Half Dome has fallen.

Can some rap rings be added to the stantions?

Cosmic Hotdogwrote:

On one hand the community respects the wishes of the FA party, while on the other hand the community may, after having a route exist and accumulate decades of history, decide that the metaphorical torch has been passed and it is now on the community to make that sort of determination - whether it be for more bolts or not.

Respecting the intentions were of the FA party on a route they established is an ethic I agree with even if it means it's less accessible to others. 

So where does the line get drawn between respecting the wishes of the FA and passing the torch to the community at large? Ten years? Twenty? A thousand ascents? I don't really have a horse in this race as a non-local, and can see both viewpoints tbh, but it's interesting to see everyone on the side of keeping the route runout completely ignore Eric Beck's request (looking at Ryan Sheridan, Aaron Wait, Daniel Shively, Cherokee Nunes, etc)...

What about respecting the intentions of the FA party even when it means it's more accessible to others? 

Easy to be a tough guy whipping out the crowbar or the bolt kit but answering these questions is the hard work.

Why bother adding bolts to a historic route that has had thousands of ascents when you could bolt a brand new route that could be a modern day classic instead? There's plenty of untouched rock up there at all grades.

A few years ago, Beck was asking for bolts added to SD.  I agree with Bill Lawry that the horrible accident that happened may have colored Eric's decision.  I think there's a tendency for climbers to get more conservative as they get older and get more safety conscious.  We older folk often forget how cool and alive it feels to be that close to the edge..."the death consequence" as it was put in the Dark Wizard movie.

But...even Beck the surviving FA said there should be no bolts added to the first pitch.  Here's his quote and my rebuttal from three years ago:

I strongly vote on the side of removing these extra bolts.  Do we need to dumb down everything...it's friggin' 5.7.    If this is allowed, it will spread.  Let Royal Robbins' words echo through time:  "Better to raise ourselves than to lower the climb."

Cosmic Hotdogwrote:

Fair points for sure Mark, I see the obvious irony and hypocrisy and I myself was one of the first people in the thread saying that I don't think bolts should be added while also citing a 2 year old article from one of the remaining FAs saying he's cool with bolts being added. It's no doubt a grey area. On one hand the community respects the wishes of the FA party, while on the other hand the community may, after having a route exist and accumulate decades of history, decide that the metaphorical torch has been passed and it is now on the community to make that sort of determination - whether it be for more bolts or not. Ultimately I could see both sides of this argued to death so it's certainly an interesting question to consider. 

Respecting the intentions were of the FA party on a route they established is an ethic I agree with even if it means it's less accessible to others. One of the biggest examples I can think of is the Bachar-Yerian. At 11c X, almost nobody climbs it (acknowledging that Tanner did, who started this thread). It was established nearly 50 years ago in 1981, and the route page has 15 ticks total. 15 recorded ticks in 45 years of existence. Would adding bolts to that route get a ton more traffic on it? Yeah, almost certainly. But that would completely change the route and it would rob those 15 people of the immense accomplishment it is to climb that route. 

In my opinion, we all have a choice as to what we climb and what we choose not to climb. Some things will be out of reach due to individual skill level and/or risk tolerance and that's ok. Snake Dike isn't just some random climb that nobody knows about, it's a pretty big route in terms of name recognition. Part of that name recognition is because of the runout nature of the climb. Taking that away just feels wrong. If it's a case of replacing a bad bolt or rusty piton, that's one thing, but when it's a thing of adding multiple bolts that take away from the character of a route, I'd argue against it. Nobody is being forced to take on the risk and climb it, there are hundreds of thousands of other better protected routes to choose from. 

First, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree there is a lot of nuance to consider. I have come a long way in not letting my preferences overtake my introspection and desire for personal growth and these types of discussions have been most helpful in that development. Regarding snake dike, I don't have an opinion that I feel is worth sharing since I haven't climbed it and most likely/unfortunately will never have the chance, but I will share my personal experiences on my humble and mediocre FAs. I hope that it is fruitful to someone in this discussion.

I've retrobolted several of my climbs. One of them is, coincidently, a three pitch dike. I FA'd it lead rope solo ground up with no bolts. It now has 7 bolts — 4 lead bolts and 3 anchor bolts. I did this because I thought it was a good enough climb that I wanted it to be more accessible and safer for 5.7 climbers. Even after those bolts the general feedback I got is that not falling is still the best and first line of protection, and I agree, a fall would be bad in most places on that route. There is gear but it's sometimes inobvious, tricky, and still "run out." I won't be going back and adding more bolts, but I would give my blessing to anyone that felt more bolts were needed (as I would for any of my FAs) and I hope and expect no one would chop them. Other of my climbs I've retrobolted were single pitch and in areas where a rescue would be an absolute PITA. It honestly took me some wrestling with my ego to go back and place some of those bolts, but I believe I made the right decision.

