A Cautionary Tale

WARNING:  This is a lecture from one of those "old guys" who still climbs. (50 years worth...).  

I'm motivated to start this thread because of the bolting which happened over petroglyphs near Moab.  (And please don't turn this into another "bash the perpetrator thread!")

The cautionary tale is this - our climbing areas can and WILL be closed if we don't respect them and the rules enacted to protect them! For example:

I was fortunate to live and work in Melbourne, Australia for 5 years.  I had enjoyable climbing trips to the Grampians and Mt. Arapiles.  Unfortunately, about a year ago, an incident similar to the one in Moab happened in the Grampians and a significant portion of the climbing area was closed:

"4500+ Climbs Closed – 38% Gramps and Arapiles Now off-Limits – Save Grampians Climbing" https://savegrampiansclimbing.org/2020/10/26/4500-climbs-closed-38-gramps-and-arapiles-now-off-limits/amp/

Unfortunately, I see other instances where climbers ignore the existing rules which lead to additional restrictions on climbing.  I live in Colorado Springs and climb at Garden of the Gods and Red Rocks.  To climb here, you have to get a free online climbing permit, which basically says you read and agreed to abide by the rules and regulations for climbing in the parks.  

There are very few rules, and one of the rules is to use "eco - chalk".  Unfortunately, I frequently see white chalk, very noticeable on the red rock.  

When I see climbers with chalk bags dangling from their harnesses, I'll mention that white chalk is banned.  I often get "we didn't know!"  Either they didn't get the FREE permit, didn't read it, or ignored it.  This behavior is what gets climbing areas closed!

In spite of warnings from the Park administration, climbers continued to use white chalk and now all chalk is banned in Garden of the Gods. (The dirt at the base of climbs works just as well as chalk!)

And now a relevant lesson from the "good old days."  I started climbing in 1970, right when clean climbing was coming into vogue and pitons were on the way out. Leading climbers of the time such as Royal Robbins, Yvon Chouinard, and Doug Robinson saw the impacts and became strong advocates of clean climbing.  They had a "what the heck are we doing?" moment, significantly reduced their impact, and changed climbing for the better.  

Would climbing in Yosemite have been permanently banned if they hadn't recognized their impact and spearheaded clean climbing?

The accomplishments of current climbers are very impressive and moving the sport in some good directions.  

But it's time for a "what the heck are we doing?" reflection:

1.  Do we really need this many bolts?

(Seems like climbs are getting bolts so close together that you can "top rope" them on lead)

(the Salathe Wall had 13 bolts on the first ascent, when I climbed it in 1993 it had over a hundred!)

2. Do we need to use that much chalk or any at all?  Are your hands really wet or is it a nervous twitch?  Is there an alternative to chalk? (My girlfriend uses antiperspirant)

3. Why are we failing to educate climbers in reducing their impacts?

4.  Why are we not trying harder to "leave no trace" in our climbing?  

5. What role is social media playing as an incentive to putting up (unnecessary) routes?

6.  Are our activities jeopardizing access for future generations?

I want the current generation of climbers to be able to say "I've been climbing for 50 years!"

^ should make this a sticky. 

Thank you.
Reasonable and respectful. 

Arlo F Niedererwrote:

But it's time for a "what the heck are we doing?" reflection:

1.  Do we really need this many bolts?

(Seems like climbs are getting bolts so close together that you can "top rope" them on lead)

(the Salathe Wall had 13 bolts on the first ascent, when I climbed it in 1993 it had over a hundred!)

2. Do we need to use that much chalk or any at all?  Are your hands really wet or is it a nervous twitch?  Is there an alternative to chalk? (My girlfriend uses antiperspirant)

3. Why are we failing to educate climbers in reducing their impacts?

4.  Why are we not trying harder to "leave no trace" in our climbing?  

5. What role is social media playing as an incentive to putting up (unnecessary) routes?

6.  Are our activities jeopardizing access for future generations?

I want the current generation of climbers to be able to say "I've been climbing for 50 years!"

