/ Ratho Bolts Thread

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Robert Durran - on 15 Sep 2013
Has the thread been locked due to the "acrimony" or did it just get too long for UKC to cope? (in which case continue here........)
Andy Moles - on 15 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Retro-bolting, thin end of the wedge, selfish trad elitists, just don't clip the bolts, angry angry.

That should save everyone reading the other thread to catch up.
gurumed - on 15 Sep 2013
In reply to Andy Moles:
> Retro-bolting, thin end of the wedge, selfish trad elitists, just don't clip the bolts, angry angry.

Nice summary, dude. Although if I was to take a crack, it would be:

Two or three 'Extreme Whiney Traddie Bitches' selfishly claim a piece of rock that they had ignored for decades for themselves, and try to retroactively justify it as a matter of ethics. In a quarry. Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults. :)
Smelly Fox - on 15 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Andy Moles)
> [...]
>
> Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults. :)

And vice versa...
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults. :)

No. Not anyone. I only called you and Bechae morons. The others who argued against me intelligently I did not call morons (because they are not). But you just don't get it do you? (because you are). Glad you appreciated the colour though.






buzby78 - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Oi Rob what do you think you're doing hijacking my thread? I thought I was going to win a prize there for the most amount of views! Right, Shear Fear is getting it tomorrow! ;)
Robbie_Phillips - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Rob, I saw you on the auto-belay today... Do you think Petifers would benefit from the addition of a new Tru-Blu Auto-Belay installation? Buz has got a spare one in the store we could use.

If you want to maintain the mental aspect of trad climbing with the auto-belay... just replace the wire with shoe string?

I've been eyeing up Dalriada as a potential new via farrata to take blind donkeys on an adventure... Thoughts?
buzby78 - on 16 Sep 2013
On a more serious note, can I have a prize for the most amount of views/replies/foul language/racism ever witnessed on a UKC thread?
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78: I must have missed the racism. Think that title goes to one of the countless middle east threads. Spunkymunkey was trying to help you out with the foul language but may have been the reason the thread was closed.
Andy Moles - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Could just rename this one 'Colorful Insults Thread', scrap the veneer of ethical debate, and really go for it?

Because let's face it, no one cares THAT much.

;)
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Oi Rob what do you think you're doing hijacking my thread?

I didn't hijack it; I just revived it!
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robbie_Phillips:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Rob, I saw you on the auto-belay today...

Yes, it was very boring. However, now that everyone hates me and I don't have any friends due to my ethical stand on the retro-bolts, it looks like it might be the future of my training, so please could we have routes with no fiddly technical cruxes on it better suited to endurance training plodding.

> Do you think Pettifer's would benefit from the addition of a new Tru-Blu Auto-Belay installation? Buz has got a spare one in the store we could use.

That's actually quite a good idea; the spineless sport climbers could play on it, keeping it clean for when us "extreme whining elitist traddie bitch dick-heads" (or whatever it was) come along to climb it properly with our rack of RP's, micro-cams and huge balls. Everyone will be happy. I'm all for it.

> If you want to maintain the mental aspect of trad climbing with the auto-belay... just replace the wire with shoe string?

No, it's frightening enough as it is......

r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Andy Moles)
> [...]
>
> Nice summary, dude. Although if I was to take a crack, it would be:
>
> Two or three 'Extreme Whiney Traddie Bitches' selfishly claim a piece of rock that they had ignored for decades for themselves, and try to retroactively justify it as a matter of ethics. In a quarry. Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults. :)

Against 2 people. One that thinks climbing is too dangerous and has quit anything but sport, and another who climbs trad but the route is too hard for him.
In reply to Robert Durran:

We have a maximum limit for 'total thread size' which that thread reached so it closed automatically.

I did have a look at it though and there were some petty comments cropping up. It would be nice if people kept it to discussion if it is to continue.

Alan
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> We have a maximum limit for 'total thread size' which that thread reached so it closed automatically.
>
> I did have a look at it though and there were some petty comments cropping up. It would be nice if people kept it to discussion if it is to continue.
>
> Alan

Just wondering, what number of views/replies does a thread reach before it is automatically closed? That thread appears to have had 799 replies before it was closed, so is it 800 posts?
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Just wondering, what number of views/replies does a thread reach before it is automatically closed? That thread appears to have had 799 replies before it was closed, so is it 800 posts?

It's a memory thing so long replies count as more than short ones, hence there isn't a set number or replies, it is measured in how much server memory it is using up both storing it and serving it.

It was 798 replies but we have had longer threads in the past, this one just had more long replies. The number of views is irrelevant since it only had 15,000 views and we have gone way beyond that before.

Alan
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH: Ah okay, thanks for that. Clears it up a little. Yeah I remember quite a few long posts. Interesting.
gurumed - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robbie_Phillips:
> I've been eyeing up Dalriada as a potential new via farrata to take blind donkeys on an adventure... Thoughts?

I say go for it. Robert has convinced me to go bolt Indian Face. :)

In reply to Robert Durran:
> I only called you and Bechae morons. The others who argued against me intelligently I did not call morons (because they are not).

Calling you out bluntly on your greed might wind you up because the truth hurts, but it doesn't make us morons.

> That's actually quite a good idea; the spineless sport climbers could play on it, keeping it clean for when us "extreme whining elitist traddie bitch dick-heads" (or whatever it was)

The "extreme.." quote is actually your creation. It gets longer and cruder each time you use it, is this a symptom of some sort of subconscious self loathing?

As a connoisseur of profanity, I might suggest that "bitch dick-heads" doesn't flow off the tongue nicely. Try putting a vowel sound after 'ch' phonemes. "bitch-ass dick-heads", is much more mellifluous, for example.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Against 2 people. One that thinks climbing is too dangerous and has quit anything but sport, and another who climbs trad but the route is too hard for him.

The route is definitely too hard for me as trad, for now. But having onsighted the route placing 'draws whilst the bolts were there, I'm not arguing for the bolts to stay so that I personally can do the route. If anything the removal of the bolts give me a route to grow into, despite that I still think the bolts should have stayed.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robbie_Phillips)
> [...]
> In reply to r0x0r.wolfo
> [...]
>
> The route is definitely too hard for me as trad, for now. But having onsighted the route placing 'draws whilst the bolts were there, I'm not arguing for the bolts to stay so that I personally can do the route. If anything the removal of the bolts give me a route to grow into, despite that I still think the bolts should have stayed.

Why did you mention placing the draws? Just curious. So robert has climbed the route in traditional style too yet you call him greedy? Seems weird, both of you have climbed the route, yet he is greedy and you 'have nothing to gain'. Having onsighted the route 'placing the draws' as you say, why can you not climb the route trad with the resultant beta, I mean why is it too hard now?

Ramblin dave - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That's actually quite a good idea; the spineless sport climbers could play on it, keeping it clean for when us "extreme whining elitist traddie bitch dick-heads" (or whatever it was) come along to climb it properly with our rack of RP's, micro-cams and huge balls. Everyone will be happy. I'm all for it.

And when you come to trad it, you can just let the krab on the autobelay go so it gets pulled up to the top, and then put it back again when you've finished by using it as a quick way down.
Fiend - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

From the thread o'doom:

> I warmed up on wally 1, which, perhaps contrary to appearances, is perfectly adequately clean, has bomber gear and, move for move, would hold its own with many single pitch three star routes anywhere (felt more E3 than E2 to me too!). It looks a bit neglected and deserves loads of traffic.

Yeah I was surprised how good it was - almost no moves below 5b!

This area would benefit a lot from some tree clearance or branch pruning, a bit of block moving at the bottom, and one of the bolts at the top is in a dodgy block.

> I then did Pettifer's (watched by Buzby and a few strays from the bouldering comp. barbecue - so no pressure there then.......). It is without doubt a superb route; great line, technical, intricate, pretty committing in places but with adequate protection (given perseverance) - everything you want from a great trad pitch. It would truly have been a travesty to have left it as a clip-up. I thought solid E4 6a (Matt, unlike me, you must be really good at the bold, balancy stuff if you really thought E3 5c!).

More like, I have no stamina nor fitness but quite like fiddling in clusters of peenuts and offsets ;).

> not to mention the complimentary barbecue burger :-)

FWIW I didn't get a free burger so I'm taking E5.
gurumed - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Why did you mention placing the draws?

I just meant climbing it as a sport route.

> So robert has climbed the route in traditional style too yet you call him greedy?

It seems greedy to me because rock hadn't been touched for decades, Buz cleaned it up and bolted it for the benifit of hundreds, then a couple of guys decide that their pleasure takes precedence over the hundreds that would have enjoyed it. Because the route was left in such disarray for so long it doesn't really seem like retrobolting to me, more like recycling.

> Having onsighted the route 'placing the draws' as you say, why can you not climb the route trad with the resultant beta, I mean why is it too hard now?

When looking up the route before starting, I thought that there would probably be gear (and good holds) the whole way up the crack. I was surprised at how shallow that crack is in the top two thirds. Maybe Fiend and Robert have cleaned out placements I didn't find, but I remember thinking when up there that I couldn't see anywhere to place even the smallest of brass offsets.

In theory because if you onsighted something, you should be able to solo it, but we both know it doesn't work like that in practice. I'd need to be a much better climber to have the error margin to justify the risk. Having that skill and fitness, I'd probably choose to exercise it elsewhere. Which is what climbers better than I have done for the last 20 years. That's why I feel it was fine left as a sport route.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> (In reply to gurumed)
> [...]
>
> Against 2 people. One that thinks climbing is too dangerous


In the particular context of Ratho and a landowner operating a climbing centre it's not just about risk to the individual climber, it's also about the overall risk of accident in the whole quarry if it starts to be more heavily used.
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> Calling you out bluntly on your greed might wind you up because the truth hurts, but it doesn't make us morons.

Calling me greedy is possibly one of your more defensible points and certainly not why you are a moron. Though the whole argument, as anyone capable of seeing the debate in the context of the history and evolution of climbing will know, is rather more subtle than that. I could equally call you greedy because you want a trad route bolted rather than taking the time to develop your skills to the point when you can do it as a trad route.

What makes you a moron (in fact virtually amoebically submoronic in intellect) is the fact that you persist in claiming that I am calling you a moron simply because you disagree with me; lots of people disagree with me but I don't call them morons (HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT?). I am calling you a moron because of your monumental ignorance and inability to follow arguments without spouting ridiculous irrelevant and illogical shite.


> The route is definitely too hard for me as trad....... If anything the removal of the bolts give me a route to grow into.

Except that you've already blowwn the onsight of course :-)
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> (In reply to gurumed)

> Having onsighted the route 'placing the draws' as you say, why can you not climb the route trad with the resultant beta, I mean why is it too hard now?

Because the gear is almost entirely small and fiddly, requiring care and experience to place adequately, and there are several technical and insecure moves (poorly suited to gurumed's neanderthal climbing style) which it would be a good idea not to fluff even with good protection skills.



Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> In the particular context of Ratho and a landowner operating a climbing centre it's not just about risk to the individual climber, it's also about the overall risk of accident in the whole quarry if it starts to be more heavily used.

That's why they have notices up pointing out that you climb in thr quarry at your own risk. No different, I presume, from climbing on any other land (except that without the notices some people might not realise so).
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> Maybe Fiend and Robert have cleaned out placements I didn't find, but I remember thinking when up there that I couldn't see anywhere to place even the smallest of brass offsets.

I didn't clean anything out. Don't know about Fiend.
beychae - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm trying my best to keep out of this thread; I really didn't enjoy taking part in the last one, but, like you Robert, I felt it was a kind of duty.

But I will share this link, which I think is interesting and relevant (apologies it's a bit of a long read):
http://www.psmag.com/politics/why-even-your-best-arguments-never-work-64910/
gurumed - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I could equally call you greedy because you want a trad route bolted rather than taking the time to develop your skills to the point when you can do it as a trad route.

You are very comfortable with repeatedly calling me a moron, so I assume you must be a man of great intelligence. If that is the case, you are deliberately ignoring what said. Having already done the route, I didn't want the bolts to stay for myself, but for the greater good. How can that be greed? Fiend and yourself did want the changes made for your own (and only your own) benefit to the detriment of many others, that's why I feel it's fair to call it greed.

> Except that you've already blowwn the onsight of course :-)

True.

> [...] there are several technical and insecure moves (poorly suited to gurumed's neanderthal climbing style)

Continuously insulting my intelligence is one thing, but demeaning my climbing style is simply below the belt, dude :)
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
>
> In the particular context of Ratho and a landowner operating a climbing centre it's not just about risk to the individual climber, it's also about the overall risk of accident in the whole quarry if it starts to be more heavily used.

Heavily used? So you're against the new bolted routes? As they will increase traffic for sure. Think the presence of sport routes will increase the usage more than an e4 with a lower off...
ads.ukclimbing.com
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> You are very comfortable with repeatedly calling me a moron, so I assume you must be a man of great intelligence.

Yes, but even a man of modest intelligence reading the thread would see what a moron you are.

> Having already done the route, I didn't want the bolts to stay for myself, but for the greater good. How can that be greed?

No less greedy than me, having done the route, wanting the route to remain unbolted (and that is setting aside the whole thin end of the wedge argument)

> Fiend and yourself did want the changes made for your own (and only your own) benefit to the detriment of many others, that's why I feel it's fair to call it greed.

Total f*cking bollocks; yet again the tedious, ignorant shite about trad climbing being elitist. Buzby has rejuvenated a great trad route that will be there as a fine challenge for those who are up to it for the foreseeable future. Yes, it will need a regular brush, but that would have been the case even if it was bolted.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> I just meant climbing it as a sport route.
>
Okay.
>
> It seems greedy to me because rock hadn't been touched for decades, Buz cleaned it up and bolted it for the benifit of hundreds, then a couple of guys decide that their pleasure takes precedence over the hundreds that would have enjoyed it. Because the route was left in such disarray for so long it doesn't really seem like retrobolting to me, more like recycling.

But that was a problem to do with the earth cornice which appeared during construction of Ratho. The damage to the route was not done by 'neglect' but was the by-product of a construction job. The logical solution is the one that is in place, a lower off.
>
> When looking up the route before starting, I thought that there would probably be gear (and good holds) the whole way up the crack. I was surprised at how shallow that crack is in the top two thirds. Maybe Fiend and Robert have cleaned out placements I didn't find, but I remember thinking when up there that I couldn't see anywhere to place even the smallest of brass offsets.

That's okay, gear placing gets better with more experience.

> In theory because if you onsighted something, you should be able to solo it, but we both know it doesn't work like that in practice. I'd need to be a much better climber to have the error margin to justify the risk. Having that skill and fitness, I'd probably choose to exercise it elsewhere. Which is what climbers better than I have done for the last 20 years. That's why I feel it was fine left as a sport route.

A lot of people are more comfortable with lower margins for error than you are, that's fine too. Some people can operate in that way, those climbers that prefer bold routes.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> You are very comfortable with repeatedly calling me a moron, so I assume you must be a man of great intelligence. If that is the case, you are deliberately ignoring what said. Having already done the route, I didn't want the bolts to stay for myself, but for the greater good. How can that be greed? Fiend and yourself did want the changes made for your own (and only your own) benefit to the detriment of many others, that's why I feel it's fair to call it greed.

In response to this:

Robert has climbed the route. Do you Robert, want the route to stay like it is? Even though you have already climbed it? If the answer is yes? Which we all know it is, it is not for Robert's sake, as he has already climbed it but for the greater 'good'.
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Robert has climbed the route. Do you Robert, want the route to stay like it is? Even though you have already climbed it? If the answer is yes? Which we all know it is, it is not for Robert's sake, as he has already climbed it but for the greater 'good'.

Of course, but Gurumed, as usual, either through stupidity or in the hope that we wouldn't notice (again stupid) asserted something obviously untrue just to suit himself.

gurumed - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> No less greedy than me, having done the route, wanting the route to remain unbolted [...]
> [...] ignorant shite about trad climbing being elitist.

I would have preferred the route to be in a style that makes sense the context of the quarry and serves the vast majority.

You want it in a style that doesn't make sense (it was ignored to decades), that only serves a tiny minority. It seems more like you want this route to remain an E4, rather than "just a 6c" for the satisfaction of your own ego. The word 'elitist' was brought up by you, and it certainly seems to fit.

> Buzby has rejuvenated a great trad route that will be there as a fine challenge for those who are up to it for the foreseeable future.

What Buz did was unearth a long ignored piece of rock and put in the hard work needed to make it of use to hundreds. Then a very vocal minority managed to make enough of a ruckus to force Buz to pull the bolts.

I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong and that it gets tons of trad ascents, so that his hard work is not squandered. But if history does indeed repeat itself, it's going to be soon forgotten and will go back to its former decrepit state.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Robert has climbed the route. Do you Robert, want the route to stay like it is? Even though you have already climbed it? If the answer is yes? Which we all know it is, it is not for Robert's sake, as he has already climbed it but for the greater 'good'

Why does he want the route to remain without bolts? The answer is quite simple; vanity.
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I would have preferred the route to be in a style that makes sense the context of the quarry....

A quarry which has always been overwhelmingly trad.

> .......and serves the vast majority.

Oh for f*cks sake. So bolt up every f*cking route in the f*cking country you f*cking dick-head to serve the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who find any given piece of f*cking rock easier to climb on f*cking bolts than placing f*cking gear.

> You want it in a style that doesn't make sense (it was ignored for decades), that only serves a tiny minority.

It was ignored because of the earth cornice. Thanks to Busby it now has a chain and the problem of the earth cornice is no longer there. It will get about as much traffic as most good quality bold E4's I'd imagine. What's the f*cking problem.

> It seems more like you want this route to remain an E4, rather than "just a 6c" for the satisfaction of your own ego.

Ok. So continue making up my own motivations to suit your own tiny f*cking head.


> What Buz did was unearth a long ignored piece of rock and put in the hard work needed to make it of use to hundreds. Then a very vocal minority managed to make enough of a ruckus to force Buz to pull the bolts.

Nobody forced Buzby to reconsider. Maybe you should discuss it with him as I did on Saturday. Maybe he now thinks it was a mistake to retro-bolt the routes.

> Why does he want the route to remain without bolts? The answer is quite simple; vanity.

Have you actually read the thread? Oh yes, I forgot: you have, but are too f*cking stupid to understand anything you read.

gurumed - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> [...] for f*cks sake [...] every f*cking route in the f*cking country you f*cking dick-head to [...] f*cking rock [...] on f*cking bolts [...] placing f*cking gear. [...] tiny f*cking head. F*ck off. [...] F*ck off.

Relax, dude. You'll live longer.
estivoautumnal - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:


I visited Ratho many years ago as an alternative to a wet weekend in the west and it was....well, less than great. Dirty routes, choosy, just generally bad. That was pre wall days. We carried on to Northumberland.

I don't know what it's like now but 15 years ago if a bomb had hit Ratho quarry it would have been a service to climbing.
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> I visited Ratho many years ago as an alternative to a wet weekend in the west and it was....well, less than great. Dirty routes, chossy, just generally bad.

It was good up to at least twenty years ago. It is good again now largely thanks to Buzby's efforts.
sebrider - on 16 Sep 2013
> Oh for f*cks sake. So bolt up every f*cking route in the f*cking country you f*cking dick-head to serve the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who find any given piece of f*cking rock easier to climb on f*cking bolts than placing f*cking gear.

Lol! A break from the forum...tea? ;)
sebrider - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I visited Ratho many years ago as an alternative to a wet weekend in the west and it was....well, less than great. Dirty routes, choosy, just generally bad. That was pre wall days. We carried on to Northumberland.

Poor Ratho, it's a great place...I like it! Must be because there are some good climbs there :)
Fraser on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to sebrider:

I've just uploaded a few photos of last weekend's big ascent, currently awaiting approval by the mods. Unfortunately, I missed the money shot as I had to leave before Robert ticked it, but I'm glad he did so. Well done that man!
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Why does he want the route to remain without bolts? The answer is quite simple; vanity.

Why for vanity?

He climbed the e4 without bolts and will have always done that. We all know what the grade would be with bolts so whats the difference?

If anything if it's 'too dangerous' to be a trad route and it is bolted then that would serve his vanity more, no?
andyathome - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to gurumed)
> [...]
>
> Yes, but even a man of modest intelligence reading the thread would see what a moron you are.
>

Robert. I have a great deal of sympathy with your stance on this issue. But bear in mind this is a new thread. And so far I would say that 'gurumed' has been fairly well-behaved. It would be cool to try to keep this thread on a 'better' level? So maybe for new readers accusations relating to intelligence etc might be kept to a minimum?

If 'spunky' comes along it might be difficult: but there you go.......
andyathome - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to andyathome:

Just read the subsequent posts. I was too late obviously.
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Robert. I have a great deal of sympathy with your stance on this issue. But bear in mind this is a new thread. It would be cool to try to keep this thread on a 'better' level? So maybe for new readers accusations relating to intelligence etc might be kept to a minimum?

