Ethics of a FA and retro bolting

Steven Hwrote:

Since a common rebuttal in this thread is the lack of a concrete example, let me put one forth that I personally had to make a judgement call on.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107045657/costanoan

The backstory here is that I was looking for a super easy route to learn the logistics of multi-pitching so that my first time isn’t something at my limit.  The Costanoan would have been a perfect candidate except for the fact that its second bolt on pitch 1 is a ground fall from 30+(?) ft up.   

Its 5.0 for the runout and you can protect it by slinging some knobs. This falls into the category of easy runout on an otherwise more difficult climb. If you really want protection there is some available too.

Steven Hwrote:

Since a common rebuttal in this thread is the lack of a concrete example, let me put one forth that I personally had to make a judgement call on.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107045657/costanoan

The backstory here is that I was looking for a super easy route to learn the logistics of multi-pitching so that my first time isn’t something at my limit.  The Costanoan would have been a perfect candidate except for the fact that its second bolt on pitch 1 is a ground fall from 30+(?) ft up.   

Why isn't that route acceptable to 'learn' on? If you are worried about a 30 ft 5.0 runout (from the description), you should figure out how to be more comfortable on that terrain. No-fall situations on easy terrain are really, really common on moderate trad routes.

Further, if that bothers you, why not head to Lovers Leap, Sugarloaf, or Phantom Spires to learn on one of many well protected, moderate trad routes scattered throughout Northern California?

Levi Xwrote:

Its 5.0 for the runout and you can protect it by slinging some knobs. This falls into the category of easy runout on an otherwise more difficult climb. If you really want protection there is some available too.

"After clipping the first bolt, aim up and left to the arete to find the second bolt; it's runout but very easy, like 5.0, and you can sling knobs if you feel uncomfortable."

And this ability to protect it is documented on MP.

Double Dutch wrote:

Nobody has defined what they claim is safe yet, nor has anyone provided an actual example of a climb they tried and thought was unsafe. Just to reiterate, taking a long fall is not automatically unsafe. Horst's book did a great job of getting me out of my head so that I could determine if the fear I was feeling was rational or irrational. I started reflecting on those fears when my onsight was still 5.10d. When I went back and climbed some of the same stuff I was sketched out on before with this new mindset, I realized that taking a clean 20 foot fall when 60 feet off the deck wasn't unsafe and I became a much less fearful climber.

There is a 5.7 at Big Rock called Crater Maker that is rarely led because there are spots where a fall would cause you to hit the ground. I think many people have the same experience when they come to the area for the first time. They see an easy climb that starts right at the bottom where everyone gathers and it has bolts. But lots of people look at it and say "no way!" because even the first bolt is high and there is a long way between the other bolts. There are other climbs around that are similar but have more bolts so it's no big loss and you can just do those climbs. 

I understand there are historical reasons for the rules about bolting but I also understand when people ask why there are climbs that nobody does that would be fun and popular if there were just one or two more bolts. I've also heard the argument that one or two more leads to three, or four, etc. which also makes sense.

Steven Hwrote:

The age-old topic that I’ve had a vested interest in but never had a chance to get in on the ground floor.   I fully expect to get bashed but at the very least it’ll be a fun thought experiment.

Since a common rebuttal in this thread is the lack of a concrete example, let me put one forth that I personally had to make a judgement call on.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107045657/costanoan

The backstory here is that I was looking for a super easy route to learn the logistics of multi-pitching so that my first time isn’t something at my limit.  The Costanoan would have been a perfect candidate except for the fact that its second bolt on pitch 1 is a ground fall from 30+(?) ft up.   

Yes it’s a super easy climb that I’m sure I could have climbed without incident, but why bolt it in that fashion?   It’s a 5.4, it’s nobody’s pride and joy going in the annals of their history as proof of their mettle.  This isn’t a case of bolting someone’s decade long 5.14 project to make it more accessible to the masses or “dumbing climbing down to the lowest denominator”.  I understand needing to learn the intricacies of trad climbing before having access to those routes, which is why I haven’t joined that realm yet or ask to bolt easily protected cracks.  However, if 5.4 is not the grade at which you should be using to learn how to do bigger and better climbs, I’m not sure what else would qualify.

