Perm-attaching holds

What's everyone's thoughts on bolting (via rod etc.) or gluing holds in place, before they eventually fall out? 

Disclaimer: not to be confused with constructing routes artificially.

A few questions:

1. What areas have you been where this is common and why? 
2. What areas is this strictly frowned upon and why?
3. How much of a grade difference would it take, should it fall out, for you to say it's justified?
4. Would you feel differently if there wasn't any immanent danger to anyone? Or if there was, for that matter?
5. When offered the choice, do you prefer gluing in place or bolting in place, for permanently attaching a hold?
6. Under the context of this conversation, does the position of the hold on the route matter to you? First move? Last move? Doesn't matter?
7. Do you find the possible shift in grade (after its removal), in either direction, to be interesting and just part of the natural process of routes? 
8. Should the hold be removed the second it comes into question by the developer/s (or other climbers) and this no matter the outcome or the potential for danger, or lack there of?
9. Would you feel differently if this was, say, a 5.13c route vs a 5.8 route?
10. What was the first thought you had, the first time you noticed an artificially attached hold? (see disclaimer.)
11. Do you hate perm-attaching of any holds, for any reason?
12. Could you care less, either way and you just want to climb?
13. Any other thoughts you'd like to share, which are related to this topic?
14. ETA: you're okay with it under certain circumstances, but only if it's impossible or next to impossible to know it's been attached? Say, the developers do a good job of hiding their "tracks" i.e. think the old proverb, "What you don't know can't hurt you."

Glue is aid.

If you do it right nobody will ever know. Important holds get bolted/glued on all the time.

Nathan Doylewrote:

What's everyone's thoughts on bolting (via rod etc.) or gluing holds in place, before they eventually fall out? 

Disclaimer: not to be confused with constructing routes artificially.

A few questions:

1. What areas have you been where this is common and why? 

I think Joe Kinder talked about this somewhere but essentially the hurricave and rifle, I would assume have a ton of glue. Little si, Banff, Skaha, and smith I have seen good amounts of glue. 

1. What areas is this strictly frowned upon and why?

Generally bomber rock, so Index and Yosemite I feel like it is more frowned upon (specifically thinking of the rock fall on separate reality)

1. How much of a grade difference would it take, should it fall out, for you to say it's justified?

I would say a number grade and a half. People will climb a 5.11a into a one move v4 crux (5.12a). I don't think many people would climb a 5.11a into a one move v5/v6 crux (5.12c/d).

1. Would you feel differently if there wasn't any immanent danger to anyone? Or if there was, for that matter?

I always try to get anything I can get off with a 3 lb hammer and a 3 foot bar. If it does not go with that, then I will reinforce with glue. 

1. When offered the choice, do you prefer gluing in place or bolting in place, for permanently attaching a hold?

Glue works much better for tiny seams. I would only bolt on death blocks but not actual holds. Bolting on a death block is advantageous with a chain since you could tell how much it moves. Also a gap larger than half and inch takes hella glue.

1. Under the context of this conversation, does the position of the hold on the route matter to you? First move? Last move? Doesn't matter?

I try to rip off anything that could ever go. If I can't get it easily but its 50/50 if I spend 30 min, then I lean to whatever would make the grade most consistent.

1. Should the hold be removed the second it comes into question by the developer/s (or other climbers) and this no matter the outcome or the potential for danger, or lack there of?

You should try to get rid of anything hazardous otherwise  stay consistent with the grade.  

1. Would you feel differently if this was, say, a 5.13c route vs a 5.8 route?

Generally a 5.8 has so many options losing a hold would keep it 5.8.

1. Could you care less, either way and you just want to climb?

People on MP care, most people don't notice. 

I've pumped my share of glue behind holds, into hollow pocket holds, sealed the crack at the top or side of a flexi-hold, etc. American Fork, Echo Canyon, City Creek, and the Utah Hills in Utah, an unnamed place near Ely, Nevada. I've always believed in doing a respectable job of it, meaning rubbing dirt or crag base material into the glue so it's not ugly. I've never bolted a hold on. Never considered it, really. Glue always got it done and bolting something on seems absurd. I've never come across a bolted on hold in all my years of climbing.

