Who owns the route?

I know, I know, this question has been asked a million times, but newer climbers read these posts and benefit for hearing different viewpoints. There was a FB thread in my local area about "why can't 20 year old bolted routes put up in a style also requiring 1-2 cam placements be retro-bolted to eliminate the need to make those placements?" The thread included this comment at the bottom below, in quotes. 

I feel the FA party can and should have the power to decide whether or not bolts should be added to their route - this is an imperfect approach BUT any other approach leads to anarchy and chaos. I also question the assumption (in the quote) that an FA party puts up a route "for the community to use." I put up routes for myself, and a related goal is that some in the community may "use them." I say "some" because not every climber needs to be able to lead every route. I put them up in a style I think ought to be safe for an onsight, but I do that for my own ethics, not because I am gifting the community a route. The community didn't ask for my route, they didn't pay me for it, and sometimes they even criticize it. 

But when the route is on public land it's hard to say the FA party and not the community owns it, any more than the first person to cut a trail up to a lake can be said to "own the trail" and have the right to refuse people to develop switchbacks at steep spots (i.e retro-bolting). This is why I admit my view is imperfect, even if I can't come up with a better approach. That said, if someone were to add bolts to every classic Allen Watts route at smith rock, because the runouts scare them, would that be better than having Allen Watts be the sole person with the power over the routes he put up? (and then someone else chops those bolts, which I'd call anarchy and chaos)

I guess what I'm saying is, tell me a better approach (actionable, clarity-creating, non-trolling) than empowering the FA party to allow or forbid bolts on their routes. Here's the quote:

"Everyone has different reasons for establishing new routes but personally, I’ve always seen it as a contribution to the greater climbing community. FAs who stand on their pedestal and shout about “ethics”, owning their route, and maintaining “tradition” has always felt neocolonialist to me. You don’t own the rock. The main question is: Why are you putting up routes, if not for the community to use? And if the community using the land your route is on is changing, the overall culture of a crag is changing, and wants something different, why not listen to them? The answer is always your own personal ego." 

PS - I do expect that developers will agree with me, non-developers will say developers are all about the ego for simply asking their routes/visions not be be tampered with, yet those same non-developers would come around to the developer view if and when they develop a route. Funny how that works. 

It’s mostly that newer or less experienced climbers haven’t experienced the bolt wars intimately. They haven’t seen a chopped route before. The FAist system is imperfect but they don’t realize what bolt wars do to threaten access as a whole. 

1.  What if the (development) community overwhelmingly feels the route was put up in poor style?

2.  What if the FA cannot be contacted (missing in action)?

  2a.  OR what if the FA can be contacted but they haven’t gone climbing in 20 years and are no longer part of the climbing community at all? (E.g. they now weigh 300lbs and live in texas)

3.  What if the FA party barely did any work in establishing the line (e.g. its a single pitch 5.7 on immaculate already clean rock next to a high traffic hiking trail)?

4.  What if points 1-3 above are all applicable simultaneously ?

ALSO: i think everyone who voices an opinion in this thread should have to disclose whether or not they are a route developer. “Consumers” don’t really know what its all about so their opinion matters less imo.

Disclosure: i’m a developer look at my contributions

The FAist system is bull shit for a lot of reasons. Primarily because anytime the FA says, "Go ahead and add some bolts," all the old crusties immediately abandon that FAist system and start chanting "tradition!" 

Creed Archibald wrote:

The FAist system is bull shit for a lot of reasons. Primarily because anytime the FA says, "Go ahead and add some bolts," all the old crusties immediately abandon that FAist system and start chanting "tradition!" 

The Retro bolt Snake Dike thread comes to mind lol

bryans wrote:

"Why are you putting up routes, if not for the community to use? And if the community using the land your route is on is changing, the overall culture of a crag is changing, and wants something different, why not listen to them? The answer is always your own personal ego." 

That's a pretty funny and short-sighted take.

