Ethics behind retro bolting how far do they go?

Sending temps! I'm glad most people think of MT that way. Spares us from the whiners who want to add some bolts every time they get a little ways above their gear or have to blow dirt off a hold. :)

And I think manifest destiny is more accurately being represented by the people saying the rock should be a "community resource" when really all they want to do is change it more from its less developed state. You could make the argument that these underprotected/dirty/whatever routes are actually benefiting the community more by being maintained more closely to their natural state.

David Sahalie wrote:Nick, Not everyone lives in MT bro. Most climbers that these days live in a metro center, climb in gym, and get to be weekend warrior. If you live in a area where you need to be ready to die everytime you climb outside, that can get old if that isnt your thing. Good ol manifest destiny, unlimited resources for all, 'Merica, f yeah!

This rings true in my case as well, although I wish I grew up rock climbing outdoors and structured my life accordingly so I could just drive my van to the next crag, I got into it late when I already had a family and responsibilities and so up rooting just so I can have more options to climb isn't really feasible (although I day dream about it constantly).

In the area that I live in there really are more established routes than I could ever hope to climb that are safely bolted so I don't stress about the retro-bolting here and if things do get spicy then its just a better story for around the campfire. But I can totally see that perspective if areas and routes were limited and if everyone just went around staking claim then resources could dry up fast.

Nick Stayner wrote:Sending temps! I'm glad most people think of MT that way. Spares us from the whiners who want to add some bolts every time they get a little ways above their gear or have to blow dirt off a hold. :) And I think manifest destiny is more accurately being represented by the people saying the rock should be a "community resource" when really all they want to do is change it more from its current state. You could make the argument that these underprotected/dirty/whatever routes are actually benefiting the community more by being maintained more closely to their natural state.

I'm really digging this dialogue. As far as preserving the natural state for an area you are totally right, more bolts means more traffic means, most likely, the area gets trampled and is worse off. Which, in my mind, is a huge downside to area development and is an extremely important part to take into consideration.

I could be wrong in this assumption, but thats just from what I have seen in my own area (do you see this in your area?). There are definitely those routes that have bolts every 4 feet, which is a little silly IMO for the outdoors, and they see way more traffic than even those that are still totally safe but would lend themselves to bigger whippers (bolts being 8-15 ft apart).

David Sahalie wrote:What is the real difference between 3 bolts and 10?

The real difference between 3 bolts and 10 is the number of people who will then seek that pitch out, trample the base, erode the hillsides, fill them with turds, etc... :). Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Nick Stayner wrote: The real difference between 3 bolts and 10 is the number of people who will then seek that pitch out, trample the base, erode the hillsides, fill them with turds, etc... :). Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Just to clarify on this point, since this thread has been all over the place there have probably been times where it was about what you mentioned. But what I had envisioned was more on the scale of discussing X climbs and retro-bolting to R. I am all for accepting the risk of injury every time I climb, its definitely part of the adventure, but if the climb is at my level and X, I'm steering clear. But just to be clear, its not about making every line like the gym, I think, ideally, a route would have the minimum amount of fixed gear placed to make the route relatively safe (obviously not where traditional gear can be used).

David Sahalie wrote:Nick, Not everyone lives in MT bro. Most climbers that these days live in a metro center, climb in gym, and get to be weekend warrior. If you live in a area where you need to be ready to die everytime you climb outside, that can get old if that isnt your thing. Good ol manifest destiny, unlimited resources for all, 'Merica, f yeah!

This is just a B.S. ad hominem argument. In addition to that, it seems to miss the whole subject matter of the thread. Is there a point?

^^^That's what Nick is advocating - wilderness littered with obscure lichen-covered bolt lines that no one ever repeats. No one, btw, in this tread advocates to go and retro-bolt say B-Y or Perilous Journey.

Nick Stayner wrote:I guess I still don't see why you seem to think "the community" has a mandate to climb any and all rock in the area. I'd have to agree with CJC when answering your original question, that the ones acting selfishly are the ones who would dumb a route down without consent of the FA. I still don't buy that living in an area with limited rock (a la Dolgio & Steve) gives more weight to the idea of rock as community resource. Please remember that you chose to live where you do. If the local climbing doesn't suit your preferences, I could list dozens of places you could choose to live where you definitely wouldn't encounter this problem.

