Ethics behind retro bolting how far do they go?

Curious you would use that thread... it seems to be proving my point. I didn't see anything in there about TR-wired, intentionally poorly-protected pitches. Just a lot of typical "5.12 sport climber can't climb offwith/slab/etc..".

If this problem is so widespread, and you brought up Tuolumne as an example, surely you can list the first 3 pitches you're thinking of?

Something I see a lot are mislabeled R and X rated routes in guide books. I forget the rule.....a run-out is only considered part of the safety rating of a climb if it is within one grade of the route's crux? What I sometimes see are 5.12 routes with extended sections of unprotected 5.10 climbing mislabeled as 5.12R or even 5.12X. Just because a climb has one bolt in 100' of climbing that does NOT make it an X or R rated route.

This mislabeling seems most common on slabby climbs...a lot of people (and guidebook authors) are intimidated by long sections of blank face. If they bothered to actually try the climb they might find that the blank section on a 5.12 face is only 5.9...well within the ability of a 5.12 climber. I've been on some very rewarding climbs that were like this. The climb looked like an absolute death trap on the ground but it turns out that all the cruxes were well protected. If that rewarding climb had been sport bolted then it would be an absolute dog that would bore the hell out of most climbers capable of climbing it clean.

Morgan Patterson wrote:
"think you've reached the bottom of the barrel... no more exist."

Apparently. And not for lack of effort.

David Sahalie wrote:The BY shouldnt be bolted because it sees ascents by the likes of Jon. The real issue are the dinosaurs that saw one heavily TR rehearsed lead and now have sat for 25 or more years waiting for the 'next generation'. Ethics need a statute of limitation.

In principle, the above sounds defensible as a exception to the rule

Oh, just one more hypothetical from this Tommy guy, please.... on something that makes up <1% of climbing terrain... PLEASE!!!
Don't you have to work man? or feed a cat??

David Sahalie wrote:Bombs over Tokyo Acapulco Gold Anatolio R and dont know if they were TR rehearsed or not

3rd pitch of Bombs Over Tokyo was freed by Bachar. Safe to assume no TR rehearsal there.

Derek Jf wrote:Oh, just one more hypothetical from this Tommy guy, please.... on something that makes up <1% of climbing terrain... PLEASE!!! Don't you have to work man? or feed a cat??

No cat and independently wealthy. What is your excuse?

Tommy Layback wrote: But this started as a hypothetical question and I conjured up a hypothetical, and admittedly unrealistic, situation where I would consider retrobolting OK - only to challenge the limits of our application of the FA honoring ethic. A pointless exercise to some, but intellectually entertaining to me - a thought experiment. I'm only fishing for a possible new angle on this debate that I might have overlooked so would be interested to hear a few of the other 1999 reasons you eluded to.

Thanks for getting the idea here TL, the purpose of this whole conversation to have people reflect on this tradition/rule/law/ethical code, whatever you would like to call it and truly see how far it would go. It is, to me, a very interesting topic in the case of an extreme hypothetical because it pushes the reader to dig deep and actually reflect (or so it is meant to). For those that do not like that they simply don't have to participate, thats the great thing about these forums, you don't HAVE to respond.

Thanks to all those so far that are continuing this conversation in that manner, its really interesting to see so many perspectives from (what I assume) are many walks of life.

For those that are interested in pushing this hypothetical one step further...What if every climb known to man (we're getting out of control here I know but thats the purpose!) was put up with X ratings? No exceptions. Every single rock face was taken, all the climbs were X rated and all done by a handful of individuals, would we then feel okay to retro-bolt, or just accept that these individuals now own all of earth and its climbable faces.

(***PLEASE PLEASE note that this is pushed to the absolute on purpose, I know this is completely unrealistic, but it is done so on purpose to truly see how deep the honoring of this ethical code goes. If the thought of this scenario infuriates you so much that you can't help but responding in an unproductive argumentative manner, please PLEASE refrain from responding at all)

Derek Jf wrote:Oh, just one more hypothetical from this Tommy guy, please.... on something that makes up <1% of climbing terrain... PLEASE!!! Don't you have to work man? or feed a cat??

Derek, the whole purpose I created this conversation was to talk about hypothetical situations because it is interesting (to some). If it really does bug you that bad, by all means you don't need to participate any further. I have appreciated your comments thus far but this conversation is not meant to irritate folks like it is seeming to irritate you. I'm sure there are other forums that you would appreciate more and have better time participating in if thats your thing.

If I misinterpreted your quoted remark then my apologies and I hope you stay on.

