UKC

I dont know how many have read Martin Kocsis' piece on bolted lower offs.

I know that this has been discussed loads of times, but it appears that Martin is pushing the issue to the front for discussion.

The main thrust of his argument is that mere mortals lives are being put at risk by the opinions of the hardest climbing minority with the largest soapbox.

Following various threads and reports on UKC, there seems to have been a lot of accidents and near accidents from climbers with a lack of experience. These seem to have taken place at crags with easy to sort good belays, yet the belay anchors failed, or were poorly rigged.

If wall bred climbers are having difficulty sorting good belays on gritstone outcrops and the like, then the time will come when they have to bail off dodgy tat and ancient pegs without the skills to back them up correctly.

Keyhole cave peg is one of particular mention in the piece. I bailed off this in the early 90s and shat myself then.
Given the strength of some young climbers trained at walls, it would not be out of the realm of possibility to climb the lower half of Coventry Street, with only limited experience of outside climbing, and get them gibbering in the cave.....

Martin is not (as am I) am not advocating bolts on top of stanage or anything like that, but wherever any dodgy old gear or tat is insitu, and is an obviously well used lower off, then these should be properly bolted.

I have climbed in Arapiles, and any well used lower off is bolted, even in this staunchly trad venue. It saves so much time, worry, and abandoned tat, that it is not even noticed. Its just the right thing to do.
Arapiles or Djurite as it is correctly known by the owners, is a sacred site, and for once, the Australians did not trample over their rights, and sought their approval for the bolting.

I feel with the amount of people coming into the sport, without all the pre-requisite skills when they venture outside, the worst will happen in the near future.

I will stand by this, and no doubt will get rabid condemnation.

Discuss......

In reply to NorthernRock:

If wall bred climbers are having difficulty sorting good belays on gritstone outcrops and the like, then the time will come when they have to bail off dodgy tat and ancient pegs without the skills to back them up correctly.

If wall bred climbers are having difficulty sorting belays they must also be having problems protecting the route/pitch they have just climbed.
So what do we do bolt all routes to make them safe???? NO

I feel with the amount of people coming into the sport, without all the pre-requisite skills when they venture outside, the worst will happen in the near future.

The problem isn't the lack of bolts its the a lack of skills as you stated above. If people choose to expose themselves to the dangers of trad climbing without thinking of the consequences of it going wrong bolted belays wont save them.

They should acquire the skills needed before venturing on to more complicated routes. They can then protect the climb, make themselves safe at the top of the pitch and if necessary bale off safely also.

There isn't problem with a lack of bolts. There is a problem however with people expecting things to be made safe for them and finding themselves in danger when its left to their own enginuity

In reply to NorthernRock: people need to be tought the basics like lowering off.walls should do more to encourage new comers to learn the skills and ethics of climbing outdoors. On a crag with bolts then yes,but on grit no way,it will give out the wrong message.I've never thought that any route on grit needs a bolted lower off.

In reply to Diggler:

All valid points.

Protection is cheaper and easier than ever. So a rack of friends is more common than ever, easier to place, so getting up the routes requires less skill.

If we cannot give climbers the skills, then maybe we should dumb down to protect an element of climbing that all experienced climbers dislike..... trusting your life to an anchor, in situ or built by yourself.

The world has changed. I don't dislike sport climbing, but neither is it my first love.

Look at Australia, they haven't gone bolt crazy, just sensible precautions to possible outcomes.

I don't disagree with what you have said, pragmatism though seems to dictate the need for risk reduction.

In reply to mark s:

Have you lowered off in situ tat, not just on grit, but anywhere? If you have, then you have placed your life in the hands of an unknown piece of gear. Did you back it up, and leave the gear? If you did, then you have negated your argument for a permanent lower off. Tat is permanent, just because it is renewed doesn't make it less so.

In reply to NorthernRock:

my two penneth - it's not rocket science. If you can't evaluate the quality of a belay by sight and first principles then however strong the wall got you you need to take a step back and consolidate important skills. Fixed anchors will only delay the inevitable and not prevent it imo.

In reply to NorthernRock:

I to don't dislike sport climbing and it certainly has its place.
The point I'm making is, if you are unable to correctly build a belay especially as most grit outcrops have large boulders to sling or thread at the top! Then you clearly are not up to protecting the climb its self. A bolted belay isn't going to help if you fall above a crap nut halfway up a route and it rips.
Wall bred climbers need educating not wrapping up in cotton wool.

In reply to mark s:

I think that you should read Martins article, as some of the points he makes, are his alone, and if he wants to repeat them, I am sure he will.

One of the aims of the post was to get people to read the article, which is well balanced and would appear to be a "call to arms" to prevent elitism in the sport dictating what actually happens.

I cannot make the case as well as Martin, and wouldn't want to spout his words, but hopefully he will see the discussions and get a mood of the climbing proles!!!

In reply to neilinut:

We are not talking about bolted belays, but bolted lower offs. The example of building a belay was just to highlight that if you can't build a belay, then are you able to assess a good anchor to bail from.

In reply to NorthernRock:

You've made some good points though. Very interesting. Also, I hope your on commission, because I'll be buying a copy of this months Climber.

In reply to NorthernRock:

If you cant access a good anchor to bail off should you be climbing trad?

In reply to Diggler:


That's the point, access to good anchors!!! Oh sorry you meant assess ;-P

valid point, but who polices that? No one, which is the problem. And no I don't want crag police checking capabilities!!!

In reply to Diggler: Simple answer is no. Complex answer is probably no.

OP: Are we talk bolt belays, lower offs (single pitch sport style) or abseil points? It's three pretty seperate debates.

In reply to stewieatb:

Martin was really talking about renewing any insitu gear, be it tat from well used abseil or bail points, and even replacing rotting pegs, to ensure that climbs were still climbable at the FA grade.

Where people are in sticky situations, and even experienced climbers get in those, then all risks have been negated. And the keyhole cave peg is a fine example of this, as used by Martin, and has also set my ring twitching!!

In reply to Diggler:

If you cant assess a good anchor to bail off should you be climbing trad?

Probably not! I haven't read the article, but I don't think lack of skill in building belays should be a reason to instal bolted lower offs. There are plenty of other good reasons though!

There's a brilliant HVS crack pitch I want to do at Millstone, as mentioned, but the lower off is a rotten piece of scrap metal. I'd be very happy for a lower off to go in here. I'm sure there are other places - Coal Measure Wall at Anglezark, perhaps?

Arapiles is a good role model, as anyone who's been will tell you how awesome the climbing is, and the sensible bolting there adds rather than takes away from this imho.

In reply to Diggler:

No you shouldn't - I feel like banging my head against a wall.

E

In reply to NorthernRock:

Yes I did mean assess (fecking spell check)

You should police it yourself.
If you look at a piece of rock or guide book pick a route and know it's likely to be a challenge or even a cruise. Then you should have the common sense to ask yourself the question can I do this safely. If the answer is no then gain the necessary skills needed until the answer is yes!

In reply to danm:

Lower off??????????

This is Millstone Edge not f*cking Buoux!

E

In reply to Diggler:

Can you trust your judgement every time to get it right. I didn't, which is why I bailed off the rotting crap!

What about the belay at Pic Tor at the left hand end? Done the climb, but you trust your life to 10 different pieces of faded tat, or add some more. Stick 2 bolts in, job done.

In reply to Enty:

Agreed there are plenty of options to belay at the top of Millstone if you look.

In reply to Diggler:

You don't know what dan is talking about do you?

In reply to NorthernRock:


People still die on routes with bolted lower offs, what's Martin's answer to that?

Martin would do well to reveal whatever agenda he has hidden away - his pro-bolting policies are becoming increasingly irritating, as is his intolerable smugness and refusal to respond to the many valid criticisms that are levelled at his arguments.

In reply to danm:

Coal Measure Wall at Anglezark

OK now there is an exception a bolted lower off would be of use

In reply to Diggler:

Yes - if you want to top rope, walk round the top and lower a rope over the edge. Or is that too much hassle in 2010???

E

In reply to NorthernRock:
Mortals' lives are at risk? No shit.

In reply to Pagan:
>

I think this article reveals his agenda. However he mentions Castell Helen UKC thread in the article. I have no knowledge of either that discussion or the crag, so can't comment.

In reply to John Henry Bull:

Yep, all of us mortals below E5!!!!!! which accounts for say......95% of the UK climbers!!!!

In reply to NorthernRock:



Don't know the climb but you stick 2 bolts in and the job is done thus the climb is made safer.

So then what next? Someone climbs gormenghast and decides that the second pitch is too dangerous so lets put a bolt in there! Now its safe

Trad climbing is dangerous you make your own choices and pick your own routes assessing the risks as you go that's part of the appeal.

If you want a safer alternative with less chance of getting into trouble go sports climbing.

In reply to Diggler:

There you see, think hard, there are a few situations that do make sense, and that's the issue...... How big an issue is it, if it's isolated instances? But then where do we stop?

In reply to NorthernRock:
Um, all mortals' lives are at risk. That's what makes us mortal. E5 does not a god make...

I don't mind living a bit longer, but let's not get melodramatic about this lower-off thing. It's scary lowering off crappy anchors, but it's not always fatal, far from it.

In reply to NorthernRock: Bolts change the feel of a place forever. The problem with beginners is not making things more accessible for them but getting more effective training. The system we have works and has worked for decades - what we need is more training for beginners, not bolts to try to dumb things down. If the BMC wants to start a bolt war then bring it. Sport climbing has it's place, bolted belays have theirs. Mountain crags, Seacliffs and normal bog-standard trad crags are not it. Cheddar has in many areas been desecrated, Wintours has also been made more convenient. It has to stop...

In reply to NorthernRock:

2 meters or so of vertical shale at Anglezarke may warrant lower offs however someone has already mentioned Millstone so indeed where do we stop.

In reply to John Henry Bull:

yes, so if the top climbers are not gods, why should we listen to their opinions, when they don't even climb the routes we do. (ok that's not entirely true).

I am just liking the discussion, it's proper grown up and everything!!!

In reply to mike kann:

If you have seen places destroyed by dumbing down, or ridiculous bolting, then you have a valid standpoint.

I have seen good bolting at Araps, which gets people off isolated ledges and pillars safely. I have seen instances on UK crags (not mountains) where similar points would be useful in getting people off safely.

It would appear that one way or the other, The BMC are bringing this on. To me in isolated instances it's a good idea......rivelin needle has a chain still I assume...... But if some climbers have seen it go too far, then everybody needs to know, rather than kneejerk reaction that it's wrong, with no valid reason than "it's always been done that way"

In reply to Diggler:
>

There already are some bolted lower-offs at Anglezarke but only where there is no alternative way off. I would say that for trad routes bolted lower-offs are only justified where the top out is dangerous/there are no other belay possibilities. It is an uneasy compromise but you can be certain that if you put in a bolt belay at Anglezarke that the locals thought wasn't warranted, they would chop it.

In reply to NorthernRock:


Completely different; it's in a natural thread and therefore isnt doing anything that a loop of tat doesnt, albeit more durably.

In reply to Pekkie: I totally agree

In reply to NorthernRock:


It is the BMC's duty to ensure that britains crags and the access to these crags is preserved for future generations - I do not see how bolting lower offs as policy can possibly do this. Fixed natural lower offs are totally different to bolts, and if they think that they can start putting in lower offs where they see fit I suspect they have another thing coming.

In reply to NorthernRock:

Since when has trad climbing had to be nannied? The whole point of trad is it is a traditional style. Putting bolts is in not traditional. We as climbings get our selfs into tricky situations, but it is up to us to get out of them too. It is part of the sport.

