In Defense of FA Ethics

Does the first ascensionist own the rock he or she climbs? Most people would say no, but still no one can deny that the manner in which a piece of rock was first climbed dictates the actions of future climbers, similarly to property rights. If bolts are drilled on the FA, people clip them. If the first ascensionist runs it out, future climbers must do this as well. 

Why? First of all, the first ascensionist makes a risk calculation when they climb a route for the first time. Based on their own perceived ability, they deem a bolt necessary, or run it out. Once they send the climb, other people are called to match this standard if they want to climb that piece of rock. On a 5.4 hand crack with intermittent easy but unprotectable slab, the standard is low. On the Bachar-Yerian, the standard is very high, even elevating the rock itself. But this standard is always based on the initial risk calculation of the first ascensionist, and the fact that he or she did the climb with that assumption of risk. 

But what if the first ascensionist was a fool, adrenaline junkie who ran it out 80’ on overhanging crimps just for the rush? The fact remains that he did it, and any future climber on that piece of rock is called to the same standard. The deed has been done, future climbers must do it the same way or not do it at all; there are plenty of other rocks. Even if it is only possible to repeat the climb with an assumption of risk that is insane to every other human on Earth, (e.g. if Honnold made the FA of Freerider solo) the fact remains that someone else did it that way, and you should either make yourself better to the point that you can repeat it, or pick a different piece of rock. There are plenty of other rocks. 

But what if the first ascensionist climbs the route in poor style, for example rap bolting a finger crack? Here, there is an additional consideration: if someone can elevate the standard for the climb by climbing it in better style, they can modify the route to match that standard. This is a discretionary matter and should be treated with care. Just because you can solo the 5.5 warmup at the local sport crag, does not mean you should chop the bolts. However, if someone bolts an inspiring line that is later sent on gear, chopping should be seriously considered. There is certainly a fair amount of gray area, but still there are climbs which fall squarely in either category, i.e. easy enough that no one cares, or potentially inspiring enough that unnecessary bolts must be chopped. 

To conclude, the first ascensionist does sort of own the rock. Once a route is put up, the only way that it can be modified without the consent of the first ascensionist is if the standard is being elevated, calling all climbers who want to do the route to be better. 

Lastly, some logical consequences of this argument. If a route was put up on only passive pro, you should follow that standard and climb it the same way. If a route was put up onsight on lead, you shouldn’t toprope it first (I admit however that I am guilty of violating this one). If a route was put up while the first ascensionist was wasted, you should probably assume the same level of risk and climb the route the same way. These considerations are not as important however, because they do not involve modifying the rock or route.

Rocrateswrote:

But what if the first ascensionist was a fool, adrenaline junkie who ran it out 80’ on overhanging crimps just for the rush? The fact remains that he did it, and any future climber on that piece of rock is called to the same standard. The deed has been done, future climbers must do it the same way or not do it at all; there are plenty of other rocks. Even if it is only possible to repeat the climb with an assumption of risk that is insane to every other human on Earth, (e.g. if Honnold made the FA of Freerider solo) the fact remains that someone else did it that way, and you should either make yourself better to the point that you can repeat it, or pick a different piece of rock. There are plenty of other rocks. 

I don't think this is really a good argument but rather is simply just an assertion. So long as rocks are on public land they are communal resources. Why does the style of the first ascent determine how public resources should be managed? 

If there were a hiking trail and there was some concern about it, let's say there is significant danger potential, then does how it was first hiked have any relevance to how the trail should be managed? If the first lap of a pool was done butterfly must all subsequent laps be done the same? If the first lap of a new race track was done in a Ferrari are Miatas not allowed? 

This assertion that the FA is granted property rights over a communal resource in the public domain and is the sole arbiter of that bit of that natural resource appears like lunacy when you examine such behavior in just about any other domain. It's lunacy in our domain also, but it's a lunacy we're accustomed to. 

This is all pretty much pissing into the wind and a waste of time arguing over because it will never be 100% agreed upon.  
I will say for myself and the more I have matured as a climber I have changed the way I bolt easier climbs, it used to be if a route was pretty easy or moderate I would run it out because risk was minimal or at least I thought it was.    Since these easier routes are going to be climbed by newer climbers I have changed my ways and now bolt them accordingly.   Why should a new leader be put at a higher risk because I thought the terrain was easy?   I would encourage any developers to keep in mind who is going to be climbing your routes.  

