Bolts next to cracks in the Wasatch

Steve White wrote: I am now completely and entirely boycotting your show. Good day Mr. Colbert.

I know, i'm a pansy. I'll probably even vote Dem. next election.

At the risk of invoking a flame fest, I think I have a pretty good handle regarding the Wasatch Climbing community's ethics. But perhaps someone who holds the "respect the FA" concept dearly can answer the following questions:

Whereas an FA does not build consensus before placing bolts, why is it necessary to build consensus to move bolts?

Why are we doomed to repeat routes only in the style and choosing of the FA?

Why does anyone accept for an answer, "well, if you don't like it, there are other routes to climb?"

Why do you really care if there are bolts next to cracks? It seems like that affords a climber at least three styles by which to climb the route: sport, trad, or solo.

I can appreciate the time, effort, and expense involved in putting up routes. To those among you that have taken the effort, thanks. I appreciate it. I can also understand the desire by some to preserve certain historical testpieces.

Before anyone gets too aroused, remember that this is a discussion board and these are talking points. As such, I'd like to try to understand your point of view.

There was once an interesting discussion about ethics. Nate, do you know if it was all deleted?

Lee, I've got to say you've got a pretty bizarre outlook on this, at least compared to how I and pretty much everyone else thinks about this issue. You've heard all the arguments before, so why should I spew what has already been said thousands of times? How many times do you need it explained, I have a feeling you've had this conversation dozens of times before, with many different people. We don't want fixed hardware all over the rock when it's not necessary. Yes, it's about aesthetics, I don't know how anyone can explain that to you if you just don't get it.

You talk about test pieces, but every route is a test piece in it's own way. By changing the protection you inherently change the experience of climbing that route. And what is a route, if not an experience? Blind obedience to the FA isn't always perfect, but do you have a better solution? We all just got a thorough lesson in what happens when people start modifying other people's routes without permission- it's a big hateful mess.

While we're at it all hiking trails should be paved, there should be fixed lines anywhere the amount of traffic warrants it, we should have aerial trams to all the major peaks (with restaurants on top, mmm good), and this should only be limited by who wants to pony up the cash? None of these things would have to affect the activity in question (blaze your own trail, ignore the fixed lines, climb the peak with the tram under your own power), but they sure as hell affect the experience. Well, I did end up trying to explain the idea to you one more time, damnit.

Well, all of you live near a relatively open area that is not under tight management. Look at Red Rocks and the bolting policy there. No new bolts allowed...ever...which they are in the process of changing. Down south, at my favorite granite out at the Wichita Wildlife Refuge, the percieved impact the climbers were having resulted in a no climbing at all policy, the community had to fight to regain the opportunity to climb again, operating under a very tight bolting policy. Hueco Tanks....I know it is just bouldering...well not so, they have some good trad and sport climbs. LOL which people still think I am crazy for using a rope at the tanks. Reguardless, climbing has been restricted because of the impact. So putting in a bunch of fixed gear or bolts on a line that easily goes clean will do nothing but soil the climbers reputation. We will be seen as thoughtless destroyers of the natural state of things. Just my 2 cents.....and yes I am no where near your neck of the woods.

In general, I think the system we have now works - and there certainly isn't a better alternative available. The "Respect the FA" method seems to be the best available solution.

But, for the sake of discussion.....

Let's say some idiot who is barely in control, solos or near-solos an unbelievable new line. He does it, but it isn't pretty and he nearly loses it. And let's also say it isn't practical to TR the line (no top access for instance).

Is that how the route will stay for generations?

The actions of that one person prevent the rest of us from ever enjoying the route unless we are willing to accept the same level of risk of that single person? Since the rock is a resource to be shared by all.... when I look at it in that perspective, something seems off.

But I'll reiterate my initial statement - the system we have now is the best available in my opinion......

Andy

Well, some lunatic, free soloing something. I think it would be reasonable to defer to the community and have a consensus. Withing in the real of reason needs to be applied. For instance. At Quartz Mountain, a line called the Snakes Head is a 5.5 slab route and would be two pitches if it actually had any pro to speak of. It is a free solo route and should not ever get any bolts, and the local community agrees. Conversely, at Hueco Tanks a route called Sea of Holes 5.9, is like 300 feet and was originally free soloed. Then they added in a belay station and two or three bolts. Now I think there are 5 bolts now. Still the first one is 45' off the deck, the aura of the climb is still preserved, and it is pretty much jugs all the way, but I don't think it would have been reasonable to leave it as a FS. It was the local community's consensus to make the line safer holding to it's original style.