Putting in bolted lower offs is just going to make more people unprepared for what they are about to do. We can't hold all new outdoor climbers hands until they get the idea of what climbing outdoors is all about. Indoor climbing and trad climbing are two totally different things, requiring two different skill sets. New climbers should be taught this.

In reply to Pekkie:

I think this is the correct stance. If their is no other option for safe top out / belay, then permanent lower off to be installed. Be it bolt, threaded chain etc.

I only quote Millstone, as there are a few instances where a permanent lower off would make sense. The last thing I would want to see is a line of staples up Masters Edge!

On that point, what are Millstones metal stakes, if they are not permanent belay stations? Is it the word BOLT that we are frightened of? The stakes exist because there is no other belay. Well tough, if you can't find a safe anchor then don't climb, seems to be the argument.

(who's up with baby!!!!!!)

In reply to NorthernRock: A week ago today i was involved in the rescue of a young climber who had fallen 60ft from a route in Queen Creek AZ.
He was a strong indoor climber with very little outdoor experience, Looking at the blood spattered rock and clumps of hair that had been torn out i can sincerely say that anything that makes this a less likely occurance is absolutely necessary.

Placing a solid reliable mechanical or chemical anchor just makes sense...

In reply to muppetfilter: I agree.

If a belay stake is acceptable, if a rusty piton is acceptable, if a mountain of decaying tat is acceptable, why is a bolt lower off not acceptable?

In reply to Pagan:

Martin would do well to reveal whatever agenda he has hidden away - his pro-bolting policies are becoming increasingly irritating, as is his intolerable smugness and refusal to respond to the many valid criticisms that are levelled at his arguments.

Good morning! It's been a nice surprise to read so many posts (about 40 up to this point) where there's been nothing personal, just a debate about one or two of the things I mentioned in my article. As I've said to the people who have emailed me in support, I find that refreshing.

Since I'm publishing my statements (or opinions?) on forums (not just this one) and in the national press, you can hardly claim that I'm hiding anything! I'm sorry that you find me intolerably smug; people who know me would not recognise that description. It would be intersting to find out why you think that (but maybe just PM me with that instead of getting more personal). Your next point about my "refusal to respond to valid criticisms" is misleading, Pagan. It is a refusal to get drawn into bitter, personal attacks. I would answer the criticisms, but they often get overwhelmed by the personal on here, and that is simply depressing. I have better things to do with my life than feed the anger of the anonymous. After the Castell Helen thing, I recieved five deeply unpleasant emails from people who would not behave like that in real life. I met one of them at TremFest and he did his level best to avoid me...it was an hilarious game of "catch". He apologised, and he bloody well should have done! I don't mind my arguments being dissected and refuted, but I do object to being called...well, bad names. Wishing for someone to die is also pretty poor form (IMHO!)

Couple of things...you say I have "pro-bolting policies", but that is misleading. I do not have any such policies and there's no evidence to show that I do. A couple of thought provoking posts, or statements in a mag do not equal a policy, they equal thought provoking statements! What I do have is a pragmatic attitude to fixed gear. Bolts & pegs have their place in British climbing, you just have to go out and climb and you'll see that to be true. My article was not just about bolts, it was the whole fixed gear thing. I think it is reasonable to have discussions about fixed gear on a regular basis. One of the more interesting posts on the CH thing was that the issue (of the ab station) had been debated ten years ago, so we didn't need to discuss it (ever) again. Can you see the problem there?

I suppose that, in order to be able to comment you should read the article. I'm sorry that it's not on line, but that's how it is.

In summary, I recount an experience my friend Laurie had at Millstone a while ago lowering (yes, lowering) out of the Keyhole cave and having to trust his life to rotten shite. I touch on my experiences of fixed gear in Yosemite, Zion and the Black Canyon. I don't think I mentioned Arapiles, but space was tight. I also talk about how, at one Peak Area meeting, the whole issue of fixed gear (including pegs and bolts and threads) was dominated by elite, sponsored, E7+ climbers who were not (and are not) representative of the rest of us. Their opinions held more sway that that of my mates Steve & Lynn who are devoted and ridiculously enthusiastic (but!) lower grade trad climbers. The title of this thread is also a little cheeky as I'm not advocating what it says, except in a few cases where death is a real & present danger (as in the Keyhole Caves)

I also mention my own efforts at maintaining trad routes in the FA state, and how those who have climbed them since have appreciated the nice new pegs/tat/bolts/lower offs. In the end though, it's a personal opinion based on my 23 years of climbing all over the UK (and the world), from VDiff to E5 and 4+ to 7a, from Stanage (via Yosemite and Patagonia) to St John's Head. I hope you're having as much fun climbing as I am.

In reply to NorthernRock:

No, definitely not.

Bad idea.

Bolts in what rock now?

If some fool is stupid enough to get into a position where the safest thing that they can think of is to use a bit of old rusty gear to lower off from then they apparently are not really capable of establishing what is the safest thing to do from the outset and they should go back to their source of instruction to find out how to make such judgements. Also, giving safer lower off points half way up routes will cause more such people to make the poor judgement to start a route that they are incapable of in the knowledge that they can safely bail half way up and that at the very least would cause uneven traffic damage to half of a route.

This would be a slippery slope. Put one bolt in and every Tom, Dick and Harry would be putting another in with some reason that was sort of understandable if not agreeable but not worth getting your knickers in a twist over but you shouldn't have done it so don't do it again unless you really have a situation where you feel it is absolutely necessary but only when absolutely necessary and in twenty years you have bolted grit all over.

The absolutely only place that I personally would condone bolts on grit would be atop pinnacles for safe abseiling.

In reply to EZ:

I was going to mention the whopper on top of the valkyrie pinnacle at Froggatt...

In reply to EZ:

Have we got lower off chains all over grit? No, but one exists on top of Rivelin Needle, which is .....erm..... Fixed gear. It hasn't become the precedent for a slippery slope, however trees covered in tat has become ok.

If you leave tat on the ledge on Embankment then you should;

1 - Put an anchor spike in the ground at the top of the crag
2- abseil down and remove the temporary anchor
3 - return to the top of the crag and remove your anchor spike

oh, the anchor posts exist, and so does the tat....hmmm

In reply to EZ:

Don't you worry sunshine, any bolts placed where they don't need to be would soon be chopped, I could guarantee it!!!

In reply to NorthernRock:

Oh for God's sake. Not AGAIN.

When is Kocsis ever going to shut up?

jcm

In reply to NorthernRock:

It's already started

There's an 'interesting' article on re-bolting - though I guess they may have got the numbers wrong


http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/cumbria/

You'll need to trawl through the gazette for the relevant article as for technical reasons UKC does not allow me to post the full link.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Martin,

I think you should clear up whether this is a personal agenda or one connected in any way with your position at the BMC. Folk are increasingly, and I think understandably, drawing a connection between the two. Are they right in this.

>I also talk about how, at one Peak Area meeting, the whole issue of fixed gear (including pegs and bolts and threads) was dominated by elite, sponsored, E7+ climbers who were not (and are not) representative of the rest of us. Their opinions held more sway that that of my mates Steve & Lynn who are devoted and ridiculously enthusiastic (but!) lower grade trad climbers.

Not my memory of the meeting. I think there were a grand total of two sponsored climbers there, one of which who is also an access rep in the area discussed. Did Steve and Lynn feel sidelined? Why? Were they not allowed to speak or were they ignored? I don't remember either happening.

I do remember that folk were broadly agreed that this is a bigger issue on reletively hard limestone routes than elsewhere. Or should the likes of Ben Bransby, Neil Foster or myself not be allowed to speak on the grounds we might have valid opinions, drawn from broad experience, that don't suit yours? Folk like Neil get a lot of respect in these meetings for damn good reason - and it isn't for the grade he climbs.

I find it highly ironic that you continue to bang this ridiculous drum of being dictated to by a minority, when almost every pro-bolt article or thread I've read in the last year has originated from one man - you.

>where death is a real & present danger (as in the Keyhole Caves)

What nonsense. If you could get out of your lower-off mentality, you might realise there are many options to get off the caves without a lower-off. How about topping out? There are easier top pitches, and decent belays, at either end of the caves.

Having climbed, like you, all over the world, I've found hybrid crags deeply unsatisfying. Trad climbing is about taking responsibility for yourself, and that is deeply undermined by points where someone else has decided it is 'too dangerous' and altered the crag to make it safer. Accidents still happen on sport crags, and in climbing walls.

All over the rest of Europe, and further afield, we're seeing bolts come back out of mountains and crags as folk realise they may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. But you seem determined to drag us in the opposite direction.

Adam

In reply to NorthernRock:

Why is putting a bolt in at the top of the crag more acceptable than putting a bolt in half-way up? Sure lowering off something crap could be fatal; so could be falling onto crap gear. I don't see how one is justifiable but the other is not. At the end of the day the crag is the same, so should be the ethics. The 'traditional' feel of a crag extends beyond the length of its routes.

In reply to NorthernRock:

That's all well and good, but while the feel of the crag is restored the damage to the rock is permanent. Far better not to place the bolts in the first place.

In reply to NorthernRock:

It is pure myth that bolting lower offs makes them safe. I have only witnessed two abseiling accidents and both of those were from bolted stations. As stated above, the problem is lack of skill not lack of equipment.

In reply to Adam Long: hear hear.

In reply to Adam Long:

hear hear.

Enty

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:
Hi Martin,

There is no shortage of rock to climb in the UK.
If you are not satisfied that you can protect yourself either on, or getting to or from a route then do a different route.

The example of the keyhole cave at Millstone is an interesting one. It is only a lower off if you decide to do half of Oxford Street or half of Piccadilly Circus. Would you advocate putting a bolt in the middle of those 2* routes? - which are both very well protected routes without.

On the subject of rigging belays - lack of a bolt is not the answer, lack of education may be.

I enjoy both sport and trad climbing but i do believe we need to draw a distinct line between the two.

Have fun climbing,
Brian

In reply to many: Why is anyone having problems with the lower off from the keyhole cave? Assuming the iron stake is now pretty dodgy, this is what you do.

Scenario 1: Leader has got to cave but doesn't want to (or can't) do an upper pitch; second is still on ground.

Lower off on one rope but reverse lead on the other (i.e. strip gear from the top downwards whilst being belayed on the rope running through the gear). If the stake fails you end up with a "normal" leader fall - should be ok on these well protected cracks.

Scenario 2: Both leader and second are in cave and gear already stripped.

Lower second down (taking strain as much as possible on body or any other gear rather than stake) who places "lead" gear en-route and clips one rope. Then retreat as per scenario 1.

And if you've climbed on a single rope, well it's short enough that you can re-jig it to be double rope.

But that all means leaving a sling+crab on the iron stake - much cheaper than taking a ground fall and then being hit on the head by the pieces of the stake

In reply to Ben from Wye Valley: Sloper - Fail

In reply to Ben from Wye Valley: The don't clip the bolts arguement is utter horse crap. They are there. I don't think anybody is saying that they would not clip bolts if they were there and THAT is the point. Many climbers don't want them there in the first place mainly because they are just not needed. Case in point: two lower offs on great ledge on North Buttress at Wintours. There are two sets of lower offs within 20 yards of one another along a ledge which you could have a large party on. 10 yards further on there is a perfectly good tree that should you feel the need could be abseiled from. A chain could have been installed with no permanent damage to the rock to protect the environment as you say, and those that did not wise to continue to the top could easily ab off. Equally at the other end there is a massive boulder around which another chain could have been installed thereby providing 2 lower offs within 10 feet of the bolts. Why were these bolts necessary? It does not make anything at all safer, it just makes it marginally more convenient and that is not progress, it's just laziness.

