Rope soloing and ground anchors: ethics discussion (uh oh)

Wow long read. I can see the ups and downs on all sides here.Having put up routes in in days long ago :(  It's no longer the 70's/80's in Yosemite putting in routes/bolts that at that time were not thought of to be a prob. Visually or environmentally. Now in this age eyes are all over it. And who was the clown that said only the FA can change the route? Really? Maybe the FA was FOOBAR and over bolted because they were scared. FA doesnt hold the rights on a climb if they got it wrong themselves the first time. (And trust me, I'm on your side of the discussion.)

Access is everything to us these days. especially if we want to create new access to new areas.  I dont want some pencil pushing 5.9 follower saying how to bolt or put up routes. Regulation as some have alluded to would be a disgrace to the sport for all of us. sport/trad whatever. As far as bolts/anchors near ground. F that. Bad form. And let's face it not many of us are putting up new routes these days, unless your in the elite putting up .14/.15 routes. (dont get me started on ethics there). 

Bottom line is we all want are favorite playgrounds open to us and our kids. A Legacy to pass down. We have to learn how to do it cleaner and better than what we did 20-30yrs ago.And we can. It's all there. Newer Tech, New Climbers, New Generation to mold. It's really not that hard to adjust our techniques to avoid some things such as ground anchors and over bolting. What it really comes down too is climbers caring.(do we still?)

Ricky Harlinewrote:

There have to be some ground rules to prevent abuse of our shared resources. Again, this ground anchor is completely redundant and unnecessary. Are you in favor of anyone getting to alter our shared natural resources for any reason even if it's of little or no benefit?

Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder. From your perspective it seems these anchor holes aren’t beneficial but perhaps to the driller they are.

With no formal laws in place regarding where bolts must go and not go you have no right to judge this drillers’ work. Fundamentally all the bolts are the same.

Tradibanwrote:

Again, benefit is in the eye of the beholder. From your perspective it seems these anchor holes aren’t beneficial but perhaps to the driller they are.

With no formal laws in place regarding where bolts must go and not go you have no right to judge this drillers’ work. Fundamentally all the bolts are the same.

Tradiban I was going to try to support u but that was stupid. Do you really want to get "formal laws" involved in this. Come on it's common sense as a climber were bolts should be placed or not. Fundamentally all bolts are  NOT the same. What would U say if someone (ME) put bolts up a face 1 ft apart from each other, for the duration of the next 90-180ft? Bolts/Pro should always be placed at the crux move on that climb. Thats why new .14/.15 climbs I'm against. They do it on wrap with no regards to the Aesthetics of that climb. The driller should at least know and have the balls to put them in the right place. As far as anchors? put it in the right place or not at all. I would love to know how new to the sport U are? I guarentee u would have not been on my rope at all. If u think your golden and all good at that? Dont tell me were u climb.

Well shit learn something new everyday.

J E wrote:

His bolt holes objectively one benefit him whereas developed sport route bolts benefit anyone. Nothing subjective about that very basic fact

The sport/hobby or rope soloing is growing, not shrinking, why discriminate? This may be the next new rage in climbing(just like sport), there may be people waiting in line to rope solo these lines someday and then what? You guys want the trees choked to death and ropes across the trail so hikers dont see a few bolt holes in the cliff while they step over ropes and pass by 1000 shiny SS hangers and crowds of people trampling the natural vegetation on what was once a single track trail? Enlighten me.

Whats ridiculous too is the two people offended the most are redpointing 5.8s and failing on 11s regularly. It used to be the experienced climbers had the strongest opinions. Inclusivity is a two way road.

M Mwrote:

Whats ridiculous too is the two people offended the most are redpointing 5.8s and failing on 11s regularly. It used to be the experienced climbers had the strongest opinions. Inclusivity is a two way road.

Lol I redpointed a 5.8 to set up a camera because my partner couldn’t figure out the best way to do it. Nice dig tho

I also didn’t realize climbing grade gave anyone special insight into LNT or rope systems but learn something new every day I suppose. I can’t wait until I’m onsighting 11s so the rock can imbue me with this secret knowledge only crushers have

I’ll reiterate, you seem to have little knowledge about the more advanced ground anchors used in LRS. You’ve demonstrated that gap in your knowledge with your fantastical hypothetical of ropes blocking trails and trees being strangled by hordes of soloists. It’s ridiculous. And that LRS knowledge does not come from climbing harder

Charles Pricewrote:

Tradiban I was going to try to support u but that was stupid. Do you really want to get "formal laws" involved in this. Come on it's common sense as a climber were bolts should be placed or not. Fundamentally all bolts are  NOT the same. What would U say if someone (ME) put bolts up a face 1 ft apart from each other, for the duration of the next 90-180ft? Bolts/Pro should always be placed at the crux move on that climb. Thats why new .14/.15 climbs I'm against. They do it on wrap with no regards to the Aesthetics of that climb. The driller should at least know and have the balls to put them in the right place. As far as anchors? put it in the right place or not at all. I would love to know how new to the sport U are? I guarentee u would have not been on my rope at all. If u think your golden and all good at that? Dont tell me were u climb.

