.

.

I've always heard and followed the guidelines that a route isnt FA'ed until it is led ground up. Even if the thing has been done on TR, it isnt officially established until it is led, be it on gear, bolts or solo. I am from the Carolina's and we follow many traditions that many folks dont agree with (you obviously know this by participating on that 10 page rambling on Stone Mtn), but most all of my partners agree with this viewpoint. To claim an "FA" by TRing something seems pretty petty and short sighted...as with many Carolina traditions, this is the state that the route is expected to remain as unless the FA'er says otherwise, and no real climber really wants to climb a bunch of TR's that could be led otherwise. Climbing has become so diluted with personal opinions of how to establish routes and treat the rock that you are bound to get more answers than you could even imagine...but once again, sticking with the traditions of the area and respecting those that came before you should be of utmost concern when establishing a new line, no matter where you are climbing.

I'm literally speachless. That may be one of the longest posts I've actually read congratulations.

Chicanery, boondogglery, and shenanigans?

Chill out, seems like your caught up in the ethics. Go out and pave a trail that's awesome, get to the top and find the end of another trail already goes there does it make that any less impressive? I say Congratulations on your new route.

I feel like leading it on gear and finishing the route makes it a First Ascent regardless if it has been TRd before.

Where I keep going back and forth is what ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES a route.

Is top roping it clean and sending the route and giving it a name and a rating ESTABLISHES a route?

Or only once the route HAS been led on gear (forget sport) does it actually become established and you can say you put up a route/line

also curious what everyone else thinks.

A lot of the crags I enjoy were developed in what I guess you could call a minimalist fashion. If the climb took gear then this was what was done. If it was unprotectable but feasible to TR then this was what was done. If unprotectable and not feasible to TR then the faces were bolted in a minimalistic fashion (probably gu but maybe rap bolted).

If everyone plays by these rules then all is well but I've returned to some of my previous haunts to find classic TR faces with a bolt every body length. When I see this I always wonder why anyone would go to the trouble and expense to do this. Then I log onto the proj and see all the arguments about how sport climbing isn't really climbing or tr'ing isn't really climbing and I remember that ego drives many of us to do the things we do. Btw I don't mean any of my rambling to reflect on the OP as this obviouly doesn't apply to his situation.

so here we are in Southern Arizona looking at all those Rocks in Catalinas and only one book! ONE BOOK! There are so many routes waiting for FA...sport , trad , mix, good areas to farm ice too. Approach trails need to be created , paths to be paved everywhere! It is time to roll up your sleves, dust off yer bolt guns, recruit enough boy scouts to clean the bush and get a new Mt. Lemmon book producing. Also the name should be Catalina Foothills Climbing btw. Ethics schmetics...some work needs to be done in this place!

CJC wrote: Careful. I know you're new to a lot of this and probably just a bit fired up but a lot of people esp in AZ don't want these climbing areas developed to the point of cairned, improved trails to every cliff, fixed gear everywhere and a fat guidebook too bring the masses around places they'd never find on their own. Try to consider the ultimate impacts of your pro-development, publish everything enthusiasm. Your 'ethics, schmethics' bullshit won't get you too far down there son, To the original point, the only reason an established TR gets sprayed with retro-bolts is ego. If it's a TR because there's sketchy gear or runouts and it gets lead on gear it's a different story. But turning a TR into a clip up is pretty clearly an ego stroke.

Who cares how you bolt the route. Clean up the mofo and let us climb it. Egos aside old master.

Ye, and don't waste yer time and bolts on bolting some established TR routes...that just shows lack of imagination.

ethics are like assholes, everyone has one and no two are identical

Best topic title in a few months,,,,deceivery' is such a beastly foe to combat.

So if someone onsight solos an FA with the specific intent of never bolting it and keeping it as either a TR or as a very bold lead/solo...is that legit? Or can it be later bolted by others because that is ridiculous?
-Pine Cone Dave

I've (FA) soloed routes that I originally TRed to have them "officially" established in my local area and immediately given permission to those wanting to bolt it (top down even) because they were scared to place bolts on lead. Funny thing is nobody has bolted the routes since...I guess they were more in it for notoriety than establishing routes for the local community. I really wanted them bolted (the cliff won't take gear) so others could enjoy them, but don't own a drill, so I saw this as the best way for them to be bolted and still stick to Carolina traditions of ground up and FAers permission. Then again, my intent was not to establish a scary unprotected route, in perpetuity, to show folks how big a douche I was.

