UKC

Came across this survey this morning: https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation?f...

It seems to me a pretty poorly put together survey, after what seems like a reasonable amount of effort going into the article and proposal. There's no option to agree with the removal of old tat but to disagree with drilling and bolting. The cynic in me feels like the proposal is just a way to make things easier for guides and their clients, taking away the need for judgement, experience and acceptance of a certain level of risk.

I read that as they're proposing replacing mounds of tat with a single piece of stainless tat, which is hard to disagree with. Not seeing where they're talking about any new drilling and bolting, other than replacing the existing terrifying ones at the end of p4 that they claim are the only belay option. But I've not been there so can't comment on how necessary that is.

How long will we have to queue for the top-ropers to get off it?

I've guided the route twice this year an my main takeaways from the fixed gear are;

Lots of what is currently there is unnecessary for ascent and for descent some are a bit sketchy (spike with the  buried nut attached, I've backed this up both times.

The route was essentially bolted for ascent/descent on the first/second ascent, but those bolts are home made, corroded and unusable. At the moment it's mostly thread/loops around blocks tied to fixed nuts).

The belays other than one, currently are all fixed gear master points, so this doesn't make much difference for the points you make. In addition, the teams struggling with safely navigating the fixed and natural belays were other non guided climbing teams (mostly from outside the UK). On both of my ascents other teams failed to build safe belays where limited fixed gear was available (p5?).

My feelings from working on the route are that it's in a fairly embarrassing state and does require cleaning up. It doesn't really need any fixed gear on ascent belays, however there is naturally a crossover with descending and it is necessary to have fixed abseil points. The ideal would be a minimal amount of fixed gear to support the three abseils, which would mean possibly drilling two bolts. (Strop on the top,  two bolts to replace the nut and spike belay and strops to replace the threads on the last abseil).

Thanks to Mountaineering Scotland for grasping this nettle. In general I support the idea of cleaning up The Old Man and with most of the proposals. I would be more ruthless with the current fixed gear and remove all non-stainless pegs and bolts: these are never reliable on sea cliffs. Leaving the peg belay at the top of pitch 5 is just kicking the can down the road, this should be removed so it is not used as an abseil anchor which will become increasingly unsafe.

Avoid the use of fixed rope: evidence from the summit anchors is even when new static rope and stainless mallion anchors are provided, folk add their own back-ups and the tangle of ropes proliferate. The fixed rope at the top of pitch one is unnecessary.

The three proposed abseil stations are good ideas: replacing the current anchors with their stainless equivalents. 

I don't find it hard at all.

Yes, the same argument was made for the steel strop on the Inaccessible Pinnacle, and, as I suspected, it seems it might have been the thin end of the wedge. Guides should be educating their clients about judging and replacing tat where necessary, not demanding dumbed-down convenience.

And who has actually felt they have had their day spoilt in any way by the aesthetics of the tat on The Old Man Of Hoy? I suspect this is mostly being used as an excuse (though obviously it should be tidied up).

Who has had their day ruined on the Inm-Pinn by coming across a steel cable instead of a pile of old rotting tat?

I would much prefer one piece of steel cable rather than mounds of rotting tat visible from large distances away. 

Hopefully you're in the minority. It's nice to see MS doing something proactive vis-a-vis the piles of shit people like yourself are happy to see pile up, in the aim of 'natural' protection. 

We're well past the thin edge of the wedge with regards to fixed gear in Scotland, about the only bit of the wedge that's left is retro bolting existing trad lines. This is far more of a concern to me than replacing ab tat on sea stacks but MS aren't keen to consult on it.

Ruined may be a hard word but I was severely disappointed that what I thought would be a lovely clean climb ended up as a jumble of old rope, sad pegs, rusting gear and rust stained rock from badly placed bolts. I remember at the time thinking how much better a pair of titanium anchors would be visually. 

I'll also add that I was absolutely disgusted at the state of the tyrolean anchor on Storr when I climbed it. Horrified think that this was preferable to a single large ring. I could see the mess at any distance and it does climbers a disservice to have tourists being able to see the mess we make. 

Never mind the plastic waste caused if every climber had to cut off and replace the tat on a climb.

I understand the strong ethical reasoning and the 'thin end of the wedge' discussions but the present solution is not acceptable in my opinion.

I agree with this except I do not think we need fixed gear on the stack side of Stoer for the Tyrolean. It is easy to retrieve your gear from there, you just have to get wet to do so.

Well done to MS for grasping the nettle. I have filled in the survey and fully support getting rid of all the old tat. 

I didn't say I'm happy to see it pile up. It should be removed and replaced as necessary.

It hasn't ruined my day, but I think it has set an unfortunate precedent.

On balance I would prefer a mound of tat, but I would far prefer for people to remove and replace tat they don't trust so that there is just neat tat.

I always thought that was unwritten etiquette, if you don't trust the tat enough, add yours then cut at least one of the worst offenders away and pocket it. 

If that was the solution, it wouldn't be a problem (I see this as the issue)

I totally agree - perhaps a big sign is needed!!

What precedence? Nowhere else in the country has another steel cable appeared that I know of.

Your preference has been the preferred way. Unfortunately this doesn't work as can be seen by the mounds of tat that litter our sea stacks.

Or a bridge from the cliff top to the summit, would save all the hassle of having to climb it!

Loads of steel strops in use around the wider Bristol climbing area, Wye Valley, Avon, Mendips etc to replace mounds of rotting tat. 

Good idea. A toll bridge, naturally 

Sounds like Bristol have a sensible approach to ab stations.

For clarity when I said country I meant Scotland as I haven't climbed extensively around England. 

Well it's being suggested now.

It is rather sad if it cannot be made to work. Really shouldn't be hard. Maybe most people aren't actually bothered enough by the tat. I see this as throwing in the towel.

Sadly I expect I am.

Yeah fair point, hopefully a sensible approach can be taken in Scotland too. 

What is the difference between a rope round a block vs a steel cable round a block that means we are ok with one not the other? Both are similar in size and both are similarly unsightly. The main difference with the cable is you don't end up with piles and piles of it littering the ab-station.

Struggling to follow your logic here. What is it about nylon tat that's better than marine steel?

The fact that you even feel the need to ask this question probably shows that my side of the argument has lost.

I'll try to give a coherent answer later when I have time.

For the route in questions, it's not really practical for a standard ascent to carry enough rope to replace the stuff in situ . I'd estimate the top takes 15 to 20m to rig enough bits together, the other belays probably 4-5m per belay (big threads, loops etc...).

I'd say there is probably cumulatively at least 100m of rope on the route. It's not as easy as swapping out one small fixed loop of rope for another.

Hopefully whoever is involved with this consultation will see this. Personally I have no real opinion on whether or not this work should be carried out. The Old Man is quintessential adventure climbing, and you should have the ability to assess anchors before you set off up something like that. At the same time, I can appreciate that if you are going to leave something anyway, it'd be preferable to make it as high quality as possible. 

What I am personally concerned about is this - most cable and chain is made from either 304 or 316 stainless. Both these grades degrade in a saltwater environment. They are not 316L like bolts or one of the newer duplex steels used for harsh environments, and a distinction should be made. I would be extremely cautious about putting fixed equipment in that environment, especially cable or chain, especially when it is absolutely 100% safety critical piece of fixed gear. Encouraging people to trust a strop like that comes with responsibilities for the installers and being able to recognise when something has exceeded its useful life. Fixed gear in that environment MUST be made of the correct material, I.E Titanium or a very high grade stainless, preferably better than 316L. 

We have seen in the Bristol area that incorrect material choice can be potentially disastrous, with a galvanised steel strop failing in someone's hands shortly before they jumped onto it to abseil down. Stainless has the potential to degrade quickly in the wrong environment, so either you have to go the full hog and bolt all stations with titanium hardware, no strops, OR you need to leave it be. There should be absolutely no mis illusion that a middle way exists. It doesn't.

Please share that via the survey link. Seems like a really important point. 

Obviously no one ascent is ever going to have to replace more than a small fraction of it.

I would favour the effort to replace stuff to make it as tidy and safe as possible without bolts and strops and then encourage people to try to keep it that way. It might work. At the moment the task will appear overwhelming for a single party and so people are likely to just leave it as it is.

Maybe guides could make a particular point of setting a good example and educating their clients (I'm sure many or most do already).

It's shared privately when fixed equipment is replaced. I know several guides who have added new equipment to the route this year and removed old equipment, but unfortunately this doesn't prevent the problem. 

It sounded like from the article that there have been major clean ups previously, but that it quickly reverts to masses of tat 

As above I'm not necessarily convinced by the strop option, I've seen them close to failure elsewhere (especially when plastic sheathed which sound like what they are suggesting).

It's difficult to actually buy anything that is 316 and not 316L no matter what is stamped on it, I don't know of a steel manufacturer that has made only 316 for the past several decades, it's always dual certified.

The lie you tell yourself that you aren't climbing on fixed gear. 

The easiest and safest way to do this is with bolts and strops as proposed. We all want the same thing, just disagree on the method - no-one is advocating for the thick end of the wedge, just a pragmatic approach to making what is already there as low effort and safe as possible. 

without bolts and strops and then encourage people to try to keep it that way. It might work. At the moment the task will appear overwhelming for a single party and so people are likely to just leave it as it is.

It clearly doesn't work, which is why this garbage keeps accumulating.

I'm sure most do, but of course there are lots (a majority) of unguided ascents. 

Surely you mean a t(r)oll bridge

Can the thread be renamed ‘Hands Off the Old Man’?

You failed to quote the key part of my sentence: "without strops and threads".

It seems we don't all want the same thing. What's wrong with a bit of effort and responsibility for one's own safety; nobody has to climb the thing. And it might easily be the thin end of the wedge; I'd put money on other popular sea stacks going the same way for a start.

It's not ideal, but I prefer a bit of garbage to the sanitation of the imposition of effectively permanent fixed gear.

Only a small proportion of ascentionists maintaining tat is ever going to be necessary though.

I'm surprised that they wouldn't stamp it 316L then seeing as it's the better grade. All the wire ropes I've just looked at are marked as 316... I still think it's really important that whatever they do, if it revolves around stainless that they need to either have a watertight inspection regime or that they use the best quality equipment - and even with 316L cable I don't know whether that's the right solution. It's one thing in the woods around bristol, it's another at the top of an Orknean seastack? I mean you know more than I do about that for sure...

I can see why bolts are not wanted but chain or steel rope around a spike or thread is the same as tat.

What if they put some old rope sheath over the cable so it looks like shitty old tat? Would it be ok then? Still really struggling to see why you're ok with one but not the other.

