Mixed Routes (bolts plus gear required): Inequitable, Annoying, Awesome?

If there are good gear placements, don't bolt. Number of gear placements is irrelevant IMO.

Recently someone asked me if I consider the "equitable" aspect

You've no obligation to feed their sense of entitlement - ever.

Depends.  Carrying one  piece of gear  on a  multi pitch climb is silly.  Establishing a  mixed  climb  with  only  one  or two  gear  placements  at a sport  crag is  silly.  Mixed  climbs at  trad venues  absolutely.  If there is any significant  gear  climbing.  Absolutely.  One of my  favorite  climbs started  out with face  climbing past 5 bolts  and finished  on 50ft of steep  face  that  had  good  gear  features.  We put up a  trio of  multi pitch  10s on mt Hor.  The  first is  a mixed line with  just  two  placements on the  1st pitch  but 4 placements on the  2nd  pitch.  It  is a  better  climb  with the  gear  placements.  The other two  climbs  are  3 pitch  sport  climbs  that  could have had a  single  gear  placement each.  They are  much  better  as sport  climbs.  

Others have mentioned that it depends on the nature of the crag and how much gear there is on the route, so I'll bite on the equity bit: if it's a sport crag popular with beginners, in an area with limited sport routes, and you develop all of the routes of a certain grade as mixed routes with just a few pieces of gear, then yes you would be making it more difficult for a new climber to access the sport. But outside of that scenario, I think it's just fine to have mixed routes.

It depends for me. For example, generally speaking, I don’t understand why any mixed route should ever get an R or X rating.

I had a ton of fun on the Bihedral's mixed routes in Boulder Canyon. I love 'em, I get to place gear where it's good but don't have to deal with those pesky face/slab runouts. I'm not really a danger seeking climber but do like gear, so I very much appreciate this style of bolting.

Like most bolting ethics things, I figure other people with strong feelings will be arguing about mixed routes long after I'm gone though.

bryanswrote:

I'm aware many people find it annoying to encounter/onsight those routes. To those folks I say, tough. If I put it up on MP or it's been put in a guidebook I give specific gear beta so you don't need to lug a double set up there.  If it's the very idea of a mixed route you find annoying, then don't climb it.

This is and will always be the correct answer.

But, the inequity thing - should I be grappling with that? 

No.

Am I a "gatekeeper" when I don't add 2 or 3 bolts and wipe out the need for trad gear?

Nope, those are whiny, punting, self-proclaimed victims that lack self-reliance and the ability to adapt or branch out from their preconceived notion generated by a bubble that they can't escape.

 Am I making it harder for newer climbers who may be from historically marginalized groups

No, you're not.  Mixed routes are a perfectly reasonable endeavor that if anything, increases accessibility.  In the past, the blank face section would remain unbolted in many, many places and the answer most folks would get is "sack up or don't" or some variation thereof.  There is a precedent for mixed routes, and there are many crags throughout the country that have mixed pro routes on them.  You're not the first guy.

 or unable to afford a trad rack to get deeper into climbing? 

Ok, that's a question you need to answer yourself.  The logical extrapolation of this using social justice theory is "mixed route development excludes people that don't have enough money to afford the gear needed to protect these routes, ergo, the developer is racist" (you know, because melanin is directly tied to life decisions that lead to occupation and compensation) or some variation of that.  Also, I'll posit this to you.  Not all "POC" are broke.  Not all of them feel they need to be saved by whitey.  Not all of them see themselves as victims of historical oppression with no agency to affect any change on a personal individual level in their life.  To lend credence to this notion, is in fact a racist endeavor.  Assuming that everyone with melanin in their skin can't afford trad gear, or *gasp* can't borrow trad gear, is to treat every member of that demographic as a monolith with no room for nuance, different upbringings, different sensibilities, political perspective, etc.  To spell it out with no mixing of words, to assume financial status based on skin color, is the same as assuming anything about anyone based only on an immutable characteristic without giving any consideration to their individual character, history, personality, etc.  You know, good old fashioned, unadulterated racism- judging someone based on nothing but the color of their skin.  But that's where we are now, so dip your toe in that postmodern Kafka trap if you want to, but I promise you it goes nowhere good, and you're unlikely to experience any positive outcomes if you adopt that perspective.

This issue doesn't exactly keep me up at night.

