Ethics: Retro Bolting a Top Rope line?

Due to some controversy in my local area, I'd like to ask the greater community their thoughts on this.

What is the consensus ethic on placing bolts on a route that has been fa'ed on toprope?

The specific routes in question have been first ascent on toprope sometime in the 90's. Many climbs here have been lead on trad, but the toprope routes in question are definitely not trad protectable. Over the years, these routes have seen less than 5 ascents, due to its remote and secretive nature. Most of the cliffs here are isolated "island" blocks, that often have difficult access to the top. This area is the cliff extension of another area that is heavily bolted, with many bolted routes having multiple trad placements that were overlooked. It's worth noting this whole cliff line is currently open access with bolting allowed.

I respect the right of the first ascentionist to have prerogative over retro-bolting a trad climb, but do they have the right to restrict the bolting of an un-lead toprope only line?

Thank you for your opinions and time.

I think it's OK to bolt it, if it can't be led with traditional gear. Maybe out of courtesy, contact the TRFAscentionist, first?

I can't imagine why someone would object, but I'm sure we'll hear more on this thread.

If it has not been led then there has been no first ascent. TRFAscentionist, what the heck is that? You ask about retro bolting. That would imply that the bolts are being placed in lieu of something that was previously used for pro, like a trad line. If you can be sure it was never led then I would say up for grabs. Can you be sure it has not, even with an R or an X rating? Hanging a rope from the top of a cliff and TR'ing something hardly gives anyone rights to limit any future lead ascents.

there has been no FA if it was never lead (aid or free)

now there may be reasons not to bolt it, mainly due to access issues (there a park here with TR only climbing where access is an issue and lead bolts arent allowed)

but the TRers have no "ethical" say on a climb that hasnt seen a FA

now if it was free soloed before that would be a different story

;)

bearbreeder wrote: now if it was free soloed before that would be a different story ;)

Do you think if someone free-soloed it first, no one has the right to bolt it without the soloist's permission?

FrankPS wrote: Do you think if someone free-soloed it first, no one has the right to bolt it without the soloist's permission?

its simple courtesy to ask the FA/FFA, and a free solo is considered a FFA ... otherwise theres a bunch of highball boulder problems here i would luuuuv to put bolts in to make it accessible to everyone =P

now when you ask about "rights" youll get into big "ethical" intraweb arguments that end up with pages of useless drivel which wont affect a thing in the real world

;)

If it has only been TRed before, I think it is open to being bolted. Obviously other factors come into play, like whether it is a high quality line, not a squeeze job or if the bolts would negatively affect other routes, access etc. In a case like this I would also try to be sensitive to the wishes of the TR ascentionist, but not necessarily beholden to them if I thought they were unreasonable. I disagree that a TR is not an ascent, just not on the same level or giving the same rights of say over the route as we traditionally give lead FA parties. Same for aid ascents. They don't hold dibs on the line, though if it was some special aid line, recognized as such by the community and not so as a free one, I would respect that.

FrankPS wrote: I can't imagine why someone would object

HAHA you obviously haven't spent any time climbing in CT.

Morgan Patterson wrote: HAHA you obviously haven't spent any time climbing in CT.

Or Western MA:

mountainproject.com/v/bolt-…

technically it has not seen a first ascent so you are in the clear ethics wise for bolting; you are essentially bolting a new climb, not retro-bolting. if you are really worried about someone chopping your bolts you may have better luck bolting it ground up but since you say there aren't any gear placements my vote would be to rap bolt it after TRing it and marking bolt placements based on clipping hold/stances. also, i would say if you are going to rap bolt it than have it adequately protected, although not grid-bolted, because artificial run-outs tend to be frowned upon. Also, i would suggest stainless steel bolts and hangers to prevent rusting.
Best of luck and climb on!

Despite what this discussion is likely to turn into here on this forum, I think you're doing a good thing in trying to have a civil, open discussion before taking any action. Also realize there won't be a "correct" answer and you'll just have to weigh the differing opinions once you receive some input.
In my mind there are a few considerations. First, have the routes been free soloed? If so, technically they have been sent and it would be ideal to try to track down the first ascensionist.

Second, is there an anti-bolting ethic in the area that has been upheld and respected for a long time? It sounds like this isn't the case but around my home crags, there's a long-standing, anti-bolt ethic (and written agreement) established by the local mountaineering club that has been respected pretty well over the years. I personally challenged this ethic a decade ago to allow for fixed anchors after many trees used for natural anchors were dying. I worked with the club to have discussions and meetings that ultimately ended in an revised written agreement signed by many local climbers. The open dialogue of the entire process was refreshing.

Third, would the routes offer something unique or different than other neighboring bolt-protected routes? One local route here, Cholla Wall , has remained a TR-only route for decades despite the occasional suggestion that it be bolted. In this case, this route does go on [tricky] gear and really does make for a memorable and satisfying lead. If it were bolted it would be "just another face climb" like its neighboring routes. It's pretty cool to have a bit of a local test piece at a moderate level.

M Sprague wrote: In a case like this I would also try to be sensitive to the wishes of the TR ascentionist, but not necessarily beholden to them if I thought they were unreasonable. I disagree that a TR is not an ascent, just not on the same level or giving the same rights of say over the route as we traditionally give lead FA parties.

