Who owns the route?

Who owns the route?

But really from the bolt question perspective.   As pointed out, no one really owns the route.

First ascent ARE statements. They are also creations. Kinda like artwork. Sometimes more like craftsmanship. On some TRADitional climbs there is a choice, follow the line of least resistance,  or take the easier to protect line. And sometimes other choices. The line chosen(or specific technique)by a particular individual is a reflection of that person, or could be a statement. 

I believe sport routes are a bit more craftsmanship like. The bolt line more narrowly defines the climb.

No matter. Good craftsmanship and good artwork are both worthy of respect. That's what it all comes down to. Respect.

So it's really f**kn simple, if you want some respect, show some.

bryans wrote:

 Your comments don't suggest a workable solution that's better than giving respect to the FA and not adding bolts against their wishes

I do not have a workable solution.  Just objections to the gerontocracy that we currently have.  

Dan Bookless wrote:

I do not have a workable solution.  Just objections to the gerontocracy that we currently have.  

Well...I started climbing in 1999 at the age of 24 and the info ecosystem around us was crystal clear that you don't add bolts to a route. That the FA party made something from nothing and so we should climb it in the style they established it - though asking nicely could get the FA party to add a bolt.

Look at climbing mags from 1999 to say 2010 and I doubt you'd see young climbers in those pages complaining that the FA doesn't own the route and that anyone should be able to add bolts.

But with the explosion of gyms (again I'll just say starting in 2010,to name a year) people get 5.12 sport strong in the gym, and they don't want to take the time to learn to place gear on mixed 5.9/10/11 routes when they are already leading 5.12 sport. They want convenience. Which is fine, just leave the inconvenient routes in peace, that's it, or else it's anarchy. 

I guess all I'm saying is it wasn't a gerontocracy back in 1999, it's a new trend, and we don't need to bash old people. I climb with plenty of people in the 28 to 35 range who feel like I do.

PS  - Dan, in another 25 years I have a feeling your view will carry the day as outdoor climbing routes increasingly become commodified and sanitized and a product, no longer expressions of individual vision and dare I say it, art. (I have agonized for hours on a rope about exactly wherre to put a bolt, and how each placement might change other potential bolt or gear placements!) It used to be you had to listen to an album in the artist's chosen order on a tape or a CD. Now on spotify or with apps you can shuffle that album or even change the BPM because you don't want to hear it the way the artist made that album. So it goes.

Dan Bookless wrote:

I do not have a workable solution.  Just objections to the gerontocracy that we currently have.  

No solutions, just accusations. Thanks for playing!

There are other communities that have solved similar problems in a satisfactory, or at least sustainable, way.

Open source software. Trail maintainers. Wikipedia.

These aren't exact analogs since they're not managing irreversible operations on finite resources (or the finiteness is different), but it's close enough -- they all admit a process by which certain people are acknowledged as moderators and having the final say so. The moderators are not necessarily the original authors, and they are not moderators for life. 

Writing a first wikipedia article on some topic is also a statement, but if you do it pants-on-head-stupid, then the experts can come in and fix it. Or delete it. OTOH if no one has been maintaining some topic, experts on adjacent topics might take ownership of it. 

Climbs may have different metrics than wikipedia articles by which they are valued (historicity, safety, approachability, boldness, difficulty, technicality, etc), but they do have metrics, and it is the responsibility and privilege of those people who have formed and maintained a community around developing and stewarding those climbs who can evaluate those metrics and make decisions. 

In short, crags have developers and stewards. Get to know them. If you want a say in how it's done, step up in your local crag's community and put in the work to become a respected member. 

George M wrote:

There are other communities that have solved similar problems in a satisfactory, or at least sustainable, way.

Open source software. Trail maintainers. Wikipedia.

These aren't exact analogs since they're not managing irreversible operations on finite resources (or the finiteness is different), but it's close enough -- they all admit a process by which certain people are acknowledged as moderators and having the final say so. The moderators are not necessarily the original authors, and they are not moderators for life. 

