A Bolting Democracy

Just a few days ago, I climbed the first pitch of Reservoir Ridge (5.4) near Storm Mountain Island and noticed a chopped bolt along the route. This got me thinking along the following lines. There are essentially 3 basic states of a rock face that I would like to enumerate with the following three case statements accompanied with their associated pros and cons. The pros and cons are not meant to be a comprehensive list, but I believe that there are basically just 3 cases for the rock face.

Case 1: A given patch of rock has no bolt on it.

Pro(s): The rock is unmarred by an unsightly and potentially unneeded bolt. The absence of a bolt does not potentially interfere (unless this is an FA) with the original ascensionist's style of ascent.
Con(s): At a logical stance, well above the last possible natural protection placement, there is no protection where no natural protection can yet be found.

Case 2: A given patch of rock has a bolt on it.

Pro(s): Assuming the bolt was placed correctly, both in terms of position in a logical stance, practical need in climbing the route, and in proper installation so that it is safe to clip, the functioning bolt helps protect those that climb this particular section of the route.
Con(s): The placement may interfere with the original ascensionist's style of ascent and worse yet, it may be completely unneeded. Furthermore, it may be unsightly.

Case 3: A given patch of rock had a bolt on it, and now has a stub/shaft where a bolt used to be.

Pro(s): None!
Con(s): The rock is marred by an unsightly piece of non-functional hardware that is not capable of protecting anyone who climbs the route whether or not a bolt was needed in the spot in question.

So after performing this analysis, what discourages me about the way our climbing community works is that more often than not, a patch of rock on a route, if bolting was ever seriously considered, will go through all 3 states, ultimately ending up at case 3 in the end where there are no pros and all cons!

Now, I've been very careful here to not voice any opinion about my views on bolts, because it's irrelevant, and that's the point of this post. It's the climbing community's opinion that matters. The problem here is that an individual (or a few individuals) take it upon themselves to either put bolts in or take bolts out. In the end, we all suffer from case 3, and everyone loses. The solution to this problem, I believe, is some sort of approval process that all people must go through before bolts are installed. With a consensus from the community over all bolting decisions, no one is in the right to install bolts where they think they should be installed, and no one is in the right to chop bolts where they think they shouldn't have been installed. By ending the bolting civil war, we can avoid case 3.

The idea is that someone with an idea to bolt a route, or some part of it, must come forward with a plan outlining his or her exact placements, why those placements are desired, and how it will be done. The plan can then move forward, IF AND ONLY IF, the entire climbing community gives approval of the plan. This would make getting bolts into a wall much harder to do, but it seems to me to be the most ethical way of going about it. If most of the climbing community disagrees with my decision to put a bolt on a 5.11 X climb in the middle of the run-out slab, then I'm wrong to try to install the bolt. On the other hand, if I go through the approval process and succeed, then it would become unethical for someone to come along, maybe even the first ascensionist, and chop the bolt.

So, this all sounds nice and democratic, but perhaps it's not quite practical, because we might not get enough participation. "Oh bother! So and so wants to bolt that climb again. We've said no a 1,000 times!" Something like that might happen. It would probably be a good idea to limit the number of times that a climb can be considered for bolting or chopping.

Anyhow, those are just some thoughts about the bolt war, a topic that I'm sure most people are sick of.

While your post sounds all good in theory, in practice it is completely worthless. First of all it seems only to apply to retrobolting, unless you expect the whole community to bushwack their way up to new areas being developed, find a way to the top, rap down, then work out all the moves to find the best bolt locations, consensus is impossible.

Your post seems to presuppose that bolt removal always leaves an "unsightly" scar. If bolts are properly removed and the hole refilled with epoxy/dust, they should be reasonably well-disguised.

You missed something though, leaving an unsightly stub is a hint to others that bolting may not be to everyones taste. `pour encourager les autres´ no less.
In that sense leaving the route in that state has a purpose and I know of at least one activist (in Europe) who does this deliberately.

spencerparkin wrote:Just a few days ago, I climbed the first pitch of Reservoir Ridge (5.4) near Storm Mountain Island and noticed a chopped bolt along the route.

Re: "Case 3: A given patch of rock had a bolt on it, and now has a stub/shaft where a bolt used to be." It is a good practice when placing bolts to drill the hole just a little long so that it would be a simple matter to tap the bolt in below the surface if the case for removal came up. The slightly longer hole does not weaken the placement if the bolt is properly tightened. The excess hole length allows a quick repair that can be followed by a surface patch using epoxy cement mixed with local rock powder.

In Canada the government got so fed up with the bolt war they banned all new bolts.

Don't start nothin' won't be nothin'!

All fault lies on the retrobolter, not the person who fixes their unwarranted atrocity!
Harsher communal outcry, criticism and publicly outing retrobolters would be the better route?
If not a good ol communal asswhooping....

rging wrote:In Canada the government got so fed up with the bolt war they banned all new bolts.