What's wrong (or right?) with the Portland climbing community?

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/119820232/the-thirst

Curious to see how the MP community views adding bolts in 2020 to a 1 bolt otherwise all trad 12a that was put up in 1992. The 2020 retro-bolter opted not to remove the bolts after the FA party asked him to remove them. The FA party then removed them in 2023 at the age of 71. Hero? Villain? Resource hoarder entitled boomer? It's all there, along with the (wait for it) mandatory "entitled white man" charge so in vogue these days. The comments here see out of line with my understanding that the style in which an FA was put up is to be respected, so I'm curious to see what people think of the views expressed by the local climbers attracted to this crag, and who recently started a fundraiser to install perma draws on literally every bolt on this wall, if possible, solely to avoid the need to clean routes and follow each other's routes. My bias here is clear, obviously, but I think it's important our local community have the chance to see their viewpoints engaged with. At least, that's my hope. But maybe we are heading toward a future where climbers retro bolt every crack they want to bolt - or maybe the future is already here? 

There is a difference between bolting a crack among a sea of sport routes and bolting a crack in a sea of trad routes.

I’m honestly surprised the FA even cares. I try not to have too much attachment to my FAs or rebolts and be sympathetic to others experiences. I try to think about what the best version of a climb should look like and not get stuck in the mud with abstract ethical debates.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

There is a difference between bolting a crack among a sea of sport routes and bolting a crack in a sea of trad routes.

I’m honestly surprised the FA even cares. I try not to have too much attachment to my FAs or rebolts and be sympathetic to others experiences. I try to think about what the best version of a climb should look like and not get stuck in the mud with abstract ethical debates.

Sure, but that's not what happened here, where someone added a few bolts next to the crack on a route that was almost 30 years old. No offense but that's just an irrelevant comment (Though I agree with you) So, your comment doesn't address this situation, where the question is: "should the community respect FAs." (And maybe this is Snake Dike all over again except here the FA party was obviously not OK with the extra bolts going in)

And "should the community respect the FA party?" is different than "should the community respect the FA." If the FA route itself has value as an artifact and creation of its time and place that is a shared resource to be preserved, then yes it's like a statue or novel you don't alter, whether its creator is dead or alive or indifferent, etc. 

JCM wrote:

How much did the route get done, or even thought about, in those 30 years?

IMO, the FA puts forward their vision of a route, and then community has the ability to accept or reject the value of that contribution. I don't think the FA has any inherent value; the value is the choice of the community to place on it. 

Some route becomes popular and often repeated. Other routes are not often repeated but still worth persevering as a monument to a well regarded past accomplishment. But not all statues are worth preserving. Some are junk, and it is better to recycle them into something worthwhile. 

Which one was this route?

Disagree. We should not go and bolt scary trad routes so more people get to climb them.

Retro bolter wrong. FA right

Devin Hanes wrote:

There's a ton of sport routes and one trad on that walls list, it shouldn't have been bolted based on that little information I know of it, but the bolts shouldn't have been chopped either, petty and more uncool than the retro bolter.

How does that work? The retro bolted prompted the chopping, the chopping was righting a wrong.

Just pathetic, these sport climbers.

Retro bolter is definitely in the wrong here, and also was a brat in the comments. Climbing ethics exist for a reason - they help us all cooperate and get along. He goes on and on about how the FA shouldn't have the final word, but doesn't understand that he is doing the same thing. He just decided the route should be a certain way, and then did it without asking anybody else what they thought. Choosing who gets to decide can be a tricky question, but the climbing community talks together and eventually decides on good ways to handle things - follow the rules of the landowner, good bolting practices, leave no trace, and also respect the vision of the FA with respect to style of climbing. These rules are imperfect and that's why we argue about them constantly, but they're ultimately formed by input from the entire community. 

bryanswrote:

And "should the community respect the FA party?" is different than "should the community respect the FA." If the FA route itself has value as an artifact and creation of its time and place that is a shared resource to be preserved, then yes it's like a statue or novel you don't alter, whether its creator is dead or alive or indifferent, etc. 

if we blindly take the FA as always right we can bolt cracks, drill pockets, and do anything else to the climb as long as we are somehow first to the wall.

It’s a crag that 95% of the routes are sport climbs, the climb in question appears to actually be a different climb just the bolts are too close to the crack of the trad climb. This thread is classic mp tho.

A classic “would you rather be right or happy.” Good troll though!

If you come to a thread with your mind made up, you can always seize upon a nuance to discredit other views. So there are nuances here, it gets a bit weird, but here is the simple takeaway. "The Hunger" is the 92 route that starts with 20 to 25 feet of thin crack. In 2020 Stark decided he saw a line that veered off the Hunger after the crack. Rather than start bolting at that point of departure - which most people would consider acceptable, depending on the area/context etc. - he unilaterally drilled bolts directly next to (within 1 foot of) a 4 star bulletproof laser tip 11ish fingertips basalt crack, with the first bolt so low it was chopped by a 71 year old (the FA party) standing on the ground. (The photos tell the story)

So, that's the issue. When the FA party asked the bolter to please remove the bolts from that crack, the bolter refused. FA party followed through on righting what they saw as a wrong.

