UKC

We (UK) climbers accept a dodgy pile of string and blobs of wobbly nuts or twigs and grass over a bolt anchor for abseiling most trad routes. Given that bolt anchors would take absolutely nothing away from the climbing experience what are we so against safe anchor points? I'm not for one minute suggesting we do bolt crag tops, just interested to hear why this is such an anathema to British climbers.

This question crossed my mind some years ago when abbing off a dirty big pile of stakes above Kilt Rock. 

Here....We.....Go.......

It's been a while.

Tradition.... something.... something.... that's not the way we do it here.... something.... something....  gritstones more sacred than Uluru..... something something

Stakes - luxury! We abbed off several big grass tussocks tied together - seriously,

Chris

Would  a bolt have changed your enjoyment of the day?

A bit like voting Tory.

I hear golf's nice.

To preserve a sense of self sufficiency (even if that is only in evaluating the safety of stakes or tat) rather than being "spoonfed" the sanitised certainty of bolts anchors. Many feel that this adds to the overall experience even if it does not change the actual climbing.

I get the sense of self sufficiency on big mountain crags, but I'm not convinced it's there on shorter single pitch crags. I think I want a quick anchor and to get back down to my flask of coffee.

I think not adding extra clutter and "litter" to the outdoors is a better arguement against it.

Edit: added an extra thought

I've never failed to find an anchor when abbing into a route, so why would I want a bolt anchor?

Is it so its easier to set up, I don't really get why you would want a bolt anchor in the first place.

In many places, pembroke for instance I'ld much rather a stake or two than a bolt anchor in the rubbley top out area, same for gogarth. Stakes also give you more options as to exactly where to abseil in, especially if the tide is high.

Would you want bolt anchors on top of each route?

seems a very strange idea to me.

Strange isn’t it? Piles of degrading old tat and pegs = fine; discrete, actually safe bolts = no. Baffling. 

Well sorting the approach out was part of the challenge, so possibly,

Chris

It makes no sense as a blanket rule, as sometimes bolts would be much better than the alternative. But bolts at loads of belays would be the numptification of UK trad climbing - finding the end of the route and a belay is part of the route. And while I do sometimes want to get back to my bag quicker, I rarely want someone abseiling onto my head.

I think it entirely depends on the context. Placing bolts where there is natural protection is unnecessary. Replacing degrading fixed gear with them is very different, and in no way increasing the “numptification”. It’s just as easy to clip a bit of tat/peg as it is a bolt, except the later has less visual impact, last longer, and are generally safer. Equally, fixed gear is already in-place for a lot of abseils - replacing tat with bolts is, IMO, nearer and tidier. People will already abseil on your head (see Grim Wall) using this stuff. Finding belays isn’t exactly a challenge when they are comprised of rotting tat - and I agree that finding them is part of the art of route finding!

What I’d like to see become the norm is replacing current in-situ kit with a nice discrete single bolt where a bolt can be placed sensibly and safely. What I do no want is the replacement of stakes at sea cliffs with bolts, nor the addition of bolts where no fixed gear currently exists.

Edit as I hit send before finishing - I fail to see how this would remove from the quality of routes or extensively change them from their current state. No new fixed kit, just replacing rubbish that already exists with a more suitable object.

 "several big grass tussocks tied together"

Oh my word - several - you were so lucky! If we were lucky, we'd find a few blades of grass, have to lick 'em and stick 'em together, then abb off, hoping to reach the ground before the spit dried.

Was this in Yorkshire?

Tat may well be unsightly (to those who are close enough to actually see it - climbers in 99% of situations I’d wager), but ultimately it is only ever temporary. If it’s all removed, it’s as if man was never there. You cannot ever say the same about a bolt, it, or it’s remains, will be there forevermore. 

Except that it's well known tat multiplies. You get some Mummy tat from the first ascentionist, then a few years later someone adds some Daddy tat just to be careful, and quickly you get a big happy family of tat. See: Old Man of Stoer for example. The tat is visible from hundreds of metre away on the mainland.

