UKC

Trad justifies bolts?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 paul mitchell 25 Sep 2015
''This concept of ownership of a route by a first ascensionist and that they can go back and add more gear or give people permission to change the route holds no water.

They have the joy of doing the first ascent, their name in a guidebook and experiencing others repeat their route. It stops there.''


Really? A UKC blogger decides who owns a route? He also decides when bolts should come out and when they should be left in? Because a posse of vocal bolters decides it's O k to retrobolt,that makes it O k?

Nobody has yet CLEARLY explained why it is OK to bolt in some places and not in others. Ditto peg protection.Emotion is not logic.

Paradoxically,some limestone used to be pegged,then bolted.So there is a trad attitude,following history of limestone,that bolts are permissible.So a''trad'' attitude permits bolts;how ironic.Either bolts are right or they are not. Whether on limestone,grit,Gogarth,Glencoe,EL Cap;anywhere. The usual blah is that those routes would never get done or rarely get done,so bolt away. Rarely repeated trad routes are made ''accessible'';basically to climbers incapable of doing them.Accessibility is the only factor in the decision,is it?A bolted trad route is now a bolt route.Bolts are not trad,if we take it back far enough.Let's retrobolt Master's Edge,Indian Face,make them more accessible.Why do some routes have seniority in the spectrum of what can be retrobolted? Beau Geste?Ninth Life? Positron,Enchanted Broccoli Garden?Birkett e8's?Occasionally I will give the nod to somebody retrobolting one of my routes. That is a softening of my stance,in a very specific case.My stance is still anti bolt.This would tend to imply that the first ascensionist SHOULD have some say in retrobolting. Why are bolts accessible on Ravenstor but not on Stanage? Just because a posse,called ''WE'' says so? Who is this godlike WE?Is there an ultimate criterion to decide against the use or non use of bolts,apart from ''concensus'' of some group of brainwashed climbers? What levels of hypocrisy are acceptable? Has it occurred to any retrobolters that bolting just bring overall standards DOWN? Levels of trad on sighting are now pretty feeble,because people are still sucking the tit of bolted routes,instead of weaning themselves to some gnarly trad.
6
 metal arms 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Levels of trad on sighting are now pretty feeble,because people are still sucking the tit of bolted routes,instead of weaning themselves to some gnarly trad.

Nice rant but is this last bit true? Did many E8s get onsighted back in the day?
 The Pylon King 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

Well said.
 Lankyman 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

As you're probably well aware, Paul, there is very little 'logic' to any of this retro-bolting business. I used to think that the first ascensionist had at least a say in the matter but apparently even this has gone out of the window these days. I was not particularly happy when I found out that some of my own FA's had been given this treatment some time ago here Langcliffe Quarry No-one thought it was worthwhile to find out what I thought - the bolters seem to have filled in a few gaps and then decided that perfectly good trad routes with plenty of natural gear placements might as well follow suit. This kind of attitude is just one of the reasons I don't really climb any more.
3
 kevin stephens 25 Sep 2015

In reply to Paul

> A bolted trad route is now a bolt route.Bolts are not trad,..........,What levels of hypocrisy are acceptable? Has it occurred to any retrobolters that bolting just bring overall standards DOWN? Levels of trad on sighting are now pretty feeble,because people are still sucking the tit of bolted routes,instead of weaning themselves to some gnarly trad.

So where do you stand on minimally bolted slate routes (some of which arguably well suit the definition of gnarly trad) where there are no natural gear placements? Should they be chopped to make them truly trad; ie death solos? Or retro bolted as by your definition they are sport anyway?
Post edited at 17:07
 Chris the Tall 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:
> ''This concept of ownership of a route by a first ascensionist and that they can go back and add more gear or give people permission to change the route holds no water.

> They have the joy of doing the first ascent, their name in a guidebook and experiencing others repeat their route. It stops there.''

> Really? A UKC blogger decides who owns a route?

From that quote it seems the author isn't deciding who owns a route, more disputing the idea that any one individual "owns" a route, and with it the notion that being the first person to climb it in a particular style gives you the right to dictate how everyone else should do it.

As to the rest of your rant - punctuation would help

3
Helen Bach 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

"Levels of trad on sighting are now pretty feeble,because people are still sucking the tit of bolted routes,instead of weaning themselves to some gnarly trad."

From an entirely personal point of view, my trad onsighting improved considerably once I started "sucking the tit of bolted routes". If you are sucking properly, then fail to see how it can be any other way once you go back to do a bit of trad. You're much fitter, know how to handle the 'pump', and are used to falling off.
 MischaHY 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

I have to say I do agree with this, to an extent. I like the singularly British climbing ethics that reward boldness and self control under pressure. I also like that we draw a strong distinction between trad routes and sport routes, rather than treating trad as merely sport on gear.

