Ethics behind retro bolting how far do they go?

eli poss wrote:Disclaimer: this post does not reflect my opinion or intentions; I am simply posing hypothetical questions I have heard people claim that bolting climbs is like shitting on their achievements because it makes it easier. Say you did with only passive pro. And subsequent climbers use cams to protect it. Why doesn't this offend you, despite it making the climb easier.

Its about bolts...

Tommy Layback wrote: My opinion has little to do with selfishness. X rated climbing near one's ability limit is Russian Roulette...ask John Bachar, oh wait, never mind. And claiming a unique and exceptional line in a climbing area(emphasis here) that is well below one's ability limit via an X-rated FA is selfish elitism. For example, the 5.13 climber that puts up the 5.6X thus excluding any 5.6 leader from enjoying the route whilst most 5.13 climbers ignore the route because it isn't challenging. The only unselfish thing to do when new routing is to protect the route (from ground fall) for those that climb at that particular grade limit or allow retrobolting by followers; otherwise, they are engaging in the selfish act of elitism. Further clarification - I don't fear falling because I protect against ground/ledge fall unless I'm on terrain well below my limit.

Seems you're really out there with your thinking huh.. maybe you've been offended somewhere in the past and developed an odd opinion throwing around the term 'elitism', because I've never even heard of 5.6X routes being bolted in junction with your reasoning.... 5.6X routes don't really exist in climbing (none logged in a guide or on mp that I''ve come across).. the most risky being just runout pitches on long slabs that are accepted as 5.6R.
I can't actually picture an 'elite' climber even being bothered to climb, identify and preserve that type of route (why would a 13 climber even touch a 6 and defend it honestly)?
Literally 5.6 routes are either vertical jug hauls you'd have to try to fall off of, or secure 30meter slab runouts on a multipitch route that is infact R rated.
And respect to Bachar, thats a sad point to feel you had to use. The man's mind worked in a way beyond the rest of the climbing world's acceptable understanding.. To each their own

Morgan Patterson wrote: Here in CT the strict ethics actually pay a significant role in the destruction of climbing resources.

You mind elaborating? I've gotten that same general impression for a long time now, but still don't have too many specific examples to back it up.

Almost took the bait again, until David Sahalie righted the ship! Off to climb cracks...

Derek Jf wrote: You're really out there with your thinking huh.. you've been offended somewhere in the past and developed an odd opinion throwing around the term 'elitism', because I've never even heard of 5.6X routes being bolted in junction with your reasoning.... 5.6X route doesn't exist in my eyes.. they are literally just runout pitches on long slabs that are accepted as 5.6R. I can't picture even an 'elite' climber being bothered to be climb, identify and preserve that type of route (why would a 13 climber even touch a 6 and defend it honestly)? Literally 5.6 routes are either vertical jug hauls you'd have to try to fall off of, or a very secure 30meter slab runout on a multipitch route that is infact R rated. And respect to Bachar, thats a sad point to feel you had to use. The man's mind worked in a way beyond the rest of the climbing world's acceptable understanding.. To each their own

Well said.

I just love the logic behind some of these scenarios that would have one justify the cause of retro-bolting.

To me this is pretty simple; you don’t get to go mess up climbs that are part of the foundation of American Climbing. The history of many climbs, the climbers who did the climbs, took the risks, showed incredible boldness, these climbs and the attitude of the climbers set the stage for modern rock-climbing as we know it.
So just cause you want to go climb the Naked Edge, but lack the skills to do so safely, doesn’t mean you can go slam in some bolts so you don’t need to stick your neck out.
The Gunks do not get bolted because the locals like it just the way it is.
Gritstone is a World Class destination, with world class climbs, that the big boys n girls aspire to climb. Because those are bold climbs, and to match your skills with the rock and what it offers is something that is core to the climbing experience.
If everything was “well bolted” as someone suggested upstream, don’t you think climbing would degrade into some sport like weight lifting, swimming, aerobic dance or some other activity or hobby?
Come on folks, can’t you see climbing is a different animal. And that is why I love climbing; it’s a constant challenge to me – personally.

OP I am really glad you brought this up. I know there are lots of posts on internet forums about the ethics of retrobolting, but you really added something new to the discussion with your hypothetical question about a classic route that was free soloed and has no available protection. I am fairly certain that no one in the history of climbing as ever posed that question, and it certainly has not been raised in every single thread on retrobolting I have ever read on here or supertopo.

eli also brought up a fantastic point with the question of what to do if you cannot contact the FA? That has almost certainly never happened before or been discussed on this very forum multiple times.