Sometimes people just need to be told how it is. Gurumed is on of them; his posts make me genuinely angry. But point taken. I'll just ignore him from now on :-)
Robert Durran - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> If 'spunky' comes along it might be difficult: but there you go.......

I know "spunky". He's alright really. I would never have a go at anyone for spelling or grammar on here (unless, of course, it is "txtspk" which is a greater crime than retro-bolting Cloggy). As a teacher I am very well aware that dyslexia has nothing at all to do with intelligence.
Kemics - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:

If I may also interject with a link -

http://xkcd.com/386/
http://xkcd.com/438/

and to help this thread continue -

why worry about bolting it, instead just smash in a bunch of pegs making your ascent safe. But which will shortly rot out letting subsequent trad climbers enjoy the spice once more. Everybody wins.
kingieman on 16 Sep 2013
Gurumed, et al. - Confining this answer to one of Gurumed's USP's for bolting - cleaning the route made PW more accessible to hundreds, not just bolting it. Without bolts it is (in many people's eyes) a real, and not synthetic, climbing experience. These hundreds (whomsoever they are) still have access to the route, they just have to hone their skills to make it an acceptable and / or justifiable challenge for them. PW has been accessible to anyone that wanted to try it, it just needed cleaning; and will do again in the future irrespective of what happens to it, as Robert and others have pointed out. The stroke of genius, from reading this and previous thread, is the addition of the lower off - truly making it available to the masses.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Kemics:
> (In reply to beychae)
>
> If I may also interject with a link -
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
> http://xkcd.com/438/
>
> and to help this thread continue -
>
> why worry about bolting it, instead just smash in a bunch of pegs making your ascent safe. But which will shortly rot out letting subsequent trad climbers enjoy the spice once more. Everybody wins.

Why bother when its fine with neither?
andyathome - on 16 Sep 2013
In reply to Kemics:
Nah - this is the one that defines our relationship with UKC

http://xkcd.com/162/

XX Mwah XX
Steve nevers on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
It seems more like you want this route to remain an E4, rather than "just a 6c" for the satisfaction of your own ego.
> Why does he want the route to remain without bolts? The answer is quite simple; vanity.


I sounds to me quite different.

Robert does come across rather angry, while being protectionist. But you come across as rather selfish.
Your argument seems to be:
"I don't feel safe on the route as an E4, therefore i want it to be bolted, so I climb the route within my personal comfort zone."
While Roberts seems to be:
"Arrgggghhhhhh! Stop sticking bolts in Trad routes you ar*e!"
I think Robert you do need to relax a bit, your anger really isn't helping you here much, and Gurumed, can i suggest that its ok to just accept that there are some routes you might never get to climb, theres plenty of routes i would love to do, some maybe i'll be good/strong/insane enough to get up one day, others i never will. Thats fine with me.
Both of you agree your just both too polarized in your views here.

Regardless of the argument between the two of you, i've just seen that the route in question is a 2 star Trad route. With, from what i can gather from the previous thread, unclimbed rock around it in the quarry.

Can i first ask why a two star trad route should be bolted when there is room around it to create new f6c sport routes on the blank space around it?
I can understand it the route had become dangerous or changed somewhat due to rockfall etc, but seems like the only problem was caused by an oversight in management, which has, with the lower-off in place, been managed in the best comprise possible to protect what seems to be an almost-classic judging by the 2 stars.

I'd go as far as saying that the route with bolts in place (and all retro-bolted routes in fact) automatically loses whatever stars it has.
Simply put, the nature of the route is changed. I personally have to agree with Robert here. a lower off maintains it an as E4 6a**, whereas with bolts, it IS 'just another 6c' sport route in a quarry. I'd say the head game of placing thin protection on 6a UK tech and the head game of linking 6c french moves are totally different beasts. As i say, the very 'feel' of the route has totally changed.

Sounds like there is more space in the quarry, and looking at the Logbook page on here the Trad does outweigh the Sport currently, surely a better solution would be focusing everyone energy on bolting totally fresh lines while maintaining the Trad that exists?

Seems to be the best balance all round really, not just in this quarry, but pretty much everywhere.
I guess that reads as i'm on the side of the "Protectors of Trad", but i am supportive for the establishing of routes of all kinds, Sport/Trad/Bouldering etc, as long as any existing routes/problems are respected, especially starred ones.

Chasing the tick is fun, but so is Climbing itself quite frankly. Shouldn't be all be working on raising our game to the challenge of the climbs level rather than lowering it to ours?
And having lots of fun in the process of course.

(I am aware the last bit makes me sound like some kind of rock-hugging hippy...)
gurumed - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Steve nevers:

> Your argument seems to be: "I don't feel safe on the route as an E4, therefore i want it to be bolted, so I climb the route within my personal comfort zone."

Hi, Steve. I've already did the route, so it doesn't personally affect me if the bolts stay or go. My arguing for them to stay has been a matter of principle. If Pettifer's had been clean, and was getting ascents I wouldn't have been for bolting it, but it had been ignored for decades. I think "use it or lose it" is a pretty fair rule of thumb when we're talking decades. The route would have sat for another 20 years untouched if Buz hadn't have bolted it. No potential trad ascentionists had thought of putting chains up because there was no interest in the route.

> Gurumed, can i suggest that its ok to just accept that there are some routes you might never get to climb,

I've already climbed the route. That's not my motivation. I wouldn't ask for Blade Runner or Nijinski to be bolted, for example.

> Can i first ask why a two star trad route should be bolted when there is room around it to create new f6c sport routes on the blank space around it?

Because it was ignored for decades.

> I'd go as far as saying that the route with bolts in place (and all retro-bolted routes in fact) automatically loses whatever stars it has.

Only if the stars are derived from boldness rather than the quality of the movement. There's plenty of sport routes that get justified stars.

> As i say, the very 'feel' of the route has totally changed.

I agree that a bold E4, and 6c sport route have different feels. But, that doesn't justify a couple of guys getting their E4 experience over hundreds enjoying a 6c after they've been disregarding it for decades.

In general I'm not for retro-bolting, but Ratho Quarry is a special case.
Turfty on 17 Sep 2013
"....but it had been ignored for decades."


A couple of mouseclicks to logbooks and this entry from May last year.

Pettifer's Wall

Got it clean on my 3rd attempt today but did struggle lol. Good route and the wet wall at the bottom forces you left which is good. Soil at the top is a shame but could be removed. Abseil the route before you climb it to brush it and wear helmets. :o) I do not know if it is an E4.

I did post this very early on in the previous thread, but for some reason it seems to not have been picked up on!


johncoxmysteriously - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Turfty:

We don't want facts here. Just go away, will you?

jcm
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Turfty:

The logbooks have 3 entries from the same person top roping it in 2012 and one person leading it in 1989. The rest are after the bolts and lower off went in including a couple of trad ascents after the bolts came out again. That meets the definition of 'neglected' when you consider there's a climbing centre with probably 50 to 100 customers climbing at any time its open just 50m away.
Steve nevers on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Steve nevers)
>

>
> Because it was ignored for decades.
>


Yet it seems by the people logging it it hasn't. Plus theres the special case of X number of years that the soil at the top of the route made it a deathwish.

Also you aren't considering that people may have tried it, failed and then not logged the attempt. Then add the number of climbers that don't use UKC.

also plenty of other route and problems have 'been ignored for decades' then they see a state of repeats, or in some extreme cases an FA.

Seems daft just to bolt stuff because of one personal view that its not climbed, by that criteria we might as well bolt anything thats to hard for the average punter. Which of course we shouldn't because that would be bloody silly, and in my mind disrespectful to the history of the sport/hobby/pastime.
MJ - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Steve nevers:

also plenty of other route and problems have 'been ignored for decades' then they see a state of repeats, or in some extreme cases an FA.

Didn't UKC do an extensive series of articles on such a route very recently. Think it was called 'Indian Face'...
Steve nevers on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Steve nevers)
>
> also plenty of other route and problems have 'been ignored for decades' then they see a state of repeats, or in some extreme cases an FA.
>
> Didn't UKC do an extensive series of articles on such a route very recently. Think it was called 'Indian Face'...

Well, it could have been 'Indian 6c+' by now if we all followed some peoples policy.

gurumed - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Steve nevers:
> Seems daft just to bolt stuff because of one personal view that its not climbed, by that criteria we might as well bolt anything thats to hard for the average punter.

I haven't ever made the argument that everything should be bolted.

> Well, it could have been 'Indian 6c+' by now if we all followed some peoples policy.

Nobody in this thread, or the previous 800 post thread has wanted to bolt Indian Face. Comparing Ratho Quarry to Cloggy is ridiculous. Also despite being much harder, Indian Face has receive more attention and ascents than the route in question at Ratho Quarry.

This is an internet forum, so how about a nice car analogy?

There was a rusted burnt out car that was left for decades. Buz found it, fixed it up and put in an automatic transmission so it'd be easier for everyone to enjoy. Now that the car is running, a couple of guys come along and demand that the auto gearbox is taken out and replaced with a manual one for a "more authentic driving experience".

If these guys had truly cared about the car they would have maintained it themselves. They didn't. But they some how still expect that their desires should have priority. This to me seems unreasonable and selfish.

If Buz had cleaned up this route, bolted it and told no one it probably wouldn't have been noticed for years. Certainly not by Robert and Fiend.
ads.ukclimbing.com
crossdressingrodney - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

To make your analogy more accurate, the car needs to have been run over by a bull-dozer during the process of building an automatic transmission factory, rendering it undrivable.
Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Steve nevers:
> (In reply to gurumed)

>
> Robert does come across rather angry, while being protectionist.

I've only been angry with gurumed and one or two others who have spoiled a good debate by diluting it with their ignorance and the inability to construct a coherent argument (I refer you to the other 800 post thread).

> "I don't feel safe on the route as an E4, therefore i want it to be bolted, so I climb the route within my personal comfort zone."

To be fair, I don't think that is quite what gurumed is saying; his argument seems to me that more people would get to do/enjoy a 6c than a bold E4.

> "Arrgggghhhhhh! Stop sticking bolts in Trad routes you ar*e!"

That is indeed a fair summary, though I've only been rude to the arses who deserve it (not because they disagree with me but because they are arses).

> I think Robert you do need to relax a bit, your anger really isn't helping you here muc.

Point Taken, though I think everyone probably has their snapping point when faced with the gurumeds of this world.

> Both of you agree your just both too polarized in your views here.

No I'm not. As I've said repeatedly, I'm aware that the growing demand for "punter" sport routes is not going to go away (unfortunately, but there you go). It needs to be sensibly accomodated, but retro-bolting is NOT the way forward.

> Can I first ask why a two star trad route should be bolted when there is room around it to create new f6c sport routes on the blank space around it?

No reason at all.

> I can understand it the route had become dangerous or changed somewhat due to rockfall etc, but seems like the only problem was caused by an oversight in management, which has, with the lower-off in place, been managed in the best comprise possible to protect what seems to be an almost-classic judging by the 2 stars.

Absolutely. Final outcome is clearly totally sensible.
>
>
> Sounds like there is more space in the quarry, and looking at the Logbook page on here the Trad does outweigh the Sport currently, surely a better solution would be focusing everyone energy on bolting totally fresh lines while maintaining the Trad that exists?

> Seems to be the best balance all round really, not just in this quarry, but pretty much everywhere.

The central belt quarries, yes in my opinion. The Dubh Loch - go anywhere near there that with a Hilti and the bolts will end up in the bolter's head. and quite rightly so.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Steve nevers)
>
> [...]
>
> Hi, Steve. I've already did the route, so it doesn't personally affect me if the bolts stay or go. My arguing for them to stay has been a matter of principle.

Maybe you would climb it again? Maybe you have mates who missed out. You've already called someone else who has done the route greedy for keeping it bolt free so why are you immune?

> If Pettifer's had been clean, and was getting ascents I wouldn't have been for bolting it, but it had been ignored for decades. I think "use it or lose it" is a pretty fair rule of thumb when we're talking decades.

It's been climbed, recently. So you're done for a few decades? End of thread?

> The route would have sat for another 20 years untouched if Buz hadn't have bolted it. No potential trad ascentionists had thought of putting chains up because there was no interest in the route.

Someone cleaned it, and solved the top out problem and now it is seeing traffic again. Result right? What do you think about an escalator up a unclimbed peak. Why is volume of traffic the only important thing to you? I could clean an 8c and chip it down to 5a and that would of course be fine to you. Why deny hundreds of climbers? How selfish. Number of ascents = better right?
>
> [...]
>
>
> Because it was ignored for decades.

This happens, there's rock across the world that's being 'ignored', if this is a massive concern to you, you should fly off and get developing. You could reduce the amount of that heinous virgin rock I hear about.
>
>
> I agree that a bold E4, and 6c sport route have different feels. But, that doesn't justify a couple of guys getting their E4 experience over hundreds enjoying a 6c after they've been disregarding it for decades.

An 8c and a 5a have different feels. But that doesn't justify a couple of guys getting the 8c experience over hundreds enjoying a 5a.

> In general I'm not for retro-bolting, but Ratho Quarry is a special case.

In general I'm not for chipping but in general 8c and above are special cases.
Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Turfty:
> "....but it had been ignored for decades."
>
>
> A couple of mouseclicks to logbooks and this entry from May last year.
>
> Got it clean on my 3rd attempt today but did struggle lol. Good route and the wet wall at the bottom forces you left which is good. Soil at the top is a shame but could be removed. Abseil the route before you climb it to brush it and wear helmets. :o) I do not know if it is an E4.

That was a top-roper!

Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Turfty)
>
> The logbooks.........including a couple of trad ascents after the bolts came out again.

Correction: The logbooks.........including a couple of "trad" ascents after the bolts came out again.
CurlyStevo - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
some of the climbing at Ratho Quarry actually looks rather good, should have checked it out when I was local!
Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> If Pettifer's had been clean, and was getting ascents I wouldn't have been for bolting it, but it had been ignored for decades. I think "use it or lose it" is a pretty fair rule of thumb when we're talking decades. The route would have sat for another 20 years untouched if Buz hadn't have bolted it. No potential trad ascentionists had thought of putting chains up because there was no interest in the route.

Can I seriously suggest that you go and discuss this with Buzby to get his perspective.

If Buzby had initially only cleaned it and put the chain on (same final outcome), would you be so upset? If yes, then I think your "use it or lose it" bolting argument falls apart. If no, then your "maximum utility" selfishness argument falls apart.

> Only if the stars are derived from boldness rather than the quality of the movement. There's plenty of sport routes that get justified stars.

The route actually has some graet moves on it, the overall experience of soing them massively intensified by the boldness (or at least just about adequate but not bomber gear).
>
> In general I'm not for retro-bolting, but Ratho Quarry is a special case.

I think this is the reason I've stuck at this argument for so long: there are clearly people out there who don't think it should just be a special case but would prefer it to be the thin end of the wedge.



Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Anyway I'm off training at Ratho now. if I don't reply to gurumed'd next post it will almost certainly be not because I've blown a bold E4 but because he and his cronies have beaten the shit out of me and dumped me under a pile of rubble in the quarry.

gurumed - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> I could clean an 8c and chip it down to 5a and that would of course be fine to you.

That is clearly not my position.

In reply to Robert Durran:
> Can I seriously suggest that you go and discuss this with Buzby to get his perspective.

I have done this a couple of times throughout this debate.

> If Buzby had initially only cleaned it and put the chain on (same final outcome), would you be so upset? If yes, then I think your "use it or lose it" argument falls apart. If no, then your "maximum utility" argument falls apart.

If Buz had only cleaned it up and put in lower offs then that would have been fair enough; he was putting in the graft so it's his shout. This would be the same if any other potential trad-ascentionist had cleaned it up and added chains.

Buz went the extra mile for the benefit of more than the few trad climbers who'll ever do this route. Because the route was abandoned I don't think the bolts were hurting anyone. I do feel that you and Fiend getting the bolts taken out did hurt people, though. It's given the two of you a great experience (my goal is not to deprive you of great trad experiences), but at the cost of a fun sport route that would have been enjoyed by many more people.

In this specific case it seems more like retro-trad than retro-bolting.
gurumed - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Anyway I'm off training at Ratho now. if I don't reply to gurumed'd next post it will almost certainly be not because I've blown a bold E4 but because he and his cronies have beaten the shit out of me and dumped me under a pile of rubble in the quarry.

If you don't make it back from Ratho it will be because Robbie has bolted you to something before you could do the same to him! :)
r0x0r.wolfo - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Steve nevers)
> [...]
>
> I haven't ever made the argument that everything should be bolted.
>
> [...]
>
> Nobody in this thread, or the previous 800 post thread has wanted to bolt Indian Face. Comparing Ratho Quarry to Cloggy is ridiculous. Also despite being much harder, Indian Face has receive more attention and ascents than the route in question at Ratho Quarry.
Not until relatively recently.
> This is an internet forum, so how about a nice car analogy?
>
> There was a rusted burnt out car that was left for decades. Buz found it, fixed it up and put in an automatic transmission so it'd be easier for everyone to enjoy. Now that the car is running, a couple of guys come along and demand that the auto gearbox is taken out and replaced with a manual one for a "more authentic driving experience".

Here's another one, guy next door has a classic car, hasn't drove it for twenty years because someone placed a large earth cornice blocking his garage. Someone breaks in, smashes it windows in and drives it to a garage to have go faster stripes painted on it. Owner is mad and and makes the vandals fix the damage and is now able to drive his classic car again. Happy ending.

> If these guys had truly cared about the car they would have maintained it themselves. They didn't. But they some how still expect that their desires should have priority. This to me seems unreasonable and selfish.
The man still cared about his classic car, and was justified in restoring it. He lets who ever wants to drive it but if doesn't have airbags like some newer cars and isn't restricted to 30mph.

> If Buz had cleaned up this route, bolted it and told no one it probably wouldn't have been noticed for years. Certainly not by Robert and Fiend.

But he did, no one has noticed I just chipped a 3 star 8c and probably wont for some time.

gurumed - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Here's another one, guy next door has a classic car, hasn't drove it for twenty years because someone placed a large earth cornice blocking his garage. Someone breaks in, smashes it windows in and drives it to a garage to have go faster stripes painted on it. Owner is mad and and makes the vandals fix the damage and is now able to drive his classic car again. Happy ending.

Your analogy is predicated on ownership of the car. Are you saying Fiend and Robert own the route? I don't recognise this.

> The man still cared about his classic car, and was justified in restoring it. He lets who ever wants to drive it but if doesn't have airbags like some newer cars and isn't restricted to 30mph.

I don't acknowledge a vocal minority having ownership of the route.

> But he did, no one has noticed I just chipped a 3 star 8c and probably wont for some time.

We both know chipping is not the same as bolting, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Grahame N - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Turfty)
>
> The logbooks have 3 entries from the same person top roping it in 2012 and one person leading it in 1989. The rest are after the bolts and lower off went in including a couple of trad ascents after the bolts came out again. That meets the definition of 'neglected' when you consider there's a climbing centre with probably 50 to 100 customers climbing at any time its open just 50m away.

I would argue that having the climbing centre just 50m away is the reason why the routes were neglected.
I climbed quite a lot at Ratho in the 80's and early 90's, did Pettifer's Wall, even wrote the guidebook. I enjoyed climbing there as did many other people. But when work started on the M8 extension and later the EICA, climbing at the quarry was not a pleasant experience - who wanted to climb at a building site. So people went elsewhere.

When the dust settled after the EICA was complete many of the routes were left dirty and had 'earth cornices' and therefore the place remained neglected.

So the decades of neglect that keeps getting mentioned is not because people didn't want to do the routes but because they were too dirty to climb and nobody could be bothered to clean them. If the EICA had not been built then I suspect Ratho Quarry would have enjoyed the same popularity over the years as say Auchinstarry or Cambusbarron.

Now that somebody has taken the bother to clean the routes (and the quarry floor) the routes appear to be getting climbed again. So, apart from the misguided decision to retro-bolt some of the existing routes, Buzby has done a good job. The fine photos of Bob on Pettifer's http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=227461 I'm sure will inspire others.
Have the bolts on Slow Strain and Wally 2 been removed yet? If not, why not.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> That is clearly not my position.

Why not? Please explain why this doesn't fit your more traffic = better stance?
>
> If Buz had only cleaned it up and put in lower offs then that would have been fair enough; he was putting in the graft so it's his shout. This would be the same if any other potential trad-ascentionist had cleaned it up and added chains.

So I clean a sport route I can chop it? Niceeee.

> Buz went the extra mile for the benefit of more than the few trad climbers who'll ever do this route. Because the route was abandoned I don't think the bolts were hurting anyone. I do feel that you and Fiend getting the bolts taken out did hurt people, though. It's given the two of you a great experience (my goal is not to deprive you of great trad experiences), but at the cost of a fun sport route that would have been enjoyed by many more people.