On the Diamond at Utah Hills, I saw a death block perched on a ledge (off route sufficiently, but a danger nonetheless) that I briefly considered jettisoning or bolting to the wall with a chain. But then I left it alone because 1) it could sit there for the next 300 years for all I know 2) jettisoning it would wreak havoc on the wilderness below 3) IMPORTANT what happens if I decide to chain this thing to the wall and then it slips off the ledge, becoming a time-bomb of my own creation, destined to drop when my 5-piece Rawl eventually fails?

Wasatch climbers are not ashamed of gluing. They have a pragmatic approach to it. How many American Fork classics are glue-free? Maple? There are some that are egregious, however. You can see it from the ground. That's bad style. I always tried to make mine discreet. And I'll not be shamed for having done so. But I am a pragmatist. Would I go to Yosemite and glue? Hell no. But at a backyard crag that need a little help, especially in a community that accepts it? Yes, with no shame.

Consider your community, the quality of the crag, the ethics of your area. Talk with a few people first. Be smart. If you do it, do a good job and make it as invisible as it can be.

Nathan Doylewrote:

What's everyone's thoughts on bolting (via rod etc.) or gluing holds in place, before they eventually fall out? 

Disclaimer: not to be confused with constructing routes artificially.

A few questions:

1. What areas have you been where this is common and why? 
2. What areas is this strictly frowned upon and why?
3. How much of a grade difference would it take, should it fall out, for you to say it's justified?
4. Would you feel differently if there wasn't any immanent danger to anyone? Or if there was, for that matter?
5. When offered the choice, do you prefer gluing in place or bolting in place, for permanently attaching a hold?
6. Under the context of this conversation, does the position of the hold on the route matter to you? First move? Last move? Doesn't matter?
7. Do you find the possible shift in grade (after its removal), in either direction, to be interesting and just part of the natural process of routes? 
8. Should the hold be removed the second it comes into question by the developer/s (or other climbers) and this no matter the outcome or the potential for danger, or lack there of?
9. Would you feel differently if this was, say, a 5.13c route vs a 5.8 route?
10. What was the first thought you had, the first time you noticed an artificially attached hold? (see disclaimer.)
11. Do you hate perm-attaching of any holds, for any reason?
12. Could you care less, either way and you just want to climb?
13. Any other thoughts you'd like to share, which are related to this topic?
14. ETA: you're okay with it under certain circumstances, but only if it's impossible or next to impossible to know it's been attached? Say, the developers do a good job of hiding their "tracks" i.e. think the old proverb, "What you don't know can't hurt you."

If you do it right no one will ever know and you don't need to ask these questions.

Tradibanwrote:

If you do it right no one will ever know and you don't need to ask these questions.

Whether or not it is noticed is a separate question to whether or not it is a reasonable or ethical choice to make. It sounds to me like he is much more interested in when it is and isn't appropriate to do as a developer and much less interested in how such actions would be perceived. 

 The comment above stating that it is a good and defensible practice in their area was of significant interest to me. Here in the Central Western Sierra where I'm starting to form relationships with other developers and learning more about the culture, I don't think such actions would be taken to kindly-- I could be wrong, though, as I haven't asked. 

But even adding bolts to top rope areas is often considered out of bounds here, I have a hard time seeing this as considered kosher here. But then we have bolted cracks out here too so I don't pretend to understand anything. Maybe all this reinforces your idea that it's less about what's moral or culturally acceptable and more about what you can get away with, but I still definitely think figuring out what is good and defensible regardless of what one can get away with is a valuable exercise. If I do a thing and someone calls me out on it I want a real, meaningful answer, not "you weren't supposed to find out."