Just a month or so ago I was, for the BMC, putting metal strops around trees at the top of Stoney Middleton to replace various bits of rotting rope. Can't say I got the idea from Skye though, more just that steel cables are used elsewhere.

(edit: just saw your later post saying you meant Scotland - so fair enough. But metal strops are used outside of Scotland. Surprised there aren't any on some lowland outcrops crags where people often ab? Or sports routes where the lower off is a tree rather than bolts?)

There are metal strops in Glen Nevis and Creag Dubh

Robert only uses hexes and nuts on rope and never on wire!

In reply to Mountaineering Scotland:

Good idea. Chop all the old tat. Replace abseil anchors with marine grade strops or bolts if no natural abseil anchor exists or if sufficiently corrosion-resistant wire is not available. 

The route has had dozen of fixed bits of gear since the first ascent. You can still clip the Insitu wooden chicks on the crux pitch.

I am sure there probably are, I just haven't come across them despite climbing all over Scotland quite extensively.

To me it seems like a sensible approach. This thin end of the wedge argument just doesn't really wash. The Inn Pinn cable has been there for years  and so far it sounds like the odd cable has appeared in sensible locations. It hasn't led to the bolting and total sanitisation of trad climbing like some seem to think it will.

Edit, from above it sounds like Glen Nevis has them.

Fulmars or skuas?

316L isn't better as such, it is designed for welding with a lower carbon content (to reduce corrosion cracking) but it's weaker so some companies add nitrogen to get it back up, mostly one buys dual-standard as that is what is mostly manufactured (the two standards overlap). For swaging the dual-standard version is preferred over the two pure grades as the deformability is better. For a cable around a sea stack in Scotland there's no difference but personally I'd use chain.

The ab chain at the top of Gimmer has been there quite a long time - it's not led to them proliferating all over the Lakes - unless everyone's keeping very quiet about them.

It is strange how these things seem to come to a head once guides and clients  become involved. Tat isn't the root issues here; people climbing for money is.

Personally, I love mountains of tat. I even have a collection of tat-keepsakes, but am aware that Ill be in a minority.

And the bolt/chain ab on the Froggatt/Rivelin Pinnacle on grit.   

Really? The original route?

Are you confusing that with gear that might have been used on the 'TV Route'? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00rzs81

I'm a bit shocked! I did Cook's leap off Froggat pinnacle. 

This was encouraged by a well known Lancs activist who after I'd done it confessed he'd broken his ankle.

To be fair it IS a fecking long jump between Froggatt and Rivelin.

I'd imagine its a combination of the two, there was only a year or so between and according to the website documenting the history is has only had 10 ascents by 1969.

Kudos & respect to you - I looked at that maybe 30 years ago and thought "in days of old when there was grass over there, maybe, but without, no way" although looking at your profile, your leap may have been even earlier than that.

I never understood what was wrong with climbing partway down Route One (VS 5a) and then jumping off, or IIRC by reversing Pinnacle Face (VS 5b) from its thread hold at the top. 

I too looked at that maybe 40 years ago and thought "in days of old when there was grass over there, maybe, but without, no way".

I wonder how many people, if any, have done it since the grass disappeared what must be 50 or more years ago. Any idea, Pedro?

I did it probably 49 years ago. I don't remember any grass then. I was good at long jump at school. It did hurt my tightly EB clad toes a tad.

Nutter!

Pot and kettle John! 

Might have been 40 rather than 30 for me too, I'd have to check my log to see when I was on the Pinnacle, but there were several occasions so that might not really help.

There surely must be some younger nutter out there who's done it this millennium.

Firstly, from a purely functional perspective, there is obviously no difference at all except that the strop is more durable. I imagine we all agree on that.

However, the difference for me is in the aesthetic of how the activity of climbing is self-organised. A bunch if tat is an organic thing that changes and is nurtured according to the needs of passing climbers; it is something that comes from the core of the activity itself, the climbing community if you like. If it were not there, it would spring up again and regrow. I think there is a sort of beauty in this process. A steel strop, on the other hand, is something sent down from above rather than from within, external to the process of actually climbing and descending; it is an ugly imposition on the experience of the climb, detracting from the experience as a whole.

I may not have expressed myself very well, but to me the difference is obvious and compelling; I would prefer a visually ugly bunch of tat to a sanitised steel strop (though, as I have said, neatly maintained tat would be preferable).

I am aware that there are already steel strops in place at some single pitch Scottish crags, but these are somewhat different; they are just to make getting back to the bottom of the climb by abseil more convenient than walking down. I don't really like them, but I think this situation is very different to the cases of sea stacks and the Inaccessible Pinnacle where getting down again is integral to the whole experience and should not be sanitised or dumbed down.

As for new bolts on The Old Man, I think this is a line which should absolutely definitely not be crossed. I find it very hard to believe that it cannot be descended safely without. And if it really can't then maybe people should make the choice to just not climb it. That wouldn't be the end of the world.

Anyway, I seem to be in a minority on this, so I imagine the permanent equipping will go ahead and that probably other stacks will sadly follow. It may well go on from there.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen tat romanticised like that. The aesthetics of climbing are important to me, but things like tat are purely a functional item to me.

Thanks for your reply, I do see where you are coming from but for me the visual mess of loads of old tat outweighs the feeling you describe. That is just a difference of opinion that I hope we can both respect. As for bolts, for me these are even less visually intrusive than a large chain and if it was solely on the ab stations I again really would not mind, but again I understand your feelings on it.

You are correct in saying that if folk replaced tat as and when required this conversation would be unnecessary. Unfortunately that is not the case, people are fully aware of what they should do but it just doesn't happen and will not happen.

We also have a duty to think of the non climbers, when they look across to the mounds of tat what do they think? I hate seeing litter and to me that is basically what it is.

Intentionally, because I was highlighting how I think this requirement is ridiculous.

Plenty of requirement to take responsibility for your own safety on the route, the abseil stations/belays are, in my opinion, not exactly the most thrilling or engaging part of the route. Especially when it’s trying to work out how solid a mouldy pile of rope is. Personally I’d like to see this crap replaced across the UK, from sea stacks to mountain crags. I don’t want to see retro bolting of routes, just discrete, long lasting and safe fixed gear rather than visually obtrusive, ephemeral and questionable piles of tat round the place.

We have plenty of fixed gear belay points in the alps. Doesn’t take away from the actual thing you are there for, the climbing. 

Clearly this is not happening though, or it wouldn’t be on the agenda for discussion and we wouldn’t need to have clean ups. Ideology vs real world.

Anyone who's stood on the top knows it's going to split down the middle sooner or later...maybe needs a steel strop right round the whole stack....

I completely sympathise with your position, Robert. But there's only so much holding back the tide that one can do before ending up looking like a dinosaur idealist. In reality, the world has moved on. The norms of one generation are not always accepted by the next, nor are the values of one generation necessarily shared by the next. Climbers now do not share precisely the same values or expectations as they might have done in yesteryear. That doesn't mean we should accept without question each and every idea that comes along to make the climbing experience more convenient. But in my opinion it does mean we should recognise a functional equivalence, such as that between in-situ nylon webbing and in-situ cable.

I take your point about the symbolism of climber-placed tat compared to officially-installed cable, but we no longer live in a world in which climbers capable of ascending a feature such as the Old Man form a select group of like-minded and mutually respectful individuals. It is now a much more accessible objective - proportionately at least - and I'd argue that to most ascentionists today the nature of any fixed equipment is of almost no consequence compared to its existence. Indeed, a festering collection of rotting tat may well now be viewed with disdain. "Somebody should sort this mess out," might be an expected reaction. And I'd agree. 

And since individual climbers have proved themselves over many years to be incapable of rising to such a challenge, I very much doubt there are many climbers who would object to the job being done more effectively and more sustainably by an officially agreed process.

“A bunch if tat is an organic thing that changes and is nurtured according to the needs of passing climbers”

Except it’s not organic is it? It’s a load of old rotting plastic that is gradually falling apart chucking yet more micro plastics into the environment or as I have sadly witnessed when cut away lobbed into the sea below rather than carried home to be safely disposed of. A steel strop might still not be perfect but it is far less damaging to nature and I personally think that is far more important than some aesthetic idealism. If you have ever visited a gannet colony or actually pretty much any seabird nesting site you would quickly realise that anything we can do to remove plastic waste from the seas should be done.

The Old Man of Hoy is a popular route and requires an abseil descent. Therefore just use the best equipment available for sea cliffs and make the abseils safe. Titanium resin rings glued in will last forever and all the rest of the tat, rusted pegs and bolts should be removed or left to rot away if impossible to get out. There is no need for any equipment for the ascent as it is perfectly protectable with modern kit, it is just the abseil stations that need good modern gear and there is then no need for anything else. 

Nobody has actually addressed (on this thread at least) why tat builds up - I think there are 3 main reasons:

1. You see some tat that looks dodgy so you decide to add a new piece - but your thinking is "the old tat may be ok, 2 bits better than 1 just in case" and then it becomes 3 better than 2 etc.
2. Not carrying a knife or blade that will cut through the old tat because any knots are just impossible to undo.
3. There are so many bits of tat together that people are discouraged from removing just one and leaving the rest because it would still be a mess so they do nothing.

Maybe for things like sea stacks, we can address a lot of this by encouraging more people to carry a knife on stack ascents, then they'll be more people who maybe just clear one piece of tat, and the issue might just revert to more reasonable levels of tat.

Im not convinced you are in a minority, (particularly if you look at the proportion of likes your posts are getting). You are on the side that is going to lose out however. Which is a shame.

When I worked in a gear shop 20 years ago a man came in and berated me for the state of the tat on the old man. He wasn't a climber, and I'd never been to Hoy at that point, but he was spitting blood!

Obviously we should all be cutting off old tat to tidy things up whenever we find it. In cases like this where abseiling is essential something more durable makes sense.

I think if you object to replacing a bit of nylon with a more durable bit of steel you need to take a bigger step back. It's a bizarre hill to die on that the inherently short lifespan of soft goods exposed to the elements is somehow part of the romantic adventure of climbing, but something a little stronger and more durable is killing this spirit!

How do you think this 'officially-installed' stuff is going to get up there? 

If that's the line you're going to choose to draw around the romanticisation of tat, I think it's worth reminding ourselves that it'll presumably be carried up there by climbers who will climb the route, and wrapped through the threads by those climbers, who will then presumably ab off using it. So its journey will be exactly like every bit of tat up there.

The sole difference is the premeditated intent to leave it in a better state than they find it in.

Or, to look at this another way, if I replaced all my dyneema slings with stainless ones, used them for a bit, but then one day left one on an ab station on a sea stack..... what would the lynching sound like?

