Eldorado – Restoring Adventure To First Ascents

In the context of doing a first ascent in Eldorado Canyon, is it fair to say that once a request is made to the FHRC to place a bolt on a pitch then, by default, the entire pitch must be ‘safe’ in order to satisfy the criteria for the FHRC’s approval? If so, where does this leave the more adventurous types and their interest in daring-do and avoidance of installing a ‘sport’ route (I use the term loosely)? It seems all may be relegated to the lowest common denominator. For discussion’s sake what if someone led, ground-up, on-sight an extremely serious new pitch (X for very serious injury or death) and felt like they wanted to eliminate the death threat but maintain a high level of commitment, reducing it to an R rating. Could they apply for and receive approval to install a solitary bolt? Is there any middle ground under the current process? Is the current state ‘one or the other’: headpoint / no fixed gear or sport-route? I’d like to see real and reasonable solutions. The suggestion of ‘skipping clips’ is…umm…not sure what the right word is without sounding offensive.

My aim is to restore the ability to have a first-ascent adventure on one’s own terms rather than by mandate. As for subsequent ascents of these routes it’s incumbent upon the aspirant to either know what lies ahead before leaving terra firma or figure it out on the fly without altering the route.

Submit a proposal and see what the FHRC says.

It is save to assume that if you want to place ANY fixed gear on a new route in Eldo, you need approval from FHRC. Here is the reasoning:

- dangerous is a subjective term. Well protected routes with poor experience becomes dangerous. While the extremely experienced soloist on familiar terrain is relatively safe.

-so the bold on-sight developer must understand that he forfeits his "freedom to bolt as he chooses" (ie. S & VS fall danger)for the sake of preventing the the non-bold onsight developer from "freedom to bolt as he chooses" (ie. over bolted sport climb).

-the argument against is that development commitee is a reduction in freedom and choice by an individual. however that individual understands that regulation by fellow climbers(less restrictive) is always better than regulation by non-climbers (more restrictive).

-A commitee system exists in Eldo for route development. SO playing by its rules prevents the "bad apple ruins the bunch" results of the selfish.

-there are probably by-laws dealing with this issue in the FHRC guidelines. It is worth asking them about.

ABB wrote:In the context of doing a first ascent in Eldorado Canyon, is it fair to say that once a request is made to the FHRC to place a bolt on a pitch then, by default, the entire pitch must be ‘safe’ in order to satisfy the criteria for the FHRC’s approval?

No, this is not correct.

If you want to put up a new route in Eldorado that requires fixed hardware, you should familiarize yourself with the FHRC Guidelines.

Here's an excerpt about protection on new routes:

3.5 Applications regarding new routes

(a) Factors in favor. Preference shall be given to the following factors:
...
(v) Safety. Any proposal for a new route requiring bolts should be designed so that an Eldorado climber, competent at the grade of the proposed route, can lead it relatively safely. The crux of the climb, if it is protected by bolts, should be safely bolted. Run-outs on easier terrain are a normal part of the Eldorado experience. Examples of this factor include Blackwalk, Sunrider Arete, and Sunset Boulevard.
...

(b) Neutral factors. The following may be considered but are not factors that argue in favor or against an application by themselves:

(1) Dangerous routes. Proposed routes with sparse protection, i.e. "R" and "X" rated routes, shall not be given favorable or unfavorable consideration on the basis of its boldness alone, but shall be evaluated based on the merits and quality of the climb itself. However, routes which are rehearsed, top roped, then bolted, should be capable of being safely led on sight by an Eldorado climber competent at the grade. Proposed new routes which cannot be safely on sighted by Eldorado climbers competent at the grade or which expose climbers to dangers not faced by the applicant are factors against the application.

Ron Olsen wrote: (1) Dangerous routes. ... However, routes which are rehearsed, top roped, then bolted, should be capable of being safely led on sight by an Eldorado climber competent at the grade. Proposed new routes which cannot be safely on sighted by Eldorado climbers competent at the grade or which expose climbers to dangers not faced by the applicant are factors against the application.

I would have thought that the 'however' clause would have supported the theory proposed here, since I thought to get approved one practically has to say that they have done the route on TR and checked the climbability, rock quality, and bolt placement...

Has anyone ever been approved to place a bolt prior to attempting to on-sight a new route? OK... has anyone ever applied?

Tony Bubb wrote: I would have thought that the 'however' clause would have supported the theory proposed here, since I thought to get approved one practically has to say that they have done the route on TR and checked the climbability, rock quality, and bolt placement... Has anyone ever been approved to place a bolt prior to attempting to on-sight a new route? OK... has anyone ever applied?