One climb that I won't retrobolt is a so-so 5.10r. The first piece of pro is 15 feet of the ground, the next is 25ish feet above the first, and the crux is the 8ft sequence before you get that gear. Not X rated, but if you don't have a good belayer you're taking a grounder from 35ish feet. It'll likely never get repeated (even by me!) and that's fine. I backed off it on lead three times before being able to commit. It was a very meaningful/valuable experience to me and I don't feel the need to open it up for safe onsights. It can be TR'd and dialed in for people near their limit, like I was. That said, if someone wanted to add a bolt, I would give my blessing due to the values of non-attachment i'm trying to settle into. 

So, I agree that not every climb is for every climber. This may be presumptuous, but it seems to me that the FA had/has a similar desire I had with my dike route: to make it safe enough for maybe a 5.7/5.8 leader to not absolutely freak out on, have a good day out, and not die or nearly die if they make a mistake. I find no fault with striving for those goals, no matter how much time has passed since the FA. As for an accident coloring their opinion, that doesn't invalidate their opinion. Someone died in my local mountains due to a total anchor failure, a week later there was a 2 bolt anchor. I believe this anchor would have been chopped had that accident not occurred. More recent data points do not invalidate an altered/colored opinion (of which I'm not convinced this is the case). Wisdom is taking in more data points and learning from them, is it not?

At the end of the day I just wish people had more grace and desire to wrestle with their ego rather than feed it. The tough-man-ego-feeding-bolt-chopping opinions are just as bad as the every-climb-needs-to-be-safe-for-every-climber opinions. This is a great chance for people to wrestle with these feelings and I hope the discussion leads to the middle way. I think Andy the Shoemaker has a good take. Perhaps since pandoras box has been opened it's a opportunity for us climbers to settle on the middle way. I believe a middle way can be found that could turn this whole thing into a positive occurrence, if only we have the will to make it so.

I would note that if things are left up to some kind of community vote, every instance of that I have witnessed has resulted in support for the proposed change. If that's the way things go, are people ready to accept community consensus?

I'd encourage people to contemplate the following excerpts from a 6th century Zen poem, and perhaps click through the link to read the rest of the poem. There is great wisdom available to those not running from it.

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
...

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

I have written more than I intended. Forgive me.

I support whoever did this. It's already a bolted route. Picking and choosing that some sections should be dangerous and some shouldn't is contrived.

Also, if you want to talk about celebrating boldness in our sport—putting those bolts in was pretty bold, so kinda hypocritical to criticize them for murdering the impossible on a 5.7 slab without acknowledging that retrobolting it took way more courage than climbing the route in it's runout state, knowing what a shitstorm it would set off. Makes them the Alex Honnold of retrobolting IMO.

How is this being bolted any different than any other bolted routes? Is it because of the historic aspect SD bring to the table? (like modifying a historic building) or just because some people don't like change?

It’s because of tradition. Very long, very well established tradition. Which has been under attack, for a long time. This is nothing new, and is something most all traditions experience, the whole world over. 

Other than the young climber who fell while off route a couple years ago, has there ever been a serious accident on snake dike? And it gets climbed by thousands of people every year for the last fifty years? I don’t see why it needed more bolts. 

And what prevails in the end, tradition or change?

Eric Craigwrote:

It’s because of tradition. Very long, very well established tradition. Which has been under attack, for a long time. This is nothing new, and is something most all traditions experience, the whole world over. 

Good. Tradition is a terrible justification for anything.

Kevin Corriganwrote:

Good. Tradition is a terrible justification for anything.

That’s a fine way to thank those that DID pave the highway FOR YOU. 

What is the stance of the Park Service and did the bolters violate regulations?  If so, the bolts have to be removed.  You can’t just bolt where ever you like in a place like Yosemite.  

Calebwrote:

What is the stance of the Park Service and did the bolters violate regulations?  If so, the bolts have to be removed.  You can’t just bolt where ever you like in a place like Yosemite.  

The dirty little secret is that you can. That’s one of the most beautiful parts of climbing, that we as a community get to decide what is right and what is wrong. It’s not all just ego and one-upsmanship, internal discussions like this is how the climbing world is regulated.

Michael Vaillwrote:

The dirty little secret is that you can. That’s one of the most beautiful parts of climbing, that we as a community get to decide what is right and what is wrong. It’s not all just ego and one-upsmanship, internal discussions like this is how the climbing world is regulated.

Yea except there are these things called laws.

Kevin Corriganwrote:

Makes them the Alex Honnold of retrobolting IMO.

I heard that National Geographic was documenting the bolting for their July cover. Truly the next valley icon riding high on their own wave of courage.

"Half Dome has Fallen."

Half Dome fell when they rap bolted the south face.

Why not just fix a line on it?

T Taylorwrote:

Why not just fix a line on it?

It would have to be a really durable line.  Maybe a cable…