Good.  if your routes are quality, and you're getting good feedback from folks that have climbed them, that's the only thing you should worry about as a developer.

Mixed routes are the superior ethic to sport climbs when applicable. Any question of "route equity" glosses over the topics of over drilling, bolting impact, and route development ethics in general.

Not every route is meant to be a sport climb, and not every person needs to be able to climb a route. We measure ourselves up to the rock, not the other way around.

If people want to complain about equity then they should help start a gear library, and volunteer their time to teach. That would create an actual impact in the community, rather than dumbing down mixed routes for the masses.

Climbing style and ethics should not be decided on the lowest common denominator.

https://www.patagonia.com/stories/bring-back-clean-climbing/story-116308.html

"Mixed" routes are by definition Trad routes. If you need to place gear, at all, you are Trad climbing.

So, how does it work if you rap bolt your Trad line? What do we call a rap bolted Trad route? Garbage is the word that springs to my mind. Completely denying the very essence of what Trad climbing is, a clean ground up ascent.

You want to create a route with mixed protection, you had better be doing it ground up. Then it's totally cool, impressive even. This concept also nullifies the "don't bring the rock down to your level" justification for not bolting next to a gear placement. You can't argue you are being ethical in regards to what the rock gives you at the same time you lowered down it with a drill.

As an be aside, when you also claim that by posting which specific piece(s) you need to drag on up the route somewhere like here or in a guide you solve the hidden danger risk for those following after you; you are tacitly admitting that you have created a contrived climb for which you need Beta in advance or risk injury/death.

In the end context is what matters. How many placements are there? You'd have to be clueless to zook in bolts along a protectable section of a climb. But one placement? 2 in a row? That's where context comes in. Where are you? A huge crag a long ways from the car that invokes several degrees more of self-reliance and advanced skills or some sporto crag swarming with kids?

IMHO, creating a mixed route by the top down approach, in an area with significant fully bolted sport routes, is more likely to be a contrived display of d-baggery than a laudable contribution to the area. Of course, there are always exceptions. And for those, the amount of placements is probably the determining factor.

I’m a guy who always questions bolts on sport routes that have gear placements. That being said, if you’re at a sport climbing area that has an 80+ percent bolted route that needs a couple pieces of gear, I say just bolt it, otherwise it won’t see any traffic. 

If you’re in an area that has plenty of trad climbs, I say bolted cracks get chopped, and mixed climbs are the norm. Just bolt enough to keep it safe, and to avoid the r/x rating that will keep people from repeating it.

Multi pitch: least amount of bolts possible. Gear should be the expected. Again just enough to keep it safe and enjoyable 

saign charlesteinwrote:

I’m a guy who always questions bolts on sport routes that have gear placements. That being said, if you’re at a sport climbing area that has an 80+ percent bolted route that needs a couple pieces of gear, I say just bolt it, otherwise it won’t see any traffic. 

If you’re in an area that has plenty of trad climbs, I say bolted cracks get chopped, and mixed climbs are the norm. Just bolt enough to keep it safe, and to avoid the r/x rating that will keep people from repeating it.

Multi pitch: least amount of bolts possible. Gear should be the expected. Again just enough to keep it safe and enjoyable 

Good points. Seems to be a consensus that the "answer" depends (of course) on the character/ethic of the crag where the route is located. The two 5-11s I linked to above were put up the first year we developed the crag, and are consistent with that character - lots of mixed routes. And not to argue, but those two routes get climbed A LOT, if you look at the comments and ticks, despite requiring either a piece of gear or a long-ish runout if you skip the gear. Just saying that mixed routes aren't necessarily ignored or hated on. Here's another at the same crag that's  mixed and gets a ton of traffic and positive feedback, in part because my friends didn't bolt by the gear placements:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106703124/rauch-factor

Beta Slavewrote:

"Mixed" routes are by definition Trad routes. If you need to place gear, at all, you are Trad climbing.

I understand what you're saying, and we definitely shouldn't call them "sport" routes, but "by definition" trad routes are routes that were developed ground up.  I can show you trad routes that have 3 or 4 bolts ONLY for the entire 100" pitch.  I don't think those really qualify as "sport" routes.  This kind of gets into splitting hairs territory, and I definitely agree that if you have to pull some widgets up the route with you to protect it, then it most likely isn't a sport route either.  The distinctions sort of blend into one another at the fringes, and outside of the clearly defined lines of protection- coupled with the classic/historical definition of "sport" routes being more about the gymnastic movement, less about the risk and primarily developed from an anchor system above with relatively no risk and trad routes being those that were developed ground up, and any fixed protection put in from stances and not from a fixed line or anchor from above- so, developed with *some* risk.