Other than the entirity of the spirit of adventure? Bolted belays imply, somewhat by definition, that someone has been there before you and modified the environment to allow you to safely partake in your chosen hobby.

I can't speak for everyone, but the magic of climbing for me is that I can use it to get myself to places and have experiences that non-climbers can't. Part of that premise is being entirely self-sufficient and having the skills to make upward progress whatever the terrain or situation throws at you, and part of the adventure is accepting and dealing with the problems when things turn suboptimal. Part of that is ruined by having some safe, sanitised bolts to clip to halfway up a crag.

There are plenty of places in the UK with generally very good opportunities for belay-building - you don't need to go modifying the crags that don't because they don't fall within your own comfort zone. You're welcome to climb elsewhere.

I normally like to abseil off a deer antler 

More often a single or double bolt anchor/rap anchor is actually less clutter & litter than the semi or fully permanent anchors. Especially if you paint the bolt properly, really hard to see from more than a few meters away.

But not by metres and metres of multicoloured nylon? Or old rusty pegs joined by old static rope and tape? 

I guess you never climb anywhere with lower offs Insitu?

I think it depends where you start climbing. Start outside, scrambling or low grade routes... you become quite content with spike to throw a sling over or finding a big wire placement. If you start indoors you see bolts first and consider anything else inferior. 

But it’s still only temporary, and the fact it multiplies is down to whoever adds a fresh bit. If you add a new one, you should remove the old one.. and preferably use a sympathetic colour. Not bright yellow. 

Tiddley winks whilst wasting safety goggles  

Time we moved the intensity of debate up a notch. 

Everybody knows people only want bolted anchors so they can top-rope more easily.

Yes, and before we know it the routes that can easily top roped will be trashed by people trying them who can't even be bothered to clean their shoes. 

What I don't understand is why trad climbers are so keen on climbing all this unsafe, sometimes loose, frequently steep rock, risking bone-breaking falls onto gear that could fail, when there is normally a nice big path to exactly the same place... I'm not for one minute suggesting we should all just pack climbing in, but I'm just interested to hear why staying at home with a nice cup of tea is such anathema to British climbers.

That's one hell of a straw man you built there.  Not one I recognise, though.

Yeah, this baffles me. It's incredibly shit looking, and two titanium glue ins would be totally invisible and way safer. The 'protect the rock' excuse is kinda pathetic when we're instead opting for what amounts to rock litter instead. 

Someone needs to just go up there and f*cking drill it, and chuck the tat. 

Do I detect a hint of colonial arrogance in that last sentence?

No, people need to regularly remove old tat and tidy the anchor up.

People don't though, do they? They just add to it, because it's a little bit more pro so why bother removing when it just reduces your safety slightly. 

Even if they were constantly cleared up, and replaced with new gear, they'd still be more unsightly than a couple bolts that would be invisible. 

Very common on sea stacks here in the UK, from what I've seen. 

The climbing ethics in that case are kinda selfish. Like, my want to climb this big arse rock and rap from it safely, according to some bullshit ethics I just made up, is more important than others wants to look at some natural scenery free of unsightly litter. 

I mean look at this: https://i.imgur.com/9Y3T259.png

How is that mish mash of slings and crap preferable to a couple bolts that'd be invisible from that same view? 

I agree there needs to be a bit of a change in climbers' habits.

Yes, but many of us would happily live with that to preserve the sense of self sufficiency which disappears with a sanitised bolt belay (and this self sufficiency/responsibility would increase with a change of culture about maintaining and tidying anchors).

Has anyone ever heard of a non climbing member of the public expressing dismay at the tat on the Old Man of Stoer?

“sea pillars”

I nearly spat my coffee!

I agree to some extent to some bolting of anchors on popular routes, there already is on some (Creag dubh for example), and where I’ve found them it’s always been a pleasure rather than a hindrance. The majority of routes I’ve done around the UK simply haven’t needed them though. If it’s just for convenience, why bother. Everyone knows the psychology of clipping a peg is a lot different to clipping a bolt. I wouldn’t want that changed personally, but I can see both sides of the argument.

