In Defense of FA Ethics

I sincerely hope the OP is using half-decent satire to highlight how ridiculous strict FA ethics can be.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

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. 

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. 

In my conversations with prolific developers of both kinds on this topic I can tell you that almost everyone agrees it's quite simple; "necessary" bolts can go in and should stay. Necessary meaning if someone has done the route without the bolts they aren't necessary and can be rightfully chopped, thing is, nobody usually bothers.

From the reverse, when deciding if a piece of rock should be bolted or not the "necessary" standard is usually applied. There are plenty of bolted routes out there, and if not in your particular local area, people can just top rope it. Done.

From reading the posts above, I wonder if any of those posting have read the seminal essay Games Climbers Play by Lito Tejada-Flores, which originally appeared in the first (I believe) issue of Ascent Magazine in the late 60s but has been reprinted subsequently? That essay was, to my knowledge, the first, at least in the US, that expressed in writing the grounding for what has since become known as the ‘first ascent principle’, though those ‘rules’ had obviously already been the norm in certain climbing circles.

The mist significant aspect of the essay though, was clearly expressed in the title. These are all ‘games’ that we are playing, though sometimes games with deadly consequences, so our rules have to be understood within that context—an optional recreational activity that is fundamentally meaningless except to those who are ‘playing’.

I am an old traddie now converted to an old ( much older) ‘sporty’, but still believe, without being rigid about it, that the FA principle does have meaning within that context ( even though in my decrepitude I do wish that the FAers of certain routes had been more ‘liberal’ with their bolting—I recall a former prolific first ascender once commenting on the Over 50 thread something to the effect that ‘we bolted them to keep off the riff-raff, but now we are the riff-raff!!!’).

Basically for me now it is primarily about both respecting the history of the climb and maintaining the ‘character’ of the climbing area. Even though there are many routes in the Gunks  at the level of difficulty that I was capable of climbing but never did because they were too serious to lead for me and my partners, I would hate to see those routes bolted and the Gunks to become a sport climbing area—in the most important ways it wouldn’t be the same climbing area.

As others have said, it is great that both climbing styles are able to exist and co-exist and generally accepting the FA principle and the other ‘games’ is a large part of why this is the case.

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. 

No, future climbers don't have to climb the rock. You're not obligated to climb things that are bolted in a way you don't like, just as people aren't obligated to bolt things a way you like.

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.

I would go further: considerations which don't modify the rock are not important, period.

Why would I give a shit what other people do if it doesn't effect me in any way? The only reason I EVER care about climbing ethics is if it changes the rock or environment in some way. If you want to TR a gear-protectable hand crack, I don't care. And if I want to TR a gear protectable hand crack, you can take your opinions on that and shove them into your own crack.

R Gwrote:

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

No, "we" didn't decide that, and we will never come to that consensus while I'm alive.

I won't speak to whether the chopping of bolts around Pike's Peak recently is reasonable because I don't know anything about that situation. But the idea that bolts can't ever be chopped is absurd. When communities don't have the will to chop bolts, you end up with bolters controlling what gets bolted, and many of the bolts that go in are terrible, akin to vandalism. This isn't a way to maintain a healthy climbing community. Chopping bolts is a necessary tool to ensure that rogue bolters can't simply ignore community standards for bolting, which both affects other climbers' experiences and potentially endangers acess.

In an ideal world, you're not just chopping the bolts, you're removing them properly and patching the rock (HERE's a great example of this being done well).

Rocrateswrote:The fact remains that he did it, and any future climber on that piece of rock is called to the same standard. 

They*

not all FA’holes are men

Beta Slavewrote:

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

Ground up, no one can argue. 

Hold my beer. :)

While bad rap bolting can be much worse than bad ground-up bolting, I think properly-done rap bolting usually has better results than ground-up bolting. Ground-up bolting prioritizes good stances above EVERYTHING, because drilling takes longer than clipping. This means that the bolts are always placed well for clipping, but it doesn't mean they're placed well for rope drag or even protecting anything (and if a bolt doesn't protect anything, why are you placing it?).