In reply to mike kann: Since climbing shapes the environment however lightly we try to tread, I'm not sure there's much difference between putting a chain around something and a couple of bolts.

My main preference for a chain in those circumstances would be that when it wears out it can be replaced without further rock damage; whereas replacing bolts every few years will damage more and more rock unless the existing holes can be re-used.

a chain around a tree or a boulder is way more obtrusive than a couple of nice bmc eco bolts. Convenience is great, wintours isn't some fairytale adventurous mountain to preserve from bolts at all costs. Having bolts there makes my life marginally easier and safer....great!

In reply to Michael Hood: What I'm advocating is a light touch. If you don't need a permanent installation, then why put one in. The above is a clear example where the BMC has failed in doing this. They are neither required for belays, nor protection or abseiling. All they do is make our lives a little easier.

In reply to Dr Caterpillar: Are you seriously telling me that threading a bomb proof chain as opposed to a couple of bolts is any easier or any safer? In fact the bolts are placed right at the top of 2 of North Buttresses most climbed routes, meaning that any parties on those routes are in the direct firing line of abseiling parties? It's not about whether these cliffs are adventurous or not, it's a question of necessity.

In reply to NorthernRock: This is a local issue for local people.

In reply to All:

This simply goes to show that the placement of bolts, lower offs and abseil rings on a case by case basis is not a bad thing.

They are a necessity in some form at Wintours, they would be appreciated at a lot of Quarried locations with embanked or bare top outs, and they would even open up some areas with no top out to all climbers for the first time.

This debate isn't about bolting routes.

Its about fixing gear where necessary to protect climbers, the enviroment, and to progress the sport.

Its not about cluster bolting everything

In reply to Dribble223: I.e. it's about proceeding with the utmost caution. Case by case basis has been the status quo for many years and I for one believe that recently things have been slipping and more bolts are being placed with not real requirement, some of them in very trad areas, and under the banner of the BMC. The rebolting that has taken on a wide spread basis has been encouraged by the BMC, and whilst I am certainly not in favour of leaving rotting gear in place, I am in favour of questioning the basic assumption that it should be there in the first place, after all gear, and access have changed in many cases.

In reply to NorthernRock:

If "wall bred climbers" do not have the experience to safeguard themselves in whatever climbing situation they need to slow down and learn the relevant skills and techniques.

What next to safeguard the "wall bred climbers"? A bolt in a runout section of a trad route because there is a risk to the "wall bred climbers"?

Following your argument, the whole of Swanage would require lower offs, to safeguard the "wall bred climbers".

With a bolt or lower off here and there, there are loads of trad routes that I could climb, but haven't because I don't have the ability to climb the route as it is.

This is just another excuse to bring the rock down to the lowest common denominator.

Learning the pre-requisite skills, gaining experience and having a bit of common sense is all that is required.

Rich.

In reply to NorthernRock:
A lot of people seem to be justifying bolts because of novice climbers who don't know what they are doing and it will save their lives. End of the day a bolt isn't going to save there lives, better instruction however will. I think we all know of people who messed up an abseil, clipped something the wrong way, didn't tie in properly and various other simple leifesaving things. If you wanna save lives you should be getting people cheaper and better instruction prehaps orginised by the bmc!
Also martin, would you please clarify if your pro-bolting agenda is done on bmc time or your own. I for one would not be best pleased if it is done on BMC time and are getting slightly sick of pro-bolting pieces which carry the bmc logo. Prehaps you should create a ukc username which does not carry the bmc logo, presuming of course if it's not bmc policy to be quite so pro-bolting.
Regards
Ewan Russell
p.s I only know 1 or 2 people who have ever onsighted e5, most of the climbers I know would not be in favour of bolting.

In reply to Ben from Wye Valley:

For me, the problem with bolted lower offs (as others have said) is that it permanently changes the character of a venue. Take for instance the Smoke Bluffs at Squamish where most trad routes have bolted lower-offs. The place is besieged with top-roping groups on activity packages who couldn't give a toss about climbing. Recreational abseiling on classic routes is common place and lowering off is of course normal - which means easy routes that are not steep enough suffer even more.

Would these groups persist if they had to top rope / abseil / lower off (potentially dodgy) tat? No. So the argument that a bolt is an improvement on existing 'unsightly' tat ignores many issues and is far less simple than some would have it.

As for people suggesting anchors in the Keyhole Cave, why not just wait until you can lead the second pitch of Picadilly Circus? Its not that much harder than the HVS bottom pitch.

In reply to Richard White:
While we are bolting things to make them safer, can we put up some notices on blind cracks that don't take good gear? If I had £5 for every time I've got to a flake and gone "oh drat it is blind, rounded and won't even take an RP, I could do with some gear now" then I'd have enough for a hilti!

In reply to Richard White:

Further to my my previous comment;

I know lots of "wall bred climbers" who are highly competent and experienced at the grade they are climbing, from diff to E whatever. Through having a bit of common sense and gaining experience they know what is reasonable and sensible for them to attempt.

Rich.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Nice one, good idea.

Hey NorthernRock, could you nip down to Swanage and label up all the hidden holds and gear placements, with the gear required of course, for me please?

Rich.

In reply to NorthernRock: how many people ever abseil or lower off on grit anyway?

personally i walk the 5,10,20 ft to the nearest descent route.

In reply to fxceltic: occasionaly it can be longer, I think you should note.

In reply to Ben from Wye Valley:

In my opinion it is a bit, yes. The discussion is worth having, but I think we've been having it for decades and it's getting annoying. It's up to me alone whether I can safely attempt a route, nobody else. Please don't dictate to me what is and isn't acceptable with your bolts. I'm happy to not climb some routes because I can't produce something satisfactory for a belay/lower-off.

As for your bizarre ideas (how long have you been climbing for by the way?)...


Placing a bolt fundamentally changes the nature of a route. A lot of the uncertainty disappears. When you look up at a poorly-protected headwall that you're aware is somewhere around your limit in terms of difficulty do you:
a.) Consider your options carefully, or:
b.) Say "screw it, may as well try, there's a bolt if I get into trouble."

The uncertainty factor, central to the trad mindset, is gone forever. Yes, you could just not clip the bolts. Similarly you could leave a knotted rope to grab hold of right next to you (but choose not to grab). Or you could do it on a slack top rope. Do whatever the hell you want, but don't go screwing up everyone else's experience into the bargain by placing bolts.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Hi Martin,

as several others have already touched upon, I find your use of the Keyhole Cave as an example of "having to trust his life to rotten shite", extremely odd. Clearly the "having to" element of this statement is simply wrong. Any climber capable of climbing to the Keyhole Cave would be capable of extricating themself safely from there, by downleading, topping out, or lowering off gear (and abing to retrieve it). We are after all discussing a 60ft cliff which takes 2 minutes to scramble to the top of.

So what you are actually arguing for is convenience. Yet you dress it up as a safety matter. Now it's probably true to say that some climbers are lazy and complacent when it comes to trusting fixed gear, and as a result of this accidents may well occur. But your solution is to equip things such that it's ok to be lazy and complacent. Others amongst us would rather strip the bad fixed gear and encourage people not to be lazy and complacent.

Incidentally, a better example to use would be the fixed gear at the top of the Strand/Park Lane Doomsville at Gogarth Upper Tier. This is often in a shocking state and I've regularly seen people lower off this without even inspecting it.

Placing bolt belays on traditional crags would undoubtedly change the nature of climbing on those crags and would make it harder to argue against the placement of other bolts. Precedence can have a strong effect in such debates.

Although you are obviously entitled to hold a personal opinion outside of your BMC role as Volunteers' Officer, it does seem to myself and others who post on here that your strong public expression of these views is somewhat incompatible with being a representative for climbers in general.

Also, it's worth noting that death is actually a "real & present danger" in many situations (even outside of climbing). Only this morning I removed a jammed crumpet from a toaster using a knife thereby risking electrocution. Sometimes you just accept the risks involved.

And yes I'm definitely having as much fun climbing as you are!

cheers Hugh

In reply to Flashy:

Well said!

Rich.

once again a valid arguement is being dragged down with daft comments (funny as they are),

this isn't about protecting novices. Its not about bolting.

Its about making a few routes safer and more accessable.


Dare I say, if groups use the chains, rings and lower offs, who has the divine right to stop them?

You complain if wall climbers come outside and make a hash of things.

Sounds like you are also complaining about those being introduced to the outdoors properly on taster sessions?

In reply to NorthernRock:

What about winter? What do you advocate for the "wall bred climber" in the middle of that snow slope without any gear for a full rope length? Have bloody 5 metre long stakes sticking out of the ground to use as belays because they don't kow how to set up a snow belay?

Have winter routes assessed on a daily basis because all the cracks are now iced up as a result of the previous nights freeze?

Yes, I am being completely facetious here. But I trying to demonstrate that climbing (in all it's forms) can not be made completely safe. From bouldering to high altitude, the climber is ultimately responsible for their own decsions and actions. That is what has attracted me and kept me climbing for nearly 30 years. it is the fact that I am in control of my own destiny.

Rich.

In reply to Dribble223:

Being introduced to the outdoors properly does not involve paying a guide. I can't believe anyone would say that. What an absolutely hideous errosion of british ethics this thread shows. That sentence has actually saddened me.

In reply to Ben from Wye Valley:

You wrote a lot of words there but unfortunately once someone reads "if you don't like the bolts on a sport route DON'T CLIP THEM!" they won't carry on reading any further.....

E

In reply to Dribble223:

It has nothing to do with safety, unless you can show me the number of deaths / accidents directly attributable to established anchor failure as opposed to 'user error' (which will increase with more accessibility).

Its actually all about convenience for a few.

In reply to Franco C: Franco - you do spout some bollocks sometimes. Guides and instructors are there in part to teach people what is acceptable and what isn't. You seem to have this rather deluded idea that guides and instructors are out there bolting everything so they can earn a buck or two. Has it not occured to you that they may want to protect the very essence of british climbing, i.e. its traditions, and ethics other wise they'd be out of a job?

In reply to NorthernRock:


Nah. Not into bolting trad lower off's or trad venues in any form. Slippery slope. Very slippery.

For example by comparison...
Does it make sense to bolt the crux of End of the Affair just cos one person gets choppered off to hospital falling off it, through bad judgement, bad luck or inexperience?
Most non climbers would of course think it does, without question!
But trad climbers, British ones in particular, don't at all.

Why does it make sense to bolt the keyhole cave in order for people to lower off from it?

Nobody should even be there unless they can lead E2 and fully intended to continue or are climbing HVS in the knowledge they'll have to sort out a way down.
Surely such a person would be capable of getting down safely?

Tat and stakes are non rock intrusive and comply with ancient and cherished trad ethics.
Ethics which we have a responsibility to uphold, not water down and allow to peter out.

Very slippery slope bolting at top of trad venues!

We can't run around placing bloody lower off's everywhere just to accomodate a huge influx of so called 'wall rats' that rush into outdoor climbing with no experience.

Very tragic and horrific that accidents are by nature... I think everybody has to take responsibility for themselves in any given environment, not expect the environment to alter on their behalf.

Accidents will always happen, even off fixed gear.
But lets not forget that they aren't that common!

Registered user only on this thread from now please.

Alan

In reply to mike kann:

As I climbing instructor I fully agree with you Mike, sure, it would be nice if it was a peer group affair where you take out a novice one on one and pass on knowledge... This isn't the case, and taking groups to single pitch venues is a great way of introducing children to the sport who might not have had a route in otherwise.

Again, this isn't about bolting lines everywhere. Its about putting in some fixed gear where top outs aren't feasible or are just stupidly dangerous comparative to the grade of the route. Its about opening some venues up, not closing them down or flooding them with dreaded 'novice climbers'.

