UKC

The UIAA discussion paper 'To bolt or not to be' is available to download from the UIAA site. The paper looks at 'recommendations for redevelopment and first ascents of rock climbing routes in alpine regions'. Some interesting reading about the role of bolts in the mountains, 'Plaisir climbing' - moderate grade sport climbing crags developed in Switzerland for safe 'sport' and some wise words from our very own Ken Wilson. Download it at: http://www.uiaa.ch/commissions/download.asp?idobject=36

Under the first ascent of rock climbing routes, it suggests:

a) In alpine regions, first ascents are to be done exclusively on lead (no prefixing from above)

...which got me thinking, I've 'pre-fixed from above' in an alpine region, but it wasn't a bolt. So, is it better to do a first ascent that has a traditional bold UK style and mostly naturally protected, but with the odd peg maybe pre-placed, or only climb bottom to top, bolting on lead as you go.

The paper suggests that "bolts should be limited to an absolute minimum", but once you put in a nice safe belay, or a bolt to protect a bold section, even if you are doing it from below it's making it safer. Plus, you can remove a peg so that it doesn't rot, how reliable is a bolt after an alpine winter?

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: That's a whole can of worms you just opened up there dude!

In reply to CENSORED: Ok, lets get going on this one then!
First up, I am a distinctly average climber doing around AD in the Alps, whilst I agree with the concept of developing a certain number of bolt protected routes of all grades in alpine valleys for general fun and practice (especially as many outcrops in Apline valleys are relatively crackless, probably due to the smoothing effect of large valley glaciers on the valley sides during the last ice age) the transfer of the retrobolting ethic to the high mountains (as has happened, e.g N ridge of Zinalrothorn) is unacceptable. Why?

2 main reasons as I see it as to why the bolting of high mountain routes is unacceptable are as follows:

1. On safety grounds - it is hard to see how safe a bolt or in situ peg is, it may be badly corroded or weakened by the severe freeze thaw. Recent weathering studies show that the frequency of the freeze thaw has a big impact on the degredation of rocks, it would be interesting to see how this affects metals. Secondly rockfalls and storms will damage the fixed equipment, maybe imperceptibly. What happens to parties who expect fixed gear and do not find it and aren't carrying normal protection?

2. On the grounds that it changes the route and goes against UIAA guidelines on this. Even if the bolt is there and you don't clip it it reduces the committment required to climb a route, it makes retreat easier and allows less experienced people to get into more dangerous situations. Fixed gear also spoils the challenge of a route.

Anyway, that's wnough for now, BTW I am not a crusty old man alpiniste, I am only 22 and not an extreme climber, just your average punter as it were

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

Since the last UIAA 'discussion' paper more bolts have appeared on the Hornli Ridge of the Matterhorn - of all places. So much for UIAA discussion papers.

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: Tom, good to see you raising this. Absolutely crucial issue. I will read the 15 pages later today (after climbing hopefully).

Re, your efforts, my understanding yours was largely a ground up effort rather than coming in from the top first. What the UIAA are referring to is that you had the potential to walk up to the top of your wall and ab in to work each pitch. In my view as long as the ethos is generally ground up, swinging around to find easier options then abing from that easier line back down a crux pitch is a far better option than doing it continental style ground up with a hilti in hand.

We should aim to climb our routes and leave the area as much as we found it and the challenge in a similar state for other climbers.

The most shocking thing of our recent climb on the Dru, was abbing back down and seeing the state of the initial slabs retro bolted with massive rings (boat moorings) by those guardians of the mountains some of the local guides.

In reply to all those who posted on this thread.

...sorry, but there seems to have been a technical glitch when I deleted a replicated message - all the other ones have disappeared (I'm sure we'll retrieve them!)

In reply to Ian P. Glad you agree - ground up is where it's at, but preferably not drilling as you go.

It would be nice to summarise the document which is a bit unwieldy. To those who say these things achieve little - I think half the battle is getting the issues out into the public domain and making 'ordinary' climbers feel as though it's relevant to them.

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: Not that any of you staff like me or give a damn what I think as I have been bollocked quite alot recently, I give my opinion anyway.