You seem to have difficulty acknowledging the reasons it was neglected and instead but it down the the 'selfish whims of trad climbers' rather than a very physical and real block another party put in place. Not really the trad climbers fault, now its been put right there's no reason to further punish the set of climbers who have been deprived a quality route due to a very real barrier to climbing it.

It clearly hurt people, did you not see that 800 post thread? Are you talking about a death on the route? Or the emotional hurt of having to walk up and set a top rope up if a non trad climber wants to climb it?
> In this specific case it seems more like retro-trad than retro-bolting.

... what does that even mean?
Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> I wouldn't ask for......Nijinski to be bolted.

Then why are you (presumably) in favour of the retro-bolting of wally 2?

Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> If Buz had only cleaned it up and put in lower offs then that would have been fair enough.

So it's nothing to do with "maximum utility"; more people gettting more fun then. Good, that's one of your argumants disposed off.

> I do feel that you and Fiend getting the bolts taken out did hurt people, though.

Ah, so now we're back to "maximum utility". A bit muddled aren't you?


> In this specific case it seems more like retro-trad than retro-bolting.

Surely the analogy of retro-bolting would be chopping a route which has always been accepted as a sport route up to that point.

Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> If Buz had cleaned up this route, bolted it and told no one it probably wouldn't have been noticed for years. Certainly not by Robert and Fiend.

It is very unlikely he would have told no-one. Certainly someone would have become aware of it anyway. I'm sure I would have got to know about it and been keen to get on it.

I worked my way through quite a few of the routes at Ratho when I was a relatively inexperienced climber in the early eighties. I never did Pettifer's because it always seemed a bit too hard and intimidating at the time, but it has always been in the back of my mind. Yes, I hold my hands up to the fact that the ease, as a car owner, of going further afield and more recently the easy delights of the EICA for training and the earth cornice meant I never got around to doing it. Yes, I could have cleaned it and put a chain onn it myself, but I never did. I am now very grateful that Buzby has done that, giving me, Fiend and others in the future an excellent climb back.
Robert Durran - on 17 Sep 2013
In reply to Grahame N:

> Have the bolts on...... Wally 2 been removed yet? If not, why not.

Not yet (still in today), but I think it may be imminent. There is not even the spurious earth cornice/dirt/chain excuse to leave them in

howifeel - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78: yeah man, Sheer Fear was great. Easier than it looked, scarier than it needed to be. Jimb
gurumed - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Why not? Please explain why this doesn't fit your more traffic = better stance?

When you invent positions that I haven't taken, the onus is not on me to defend them.

> So I clean a sport route I can chop it? Niceeee.

If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.

> You seem to have difficulty acknowledging the reasons it was neglected and instead but it down the the 'selfish whims of trad climbers' rather than a very physical and real block another party put in place.

So what are you saying? Only Buz was capable of cleaning the route and all trad climbers had to wait on him to exercise his god-like powers?

> Not really the trad climbers fault, now its been put right there's no reason to further punish the set of climbers who have been deprived a quality route due to a very real barrier to climbing it.

Totally the trad climbers fault, if you ignore something for decades you lose any claim to it.

> It clearly hurt people, did you not see that 800 post thread?

No, that one must have passed me by. It did hurt all the people who could have enjoyed a nice 6c sport route. Even with the chains, I doubt that anyone other than Fiend and Robert are going to enjoy the route.

> > In this specific case it seems more like retro-trad than retro-bolting.
> ... what does that even mean?

I mean that the rock was so long ignored and in such disrepair that the work Buz did practically makes him like a first ascentiont. It would be like me putting up a new sport route and some guys wanting to chop the bolts and trad lead it because "they were going to get round to cleaning it, honest 'guv!".

In reply to Robert Durran:
> Then why are you (presumably) in favour of the retro-bolting of wally 2?

Because it's been ignored the same way Pettifer's has been. Nijinski receives tons of attention.

> So it's nothing to do with "maximum utility"; more people gettting more fun then. Good, that's one of your argumants disposed off.

You can't just claim that my argument is disposed of, you have to actually disprove it first. Buz put in the hard work and chose the style for the rock that opened it up to lots of. You and Fiend didn't do any work, despite having decades to get round to doing it. Unfortunately it'll go back to being disused and being of no service to anyone.

> Ah, so now we're back to "maximum utility". A bit muddled aren't you?

No, you're just trying to attribute a facile maximum utility argument to me that I didn't make. If my position was that simplistic I would indeed be for retro-bolting everything. For someone so willing to negatively judge the intelligence of others you demonstrate poor reading comprehension.



r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> Your analogy is predicated on ownership of the car. Are you saying Fiend and Robert own the route? I don't recognise this.
>
Okay, the classic car is owned by the community. Obviously the route is trad and changing it is obviously taking away from someone.
>
> I don't acknowledge a vocal minority having ownership of the route.

You have no proof if this, we could easily take this thread, and just about you're the only one on this side. You are the vocal minority. Even Buz has shifted somewhat, as he has met people and watched some hard trad ascents.
>
> We both know chipping is not the same as bolting, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Yes, I'm pretending their both the same... Obviously not.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)

> When you invent positions that I haven't taken, the onus is not on me to defend them.

You clearly have taken this stance, if you have not then will you please drop the 'has not been climbed for x years argument', except last year and perhaps more unlogged of course.

> If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.

I thought you didn't care about traffic, you have just told me that getting more traffic is not your stance. Are you feeling okay?

> So what are you saying? Only Buz was capable of cleaning the route and all trad climbers had to wait on him to exercise his god-like powers?

Yes clearly that's what I'm saying. Obviously had there been a meeting trad climbers could have easily done it. Maybe you should have organised a clean up as you're very concerned about these routes being climbed regularly but you did nothing either. Buz I think in hindsight would say he should have organised something before retroing any routes.
The chains are a compromise, ideally you would be able to top out and the earth cornice be gone. One person said in the last thread that they were simply waiting for nature to take it's course and undo most the damage caused by the climbing centre i.e the earth cornice that's still there. But of course unknown to anyone else but you is the 'time between ascents rules'. Why would anyone compromise, when they can just wait? Obviously no one was consulted that anyone else wanted the route or desired to see it climbed right now. Which is why there has been a problem.

> Totally the trad climbers fault, if you ignore something for decades you lose any claim to it.

What's the trad climbers fault? Ratho putting a large earth cornice above the route? The lack of consultation that this route was at any risk? The diligent work that climbers across the country cleaning up quarries and lines up? One route becomes dirty for a few years and you scream neglect. As I have mentioned before, there's nothing instrinsically wrong with rock not being climbed for a few years. There's loads of virgin rock in the world and no one is shedding a tear for them or talking about how they're neglected and alone.

> No, that one must have passed me by. It did hurt all the people who could have enjoyed a nice 6c sport route. Even with the chains, I doubt that anyone other than Fiend and Robert are going to enjoy the route.

I get the feeling it really did pass you by. Sorry, I don't describe not climbing something as being 'hurt' by it. If anyone is broken up about not climbing it can but put a rope up on it. Anyone who can't be bothered is obviously not 'hurt'.

> I mean that the rock was so long ignored and in such disrepair that the work Buz did practically makes him like a first ascentiont. It would be like me putting up a new sport route and some guys wanting to chop the bolts and trad lead it because "they were going to get round to cleaning it, honest 'guv!".

It doesn't matter whether anyone was going to clean it, cleaning it doesn't give anyone the right to change it in any other way without consultation and discussion. What is disrepair on a route? Was it falling down? Or harmed seriously apart from being a bit dirty?

Someone climbed and cleaned it last year, so even by your standards Buz isn't the first ascentionist

> You can't just claim that my argument is disposed of, you have to actually disprove it first. Buz put in the hard work and chose the style for the rock that opened it up to lots of. You and Fiend didn't do any work, despite having decades to get round to doing it. Unfortunately it'll go back to being disused and being of no service to anyone.

You didn't do any work either, Buz has removed the bolts. Maybe you shoukd respect his decision? Obviously fiend and robert can keep talking as they don't hold that cleaning anything gives anyone extra rights. Trad climbers clean routes all the time no one has ever taken that extra step to the chip/bolt/peg/graffiti/claim/alter the route to their whims down to the fact they cleaned it once. Everyone who bolts anything puts work into it, but we don't condone retrobolting regardless of the effort put into it.

> No, you're just trying to attribute a facile maximum utility argument to me that I didn't make. If my position was that simplistic I would indeed be for retro-bolting everything. For someone so willing to negatively judge the intelligence of others you demonstrate poor reading comprehension.

Well, it's your main argument here. To serve the greater number, it isn't our fault that you find it has unacceptable consequences when extended else where. When you present a simplisitic argument by arguing for the masses missing out on the route, what are people to assume other than the fact you think that the more ascents a climb gets the better? If there is some sort of nuance to your argument you're going to have to explain it.
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.

All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb.

> So what are you saying? Only Buz was capable of cleaning the route and all trad climbers had to wait on him to exercise his god-like powers?

Of course not. It just happens he got around to doing it.

> Totally the trad climbers fault, if you ignore something for decades you lose any claim to it.

Keep asserting this as much as you like. It doesn't make it any more true. As a matter of interest, how long does a route have to be ignored for before you consider it fair game for retro-bolting?

> No, that one must have passed me by. It did hurt all the people who could have enjoyed a nice 6c sport route.

Me not bolting every other route in the quarry also hurts everyone who might have climbed them as a sport route but are not up to doing them as trad route. It's a complete non-argument.

> Even with the chains, I doubt that anyone other than Fiend and Robert are going to enjoy the route.

I doubt it, but so what if that's the case. I doubt anyone apart from Dave Macleod is ever going to enjoy Echo Wall; it's probably filthy already. Should that be bolted up so that capable sport climbers can enjoy a good 8c?

> Because it's been ignored the same way Pettifer's has been. Nijinski receives tons of attention.

Fiend wants to do it. I might even do it myself (though I may not be brave enough). Others might too. All the same arguments for chopping as for Pettifer's.

> No, you're just trying to attribute a facile maximum utility argument to me that I didn't make. If my position was that simplistic I would indeed be for retro-bolting everything.

Please could you clarify in general terms, without specific reference to the Ratho situation, where you stand on the maximum utility thing. It really isn't clear to me. You seem to have back-pedalled quite some way from your earlier (and I suspect now quite embarrassing) "you don't need to clip the bolts" stance.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> (In reply to gurumed)
> As I have mentioned before, there's nothing instrinsically wrong with rock not being climbed for a few years. There's loads of virgin rock in the world and no one is shedding a tear for them or talking about how they're neglected and alone.

There is loads of virgin rock in the world and there's even plenty of it in Scotland if you go far enough from the main cities. Undeveloped rock close enough to Glasgow and Edinburgh that people can drive there easily is in shorter supply. Ratho is pretty much the most convenient possible crag in Central Scotland not only because it's close to the M8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh but because it has a big car park and cafe and in particular a climbing centre where lots of people go regularly right next door. The accessibility changes the cost of leaving the rock unused - it's more like a gap site in a city centre than a field in the country.

There are competing factors to be balanced and there are costs no matter what decision is taken. I think what is clear though is that the situation now is better than it was a few months ago.
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)

> There are competing factors to be balanced.

Yes, and this can be sensibly done by cleaning trad routes and bolting new sport routes.

> I think what is clear though is that the situation now is better than it was a few months ago.

It certainly will be once the remaining retro-bolts are removed; this furore will hopefully have raised people's awareness of the good work Buzby has done and of the good climbing available in the quarry (both trad and sport) so that traffic will increase and routes remain in a good state.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> There is loads of virgin rock in the world and there's even plenty of it in Scotland if you go far enough from the main cities. Undeveloped rock close enough to Glasgow and Edinburgh that people can drive there easily is in shorter supply. Ratho is pretty much the most convenient possible crag in Central Scotland not only because it's close to the M8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh but because it has a big car park and cafe and in particular a climbing centre where lots of people go regularly right next door. The accessibility changes the cost of leaving the rock unused - it's more like a gap site in a city centre than a field in the country.

There appears to even be undeveloped rock in ratho quarry. Buz has more new routes to put up in the quarry whom few will have a problem with. I'm not sure what the cost you speak of is, I feel like people should be free to visit and climb where they want as they're not damaging the rock, breaking access restrictions etc. I don't think we should be trying to maximise the use any particular routes whether it is in a quarry or cloggy. The rock can still be climbed, in my local trad quarry plenty of people turn up with there families and put ropes on things. The problem seems to be that there is a climbing centre next door and people can't be bothered. But that's up to them right?


> There are competing factors to be balanced and there are costs no matter what decision is taken. I think what is clear though is that the situation now is better than it was a few months ago.

I generally agree, I think if I could magic that earth above away it would be even better.

3 Names - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

Are you on a complete wind up, or are you really just a total prat?
r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>

>
> Yes, and this can be sensibly done by cleaning trad routes and bolting new sport routes.

I think this is a good solution, restore a few trad routes and maybe bolt a dozen new sport routes. Win-win right?
gurumed - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Have you actually been in Ratho Quarry?

In reply to Robert Durran:
> You seem to have back-pedalled quite some way from your earlier (and I suspect now quite embarrassing) "you don't need to clip the bolts" stance.

I'm not back-pedaling, perhaps you're just calming down enough to be able to listen?
Calder - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Gurumed:

gurumed:
> If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.

Robert:
>All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb."

This is really important as far as I'm concerned. Believe it or not people aspire to routes they cannot yet do. And yes, people even aspire to dirty routes in quarries. I may not have desires on PW but there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards that I do intend doing. Some of these are in very underused quarries, and will need cleaning before I give them a go. But these routes, these aspirations, they motivate me to improve. But it takes time.

So if someone came along and took that away by transforming it into a 6c or whatever under some false assumption that no-one cares because it's not had a tick on UKC for 10 years or so then I'd be devastated - and the longer I've strived for it the more it's going to hurt.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Calder:
> (In reply to Gurumed)
>
> gurumed:
> [...]
>
> This is really important as far as I'm concerned. Believe it or not people aspire to routes they cannot yet do. And yes, people even aspire to dirty routes in quarries. I may not have desires on PW but there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards that I do intend doing.

In the specific case of the retro-bolted routes at Ratho which are now getting sport traffic maybe a sporting solution would be an understanding the bolts will come out as soon as a trad climber with a specific intention to climb them on a stated day (rather than a general aspiration to potentially climb them) asks. It was great the way Pettifers Wall was publicly reclaimed with Robert's trad ascent and this would be in the same spirit.




johncoxmysteriously - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Calder:

>"there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards"

Awesome. Where's Mick Ryan when you need him?

jcm
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Calder)

>
> In the specific case of the retro-bolted routes at Ratho which are now getting sport traffic maybe a sporting solution would be an understanding the bolts will come out as soon as a trad climber with a specific intention to climb them on a stated day (rather than a general aspiration to potentially climb them) asks.

I think that's a bit silly.

There are plenty of people out there who might a spire to wally 2 (Perhaps myself, Fiend, clearly, for instance) I really don't think he has to state a day to justify Buzby, me or anyone else removing the bolts.

Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> I'm not back-pedaling, perhaps you're just calming down enough to be able to listen?

You initially lost all credibility with anyone who knows anything at all about climbing with your "you don't have to clip the bolts" stance and then a long series of absurd and daft and ignorant posts.

You have, admittedly, now upped your game a bit (though still seem to be struggling to get a coherent argument together).

I actually now genuinely wonder whether you were initialy trolling. Or maybe you've now employed a more switched on proxy to post on your behalf.

.

victim of mathematics - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to gurumed)
> [...]
>
> You initially lost all credibility with anyone who knows anything at all about climbing with your "you don't have to clip the bolts" stance and then a long series of absurd and daft and ignorant posts.
>
> You have, admittedly, now upped your game a bit (though still seem to be struggling to get a coherent argument together).
>
> I actually now genuinely wonder whether you were initialy trolling. Or maybe you've now employed a more switched on proxy to post on your behalf.
>
> .

Odd, isn't it. I still can't get past that anybody prepared to use to word 'mellifluous' can be so objectionably dense, however.
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to victim of mathematics:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Odd, isn't it. I still can't get past that anybody prepared to use to word 'mellifluous' can be so objectionably dense, however.

He also used "phoneme" in that post while suggesting how I might improve my insults. It was this post which initially made me wonder whether he had a literate accomplice.

Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Calder)
>
> "there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards"

Does this mean they havn't yet been checked for the next edition of the SMC guide?
tom_in_edinburgh - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think that's a bit silly.
>
> There are plenty of people out there who might a spire to wally 2 (Perhaps myself, Fiend, clearly, for instance) I really don't think he has to state a day to justify Buzby, me or anyone else removing the bolts.

The main reason I suggested stating a day is so people who have an interest have a chance to watch and make the trad ascent an event everyone can feel good about. I wasn't trying to argue that it would be unjustified to do it any other way.

Calder - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: Almost certainly.
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> The main reason I suggested stating a day is so people who have an interest have a chance to watch and make the trad ascent an event everyone can feel good about.

What an appalling idea - doing a chop route with a crowd of rabid pro-bolters baying for my blood. It was pressure enough doing Pettifer's with Buzby wathing and Fraser photographing.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>
> What an appalling idea - doing a chop route with a crowd of rabid pro-bolters baying for my blood. It was pressure enough doing Pettifer's with Buzby wathing and Fraser photographing.

I guess Buzby can keep the ashes of British trad climbing in a jar in his office until someone is ready to claim them back ;-)

gurumed - on 18 Sep 2013
Robert, if you weren't so unremittingly crotchety I would have grown bored of this thread long-ago. :)

In reply to victim of mathematics:
> I still can't get past that anybody prepared to use to word 'mellifluous' can be so objectionably dense, however.

Perhaps the posit that I must either agree with you or be an imbecile is a false dichotomy?
victim of mathematics - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> Perhaps the posit that I must either agree with you or be an imbecile is a false dichotomy?

I see what you've done there. I would applaud you if you weren't such an irritating waste of space x
beychae - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Calder: & Robert:

Say a local council had a swimming pool that was only getting 10 visitors a month. They decide to turn it into a park, and the park then has dozens of people use it every day, office workers eating their sandwiches in the sunshine, parents taking their kids to play at the weekend, etc.

Obviously the people who did use the swimming pool would be upset. There would even be people who couldn't swim, but planned to learn in the future, who might be upset (although I'd see that as a pretty tenuous argument). But would you really think the council had done something unjustifiable?

>
> gurumed:
>> If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.
>
> Robert:
>> All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb."
>
> This is really important as far as I'm concerned.

It's really important as far as I'm concerned too. Why is it better to preserve something for people who might use it in the future than to change it so many more people will use it now?

It would be very different if E4s in Scotland were an endangered species, or even if E4s in driving distance were, but that just isn't the case.

BrendanO - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

Wonder if there should be a geographic/population algorithm to factor in when trying to assess popularity? If this was near Gr Mcr, would have got many more views I think.
Michael Gordon - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Calder) & Robert:
>
> Why is it better to preserve something for people who might use it in the future than to change it so many more people will use it now?
>

That doesn't make sense. If you 'change it' the ascents will still come in the future, not 'now'. And the number of people isn't a good argument either.


> It would be very different if E4s in Scotland were an endangered species, or even if E4s in driving distance were, but that just isn't the case.

I take it you've already done most of the central belt 6c routes?
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Grahame N:

Good contribution!
Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> Perhaps the posit that I must either agree with you or be an imbecile is a false dichotomy?

Nobody ever said it was a true on; a lot of people disagree with me and only one or two are imbeciles.

Robert Durran - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Calder) & Robert:
>
> Say a local council had a swimming pool that was only getting 10 visitors a month. They decide to turn it into a park, and the park then has dozens of people use it every day, office workers eating their sandwiches in the sunshine, parents taking their kids to play at the weekend, etc.
>
> Obviously the people who did use the swimming pool would be upset. There would even be people who couldn't swim, but planned to learn in the future, who might be upset (although I'd see that as a pretty tenuous argument). But would you really think the council had done something unjustifiable?

We're talking about climbing here with its rich and wonderful heritage and intrinsic and essential elitism (no, it's not a dirty word) and NOT council politics.

> It's really important as far as I'm concerned too. Why is it better to preserve something for people who might use it in the future than to change it so many more people will use it now?

See above. Because I don't believe climbing should be part of the convenience culture dumbing down so much of our everyday non-climbing existence.

> It would be very different if E4s in Scotland were an endangered species, or even if E4s in driving distance were, but that just isn't the case.

Ok. Tell me how many good (one or more stars) E4's there are within sensible evening cragging distance (one hour's drive say) of Edinburgh.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Calder) & Robert:
>
> Say a local council had a swimming pool that was only getting 10 visitors a month. They decide to turn it into a park, and the park then has dozens of people use it every day, office workers eating their sandwiches in the sunshine, parents taking their kids to play at the weekend, etc.