Good post but I think the core problem is beyond a certain frequency of climbers, tat just becomes litter and unsightly. The northern Corrie's in summer look horrendous up close, for example 

So, I think the answer is to go somewhere others don't.  That said, on a *very* obscure route in the Alps this summer I found a chain, which quite spoiled things.

Not sure it's my response you're arguing with, as I have no interest at all in "romanticising tat", but in reply to your specific question: Of course it's climbers who will be installing a more durable solution, the biggest difference being that they're doing so with the specific intention of facilitating safe descent by others, rather than doing so primarily for their own benefit (albeit fully aware that others will later benefit too.)

Edit: To be clear, it's climbers who are responsible for both tat and durable anchors, but one is a deliberate action specifically to benefit the climbing community as a whole, the other is a welcome but incidental improvement during the course of a personal or professional ascent.

All it would need is for one single bit of tat to be placed alongside any new shiny bolts to cast enough doubt in someone’s mind that the bolts are of dubious state and the process begins again anyway

I did it about 40 years ago, not sure exactly which year but between 1984 and 1986. 
To start with I planned to do it still roped up, but the rope was just getting in the way and I couldn’t commit. So off came the Willian’s harness and I went for it. Don’t recall getting injured, but it was a long time ago.

Thank you for your explanation. I very much appreciate the effort you have put onto articulating your view, but I'm not sure I agree with several points.

First, I don't agree with your point about an organic level of tat being replaced as required. What is the difference between climbing with spare rope or tape in your sac to create tat if required, or climbing with a length of steel cable and some clamps?

Second, I don't understand why you are willing to live with steel strops on Scottish outcrops to avoid a walk round, but not with strops where they are absolutely required for an abseil. I would be much happier the other way round -- strops where required for abseils but not to avoid walks round.

I'm also wondering how you feel about steel stakes at the top of many popular sea (and land) crags. Are they not ok?

Finally, I think we should bear in mind the long standing tradition in UK climbing of trying to improve the style with which we climb. Removing a vast quantity of rotting tat and replacing it with the minimum necessary steel tat is an improvement in style - and it also sets an expectation that this (and only this) fixed gear is required and acceptable. It may not be perfect, but it is an improvement (like removing most but not all of the aid on a line. Maybe the next generation will do better still, but I think this is an improvement that should be supported.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/leaping_from_the_top_of_froggat...

Someone heard us... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-67086744

The limiting factor to 'crowds' is its location.

I was being sarcastic. I think it is a rare occasion where fixed gear doesn't actually make it less adventurous. Just safer and less shit-looking. 

This consultation merges two things:

• Fixed gear obligatory for descending
• Fixed gear at belays

People have been focusing on the abseil gear question and it is clear that some form of fixed gear is required and this must be as safe and sustainable as is sensible.

Snuck into this is the proposal to bolt a belay used only on the climb up and not the descent as "no other gear is available".

I'd question if this is necessary in 2023. The route is described in many, many, pitches despite being only 130 m long and the idea of stopping and belaying every twenty meters might no longer be required.

The best, most sustainable, long term solution would be to remove the fixed gear from this belay if it's as bad as described and encourage people to lead through. Everyone generally brings sixty meter ropes in order to abseil off anyway.

I cant believe the Old Man getting his prince edward makes it to the bbc... A bit sad to see mountaineering scotland advocating for the sanitising of routes like this. But maybe inevitable in this case. I hope it doesnt spread to the other old men. These are supposed to be classic adventure routes, with all that entails. Ultimately any of these 'improvements' are for convenience, even if in this case it makes a lot of sense practically. Better style isnt necessarily about simplifying, sometimes it involves more effort, discomfort or preparation (or 100 m half ropes!). 

I dont dig the environmental arguments. Agreed its ugly, but daily plastic and petrol use will drown the impact of a few strands of tat. And 'think of the birds' seems even more dishonest. If as climbers we really cared about seabird populations in Scotland we would be talking about bird bans from feb-august here, on Mingulay, Stoer, Aberdeen, all over. If anything the increased footfall from the new abseil de plaisir is likely add to disturbance of nesting birds on the stack. 

Maybe I'll start carrying hemp ab tat.

Wrong prince, whoops...

I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from?

I’d favour removing all the old junk from the Old Man of Hoy, not because it makes my working life easier (I am going inspect any abseil anchor, in sandstone, on a sea cliff pretty closely) but because the current situation is a right mess.

wasn’t the proposal to bolt one belay between the top of the stack and the top of pitch 2?

I have always rapped Hoy in 3 pitches. 

The stack is only 130m high, but the route itself is a fair bit longer. I’ve always thought the 5 pitches described were pretty Bob on, especially if climbing in windy/inclement weather. I also don’t recall any of the belays being particularly poor. 

No thanks. I want to be able to see and hear the people I’m climbing with, and not land on a ledge if I fall off. That said regardless of how you climb them pitches 3 and 4 are no place to fall. 

Tom

Damn. I guessed it would be 12 posts before the thin edge of the wedge was mentioned.   I need to up my game.

There were wedges in the Old Man donkeys years ago. I saw them myself in the nineties.

The proposal is confusing as it seems to describe there as being six pitches. At least it is talking about a belay at the top of pitch 5 and the summit as separate things.

The proposal includes improving the abseil stations. As I have said, I think there is an argument for making these safe. I'm not convinced that moving to a hard to assess metal strop solution proposed for the top of pitch 3? is the right answer and as has been mentioned upthread, the use of metal component is a sea water environment is very challenging and unpredictable. The wear on rope/textile components is very visible and it should be noted that they have proved a safe solution for many many years.

In addition there seems to be proposal to bolt a belay not described as an abseil station (at the top of pitch 4?)

I've only done it twice and cant remember how many abseils I did it in. Defiantly no more than three. 

Whilst the route is a bit longer than going direct up, you do start higher than the base of the tower.

Of course if you bolt a belay on a ledge because there is no gear you will still be falling off and landing on the ledge unless you also bolt the pitch.... 

I presume Tom was referring to the greater amount of stretch on the ropes if you fall off near the end of running 2 pitches together...

Yep. Doing heroic 60m pitches is all well and good on steep rock, but on ledgey stuff it’s best to keep things short and slick unless you want to smash yourself up. 

Fixed gear is fixed gear. The argument here is to change out the fixed gear at belays for a different type of fixed gear at belays. The new fixed gear is safer, more enduring, and looks less shite (plus is less bad for the environment). It's not like replacing pegs with bolts, which may lead to more of that; there is no wedge here, just making things at the belays better all-round.  

Although in this case you have already conceded its "don't fall off" territory. 

I'm presuming that this must refer to the belay where there are 3 or 4 in-situ pegs, my memory is that there are plenty of opportunities to build your own belay using modern gear in that part of the climb.

That's why chain is best - no potential for hidden corrosion inside the lay of a cable.

I'd also go as far as suggesting that wedge-shaped grooves cut with a cordless angle grinder for nuts, or drilled Abalakov-style threads for tat/chains are better than bolts/staples from an ultimate longevity perspective, especially in a hard to access location.  If a maintenance routine is put in place for tat threads and everyone knows about it, then there is no need to add tat. If there was a sign at the base of the climb and UKC saying 'thread belay at pitch 3/4 was done with black tat on xx/y/zz' everyone would know it was safe to use and wouldn't need to add to it, and if it's a different colour you'd know it had been replaced at some point and be even better.  A fixed nut in a purpose-cut slot is easily replaced if someone doesn't trust it, especially if the size is given in guidebook descriptions etc.  We have the technology, we just need to use it and publicise it.

In reply:

The problem with this proposal is it doesn't address the psychology of why the tat goes in.

For many climbers the Old Man will be one of the biggest undertakings of their climbing career, and the abseil one of the most intimidating and committing descents they have done. This is true of most of the places where tat accumulates rapidly. Late in the day, physically and emotionally exhausted, people will be being extra careful not to die. In that context, the difference between adding some tat for piece of mind vs leaving a tidier stack is not one many will agonise over.

Few climbers feel completely confident inspecting in-situ tat, less so wire strops, and bolts of course cannot be usefully visually inspected, only guessed at or pull-tested. So it won't be many years before spots of rust or other issues appear and the nervous will not be 100% confident. Their solution will be to add some tat, and I suspect this will be the case even if all the ab stations and belays were bolted with all-titanium anchors. A Uk apprenticeship does not lead one to blindly trust in-situ gear, and wisely so. It does give anyone with the competence to climb the stack the ability to cheaply back up a suspect anchor.

So by all means clean up the tat, add more durable threads, but don't assume it will be a magic wand. Maybe organise and annual cleanup, or encourage anyone guiding it regularly to take a moment to clean up.

It's ten years since I was up there, but I don't recall being bothered by the tat. New bolts, however, on this icon of Uk adventure climbing, would have horrified me, quite possibly to the extent of chopping them. Others will feel the same. So adding a few bolts is highly unlikely to be a done deal - no more tat, no more bolts. It is much more likely to be just another act in a fixed gear sh*tshow.

That’s probably the most convincing argument I’ve read so far. Maybe is a clean up is all that is needed. 

Last time I climbed it (2022) the top of the stack was pretty horrendous. I reckon it would have taken me several hours to remove the existing tat and it would have probably filled a the sort of haul bag you’d drag up El Cap. 
 

I've jumped off Froggatt pinnacle a few times in the 2000's, although I'm not sure what classes as Cook's leap. None of them were running leaps off the top fwiw.

I obviously don't know how much gear you carry on a route but I'd suggest there's a pretty gigantic difference between a few metres of cord and a sacrificial maillon and a length of steel cable and some clamps. Each to their own though.

'Style' does not necessarily equate to 'equipment'.

So is the proposal for bolted belays then?

I thought it was about secure abseil points....or is one a euphemism for the other?

Well isn’t this interesting on many levels.  Here we have Mountaineering Scotland whom are meant to be a representative organisation, coming to us with very close to a done deal having already negotiated with the Landowner. Has the landowner complained, have a significant cohort of Scottish Mountaineers raised this with them, I suspect not.  It’s then ‘covered’ by the BBC as if it’s a done deal……..who fed them that?

They have, in their text, also redefined the fundamental core ethic of UK trad from being that of self reliance, and relying on natural placements to ‘leave no trace’ to suit the proposed agenda, which includes the strong possibility of a bolted belay on an iconic trad route.

Is anyone else uncomfortable about this redefinition and how MS is behaving…….it’s all very odd.

Exactly, in ten years time when faced with a bolted ab station, that’s been repeatedly used, and placed in relatively soft and at times friable sandstone as witnessed throughout the climb, if there was a natural placement nearby to back it up; that’s what I’d be doing, as a climber. As a professional geologist I’d be absolutely backing it up.

The bolts in many sandstone crags are well over 10 years old and see lots of use. How often do we see those backed up with old tat? 