If I understand what you're getting at, I think this statement addresses your question:

"Proposed new routes which cannot be safely on sighted by Eldorado climbers competent at the grade or which expose climbers to dangers not faced by the applicant are factors against the application."

I understand the above statement to mean that if both the applicant and subsequent climbers - of equal ability - take the same precautions of previewing and rehearsing a dangerous route on toprope, then the risks of equipping that route so that it warrants an R or X rating would present equal risk to the applicant and subsequent climbers of the same ability.

Consequently, in this scenario, onsight ability would not apply.

Paradox:
How can the applicant propose a route for a bolt placement without having done it, then on-sight it with the bolt in place?

It seems that this clause would preclude that sort of route discussed here? Seems to make the proposal you just about have to have climbed it without the bolt, which means that you can only apply to *retrobolt* your own route if you don't want it made 'safe for any leader competent at the grade' or whatever. Like Mic Fairchild's Smoke and Mirrors... Soloed, then bolted.

Tony Bubb wrote:Paradox: How can the applicant propose a route for a bolt placement without having done it, then on-sight it with the bolt in place? It seems that this clause would preclude that sort of route discussed here? Seems to make the proposal you just about have to have climbed it without the bolt, which means that you can only apply to *retrobolt* your own route if you don't want it made 'safe for any leader competent at the grade' or whatever. Like Mic Fairchild's Smoke and Mirrors... Soloed, then bolted.

“1) Dangerous routes. Proposed routes with sparse protection, i.e. "R" and "X" rated routes, shall not be given favorable or unfavorable consideration on the basis of its boldness alone, but shall be evaluated based on the merits and quality of the climb itself.

However, routes which are rehearsed, top roped, then bolted, should be capable of being safely led on sight by an Eldorado climber competent at the grade.

Proposed new routes which cannot be safely on sighted by Eldorado climbers competent at the grade or which expose climbers to dangers not faced by the applicant are factors against the application.”

I agree that the Dangerous Routes clause isn’t worded well, although the auxiliary verb (should) and the conjunction (or) help to clarify the intended meaning, for me. The statement tells me that applications will be viewed less favorably if subsequent climbers are subjected to dangers beyond those faced by the first ascent party.

The way I see it, relative equalization of risk to FAs and subsequent climbers – of equal ability - can not be accomplished without insuring that the subsequent climbers are aware of the fact that the FAs toprope-rehearsed the route prior to the first ascent.

ABB wrote:For discussion’s sake what if someone led, ground-up, on-sight an extremely serious new pitch (X for very serious injury or death) and felt like they wanted to eliminate the death threat but maintain a high level of commitment, reducing it to an R rating. Could they apply for and receive approval to install a solitary bolt?

FHRC Guidelines wrote:The crux of the climb, if it is protected by bolts, should be safely bolted. Run-outs on easier terrain are a normal part of the Eldorado experience.

ABB is asking about retro-bolting a serious ground-up, on-sight lead to add a single protection bolt (presumably at the crux). This is clearly allowed by the FHRC guidelines.

Of course, it is the local climbing community, voting on the application, that decides the fate of the proposal, not just the members of the FHRC.

Wishbone is an example of a route that:

• Has bolts to protect the hardest climbing (11c).
• Is runout on easier terrain (10).
• Was approved by the local climbing community and the FHRC.

Dave Holliday wrote:Wishbone isn't quite the same as what ABB is proposing. I haven't been on Wishbone but I understand from reading comments here that although there's a big runout towards the end of the pitch, it's perfectly safe. ABB is proposing to make a route less dangerous, yet not completely safe, by adding a bolt.

The first ascensionist gives Wishbone a "PG13" rating. Another climber has given it an "R" rating. I wouldn't call it "perfectly safe."

Isn't it ironic that this committee, which was instigated to keep sport climbing out of Eldo, has now evolved into practically eliminating the possibility of bold and/or ground up bolted routes altogether?

Is it even possible to (legally) do a route ground up with fixed gear anymore?

I hope you're proud of yourselves...whoever you are.

As I recall, the FHRC was created to move from the moratorium on new fixed hardware to allow limited new fixed hardware.

Mike, the FHRC was not "instigated to keep sport climbing out of Eldo", but rather to allow for bolting to resume after it was shut down in the 1980s when bolt wars got out of control. The system isn't perfect (what is?), but it does allow for community involvement, discussion and debate, and the establishment of new bolted and/or mixed-gear routes when appropriate. Considering that consensus among climbers is impossible, the system functions well and is still improving. FHRC members are dedicated climbers who love Eldorado and work hard to keep the historical essence of the canyon alive while allowing limited bolting. I think the weak link in the system is the lack of community participation, particularly the dearth of climbers who on their own initiative check out new route proposals and provide informed input into the debate, rather than black/white opinions based on some contrived sport/trad dichotomy.

