Who owns the route?

Jason4Too wrote:

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?

All of these questions have been satisfactorily answered in numerous threads here. It will generally be handled in a few ways. If the deceased FA's desires for that route can be learned they should be. Then either depending on the norms of the area those wishes will be respected or there will be some sort of discussion among the core climbing scene. 

Communal input like that varies-- in some places it's the norm and such an approach is used most of the time, but I've seen it occur here in old crusty tradster land as well where the preference is just to keep the route as is. 

In addition to your question as to what the FA would have done if they weren't broke or has better tools, one should also ask the question of whether or not the character of the route is appreciated by those who lead it. Not every route needs to be retrobolted for accessibility. 

A dinky urban crag where most leads are by beginners? Retrobolt that shit yesterday. A long, beautiful test piece or adventure climb? Absolutely not, leave it alone. 

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.  

You don't have to climb that route. Different people have different views on climbing and attitudes towards risk. You may not appreciate risk in climbing (I generally don't either) but that doesn't make it your or anyone else's place to remove risk from climbs where it is wanted. 

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. 

I don't really know how to respond to this respectfully so I'll just say that to say I dislike this suggestion would be an understatement. Please do not do this. 

Putting new bolts using the same holds is not an FA, and if its just an adjacent route then that's a squeeze job and those are bad, too. Do not change the character of existing routes and do not put in protection for a "new" route that can be clipped while climbing the original route. 

There is a climbing area in northern Vermont, where almost all of routes were drilled by hand on the lead. Consequently, there are many badly protected routes and very few bolts. Originally all of the anchors were on trees, many of which died. Because their lower limbs had been cut off  and their roots had been trampled.

Eventually, the developer realized that bolted anchors would be a good thing. A number of people were injured and some took ground Falls, and on some of those routes, the developer realized that an additional bolt or two were necessary and have been added.

There are still plenty of runout scary, climbs there, but some of the better climbs that were more dangerous have been  made marginally safer.

june m wrote:

There is a climbing area in northern Vermont, where almost all of routes were drilled by hand on the lead. Consequently, there are many badly protected routes and very few bolts. Originally all of the anchors were on trees, many of which died. Because their lower limbs had been cut off  and their roots had been trampled.

Eventually, the developer realized that bolted anchors would be a good thing. A number of people were injured and some took ground Falls, and on some of those routes, the developer realized that an additional bolt or two were necessary and have been added.

There are still plenty of runout scary, climbs there, but some of the better climbs that were more dangerous have been  made marginally safer.

June, Wheeler?

If you lower or rap down in order to bolt it before the FA, you aren't making any sort of achievement with regards to climbing. You are making an installation. A vertical trail. Unless it is on your property, you're doing it on something you do not own. Therefore, your work is subject to critique and alteration. 

If the route is established from the ground up, we apply a degree of achievement to it. The route therefore does hold a degree of preservation worthiness. As a sort of historical artifact. 

Installation or history. Both are worthy.

Anarchy isn't a destructive force, either. It is by definition simply "without rulers". We all want to live the best we can under anarchy because it means we aren't being dictated to as to how to live our lives and go about our business. That doesn't mean without rules. Rules are vital to peace.

When we as a like-minded collection of humans with the same passion, in this case climbing rocks, all self-police and regulate our actions without involving an authority we are engaging in anarchy. It is the act of freedom. Whenever you see an appeal to authority (what do the land managers think?) you are interacting with a person who is afraid of freedom.

june m wrote:

…Originally all of the anchors were on trees, many of which died. Because their lower limbs had been cut off  and their roots had been trampled.

Eventually, the developer realized that bolted anchors would be a good thing. …

This.

The Exfoliator wrote:

If you lower or rap down in order to bolt it before the FA, you aren't making any sort of achievement with regards to climbing. You are making an installation. A vertical trail. Unless it is on your property, you're doing it on something you do not own. Therefore, your work is subject to critique and alteration. 

If the route is established from the ground up, we apply a degree of achievement to it. The route therefore does hold a degree of preservation worthiness. As a sort of historical artifact. 

Installation or history. Both are worthy.

Anarchy isn't a destructive force, either. It is by definition simply "without rulers". We all want to live the best we can under anarchy because it means we aren't being dictated to as to how to live our lives and go about our business. That doesn't mean without rules. Rules are vital to peace.

When we as a like-minded collection of humans with the same passion, in this case climbing rocks, all self-police and regulate our actions without involving an authority we are engaging in anarchy. It is the act of freedom. Whenever you see an appeal to authority (what do the land managers think?) you are interacting with a person who is afraid of freedom.

While this sounds great in theory, the cold reality is that the 'land managers' often do actually own the land, or have the legal authority to 'manage' it. In that capacity, they often impose and enforce various rules and regulations concerning the use of said land. We may not agree with some or all of those rules, but many, in fact, are based upon valid concerns about use of those spaces/resources (public or private) which are limited, fragile, and often shared by many different interests.