Except this swimming pool has a massive park next door already with regularly changing attractions, that is always stays dry and safe.

> Obviously the people who did use the swimming pool would be upset. There would even be people who couldn't swim, but planned to learn in the future, who might be upset (although I'd see that as a pretty tenuous argument). But would you really think the council had done something unjustifiable?

Yes, it's a massive shame, because no one in that community will learn to swim, and of course if it set a precedent of no one learning how to swim in the country then we will have lost something important. I'm not sure if the future argument is tenuous, if kids were upset from being deprived of the chance to swim, I'd listen. Obviously we're ignoring the brownfields that are also next door and will accept another park but it's just a little easier to build over the community swimming pool. Seem's a bit pointless to me.

Didn't Tom Randall just put up two new e7s? How many ascents are they going to have in the next 20 years? Have you asked him to kindly ab back down to bolt them? Here's his twitter: https://twitter.com/TomRandall2

Please write back what he says!
r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Calder)
> [...]
>
> In the specific case of the retro-bolted routes at Rat. which are now getting sport traffic maybe a sporting solution would be an understanding the bolts will come out as soon as a trad climber with a specific intention to climb them on a stated day (rather than a general aspiration to potentially climb them) asks. It was great the way Pettifers Wall was publicly reclaimed with Robert's trad ascent and this would be in the same spirit.

I like the sentiment here, and it's the freeing of routes that trad embraces. There's the fa and the ffa. It's about the taking that next step to a pure ascent, no pegs, no points of aid, no side runners and onsight if it's possible. Such an event that climb was that people bothered to wittness it, take pictures and document it and its been discussed a fair bit since. I feel the route deserves more than a no star sport grade. I'm not sure all retroed routes restored would have be announced in this same way though.

However, the reason I wouldn't really accept this is that unilateral decisions shouldn't be upheld, or be given any weight to by having to fulfil certain specific criteria first before correcting them.


beychae - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to beychae)
> [...]
>
> That doesn't make sense. If you 'change it' the ascents will still come in the future, not 'now'.

Not quite sure I've understood this. Any decisions you make can only ever impact on future events.

Perhaps it would be better if we looked at it from the point-of-view of the state of Pettifer's Wall 3 months ago: if it stayed as a trad climb you might expect it to get 1 ascent over the next two years, and as a sport climb you might expect it to get 100 ascents over the next two years.

> And the number of people isn't a good argument either.

Why not?

>
> [...]
>
> I take it you've already done most of the central belt 6c routes?

Why is this relevant?
beychae - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to beychae)
> [...]
>
> We're talking about climbing here with its rich and wonderful heritage and intrinsic and essential elitism (no, it's not a dirty word) and NOT council politics.

Here your argument seems to be that trad climbing has a long history, so even if most trad climbers would consider a particular route to be better as a sports route, they shouldn't be allowed to bolt it because people haven't bolted trad routes in the past.

> Ok. Tell me how many good (one or more stars) E4's there are within sensible evening cragging distance (one hour's drive say) of Edinburgh.

There are 33 E4s by my count, which compares to 2 6c sports climbs. And trying to change my point by limiting it to starred routes is an underhand tactic -- sports climbers in the UK definitely don't have the luxury of only choosing starred routes.

(Ratho: 3, Thorntons: 4, Fourth : 3, Wolfcrag: 2, N Queenferry: 2, Rostyh: 1, Limekilns: 6, Benarty Hill: 2, Roslin: 10
Sports: N Berwick Law: 2)
beychae - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> (In reply to beychae)
> [...]
>
> Except this swimming pool has a massive park next door already with regularly changing attractions, that is always stays dry and safe.

So do you think outdoor sports climbing, on rock, is the same as indoor lead climbing?

> [...]
>
> Yes, it's a massive shame, because no one in that community will learn to swim, and of course if it set a precedent of no one learning how to swim in the country then we will have lost something important. I'm not sure if the future argument is tenuous, if kids were upset from being deprived of the chance to swim, I'd listen.

The problem with that response is that I'm not saying people shouldn't learn trad climbing! I just think that it's an unfair division of limited resources if they're reserved for one thing, but hardly ever used for that, when other people could and would make use of it otherwise.

I do however worry that beginners are always pushed into trad climbing in this country (and I'm even guilty of having done that myself :$), although it won't really suit all of them. It's easy to say "well you can start on a diff, we'll even have you on a top rope too, it's absolutely safe", without mentioning that trad climbing is a version of a slightly different sport, but with extra risk added purely so the participants can get a thrill out of that risk.

Also - Ratho quarry is really not a good place for peple to learn trad, there are only a handful of sub-E1 routes in it.

> Didn't Tom Randall just put up two new e7s? How many ascents are they going to have in the next 20 years? Have you asked him to kindly ab back down to bolt them? Here's his twitter: https://twitter.com/TomRandall2
>

This is a long way from the topic of Ratho. However, I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to ask someone to bolt a route I wasn't capable of climbing!

gurumed - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Didn't Tom Randall just put up two new e7s? How many ascents are they going to have in the next 20 years? Have you asked him to kindly ab back down to bolt them?

Given that Tom Randall didn't put up these new E7s up in Ratho Quarry your question isn't pertinent. Besides, I don't remember anyone here asking first ascentionists to bolt their trad routes.

In reply to Robert Durran:
> We're talking about climbing here with its rich and wonderful heritage and intrinsic and essential elitism [...]

If you believe that elitism is an essential component of climbing, then your position is most definitely a selfish one. It certainly explains your vainglorious desire to have the rock be kept in a state in which only a tiny minority will ever enjoy it.

If you want Pettier's to be a chop route in order to give yourself a supercilious ego boost, that isn't particularly laudable but it is a genuine motivation. If this is the case, at least have the decency of expressing your position honestly and spare us sanctimonious arguments of trad ethics.
Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Here your argument seems to be that trad climbing has a long history, so even if most trad climbers would consider a particular route to be better as a sports route, they shouldn't be allowed to bolt it because people haven't bolted trad routes in the past.

"Better" or "more popular" or "more accessible". Not by any means the same thing.
Anyway, who are these "trad climbers"? Those who only climb trad or those who do trad and sport?

But yes, I basically think that routes should not be retro-bolted unless their is an overwhelming concensus amongst all climbers.

> There are 33 E4s by my count, which compares to 2 6c sports climbs.

I think 6c is a much "narrower" band than E4; probably fairer to include 6c+ as well. But whatever. Tough. There are more trad routes (and 33 including the crap ones is not many anyway) than sport routes. Deal with it or move to France or wherever. Or find some new lines or quarries to bolt.
Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> > If you believe that elitism is an essential component of climbing, then your position is most definitely a selfish one.

By elitism I simply mean that you have to accept, as I do, that some routes are too hard for you. Others with more talent and/or determination will do them but you will not. The alternative, taken to it's logical conclusion, is wholesale bolting and chipping; the destructiuon of all the challenge that makes climbing so great. As such, I think elitism is absolutely essential to climbing.

> It certainly explains your vainglorious desire to have the rock be kept in a state in which only a tiny minority will ever enjoy it.

Yup (not vainglorious though)

> If you want Pettier's to be a chop route.......

Pettifer's is not a chop route. I was refering to wally 2.

> .......in order to give yourself a supercilious ego boost.

I don't. I wanted the fine challenge it offers and which others can now also take up.

beychae - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to beychae)
> Anyway, who are these "trad climbers"? Those who only climb trad or those who do trad and sport?

I think I mean anyone who climbs any trad. Could even include myself in that, I'm not planning to sell my trad rack, and have very little objection to good multi-pitch mountain V Diffs.

> But yes, I basically think that routes should not be retro-bolted unless their is an overwhelming concensus amongst all climbers.
>
> [...]
>
> I think 6c is a much "narrower" band than E4; probably fairer to include 6c+ as well.

OK, I think you're right, actually :)

> But whatever. Tough. There are more trad routes (and 33 including the crap ones is not many anyway) than sport routes. Deal with it or move to France or wherever. Or find some new lines or quarries to bolt.

I'd be quite happy to accept that if I thought I was the only person who wanted a better balance between trad and sports routes. But I suspect it's a sizeable minority of outdoor climbers.
Michael Gordon - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:

Just trying to understand your position here. Feel free to correct me but I think you're saying better as a sport route because more people will do it?

In which case this is a complete non-argument as you could say the same thing for most E4s.
LakesWinter on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>

>
> If you believe that elitism is an essential component of climbing, then your position is most definitely a selfish one. It certainly explains your vainglorious desire to have the rock be kept in a state in which only a tiny minority will ever enjoy it.
>

This argument above is utterly stupid. If this particular piece of rock is too hard for you to climb in its natural state - either because the gear isn't good enough or because you are too weak or lack the technique or whatever, then that is no argument to bring the route down to your level by bolting it if it is an already established trad route of quality. That's not being elitist, it's being humble. It is accepting that some things are beyond you at the moment (although with practice they may not always be). Retroing established quality trad routes is generally an arrogant game. It's not about supply and demand, it's not about making things accessible. Almost everything worth having in life requires struggle and effort, and if the struggle and effort or commitment of a particular route is too much at that point in time then so be it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
r0x0r.wolfo - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> So do you think outdoor sports climbing, on rock, is the same as indoor lead climbing?
>
I'm saying it's much closer to sport climbing than trad is. I'm saying that the guy who can lead 6c can find a nice sheltered place with refreshments to do that. He can get his fix, with a world class venue next door.
>
> The problem with that response is that I'm not saying people shouldn't learn trad climbing! I just think that it's an unfair division of limited resources if they're reserved for one thing, but hardly ever used for that, when other people could and would make use of it otherwise.
I think it's sad that we're talking about division of resources, especially as Buz says there's loads more new routes to bolt in the quarry. The resources are there, people just haven't bothered putting the legwork in yet to bolt new lines. I guess as there is a massive climbing centre next door, people haven't had felt compelled to do so. Must be because they're getting their fix already.

> I do however worry that beginners are always pushed into trad climbing in this country (and I'm even guilty of having done that myself :$), although it won't really suit all of them. It's easy to say "well you can start on a diff, we'll even have you on a top rope too, it's absolutely safe", without mentioning that trad climbing is a version of a slightly different sport, but with extra risk added purely so the participants can get a thrill out of that risk.

I've never pushed anyone into anything in my life. I have never failed to explain to people the risks (and of course teach people to avoid them). You fail to grasp climbing, trad climbing is just climbing, no one has decided to put more 'spice' into things. People see a line and then climb it, they climb it and make it as safe as possible with the gear they have. They can do this all over the world with first ascents on isolated spires, towers and unclimbed big walls. Trad climbing can be safer than sport and often is, it's not a convoluted attempt to 'spice things up' as you seem to think, it is just climbing. People die and are injured in sport climbing, there are spicy bolts that are way more run out than you would place gear. There are bolts that are pointless because you're crashing and breaking your legs on a massive ledge anyway. People casually lower others off the end of the rope, and there has been bolt failures that have lead to deaths.


> Also - Ratho quarry is really not a good place for peple to learn trad, there are only a handful of sub-E1 routes in it.
Obviously. Though one of your previous arguments was that bolting e4's would help people get into trad...
>
> This is a long way from the topic of Ratho. However, I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to ask someone to bolt a route I wasn't capable of climbing!

Can you climb the e4?
Calder - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
>
> [...]
>
> The problem with that response is that I'm not saying people shouldn't learn trad climbing! I just think that it's an unfair division of limited resources if they're reserved for one thing, but hardly ever used for that, when other people could and would make use of it otherwise.

Life's not always fair. And that's not a bad thing. As LakesWinter said, it's good to have to work hard, or step outside your comfort zone, or confront your fears to attain something because it's satisfying, and you value it more. Something possibly evident in the fact that for well over a week there have only been two people arguing for the bolts in this case. And several, if not many, arguing against.

Of course, if you still think it's unfair there's not enough 6c's then you could go and establish some new ones couldn't you - just think of all these hundreds of folk that are crying out for more sport climbs that would do it and thank you for it. Or is that too much like hard work?
gurumed - on 19 Sep 2013
n reply to LakesWinter:
> If this particular piece of rock is too hard for you to climb in its natural state - either because the gear isn't good enough or because you are too weak or lack the technique or whatever, then that is no argument to bring the route down to your level by bolting it if it is an already established trad route of quality.

This piece of rock had been ignored for decades and was buried under a bank of earth. None of the climbers in the area capable of doing a route like this had bothered cleaning it because they were too busy climbing other lines of higher quality in better areas. The recent trad ascents that have been made were only done to make a point.

> it's not about making things accessible.

Are you arguing for the chains to be removed from the top?

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> I'm saying it's much closer to sport climbing than trad is. I'm saying that the guy who can lead 6c can find a nice sheltered place with refreshments to do that. He can get his fix, with a world class venue next door.

Are you saying Ratho Quarry is a world class venue? You either haven't been there or you're off your meds, dude. :)

In reply to Calder:
> it's good to have to work hard, or step outside your comfort zone, or confront your fears to attain something because it's satisfying, and you value it more.

I agree; I'm not arguing for retro bolting of all bold or hard trad. What I'm talking about is this specific scrappy route in this particular scruffy quarry. Nobody is or was aspiring to do this route. Nor will anybody once this thread is forgotten. That's why chopping the bolts was a waste. The rock is essentially being chucked in the bin so that a couple of guys could play hero on it.

> Something possibly evident in the fact that for well over a week there have only been two people arguing for the bolts in this case. And several, if not many, arguing against.

I think if you took a count in terms of locals, you'd find the only two people arguing for the bolt chopping have been the guys who wanted to trad lead it. This thread is a continuation of a tedious 799 post thread.
Hugh Cottam - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

Just go on the climbing wall and shut up please.
Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> The recent trad ascents that have been made were only done to make a point.

True to an extent (obviously).
Also because it is an excellent ** route at a grade which gave me a fine challenge.
Also to draw attention to the fact that Pettifer's wall is an excellent route in the hope that it and other routes in the quarry get more traffic and stay cleaner.

> Are you arguing for the chains to be removed from the top?

FFS

> Are you saying Ratho Quarry is a world class venue?

Of course he is. Better sport than Ceuse, better trad than than The Dubh Loch. Pity the crappy climbing wall next door detracts a bit from it though.

> What I'm talking about is this specific scrappy route in this particular scruffy quarry.

It is an excellent route in a pretty good quarry. have you climbed in many quarries?

> Nobody is or was aspiring to do this route. Nor will anybody once this thread is forgotten. That's why chopping the bolts was a waste. The rock is essentially being chucked in the bin so that a couple of guys could play hero on it.

This is complete bollocks. Has your proxy brain with their mellifluous phonemes abandonerd you? The intelligence of your posts seems to be returning to it's former depths.

> I think if you took a count in terms of locals, you'd find the only two people arguing for the bolt chopping have been the guys who wanted to trad lead it.

This is also complete bollocks and you know it (unless you are even less intelligent than I have been giving you credit for). Many have posted on this and the other thread. Several othere have emailed me privately in support; the tip of the iceberg.

Fiend - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

Wow. Robert was right in his sweary phase, you are a spectacular f*cking imbecile. How you can be so utterly stupid yet somehow use a keyboard and even the quote function, I don't know. If there's a time UKC needed some auto-IQ-filter for posting, this is it.

He was also right in his sweary phase that your cretinous trolling isn't worth replying to - in fact it's so facetious that it's scarcely possible to reply to it. But the last thing this debate needs is more lies, so just to make a couple of corrections:

> The recent trad ascents that have been made were only done to make a point.

Complete shit - I'd ask why bother to write such lies about people's motivations but I don't expect a comprehensible answer. My ascent was solely because I wanted to do the bloody route (obviously!!), especially since it was now clean, chalked, and lower-off installed, and looked really cool and inspiring - which, if you'd bothered to read both Robert's and my report on climbing it, it was.

And in case anyone else wants to come out with any other lies about why I hadn't cleaned and done it before, I'll reiterate the clear truth that "I haven't done it because I've been exploring the rest of Scotland and have saved it for a short local day" - and the other week was that short day, with a mate who had never been to Ratho Quarry before and was keen to check it out.

> The rock is essentially being chucked in the bin so that a couple of guys could play hero on it.

> I think if you took a count in terms of locals, you'd find the only two people arguing for the bolt chopping have been the guys who wanted to trad lead it.

More complete shit. Again, more lies about people's motivations. Hero?? WTF. It's climbing. And to be honest, it's not hard climbing either. There's loads of normal climbers I know who could do it and probably will now.

And if you or anyone else thinks Robert's or my motivations for standing up for UK trad climbing principles and a sport/trad balance are solely based on wanting to climb the routes, you are even more moronic than I thought (quite a feat in itself). The same with a load of other climbers arguing against un-contested retrobolting on here (and loads I know expressing the same view offline) - we're obviously primarily arguing for a principle we believe in, and in some - but obviously nowhere near all - cases with extra motivation from wanting to climb the routes in question.

Hopefully you will manage to grow enough brain cells to get into double figures and realise your time to STFU and stop posting has long passed (I believe it was the point where you started your non-contributions with "a bunch of whiney bitches" and then swiftly proceeded to berate others for "ad hominem" attacks), but in the unfortunate event that you don't, I trust others with stronger stomachs will keep on correcting your nonsensical fallacious drivel.
gurumed - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:
> I haven't done it because I've been exploring the rest of Scotland and have saved it for a short local day

I see, the rock should sit for decades doing nothing waiting for you while there are hundreds of people that would like to sport climb it? I can understand why that is desirable to you, but it's undeniably selfish.

> Hero?? WTF. It's climbing.

I didn't say that you were heroes (certainly not mine), but that you were playing at hero. If proving your bravery for an ego boost wasn't the goal you could've just not clipped the bolts.

> There's loads of normal climbers I know who could do it and probably will now.

I hope you're right. It doesn't look like it'll pan out that way if the last twenty years are any indication, unfortunately.

> you started your non-contributions with "a bunch of whiney bitches"

You were being whiney bitches: "Waaa! Why'd Buz bolt the route? It's only been twenty years, we were going to get round to cleaning it eventually! Waaa!"

> and then swiftly proceeded to berate others for "ad hominem" attacks

Insulting me personally to say that my view is not worth hearing instead of facing the points head on is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem.
Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> I see, the rock should sit for decades doing nothing waiting for you while there are hundreds of people that would like to sport climb it?

So, if all these peole were so keen to sport climb it, why didn't they clean and bolt it years ago? Good at shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you?

> If proving your bravery for an ego boost wasn't the goal you could've just not clipped the bolts.

For f*ck's sake. I've clearly been overestimating your intelligence in every single one of my previous replies to your pathetic crap. After nearly a thousand posts on the combined threads you return yet again to an argument which everyone, absolutely everyone, who has any knowledge about climbing and the tiniest of brains at all thinks is total, utter, complete shite.

> Insulting me personally to say that my view is not worth hearing instead of facing the points head on is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem.

Your views are not worth hearing. Many people have made that clear to you. The vast majority of the people who support the retro-bolting must squirm when they read your brainless piles of stinking shit. You are a moron. Sorry, but you are. Someone emailed me, supporting my position, but suggesting I pulled back from the name calling. He had a point. But facts are facts. You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot.
3 Names - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to gurumed

You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot.


Yes I think that about covers it.

gurumed - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> So, if all these peole were so keen to sport climb it, why didn't they clean and bolt it years ago?

They weren't aware of it because it was a untouched dirty wall in the quarry. Buz cleaned it up and bolted it, basically putting it back on the map as a new route. Then you started moaning to get the bolts removed. Try to keep up.

> I've clearly been overestimating your intelligence in every single one of my previous replies to your pathetic crap.

"you [...] ignorant idiot?"
"...such moronic arguments..."
"...such a moronic dick-headed..."
"...a moron and a dickhead."
"Ypou are an idiot."
"Gurumed's views are founded on such an ocean of ignorance, stupidity and gross assumption"
"the stinking shite you spout"
"[your] lack of intellectual capacity"
"your daft incoherent rantings"
"...you are too stupid..."
"...gross, ignorant, stupid and in this case really pretty offensive..."
"You really are a complete dick-head aren't you?"
"...just aren't bright enough..."
"...Gurumed, whose pathetic apology for a neural network..."
"I only called you and Bechae morons. [...] (because you are)."
"What makes you a moron (in fact virtually amoebically submoronic in intellect)"
"I am calling you a moron because of your monumental ignorance"
"even a man of modest intelligence reading the thread would see what a moron you are"
"...Gurumed, as usual, either through stupidity..."
"your own tiny f*cking head."
"[you] are too f*cking stupid to understand anything you read"
"You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot."

If my intellegience is lower than your previous estimations then I must have an IQ comparable to that of a glass of water. :)
LakesWinter on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:

I'd quote all that, but suffice to say, I agree!
beychae - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Calder:
> (In reply to beychae)
> [...]
>
> Something possibly evident in the fact that for well over a week there have only been two people arguing for the bolts in this case. And several, if not many, arguing against.