Not all sandstone, or bolts are equal, and not all bolts have natural placements nearby.

But having seen a bolt fail and knowing someone whom had a bolted Ab station fail on them resulting in serious near fatal injuries, in conjunction with knowledge of the likely grain framework and cementation of these sandstones I would not be regarding a bolt as an absolute guarantee of safety.

It probably would be fine, how much individuals want to trust to that is upto them.

That's why there's usually 2 of them, isn't it? Have there been many instances of double BBs failing? I get that the odd bolt might pull out but, other than a catastrophic failure of a large section of rock, they're not going to both fail at the same time. 

No piece of gear permanent or otherwise has an absolute guarantee of safety. 2 properly placed bolts would be as good as it gets in my opinion. 

To me it kind of tells a story in the way a fixed steel anchor never could. 

Yes, it is just a difference in perspective and opinion.

To me bolts are a massive step in the wrong direction.

I do wonder whether the fact that it doesn't happen means that the objections to tat ate just a lot of hot air on the internet and that when push comes to shove people really aren't, in reality, all that bothered about it.

Thanks. I feel I am in good company!

Maybe, but the large number of likes my post got is encouraging. Maybe there is still a silent majority of dinosaurs.

I am sure you are perfectly aware that that is not the sense in which I used the word organic.

There's not a lot of adventure involved in abbing off a single pitch crag between routes because it's easier.

Surely when one thinks of 'adventure' in UK climbing, there's few better images that spring to mind than a sea stack. An integral part of adventure is self reliance. It would be a sad day for me if one of our greatest adventure climbs had bolts put in for descent. A steel cable is perhaps not quite as bad (given that they can't be placed just anywhere), but still would probably be the thin end of the wedge. I'd be very surprised if this didn't lead to the other two classic stacks seeing similar treatment in future.

If that was how people normally climbed to protect themselves it would be fine. The difference here is in intent.

I explained that. On the outcrops the abseil to avoid a walk is incidental. On a sea stack the abseil descent is integral to the whole experience.

That is a fair question. I suppose I would see this as half way between the sea stack and the outcrop case. I suppose one has to ask what the alternative is.

No, on that I fundamentally disagree; it is sanitising and dumbing down, a degradation of style.

Not sure what you mean by that. To me it just sets a bad precedent.

Guides do educate their clients thus, and I doubt  you fail to realise this, in fact. The problem is that the majority of climbers on that stac, and similar, will often add to what there is, regardless. The best option is to clean it (very much needed) and leave alone other than a textile anchor for the rap at the top, and repeat every 5 years. 

Yes, it is worrying. A survey of opinion on something with such far reaching implications before coming up with this plan almost as a fait accompli would have been the appropriate way forward. One has to wonder what has gone on in the background.

Gosh I was young and foolish!

Is it you in the photo? I can’t remember where I got the photo from, it’s not a photo of me.

No not me I'd forgotten how far it looked though.

Don't worry. In my experience it's only the youth that you lose with age; you should be able to hang onto the rest almost indefinitely!

I find it odd too, particularly when considered alongside the fact that they don't want to carry out a consultation on the current free range bolting in the NW. 

Given Ardsprach manages with DIY steel rings that are decades old, a pair of 12mm thick, 150 mm long stainless solid glue ins will more than likely outlast the stack!

Forgive me if this was answered upthread, but I'm not sure I have the energy to read the whole thing. The thread blossomed somewhat between my initial glance and now!

Who is the proposer here? In parts it reads like MS is proposing to take this action but in other parts it reads like another party is proposing it. The whole thing is very odd.

Good question, this is pretty unclear to me. It would be helpful to know.

I've had this back from Stuart Younie:

"To be clear no decision has been made and it’s not Mountaineering Scotlands decision to make. We have been working with a third party who has volunteered to undertake the work and I think it’s a credit to them that they have approached us to help gauge the feeling of climbing community on their proposal before taking any action."

My main issue with this 'consultation' is there didn't seem to be any question in it regarding why someone might be against it, which would surely help to inform. At least I didn't come across one; there only seemed to be three questions in the thing.

Did you see this bit in the BBC piece?

"Davie Black, access and conservation officer for Mountaineering Scotland, said: "While we are supportive of this proposal to clean up decades of tat on the Old Man of Hoy, we know that this and the use of bolts to aid abseil descent is an emotive topic in the climbing community.

"This is why we are consulting them on this high-profile project, and look forward to hearing the views of those climbers with an interest in this nationally important sea stack.""

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the role of MS but how can they say they support it before having consulted their membership?

Suppose the membership voted against the proposal. You'd then have a representative body that didn't represent the views of its membership.

The more I think about this, the fishier I find it and I think MS at least need to answer a few questions for this consultation to have any legitimacy.

The proposal and the survey both read like they were written by this mysterious third party but MS don't make that clear. If it was indeed written by the third party that's really bad practice of MS to use it as the instrument of consultation, they should have explained the situation clearly and presented their own survey.

Yes, it's backwards. If you're genuinely interested in what a survey might throw up, don't start by giving the impression you've already made up your mind.

This is what I said to Stuart:

"MS were happy to go into huge detail about the pros of such a proposal, but apparently had no interest in possible cons. This suggests to me an inherent bias in the collation of data, and gives the impression that a decision has already been made, or at least is already highly favoured."

I've emailed MS to ask who the third party are, what their relationship with MS is and who produced the text of the proposal on their website/the survey.

Totally agree, it reads like a declaration of support for this action, not an impartial view gathering exercise.

Firstly, thanks to Robert, Michael Gordon and Andy Say for there considered replies to my post. It's important that we approach this topic in a considered fashion and look for consensus not outrage.

I'm a trad climber, the epitome of a trad dad. I've climbed a lot of sea cliff routes from the Hebrides to Lands end, but sadly never on Hoy (not for lack of trying). So I think I have a reasonable understanding of adventurous trad climbing. And I love sea cliffs - I like the idea that you can be metres from the path, but no-one knows you are there, there is no phone coverage, and your situation is just as serious as on a big mountain.

And so to Hoy. What to do?

I don't understand the replies around intent. I think you have made my point for me. To me, there is no difference between carrying some tape and a million in your sac, and carrying a length of steel cable and some clamps. In both cases you are going with the potential (if not the intent) to leave fixed gear in place. So what does it matter if it is steel or tat? Steel lasts much longer. 

The bolts are different. Absolutely. But we are not talking retro-bolting. We are looking at the like for like replacement of two rotten old bolts with two new ones. Is it perfect? Definitely not! Is it a moral outrage? I don't think so. I see the overall proposal along the lines of moving from 3 or 4 points of aid to a single point of aid. Could be improved but a good effort.

Finally I don't see it as sanitising and dumbing down. Getting in, doing the route and getting down is still a huge adventure. The first ascentionists smashed in a whole bunch of wedges, pegs etc. I think the bolts came later. The proposal certainly matches their style, and potentially improves on it. Im not convinced that the proposal is a step back

(Finally, in case any takes all this too seriously, I'm just back from the pub!) 🍺

Has this actually explicitly been suggested and rejected?

In the case of tape, you are carrying it with the intention, if necessary, of using it to facilitate your own safe descent.

In the case of a steel cable, you are carrying it with the intention of facilitating everyone else's safe descent for the foreseeable future.

One is about self-reliance, the other is about reliance on other people.

The bolts are a historic anomaly. There should be a presumption against their replacement in modern times.

Please do report back with any answers! It all sounds very dodgy.

I think this is obviously an optimum solution. And if there are not volunteers to do so, work on the assumption that it really isn't seen as a big issue after all.

The best option is to clean it (very much needed) and leave alone other than a textile anchor for the rap at the top, and repeat every 5 years. 

I do not understand how this is acceptable to those who say chains reduce the adventure. If the ab points are regularly maintained the surely then adventure is reduced?

I saw the key point as cleaning it (rather than equipping it). Keeps those objecting to the tat mess happy while still maintaining self reliance as far as the anchors are concerned. But yes, it could be seen as a sort of compromise. It is effectively permanent anchors that I am strongly opposed to.

Well it is of more wide interest if it acts as a precedent and spreads more widely! Probably already the case as far as I can see.

I think that how any new crag in the NW is developed (trad or sport) now depends on who discovers it rather than any sort of community consensus.

Yes, or at least to their bunch of close mates. This seems all wrong, against MS guidelines and something they should not be ignoring.

The difference as I see it is with tat the onus is still on climbers to inspect and replace if they're not happy abbing off it. Many will still go to do the Old Man without any knowledge of an informal/formal tat replacement process and therefore have to assess the anchors much as they usually would.

Its no Staffin, that's for sure!

Having been to the crag next to an tenga I can confirm that it would be a rubbish trad venue that would see no traffic whatsoever. The bolts have made something of nothing and made for a fun afternoon. I would not travel especially to go there. It's not a venue worth getting you knickers in a twist about.

Jesus what a mess.

Those routes would have been excellent trad routes though. There would have been no need for any  knicker twisting if 3 or 4 lines had been left unbolted. It's really not a lot to ask of those developing new sport venues to do that. It's also not an isolated incident in the NW. There's Glutton crag with bolted cracks and flakes and the run out bottom section of Hang 'Em High (HVS 5a) now has 3 easily clipable bolts due to the sport line next-door. Not NW but Glen Marksie was also bolted without any sort of discussion. 

So it's not so much An Teanga that bothers me but the whole picture in the Highlands. The reason I went to MS with it is that I hoped they'd be able to facilitate a sensible debate. That's  all I'm after really, if the majority opinion is now along the lines of 'if it's mostly a sport venue then just bolt everything including obvious trad lines' then I'm happy to accept that and shut up but that hasn't been the consensus thus far.

Is that so very different from what happens now? And would it take anywhere near 5 years for the tat situation to escalate? If not, we'd just be adding sticking plasters to a seeping wound, to make ourselves feel better about 'doing something'.

The proliferation of tat is because climbers in that situation don't trust the equipment already there. And I'd suggest that they don't trust fixed ab tat largely because they've (rightly) learned that fixed tat that's been abbed on will have been weakened when the ab rope was pulled. So they add their own and leave the existing tat in place because, well two slings must surely be safer than one, eh?

Add to that the fact that a lot of OMH ascentionists will be near the edge of their comfort zone, often cold and tired too, and 'making doubly/trebly sure' starts to look like a reasonable course of action.

Adding a ring to the tat sounds like it could help, but I doubt it would make a huge difference, since my guess is that thare are many folk who would still thread direct through the tape 'just to be sure', whereafter everybody else sees rub marks on the tape and we're back to square one.