That's what public property is - a community resource.

There are 3000 routes (and growing) within 15 minutes (average drive) of my house. So I'm not personally affected by limited resources. Others on this thread may not be so fortunate, so I'm considering their interests and the interests of future generations.

Some folks are making the argument that crowding and the outdoor gym scene is a reason not to retro-bolt. That's an interesting point and is one of the reasons my partner and I put up new routes - to spread things out more. By the same logic - wouldn't retro-bolting routes that never get climbed (retro-bolting very selectively and respectfully of course) also spread out the crowds?

tsaint wrote: Just to clarify on this point, since this thread has been all over the place there have probably been times where it was about what you mentioned. But what I had envisioned was more on the scale of discussing X climbs and retro-bolting to R. I am all for accepting the risk of injury every time I climb, its definitely part of the adventure, but if the climb is at my level and X, I'm steering clear. But just to be clear, its not about making every line like the gym, I think, ideally, a route would have the minimum amount of fixed gear placed to make the route relatively safe (obviously not where traditional gear can be used).

tsaint... Stop right there.

At the beginning of this thread, you offered up a hypothetical situation: Something about a mega classic multi pitch deal.... being retrobolted.

Then we went round and round about how you kant add bolts to established climbs.

Then you changed the topic/question to “SET” climbs…. Well my understanding of the word “SET” is SPORT CLIMBING.

This gets really confusing when one mixes up the types of climbing.

Some folks are talking about adding BOLTS to Tuolumne Meadows climbs, (a place with almost ZERO sport climbs) that are X rated….

Others (you) are talking about adding FIXED protection. Fixed pro really doesn’t refer to BOLTS, me and probably 99% of climbers think, PINS, hammered in stoppers and other stuff is fixed protection.

Now, we need to have a discussion about SPORT CLIMBING and adding BOLTS to establish SPORTCLIMBS.

First off, there are no X rated sportclimbs, by definition.

I find that most of the sportclimbs I see are bolted for the grade, i.e. 5.13 might be somewhat run out, 5.12 a little less.
This is because climbers who can do 5.13 will not mind a 5.11 section with the bolt way down past the feet.

When one gets to 5.11 routes, typically there are more bolts, 5.10 even more so.

So what you end up with is 5.8 sportclimbs are usually pretty heavily bolted.

If you are lucky enuf to have good sportclimbing close by you, go check it out.

You will see that I am not blowing smoke.

So if you don’t like the way a climb is bolted, go complain to the local crag community. If you have a valid point and there are good reasons to change the bolting scheme, someone might just change it.

I find its best to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Thank you, Guy!

Guy Keesee wrote: tsaint... Stop right there. At the beginning of this thread, you offered up a hypothetical situation: Something about a mega classic multi pitch deal.... being retrobolted. Then we went round and round about how you kant add bolts to established climbs. Then you changed the topic/question to “SET” climbs…. Well my understanding of the word “SET” is SPORT CLIMBING. This gets really confusing when one mixes up the types of climbing. Some folks are talking about adding BOLTS to Tuolumne Meadows climbs, (a place with almost ZERO sport climbs) that are X rated…. Others (you) are talking about adding FIXED protection. Fixed pro really doesn’t refer to BOLTS, me and probably 99% of climbers think, PINS, hammered in stoppers and other stuff is fixed protection. Now, we need to have a discussion about SPORT CLIMBING and adding BOLTS to establish SPORTCLIMBS. First off, there are no X rated sportclimbs, by definition. I find that most of the sportclimbs I see are bolted for the grade, i.e. 5.13 might be somewhat run out, 5.12 a little less. This is because climbers who can do 5.13 will not mind a 5.11 section with the bolt way down past the feet. When one gets to 5.11 routes, typically there are more bolts, 5.10 even more so. So what you end up with is 5.8 sportclimbs are usually pretty heavily bolted. If you are lucky enuf to have good sportclimbing close by you, go check it out. You will see that I am not blowing smoke. So if you don’t like the way a climb is bolted, go complain to the local crag community. If you have a valid point and there are good reasons to change the bolting scheme, someone might just change it. I find its best to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Guy, thanks for some clarification, maybe a little aggressive, but I appreciate it non-the-less. In regards to me "changing the subject" I was merely responding to others comments and that at times adding to the situation with other questions. I'm sure you are aware after 100+ comments, the conversation can sway back and forth from point to point, and instead of trying to bring every person who strays back to the original point, I find it interesting at times to go on tangents.