And by the way, there is still opportunity to establish ground-up, onsight new routes in Eldorado. You just have to do them on clean gear.

Steve Levin wrote:FHRC members are dedicated climbers who love Eldorado and work hard to keep the historical essence of the canyon alive while allowing limited bolting.

Steve Levin wrote:there is still opportunity to establish ground-up, onsight new routes in Eldorado. You just have to do them on clean gear.

Steve,

Wouldn't you agree that ground-up bolting of first ascents is also historically part of the essence of Eldo climbing and trad climbing, in general? If so, wouldn't allowing this type of bolting of new routes be in keeping with the classics that preceded the moratorium?

Some of the finest and boldest trad classics in the country were put up that way, and I can’t see how allowing this type of FA would detract from the essence of Eldo climbing. The application process would still address all of the other important considerations like: bolting too close to established routes, etc.

Maybe it’s time for FHRC and the local climbing community to sit down together and draft a proposal to submit to Eldo administrators, that would intelligently and responsibly make the case for allowing onsight, ground-up bolting of FAs in Eldo.

Ken, yes of course placing bolts on lead is a legitimate tactic in freeclimbing. My comment about establishing ground-up (clean) first ascents in Eldo was in the context of current restrictions. I'm not sure how allowing ground-up onsight bolting in Eldo would work, but pursuing the concept through the FHRC can't hurt. It does open a can of worms: How many bolts are OK? Will the quality of the route be worth the added metal? Does a ground-up strategy result in the best bolt locations? We're talking about a fairly limited resource here: one botched ground-up ascent is all it would take to end the experiment. There are already plenty of those in Eldo from the "good old days" when climbers did whatever they wanted. The reality is those days are gone.

Returning to the original post, it sounds reasonable for a first ascentionists to add a bolt to a route he/she has led onsight to make it safer, even if parts of the climb remain heads-up. The emphasis should be on the onsight experience. If a route has been inspected/rehearsed/headpointed I don't think the same standards apply in the context of the FHRC- prior knowledge of a route is a great advantage. In effect the FHRC would be sanctioning a scenario where an onsight climber is at a disadvantage...and if they get hurt the lawyers won't be far behind.

Outside the context of the FHRC (i.e. no fixed hardware), however, I see no problems with headpointing in Eldo, as long as the first ascent style is clearly stated. It isn't the best style, but it can allow new routes to be established with no alteration to the rock- or the need for formal debate. But that's a different thread entirely.

I will admit that I don't know thing one about this whole bolting application process, but I'm all for it, anything to keep Eldo in its current state is a good thing. I am, of course, in favor of new route development; be it clean gear, pins, or bolts if necessary. I have tons of respect for the traditional ground up, bolting on lead style - a style that should be kept alive in Eldo. It would be horrifying, however, to see a bunch gumbies coming straight form the gear shop with sky-hooks and sport climbing backgrounds running amok in Eldo putting up silly lines of bolts (ground up or not) that equate to weird contrived lines that do not uphold the Eldorado standard of quality and style.
This all seems to be a matter of where to draw lines. So where is that line to be drawn so that quality new routes can still be established, but there is also a safeguard from bizarre amateur endeavors drilling into the beautiful and HISTORIC walls of the canyon?
Like I said, I don't know shit from shit on this issue. I guess I would rather see Eldo remain exactly the way it is forever than risk it becoming something else .

Sam Benedict wrote:So where is that line to be drawn so that quality new routes can still be established, but there is also a safeguard from bizarre amateur endeavors drilling into the beautiful and HISTORIC walls of the canyon?

Sam,

No new routes with fixed protection (bolts or pins) can be established in Eldorado without going through the FHRC application and approval process -- this is the safeguard against "bizarre amateur endeavors".

The FHRC Guidelines provide a basis for evaluating new route applications. The FHRC members and the local climbing community vote on each application. If an application is approved, the applicant is granted a permit by the Park to install the new fixed hardware.

Installing ANY fixed hardware in the Park without a permit is forbidden.

One-for-one replacement (pin for pin, bolt for bolt) to upgrade existing fixed hardware does NOT have to go through the FHRC application and approval process; contact Steve Muehlhauser (steven.muehlhauser@state.co.us) at the park Visitor Center to get a permit if you want to do this.

Steve Levin wrote: Ken, yes of course placing bolts on lead is a legitimate tactic in freeclimbing. My comment about establishing ground-up (clean) first ascents in Eldo was in the context of current restrictions.

Steve,

I understood that your comment was meant in the context of the current restrictions, and I respect your position of wanting and/or needing to remain conservative on the issue.