Now if the FA had bolted it sparsely due to lacking funds/time/resources, totally understandable and I’m willing to invest my own resources.  A quick search on various sites however will reveal that there is a rabid hatred against the idea of making it safer for beginning climbers.    I’m not looking for spice in a 5.4 climb and I would find it hard to take seriously anyone who argues otherwise.   At its core, the reason you add any bolts to a wall  is to make it more accessible and protect against accidents, neither of which are reflected in this route.

Secondly, I don’t understand the concept of “if you don’t like it find your own rock to bolt”.   Near large metropolitan areas or locations that don’t require off-roading, how many “new” rock faces and crags that are easily accessible do people think are left?   I somewhat doubt there’s unlimited Yosemites out there for new route developers to make their mark on.  The idea that someone born 2 decades before another has forever ownership of a crag on public land is somewhat ludicrous and it’s odd the worshipping that occurs towards the FA-ists, without regard to who they are or their climbing/bolting philosophy.  There’s a time and place to respect history and the whole “standing on the shoulders of those who came before”, but there’s no guarantee individual routes were bolted with any consideration in mind.  If the first people who bolted NRG or Red Rock had done an exceptionally terrible job, are there that many people who are content to sit back and just be “well what can you do, they got here first so that’s how it needs to be forever”?  How is it not logical to revaluate older accomplishments with today’s technology and knowledge with their efforts in mind and make it better?  Historic buildings are often retrofitted to be safer by today’s standards while at the same time paying homage to its past significance; nobody says “well the chance for catastrophic collapse and death is just part of the charm!”

Contanoan is perfectly safe imo. It's 5.4 off the ground then 5.2 to that second bolt. 

It is also bolted ground up from stances and not rap bolted for your pleasure. If you are concerned about falling on 5.2 terrain (I've seen 4th class that is harder), you should improve your climbing skills before leading. An extra bolt won't save you from getting hurt on this blocky 5.2 slab but not falling will.

I also think that the issue is people wanting trad climbs to become sport climbs. Constanoan just like snake dike are trad climbs, put up on lead but protected with bolts. These may have run-outs and that's fine. 

A rap bolted sport 5.10 with decking potential is just poor development.

Guy Keeseewrote:

So Dude- you’re still butt hurt because people won’t say “Please, Traddie- get out there and add bolts to 5.8’s that had the FA done in the Fifty’s by folks wearing hiking boots” 

Not gona happen my friend, go do your own roots, in Traddie style..... 

To the OP... I’ll say this- not all climbs need to be climbed by you. 

Emily, Guy's post is a perfect example of the dangerous waters you have treaded into. First, they make no attempt to address the merits of an argument, second they attack you personally. It's all very common and predictable in these types of threads. 

That said I would like to address Guy's final statement, "not all climbs need to be climbed by you". I think this blatantly shows the traditionalists inward focus and outward hostility to anything different. The statement also doesn't bode well for the future of traditionalism, as we have all seen the past overwhelmed by the future in so many of our society's past conflicts.

Astrid Reywrote:

There is a 5.7 at Big Rock called Crater Maker that is rarely led because there are spots where a fall would cause you to hit the ground.

Just checked on MP, that thing gets ticked as a lead constantly . . .

Steven Hwrote:

However, if 5.4 is not the grade at which you should be using to learn how to do bigger and better climbs, 

On the contrary, runnout sections of things like 5.4 or even harder on more difficult routes are absolutely essential to learning the necessary skills to negotiate bigger and better climbs. 

Reading this thread makes me fear for the future of climbing...

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Because creek grades vary super wildly. I have chonk fingers that have turned some off fingers super hard lines into perfect fingers and lowered the grade for me. I wouldn't say I ticked the grade in the book on that one or at least I wouldn't use it as I climb x grade 

To add it wouldn't be the first time I have seen people claim something is 5.11 but actually be 5.10 hand crack because their hands fit the crux.

I mean sure IC is size dependent it’s just pretty lame that the first replies to someone clarifying that they’re a decent climber are a couple of chuffers trying to invalidate the grade.  

Steven H, some points if I may.