For example, poorly-done ground-up bolting is a big problem on the moderates at Shelving Rock. The bolts are mostly easy to clip, but a lot of them don't provide much protection because you'd ledge fall even if you clipped them at waist height. This isn't hypothetical--I participated in evacuating someone who fell immediately after clipping a bolt and broke their ankle. And while sometimes ledge falls are inherent to easier climbs due to lower angle, that's NOT what's happening in this case: there were many bolts that were placed at head height while standing on a ledge, when a bolt at a very reasonable clipping stance on jugs just a few feet higher would have given a clean fall into space.

A related issue is that bolting ground up means the climb is well below your climbing ability, and strong climbers often bolt without empathy for how beginners might experience their routes. It's fairly stupid to bolt runouts on a 5.6. Sure it's low risk for the >5.10 climber bolting it, but that's not who wants to climb a 5.6, because it's boring for them. It doesn't make it any less boring for a 5.10 climber, but it DOES make it dangerous and scary for a 5.6 climber. And sure, it saves the developer money, but not bolting routes you can't bolt WELL saves even more money. If you're a >5.10 climber, bolting that 5.6 isn't you making a name for yourself: it SHOULD be service to beginners, but if you're bolting runouts, it's no longer even that. It's just vandalism.

The beautiful location over Lake George and the quality rock would make Shelving Rock a great regional destination for beginners, but given the poorly-done ground-up bolting there. I can't really recommend the area to beginners.

So yes, thoughtless ground-up bolting is better than thoughtless rap bolting, but the real solution is don't bolt thoughtlessly.

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

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.  

Especially when those climbers might be you, when you're old and less firm on your feet.

I have to say there have actually been a lot of really interesting and thoughtful comments here. Even Tradi is being reasonable! This thread has been far more delightful and interesting than I anticipated.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I have to say there have actually been a lot of really interesting and thoughtful comments here. Even Tradi is being reasonable! This thread has been far more delightful and interesting than I anticipated.

Damn. I must be losing my touch.

Nathan Doylewrote:

Especially when those climber might be you when you're old and less firm on your feet.

Yep, I still plan on climbing for many more years, no need to auger into a ledge or edge because I thought I was some bad ass when I was younger.  

David Kwrote:

In an ideal world, you're not just chopping the bolts, you're removing them properly and patching the rock (HERE's a great example of this being done well).

Ok I can get behind and support that! I’ve just seen way to many chopped bolts that were JUST chopped.

Also, if it’s a “bad bolting job” wouldn’t it make more sense to find the bolter and take them under your wing to teach them better? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for the entire community? 

R Gwrote:

Ok I can get behind and support that! I’ve just seen way to many chopped bolts that were JUST chopped.

Also, if it’s a “bad bolting job” wouldn’t it make more sense to find the bolter and take them under your wing to teach them better? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for the entire community? 

Or break their fingers, eithers good.(*)

No I'm not really suggesting that, I do however have very little time for those who lack the self awareness to either learn how to do it properly first or find out the local ethic/situation before bolting.

Edit: Because I was being too mean, sorry.

R Gwrote:

Ok I can get behind and support that! I’ve just seen way to many chopped bolts that were JUST chopped.

Also, if it’s a “bad bolting job” wouldn’t it make more sense to find the bolter and take them under your wing to teach them better? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for the entire community? 

Yes, that's ideal, but sometimes that's not possible. Perhaps the bolter remains anonymous. Or they feel their actions were justified and refuse to be teachable. Or they were from a different part of the world and have returned to where they came from.

And really the first lesson really should be removing bolts, to show how serious it is when a bad bolt goes in, even if the person hasn't placed a bad bolt before.

Considering the endless amount of quality, untouched rock in this country, people should be spending the majority of their climbing life developing new routes, but fixing old routes up to make them better climbs is definitely a worthy path as well. So many terrible bolters have made for a lot of terribly bolted routes here in Ky, some even done by exceptionally good bolters. It would be nice if people stopped protecting shitty rapp bolted bolt jobs and just fixed them up so they aren't dangerous. 