#OkBoomer (sry couldn't help myself its been a while since I'e had a chance to use it on MP)

Yes, I generally agree with your points but here are my thoughts on each question.

1) Listen to the recent Climbing Gold podcast. Specifically, Chapter 2 entitles "Tap Tap Twist". They have a brief discussion about bolting that I think has some valid points regarding bolting. Of course, the take-a-way regarding a solution is a gray area but it might add some insight to other perspectives.

2) Yeah... I suspect the gym created chalk addicts.

3) Most likely we are all failing. The resources are definitely out there (e.g., Access Fund). There are opportunities where Mentors can help foster the newer generation but I really don't see many older climbers taking the effort and would rather complain about the up-and-coming gumbies. For example, I periodically take the time to help new climbers transition to outdoor climbing and will teach/show them ethics.

4) (See #3)

5) Ok, this is where my Ok Boomer really applies. Regardless of Social Media and any perceived incentives, didn't the old guys have the same incentives? Did Warren Harding not get a lot of attention for getting up The Nose? What about Lynn Hill when she freed it? What are these incentives you speak of? They likely are very similar to the incentives of the past. That said, if someone wants to bolt a choss pile let them! It only means more climbing for everyone and disperses climbers to other areas. We all can't climb on Manure Pile or Five Open Books!

6) Yes. But is this not true for any form of outdoor recreation? Hikers create social trails and expand the existing trails degrading the resources we have and value.
---
I've seen a lot of online rants towards other groups of climbers, finger-pointing, but very little action to make these improvements.  I'm not saying the people who rant are at fault, but identifying problems is just part of the solution.  Please consider offering solutions to the questions.  I would love to discuss potential solutions.

Gumby Kingwrote:

#OkBoomer (sry couldn't help myself its been a while since I'e had a chance to use it on MP)

Yes, I generally agree with your points but here are my thoughts on each question.

1) Listen to the recent Climbing Gold podcast. Specifically, Chapter 2 entitles "Tap Tap Twist". They have a brief discussion about bolting that I think has some valid points regarding bolting. Of course, the take-a-way regarding a solution is a gray area but it might add some insight to other perspectives.

2) Yeah... I suspect the gym created chalk addicts.

3) Most likely we are all failing. The resources are definitely out there (e.g., Access Fund). There are opportunities where Mentors can help foster the newer generation but I really don't see many older climbers taking the effort and would rather complain about the up-and-coming gumbies. For example, I periodically take the time to help new climbers transition to outdoor climbing and will teach/show them ethics.

4) (See #3)

5) Ok, this is where my Ok Boomer really applies. Regardless of Social Media and any perceived incentives, didn't the old guys have the same incentives? Did Warren Harding not get a lot of attention for getting up The Nose? What about Lynn Hill when she freed it? What are these incentives you speak of? They likely are very similar to the incentives of the past. That said, if someone wants to bolt a choss pile let them! It only means more climbing for everyone and disperses climbers to other areas. We all can't climb on Manure Pile or Five Open Books!

6) Yes. But is this not true for any form of outdoor recreation? Hikers create social trails and expand the existing trails degrading the resources we have and value.
---
I've seen a lot of online rants towards other groups of climbers, finger-pointing, but very little action to make these improvements.  I'm not saying the people who rant are at fault, but identifying problems is just part of the solution.  Please consider offering solutions to the questions.  I would love to discuss potential solutions.

Everything he wrote had a question mark after it, it is open for discussion and offering solutions.

Gyms and social media have totally changed rock climbing. Its changed now. Venting about it is fun. 

