Who owns the route?

If I put in the effort to clean a route and equip it with several hundred dollars worth of hardware you damn right that I have first say on how that route is managed. If that route is in an area  that is managed by a climbing coalition then that coalition has final say. 

Mark Sprague (about whom, some have said: "that man is a genius...") suggested it was ok to "fix" a route if the FA was "dead, crazy, or moved away..."

Seems pretty reasonable..

ed "let's be pragmatic..." e

ed esmond wrote:

Mark Sprague (about whom, some have said: "that man is a genius...") suggested it was ok to "fix" a route if the FA was "dead, crazy, or moved away..."

Seems pretty reasonable..

ed "let's be pragmatic..." e

I can think of a few routes that fall into that category

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

If I put in the effort to clean a route and equip it with several hundred dollars worth of hardware you damn right that I have first say on how that route is managed. If that route is in an area  that is managed by a climbing coalition then that coalition has final say. 

For the general public, here's a breakdown of route development costs:

If you're really prolific, you should be getting hangers for under $3 and bolts for under $2. Even if you're using the most expensive options—like Wave glue-ins—you're still spending less than $10 per bolt. Anchor hardware can cost anywhere from $10 to $50.

Of course, there's also the cost of tools: drills, brushes, leaf blowers, hammers, ropes, aid gear, and miscellaneous items. So, walking up to a random route and estimating that it cost around $100 to equip is a fair assumption. That means a crag with 10 routes likely cost close to $1,000.

This brings up an interesting question:
Say you just use chain for an anchor, but someone later replaces it with Ram's Horns and adds a few crux perma-draws. That person spent more than the original developer. Does that now make them the owner of the route?

As for a follow up to the question at hand:

When I receive feedback about my climbs, I usually ask myself, “Is this something I personally need to fix, or is it something anyone can take care of?”
Issues like loose rock, a loose hanger, or excess dirt—those are things anyone can and should address. I believe most climbers should take responsibility for that kind of maintenance.

Then there are things general climbers can't or shouldn't fix: bolt placement, building a ledge, bolt extraction, efficient perma-draw installation, or gluing a hold. These are learning opportunities. If someone is really concerned about those aspects, it's a great chance for them to step in and contribute thoughtfully with guidance.

The most common feedback I hear is “not enough bolts” or “too many bolts.” I try to reach a consensus when I hear this. Personally, I consider my opinion worth that of 10 random climbers, and I weigh another developer’s opinion as equal to 5. So, if 11 random climbers think I placed bolts poorly, I’ll move them. But if just one person complains, I won’t change anything

How often and what percentage of route costs gets covered by local coalitions and other supporting agencies?

Some time ago the illustrious Jim DiNapoli in Colorado Springs took it upon himself to retro-bolt some routes in the Garden of the Gods, Alligator Soup and Credibility Gap. If you have ever climbed Credibility Gap, you know it is very poorly protected until the first pin, which is about fifteen to eighteen feet up. Jim added one bolt in there. On Alligator Soup, which is a sport route, he placed a bolt on the traverse to the previous first bolt I believe, making it safe to lead for anyone. I immediately started climbing that route with a group and enjoyed the improved safety. The bolt on Credibility Gap angered some locals, one of whom I think is the bolt chopper of Pike's Peak. That bolt was removed.

Jim passed away from pancreatic cancer, unfortunately, the goof, and some of his work remains. You can get away with a bit of retro-bolting, but it depends on what kind of route it is.

Tim Stich wrote:

Some time ago the illustrious Jim DiNapoli in Colorado Springs took it upon himself to retro-bolt some routes in the Garden of the Gods, Alligator Soup and Credibility Gap. If you have ever climbed Credibility Gap, you know it is very poorly protected until the first pin, which is about fifteen to eighteen feet up. Jim added one bolt in there. On Alligator Soup, which is a sport route, he placed a bolt on the traverse to the previous first bolt I believe, making it safe to lead for anyone. I immediately started climbing that route with a group and enjoyed the improved safety. The bolt on Credibility Gap angered some locals, one of whom I think is the bolt chopper of Pike's Peak. That bolt was removed.

Jim passed away from pancreatic cancer, unfortunately, the goof, and some of his work remains. You can get away with a bit of retro-bolting, but it depends on what kind of route it is.