Writing a first wikipedia article on some topic is also a statement, but if you do it pants-on-head-stupid, then the experts can come in and fix it. Or delete it. OTOH if no one has been maintaining some topic, experts on adjacent topics might take ownership of it. 

Climbs may have different metrics than wikipedia articles by which they are valued (historicity, safety, approachability, boldness, difficulty, technicality, etc), but they do have metrics, and it is the responsibility and privilege of those people who have formed and maintained a community around developing and stewarding those climbs who can evaluate those metrics and make decisions. 

In short, crags have developers and stewards. Get to know them. If you want a say in how it's done, step up in your local crag's community and put in the work to become a respected member. 

This is true. Which is why history and tradition is so important. I’ve seen a lot of half-assed routes in my time. But occasionally you’ll find a full-assed one that needs to be fixed. People act as if everything is black and white. It’s not, there are exceptions to everything. 

In one of his recent podcasts, Chris Kalous relates an interaction he had with John Long, who was coming down from a route. Long was opining that the route was a bit heady and that someone should really add bolts. When Kalous remarked that Long was the FA, Long pointed out that he was a young idiot back then and didn’t really know what he was doing. 

Frank Stein wrote:

In one of his recent podcasts, Chris Kalous relates an interaction he had with John Long, who was coming down from a route. Long was opining that the route was a bit heady and that someone should really add bolts. When Kalous remarked that Long was the FA, Long pointed out that he was a young idiot back then and didn’t really know what he was doing. 

And we mustn't deprive future generations of the opportunity to be young idiots. Barely surviving things has a way of turbocharging one's confidence and drive. Society benefits much more from this than pandering to the weak.

Frank Stein wrote:

In one of his recent podcasts, Chris Kalous relates an interaction he had with John Long, who was coming down from a route. Long was opining that the route was a bit heady and that someone should really add bolts. When Kalous remarked that Long was the FA, Long pointed out that he was a young idiot back then and didn’t really know what he was doing. 

 No doubt that if someone asked Long if adding bolts to that route would be acceptable to him, he’d prolly oblige. Oftentimes it’s really that simple.

Dan Bookless wrote:

See I think the conversation always gets oversimplified.  Its not like on one side you have all the experienced climbers and developers arguing for ethics and on the other side you have inexperienced gym climbers arguing to add bolts. 

The truth is, many of my friends and I have been climbing for decades, climbed all over the world, bolted routes, done first ascents locally and internationally and WE are the ones upset. WE are the ones that don't believe the FA should dictate how many bolts a route has.  Unfortunately, climbing is a gerontocracy

I don't think they should "dictate" either, unless a route is truly historic or has been an accepted (and getting climbed) test piece. If it never, ever gets climbed and is not reasonably top roped then there is no point in staring at it, imo. The moss/cobwebs/lichen tell the tale.

Some rando curmudgeon saying don't retro my old noble runout pos should be more flexible. Sometimes a bad route needs to just be retroed to utility so that it actually gets ascents. 

When I have retroed my own routes it's because no one was ever climbing them. I'd rather share the experience and hear some stoke from those climbing the route because it's safer than try to defend something that is just a monument to nothing. There are more than enough runout classics in California that will remain for people to aspire to climb.

Eric Craig wrote:

My free climbing goal at 66 is to get good enough to again lead one of my FA's in it's original form, so I can justify chopping all the added bolts. 

Don't be silly Eric. Truly we are "Conquistadors of the Useless". It would be a shame to get hurt. Float it on a top rope instead?

Hell, you'll probably get a fatal case of tendonitis from the chopping! :P

The Exfoliator wrote:

And we mustn't deprive future generations of the opportunity to be young idiots. Barely surviving things has a way of turbocharging one's confidence and drive. Society benefits much more from this than pandering to the weak.