With your comment about using the term "set", I addressed this earlier that I misused this term because I was unaware that it meant only sport climbs, maybe you can clarify for me, if you have a route that has been established (or whatever the proper term is here) with only traditional gear and maybe at the most, fixed protection for anchors, if the term is not "set" what is the proper term to use to avoid more backlash here?

When you mentioned that "fixed gear" does not refer to bolts, is this an across the board fact? I was under the impression that "fixed protection" meant anything that is not intended to be removed. If that is not correct than my bad on misunderstanding the terminology there and I will continue forward using the term properly.

About the comment "First off, there are no X rated sportclimbs, by definition", I honestly had no idea this was true, my understanding is that the X just mean very very run out with possible death if you fell. Is this incorrect? and if not, are there not sport climbs, which I am to understand are climbs with bolts, that are run out like this? If not please correct me, maybe less aggressive this time, but I would still like to know what is fact.

To the rest of your comment, I agree, most climbs are in fact, protected appropriately for the grade, with a few extremes here and there. And I do have plenty of climbs around me and can attest to what you are talking about and I have no complaints about how any of them are protected. Thats one of the reasons why I brought up the hypothetical.

I thought I made it clear a few times during this post that there are things about climbing that I do not know, like how to properly use the term "set" apparently, which I am more than happy to be corrected on, but its too bad this seems to upset people to the point where they have to attack as if I am trying to be misleading on purpose.

tsaint wrote: Guy, thanks for some clarification, maybe a little aggressive, but I appreciate it non-the-less. In regards to me "changing the subject" I was merely responding to others comments and that at times adding to the situation with other questions. I'm sure you are aware after 100+ comments, the conversation can sway back and forth from point to point, and instead of trying to bring every person who strays back to the original point, I find it interesting at times to go on tangents. With your comment about using the term "set", I addressed this earlier that I misused this term because I was unaware that it meant only sport climbs, maybe you can clarify for me, if you have a route that has been established (or whatever the proper term is here) with only traditional gear and maybe at the most, fixed protection for anchors, if the term is not "set" what is the proper term to use to avoid more backlash here? When you mentioned that "fixed gear" does not refer to bolts, is this an across the board fact? I was under the impression that "fixed protection" meant anything that is not intended to be removed. If that is not correct than my bad on misunderstanding the terminology there and I will continue forward using the term properly. About the comment "First off, there are no X rated sportclimbs, by definition", I honestly had no idea this was true, my understanding is that the X just mean very very run out with possible death if you fell. Is this incorrect? and if not, are there not sport climbs, which I am to understand are climbs with bolts, that are run out like this? If not please correct me, maybe less aggressive this time, but I would still like to know what is fact. To the rest of your comment, I agree, most climbs are in fact, protected appropriately for the grade, with a few extremes here and there. And I do have plenty of climbs around me and can attest to what you are talking about and I have no complaints about how any of them are protected. Thats one of the reasons why I brought up the hypothetical. I thought I made it clear a few times during this post that there are things about climbing that I do not know, like how to properly use the term "set" apparently, which I am more than happy to be corrected on, but its too bad this seems to upset people to the point where they have to attack as if I am trying to be misleading on purpose.

First off, setting a route is not something done outside, you set routes in a gym, outside you develop or establish routes.