Rocrateswrote:

To conclude, the first ascensionist does sort of own the rock. Once a route is put up, the only way that it can be modified without the consent of the first ascensionist is if the standard is being elevated, calling all climbers who want to do the route to be better. 

Since the FA owns the naming rights and the ethics for the route, they do not own the bolt line 2 feet to the right of the hand crack that would not have been used for the route.

If you rap bolt, your work is highly subjected to communal opinion and alteration/retrofitting. 

Ground up, no one can argue. 

Beta Slavewrote:

If you rap bolt, your work is highly subjected to communal opinion and alteration/retrofitting. 

Ground up, no one can argue. 

It is hard to bolt as well ground up as top down. I did my first bolted route on lead last week and I am not nearly as pleased with the bolting as with my top down routes. This is hardly unique to me. Due to this your perspective doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If someone takes modifying rock as something so serious that feedback should be garnered before drilling then it's open to community feedback, but if they say fuck it and head out there with a drill then it can't be touched?

Or to point to the opposite end of the spectrum where rap bolting is not distinguishable from lead bolting, what about Emigrant Wall where some multipitch routes are rap bolted and some were put up on lead? They're all excellent because Bobby is an outstanding route developer. Sometimes it was more convenient to rap bolt, sometimes it was more convenient to bolt on lead. Because the FAs did what was most convenient for them we now as a community have say over some E Wall routes but not others? How absurd. 

I’ve put a number of routes, mostly ground up without preview.  Some of them I would consider hard and dangerous (R/X) trad climbs..  I’ve also bolted routes, so I’m not a purist on that count.  How anyone else climbs any of these routes doesn’t bother me in the least.  If it’s too dangerous, just toprope it.  The only thing that would upset me is if a trad route is retrobolted or other fixed gear is placed.  Leave the original condition so that others can replicate it in the same style it was done. 

Go climb, have fun and who gives a shit how you did the route.  Most routes are like a round of golf…forgettable in the long run.

Rocrates, I'd better not see you climbing old classics with a stretchy rope, or climbing shoes, or wire stem cams, or cams in general. Hexes are cheaper anyways and you can use boots for the approach.

Climbing in zero bolts allowed areas doesn't half take away the hassle of wrestling with this moral dilemma.

If the FA wants to be a selfish douche bag and not let people retro bolt their otherwise disgustingly run out death trap of a route that's their choice. There is so much rock out there I really don't think this is much of a problem. 

Take grit for example, 100s of hard run out climbs with horrific ground fall potential, guaranteed serious injury on many and yet here I am, not dead or seriously injured, I just don't climb the really dangerous stuff (or if I do I headpoint) I can get up plenty of very hard safe routes. Its just not an issue. 

Rocrateswrote:

Does the first ascensionist own the rock he or she climbs? Most people would say no, but still no one can deny that the manner in which a piece of rock was first climbed dictates the actions of future climbers, similarly to property rights. If bolts are drilled on the FA, people clip them. If the first ascensionist runs it out, future climbers must do this as well. 

Why? First of all, the first ascensionist makes a risk calculation when they climb a route for the first time. Based on their own perceived ability, they deem a bolt necessary, or run it out. Once they send the climb, other people are called to match this standard if they want to climb that piece of rock. On a 5.4 hand crack with intermittent easy but unprotectable slab, the standard is low. On the Bachar-Yerian, the standard is very high, even elevating the rock itself. But this standard is always based on the initial risk calculation of the first ascensionist, and the fact that he or she did the climb with that assumption of risk. 

But what if the first ascensionist was a fool, adrenaline junkie who ran it out 80’ on overhanging crimps just for the rush? The fact remains that he did it, and any future climber on that piece of rock is called to the same standard. The deed has been done, future climbers must do it the same way or not do it at all; there are plenty of other rocks. Even if it is only possible to repeat the climb with an assumption of risk that is insane to every other human on Earth, (e.g. if Honnold made the FA of Freerider solo) the fact remains that someone else did it that way, and you should either make yourself better to the point that you can repeat it, or pick a different piece of rock. There are plenty of other rocks. 

