a 5.10 sport route. They specifically do not want these people to get hurt.  Sorry I'm not referring to you, it's just this is what I see at every sport area I climb at.  

I don't know where you are climbing, but if you are talking about old bolted routes, yes many of these were drilled on lead, which means drilling from a stance or a hook.  Power drills did not even exist when some of these routes were done.  You may not have a good concept of how long it takes and how much work is involved in hand drilling and placing a bolt.  Even today, power drilling is banned on federal land (maybe some state land too, IDK).  Another factor is the COST of hardware.  My friends who develop new routes spend up to tens of thousands of dollars per year equpping routes that everyone then takes for granted.  

Lastly, the idea of what is a "ridiculous runout" varies greatly from person to person.  I regularly hear people at sport climbing areas exclaiming about something being "very run out" when they have to do something like climb 20 feet of low angle 5.7 to the anchors on a 5.10 climb.  Or from people who mostly lead in gyms call routes that have 12 feet between bolts "runout".

Like dude, maybe because people believe in ethical bolting practices 

you are talking about style, not ethics

the actual climber who would walk up to a 5.10 and think “I can climb that probably”.

That mentality is fine on a sport route, but it's a mistake on many trad routes.

The answers to these questions will largely depend on what you think the purpose of routes is, and what is climbing. I'm not going to convince anyone in the abstract why my views should prevail, but I will say that the degree to which routes become less a statement of individual endeavor and more a community action it will reflect the general castration and grade inflation of society itself. In the misplaced effort to find agreement and uniformity, compromises to the expression of the human soul will be made and the whole point of climbing becomes rather lost on me.

Trad Manwrote:

The answers to these questions will largely depend on what you think the purpose of routes is, and what is climbing. I'm not going to convince anyone in the abstract why my views should prevail, but I will say that the degree to which routes become less a statement of individual endeavor and more a community action it will reflect the general castration and grade inflation of society itself. In the misplaced effort to find agreement and uniformity, compromises to the expression of the human soul will be made and the whole point of climbing becomes rather lost on me.

I see what you did there. I love what you said and how you said it! 

I feel like the ethical decision lies not in the bolting or establishing of the route so much as the information provided when publishing a route or otherwise sharing it with others. There is nothing wrong with all the different flavors, but people who should at least be able to make an informed decision about whether or not they can handle an established route.

Ultimately all of this is extremely subjective. Perceptions of difficulty, runout distance, and risk are going to vary wildly from individual to individual. Additionally, running out 5.8 sections of a 5.10 climb sounds pretty standard anywhere I've climbed, especially if the bolts are hand-drilled (huge amount of time and physical work to put in a bolt so a developer would rightly only want to spend that energy where it will really count) or if the route was bolted ground-up from stances (as many old routes were drilled, which again a developer would rightly only want to spend the time and physical labor on bolting where it will count the most). 

In a practical sense, I think shifting the narrative and culture to normalizing retro-bolting old routes becomes a real can of worms because what might feel like sensible bolting to you will still be too runout for someone else and annoyingly tight grid-bolting to a third person. Like the old saying about designing a horse by committee... So who gets to decide what is the *correct* number of bolts? I can't really logically land on anyone other than the original developer (who is not necessarily the FA), and/or the local climbing org. It's certainly not me, nor, I'd argue, is it up to any other individual person at the crag either, and let's not even get started on the access issues that can arise out of bolting disagreements... 

In response to your last question, ethically, no, a developer is not responsible for the climbers who attempt a route they have established. If I hop on some minimally-bolted, R-rated, 5.12 (my redpoint grade) and get hurt, that is on me for choosing to attempt that route. I accept the risk when I tie in and begin to climb, in the same way that I accept the risk personally when I choose to descend a particularly difficult mountain bike trail or double-black at a ski resort. To place any of the responsibility for my climbing onto a developer, especially one separated from me in some cases by decades, is a dangerous path to start down. 

So if you've found a route or routes you don't like, perhaps reach out to the developer if they are still around, or to your LCO, and share your thoughts, with the recognition that they might not agree, and that's ok. Or look for other routes that are bolted in a style that is more appealing to you. Another option if you are really passionate about development is to find a mentor who can share with you local ethics and development techniques and you can perhaps start developing your own routes. It may help provide some answers to the questions you've raised here. 

Best of luck with your climbing! 

I put up a 5.2 with 30 ft run outs and rated it 5.7.  That way a 5.1 climber would not die or have a panic attack. People seem to be okay with the 5.7 rating.

Retro bolting to make a climb safer is unethical, but not against the law.

  People forget that the bolt is to protect the fall not the climb.  Therefore the rating is inconsequential to the placement of the bolt.   