Do you think that the prospect of being subjected to a prolonged and vicious personal attack might, perhaps, put some of the pro-bolters off replying to this thread?

tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]

> "Gurumed's views are founded on such an ocean of ignorance, stupidity and gross assumption"

'Ocean of Ignorance' would be a great name for a route, it's almost poetic.

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." Isaac Newton.
Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> They weren't aware of it because it was a untouched dirty wall in the quarry.

If they were serious about putting some actual effort into finding more sport routes (rather than expecting them to be handed to them on a plate) they would have been going round looking for dirty "untouched" walls in quarries.

> Buz cleaned it up and bolted it....... Then you started moaning to get the bolts removed.

Of course a lot of people started moaning about the almost universally unacceptable retro-bolting of a route without proper consultation.

> If my intellegience is lower than your previous estimations then I must have an IQ comparable to that of a glass of water. :)

No, a glass of stale piss.

Robert Durran - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:

> Do you think that the prospect of being subjected to a prolonged and vicious personal attack might, perhaps, put some of the pro-bolters off replying to this thread?

I have only subjected gurumed to a prolonged and vicious personal attack (the one on you was not really prolonged). The reasons for this will be self evident to any intelligent person reading the threads (as will the fact that serious posters will be taken seriously).

r0x0r.wolfo - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Calder)
> [...]
>
> Do you think that the prospect of being subjected to a prolonged and vicious personal attack might, perhaps, put some of the pro-bolters off replying to this thread?

Has anyone been attacked? (except gurumed of course) who is reveling in it. He's baiting the insults and feeding off the attention. I'm not a fan of swearing, but then again I have laughed out loud a few times at some of them. Some people enjoy the kick of winding people up, it's verging on a bit sad now but harmless.

gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Has anyone been attacked? (except gurumed of course) who is reveling in it.

I'm just putting on a brave face, dude. In reality I cry myself to sleep each night over the hurtful things Robert says about me. :)
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
> [...]
>
> I'm just putting on a brave face, dude. In reality I cry myself to sleep each night over the hurtful things Robert says about me. :)

Good. You deserve it.

gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm quite sure that the thought of genuinely hurting my feelings makes you positively tumescent. Fortunately for me, I find your bawdry rebukes to be an absolute lark.

In reply to beychae:
> Do you think that the prospect of being subjected to a prolonged and vicious personal attack might, perhaps, put some of the pro-bolters off replying to this thread?

Most of the pro-bolters are too busy having fun climbing somewhere. The anti-bolters leave routes like pettifer's unused for decades waiting for someone else to clean them, so they have tons of time to post here.
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> Most of the pro-bolters are too busy having fun climbing somewhere.

Somewhere a long way away hopefully.

> The anti-bolters leave routes like pettifer's unused for decades waiting for someone else to clean them, so they have tons of time to post here.

I don't really have time and am suffering from a certain amount of sleep deprivation in order not to comproimise my work, training and climbing. I just consider it an important battle which needs to be fought.

Ian Paterson - on 20 Sep 2013
I cannot believe this is actually still being discussed, get over it.

On a side note, I am considering creating a few dry tooling lines, always thought Ratho Quarry was an ideal place for it. Some dry tooling first ascents coming my way!
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I'm quite sure that the thought of genuinely hurting my feelings makes you positively tumescent. Fortunately for me, I find your bawdry rebukes to be an absolute lark.
>
> In reply to beychae:
> [...]
>
> Most of the pro-bolters are too busy having fun climbing somewhere. The anti-bolters leave routes like pettifer's unused for decades waiting for someone else to clean them, so they have tons of time to post here.

You have posted 67 times in these two threads compared to three times on any other topic. You are literally on this forum to post endlessly in these two threads. You do appear to be going out of your way visiting this forum to post about these 3 routes. Robert posts here anyway.
Choss on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Dont know the crag. Just a question.

Is there an existing agreed drilled gear policy for the crag/area? If so, what is it?
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Choss:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Dont know the crag. Just a question.
>
> Is there an existing agreed drilled gear policy for the crag/area? If so, what is it?

The MC of S guidelines:
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/climbing-code.asp


This paragraph is the critical one:

"Retro-bolting (the addition of bolts to established climbs without them) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level"

Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Mark Bull - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> This paragraph is the critical one:
>
> "Retro-bolting (the addition of bolts to established climbs without them) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level"
>
> Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It is, but neither the MCofS, nor any other body in Scotland, support any process or mechanism for such consultation to take place.

Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Mark Bull:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> It is, but neither the MCofS, nor any other body in Scotland, support any process or mechanism for such consultation to take place.

Indeed, and this sorry incident perhaps suggests that one is needed. Or at least guidelines on carrying out an appropriate consultation.

Meanwhile, common semse needs to be applied. In this instance perhaps a well publicised open meeting and/or even just a UKC thread BEFORE the retro-bolting might have sufficed. What is certain is that the guidelines were not met and this is why the remaining retro-bolts must be removed.

Choss on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Again, i dont know the crag, or local situation. Just say if Im out of my depth.

Would it not be possible to organise a regional meet on the issue, possibly through MCofS, get all interested groups and people there, and hammer out a consensus agreement?

Gotta be better for the local climbing than trading forum insults?
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Choss:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Would it not be possible to organise a regional meet on the issue, possibly through MCofS, get all interested groups and people there, and hammer out a consensus agreement?

Yes, and I know Buzby is pretty keen on the idea. However, such a discussion must obviously take place only after the removal of all the retro-bolts.

> Gotta be better for the local climbing than trading forum insults?

At least the heated debate on here has shown the need for such a discussion and might have helped set the agenda.

gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> However, such a discussion must obviously take place only after the removal of all the retro-bolts.

That seems a little short-sighted. If the consensus was that the bolts on these routes should stay it would be a waste of time removing them.
Choss on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

forget preconditions surely.

Organise meet with status quo (not the band), reach regional consensus then proceed accordingly.

As long as all sides agree to abide by consensus agreement no worries.




ads.ukclimbing.com
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> That seems a little short-sighted. If the consensus was that the bolts on these routes should stay it would be a waste of time removing them.

The presumption is clearly against retro-bolting. That is the starting point for discussion and I believe it should be the physical starting point too. Allowing the bolts to remain sets a dangerous precedent of "bolt now, discuss later".

Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> If the consensus was that the bolts on these routes should stay it would be a waste of time removing them.

If it ends up being my time, then I'd be quite happy to "waste" it; don;'t worry on my behalf :-)
gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> The presumption is clearly against retro-bolting. That is the starting point for discussion and I believe it should be the physical starting point too.

That is your own biased assumption. You're a dude who loses his temper and insults people at the drop of the hat; impulse control doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I fail to see why your personal whims should be indulged just because it would make you feel all warm and squishy inside. The first ascentionists were fine with the retro-bolting in these cases, surely that would be the starting point?

> If it ends up being my time, then I'd be quite happy to "waste" it; don;'t worry on my behalf :-)

Tell us, what terrible thing happened that made you into such a grinch? Are you really so desperate to stop people enjoying the rock that you'd go through the effort to take the bolts out, if only for a couple of months?
beychae - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to gurumed)
> [...]
>
> If it ends up being my time, then I'd be quite happy to "waste" it; don;'t worry on my behalf :-)

Robert - here you've just offered to re-bolt the routes, if the decision goes in favour of retro-bolting.

And obviously you're not a man to make a mistake*, or go back on his word, so I'll just say that's very gallant of you :-)

* If the decision goes against the retro-bolting, and the bolts have already been removed, no one will have wasted any time.
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Robert - here you've just offered to re-bolt the routes, if the decision goes in favour of retro-bolting.

No I have not.

> And obviously you're not a man to make a mistake.

Indeed not. Gurumed wrote "it would be a waste of time removing them" and I replied that I would not mind "wasting" my time doing that. In fact it would not be a waste of my time; it would be an excellent use of my time and I might well do so if Buzby doesn't remove them soon.

If I did remove them, I would certainly never ever be volunteering to replace them in any circumstances even if the whole world were in favour of them being replaced.



Choss on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

very difficult to de-bolt a route without damaging the rock, and hence the original route.

Better everyone stops further bolting/chopping, and organise a consensual crag/area drilled gear policy that everyone abides by.
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> That is your own biased assumption.

An assumption based on all precedent.

> You're a dude who loses his temper and insults people at the drop of the hat.

No I only lose my temper after careful consideration and ample justification (for example after reading one of your idiotic posts).

> The first ascentionists were fine with the retro-bolting in these cases, surely that would be the starting point?

They were not fine with it.

The starting point was unbolted routes. Surely even you can understand that. Oh, of course, I forgot, you are really thick.....so probably not.

> Tell us, what terrible thing happened that made you into such a grinch?

The terrible retro-bolting of these routes.

> Are you really so desperate to stop people enjoying the rock that you'd go through the effort to take the bolts out, if only for a couple of months?

The motivation is not to stop people enjoying themselves, but, yes, I would take them out because of the principle at stake.

Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Choss:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Very difficult to de-bolt a route without damaging the rock, and hence the original route.

The bolts on Wally 2 are the same type as on Pettifer's and can be removed very cleanly with a crow bar with absolutely no further damage to the rock. The damage to Pettifer's by the bolting is surprisingly minimal - I hardly noticed it.
beychae - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Gurumed said:
> . If the consensus was that the bolts on these routes should stay it would be a waste of time removing them.

I think it's pretty obvious in this case that the time would be wasted because they would have to be put back in again. And you replied saying you were happy with it being your time that was wasted.

I do know that wasn't what you meant to say - you'd be quite happy forcing someone else to have to put the time in, just to spite all the pro-bolters. It's a very similar mentality to chopping the lower-off from Pettifers would be.
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I think it's pretty obvious in this case that the time would be wasted because they would have to be put back in again. And you replied saying you were happy with it being your time that was wasted.

I said precisely what I meant. If you choose to twist my words then that > is entirely your problem.

> You'd be quite happy forcing someone else to have to put the time in.......

The last thing I would ever do is force anybody to retro-bolt a route.

> .....just to spite all the pro-bolters.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with spite. It is entirely about the principle of not retro-bolting routes.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> you'd be quite happy forcing someone else to have to put the time in, just to spite all the pro-bolters.

The routes should be in their original state before any discussion, as otherwise we are condoning unilateral actions before proper consultation in the future. That could go both ways. No one would force anyone to do anything, if someone desires to bolt the route after an agreement to allow the retrobolting then they may, but no particular person will be forced the do the work. Just like Buzby was not forced to do any of the work he did. Perhaps you and gurumed can rebolt them if necessary, you two are the most vocal pro bolters but are you all talk?

beychae - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fine. You say that the rock should be exactly as it was before any action was taken. In that case, if you de-bolt Wally 2 prior to the meeting, you'd better remove the lower-off on Pettifers as well. And ideally then pour a load of mud down it.

I've been challenged to take action - so, if you de-bolt anything but leave the Pettifers lower-off, I'll remove it myself.
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Fine. You say that the rock should be exactly as it was before any action was taken. In that case, if you de-bolt Wally 2 prior to the meeting, you'd better remove the lower-off on Pettifers as well. And ideally then pour a load of mud down it.

Ok, if you want to be so f*cking petty then go ahead. First you might like to consider that lots of people object on principle to the bolts on Wally 2, but I havn't heard anyone object to the chain on Pettifer's except as sour grapes - yes, I'll call it spite in your case, because that is clearly all it is.
johncoxmysteriously - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Ian Paterson:

>I cannot believe this is actually still being discussed, get over it.

Nor can I. Robert, these two are a waste of time. Just take the 'kin bolts out.

jcm
beychae - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to beychae)
> [...]
>
> Ok, if you want to be so f*cking petty then go ahead.

Petty it is. But I prefer to think of it as lowering myself to your standards.

If it was purely principle that's at stake, why would you want to de-bolt Wally 2, but not remove the lower-off? Maybe the principle isn't simply "drilling holes in the rock", or "making changes to a climb prior to consultation".

I think your criteria really is, "what's best for Robert".
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Ian Paterson)
>
> >I cannot believe this is actually still being discussed, get over it.
>
> Nor can I. Robert, these two are a waste of time.

They are indeed. Quite frighteningly clueless - which is why I fear for the future.

> Just take the 'kin bolts out.

I probably will.

gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Ok, if you want to be so f*cking petty then go ahead.

Wow, dude. Coming from you, that is rich! :)

In reply to beychae:
> I think your criteria really is, "what's best for Robert".

It always has been, but he doesn't want to admit it. That's why he goes off his nut when you highlight that.
victim of mathematics - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> Petty it is. But I prefer to think of it as lowering myself to your standards.
>
> If it was purely principle that's at stake, why would you want to de-bolt Wally 2, but not remove the lower-off? Maybe the principle isn't simply "drilling holes in the rock", or "making changes to a climb prior to consultation".
>
> I think your criteria really is, "what's best for Robert".

Or, and I'm going out on a big limb here, it's the fact that the lower-offs are apparently totally uncontentious. If somebody has a serious issue with the lower offs, then fine, we can have this argument. Until such a time, maybe stop being such an epic prick just for the sake of it x
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Petty it is. But I prefer to think of it as lowering myself to your standards.

You'll have to learn to climb in more than one way to get anywhere near my standards.

> If it was purely principle that's at stake, why would you want to de-bolt Wally 2, but not remove the lower-off? Maybe the principle isn't simply "drilling holes in the rock", or "making changes to a climb prior to consultation".

Th principle is to preserve the routes in as near their original state as makes any sense to any reasonable person, not to unreasonable dickheads.

> I think your criteria really is, "what's best for Robert".

I am deeeply passionate about climbing and it's rich heritage and it's future. My criterion is "what is best for climbing". As a climber that probably does, incidentally equate to "what's best fro Robert".

buzby78 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> In fact it would not be a waste of my time; it would be an excellent use of my time and I might well do so if Buzby doesn't remove them soon.
>

Hi Rob, I am planning on taking the bolts out of Wally 2. I'm pretty busy over the next couple of weeks so not sure if I can do this that quickly. You're more than welcome to borrow the crow bar that's in the climbers office.

I'm not yet fully convinced that Slow Strain should be de-bolted. Although if you really feel that strongly that it should, you know where the crow bar is! Speak soon, buz

Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> Wow, dude. Coming from you, that is rich! :)

Coming from you, that is, as always, based on monumental ignorance and stupidity. Arsehole.
Fiend - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Thanks buz. Does Robert get immunity from mob lynchings too??

Once again I want to reiterate that that (current retro-bolt removal) is the only "anti-bolt" (a weird concept as as an all-round cragger I am "pro-bolt") action we want. There is no-one suggesting making the bolt removal wedge any thicker at all!!
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Hi Rob, I am planning on taking the bolts out of Wally 2. I'm pretty busy over the next couple of weeks so not sure if I can do this that quickly. You're more than welcome to borrow the crow bar that's in the climbers office.

Ok. Thanks. I might well do so. I think the sooner they go the better.
buzby78 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:
> (In reply to buzby78)
>
> Thanks buz. Does Robert get immunity from mob lynchings too??

I'm sure big Bob will be fine!
Robert Durran - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:

> Does Robert get immunity from mob lynchings too??

I doubt it.

Do you fancy Wally 2 on Sunday? If I remove the bolts tomorrow, I'll have already, in a public spirited display of self-sacrifice, have blown my own onsight, so I'd happily give you a belay!
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: Seems settled.

The lower-off was actually left in place with the agreement of the FA, buz, and sounded out on the previous thread. It has been the most informed and open decision on this matter to date.
gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Will you be attending this debate that is to eventually be had?
gurumed - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> If I remove the bolts tomorrow, I'll have already, in a public spirited display of self-sacrifice, have blown my own onsight

I'm terribly worried for your safety; if you chop the bolts I may have to chip in some extra gear placements in order to be able to sleep at night. ;)
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Fine. You say that the rock should be exactly as it was before any action was taken. In that case, if you de-bolt Wally 2 prior to the meeting, you'd better remove the lower-off on Pettifers as well. And ideally then pour a load of mud down it.
>
> I've been challenged to take action - so, if you de-bolt anything but leave the Pettifers lower-off, I'll remove it myself.

Sorry, I just heard "if I can't climb it, no one can". Robert taking out bolts has been his stance the whole time. You talking out bolts would be completely against everything you have argued this whole time. Hypocritical and spiteful. It's lucky you don't like getting your hands dirty.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I've been challenged to take action - so, if you de-bolt anything but leave the Pettifers lower-off, I'll remove it myself.

I assume you'll also be removing all the uncontentious bolts on the new routes Buzby has bolted then.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to beychae:

If a public meeting is held at EICA there's quite likely a majority for equipping every route with top ropes, so the lower offs might come in handy :-)
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to beychae)
>
> If a public meeting is held at EICA there's quite likely a majority for equipping every route with top ropes, so the lower offs might come in handy :-)

Indeed. I think that, say, an impromtu meeting held at the EICA on a Tuesday evening might result in a concensus extremely unrepresentive of Scottish or Central Belt based climbers. A well publicised meeting at a neutral venue would be needed to produce a representative concensus. I am absolutely confident that such a concensus would be against the re-retro-bolting of the routes.

The onus would, I think, be on the pro-retro-bolters to take the initiative in organising such a credible meeting; after all, it is they who want to change the status quo and overturn all precedent.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>
> Indeed. I think that, say, an impromtu meeting held at the EICA on a Tuesday evening might result in a concensus extremely unrepresentive of Scottish or Central Belt based climbers.

Isn't Ratho the best place for a meeting to find out what people who climb at Ratho think?

My guess is that in central Scotland trad climbing has fallen in popularity relative to sport and bouldering because the indoor options are world class and there are limited outdoor options within easy driving distance.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> Isn't Ratho the best place for a meeting to find out what people who climb at Ratho think?

I see the logic here, but out in the quarry? What if it rains? :).
Donnie - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to beychae)

> The principle is to preserve the routes in as near their original state as makes any sense to any reasonable person, not to unreasonable dickheads.

No it doesn't. Plenty of reasonable people that enjoy trad and sport think there are some routes originally climbed trad that should be bolted. The argument for this is to have what they consider is a better balance between the two.

> I am deeeply passionate about climbing and it's rich heritage and it's future. My criterion is "what is best for climbing". As a climber that probably does, incidentally equate to "what's best fro Robert".

Really your criterion is what you think is best for climbing, which (with I suspect little incidence) equates to what's best for Robert.
Smelly Fox - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Really your criterion is what you think is best for climbing, which (with I suspect little incidence) equates to what's best for Robert.

Not just Robert I assure you. I have still yet to speak to another climber about this situation who agrees with the retro-bolting... this thread just me proves just how many people out there don't give a flying f*** about the history and uniqueness of the climbing scene in this country.

Funnily enough I don't seem to know any of them though...?

The crunch statement is this. Why do you need to retro-bolt existing trad routes, when there are ample sport routes already in the quarry (and the scope for more apparently)?

Trist
Donnie - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Smelly Fox: I actually agree about Ratho (I went and had a shot on the sport routes the other week) and I realise Robert's not alone in his general views re retro-bolting.

What I find a bit annoying is branding everyone that disagrees with him unreasonable idiots, and the idea that he knows what's 'best for climbing' and isn't at all self interested in his views.

RE the uniqueness and history of the GB climbing seen... it'd be a shame if they 'bolted everything' or really good trad routes. I just think there could be a better balance between sport and trad without turning us into Europe, destroying trad climbing for ever etc.


gurumed - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I think that, say, an impromtu meeting held at the EICA on a Tuesday evening might result in a concensus extremely unrepresentive of Scottish or Central Belt based climbers.

So now that you've had time to reflect and realise that it's unlikely to go 100% your way a meeting isn't good enough?

> A well publicised meeting at a neutral venue would be needed to produce a representative concensus.

You mean you'd like a crowd who don't already find you to be cretinous?

> The onus would, I think, be on the pro-retro-bolters to take the initiative in organising such a credible meeting.

So you think you deserve a veto on what happens but everyone else should do the work? Who crowned you king of Ratho?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Isn't Ratho the best place for a meeting to find out what people who climb at Ratho think?

Totally, dude. And it is only right that it's the locals who should have the say.

In reply to Donnie:
> Plenty of reasonable people that enjoy trad and sport think there are some routes originally climbed trad that should be bolted. The argument for this is to have what they consider is a better balance between the two.

Absolutely. 90% of the climbing I do is trad and I felt the bolting was fine. There are few people I've met as egoless as Buz, and he thought it was a good idea.

> Really your criterion is what you think is best for climbing, which (with I suspect little incidence) equates to what's best for Robert.