Something else that occurred to me. This might be too much of a reach, but this is just me thinking out loud. Bolting up cracks, and adding bolts to lines that seem too run out or bold might be somewhat compared to chipping, gluing holds and/or smoothing them out to be more climber friendly because you can't climb them as they stand. Fred Nicole put up some lines that have been downgraded because of chipping and chiseling, so others could get the tick. If you can't climb a route, and really truly want to, go back to the other routes within your ability or the gym and work, train, to get better. Use those routes as a goal. If it is a fantastic crack climb your after, and your lack gear placing skills, go practice. Installing bolts on a established trad line is just a shortcut, getting you to a place you could not go without the bolts. I am not trying to bash sport climbers here, especially since I am one. I just think if you want to climb crack, go buy a rack.

lee,
I was involved in that other thread trying to address some of those questions.

I think in order to understand things you have to see where things evolved from.

It used to be acknowledged that climbing was a ground up sport. Now if you start ground up on a new route the playing field is totaly level. (same for everyone). In fact, for the FA team things can get really dangerous, but thats their choice. The fact is the FA team in this situation had no rating, no preview, no TR and no knowledge. If they end up doing an X route at least the next guys will know that it goes, know the rating and know about pro. That is a hell of a lot of knowledge compared to to what the FA guys have.

Couple that with a minimal impact ethic and you end up with less man made stuff up there. The goal was to leave the cliff in as natural state as possible. Call it preservation. We were not out to mark our passage, we were trying to climb in a safe enough manner but leave the cliff in as natural state as possible.

Now take the situation where the guy rapps and put bolts in. They can wire the moves, they know how hard the route is. It would be chickensh** (IMO) to place runouts between bolts in this situation. Funny thing is with this logic I have pissed off some climbers and had a couple bolts removed that they thought were too close to the ground. I also believe that in climbing this way that the FA team, even if doing a route that is much easier for them, that they still have an obligation to make the route safe. An R or X route done this way is contrived danger, IMO. The playing field is not the same since the FA team TRed the route first, and in general, the next guys will see some bolts and attempt it ground up. Hence, the FA team IMO should adequately protect the route.

I think things got a bit twisted when the climber population got bigger. To save the environment we started placing bolts for rapp stations, building trails, etc. These are all man made things which are the lesser of two evils. Without them some of the natural environment is sacrificed, with them, we save more of the environment.

I think that throughout climbing, the best possible style of alpinism, mountaineering, Ice and Rock is the on-site, ground-up, free solo ascent leaving no or little trace. That is the ultimate in style. Not for everyone, to be sure.

But if you ascend a rock and dont alter the route for those behind you, then who can argue with the style of your ascent? The point is that by climbing in such a manner you have not altered the rock for the next guys. The FA team on the other hand, may have had to alter the rock to ascend safely.

I personally disagree with Andy, I think first of all the situations he described are so few and far between. Second, I applaud those that sacked up and climbed with no rope. Not everyone has the right to climb everything. In any other sport, not everyone is a winner. Should everyone be a winner in climbing to allow good protection everywhere? I dont think so. In fact, it would change the soul of climbing which is already disappearing.

Lee, we didnt agree in the past. But I do think that the list of routes that you think this should be done on is so small that I fail to see why the argument is significant.

Gary

Does anyone still care what Tony Calderone has to say? You create controversy, perpetuate anamosity, and relish in the thought of making other people angry.

All due respect, Gary, you did not answer the question, so I will ask it again: If the FA does not require consensus to put up a route, why is consensus required to change the route? Under your logic, absent consensus, someone who puts up a crap route has determined the manner in which that route is to be climbed, in perpetuity. It's senseless.

One answer, which you did not choose to make probably goes like this. Over time, routes can become something more than the FA ever planned. Maybe the FA intended to put up a personal test piece. Yet, as others came and tried their hand, his route eventually became a touchstone. Under those sorts of circumstances (Dorsal Fin, Becky's, Green Adjective, Black Monday, etc etc etc) the route has a life of its own, important to a community of people whose consensus it is courteous to obtain.

On the other hand, sometimes somebody just bolts up stupid crap. And the response should not be, "so climb something else." The response should be "then let's make it better." I cited the unknown 5.5 squeeze job as an example, knowing it probably would not ignite passion like a bolt line at Schoolroom. We have advances in technology, in gear, in clothing, in training techniques -- we should take advantage of those advances. Yank many old pins when small SLCD's will work, that sort of thing.

And your statement "not everyone has the right to climb everything" is elitist and incorrect. On public lands, we damned sure do have the right to climb everything. And who are you, or anyone else, to determine the elect who are afforded the "right" to climb?

Someone made the reponse "I'm gonna drag someone behind my car." I suggest that perhaps those customs or beliefs do not appear to bear well under scrutiny.

Lee Gitlin wrote:If the FA does not require consensus to put up a route, why is consensus required to change the route?