So, how does it work if you rap bolt your Trad line? What do we call a rap bolted Trad route? Garbage is the word that springs to my mind. Completely denying the very essence of what Trad climbing is, a clean ground up ascent.

Well, yes and no.  I agree with you, but if the developer in question here had just climbed it, and left a huge runout in the middle, he'd have just as many people saying that it sucks and someone may even come behind and bolt the whole thing, which, in my opinion as an advocate of LNT first and foremost, would be a bigger tragedy than a misnomer and a conundrum of "what to call it".  This is just my opinion though, I value others' opinions and it's not something that I would lose sleep over or get frustrated about.

You want to create a route with mixed protection, you had better be doing it ground up. 

Really?  There are plenty of historical examples of climbers that are way more prolific that most people posting here will ever be, myself included.  Please call Doug Reed and let him know he's a chuffer and a punter for the classic route Spectre at the New River Gorge- and the myriad examples in the east and nationwide that adopted that same development "tactic" in that same late 80s and 90s era.  Let me know how he responds.  Actually, Pat Goodman has put up a few scary and insanely difficult lines on only gear, and a few with extra bolts, and one that required getting a permit for so that he could be a total chuffer and add a bolt to a route that "totally goes on gear".  Head out east to that beautiful sandstone, hop on Gun Control and eschew the bolts, and I'll take back every word of this post and send you a pic of me crying with fear 5 feet past a string of bomber cams so you can spread it far and wide and all of us can have a good laugh.  Let me know what Pat thinks as well.

Then it's totally cool, impressive even. This concept also nullifies the "don't bring the rock down to your level" justification for not bolting next to a gear placement. You can't argue you are being ethical in regards to what the rock gives you at the same time you lowered down it with a drill.

You're right here, but only through a lens of absolute/binary terms.  If the developer wants other people to climb the route and is attempting to "split the difference" between LNT and comfortizing/accessorizing a route so that it gets more traffic and can be enjoyed without huge consequence for falling in the wrong place, and bolts are approved for the area, then why not?  Why lock ourselves into the staunch, black and white dichotomy based on what only part of the climbing community sees as the only true and correct ethical approach to route development- when so much historical precedence for mixed routes exists?  Do you feel the same about bolting an anchor at the top of a route?  It's less "pure" than topping out and figuring out a way to get down, so ethically sound so to speak, but also in many areas that have the "top out" ethic, the cliff top gets eroded and it's actually less impact, if you're going to climb there, to put in an anchor that can be easily maintained, last a long time and facilitates less impact to the natural environment over time.  By your standard though, or by my estimation of your standard, this would also be deemed d-baggery.

As an be aside, when you also claim that by posting which specific piece(s) you need to drag on up the route somewhere like here or in a guide you solve the hidden danger risk for those following after you; 

Only if the climber is unable to carry up a variety of different sized passive and active gear, and lacks the ability to assess good placements and the ability to find stances from which to put gear in good placements.  Your assertion depends on the assumed ignorance of every climber that will potentially climb that route.  In other words, it's inherently fallacious.

you are tacitly admitting that you have created a contrived climb for which you need Beta in advance or risk injury/death.

Not for knowledgeable climbers.  If one needs specific gear placement advice like "for the perfect hands section, bring one or two yellow BD cams" then they probably are not yet well equipped enough with skill and ability to be attempting a route at their limit on gear pro regardless if the route is augmented with bolts or not.  Again, you're assuming that everyone that will frequent this area or will climb those routes is ignorant and incapable, which may be the case, but is highly unlikely.  I'm not a fan of specific gear beta, but if someone puts some hard work and $$ into putting up routes, then that's their prerogative as far as I'm concerned.

In the end context is what matters. 

Contextually speaking, if the developer's goal is to make a protectable route that doesn't have death or serious injury consequences, and knowledgeable climbers can get on it and have a good time, then the unyielding application of strict this-or-that ethical rules seems...   out of context.