Its this elitism and this discrimination that shows that some elements of British Climbing are as rotten in their attitude as the pegs we aim to replace.

In reply to Dribble223:


Not at all.

The use of instructors and guides is as relevant as is going outside with a more experienced partner or with a completely inexperienced mate. Each way has its advantages and disadvantages.

Personally I never had any instruction in my early years of climbing, we just made it up as we went along, learning the scary way. You know the stuff, full body shakes, all your gear fallen out etc.

However, having been a full time professional instructor (MIA and WML holder) for a number of years, there is nothing wrong in using instructors / guides etc. In fact, professional instructors and guides will usually try to explain the history and ethics of all forms of climbing. This gives the student an understanding of why route X at Malham is bolted but route Y at Gogarth isn't.

Rich.

In reply to mike kann:

Yeh. That wasn't meant as an attack on instructors.

But to suggest that the only proper way to learn how to climb is by paying someone upsets me. Climbing is about friendship, adventure and having an apprentiship with someone. If people want to pay and instructor, then fine, but don't suggest that's 'the' way to do it. For decades people have shared knowledge and developed slowly. Surely UK climbing is not so far past having a feeling of camaraderie that we just bolt everything and pay people to teach us? We're about 20 years off being like golf.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm not arguing that we should replace everything with fixed pro. Read my posts. I'm stating that we should, in certain cases, fix lower off points where there is no feasible top out, or where topping out is far to dangerous compared to the grade of the route (ie - chemical Warfare at rosyth (Severe) - why scramble up horrible loose rock with no gear and loose soil to make a poor belay killing the only tree when you could just place a lower off?).

Climbing isn't your sport exclusively - its everyone's sport. The rock isn't yours exclusively either. If you are so worried about these minor safety features at the small venues that I am arguing about, then you are surely the last bastion of support for the conservation of rarely climbed low graded routes with an disproportionally high level of objective danger

In reply to Franco C: I understand that Manko, I mean hell I've had plenty of near death experiences after retarded escapades, most with close friends and those are moments I will never forget. However you must understand that instructors object to the link that many in this country make between them and the degradation of ethics. It's just a load of tosh.

We have an issue here which is about proper training, not about bolts. There are a few ways you can acquire training:

1 reading books carefully and then practicing it.
2 going out with more experienced partners, either in a club or group of friends
3 paying a guide or instructor to explain how the process of climbing works - often these people don't come through the conventional channels of clubs etc and don't know anybody to learn from.

As far as I'm aware many people do all three. I would rather see BMC money going towards providing courses for beginners on how to set up lower offs, top ropes, and abseils etc. correctly than bolting on the off chance that they will somehow glean the information through osmosis or by chance.

In reply to mike kann:

Yeh. Agree. My issue was by suggesting that Paying people is the way to do it. It's one of three ways of learning; and i'd say the way least in-keeping with british trad. That said I understand that some people wish to learn this way. No BMC money should go towards bolting in my opinion, but that opinion is the minority, due to the huge numbers who have bought their way into the sport without having a satisfactory aprentiship.

In reply to Flashy:

FFS - I'm not arguing about bolting routes!!!!

And whilst we're at it, there are many routes in the UK that have been led trad AFTER having been bolted for sport. Thats what I mean by don't clip the bolts. This is an option on some routes at Wintours Leap at around Severe level upwards.

Either way, thats not my argument.

I just want some lower off's at the top of crags with no decent top out or anchor so more routes are accessible in quarries. What is so hard for you to understand?

Finally. I've been climbing on and off for ten years, and have been climbing seriously (ie once a week) for three years.

Like the majority of climbing biggots, its good to see people defaulting to the 'how long have you climbed for?', 'What grade do you climb?' elitism questions rather than respecting the opinion of another climber for what it is. The opinion of another climber.

In reply to Dribble223:
I think its a fair question, if you've only been climbing for 3 months then your opinon isn't going to matter as much as someone who has been in the sport for 40 years. That doesn't mean your opnion is unimportant just that it's slightly less important.
Ewan(Who has introduced friends+goes climbing with friends who have been climbing for less that one year!)

In reply to Franco C:

'Satisfactory Apprentiship'?

Why should everyone have to learn to climb through the same means? Just because someone has shown an interest, maybe came up through a climbing wall intro course, been introduced to the outside by instructors as they lack confidence, and now wants to climb independently. Why are they less of a climber? Your strange socialist-elitism is most strange and totally ridiculous.

I'm arguing that there should be lower offs on routes where they are justified, at venues these people (not you elite super climbers), frequent.

Seriously, the top outs are stupid, its common sense. I'm not talking about bolting everywhere!

In reply to Dribble223:

Sorry, you still haven't justified why making a venue more accessible to less experienced people makes it safer - or, indeed, that statistics back up your assertion that they were dangerous in the first place.

In reply to Dribble223:


What would you do at Swanage? 90% of the routes have very loose rock with little protection for 5-10 metres at the top, followed by steep loose mud and grass slopes to a metal stake belay (sometimes of questionable quality).

If you place lower offs at the last good rock (5-10 metres below the top) where do climbers lower off to? Back down to the sea?

The other option is to remove the slopes and all the rock at the top similar to the (natural rock) routes that finish in the quarry at Guillemot Ledge. It would make my job a lot more pleasant and safer. However, that characteristic is one of the features that makes Swanage climbing what is is, committing, adventurous, exciting and yes, a bit scary at times.

Climbing should not be sanitised and brought down to the physical or mental level of everyone. If you are not capable of doing a route because of the nature of the top out, just accept that route, on that day was beyond you. Do not bring the route down to your level.

Rich.

In reply to Franco C:

I don't think any one in their right mind would suggest that it is the only way to do it - it clearly isn't. However I think you do others a great injustice by holding this attitude that people buy their way into a sport. I take it you have never climbed with an instructor (as I'm guessing you have no wish to) but I can guarantee you that most instructors are there to facilitate the learning process and to aid the clients knowledge rather than to drag them up routes. You can always learn from others, especially when a vocational activity is involved. For example, you could go to Uni to learn engineering, or you could have a bash at it yourself, or you could go and become an apprentice. If you go to University you will learn lots of theory, but won't have a fundamental grounding for practical engineering. If you buy yourself an MG and rebuild it you will learn masses about practical engineering, but you will take wrong turns left right and centre and it will cost you time and money. Or you can be come an apprentice who will be taught some theory, but will then put that theory into practice. Whether you pay for that apprenticeship or not is actually irrelevant, the very fact that you are learning from a person means that if the teacher is worth their salt you will pick up far more in a session that you would from a book or just stumbling along by your self. And if that teacher has had proffesional training to help them teach, they should be able to to that more effectively. Yes not all teachers are good, but I can safely say that a higher proportion of those who have been trained to teach will be more effective than those who haven't.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm not saying that making it more accessible makes it safer - thats a false assumption, people still need the proper levels of instruction.

What I am saying is that avoiding exposed or near impossible top outs, that are far abouve the objective danger of the grade, or are simply not worth the risk would be worth while and would enhance the venue.

Furthermore, I'm arguing that this is far better at such single pitch venues than killing the few trees that are there and thus further erroding the crag tops.

In reply to Franco C:

Arguably (if you could be bothered) it's the most in keeping - early ascents (Alps, Lakes, Skye, etc) were usually done by hiring a guide.

In reply to Richard White:

Rich, I fully agree with your comments reference swanage.

As I have said from the start, I'm only in favour of lower offs in specific locations.

Rosythe Quarry would benefit from them, as would the Bridge of Allan quarry, and even one or two routes at places like morlais quarry.

I would be interested to know why people object to fixed abseil stations? If only to reduce the ammount of tat left on multipitch routes. It certainly isn't an issue in the alps or anywhere else I've ever been

In reply to mike kann:

I agree Mike.

As I have already said, both using or not using instructors / guides is completely relevant and down to the individual.

We wouldn't denigrate the achievements of those during the Golden Age of Alpinism simply because they used guides.

I could name numerous high achieving (in terms of their personal climbing) BMG members who attended the Jonathan Conville course in the Alps at the start of their careers. We wouldn't cast any aspersions on them because of that (I should hope not anyway).

Rich.

In reply to Dribble223:


There is a tradtion in the UK (to all: feel free to correct as necessary) that the philosophy of the true sprit of adventure and commitment when climbing trad routes is as important as the grade of a route.

This is most evident in the exploits of climbers such as Pat Littlejohn (and many others) who would pull the ab ropes before setting of on an onsight new route on completely unknown territory.

By taking away the unknown, you are taking away that commitment and adventure that is so important in climbing. As I have already said, if a climber cannot climb a route as a result of the unknown, in this case the top out, then they are not ready for that route.

Rich.

In reply to Dribble223: I would object to widespread bolted abseil stations as by and large they are just not necessary. What on earth do you need them for other than to make it even easier to get down? There are very very few instances that I can think of that bolts are a requirement to get down from anywhere. If the climber doesn't know how to set up an appropriate station, then they will most likely look somewhere else which is what the should be doing. In addition if they really want to get down that particular way then they will learn how to do it. If there are instances like we've been discussing at Wintours, every effort should be made by the BMC and its representatives to avoid irreversible actions, i.e. a chain can be taken away, but a bolt can't. I simply don't understand why so many insist that bolts are a safety requirement - they aren't - they are mostly a convenience requirement.

In reply to Dribble223:

Actually, that did seem to be your argument.


The coexistence of the British understanding of trad climbing with the use of bolts. I don't understand that. My points still stand -- your bolted lower offs make embarking on the route a relatively trivial decision to make.


The reason I asked that is because the "you don't have to clip the bolts" line is usually trotted out by some clueless person with little experience or understanding of what trad climbing actually is. Or that the understanding of the trad ethic is actually different in different countries, and just because Australia does it doesn't mean it's appropriate here.

Stop banging on about 'bigotry' and 'discrimination'. There isn't any; your only problem is that you've stumbled across a group of people who you don't agree with.

In reply to Richard White:


Quoted for truth!

In reply to Richard White:

Again, I fully agree with you opinion and ethic on this matter. I understand the need for adventure and the thrill of commitment.

I'm only talking about lower off's for venues where to be honest, there is little adventure to be had, however if you are climbing to gain experience or to keep fitness levels up, lower offs would be a usefull way of enhancing the venues and removing what is simply unnecessary danger.

By no means should this ever apply to classic routes or those, as you have rightly stated, where the adventure is a part of the route.

In reply to Flashy:

I am really not interested in bolting routes, I hate bolting in general (ask my climbing partners), however I just think that there are a few specific places that it would be a good idea, and not of detrement to the venue (i.e. Rosyth and other single pitch quarries). All this would produce is a safer ending to less popular routes with no decent belay options.

In reply to Dribble223:

It's not just about a 'need' or a 'thrill'. This is what climbing IS in Britain.


You are describing an indoor wall. Or a sport crag. Or a well-protected trad venue. Opportunities for this sort of climbing abound.


Who are you to tell us what is necessary and unnecessary danger?


Where do you draw the line?

In reply to Dribble223:


I do understand where you are coming from on this.

But what is unnecessary danger for one climber is managable adventure to another and is absolutley, utterly, completely safe to another. It is all levels of perspective.

Who am I or who is anyone to remove that managable adventure or even unnecessary risk.

Rich

In reply to Flashy:

Get over it - I'm not telling you personally what is dangerous, however if you go to Rosyth its pretty obviously F'ing dangerous! And for those who wish to over climb loose, large blocks of granite with no gear endangering themselves and their second for no real merit other than being totally 'trad', you could always carry on past the lower off.