That said, I agree with Gresham's bolting at Kilnsey. If you're going to place in situ gear then frankly it should be a bolt, or you should place it on abseil and then remove it once completed. I don't see how this is any different from preplacing a wire - it's either in situ, or its not. If it is, then in my opinion it's the first ascentionists responsibility to make sure that the piece is safe.

That said I would prefer for it to just not be placed.

*Ducks to avoid angry hex 9 swung by enraged UKC armchair warrior*
1
 wbo 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell: If only the world was logical...... then some of this would make sense. But it doesn't, and that's how it is

Mischa - there is plenty of hard trad outside of Britain, in areas with very strict ethical guidelines and limits
 Wild Isle 25 Sep 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> From that quote it seems the author isn't deciding who owns a route, more disputing the idea that any one individual "owns" a route, and with it the notion that being the first person to climb it in a particular style gives you the right to dictate how everyone else should do it.

I don't know if first ascentionists seek to 'dictate' how future ascents are conducted and certainly the idea that anyone can 'own' a route is hog wash. But what I do think climbers should do is have respect for the pioneers and the style a climb was completed in. Respect is one of the pillars our climbing passion is built on. (Generally) We have respect for each other, the rock, the mountains, where it still exists the wilderness and I think it's safe to say that for most of us we respect the style each route is climbed in - and that's where the ethic of refraining from retro-bolting and preserving a routes original character comes from. And as with most arenas of society if you don't show respect you rarely receive it.

But respect isn't a rule, it's not a law, it's not enforceable.

But there are laws that do apply to 'development' on land. For example what does the letter of the law say about development or leaving anything within the National Parks? I live in British Columbia and there's a movement here to work with the government land managers to enforce the existing park acts which technically prohibit bolting where to date bolting has been given a pass.

To a great degree climbers live in a bubble. The man in the street knows nothing of our activities yet, at least where public land is concerned, everyone has a right to an undamaged commons.
 Owen240 25 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

Oh my god, who even cares... Just a grumpy bunch of old men pissing in the wind in this thread.
10
 jsmcfarland 26 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

Sorry but I call BS on a route protected by threads being called a trad route. If it is a route protected with natural gear that happens to have alot of threads, okay fine but in all honesty I would rather have a route with 5 good bolts rather than 5 manky rotting threads that may or may not be trusted, and make the crag look shit too
2
 LakesWinter 26 Sep 2015
In reply to jsmcfarland:

It's not about how the route looks, it's about the fact that threads or even pegs exploit a natural weakness in the rock, whereas bolts don't. It's a matter of accepting the rock as it is and climbing it using the possibilities nature provided or drilling gear where it's convenient. Also there's the element of judgement that the leader must apply to threads, whereas i can't think of many people who check and question glue ins on most sport crags, so, if the route was put up trad and is trad, threads are not ideal as they are fixed, but they are maybe acceptable and better than just banging a bolt in the same place.
 HeMa 26 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:
> Either bolts are right or they are not.

Indeed, so on a route where majority of protection is already bolts, whats to tidy it up a bit.
1
Helen Bach 26 Sep 2015
In reply to Owen240:

> Oh my god, who even cares... Just a grumpy bunch of old men pissing in the wind in this thread.

Speak for yourself!
Bogwalloper 26 Sep 2015
In reply to kevin stephens:

> In reply to Paul

> So where do you stand on minimally bolted slate routes (some of which arguably well suit the definition of gnarly trad) where there are no natural gear placements? Should they be chopped to make them truly trad; ie death solos? Or retro bolted as by your definition they are sport anyway?

It would be nice to get an answer to this wouldn't it Kevin?

Wally
Bogwalloper 26 Sep 2015
In reply to jsmcfarland:

> 5 manky rotting threads that may or may not be trusted, and make the crag look shit too

You could write for The Sun or the Daily Sport son.

Take Deja Vu for example which lets face it is what's caused this recent debate. When did you last do Deja Vu?

The threads weren't manky and rotting and didn't look shit. There was nothing wrong with them. In fact they were replaced annually by a couple of people who do these routes regularly and look after the crag.
One of them has now reluctantly said leave the lower bolts in purely because he doesn't want any chopping of the bolts to further damage the crag like Gresham has done with the upper bolt - needless damage.

This is what happens when retro bolters have free rein.

On multi pitch and mountain routes why not take some new threads with you and replace them like us old timers do?

Wally
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> On multi pitch and mountain routes why not take some new threads with you and replace them like us old timers do?

Why not place the threads on lead and have the second remove them, that’s how trad always used to be, when did it change?
 Bulls Crack 26 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

'Occasionally I will give the nod to somebody retrobolting one of my routes. That is a softening of my stance,in a very specific case.My stance is still anti bolt.'