How many placements are there? You'd have to be clueless to zook in bolts along a protectable section of a climb. But one placement? 2 in a row? That's where context comes in. Where are you? A huge crag a long ways from the car that invokes several degrees more of self-reliance and advanced skills or some sporto crag swarming with kids?

I agree here, and thought the same thing, but want to mention really quickly that there are giant single pitch areas in the country that have the following, sometimes literally side by side:  

• Fully equipped, well bolted, try-hard, gymnastic sport routes
• Partially equipped, BYOG, mixed pro routes.
• Fully bolted cracks that could go 100% safely on gear.
• Cracks with no fixed pro, but an anchor on top for lowering/cleaning.
• Face climbs protected only by gear, would make fine sport routes, run out as hell, and you have to top out to get off it.
• Short boulders
• Highballs

IMHO, creating a mixed route by the top down approach, in an area with significant fully bolted sport routes, is more likely to be a contrived display of d-baggery than a laudable contribution to the area. Of course, there are always exceptions. And for those, the amount of placements is probably the determining factor.

Doesn't "IMHO" mean "in my humble opinion"?  Seems like a misallocation of that acronym based on the lack of humility in your post.

While I don't agree with a lot of Jake Jones's social commentary, I do agree with this:

Mixed routes are a perfectly reasonable endeavor that if anything, increases accessibility.

As a sport climber just starting to place gear, I feel more challenged (and more protected) having some gear placements on a tough route with bolts as a backup, compared to leading some 5.easy all-gear routes that my sport climbing mind says, "eh you could just solo / run that out."

----------------

As to the overall question/philosophy:

I agree with others that you look at the general philosophy / trend of the crag. Examples in practice, Rattlesnake in Southern Oregon. 

75 routes listed on MP (100+ in the guidebook), 3 of those take gear. Everything else is bolted sport, most of it >5.11.

First is a 5.8 crack with bolted anchors, Uppyer Crack. There's no reason this should ever be fully bolted, even though the rest of the crag is sport. I realize this flies in the face of everything else below. :P 

Second is a 10c that is bolted until the final 15ish feet, Thumper. I've never climbed it, I don't know many folks who have, and it only has 3 ticks in the past 11 years (not that the local climbers are big MP users). In my opinion, bolting this would get more people on a climb with a great position, and add just one more climb under 5.11 (a common complaint at this crag). 

Third is a 5.9 crack that has four bolts and a longer ~20 foot section that takes gear, Barney. But apparently someone in the last 6 months bolted the whole thing (yet didn't touch the shitty anchors that have needed replacement for years). I haven't heard confirmation of that, but I can't say I'm too upset by it - not that it's a great climb, but again keeping with the crag philosophy, it's not a huge loss. 

Adding even more context, Rattlesnake is really chossy tuff, not exactly primo rock for placing gear. AND about an hour away, there's Greensprings which has some absolutely bomber trad lines that are quite appreciated locally. So is anything being "lost" by bolting two gear routes at Rattlesnake? I would argue no.

Tell me why I'm wrong. :) 

Beta Slavewrote:

"Mixed" routes are by definition Trad routes. If you need to place gear, at all, you are Trad climbing.

So, how does it work if you rap bolt your Trad line? What do we call a rap bolted Trad route? Garbage is the word that springs to my mind. Completely denying the very essence of what Trad climbing is, a clean ground up ascent.

You want to create a route with mixed protection, you had better be doing it ground up. Then it's totally cool, impressive even. This concept also nullifies the "don't bring the rock down to your level" justification for not bolting next to a gear placement. You can't argue you are being ethical in regards to what the rock gives you at the same time you lowered down it with a drill.

As an be aside, when you also claim that by posting which specific piece(s) you need to drag on up the route somewhere like here or in a guide you solve the hidden danger risk for those following after you; you are tacitly admitting that you have created a contrived climb for which you need Beta in advance or risk injury/death.

In the end context is what matters. How many placements are there? You'd have to be clueless to zook in bolts along a protectable section of a climb. But one placement? 2 in a row? That's where context comes in. Where are you? A huge crag a long ways from the car that invokes several degrees more of self-reliance and advanced skills or some sporto crag swarming with kids?

IMHO, creating a mixed route by the top down approach, in an area with significant fully bolted sport routes, is more likely to be a contrived display of d-baggery than a laudable contribution to the area. Of course, there are always exceptions. And for those, the amount of placements is probably the determining factor.