The purpose of being older and wiser is to spare as many young idiots as possible from death and disfigurement, not holding their beer for them. Go visit one such with a permanent brain injury and report back.

Society has never benefited from "Sparta" like approaches. All the kids needing glasses would have been killed. Instead, we have scientists and doctors etc. to advance the human condition. 

Confidence and drive is rarely found from near-death experiences. More likely to produce the reflection "I was an idiot and need to make changes to survive". Otherwise, its Hubris.

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

Don't be silly Eric. Truly we are "Conquistadors of the Useless". It would be a shame to get hurt. Float it on a top rope instead?

Hell, you'll probably get a fatal case of tendonitis from the chopping! :P

There is a point to bold leads. Especially when someone is skilled at it.

There is a point to free soloing.

For me, those points are personal. 

I am not assuming you don't possess those skills. 

If your post is partly in reference to my age, it is a legitimate point,  that I understand. Both physically,  and maturity wise.

And, I was partly being silly, Also partly serious. 

bryans wrote:

I guess all I'm saying is it wasn't a gerontocracy back in 1999, it's a new trend, and we don't need to bash old people. I climb with plenty of people in the 28 to 35 range who feel like I do.

It is in fact a Gerontology.  The vast majority of routes in every major climbing venue were established by people who just happened to be born first, and discovered the nascent sport of climbing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.    First Ascensionists are primarily Gen X and Boomers.  Much like politics, don't get stuck in the past, don't be a MAGA climber. 

(yes, yes, yes, there is still rocks and areas to be discovered, but all the high quality, convenient rock climbing near population centers are completely developed)

Dan Bookless wrote:

It is in fact a Gerontology.  The vast majority of routes in every major climbing venue were established by people who just happened to be born first, and discovered the nascent sport of climbing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.    First Ascensionists are primarily Gen X and Boomers.  Much like politics, don't get stuck in the past, don't be a MAGA climber. 

Ignorance is bliss. I guess. Or maybe it's the opposite. 

Dan Bookless wrote:

It is in fact a Gerontology.  The vast majority of routes in every major climbing venue were established by people who just happened to be born first, and discovered the nascent sport of climbing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.    First Ascensionists are primarily Gen X and Boomers.  Much like politics, don't get stuck in the past, don't be a MAGA climber. 

(yes, yes, yes, there is still rocks and areas to be discovered, but all the high quality, convenient rock climbing near population centers are completely developed)

And yet, developers manage every year to put up new routes in exactly these areas (and, of course, farther afield). Your observation here is diametrically opposed to reality. New routes exist because developers have the vision and willingness to do the work. The privilege you imply is more accurately described as imagination, a sense of adventure and the willingness to do expensive, difficult, dirty labor. 

Aside from that, (not directed to you, specifically) if there’s a group of climbers whose opinions really aren’t worth considering much, it’s “the community.” The vast majority, easily over 90%, of climbers do nothing but consume. Most of them don’t contribute to ASCA, don’t participate in crag clean ups or trail days, etc. They sure aren’t helping to do the taxing work of creating new routes. Their contributions amount merely to complaints when a route isn’t protected the way they imagine it should be (as if they would know). I can think of no climber less qualified to opine on the quality of a route, or the state of development generally, than someone who has never created one.

But here’s the kicker: despite all that, developers should be flexible enough to listen to the majority opinion of the community. It seems like an impossible balancing act, but somehow it works in the overwhelming majority of cases. Until a better system is proposed (as yet, none exists), we shouldn’t abandon the one we have currently, i.e., if you spend your time and money building a new route, my opinion about that route matters considerably less than yours.

For anyone who finds the present tradition unsatisfactory, a redeeming exit ramp is always available: get off the couch and develop your own routes. Of course, you won’t be doing that. That requires actual work.

In the meantime, developers will continue to labor along, seeing new lines that others haven’t, and working to make that vision a reality for all of us to enjoy.