So I would argue for abseil anchors that appear reliable to just about everyone, and in my view this means shiny metal with 2 rings (people are obsessed with redundancy). The insistence that we're still playing some game of self-reliance by everybody adding their own litter to the pile I think passed its credibility date years ago. Climbers now are usually familiar with using and trusting non-rusty fixed gear and I see that as the only sensible way to prevent further littering.

Screw it. I'm just gonna start racking stainless steel slings and normalise it. If dyneema had never become the standard we wouldn't be here today.

(Only half joking)

The proposer/volunteer is someone who up until now has already been replacing the tat on the old man. I don't exactly know their motivations but suspect it's got to the point where regularly replacing fixed gear has become unsustainable.

In chemistry terms plastic is organic though!

Thanks. It seems to me that this is important info that should have been provided by MS!

Don't forget UV damage john: I snapped a sun bleached sling in my hands on a less well used abseil station at Red Rocks NV. Then on rarer occasions there are other less obvious risks,  like formic acid damage from ants. A sling rubbed (or damaged in any way) across its width weakens every strand. Dan Middleton did a demo of the implications of this at a BMC meet....brand new sling just rubbed firmly on a bit of grit snapped with a tension below half of a new sling, as did another new sling cut half across the width (the key difference being that most would never even consider truusting that).

Don't forget fulmar puke

If we are doing n=1 safety anecdotes it's worth pointing out Beardy Mike & Alex Riley above have spoken about snapping strops. Also a quick Google identifies multiple failing bolts on sea cliffs. Many of these will have been placed using best practice at the time of placement.

I have pull tested bolts placed in sandstone to failure at very low loads.

It's also worth pointing out that nobody has had the tat fail on them whilst abseiling off the old man and so the safety argument seems highly disingenuous and a fig leaf for other motives.

Yes, of course I know that. They clearly meant in some sort of biodegradeable sense, which, equally clearly was not the sense in which I was using the word.

In this very difficult safety versus litter argument, if we reject the sport-degrading? option of replacing the tat with the highest quality titanium bolts and strops, I think the only course open to us is to promote a stronger convention whereby climbers take a Stanley knife with them and when they place new slings, remove any old tat that looks obviously ‘past its sell-by date’. 

The proposal is unclear and should have included a Topo for clarity. I am understanding that it is saying that the belay below the top crack is unsafe and that "no other option exists here". 

"At the end of pitch four is a mess of equalised tat from old bolts and one hanger. The original bolts are rusted through by around 40-60% and are bending. The newest is an old 8mm spit and should not be used. However, no other option exists here. The proposal to leave the original bolts for historical reasons and replace them with two modern marine steel sandstone specific glue ins with attached marine steel mailions to reduce wear on the bolts."

Already in this thread three people, Alex Riley, Duncan, and Tim Jones, have stated that in their opinion there is gear to use at this belay location.

I personally don't remember any unsafe belays that couldn't be backed up.

I've watched the following YouTube film of climbing the route https://youtu.be/bkq9fwjK1Ag?si=H6GkhX4-sPTKzpsq  and at 5:20 onwards it shows this belay. There is clear evidence that the belay could be backed up or entirely removed to be a "climber placed belay" as people are used to placing.

The blanket assertion that this belay can only exist with bolts is a very strong statement and the evidence does not appear to back this up.

I think n=1 is unfair. Slings have well understood technical risks, some of which many climbers are not aware of: I think that makes them a poorer choice as a fixed abseil point solution. Static rope or cord are better than slings but will also degrade, so need inspection before any use. Most climbers will inspect on every use (and those who don't are fools).

I do agree any abseil station can have issues, even bolt belays or steel strops and trusting they will always be OK is foolish complacency that can risk a 'black swan' type accident.

I'd rather we debate the best solution for the particular situation, which seems to me to be what is happening.

I think you've misunderstood what I've said above.

It is currently possible to climb the whole route without fixed gear (there are lots of options for where to belay). It is not possible to descend the route without fixed gear, with the middle descent belay requiring either bolts, pegs fixed wires or a questionable block.

Basically it's a choice between leaving a fixed wire/peg belay somewhere, a bad spike and hidden fixed nut or adding two new bolts.

An alternative option which no one has mentioned (and is slightly theoretical because I've only eyeballed it) is that 70m ropes are used to abseil from the top to the thread belay (end of crux pitch) and from there to the floor. 

The proposal is also to add belay bolts at the belay below the final crack. I don't think this is typically used as an abseil point and the proposal categorised it as a belay only and not as a abseil station.

I'm in agreement with you that some fixed gear is required to descend from the tower. I'm also in agreement that it is possible to climb the tower without using any of the fixed gear.

My concern is the proposed bolt belay below the final crack, described as being at a location where "no other option exists", not for use on abseil but just as a climbers belay. It is clear to me that the proposals assertion that a bolted belay is essential here to facilitate climbing the tower is just wrong.

I think this is a separate question to the use of fixed gear on the abseil descent and I fear that the "abseil descent" argument is being used to smuggle in gratuitous bolting where there is leader placed belay gear available.

I find it quite surprising that a non climber would find the tat much of an eyesore (I’m not doubting your story, to be clear, just surprised by it!)

I don’t remember seeing any sign of tat when I looked across at the Old Man from the mainland. Additionally, I just looked back through all of my photos and, even zoomed in, you can’t really make out the tat at the belays or on the summit (it was there… we used it!)

I suspect the only people who are going to be visually offended by the tat are climbers… even with decent binoculars it’s hardly a massive eye sore from the headland. 

Of course!  It was just a chemistry pedant themed joke, should have put a winky face at the end!

And I wonder how many of them are actually that bothered. Genuinely, on their own behalf.

according to your logic, if I carry tape to back up an abseil, and thread the rope directly through the tape, then that's ok because I am doing it solely for myself,  but if I put a mallion on the tape so the rope won't rub the tape, that's bad because I am helping other people?

Somehow that doesn't seem right!

​​​

If it's just a back-up then it's probably not important unless the main anchor fails. In the main anchor the ropes would go through a mallion or krab. 

I found his level of anger quite surprising, especially since it was directed very personally at me and I'd never been there!

Whether or not people really find it an eyesore, it is litter, and plastic waste at that, so keeping it to a minimum is desireable.

I would have thought the main reason for a maillon or bail out krab would be to help ensure the rope would pull.

Anyway, I would make a distinction between doing the next person a good turn and a premeditated ecision to install effectively permanent abseil points using stuff you wouldn't carry for any other reason.

For what it’s worth, l agree with those thinking along the lines of…

Clean the normal route of all tat and historic fixed gear. Regrade the route to suit the level of natural protection available.
On an independent line, provide titanium bolted abseil stations from the top to the ground.

I've heard walkers criticise the mess of tat on The Old Man of Stoer. Anyhow, we removed quite a bit of the worst looking tat.

Remove tat. Two titanium bolts. 

Does anyone get to the top of a route, and get excited about rapping off the tat? It's more 'What an ugly mess, that I now have to add to..'

1) Bolts will be invisible for walkers. Most climbers will probably have to go searching for them, even. 
2) Bolts will be safer from climbers.
3) It's utterly wasteful to keep creating these tat piles at the top of climbs. It takes CO2 and resources to make slings and such. They're not meant to be single use! 

Lower off bolts should be standard on trad routes, like they are in a lot of the world. Opposition is just old men shouting at clouds, imo. 

Have you actually done a life cycle analysis of the use of titanium bolts Vs rope slings?

I did a back of an envelope calculation and estimated it would be about 8.5 kgCO2e for a titanium abseil station and about 2.3 kgCO2e for the rope round a block (assuming the rope is new). If a used and repurposed rope or sling was left it would have an embodied carbon of zero.

Over an assumed twenty year life of a titanium abseil station it's probably lower carbon than people leaving brand new static rope slings five years or shorter. It's significantly higher carbon than people recycling old rope.

If someone drives up there specifically to install the titanium abseil point it's carbon emissions are unambiguous worse.

So a sort of "you don't have to clip them" argument for the descent. Oh dear.....

Even if your earlier points had any validity, that completely discredits anything you can bring to the discussion.

This is a US perspective and so, I'm sure, misses important considerations across the pond.  I posted it on a Facebook discussion about the survey. Personally, I've always admired the ability of UK climbers to restrain the modern urge to bolt things.

One of the problems with bolting is that each time it is done, the installation can become a sort of disease vector, serving as a precedent to justify arguments for more and more installations, including ones the original advocates of the bolts never contemplated and realize they don't support. "Well, the belays on OMH are bolted so why wouldn't we bolt those on XXX?" And anyone who thinks bolted belays have no effect on traffic patterns and climb population density hasn't been in a trad area that didn't have bolts and then did. Even if there is another way off the top, two-way traffic is increased as climbers, emboldened by the solid stances, make attempts they can't complete and end up retreating from part way up. And if the lower pitches are good and the upper pitches maybe not so great, the climb tends over time to end at the last good pitch, and then the two-way traffic below increases exponentially. All of this leads to an attitude that the climb is not some natural entity to be challenged, but rather is a collection of exercises, demarcated by the bolted belays, to be dispatched and then retreated from as quickly as possible. This is, I think, a reshaping of some of the fundamental aspects of trad climbing.

I'm not at all sure there is anything to be done about all this. The climbing demographic is increasing, and the profusion of bolts already in place has a powerful desensitizing effect. Things that might have been nearly unthinkable decades ago have devolved into Byzantine arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because the original context of an unaltered environment is disappearing fast, not simply because of bolts but also because of climber impacts. The climbing world is no longer even remotely bolt-free and newcomers to the activity expect to find bolts whenever things are not straightforward, and they become an increasingly powerful lobby for installations.

Added to this is the fact that climbers have been fouling their own nests for a long time. It would be so easy, with another attitude, for there to be a simple sling anchor at rap points rather than the potentially dangerous collection of junk we now find in well-traveled locales, but climbers on the whole have not chosen stewardship of their domain---others write of the "inevitability" of tat build-up---and it may be too late to change that. 

I spent quite a lot of time BITD climbing in the Needles in South Dakota, which is an area of pinnacles.  We thought, at the time, that getting down without leaving any trace whatsoever was an important goal, and were prepared to use trickery, downclimbing, simul raps, and extra ropes in order to leave the spires unencumbered.  The descent was part of the challenge and not an afterthought.  Now fifty years later, virtually every one of those pinnacles has bolted rap stations.

On the other hand, I remarked to someone asking about how we viewed climber impacts fifty years ago, that in those days the mountains were very big and climbers were very small and nothing we did could possibly matter much.  Those days are gone for good.  It may be that bolts in some places (and for all I know OMH may be one of them) are the best solution to the effects of a much larger climbing population.  If that is so, then the challenge for those who hope to maintain a bright line between the sport and trad genres will be to keep such installations from being the tip of a spear.