I agree also that the tat on the sea pillars (love it!) is unsightly, however, this is easily rectified by cleaning them up now and again.

I get that when you are somewhere at least slightly wild but it's a pretty ridiculous argument in most parts of the Peak.  I'm not a big fan of bolted belays at the top (I can't think of many places that need one) but I can think of several belays on multipitch routes that could really do with sorting out with a discreet bolt.

There's also a good argument for not topping out at all on SSSIs.  A bolt lower-off has a much lower environmental impact than people trampling all over the top and making (usually multiple) descent paths.

There are a good few tidy and discreet “tat” abseil stations on popular crags in the Lakes and N Wales so that culture is partially there.

You’re right that this good practice should be more widespread.

Edited ha. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Just seems like an eye sore to me. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought one of the main arguments for not bolting in general is the 'leave no trace' (I think that's an americanism, but as far as I understand it similar sentiment has existed in the UK for a long time) aspect of it. As in you can't generally tell a climber has even been there. I get that, and I can sympathise with that argument. Just seems these tatty looking semi perm anchors go against that ethic. 

This entirely. A good bolt chop, if it ever needs removing, can be done in a manner that makes the bolt almost invisible.

So does chalk.

And the description in the guide your using doesn’t imply that someone has been there before?

But then you open a can of worms. I agree, chalk can be unsightly and stain rock (particularly bad on sandstone), which is why some countries disallow it via their ethics/laws. But you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you? 

If you're arguing that chalk is enough to break the idea of leave no trace, and therefore leaving a trace is okay, then you surely therefore support whatever. Even bolting routes entirely.

I think there's a balance to be had. 

I don't even think it should be that complicated. Give the climb a few years to establish itself, and see how climbers use it. If it becomes a tatty anchor, and a bolted anchor would improve the aesthetics, then chuck it in. 

There are two entirely different arguments in bolting debates. The actual climbing ethics (self sufficiency) one and the environmental one. Discussion is often muddled by people not recognising that there are two separate issues. The two are often in conflict and peoples' conclusions usually depend on how much weight they give to each.

I think Rgolds American perspective on this when it came up a few years ago was an excellent summary of why it's a shit idea 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rocktalk/diabaig_bolted_ab_points-694130?...

The less frivolous answer - because generally they aren't needed. The number of times you get to the top of a trad route and can't find a belay are minimal. Most of the current fixed anchors are either for abseiling into a venue, or to save climbers walking down - maybe a different topic to discuss,

Chris

we draw the line....usually in chalk

In any case, its very rare that bolts are a replacement for well placed stakes.  Swanage is a prime example: there isn't very much solid rock at the point you need to get attached to an abseil anchor, which is 10 metres up the grass from the loose cliff top.

If it's possible to walk down then there absolutely no need for bolts. 

There are venues where climbing is only acceptable to the landowners and environment bodies because bolted abseil stations reduce or eliminate erosion damage.

You probably know this but bolts and stakes in common with other fixed anchors do not last forever.

Replacement is often carried by enthusiastic locals but this can not be relied upon.

A modicum of skill and experience is also necessary for installing reliable anchors.

What is not generally appreciated is because we are dealing with a natural product, rock, there is an element of luck and judgement on the quality of the placement.

I cringe "when put a (single) bolt in " is lauded as the answer to all problems climbing.

The best answer at the present time is to let local bolt funds which are operated by trained and savvy climbers do the work with the approval of the local BMC area.

Who has contributed recently?

Because the essence of trad climbing is adventure, skill (not simply climbing skill), ingenuity and self sufficiency. It has a long history and this history has proven, over many years, that bolts are unnecessary on natural rock formations 99.9% of the time.  I know it's an old cliche but the phrase "slippery slope" applies in this case.

Al

I merely make the observation regarding chalk. Though is kind of regrettable how much of the stuff people use, even on easy climbing. I have sweaty hands and I'm not very good but I never feel I need that much.

Not to mention the permanently discoloured rock from the insane over-brushing of holds.  The LH end of Bowden? Bridestones? Hardly minimal impact.