Agreed. It would be best if you could track down the first TR ascensionist, if possible, to speak with him/her about the idea. Courtesy goes a long way in these things.

I've seen this before. In fact I've seen bolts chopped from old TR routes here in NorCal. My opinion: Adding or removing bolts from someone else's climb is wrong but slapping up a top rope and claiming FA is equally wrong. If you're not clipping bolts you're missing part of the climb. As climbers most of us strive for a red point, not a "red point on TR". What I really don't understand is why anybody would object to someone being able to lead that climb? Doesn't affect their ability to TR. Curious! If it's a local ethic then I defer to the people that climb there all the time but it sure seems goofy to me.

Brad

I thought this was a tongue in cheek joke, but seeing as it's not...

I'm with the school of thought that a TR isn't an FA. Sure you might have been the first to "climb" it, but I can throw a rope down tons of climbs and get up it. Doesn't make me a 5.whatever climber just because i can set up an anchor.

Other than bragging rights to be the first person, if someone comes along and bolts it ground up I think it's their right. Rapping in and putting in bolts would be considerably lamer however as if you are going to change someones line you should be doing it in a better style at least. If it was solo'd requesting permission would be a great way to pay respect to someone with the cohones to do it.

The original climber had a chance to do the route and decided that for whatever reason they didn't want to lead it. Unless it's ethically wrong for the area to bolt, then I think a FATR or TRFA isn't a real FA no matter how hard it is.

Just IMO of course.

Scott McMahon wrote:Other than bragging rights to be the first person, if someone comes along and bolts it ground up I think it's their right. Rapping in and putting in bolts would be considerably lamer however as if you are going to change someones line you should be doing it in a better style at least.

I would suggest that rap bolting it would result in a better-protected route, with bolts in the best spots, versus trying to bolt it ground up resulting in bolts in less-than-ideal spots. If this route really is at a popular sport climbing area (as implied by the OP), there's not much sense in trying to bolt it ground-up when other nearby routes have, presumably, been rap-bolted.

Scott McMahon wrote: Unless it's ethically wrong for the area to bolt, then I think a FATR or TRFA isn't a real FA no matter how hard it is.

Or in the case in which it's an unprotectable arete in an area where bolts are banned. The you can only solo it, TR it, or walk away! Of course you could always lower a rope down with loops tied into it and clip those loops on your way up... would that then count as an FA?

In Oklahoma, "Last of the Dead Guys" went up at Quartz as a free solo. Got bolts later, but only after approaching the FA party. If it's a TR line, it's courteous to ask the anchor builder, but not mandatory, especially if they are tough to find. My 2 cents.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Or in the case in which it's an unprotectable arete in an area where bolts are banned. The you can only solo it, TR it, or walk away!

Agreed.

Claiming a TR as a first ascent is almost like claiming a girl at a bar because you saw her first. To the victor goes the spoils.

Scott McMahon wrote: Agreed. Claiming a TR as a first ascent is almost like claiming a girl at a bar because you saw her first. To the victor goes the spoils.

It is a matter of degree, and context. As far as the girl, well...

I did not read everything above so other may have already said this...

1) I don't know the local ethic, so if you have a local ethic of respecting routes set up as TR's, meaning that they are some what common thing in the area, or on short small cliffs (<35') with easy access to the top, and/or approached from above,or in areas where bolts as lead pro are illegal, etc... then no I wouldn't bolt it.

2) You should talk to whomever set it up as a TR and at the very least seriously consider the reasons they decided to set it up as a TR and if they want to see it bolted.

3) If he/she says "sure go for it" then a really cool thing to consider would be giving him/her some length of time (say a week to a month) to send it before you start gunning for the FA, if they are still climbing that is.

TR ascents have been considered to be a FA for far longer than many on this board have been alive. Many TR ascents were done that way BITD simply because bolting was not done/possible for a whole host of reasons. The important part is that how the FA was done is noted. TR, Aid, French Free, etc.

Now that pretty much anybody can slap in a bunch of bolts does not mean a TR is not a legitimate FA. Especially given the amount of rehearsing done to get a lead FA - which is often done with a TR!!!

As for the OP question. As said, I not think it is necessary ask the FA about making it a lead climb but I would certainly respect the FA line. Otherwise, I guess the only question is given the other routes are trad routes would the addition of bolted routes cause any issues????

Allen Sanderson wrote: Now that pretty much anybody can slap in a bunch of bolts does not mean a TR is not a legitimate FA. Especially given the amount of rehearsing done to get a lead FA - which is often done with a TR!

Allen, I respectfully disagree. Top roping inherently changes a climb. The risk is gone and with it goes the focus we get on the sharp end. When you are on your edge a single hard clip might be more than you're capable of that day. In fact, I can think of several routes in our area that are more difficult to lead because of a hard clip. The red point has become the standard in our community because you are challenged by all aspects of a climb. If you aren't fully challenged how can it be a "first ascent"? My opinion: I don't consider a pink point, stick clip, top rope, etc an FA. Having said all that crap I would still look to the local ethics AND call the "top rope FA" guys before I'd consider bolting someone else's climb.

Brad