What was the specific instance?

 jsmcfarland 26 Sep 2015
In reply to Bogwalloper:

I'm about as left-wing as you can get so rest assured I stay far away from the sun or daily sport I've never done De Ja Vu and in fact had never even heard of it before the thread (I'm 26 and live in the south if that helps)

I still don't see how permanent fixed gear such as threads that are left there are considered much different from a bolt, on a crag which from what I have gathered seem to have a fair amount of bolts already? I've climbed quite a few routes this summer that had some threads and the majority of them were impossible to have been placed there on lead. Is fixed gear being placed by abseil or toprope or whatever else much different from a bolt? Ethically I would say no
1
Bogwalloper 27 Sep 2015
In reply to jsmcfarland:

> Is fixed gear being placed by abseil or toprope or whatever else much different from a bolt? Ethically I would say no

Really? Even though to place one you would be using a 24v Bosch Hammer drill and the other you'd be using your fingers?

Wally
 jsmcfarland 27 Sep 2015
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Never heard of hand drilling?
 Dave Garnett 27 Sep 2015
In reply to jsmcfarland:

> Is fixed gear being placed by abseil or toprope or whatever else much different from a bolt? Ethically I would say no

Purists (including me) might say that clipping in situ threads isn't quite the same as a completely on sight trad lead, but there's still a much bigger difference between a natural thread and a drilled bolt.
 Goucho 27 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

Some interesting points raised Mitch.

There has been a long history of both confusion and 'selective acceptance' of bolts on UK rock. Retrobolting is simply following in that grey area.

Personally, I'm against retrobolting, and a lot of the arguments used in favour of it, are at best ambiguous, and at worst completely spurious.

However, it is easy to see why the issue is open to different interpretation - especially when logic is applied over emotion.

Exactly how much difference is there between a cemented in peg (Green Death ) and a bolt?

When Crew placed the bolt on the Boldest, it was witnessed by a number of 'leading' climbers of the day. and their silence has to be seen as tacit acceptance. But when Drummond place his on Midsummer Nights Dream, there was a public outcry - was the fact that Drumond was not one of the 'in crowd' a factor here?

When Ron placed the 2 bolts on The Cad, there was a bit of cheek sucking and under breath muttering, but hardly a scandal. Would the reaction have been different if Norman Nobody had placed them?

So when it comes to fixed gear, it's easy to understand why some people - especially those wall bred/sport climbers, not versed in some of the finer points of UK trad climbing history and tradition - might struggle to see the difference between a peg or thread, and a bolt?

Climbing doesn't have rules, it has ethics, and sometimes the lines get blurred.

In an ideal world, climbing should be about raising your level of performance to match the challenge of the route, not reducing the level of the challenge to match your performance.

However, we do not live in an ideal world, and the inherent anarchy of climbing tradition which makes it so brilliant, is ironically also what creates so many ethical problems.

Maybe the best way to strike a balance and maintain the ethos and traditions of trad, is to start and approach the whole debate regarding retrobolting from a logical perspective, not an emotional one?
 deepsoup 27 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

You seemed pretty pleased with yourself placing two new pegs, completely at odds with the current ethic, at Millstone not so long back though eh? One of which may just have well have been a bolt. (The other of which did absolutely f*ck all, bar scar the rock barely over five feet above ground level.)

> Nobody has yet CLEARLY explained why it is OK to bolt in some places and not in others. Ditto peg protection.Emotion is not logic.

It was CLEARLY explained several times in the epic thread discussing your pegs. And again in the new thread you started when you didn't like how the old one was going. You just didn't seem interested in making any attempt to understand it.

If you can't grasp the nuance of it and want a pragmatic explanation that doesn't involve ethics, why not let that serve as an example. Fixed protection is acceptable where enough people will accede to it that it remains in place. And unacceptable where, as in the case of your pegs, it will be rapidly stripped/chopped again by someone who doesn't see things the way you do.
1
 springfall2008 27 Sep 2015
In reply to deepsoup:

Personally the way I see it, is that if you are going to do something that damages or changes the rock in a way that is hard to reverse then you should seek agreement from the others who use that area. I think this includes pegs and bolt (really a peg is worse than a bolt as it causes rock damage but isn't as safe).

On the other hand an a thread can be removed at any time without damage, so I don't see that as a problem.

Of course replacing pegs or bolts that are already there seems like a good contribution to the greater good

(sorry for butting in).
 deepsoup 27 Sep 2015
In reply to treforsouthwell:

> (sorry for butting in).

Don't be, you're not.
(And if there were a private conversation going on here, it would be for the other folks to apologise for not taking it to email where it belongs...)
 radddogg 27 Sep 2015
In reply to Lankyman:

>This kind of attitude is just one of the reasons I don't really climb any more.

Waaah waaah
 Wild Isle 28 Sep 2015
In reply to deepsoup:
> Nobody has yet CLEARLY explained why it is OK to bolt in some places and not in others. Ditto peg protection.Emotion is not logic.

