Why do people chop bolt anchors?

Saw this again on an easy two-pitch route yesterday, and I just don’t get it. I lead the first pitch, look around for anchors, and see two rusting nubs where an anchor used to be. Like obviously there are other options and in this case there were plenty, but why? Especially on a 5.5 that newbies are likely to climb and might even be their first multi pitch. Plus, with the increased likelihood of newbies (and therefore lots of them), why get rid of something that will likely speed up the process? 

As a preemptive response to “bolts are ugly,” I’d say yeah but it’s already done and the rusting nubs that are left after chopping aren’t any prettier. 

Respect local ethics and traditions. In some places, convenience anchors are not tolerated. We don't live in a homogeneous world, thankfully. Not every easy route will be pampered up for the beginners. Beginners need to learn to place pro and build anchors too. The fact beginners might try this climb is not a legit reason to bolt the anchors.

I appreciate the thoughtful responses—sometimes the hateful snark on these forums is counterproductive. And yeah, that’s kind of what I expected. I guess I just have a hard time relating to the motivation to un-develop something poorly—like, your code of ethics is strong enough to motivate you to snap the bolt heads and hangers off but not strong enough to put the work in to actually remove the bolt and patch it up? Seems more like resentment than ethics to me. 

Samuel Johnson wrote:

 I lead the first pitch, look around for anchors, and see two rusting nubs where an anchor used to be. 

There could be a clue in that sentence. 

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Respect local ethics and traditions. In some places, convenience anchors are not tolerated. We don't live in a homogeneous world, thankfully. Not every easy route will be pampered up for the beginners. Beginners need to learn to place pro and build anchors too. The fact beginners might try this climb is not a legit reason to bolt the anchors.

I'm sure local ethics and traditions involve leaving two nasty, rusty, chopped bolts instead of neatly patched holes.

Also possible that there's a batshit crazy person going around chopping bolts willy-nilly, just because...

Wouldn't be the first or the last time.

First of all, it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Sometimes anchor bolts should be removed sometimes they shouldn’t. So we’d need the details of this climb to make a judgement if the bolts should have been removed.

Secondly if someone left studs it indicates whoever removed them did it for the wrong reasons. Either they stole the hangers, or they let their ego rule them and instead of doing it the right way and pulling the studs and patching the holes, they made a worse mess. At least they didn’t just smash the hangers, that’s the sign of a total loser.

Third, it’s not about bolts being ugly. It’s about preserving the challenge of the climb the way the FA decided to equip it. It’s an imperfect rule but it’s the best way to maintain climbs. Chances are if the bolts were removed, they weren’t put there by the FA. Beginners should have the challenge of building multipitch anchors, and the mental challenge of committing to a  two pitch route without an easy way to rap off.

Fourth, there can be selfish reasons why better climbers remove the bolts. E.g. they don’t want more beginners clogging up an already busy line. They don’t want people climbing only the first pitch and rapping off so there’s parties using only half of a climb when others may climb the whole thing. These may be selfish reasons, but if supported by the first ascent principle (leave the climb as the FA did it) then they’re just ‘bonus’ reasons.

I agree that, if someone is going to chop bolts, they should do a better job patching!  Chopped, rusty stubs are ugly.  I do a lot of rebolting, and so I have to occasionally chop and patch.  I like to use JBWood (for sandstone) or JBWeld (for granite) to patch any exposed holes or stubs.  Mix it with sand from the base of the cliff for a decent looking patch.

Egos or some variation on egos.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Respect local ethics and traditions. In some places, convenience anchors are not tolerated. We don't live in a homogeneous world, thankfully. Not every easy route will be pampered up for the beginners. Beginners need to learn to place pro and build anchors too. The fact beginners might try this climb is not a legit reason to bolt the anchors.

I want to complicate this a little and say "what if it's a super thin finger crack that ends at the top of a formation, and the only cracks on top are #8 cracks?"

What if the historic anchor was a tree that fell off after all members of the FA party died of old age?

Petsfed 00 wrote:

I want to complicate this a little and say "what if it's a super thin finger crack that ends at the top of a formation, and the only cracks on top are #8 cracks?"

What if the historic anchor was a tree that fell off after all members of the FA party died of old age?

It depends on the situation and actions speak louder than words. If a tree fell off, or was just being killed from rapping off it, and people added bolt anchors to rap off, then typically the community understands and doesn't chop the added anchors. For example at the Gunks they added a LOT of bolt rappel anchors. But the alternative was hiking far sideways across the top of the crag, causing erosion and a risk of dislodging rocks on people below, so no one chops these anchors. While at Cathedral Peak in Yosemite someone added rap anchors on the summit block, which is a 20 foot high spire like summit. But John Muir did the first ascent in sheepherders boots in the 1800s and it's a pristine summit. Those bolts were just for convenience and to speed up people summiting and rapping off, so due to the historic and wild nature of the summit they were quickly removed.

Glowering wrote:

It depends on the situation and actions speak louder than words. If a tree fell off, or was just being killed from rapping off it, and people added bolt anchors to rap off, then typically the community understands and doesn't chop the added anchors. For example at the Gunks they added a LOT of bolt rappel anchors. But the alternative was hiking far sideways across the top of the crag, causing erosion and a risk of dislodging rocks on people below, so no one chops these anchors. While at Cathedral Peak in Yosemite someone added rap anchors on the summit block, which is a 20 foot high spire like summit. But John Muir did the first ascent in sheepherders boots in the 1800s and it's a pristine summit. Those bolts were just for convenience and to speed up people summiting and rapping off, so due to the historic and wild nature of the summit they were quickly removed.

That's fair. I can get on board with a mandatory summit downclimb.