I don't want to get into a pissing match as I'm here for free chicken and beer and not bad vibes - and Jake Jones already shook this quote like a rag doll - but saying "You want to create a route with mixed protection, you had better be doing it ground up" probably makes sense in 2022 only on immaculate rock somehow never discovered.

The basalt/andesite around here sometimes allows for ground up ascents, and I've done some of those. Not a ton, maybe 5, and they are great memories. I've also backed off more than 5 because I am afraid of dying. Most areas around here - like Ozone, where I keep posting routes from - have walls littered with detached blocks and boulders as big as you and me. Trying them ground up would lead to certain death, sooner or later. When we cleaned Ozone we did it top down, being mere mortals. Look below the trail and you will see the hundreds, probably thousands, of blocks we had to toss. When we found gear placements, we did not bolt. We ended up with some great mixed routes. 

Point being, the walls around here usually require a once-over trundling, and then you are left not with some chossy 5-easy that "wasn't worth cleaning," but in most cases high quality vertical to overhung 5.9 to 5.12 faces. Not for nothing did Ozone become the most popular and crowded cag in the area - driving me further afield to find more chossy faces to trundle top down and put mixed routes up on!

Example below: I did the right side crack ground up for the FA, throwing blocks as I went and aiding as necessary, then hauled a drill on my seond rope and put an anchor about 85 feet up and right just out of sight. It doesn't need bolts, it's a trad line, right? It's a rare line at this  crag that could go ground up with my skill set, and so it did.

But I will eventually traverse leftward from its anchor to above the crack on the left and probably establish it top down because I think I can see blocks higher up too big and scary to toss from below/climb around like i did on the crack to the right. I will 100% drill bolts wherever I see fit, where there is no decent gear. Then again, maybe I'll take anothe rook and decide to try it ground up. but if I back off, I'll be doing it top down. Next, I'll repeat the leftward process and clean that triple roof feature from above. if it ends up taking 1, 2, 3 pieces of gear, guess what? I'm going to otherwise bolt it but leave the gear placements. 

I love a good mixed route like this one: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106028197/fields-of-gold It's about 50/50 gear and bolts. 

I was curious about the retrobolting of this route: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105757051/headline  so I went up and led it on the bolts. I can say it is a LOT easier now that you don't have to hang out and place gear. 

I don't really respond to the argument that "it's a sport crag, no one brings a rack". I think if there are natural gear placements I would generally rely on them. If there are only one or two placements and the rest needs to be bolt protected I guess I can see adding those bolts, but I don't mind bringing a small rack to supplement when sport climbing.

I really don't buy the "someone might get hurt" argument. There is so much information now between guidebooks and MP that you can find out what the protection situation is on most routes before you head up. This is an inherently dangerous activity and you can make it safer but not safe. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

It depends for me. For example, generally speaking, I don’t understand why any mixed route should ever get an R or X rating.

established ground up

Jake Joneswrote:

Ok, that's a question you need to answer yourself.  The logical extrapolation of this using social justice theory is "mixed route development excludes people that don't have enough money to afford the gear needed to protect these routes, ergo, the developer is racist" (you know, because melanin is directly tied to life decisions that lead to occupation and compensation) or some variation of that.  Also, I'll posit this to you.  Not all "POC" are broke.  Not all of them feel they need to be saved by whitey.  Not all of them see themselves as victims of historical oppression with no agency to affect any change on a personal individual level in their life.  To lend credence to this notion, is in fact a racist endeavor.  Assuming that everyone with melanin in their skin can't afford trad gear, or *gasp* can't borrow trad gear, is to treat every member of that demographic as a monolith with no room for nuance, different upbringings, different sensibilities, political perspective, etc.  To spell it out with no mixing of words, to assume financial status based on skin color, is the same as assuming anything about anyone based only on an immutable characteristic without giving any consideration to their individual character, history, personality, etc.  You know, good old fashioned, unadulterated racism- judging someone based on nothing but the color of their skin. 

...weird place to get on your soapbox. OP asked about accessibility climbers who can't afford trad gear. Nobody called anybody racist, the discussion is about economic barriers.

But yea we probably shouldn't assume things about an individual based on their skin color.

Once  you  break out the  drill  you have a  responsibility to do  a good job.  Ground up  is not  an excuse to hack  it up. 

Jay Crewwrote:

established ground up

Huh? Not an excuse