People care way too much about this, the obvious solution is to put in tiny holes to place removable bolts on lead.

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? 

I am going to only add one comment - you are making assumptions some of which have no basis in reality yet show a level of arrogance that can not attributed to being relatively newish to climbing. As others have said, do some research on how routes have been established now and 40 years ago. Then come back.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

People care way too much about this, the obvious solution is to put in tiny holes to place removable bolts on lead.

I mean, you probably know this, but that’s been done. For example:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106301044/bat-attack

Dakota from North Dakotawrote:

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. 

If bolted ground up on lead. 

Have a tough time convincing me a rap bolted runout route is anything but egotistical.  Unless it was first soloed or lead onsight with no TR rehearsal.
outside of that, the FA is an egotistical dork expecting others to do what he didn’t have the guts to do himself.

help me find a different interpretation 

Mark Pilatewrote:

If bolted ground up on lead. 

Have a tough time convincing me a rap bolted runout route is anything but egotistical.  Unless it was first soloed or lead onsight with no TR rehearsal.
outside of that, the FA is an egotistical dork expecting others to do what he didn’t have the guts to do himself.

help me find a different interpretation 

Maybe, maybe not. Either way that doesn't mean I'll have less fun climbing it. The resulting runout route can still have value as such.

Edit: A great example of this would be Learning to Fly at Horseshoe Canyon Ranch. While not truly "runout" the spacing between the last bolt and the anchors is purposely a decent bit longer than most. As a budding 5.10 climber, hearing stories of folks pumping out at the chains and taking the whip under a "massive" overhang was terrifying and thrilling. I'll never forget the first time I committed to a lead attempt on it. The experience of which was certainly made all the more memorable due to the first ascentionst's choice to space out those bolts.

Keep in mind those runout routes of the 70's and 80's were likely put up by full time dirtbags that lived their lives for climbing. Years and years of experience and training for stance drilling, living in cars and caves for YEARS on end to have the time to spend getting good at rock climbing by **actually climbing on rock**. Because that was the ONLY way to get skilled.

Lemme guess, Emily, you climb in gyms and have gotten pretty strong and (reasonably) feel frustrated when it turns out that gym 5.10 on slightly overhanging buckets bears little resemblance to the sparsely protected dime slabs that preponderate in some areas. On top of that someone with decades of training on those slabs tested him or herself one day in a "final exam" launching into the unknown with just a hand drill, fitness and skill to create a "test" for others. This was to see if they could match the commitment to the sport the final product represented to the FA (yet still only a fraction of what the FA needed). A traditional climb is just more of a test than a sport climb. You just haven't studied (trained) for that test (yet or maybe never, to each her own).

You see, you are climbing a very different sport that what a traditional climb represents (minimalism and commitment) and may be somewhat the poorer for it. Don't dumb down the test so you can pass. Study for the test.

(btws I have retro-bolted a number of my old routes recently so that they get some traffic and fit into an area better. There are plenty of runout routes without adding more and old mediocre runout routes possibly should be retrobolted to spread climbers out more. Its route/area specific and complicated.)

The real answer is 1/10

The answers to these questions will largely depend on what you think the purpose of routes is, and what is climbing. I'm not going to convince anyone in the abstract why my views should prevail, but I will say that the degree to which routes become less a statement of individual endeavor and more a community action it will reflect the general castration and grade inflation of society itself. In the misplaced effort to find agreement and uniformity, compromises to the expression of the human soul will be made and the whole point of climbing becomes rather lost on me.

Eric Engbergwrote:

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?"

The vast majority of climbers I’ve met in my admittedly short time climbing have been remarkably intelligent and so I expected they would provide a deeper level of thought on the issues I was interested to learn more about (ethics, style, ownership, community, etc) than the two alternatives you provided. And they have as you can see in this thread, except, unfortunately, in your case.  

J Cwrote:

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. 

I climb always in the best style. cheetah print shirt, sendy leggings and headband  

PNW Chosswrote:

You top top rope 5.9. Maybe get more experienced and a wider perspective on the topic and revisit your opinion on it later. The you climbing now. scared to lead. top roping moderates thinks those run outs are long and scary. The future you leading 5.11 won't feel the same way.  You lack enough experience and a proper perspective to have an informed opinion on how climbs should be bolted. 

I do lead 5.11. I’ve sent and onsighted 5.12 sport. Sent 5.11 trad two weeks after I placed my first cam, ever. This isn’t a pissing contest. I’m physically and mentally intelligent . I’m asking about the ethics, history, community of a sport that I’m new to. It has nothing to do with how well I personally climb. 

Emily Thompsonwrote:

Sent 5.11 trad two weeks after I placed my first cam, ever.

Doubt.