As with most things, the answer to the question is not black and white and lies somewhere between "the FA is God" and "retro-bolt it for gym climbers". FAs get things wrong, and I've found that many are open to suggestion, especially if you're willing and able to go do the work to move or add a bolt. Generally, I believe the FA is the most intimately familiar with a route and best equipped to decide whether the protection should be changed.

My other belief is that invested locals are allowed to make changes against the direct wishes of the FA (or an absent FA) is if there's a proven track record of people getting hurt on the route. There's a few examples that come to mind of routes where an onsighting climber has a huge safety disadvantage compared to the FA because they didn't inspect all of the placements and moves, thus the FA may have made poor protection decisions. A 3/8" hole in a rock isn't worth multiple broken backs and limbs. 

Disclosure: i’m a developer

Shocking.

Creed Archibald wrote:

The FAist system is bull shit for a lot of reasons. Primarily because anytime the FA says, "Go ahead and add some bolts," all the old crusties immediately abandon that FAist system and start chanting "tradition!" 

I wouldn't say it like that, rather I would say that the FA system prioritizes multiple things and sometimes those things end up on conflict with each other. Namely prioritizing FA input and preserving the character of the route. It is good to want to preserve both those things but that does mean that sometimes those two things will collide. 

No one beside the landowner or a government entity owns the route. And no one owns any fixed or abandoned gear that they left on the route, because it’s abandoned property. 

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Shocking.

I have reviewed your contributions and determined your opinion does not matter lol

Seth Morgan wrote:

It’s mostly that newer or less experienced climbers haven’t experienced the bolt wars intimately. They haven’t seen a chopped route before. The FAist system is imperfect but they don’t realize what bolt wars do to threaten access as a whole. 

Is this an argument that we should never add bolts, or that traditionalists should throw bolt-chopping, public-complaining tantrums when they don't get their way?

From what I have seen, the tantrums and complaining to land managers are what lead to access issues, not the addition or removal of bolts themselves. A camouflaged bolt, or well-patched hole from a removed bolt, are rarely an issue so long as they follow the land management rules.  I've never heard of an instance where a land manager knew or cared whether a route has 8 bolts or 9 bolts. But they do care when there are irate climbers showing up at their office making it their issue. 

I think the best ethic is to do whatever would cause the least commotion for the land manager. If 10 people write you an email saying your route is dangerous, it is likely they would also complain to the land manager. But if 20 people email the land manager because you added a bolt then adding the bolt is probably the incorrect decision. In short whatever the local tradition is, I would stick with that since that is what people are accustom too. 

If the crag is 90% sport climbs, I would not have any issue retrobolting the trad routes.
If 80% of the crag is scary trad routes, then I would not retro bolt.

- TRT wrote:

I think the best ethic is to do whatever would cause the least commotion for the land manager. If 10 people write you an email saying your route is dangerous, it is likely they would also complain to the land manager. But if 20 people email the land manager because you added a bolt then adding the bolt is probably the incorrect decision. In short whatever the local tradition is, I would stick with that since that is what people are accustom too. 

If the crag is 90% sport climbs, I would not have any issue retrobolting the trad routes.
If 80% of the crag is scary trad routes, then I would not retro bolt.

I'm not sure we can trust your opinion either.  I heard you hang out with that "chode" fellow....

- TRT wrote:

I think the best ethic is to do whatever would cause the least commotion for the land manager. If 10 people write you an email saying your route is dangerous, it is likely they would also complain to the land manager. But if 20 people email the land manager because you added a bolt then adding the bolt is probably the incorrect decision. In short whatever the local tradition is, I would stick with that since that is what people are accustom too. 

If the crag is 90% sport climbs, I would not have any issue retrobolting the trad routes.
If 80% of the crag is scary trad routes, then I would not retro bolt.

Trevor, do people actually complain to land managers about the bolting of a specific route? I've never heard of anyone doing that before. 

JCM wrote:

Is this an argument that we should never add bolts, or that traditionalists should throw bolt-chopping, public-complaining tantrums when they don't get their way?

