UKC

The previous insitu ab points on the main wall have been removed and 2 bolted ab points have been installed further right along the crag. Got our ropes stuck on the new ab line twice. Thoughts?

Great.

What Diabeg near torridon?

Abseiling down Main Wall. Bolting? Really?

why oh why oh why?

Apart from anything else, sounds a right pest considering the existing points worked just fine and this one sounds poorly located. Is it easy enough to find?

I hope we can assume this is a wind up. If not, please could someone chop them very, very soon.

Is a couple of bolts not on the climb really that much worse than the standard British bunch of old slings and rusty nuts or pitons? I can't remember exactly but I pretty much remember that was what the abs off Route II were like.

Ah, but see you're using common sense and logic...

yes.

It has been a while since I've been on this wall but I remember thinking that the block at the mid height anchor wasn't the most reassuring. For those who have done it, how is the walk off?

Yeah, the sooner these are replaced by lots of rotting tat of dubious vintage the better.

Yes, if only for the precedent it would set - we are talking about Lewisian gneiss here.

Except that if people would only get into the habit of removing rotten tat, it wouldn't actually be like that.

But common sense and login would also appear to have failed to notice the easy scrambling descent to the immediate right of the Main wall....

The next day we had to come back to retrieve the ropes which included walking round the back. The walk was an absolute ballache especially in torrential rain and 60mph winds!

Straightforward.

Where did you go? we went round the back of the condrone as suggested in Scottish rock which took ages

The midpoint belay is a bit worrying I thought. Is it possible to ab in one go on 60s? Having the bolts is probably quite convenient, but convenience isn't really the point with climbing in the UK. I'd rather see the block at mid point pulled out and then see if we can get in a decent trad anchor. If not we can walk down.

I don't agree that bolts are a good alternative to aging tat. We can (and some of us do) remove extraneous stuff very easily.

Yes, you can get down in one ab with 60m ropes. However, not very convenient if the ropes then don't pull once you're down! 

Yes, very soon!

Bolts at Diabaig, I don't care where they are the middle, the far left or right, this is no place for bolts for whatever reason!

Yeah agreed. Sometimes it seems like they're more based upon fear, prejudice and stupidity.

If you chop them please do a proper job of it and please also remove any other climber left litter like slings or insitu trad gear for abs. Thanks!

You do realise that Diabaig is a trad crag do you? 

Yeah, so why are there insitu ab stations there? When I climbed there we didn't need to leave anything but abbed from the insitu gear.

?

Because people abseil down. Obviously....

Well yes, why would you place more if the anchors others have left are ok?

If there is a walk-off, the solution is to get rid of the bolts and the piton anchors.

In the past 20 years in the US, convenience rappelling has given rise to an absolute explosion of bolted anchors, which of course engender more convenience rappelling and more bolting as well as an astonishing rise in specialized incompetence, in which climbers can somehow get up rather difficult routes but are unable to descend truly moderate terrain.  I would not be sanguine about the pressure for development this new climbing cohort can create.

The so-called "logical" arguments are always very local ("isn't a strong bolt better than this manky piton") and fail to incorporate the general context of trad climbing, as well as ignoring the fact that there is nothing in climbing that can withstand any kind of logical analysis if the overarching traditional constraints are ignored.

One thing I can guarantee from the US experience is that there is nothing hypothetical about the slippery slope argument that bolting will engender much more of the same.  It will happen, and once it reaches a certain level of prevalence it will, like the proliferation of invasive species, become impossible to reverse. 

The UK has a strong enough climbing tradition to put the brakes on bolting before it is too late. The fact that you'd be bucking international trends would make your climbs even more valuable, as there isn't going to be any shortage of plaisir climbs elsewhere for those who want nothing else.

Well put re 'thin end of wedge' in terms of bolt anchors on trad crags. I would point out that as I recall the Diabaig ab points before were in-situ nuts rather than rotting pegs.

I don’t remember the descent from Diabaig being particularly burdensome. Bolts or tat, it’s just laziness. 

Wow. Thought this was a wind up. Agree with Flashy, the mid-point anchor has always been worrying, but both times I've used it I have added an extra wire as a precaution, my decision. Really worrying that someone thought it was OK to install bolts on a trad crag (trad jewel?!) such as Diabaig. 