In short, experience does suggest that the aesthetic argument is often deployed for convenience rather than consistency. And in most cases the benefit of bolt anchors is principally one of convenience.

I think for some abbing off a route is some how part of the day, the fact that because of their lower levels of experience they are slow to set up and it would be many times quicker to walk around is irrelevent. 

Places like grim wall are a classic unnecessary abseil location. 

From what I can tell most of the advocates (myself included here) aren't arguing for the installation of bolts where natural pro exists, and as you rightly say, aren't needed. They're arguing we should replace the degrading piles of shit that litter crags around the place with bolts which are safer and more discreet, which detract little fro your day out or climbing experience. Some indeed are for abseiling down - but "walking" off the top of some places, for example the nose on Dinas Mot, is somewhat a PITA and rather dangerous, versus abseiling down the gully (currently of a load of shitty old rope).

Yes, but in some cases during that long history a succession of pegs have been put in that are now in a poor condition, which means that some routes that are now more dangerous than when they were first done.  John Peel in Dovedale comes to mind unless someone has done something radical to the belay recently. 

And in one famous current case, routes that had perfectly adequate tree belays now need bolts as a result of those trees now longer being available.  

I'm not arguing for bolts as a general case, but there are exceptions where they would be entirely sensible.

Eh? The "degrading piles of shit" ARE on natural pro (what did you think they were attached to?).

I don't disagree but that's a separate debate.

Al

A permeant bit of tat around a spike is not “natural pro”. A peg is not “natural pro”. Let’s replace them with more discreet non-natural pro - like a bolt.

You seem confused. Are you in fact in favour of bolts for all abseil anchors? You said you weren't arguing for bolts where there is natural pro, but then you seem to deny the existence of any natural pro.

Let us not kid ourselves, this has nothing to do with environmental impact or visual impact.

It is like nearly all of climbing ethics, arbitary. Climbing is an entirly 'pointless activity' and trad climbing the most fundimentally pointless of all, and to me there in lies its beauty!

To climb trad is to make an active choice to ignore logic and go with an asthetic and in the UK that includes not having bolt ab points or belay stances. It doesn't need to make since it is just what is. It has evolved in the past and it may again in the future but right now those are the 'rules'.

I hope bolt belays and abs are not the future direction it takes because I enjoy the quirks that make UK trad climbing what it is. I rejoice in the absurdity!

As an after thought maybe its too hot for lunch time drinking.

The problem, whenever this topic is discussed / debated, is the lines get blurred... I believe the OP was highlighting the potential installation of bolted abseil stations (forgive me if I'm wrong)...

... I am not, nor have ever been, in favour of bolted belays in the UK, as had already been stated, most competant climbers can sort this themselves with modern gear... nor am I, under any circumstances, in favour of placing bolts on 'trad' routes... I would, however, be in favour of sensibly placed, bolted abseil stations in certain locations on certain crags...

The current situation on many Lakeland and Welsh mountain crags in particular (can't speak for Scotland here but I suspect its very similar), with abseil tat in varying states of decay, slung round any conveinient boulder or tree, often directly above the line(s) of popular routes is becoming problematic and potentially quite dangerous and I believe this should be / needs to be addressed...

... wonder how long it will take someone to accuse me of being pedantry, again, for daring to try to differenciate on this issue...

I’m not confused at all. A spike, which you place and remove (emphasis on remove) a sling from is a natural bit of protection, where no equipment is left behind. Using a piece of perma-tat left on a spike is not a truly natural piece of protection IMO. I appreciate that others may see this differently; however my view is that if we as climbers are leaving things behind after our ascent/descents then that form of protection does not leave the rock in its natural state. If we’re going to use non-natural pro, then my view is that it should be as visually unintrusive, and as safe and long lasting as possible. Rope, slings and pegs all degrade and become unsafe more quickly than bolts, and a pile of old rope leaves greater visual impact than a well placed bolt. Hence my favour for replacing rope and pegs which are left in-situ with well placed bolts, with rings if necessary.