For your other question, it's not your definition of x rated climbs that is wrong, your definition of sport climbs is wrong. By definition a sport climb is safely bolted, there are plenty of trad routes that are entirely bolt protected.

kennoyce wrote: First off, setting a route is not something done outside, you set routes in a gym, outside you develop or establish routes. For your other question, it's not your definition of x rated climbs that is wrong, your definition of sport climbs is wrong. By definition a sport climb is safely bolted, there are plenty of trad routes that are entirely bolt protected.

Interesting, so if there is a slab climb (one where there is not option for any trad gear and only has bolts) that is run out to the point that if you were to fall it could cause death...this is not a sport climb?

tsaint wrote: Interesting, so if there is a slab climb (one where there is not option for any trad gear and only has bolts) that is run out to the point that if you were to fall it could cause death...this is not a sport climb?

No, that would most certainly be a trad climb.

tsaint wrote: Interesting, so if there is a slab climb (one where there is not option for any trad gear and only has bolts) that is run out to the point that if you were to fall it could cause death...this is not a sport climb?

Again, that nagging feeling...

Fat Dad wrote: Again, that nagging feeling...

Fat Dad is not down with someone having a conversation on a subject they don't know everything about apparently. My bad Fat Dad, my bad.

kennoyce wrote: No, that would most certainly be a trad climb.

Thanks for the response, it shall be noted.

tsaint wrote: Fat Dad is not down with someone having a conversation on a subject they don't know everything about apparently. My bad Fat Dad, my bad.

It's not your projected naïve-ness that is the issue - it the subtle way you have of repeating over and over the exact same things that have been said thousands of times for the past couple of decades. If you really are that naïve I would suggest a drastic change in your reading (everything to do with climbing styles and history)reading to posting ratio.

Eric Engberg wrote: It's not your projected naïve-ness that is the issue - it the subtle way you have of repeating over and over the exact same things that have been said thousands of times for the past couple of decades. If you really are that naïve I would suggest a drastic change in your reading (everything to do with climbing styles and history)reading to posting ratio.

Could you give me an example of this "it the subtle way you have of repeating over and over the exact same things that have been said thousands of times for the past couple of decades"?

What I was taught about sport climbing vs trad climbing with subsequent research was specifically about the gear used ie sport climbs were any climbs protected solely with bolts or pins, and trad climbing required the use of traditional gear to protect. I didn't know that was so naive. From the research I've done on climbing that seems to fit the definition pretty good, but hey, coming here and asking questions has helped me learn has it not.

Do you suggest that instead of people coming here to ask questions about things they don't know, instead, they try just to learn everything on their own instead of asking people that know more than they do?

doligo wrote:^^^That's what Nick is advocating - wilderness littered with obscure lichen-covered bolt lines that no one ever repeats. No one, btw, in this tread advocates to go and retro-bolt say B-Y or Perilous Journey.

That's not what I'm advocating at all. It seems to me you're hearing what you want to from my comments. Whenever I've developed or helped develop routes and climbing areas (except within actual wilderness areas), I've done so with the object of creating a climb that other climbers will enjoy. We've spent extensive amounts of time with brushes, leafblowers, crowbars, and high-quality hardware to hopefully create a safe, pleasing experience. People seem to appreciate it. So clearly you've misunderstood me completely.

My point is that there's room for all styles of development out there, and in my opinion the "creation" of the first ascentionist should be respected, whether you deem their route a scary/dirty/gridbolted/sharp/(insert various whiny adjective here) or not. At the very least, get in touch with the individual responsible for establishing the route and tell them your thoughts. I don't agree with the idea that the rock is a community resource and routes should be tailored to meet the desires of a few individuals "representing" the community, as some seem to advocate on here.

Bottom line is the FA had the vision and invested the time, effort, and dollars to create a line for you to whine about or enjoy. I'm not denying that vision may be a perverse one and the route may have been put up for purely egotistical purposes. I know of plenty of routes which meet that criteria. But take it up with them if you have a problem with it. Getting a "community consensus" that bolts should be added to another climber's FA, then adding them without the input of the developer or worse, against their will, is absolutely the wrong thing to do IMO.