What are the ethics regarding bolting an established top rope climb?

I'm curious what people think about bolting routes that have historically been top rope climbs. 

I don’t know about ethics. To me some logical reasons not to bolt a top rope route are as follows:

the route can be protected by gear, but is too spicy for most climbers, hence the top rope

the rock quality is too poor to bolt the route safely 

the traffic is too low to justify the investment in bolting, due to poor quality climbing or difficult access.

Otherwise, what is the objection?  (I sense that the OP has one).

Not sure if troll, but I've done it. Obviously the details matter, and you haven't given any, so nobody can give you a yes/no answer. 

Do you know the TR FA party? If so, can you contact them, and if so, will they approve?

Even if the TR FA party approves, are there routes you might be squeezing if you were to add bolts? (Repeat the above, with the FA party)

Even if all the above checks out - and I hate the word "community" - sincerely check in with the current crag community and get their take. Would this route be a slippery slope, or a welcome and overdue one-off? Don't put in a route nobody really seems to want.

In my case, I pre-emptively covered my butt in the "comments" section by providing the known history of the TR and my reasoning for adding bolts and an anchor so the route could be led.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/120920937/trix-are-for-kids

Hmm, significantly altering an established route that is perfectly climbable in its current state? You’ll need to answer some tough questions.

What would be the benefit to the climbing community?

Why was it left as a TR route? Too short or insignificant to warrant bolts? If so, what has changed to warrant bolting it now?

The scenarios best served with retro bolting would be if the original developers couldn’t afford to equip it, or botched the lead bolting and left it as a TR. 

 In most cases the original developers thought long and hard about it and chose to leave it. Probably best to just go find a new route to establish how you like.

The ethics are simple: If its not your route, you leave it alone.

^ya but, claiming a route is your and its only for TR is also borderline dumb? 

are there for sure absolutely no gear placements? maybe its just a proud trad line thats out of your league, both physically and imagination-wise?

My partner and I don’t name and claim a route unless we have lead it or are actively projecting a lead on it. We have lines that we have cleaned and top roped sprinkled around several cliffs of varying degrees of obscurity that we can’t lead on gear and have decided aren’t worth bolting (at least not for now). If someone comes along and bolts them we won’t have much cause for complaint.

As has been suggested above, the appropriateness of bolting a “historical” TR will very much have to be determined on a case by case basis.

I once contacted a prolific local FA about moving a bolt and he said "that route was always meant to stay a TR since you can easily access the anchors, I have no idea why it was bolted". Then the next line was "but that's just my opinion, do what you think is best for everyone's enjoyment of the route".

For more fun with TRs, we should start distinguishing two types: 

1) The usual type in which the rope is kept tight, maybe even partly pulling the guy up the route (how I usually like it). 

2) The type in which a large loop of slack is left in the line to partly recreate the lead experience (except ground falls not allowed). 

And neither should be considered a lessor form of climbing. 

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

The ethics are simple: If its not your route, you leave it alone.

Nonsense. You don't get to TR a piece of rock then claim it's your route. 

Historically route credit generally goes to the first person to redpoint a route. Proponents of the single-person-owns-a-route mentality generally cite the first person who redpoints a route to have ultimate say over how that route should be.

As the OP undoubtedly knows there are way too many variables at play to offer a yes/no answer here. Is it just a TR because no one has put in the work to make it a leadable route? Sure bolt it in the style of the prevailing local ethics and make it a route. 

Is there a good reason it's just a TR? (squeeze-job / 0 star climbing / could be a futuristic trad project / eye-sore bolts in a trad area / any other of a myriad of reasons to not bolt a route?) Probably just leave it as a TR.  

Todd R wrote:

Nonsense. You don't get to TR a piece of rock then claim it's your route. 

Fine. Since you can't claim the TR as yours, you leave it alone.

abe r wrote:

^ya but, claiming a route is your and its only for TR is also borderline dumb? 

No one claimed it. 

