In Defense of FA Ethics

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

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. 

I don't think the cult of the FA is necessary for this though. There is no reason why this can't exist perfectly well within the community-managed approach that I argue should exist (and which already kinda sorta exists).

Climbers appreciate safe routes, climbers appreciate runout routes. I agree there is a lot of art in putting up routes, but the FA doesn't need to be the exclusive decision maker of how their route is managed for this to be appreciated and highly respected. 

There's no pride in non-ownership (even if not technically owned.) We want FAs to take pride in their work and lay down lines that are worthy of coming home to, so to speak. A little bit of an ego boost doesn't seem like it's too much to give up in exchange for their hard work, time and money spent and this for the betterment of all climbers, who climb their routes thereafter.

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

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 is stated entirely the wrong way around, IMO.

Those exceptions are not exceptions. They are the only actually substantively important things in this conversation. Along with access. Maximize for access, impact, aesthetics, and LLT/LNT.

I don't care who has the FA. Write it down in some book no one will read. I do care about impact, aesthetics, and LLT/LNT. All of which are totally unrelated to "which boomer who moved West 20 years ago groped these pebbles first".

Nathan Doylewrote:

There's no pride in non-ownership (even if not technically owned.) We want FAs to take pride in their work and lay down lines that are worthy of coming home to, so to speak. A little bit of an ego boost doesn't seem like it's too much to give up in exchange for their hard work, time and money spent and this for the betterment of all climbers, who climb their routes thereafter.

I think there's something to be said for stewards having a voice in decision-making processes. FAs and stewardship are not the same thing. An FAist who shows up to every work day is, first of all, a person who shows up to every work day. An FAist who hasn't so much as picked up a cigarette butt in 20 years is just some rando.

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

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.

Ego is the only reason old runout routes exist.   I’m not saying that’s a bad thing as I think those routes should exist but whenever anyone talks about retro bolting an old runout route and the FAist says no you need to do it in the same style I did ego ultimately is the reason the FAist wants it left alone, it feels good when people are afraid to climb a route you did.  Ego.  

I’ve done plenty of ground up FAs, some really good but they are rarely “good” climbs because they tend to be runout affairs where a bolt can only be placed where you can get a good stance that’s called “letting the rock talk to me” as you said.    Sometimes the rock doesn’t know what it’s talking about and you end up with a really lousy route because you listened to it.   I’ve gone back to routes I’ve done a number of times to fix them because bolting on lead sometimes just doesn’t produce good routes.    If you are going to go to the trouble of putting up a route you might as well do it well.   The exception might be a rarely repeated backcountry route but any route that might get frequently repeated you have an obligation to do a good job.  

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

Ego is the only reason old runout routes exist.   I’m not saying that’s a bad thing as I think those routes should exist but whenever anyone talks about retro bolting an old runout route and the FAist says no you need to do it in the same style I did ego ultimately is the reason the FAist wants it left alone, it feels good when people are afraid to climb a route you did.  Ego.  

I’ve done plenty of ground up FAs, some really good but they are rarely “good” climbs because they tend to be runout affairs where a bolt can only be placed where you can get a good stance that’s called “letting the rock talk to me” as you said.    Sometimes the rock doesn’t know what it’s talking about and you end up with a really lousy route because you listened to it.   I’ve gone back to routes I’ve done a number of times to fix them because bolting on lead sometimes just doesn’t produce good routes.    If you are going to go to the trouble of putting up a route you might as well do it well.   The exception might be a rarely repeated backcountry route but any route that might get frequently repeated you have an obligation to do a good job.  

I would argue that “letting the rock talk to you”, as Salamanizer said, is doing a good job of putting up a route. Climbing is a game that we play that is ultimately about conquering a physical, natural object (a piece of rock) and your own mind in the process. If you murder the impossible (to paraphrase Reinhold Messner) and bolt wherever you want, you conquer nothing. If however you listen to the rock and take what it gives you, you conquer the rock as it is and prove that you are good enough for that piece of rock. Thus, for the FA to listen to the rock, i.e. going ground up and bolting on lead, makes good routes that fulfill the purpose of climbing.

Also, your first point about ego being the only reason for runouts is not true. The Brits, for example, avoid bolting because of a very strong ethic of protecting the rock. Plenty of areas in the US are like this as well, and all of them should be. People that run it out and avoid bolting for the sake of their ego are simply doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 

Rocrateswrote:

. Thus, for the FA to listen to the rock, i.e. going ground up and bolting on lead, makes good routes that fulfill the purpose of climbing.

There is a purpose to climbing?????

David K wrote:

Literally every one of those problems is a temporary problem (except perhaps ability). If you placed a permanent bolt to solve a temporary problem, then it's your responsibility to go back and fix it.

