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!