Bolting Bollocks


Both theese words are quite similar, and when either of them are mentioned I think of (BIG) anoying things that get in the way when im climbing.( Dont get me started on etriers)

No matter what any of us say the bastards will put them up anyway.

iceaxeboy

This posting will be in two parts as it is too large to post in one!!
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: OK as posted a while back I threatened to read this weighty document in detail and post more. Having just sprained my ankle and had to cancel my Easter climbing plans I thought I'd take the opportunity to post a summary of this 15 page consulative document. Yes I'd much rather be climbing, but I can hardly walk so armed with a big bag of pic n mix I waded through this thing. So first a few thoughts followed by the Summary below followed by my views.

With the "sports climbing revolution" largely faded in the UK with bolt protected climbing seen as an enjoyable occasional but largely minor addition to most peoples climbing it might suprise some to see this document raising bolts in the mountains as a major issue. The fact is that an increasing ammount of new routes are being developed in the mountains with bolt protection exclusively and perhaps more importantly existing routes including several world classics retrobolted. This has been carried out not by lone mavericks but often by respected mountain guides and supported by rescue organisations, local economies, manufacturers, magazines and national federations. It has also been targetd largely at routes well within the reach of everyday mountaineers not at the elite end. For those not interested in alpine routes this retrobolting has also spread to many prealp and mountain valley routes. The worse case senario is that many mountain and high valley classics like the beautiful runout granite slabs of Eldorado, the engaging bold sports routes of Wedenstock, classic mountain routes like The Walker Spur or Hornli Ridge will all be retrobolted.

Aware of these pressures the UIAA Mountaineering Comission has drawn up this document with the German and Austrian equivilants of the BMC (who were already discussing the issue). Titled "To bolt or not to be" it's sub title explains it's remit "Recommendations for redevelopment and first ascents of rock climbing routes in alpine regions" The word redevelopment is used throughout referring to re-equiping or retrobolting.

The 15 page document is made up of a 6 page document followed by 9 pages of comment.
Page 1-2 - Foreword by the UIAA President our very own Ian "Mac" McNaught Davis. "We are a tolerant society and I hope that these suggestions offer an acceptable compromise that we can all use in the future" The key here is "compromise" this document tries to find a workable halfway house.
Preface explains the background behind the report drawn up by representaives of the German guides, the Austrian and German climbing Federations and world renouned climbers Alex Huber and Andi Orgler (both adventurous new routers).
Page 3 - Index
Page 4 - General introduction of background to document. Draft document presented at a meeting at ENSA (The french guides school) in 1998, also presented at Scottish winter meet 1999 when unanimously supported by 100 climbers from 28 countries. Final document adopted by UIAA at May 2000 meeting held at Plas y Brenin.
General preamble about background of climbing and it's social, economic and personal (developemnt of self reliance) benefits.
(Move onto posting below!)

In reply to Ian P:

Continued from above

Page 5-6 "Redevelopment of rock climbing routes." A link is made between the popularity of a route with the quality of it's fixed gear. Which leads to a suggestion that in "ecologically sensitive areas permanent protection should be reduced to a minimum." (How an ecologically sensitive area is defined isn't mentioned)
Following the assertion in bold that "pluralism of the various climbing games is desirable" a range of guiding principles for redevelopment is suggested (this is the meat of the document)
a- "redevelopment measures" i.e. re-equipping limited to a selection of frequently climbed routes.
b- certain alpine areas or mountains excluded from these measures i.e. no retrobolting to retain their original character.
c- Milestone routes in Alpine History such as 1938 route on Eiger North Face must be left in opriginal state. Also rock routes of local significance.
d- Basic principle of redevlopment should be to keep charcter of route intact.
1. Line of first ascent not changed
2. pitches done clean (i.e. no pegs or bolts) should not be retrobolted.
3. No bolts on sections that may "be done clean by climbers of that grade of the route"
4. Runouts not to be neutralised by additional bolts.
5. Difficulty shouldn't change through redevelopment i.e. original aid sections should still be aidable.
6. Top quality bolts should only be used in redevelopment.
7. redevelopment should be approved by 1st ascensionists.
e- redevelopment should be carried out by "locally knowledgable climbers togather with the local climbing groups, if necessary in cooperation with the responsible authorities." to preserve local charcter.