As you point out, the most common scenario in which tat is left is for abseils - so yes, I’d happily see all of these in-situ abseils replaced with bolts. Again, this is a personal thing - setting up a safe abseil is not my motivation for climbing such routes. It’s the climbing. Placing gear and finding the route is part of that. I’m not looking to “dumb down” the climbing side of things. Rather reduce the visual impact and simultaneously increase the safety elements of fixed kit that already exists on routes.

I don’t really see how you make the leap that I’m arguing natural pro doesn’t exist. If it didn’t exist, I would have fallen to my death a long time ago. Hopefully this has cleared up the reason for my opinion, which I appreciate is a minority one. I just find it strange that it is. 

Very odd way of defining natural pro, but still.

So you are in favour of bolts for all frequented abseil descents - at least your position is now clear.

By making the very reasonable assumption that you were using the normal definition of natural pro as spikes, nuts etc (as opposed to bolts), rather than your own one which depends not on the actual pro but whether you remove it or not.

I thought that was clear from the off. I've had this discussion at least once before on this forum too, and I seem to remember (rightly or wrongly) that you were involved. I presume your opinion is the opposite and that we should carry on as we are?

The whole point of using nuts/slings etc is that it is removable no? 

A sling over a spike is the most natural pro that I can think of.  I agree it's problematical when people leave them behind after abseiling, it's hard not to, but this is a recent phenomenon. In days gone by gear only tended to be left behind in emergencies and seldom for convenience as we tended to walk off. I don't think we should allow modern bad habits to influence our almost unique ethical stance.

Al

I would only be in favour of abseil bolts in very exceptional circumstances for environmental reasons (and that would never be merely visual).

Removable is not the same as removed.

I'm afraid that you are using the word "natural" here in an idiosyncratic and possibly even unique way. In other words, you are using it incorrectly! Applied to rock-climbing protection 'natural' distinguishes protection that can be placed without permanently changing the medium on/in which it is placed. How long it happens to remain in place is a separate matter. And just as a bolt does not become 'natural' by virtue of being chopped 10 minutes after it was placed, nor does a sling become 'unnatural' because it happens to remain in place for a year. 

Not that this has any bearing on your substantive point (with which I disagree for reasons that have already been outlined on this thread and countless others... and which have been rejected or ignored by those of your viewpoint countless times on such threads), but it does help if we use a common language.

Yes... a few. The exceptions to the rule.

If you're even contemplating bolting Dinas Mot you're absolutely off you rocker and you might as well not waste anyone's time with continuing this debate. Whatever your opinion, the consensus is against you and anyone idiotic and destructive enough to put a bolt in there would only be upsetting people for the hell of it, because the bolts would be - rightly - chopped the very next day.

... it appears you're very good at name calling based on your previous postings... how do you know the consensus is your consensus... because a very small number, in fact a tiny minority of UK climbers get involved in discussions such as this... I rather think you maybe somewhat surprised what the consensus is if you took the trouble to dismount from your ever so high horse...!!! 

I'd have thought that the difference between climbing and caving is obvious in this country.  With caving using ropes, you are doing it entirely as aid and you are rigging aid points multiple times on an outing.

That gets a LOL.

Blah blah blah. What name calling? 

Have you ever read one of the guidebooks you distribute, the BMC policy on bolting or... even this thread? Then you'll already know what the consensus is and that it's against bolting mountain crags.

So... wind your neck back in.

 

... yeah... aggressive and arrogant as well...

There are quite a few areas where bolting the top of a trad route is completely acceptable. I don't think there really is such an entrenched view against creating "safe anchor points" as many peeps believe there is.  However, asking about it on UKC means that you'll only get the far ends of the spectrum engaged in "debate" rather than a clear idea of what the actual consensus is. 

You're the one getting personal. I'm just pointing out that you're talking out of your ass - which is doing you a favour really.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

... having read through the post, I think you're the only person on here who has suggested folk are idiotic, off their rockers etc... when folk disagree with what you perceive to be the consensus, you resort to name calling... 

... I'll "wind my neck in now"... until the next time... !!!