Hi Ricky, I don't know if you refer to my comment or not. But if you did, please understand my comments about Wasatch Range route developers is totally sincere. We really do (did?) have a pragmatic approach that tends to say reinforced routes are fine in the appropriate areas. Some areas are off the table for such tactics: Lone Peak, LCC, others. I think Wasatch Range climbers are one of the finest groups of climbers in terms of self-regulating what is appropriate in what area. Everyone is focused on the best outcome of their particular craft. It is perhaps how the region has produced so many strong climbers, whatever their discipline. They have not been without their drama, but they have absolutely produced. I am proud for my time there and what little I contributed. It seems to me that this is a community that understands self-regulation and what is appropriate and where.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Whether or not it is noticed is a separate question to whether or not it is a reasonable or ethical choice to make. It sounds to me like he is much more interested in when it is and isn't appropriate to do as a developer and much less interested in how such actions would be perceived. 

 The comment above stating that it is a good and defensible practice in their area was of significant interest to me. Here in the Central Western Sierra where I'm starting to form relationships with other developers and learning more about the culture, I don't think such actions would be taken to kindly-- I could be wrong, though, as I haven't asked. 

But even adding bolts to top rope areas is often considered out of bounds here, I have a hard time seeing this as considered kosher here. But then we have bolted cracks out here too so I don't pretend to understand anything. Maybe all this reinforces your idea that it's less about what's moral or culturally acceptable and more about what you can get away with, but I still definitely think figuring out what is good and defensible regardless of what one can get away with is a valuable exercise. If I do a thing and someone calls me out on it I want a real, meaningful answer, not "you weren't supposed to find out."

You're over thinking it. There are no "rules", except those made by those talking the loudest, who have no authority to make rules.

The answer to all these ethics questions is "Do what you think makes sense and be prepared to defend your actions, a muerte.

LL2wrote:

Hi Ricky, I don't know if you refer to my comment or not. But if you did, please understand my comments about Wasatch Range route developers is totally sincere. We really do (did?) have a pragmatic approach that tends to say reinforced routes are fine in the appropriate areas. Some areas are off the table for such tactics: Lone Peak, LCC, others. I think Wasatch Range climbers are one of the finest groups of climbers in terms of self-regulating what is appropriate in what area. Everyone is focused on the best outcome of their particular craft. It is perhaps how the region has produced so many strong climbers, whatever their discipline. They have not been without their drama, but they have absolutely produced. I am proud for my time there and what little I contributed. It seems to me that this is a community that understands self-regulation and what is appropriate and where.

I would like to be clear that I am not skeptical of this practice, of your defense of it, or of the culture and ethic there. I think different groups have different practices, and it was interesting to me to hear of a practice considered OK and very defensible elsewhere that I think would not be considered that here. I didn't mean to throw any shade or anything like that-- I hardly think we have some superior ethic or anything like that here. I think it's different, that's all. I don't know anything about that area or the climbers that comprise it or the things they think, but I completely believe everything you have to say about the caliber of climbers and of the ethic there.

Tradiban wrote:

You're over thinking it. There are no "rules", except those made by those talking the loudest, who have no authority to make rules.

The answer to all these ethics questions is "Do what you think makes sense and be prepared to defend your actions, a muerte.

Then think of this as discussing the "be prepared to defend your actions" part. One shouldn't be providing some BS excuse they can think of to defend their actions; rather, the details and ethics of the situation should be seriously considered before any action is taken. That is what is being discussed here.

I think the two biggest differences between the Sierra and Wasatch  is rock quality and color. In Tahoe I don’t even know how you could hide a glue job, the rock is so white and there is so little dust that any glue would be obvious most the time. In the wastach the color is similar to glue or it’s so fractured you can’t really tell.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Then think of this as discussing the "be prepared to defend your actions" part. One shouldn't be providing some BS excuse they can think of to defend their actions; rather, the details and ethics of the situation should be seriously considered before any action is taken. That is what is being discussed here.

Which brings us back to my original point, hide your work so you don't have to defend it because aint nobody changing their minds. Do what is necessary and answer only to yourself. 

What is "necessary"? That depends on so many factors public and personal that it's futile to dissect them all and like I said, ultimately it doesn't matter, one man's "BS excuse" is another man's reason.