Thank you, JW. So much more eloquently stated than the ranting retort that came to my mind.

Dan Bookless wrote:

It is in fact a Gerontology.  The vast majority of routes in every major climbing venue were established by people who just happened to be born first, and discovered the nascent sport of climbing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.    First Ascensionists are primarily Gen X and Boomers.  Much like politics, don't get stuck in the past, don't be a MAGA climber. 

(yes, yes, yes, there is still rocks and areas to be discovered, but all the high quality, convenient rock climbing near population centers are completely developed)

No Dan, you are dead wrong on this one.

I got a list of projects in some of the most famous rock climbing areas in the world that I will never get to in this lifetime.

I put up a 3.4star (current MP consensus) 7 pitch route that could go another 4 pitches right next to some of the most popular routes on the planet just a few years ago. Other lines are nearby.

Me and my partners were willing to do the work. Others weren't willing and decades and decades passed then I just showed up and plucked another line.

The work includes all night cleaning, hand drilling and trundling missions so people below wouldn't be killed or complain about the sausage making.

Get off your ass and quit whining. Do the work and then we'll complain about your routes and see how you feel about it then.

It ain't a Gerontology. It's a Meritocracy were the ones with the merit to do the work get to decide.

J W wrote:

And yet, developers manage every year to put up new routes in the exactly these areas (and, of course, farther afield). Your observation here is diametrically opposed to reality.

Yep.

These two routes are a week old. Both are a 15 minute walk from a state highway on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada (a note about the route names, the first climb is on a formation called The Left Bank and Itt is on The Cousin - the Addams Family has a Cousin Itt). Also, although some systems use more, three out of three stars is as good as it gets in our system in this area.

We Whee! Wee, Oui?  5.6 ***   

a.    Page(s) the route would appear on:  It would appear between pages 285 and 286. 

b.    Description:  This route climbs four, large, stacked blocks which are the right edge of all of the rock which makes up The Left Bank (they are also the left/northwest edge of the wide brushy gully which extends up from the right side of The Empire and continues above).  Approach, class four, from 25 feet right of The Eyeful Tower’s lowest toe.  Move ____ feet up a shallow, right-facing corner (note the unusually white rock) before stepping left onto a ledge and a directional bolt (used for climbers that want a top belay for the approach).  Continue left on the ledge to a two-bolt anchor on the right wall of The Eyeful Tower (used to rappel the class four section when done).  The route starts ____ mostly level feet up and right from this anchor.  Climb straight up the first block past three bolts.  Step onto the second (and smallest) block which has one bolt for protection.  Move up the third (tallest) block past a bolt, a crack which takes gear and four more bolts.  A wide step-across to the last block is protected by a bolt.  Finish at a two-bolt anchor on a slab, 95 feet from the start.

c.    Descent:  Rappel 95 feet, down and then a little right, to the start of the climb.

d.    Gear:  Ten bolts and one to 1¼ inch gear (between bolts four and five).

Itt  5.9 **   

a.    Page(s) the route would appear on:  It would appear on page 285. 

b.    Description:  This is Project “B” on page 285, the obvious crack on the northwest side of The Cousin.  Climb an up and left ramp to reach the start of the crack (awkward).  Veer up and right with the crack about halfway up.  Finish at a three-bolt anchor 50 feet above the start.

c.    Descent:  Rappel 50 feet.

d.    Gear:  Multiple each one to 3½ inches.

We'll put up another dozen or so routes just in this one area this season and more routes in other areas (mostly at higher elevation during the hot months).

Dan Bookless wrote:

Convenient rock climbing near population centers are completely developed

I agree with jw on most points but maybe this one. I think this one varies drastically. I would think Yosemite would have most good lines plucked (or at least convenient) but less so in countries in Africa. In my local area they didn’t really bolt the 5.12s but most good and convenient 5.10s seem to have been bolted.