This doesn't really apply to the Old Man Of Hoy since the only half decent pitch is the last one! In fact the actual climbing is distinctly average (to be charitable) and it is really all about the iconic pointy summit and the adventure as a whole (and hence why industrialised equipping is, or ought to be, particularly and specifically contentious).

I don’t understand that comment in context. I’m agreeing with those who want to increasing self-reliance on ascent and keep fixed equipment and tat off the route at the expense of literally sanitising the descent.

Currently, any ascent is compromised by a mess of fixed gear. I don’t think maintaining the sense of adventure in descent by ab-ing off dubious gear and leaving a mess behind is worth degrading the climbing (ascent) experience.

I was referring to your bolted abseil piste down a different line. Do you think anybody would abseil off tat back down the route if this were available?

Excellent, well balanced post.

The following line jumped out at me:

Oddly, I find I don't have a problem with that per se. Heavy traffic on any route or pitch is obviously an unfortunate consequence of it being good, and it makes sense that the best pitches of some routes are going to get more traffic. The alternative really is to somehow require all climbers starting a route to top out, which is actually something I've quite often heard moans about when it comes to some routes, notably at Gogarth, from which people ab after the good pitches so as not to waste their climbing time on a multi-pitch vegetated scrambling top-out.

Preserving good pitches for those whose interest lies in completing a longer route, rather than being happy that all climbers who want to climb those pitches are free to do so, strikes me as having an air of 'that's not what real climbing should be about' about it. Yes, there will be complications at times about material left to facilitate the descent from part-way up, but the principle remains.

While the top-out summit experience is clearly crucial to many climbs - the OMH being a prime example - I can see that it may be little short of an irrelevance on others; at least to those climbers whose focus is on climbing clean rock pitches at the grade of their choosing. And if some climbers choose so to prioritise only those pitches, as long as they aren't going to be causing a nuisance by abbing directly down busy routes, I don't see why that should be a problem. Climbing means different things to different people.

No. Why do you think I was suggesting they do? There would be no tat to ab down…

Unless they placed it. Which they wouldn't. Precisely the point - everyone would take the dumbed down abseil piste. 

So, you would rather climb over and clip tat and rusty bolts on the ascent just to have the pleasure of making your sound assessments of the same tat and rusty bolts for use as ab anchors while enjoying their aesthetic merits? Nout as strange as folk.

Yes, if the alternative is to have a bolted abseil piste.

Then there really is no hope for humanity. We are all doomed to forever see things differently.

I've just been reading the public logbooks for the original route. It makes for amazing reading. 

43 recorded ascents this year (so 21 parties if counted right).

What struck me was the descriptions of the adventure. The ridiculously early starts, the travel to get there. The bothy, the views, the fulmars - the abseil  - whole experience.

I didn't read anything about the tat as being part of the experience (in a good or bad way)

I think having read the logs I have changed my views slightly: don't replace the bolts - if you are climbing that sort of adventurous E1 you should be able to either string the pitches together or find an alternative on what is described as essentially a crack climb. But replace the abseil tat with steel loops for 60m ropes as per the feedback of abseils 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> ground. This way you keep the trad adventure while ensuring a safe descent without unsightly tat. 

A very weird comment, indeed.

Do you expect everyone else to always agree with your own aesthetic or philosophical point of view?

No, but I was hoping I could persuade Bob that a bolt is still a bolt even if it’s rusty and was placed a long time ago. As I can’t, it doesn’t bode well for my mediation talks with Hamas and Israel next week.

I don't need persuading, but nor do I get your point.

Great! You're half way there😉

LOL!

I really don't have a problem with steel strops. They don't alter the rock like bolts do. No different from tat as far as I am concerned. Better one steel strop than half a dozen crap bits of tat

This thread has made the opposing arguments very well. The topic has rumbled around my head all weekend. Yes, there is a great commonsense argument for a tidy solution, yet there is a compelling argument against. 

Robert said earlier "... getting down again is integral to the whole experience and should not be sanitised or dumbed down."

That to me is the essence. A true summit is only half the journey. 'Adventure' implies uncertainty, risk and danger - (let's not fool ourselves - it's why we climb these kind of routes). To have a safe and reliable set of abseil anchors absolutely detracts from the adventure aspect. "Perhaps we should turn back, it'll take a long time to get down," becomes "Ah, we can easily bail any time." It's chopping the route in half in a very real sense - more than half... 

Everyone has a safe and reliable set of abseil anchors though. That's literally the problem. They're piling up.

Very much agreed.

We have all had abseil epics, and sadly there have been multiple accidents when abseiling. I can't offhand think of any incidents involving abseil anchors failing. Everyone sacrifices slings if they are uncomfortable with the tat (or even the rope ends - I recall a hoary tale of an alpine retreat where the party in question reached the glacier with 10m ropes!). In the epics category, stuck ropes, knotted ropes, and ropes blown by the wind (and various combinations thereof) are much more common. A steel sling is not coming to change any of those.

The whole point of putting in situ steel slings is to stop everybody from thinking "better back up the tat with another sling". It's not a bolt which alters the rock. It's just a longer lasting and stronger sling. 

Ben Wintringham in Morocco. From what I've heard, the cord broke on the back edge of a block.

I respect the arguments on both sides of this, but ultimately can't agree with those who won't even accept a steel strop in place of a nylon one. I think that's taking the situation as you would like it to be, rather than as it is - which is the same everywhere. You'd like for everyone to exercise judgement and good practice, but they don't. They just add another pointless spangle of luminous cord.

and Dunkeld 

Can you inform us of your experiences with tat and rap rings - it's been alluded to upthread that people backup the tat because they're worried that the in-situ tat has been damaged by pulling the ropes.  Do rap rings stop this happening? Or do you end up with a belay consisting of the original rap sling & ring plus multiple tat loops?  If rap rings do stop or seriously slow the accumulation of tat, then surely that's a logical first step to see if the problem of tat bundles can be mitigated?  Rap ring on kernmantel cord. Removes the issue of surface abrasion on slings weakening them.

How long were the bolts? Did the bolts or the rock fail?  I'm sure it possible to bolt sandstone with bolts that won't fail, or cause the rock to.

If we have given up on people keeping anchors tidy, it really comes down to the question of whether one thinks the principle of avoiding permanent anchors in the form of steel strops is worth the mess of tat. I personally think it is.

Would you go on to agree that the proposed bolting of the belay is also not desirable?

People have spent so much time debating the benefits of otherwise of steel strops that the proposed convenience bolting of a belay appears to have had little attention.

Absolutely (as I made clear earlier). I think bolting is a line which really mustn't be crossed. I suspect the strops will sadly happen, but I think bolting should be unthinkable.

We can and should keep trying, but I'm pessimistic that we'll see much improvement. Partly because people are lazy, partly because even with the best intentions it's much less of an inconvenience to leave tat than it is to clear it up, especially when a lot has accumulated.

Note: steel strops are not actually 'permanent', they're just an order of magnitude more durable.

I'm sure this point has been made upthread as well, but I don't think the OMOH Original Route stands as a good example of a route that embodies the spirit of adventure in trad climbing, simply because it's way too popular. If you want to counterbalance abseil with your rope embedded in a half-inch of gravel and guano for that real adventure feel, there are dozens (and dozens) of other stacks out there, where no one will be depositing any form of steel any time soon.

5m30s in the video would suggest that horse has already bolted.

Just sayin' like.

https://youtu.be/bkq9fwjK1Ag?si=xtNs2O7W1RRHZJlf

Has MS responded, are we any closer to getting transparency on: Who has suggested, plus who produced the text, and Why MS were not open with the membership about the context of its proposal and their apparent bias.

I presume you are referring to the ancient bolts. They are a historical anomaly which should really have no bearing on current modern accepted practice.

Which begs two questions…

At what date is the cut-off between ancient and modern?

What’s your position on the rusty pegs holding up your tat… leave, remove or replace?

Not as yet.

Not hearing many in favour of that. I think it was settled fairly early on that the bolts aren't necessary/welcome. I guess the arrows on this post will confirm or deny that.

Not sure why you are asking that. Everyone knows that these days bolts are unacceptable.

I suppose the normal view is that pegs are ok if nothing else is available. 

OK, but I explained in my post on Thursday at 19.05, I don't consider the functionality of the tat or strops to be the issue; what is key is the spirit in and process by which they are placed and renewed (55 likes and counting, so I have clearly struck a chord with a lot of people).

Yes, you could certainly make that case, but the fact is (as someone pointed out from the logbook comments) that for many ascentionists it is seen personally as almost symbolic of adventurous climbing. I would argue that the very fact that it is so iconic and sought after makes it especially important that the plan should be challenged; it risks becoming a high profile precedent. For the same reason I think the placement of the strop on the Inaccessible Pinnacle was unfortunate.

Your view seems to be that any fixed gear which is primarily placed for the benefit of future ascentionists is incompatible with a spirit of adventurous trad climbing.

Am I correct?

Yes.

Not a bad pun either.

I guess this fundamentally comes down to which you think is more important - the 'spirit' or intent with which fixed gear is placed, or said gear's long-term fitness for purpose.

I have placed static rope on frequently used abseils for the benefit of future ascentionists (which might or might not include myself). Does that bother you as much as steel?

So if I place a peg on lead for my own benefit, but leave it for future ascentionists to use, is that ok or not?

In the US, it is extremely rare nowadays for anyone to rap off slings without using rap rings or quick links. I'll go out on a limb and say this only happens in a few emergency retreats, because most people carry a few rings or quicklinks in their ohshit kits.  A quicklink is especially handy because it can be installed on slings already in place without having to untie anything.

I don't think there's any question that rap rings save sling wear and make rope retrieval far easier, but if you are asking me for some kind of data-based verification, I don't have it.  Nonetheless, I would be very hesitant to rap off old slings in place that hadn't been protected by rap rings, and would certainly inspect them with great care to make sure they haven't been partially or fully severed.  I've seen examples of this; it isn't hypothetical.

Sadly, I don't think the presence of rap rings does anything to decrease tat build-up, but then as I indicated above I don't have that much experience with installations that don't have rings to compare with.  Tat builds up because climbers find it easiest to just add something to the tat pile for security rather than cut down all the crap and make a new installation.  When there weren't a whole lot of climbers, this process could go on for years before the anchor really became a mess.  Now it can happen very quickly.

I might add, with just a wee touch of snideness, that if you are embracing adventure climbing, then you ought to bring the gear adventure climbing requires.  That would include some slingage and some rap rings.  Otherwise, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It also must be noted that there are rap rings and rap rings.  The hollow aluminum ones wear out and become dangerous relatively quickly.  They are, however, good kit when you only expect to set up your own anchors in an emergency. Tat with those hollow aluminum rings requires very careful inspection of the rings, with replacement with quicklinks a real possibility.
 