This isn’t exactly a great example though as Bo has likely chopped more bolts around the SPlatte than pieces of gear he’s placed. Jim’s bolts likely would have stayed had Bo not been around. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

If I put in the effort to clean a route and equip it with several hundred dollars worth of hardware you damn right that I have first say on how that route is managed. If that route is in an area  that is managed by a climbing coalition then that coalition has final say. 

Agreed.

Top down, it should always be bolted in a safe way (or close to it, some sport routes are spicy in spots). There should be no question about this especially if the route is community funded. 

But ground up, and at the FAs expense, then their wishes should always be considered when retro-bolting them. It's our Art and Legacy. If you don't like it, stop being a lazy gym wanker and put up your own routes. There is plenty of rock still.

And especially when a route has historical significance like the old classics of Tuolumne Meadows put up in the 60's and 70's you should just leave them alone. These routes were put up in the Golden Age of our sport where to climb even bigger mountains leaders had to develop the skill to climb with minimal protection to improve their speed etc. These routes were put up with the most rudimentary of gear and ropes and footwear. To obliterate this history would be an abomination of our sport and a betrayal of our roots. If these routes aren't for you, go to Owens or pick a more recent and better protected route.

Climbing is not about participation trophies by removing all risk and the fitness, skill and nerves to be in control on runouts. It's an essential part of the game in the high mountains. There are MORE than enough sport climbing moderates out there. Don't demand a dumbing down of every rock climb. Don't like the Bachar-Yerian? Go top rope it! It's easily done. Sometimes we aren't good enough. That's life.

That said, I have retro-bolted a number of my own routes to share them more with others. That is the most gratifying part of developing crags to me now.

Share the stoke. Remember your roots.

Old and Busted: Leave the bold ascents alone!

Teh New Hotness: I F'Ad while my belayer dropped off her harness and shat in the bushes

* Their. You happy?

2nd edit. I had the 69th comment on this thread. Nice.

I develop routes because I want to climb the route and think it's fun. I bolt them in a way where people will (hopefully) want to climb it in the future. I put up routes exclusively in the front country, so I rap bolt them to give me the best chance of making good decisions and ending up with a well developed route. 

People may have other intensions when climbing, maybe they are looking for a different experience, maybe it's a back country alpine route where pro is placed when you can, on lead. That's cool too. 

I don't like when people put up poorly bolted (especially on rap) at popular front country areas. If you are hanging on a rope, you should be doing your best as a developer to make the route reasonably safe. Bolting some janky horror show on rap (or on lead with hooks) just makes me think you are either incompetent or just inconsiderate of others. I am not going to retrobolt routes because I don't need that drama in my life and there is a hell of a lot of rock around here, but it does leave a poor taste in my mouth. 

If people think my routes could use extra bolts or bolts moved, go for it, I am human, I make mistakes. If it means people will actually get on it and enjoy themselves I am all for it. 

Connor Dobson wrote:

If people think my routes could use extra bolts or bolts moved, go for it, I am human, I make mistakes. If it means people will actually get on it and enjoy themselves I am all for it. 

I appreciate the humility in this statement, truly. All I'll say to this approach is that Joe Climber isn't always right. You who have hammered on the rock have a better idea of what's solid than 99% of the people who will climb it. I'll present the following example of a route that started its life fun and safely bolted, but caught a lot of flak because it attracted so many people with limited experience. See the comments if you're curious.

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/106383132

Folks complained that bolts had to be clipped mid-sequence. Folks complained about nonexistent runouts. Folks complained about the anchors being slightly to the right, causing the toproper to swing off route if leader was too lazy to give them a directional. At least one person lobbied for a bolt to be moved to a hollow piece of rock to facilitate clipping.

First ascensionist is quite skilled and all his sport lines that I've climbed are safe, thoughtfully bolted, and fun. His mistake here, if any, was bolting a moderate and thus inviting a maelstrom of complaints. He bent over backwards to appease the community, moved a few bolts and the anchors, and the route is a little more convenient today. Had the randos with strong opinions attempted to retro this route, it would have ended up being confidence inspiring but dangerous to fall on: a bolt ladder up the most laid-in terrain with at least one bolt prone to catastrophic failure. Good news is that, at least around here, there's virtually no overlap between the whiners and the developers.

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

What if I pee from the top of the route? 

You own it all!  That is until it rains. Then you need to reapply the pee to maintain ownership. 