I look forward to reading the groundbreaking insights I'm sure will come of what has already been a highly productive discussion.

Tommy Layback wrote:X rated climbing near one's ability limit is Russian Roulette...ask John Bachar, oh wait, never mind.

Wow dude. Seriously? I know it's the internet but there is a line.

When I find pitches I don't have the balls to lead, I rap in and top rope them, or preplace gear above the runout section and lower down a small rope with a biner to clip. I don't f'ck up the route, I get to do the climb, and nobody even knew I was there.

Ryan Watts wrote: Wow dude. Seriously? I know it's the internet but there is a line.

While the comment was definitely in bad taste, Bachar is an interesting one to bring into the discussion. Nobody can forget what the man accomplished; after all, the names of him and his peers are stamped on so many climbs you couldn't ignore it if you wanted to. But why does that mean we are obligated to accept these people's personal ethics as gospel? Seriously!? This is the same guy who painted the "iconic" lightning bolt on Midnight Lightning at Camp 4 - AKA vandalizing a natural formation in a National Park. The same guy who offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could follow him for a day - AKA a douchey, meaningless, showboating brag about how much bigger his balls are than anyone else's. He and his like have not always been models of maturity. Again, obviously I'm not saying that his accomplishments are meaningless or that he was a bad guy, only that the "wisdom" of this older generation needs to taken with a grain of salt. It's about time people stopped blindly living and, unfortunately, dying by a code of honor that was pulled out of these guys butts when they were young, cocky, and selfish.

I'm not trying to talk anyone into retro-bolting the Bachar-Yerian(i think that, counter-intuitively, heavy bolting would make such routes more dangerous by luring noobs in over their heads). But I think people need to be open to the idea that just because things have always been done a certain way. doesn't mean that's what's best for our hobby(climbing is nothing more than that, though I think that's enough). Balanced bolting and even retro-bolting(even in the rare case that it might step on the toes of a grumpy old FA) can, should, and will play a big part in climbing's future. Get used to it.

^^^. Oh great. Aren't you the guy making the same silly arguments (typical of immature climbers) a few months ago.

I'm truly sorry to hear that folks interpreted my comment about Bachar as disrespectful or in bad taste. That was not my intent to come across that way. The comment was made merely to make the point that extremely high risk climbing seems to eventually take down the best of the best; therefore, honoring the ethics of an FA done in such a fashion (and remember this thread is all about the hypothetical)is, in the opinion of at least one average-at-best climber, silly. Especially if the hypothetical route in question is unique and exceptional for a given region. Again, this is just a hypothetical discussion and in the real world I'd venture to guess that for any given grade most crags can accommodate climbs from X to G-rated thus leaving something for all risk-tolerance tastes.

At one of my local crags, there is a 5.8 X route (one rusty piton at about 70' up a 110' climb) that meets only half of my above criteria for ignoring the FA style (it's X rated at least for the first 70'), but I wouldn't retrobolt it because it does not meet all my criteria - it isn't unique or exceptional. We have other routes of similar quality and climbing style that do provide reasonable protection against groundfall. But if it were unique for that canyon, I would not hesitate to consider retrobolting it.

Now to address the op's hypothetical:

ultra classic and popular face, 12c/d, leaving zero fixed protection? Zero fixed protection? Yeah, so. Can you clarify whether there is the option for natural protection or not. Huge difference here. Maybe there is ample opportunity to use natural protection. Or, are you referring to a route that would be x rated for someone that is climbing with a rope. But, if it has become ultra classic and popular, doesn't that mean many people are climbing it?

To bring Bachar into the conversation seems strange. He soloed more than 10,000 routes. How many of those were FA's? And how many of those FA's left behind x rated routes?

Eldorado Canyon, Smoke and Mirrors, 10a, FA Mic Fairchild, free solo. He went back up later and added 3 bolts to the sections where natural gear didn't exist. Now, most climbers capable of climbing 5.10 can get on this route with "reasonable" protection.