Once you take a drill to rock you have blown through all ethical boundaries so worrying about some glue or an additional bolt to secure a hold is silly.

Freedumb!

Tradibanwrote:

Which brings us back to my original point, hide your work so you don't have to defend it because aint nobody changing their minds. Do what is necessary and answer only to yourself. 

What is "necessary"? That depends on so many factors public and personal that it's futile to dissect them all and like I said, ultimately it doesn't matter, one man's "BS excuse" is another man's reason.

Once you take a drill to rock you have blown through all ethical boundaries so worrying about some glue or an additional bolt to secure a hold is silly.

Freedumb!

It may be the case to you that drilling crosses any meaningful ethical boundary but that's just like your opinion man. Most of us are capable of drilling rock and still desire to minimize our impact. None of us want to throw our hands in the air and say fuck it and throw all ethics to the wind. 

I agree that there isn't some universal code but that everyone interprets things differently. And how does one arrive at their conclusions other than by discussing them with others? 

Again I go back to I would take no action I wouldn't feel comfortable defending. I would also take no action that would invite scrutiny into me as a developer. Threads like this are therefore interesting to learn about why different practices exist around the country and why people do and don't do various things. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

It may be the case to you that drilling crosses any meaningful ethical boundary but that's just like your opinion man. Most of us are capable of drilling rock and still desire to minimize our impact. None of us want to throw our hands in the air and say fuck it and throw all ethics to the wind. 

I agree that there isn't some universal code but that everyone interprets things differently. And how does one arrive at their conclusions other than by discussing them with others? 

Again I go back to I would take no action I wouldn't feel comfortable defending. I would also take no action that would invite scrutiny into me as a developer. Threads like this are therefore interesting to learn about why different practices exist around the country and why people do and don't do various things. 

Then, what's the ethical difference between bolting and chipping?

Tradibanwrote:

Once you take a drill to rock you have blown through all ethical boundaries so worrying about some glue or an additional bolt to secure a hold is silly.

Spot on here ^^

Tradibanwrote:

Then, what's the ethical difference between bolting on a hold and chipping?

Is that the question you're asking?

It’s not a tactic that I would choose to use but that’s mainly because I’m too lazy and if a route requires a piece of rock to be reinforced to make it go I’ll abandon it and move on.  One of the crags I frequent out in the desert has a route that has a large flake bolted to the wall.   It was done pretty well and unless someone told me about it I never would have known.  The bolt holes on the flake were counter sunk so the bolt head was below the surface then the holes were filled in with epoxy and rock dust applied, you really have to know what you are looking for to spot it.   Again, I’m way too lazy for that kinda work, plenty of good rock out there that doesn’t require those type of buffoonery but I’ll give him credit for a good job. 

Tradibanwrote:

Then, what's the ethical difference between bolting and chipping?

I think that's a fair question. Any line drawn, including the ones that you draw, are necessarily arbitrary. Anyone who thinks that trad lines appear as you find them either lives near a place like Indian Creek or has never done any actual development. Even your pure trad lines often involve a lot of development to make them safe and climbable and frankly mass quantities of moss, lichen, and other plant life are removed by traffic if not by the developers. This is all harming our public resources in some way, so there is no form of climbing that is no impact and usually it's not possible to even be low impact IMO. I install bolts but I also take their installation and the modification of our natural resources very, very seriously.

The question, then, is where to draw the line. For myself and many others drilling rock to get to be able to access climbs that are otherwise not leadable or maybe even accessible at all doesn't seem like a step much further than all the de-choss work and removal of plant life. Artificially creating a hold, however, is a very large step. To make even a small pocket requires significant drilling and chiseling work. "Comfortizing" holds is a grey area and is to my understanding far more common than most climbers realize-- I haven't done it, I don't want to do it, but I'm not say that I'll never do it. If I was developing in an area where that was firmly considered acceptable (IE respected developers do it regularly and the community doesn't push back against it) I would consider doing it, but I think it is pretty outside of what is considered ethical practice in my backyard. 