You misunderstand me. I do not condone the drilled holes, nor do I the bolts.

My point is that bolters do not have any grounds to object to the holes as they have already drilled many holes themselves and their reasons for objection are arbritary.

Unfortunately “formal laws” may be needed to end the gymification of the outdoors.

This is about educating our self-appointed LNT saviors Ricky and Jared about the slippery slope rhetorical fallacy --- and how their advocacy against 2 empty bolt holes some guy drilled at the base of a sport crag in Europe which are going to somehow proliferate here and this debatably-ethical scourge of empty holes will be the straw in climbing impact that leads to land managers taking away access in the United States if we don't all get a handle on this plague! 

Eventually, and ultimately, its about what some of this user group (climbers) arbitrarily proclaims to be the right point of view (which they somehow think all climbers can be made to follow somehow, IDK?) on some very niche use of outdoor rock and space (route development) that they themselves do not own. To other land users, it can be anywhere from "oh look at the climbers, how do they get the rope up?" to "your scaring the birds, you are permanently defacing the rock".

Remember, public doesn't mean it belongs to everybody, public means it belongs to whichever governmental body regulates it. Which can decide to interfere or not based on whatever arbitrary reasons they choose, or no reasons at all. If they were presented with the difference between a bolted route, and a bolted route with 2 more holes near the ground... what would they, non-climbers, think. Probably something like this:

Ben Fwrote:

This is about educating our self-appointed LNT saviors Ricky and Jared about the slippery slope rhetorical fallacy --- and how their advocacy against 2 empty bolt holes some guy drilled at the base of a sport crag in Europe which are going to somehow proliferate here and this debatably-ethical scourge of empty holes will be the straw in climbing impact that leads to land managers taking away access in the United States if we don't all get a handle on this plague! 

Thanks for contributing nothing of value to the conversation. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/th…

I did not conceive of leave no trace, nor did I decide what constitutes leave no trace. I only do my best to follow it and advocate for it, as I believe deeply in its principles. 

https://www.nps.gov/articles/leave-no-trace-seven-principles.htm

Rope soloing can be achieved following these principles very closely (as much as climbing can abide). Drilling rock for your personal solo anchor is in direct conflict with them and is frankly stupid, independent of how you feel about sport or traditional bolting. You can argue that sport bolting is stupid and unnecessary; ground bolting for an anchor is even more so. 

In any case, this thread is devolving into bad faith arguments, straw-manning, ad hominems, trolling, and ignorance, so I'm bowing out. Feel free to continue discussing.

abandon moderation wrote:

Your logic is how we ended up with a via ferrata at Smith. Just because we accept bolt holes in some situations, doesn't mean we need to accept them in all situations. Otherwise, we can just start installing via ferratas at our crags. After all, who are we to say that sport routes are more important than via ferratas?!?!

It's obviously a ridiculous argument.

Why would sport climbing be legitimate and via ferratta not?

At Maquinna, I maybe have only been climbing for seven years but I've been a semi-dirtbag for four of them, often climbing three to four days a week outdoors. Yeah, I redpoint 5.8. I also lead rope solo and climb big walls. Different people have different amounts of obstacles in their lives and not everyone does or can climb hard. 

Also, I hope you noticed those two 10bs I led on gear last year. 10b is fucking hard. Fuck you. =P

Back to the point it's a little rich to call me the naive one when my perspective is the one that came out of the bolt wars. Y'all want to go back to pre bolt war thinking and lay the foundation for the next bolt war to come. These rules exist for very, very good reasons that if you don't understand then shame on you and your nerdom because you need to read more climbing history books like a real climbing dweeb. 