"The first ascent of rock climbing routes"
This is shorter with 4 principles
a- In alpine regions first ascents should be exclusively done on lead (i.e. ground up)
b- In areas excluded from redevelopment bolts on new routes should be kept to an absolute minimum.
c- Shouldn't distract from independent character of adjacent routes.
d- On valley cliffs or easily accessible parts of mountain "special sport climbing areas" can be established.#

Page 7 - Comments from overseas
Steve Davis director American Alpine Club (Alaska) likes the paper.
Yvon Chouinard (legenadry Yosemite pioneer and conscience of US climbing) really likes it.
John Middendorf (US Big wall guru) likes it too.
Page 8-9 Letter from the President.
Not Bush luckily but Mac again, tells story of Munich climb and ethics of mountain routes in UK. Raises number of questions including key point about who takes responsibility for the fixed gear.
Page 10 - The Standing of Plaisir climbing
Interview by "Die Alpen" journal of Swiss alpine Club with Jurg Von Kanel, mountain guide and guidebook author. seen as one of the originators of the idea of "Plaisir climbing" basically sport routes in the mountains with the emphasis on good closely spaced bolted protection. Many areas in Switzerland particularly in pre alps or low mountain routes. Kanel justifies approach through the routes popularity "I believe that 90-95% of all those who wish to climb are preferring fully equiped routes." (he obviously hasn't visited the UK!) Dismisses critism from "outsiders" claiming support from everyday climbers wo climb the routes and buy his guidebooks and from top level climbers who bolt their routes (presume he's referring to Piola and general elite sports climbers). Makes a good point that environmental concerns about popularity avoid the fact that climbing takes people into the countryside developing an awareness of nature and a desire to protect it. Makes a concession that Plaisir climbing may rob climbers of the need to learn essential skills of self protection by suggesting that may include some routes that need some gear to be placed on lead in next guidebooks concluding "It will be interesting to find out, if there is really a demand for this".
Page 13-14 The rotting peg and bolt syndrome by one KJ Wilson. Says at first sight the report looks logical but that the reality of it's implacation are that climbers will unlearn essential nut placing skills and ability to look after themselves in the mountains. While intially fixed gear may reduce accidents in the long run the skill gap will lead to incidents. After a bizzarre point about not getting lost on a route , accepts that fixed abseil stations are sometimes reasonable in the alps, suggests these should be off line of ascent so that still encourage climbers to self belay. "Extremely concerned" about any official body taking responsibilty and liability for too many fixed abs. Concludes "It is time to stress the importance of the full range of mountain skills and to point out that those who cannot move in the mountains without the possession of a power drill or a pre equipped route cannot really call themselves climbers"
Page 15 "The absolute freedom of climbing versus safety and prevention of mountaineering accidents." by Bruno Durrer from the Medical Commision of the UIAA (?) presents the case from mountain rescue bodies that a limited ammount of fixed belays should be added to all classic mixed routes "most mountain regions live off the tourism and have a vital interest of offerring safe routes and an efficient rescue systemn to their visitors."

Phew!!

My opinion is one of some concern I believe the classic routes don't present a "problem" in terms of their gear to most mountaineers. The "problem" comes from those who seek to retrobolt routes "for our safety". Inevitably the report is a compromise and in effect gives license for bolted belays on classic routes and some retrobolting. Something I detest, but it also by putting down criteria makes it hopefully possible to stop more of the lazy stupid retrobolting such as that on the lower slabs of the American direct on the Dru. The threat is pointed out by the responses from the rescue organisations and Mr Kanel a guide and guidebook author these people make money from our climbing and look not to improve our climbing experience by making things "safer" but make their jobs as guides, rescuers or sellers of convience guidebooks easier.

The key point from this report will be how do we define which routes should be "redeveloped", which are the historical classics or environmentally threatened routes that should be left alone. Also on a pitch by pitch basis who decides when a bolt is affecting a routes character. One thing for certain is that I have no trust in guides, mountain rescuers or hut guardians in making these decisions for the general good of climbing.

The UIAA is having a meeting entitled "Future of Mountain Sports" in Innsbruck 6-8 Sept to look at the feedback from this consultative document. I will probably give a written response if I can find out more about the purpose of the meeting and will take into account opinions expressed on this forum.

I think I need a refill on my pic n mix now!

In reply to Ian P:

Many thanks for the summary Ian.