But what if the first ascensionist climbs the route in poor style, for example rap bolting a finger crack? Here, there is an additional consideration: if someone can elevate the standard for the climb by climbing it in better style, they can modify the route to match that standard. This is a discretionary matter and should be treated with care. Just because you can solo the 5.5 warmup at the local sport crag, does not mean you should chop the bolts. However, if someone bolts an inspiring line that is later sent on gear, chopping should be seriously considered. There is certainly a fair amount of gray area, but still there are climbs which fall squarely in either category, i.e. easy enough that no one cares, or potentially inspiring enough that unnecessary bolts must be chopped. 

To conclude, the first ascensionist does sort of own the rock. Once a route is put up, the only way that it can be modified without the consent of the first ascensionist is if the standard is being elevated, calling all climbers who want to do the route to be better. 

Lastly, some logical consequences of this argument. If a route was put up on only passive pro, you should follow that standard and climb it the same way. If a route was put up onsight on lead, you shouldn’t toprope it first (I admit however that I am guilty of violating this one). If a route was put up while the first ascensionist was wasted, you should probably assume the same level of risk and climb the route the same way. These considerations are not as important however, because they do not involve modifying the rock or route.

It's not about anybody owning anything, it's about honoring tradition. Sport climbing is just the homogenized boring version of climbing suitable for the masses. I don't think I would be mad if someone retrobrolted (sic) my roots (sic) I just be sad. 

In reality most of us trad people are "whatever" on owning the rock, we already did the route in good style and moved on, it's the sport climbers who are constantly obsessing over ownership.

Excellent trolling here. And getting the Bachar-Yerian in the first few sentences is traditional in these fake debates. A big problem with American climbing that still holds it back is the idea of the "first ascent" as meaningful but often without a close look at what actually happens on those ascents. Historically, instead of the ideal of a ground-up onsight on natural gear, there is usually a cheat involved of some type. Let's look at the Bachar-Yerian as an example. For sure a very bold climb but the fact remains that 4 of the 13 bolts were placed using skyhooks for aid, and then the route was "redpointed" afterwards. Why didn't Bachar wait until he was strong enough to do the route without aid? Or leave it for future generations to onsight from the bottom without aid? Does this argument sound ridiculous? Well known and respected CA climber Tom Higgins asked exactly that question here a long time ago about Bachar-Yerian. 

https://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php/style-commentaries/13-tricksters-and-traditionalists?start=6

https://youtu.be/Wcg5arcKDCo

 A lot of American climbing history respects FAs done with aid but aid isn't even seen as climbing by many at this point. Why should aid climbing be considered valid in putting up a climb? Why should the presence of an aid climb somehow prevent better protection in the form of bolts being added for free climbing? Is there a real difference between bolting a sport climb and doing an aid climbing first ascent, especially when aid climbing can scar the rock and alter the free climbing experience?

 Should future climbers be held back by a previous generation's vision of climbing? In another direction (not picking on Bachar but he is often held up as a trad superhero) John Bachar never actually climbed anything hard, trad or sport, even by the standards of his time (he climbed maybe 13b max, unlike Ron Kauk for example) so he never personally worked toward doing routes in the, say, 5.14 level, a grade routinely onsighted now thanks to sport climbing's emergence. So what did he understand or care about really hard routes? In turn, why should climbers today particularly care about older styles and ethics especially when these climbers are focusing on the actual free climbing instead of obsessing about fear and playing chicken on relatively easy routes. We could sit around for a hundred years waiting for someone to onsight 15a ground up with no aid or we could just go climbing and stop worrying about FAs.

Tradibanwrote:

It's not about anybody owning anything, it's about honoring tradition. Sport climbing is just the homogenized boring version of climbing suitable for the masses. I don't think I would be mad if someone retrobrolted (sic) my roots (sic) I just be sad. 

In reality most of us trad people are "whatever" on owning the rock, we already did the route in good style and moved on, it's the sport climbers who are constantly obsessing over ownership.

