Trad Gear on a Sport Route

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

It didn’t catch on because climbers, even  self proclaimed “environmentalists” and people in general will always prefer convenience over the environment. 

This argument is so tired, bolts as environmental impact are negligible compared to the vehicles we drive to the mountains, the roads they drive on, the gas they consume, the trails we walk on, and the rubber we rely on for our shoes.

It didnt catch on because its a party trick or training method, and most people who want to climb trad routes dont hang out at sport crags.

If you wanna go really "deep ecology," moderate trad routes are arguably the most environmentally impactful of all, since they largely follow wide gully and crack systems that have significant flora and fauna in them. 

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

This argument is so tired, bolts as environmental impact are negligible compared to the vehicles we drive to the mountains, the roads they drive on, the gas they consume, the trails we walk on, and the rubber we rely on for our shoes.

It didnt catch on because its a party trick or training method, and most people who want to climb trad routes dont hang out at sport crags.

It's amazing the difference in vibes between a sport and trad crag... 

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

This argument is so tired, bolts as environmental impact are negligible compared to the vehicles we drive to the mountains, the roads they drive on, the gas they consume, the trails we walk on, and the rubber we rely on for our shoes.

It didnt catch on because its a party trick or training method, and most people who want to climb trad routes dont hang out at sport crags.

It is actually your argument that is tired. Those things you list are inherent, mostly, to us as humans leading our modern lives, bolts are not. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

The point was to promote cleaner (leave no trace) climbing, showcasing that if a route can be lead on gear, it shouldn’t need to be permanently altered with bolts. Which in most cases are visible, leaving an unnecessary “trace”.  It didn’t catch on because climbers, even  self proclaimed “environmentalists” and people in general will always prefer convenience over the environment. 

Not to mention that the putative “greenpointer” usually wired the route and placements ruthlessly on bolts before sending with marginal pro. In reality, the whole exercise becomes kind of pointless.

amarius wrote:

So you wouldn't ever clean the route? That damages rock too. Pulling off a flake is technically damaging the rock. And drilling a hole is definitely damaging the rock.  

I feel like it depends on the route, I've always been under the impression that some limestone crags fall apart when people whip on gear in them, for example.  That's bad for the people and the rock!

These days, I try to avoid having strong feelings about whether bolts "should" be there or not, myself.

I’d like to add that if you can walk up to sport route that is relatively difficult for you, and you can send it on pro without rehearsal, then more power to you!  Hell, I wouldn’t even have heartburn if you chopped it afterwards. However, If you need to rehearse it on bolts before pulling the rack out, then yes, it is little more than a stupid party trick. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105757051/headline

Good example of a sport route you can certainly lead on gear, with ethics arguments in the comments and everything!

Liam Coughlinwrote:

I was at a local crag last weekend and noticed a party practicing gear placements on a sport bolted climb. It was a moderate climb but one that was well bolted. They were not clipping the bolts but instead placing nuts and cams. They didn't seem to be practicing falling on gear and so I would assume there is/was little damage to the rock. I was wondering what people's opinions are on this. Is this accepted as ok? Once a line is bolted should it be always climbed as such? Simply very curious.

I will touch on this question but not from what others have said. If the route was bolted yet people were climbing it safely on lead by placing gear rather clipping the bolts then the route should have probably never been bolted in the first place. The practice bolting a route which allows for "natural" safe gear placements most always leads to the bolts being removed. Sometimes such bolting occurs on new routes, others on established routes (aka retro bolting).

I will freely admit that I have removed such bolts on routes that I helped establish and on friend's routes that were later retro bolted. I have also given friends and others shit for bolting moderate routes that had excellent gear placements from top to bottom. In the case of my friends who bolted a gear route, I renamed the route (just added one letter which which was a perfect play on the original name for multiple reasons) and claimed the FA on gear. 