Personally, I'm with Ken on the need to learn the essential skills to look after yourself in the mountains. Bolt belays are nice and convenient, but the more that there are, the more they will be relied upon and more will go in. This will attract more climbers onto routes which they wouldn't be on if there weren't fixed belays. I don't buy the "for our safety" argument.

Contentious issue for sure, IMO - ethically, alpine is adventure climbing and in adventure climbing bolting should be generally frowned upon, bolts have their place, and alpine regions should not be one of these places; it ruins the aesthetics, technical skills and commitment required by subsequent parties. I also totally agree with the comment that it may put inexperienced people in potentially dangerous situations.

In reply to doughboy:

If you don't like bolts you don't have to use them. I have a friend with whom I climb in Spain. He refuses to use bolts, so we don't, even on bolted routes. On slabs where protection is impossible, he goes first.

On other routes in France, which are heavily bolted, sometimes I only use the bolts where I cannot place protection. Or every second bolt if the route is hard.

Then everybody is happy and those who want lots of bolts can climb too.

In my view, adventure climbing is when you explore and do a first ascent, as soon as you have a guidebook, the adventure aspect is gone.

In reply to francoise: Glad you are finding your own way of making routes adventurous. To me though the "You don't have to clip them if you don't want to" arguement overlooks a few things. Notably that you are on an adventurous mountain like the Dru and yet some guide has drilled a regimented line of huge bolts next to the crackline I'm climbing. For me whether I clip them or not it massively reduces my personal adventure. Visually you are constantly reminded that others have been there and permanently altered the challenge with their drilled and manufactured placements. There also is something more difficult to explain but bolting seemes so out of context in terms of the rigidity of the placements, the materials (stainless steel) used, etc that are not in sync with the natural environment. The occasional peg dosen't bother me the same way, it's placement has been dictated by the rock, a climber has had to use craft, skill and an understanding of the rock to place it. Finally having the option of the bolts is always in the back of your mind so if you were having an real epic of course you would clip them (unless you were an ethical angel like Stevie Haston or Neil Pearsons).

In reply to Ian P:

I agree that visually bolts are ruining a bit the aesthetic aspect of the rock. But I would say the same of wooden chocs and pegs. The Pointe Lachenal is an example where every generation of climbers has left some kind of protection and the place looks like a via ferrata. On top of it some of the cracks are so polished that one is almost better off by the side of the routes.

However, sometimes I feel like doing a route that is too hard for me and I enjoy the pure physical challenge of the rock climbing, which I could not do without the safety of the bolts. It is a different kind of pleasure.

I find another very good use of bolts: route finding. Just follow the glitter. For someone like me who has no sense of orientation it's great.

For the adventure the best is to look for new routes. Had a taste of it recently and I am addicted.

btw: Charpoua is one of my favourite huts.

In reply to francoise: Francoise - you normally talk a lot of sense but I'm sorry, the idea of not clipping bolts to increase the adventure is ridiculous! I totally agree with IanP on that point. Secondly - you inadvertantly make that point yourself that they totally destroy the need for the climber to have any sense of route finding, you might as well paint lines up the cliff if you really believe that!

The idea that a guidebook spoils the sense of adventure in climbing, I can't accept either. Even climbing in Chamonix, perhaps the best documented alpine area in the world, I thought was great as the guide (the one we had at least) would say something like "follow cracks and corners on the front of the buttress to where it narrow to ridge and joins the voie normale. 250 mtrs." No one could claim that kind of description takes away too much adventure!

The idea that new routing and expeditions should allow people to 'explore' is silly. Expeditions take a lot of time or/and money. Some people like Ian have made the decision that climbing is the thing that will come first in his life at least for the time being, and will scrimp and save to be able to get off to the big hills and do things. I totally respect that, although I wouldn't prioritise that way personally. Others might have the financial resources to be able to fly off for a few weeks some where remote for the annual holiday - but many people simply can't afford that option. But there is a "third way" (haha) that people can go to say, Scotland or the less frequented parts of the Alps and have their little adventures there.

Lines of glittering bolts, not guidebooks, will destroy that.