If you can't claim it, you leave it alone.

Capice?

Todd R wrote:

Historically route credit generally goes to the first person to redpoint a route. 

You obviously have not been around very long. There is a long history of route crediting that starts with a TR ascent that is then later lead on gear. Not any different than routes that started out as an aid route that was later freed. All have been given credit for the routes established.

As for the OP's question of bolting a TR route. The best course of action is to toss the question out to the local community for discussion as there can be many variables in play as to why it is a TR.

By far the prevailing criteria is what kind of sh!t are you going to stir up adding a line of bolts.

Unlike a virgin crag, people were there before you.

Most toprope crags are Frontcountry, lots of human interaction. Land managers too. 

I was coaxed back on here because the topic of renaming toprope routes that were bolted and led erupted in my home area forum. 

We avoided bolting up several cliffs in my home area because of the amount of normies roaming the trails at the base. We did establish numerous toprope anchors in those zones. A toprope is better than nothing, at least you get to work out the moves and explore.

Bottom line is like everything else in climbing it's situational, no one-size-fits-all procedure. Most likely you're going to face too much flak.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

You obviously have not been around very long. There is a long history of route crediting that starts with a TR ascent that is then later lead on gear. Not any different than routes that started out as an aid route that was later freed. All have been given credit for the routes established.

As for the OP's question of bolting a TR route. The best course of action is to toss the question out to the local community for discussion as there can be many variables in play as to why it is a TR.

Meh, I've been around long enough to know that longevity in the sport is often a crutch some will lean on who hold let's say outdated views. 

However, yeah, I was probably a little fast and loose with that comment and more or less agree with you.

I still stand by what I said - that folks who believe in the one-person-has-finally-say over a route mentality generally believe that person is the first person who has redpointed the route. Not the first aid ascent or first TR ascent party. 

Todd R wrote:

Meh, I've been around long enough to know that longevity in the sport is often a crutch some will lean on who hold let's say outdated views. 

However, yeah, I was probably a little fast and loose with that comment and more or less agree with you.

I still stand by what I said - that folks who believe in the one-person-has-finally-say over a route mentality generally believe that person is the first person who has redpointed the route. Not the first aid ascent or first TR ascent party. 

While I agree with your last sentence, there are more than a few examples where the TR FA party has chopped subsequent bolts because they made a deliberate choice not to bolt the route, and want the route as a TR only. One common reason is they felt that bolting the route would have squeezed neighoring routes and led to a slippery slope of other squeeze jobs at the crag, 

Why would you?

i have done a lot of TRS all over for a long time, and if someone bolted something i toproped first i would slap them on the back and tell them thanks. why the fuck would i care if someone bolted something i TR'd before anybody else climbed it?

I have been around a pretty long time and I have never considered mine or anyone else's TR to be a first ascent.  there is a pretty long history of certain guide book authors  putting their own TRS into the guide but I always found that to be weak.  That being said if its been a standard TR  for a long time there needs to be a pretty good reason to bolt it and it needs to fit in with the rest of the crag. When Isa and I head pointed The Flying Groundhog we did not bolt it because of its location on the cliff and the fact that there are two other TR lines on that section of the cliff that would have   been squeeze jobs if we opened that can of worms. Had we added two bolts to that climb it would be a 5 star 11a but by head pointing without bolts its an obscure free ascent of a tr line and has only been repeated once or twice  in the last 20 years to my knowledge. 

I seem to recall a story about an old Bachar toprope in J-Tree that another strongman (Yaniro? Skinner?) intended to add a bolt to and climb on lead. Bachar, having none of it, free soloed the route before the would-be bolter could deface the rock with hardware. The would-be bolter tucked his tail and decided to go defile rocks elsewhere instead.

This story took place in an era when climbers had dignity. And shame... both of which are in short supply these days

So yeah, just bolt it

and they were and still are egotistical assholes. I have soloed climbs and then gone back and bolted them so that  folks could lead them.