#itstoolatenow #instajunkies #outdoorroutesetting #nosolutions #drillsarecheap

It's time to ban (new) bolts:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/119659904/to-ban-or-not-to-ban-bolts

Arlo F Niedererwrote:

Seems like climbs are getting bolts so close together that you can "top rope" them on lead)

Minor nit to pick here: the most "natural lines" i.e. crack climbs, have nearly unlimited opportunity for protection. You can damn near "top rope" them on lead, and in some cases I've managed to do it (just for fun) on all passive pro. In this context, poorly-protectable face climbs seem like an outlier (though with the advent of expansion bolts placed on lead, they have become protectable and with the advent of rap-bolting, have become common). I don't see a lot of harm in establishing a degree of safety similar to that found in crack climbing on the sport face climbs, save for the appearance of human impact. In many cases, I'd rather see a bolt perceived as "extra" than hear of another accident resulting in head trauma, spinal injury, or death. No, that doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to touch the 6th bolt and 7th bolt at the same time with average ape index, but routes in the style of Snake Dike should not be considered acceptable purely for reasons of tradition.

If the theme is climbing stewardship, visual human impact sits on one side of the balance, while reasonable safety sits on the other side. Serious accidents also have a tendency to create problems with access, and the potential reach of climbing has never been bigger.

CDubwrote:

Minor nit to pick here: the most "natural lines" i.e. crack climbs, have nearly unlimited opportunity for protection. You can damn near "top rope" them on lead, and in some cases I've managed to do it (just for fun) on all passive pro. In this context, poorly-protectable face climbs seem like an outlier (though with the advent of expansion bolts placed on lead, they have become protectable and with the advent of rap-bolting, have become common). I don't see a lot of harm in establishing a degree of safety similar to that found in crack climbing on the sport face climbs, save for the appearance of human impact. In many cases, I'd rather see a bolt perceived as "extra" than hear of another accident resulting in head trauma, spinal injury, or death. No, that doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to touch the 6th bolt and 7th bolt at the same time with average ape index, but routes in the style of Snake Dike should not be considered acceptable purely for reasons of tradition.

If the theme is climbing stewardship, visual human impact sits on one side of the balance, while reasonable safety sits on the other side. Serious accidents also have a tendency to create problems with access, and the potential reach of climbing has never been bigger.

I might be selectively remembering, but I don't remember many cases of "random non-climbers complained about just *seeing* bolts". The exception, of course, is the phoenix area crags.

Most of the time, it was other behavior (physical altercations, chipping, and chopping and rebolting) that triggered the bolting moratorium as a way to choke off the thing that led to the bad behavior.

Broadly speaking, I think working to keep a low profile is what keeps crags open. But that includes being honest about what is actually a low profile. No fixed gear and walking off is more sporting certainly, but an established climbers' trail is waaaay higher profile than an intelligently placed set of rappel anchors. Likewise for tat anchors vs bolts.

We have to stop thinking about ourselves as a tiny group of outcasts and misfits when we think about proactive management plans, because land owners see us as the large user group that we are, and respond to our sins accordingly.

CDubwrote: 

If the theme is climbing stewardship, visual human impact sits on one side of the balance, while reasonable safety sits on the other side. Serious accidents also have a tendency to create problems with access, and the potential reach of climbing has never been bigger.

All excellent points CDub. I was trying to think of how to articulate them, but don't feel I have to now. 

Arlo F Niedererwrote:

... I live in Colorado Springs and climb at Garden of the Gods and Red Rocks.  To climb here, you have to get a free online climbing permit, which basically says you read and agreed to abide by the rules and regulations for climbing in the parks.  

There are very few rules, and one of the rules is to use "eco - chalk".  Unfortunately, I frequently see white chalk, very noticeable on the red rock.  

When I see climbers with chalk bags dangling from their harnesses, I'll mention that white chalk is banned.  I often get "we didn't know!"  Either they didn't get the FREE permit, didn't read it, or ignored it.  This behavior is what gets climbing areas closed!

Many (maybe even most?) climbers don't even read and follow the instructions of their own climbing gear that is supposed to keep them alive. Why would you (or the park rangers) expect them to read rules and regulations of a park?

Gumby Kingwrote:

#OkBoomer (sry couldn't help myself its been a while since I'e had a chance to use it on MP)

Yes, I generally agree with your points but here are my thoughts on each question.

1) Listen to the recent Climbing Gold podcast. Specifically, Chapter 2 entitles "Tap Tap Twist". They have a brief discussion about bolting that I think has some valid points regarding bolting. Of course, the take-a-way regarding a solution is a gray area but it might add some insight to other perspectives.