So, lets keep it in context people. Yes, there are a small percentage of FA's out there that are put up in a style that incorporates a tremendous amount of risk and only a small percentage of the climbing community will repeat. But, a majority of new routes are put up with more than adequate protection for any climber that has acquired appropriate skills for typical rock climbing. Our diverse history and wide range of physical and mental challenges keeps climbing rich and full of passion, fulfillment, and rewards.

Climb on!

Climbing a poorly protected face or slab is an acquired skill just like any other acquired skill. The protection is difficult so you need good risk assessment skills, slab falls are difficult so you need to learn how to handle them (you can fall a LONG way on a slab without getting hurt), and catching slab falls is difficult so you need a belayer who is up to the task.

And I can attest to the fact that people do climb these R and X routes. I have a friend who maybe climbs twice a year who won't hesitate to jump on an obscure Tuolumne Meadows 5.10R route and he always floats them with style. Put him on a typical indoor gym 5.10 TR and he'll make a mess of it, but if it's a runout slab then he's a master.

So I guess I see the issue as newish gym climbers who are very, very strong but haven't acquired the necessary skills to safely tackle spicy leads. I think that if all these spicy leads are turned into sport climbs then it would be a real shame. There is much more to this sport than blindly following a line of bolts.

There need to be a number of parameters; curbstones before the guardrail and a steep fatal drop,
That is the loss of climbing zones.
A) As The number one priority is Access to climbing (redundant) RISK or events that call on non-climber groups (rescue /owner and governance) to interact with climbers at their worst moments (Injury, death, grid bolting, bolt chopping, stuff left in sight of non climbers, parking issues, perceived bad behavior in front of other user groups, etc.) is the greatest threat to open free access and climbing.

B) The current majority of climbers’ have started in gyms.

C) Higher, greater ability in climbing standards leads to greater and greater risk.

D) Natural, undeveloped wilderness is always under threat from all sorts of diverse elements, true enemies who will end all access to open spaces and climbing, given the chance.

One of the great benefits of the intro to climbing indoors is the reduced risk through standardization and uniformity allowing learning climbers to focus in a linear way. This ability to concentrate on the physical, the purely technical gymnastic athletics dominated side` of climbing quickly creates an out of balance one-dimensional climber. The skill set that she /he has been able to acquire (often very quickly) suddenly becomes the single greatest risk to the climber. A ‘new to the outdoors climbing game’, person/climber is at risk because she /he can physically meet challenges, the Physical demands, not the Psychological ones. Overloaded mentally by all the many factors that ‘real’ climbing presents as obstacles, the 'just getting outdoors' climber is under added pressure from peers and him/her self to not screw this up.
Given that a small mistake could have fatal consequences if these challenges are not positively surmounted acts to multiply exponentially the risk /fear in a talented gym climber when climbing out doors on real stone.
Repetition is a very big part of how we learn. Time and the repeated use of standardized techniques will go along way to reducing the fear/risk factor that newer climbers suffer from.
A mind full of answers is not scared witless like a mind searching for answers.
The reasons against bolting and retro bolting do exist, the nature of the endeavor is best preserved if the history and wisdom gained from living that history is considered. Insight and the need to appreciate the journey from starting out, reducing risk at every opportunity, to the feats of the free soloist (who never contemplates failure while en’route) is the grand adventure, the essence of climbing, that we protect and preserve. That a new to the sport climber cannot grasp this is not surprising. Bolting the risk out of anything is what makes the mind happy at that stage of the game. The loss is only felt later on.
“You really don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone -paved paradise - put up a parking lot”. (where I can bivy to get 1st tracks before the lifts open)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of lines with groundfall potential, no matter who called it a sin. I backed off West Country last week. It is well within my abilities but I backed off after the first bolt (20' runout felt like 30').

Given some of the reasoning provided earlier "you" should be able to add bolts. It isn't a hardman route, nor was it soloed. I would appreciate a bolt or two in between the existing path forged by a couple of old timers.

But I wouldn't do it. I respect the achievements of my betters. I tried and just turned back. That is what I think you should do when you find a climb that is not within your ability or desire. Leave it alone and marvel at it.

Bill M wrote:When I find pitches I don't have the balls to lead, I rap in and top rope them, or preplace gear above the runout section and lower down a small rope with a biner to clip. I don't f'ck up the route, I get to do the climb, and nobody even knew I was there.