As for the impact to the rock, placing gear has little impact. There is little impact from the bolts themselves. There is more impact from climbers via lichen and other plant removal on the route, social trails to crags, parking at the trailheads, etc.

Allen Sandersonwrote:

I will touch on this question but not from what others have said. If the route was bolted yet people were climbing it safely on lead by placing gear rather clipping the bolts then the route should have probably never been bolted in the first place. The practice bolting a route which allows for "natural" safe gear placements most always leads to the bolts being removed. Sometimes such bolting occurs on new routes, others on established routes (aka retro bolting).

I will freely admit that I have removed such bolts on routes that I helped establish and on friend's routes that were later retro bolted. I have also given friends and others shit for bolting moderate routes that had excellent gear placements from top to bottom. In the case of my friends who bolted a gear route, I renamed the route (just added one letter which which was a perfect play on the original name for multiple reasons) and claimed the FA on gear. 

As for the impact to the rock, placing gear has little impact. There is little impact from the bolts themselves. There is more impact from climbers via lichen and other plant removal on the route, social trails to crags, parking at the trailheads, etc.

Maybe where you are, but not here, or at least, the bolters won, lol! 

OP, trad lines have been bolted, now and then, and stayed that way, or ended up that way. Or some haphazard, in between, badly bolted mess.

If that has happened, they can still have gear placed, also, no reason not too. With bolts also clipped, that's a pretty safe way to actually practice gear, if you're super new. Low risk. The columnar black basalt here has trad, "sport" (loosely defined), and "geez some gear would be nice here" routes all in close proximity, often sharing a bolted anchor.

Don't forget that bolted lines, even if labeled "sport", may be better with gear also. For some reason, in some locales, "mixed" is never used. Bolts=sport, no bolts=trad. Not true, but that's the expectation. That misunderstanding can make things rather spicy at times! Buyer beware, especially at older areas!

Best, Helen

Clea T Royal wrote:

If it goes on gear it shouldn’t be bolted

So, how do you define “goes on gear?”  I can dick some marginal pro in just about any sport route. 

Frank Steinwrote:

So, how do you define “goes on gear?”  I can dick some marginal pro in just about any sport route. 

EXACTLY!! I have watched so many British trad videos and watching them climb on the smallest nuts that look like they should be used for aiding and the smallest C3 and Aliens. So by this technique, everything technically could "go" on gear. 

Liam Coughlinwrote:

EXACTLY!! I have watched so many British trad videos and watching them climb on the smallest nuts that look like they should be used for aiding and the smallest C3 and Aliens. So by this technique, everything technically could "go" on gear. 

And, Ken Nichols used to duct tape and bungee hooks on edges. Does that qualify as “goes on gear?”

I was once leading a route on gear as somebody was rapping in from the top to bolt it.

That was sort of awkward.

Thank you for the western european engineer empiricist viewpoint. Where I live, in the opinion of traditional owners of the land being climbed on, bolting is akin to driving needles into the skin of their ancestors. Trad gear plus one considered and well maintained walk-off path or sturdy padded and slung tree requires none of that. So yes, climbing on gear where possible can be very preferable.

The real question is whether the additional rock weathering from trad gear outweighs the "weathering" caused by drilling for a bolt. Which technique is sucking a tiny marginal bit more CO2 out of the atmosphere? It's gotta be at least enough to get you a dozen feet in a really fuel efficient vehicle. 

I mean how do you think the bolts got there?

new yosemitesamwrote:

I mean how do you think the bolts got there?

Well, you see, when two bolts really love each other ...

I'm almost as far along the anti-bolt spectrum as you can get but this environmental/damage the rock argument is kinda silly. All climbing imacts the rock and drilling a few holes isn't that signifcant compared to the polishing, weathering etc of feet, hands and, gear. It seems that others who share my views on bolting are using it as an argument when really like me their views are aesthetic (in the broad sense, not bolts arn't pretty) and philosophical in origin.

Back to the OP, is this serious? How could it not be OK? I don't get the point.