Most defenders of dangerous rapp bolted sport routes are strong enough to never be at risk of falling in the dangerous spots, and since they experienced these run-outs/poor placements and were fine, they want everyone else to go through it too. The ones that would normally voice their concerns about these types of dangers, avoids climbing these routes all together, or at least until they're strong enough to do them safely, putting them into the first category of climbers where the cycle continues. I'm one of the few that can usually make it through without shitting myself, but also willing to take a stance against leaving 5.10/11 climbers in the position of getting hurt on a 5.10/11.

A couple of routes in the Red come to mind, and both were done by two of the most experienced developers in this area's history. Does it mean they should be cemented in gold forever just because they were done by an experienced, well respected figure (on rappel)? Or, should they be updated for safety, where it's easy to hang draws or clip permas, and where you can fall off without risk of major injury? 

The best ethic would be to climb a thing, never tell anyone, and not take a sense of ownership over some random piece of rock.

... but sharing accomplishment is a hell of a drug.

Desert Rock Sportswrote:

The best ethic would be to climb a thing, never tell anyone, and not take a sense of ownership over some random piece of rock.

... but sharing accomplishment is a hell of a drug.

At a personal level, that is probably the best way. But at a community level that doesn't work. When you lay claim to a piece of rock my ascending it first, you're not just claiming it for yourself, you're claiming it for other people who climb in the same style as you.

There's not a lot of hesitation to bolt climbs in the areas around Chattanooga, and there are a lot of bolted climbs that would go easily on gear. But if someone climbs something on gear and publicizes that fact, then it probably won't get bolted. I'm grateful for the fact that trad climbers in the Chattanooga area have laid claim to a lot of rock climbs, because that means that I get to climb a lot of quality trad climbing. Maybe they did it for their own egos, but I benefit.

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.

As a route developer who’s put much thought into the matter, I personally feel that the first ascentionist has the rights to dictate whatever original thing they did on the first send go, but only if you can still climb that route youre trying to dictate.

This of course has no meaning on how other people view their FA’s. Just a standard im keeping for myself.

Rocrateswrote:

To conclude, the first ascensionist does sort of own the rock.

The actual legal owner of the rock owns the rock. 

Other premises, and logical consequences thereof, only matter if you have a large enough "FA Ethics" contingent to either purchase the land or take it by force.

A logical consequence: whatever "ethics" minimize the risk of losing climbing access are the correct ethics. 

Ricky Harline wrote:

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... I find the cult of the FA endlessly bizarre.

Here, here.

First ascensionists often have good input because they know a lot about how local land management works and how local land managers perceive climbing. But it's that knowledge -- not the act of groping pebbles first -- that should give their input extra weight. I've also noticed FAs tend to become less useful when they move away from an area or disengage from climbing.

It’s not about “owning” the rock. It’s about respecting the FA. You don’t have to, but it’s the guideline which keeps us from total anarchy. That being said, there are always exceptions. And those should be driven by things like impacts, aesthetics and leave less trace ethics.

This whole concept of “developing” is what’s cringeworthy to me. It can be a good thing, a community service if you will. But often leads down a dark path of egotism, self service and excess which lends itself to negative impacts, poor aesthetics and disregard for leave no trace ethics. Pick your cherries and move along.

For me, the protection isn’t important so much as the style. I like to face the rock on its own terms. Let the rock dictate the route if you will. I have put up routes with a wide range of severity for a myriad of reasons. Ego doesn’t go very far when facing serious injury or death, so that is typically a poor argument when discussing runnout routes. More often, one only needs to look into the rock to see why routes were protected the way they were. Keeping in mind the unknown variables. Some of which I have personally experienced being; approaching rain/thunderstorms, time, dropped tools, ability, lack of gear or running out of gear, motivation, heat, cold, injury etc… All these things can contribute to how a FA was done and the level of protection it received.

Again, for me it’s about the style, and to some degree, the aesthetics. A line of bolts is nothing more than an eyesore I’m some areas. Most would agree. Letting the rock dictate the route for me is the best style, and allows for the best experience. Putting a route up is arguably an expression, similar to art. You don’t have to like it, or even understand it. But you are asked to respect it for what it is. Least we be left with no art or freedom of expression at all.