Welp, that's that haha. I am now talking to the wall and the pacifist psychiatrist between tommy and t..... Thanks for the liberation I guess
I realize my mistake, addressing you two I feel is about the same as if I tied my shoes together and tried to continue on uphill.... Im going to my 2nd shift now, you guys enjoy the rest of your hypothetically independence.
Be Freeeee, Maaannnn

tsaint wrote: Thanks for getting the idea here TL, the purpose of this whole conversation to have people reflect on this tradition/rule/law/ethical code, whatever you would like to call it and truly see how far it would go. It is, to me, a very interesting topic in the case of an extreme hypothetical because it pushes the reader to dig deep and actually reflect (or so it is meant to). For those that do not like that they simply don't have to participate, thats the great thing about these forums, you don't HAVE to respond. Thanks to all those so far that are continuing this conversation in that manner, its really interesting to see so many perspectives from (what I assume) are many walks of life. For those that are interested in pushing this hypothetical one step further...What if every climb known to man (we're getting out of control here I know but thats the purpose!) was put up with X ratings? No exceptions. Every single rock face was taken, all the climbs were X rated and all done by a handful of individuals, would we then feel okay to retro-bolt, or just accept that these individuals now own all of earth and its climbable faces. (***PLEASE PLEASE note that this is pushed to the absolute on purpose, I know this is completely unrealistic, but it is done so on purpose to truly see how deep the honoring of this ethical code goes. If the thought of this scenario infuriates you so much that you can't help but responding in an unproductive argumentative manner, please PLEASE refrain from responding at all)

Hmmm...some brilliant points here. Really eye opening.

Here's a thought experiment for you:

Let's just say, hypothetically, that the "FA ethic" was not engraved in stone tablets handed down from on high but was actually more of a guideline that allowed exceptions in certain cases if there was community consensus. Additionally, in this hypothetical world, most FAs would actually be reasonable people, and would often agree to requests to retrobolt their routes and might even assist in said efforts.

Obviously this is silly and would never happen in real life, but it's pretty interesting to think about.

Derek Jf wrote:Welp, that's that haha. I am now talking to the wall and the pacifist psychiatrist between tommy and t..... Thanks for the liberation I guess I realize my mistake, addressing you two I feel is about the same as if I tied my shoes together and tried to continue on uphill.... Im going to my 2nd shift now, you guys enjoy the rest of your hypothetically independence. Be Freeeee, Maaannnn

Nothing personal man, just want to keep the conversation going in the direction it was created to go. I know these forums can create a lot of tension and heated discussion (often over misinterpreted text) which was not, and is not, the intention of this particular post. If I could trade the online forum for us all being in the same room discussing this over drinks and snacks I would happily do so.

Hope we cross paths again either here or on the rock.

Ryan Watts wrote: Hmmm...some brilliant points here. Really eye opening. Here's a thought experiment for you: Let's just say, hypothetically, that the "FA ethic" was not engraved in stone tablets handed down from on high but was actually more of a guideline that allowed exceptions in certain cases if there was community consensus. Additionally, in this hypothetical world, most FAs would actually be reasonable people, and would often agree to requests to retrobolt their routes and might even assist in said efforts. Obviously this is silly and would never happen in real life, but it's pretty interesting to think about.

Interesting idea, I think the whole idea behind a community consensus could be more common in the future when a lot of the FA are no longer around (I could be totally off here) to contact and get the OK to continue with retro-bolts. In this scenario, it seems logical that it would go to the community and allow them to make the decision together. Who knows if that will ever happen, or if its happening now, but its definitely an interesting thought, thanks for bringing it up.

David Sahalie wrote:While we are on hypotheticals... If these run out lines of yore are worth perserving, why hasnt the likes of Honnold repeated them? Is it possible that the tradition of ethically preservating run out slabs hasnt turned out to be the golden age to the be sought after? Or, were pre-gym honed, EB wearing, stonedmasters really that much more progressive than Honnold?

Thats a good question, it would be cool to sit down with Alex and other free soloers and ask them that. Or to talk to someone who is actually out there completing many of these "monuments", as some have put it, and see what their thoughts are.

Nick Stayner wrote: 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...

I wasn't talking about crags I visit - normally people visiting new areas only have time/interest in sampling out chalked up, polished classics (usually the reason they're well traveled is that they're well protected).

I was talking about my local area, which is smallish. It sucks when you run out of climbs and you are staring at what look like good routes with semi-permanent bail biners on them. And I have dabbled in development - I just prefer it when people actually have a realistic chance to onsight a new route and enjoy it over and over again (unlike some routes you send and say "never again"). Again, I was ranting mostly about TR-rehearsed sport routes not bold ground up ascents. I would hate to see B-Y retro-bolted.

doligo wrote: I wasn't talking about crags I visit - normally people visiting new areas only have time/interest in sampling out chalked up, polished classics (usually the reason they're well traveled is that they're well protected). I was talking about my local area, which is smallish. It sucks when you run out of climbs and you are staring at what look like good routes with semi-permanent bail biners on them. And I have dabbled in development - I just prefer it when people actually have a realistic chance to onsight a new route and enjoy it over and over again (unlike some routes you send and say "never again"). Again, I was ranting mostly about TR-rehearsed sport routes not bold ground up ascents. I would hate to see B-Y retro-bolted.