So I think you're pointing out that the line is rather arbitrary. I don't disagree. There is no line one could draw between acceptable and unacceptable practice that makes complete sense, other than if we were to decide that climbing in any form isn't acceptable because it harms our public natural resources. So the difference is that installing a bolt is not a terribly significant alteration of the rock. Also with newer developers increasingly having the tools and skills to pull bolts, even wedge bolts aren't really permanent fixtures anymore, so with the exception of glue ins that I've placed, if I took a turn towards the Tradiban and wanted to pull every bolt I've ever placed it wouldn't be that hard (note: this is why I'm not on team use glue ins for everything-- they have no place in granite and similarly bomber rock in my opinion). 

Chipping would be a permanent, non-reversible alteration of the route. Further, for someone who climbs harder than me the chipping may not be necessary. This means that I have made such a significant alteration not because it is necessary for it to be freed, but because it is necessary for me to be able to free it. So were I to engage in such action to keep a hard section in a similar grade range to the rest of the route then I permanently altered a public resource to suit my personal desires, which may not be those of other climbs or developers. It's one thing to put up the compressor route if everyone thinks it's cool, it's another to do it if everyone thinks you're a prick-- these are public resources and one ought to check their ego if they're going to make any sorts of alterations to them. Public opinion alone doesn't decide if something is moral, but I think it should be a factor when developing on public land.

If there's some wall that's been quarried or blasted I don't know that I would oppose such action-- that's an interesting debate for another thread. But for route development of natural features I think there are actually some pretty clear differences that make this arbitrary line a sensible one to draw for the reasons I listed above. I don't think it's possible to be objective here-- from an objective standpoint the line you draw is as valid as the one I draw, and we all have to decide what level of compromise we're willing to accept to be able to climb while trying to minimize our impact. The line I draw, however, is as reasonable and has as clear boundaries as yours.

As to how this all pertains to permanently affixing holds either with adhesive or a bolt I'm not sure, but there's the your answer.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I think different groups have different practices, and it was interesting to me to hear of a practice considered OK and very defensible elsewhere that I think would not be considered that here. I didn't mean to throw any shade or anything like that-- I hardly think we have some superior ethic or anything like that here. I think it's different, that's all.

Ricky, I didn't feel any shade. And I agree with you. That's why I said I'd never go to Yosemite and glue. I know it would not be appropriate. I think for Wasatch climbers, the ethic developed because we had both high quality trad climbing with a history of bold ascents, then we had total crap rock at the beginning of the sport climbing revolution in this country, and some strong and psyched local climbers who saw the potential of that crap.

On the point of "comfortizing", I bolted a route at Wild Iris and absolutely smoothed the lips of some razor sharp pockets, as was widely accepted at Wild Iris. The original guidebook even recommended the practice. And anyone who has climbed there knows the difference between routes that were comfortized (the classics) and those that were not (the bombs). Here in New Mexico, it seems not accepted, at least at White Rock. I can think of many routes there that have toothy, tweaky sharp pockets. In my opinion, they'd be better routes if comfortized. But, that's not the ethic here. If I ever bolt a route here, I will follow the local ethic and not comfortize. Likewise, there are entire walls at White Rock that have been designated as top-rope or trad only, no bolts. There could probably be many high quality sport routes, but the community has decided that's not going to be the case. And I respect that.

All in all, I think we are in agreement. Local ethics should be respected. But these ethics vary from area to area, and anyone who thinks about developing a route should make sure they understand that ethic, and follow it. Cheers!

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I think that's a fair question. Any line drawn, including the ones that you draw, are necessarily arbitrary. Anyone who thinks that trad lines appear as you find them either lives near a place like Indian Creek or has never done any actual development. Even your pure trad lines often involve a lot of development to make them safe and climbable and frankly mass quantities of moss, lichen, and other plant life are removed by traffic if not by the developers. This is all harming our public resources in some way, so there is no form of climbing that is no impact and usually it's not possible to even be low impact IMO. I install bolts but I also take their installation and the modification of our natural resources very, very seriously.