I'll go and take a listen to the podcast - thanks!

2) Yeah... I suspect the gym created chalk addicts.

Unfortunately(?), the use of chalk was started by a Boomer from Fort Collins - John Gill.  He was a gymnast (and hence the use of chalk) who only bouldered.  (The start of bouldering as its own discipline?)  The top climbers of the time couldn't repeat many of his routes.

3) Most likely we are all failing. The resources are definitely out there (e.g., Access Fund). There are opportunities where Mentors can help foster the newer generation but I really don't see many older climbers taking the effort and would rather complain about the up-and-coming gumbies. For example, I periodically take the time to help new climbers transition to outdoor climbing and will teach/show them ethics.

4) (See #3)

The efforts of the Access Fund and local climbing organizations are a big help.  Since climbing gyms are a common introduction to climbing, perhaps the gyms could provide space on their websites with information on how to reduce outdoor impacts.  However, they might be reluctant since we live in such a litigious society.

I never complain about gumbies, because we were all gumbies at one time.  I have taught many people how to climb, and only "get in gumbies faces" when I see something dangerous or violating access rules.  (And I don't get insulted if somebody points out something I'm doing that they think is unsafe). 

I was contacted on Mountain Project several years ago by a couple of college students who wanted to learn how to trad climb.  They had contacted multiple people before contacting me.  (Perhaps you should say "experienced" climbers instead of "older" climbers?) I gladly took them out for several days and passed along as much of my knowledge and experience as possible.

5) Ok, this is where my Ok Boomer really applies. Regardless of Social Media and any perceived incentives, didn't the old guys have the same incentives? Did Warren Harding not get a lot of attention for getting up The Nose? What about Lynn Hill when she freed it? What are these incentives you speak of? They likely are very similar to the incentives of the past. That said, if someone wants to bolt a choss pile let them! It only means more climbing for everyone and disperses climbers to other areas. We all can't climb on Manure Pile or Five Open Books!

See my comment below #6. Instead of being dismissive with #OkBoomer,  consider my cautionary tale and don't make the same mistakes that Boomers made. I'm advocating for YOUR future climbing, not my own.  I've had many wonderful years climbing but the end of climbing for me is not too far off...

I'm not against incentives, because it provides a means for people to become professional climbers (and make a living) without having to be a dirtbag like Warren Harding or other climbers of the era.

The difference is that the Hardings, Hills, Robbins etc. got exposure through climbing magazines and sometimes the MSM, not instant self-promotion through social media. The editorial staff of the mags had control over what got exposure, and we're a filter.

I agree that with so many climbers having more climbs to spread everyone out has merit. I'm arguing that we need to be more thoughtful in how and where we develop routes.

6) Yes. But is this not true for any form of outdoor recreation? Hikers create social trails and expand the existing trails degrading the resources we have and value.

"But the other guy is doing it too!" is a poor excuse.  We only control our own actions, and perhaps by setting a good example we can influence other climbers and user groups to do better, too.

I'm not saying the people who rant are at fault, but identifying problems is just part of the solution.  Please consider offering solutions to the questions.  I would love to discuss potential solutions.

I agree there is a lot of ranting with a need for more solutions. 

However, the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.  I don't think enough climbers recognize climbing impacts are a huge threat to the future of climbing.  A good example of this is a later post in this thread which said "Kind of a worn out subject."  Since climbing access is in jeopardy due to impacts, this is a very relevant subject, and should ALWAYS be a relevant subject.

The only actions we can control are are own - I just want climbers to stop and contemplate what they are doing, and always look for newer, less impactful ways to climb and create new routes.

CDubwrote:

Minor nit to pick here: the most "natural lines" i.e. crack climbs, have nearly unlimited opportunity for protection. You can damn near "top rope" them on lead, and in some cases I've managed to do it (just for fun) on all passive pro. 