This is the part I find hardest to understand. The easiest route on the wall is HVS but the scramble back down is too hard. I don't really get the appeal of abseiling, especially considering its history of high-profile accidents. Is it to do with the rise of increasingly painful rock boots?

I was last at Diabaig at the end of April and I remember Freudy love, French Erick and I spending a bit of time adding new wires, equalising the anchors, removing old tat, wires and peg at the top ab point. If we do our own maintenance it doesn't take on the appearance of masses of rotting tat as imagined by some on this thread. But the fact is it can be removed easily if/ when the time comes. It saddens me that someone has taken it upon themselves without any consultation it would appear to drill bolts into one of my favourite crags. Lewisian gneiss, ffs is nothing sacred? It only adds insult to injury to find out they are also poorly situated if ropes are getting snagged. This is a poor show I'm afraid.

Completely agree. It's not particularly difficult for anyone who can get up a route on this wall to walk/scramble down nearby, which might be actually be a better option given the state of the block the mid-height belay relied on last time I was there (2015). Convenience isn't really the point here.

It's obviously to do with convenience rather than because the descent is 'too hard'. However easy that walk down is, the abseil is easier. I like being able to abseil between routes and frequently do this on single pitch crags (when the descent isn't just a simple amble round), removing the gear after the last climb of the day. I didn't put any of that gear in at Diabaig so can't really complain if I found it wasn't there, though if that was the case I would certainly put something back in. 

As pointed out above, with 60m ropes you don't have to rely on the mid-height anchor, so I wouldn't bring that into consideration.

Can't see what the problem is with a couple of bolts for abbing. I don't like abbing off other's wires or tat, and regard that as a mess, but quite happy to abb off bolts, and thanks to whoever took the trouble to put them in.

No wonder they didn't ask with the nonsense posted on the this thread.

If the scramble or walk down is fine, that's what should be the default - it should go in the guide books etc. I just think it's silly to object to a bolted ab point whilst supporting keeping insitu anchors made up of non bolted stuff. I know which is more likely to be visually intrusive to non-climbers.

Anyway, if these bolts are real, I've got no problem with them being removed (at least not if it is done well). I just think the other ab stations should go as well and everyone should walk.

I thought I remembered thinking the lower ab station wasn't perfect and other people's comments here seem to back that up, but that's another issue.

Folk have been abseling off the Insitu stuff for the last 30 odd years and it's never been an issue. Should also be noted the new ab route is well ledgy, and a bit of a dirty water course. I reckon the old points should be restored, will happily do it myself when I'm next there

I expect the number of walkers who've noticed that in-situ gear over the years could possibly be counted on the fingers of one hand.

I live in Switzerland but otherwise I would have gone to remove them. I'm hoping someone else will do a good job of that. 

It was a few years ago that I was there but I don't remember any particularly bad tat. If I remember I think it was a wire that was taking most of the load? 

Diabaig is an absolute classic Highland crag, bolts are just not for this place in IMHO. The MCOFS have guidelines on bolting, can we not take these as the consensus?!  Link below...

https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/Appendix-III-F-Clim...

I'm certainly not against bolts, I have placed a few myself, but my drill would go nowhere near Diabaig!

If this is genuine, then I can guess who did it. But I'm not saying anything without evidence, and as I'm going away for a couple of weeks. But I hope they're gone when I get home. The newly refreshed trad abseil points were excellent and this lower-off adds nothing.

Courtesy of Gary Latter

I've got no real issue with the trad anchors (especially if they are tidily maintained); my objection is against the use of bolts as such rather than natural anchors, and this principle easily trumps the minor issue of visual impact for me. However, if the consensus is that the trad anchors should go too then I'd have no objection. The walk down is not a problem.

Chop them.

Why not have a couple of bolts at each trad anchor point- gets rid of nasty old tat and eases rope recovery. C’mon- you know you want it!

If someone chops the bolts I expect climbers will go back to abseiling off exactly as they did before. Pretty sure every team has done the ab whenever I've been at the crag.

I expect. And that he's testing the water. If they remain, he'll start putting in bolted abseil points at several Scottish trad crags.

Definitely. The scramble down is a pain and I haven't done it for 20 years.