Does it suck or is it a good opportunity for you to step outside the box and take a different approach than you would like to?

tsaint wrote: In regards to your question about whether or not I feel that I have the right to climb EVERY climb. As a human on this planet, yes I feel like I have the "right" to enjoy nature just as much as anyone else. Does that mean that I would have the strength, nerve, willingness, skill to climb every climb, definitely not. While I wish I had that skill level I am also a realist in knowing that that will probably never be my reality, but as far as the right, definitely.

What I take from this is that the OP suggests he has a right to try anything, even though he's content with the outcome if the route is beyond his ability.

I am generally against retro-bolting but believe it can be appropriate to make a climb safer. The problem is that some people believe that means it should be tightly bolted. However, those same people will often overlook that obvious fact that a good way to make a climb safer is to become a better climber. It is odd that some people are willing to work hard to climb a well protected climb, but are unwilling to work hard to climb a route in its existing state.

Having said that, there are many routes beyond my abilities, not just because of difficulty but also because the protection isn't as frequent as I'd like it to be given my current skill set. To me, that's acceptable. I don't have to climb everything to enjoy the sport and I certainly don't believe it's appropriate to retrofit a climb to suit my personal needs.

George Perkins wrote:I don't think the "ethical code" is the primary reason would-be retrobolters don't add bolts to existing climbs very often. I think the real reasons are: 1) Installing bolts requires money, time, and a learned skill that 99% of climbers don't have. Especially in areas where power-drilling is illegal, that effort is considerable. 2) Those who do have the time and skillset are often more interested in putting those efforts toward new routes, or upgrading old hardware on already popular routes; they realize those bolting efforts are more likely to be unilaterally supported and appreciated, non-controversial, and unlikely to be removed. 3) Those who've learned to drill bolts have likely done FAs and therefore might appreciate more the FAs "vision" for the climb. 4) Those who've learned to drill bolts likely have invested a considerable amount of their lifes toward climbing, and are more likely to feel comfortable climbing in runout situations. If it was easy and fast to add a bolt on lead, and required no special gear brought just for that purpose, they'd get added a lot more often. As an example, on aid climbs which have gone clean but at a fairly high difficulty, climbers will still place pins on occasion.

These are some really interesting points. I know for myself, a big reason why I don't really consider bolting or retro-bolting are for the reasons you mentioned. I live in an area where there is more climbing than I could ever dream of completing. While I would like to think that someday I would see an amazing face and have the desire, money, time, vision and skill to create a new route, it is probably unlikely. I am very grateful for all those that put in all that effort and try and be conscious of that every time I climb.

Thanks for the post.

Jon Clark wrote: 3rd pitch of Bombs Over Tokyo was freed by Bachar. Safe to assume no TR rehearsal there.

Dave, where'd your post about the T.Meadows pitches go?

I don't have my guidebook in front of me but I'm 99% sure (like Jon said) Bachar put that pitch up ground up, like he did just about everything. Can't say about those other two routes you listed. I do know the first ascentionist though, and it's highly unlikely he did any TR rehearsal of them. He's just strong all around and particularly in that Tuolumne style.

If those routes are too run out for you I could suggest lots of others in the Meadows and on Tioga Pass that have more bolts on them.

So what's you're point again?

In your last post, you sound awfully butthurt David! Did some big, bad, runout Tuolumne "5.10" slab have you changing your britches? :)

David Sahalie wrote: If these run out lines of yore are worth perserving, why hasnt the likes of Honnold repeated them?

I'm not sure Honnold would be uncomfortable with your annointing him as the arbiter of all that is true in climbing. Also, some day Honnold will be just another one of those washed up has beens you so frequently criticize in threads like these.

George you hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of folks that would retro-bolt a climb don't put up new climbs. To me it's a bit like politics: don't bad mouth the president if you don't vote.

David. Come out to Nor Cal. You can stay at my place or camp in the Truckee area. We'll do a bunch of climbing and put up several new routes at a place called Bowman lake / The Emeralds. You can find it here on MP. We've been developing there for several years now and it's turning into a pretty cool place. Bring about 250 dollars because that's what it will take if we split the cost of bolts, hangers and chain for 10 climbs. We can stop at the hardware store for wire brushes and scrappers because most climbs will require at least a half hour of cleaning with some needing much, much more. Figure $35 to $40 dollars each trip for gas because the crag is 110 miles and two hours from my house. If you do this and still insist retro-bolting is OK I'll disagree but will at least respect your opinion.

Outside of that, if you ever decide to road trip to the Donner Summit / Truckee area I'd be happy to show you and your friends around. Be warned though, I'm 65 years old so drinking and partying are a couple of decades ago for me.

Brad