It's crap like this that is why it's necessary to chop bolts sometimes.

I would agree, if it were done in that context. However, what I was referring to is the lack of a bolt being placed because of extenuating circumstances. In which case, I am not obligated to go back and place one. Because obviously I didn’t need it, even though I may have wanted one at the time. Rare would be the case in which you refer. Where an “extra” bolt is placed.

You literally just said one of the reasons you're placing bolts because you didn't bring enough gear, and you're asking for us to RESPECT that? No, I don't respect that, I actively disrespect that. Freedom of expression doesn't mean you get to express your bad ideas permanently all over shared resources. Your failure to prepare does not have artistic merit. What you've expressed is bad, and you should feel bad.

You misunderstood. What I was saying is, I didn’t place a bolt (gear) because I didn’t bring enough of them. The gear being a bolt. I then would be faced to either retreat, or climb without them potentially creating a runnout. The runnout then being created more out of necessity, rather than ego. If I am comfortable running out sections for whatever reason, then that is my expression. I am under no obligation to cater to the lowest common denominator. Like I said. For me, the style is what’s important, not the protection. If I am uncomfortable with the protection, then I will merely retreat, and I would encourage you to do the same. For if the route was done beyond your ability, then maybe the route was not done for you. Everything isn’t for everyone, nor can it ever be.

So, for me, style is what’s important, and that should be respected as far as my routes go. Keeping in mind, there are always exceptions. So again, for me and my routes, style being the guiding force and the rock being the limiting factor. I am ok with adding bolts and reducing the severity of runnouts on my routes, so long as it is done in the same style as the FA. As discussed before, there are innumerable reasons protection was not placed, of which none are ego. 

“Ego is the only reason old runout routes exist.”

First of all, that is so wrong and off the mark it’s mind boggling. There is without a doubt, some ego involved in all climbing. But it is not the predominant driver or even close to common as far as why routes were done in the styles they were back in the day. Putting up routes used to be about challenging yourself against the rock and leaving the minimum impact possible. That has evolved into developing with the intent of serving a community while any impact be dammed.  Developing with community in mind is arguably one of the driving forces in why climbing is no longer sustainable.

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

 If I am uncomfortable with the protection, then I will merely retreat, and I would encourage you to do the same. For if the route was done beyond your ability, then maybe the route was not done for you. Everything isn’t for everyone, nor can it ever be.

.

Shouldn’t all your routes essentially be free solos then?  I mean at some point on your routes you are deciding to stop and put in a bolt because you think it’s beyond your ability to continue without.   Why not retreat and come back when you can do it in the best style, ie. solo?

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I don't think the cult of the FA is necessary for this though. There is no reason why this can't exist perfectly well within the community-managed approach that I argue should exist (and which already kinda sorta exists).

Climbers appreciate safe routes, climbers appreciate runout routes. I agree there is a lot of art in putting up routes, but the FA doesn't need to be the exclusive decision maker of how their route is managed for this to be appreciated and highly respected. 

This is generally a good sentiment, but lacks any kind of specificity, therefore lacks any kind of definitive statement.  Climbers appreciate safe routes.  To a climber that spent their formative years free climbing in Yosemite in the 70s, a 5.9 hand crack in solid rock with a handful of modern cams is safe.  To a lot of the current generation, they'd rather not bother with that, and would prefer to see it bolted instead.  The "community-managed" approach you speak of, for any "community" that includes climbers from say, Frank Minunni's generation to yours, is likely never going to come to a consensus on the "ethics" for the aforementioned reason and others.  What you're missing here is that in lots of places, the first ascentionist's "style" or whatever you want to call it is kept because A) it often means less permanent alteration to the rock and B) because it eliminates a lot of pissing contests with regard to protection of a route.  

"Danger" and "risk" are subjective.  So is "runout".  To a lot of contemporary sport climbers, a 60 foot route with four bolts is "runout".  To the old school crusties whom you both seemingly possess some modicum of disdain for, yet can't escape because that's all that is available to you as partners would call that a well-protected sport route.  In other words, your idea of the way things "should be" is utopian, and not realistic.  I don't know what the answer is, but I do know this:  If everyone focused their energy and effort into developing their own little chunk of history and putting routes up in their own style, there would be much less contention on how someone else that's already done that should have their route altered to make it "safe" for the uh- "community".

Example 1: Someone has the fortitude and confidence in their ability to essentially solo some death route that might be enjoyed by more people if there was more fixed protection on it, and it remains a death route because they were the first, so what?  

Example 2: Someone puts 11 bolts in an 80' hand crack (provided that fixed protection is allowed at that area by whatever entity owns it) that otherwise would protect fine with cams, so what?

Many of your generation would see example 1 as the remnants of a crusty old domineering, male-dominated testosterone fest that is better left far in the past and not carried into the future.