Here is the truth - you can go add a bolt to that route any time you want. There is nothing to stop you, except you. 

Here is another truth - I can go and chop your bolt any time I want, too There is nothing to stop me either, except me. 

Unless there is a land management policy in place at a given climbing area that regulates (or prohibits) bolting, its sort of a wild west situation. That's the card us oldsters were dealt and they are the same cards being dealt to you. So what, you might ask?

Give the frame work that any of us can physically retrobolt any ole time we want, and other can chop any ole time they want, how is it any of these old bold routes still exist at all? The answer may surprise you: its called RESPECT.

You see, in order to prevent a chaos of bolt / chop / bolt / chop / bolt, we have instead chosen to respect the first ascent, as a rule of thumb. Not the individual climbers, the first ascent itself.  For some its a guideline, for others, a creed. The respect for the work of other climbers also arises from a respect for history and tradition. You used a house example; consider: For the most part most all of those old buildings to which you refer are simply gone. Gone and never to be replicated, ever. In our climbing respect for tradition we don't want to see those old routes paved over by progress, as if they don't matter at all. That too is a form of respect.

Also, as others have pointed out, climbing isn't just what's on your plate, its on all our plates and we don't all have the same appetites. In your hurry to apply your safety criteria to a 30-year old route, have you considered all the climbers who did that route in the intervening years? Do you hold any respect for them? Do you even know who opened that route? I assume so, since you posted the link and it shows right there. Did you consider reaching out to a member of the FA party, and just asking that person about their thoughts on it? That too is a form of respect.

To get back to the bolt / chop / bolt thing, in simplest terms you might consider reframing your thoughts about those with whom you may disagree on this topic. I don't know any climber who "hates beginners." That's a cheap troll my friend and surely you're better than that. Anyway, I suggest you think about it like this: "Live and let live." You don't mess with my route, I won't mess with your route. Its really that straight forward. 

Now of course, as you pointed out, styles can clash and crags near urban areas can suffer from a tragedy of the commons, where thousands of individually innocent people can trample a thing to death, out of love. And eventually, the mob wins for a while and then the land area, or climbing area, has to be regulated, and access is limited, to protect the very asset we all hold so dear. Nothing new there either. Absent that authority to regulate, how are we all to get along and share a resource?

My advice is - respect. Have some, and then demonstrate that respect. I don't know about you but when I treat others with respect, and the works of others with respect, I receive respect in return. But when I disrespect others, or disrespect their work, I find myself being disrespected in kind. So I too, from a practical sense, long ago learned to respect the FA. I did so and do so simply because there is no other logical way to proceed in an unregulated environment. Oh wait, there is another way : bolt / chop / bolt /chop. I don't know about you but I don't think that 2nd alternative is a good one.

Sorry for the word salad. Have a good one.

Will Manesswrote:

Reading this thread makes me fear for the future of climbing...

Reading this thread makes me hesitant to post my "secret crag" on MP. That's a real life decision, unlike the speculative "what if" conjecturing going on here.

I've put in 35 or so trips to the crag since Thanksgiving (3 hours driving/45 minutes round-trip hiking each time) and spent over $700 on bolts/hangers. At an average of 10 hours per trip, that's like 350 hours of work (and yes, some climbing). It's been a pandemic obsession and resulted in 11 routes so far with 10 more close to fruition.

But according to some views here, future climbers can come along and use the bolts and anchors I installed at great time and expense - and some risk and some pain/injury -  to add more bolts in order to "make safe" the routes I put up if they feel subjectively unsafe? And they get to do this because all my efforts were just "ego?" and I don't "own" the route, the "community" does even though that community had nothing to do with finding, visualizing, accessing, cleaning and creating the route? 

Respecting the route is about just that. It's not about respecting the developer. It's about respecting the process and the route. nothing to do with ego or individuals. If this is the future of climbing, expect many areas to stay off MP.

bryanswrote:

Reading this thread makes me hesitant to post my "secret crag" on MP. That's a real life decision, unlike the speculative "what if" conjecturing going on here.