It isn't required. It is just etiquette. The first ascent through the last ascent is tied to the etiquette of climbing in our culture. It is how we have been socialized. Also, it is in our culture that if someone adds new or extra bolts to classic routes then those bolts will be chopped. It is also in our culture that if someone adds bolts to some old climb that no one cares about, then no one will care. But you are right. People have the RIGHT to act how they wish, but as you know, it just isn't done. We have been socialized to feel guilt if we were to alter someone else's PUBLIC route. In other parts of the world, altering an already established route symbolizes progress and free expression.

I'm sorry Lee but I think you are way off mark here. I know you are looking for clarification and I hope I can contribute. Consensus IS required when putting up a new route and all new routes are scrutinized by the climbing community. When a new route is established the FA party is responsible for all that goes along with the project, whether it be good or bad. New lines are creations brought forth from the vision of the FA party (good or bad) and each creation should be respected by the climbing community. It is a give and take system of respect and the consensus rules.

If someone establishes a new line that is ballsy and runout then that vision of the FA party should stay intact and respected by the climbing community. If you (not you specifically) do not like the style of the route (or general area) then you should climb elsewhere instead of changing the locale to fit your needs. New routes are forms of expression and should not be altered by just anyone who seems fit to do so.

Also, bolts next to cracks is excessive and just plain crazy!

I hope that makes sense. Go climbing you knuckleheads!

Why don't we all just try to minimize the changes to the natural rock environment? Chipping probably does the most damage (and why are we so arrogant to believe the next generation won't be able to do this route without chipping just because we can't?), pitons probably create the next to most damage, bolts follow, and even "clean" pro can damage the rock if we are not careful in the way we place and remove it. We even need to be careful in how we place our hands and feet, particularly on softer rock - polished rock is a major problem in the Dolomites.
I don't mind cleaning of dangerous flakes, or a little dirt, but leave our climbing resources for the future generations as much as possible.
I wish that I hadn't damaged the rock in Little Cottonwood with pitons 40 years ago. Sorry. Please don't alter those routes I put up beyond the damage I already did, except by replacing unsafe aging pro, taking into account it may be easier to protect with modern gear.
I want my children and their friends to enjoy climbing as much as I did years ago in SLC, and still continue to enjoy even more these days.
George Lowe

Jason Shumaker wrote:I'm sorry Lee but I think you are way off mark here. I know you are looking for clarification and I hope I can contribute. Consensus IS required when putting up a new route and all new routes are scrutinized by the climbing community. When a new route is established the FA party is responsible for all that goes along with the project, whether it be good or bad. New lines are creations brought forth from the vision of the FA party (good or bad) and each creation should be respected by the climbing community. It is a give and take system of respect and the consensus rules. If someone establishes a new line that is ballsy and runout then that vision of the FA party should stay intact and respected by the climbing community. If you (not you specifically) do not like the style of the route (or general area) then you should climb elsewhere instead of changing the locale to fit your needs. New routes are forms of expression and should not be altered by just anyone who seems fit to do so. Also, bolts next to cracks is excessive and just plain crazy! I hope that makes sense. Go climbing you knuckleheads!

Not that I want it to be like Castle Rocks, but if you look at their climbing management plan it was achieved with definite consensus after much input from many climbers. When you look at the situation up there you'll see that 99% of first ascentionists have no problem with that plan and it works exceptionally well. However, there are a few notable outliers. For instance, one guy wants to put bolts in every arm's length which is how I see Lee's vision of a route. The other wants to squeeze in runout routes with few or no bolts and slap it into a guidebook. 99% of the climbers out there are in the middle.

I feel we should all respect the ethics George is talking about. What I really, really would love to have is more input from guys like him. I wish you and the climbers of your generation would give us more of the history surrounding your era. Gary had some time to do that last year and it was so much fun to read. Not that it needs to be on the Internet, but wouldn't it be cool to put it in a book or something?

Last post on this thread.

I've never placed, removed or otherwise rendered any bolts unusable. I'm fine with the idea of minimizing damage to the rock, with some limitations (otherwise, every route would be a free solo). I understand how some routes (the fin, etc) have become very meaningful and should be left alone. But the question I haven't gotten past is this:

What if someone bolts a crap route? Do we have to live with it forever?

I hope we don't so rigidly apply custom to the point of absurdity. And in the process of discussing ideas, we should avoid ad hominem attacks.

I personally have never climbed here so I can't comment on individual routes. However, I don't think that bolting cracks anywhere should be condoned or practiced by anyone, albeit, a few exceptions where it is "necessary."
"Necessary," can also be a forum for discussion in and of itself. I think that many people have forgotten that, "20' run-outs were just part of the game," (Bernard Gillett, RMNP The Climber's Guide Vol. 1). I think that we all need to keep this in mind when weighing decisions such as whether or not to place a bolt.
In response to removing all old "fixed" gear, (i.e. pitons), this idea should have been discussed years ago. They detract from the aesthetics of every climb. As well, has also been discussed, they are often unsafe in their present conditions.
Almost every situation where a piton was placed as solid pro. at the time, new removable gear can be placed and be absolutely bullet proof.
All this being said, if you are a "5.12 climber and you put up a new 5.9," keep the grade and your personal abilities in mind. If a climb could be a classic with a bolt or two strategically placed, do so, so as not to end up with a 5.9 X that sees 1 ascent every four years or never again for that matter.