From what I have seen, the tantrums and complaining to land managers are what lead to access issues, not the addition or removal of bolts themselves. A camouflaged bolt, or well-patched hole from a removed bolt, are rarely an issue so long as they follow the land management rules.  I've never heard of an instance where a land manager knew or cared whether a route has 8 bolts or 9 bolts. But they do care when there are irate climbers showing up at their office making it their issue. 

I'm just merely reporting that we are in a holding pattern decision-making wise in following the FAist method. In some contentious areas moving the needle one way or the other merely infuriates one camp or the other to action and the least amount of friction (so far) is that the FA decides the style for the most part. 

I also think it's worth discussing what happens when a route falls into disuse/ disrepair. In my opinion I think that in most cases this means that the FA has lost the right to be the owner of the route, and the community now has the right to decide to add/remove/move bolts on the route. 

This is a situation that I see at index a lot; A route was sparsely bolted in the 80/90s, nobody climbed it for thirty years because of the bolting, it is now mossed over and the only thing that identifies it as a rock climb is hangers sticking out the moss and a guidebook entry. In my opinion, whoever decides to clean it/ re-bolt it has earned the right to modify the climb as they wish. A caveat would be if the climb is in the alpine, remote, or an absolute classic test piece. The Bachar/Yerian sees very few ascents, but I don't think that it should be handed over to the community for retro bolting. 

Personally, I don't think the first ascensionist is entitled to perpetual supremacy over a piece of rock, nor is the aspiring climber entitled to bolt ladder access up every route under the sun. 

I know there are exceptions out there, but the developers I know are open to input and willing to add bolts if approached reasonably with a compelling, safety-related argument. 

Approach 1: A bunch of random people complain about having to bring cams to a crag or having to risk life and limb to perform a recreational activity. Refer to those who worked hard to make climbing a route possible in the first place as gate keepers. Expect someone else to fix the perceived problem.

Approach 2: Random climber retro-bolts route with the best of intentions and little local input.

Approach 3: Someone politely contacts first ascensionist, proposes a new bolt or two to protect sketchy sections, and offers to supply the hardware and labor. Expresses an interest in climbing the route together if it's a conversation better had on-site.

To the advocates of retro-bolting I'll ask: Which approach is most likely to work?

Yes I do develop routes, but nothing worth crossing state lines to climb. I like the ideal of developing for the "community", but have plenty of other (egoic?) motivations. I prefer to climb away from crowds. I like the creative process and the mystery. I get no end of amusement from encountering a giant white X on a block that I couldn't move with a crowbar.

Hangdog Hank wrote:

I also think it's worth discussing what happens when a route falls into disuse/ disrepair. In my opinion I think that in most cases this means that the FA has lost the right to be the owner of the route, and the community now has the right to decide to add/remove/move bolts on the route. 

This is a situation that I see at index a lot; A route was sparsely bolted in the 80/90s, nobody climbed it for thirty years because of the bolting, it is now mossed over and the only thing that identifies it as a rock climb is hangers sticking out the moss and a guidebook entry. In my opinion, whoever decides to clean it/ re-bolt it has earned the right to modify the climb as they wish. A caveat would be if the climb is in the alpine, remote, or an absolute classic test piece. The Bachar/Yerian sees very few ascents, but I don't think that it should be handed over to the community for retro bolting. 

I would add that if the old, dangerous route is still seeing limited ascents then the opinion of those who have climbed the route as is should get the most input. Just because a climb doesn't see many ascents doesn't mean it should necessarily be retrobolted for more ascents. 