Climbing is a multi faceted sport in the UK, not just trad.

Some lower offs would definately improve certain venues in the UK. Thats my point.

In reply to mike kann: I fully agree. There is no way that there should be a lower off in the key hole cave. If you can't do the whole route then you're responsible for getting off it safely.

Was Donald Campbells last run unnecessary risk?

Were Irving and Mallory taking unnecessary risk?

Yeah, Ok these are cliches. But do you see what I mean?

Risk is in the eye of the beholder, bottom line.

Rich.

In reply to Richard White:

I fully understand the idea that everyone should be able to manage their own risk, I think that this is just a specific argument for individual cases. I do believe their would be mass local support in some cases.

In reply to Dribble223:


NO! That's where you do not understand. To many climbers, lower offs would not improve certain venues, they would ruin them!

Rich.

In reply to Dribble223:
loose, large blocks of granite with no gear, endangering themselves and their second

Not trying to be clever, but you don't have to do the routes! Presumably you didn't feel that they were unjustifiably dangerous at the time or you wouldn't have climbed them?

In reply to NorthernRock:

If anyone is going to fix a lower-off in the Keyhole Caves they will need a helluva long drill!


Chris

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The Gimmer chain is a non-argument; it's not drilled gear and were it not there you'd have an accumulation of tat instead. It works well (mostly) but I wouldnt support drilling an ab station there or on any other high-level crag.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Exactly; as I said on the Skye thread the climbing community is naturally self-regulating. If you put bolts in the wrong places they'll get chopped, if you choose sensibly some folk will still grumble, but probably not enough to do anything about it, and a bolted route/venue will establish itself. Activists prevail.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I am not referring to the visual impact of lower offs, either tat or more permanent. Personally, all that coloured tat looks kinda pretty.

My stance, if you like, in this discussion is whether or not I / we / anyone has the right to remove the danger / risk / mental challenge / commitment involved when climbing.

Rich.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Personally I think Gimmer tat is preferable to Gimmer chain. The chain implies it is somehow the 'correct' way down, tat can be removed to discourage abbing.

It doesn't work well as
(a) it leads to people throwing their ropes down a *** route (the MS one I forget which letter it is) - I was almost hit by ropes when leading it.
(b) it gets people to Ash Tree Ledge, which is all very well if they're doing another route there, but as often as not they then do another abseil off the slightly dodgy looking block at the top of Asterix (another 3 star route with ropes being dropped on people). How long before someone decided the 2nd ab needs a bolted lower off?

In reply to NorthernRock: I'd like to see trad routes that have Lower off's. Sometimes it’s just not worth the hassle of doing the route. Particularly if it’s something you want to head point and requires a lot of top rope work.

In reply to Toreador

Good points; I must admit that I sometimes take perverse delight in stripping in-situ tat in order to test people's self-sufficiency. And I agree that the block atop Asterix looks a wee bit fractured.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You dont need a lower-off to set up a top rope.

In reply

Glad you've all been playing nicely. I've been climbing at Crookrise. It snowed, which was nice on Crease Direct.

No fixed gear required, although a bolt in Massive Attack would be nice....sorry couldn't resist ;-P

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

So you're prepared to spend hours frigging a route into submission on a top rope but you can't spare 5 minutes to go to the top and set up an anchor over the edge?

E

In reply to Adam Long:

Hi Adam. My article is a personal opinion…what Mick Ryan would probably call an “OpEd” Take my job out of the equation, as it's nothing to do with what I think; my opinions and my job are separate. There are some who think I should be a mute desk drone who does as he’s told and says nowt to noone. Well, as I say, it’s a personal opinion. Maybe I’ve been spending too much time hanging about in the vicinity of John Redhead recently (or maybe not)

The Peak Area meeting: I was not the only person present who shared those thoughts. I was thinking of a different Steve & Lynn to you.

I’m not sure how many pro-bolt articles or threads I’ve originated in the last 12 months. Can you list them for me, please? I don’t think that you’re allowed to include promotional posts for bolting workshops!

You can disagree with me on everything I’ve said and I’m cool with that. Maybe I’m completely wrong, but that’s also OK. As I say, it’s an opinion and that’s all it is. I have one view, you have another and we’re all at liberty to express those views. Next!


In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Hi Hugh, you talk about yourself “and others” finding the public expression of my views incompatible with being a representative for climbers in general. There are plenty of people who will disagree with you on that. So far today I’ve had eight emails in support, and none against, so who exactly are “climbers in general”? I know enty and johncoxmysteriously will stick the knife into me, but that’s what they always do and I don’t care. I wouldn’t describe two people as “climbers in general”!
If you have doubts about my suitability for my current post, then you are at liberty to raise those doubts with BMC HQ. However! Before you do, it’s probably fair to look at my five-year track record at the BMC and then come to a decision.

In general:

The article was not designed to make everyone feel love and warmth towards me. I have enough of that in my daily life…it was designed to provoke comment and discussion. Only a few people (beyond the usual suspects) have become personal about it. Another point of view is that it would be a real shame if climbing magazines were just full of bland “how to” articles and lists of routes to do at Pembroke. Let’s have opinions! Let’s have disagreement! Let’s say things that not everyone finds popular! Nothing wrong with any of that (Is there?)

Below!

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You poor lamb; how inconsiderate of nature.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Martin,

No problems with you having personal opinions or expressing them. I do think however, that you need to distance yourself from your job a little whilst doing so. Describing and defending actions like...

'Over the last few years, I’ve been going round replacing rotten pegs with new ones in my own time, out of my own pocket and without telling anyone. I’ve drilled out old placements and even used resin to help cement the new pegs. I’ve installed bolted abseil/belay stations in gritstone quarries and I’ve replaced old pegs with new bolts.'

... whilst under a BMC title is plain wrong. You are giving an impression that such actions are condoned, endorsed, perhaps even funded by the BMC, which in almost all cases they certainly aren't, and with good reason.

I think its sad that you can't value the input of good climbers to such debates. Would you if they were agreeing with you? Has it not occurred to you that these folk were once E2/ HVS/ VDiff climbers too? And that their opinions might be based on the experiences they had on the routes rather then, than when in their (likely short-lived) prime?

I think its essential decisions on fixed gear are made by local concensus. You obviously don't. Creating some fantasy dictatorial elite minority may help justify that to yourself, but it doesn't make it right. All climbers' opinions are valid.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:
From what I heard Martin you do a fantastic job at the BMC! Just be nice if your going to be posting your take on bolts rather than the bmc's if you did so on a account which didn't have BMC in the title. Gives the impression to me and I believe others that you are actually posting the BMC's opinon

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

I'll just add that this:

'I remember a Peak Area meeting where the voices against replacing knackered pegs and letting classic E3s and E4s become unpopular E7s'

is nonsense, and reeks of sensationalism. Or perhaps you can name the routes you mean?

In reply to Adam Long:

Slip and Fly is E3 6b, but with the peg that is now totally useless this is more like E6. It wasn't ever very popular though.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

I hope I'm not a usual suspect - I'm just someone who feels strongly for the Uk trad heritage. Having 1st hand experience of bolting (retro and new) in Yorkshire and now experiencing almost full time climbing on grid bolted French Limestone i know what happens when things go wrong.

What also is bothering me, and bothers me everytime is the use of your BMC profile whenever you write any of your pro bolt stuff - I think it sends out the wrong message.
As you know I don't agree with the way the BMC are going with this - don't get me wrong, I think the re-equipping of crags such as St Bees is great - but do you really need workshops with "active bolters" "bolters to be trained" etc etc I know bodies are needed to do the work but some of the writing on this glams it up! It's drilling holes on the end of a rope att the end of the day - the novelty soon wears off.

Anyway - there's a post higher up this thread from someone who vocally admits bolt lower offs are just for convenience so god help us.

Also - I was in the UK a short while ago and just missed one of your crag clean ups - was looking forward to some of your cakes. You can click on my Facebook friend request if you want - I don't have a knife out for you - honest!!

E

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Seen as you've expressed such an extreme view from a position that should really be impartial, i'm tempted to ask why the British 'Mountaineering' Council funds any bolting of UK rock. Even bolting sport crags with my money annoys me a little, but is my membership fee(i'm actually a member of the BMC 3 times) also going to retro-bolting classics like in the slate quarries of the lakes?

In reply to Franco C:

I see you have Poetry in Pink on your wishlist, are you going to time your ascent between removal of the existing bolt and installation of its replacement?

Martin: As an avid user of bolted lower offs on sports crags, and occasional plaer of bolts on sports crags I'm dead against bolted lower offs on tras climbs. I appreciate the difference betwen your own views and tose of the BMC, but why not set up a seperate profile without the BMC bit after your name to stop winding up the detractors?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I wasn't aware that Poetry Pink was in the Lakes?

If your point is that by climbing a route with a bolt in it, or wanting to climb it, I am in some way endorsing placing bolts then I think your point is rubbish.

Why does everything on this site turn into personal insults fuelled by trawling through people's profiles? I want to do poetry pink as the line is amazing. I'd probably want to do it more if it was unbolted, but it would be beyond me. And as far as I am aware Poetry pink was not Retrobolted?

In reply to mike123:

I can't think of a route i've ever done like that.

In reply to mike123:

What's the route Mike? Its hard to comment without knowing a bit more. Do you think you could get the pegs out?

In reply to Franco C:
>> If your point is that by climbing a route with a bolt in it, or wanting to climb it,

Yes, that's the one. I always check folk's profiles before replying om contentous issues.

I think the BMC does a brilliant job in replacing unsafe bolts on a LIKE FOR LIKE basis and I am very pleased that part of my subs are used in this way, if it paid for retro bolting trad routes or adding more bolts to run out slate routes (like Orifice Fish) I would be extremely upset.

If you are against the BMC spending our money in this way I canot see why you would want to climb the routes.

In reply to kevin stephens:

As for previously stated reasons- the line. Orifice fish, poetry pink, Darklands and Bassillica would all still be amazing routes without bolts- just harder.

I'm not going to let people stop me climbing great lines because they chose to bolt them- even if I don't clip the bolts like when I did Wicked Willy.

If people origionally bolted these routes sparingly, then there is little that can be done now, but the issue is many of these routes are getting retro-bolted - Wicked Willy now has a bolt up top, as does Ten Years After. Darklands and Orrifice fish also have more bolts than they used to. I don't know if these have any links to the BMC, but if I ever found out the BMC were funding this kind of retro bolting i'd be pretty miffed.

In reply to Franco C:
Seeing as I put the original bolts in Orifice Fish I am/would be very surprised and miffed at extra bolts, do you mean bolting of nearby routes? - if so it is impossible to reach them from the crux

of course the climb would be possible without bolts and not harder - just suicidal - certain death instead of scary

In reply to Franco C:


Hey Spraylord Manco,

Take it from me, better to get informed than to start running your lips, I say that from experience.

BMC Drilled Equipment Policy

The BMC's drilled equipment policy is essentially a statement of the organisation's position regarding the placement of drilled equipment. This policy was drafted after wide ranging and high profile consultation and unanimously agreed at the 1991 AGM. The policy could be modified or replaced at a future AGM. The policy is that:

"The BMC strongly supports the approach to climbing based on leader placed protection which makes use of natural rock features. The BMC believes that care and concern for the crag and mountain environments is of paramount importance.

The BMC accepts that in exceptional circumstances, agreed by the BMC, fixed equipment may be utilised for lower-off or abseil points to avoid environmental damage or maintain access.

It is the policy of the BMC that the use of bolts and other drilled equipment is only legitimate on certain agreed quarried crags and agreed sections of certain limestone crags. Lists of agreed locations will be maintained by the local area committees.