"Bolts are unacceptable to the majority of Scottish climbers on established (documented) mountain cliffs and sea cliff venues".

Mountaineering Scotland

Climbing in Scotland Statement: An explanation of How Climbing is conducted (17 October 2013).

Whoever placed bolts at Diabaig please take account of the above statement.

Colin

Yes, I would imagine so.

Without any implied statement about these bolts, that quote is not strictly relevant as the main wall at Diabaig is neither a mountain crag nor a sea-cliff.

Whichever public-spirited individual removes these, might further extend their service to the community by bringing along a crowbar or a jack and having a go at that intermediate belay block, which is a horrible accident waiting to happen.

Total arrogance on someone's part if this is genuine.  I didn't see any bolts when doing the abseil back at the beginning of June and don't remember the intermediate trad anchors being particularly dangerous.  

You either didn't inspect the underside of the block very closely, or your understanding of friction and gravity are on a level of nuance that is well beyond me. It's not so much 'perched' as 'levitating'.

As stated, you can bypass it with 60s, but not everyone is going to turn up with 60s, and it's also the belay on several of the routes.

You are letting a debate about the stability of the block (which has been safely used for 30 years, plus is backed up another anchor independent of the block) distract from the question of whether we want bolts at Diabaig, and elsewhere on trad cliffs in Scotland. I don't think we do.

You're right, though it's not entirely irrelevant. To be clear, I don't support these bolts - but as an extension of the discussion regarding descent method off the main wall, I think that belay block warrants some attention.

As for 30 years of being used safely...well, you could have said the same of the chockstone on Scafell's Central Buttress. It still killed someone eventually.

Not directed at you Andy .

But.. Climbing would not be the same sport without the odd accident or an element of danger.

Sad but true.

Its not just bolts we shouldn't be placing, the statement also says.

" access rights do not convey a right to place in-situ protection, i.e. permanent bolting or anything left on the crag after you have finished climbing."

Of course. But where a simple step can be taken to remove a significant potential objective hazard, wouldn't it be crazy not to? Plus, who doesn't love a bit of trundling...

But anyway, point made, I will sideline the bolt debate no further.

Gary Latter has asked me to correct this. He says:

“I have no intentions of placing bolted abseil points at several Scottish trad crags.”

And he also said when asked about Creag Dubh (he had earlier asked me about this and I said not to do it without consultation):

“Yes, replaced Brute abseil with 2 expansion bolts, large maillons on hangers linked to stainless steel rings. Also placed identical abseil stations at the top of Gouttes d'eau & Man on Fire, avoiding the 20m of steep grass to the trees.”

He had communicated with Mountaineering Scotland about the issue, who responded:

“You have obviously thought about it and have your reasoning together.  I get the principles of your intention here, and am aware, as you will be, that maybe not everyone will agree with what you wish to do.  I wouldn’t want folk going and cutting bolts if they disagree.

   What I propose to do is to bring this to our newly initiated Climbing Advisory Group to look at and discuss the way forward – it’s meeting on the 3rd October, which is good timing.  It was for issues like this, among others, that we felt the need to bring different representatives together to talk about the different aspects of climbing development.

   Following on from that, and if you are up for it, we can facilitate wider consultation on it, so that those that are interested get a say, and can test the reaction out there.  You have already provided a lot of justification, so it would be a matter of just tidying it up for a consultation piece.”

Gary does know if the meeting discussed the issue on 3rd October but on 5th October, he placed the abseil point at Diabaig.

Did Gary explain his reasoning for placing the bolts at Diabaig? That would be good to know.

No he didn't. Nor did he explain why he communicated with MS and went ahead anyway.

Good job Gary. 

Hi Andy, is there a contact email for the Climbing Advisory Group so I can make known my opinion that bolts have no place on Scottish trad cliffs? Just to make my voice to as part of the majority.

Cheers, Lex

I am very uneasy about this from the MC of S. By having a presumption against the prompt chopping of bolts which have been placed against guidelines and without proper consultation, it seems to be giving a green light to people to place bolts and ask questions later; this seems entirely wrong to me - there will be those who say "well they're there now so they may as well stay" (an entirely illogical position which some took during the Ratho retrobolting debacle five years ago).