If the few ascents the route gets are very meaningful to those that do climb it then you're losing a lot by retrobolting it. If the few people who have climbed the thing think the runouts are silly and unnecessary and don't add to the climb then I there's a much more compelling argument to retrobolt it. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105959935/bron-yr-aur

Lets look at the wall and the route. Originally circa 1985 when the first guide came out the routes were a far different character. https://climbaz.com/sabino_canyon/page_html/page164.html

By 1993, a number of sport routes drilled over many of the old lines i.e. Bloody Likely, Mice and Men are just gone. In Oct 1990 on a very cold day I lead out with a crew of four starting on Bloody Likely and went straight up. Essentially "In Lightning" 140' to the horizontal band without clipping a bolt as none existed. Anyway, developers came in and drilled what they could. Bron Yr Aur was somehow spared but is out of place now. One bolt on first pitch and one bolt on second. No one does the second (I have) and few even try the first. Not hard by todays standard but no one carries gear. If you drill it- leading the route will no longer emulate the first ascent experience. It will just be a common sport line with an anchor midpitch. https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106047820/two-for-a-peso has this happen to it. Once an intimidating route taking "three sets of brass nuts" leading to summit ridge. Now an 80' sport pitch.

My thoughts are carry the rack and use it whenever it needs to be used and skip the bolts when you can.

Ricky Harline wrote:

I would add that if the old, dangerous route is still seeing limited ascents then the opinion of those who have climbed the route as is should get the most input. Just because a climb doesn't see many ascents doesn't mean it should necessarily be retrobolted for more ascents. 

If the few ascents the route gets are very meaningful to those that do climb it then you're losing a lot by retrobolting it. If the few people who have climbed the thing think the runouts are silly and unnecessary and don't add to the climb then I there's a much more compelling argument to retrobolt it. 

Thats a good point Ricky! I think it's worth mentioning though that in a lot of Washington (especially Index) when a climb doesn't get a lot of ascents it becomes essentially imposible to climb due to moss growth. However, I do agree with your opinion for climbs that stay climbable. 

Logan Peterson wrote:

Personally, I don't think the first ascensionist is entitled to perpetual supremacy over a piece of rock, nor is the aspiring climber entitled to bolt ladder access up every route under the sun. 

I know there are exceptions out there, but the developers I know are open to input and willing to add bolts if approached reasonably with a compelling, safety-related argument. 

Approach 1: A bunch of random people complain about having to bring cams to a crag or having to risk life and limb to perform a recreational activity. Refer to those who worked hard to make climbing a route possible in the first place as gate keepers. Expect someone else to fix the perceived problem.

Approach 2: Random climber retro-bolts route with the best of intentions and little local input.

Approach 3: Someone politely contacts first ascensionist, proposes a new bolt or two to protect sketchy sections, and offers to supply the hardware and labor. Expresses an interest in climbing the route together if it's a conversation better had on-site.

To the advocates of retro-bolting I'll ask: Which approach is most likely to work?

Yes I do develop routes, but nothing worth crossing state lines to climb. I like the ideal of developing for the "community", but have plenty of other (egoic?) motivations. I prefer to climb away from crowds. I like the creative process and the mystery. I get no end of amusement from encountering a giant white X on a block that I couldn't move with a crowbar.

I'm on board with all of this, very well written. Hey new climbers, and people who would like to see an additional bolt on a route, go with Approach #3 when it's possible to identify the FA.

Unfortunately Approach #1 is most common, and was the approach taken in the FB post I referred to initially. But my hope in this thread is to see people taking Approach #1 shift to Approach #3.

Most developers love to talk about their routes (ego), love hearing that people climb and care about their routes (ego!) love hearing that some people are scared of their routes (ego!) and as a result will often keep an open mind about adding a bolt or two. I have talked a few FA parties into putting or allowing bolts on their routes by suggesting that the route will probably be a popular classic with that extra bolt or two, instead of a scary testpiece rarely done. 

Of course, the FA party may prefer the route to be a scary testpiece rarely done, which is why I say having the FA be in charge is an imperfect approach - unless one sees value in allowing some routes to remain rarely done scary testpieces, even if in the middle of an otherwise sport crag. (I think diversity is always a plus, so I love seeing scary routes, they are something to aspire to or to satisfy the boldest and most ambitious climbers, even if I might never lead them)