The BMC is firmly opposed to retrospective bolting (i.e. changing the character of a route by placing fixed equipment where none was previously used). Climbs should only be re-equipped on a basis of common consent established at open forums.

This policy does not attempt to dictate exactly where bolting should or should not take place. Such a decision inevitably rests with the individual and it is up to the individual to take account of the consensus view when making a judgement. It is vital that the consensus view is publicly agreed and accepted and this is where the open meetings come in, and it is within the guidelines agreed at such meetings that the consensus view is encapsulated.

BMC bolts bonanza ... unfortunate headline, reminds me of some of mine...

The Better Bolts Campaign

These bolts are for like-for-like replacement only, and all projects have been approved by the local BMC area.

The bolt funds now will have some of the equipment they need to replace some of the dangerous old bolts and lower offs blighting our crags.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=1975

In reply to Adam Long:

What is a "local" consensus? Everyone that's climbed the route? Everyone that climbs at the crag? Everyone that lives within 10 miles? Within the country?

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Here's a local forum.... about bolts..

"A Lakes BMC Area Meeting discussion about bolts."

http://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/play.php?i=158

No consensus though.

In reply to Adam Long: Hi again Adam! The article does not give an impression that such actions (i.e. replacing fixed gear in my area) are “condoned, endorsed, perhaps even funded by the BMC” because, if you look at the bit you quoted, you’ll see that I say I did it in my own time and at my own expense. This is clearly not under the auspices of the BMC. Kerpow!

You also say that you think it’s essential decisions on fixed gear be made by local consensus (but that) I “obviously don't”. The gear replacements I’ve undertaken, and the bolts I’ve (re)placed, were done with the unanimous approval of local climbers. Some of those decisions were under the auspices of the Chew Valley Cragsmen, others at local meetings convened after sessions at Running Hill Pits or wherever. Perhaps I should have been specific when I said I “didn’t tell anyone” and instead said “I didn’t ask for an opinion on UKC” (soz Mick, no offence!) What do you mean by local consensus anyways? See Callum Nicoll’s post above. Splat!

It’s not that I don’t value the input of what you refer to as good climbers, but hang on Adam! Does that mean you think anyone who climbs less than E7 or whatever is a bad climber? Now that’s what I call elitist! I value anyone’s opinion, but not if they think that they get more of a say because they’re a “good climber”. Bosh!

Bottom line: this is a difference of opinion. You and many others don’t agree with me and that’s cool. I still like you. Other people agree with me. That is also cool. And I like them too. (PS the OP title is misleading, but I’ve said that before. I’m not advocating bolting lower offs…thanks for that Ian…I owe you one!!!)

In reply to Enty: I wanna be friends! Didn’t see your friend request on Farcebook though. Are you raising my hopes only to dash them again? You cad.

In reply to The Third/Kevin Stephens: Thank you for your kind words. I used to have a “personal” UKC account, but when I posted stuff under it that various people disagreed with, I still got slagged off and berated for daring to express an opinion whilst working for the BMC. A well known (soon to be) ex-editor of a magazine was one high profile example of that. Some folks would rather get personal and use the “how dare you express an opinion whilst working for the BMC” routine instead of getting to grips with the issue. Read John Redhead’s article in CLIMB for a view that supports the BMC having an opinion and expressing it. Spicy!

In reply to Franco C: Franco. Get yer facts straight first, then we’ll see who’s extreme. Are you the pot and me the kettle, or is it the other way round? More importantly, get that list of LGPs off Dan and let’s get onto the moors. I will make you famous.

There is nothing more to be said here.

XXXX

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Believe it or not, such things do exist.

In reply to Topic:
You can bitch, whine, and type away detailing what your personal religion/ethical outlook on climbing is until you fingers are raw and bloody. It won't make a gram of difference.

In every major climbing area in the UK there are small groups of local climbers who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they know what suits the area best, and it's these locals who make decisions and go out and do the dirty work of equipping/re-equipping routes, ab stations and trad lower-offs, with not a mention on here and without any attempt at achieving a consensus from ukc's population - which appears to be split into a ratio of thirds, 1/3 uninformed moronic know-nothings, 1/3 experienced climbers and fundamentalist trad bigots, 1/3 informed and experienced open-minded climbers. (Lab/Con/Lib anyone?)

Don't mistake the hot air on this post for anything more than hot air.

p.s. Keyhole Cave lower-off - come off it you pussies top it out ffs! Rah rah.
p.p.s. Martin Kocsis 'BMC' - wtf? Take the hint and get a new username - it may help you and your paymasters look a bit more professional. You could be directly responsible for taking subs money away by your posturing.

In reply to NorthernRock: i think you are right and that wherever there is some tat there may aswell be some bolts!

In reply to Enty: why shouldnt climbing be acessible to to every one?

In reply to piersg:


Not too sure which of Enty's posts you're replying to, because I dont recall him making that suggestion. Climbing as an activity is accessible to everyone; we have a fantastic diversity of rocks of different styles and difficulty but there is something there that anyone and everyone can get on, regardless of age, weight, gender, race or hair colour. All it takes is a few basic skills. OK, this might not get you in and out of Keyhole cave, but so what? Just do something else that is more manageable and in keeping with your skill level. Not rocket science...

In reply to piersg: Trad climbing is accessible to those who are prepared to learn to assess situations, place gear, and apply appropriate techniques. This is not a difficult thing to learn. If a person is not prepared to learn this, why should trad climbing be open to them?

In reply to stewieatb:


Particularly given that there are other activities such as bouldering, sport-climbing, scrambling, etc available as alternative ways to move on rock.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

While I'm not particularly interested in commenting of the substance of this thread or in taking 'sides' on any of this thread's many disagreements, I do think that expressing personal opinions under an official business header is just plain wrong, and frankly I'm amazed that you're happy to do so and that your employers allow it to continue.

You may well have received accusations in the past while using a personal login but at least then you could point to that personal login as a clear attempt to communicate that the views you were stating were personal and not necessarily those of the the BMC as a whole. I fail to see how you could expect the situation to be any better by swapping to a BMC 'official' login to express personal views. The way it is now the distinction between BMC and personal opinion is blurred to the point of being unprofessional.

Having been in a similar position myself in the past I know from experience how it can be difficult to separate professional and personal opinion. Indeed there are sometimes personal opinions which simply can't be aired in public at all while maintaining professional credibility in a 'representative' body. This is one occasion where there is a very obvious way to help establish a separation bewtween professional and personal.

John

In reply to piersg:

It is.

I'm just off out to a bike race - I'm going to enter the category race which suits my ability - If I enter a higher category I probably won't finish the race.
Maybe if I do well in this race and next weeks race and the week after's race I might be ready to move up a category - but that might not happen until next season or even the season after - no rush.

Ring any bells?

E

In reply to john arran: In my field of work because many people writing in journals or magazines are govt. employees, civil servants or military, it becomes quite tedious to see in every article disclaimers "opinions expressed herein should not be taken as the official position of the US/UK/German/etc. government or of any of its ministries of other official bodies".

So at least I for one haven't ever presumed that Martin is expressing a BMC position - in fact I thought it rather obvious that he wasn't. Official position generally aren't signed by any one person in representative organisations and definitely not by someone who isn't the president/chair etc.

In reply to TobyA:

I agree that disclaimers would get very tedious, but using a BMC profile here is a fair equivalent of writing open letters on BMC headed paper. It's not just that the writer happens also to be a company employee, it's that he is apparently writing in that capacity.

I have no problem with any BMC employee offering personal opinion in public - they're very knowledgeable people with a lot to offer - but you shouldn't need prior knowledge of BMC policies in order to decide that what looks like an 'official' BMC post is 'obviously' a personal one.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Still waiting for a list of which 'classic E3s and E4s (will) become unpopular E7s' Martin?

I don't think UKC is a great place for forming a local consensus either. How broad a concensus is required depends on the value of the routes and crags as a whole. Scruffy quarries in Delph are important to fewer folk than Wimberry, and likely only true locals. I may live the wrong side of the watershed, but I've done a lot at, say, Running Hill Pits. Enough, I feel, to have a say in the future of the place. So I do think decisions should be made at a publicly advertised meeting though - if it happened, would I hear about it?

Whereas your attitude to promoting the Chew Valley Cragsmen seems a little strange in 2010:

'The idea is that this will be a word of mouth affair. No websites, no Farcebook group and no UKC. Don’t ask me why, it just seems better the old fashioned way!

The cynical might have all kinds of ideas about why!

I'm still struggling to reconcile our memories of that meeting. The actual outcome as minuted was this:

“If pegs were removed from non-sport routes, would that, in broad terms, improve those routes?” 30 people said yes, none said no and 9 abstained.

I presume you abstained then? And your mates? Why? Perhaps you felt the debate was too focussed on harder routes? 30 agreements though eh, it must have been rent-a-crowd down The Schoolroom the night before! Or in your head were they all punters swooning over the opinions of the elite few? The end result was a very broad principle on not removing pegs, and the agreement that such actions could only really be considered on a route-by-route basis. Does that really 'stink'?

The thing with this is Martin, I'm almost less bothered about the issue you raise than the way you argue it. You are not being dictated to by an elite. Writing in national magazines that you are is divisive. And defending that article on here under a BMC title is unprofessional.

In reply to Diggler:

Or should you be climbing at all?

In reply to Dribble223:

Exactly - and to some people, that isn't seen as a good or a desirable thing. After all, climbing simply isn't about being safe or going to places that are accessible.

In reply to Martin Kocsis, BMC:

Dear Martin,

I'm a bumbly climber, and as such feel reluctant to put forward my views about what should, or shouldn't be done on routes which I am unlikely to ever lead myself. However, seeing as you are asking for the views of bumblies, then I can assure you that I don't want routes to be made safer or more accessible. I like the fact that in climbing, it is up to me to assess the risk involved and to decide if I am willing to put myself in the postion of taking that risk or not.

I don't think it is possible to make any sweeping statements about what should be done in all situations and that each situation does need to be looked at on its own merits, but simply making things 'safer' shouldn't be the priority. By doing that, you remove the option of those who actually are seeking out a bit of danger in their lives. After all, if people don't want danger, its easy enough to stick to well protected routes.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Someone bolts a route. If nobody chops the bolts then a consensus has been achieved.

In reply to Adam Long:


Which might suggest to "the cynical" that local consensus actually is just a way of excluding the opinions of others.


And who is going to decide on that value exactly? Again what exactly counts as a local? I live - I guess - about 1000 miles away from the scruffy quarries around Delph but have climbed in a number of them a number of times. Does that get me a vote? I've just helped elect the MP for that constituency (actually it might be the one to the south - but you take the point), does that make me a local? Or is a 'true local' someone living in the Chew area but who hasn't actually climbed at any of the cliffs?

In reply to TobyA:


...that used to annoy me when I lived down South - I wasn't a 'local' to any rock, so did that mean that I wasn't allowed to have any opinion? I couldn't attend any BMC local area meets - they were just too far away. However, I was climbing most weekends, all over the UK and I belonged to the BMC.

In reply to TobyA:

No-one decides as such Toby, and we don't have a perfect system, but I think calling a meeting and seeing who cares enough to turn up is a good start. Such a meeting should be publicised as widely as possible, certainly online, and for folks like yourself some kind of proxy vote should be offered.

I think that's a better system then just having a debate on UKC, which excludes some, and includes others who may not have the neccessary grasp of the peculiarities of the route/ venue in question.

In reply to Adam Long: Agreed - it's very hard to come up with a happy medium. I am starting to feel though the "local consensus" is a more problematic an idea than it used to be (globalisation and all that!) and can become the "tyranny of the locals" in any direction - i.e. pro-bolts or anti-bolts in different situations.