Having said that I'm not anti-bolts 100%. Certain places are already popular and nothing is going to change that. A few well placed bolts, rather than years of decaying pegs and tat might be visually less intrusive and safer. For example I was quite suprised that on the S. Face of the Aiguille du Midi, the rappels although bolted were joined by years of decaying tat rather than a chain. We looked at the tat and thought "- hmmm - that looks dodgy" so added our own bit hence in a way furthering the problem. The bolts are already there - might as well join them with a chain. Also some of the belays I found climbing above Chamonix have been collections of dubious pegs and tat. Being a brit and hence always carrying more gear than we need, backing them up with some nuts etc. has never been a problem, but watching others come and just clip into the mank is always worrying.

In reply to TobyA:
Sorry Françoise, I think you're in a minority (at least on a UK based forum). The 'ignore the bolts' argument is pretty weak, the presence of the bolts takes away much of the commitment and if present trends continue there won't be many options left for those folk preferring 'terrain d'aventure' in the European Alpes.

However (to be inconsistent), like Toby I wouldn't have a problem with permanent, safe abseil anchors in a few places to replace the huge amount of tat (mostly unsafe) already in place.

In reply to Doug:
What people have to get their heads round is that the alps are in Europe, therefore have different ethics. If the germans/swiss/french want to bolt THEIR moutains then fair enough.

Imagine if a bunch of French came over to Stanage and wanted to start bolting stuff to fit their particular ethics.

So if you dont like bolts in the Alps dont climb popular routes or go to less popular areas. There are still plenty of routes that havent been bolted and never will be bolted.

Cheers

In reply to TobyA:

When I have been climbing on bolted routes without using the bolts it was in 2 very specific circumstances:
1/ respecting my Spanish friend's principles. If he did not want to use bolts, I don't mind. We climb routes that he has opened many years ago, anyway, so he knows them by heart.
2/ In Cham, I was training placing protections in order to be able to climb in the UK.

Using bolts to find the route: I am just aware of my weaknesses.

Opening new routes does not have to be far and expensive. More news later about that, when I have done a few.

In reply to Yoda, the idea that we haven't got a say in what happens in the mountains of Europe is ludicrous. The alps are a world resource that should be protected. In the same way that the mountains of Nepal, Tibet and India are protected by their local agencies together with the world mountaineering community. Can you imagine what the Chinese governments plans would be for their (read tibet's) side of Everest if the world mountaineering community didn't take a strong ethical stand.

I like the fact that each area has a local flavour such as Wedenstock largely bolted but highly committing, Triglav in Slovenia, little fixed gear or even fixed belays plus no abseil descents, Chamonix more fixed belays and abseils but still largely little fixed runners, etc. The problem is the wave of Plaisier climbing is threatening to swamp all these little nuances into a bland tide of "safe climbing" homogeneity.

The report recognizes the input of committed non local visitors with the suggestion that "locally knowledgable climbers together with the local climbing groups.". Many British climbers do more routes and visit more faces within say the Chamonix range than most of the local guides.

Finally don't forget what impact and influence British Climbers have had in the alps from Whymper, to Brown's Crack, Whillans and Bonnington on the Freney, Nick Colton and Alex MacIntyre ushering in the new technicalities of ice and mixed in the big mountains in the mid 70s and then Haston doing the same mid 90s with Scotch on the Rocks and Pinnochio. Couple this with folk like Andy Parkin who is probably the most prolific activist in Chamonix with great respect and influence.

Francois great to hear you've started new routing - Go for it!

In reply to Ian P:

The sport/plaisir ethic seems to be gaining ground in Switzerland. If you compare the old (black) SAC guides with the new (white) ones, the difference is immediately noticeable. In the former there is no mention of bolts or French grades, while these are all over the latter. Moreover, in one of Jurg von kanel's best selling Schweiz Plaisir guides, there is a colour picture of him poised halfway up a crag, Black and Decker in hand. Can you imagine the outcry if, say, the new West Cornwall guide had been published with a picture of Des Hannigan drilling away into Anvil Chorus? There's a gulf in ethics.

In reply to Ian P:

With all due respect to Andy Parkin, who I have met,he is not the greatest activist in Cham. He might be one of the greatest British one at the moment. I won't bore you with a list of just as great French activist based in Cham.

In reply to francoise: Didn't say greatest - very different from prolific! Anyway I would concede that at the moment he's doing more painting than climbing and that I am probably neing eltest and looking only at the harder routes. But if you look at his ouevre of climbs their contribution rivals Gabarrou. Andy was even listed in a book (can't remember title) called something like 100 Chamonards.