I've put in 35 or so trips to the crag since Thanksgiving (3 hours driving/45 minutes round-trip hiking each time) and spent over $700 on bolts/hangers. At an average of 10 hours per trip, that's like 350 hours of work (and yes, some climbing). It's been a pandemic obsession and resulted in 11 routes so far with 10 more close to fruition.

But according to some views here, future climbers can come along and use the bolts and anchors I installed at great time and expense - and some risk and some pain/injury -  to add more bolts in order to "make safe" the routes I put up if they feel subjectively unsafe? And they get to do this because all my efforts were just "ego?" and I don't "own" the route, the "community" does even though that community had nothing to do with finding, visualizing, accessing, cleaning and creating the route? 

If I don't like a song or a band, I listen to a different one. I don't demand the songwriter change their song. If this is the future of climbing, expect many areas to stay off MP.

Yeah, I used to scoff and roll my eyes when some of the local "crusties" I've fallen in with here in NC would talk about their secret crags.  Now I get it.  

I don't demand the songwriter change their song. If this is the future of climbing, expect many areas to stay off MP.

Consider: this is a positive outcome! Rejoice (and don't publish).

Alexander Blumwrote:

Why isn't that route acceptable to 'learn' on? If you are worried about a 30 ft 5.0 runout (from the description), you should figure out how to be more comfortable on that terrain. No-fall situations on easy terrain are really, really common on moderate trad routes.

Further, if that bothers you, why not head to Lovers Leap, Sugarloaf, or Phantom Spires to learn on one of many well protected, moderate trad routes scattered throughout Northern California?

Not sure where the confusion is, but it's clearly a sport route and I acknowledge that I'm not ready for trad routes yet: don't have the gear, knowledge, or experience.  I was looking for an easy multipitch sport route on which to learn the basics of clipping, rope handling, rappeling etc.   When the time comes for that, I will head out there as per your suggestions, hopefully with people way more knowledgable than myself to show me the way.

phylp phylp wrote:

"After clipping the first bolt, aim up and left to the arete to find the second bolt; it's runout but very easy, like 5.0, and you can sling knobs if you feel uncomfortable."

And this ability to protect it is documented on MP.

Going to defer to this person's website because he has much better pictures than I can provide: https://themtsarecalling.com/citadel/

 I will be the first to admit that I am inexperienced at climbing outdoors but I am not seeing any knobs in that picture up to the second bolt that could confidently hold a fall from a 200lb guy the same way a bolt halfway up would.  In that post the author also stated that he had attempted to sling a knob but didn't feel like it would hold.

Connor Dobson wrote:

Contanoan is perfectly safe imo. It's 5.4 off the ground then 5.2 to that second bolt. 

It is also bolted ground up from stances and not rap bolted for your pleasure. If you are concerned about falling on 5.2 terrain (I've seen 4th class that is harder), you should improve your climbing skills before leading. An extra bolt won't save you from getting hurt on this blocky 5.2 slab but not falling will.

I also think that the issue is people wanting trad climbs to become sport climbs. Constanoan just like snake dike are trad climbs, put up on lead but protected with bolts. These may have run-outs and that's fine. 

I accept that getting scraped up from falling is a risk to climbing that I take responsibility for when tying in, but the potential to hit the ground from 30-40 ft up really shouldn't be for something so low grade.  I'm never said I don't have the ability to lead it, I'm more discussing the choice to not add a bolt to protect against decking potential.   Granted again I know nothing about trad climbing but I don't think this is a converted trad-to-sport route; there isn't an immediately obvious crack system it's following for protection.  As far as I can tell it's a bolted face climb on crumbly rock.  Side note, you're going to tell me you've seen 4th class terrain harder than this and at the same time the FA couldn't find another stance to put in a bolt for the next 30 feet?  It kind of feels like both those statements can't be true at the same time.  