Brad, that is a very interesting situation indeed.
But what if the crag is tiny and actually does accept some gear. What if you want to keep the place strictly TR's and trad?

If it takes gear, climb it with gear. Keeping a mini crag strictly TR seems really silly to me...unless the idea is to create a gumby crag to keep TRers away from lead routes that get overcrowded at another nearby crag. Once again, local tradition will help dictate things when in doubt.

The short answer, every circumstance and area is different. The ethics of climbing is a living philosophy, constantly growing and evolving. Sometimes for the good and sometimes to the detriment of the sport. Like any conglomeration, our community spans the full spectrum from ultra-purist to ultra-I-don't-give-a-fuck. Intent is very important as well. Stepping on somebody's toes (or climb) on purpose is very different from the exact same act done unintentionally.

VaGenius, you feel to be a conscientious, observant person and having done a considerable amount of climbing in Red Rock myself, I'm certain that if the cliff you climbed broke that many holds, that your assessment of it being a virgin line is accurate. In the circumstances of the route you established, I vote leave 'er be. In another area or with different circumstances I might vote otherwise.

Converting a top rope to a lead is a gray area for sure. I learned to climb in a deeply traditional area where placing bolts on lead from a hook instead of a stance had only recently been accepted. Some previously top roped routes were deemed by our multi-generational local community to be fair game for establishing a lead. Others were total sacrilege to consider converting to a lead. Even putting bolted anchors at the top of these sacred climbs is not tolerated.

It's a big world and there is still a ton of new routes available to be done with room for everyone and every style. Granted, that finite window will close much more rapidly with the Onceler minded approach proffered by saguaro sandy. However a person chooses to approach climbing or establishing routes is always a personal choice but if it is done with respect towards our environment, fellow climbers and even nonclimbers, in my opinion, the results will always be superior to a disrespectful one and the world a better place.

Conclusion: The title of this post is my new favorite and I agree with Brad Caldwell, local ethics are the dispositive factor that trump the rest.

The Onceler, who cuts down all the trees in The Lorax.

I am of the opinion that if a route that has or can be done on toprope gets bolted, it should be done on rap. You can keep runouts consistent with the area, but coming from NC, I feel like ground up bolt jobs almost always climb worse than rap bolted ones. So many times I find myself wondering, "why in the world is this bolt here, and not higher/lower/etc". No one is ever going to repeat a route on hooks ever again, and yet it's bolting stances and hook placements that usually designate bolt locations- factors only germane to the FA party and no one else. It's usually about "bagging" the line, rather than putting thought into creating a quality lead. If you can already toprope it, then the climbing experience should determine the bolt locations. Unfortunately, it's usually all about the FA'er, and rarely about the hundreds or thousands of climbers that come after, particularly here in NC with it's distinct brand of FA worship and dick swinging.

This opinion is limited to single pitch lines with cliffline access.

Rap bolting usually makes for a terrible line. Bolts are usually ill placed at bad clipping stances or at no stance at all. I've never climbed a rap bolted route in my life and thought it was better protected than one established in good NC style.

It's true that most rap bolters bolt a higher density of bolts per pitch than ground up. That isn't the issue for me- if you can climb it on toprope, and especially if it's already been done, then one should climb it on toprope to determine optimal protection locations. Then, if you want to drill ground up or top down, it doesn't really matter. I've just experienced so many instances of being at a great clipping stance, only to have the bolt two feet out of reach. It almost seems like the FA'er was _trying_ to be a jerk.

I'm not saying this would be appropriate in all cases- I'm trying to relegate this opinion to these specific circumstances. If it's known that a route has been climbed before on TR, then the "value" of the FA for the subsequent bolter seems to be undermined in the first place.

I've just been on what seems like a lot of routes where the bolt placement seems based solely on a GU driller's perspective rather than a climber's perspective. In situations where the route already has a history, I feel like the protection should go where the route climbs, not where it aids.

You said "TRing something from a top anchor doesn't establish all that much of a future ownership situation". Mr. Caldwell said that a FA claimed by TR would be petty and short sighted, citing NC custom. However, I don't really see how it could be argued that bolting a climb that has or even could be TR'ed would ever seem more "ethical" than the climb remaining a TR, especially with all the rock fetishization that goes on in these parts. This strange ethic seems contradictory- change/damage the rock as little as possible, but it's not a real climb unless it's done on lead (bolted). So who's interests are most served by this ethic: the rock, the FAer's ego, or the subsequent climber? I'd say the ego.