I have done exactly the same thing on countless climbs. But there is a huge difference between a natural line protected with cams/nuts/hexes - nobody can tell that I placed pro every 3 feet, but everyone knows that a bolt was placed every 3 feet!

In this context, poorly-protectable face climbs seem like an outlier (though with the advent of expansion bolts placed on lead, they have become protectable and with the advent of rap-bolting, have become common). I don't see a lot of harm in establishing a degree of safety similar to that found in crack climbing on the sport face climbs, save for the appearance of human impact. In many cases, I'd rather see a bolt perceived as "extra" than hear of another accident resulting in head trauma, spinal injury, or death. No, that doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to touch the 6th bolt and 7th bolt at the same time with average ape index, but routes in the style of Snake Dike should not be considered acceptable purely for reasons of tradition.

The trend to make climbs safer is an appropriate trend.  Snake Dike isn't sparsely bolted on purpose, it is sparse because hand drilling in granite is really hard and time consuming.  They might have put in more bolts if they had electric drills.

The appearance of human impact is more important than climbers give it credit for.  We don't think our activities are that noticeable, but there are others who do notice.  Climbers are a minority of people using the public spaces.  If non-climbers don't like the impact, access will be curtailed.  It might only take a highly motivated anti-climbing environmentalist to bring climbing to a screeching halt.

More bolts are not necessarily safer, what makes climbs safer is the THOUGHTFUL placement of bolts.  I've done sport climbs where there were numerous bolts, but they were in the wrong place and left dangerous no-fall zones on the climb.  Moving the location of a bolt or two a little would eliminate the no-fall zones. I think we could eliminate bolts by being more thoughtful in their placement.

I've climbed Snake Dike and many like it without incident, which required climbing carefully and thoughtfully.  I had the skill and experience to do this.  The ethos at the time was to "bring the skill of the climber up to the climb," not "bring the climb down to the climber."  There was also a sentiment to "leave it for the next generation" because we knew climbers of the future would be better!

If the theme is climbing stewardship, visual human impact sits on one side of the balance, while reasonable safety sits on the other side. Serious accidents also have a tendency to create problems with access, and the potential reach of climbing has never been bigger.

I was on a search and rescue team and recovered the remains of several serious (fatal) accidents, so safety is very important to me.  But no matter how many bolts there are, a climb can't be made totally safe.  

Are we creating a false sense of a climb being "safe" by placing numerous bolts?

Agree with the OP.

Would also contend free soloing fits into category 6, jeprodizing acess for future generations.

Arlo F Niedererwrote:

The difference is that the Hardings, Hills, Robbins etc. got exposure through climbing magazines and sometimes the MSM, not instant self-promotion through social media. The editorial staff of the mags had control over what got exposure, and we're a filter.

I'm going to join the crusty old-timer perspective and say that social media is cancer. It's changed society for the worse and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. 20+ years ago, some clumsy dumbass wouldn't have bolted next to petroglyphs because there weren't that many people going to those places (and certainly not going to those places for internet fame as a first ascentionist). If someone had, it would have taken years to find out about it, during which time the bolts might have been quietly removed and patched. Today anyone who reads mountain project / twitter / IG will know as soon as the discoverer returns to an area with cell signal.

Arlo F Niedererwrote:

I have done exactly the same thing on countless climbs. But there is a huge difference between a natural line protected with cams/nuts/hexes - nobody can tell that I placed pro every 3 feet, but everyone knows that a bolt was placed every 3 feet!

The trend to make climbs safer is an appropriate trend.  Snake Dike isn't sparsely bolted on purpose, it is sparse because hand drilling in granite is really hard and time consuming.  They might have put in more bolts if they had electric drills.

Of course this is a problem with a ton of old-school climbs - it's difficult to drill in granite, and NPS doesn't allow power drills. But for runout climbs that have been around for decades, the root cause of not installing bolts is attitudes, not the difficulty of installing them (even, in many cases, on lead). The time consuming aspect is valid for the FA party, but what about after that? The problem is that there is a culture of boldness/machismo in climbing that dictates we should all be taking exactly the same risks as the FA party, and that the style of a climb can never be changed. The FA party "owns" the route style. When the FA party is not available for comment, a core group of fundamentalists enforce the routes staying in scary/dangerous condition for "style".