Even if you agree with the bolts, going against established rules and probable consensus with little consultation is not a good job.

Should that read 'doesn't know'?

And what is this Climbing Advisory Group? What is its mandate and how is it made up? I've just been on the MC of S website and can find no mention of it amongst the other Advisory Groups.

He was saying that it's a pain abseiling down black streak and stuff when other folk are climbing. And that the Insitu wires only last a few years until they become knackered

Yes, sorry.

I'd not heard of it either. Get in touch with Davie Black at:

access@mountaineering.scot

Agree 

H'mm this could get interesting the MC of S is meant to be the representative body of climbers, walkers, skiers and the associated clubs that founded it (though they'd like to forget about the clubs if they could!). It is not a governing body.

Thus I'd expect them to be guided by their members on this, taking into consideration the ethos and historical context of Scottish climbing.  There is already an agreed presumption against bolting on crags with a strong trad background. They could expect these bolts to be a concern to a significant proportion of the membership they represent.

Yet they are suggesting its OK to have a retrospective discussion after bolts have been placed...........they should have told Garry forcefully that his unilateral actions were unacceptable, that the MC of S would remove these bolts (and future bolts in similar locations) if appropriate consultation and consensus had not been achieved first.  

Otherwise we are going to end in a cycle of bolt-chop-bolt-chop, and repeat. As individuals attempt to force the agenda without consideration to the wider historical context or collective agreement.

Thanks, makes a lot more sense now.

As I read it then, the MCofS offered an opportunity for discussion and GL placed the bolts without taking that up or waiting to hear what was discussed.

Is that right?

Hard to speak for someone else, but I certainly told him not to place any new bolts (although I was in favour of replacing the Brute bolts and had tried myself to consult in the past about this). I suggested contacting MS (MCofS) on the assumption that would also tell him not to.

I'm sorry if I'm going to upset any friends at MS but that does come across as fairly pathetic.  Someone in the office says ''well, sounds OK, but let's go through a bit of consultation?'

Well, tough shit. Welcome to the real world.

Not sure they gave approval. I read it as them not wanting 'a situation where the bolts would be chopped by disapproving people because they'd been placed without consensus' rather than them not wanting the bolts chopped.

It was worded poorly though.

You are either in favour of bolts on trad crags, or against bolts on trad crags. Which is it? I’m not sure in reading your posts.

Andy, when you say that you aren't in favour of bolts on Scottish trad crags, but are in favour of replacing the Brute ones, is that because they are already in place but of poor quality?

Don't feel you have to answer the following if you think it's straying off-point, but as a thought experiment: if Diabaig had a steep wall that was bolted, in the same way that the right hand side of Loch Maree Crag has been in the past few years, would this have any effect on your feeling towards the presence of a bolted abseil line?

I'm not in favour. But bolts which have been there for 30 years and a number of routes depend on them, that's different. It's the same argument about whether peg runners should be replaced (when there is no alternative), quite different to whether new routes with peg runners should be done nowadays.

No problem, if it's a sport crag, then I have no problem with a bolted abseil line (although you probably wouldn't need one in UK). I did give permission for a lower-off above one of my trad climbs on a partial sport crag. I'm not against sport climbing.

That's interesting. Do you have more of an objection then to a purely trad crag having a bolted abseil line, than to a purely trad crag becoming a partial sport crag? Or do you think it depends on the specific case in hand?

That's ridiculous. You can be in favour of bolts in some instances and against them in others.

I don’t think that the pre-existence of bolts on a route is a sufficient enough reason to replace them. If absolutely against bolts on trad crags, it could be argued that it is better to lose the route if it depends on bolts, no?

There was simply no demand, or need, for them. 

Anyone who has climbed there will know that you can walk off easily, or arrange an abseil (ideally bypassing the potentially dodgy block). 

The bolts should be removed as cleanly and quickly as possible.

Danny. 

I'm not against these bolts...from what i've heard without seeing them.

I really can't understand why semi-permanent in-situ peg/tat/old gear anchors are acceptable to ethics pedants but a couple of bolts aren't.