I feel like I need to reiterate that I'm not against the idea of run-outs as a concept because I acknowledge there's nuance and context.   The later pitches of this climb are listed as 85" 3 bolts which feel run-out to me at my level but since you're so high up, it should theoretically be significantly safer because you're not at risk of decking.  This is literally almost a "baby's first steps" type of climb and yet people's response is a potentially dangerous fall is "then don't fall"?  It's not as if I'm alpine climbing and complaining that it's not gym level safe, but what is the climbing community losing by adding a bolt for safety to a route so clearly aimed at beginners?  If the wall has already been designated as one that will hold bolts and not preserved or climbed with trad gear, why not do it in a way that is safer for those who will climb afterwards.  The usual response to this is the slippery slope argument of bolt ladders, but I'm hoping that most people can see there is a middle ground between no bolts and bolts every 2 feet. 

Tradibanwrote:

Emily, Guy's post is a perfect example of the dangerous waters you have treaded into. First, they make no attempt to address the merits of an argument, second they attack you personally. It's all very common and predictable in these types of threads. 

That said I would like to address Guy's final statement, "not all climbs need to be climbed by you". I think this blatantly shows the traditionalists inward focus and outward hostility to anything different. The statement also doesn't bode well for the future of traditionalism, as we have all seen the past overwhelmed by the future in so many of our society's past conflicts.

No hostility at all Traddie... am I being hostile to myself when I look at the B&Y and say “Guy, no Effen way are you going to lead that...”?!?!

I understand full well what weak folks like you want- you want all climbs made safe for your enjoyment. That is your bottom line- as you have stated in many of these online “discussions” isn’t it???
How about a bolt ladder up El Captain? Make AstroMan a sport climb with closely spaced bolts so everyone can hangdog up and brag how it was “pretty EZ” not really 11d.... 

To the OP. Sounds like you’re a new climber, enjoying the sport, traveling some. You ask a valid question. One that doesn’t have an EZ simple answer.
It would take forever to explain and I think it would be easier to just say this. You can’t go and add bolts to some climb that was established by traditional means - from the ground, by climbing up. If it’s a sport climb then a different set of rules applies. Bolts get added, moved around, by local climbers (the community) who know what’s up.

Keep climbing, the reasons why this ethic exists will become more clear as you travel and climb.

One good reason: 

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/120536362/sunshine-wall-ut-petroglyph-bolting 

 
We climbers don’t need bolted 5.3

Regardless, the more I read of your posts, Emily, I get the impression that you want routes bolted the way you want them bolted. Unfortunately many things in life are like this and we have to accept that others don't agree or hold the same values and have come before us. Many, many people have stood at the base of the ie Bachar-Yerian and wished there was a bolt ladder of pro up that incredible line. We have to "buck up" or settle for doing the extremely well bolted Shippoopi right next door instead.

There is a very simple solution to that frustration: Go bolt your own routes. There is a verifiably infinite supply of stone out there. Anyone that doesn't like existing routes should do the same. Generally the vast majority are too lazy however, and wage their "more bolts and the way I like it" campaigns from their keyboards or campfire spray.

Once you have done a few of your own, revisit your opinions on the topic, particularly when someone is critical of your efforts. My guess is your opinion will be quite a bit more informed. Honestly, the opinions of those that put nothing into making new routes themselves are of limited utility in this discourse. No that they should be discounted entirely, just a limited viewpoint.

ps. I have also recently sport-bolted multipitch 5.7s....more interested in "candy" for the masses myself now. Nothing wrong with Type 1 fun in climbing.

Steven Hwrote:

Not sure where the confusion is, but it's clearly a sport route 

It's not a sport route.  Full stop. 

It is erroneously described as a sport route on Mountain Project and referred to as such by others.  This has been covered ad nauseum on this website (even on this thread).  It seems to be protected mostly (maybe exclusively) by bolts, but that doesn't make it a sport route.  It was established ground up in 1988; the bolts were placed on lead. 

Climbing is inherently dangerous.  We all have our own acceptable levels of risk.  You found yours that day and made the wise decision to back off because you felt uncomfortable with the level of risk you were assuming.  And that's okay.  You walked away and learned from that experience. 

We don't have a lot of "sport" multi-pitch routes here in the US.  They call them "plaisir" routes in Europe, and they're mostly on limestone (of which they have no shortage).  It would be nice if we had more of them for folks to learn on.  But retro-bolting existing routes isn't the solution.  

Will Manesswrote:

Reading this thread makes me fear for the future of climbing...