That said, Snake Dike has been retrobolted somewhat, and I believe the FA story was that they hardly placed any bolts because they were saving them for hard climbing that never came. But I maintain that the sparsity of protection on Snake Dike is a historical accident much more than an intentional choice (even after retrobolting), and it should not remain in that state. Maybe in another decade or two when somebody takes a fall on the route, requiring the NPS to helicopter evac, they will start issuing permits to climb it. Maybe you will have to submit a resume of climbing before NPS will allow you to attempt a particular route. I'm not sure whether we're headed that way or not, but given the crowds it wouldn't totally surprise me.

Arlo F Niederer wrote:
More bolts are not necessarily safer, what makes climbs safer is the THOUGHTFUL placement of bolts.  I've done sport climbs where there were numerous bolts, but they were in the wrong place and left dangerous no-fall zones on the climb.  Moving the location of a bolt or two a little would eliminate the no-fall zones. I think we could eliminate bolts by being more thoughtful in their placement.

It's not a guarantee of safety but I would say that the general trend of more protection being safer than less protection holds up in the majority of cases. Thoughtless bolt placement is for sure a problem.

Arlo F Niederer wrote:
I've climbed Snake Dike and many like it without incident, which required climbing carefully and thoughtfully.  I had the skill and experience to do this.  The ethos at the time was to "bring the skill of the climber up to the climb," not "bring the climb down to the climber."  There was also a sentiment to "leave it for the next generation" because we knew climbers of the future would be better!

I have as well, and it's a fantastic climb, but IMO the risks taken in climbing Snake Dike are unnecessary. There is an ethos in avalanche safety that climbers could learn from - did we make good decisions and do something safe, or did we "get away with it"? Anything that routinely puts you ~80' above your last good piece of pro should be viewed as some version of "getting away with it". Huge falls have a tendency to cause life-changing injuries or death. The retort has always been "don't fall", but isn't that just "getting away with it"?

Arlo F Niederer wrote:
I was on a search and rescue team and recovered the remains of several serious (fatal) accidents, so safety is very important to me.  But no matter how many bolts there are, a climb can't be made totally safe.  

Are we creating a false sense of a climb being "safe" by placing numerous bolts?

I agree that it can't be made totally safe, but the general trend of more protection -> safer climbs is certainly a common sense connection.

EDIT: I wanted to respond to Bill Schick, but he deleted his comment. It's on-point that we're going to lose it all eventually. I think we both agree that the best climbing experience would be to rewind 50-100+ years and experience the places we love to climb without the modern-day zoo that's cropped up. Just like social media, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, but that doesn't stop me from wanting it.

EDIT2: An essay from Marco Cornacchione in the Bloom guidebook has some words that stick with me: "For the Wingate cliffs of Indian Creek, this little adventure happened as I write this, but in climbing time it happened before humans overran the earth."  In the not-too-distant future, it will be impossible to find solitude in the outdoors in the most beautiful places, and that sucks.

The best solution to keeping climbing areas open is to not post them here on Mountain Project, not run whining to the forest/parks service when someone bolts near a petroglyph and quietly take care of it, and in general keep a low profile. 

CDubwrote:

I have as well, and it's a fantastic climb, but IMO the risks taken in climbing Snake Dike are unnecessary. There is an ethos in avalanche safety that climbers could learn from - did we make good decisions and do something safe, or did we "get away with it"? Anything that routinely puts you ~80' above your last good piece of pro should be viewed as some version of "getting away with it". Huge falls have a tendency to cause life-changing injuries or death. The retort has always been "don't fall", but isn't that just "getting away with it"?