It does, but I'd imagine fewer than 1% of climbers really want an X rated route anymore. If they do, they'll be out soloing the established lines or really hard lines with minimal gear. Putting up 5.7X routes is inappropriate to the grade of climber who'll ever get on it. The same is true for an R rated route. What beginning climber would ever want to do an R rated route?

Another question is whether they understand the risk they'd be taking. What if they don't know how runnout something is? Anyone I've ever met who climbs below 5.8 or 9 isn't pretty apprehensive about leading anything. Lots and lots of 5.10 climbers freak out on r-rated routes like S-Direct.

You are right about the fact that newer X rated routes will happen, but they should be a very, very small exception.

With the X rating. For the record, all I have done is a PG-13 to date. I think they will continue to go up. I do think some of us relish the thought of committing to just such a bold line. I really think that some routes go up X because that is what is best. Consider that clipping a bolt just might not be possible, due to no clipping hold. Also, the fact that the runout takes place on terrain that should be no problem if your able to climb through the crux.

Anyone who thinks that everyone has the right to climb everything is simply misguided. Then we would start seeing some rebar ladders drilled into the wall with fixed cables so the casual street goer can try his hand on your favorite route! Perhaps a little overstated, but you give someone an inch and they will take a mile.

tenesmus wrote:The same is true for an R rated route. What beginning climber would ever want to do an R rated route?

Rarely are people putting up routes for the beginning climber. I think Gary Olsen said earlier that FAists put up routes for themselves. I agree with this.

Furthermore, I think many beginning climbers aspire to those R rated, and sometimes even the X rated routes. They are healthy.

There is a common misconception, I think, that R and X rated mean "certain injury" and "certain death," respectively. They don't. An R rating indicates that a FALL will probably result in injury. An X rating indicates that a FALL will likely result in serious injury, and possibly death.

Not all such routes are "unsafe," but rather "unsafe if you fall." There is a BIG difference. If one is likely to fall off such a route, he should probably not climb it. Tough. Too bad. This is where I'm at with The Fin. I really, REALLY want to climb that thing. I am not ready. I can deal with that.

Climbing a route with some runout requires you be focused mentally and physically. This can be a very rewarding experience. Many of my most memorable leads have been 5.7 R (some were even memorable in a positive sense). I can suggest some if anyone is interested.

There is another misconception that Lee and many others have. (I have brought this up several times before.) Sometimes bolts are safer than traditional protection and/or natural protection; sometimes not. There are a handful of beautiful routes in Tucson (where I cut my climbing teeth) that protect on just SLINGS! The chickenheads are bomber; roughly 6" in diameter at their thinnest, with a big plate on the outside to prevent the sling from falling off. Some of these routes are granite, some are gneiss. Both are solid rock types. One of these routes is now bolted (or at least was the last time I was there). This is such a shame. From an engineering standpoint, this REDUCES the safety of the protection system in that it ADDS ELEMENTS IN SERIES. From an aesthetic standpoint, this is downright sad. Note that none of the routes that I am referring to have cracks anywhere near them, and yet they are perfectly protectable without bolts!

I'm new to climbing, so all of these debates on protocol and ethics are new to me. Also, I only sport-climb single-pitch stuff, so I've definitely got a different perspective. I'm just a bit more into it than a "casual climber" (those that I consider to be casual climbers, that is; it's all relative).

First, I think that Lee's thinking is technically correct. No one can "own" a route; no one "owns" the rock. The FA party didn't get the consent of the community before putting up a route; technically, no one needs similar consent to alter/remove it. However that line of thinking is what breeds bolt-wars; people concerned with what they think is "right" over anyone else. (...when it all boils down to opinion at the end of the day)

I think that the current system/code/standard of ethics is fine and should be adhered to. Except for the occasional f-tard, it appears to work great. The only problem with it is that there's no authoritative/central forum for the community yet. How would a n00b like myself know which website to ask questions like these? Which of the local climbing stores are the authority?

d.reed wrote:Do you guys feel there is any solution?, there never was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's, about bolting concerns. The subject has been argued for years. There are so many, different ideas, opinions,and ethics. the only difference here? the names and the year have changed. ....DR

d.reed, Old Man! Get it figured out there. The younger generation will find a solution where we have failed. hahaha

They already came up with a solution for crazies like you. They invented those things called Pads. Beats landing on bare feet, but I guess I never saw you fall when bouldering that way...