The future is here! Climbings dead theres little kids and soccer moms dancing on the corpse. Corporate vultures picking over the remains to turn a profit. Aid climbing is how you escape from the circus. Its come full circle 

Steven Hwrote:

Not sure where the confusion is, but it's clearly a sport route and I acknowledge that I'm not ready for trad routes yet: don't have the gear, knowledge, or experience.  I was looking for an easy multipitch sport route on which to learn the basics of clipping, rope handling, rappeling etc.  

You can learn how to clip on the ground, in your living room. You can learn to rappel anywhere that you can build an anchor 20+ feet of the ground. Rope handling on easy trad routes with big ledges like that is a non-issue. You will get it the very first time you do a multipitch. Just belay and flake the rope at your feet as the 2nd climbs.

Going to defer to this person's website because he has much better pictures than I can provide: https://themtsarecalling.com/citadel/

 I will be the first to admit that I am inexperienced at climbing outdoors but I am not seeing any knobs in that picture up to the second bolt that could confidently hold a fall from a 200lb guy the same way a bolt halfway up would.  In that post the author also stated that he had attempted to sling a knob but didn't feel like it would hold.

Okay, then don't fall. It's 5.0. As pointed out repeatedly here (and you will learn through experience if you start trad climbing), moderate multipitch trad very nearly always is littered with no-fall terrain. It's the nature of featured, low-angle rock climbs. The only real answer here is to get more comfortable on moderate terrain. A bolt in the middle of that runout will still leave you looking at 20-30 foot, ankle breaking falls.

I accept that getting scraped up from falling is a risk to climbing that I take responsibility for when tying in, but the potential to hit the ground from 30-40 ft up really shouldn't be for something so low grade.  I'm never said I don't have the ability to lead it, I'm more discussing the choice to not add a bolt to protect against decking potential.   Granted again I know nothing about trad climbing but I don't think this is a converted trad-to-sport route; there isn't an immediately obvious crack system it's following for protection.  

You keep saying you don't know anything about trad climbing, then immediately proposing how you think things should be. Maybe you should learn more about the sport through both research and climbing routes outside.

As far as I can tell it's a bolted face climb on crumbly rock.  Side note, you're going to tell me you've seen 4th class terrain harder than this and at the same time the FA couldn't find another stance to put in a bolt for the next 30 feet?  It kind of feels like both those statements can't be true at the same time.  

I have never done this route, but some possible reasons:

• Terrain is really easy, why waste a bolt, no one will fall here
• Bolt would add terrible rope drag
• There isn't a big enough chunk of good rock to place a bolt

It is most likely a confluence of multiple factors, though.

I feel like I need to reiterate that I'm not against the idea of run-outs as a concept because I acknowledge there's nuance and context.   The later pitches of this climb are listed as 85" 3 bolts which feel run-out to me at my level but since you're so high up, it should theoretically be significantly safer because you're not at risk of decking.

Let's assume those bolts are evenly spaced, so about 28 ft apart. If you fall approaching a bolt, you will take a 40+ ft peeler. This will probably result in more than 'getting scraped up'. You are approaching this with a mindset that won't work well when you start leading. Falling while leading most routes in the 5.7 (the exact cutoff could be argued) and easier range should be considered something you just don't do. The gear is there 'just in case'.

 This is literally almost a "baby's first steps" type of climb and yet people's response is a potentially dangerous fall is "then don't fall"?  It's not as if I'm alpine climbing and complaining that it's not gym level safe, but what is the climbing community losing by adding a bolt for safety to a route so clearly aimed at beginners?

You are advocating for moving the sport towards the lowest common denominator. If someone cannot lead this route safely and easily, without falling, they don't have any business climbing multipitch routes.

  If the wall has already been designated as one that will hold bolts and not preserved or climbed with trad gear, why not do it in a way that is safer for those who will climb afterwards.  The usual response to this is the slippery slope argument of bolt ladders, but I'm hoping that most people can see there is a middle ground between no bolts and bolts every 2 feet. 

The slippery slope argument is stupid. The diversity argument is good though - why should every route be dialed down to the safest, most anodyne thing it can be? There are no shortage of routes to learn how to trad climb on in California.