You said that you are not sure that ground-up bolting would work. Well, that is definitely a possibility if Park administrators continue to insist on requiring every new route to meet an unrealistic standard of safety and perfection. This rigid criteria, by its very nature, disregards the adventure aspect of route development, which historically was also an integral part of the essence of traditional FAs before the moratorium. There is no adventure in having everything carefully and restrictively laid out ahead of time.

Steve Levin wrote:It does open a can of worms: How many bolts are OK?

As many as it takes, just as would be the case when establishing a ground-up FA in Yosemite.

One way to avoid over-bolting would be to only allow hand drilling of 3’8’ bolts. This method IS part of the essence of traditional climbing, whereas mapping out bolt placements on a toprope and then hanging there and equipping them with a Bosch is NOT. The latter is the tactic used at sport climbing crags, and in no way represents the traditional essence of Eldo climbing.

Steve Levin wrote:Will the quality of the route be worth the added metal?

By adventure standards, how can we know that ahead of time, and why should we have to have a guarantee of perfection? The best we can do is to evaluate the experience of the applicant, based on prior first ascents. Some will argue that this discriminates against less experienced route developers, which might be the case, although, considering the situation, that is an acceptable sacrifice. Less experienced developers could always team up with proven veterans in applying for permits. That way, FHRC and Park officials would have the confidence in knowing that FAs would be established in a competent manner.

Steve Levin wrote: We're talking about a fairly limited resource here: one botched ground-up ascent is all it would take to end the experiment.

Eldo is a limited resource, which is all the more reason why the remaining lines should be allowed to be established in the same bold and adventuresome style of the great classics that gave Eldorado Canyon its International reputation.

Routes that are put up in bold, visionary style leave a positive and lasting impression not only on the first ascent party, but also on everyone who repeats them. When a FA is done in this style, it instills an added sense of inspiration for subsequent climbers who aspire to meet its challenge, and then a greater sense of pride when they have accomplished that goal.

I have done hundreds of sport routes whose names I never bothered to know, or just forgot, but the memories of routes like The Naked Edge, The Rostrum, and The Prow stay in my brain as if I did them yesterday. Given that the resource is limited is all the more reason why we should develop the remaining lines in a manner that leaves a positive and lasting impression on all who climb them.

KC

ABB wrote: My aim is to restore the ability to have a first-ascent adventure on one’s own terms rather than by mandate.

To bring this back to the original thread, assuming that the topic was actually up to debate with FHRC & ECSP.

There are three options of change:

1. More restrictions on bolting by Park Officials, which nobody wants, including the park rangers as it is more work for them.

2. The status quo, FHRC. A council of climbers who take public input and recommend approval to the park.

3. Looser restrictions than currently available. A new line drawn in the sand that allows for ABB's aim. This begs the question:
"Do you trust everyone, including the sport climber with hand drill, to make the same decisions as you would about where he/she chooses to put bolts on lead?"

My guess is 'no'.

So what's wrong with Option #2 if you have an opportunity to be a part of the system?

Ken, good points, you should take this up with the FHRC. Regardless, there are limited possibilities for ground-up climbing in Eldo, whether or not one has a drill and hammer.
I don't think the Park insists on unrealistic "standards of safety and perfection"; I think they simply want to avoid the proliferation of bolting.

"The essence of Eldo climbing" is open to interpretation. The history of route development in the canyon is complex, and yes, bolts have played a part in that history. Many were placed from aiders or pins, some (I'd argue comparatively few) "onsight" from natural stances or hooks, many from hanging on a rope. The early freeclimbing pioneers assaulted the old aid routes onsight using in-situ gear and a rack of nuts, or they climbed unknown terrain with nuts only. That period may have been the culmination of Eldorado "traditional" freeclimbing. I don't think any of the freeclimbing pioneers (Erickson, Briggs, Reveley etc.) carried a hammer and hand drill- their modus was to follow the "clean climbing revolution". The bolting tactic didn't resurface until the early 1980s. As the rock resource became exploited more and more by any means at hand- right up to toprope inspection and bolt placement on rappel- an explosion of new route activity occured. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but if you look at many of the routes established during that time you will see quite a number of poorly-conceived routes with bolts and/or pins that no one does (except the sorry sod writing the guidebook). I entirely agree that adventure should be an integral part of climbing, including aspects of new route development. But if you look at the reality of what is left in Eldorado, it is not a place where the unrestricted pursuit of adventure has much potential. So I would argue that ground-up bolting has no place in Eldorado, rather the future of new route development is limited to bolted routes approved by the FHRC, headpoints, toproping, and ground-up clean climbing.

Gotta duck out of this now, but interesting points of view and discussion. Cheers.