It's always been what's best for Robert. He's the kind of guy who leaves his rope up on a route for half an hour while he climbs something else, or on walking up and seeing that half a dozen people are working a boulder problem, will still jump on and do 15 minutes of endurance laps.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> No it doesn't. Plenty of reasonable people that enjoy trad and sport think there are some routes originally climbed trad that should be bolted. The argument for this is to have what they consider is a better balance between the two.

Maybe, but my comment which you were replying to ("The principle is to preserve the routes in as near their original state as makes any sense to any reasonable person, not to unreasonable dickheads") was referring to the reason why the chain has been left on Pettifer's. I was simply stating a principle. Please try to read and understand posts before replying to them

> Really your criterion is what you think is best for climbing......equates to what's best for Robert.

In that there is something I really love which I passionately do not want to see destroyed, you can look at it like that if you want.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Isn't Ratho the best place for a meeting to find out what people who climb at Ratho think?

Yes, but this goes way beyond the just the people who climb in Ratho quarry; there is a much bigger principle at stake.


Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:

> What I find a bit annoying is branding everyone that disagrees with him unreasonable idiots.

For f*ck's sake. If you had actually bothered to read the thread, you would know I have only branded two people idiots (because by any normal standards their posts stink of idiocy). I have gone out of my way repeatedly to emphasise that I am not branding other pro-bolters with the same brush. So your statement above is at best ignorant and at worst a rather nasty lie.

> ......and the idea that he knows what's 'best for climbing' and isn't at all self interested in his views.

Of course I have my own views on what is best for climbing, as I'm sure everyone else does to a lesser or graeter extent.

> RE the uniqueness and history of the GB climbing seen... it'd be a shame if they 'bolted everything' or really good trad routes. I just think there could be a better balance between sport and trad without turning us into Europe, destroying trad climbing for ever etc.

Pettifer's is, for a start, a really good trad route. I have no objection to "a better balance" but it must be achieved through proper consultation and certainly not by retro bolting routes.
Fiend - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Do you fancy Wally 2 on Sunday? If I remove the bolts tomorrow, I'll have already, in a public spirited display of self-sacrifice, have blown my own onsight, so I'd happily give you a belay!

Sorry I am up with Aberdeen friends this weekend as they'd originally planned. Could meet you one evening early in the week if it's still light enough?? Assuming there's stuff you still fancy...

We could also trim down the trees over-shadowing Wally 1 / Gruel Brittania, hone one of the stumps down into a spike, and mount gurumed's head on it??
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> So now that you've had time to reflect and realise that it's unlikely to go 100% your way a meeting isn't good enough?

Please stop making stuff up. Any meeting resulting in a credible decision should of course , as far as is possible, reflect a representative range of views, as far as is possible reflecting the balance of views out there.

> You mean you'd like a crowd who don't already find you to be cretinous?

Oh please do just f*ck off.

> So you think you deserve a veto on what happens but everyone else should do the work? Who crowned you king of Ratho?

Just what the f*ck are you on about?

> There are few people I've met as egoless as Buz, and he thought it was a good idea.

Except that he has now changed his mind.

> He's the kind of guy who leaves his rope up on a route for half an hour while he climbs something else.

If I leave a rope, I always say to those around to pull it if they want or to tell anyone else who looks like they want the line to pull it.

> ...... or on walking up and seeing that half a dozen people are working a boulder problem, will still jump on and do 15 minutes of endurance laps.

That is a blatant lie. I would always work on a basis of give and take. The vast majority of people at Ratho manage to coexist in a friendly and mutually accomodating way. Maybe it is you that has a problem.

Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Hi Rob, I am planning on taking the bolts out of Wally 2. I'm pretty busy over the next couple of weeks so not sure if I can do this that quickly. You're more than welcome to borrow the crow bar that's in the climbers office.

I borrowed the crow bar this evening and went to remove the bolts and chain from Wally 2. The chain's bolts and three of the six bolts on the route sheared off neatly flush with the rock when levered with the crow bar (as expected). However, the other three bolts (first, third and sixth) just rotated and are still there. Obviously I am anxious to finish the job. I presume the remaining bolts will need to be cut (or perhaps there is a way of applying sufficient force to pull them out directly). I am no expert on the appropriate tools or methods, so would welcome any advice or help. I also intend to go back and attempt to scrub off the remnants of glue around the bolts to leave as neat a job as possible.



Adam Lincoln - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

If anyone needs to borrow a grinder, i can bring one in next week.

Disclaimer: I don't mind either way about the bolts, for what its worth. But would if they are removed, id like it done properly. Hence the offer of grinder to tidy up.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Could meet you one evening early in the week if it's still light enough?? Assuming there's stuff you still fancy...

Tuesday would work for me, weather permitting. I could be there by 4.30, giving two and a half hours of daylight if you can make it. However, wally 2 is unfortunately not yet fully restored to it's rightful state. It looks good though - worth waiting for; bring your full rack of micro-offsets ;-) I won't give anything else away......

> We could also trim down the trees over-shadowing Wally 1 / Gruel Brittania, hone one of the stumps down into a spike, and mount gurumed's head on it??

Sounds like a plan.

Shall be in touch.

gurumed - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:
> We could also trim down the trees over-shadowing Wally 1 / Gruel Brittania, hone one of the stumps down into a spike, and mount gurumed's head on it??

Cleaning up the East Bay would be a nice way to give something back, seeing as you both got to climb Pettifer's after Buz did all the work of cleaning it up.

In reply Robert Durran:
> The chain's bolts and three of the six bolts on the route sheared off neatly flush with the rock when levered with the crow bar (as expected). However, the other three bolts (first, third and sixth) just rotated and are still there.

So your desperation to pull the bolts before anyone else could enjoy the route was so great that you've rushed it and done it badly? Good job. That's some noble work you're doing.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> If anyone needs to borrow a grinder, I can bring one in next week.

Is a grinder is what is needed to cut off the remaining bolts, that would be great. Thanks. I can be there from 4.30 Tuesday and Thursday. Get in touch.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

> So your desperation to pull the bolts before anyone else could enjoy the route was so great that you've rushed it and done it badly? Good job. That's some noble work you're doing.

Not desperate. Just the sooner the wrong is put right the better.

Correction: I have not done it badly; it just turned out to be more difficult than anticipated following Buzby's experiencre of removing the bolts from Pettifer's. The job is just not finished yet; I fully intend it to be finished well.

gurumed - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> > ...... or on walking up and seeing that half a dozen people are working a boulder problem, will still jump on and do 15 minutes of endurance laps.
> That is a blatant lie. I would always work on a basis of give and take.

The boulderers at Ratho that I know are reading this thread will be laughing; this is one of the things you are famous for doing.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Fiend:

> We could also........hone one of the stumps down into a spike, and mount gurumed's head on it??

Stump? A small twig would be amply strong enough to support the weight of Gurumed's cranium.

Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> The boulderers at Ratho that I know are reading this thread will be laughing; this is one of the things you are famous for doing.

If I'm doing endurance sets of problems, I might sometimes ask to go quickly in front of someone else who is making well spaced attempts on a problem. If it is a problem for them, they could always say no. In the reverse position, I would always be accomodating. It's just a bit of civil give and take.

Hay - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
Robert. If you need more leaverage can I suggest that you put a one inch thick piece of timber under the fulcrum of the crow bar and slide a piece of scaffoldind tube (or similar) over the bar to increase its length.
When you extend the length of the bar then you'll increase the moment applied to the bolt. I'd be amazed if that does not pull them.
B.
Robert Durran - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Hay:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Robert. If you need more leaverage can I suggest that you put a one inch thick piece of timber under the fulcrum of the crow bar and slide a piece of scaffolding tube (or similar) over the bar to increase its length.
> When you extend the length of the bar then you'll increase the moment applied to the bolt. I'd be amazed if that does not pull them.

Thanks. If I understand you correctly, the piece of wood is just there to protect the rock - I didn't try levering against the rock this evening because I didn't want to damage the rock. The extension might not be needed. If I get to Ratho tomorrow, I'll give it a go. failing that, Tuesday.


r0x0r.wolfo - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Fiend)
> [...]
>
> Cleaning up the East Bay would be a nice way to give something back, seeing as you both got to climb Pettifer's after Buz did all the work of cleaning it up.
Good point, you climbed Pettifer's too, what work are you doing?

Hay - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
Not sure of the physics but the block of wood will help increase the amount of leaverage. Must be something to do with the position of the fulcrum. A longer bar will make things immeasurably easier though.
Good luck.
B.
Donnie - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: Hi Robert, I thought you meant any one that didn't agree with the principle was an unreasonable idiot. Clearly you meant anyone that didn't understand the principle. So apologies on that count.

RE the rest - implicit in what I said is that I think a bit of retro bolting would help achieve a better balance. Given that there's not loads of undeveloped central belt rock retro bolting's pretty much necessary achieve it here.... Obviously you think preserving trads more important that getting a better balance.. fair enough, but too me you come across a bit arrogant in the way you argue for it. Obviously hard to judge tone on an internet forum though!

And, for what it's worth, now I've been out to try the sport stuff at Ratho I think leaving the trad routes trad is probably the right thing to do.



Choss on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Hay:

using wooden blocks (preferably hardwood) under 'point' end of jemmy wont only protect rock from direct damage.

The more parallel to rock your Jemmy when you start levering, the more direct the pull on the bolt placement will be, if that makes sense?

Easier extraction and less enlargement of bolt hole edges.

I know what i mean anyway.
Michael Gordon - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> implicit in what I said is that I think a bit of retro bolting would help achieve a better balance. Given that there's not loads of undeveloped central belt rock retro bolting's pretty much necessary achieve it here.
>

The thing is, 'better' is open to debate. Better for whom?

I think retro-bolting is only the 'better' way when the route in question would be a better quality sport than trad route. Obviously you'd also need permission from the FA and the general consensus to be in favour of it.
Smelly Fox - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> but too me you come across a bit arrogant in the way you argue for it. Obviously hard to judge tone on an internet forum though!

Not nearly as arrogant as expecting loads of sport climbing on your doorstep. If you want to clip bolts and there are none around or you have done everything at your grade, travel. It is what has always happened in the past.

There is way more trad than low grade sport in the Peak District. With that attitude we should retro a few grit crags to counter the balance.

Trist
Donnie - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Smelly Fox:
> (In reply to Donnie)
> [...]
>
> Not nearly as arrogant as expecting loads of sport climbing on your doorstep. If you want to clip bolts and there are none around or you have done everything at your grade, travel. It is what has always happened in the past.

I'm not expecting 'loads of sport climbing on my door step'. I'm just giving my view - that there should be a bit more at the expense of some trad - in a debate. I'm not saying my views any better than anyone else's view, I'm just calling for people to agree somewhere in the middle of the range of views.

> There is way more trad than low grade sport in the Peak District. With that attitude we should retro a few grit crags to counter the balance.

If the majority of local climbers wanted that, then yes.
Donnie - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to Donnie)
> [...]
>
> The thing is, 'better' is open to debate. Better for whom?

Indeed. I think a better balance overall taking into consideration the wants of all climbers. That's just my view though, as some one that does both.

> I think retro-bolting is only the 'better' way when the route in question would be a better quality sport than trad route.

Generally a good rule of thumb, but I don't think looking at it on a route by route basis is the best way forward. I think you need to look at the available rock in the area and agree a reasonable balance. Weighted a bit in favor of what was there first, what the FA thinks etc. but not no retro bolting unless absolutely everyone agrees. The FA climbed it first they don't own it.

Smelly Fox - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
And you are of course entitled to your view.

How would you define local then. Less than an hour drive? Less than 2, 3? Who gets the say? I live in Glasgow, do I? What about those living in Aberdeen or Newcastle? Well within a (long) days commute from those places too. I would argue that it should be a national concensus, not a local one, as everyone is free to enjoy the routes.

My money is on the majority being against the retroing anyway at this moment in time. But I know that sadly this will change in the near future.

Trist
r0x0r.wolfo - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie: Even if you felt that their was an imbalance (and that's not to say that there is) don't you think it's arrogant and selfish to bolt over existing routes, when there is room for developing brand new sport routes? As Buz has said, there are loads of bolts yet to go up in the quarry.

Fair enough with most of what you say though.
Michael Gordon - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
> Weighted a bit in favor of what was there first, what the FA thinks etc. but not no retro bolting unless absolutely everyone agrees. The FA climbed it first they don't own it.

No-one 'owns' a route but I'm not sure I'd ever envisage a situation where I'd be for the bolting of something without the permission of the FA. It would be disrespectful of the route's history (which they are obviously an important part of) and a complete slap in the face for the FA.
Michael Gordon - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
>
> I don't think looking at it on a route by route basis is the best way forward.

I don't see why not? If something makes a better trad route than sport it doesn't make sense to bolt it.
Cog - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

You could try using a puller. Should be able to get one from a tool hire place.
whispering nic - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

A grinder will make mess. Please leave them and I'll get them out on Wednesday.
Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Smelly Fox:

> My money is on the majority being against the retroing anyway at this moment in time.

My money too.

> But I know that sadly this will change in the near future.

I desperately hope not.

> "I think retro-bolting is only the 'better' way when the route in question would be a better quality sport than trad route."

> ".......as arrogant as expecting loads of sport climbing on your doorstep. If you want to clip bolts and there are none around or you have done everything at your grade, travel.

> "I'm not expecting 'loads of sport climbing on my door step'. I'm just giving my view - that there should be a bit more at the expense of some trad - in a debate."

> "I don't think looking at it on a route by route basis is the best way forward. I think you need to look at the available rock in the area and agree a reasonable balance."

> "Even if you felt that their was an imbalance (and that's not to say that there is) don't you think it's arrogant and selfish to bolt over existing routes, when there is room for developing brand new sport routes?"

> "No-one 'owns' a route but I'm not sure I'd ever envisage a situation where I'd be for the bolting of something without the permission of the FA. It would be disrespectful of the route's history"

All the above comments from today's posts show that there is certainly a wide range of views out there. I don't think anybody seriously thinks that retro-bolting withour proper consultaion is acceptable. The only nationally "agreed" guidance to go on at the moment is from the MC of S:

"RETRO-BOLTING (THE ADDITION OF BOLTS TO ESTABLISHED CLIMBS WITHOUT THEM SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE FIRST ASCENSIONIST AND AFTER WIDE CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED CLIMBERS AT A LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL"

Clearly there are some people who think that less exacting standards should be required for retro-bolting (perhaps particularly the "national" bit).

I am unaware of another example of retro-bolting in Scotland comparable to the Ratho situation (anyone think of one?), and I have never before heard people seriously suggest that large scale retro-bolting to achieve a changed "balance" might be justified; it seems quite unprecedented and, from my point of view, a thoroughly frightening situation, which I believe must be fought to the last retro-bolt.

I really don't think I am scaremongering when I say that I am now of the opinion that this could be a pivotal point in the development of climbing in Scotland and, as such, should be debated through the MC of S at a national level.

In the meantime, any retro-bolt that does not meet the MC of S guidelines should be removed as soon as possible.






Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to whispering nic:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> A grinder will make mess. Please leave them and I'll get them out on Wednesday.

I managed to lever two of the remaining bolts out this evening using the crow bar and a wooden block. The only remaining bolt is the first one reachable from the ground. It came about a third of the way out, but resisted my best efforts to remove it. I think a series of blocks of increasing thickness might do the trick. If you are happy to give it a go on wednesday, I'll leave it in the meantime. I'll drop the crow bar off on Tuesday.

Coventional scrubbing clearly wasn't going to remove excess glue. Maybe it could be chipped off, but I don't want to damage the rock. Any suggestions?

Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In the meantime, any retro-bolt that does not meet the MC of S guidelines should be removed as soon as possible.

I am therefore minded to remove the retro-bolts from Slow Strain, but would rather only do so with Buz's unequivocal approval.

MJ - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

It came about a third of the way out,

Couldn't you hacksaw it and knock the remainder back into the hole?
Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Couldn't you hacksaw it and knock the remainder back into the hole?

Would a hacksaw cut readily through a bolt? If so that would certainly work.

lex - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think you are right to be concerned the argument is changing to the retro-bolters demanding / needing a 'balance'. The 'lowest common denominator' arguement would be worrying too, if it wasn't against every spirit of climbing I can think of, but lack of logic has never been a bar to an argument being repeated and gaining ground.

I take some comfort that both arguments are being put forward by so few people and hopefully do not represent the majority of climbers, whatever their favourite type of climbing.

I would be more than happy to go to any meetings / consultations where this is being discussed and add my views.

Cheers,

Lex
Cog - on 22 Sep 2013

> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> You could try using a puller. Should be able to get one from a tool hire place.

Don't bother then!
gurumed - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Clearly there are some people who think that less exacting standards should be required for retro-bolting (perhaps particularly the "national" bit).

Yup. The weighting of a persons opinion on the bolting of a route should be the inverse square of their distance from the route.
Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Yup. The weighting of a persons opinion on the bolting of a route should be the inverse square of their distance from the route.

Things spreading out on a 2-d surface usually do so simply inversely. Inverse square is the natural way in 3-d.

Anyway, your proposal would mean that I could effectively buy a total veto on all bolting at Ratho by living close enough. It would also be very convenient for training. Maybe I could buy and convert some of that unused space in the EICA into a flat.

gurumed - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Anyway, your proposal would mean that I could effectively buy a total veto on all bolting at Ratho by living close enough.

I thought you'd already assumed a total veto by taking actions into your own hands before having any meeting?
Robert Durran - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I thought you'd already assumed a total veto by taking actions into your own hands before having any meeting?

Please f*ck off. I'm not going over all that again just for your retarded benefit. The debate had much more intelligent tone in your absence today.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:


> I really don't think I am scaremongering when I say that I am now of the opinion that this could be a pivotal point in the development of climbing in Scotland and, as such, should be debated through the MC of S at a national level.

What is being discussed is bolting in a quarry in the back garden of a climbing centre whose customers are primarily sport climbers, top ropers and boulderers. It's not a mountain, it's not a sea cliff and it's not a place that people would travel hundreds of miles to climb at. It is a completely atypical location which shouldn't be a test case for national policy.

If there is to be a meeting IMHO it should be at EICA and start with a visit to the quarry so everybody can see what is actually being discussed.





r0x0r.wolfo - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to whispering nic)
> [...]
>
> Coventional scrubbing clearly wasn't going to remove excess glue. Maybe it could be chipped off, but I don't want to damage the rock. Any suggestions?

Could you dissolve this glue? I usually use meths or something.
Wicamoi on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

Dear gurumed

I can understand how you enjoy teasing Robert Durran: he's easy prey for you isn't he, because you're just messing, while his heart and will are focused on a matter that's truly serious for him. Easy isn't it? Just the kind of thing adolescents do: but you're clearly not adolescent any more. Aren't you even a little ashamed?

Anyway, I'm here to remind the readers of this thread that Robert is far from alone in taking his really quite reasonable stance: retro-bolting should not take place 'without a wide consultation with interested climbers', as per MCoS guidelines.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> What is being discussed is bolting in a quarry in the back garden of a climbing centre whose customers are primarily sport climbers, top ropers and boulderers.

Personally, I think that is completely irrelevant. Anyway Ratho quarry existed as a climbing venue for decades before the EICA was built. Incidentally, of the non top-ropers and boulderers at the EICA, I think you might be overestimating the proportion who only climb sport.

> It's not a mountain, it's not a sea cliff and it's not a place that people would travel hundreds of miles to climb at. It is a completely a typical location which shouldn't be a test case for national policy.

I think you are missing the point. The MC of S statement on retro-bolting applies to all rock. Judging by some of the comments I quoted in my earlier post there are probably a significant number of pro-retro-bolters who would like the retro-bolting to spread to achieve their "balance". Ratho quarry is at the very least a test case for Central Belt quarries in general.

> If there is to be a meeting IMHO it should be at EICA and start with a visit to the quarry so everybody can see what is actually being discussed.

No problem with any venue so long as the choice does not skew the representation of views away from reflecting at the very least Central Belt climbers in general.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Wicamoi:
> (In reply to gurumed)
>
> Dear gurumed, I can understand how you enjoy teasing Robert Durran: he's easy prey for you isn't he, because you're just messing.

I am working on the assumption that he isn't messing but is in fact a genuine idiot. Either way, he is very tedious and I just sincerely wish he would f*ck off.
Beardyman - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
>
> What is being discussed is bolting in a quarry in the back garden of a climbing centre whose customers are primarily sport climbers, top ropers and boulderers. It's not a mountain, it's not a sea cliff and it's not a place that people would travel hundreds of miles to climb at. It is a completely atypical location which shouldn't be a test case for national policy.
>

No it shouldn't be a test case but it seems that it kind of has become one.

I don't share your opinion that it's not an important crag, it's far more then some backyard to a climbing center! Some of us were climbing there long before EICA was built, my 1st E2 and E3 leads were there. It was a very important crag for me as I could get there on public transport before I owned a car.

It's such a shame that this has been played out the way it has, I'm all for filling in the gaps with bolted routes and maybe adding lower offs where necessary but, although no one owns a route, it's FA should be respected as that is the ethics of our sport...