There are sport routes put up in that manner with the most minimal amount of bolts after the FA gets the whole thing wired. It sucks because the person who put up the route is only concerned about the FA and never repeats the route him/herself and doesn't get any feedback from the regular users of the crag. Now we end up with lines that because of the runouts and chossiness don't get repeated very often, while bolts rot away for years to come...

doligo wrote: There are sport routes put up in that manner with the most minimal amount of bolts after the FA gets the whole thing wired. It sucks because the person who put up the route is only concerned about the FA and never repeats the route him/herself and doesn't get any feedback from the regular users of the crag. Now we end up with lines that because of the runouts and chossiness don't get repeated very often, while bolts rot away for years to come...

Plenty of rock out there (especially in CO). Go put up your own routes in your own chosen style! If you face that "problem" at enough of the crags you visit for it to be bothersome, I really feel bad for you...

Tommy Layback wrote:My opinion has little to do with selfishness. X rated climbing near one's ability limit is Russian Roulette...ask John Bachar, oh wait, never mind.

That's a weak, disrespectful thing to say and it shouldn't even warrant a response, but it's a rainy Sunday, so...

Look into Bachar's climbing history (see Greg D's post above) and you'll find tons of solos around the east side that were retroed by him (or with his permission). Not quite the example of the selfish first ascentionist described in this thread.

By your logic, should the Bachar-Yerian be retroed, since it's "silly" to "honor the ethics of an FA done in such a fashion" (your words)?

There are many crags out there that clearly have a lot of potential for becoming safer and quite a bit more fun. Case in point Ralph Stover State Park. For some (and it is seems to be a small crowd), this sleepy little crag is a stronghold of bizarre, antiquated ethics--unsafe bolting practices come to mind--as well as questionable TR rigs. If something gets bolted and dubbed a "sport climb", bolt the route with safety in mind.

A little devils advocation for people to chew on--Wouldn't the Phone Booth Area be a hell of a lot more fun if it was safely bolted for leading? Sure, you could still rig your beloved TR anchor, but wouldn't it be nice if, once you've mastered Phone Booth or Called... on TR, the logical progression of safely leading it was a realistic option? The same argument could be made for over a dozen other routes at Stover.

Keep in mind, I am just adding a little fuel to a seemingly small brush fire, but unless an growing group of ethics police are patrolling Stover, I say let the place get bolted!

Bill M wrote:When I find pitches I don't have the balls to lead, I rap in and top rope them, or preplace gear above the runout section and lower down a small rope with a biner to clip. I don't f'ck up the route, I get to do the climb, and nobody even knew I was there.

Can you elaborate a little on this.. what size/how long of a rope, dynamic I'm assuming? What's the max length you'd clip to and have you fallen at that max? What kind of forces do you think this applies to the piece or bolt that you're clipped to if you fall?

Nick Stayner wrote:That's a weak, disrespectful thing to say and it shouldn't even warrant a response, but it's a rainy Sunday, so... ....By your logic, should the Bachar-Yerian be retroed, since it's "silly" to "honor the ethics of an FA done in such a fashion" (your words)?

Raining and windy in Wyo, too, so I'll bite again...

First, my comment regarding Bachar's death is merely stating a fact. Please help me understand why you and others view this as a weak, disrespectful thing to say.

Regarding Bachar-Yerian: by my logic, NO, I wouldn't support retrobolting it because I have TWO criteria (already clearly stated twice in this thread) and B-Y only meets the first - the first criteria you understood (X-rated routes), the second was that the line had to be unique (meaning type of movement, rock quality) for the given area which, to my knowledge (and I've never climbed in Tuolumne), Bachar-Yerian is not - it is only unique in it's boldness (someone's probably going to correct me on this). I also recognize that these two conditions for retrobolting are rarely (if ever) met for a particular locale; however, the OP brought this up as a purely hypothetical debate.

As another hypothetical: what if someone did retrobolt B-Y so that it went from X to R-rated. People could still climb it as an X-rated route if they chose. I still believe that the desire to keep certain climbs X-rated is ultimately driven by ego. Because the desire to keep it X-rated is so that the bold (or reckless) can say "I did it and you can't" which in my opinion is a silly notion.

In 37 years of climbing, I never met a single person that set out to make a scary climb. People just didn't carry bolting gear around with them like they do today. I never met any 5.12 climbers out to scare 5.9 leaders, or lock up rock with testaments to themselves. People got on rock, climbed it, and mostly figured gear and shoes and people would get better, which they did.