As someone who rides exclusively under my own power I feel I can add another perspective to this. To ride big lines that you haven't done before there is a lot of research that goes into it. Talking with others who have done it, examining snow in the area, riding similar aspects, etc etc. The point is that anyone who knows what they're doing isn't asking themselves if they got away with a line in their primary line of questioning, it's totally secondary as matter of course because we can never truly know. The crossover between sports that climbing can learn from is the hours of research and and time spent building a repertoire of increasingly difficult or dangerous climbs in order to succeed. This is where dangerous climbs that demand respect deliver an increased reward to the person who doesn't undertake them lightly. I don't have much sympathy for people who screw up on dangerous climbs if that climb's reputation proceeds it. 

Is it impossible to get in good gear below the crux of The Importance of Being Earnest in JTree? Yes. Did I do my research and put in burns before trying it on lead? Yes. Did I still fall and hurt myself? Yes. Will I still go back and try to conquer my fears? Yes. It's all part of the process. All gone if there's a bolt. 

All over the world there are areas which are known to be safer and areas which are not. We are cheating ourselves out of the experience if we demand ultimate safety.

Mitch Stubbswrote:

As someone who rides exclusively under my own power I feel I can add another perspective to this. To ride big lines that you haven't done before there is a lot of research that goes into it. Talking with others who have done it, examining snow in the area, riding similar aspects, etc etc. The point is that anyone who knows what they're doing isn't asking themselves if they got away with a line in their primary line of questioning, it's totally secondary as matter of course because we can never truly know. The crossover between sports that climbing can learn from is the hours of research and and time spent building a repertoire of increasingly difficult or dangerous climbs in order to succeed. This is where dangerous climbs that demand respect deliver an increased reward to the person who doesn't undertake them lightly. I don't have much sympathy for people who screw up on dangerous climbs if that climb's reputation proceeds it. 

Is it impossible to get in good gear below the crux of The Importance of Being Earnest in JTree? Yes. Did I do my research and put in burns before trying it on lead? Yes. Did I still fall and hurt myself? Yes. Will I still go back and try to conquer my fears? Yes. It's all part of the process. All gone if there's a bolt. 

All over the world there are areas which are known to be safer and areas which are not. We are cheating ourselves out of the experience if we demand ultimate safety.

There's a difference between climbs that are made to be safe (sport) and climbs where safety is simply a function of the rock itself. What's missing is a frame work to distinguish the two from each other.

Tim Stichwrote:

The best solution to keeping climbing areas open is to not post them here on Mountain Project, not run whining to the forest/parks service when someone bolts near a petroglyph and quietly take care of it, and in general keep a low profile. 

Didn't figure you to be a 'snitches get stitches' kind of guy Tim. Actually turning him in, publicly shaming and widely condemning him throughout the "community" maybe good this time. I agree in keeping a lot of local issues on the DL but maybe not so in an overly used international destination. 

Really I just dig on public shaming in general.

CDubwrote: That said, Snake Dike has been retrobolted somewhat, and I believe the FA story was that they hardly placed any bolts because they were saving them for hard climbing that never came. But I maintain that the sparsity of protection on Snake Dike is a historical accident much more than an intentional choice (even after retrobolting), and it should not remain in that state. Maybe in another decade or two when somebody takes a fall on the route, requiring the NPS to helicopter evac, they will start issuing permits to climb it. Maybe you will have to submit a resume of climbing before NPS will allow you to attempt a particular route. I'm not sure whether we're headed that way or not, but given the crowds it wouldn't totally surprise me.

There are several instances in the last few years where people have fallen on Snake Dike...one almost a full rope length, and the other individual died. Additionally, people fall on the cables and the mist trail more often than we even know and there is not a discussion to close these trails or ask individuals for a "hiking resume". While I agree it would be ideal to have more protection while climbing than not, I don't think there have really been any talk of permitting for climbing and doesn't really seem likely unless we require some type of barrier to entry (i.e. like having to have a license to drive). I also doubt this would happen without some major concerted effort. 

ETA: I think we have to remember that, like most things in life, climbing has inherent risk and we are accepting that to do the route...a lot of it comes down to proper risk assessment.

