Who owns the route?

Hangdog Hank wrote:

Trevor, do people actually complain to land managers about the bolting of a specific route? I've never heard of anyone doing that before. 

The land managers dont really seem understand the drama, just that one group is mad at another. So whether its an individual route or a couple. Pretty much all the drama in Lelands developing history has been caused by climbers complaining directly to the land manager (infinite bliss for example). 

Pretty much all the complaints about me have not made it to the land manager. Or at least the land manager never knows who I am or even what is a climbing area. 

Generally I think land manager drama is overstated. But if someone wants to go add or remove bolts to my climbs I dont really care.

Hangdog Hank wrote:

I also think it's worth discussing what happens when a route falls into disuse/ disrepair. In my opinion I think that in most cases this means that the FA has lost the right to be the owner of the route, and the community now has the right to decide to add/remove/move bolts on the route. 

This is a situation that I see at index a lot; A route was sparsely bolted in the 80/90s, nobody climbed it for thirty years because of the bolting, it is now mossed over and the only thing that identifies it as a rock climb is hangers sticking out the moss and a guidebook entry. In my opinion, whoever decides to clean it/ re-bolt it has earned the right to modify the climb as they wish. A caveat would be if the climb is in the alpine, remote, or an absolute classic test piece. The Bachar/Yerian sees very few ascents, but I don't think that it should be handed over to the community for retro bolting. 

I strongly agree with this. Rebolting a mossy route is harder than putting up a new route. Moss regrow seems harder to clean, you  have to extract bolts and you have to try to figureout what the original vision was and if it made any sense.

Ricky Harline wrote:

I would add that if the old, dangerous route is still seeing limited ascents then the opinion of those who have climbed the route as is should get the most input. Just because a climb doesn't see many ascents doesn't mean it should necessarily be retrobolted for more ascents. 

If the few ascents the route gets are very meaningful to those that do climb it then you're losing a lot by retrobolting it. If the few people who have climbed the thing think the runouts are silly and unnecessary and don't add to the climb then I there's a much more compelling argument to retrobolt it. 

A variation on the consensus line of thought, which has historically been as much a part of this ancient debate as the "FA" deal. 

"Informed Consensus" seems appropriate. 

If you haven't done the route, maybe you shouldn't be "spraying"??? 

Whoever the last person to pee on the route the highest up owns it.  Highest pee wins. 

the rocks are for everyone 

I have done some climbing and was probably the first to climb some stretches of California Granite. I climbed in the style that suited my interests while I was doing it. I never believed that my actions made any claim to ownership of the cliffs that I expressed myself on. I tried to maintain a low profile and minimize impact. I have observed that “the community” creates arbitrary rules that are often not clear or consistently applied. If a climber chooses to modify a climb that I have done they are free to do so. Please consider that the opportunity for discovering unique adventure is gradually diminishing. For me, the answer to “who owns the route?” would be “everybody and nobody.” lol

After living through the bolt wars, but also enjoying many grid bolted picnic areas in Europe, and decades of climbing, what I've learned is there is always more rock. So if a route does not suit your fancy, for any reason, just keep walking. Something else will catch your eye. There are far more climbing areas now than I could ever have imagined. MP list over 330,00 routes. It is really hard grasp fixations on one climb somewhere that needs one more bolt.

It is precisely because we all own every route together that the FA rule should apply.  That route is the climber's contribution to the climbing community; his legacy of whether he's bold, scared, thoughtful, careful, or even a jerk, in some cases.  If someone puts up a route that's dangerous just because he's an arrogant jerk, that will be how he's remembered.  If someone puts up a dangerous or runout route because that was the ethic of the time--think the north face apron of Middle Cathedral--it's a good histocal marker, and a way to measure your progress against the people who were boldly climbing them in EBs.

I (and others) take the FA ethic one step further, and consider that the FA's ethical authority to add bolts to his own route closes when the route has been repeated in the state he put it up.  Example: I put up a route that's kinda runout in one spot, but I launched into the section without knowing how far I'd need to go before finding a stance to drill from.  Returning to push it another pitch, I drill a bolt to protect the part already climbed, before anyone else has come along and done it.  That's acceptable, since the climb is still in development.  But to grow old and fat as I have now, and return to a route from my glory days and justify adding bolts all over it because I put it up thirty years ago is a bridge too far, even if it's been repeated only once.

Regrettable as it may be to have an otherwise good route ruined, in some people's estimation, by a first ascentionist that had a vision different than others', this ethic is the only one that respects every viewpoint except for the one that thinks there should be a bolt added everywhere anyone wants one.  This ethic also respects the vision of the FA party that sprays bolts everywhere on their new routes. Their FA, their vision, their legacy.  It's a knife that cuts both ways, but cuts fairly.