The question, then, is where to draw the line. For myself and many others drilling rock to get to be able to access climbs that are otherwise not leadable or maybe even accessible at all doesn't seem like a step much further than all the de-choss work and removal of plant life. Artificially creating a hold, however, is a very large step. To make even a small pocket requires significant drilling and chiseling work. "Comfortizing" holds is a grey area and is to my understanding far more common than most climbers realize-- I haven't done it, I don't want to do it, but I'm not say that I'll never do it. If I was developing in an area where that was firmly considered acceptable (IE respected developers do it regularly and the community doesn't push back against it) I would consider doing it, but I think it is pretty outside of what is considered ethical practice in my backyard. 

So I think you're pointing out that the line is rather arbitrary. I don't disagree. There is no line one could draw between acceptable and unacceptable practice that makes complete sense, other than if we were to decide that climbing in any form isn't acceptable because it harms our public natural resources. So the difference is that installing a bolt is not a terribly significant alteration of the rock. Also with newer developers increasingly having the tools and skills to pull bolts, even wedge bolts aren't really permanent fixtures anymore, so with the exception of glue ins that I've placed, if I took a turn towards the Tradiban and wanted to pull every bolt I've ever placed it wouldn't be that hard (note: this is why I'm not on team use glue ins for everything-- they have no place in granite and similarly bomber rock in my opinion). 

Chipping would be a permanent, non-reversible alteration of the route. Further, for someone who climbs harder than me the chipping may not be necessary. This means that I have made such a significant alteration not because it is necessary for it to be freed, but because it is necessary for me to be able to free it. So were I to engage in such action to keep a hard section in a similar grade range to the rest of the route then I permanently altered a public resource to suit my personal desires, which may not be those of other climbs or developers. It's one thing to put up the compressor route if everyone thinks it's cool, it's another to do it if everyone thinks you're a prick-- these are public resources and one ought to check their ego if they're going to make any sorts of alterations to them. Public opinion alone doesn't decide if something is moral, but I think it should be a factor when developing on public land.

If there's some wall that's been quarried or blasted I don't know that I would oppose such action-- that's an interesting debate for another thread. But for route development of natural features I think there are actually some pretty clear differences that make this arbitrary line a sensible one to draw for the reasons I listed above. I don't think it's possible to be objective here-- from an objective standpoint the line you draw is as valid as the one I draw, and we all have to decide what level of compromise we're willing to accept to be able to climb while trying to minimize our impact. The line I draw, however, is as reasonable and has as clear boundaries as yours.

As to how this all pertains to permanently affixing holds either with adhesive or a bolt I'm not sure, but there's the your answer.

I love how this question ties bolters up in knots.

So you're answer is that bolts aren't permanent installations and that's why they are ok and chipping isn't?

Tradibanwrote:

I love how this question ties bolters up in knots.

I find it strange that you think it has done so. I rather consistently find that you think in rather black and white terms and think you have some unique insight into the morality of climbing. Me recognizing that this is all made up seems to not cooperate with your brain. There is no objectivity here-- give up on trying to achieve that.

So you're answer is that bolts aren't permanent installations and that's why they are ok and chipping isn't?

That is part of it yes. I listed many other reasons which you may read in my post above that you replied to.

ETA: 

I'll list them for you since you seem to be having some difficulty here:

1. It isn't a particularly significant alteration relative to other alterations that are necessary on even most trad routes
2. bolts are removable and concealable, thus making their installation temporary if desired
3. chipping is often a selfish act. Bolting can be, too, but so can putting up trad lines. If it is a public resource then how the development will meet the needs of others should be considered. Maybe it being a 1 star 5.12 is better than it being a three star 5.9. Not every route needs to be for everybody.
4. Alterations of natural features when developing routes have justifications, such as safety of climbers and making the climb accessible in the first place. Manufacturing holds is usually done to bring a route down to a certain level and not to make it accessible at all or to make it safe. This is fundamentally a different sort of action to engage in.