Yes you can walk off, but most won't regardless of bolts or not.  Also walking off almost certainly causes more damage to landscape and local biology than a couple of bolts. 

aye but these routes in discussion at creag dubh are well traveled classics where the ab is needed. different case from diabaig

I'm always surprised by the lack of understanding of the nuances of UK bolting on some of these threads. It's not a case of raaaar! all bolts are bad of yay let's bolt everthing. You can't impose some logical end member one size fits all approach to climbing ethics, they make no logical sense! Craig dubh is a roadside crag with a history of fixed gear and the climbs mentioned would be very hard logistically without fixed gear. Diabaig is a remote(ish) crag with very little fixed gear and absolutely no need for a bolted ab station. 

This isn't a case of bolts vs trad. I'm a trad climber first and foremost and have no problem with bolts and bolted lower offs in the appropriate setting but Diabaig is not one of them.

Ps it's been a while but I don't remember the walk off being too onerous.

Not sure if that is said ‘tongue in cheek’.

Eh? ....and it’s Creag Dhubh.

So it is, I'm very dyslexic (got a certificate and everthing) and have a developed a wanton disrgard for correct spelling. Had to check Diabiag about 4 times  

On the latest OS map it is. But it's not the way climbers have traditionally spelt it.

Climbers haven’t traditionally spelt it ‘Craig’, and climbers can be wrong on the Dubh.

Especially galling as the main wall ab station had been replaced (new static rope, new wires, most of the all tat-except for one threaded sling- and all re-equalised) this spring!

I wouldn't bother chopping the bolts, but I hope that all ropes get stuck until people get fed up and re-instate ab station.

What a real shame, there is absolutely no need for bolts to be placed at diabaig and also creag dubh. In regards to Gouttes d'eau & Man on Fire, the exit slopes are fairly dodgy but  no more so than many other climbs up and down the country, it seems like the start of a very slippery slope.   I can't imagine these 2 lower offs at creag dubh will be there for much longer and also hope somebody takes the one at diabaig out as well.   

Because bolts cross a well defined aesthetic and ethical line between using natural features of the rock and not using natural features of the rock. To be honest, I am disappointed that this fundamental difference needs pointing out yet again, as, it seems, in every other bolting discussion.

Good grief, I can imagine it passing under my radar, but that it can pass under yours is truly worrying! Bolting issues being pronounced upon by a shadowy body that nobody has heard of.....

Well defined for you, but other people might draw the line in other places. I think saying it is an aesthetic line is just silly. A bunch of old tat could only be aesthetically preferable to two bolts to a climber who agrees with your position on bolts. 

I'm disappointed that this point which seems so obvious needs pointing out again, as it does every other time climbers try to justify littering by claiming some sporting ethical high ground.

As french erick just said, the insitu abs had just been replaced. They looked well nice and minimalist when I was there earlier this summer.

The lower off for brute at creag dubh has been there for ages. I'm sure removing it would be well unpopular, it's only one of the most traveled routes at the crag!

I don't think there is any better defined place, or indeed properly defined place at all, to draw a line.

I don't, of course, mean visually aesthetic. I agree that two bolts are visually more aesthetic than a bunch of tat; the point is that I believe this is trumped by the aesthetic of using natural features rather than drilling them.

I did not say anything about the lower of for brute I mentioned the new bolts on man on fire and gouttes

The abseil point for Brute is different because there's been bolts for many years and 5 routes depend on them. The others are just for convenience so you can argue either way.

Totally understand that Andy, but as I said before it’s a slippery slope to use the excuse of it’s just convient. I understand the brute situation fully and have no intention of removing the bolts, but I am not happy with the man on fire bolts, and hopefully they will be removed

Again, that's an ethical debate for climbers (perhaps you could vaguely claim it's an aesthetic consideration for climbers who get close enough to see the difference), but the key point in your statement is the "I believe"! It is your opinion, one that I have some sympathy with, but it is simply not as self evident as you claim.

Is this confirmed? If so, do you know why Gary decided to put the bolts in?

All I am claiming is that it is the basis of virtually all objection to bolts. Different people have sympathy with that objection in different instances.

https://goo.gl/images/S1j2eU

I'm sure we abseiled because that's what the guidebook said to do, or at least said was the normal thing to do. Surely just telling everyone to walk down is the simplest solution. No abseil tat insitu would remove the justification for bolts.

On the contrary, I would argue that natural abseil anchors remove any possible justification for bolts.