Mitch Stubbswrote:

As someone who rides exclusively under my own power I feel I can add another perspective to this. To ride big lines that you haven't done before there is a lot of research that goes into it. Talking with others who have done it, examining snow in the area, riding similar aspects, etc etc. The point is that anyone who knows what they're doing isn't asking themselves if they got away with a line in their primary line of questioning, it's totally secondary as matter of course because we can never truly know.

And highly experienced people who have carefully selected their route, day, and conditions die all the time. I'm decidedly not an expert, but my impression is there are a lot of experienced people out there "getting away with it" and rationalizing their choices after the fact.

Mitch Stubbs wrote:
The crossover between sports that climbing can learn from is the hours of research and and time spent building a repertoire of increasingly difficult or dangerous climbs in order to succeed. This is where dangerous climbs that demand respect deliver an increased reward to the person who doesn't undertake them lightly. I don't have much sympathy for people who screw up on dangerous climbs if that climb's reputation proceeds it. 

This is essentially taking the view that nothing is left to chance, which I disagree with. There is always chance. No amount of experience or preparation can mitigate all the risks. The conclusion I'm reaching is that some risks should be mitigated with experience, and bad luck should be mitigated with good protection and a solid belay. Otherwise, aren't you just soloing with rope drag and shiny aluminum fashion items?

Mitch Stubbs wrote:
Is it impossible to get in good gear below the crux of The Importance of Being Earnest in JTree? Yes. Did I do my research and put in burns before trying it on lead? Yes. Did I still fall and hurt myself? Yes. Will I still go back and try to conquer my fears? Yes. It's all part of the process. All gone if there's a bolt. 

I appreciate your perspective, but what you're describing here is essentially headpointing a short, difficult route. This style does not reasonably apply to most longer multipitch climbs, and my entire premise is that someone might fall not because of difficulty, but because of a low-probability 1-in-ten-thousand chance event like a foot slip, a hold breaking, or rockfall (or dropped gear from above) on an otherwise low-difficulty route. Nobody should be taking 100+ foot falls and becoming paralyzed or dead because the leader is expected to treat the lead like a free solo. I bring up Snake Dike in particular because it's iconic and a great example of severe runouts on an easy route for essentially no reason, but there are lots of similar climbs out there. These climbs are essentially no-fall for almost the entire route, and IMO this extremely sparse bolting adds nothing but unnecessary risk to the climb. I know highly competent, experienced trad leaders who have the movement skills to casually lead or solo some of these R/X rated walk-up climbs, but choose not to because it's not worth the risk. That's a dumb state to leave a route in.

Mitch Stubbs wrote:
All over the world there are areas which are known to be safer and areas which are not. We are cheating ourselves out of the experience if we demand ultimate safety.

Surely you would agree that there are degrees of safety, and I'm not promoting the idea of "ultimate safety". Relatively greater safety is an honorable goal. This isn't to "dumb down" the route to people who aren't ready for it, just to mitigate low-probability high-consequence chance events for climbers who truly are experienced enough, but who shouldn't pay a high price with their life or health if something should happen. Anyone can decide to free solo anything and acknowledge that risk. Climbing a route with a rope and the intention of protecting low-probability falls should not require a similar level of risk to soloing.

carla rosa wrote:

There are several instances in the last few years where people have fallen on Snake Dike...one almost a full rope length, and the other individual died. Additionally, people fall on the cables and the mist trail more often than we even know and there is not a discussion to close these trails or ask individuals for a "hiking resume". While I agree it would be ideal to have more protection while climbing than not, I don't think there have really been any talk of permitting for climbing and doesn't really seem likely unless we require some type of barrier to entry (i.e. like having to have a license to drive). I also doubt this would happen without some major concerted effort.

Maybe the permitting thing is unfounded, or maybe we just haven't gotten there as a society yet. Nobody knows. But more to the point, don't you think those people's families would love for them to be alive and healthy if the price were as low as a handful more bolts per pitch? Zero non-climbers would ever see the bolts even if they weren't camouflaged.

I laugh when climbers will scold/shame other sports for their environmental impact when we have certainly been guilty over the years.  

No entity wants to manage another so the better we self-govern ourselves the better the outcome.