Many of the 70s/80s generation would see example 2 as heresy and more evidence that the newest generation of climbers lacks fortitude and a sense of adventure.

However, if everyone respects the style/manner/ethics in which an FA is put up, both can co-exist in a contemporary environment, because we leave it up to the FA to make that choice.  That means that the madman/woman/whatever that puts up a technical testpiece and bolts it on lead or only uses tiny passive pro can have their route, and the sporto that wants to climb that sick fingertip crack that has pods every so often- just enough to free it (but would protect fine with small cams and gear) can bolt it to their heart's content.   That is why this way of doing things in many areas in the US remains, and why it's still the best system.  No, no one owns the rock, except for as mentioned, the entity or person that actually legally owns the land that the rock is on.  But there is an argument to be made for keeping the style in which a route was put up without altering it to allow for different sentiments of different generations. Live and let live, and leave FAs alone whether they're bolted cracks or X-rated lines that flirt with death.  With any other method/system, you're not going to achieve as much consensus, and you're not going to satisfy most people. YMMV.

Some real colonizer mindset vibes in here.

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

Shouldn’t all your routes essentially be free solos then?  I mean at some point on your routes you are deciding to stop and put in a bolt because you think it’s beyond your ability to continue without.   Why not retreat and come back when you can do it in the best style, ie. solo?

No, because free solo isn’t my style. I place a bolt because I need one and the rock allows it. I don’t place one because I don’t need to, even if I’d have liked too but couldn’t. Simple as that. That creation should be respected. Again, there are exceptions. But arguing pointless semantics in favor of a community which will never agree is why the future of climbing is in excessive over regulation and protracted legal battles. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

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. 

I don't think I've ever agreed with much you've said, but man are you spot on in here. 

Speaking of fas.... How psyced are the CO bros on the new new after the RMNP rockslide?

 When you climb a bolted route you are a prisoner of the first ascent party. I know some people who won't repeat their own routes because  they are too scary.  I have had some of my routes retro bolted but I could care less because no one wants to lead 5.6x at  a  beginner crag, now people enjoy them. My first bolted FA, ( 25  years ago) the old guard told  me was over bolted.  I can't count how many people told me it was their first lead.  I am glad I put every one of those bolts in because I developed that route for other people to enjoy. 

How does the ethic change as first ascentionists age out of climbing or pass away and can no longer give guidance on how "their" route should be updated.

june mwrote:

 When you climb a bolted route you are a prisoner of the first ascent party. I know some people who won't repeat their own routes because  they are too scary.  I have had some of my routes retro bolted but I could care less because no one wants to lead 5.6x at  a  beginner crag, now people enjoy them. My first bolted FA, ( 25  years ago) the old guard told  me was over bolted.  I can't count how many people told me it was their first lead.  I am glad I put every one of those bolts in because I developed that route for other people to enjoy. 

What is a “beginner crag”? Rock that is uninspiring enough that no one cares about it? Shouldn’t we still strive for the same level of care for the rock regardless of whether it’s Half Dome or a boulder? That would mean keeping bolts to a minimum at a “beginner crag”, just like everywhere else. 

Also, to reply to Jason4Too: When the FA dies, the route does enter into the care of the community, and they can make decisions regarding the route just like when the FA climbs the route in poor style. This does be done carefully however as I mentioned. 

Jason4Toowrote:

How does the ethic change as first ascentionists age out of climbing or pass away and can no longer give guidance on how "their" route should be updated.

This and how does it change as they die? If nobody bothered to make it well documented because it was an R rated route with some decent movement and somebody else re discovers it, what then? If some FA put trash quality bolts or like three bolts on an 80’ otherwise R rated climb and policed the hell out of them while they were alive, does that just mean we leave the junk there to rot when they die? Take them out? Never climb it again? Kind of ridiculous. I think if you seek to FA and develop routes sheerly for your own personal benefit and think saying the hell with the “community” is appropriate , you might not be entitled to the respect an FA supposedly deserves. Maybe such people shouldn’t be developing routes at all.

Jesi Herbertwrote:

If some FA put trash quality bolts or like three bolts on an 80’ otherwise R rated climb and policed the hell out of them while they were alive, does that just mean we leave the junk there to rot when they die? Take them out? Never climb it again? Kind of ridiculous.

You should probably do some research and look up the difference between rebolting and retrobolting before trying to contribute to this thread.

Rocrateswrote:

What is a “beginner crag”? 

A crag with a lot of easier routes, duh.

Austin Donisanwrote:

You should probably do some research and look up the difference between rebolting and retrobolting before trying to contribute to this thread.

I’m aware of the difference, but thanks for checking in. I wasn’t aware that I needed to check with you before contributing to this thread.