Wicamoi on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:


I disagree. He's no idiot: clever, but somewhat dishonest. What our forbears would have described as "lacking in bottom."

PS. Thanks for your spirited and protracted defence of the trad ethic on these threads, and for removing the bolts on Wally 2. Much appreciated.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Wicamoi:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> I disagree. He's no idiot: clever, but somewhat dishonest.

Do you know him, or just basing your assessment on his posts?
Michael Gordon - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> If there is to be a meeting IMHO it should be at EICA and start with a visit to the quarry so everybody can see what is actually being discussed.

I'm not sure those who haven't visited the venue or had no intention of ever doing so should really have a say. Surely those who know the place well should have the most say?
Michael Gordon - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Smelly Fox)
>
> I don't think anybody seriously thinks that retro-bolting withour proper consultaion is acceptable. The only nationally "agreed" guidance to go on at the moment is from the MC of S:
>
> "RETRO-BOLTING (THE ADDITION OF BOLTS TO ESTABLISHED CLIMBS WITHOUT THEM SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE FIRST ASCENSIONIST AND AFTER WIDE CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED CLIMBERS AT A LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL"
>

Much point in a debate then? The guidelines seem quite clear already. What would you hope to achieve? If folk want to ignore established guidelines they'll do so.

Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Much point in a debate then? The guidelines seem quite clear already. What would you hope to achieve? If folk want to ignore established guidelines they'll do so.

I'm perfectly happy with the guidelines. If people ignore the guidelines, I and others will remove the bolts. However, if people want the guidelines changed (and, from comments on this thread, some clearly do), they will need to lobby for a debate at national level to get the MC of S guidelines changed.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I'm not sure those who haven't visited the venue or had no intention of ever doing so should really have a say. Surely those who know the place well should have the most say?

This is not just about 3 retro-bolted routes at Ratho. It is clear from comments on this thread that there is a demand from some people for a significant amount of retro-bolting at least in the Central Belt to achieve what they see as a "better" balance between sport and trad. They would like to have seen the Ratho routes as the thin end of a wedge.

Anyway, the MC of S guidelines are clear that ANY retro-bolting should involve consultation at a local AND national level.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
> Personally, I think that is completely irrelevant. Anyway Ratho quarry existed as a climbing venue for decades before the EICA was built. Incidentally, of the non top-ropers and boulderers at the EICA, I think you might be overestimating the proportion who only climb sport.

That's true - I'm just guessing, there's no way to tell just by looking (apart from a few obvious cases) whether someone climbs trad as well as sport.

What is clear is that the quarry wasn't used much for about 10 years from when EICA was built to when the bolts went in.

I also think there's an opportunity to use the quarry to get beginners and indoor climbers, including the competition climbing kids that frequent Ratho, on real rock in a relatively controlled environment.


Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> What is clear is that the quarry wasn't used much for about 10 years from when EICA was built to when the bolts went in.

I don't really know whether usage (once access was clarified) went up or down from the time before construction of the EICA began. It certainly seems higher now, probably due to the bolted routes.

> I also think there's an opportunity to use the quarry to get beginners and indoor climbers, including the competition climbing kids that frequent Ratho, on real rock in a relatively controlled environment.

Indeed. But that is no excuse for retro bolts.

Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I am therefore minded to remove the retro-bolts from Slow Strain, but would rather only do so with Buz's unequivocal approval.

How much does a route need to change before bolting it is no longer retroing? In amongst all the noise, I do not recall a discussion of the history of Slow Strain on here. The current Lowlands Outcrops guide does not list the route (it just mentions its previous existence) on the grounds that it was substantially altered by rockfall during the M8 blasting works. Certainly the old grade of E2 6a would not seem to apply any more: it's neither that techncially hard, nor that safe! Could someone please post the description from the 1994 edition?

Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Mark Bull:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> How much does a route need to change before bolting it is no longer retroing?

Interesting point!

> I do not recall a discussion of the history of Slow Strain on here. The current Lowlands Outcrops guide does not list the route (it just mentions its previous existence) on the grounds that it was substantially altered by rockfall during the M8 blasting works. Certainly the old grade of E2 6a would not seem to apply any more: it's neither that techncially hard, nor that safe!

If the route is substantially different, there could, I agree, be a case for not removing the retro bolts (I've not done it in it's original state or it's bolted state).
Donnie - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to Donnie)
> [...]
>
> No-one 'owns' a route but I'm not sure I'd ever envisage a situation where I'd be for the bolting of something without the permission of the FA. It would be disrespectful of the route's history (which they are obviously an important part of) and a complete slap in the face for the FA.

For example, if a significant majority of interested climber wanted to bolt it but the FA said no..
Donnie - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> (In reply to Donnie)
> [...]
>
> I don't see why not? If something makes a better trad route than sport it doesn't make sense to bolt it.

As I climb both that'd make sense for what I want. If you have people who a have a real preference for trad or sport and live in an area where the rock predominately suits the other one, I'd say it'd be fair to have some bolting of good trad routes or vice versa

Obviously if you had a steep limestone crag right next to Ratho you'd bolt that and leave Ratho.
Donnie - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Smelly Fox:
> (In reply to Donnie)
> And you are of course entitled to your view.
>
> How would you define local then..

Interesting question - but something could be done. Maybe just those with an interest.

I would argue that it should be a national concensus, not a local one, as everyone is free to enjoy the routes.

I'm not sure. Depends on the crag - for example, is it the kind of place people travel to? But so long as consensus doesn't mean everyone and the FA has to agree for retro bolting to occur then fine.

I'd agree you need something weighted in favour of keeping trad. Say 70% or something.

> My money is on the majority being against the retroing anyway at this moment in time. But I know that sadly this will change in the near future.

Probably it is. And if that's the case we shouldn't retrobolt. It would be nice in future if interested climbers could consider all central belt crags and pick out some routes for retro bolting.

It'd be really sad if eventually there's so many more 'sport only' climbers that most trad gets bolted. I don't think that will happen though. I don't think even the most pro-retro want that just now...

Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Smelly Fox:
> (In reply to Donnie)

> How would you define local then.

At the risk of repeating myself: in England and Wales, this type of discussion comes under the remit of the BMC Local Area committees. No such equivalent exists in Scotland, but perhaps there is a need for it. The MCofS would be the natural body to provide such a forum.
Jamie B - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Mark Bull:

> in England and Wales, this type of discussion comes under the remit of the BMC Local Area committees. No such equivalent exists in Scotland, but perhaps there is a need for it. The MCofS would be the natural body to provide such a forum.

And do these committees carry weight or do people still go rogue?
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There's no way to tell just by looking (apart from a few obvious cases) whether someone climbs trad as well as sport.

And what would these obvious cases be?
A trouser bulge indicating huge balls?
Numptys with big hexes on their harnesses when top-roping indoors?
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
> (In reply to Mark Bull)
> And do these committees carry weight or do people still go rogue?

I'm sure there would always be the odd rogue, but at least the subsequent chopping carries the weight of the committee (just as the removal of the rogue retro-bolts at Ratho carries the weight of the MC of S guidelines).

Jamie B - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:

> It'd be really sad if eventually there's so many more 'sport only' climbers that most trad gets bolted. I don't think that will happen though.

I don't either, but we must acknowledge that alongside an increased "demand" for easier bolted crags we also see a shift in trad climbing tastes. It seems that fewer folk want to go to the more marginal venues and there is a tendency to honeypot to the tried-and-tested where a full day without gardening, choss-dodging and abstract grading is more likely. I am certainly guilty of this and ironically it's almost the same mindset as sport climbing - guarunteed activity with less danger and unpredictability.

If you put these two factors together you get an inevitable situation whereby trad crags delineate into clean/sustainable and forgotten/manky. Can anyone really blame the sporties for looking towards the latter? For a spaceman viewing the situation dispassionately it would seem like the logical fix. But the "rights" of first ascenscionist and others to maintain the route in the state it was originally climbed are not unimportant either.

The circle needs to be squared. Everybody should be kept happy. But how do we do so? This is not going to go away, we need to get it figured. Suggestions?
Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:

> And do these committees carry weight or do people still go rogue?

I have no direct experience, but I suspect the answer is yes to both!

The BMC appears to be currently working on an agreed statement and process - this is the latest draft I could find: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=1634

It's quite interesting to have a poke around in the Local Area committee minutes which can be found from here http://community.thebmc.co.uk/ListEvents.aspx to see the type of things which are going on. The South Wales area in particular seem to have a lot of discussions about bolting/retrobolting and have set up a wiki where proposals to bolt crags/routes can be posted in advance of meetings.
gurumed - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed Wicamoi:
> I can understand how you enjoy teasing Robert Durran: he's easy prey for you isn't he, because you're just messing, while his heart and will are focused on a matter that's truly serious for him.

You think my heart isn't in this? I'm utterly dejected that Buz's good work has been undone.

If Robert is easy prey it is due to his hubris. You'll have to forgive me for being acerbic with someone who haughtily disparages my intellect simply for having a different view.

> Aren't you even a little ashamed?
Not even slightly, no.

In reply to Jamie B:
> But the "rights" of first ascenscionist and others to maintain the route in the state it was originally climbed are not unimportant either.

True. Important but not preeminent. In the case of these routes neither the FA or others maintained the rock; it was abandoned for decades.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
>
> And what would these obvious cases be?
> A trouser bulge indicating huge balls?
> Numptys with big hexes on their harnesses when top-roping indoors?

Obvious signs:

50 something
Beard
Rope carried on the back in coils
Bleached out goretex coat and ancient leather hillwalking boots
Bleached out large rucksack
Mud on the gear
Weatherbeaten complexion
DMM bug and/or fig 8 clipped to harness

And most importantly:
Two ropes.


Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to gurumed Wicamoi)

> If Robert is easy prey it is due to his hubris. You'll have to forgive me for being acerbic with someone who haughtily disparages my intellect simply for having a different view.

I don't disparage your intellect for having a different view; I have told you this over and over again. Many intelligent people have a different view to me. I disparage your intellect because your posts repeatedly reflect your inability to understand virtually anything anybody says or to string two thoughts together to produce a coherent argument.

The fact that you still don't get this illustrates the above perfectly and simply confirms how monumentally thick you obviously are.
gurumed - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I disparage your intellect because your posts repeatedly reflect your inability to understand virtually anything anybody says or to string two thoughts together to produce a coherent argument. The fact that you still don't get this illustrates the above perfectly and simply confirms how monumentally thick you obviously are.

Are you plagued with doubts about the quality of your own mental faculties? You seem inordinately pertinacious in your attacking of me in this regard. It's more than a little reminiscent of the behaviour of a fiercely closeted person.
Donnie - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> Are you plagued with doubts about the quality of your own mental faculties? You seem inordinately pertinacious in your attacking of me in this regard. It's more than a little reminiscent of the behaviour of a fiercely closeted person.

Please stop winding up people up. I'd quite like to have a bit more central belt sport climbing one day...

Jamie B - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed and Robert:

This is getting tiresome. There are serious issues to be discussed on this thread, but it is now dominated by your unwinnable slanging-match. Why don't you both accept that you will never convince the other to change their views, move on and deal with the matter in hand.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

F*ck Off.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
> (In reply to gurumed and Robert)
>
> This is getting tiresome. There are serious issues to be discussed on this thread, but it is now dominated by your unwinnable slanging-match. Why don't you both accept that you will never convince the other to change their views, move on and deal with the matter in hand.

Indeed. Although it is not gurumed's views as such that are the problem.

Jamie B - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Donnie:

> Please stop winding up people up. I'd quite like to have a bit more central belt sport climbing one day...

So how is that achieved? Retro-bolting routes which do attract occasional suitors is clearly not the way, so what is? I may be wrong but there doesn't appear to me to be very much virgin rock in the central belt, so maybe there are venues with much more limited traditional heritage which could be examined?

A quick flick through Lowland Outcrops shows me some intriguing possibilities, although I've never visited any of them and am not really in a position to propose them. Bowling Crag? Court Know Quarry? Clynder/Roseneath? Mauchline? Glen Afton? Dollar Quarry? North Queensferry? Dalmahoy Hill? Blackford Hill and Quarry? Binny Craig? Traprain Quarry?

Pretty sure that none of these are the crown jewels of Scottish trad climbing, but could they be "sacrificed"? Anyone local in a better position to judge?

gurumed - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
> Why don't you both accept that you will never convince the other to change their views, move on and deal with the matter in hand.

Robert isn't interested in changing my views, he seems more than content casting aspersions and blustering maledictions at me.

I'd just like him to stop stealing the fruits of Buz's labour for himself.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:

F*ck off.
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
>
> A quick flick through Lowland Outcrops shows me some intriguing possibilities, although I've never visited any of them and am not really in a position to propose them. Bowling Crag? Court Know Quarry? Clynder/Roseneath? Mauchline? Glen Afton? Dollar Quarry? North Queensferry? Dalmahoy Hill? Blackford Hill and Quarry? Binny Craig? Traprain Quarry?
>
> Pretty sure that none of these are the crown jewels of Scottish trad climbing, but could they be "sacrificed"? Anyone local in a better position to judge?

North Queensferry has good routes but is massively overgrown. It needs a very concerted facelift.

The others, I don't personally know. It is possible that with proper consultation, a concensus might be reached that some would make appropriate sport venues. I actually hope so, since there is clearly a demand for it.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
> (In reply to Donnie)
>
> [...]
>
> If you put these two factors together you get an inevitable situation whereby trad crags delineate into clean/sustainable and forgotten/manky. Can anyone really blame the sporties for looking towards the latter?
Also accessibility plays a big part. I believe that is at work, were these routes both forgotten and an hours slog up a hill to get they wouldn't have been retrobolted.

> For a spaceman viewing the situation dispassionately it would seem like the logical fix. But the "rights" of first ascenscionist and others to maintain the route in the state it was originally climbed are not unimportant either.

I don't believe it is quite that cut and dry, as the route wasn't simply forgotten. An event happened outside of climbers control that made the route a much less appealing idea. If someone left a huge barbed wire fence on top of stanage that prevented topping out at stanage by accident, would you bolt every route, or pull the fence down? Surely it would make more sense to remove the earth cornice, or at least the obstacle of it which has now been done.

> The circle needs to be squared. Everybody should be kept happy. But how do we do so? This is not going to go away, we need to get it figured. Suggestions?

My sugggestion would be to for sport climbers to help Buz with his further development of brand new sport routes in the quarry. Seek out new sport routes and crags and bolt them. Any existing route that doesn't already have bolts in, but one simply must climb, do as they do down south, and put a top rope on it. Is this reasonable?
Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> (In reply to Jamie B)

> My sugggestion would be to for sport climbers to help Buz with his further development of brand new sport routes in the quarry. Seek out new sport routes and crags and bolt them. Any existing route that doesn't already have bolts in, but one simply must climb, do as they do down south, and put a top rope on it. Is this reasonable?

Totally reasonable, except that people need to realise that just because new sport routes seem acceptable at Ratho, it does not follow that they are acceptable everywhere.

JamieSparkes - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B: I cycled past the base of the forth rail bridge in North Queensferry the other day and was surprised by the quality of the rock and crimp holds all over it.

Since it's easily accessible, roadside and has no value as a trad venue, perhaps something like this http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=149

could be developed in a similar fashion in conjunction with the local council, helping tourism, local spending etc.

Robert Durran - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to JamieSparkes:
> (In reply to Jamie B) I cycled past the base of the forth rail bridge in North Queensferry the other day and was surprised by the quality of the rock and crimp holds all over it.
>
> Since it's easily accessible, roadside and has no value as a trad venue, perhaps something like this http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=149
>
> could be developed in a similar fashion in conjunction with the local council, helping tourism, local spending etc.

Excellent idea (if you can get permission!)
Isn't there a venue along these lines in the west?

Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:

> Clynder/Roseneath?

I think Roseneath has been reopened as a quarry and none of the routes remain.

> Dalmahoy Hill?

Access is problematic due to the working quarry below: there have been a few efforts to resurrect this as a trad venue, but the quarry owners have been very quick to eject people.


> Blackford Hill and Quarry?

Maybe: people do lead trad in the quarry, but the rock is all a bit snappy and it's mainly a TR venue with bolt belays. Corbie's is overgrown with gorse and would need heroic gardening efforts. Agassiz Rock is too short for routes and should be left alone due to its historical significance.


> Binny Craig?

Maybe: not sure if the rock is sufficiently sound to bolt.


> Traprain Quarry?

Loose on a grand scale and positively dangerous!

Most of the trad routes at North Berwick Law are pretty awful (dodgy rock, nasty earthy/grassy topouts, poor or no gear, missing pegs). There's maybe scope for turning half-a-dozen of them into quite decent low grade (F4 to F5+) sports routes.

Craigy Hill is a pretty awful trad venue, but I'm not sure bolts would improve it much (it would still be short and scrappy).

I've never been to Dunglas, but the trad routes there seem pretty unpopular.

Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Isn't there a venue along these lines in the west?

This one? http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=15738
Mark Bull - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to JamieSparkes:
> I cycled past the base of the forth rail bridge in North Queensferry the other day and was surprised by the quality of the rock and crimp holds all over it.


I guess permission is highly unlikely due to its status as a potential World Heritage Site.


Chad123 - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

I live in S Queensferry and have bouldered a few times on the pillars of the rail bridge there, as mentioned the rock is excellent and you get a good work out doing either up problems or traversing the walls. Gets a bit samey after a while though and I think your chances of getting it bolted are pretty slim!
creag - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Mark Bull:
Already asked when working on it. (7 years ago) NR official told me that they would prosecute with extreme prejudice anyone who 'vandalised' the bridge (put bolts in it).
They seem happy for people to run charity abseils from it... go figure.
Maybe worth asking again....
gurumed - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Jamie B:
> A quick flick through Lowland Outcrops shows me some intriguing possibilities, although I've never visited any of them and am not really in a position to propose them. Bowling Crag? Court Know Quarry? Clynder/Roseneath? Mauchline? Glen Afton? Dollar Quarry? North Queensferry? Dalmahoy Hill? Blackford Hill and Quarry? Binny Craig? Traprain Quarry?

A topo of Bowling Crag for scottishclimbs.com when I first starting climbing:
https://www.scottishclimbs.com/wiki/Bowling_Crag

I remember thinking there could be stuff further right, but didn't have the eyes for rock then so it might be worthless choss.

It would be interesting to look at rejuvenating the north face of Dumbarton Rock. Probably just adding lower offs in the style of Pettifer's. The wall needs a serious cleaning. It might be worth retro bolting (if you could call it that) a few of the scrappier lines to encourage some traffic the same way Buz has kicked off a renaissance at Ratho. Anything that improves the climber to underage drinker ratio at dumby can't hurt.
buzby78 - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to gurumed:
> (In reply to Jamie B)
>
> It would be interesting to look at rejuvenating the north face of Dumbarton Rock. The wall needs a serious cleaning. It might be worth retro bolting (if you could call it that) a few of the scrappier lines to encourage some traffic the same way Buz has kicked off a renaissance at Ratho. Anything that improves the climber to underage drinker ratio at dumby can't hurt.

Not sure if Scotland is ready for such radical changes just yet! Although I could be wrong...

Robert Durran - on 24 Sep 2013
Wally 2 now bolt free.
There's even a good runner placement.
Form an orderly queue.
jamiefoxen - on 30 Sep 2013
This is such a shame. I agree that routes should not be retro bolted, but this is watered down by the complete lack of use of the E2 and E4. I have lead plenty of routes in ratho quarry but didn't give these ones a second glance.

Right or wrong the routes were bolted, they were otherwise unused and it seemed obvious that only unused routes would be at risk of future retro bolting in ratho. The so called trad enthusiasts, that up until now i though my self one of, should have set too revisiting and cleaning these neglected routes. this would have shown a level of dedication to the discipline that i would have felt proud to be a part of. Instead some individuals have set out to redeem the situation with a crow bar. very few situations can be redeemed with a crow bar, they are by there nature a purely destructive tool.

It incredibly contrived to speak of leading these as trad routes after this destruction as some sort of triumph. I wish those wielding crowbars can learn to create something rather than destroy what others obviously really enjoy. must every forgotten trad route in scotland be retro bolted before the self proclaimed Trad hardcore take an interest in them again?

Now the rock has been further scarred and the damage serves no purpose. People with such narrow minded views surly possess the innate qualities required to to climb past the bolts on there trad lead. I feel that there is clear element of fame chasing involved in these actions, at the very least within the smaller circle of individuals responsible.

there is a distinct lack of bolted routes around Edinburgh and it is pricey to climb indoors. perhaps the reason so many harder or bolder trad routes are idle in ratho is due to the lack of affordable training venues. I was looking forward to using these bolted routes to gain the strength to climb some of the abandoned routes, frankly i don't want to go to ratho now, i aint gonna feel good about it.