It was actually a genuine question, I’m not a caver so forgive my ignorance, it’s not obvious to me. At some point the caving community decided that drilling and leaving rigging in place is acceptable. I wondered why? Aren’t caves unique and special environments worth protecting like our crags? 

Obviously there is a very different tradition of bolted anchors in some other countries. However, rather than take this to support a case for bolting anchors here, I think it is better to celebrate the differences and preserve our pure ethic and emphasis on self reliance.

I'll clarify that there are plenty of areas in the UK where the top of a trad route has bolts. This can be down to a few things eg. Access land above the crag. Or it just makes sense due to the top out. 

It's about 'cragsmanship' really.  Putting bolts in at the top of a route is about convenience, not safety.  If an abseil in from that point is too difficult then, 'using your skill and judgement', do something else.  Once you start putting bolts in at the top, then you start on mid-way belays.  How often does a clifftop belay fail - rarely, I think and not necessarily because a good belay was not available.

If you object to old tat, take some new with you and a knife.  It's really not that difficult, but do the decent thing and add a non-aluminium metal ring of some description

Agreed.

The official BMC agreements and bolting guidelines often refer to " in exceptional circumstances" that bolted belays or abseil points are installed by accredited persons.

 > just interested to hear why this is such an anathema to British climbers.

The average British climber would rather trash a descent gully, clip multiple rusty pegs, leave unsightly tat and damage trees rather than see a single stainless steel bolt at the top of a 'trad' cliff. It is an attitude which can only be explained by a quasi-religious inability to accept the rational thought process. These climbers will find various pseudo arguments to defend their beliefs including self-sufficiency, tradition and environmental protection (!), but the truth is they all use smartphones to find the crag!  Their fundamentalist attitude towards drilled protection cannot be reasoned with and they will actually try to impose it in other parts of the world too. Think ISIS devotee but with a rack of cams rather than a suicide vest!

I don't.

Indeed that does look shite. But lets just imagine for a second that we all agreed that a couple of bolts should be installed. Just looking at that photo, half the blocks on top aren't going to be there forever, so where do you install them? Then what happens when an unwitting ascentionist reaches the top and finds the bolted block to be a bit wobbly. They've no means to rig their own ab as they were prepared only to go from the bolts. What happens if they unfortunately don't realise that the bolted block is wobbly and launch themselves off it regardless, meeting their untimely death? Bolts will take away peoples sense of danger to a degree, at least with tat you give it a good twice or thrice over and are generally prepared to construct your own belay or back it up if it's in a poor state. 

Just thinking out loud, maybe I'm completely wrong.

... I'm not sure the average British climber would rather behave in the manner you suggest - remember, as has been amply illustrated above, forums, by their very nature tend to attract those with very strong views / feelings on a subject (they are also inhabited by a tiny minority)... I rather suspect, were you to discuss this subject with the average British Climber you'd get a much more nuanced response and a sensible compromise would be reached...

... having said that... we are discussing the population of a nation (for nation read, in the main, England), of which climbers are a part, that put Boris Johnson into No 10 and voted to leave the EU... the single biggest act of self-harm in this nations history so maybe you do have a point after all...

Don't trash descent gullies - I scramble down them.

I clip pegs if they are available, which is not often these days.

It's not a single bolt - it's two at least, and a chain or two, and an abseil track, and a muddy take-off and landing area, plus the paths to and from them.

The thought process is to aim to climb a route or two on a crag and leave it as I found it as far as possible - no tat, no abbing off trees if at all possible.  If there is tat, remove the old, replace with new, with a ring.

Calling an argument 'pseudo' before you've even heard it is a bit rich, so we'll ignore the next load of guff.  I've never used a phone to find a crag.  You can reason with me about bolts, and you'll find that I am remarkably amenable to a sound argument.  As far as imposing my view on other parts of the world - not so, and as far as the ISIS jibe is concerned may I suggest that you take your Hilti and shove it up your fundament, poppet.

Why on earth put a bolt in (and you use the singular here - definitely dodgy in many people's view) rather than use said spike.