Many climbers happily travel to crags they enjoy, so aren't local to them, and others spend a period of time in one place and become fond of the local area, but then move on elsewhere but don't loose that interest. Dumby, Calely, Running Hill Pits and -even more esoterically- Southstone Rock have all been my local crags at one time or another. I have an emotional attachment to all of them - yes, even the cobwebs, brambles, mud, and abandoned satanic ritual equipment of Southstone (but someone really should bolt that place...).

In reply to Adam Long:

Not turning up doesn't mean that people don't care. It may be impossible if you live a long way off, work full time and the meeting is mid week, or indeed for many other reasons.


I agree that it is better to try to gauge opinion by using more than one method - after all, shouldn't it be easy in this day and age?

In reply to Adam Long:

If this was the meeting at the Traveller's Rest, I recall a discussion along these lines and this certainly was a view expressed by some (in response to a question phrased in this way), who could I think be fairly described as harder climbers. I don't recall a specific example being raised but it isn't too hard to think of some. As I recall, the response to this was a bit mixed...

Anyway, by this point the discussion had strayed away from belays (rather than just lower-offs) onto fixed gear more generally.

I'm not generally in favour of bolting lower-offs, I dislike the implication of convenience and converting crags into leisure resources. However, I can imagine situations where it would be good idea to discourage people from topping out in environmentally sensitive situations (more likely in sport venues, admittedly, and even here it ought to be possible to provide a non-bolted anchor).

I can see a case for placing a discreet bolt on some limestone belays where ancient pegs and raddled nut placements mean that they are now significantly less safe than when they were first done. I wouldn't want to encourage a trad climbing lite approach where you just lowered off after doing the best bits, however.

In reply to TobyA:

Me too - in some ways I feel I've got closer attachments to crags in Cheshire, Stafforshire, Shropshire, and the Lleyn than I have in around Sheffield. I guess its where you spend formative times isn't it - and there's always a feeling that Stanage, say, belongs to climbers nationally in the same way that Grinshill belongs to the locals.

I understand your concern over the 'tyranny of the locals', hence why I'm a little unimpressed with Martin rubbishing the concensus of a widely publicised meeting whilst endorsing the decisions of his own 'word-of-mouth only' collective.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Yes, I remember a mixed response too, and the diffculty in settling on a statement on pegs for which we could get a consensus. But for Martin to suggest the 'elite' would force classic E3s will become E7s is a huge exaggeration. I remember some non-classic E5's that were discussed that might (and mostly in Pembroke I think).

Have you read Martin's article Dave? Its here:

http://www.climber.co.uk/categories/articleitem.asp?item=586

I'm pretty concerned by his analysis of that meeting that the elite were dictating to the rest. As I remember harder routes (E5+) did become the focus of the discussion, but only because that's where the vast majority of The Peak's 'crucial-but-decaying' peg protection resides. And some very good climbers did turn up to add their opinion - a good thing I thought.

As I remember, the outcome was we could only consider replacing pegs with bolts on a strict case-by-case basis. If Martin really believes he is going to lose a classic E3 to E7 territory then perhaps flagging up the route in question might be a good start.



Completely agree with that analysis. I'd add that alternatives should be considered before bolting though - can you belay elsewhere, or perhaps run the pitches together?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I don't climb in the Peak very often, but I think what Dave said is very sensible and should be the general approach.

Regarding the Keyhole Cave, would the rock in that actually take bolts? I seem to remember it's very soft. Not that I'm suggesting it should be bolted; it's only halfway up the route, so why not leave gear in the top of the cracks and abseil for it later?

In reply to Adam Long:

Well, my recollection is that the 'elite' opinion expressed was that we should aspire to climb as clean as possible and that the logical conclusion of this was that if that meant routes got harder as all the fixed gear was removed / rusted away, then so be it. Maybe the rest of us were a little intimidated by that, or maybe we were convinced, or maybe we'd just talked it out and clearly weren't all going to agree, but everyone kind of shuffled around a bit and no-one really took it on. And maybe it shows the problem with always taking things to their logical conclusion.

However, since you've pressed me for a view on Martin's piece, it all sounds very sensible and pragmatic but seems to me it only applies in exceptional cases. I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of 'lower-offs' on trad routes, since lowering off isn't a routine part of trad climbing, especially halfway up the crag.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the particular situation in the Keyhole Cave. I like jamming but I'm saving Millstone for when I'm too old to manage Hen Cloud and Ramshaw (any time now then!). Is there no belay apart than the fixed gear Martin is complaining about? If there is a need for a fixed belay, then I agree that it should be made safe, but not merely to provide a convenient lower-off so you don't need to leave any gear.

If adequate natural belays are available for the routes, then one solution to the increasing risk Martin sees is to take the gear out, presumably.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Never!


This is the nub of the issue. It would be solely to provide a convenient lower-off. There are better belays off to the left for those wishing to continue, or its not unusual to continue as a single pitch. The 'problem' I guess that Martin has come across is that you can reach the cave at HVS 5a, but not continue without a short section of E2 5c. Its also common for folk on Coventry Street (E4) to balk at the second pitch (E5). In situ lower-offs have come and go over the years as a result. They've tended to rely on in-situ nuts as much as pegs.

In reply to NorthernRock:

I think this quote from Martin's article sums it up to me:

"The big deal, it seemed to Laurie as he lowered from Millstone’s Keyhole Cave, was the way the refusal to use a sensible approach to fixed gear was unnecessarily putting his life in danger."

NO!!! No one made him go up there! No one else told him not to lead the top pitch! What on earth happened to personal responsibility? If you want safe, non-commiting routes, then choose safe, non-commiting routes.

In reply to tlm:

This Laurie seems to be a complete turkey who would be better encouraged to take up knitting, then. As you rightly say, by that argument we should be bolting Archangel.

Which we will be, soon enough. There's only one end for this kind of nonsense.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

pmsl - I had a reply to Tim's post regarding Laurie's escapade at Millstone but deleted it. Then clicked back and read that!!

E

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yeah right! That is a ridiculous point, Ulysses would get bolted first!

In reply to NorthernRock: Martin's article raises an interesting point - have the Americans got it right or wrong? Having done a roadtrip through J-tree, Redrocks & Yosemite I have to say that bolted belays are definitely worth having. No-one minds pushing themselves on a climb, but who enjoys a 'non-belay'? There are quality routes on my patch that I won't do due to a lack of a belay at the top. As for the 'damaging rock argument', go and picket a quarry, 'cos that's far more damaging than bolted belays & lower-offs where necessary.

In reply to Toerag:

And the equivalent to JTree, Redrocks and Yosemite in this country is... ?

In reply to GrahamD: Why does there have to be an equivalent to make the point valid. If bolted belays can be shown to work very successfully in trad area in one place without compromising the actual climbing then it shows (perhaps) they could work in others.

More examples of bad insitu gear everyone uses from up my way would be:

The terrible tat mank (not visually dissimilar to the castell helen mess) that is the Titans Wall abseils on Carn Dearg, Ben Nevis (used by all the righthand routes on that buttress).

The wobbly sapling and tat abseil from Freak Out etc on Aonach Dubh.

etc, etc

These points get used for descent by many people (pretty much everyone who climbs the routes I suspect). Not only would a bolted station be "safer" but it would also be massively less ugly and easier to assess and keep in good order.

In reply to hexcentric:

It's quite possible to top out and walk round from either point. Again this is a convenience argument not a safety argument.

In reply to Toerag:

I'd say a pitch finishes not at the top of the hard climbing but at the belay. The belay is not a seperate thing; it's part of the route.

Some of the thin face routes on the Ben have poor belays. If I want to do these routes I'll wait until I'm good enough to climb them, I won't call for them to be bolted.

In reply to Toerag:

I think the thing to consider is that techniques and ethics evolve to get the best out of a certain area. So Spanish limestone, Czech sandstone, Yosemite Granite and British Gritstone all have very different ethics that make the most out of what the rock offers.

The americans have developed their hybrid ethic because routes are often long, and whilst often predominantly cracks, may cross blank areas of rock. There are very few routes on El Cap that don't rely on a bolt ladder at some point. The size of the routes and frequent need for abseil escape has also led to a lot of belays left in-situ. These factors are not usually present on British crags.

Also, if you read your US history you find that, almost without exception, as time goes on more bolts get added to routes, and they get easier and safer. First ascensionists like Bridwell complain that some of their routes never got a repeat in their original form. This is why folk talk about the 'thin end of the wedge'. Once you accept a 'need' for a few bolts, you get more and more. In Squamish a few years back I was disappointed to find that not only where belays and blank sections bolted, but also every section where gear was not a straightforward cam placement. It doesn't improve the routes at all.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
To my mind, differant standards do apply to belays, than to protection on the rest of the route

When you are leading, you make the judgement on the gear and weigh up the consequences of failure for yourself, it's primarily your head on the line, your call. Once you take a belay, you are taking someone else's life it your hands.

Secondly, it is acceptable, often essential, to weight a belay, wheras gear on-route is there as a safety backup. As such higher standards apply

Not sure whether this justifies bolts on Grit, but my personal view is that if somewhere traditionally has had in-situ gear, I'd rather it was neat, discrete and trustworthy, than a messy load of tat.

Oh, and I fear for the day when the BMC can only employ people with no opinions about climbing, or are too afraid to voice them

In reply to Chris the Tall: A few years ago I led Dives/ Better Things in the Pass and managed to get so much gear into the top pitch that I arrived at the belay with only one quickdraw left from my not inconsiderable rack.
If there had been a bolt in place I could have quickly arranged a very safe belay.
As it was I spent a long time trying to sort out a belay involving jammed knots and pebbles.
I know what would have been the most convenient way to belay but I also know that the route sticks in my mind because of the faff involved in sorting out the mess that I had created. Sometimes that's part of trad climbing - just like the walk off from Idwal and the Milestone not to mention the horror show that is Rib and Slab in the Pass - all these are low grade routes often led by inexperienced climbers - why would anybody want to miss out on these experiences?

pmc

In reply to baron:

That's not really the crux of the problem. That's bad planning on your behalf. As people have mentioned, that would be bringing the climb down to your level, rather than you being up to the challenge.
If the belay anchors could have been rigged with gear, and you don't need to bail from it, leaving tat or gear, then there is no argument for bolting the stance.

We all probably have stories like that, but as you did, ingenuity was used to rig the belay, hopefully safe, sense of adventure intact and lesson learned!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree with the above. To me though it would just mean a harder decision whether to attempt the route or not - most likely not! (unless it was easy)

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Has anyone suggested that? No. Perhaps you should read John Arran's post again.

In reply to baron: Sorry reread your post, and you are not advocating the bolts in this instance, sorry!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree that where the only belay currently relies on rusting ironmongery and unsightly tangles of old tat there shouldn't be a Luddite over-reaction against placing a durable and discrete bolt belay. After all, the original belays were never intended to last for ever or to be heavily used.

On the other hand, there are situations where the actual belay is poor (and always has been) but where the stance is good and so, on balance, the risk is acceptable given all-round competence. I wouldn't want to see a sensible approach to replacing old peg belays expanded into a general licence to bolt all belays where some skill and experience are required.

However, all this is quite beside the point about lower-offs. I just don't see any justification for installing lower-offs merely for convenience and to encourage the climbing of individual pitches rather than the whole route. Of course, you are perfectly free to do this by leaving some gear, but then you accept the inconvenience of retrieving it.

For all I know, there might be a good case for seeing the Keyhole Cave as an exceptional case; as I've said, I've not been up there. But as a generally acceptable practice, I'd be against it.