I wish the climbing community could learn to be a little more tolerant and less egotistically self centred. then again im slightly relieved these destructive and single minded individuals are idling away destroying rock climbs and not behind police car wheels or tank controls.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 30 Sep 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> This is such a shame. I agree that routes should not be retro bolted, but this is watered down by the complete lack of use of the E2 and E4. I have lead plenty of routes in ratho quarry but didn't give these ones a second glance.

Good/bad for you?

> Right or wrong the routes were bolted, they were otherwise unused and it seemed obvious that only unused routes would be at risk of future retro bolting in ratho.

No this clearly wasn't obvious, by the reaction of the retrobolting. Perhaps it could have been obvious if there was proper consultation in the first place.

> The so called trad enthusiasts, that up until now i though my self one of, should have set too revisiting and cleaning these neglected routes.

They would have, if it was truly obvious that they were in danger of being retrobolted. If anyone felt the routes were being 'neglected' then they should have said so.

> this would have shown a level of dedication to the discipline that i would have felt proud to be a part of. Instead some individuals have set out to redeem the situation with a crow bar. very few situations can be redeemed with a crow bar, they are by there nature a purely destructive tool.

And what exactly is a drill? Something that only takes material away? Something that purely puts holes into things?

> It incredibly contrived to speak of leading these as trad routes after this destruction as some sort of triumph. I wish those wielding crowbars can learn to create something rather than destroy what others obviously really enjoy. must every forgotten trad route in scotland be retro bolted before the self proclaimed Trad hardcore take an interest in them again?

I'm assuming you're not trolling here. You don't drill routes whether 'forgotten' or not. Crags get revivals and come in and out of fashion all the time. Routes have been retrobolted if necessary, does it really hurt to go through the proper channels?

> Now the rock has been further scarred and the damage serves no purpose. People with such narrow minded views surly possess the innate qualities required to to climb past the bolts on there trad lead. I feel that there is clear element of fame chasing involved in these actions, at the very least within the smaller circle of individuals responsible.

Apparently the jobs been a good one, and it's barely noticable. Anyone who's pro bolting these routes doesn't care about 'scarring' the rock. You could also say that bolting the routes in fame chasing, you get to be in the guide book that way. Don't assume motivations, go off facts please.

> there is a distinct lack of bolted routes around Edinburgh and it is pricey to climb indoors. perhaps the reason so many harder or bolder trad routes are idle in ratho is due to the lack of affordable training venues. I was looking forward to using these bolted routes to gain the strength to climb some of the abandoned routes, frankly i don't want to go to ratho now, i aint gonna feel good about it.

Travel. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of affordable training venues. Probably the earth cornice about the e4. There's plenty of 6c routes next door in the centre, you have no excuse not to be 'strong enough'. You can get plenty strong enough and practiced by slinging a top rope up. No one is stopping you from climbing it.

> I wish the climbing community could learn to be a little more tolerant and less egotistically self centred. then again im slightly relieved these destructive and single minded individuals are idling away destroying rock climbs and not behind police car wheels or tank controls.

Are you referring to the single minded individual Buz? I think that's unfair to him. He made a mistake in not consulting, he had good intentions, don't be too harsh on him. Thanks for the 'tank' analogy, needed a good laugh.
Robert Durran - on 30 Sep 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> I agree that routes should not be retro bolted, but......

So what's the problem.

> Some individuals have set out to redeem the situation with a crow bar. very few situations can be redeemed with a crow bar, they are by there nature a purely destructive tool.

This one was redeemed. Buzby retrobolted the routes. He later, following discussion on here and in person, decided that they should not have been retrobolted and removed the bolts himself from Pettifer's Wall and invited me to remove the bolts from Wally 2.

> It incredibly contrived to speak of leading these as trad routes after this destruction as some sort of triumph.

I don't think anyone is doing that. The whole debacle just opened our eyes to the opportunity to climb these excellent routes. A point proven perhaps, but no more a triumph than the personal satisfaction of doing any other route.

> I wish those wielding crowbars can learn to create something rather than destroy what others obviously really enjoy.

Good trad routes ended up clean and repaired. Creative, not destructive in mnany peoples view.

> Must every forgotten trad route in scotland be retro bolted before the self proclaimed Trad hardcore take an interest in them again?

Hopefully not. I think this episode has opened up our eyes to the threat.
>
> Now the rock has been further scarred and the damage serves no purpose.

No further damage has occured in addition to that done by the bolting.

> People with such narrow minded views surly possess the innate qualities required to to climb past the bolts on their trad lead.

Sorry, but with this you lose all credibility in your views.

> There is a distinct lack of bolted routes around Edinburgh and it is pricey to climb indoors. perhaps the reason so many harder or bolder trad routes are idle in ratho is due to the lack of affordable training venues.

That is most certainly not the reason. The existence of Ratho has produced many more climbers good enough to climb these routes if they learnt to climb trad. Bolting routes does not help anyone learn to climb trad.

> I was looking forward to using these bolted routes to gain the strength to climb some of the abandoned routes.

Eh? make up yopur mind!

> Frankly I don't want to go to ratho now, I aint gonna feel good about it.

Your loss. There are plenty of good trad routes to do and, I am told, some good sport routes (with hopefuly more to come).
daWalt on 30 Sep 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to jamiefoxen)
> [People with such narrow minded views surly possess the innate qualities required to to climb past the bolts on their trad lead.]
>
> Sorry, but with this you lose all credibility in your views.

flippant remarks?
Intolerable.
Robert Durran - on 30 Sep 2013
In reply to daWalt:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> flippant remarks?
> Intolerable.

Sorry, yes. Read it again and it was just a flippant remark; didn't notice first time since it was sandwiched between other nonsense.

Fiend - on 30 Sep 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:


You bothered to bump the thread back for that???

> I agree that routes should not be retro bolted

Correct. You should have stopped there, BTW.

> speak of leading these as trad routes after this destruction as some sort of triumph

Horseshit.

> self proclaimed Trad hardcore

Horseshit.

> clear element of fame chasing

Horseshit.

You're not quite as bad as gurumed, or a couple of other people, with the lies about people's motives and self-images, but it's close enough to make everything you say instantly dismissable.

jamiefoxen - on 01 Oct 2013
Ok some good points above. I did not know that Buz removed the first bolts and consented the second. No doubt my views have been expressed without full knowledge of all the facts and anybody should be welcomed to question them, but no one to dismiss them outright. No one anywhere is in full possession of all the facts about anything, im just making my views clear to the best of my knowledge. sure there is self interest in my views, but the same goes for everyone else.


"People with such narrow minded views surly possess the innate qualities required to to climb past the bolts on there trad lead"

this was first and foremost a pun on "narrow...views". it was flippant, I have never trad climbed a bolted route, despite spying some fine ones abroad that it was a shame to see bolted, the thrill of danger is gone.

But i do partley think that it is narrow minded to clear the bolts. It follows a trend in bolt removing that is frankly akin to vigilante policing or violent protest, both fundamentally hypocritical actions.

The Bolts should have been left, and the situation that lead to their arrival remedied. This is due to a lack of bolted routes in the area and from the resistance involved bolting through the "propper channles". its a catch 22, we shouldn't bolt routes without consensus from local climbers, permission from local land owners, council etc, but clearly taking the correct route leads to very little return leading to bolts being placed. How can a consensus of climbers views be made. through UKC? Maby but i donít think these threads represent the full spread of people involved .... the zero traffic on the routes seems to have been a pretty good indicator. even on a sunny day at ratho, the quarry is almost always near deserted compared to the crowds inside. Whilst this makes it attractive to me it shows that most are either after a more sport orientated climb or have pockets deep enough to travel further afield for trad that is not disturbed by the ratho building and the perpetual 10,000 screaming kids . No one was losing out, now people excited about climbs they never considered before are disappointed and those who had expressed no prior interest in them before (it was on 1 or two tick lists guys)have broken the toy so no one else can play.
The history of climbing is riddled controversy and climbs done illegally. SMC's own lowland book is full of them for the Edinburgh area. Admittedly almost all of these ascents were trad and left no lasting mark, but they are the same violation of rules and concerns for the land owners that those climbers felt were draconian.
We shouldn't be retro bolting routes with any reasonable value to trad climbers. But my personal view has been changed by all this and i know this goes against the grain: unless more sport can be freshly procured from somewhere local to Edinburgh a few completely unused routes, with a clear lack of appeal to trad leaders and with all possible permission from the first ascensionists, could be bolted. Ok perhaps some trad climber 10 years in the future might want a repeat, but maby 5,000 people would have enjoyed the experience as a sport route. Trad can be elitist, i get an egotistical kick out of what i consider "real climbing" but variety is the spice of life and this hard line anty bolting in scotland needs to be softened. If there wasn't the danger of people killing themselves on bold trad perhaps the quarries on Salisbury crags would have been accepted with a few choice bolted lines, yet it continues to simply be illegal to climb there.

Yes people could travel to sport climb, but if i felt equally as dismissive i could say trad leaders could travel a short stroll from the wall in question and clean up and use some of those dusty routes. Most have clearly avoided the quarry as a whole and im not surprised, I can tell you the untraveled routes at ratho are no joke to on sight. Trad in scotland is as good as it gets for me, but a few dusty unloved routes in a noisy and largely ruined outdoor climbing venue are no loss to me, or i beleve to anyone who had not already lead them before.

Look i dont doubt others have legitimate view to the contrary, i respect them as they should respect my view that the bolts and the resulting discussion should have been used to agree that such action without consent should not be repeated and form some solution towards more bolted routes. Surely all anyone had to do was have a chat with buz and read some of the excellent opinions expressed here and on other blogs, but now there are a bunch of useless holes in a wall and everyone's guts have been spilled on a chat thread.
Michael Gordon - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:

Basically pro-retrobolters have failed to make the case why these routes should have been retroed but other trad routes not. It's nothing to do with lack of use - this has never been sufficient reason on its own to bolt a trad route.
jamiefoxen - on 01 Oct 2013
Who was the jury that decided whether the case was made or not. I doubt it was independently selected with no self interest. No conmen consensus or vote taking has been taken anywhere here.

Agreeing that the routes should not have been bolted, and no further bolting should take place is different from removing the bolts. this is more inflammatory, as mentioned by robert a "point proven" the routes were used as an example to to assert the dominance of one side of the argument.

I would say that although lack of use is not mentioned in the scottish climbing code it is and has been a relevant, if not penultimate, consideration in retro bolting. read this about farrletter http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=5710

The scottish climbing code code says this:

"Retro-bolting (the addition of bolts to established climbs without them) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level

Retro-trad (the removal of existing bolts) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level"

So far the first recommendation was ignored or overlooked by Buz, but now the second part has also been ignored or over looked by those who removed the bolts. Sure Buz has been brow beaten into allowing the bolt removal, but i dont see the "wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level". this action is just as bad as the bolting in the first place and a pointless tit for tat.
jamiefoxen - on 01 Oct 2013
And to be fair to Buz it seems like he made a fair attempt to follow the code in consulting etc
Robert Durran - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> The scottish climbing code code says this:

> "Retro-bolting (the addition of bolts to established climbs without them) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level
>
> Retro-trad (the removal of existing bolts) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level"
>
> So far the first recommendation was ignored or overlooked by Buz, but now the second part has also been ignored or over looked by those who removed the bolts.

If you think about this argument for two seconds, you will quickly realise that it is, to borrow Fiend's excellent word, horseshit.

Robert Durran - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> And to be fair to Buz it seems like he made a fair attempt to follow the code in consulting etc

I climb at ratho at least two times per week, and I chat to Buz fairly regularly. I was not consulted. The bolting was presented to myself and almost everyone else as a fait accompli. So, again, horseshit.

Robert Durran - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> Agreeing that the routes should not have been bolted, and no further bolting should take place is different from removing the bolts.

If it is agreed that the bolts should not have been bolted, then the obvious course of action is to remove them. Thge alternative is to give a green light to retro-bolting without consultation.

> This is more inflammatory, as mentioned by robert a "point proven" the routes were used as an example to to assert the dominance of one side of the argument.

Total horseshit. Bolting without proper consultation, then not righting the wrong would be asserting dominance without justification.

As for the point proven: it is that, with the chain, Pettifer's Wall is a perfectly climbable and excellent trad route.
gurumed - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I climb at ratho at least two times per week, and I chat to Buz fairly regularly. I was not consulted.

You think you should have been personally consulted? You might want to rein in that wild ego of yours a bit.
Robert Durran - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to gurumed:

F*ck off
Robert Durran - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:

> The Bolts should have been left, and the situation that lead to their arrival remedied.

This is absolutely absurd.
So if someone steals my wallet my attitude should be that, now they have it, they might as well keep it, but maybe not steal anyone else's.
JamieSparkes - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to Robert Durran: Morning all,

A while back we had a wee discussion on UKC about starting to get some of the central belt crags cleaned up. It seems that the time is upon us. The plan is to head out to Ratho quarry on Saturday 5th October and see about clearing the place up in force. There will be plenty of time for climbing and socialising, so it wonít just be a marathon scrubbing session!

When to go:

anytime during the day, A few of us will catch the bus from Edinburgh early morning, feel free to drop in earlier, later and for
as little and as long as you like.

What to bring:

scruffy clothes are a good bet, as are any of the following that you can get your hands on: gardening gloves, secateurs, pruning saws, trowels, stiff yard brushes, static ropes and abseil gear.

Why go:

To put something back into the local cragging scene, to discuss with a variety of climbers about the possibility of forming a Local Area Group similar to BMC meetings.

You can get in touch with me on 07594 591 472 or at j.sparkes87@gmail.com

Cheers and I hope to see you soon,

Jamie Sparkes
gurumed - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> So if someone steals my wallet my attitude should be that, now they have it, they might as well keep it, but maybe not steal anyone else's.

How solipsistic; the crag is your own personal property.

In reply to JamieSparkes:
Your valient effort to engage Robert in a reasonable discussion is most commendable. The guy is as cantankerous as he is intransigent; you've gone through the your-argument-isn't-worth-answering stage and have moved on to calling your position "horseshit" without giving any reasons why that may be. It won't be too long until he's calling you a moron. :)
Valaisan on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen: I agree with Robert Durran on this one Jamie. I am both a Trad-and-Sport enthusiast. Although I very much like Sport routes, I am not wildly supportive of retro-bolting trad routes unless it is worthwhile and acceptable (to interested parties) and when that is the case, IF the Scottish Climbing guidelines are followed as much as reasonably possible then I'd support it. If however FA permission has not been sought to retro bolt a trad route then they should be removed IF complaints have been made from Trad supporters and/or the FA. To suggest that retro-bolts should not be chopped when permission has not been acquired in order to adhere to the second Scottish Climbing Code on Retro-trad(ing) a sport route (that you quoted) is just odd. That would allow me (if I were idiotic enough to consider this an invitation to sharpen my drill bits) to go and start Retro-bolting all the Trad routes I'm not good enough to climb so I could give them a go in Sport-format; safe from the cries of Foul! from the Traditionalists on the basis that they should follow Part 2 of the code (you quoted) and seek my permission to chop them! This is a very odd interpretation of the code Jamie.
jonnie3430 - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to Valaisan:
> (In reply to jamiefoxen) If however FA permission has not been sought to retro bolt a trad route...

You forget the rest of the Scottish Climbing Code for retro bolting which states "and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level." It's not just the FA that needs consulted, if the "retro-bolter," isn't sticking by the code they should expect criticism from the climbing community and the removal of the bolts.
Valaisan on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Valaisan)
> [...]
>
> You forget the rest of the Scottish Climbing Code for retro bolting which states "and after wide consultation...

I don't forget Jonnie, I agree with the entire code (largely). I was just sticking to the finer point of his odd interpretation of the code. I have other views entirely about the 'wider consultation' issue, which I agree with in principal but remain skeptical about the practical execution however, didn't want to get into that right now.
andyathome - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:

'It follows a trend in bolt removing that is frankly akin to vigilante policing'.

Do you really think that there is any sort of 'current trend' in removing bolts?

Is there not, actually, a trend to insert bolts where they were not previously used. Have a quick shufti at the thread re Gary Gibson and Clwyd Limestone.

Without the placing of bolts first there is no need to remove them.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Robert Durran - on 02 Oct 2013
In reply to gurumed:

F*ck off.
jamiefoxen - on 03 Oct 2013
jamiesparks: this is a great idea, it seems a really positive outcome of the whole situation. Ill try to make an effort to head out early sat morning before work at 12 and clean a route or two, there is one in particular iv got my eye on.

Robert Durran: Looking over the blog you have put an incredible level of energy into your comments. I respect your passion, there is sometimes not enough of it around. But i would say that despite your likely exhaustion at replying to often similar arguments you shouldn't simply insult argument without justifying your reasoning, otherwise the discussion would descend into primitive grunts that only communication peoples emotions without any underlying justification.

The wallet analogy is something ill elaborate on as it is a point close to my heart. If someone steals your wallet then in the small picture, one person as screwed you over and anyone would feel a bit crap. In the big picture there must be reasons why the wallet was nicked and why such social problems exist. Maby the guy was homeless and starving, or more likely a junky. You could dismiss him as such, but maby he was pushed to homelessness or addiction through a horribly destructive train of events outside of his control that would have overcome even the strongest will. The point is if you want your wallet back, a self oriented though, chase him down and get him chucked in jail. but if you want to prevent your and anybody else's wallet being nicked, or worse, in the future you have to deal with the situation that caused the action. this is of course more difficult and so less attractive. you could give the contents of your wallet to a homeless shelter as a slightly better option, or adopt the kind of kids that are otherwise likely to end up as junkies etc. Im not saying i do any of this stuff, but its just the reality of why things happen and how they can be resolved, with the bolted routes im talking about giving sport climbers more routes in Edinburgh or cleaning up the trad routes so they are better appreciated and less tempting to retro bolter's.

Valaisan: yes it is an odd interpretation, but thank you for not saying it was horseshit as i think on technicalities alone i may have a point. I didn't think through what exactly defined retro tradding, at the time i was viewing the new retro bolted route as a sport route in its own right. This is probably against the spirit of the code, but not the wording. im guessing they didn't count on such pedantic thread chat.

andyathome: well yes that was the impression i had gotten from what i have been reading recently:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=5710
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68018

and a longer standing trend in scotland that seems to have involved bolt chopping even in places deemed unsuitable for trad. But ill admit iv not done a lot of research, this is a personal opinion on what the rest of the world is up to, not a subject i particularity savvy on. Sure there must be a trend to place bolts where there were previously none..... people have always been so keen to set new routes they will climb the most disgraceful choss only really suited to bolting, and now it seems there is barely any accessible rock in the country that can be bolted.
Robert Durran - on 03 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:

> Robert Durran: Looking over the blog you have put an incredible level of energy into your comments. I respect your passion, there is sometimes not enough of it around. But i would say that despite your likely exhaustion at replying to often similar arguments you shouldn't simply insult argument without justifying your reasoning, otherwise the discussion would descend into primitive grunts that only communication peoples emotions without any underlying justification.

I have only resorted to insulting two people (Gurumed and one other) on this and the much longer previous thread. I have engaged in sensible and iintelligent debate with many others. Gurumed has persistently, from the very begining, produced non-arguments displaying gross ignorance and monumental lack of intelligence; his inability to understand anything he reads or to string two thoughts together into a coherent argument despite things being spelt out to him repeatedly in terms any non-retarded two year old would understand just became very boring weeks ago and, quite frankly, he is not worth anything other than utter contempt. So that is what he gets from me. It is a shame, because this is an important issue which many people have discussed intelligently and it's pollution with his utter shite has not been helpful to anybody, pro- or anti- the bolts. unhelpfu

jamiefoxen - on 03 Oct 2013
I can see he is winding you up and that this is annoying, i wasnt talking about him anyway, more about the horseshit stuff, my only complaint.
Robert Durran - on 03 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> The wallet analogy is something ill elaborate on.......

Is is only an analogy and, as with all analogies, can only be taken so far. I think the point is clear though: the retro-bolts should not have been placed according to precedent and the MC of S guidelines. They should therefore have been (and were) removed; it is daft to say "well they are there now, so we mighta s well leave them". This would just encourage more retro-bolting. If a mugger is allowed to keep a stolen wallet, he is more likely to steal another one.
Robert Durran - on 03 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:

> ....... with the bolted routes im talking about giving sport climbers more routes in Edinburgh or cleaning up the trad routes so they are better appreciated and less tempting to retro bolter's.

The positive upshot of this whole saga is that this is what is in fact happening; there is a move to get the quarries cleaned up and for more new bolted routes at least at Ratho.
Robert Durran - on 03 Oct 2013
In reply to jamiefoxen:
> .........more about the horseshit stuff, my only complaint.

Fair enough, but it does get tedious having to refute the same arguments (which, whatever Gurumed might say, I did do) over and over again over a 1200 post thread.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.