Logan Peterson wrote:

I appreciate the humility in this statement, truly. All I'll say to this approach is that Joe Climber isn't always right. You who have hammered on the rock have a better idea of what's solid than 99% of the people who will climb it. I'll present the following example of a route that started its life fun and safely bolted, but caught a lot of flak because it attracted so many people with limited experience. See the comments if you're curious.

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/106383132

Folks complained that bolts had to be clipped mid-sequence. Folks complained about nonexistent runouts. Folks complained about the anchors being slightly to the right, causing the toproper to swing off route if leader was too lazy to give them a directional. At least one person lobbied for a bolt to be moved to a hollow piece of rock to facilitate clipping.

First ascensionist is quite skilled and all his sport lines that I've climbed are safe, thoughtfully bolted, and fun. His mistake here, if any, was bolting a moderate and thus inviting a maelstrom of complaints. He bent over backwards to appease the community, moved a few bolts and the anchors, and the route is a little more convenient today. Had the randos with strong opinions attempted to retro this route, it would have ended up being confidence inspiring but dangerous to fall on: a bolt ladder up the most laid-in terrain with at least one bolt prone to catastrophic failure. Good news is that, at least around here, there's virtually no overlap between the whiners and the developers.

^ Amen to this. We see this BS all the time in the Front Range (no surprise) as well. Can't even get the complainers to bring a f'ing wrench to the crag... so I doubt they'll ever actually do any bolting. 

Route development is not altruistic, its inherently selfish. 

Being the first person to climb a blank canvas of rock, deciding which way it will go, forcing the route through the hardest sequence or choosing a weakness, is veritably the most gratifying form of climbing.

This is why developers are willing to spend the money to install the hardware

This is why route developers are secretive.

This is why there is infighting and competition among developers.

Point being developers don't own the rock.

Jason4Too wrote: .....highlights how young and immature this debate is.  

I'm going on record and state that all this bolting, in the long-term, is not sustainable. Only the best, or most popular routes will be re-bolted when their hardware expires. The rest will just rust into obscurity. Ultimately, we're all just passing through.

Dan Bookless wrote:

Route development is not altruistic, its inherently selfish. 

Being the first person to climb a blank canvas of rock, deciding which way it will go, forcing the route through the hardest sequence or choosing a weakness, is veritably the most gratifying form of climbing.

This is why developers are willing to spend the money to install the hardware

This is why route developers are secretive.

This is why there is infighting and competition among developers.

Point being developers don't own the rock.

I haven't heard anyone claim they own the rock, ever, despite hearing some of the worst slander in rock climbing history directed at outsiders who developed harder routes than the self-identified "locals". They only claimed to be the arbiters of style (even though they usually had no idea how others climbed a given route).

What Developers are saying is that being willing to take the time, effort and their own money to open climbing routes for those unable to do it themselves means that they get a say in changes made to routes they opened up. And by and large, the climbing community grants them that respect, as well they should.

Then along comes someone with little to no experience who gets upset they don't have what it takes to climb some routes. They want to add more bolts and chip holds. Much angst. They don't have a leg to stand on...It's almost always someone who has never put up routes, let alone drilled on lead, that wants bolts added for themselves.

But believe or not all of these routes would not exist without those going first (and it's a shit ton of work). In fact, the whole sport as we know it wouldn't exist without these "selfish" individuals creating sometimes entire rock-climbing areas for others to enjoy. If you have never put up rock climbs I simply am not going to value your opinion very much about these things as you just don't understand the effort and unique requirements of new routing. Most likely you don't do it because it's too much work and expense and distracts too much from just going climbing. You might be just a consumer with self-centered concerns.

However, as above, some mediocre route that never gets climbed and is returning to nature may benefit from a "re-opening" with a better protection scheme. 

It's the historic classics ie The Dike Route or Snake Dike (or Bachar-Yerian or Southern Belle etc) that should never be retro-bolted, imo. Everything else is on a case-by-case basis as far as I am concerned. If it's covered in moss now after years of disuse, then the climbing community has decided the original effort was not as inspirational as the FA thought it was. Changes may be warranted. Talk it out.

But adding bolts to Snake Dike, a route that is a veritable freeway of parties in season protected as is, would be a complete travesty and destruction of the adventure and history of the route.