FUG WOW Ricky lol.  BTW history is good :) and I've been a dirtbag for 30. It's all good :)

Tradiban Your right I did. I can see this side. Question, it would seem that each time U go up U need 2 small holes everytime U go up right? (Like EVERY time?) Why not use whats already available on the rock?  And then it's over done, rinse repeat right? forgive ignorance google isnt hitting on much lol.  But formal laws. keep the dems out of my mountains :) (F keep em all out) Fug GUYS (and princesses ;) Whether you have climbed 2 yrs or 30. Doesnt matter. I mean come on, we grew up in the backcountry. We have a love for climbing wherever that takes us. New ideas and tech come out every day. some legit, some crazy sounding. Yes I was would think I was pre-bolt wars llama. Back when aid climbing was a thing we did. (Thx God I got better lol)  Seems we this day still try to devise a way for us to climb harder, higher, faster. Without worrying about possible implications of our impact on the enviornment. And like STFU before you say it :)  Yes I was there putting up routes, putting in bolts that would forever scar the mnts. It doesnt mean I want to repeat the same mistakes, and shouldn't mean any of us turn a blind eye to new tech, that can also scar the rock.

New or old, I want to ask U this. What do u want to leave behind? Is it only like for your own personal gains? or for the future.? I want my kid to at least be able to see a rock.

Wait like something doesnt make sense here. like if u climb the same route day in and day out then yeah those 2 bolt holes will mean little. But like sorry I move from climb to climb. Which means U would have to put in 2 more little bolt holes to do the next climb right? It might be like a CAM to pull out but like F. every time u visit that climb u have to do it again like right?  Every friggen time 2 more small holes right? Does this not seam un-sustainable to you?  Frig I'm new and learning so educate me.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

At Maquinna, I maybe have only been climbing for seven years but I've been a semi-dirtbag for four of them, often climbing three to four days a week outdoors. Yeah, I redpoint 5.8. I also lead rope solo and climb big walls. Different people have different amounts of obstacles in their lives and not everyone does or can climb hard. 

Also, I hope you noticed those two 10bs I led on gear last year. 10b is fucking hard. Fuck you. =P

Back to the point it's a little rich to call me the naive one when my perspective is the one that came out of the bolt wars. Y'all want to go back to pre bolt war thinking and lay the foundation for the next bolt war to come. These rules exist for very, very good reasons that if you don't understand then shame on you and your nerdom because you need to read more climbing history books like a real climbing dweeb. 

Ability is important because as one climbs better they gain perspective.

Funny that this new “bolt war” is amongst the bolters themselves, very telling. 

Devin Hanes wrote:

Even if he falls on the bolts they easily come out without damaging the holes.

Yup, so one guy modifies the rock for his particular setup.  Then the next guy does the same.  Then the next, and the next...

Devin Hanes wrote:

Say these two holes are drilled near the base of "The Price of Charles  5.16a", the guy puts these bolts in them and climbs all day then takes down all his gear and removes these bolts, the guy comes back next week and reuses the same bolt holes, again and again, never needing to drill anymore holes for "The Price of Charles".

If he goes 10 feet down the trail to the next route "Charles in Charge, 5.4R", he likely needs to drill two more holes for the "Charles in Charge" route.

Even if he falls on the bolts they easily come out without damaging the holes.

I can respect that and thx for the laughs. shit should have just said Charles'N'Charge 5.15 :) LOL

I can see that. if the holes are there week in and out, for whomever wants to use then like yeah. Don't think I see a prob with that if re-usable.The thought I had was they were not re-usable. and new holes would have to be re-drilt every day. (that would be unsustainable)but if there is an etiquette for re-using holes among climbers. I could see that. Don't know were to say on the guidebook that hole 1/2 is here.. like F. lol  But shit we've been through worse over the yrs. I don't know will see how it plays out over the next 10yrs. Thx for the education.

Tradibanwrote:

Ability is important because as one climbs better they gain perspective.

Funny that this new “bolt war” is amongst the bolters themselves, very telling. 

This is the point and maybe my perspective is way different, having spent tons of time climbing overhanging rock where bolt holes at the base is common. 

Its only a war on the proj really

Devin Hanes wrote:

I don't know what the next guy would do differently, these are the standard. This is what was referred to earlier as the "Slippery Slope Fallacy".

"Next they'll want a Via Ferrata, then a Zipline, then a petting zoo with Mountain Goats and Marmots, next thing you know we're all on Auto-Belays and a Dollar General is halfway up the cliff."

No one is going to let them make swiss cheese crags, we're only talking about two little holes right now, if that changes then it's a totally different conversation.

The "slippery slope fallacy" is a misnomer, since it is only a fallacy when taken to the absurd as in your example.

My point is simple: if it is ok for one person to modify a route ***solely for their use***, then it is ok for others to do the same.  The equivalency being drawn between holes made for use by a single person and holes made for use by everyone climbing the route (i.e. bolts) is the real slippery slope here.