Honoring tradition can be done without making the FA the exclusive arbiter of the route. It is absolutely traddies that believe that these routes cannot be touched without the FA's blessing. To be clear I don't do anything without the FA's blessing either, as I understand and follow the unwritten rules. They are nevertheless quite stupid, however. 

i thought we decided chopping bolts was pretty terrible all around. It’s been a big issue around Pikes Peak recently. 

Who cares. it's all gonna burn soon

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I don't think this is really a good argument but rather is simply just an assertion. So long as rocks are on public land they are communal resources. Why does the style of the first ascent determine how public resources should be managed? 

If there were a hiking trail and there was some concern about it, let's say there is significant danger potential, then does how it was first hiked have any relevance to how the trail should be managed? If the first lap of a pool was done butterfly must all subsequent laps be done the same? If the first lap of a new race track was done in a Ferrari are Miatas not allowed? 

This assertion that the FA is granted property rights over a communal resource in the public domain and is the sole arbiter of that bit of that natural resource appears like lunacy when you examine such behavior in just about any other domain. It's lunacy in our domain also, but it's a lunacy we're accustomed to. 

When the first time something is done calls those who repeat it to a certain standard of ability and knowledge, the way in which it was first done matters. I guess we care about it in climbing more than hiking, for example, because a big thing that makes climbing so rewarding is risk. Most people don’t set out on a hike to conquer their mind and do something difficult and risky, but a lot of climbers do this. Thus, the FA and the risk assumed by the first ascensionist matter.

Rocrateswrote:

When the first time something is done calls those who repeat it to a certain standard of ability and knowledge, the way in which it was first done matters. I guess we care about it in climbing more than hiking, for example, because a big thing that makes climbing so rewarding is risk. Most people don’t set out on a hike to conquer their mind and do something difficult and risky, but a lot of climbers do this. Thus, the FA and the risk assumed by the first ascensionist matter.

There are constant debates about improving, modifying, marking etc. hiking trails because (wait for it) many hikers do in fact "set out on a hike to conquer their mind and do something difficult and risky." And "a lot of climbers" actually don't agree that "a big thing that makes climbing so rewarding is risk." In fact I would bet the vast majority of climbers today want a very low level of risk. Should they be ignored altogether because a local Ace Freesolo "FAed" a bunch of moderates by soloing them? Simply stating that something is true doesn't make it so. On public land especially, the notion that FAists have "rights" is laughable but in the broader picture, the arbitrary nature of those rights and the ethical reasoning behind them becomes even clearer.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Honoring tradition can be done without making the FA the exclusive arbiter of the route. It is absolutely traddies that believe that these routes cannot be touched without the FA's blessing. To be clear I don't do anything without the FA's blessing either, as I understand and follow the unwritten rules. They are nevertheless quite stupid, however. 

Ricky, you're fairly new to climbing and haven't left the bubble much, most traddies don't care, in the sense of they will go back and chop added bolts. "They" and I care in the sense of retrobrolting is lame and is an attempt to force a personal and narrow vision of what climbing is or should be.

We agree, the FA as the exclusive arbiter is silly, in sport and trad.

Tradibanwrote:

Ricky, you're fairly new to climbing and haven't left the bubble much, most traddies don't care, in the sense of they will go back and chop added bolts. "They" and I care in the sense of retrobrolting is lame and is an attempt to force a personal and narrow vision of what climbing is or should be.

We agree, the FA as the exclusive arbiter is silly, in sport and trad.

As I mentioned above, I agree that the FA is not the exclusive arbiter. If the first ascensionist climbs the route in poor style, a future climber can overrule this by elevating the standard and modifying the route to match this standard, but this should be handled carefully.

Reading this thread reminds my the old saying about the difference between style and ethics....

Using cams, fancy sticky shoes or modern ropes are matters of style as they only affect your ascent.

Sticking a bolt in (or not) is a matter of ethics as it affects the ascents of those that follow.

There does appear to be a clash of perspectives/mindsets. The overwhelming majority seen to take for granted that routes will have differing levels of difficulty, virtually noone (with a straight face) is suggesting adding holds to the hard ones, or the hard parts of others. You don't see 'can't you just ignore/not use the extra holds' arguments being made in seriousness. We just accept that some routes might be too hard for us.

To me and other 'old traddies' it is equally taken for granted that routes have differing levels of saftey. We accept that some routes might be too bold for us. The idea of changing the nature of the route with a bolt seems as alien as adding a hold, to those of us who think this way.