In reply to Anyone

Am I right in thinking that within the last few years someone took a ground fall off London Wall, due to the first rusty old peg snapping.

If this is the case then;

Has it been replaced?
If no, have the remnants been dug out, in the hope of using it as a nut placement?
Is the placement usable now, and if not, is there an alternative placement?
If there is no gear available until the next one, has the climb been repeated and re-graded, does it need re-grading?
Has this placed the climb out of the reaches of a few more people?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes (with a lot of extra faff) but who does? Out of all the people who climb those routes what sort of percentage actually do? The reality of the situation is that in both those examples people ARE going to descend after the good climbing is over rather than bashing on through rubbish to get off, so the choice is between a bolted station or fixed trad gear + tat (as this will inevtiably re-establish even if removed).

The "people don't need to use the stations" line is nearly (but not quite) as facile as the "you don't have to clip the bolts" line people trot out on here too. Given the option, if stations do have to exist then I'd rather see good, reliable, neat stations than poorly set up sh***y ones. I guess you could (how woudl you enforce this???) say "no stations allowed" and just make great routes much less popular but what would that achieve anyway.

In reply to NorthernRock:

London Wall is laceable - providing you can hang on! The pegs were not really needed.

An aside: a mate of mine was in Millstone the day of that accident. The team stick-clipped the tat on the peg and were top-roping the lower crack, without placing any other gear. He was going to wander over and suggest that wasn't a brilliant idea but figured folks on an E5 would know what they were doing!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Yep, sounds pretty stupid!

In this instance, a newer peg or a bolt would have saved the accident..... But they were using sport techniques on a trad crag, and expecting the same levels of safety.
Why didn't they set up a rope on the whole route, if that was the chosen ethics for them, as the stakes on top are easy to access!

This is the education issue again, not a problem with gear.

Sounds pretty simple that this cut and dried, the gear is old, but the route can still be climbed without any new fixed gear, but maybe just a little stiffer! Tough.

And a lesson learned, don't dog trad routes, don't make trad routes friggable like sport routes!

I bet a clip stick was met with a few raised eyebrows anyway!!!!

In reply to NorthernRock:
>

Not having any manky old fixed gear in there would also have stopped the accident!

I am expecting a similar thing to happen with that old peg/tat on Embankment 3 some day.


Chris

In reply to hexcentric:

I know where you are coming from. My attitude tends to be that surely (unless faced with no other choice) no sane person is going to ab off gear which they think is likely to fail?!

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Really?? That'd take a bit of stick-clipping.

jcm

In reply to Chris Craggs:

That's an argument for chopping it now then, and not replacing! Seem to remember a peg pretty high up anyway, clipping it with caution 20 years ago.

Route by route decisions made!!!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Not really, I have seen sport 'climbers' with 10/12m fishing poles clipping the third bolt on some routes.

Chris

In reply to hexcentric:


I think tidying up de facto abseil stations (especially where they serve a number of routes) is a different issue from lower-offs. I don't have a problem with a chain (preferably without bolts), especially where this protects vulnerable trees or minimises environmental impact. There is an assumption that this is (more or less) at the top of the crag, though.

I think it is reasonable to have discussions about fixed gear on a regular basis. One of the more interesting posts on the CH thing was that the issue (of the ab station) had been debated ten years ago, so we didn't need to discuss it (ever) again. Can you see the problem there?
This was discussed way more recently than ten years ago (My guess is within the last two years). It is a regular topic at wales/cymru meetings, and everytime the argument is brought up the locals have supported its exsistence, and strongly and passionately resisted the option of bolting the belay. Gogarth is a bolt free zone (well in the most part, If you think the bolt of Pagan is actually worth clipping to, then you probably haven't actually clipped it!)

Sea cliff climbijng by its very nature is adventurous, and this belay is one of the easiest to back up with you own gear, and to be honest is one of the safer of the Gogarth belays. Try rapping into yellow wall or blacksmith zawn.

Whilst I don't know enough about the peak debate, Castell Helen and gogarth are areas that I climb regularly at, and feel that the argument you offer that not bolting is elitist, is somewhat invalid. There is nothing elitist about being able to place two wires and equalise them with either you abseil rope or slings to the plethora of insitu iron mongery, is actually a key skill of sea cliff climbing, and if you don't have those skills I would suggest that going away and getting them is a vital part of any trad climber tool kit.

We aren't talking grades just 'experience', wall bred climber may be strong, but with the inherent risk of trad climbing comes responsibility. YOU take responsibility for your own actions, you make YOUR choices and YOU live with the results. If that is beyond an individual to make then maybe, just maybe you should go to Holyhead Mountain instead?

In reply to Franco C:
Hi Franco, have you climbed poetry without the bolts? Would be a tad harder than E5, especially making the move onto the rainbow with only a runner in the break below the first bolt! What about all the other routes on rainbow slab, shall we have the bolts out of them?

Don't think it is a great argument, for anti bolting though.

In reply to Franco C: havent read entire thread so sorry for any repetition. why are you against any BMC money for bolts? we have some outstanding sport in the UK and this needs the occasional bit of tlc. surely a very worthy way to invest a bit of BMC money? come to North Wales and i'll show you some (BMC funded) sport that you couldnt not like (love)...

I am a sport climber. I have no wish to get hurt or die, so the only routes I would contemplate climbing trad would be the stairs up to the bathroom, or similar. Trad seems like surfing when you can't swim. That said, there must be billions of miles of rock that can be climbed, which will not accept any trad gear. Bolt those routes, and trad types will NEVER meet me.

I bought a few nuts when I started climbing. They haven't got a scratch on them in 10 yrs

In reply to Adam Long:

Having just finished a three month jaunt to the USA I would agree that bolts on trad routes are a bad idea and that all the routes I climbed with occasional bolts climbed like badly bolted sports climbs.

In reply to Uthikoloshe:

why do trad climbers sport climb sometimes, and sport climbers never trad climb?

In reply to NorthernRock:

As with all sweeping generalisations - this one is rubbish.

In reply to Uthikoloshe:
Says it all really

The USA has a slightly different idea of what 'trad' is, and bolts can fit in fine with that. Just look at the threads on Supertopo when Macleod did the first E11. They couldn't work out what all the fuss was about, since it was a sport route, and not trad at all -- he'd prepractised on a top rope and the gear was good so you'd never hit the ground.

Bolts on trad Welsh slate I've never quite understood. Just one of those things, a cool little exception to the rule and a product of its time.

In reply to NorthernRock:
The way I see it bouldering and soloing are the purest forms of climbing. Just you (plus a £60 pair of stickies and maybe a bouldering mat) and the rock. One on one. However not everyone wants to test themselves to such a degree so trad climbers will use ropes and gear to minimise the risk to themselves while still maintaining that sense of adventure. While others only really want the physical thrill and so you have sport climbing. There is room for all views but where lines are drawn is sometimes a bit fuzzy and cause for debate. Originally it seems to me that bolting developed on steep limestone cliffs where natural protection was dubious or none existent and there wasn't already a tradition of traditional climbing. I would not dispute that some fantasically hard routes have been put up that may not have been done without bolts. And even in trad climbing there is a tradition of using fixed gear where nothing else is availible, belaying at the top of St Govan's would be a bit hairy without the fixed belay stakes. In all things it is striking that right balance between necessity and adventure. I would hate to see the UK go the way of the continent where bolts sit next to perfectly protectable cracks and belay hangers mark the end of every pitch. In the end it is the climber who makes the call to climb and accepts the risks involved. It is not the responsibility of others to make that world safe for them.
I do go sport climbing, sometimes it is more convenient and less effort, and it is enjoyable. But if I am honest I find most mid to low grade sports climbs a bit flat and insipid compared to similar trad routes. Like a big mac compared to a gourmet meal. Nowt wrong in that each has its place but I don't see how someone can go trad climbing and then complain that someone else hasn't made it safe for them.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

That's a pretty good feeling I think of most trad climbers, just how far each way is the point of the discussion.

I was just having fun, while waiting for Sunday tea to cook, and see if any sports climbers snapped!!!

In reply to NorthernRock: I can see some valid reasons for placing abseiling stations at the tops of some routes but protecting incompetent climbers from themselves is not one of them. The only justifications I can see are a) if access on top of the crag is prohibited but the cliff itself is not b) to protect flora and fauna (Rowland Edwards suggested this some years ago and got a bit of a pasting) c) if the top few metres are unclimbable ( I'm not sure who and how this would be decided however).

Al

In reply to tradlad:

Look up the access agreement for Jack Scout Crag. Bolts were placed here to protect rare trees that grow at the top of the crag, at the request of the NT and Natural England. This is a justification for bolting IMHO, and seems to have been accepted by local climbers.

Protecting idiots is not a justification. If you can't climb trad safely, don't climb trad.

'Getting more routes done in a day' is not a justification for a loweroff or bolted abseil station. If you want to climb more routes, climb faster, walk down faster and be more efficient.

Avoiding a shitty topout is not a justification. Some rock is shit, some crags finish in daft places. Deal with it, or climb elsewhere.

As for the Keyhole Cave, if you don't want to lower (abseil) off the shit gear, then either finish the route, be prepared to lose some kit, or don't climb the route.

suggestion..

everthing could be bolted... even established trad lines... if people want to climb them as trad then they just ignore the bolts.

In reply to piersg:
I'll give you 0/10

In reply to Cornish Cream: Seems generous TBH.

In reply to NorthernRock: can't face reading 210 replies...

in situ tat and bolts are seperate issues. If you're worried about tat replace it, make your self feel good and don't tell anyone. If you want to feel real good get a steel cable with plastic round it like is done on the inn pinn.

let pegs rot or if keen rip them out in the hope of making a neat little placement. in doubt why not go for some creative destruction...

for the tops of truly minging quarries (and I don't mean millstone) let locals place bolts before the veg cornice.

I know I'm sounding harsh but the safety of kids is there own and maybe there parents responsibility.

In reply to alasdair19:

No. Please don't. It is hard to inspect rust on the cable through the plastic, which is the reason Wild Country changed the design on the technical friends. Last year a young Norwegian couple got killed when rapping from a steel cable that had rust through. The cable looked fine outside the plastic sheet.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

SO what, you both agree to go on the route and you are both committed to the route and to the others' decision making. There are plenty of routes with good enough belays after all. I can see you've not done lots of winter climbing from that comment anyway as there are occasions even on easier routes where a leader fall could strip the belay.

In reply to MattG: Can't be arsed to read through everything abpve....basically, people need to get experience and then make informed choices. If a route seems dodgy in your eyes as the belays are hard to arrange then go to the next route or next buttress or a different crag. In our piddly little island we have the luxury of lots of crags with differing characteristics - we don't need to try to bring everything down to some sterile lowest common denominator.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

That is exactly my recollection. I also remember the lack of opposition and a clear general consensus and show of hands broadly in favour (with a few abstentions) of reducing fixed gear if appropriate. I certainly when away feeling there was a general measure of support for anyone who choose to remove rotten gear as a pre-emptive safety measure.


I agree. In cases like the Strand or Keyhole Cave or even NW Arete on Gimmer etc. I think the better solution is to remove the lower-offs or insitu tat as they can in no way be deemed essential.

Even at places like Dinas Cromlech I'm beginning to come round to the view that lowering off is both unnecessary and not as satisfying as finishing up a second pitch.

Also in terms of safety, having less lower-offs and abseil stations would actually be far safer. At least one young climber would probably still be alive is it wasn't routine to abseil off the Cromlech.


To be honest, following that meeting I'm surprised someone hasn't already removed it along with a couple of other pegs known to be poor.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: After all, why don't people carry trainers, or if really hard leading then get the second to carry them for you