It's something we should value.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

I haven't heard anyone claim they own the rock, ever, despite hearing some of the worst slander in Rock Climbing History directed at outsiders who developed harder routes than the self-identified "locals". They only claimed to be the arbiters of style (even though they usually had no idea how others climbed).

What Developers are saying is that being willing to take the time, effort and their own money to open climbing routes for those unable to do it themselves means that they get a say in changes made. And by and large, the climbing community grants them that respect, as well they should.

Then along comes someone with little to no experience who gets upset they don't have what it takes to climb some routes. They want to add more bolts and chip holds. Much angst. They don't have a leg to stand on...

Believe or not all of these routes would not exist without those going first. In fact the whole sport as we know it wouldn't exist without these "selfish" individuals creating entire rock-climbing areas for others to enjoy. If you have never put up rock climbs I simply am not going to value your opinion very much about these things.

However, as above some route that never gets climbed and is returning to nature may benefit from a "re-opening" with a better protection scheme. 

It's the historic classics ie The Dike Route or Snake Dike that should never be retro-bolted, imo. Everything else is on a case by case basis as far as I am concerned. If it's covered in moss now after years of disuse, then the climbing community has decided the original effort was not as inspirational as the FA thought it was. Changes may be warranted.

Adding bolts to Snake Dike, a route that is a veritable freeway of parties in season protected as is, would be a complete travesty and destruction of the adventure and history of the route.

It's something we should value.

Really really well said

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

I haven't heard anyone claim they own the rock, ever, despite hearing some of the worst slander in Rock Climbing History directed at outsiders who developed harder routes than the self-identified "locals". They only claimed to be the arbiters of style (even though they usually had no idea how others climbed).

What Developers are saying is that being willing to take the time, effort and their own money to open climbing routes for those unable to do it themselves means that they get a say in changes made. And by and large, the climbing community grants them that respect, as well they should.

Then along comes someone with little to no experience who gets upset they don't have what it takes to climb some routes. They want to add more bolts and chip holds. Much angst. They don't have a leg to stand on...

Believe or not all of these routes would not exist without those going first. In fact the whole sport as we know it wouldn't exist without these "selfish" individuals creating entire rock-climbing areas for others to enjoy. If you have never put up rock climbs I simply am not going to value your opinion very much about these things.

However, as above some route that never gets climbed and is returning to nature may benefit from a "re-opening" with a better protection scheme. 

It's the historic classics ie The Dike Route or Snake Dike that should never be retro-bolted, imo. Everything else is on a case by case basis as far as I am concerned. If it's covered in moss now after years of disuse, then the climbing community has decided the original effort was not as inspirational as the FA thought it was. Changes may be warranted.

Adding bolts to Snake Dike, a route that is a veritable freeway of parties in season protected as is, would be a complete travesty and destruction of the adventure and history of the route.

It's something we should value.

Ilaliuk

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

Chip holds. 

I agree with everything you said except for this. If anything the average climber these days seems less likely to advocate chipping a route. People on this website assume the worst in gym climbers/climbing. But if gym climbers actually wanted to chip every route we would see way different behavior in the gym.

Take a moonboard session for example, I have never seen anyone grab the wrong holds deliberately and somehow count it. I almost never see people grab easier holds or add feet in their moonboard session, just to work a problem. If people want the esteem of sending a route they just would fabriacate it on mountain project or 8a. Why bring a hammer when you can just make up stuff in the internet.

People do ask to move bolts, add bolts, add permas, use different hardware, different glue, etc.

T Taylor wrote:

I agree with everything you said except for this. If anything the average climber these days seems less likely to advocate chipping a route. People on this website assume the worst in gym climbers/climbing. But if gym climbers actually wanted to chip every route we would see way different behavior in the gym.

Take a moonboard session for example, I have never seen anyone grab the wrong holds deliberately and somehow count it. I almost never see people grab easier holds or add feet in their moonboard session, just to work a problem. If people want the esteem of sending a route they just would fabriacate it on mountain project or 8a. Why bring a hammer when you can just make up stuff in the internet.

People do ask to move bolts, add bolts, add permas, use different hardware, different glue, etc.

You can literally change which holds you use on a Moonboard. There are no “wrong holds” when you can change the lights to use whichever holds you want in 10 seconds. That’s a horrible example. Luckily the youths are so strong these days they don’t really need to chip holds like the blue heads had to. I mean didn’t that British guy just do V17 in a session?!