In general bolts in caves are glue-in P bolts. Bolts were originally small 8mm 'spits' that were hand drilled (later powered when things got going properly in the 80s). Each team would carry their own hangers, screwing them in on a trip and removing them on the way out. The whole thing came about when SRT took off replacing ladders. The need to position ropes exactly is crucial and natural belays rarely cooperate in this. The problem came later when the original bolts started to rust. That came about in the late 80s/early 90s and it was generally agreed to re-equip vertical pots with glue-ins.

Deradicalisation programmes are available for people like you. The venue is generally a Greek island or a quaint Spanish village. Cheap at the price

I've tried many of those programmes. They don't work.

Because it is traditional

Sadly there is no cure for the most severe cases. However these individuals will be welcomed into the UKC community where they will most likely be hailed as prophets!

These wild and special places are not just our play grounds. They are to be preserved and cherished for the enjoyment of us all now and in the future. 

As is lynching in Alabama. Doesn't make it right though.

And because we love it.

Offensive and stupid comment. We are talking about a leisure activity here.

Having said that ... a well executed trad climb is an experience like no other, demanding self reliance, judgement, experience, courage ... and a bit of luck on occasion as well. Bolting climbs removes the possibility of that experience for ever. 

I’m assuming “well executed” wasn’t a deliberate pun...

Wouldn’t using the bolt be optional? you could still have that experience, and your experience may be more valuable Because you didn’t use the bolts.

Climbers find something easy and make it as difficult as possible, cavers find something difficult and make it as easy as possible.

Quote by (I think) Dave Elliott.

Well said.

We are doomed.

A noticeable trend in recent years, which I welcome, and I've not come across anyone who doesn't, is the equipping of mountain and indeed some non-mountain crags, with lower offs. Much more pleasurable, safer and environmentally friendly to finish a route at White Ghyll, Ravens, Gimmer, to name a few from the last few weeks, along with Tremadoc of course, then not have to battle down some death gully in your EBs. None if these examples involve pegs, and nor should they, but if there is no  handy block  or tree, then I have no objection to a well placed bolt or two. (Done through BMC arrangements..)

Slightly off at a tangent.......I've led Strand twice now, 40 years apart. The first time we abbed off a load of tat at the top of the main pitch, the second time off 2 nice new shiny pegs. Why pegs not bolts? Thin end of wedge? 

... ah... another voice of reason... think we're an endangered species on here though..!

Why not finish the route and walk off ?

Does anybody do that? They never used to. Which is presumably why it is equipped with an ab point. Just makes you wonder, why pegs?

I visited dancing ledge for the first time today and soloed a few routes on the lower tier. I noticed a few double staple bolts at the top. Presumably is regularly get washed by the sea but looked none the worse for wear for it. Those bolts all seemed relatively unnecessary, but they were actually quite hard to even notice. 

I understand the resistance to use bolts in wild places, but for over a decade I've been very certain that the aesthetic argument against bolted abseil points is often not a good one.

Does anyone actually make an argument against bolts on visual aesthetic grounds?

I do. Twice.  Seems sensible to fi ish the route rather than try to reduce it to another single pitch convenience climb.

I'm impressed if you can replace all that with a single bolt ( does anyone choose to abseil off a single bolt anyway)

But people aren't dying on your "death gulleys".  They are dying abbing off the end of their ropes, lulled by the convenience. 

EBs ? Since when ?

Me neither. Good analogy though - I don’t need bolts to get down. The ‘smartphone generation’ might.

I'll tell you why sunshine - it's the thin end, that's why.

The thick end is bolted belays on every pitch. It'll come down the line, USA style, like chlorinated chicken and one day we will wake up wondering how the wall-raised, '3 star' quarry choss-fed new elite finally finished the full retrobolting of UK limestone without ever having attended a beard intensive BMC local area love-in.

Or something.

Have you ever been to the deep south and spent time with white rednecks there? I've had the unpleasant experience and their view of lynching is exactly "leisure activity' and 'tradition'. To think these people don't exist is offensive and stupid.

Also it's an analogy. You are easily offended.