Perhaps a more contemporary problem with the advent of sport climbing but also the equipping of trad climbs is that this work is done by (often self-appointed) "developers."  As we get more and more used to finding plain and fancy installations, put in by others, I think there may be a tendency to view whatever is in place as something we just use without even thinking about it.  And indeed, the fact that slings and pegs and bolts really can't be evaluated except when they are in relatively extreme states of deterioration means that there is an awful lot of faith-based loading of anchors.  If that's an increasngly prevalent attitude going forward, which is to say the off-loading of safety considerations to some developer-class rather than striving for full personal responsibility, then I guess some appropriately-sourced and properly-installed bolts are going to serve this demographic better.

I do think some pushback is appropriate about the attitude that now that OMH is "popular," the kinds of tactics and trickery that might have been used originally no longer apply.  It is certainly not my place to comment about what UK climbing should or should not be, but I think that part of the genius of UK climbers, whose environment consists primarily of short climbs, is the embrace of an approach (I refuse to use the term "ethics") that makes small climbs big by making their ascent "adventurous."  This approach realizes that risk is an intrinsic ingredient in trad climbing and that by far the best approach to managing it is to insist that nature dictate not only the holds, but also the protection opportunities.  That said, I don't agree that piles of ratty slings are part of the trad adventure viewpoint.  We strive to accept what nature has given or withheld, but we don't have to incorporate substandard human installations as part of a trad viewpoint.

I have received a reply but the only question it answers is that the proposal is from a third party. It doesn't give any more details on them or say why its been presented in such a limited and biased fashion. I shall email again.

Good grief. Is the MCofS catching whatever the BMC's got?

Thanks for chasing it 

Thanks for chasing, a less transparent answer is usually the sign of something to hide.

keep at it

I don't see what difference it makes who the third party is. 

What has been proposed has been clearly outlined, and put to climbers for debate.  Who it is who will be actually carrying out the work is frankly none of your business.  It's privately owned land, you don't have the right to know this.  

Will do!

Good post.

As the author of one comment about the Old Man's popularity, I'll qualify and walk back on it slightly. I don't mean to suggest that the fact it gets done a lot means it shouldn't be an exemplar of traditional practice, because it should. Its status makes it ideal for that purpose. What I mean is that, in my view, there is no point in pretending that a route that gets done by hundreds of people every year is in the same bracket of 'adventure' as, for example, a more remote and obscure stack. There is less information available, more likelihood of that information being inaccurate, less assurance that thousands of other people have been here before (and recently), more chance of looseness or changes to rock stability - and of course, more chance that any extant fixed gear is ancient and useless. If you go to climb Stac an Tuill or the Outer Maiden, you are going with an attitude of total self-reliance. The same cannot really be said of the Old Man of Hoy. Sure, you probably anticipate the possibility of having to leave a bit of cord or whatever behind, but chances are you won't, you'll just have to work out what in the clusterf*ck is actually equalised to what and suitably undamaged, thread a couple of the newer maillons and go off that.

Popularity has an inevitable impact on the sense of adventure, both psychologically and in the material impact of what gets left behind, and so the minimalist ideal of traditional climbing is compromised. That being the case, we might as well make the best of the situation, and keep the thing tidy. No pegs, no bolts, minimal durable rap anchors.

Jesus wept.

Not wrong though am I?

If the fact it is privately owned land actually matters, then it is obviously relevant.

And whether it is or not, I think it is important to know whether there are any vested interests or ulterior motives involved.

Would you rather the In Pin be covered in rotting tat like the King's Cave rap on Am Basteir? The chain is virtually invisible. 

Why?  You've seen what's been proposed, just judge that on its merit. 

MS and the Landowner will have carried out their due diligence on the individual or organisation, as the need to do that will be on both of their charters, and their effectiveness at doing so will be better than the ability of the armchair detectives who think they know better.

It's written in the holy book that stainless and titanium are the ecaculations of the devil himself.
The righteous way to abseil from a sea stack is to utilise climbing technology from a date no later than 1970.
We are bond by the good book to forever abseil from shonky rusty pegs, anceint bolts and rotting nylon, just as our forefathers have always done.
If it was good enough for gods like Baillie, Bonington and Patey then it is all mortal man will ever need.

In that case, future ascensionists better 'update' their rack to include a hammer and 10 kilos of steel.

Let's help him split in twain and we can end the argument altogether.

Is 'ecaculation' a thing? (it deserves to be)

I like to imagine this situation backwards. Let's say Bonington and co had left nothing but marine grade stainless steel strops after the first ascent. Would we have calls to remove them and instigate a badly jammed revolving door of unequalised manky rope and rusty maillons? Or is there just a tiny bit of status quo bias at play?

Going back to the youtube video at 5m30s, it's clear a monster has evolved. The reality of what "trad" looks like seems to have diverged somewhat from the lofty ideals. Anyone who thinks using that mess isn't using fixed gear is lying to themselves. To me it looks like that whole stance could be stripped entirely of the rotting hardware and belay constructed with cams.  However, that doesn't solve the getting down issue. Personally, I'd have no qualms about just sticking in two nice bolts and everyone just getting on with their lives. Obviously, that is beyond the pale for a lot of people.  The use of stainless steel strops seems like the only reasonable compromise though it remains to be seen if there are enough suitable positions to allow the full line to be abbed from such strops.

https://youtu.be/bkq9fwjK1Ag?si=rHC8Kum7cYi6R6Vg

edit: yeah, I can't spell and the spell checker failed me.

If I am reading Robert Durran's position correctly he would also object to Kevlar cord plus a mallion or rap ring on the grounds that they are permanent installations that reduce the element of adventure.

My view is that if you have to have fixed gear on the descent (including having to leave slings etc on an abseil), and the volume of traffic on the route is sufficient to cause a build up of tat, then there is a good argument (on a case by case basis) that making the fixed gear more durable and importantly visibly trustworthy is no bad thing, as it will minimise the build up of old tat.

I don't share your panglossian faith in such bodies as landowners and MS. There is enough that is odd in how this has been presented that I think some clarification/further information is required. 

Part of the due diligence of bodies like MS is to be as transparent as possible and to answer members questions. So I'm going to crack on with that. (Dons Sam Spade style mac and hat then sidles out the door in the direction of Perth...) 

You’ve just made that up, and it’s an absolute mess of a sentence.

Due diligence has nothing to do with transparency, and all charities (such as the landowner here) and NGOs have commercial sensitivities and data protection concerns just like any other organisation.  

Technically, as it’s private land, the RSPB can do what the heck they like with the OMOH’s tat and protection, and are under no responsibility to consult with anyone. But they’ve done the right thing, involved MS and are asking our opinions.

If that’s repaid with suspicion, gossip and frankly busybodyness what do you think is going to happen next time the RSPB, one of the UKs biggest landowners who own a lot of rock faces, feel that they’d like to make some changes?

It certainly can be, but whether it can be without 60m ropes (and definitely not 59m ropes) I'm not so sure. This much I know because I have got down the Old Man in two abseils, between stroppable stances, but I won't advocate too strongly for this approach because a) not everyone owns 60m ropes and b) the margins were not entirely comfortable.

Which is why I said 'as transparent as possible' rather than 'entirely transparent'

I'm not sure I understand you here. Was it the RSPB who involved MS? My understanding was that it was a climber/MS member who made the proposal and that MS then contacted the RSPB

I'm not levelling any criticism at the RSPB, I haven't even mentioned them. I find the way MS have presented this exceedingly odd so I'm asking them for clarification. I don't understand why this should cause you so much upset?

Can I just check that, in a hypothetical world where these strops are installed at the abseils to aid descent, would anyone climb a multi-pitch trad sea-stack without some tat as a matter of course? I'm fairly sure I wouldn't. 

And in the current world where there is tat, if you got the ab and there was plenty of what looked like brand-new tat, can I ask, would anyone add more tat for the sake of it? I'm fairly sure I wouldn't. 

If people climbing it would take the tat with them anyway, and if people were to decide that the fixed tat was adequate and didn't need replacing or backing up, then what is the difference 'adventure'-wise? You're carrying the same tat regardless and making an assessment on-sight about the suitability of an abseil anchor. 

While I agree MS have been a bit presumptuous that the membership would share their enthusiasm for the proposal and the wording of the proposal isn't as neutral as it should have been, I don't think we should be surprised that MS don't feel that can make the proposers name public.  There have always been rumours of cars scratched in carparks when someone has gone against the traditionalist grain.  I don't think it really matters if it's a guide or such like just trying to make his or her job a bit easier/safer or a local climber with OCD that can't stand the mess - it's highlighted the issue and views are being sot. Personally, I remain unconvinced the tat status quo is the best solution. Despite this thread, I really don't know if that is a minority view or majority view.

In addition to what JLS said, the proposer didn't actually need to do a consultation, especially if the landowner is happy. Some people are acting like there is some mysterious motive, but really the proposer just wants to serve the climbing community by spending their time and money tidying up the shitshow and replacing some very old existing bolted/fixed Hardwear. Yes there is an ethical element to the discussion, but anyone who has climbed the route knows that ship sailed a long time ago.

Those examples highlight exactly why these things matter. One prioritises superficial aesthetics over style or ethics. And the other is based on commercial motivations and interests which shouldn't have any sway in these discussions. I agree I don't think MS will name them, but if the individuals are confidant enough in their suggestion to go against established ethics and so many of the wider community they should be willing to step forward and defend it. 

Strops does sound a reasonable compromise.

They don’t have to make the proposers name public they just have to provide context/affiliation; concerned Local climber, Guide/professional climber, RSPB employee, or other; for example TV show; which is where it would be interesting.

At present we have no transparency, potentially the opposite!

Just so that it's totally clear, strops will only work on the first and last abseil, the middle abseil currently relies on fixed gear.

Does this consider the possibility of having a strop at a location not traditionally used as a belay stance?

You seem to be asking for context precisely to sway opinion. Can’t the proposal be good or bad on its own merits?

This seems a little unbalanced when the wider community itself is free to express its views anonymously. It's not as though being the proposer sets one apart from the community - any one of us could have come forward with such a proposal if we wished, or in fact acted unilaterally with a drill.

That said I do understand the curiosity to know a bit more about the context of motivation behind this, and without some clarification people are only going to suspect the worst.

Overall however, I think it's a bit of a distraction and the proposal should be considered on its own merits.

Oops, snap.