I have a robust and well-defined flowchart developed through careful consideration, local ethics and feedback, and ontological discussion:

Did I get scared?

      Yes - this route is bullshit I can't believe they didn't put in a bolt.

      No - this is a classic, anyone who complains does not understand nor respect the vision of the FA and devalues the sacred climbing tenets.

An honest bipolar perspective would be:

1. Indoor gym gym and sport climbing have added fantastic new elements to the world of rock climbing and contributed significantly to the evolution of rock climbing.

-or-

2. Gym and sport climbing have ruined rock climbing.

Both are true.

Choosing one is the "high road". The other is the "low road". 

My sense is that when it comes time to re-bolt a route, 20 or 30 years later, that it is ok to put the bolts in better spots. One example is Pappa Woosley in Jtree.

"Who owns the route?" Is the wrong question.

"Do I own the route?" Is the right question.

If you don't own the route, don't fuck with it. Its that simple. There is no "we" when altering a route. You can't hide behind some so-called community.

Good day.

Maybe I am old school but to me the FA gets to decide the style on a route.  Me then as the subsequent climber gets to decide if i want to climb it in that style or not and if not, I find another route, plenty of rock to choose from.

I love that you guys think there is an umbrella action here and that it isn’t a case-by-case sort of thing. This should be good for at least 7 pages, easy. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

I love that you guys think there is an umbrella action here and that it isn’t a case-by-case sort of thing. This should be good for at least 7 pages, easy. 

Highest pee-er wins. Umbrella or no. 

Bolt wars

Literally dealing with this exact issue currently. I’m just try to change the route designation to “Trad” just to stop confusing people, on the other hand it’s sad that some people are so dumb that they think that MP “Sport or Trad” designation somehow is more important than what the first  ascensionist did.

It’s like seeing a handmade sign that says “Walk” leading across a highway and then getting confused when hit by a car.  

I think this whole idea of the FA having authority for the life of the climb really highlights how young and immature this debate is.  A lot of FAs have died and certainly a lot more will die soon.  What do we do then, bust out the Ouija board?  What if the original motivation for running out a pitch was the cost and availability of bolts?  If the FA had free bolts from a local climbing fund would they have put in more bolts?

This sport isn't one that's worth dying over nor is it worth being permanently disabled because someone bolted a route first when they were a bold and frugal 18yo.  Maybe the answer is to arbitrarily establish a new route in very close proximity but climb it only using new bolts therefore having a new FA and a more modern bolting ethic. 

Big Red wrote:

That's a pretty funny and short-sighted take.

As with most things, the answer to the question is not black and white and lies somewhere between "the FA is God" and "retro-bolt it for gym climbers". FAs get things wrong, and I've found that many are open to suggestion, especially if you're willing and able to go do the work to move or add a bolt. Generally, I believe the FA is the most intimately familiar with a route and best equipped to decide whether the protection should be changed.

My other belief is that invested locals are allowed to make changes against the direct wishes of the FA (or an absent FA) is if there's a proven track record of people getting hurt on the route. There's a few examples that come to mind of routes where an onsighting climber has a huge safety disadvantage compared to the FA because they didn't inspect all of the placements and moves, thus the FA may have made poor protection decisions. A 3/8" hole in a rock isn't worth multiple broken backs and limbs. 

You make the very lame assumption that First ascents have not been done exactly the same way as a modern highly skilled onsighter. 

And you wonder why there is resistance to la ze fare.

I am not a "Developer". Not a fan of the use of that word as it pertains to climbing. 

I have established  and participated in establishing hundreds of FAs in my 45 years of active climbing. 

I believe that minimizing fixed gear is a good conservation minded practice. Overuse of fixed gear  is an ethical question worth discussion amonst your peers.

I dont own any cliffs or climbs. I do own the nature of the climbs i have established where the amout of fixed gear is concerned. It is my opinion that no other climber has the right to alter the nature of a climb I have established by adding or removing fixed gear. I believe that will apply as long as I am an active climber. Certainly as long as I am able to act on it. I plan to climb till death, after that i will not give a fuck.

It is possible to make mistakes on an FA. I have added or re-located fixed gear to a number of my own routes.  The best time to do this is when the climbs are new. Once a climb has been repeated a lot, even the author of the route should hesitate to add or remove hardware.

I have read all the comments here and i appreciate thought put into all the comments.

Chad Miller wrote:

Highest pee-er wins. Umbrella or no. 

 Can I get a few cheater stones or is that aid?