I have encountered cases where the FA walked off or downclimbed, but future parties slung blocks or trees or whatever and rapped, to the point that nobody does the walk off any more. At that point, bolting the convenience rappel becomes the least impactful way to mitigate the fact that people aren't respecting the style of the FA. There are also situations where the descent trail is having a considerably worse impact on access than bolts ever would (somewhere in Quebec, they keep getting cliffs closed because the clifftop is a fragile biome, but the rock face is just fine).

What I'm saying is that it's all well and good to say "respect the style of the FA", but sometimes you can't, and sometimes you can't convince other people to respect the FA. And sometimes the FA was done by assholes. So think critically about all bolt-chopoing, even if it feels right.

Glowering wrote:

For example at the Gunks they added a LOT of bolt rappel anchors. But the alternative was hiking far sideways across the top of the crag, causing erosion and a risk of dislodging rocks on people below, so no one chops these anchors.

The Gunks is a special case.  The anchors were added by the Preserve, which owns the land.  Climbers are not allowed to place bolts themselves, and they certainly aren't allowed to chop the bolts placed by the Preserve.  The Preserve has an anchor subcommittee that receives proposals for new bolts, discusses the pros and cons, and arrives at a decision. Unlike almost any other locale, the Preserve is responsible for maintaining the bolts it has placed, trains its personnel according to industrial standards, keeps records, and does periodic inspections.  

Although the reasoning has varied over the years, the main concern recently has been to mitigate the environmental effects of climbing. But that may be changing, because a recent convenience anchor that had no environmental impact was replaced with bolts.

Much of the problem with bolting in other areas is that anyone can buy a drill and decide to place bolts, typically to conform to their concept of "public service." Some of this work is indeed a public service, but other examples reveal either a clueless appreciation for the area or a fuck 'em I'll do whatever I please attitude, possibly augmented with substandard skills in selecting the bolt type and placement locale. There is also a tremendous asymmetry in the placing and removing processes, which produces arguments for leaving in place bolts that arguably should never have been placed to begin with, like the ones mentioned by the OP, installed where there were already plentiful natural options, and probably turning a two-pitch route into a one-pitch top-roping venue. Edit: in this regard, see https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/124684303/why-do-people-chop-bolt-anchors#ForumMessage-124690252.

As climbing has developed and diversified, new demographics have become part of the mix, with a resulting diminution of consensus. Climbers no longer come to these questions from a shared background and outlook, and in some cases I wonder whether the gap can even be bridged.

Samuel Johnson wrote:

Saw this again on an easy two-pitch route yesterday, and I just don’t get it. I lead the first pitch, look around for anchors, and see two rusting nubs where an anchor used to be. Like obviously there are other options and in this case there were plenty, but why? Especially on a 5.5 that newbies are likely to climb and might even be their first multi pitch. Plus, with the increased likelihood of newbies (and therefore lots of them), why get rid of something that will likely speed up the process? 

As a preemptive response to “bolts are ugly,” I’d say yeah but it’s already done and the rusting nubs that are left after chopping aren’t any prettier. 

You answered the question yourself, "there are other options and in this case there were plenty."

Plus "speeding up the process" for noobs isn't the point of bolts.

Russ Walling wrote:

There could be a clue in that sentence. 

You don’t look for bolt anchors before building one? I mean, more power to ya but if they’re there I’m probably gonna use ‘em. 

Samuel, which route did these chopped bolts happen to be on? (Feel free to private message me) Since it looks like most of your ticks are from the Red River Gorge I might be able to shed some light on a specific instance. I know of one in particular that fits your description.  

DrRockso RRG wrote:

Samuel, which route did these chopped bolts happen to be on? Since it looks like most of your ticks are from the Red River Gorge I might be able to shed some light on a specific instance. I know of one in particular that fits your description.  

Father’s Day at Emerald City.

I thought that might be route you were talking about,  I didn't chop these anchors but do know why they were chopped.  

1. They were illegally installed on National Forest land without permission. 

2. They were wedge/stud bolts that were both improperly installed and an inappropriate anchor choice for the local stone.

3. They were installed as  a convenience top rope anchor on what has traditionally been a multipitch route that you top out the cliff on. Even so slinging a tree would provide this route of access for parties wishing to do this.  

4. A gigantic tree is typically used as the 1st pitch belay,  so there was no upgrade in safety offered by the bolts. Additionally the tree provides a good belay stance while the belay stance of the bolted anchor was poor and not well suited for transitioning to the second pitch belay area.  

5. The second pitch has never had bolted anchors,  so it was inconsistent with the rest of the route.  A single rappel with a doubled 70m gets you all the way back to the ground from a slung tree, or rappel 15 feet to the top of a neigboring sport route anchors,  or take a buschwhacky but otherwise easy walk off. 

Samuel Johnson wrote:

I guess I just have a hard time relating to the motivation to un-develop something poorly—like, your code of ethics is strong enough to motivate you to snap the bolt heads and hangers off but not strong enough to put the work in to actually remove the bolt and patch it up? Seems more like resentment than ethics to me. 

100% !!!!

If you are going to do something, do it well. 

Thanks for the insight, I guess this instance is on the more reasonable side of the spectrum, huh. I do still wish that, even with proper justification, reasonable effort would be made to return the wall to as close to undisturbed as possible. Though I guess if these weren’t installed properly then safety might justify a hasty chop. I’ll patch it myself if anyone has suggestions on where/how to learn to do it properly.

James M wrote:

100% !!!!

If you are going to do something, do it well. 

Sure, but "they were wedge/stud bolts that were both improperly installed and an inappropriate anchor for the local stone.," at which point immediate action might be called for.  Perhaps the choppers (who in this case are the ones performing the public service) intend to come back to clean up the mess resulting from bad (and inappropriate) bolting.