That's great, I feel genuinely reassured by this. Of course, you're only able to say that because you're in possession of information the rest of us aren't. 😀

I don't think anyone has been acting as if there was anything sinister going on, it's just that we had absolutely no idea who the proposer was or what their motivations were and this seems relevant to me at least. This, plus MS declaring support prior to consultation, the clear bias and emotive language used in the information and the limited nature of the questionnaire meant I felt there were questions to be asked of MS.

Yes.

That would depend on the location. As I said earlier, the OMOH (and the Inn Pinn) particularly bother me because getting down is integral to the whole experience, whereas an ab point to avoid walking down from a single pitch crag is neither here nor there. Assuming the location is more like the former, then I wouldn't really be bothered if you were happy carrying a bit of static rope on your ascent (likewise abandoning a krab or maillon). On the other hand, nobody is going to happen to be carrying a metal strop rather than tat on the offchance they are not happy abbing off what might be there already.

Yes.

However, as well as there being no excuse for the chain on the Inn Pinn, there is also no excuse for a messy pile of rotting tat. Unlike some anchors on the OMOH it is a simple thread, very easily replaced as necessary and there are pretty much daily visits including from guides and instructors who, I would have thought, should be glad of the opportunity to set a good example by inspecting and maintaining the anchor. When I first heard about it I did consider making the effort to chop it.

Utter nonsense, there are plenty of reasons/excuses you just don't agree with them.

Yes, sorry you are correct. I understand them but think they are outweighed by the argument against it.

I'm intrigued by the responses focussed on preserving 'adventure' by maintaining the status quo. I can fully see how the abseil descent from the Old Man (or indeed from the In Pinn, or any of the other memorable abs mentioned in the thread) is an enjoyable part of the overall experience of climbing those routes and features, but having climbed in the Highlands for a number of years and used (and, not infrequently, cleaned and replaced) plenty of in-situ ab tat, I've never felt that I'm having more of an 'adventurous' experience as a result of abseiling off of tat left by past climbers, or by chopping unsafe, deteriorating or unnecessarily messy tat and leaving my own in place. 

Surely what makes the ab descents from the OMOH (and also from the Old Man of Stoer, In Pinn etc) memorable is their position, the setting and exposure, the feeling of having just climbed a spectacular route, rather than what the abseil anchors were made of? Do people really place such a high value on evaluating, and potentially adding to or cleaning up, the mess of litter (and let's face it, to anyone outside the arbitrary ethical rules we play by, abseil tat is nothing more than litter) left by other climbers that it forms a core part of their experience of these routes?

This gets rather abstract! So it's fine with you as long as it could credibly have been improvised, even if it was in actual fact planned?

I realise this is fully reductio ad absurdum, but what if I place a cunningly disguised piece of 'rope' that actually has a stainless steel core?

No, I think it really needs to have been improvised, using something you might reasonably be carrying for that eventuality.

You might get away with the deception I suppose, but clearly not ok (see above).

I think it is a matter of not feeling the experience is sanitised and presumptuously spoon-fed.

If no one can tell the difference, so it doesn't affect their experience, what is the difference?

It might ail you to learn that many of the current abseil anchors in the Cuillin were pre-planned and placed in an organised fashion, not just the chain on the In Pin.

But the idea that metal strops as the ab anchors would 'sanitise' the experience suggests that there's something inherently valuable about the process of using, cleaning or replacing the slings/cord/rope currently used as ab tat, which would be lost if they were replaced. It's what that valuable thing is that I'm questioning - or have I misunderstood you?

The value is in the feeling that one is taking responsibility for oneself. As I put it, not being spoon-fed.

Good luck with that; I think they work on a 'one reply is sufficient' philosophy.

Just because I might have been deceived doesn't make it ok. Anyway, you've now told me (it might have been obvious from the nature of the anchors anyway).

Yes, it's just a pity the questionnaire is so poor and biased that really it's a consultation in name only. I couldn't believe it when I reached the end and realised they weren't going to ask Why / Explain your reasons for voting for/against, particularly since there was a big case made at the start for one position but not the other. 

I've told you because there was never any intention to deceive - I don't think it ever even crossed my mind until now that anyone would be bothered by the context of a bit of rope and a maillon being placed, as long as it has been done properly!

It seems to me really bizarre to care about being 'spoon-fed' by the equipper, when there is no material difference between what they have done if they went there specifically to place the tat or placed it because they needed to. Either way you've turned up and made use of it.

Do you feel spoon-fed by the makers of your climbing shoes? Wouldn't it be more adventurous to forge your rack yourself?

Sounds like you need do a completely unplanned traverse of the Cuillin and chop all that pre-planned ab tat and replace it with you own organically occurring tat so the rest of us can get the proper “feels” on our next traverse.  

I can see the idea behind this argument, but I guess what I'm questioning is how much self-reliance is actually involved in what the majority of us do when we encounter fixed tat anchors when we're climbing.

A system where everyone was completely and utterly self-reliant would involve each climber or climbing team thoroughly cleaning any pre-existing tat or fixed gear and dutifully placing our own, so as to have completed the whole ascent and retreat 'under our own steam'. Anything other than this relies at least in part on the actions of others (a degree of "spoon-feeding", if you insist on seeing it that way). I'm sure all of us, including yourself, would use (and do use) in-situ tat left by other climbers to retreat from a route when we're happy with the condition it's in. Do you really feel as though you've lost something of value when you do? I certainly haven't ever gotten any kind of warm fuzzy feeling that I've taken responsibility for myself on the occasions when I've removed mounds of decaying tat from the tops of routes.

If we're happy to use in-situ anchors left by others that we've assessed to be safe, I can't see how it matters whether that anchor is a sling or piece of cord rather than a steel strop. Any prudent climber would (I hope) still inspect the steel strop to ensure they were happy with it before trusting their life to it - which surely still involves taking responsibility for ourselves. Blindy trusting in-situ gear with your life is, to me at least, pretty irresponsible whatever form that fixed gear takes.

The main difference, as I see it, is that the percentage of climbers who'll chuck an extra bit of litter on the pile 'just in case' before they ab off the OMOH is likely to be much smaller if the anchor is a steel strop rather than the junkshow currently in place at the top of the route. Recognising that we're far from the only group of people whose interests and views matter, minimising the impact that climbers as a whole have on the route is surely a good thing - and again, one metal strop compared to the pile of slings and other decaying soft goods at the top of the OMOH has a significantly smaller impact, be that visually, environmentally, aesthetically, or in any other sense I can think of. 

Speaking of which, true story: I know someone who forgot their rope for a day in the Cuillin, and instead used a length of polyprop that they found on Glenbrittle beach. Now that's self-reliance.

(Assuming the fishermen didn't leave it there on purpose...strokes chin...)

Totally agree with replacing all that unsightly tat with fixed anchors. It’s a sensible approach to minimising our overall impact in a climbing area!

looks at fixed gear in sea environment and immediately backs it up with some tat!!!!!!

In the context of all this unadulterated pleasure we can have as long as no pre-planned activity has made the climb and descent of the route any easier, how do we account for 'route cleaning', which dramatically alters the route to make it safer and easier? 

I'm just wondering at the bits of choss, mud, etc. that we'll never have the pleasure of removing ourselves, the placements that have been cleaned to make secure gear, the places we stand to belay, free of rocks, etc. the wear patterns on the rock guiding you up the 'correct' route.

In this context, are two discrete bolts per belay really the 'tipping point' of your wild and self-sufficient experience?

Mulling on this in terms of the rationale for placing the Cuillin anchors, it occurs to me where this principle breaks down and stops making sense. It stops making sense if you yourself know you will be back here on multiple occasions. Forget anyone else for a moment - if you know you're going to be using an abseil anchor frequently, it is totally illogical to place something improvised and non-durable. Why would you not make it as neat, unobtrusive, and hard-wearing as possible (without contravening accepted practice by drilling)? Why would you contrive to make sure the anchor is less good for both yourself and everyone else? So that a tiny minority won't feel they have been cheated of their pure experience, their opportunity to remove some raggy UV damaged plastic and add another piece?

I don't know whether this speaks to the motivation behind the OMOH proposal, but if it does, then the chances are it's someone who guides the route, and it will probably be shouted down as a 'commercial' interest. Which for me would be missing the point. I haven't placed anchors in the Cuillin because it benefits my pocket. I've placed them because when I go there, as a climber and mountaineer, irrespective of who I'm with, I want them to last more than a few months and to be neat and fit for purpose.

Look at this... Some barsteward has only gone and build a path to the OMH. I was so looking forward blazing a trail through the heather.  Still, at least it's not like they've built one of those bloody bothies to spoil the enjoyment of carrying a tent...

https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_lossy,ret_img,w_1200/https://w...

For the Cuillin you are forgetting the incremental change in style which frequent anchors result in/reflect.  When first doing it many many years ago, it was expected style that anyone attempting it would be proficient at down climbing. So that people would generally only abb into the TD gap, off the In Pin and possibly off Bidean.  There were occasionally very neat and hidden away anchors, that helped local guides Gerry for one placed a couple.

There was a gradual shift in commercialisation (which is continuing) where by some guides were doing it N to S explicitly because it was easier for clients to be lowered/abb down the hard bits, than climb up them; Andy Nesbitt was open about this.

Now we have the situation that we have lots more anchor points, some clearly to help guides. It’s more time efficient to get a client to Ab bits than rope them from above and hope they work out the down climb, particularly if the descent takes them out of view hampering the ‘talk down’ approach.  These anchors do decrease the route finding and also means the traverse is less difficult as it reduces the need for down climbing skill and confidence.

So incrementally the near permanent anchor points have to a slight degree changed the style and challenge.

 I don't know if you can separate out motivation? So much of the game of climbing is based on loose rules of ‘style’ and ‘approach’, and intention and motivation make up a large part of that. Its not just based on logical decisions of aesthetics, safety, ease - otherwise there is no game. Also why fixed gear is such a debate, because in many cases the intention of placing a bolt or strop is to change every future participants experience, not just your own. I agree tat is a really grey area in that respect. Maybe partly why strops seem more acceptable, they’re not a million miles from tat and don’t break the illusion in the way bolts do. Again, not entirely logical, but part of the game. its why I think the motivations behind the proposal should be clear, they are part of the merits, like they are part of the rest of climbing. Obviously everyone has their own take and perspective on where the lines are drawn. But that’s why were having this discussion. People might have different motivations and come to the same proposal/solution too. I don’t know how you account for that, but I feel that the proposers motivations at least should be transparent. Partly because their motivation becomes a justification if this goes ahead, and that sets the precedence for the next fixed gear discussion.

That to me seems to highlight the point. The outcome is the same, but the intentions and motivations differ and one set of motivations clearly align better with the wider game of climbing than the other. Somehow that makes the act more acceptable. But that's maybe my own delusional idealism.