While I don't think ( in most situations) that it is appropriate for climbers to actively 'involve' the managers in our disputes, in many, probably most, such situations they will become aware anyway, and take the actions that they feel to be appropriate---and are legally authorized to do. Like it or not, 'anarchy' does not 'rule'.

Jason4Too wrote:

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. 

You bring up a valid point.  I would say the debate is young and immature to an extent but that is only because there is a change of respect per se to the FA party.  Seneca is where i learned to trad climb and there is a staunch ethic out there as far as bolts, grades etc.  There are 5.12x rated routes out there that sure you could put a bolt on to protect but the section that is x rated is 5.10ish.  If you are trying a 5.12 trad route then climbing a runout 5.10 section should be very manageable.  I do feel like the gym culture and where people learn to climb influences mindset as well.  Bouldering comes to mind but that is for another thread...

Bottom line is in any sport that is largely self regulated there will be those that err on the side of caution and those that err on the side of calculated risk and everything in between.  Go have fun, do what you can and feel safe doing and call it a day.

Jon Hartmann wrote:

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 gotta say, as someone who appreciates bold climbing, lives in CO, and has absolutely no stake in this climb whatsoever, after reading all the comments it does seem pretty dumb there's not a bolt at the location in question on this climb. Usually on the other side of the argument here.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alan Rubin wrote:

While this sounds great in theory, the cold reality is that the 'land managers' often do actually own the land, or have the legal authority to 'manage' it. In that capacity, they often impose and enforce various rules and regulations concerning the use of said land. We may not agree with some or all of those rules, but many, in fact, are based upon valid concerns about use of those spaces/resources (public or private) which are limited, fragile, and often shared by many different interests.

While I don't think ( in most situations) that it is appropriate for climbers to actively 'involve' the managers in our disputes, in many, probably most, such situations they will become aware anyway, and take the actions that they feel to be appropriate---and are legally authorized to do. Like it or not, 'anarchy' does not 'rule'.

Where did the 'Legal Authority' to own and manage the land come from? I don't remember signing any consent form. Do you?

Anarchy isn't a system. It can't 'rule'. It's an individual approach. It exists in degrees in our lives, as does Authoritarianism. 

I get it. It might be dumb but the FA didn’t put one in and there is the MOST textbook cam placement exactly where the bolt would go. It might not be a “sport” climb but no one has to climb it. One could walk right past it and climb something else. But yeah….it’s dumb. 

It's me, I own the routes. DM me if you have questions

The Exfoliator wrote:

Where did the 'Legal Authority' to own and manage the land come from? I don't remember signing any consent form. Do you?

Anarchy isn't a system. It can't 'rule'. It's an individual approach. It exists in degrees in our lives, as does Authoritarianism. 

In your non-internet, non-anonymous real life you undoubtedly know---and live--the answer to your question.

Alan Rubin wrote:

In your non-internet, non-anonymous real life you undoubtedly know---and live--the answer to your question.

Are you talking about the moment when you are born, in the nurse holds you upside down and before cutting the umbilical cord slaps you on the ass until you consent to be governed?

for the most part if I put the route up I retain control over it until I cede that control. If you want to change it ask me. If I think the change is nessicary I will most likly do it myself.  That completely changes at areas that get popular enough to have an organized comitee that manages the area. Once that happens all decisions are made by the commity that puts the effort into securing access, maintaining routes and trails etc. Crag VT for example actually bought Bolton securing access and parking. They should be able to make any changes to a route that they deem nessicary to best fulfil their mission. .   More loosly managed areas it should still be the FA parties  choice as to what modifications if any are done to a route. 

God dammit! Doesn’t anyone read the threads? The question has been answered up thread. Bolting Karen owns all of the routes. End of thread.

Frank Stein wrote:

God dammit! Doesn’t anyone read the threads? The question has been answered up thread. Bolting Karen owns all of the routes. End of thread.

Incorrect.

If you pee on the rock you control all routes below said stream.  Highest pee wins.

Chad Miller wrote:

Incorrect.

If you pee on the rock you control all routes below said stream.  Highest pee wins.

what about those blessed with a wide stream - marking the whole face.

PWZ wrote:

what about those blessed with a wide stream - marking the whole face.

Oh it’s  not just below the wet spot. From the pee, establish an elevation line around the entire peak. Everything below is now owned person doing the marking.

Chad Miller wrote:

Incorrect.

If you pee on the rock you control all routes below said stream.  Highest pee wins.

So, it’s Ken Nichols then?  This is so confusing…

Chad Miller wrote:

Incorrect.

If you pee on the rock you control all routes below said stream.  Highest pee wins

What if I pee from the top of the route?