Hopefully there is enough rock to go round and we can all coexist by accepting variety in climbing. That said retrobolters can 'do one'.

Tradibanwrote:

Ricky, you're fairly new to climbing and haven't left the bubble much, most traddies don't care, in the sense of they will go back and chop added bolts. "They" and I care in the sense of retrobrolting is lame and is an attempt to force a personal and narrow vision of what climbing is or should be.

We agree, the FA as the exclusive arbiter is silly, in sport and trad.

Where I live is mostly old crusty traddies. If I'm in any bubble it's one of old traddies, not sport or gym climbers. As one example, most of my local climbing partners not only don't own stick clips, but have never seen a stick clip, a fact which people don't believe when I go sport climbing in Tahoe or the SF Bay Area.

I think climbing is and should be many things, and daring and bold routes are part of that. In my experience most climbers have one vision of what they think climbing is and ought to be and find everyone else that doesn't agree with them to be ridiculous. I think most traddies are as guilty of this as sport climbers are. I genuinely do not comprehend why these two camps can't intermingle more and get along better-- the amount of animosity they hold towards one another and the extreme self selection in which areas each group climbs in respectively is very strange to me. In my opinion it would do them all some good to spend just a little time each year in each other's areas doing a different style of climbing to their usual, even if only to meet and talk to climbers who think very differently to themselves. As someone who lives equidistant between two very popular areas with extremely different perspectives and ethics (Yosemite and Tahoe) it is always like culture shock going from crusty traddies in and near Yosemite where putting routes up on lead is the ideal and rap bolting is some sissy bullshit and then going to Tahoe where bolting on lead is "dangerous and irresponsible."

I agree that traddies will violate the wishes of the FA if they feel the FA has violated some important principle, but traddies talk a big talk about supporting what I call the cult of the FA-- it is sacred and must not be touched unless some larger even more sacred principle is violated. What I find strange as well is that traddies will often try and get communal feedback before making any alterations or adding bolts or anything of the sort, so it seems to me that the cult of the FA is more of a myth that some sorts of climbers propagate then necessarily something that is actually followed. I argue that routes should be managed as if they are public resources because they are public resources, and that to a large degree we are doing this already, but for some reason many of us like to pretend this isn't the case.

Also it feels weird to agree with you on something. For what it's worth I do think the FA should be listened to and probably given more say over the input of some rando, but I find the cult of the FA endlessly bizarre. 

Neil Bwrote:

Reading this thread reminds my the old saying about the difference between style and ethics....

Using cams, fancy sticky shoes or modern ropes are matters of style as they only affect your ascent.

Sticking a bolt in (or not) is a matter of ethics as it affects the ascents of those that follow.

There does appear to be a clash of perspectives/mindsets. The overwhelming majority seen to take for granted that routes will have differing levels of difficulty, virtually noone (with a straight face) is suggesting adding holds to the hard ones, or the hard parts of others. You don't see 'can't you just ignore/not use the extra holds' arguments being made in seriousness. We just accept that some routes might be too hard for us.

To me and other 'old traddies' it is equally taken for granted that routes have differing levels of saftey. We accept that some routes might be too bold for us. The idea of changing the nature of the route with a bolt seems as alien as adding a hold, to those of us who think this way.

Hopefully there is enough rock to go round and we can all coexist by accepting variety in climbing. That said retrobolters can 'do one'.

I think there are a lot of variables when it comes to retrobolting. There's a runout moderate test piece at Castle Rock State Park (in the Santa Cruz mountains) called The Falls. Adding bolts to The Falls would be a real shame. There are some dinky routes with crazy high first bolts, including moderates with the crux before the first bolt and popular moderates with serious ground fall potential randomly after being quite safe for several bolts. Proposing retrobolting The Falls seems like a very different proposition to retrobolting some dinky moderates that are mostly led by newer leaders. Now there are a lot of other questions like the history and ethics of the area, and maybe it isn't appropriate to retrobolt any of them-- however I think it's still silly to pretend that retrobolting a historic/rad/respected/cared about line is the same as doing that to a mediocre dinky gumby line that no one particularly cares about.