Knowing the crags, you are talking about the virtues of a bit of stout cord to rap off - or in two instances, a chain/cable. Accidentally or otherwise, you're playing both sides of the debate, because your "lower offs" are precisely the "piles of rotting shit" of the bolt advocates. In fact, RW was going at me earlier because I've previously criticised his "argument" that the chain on top of Gimmer would be better replaced by bolts. Now he's praising your insight...

Sigh... Just don't bolt my crags or I'll come and bolt your living room...

Then they shouldnt be there in the first place! They can just stay at home and use VR goggles.

We were discussing the issue of bolts rather than 'tat' as fixed ab points weren't we?

If people are dying through by abbing off the end of their ropes that's very sad, but is nothing to do with this debate. Do those people avoid all crags with lower offs or abseil approaches? I doubt it  - but still, that's their prerogative.

To C Witter: thanks for bringing an end to the rational discussion. Helpful.

Yes, they did. The second pitches of the routes on that wall were often the hardest bit!  It never occurred to me to ab off the Strand, but I don’t know what state the top is in now  - maybe it is more sensible, or maybe it’s just become the norm.

It would have made it less memorable.  Some people LIKE adventures....

[...]

Your crags????

(I'm not pro bolt BTW)

Aye. They're mine. And yours, too, obviously...
 

Actually, most of them aren't.  Something often forgotten when people argue about whether fixed gear should be placed or removed.

I can’t help thinking the hot weather is getting to a few people posting on here, so perhaps the name calling and personal insults could be switched off as that always creates more heat than light.

Anyone who knows me will agree that I am not pro bolts in general, though this doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy clip-ups elsewhere such as France where their ethos is different. When in Rome …   I still find trad climbing in this country beats anything I’ve  done elsewhere, and do not seek out bolted routes in this country.

On the issue of this thread, my approach is that bolts are not always unacceptable. Quite a few years back there was the case of Sergeant Crag Slabs on the side of Langstrath. Here was a recently discovered crag on a very steep hillside where there was a clutch of exceptional routes in the most popular VS to E2 grades, and when word got out it was definitely going to be very popular. Descent from the routes was either by traversing across the top of the crag and then descending a steep hillside or by risking death abseiling off the remains of a dead tree. I was amongst those who wanted a bolted abseil station, mainly for environmental reasons. I could foresee that in a few years the walk down would produce severe erosion of the hillside which would be a scar on the landscape visible from across the valley on the approach to Glaramara as well as from the path along the valley floor. The fact that the abseil would be more convenient was, in my view, not something which should sway the decision, but I felt that climbers were not entitled to behave in a way which would adversely affect lots of non-climbers when there was an easy solution to hand (a bolted ab station) which no-one but climbers would see.  I believe the National Trust, on whose land the crag stands, also preferred this solution. The bolts were placed, then chopped, then replaced. I haven’t been recently but I think the bolts are still in situ.

The abseil chain (no bolts) on Gimmer’s alphabet wall is also a responsible action by the climbing community, as is evidenced by the way nature has restored Junipall Gully (the standard descent for the NW side of the crag) to a state which it has not enjoyed for many decades.

In short, I am suggesting bolts can be justified for environmental reasons, but this doesn’t mean they should be placed for the convenience of climbers or to make climbing safer for climbers. In my view we need to be pragmatic, but I still believe we should require powerful arguments before getting out the Hilti.

This is my view as well.  As long as bolting decisions are made on a case by case basis and with environmental considerations always at the forefront of the argument I think we will be OK.

Al

Only a matter of time before someone uses "the thin end of the wedge" here... 

EDIT: Oh somebody already has.  I'll shout if I get a line on my bolting discussion bingo card...

Completely agree.

I've always wondered how one was supposed to access the base of Sergeant Crag slab without leaving  a big track up the hillside, helicopter perhaps.

John

because we think we are bigger, climb harder, more hardcore & more ethical than anywhere else in the world. 

What actually happens is that we are just crap, unfit, not strong climbers ledge shuffling  

That may be the case, but we can abseil off shite belay anchors like nobody else. Gotta play to your strengths...

More likely because we have to maximise what we can get from meagre resources.