Climbers' ethics, traditional etc.. aside, determining where bolts (or any other fixed protection, unsanctioned development of any kind) are 'OK' is very easy to understand, it's all about bylaws, laws or other enforceable legislation.
Just as an example, and you'll have to excuse me for not wading through the entire thing, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 Section 20 Byelaws for protection of nature reserves.
(d)may contain provisions prohibiting the depositing of rubbish and the leaving of litter in a nature reserve;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97

Those shiny stainless steel bolts, thread webbing, pins etc.. may have a purpose to us but to 95% of the public they are useless rubbish.

If climbers truly want to understand where bolts are and aren't appropriate they should conduct themselves as any other law abiding individual would and educate themselves and build relationships with relevant land managers/ authorities. As it is we have a tendency to think that all rock belongs to us and engage in petty spats ad nauseum about our conduct on it, when in fact there are more than likely clear laws and accompanying rationale to guide our activities.
Post edited at 16:08
1
 Andy Say 28 Sep 2015
In reply to paul mitchell:

> ''This concept of ownership of a route by a first ascensionist and that they can go back and add more gear or give people permission to change the route holds no water.

> They have the joy of doing the first ascent, their name in a guidebook and experiencing others repeat their route. It stops there.''

> Really? A UKC blogger decides who owns a route? He also decides when bolts should come out and when they should be left in? Because a posse of vocal bolters decides it's O k to retrobolt,that makes it O k?

> Nobody has yet CLEARLY explained why it is OK to bolt in some places and not in others. Ditto peg protection.Emotion is not logic.

> Paradoxically,some limestone used to be pegged,then bolted.So there is a trad attitude,following history of limestone,that bolts are permissible.So a''trad'' attitude permits bolts;how ironic.Either bolts are right or they are not. Whether on limestone,grit,Gogarth,Glencoe,EL Cap;anywhere. The usual blah is that those routes would never get done or rarely get done,so bolt away. Rarely repeated trad routes are made ''accessible'';basically to climbers incapable of doing them.Accessibility is the only factor in the decision,is it?A bolted trad route is now a bolt route.Bolts are not trad,if we take it back far enough.Let's retrobolt Master's Edge,Indian Face,make them more accessible.Why do some routes have seniority in the spectrum of what can be retrobolted? Beau Geste?Ninth Life? Positron,Enchanted Broccoli Garden?Birkett e8's?Occasionally I will give the nod to somebody retrobolting one of my routes. That is a softening of my stance,in a very specific case.My stance is still anti bolt.This would tend to imply that the first ascensionist SHOULD have some say in retrobolting. Why are bolts accessible on Ravenstor but not on Stanage? Just because a posse,called ''WE'' says so? Who is this godlike WE?Is there an ultimate criterion to decide against the use or non use of bolts,apart from ''concensus'' of some group of brainwashed climbers? What levels of hypocrisy are acceptable? Has it occurred to any retrobolters that bolting just bring overall standards DOWN? Levels of trad on sighting are now pretty feeble,because people are still sucking the tit of bolted routes,instead of weaning themselves to some gnarly trad.

Paul, this is really incoherent, I'm afraid. I can see you feel strongly but it really needs to be re-worked to make it more convincing. And it does seem to be aimed at the wrong post; I'd have said that your quote fully agrees with you?

'paradoxically,some limestone used to be pegged,then bolted'. Nothing paradoxical, simply a recognition of history.

'there is a trad attitude,following history of limestone,that bolts are permissible'. No there is no such attitude.

'Either bolts are right or they are not'. I've some sympathy but would suggest that context is all? 'Right'? 'Wrong'? They are the wrong terms. And bear in mind that we can pontificate about what happens in the UK; are bolts equally 'wrong' in Spain?

For what it's worth I do really agree with you (I think...)

Andy
 Webster 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> So where do you stand on minimally bolted slate routes (some of which arguably well suit the definition of gnarly trad) where there are no natural gear placements? Should they be chopped to make them truly trad; ie death solos? Or retro bolted as by your definition they are sport anyway?

> It would be nice to get an answer to this wouldn't it Kevin?

IMO they are still 'trad' as that is how they were 'traditionally' done. Therefore they should remain that way. i have no problem with them having been bolted in the first place as its a quarry, full of bits of old metalwork. and 2 bolts in 30m (for example) is not sport so they fully justify their trad grade.

 andrewmc 28 Sep 2015
In reply to Wild Isle:

So if I check with the landowner on a nice bit of grit, and he says its fine, I can get my (hypothetical) Cliffhanger style bolt gun out and knock out a few nice sport routes?

PS bolts are clearly not litter. Litter is discarded waste. I don't know what elements of the law apply to a) drilling into things (criminal and civil damage?) and leaving equipment on other people's land (some form of trespass possibly?) but I suspect neither do you.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...