The reason I posted is not to solve this one particular situation but to ask if, in 2023, it's becoming OK to value the values of the current community over respect for the past. The wall involved is one of the older Portland walls and started as a trad crag, but even in the 90s sport routes went in because the wall is suited for sport too, offering a mix of cracks and faces. By 2020 it had become far and away the most "sport" wall in the area and most of the climbers who go there now are focused on training and sending hard routes. Understandably they show up with stick clips, they want perma draws on every single bolt, they have no desire to fuss with gear.  Other former trad routes on the wall have seen their crack sections bolted, one by one, so this situation is not a one-off, more like part of a slow erasure of history. I guess the issue is, do they have the right to, or should they, trample the past?

We're going to have to regulate climbing. It should be patently clear at this point.

The retro bolting supporter is arguing that the FA was a white male so his position defending the style of his climb is invalid. Sad, pathetic, and defacto racist and sexist. I’m glad to see the community sticking up for the FA in the comments. 

Devin Hanes wrote:

The FA even commented only 3 people in 30 years have climbed it. Pathetic entitlement, replace the chopped bolts.

There are plenty of hard trad lines that don't often see sends, but that doesn't mean they should all be bolted. There's value in aspirational test pieces. You can make an argument that routes should be retro bolted if the community wants that, but it's still generally accepted as good manners to (attempt) to contact the FA for their input. Failing that, at least attempt to get consensus from the local community - ask your LCO, make an MP forum thread, etc. The retro bolter displayed plenty of entitlement by unilaterally deciding the bolts should be added. You happen to agree with that decision, but not everybody does. 

Great idea for a thread, the opinions of a bunch of random people on the internet will definitely be beneficial for resolving this petty local debate.

I'm not convinced that the number of people who climb a routes is a good mark of its value.  If the goal is to make as many people climb a route as possible, then hard routes should be chipped to be made more accessible.  This is widely accepted to be lame, and most people are either OK knowing there are some climbs at their crag they will never do, or maybe even inspired by these routes to improve their climbing.  I don't see why it's "entitled" or "elitist" to feel the same way about a gear route.

Kyle Tarrywrote:

Great idea for a thread, the opinions of a bunch of random people on the internet will definitely be beneficial for resolving this petty local debate.

Hi Kyle. 

Well, I'd say Dave resolved things for now by removing the bolts. And I agree that, in isolation, adding 3 bolts to 25 feet of crack is petty. But the underlying issue is that the long-established non-legal and voluntary custom/tradition/value of leaving established routes alone came under fire at Bat Wall when one guy, Stark, started to one by one retro bolt trad lines in addition to putting up new lines. I think it's great he put up new lines! Just leave the old ones alone. Broughton has a couple hundred routes, the Portland metro area has well over 1,000 within an hour's drive and Smith Rock is 2.5 hours away. You can even walk further East past Broughton's North Face and there are even more hardly touched walls, many with bolts from the 90s on abandoned and half-finished routes (this is an open secret to anyone even remotely curious about how extensive the Broughton cliffband is). If people want more sport routes, if rock ruly is a "limited resource, go develop those walls! 

Newer and younger climbers are often ahistorical (ignorant of history) and just want to pull gymnastic moves on virtually risk-free routes, and unless they are exposed to the reasons why there is value in leaving established routes alone, where does it end? Pro-bolt people complain about the tyranny of the FA party, but obviously a retro bolter is being just as much of a tyrant when he imposes his will on the route by adding bolts.  

TLDR: Slippery slope. Bad idea to mindlessly assent to bolting old routes.

Something that's coming up in this conversation that I would like to clarify is that the FA kinda sorta gets final say on everything with regards to their route but not always. Here's the deal with that: the FA gets final say, BUT the community gets veto power. If the FA puts up some bullshit that violates climbing ethics (and this is indeed an ethics conversation as we're talking about modification of shared public resources which is a serious thing to do) then some white knight will take on the crusade to right the wrong and chop the wrongly placed bolts, and most of the community will be behind the chopper. 

I don't particularly like this system and wish we could move to a more community-minded approach like what we do when the FA is dead, but we've arrived at the system we have after many hard lessons and much bolting drama. Our current system is highly imperfect and has much room for improvement, but it's way better than the no rules wild west and violating the wishes of the FA in such a stark manner is clearly a huge wrong. This kinda shitty system we have is truly necessary and prevents a lot of situations exactly like this from happening, as usually the one that wants to retrobolt isn't so stupid/bold to so flagrantly violate the wishes of the FA. 

Tl;Dr: FA right, retrobolter wrong 

I was gonna respond but I feel like we are in a never ending soap opera. I like to climb and if you wanna be right then sure pat yourself on the back, I’m gonna go climb!

What are you guys doing this weekend? I

Did you know that 99.4853% of all penises are dicks? Let’s keep this swinging contest going!

^this is an example of trolling. What bryans is doing is discussion.

just Reiterating what JCM wrote:

"IMO, the FA puts forward their vision of a route, and then community has the ability to accept or reject the value of that contribution. I don't think the FA has any inherent value; the value is the choice of the community to place on it."

bryanswrote:

The reason I posted is not to solve this one particular situation but to ask if, in 2023, it's becoming OK to value the values of the current community over respect for the past.

EMPHATICALLY YES!  Same goes for everything in life, gay rights, women's rights, etc.  We live in the PRESENT!  The values of the CURRENT community far outweigh past users.