Yeah, by leaving stuff permanently on the cliff. 

Basically it seems you're saying a) you want to abseil off climbs as clipping your shoes to your harness and walking down is inconvenient, and 2) for your convenience you should be able to leave stuff behind in the mountains.

It's only litter when others do it I suppose.

No, as I said earlier, I am quite happy to have no bolts and no natural anchors and to walk down. 

But, given the choice between the natural anchors and the bolts, I'd far rather have the natural anchors.

I'm not arguing from any viewpoint about "litter", but from my viewpoint about the aesthetic (and I've earlier made clear the sense in which I am using that word) objections to bolts.

I'm against the Man on Fire bolts too. I was just being neutral.

Yes it was Gary. Confirmed.

I heartily agree, but the tides are running against this point of view.  I suspect that sport and plaisir climbing now constitute the majority of the world's climbing---at least on crags---rendering increasingly quaint the notion that climbers should be governed by the opportunities (or lack of opportunities) nature provides. 

At the same time that the climbing public is increasingly desensitized to the idea of drilling the rock for various purposes, ever more compact battery-powered drills are making the drilling process less and less onerous.  Added to this is the highly asymmetric nature of the bolting process, which is to say that once placed, it is much harder to remove bolts and the resulting potential damage is itself a powerful restraint.  This situation emboldens self-appointed "white knights" to ride in to "rescue" climbs from all sorts of perceived "defects," things which used to be features of the climbing experience and environment, but are now considered inconvenient and dispensable. 

The general effect is to remove the climbs themselves from their natural context, isolating the moves on the rock from their location and environment and making all climbing more like sport climbing.  The question is whether there is enough of a critical mass of climbers left to draw a bright line between sport climbing and trad climbing, which in principal should be able to coexist.

Wonderfully well put.

There certainly is in the UK, as evidenced by the apparent considerable majority viewpoint in this thread, but, with an increasing minority who don't "get" it, I don't think we can afford complacency.

Good post (plus your previous one).

Do you think that as more climbers now start indoors*, as opposed to a traditional outdoor apprenticeship, then clipping bolts is the norm and familiar to them so would feel comfortable seeing a line of bolts snaking up an outdoor route that that is/has been perfectly protectible by trad gear? I also suppose that a 'climbing wall apprenticeship' may not always foster a sense of the history, ethics and traditions of the sport so, as you say, people are desensitized to drilling the rock, whether for new routes or retro-bolting.

This is not to suggest that every person starting out at a wall will never do any trad and will want to be firing in bolts everywhere when they go outside but, as you say, it doesn't take much for the tide to turn. 

*I have absolutely no stats for this but I bet it's not far out.

We're talking about abseil points here. I don't think anyone has suggested any of the climbing on Route Two or the other routes on that wall should be bolted. You're using a french word which I believe is applied to a type of climbing that just doesn't exist in the UK. That's not what is under discussion here.

Hanks of rotting nylon tape and rope, rusting maillons, flaking aluminium krabs, rusting nuts, and rusting pitons along with brand new brightly coloured tape, static rope and krabs (all things I've found, and in many case removed in the last 12 months)  all do that as well I would suggest!

First of all, those comments were meant to bring forth the background influences for current actions, and so were not meant to be narrowly construed.  Moreover, I'm speaking from a US perspective of at least 20 years, and what that experience suggests that what starts with rappelling doesn't come anywhere near ending with rappelling.  Look down the road, not just at what's immediately in front of you.

You have a point, all that tat should be removed---as you have done---but your claims argue against bolts, not for them, because you couldn't, or likely wouldn't, have removed the bolts and chains that would be the replacements for that tat.  In that sense, you have a choice between easily-cleaned litter and permanent litter.

But dumbing down descents with abseil bolts is the first step towards "plaisir" (a term I really loathe!).

Again you are confusing the aesthetics of the way we climb with the visual aesthetics of in situ stuff - can't you see the distinction?

Yes, but I think your point is ultimately a selfish one - your aesthetic experience climbing is the only, or at least the preeminent one. Any non climber seeing a bunch of abseil tat (is all the tat around the top of the Old Man of Stoer still visible from the mainland cliff top like it was when I did it?) is likely to have a rather different aesthetic experience.

Anyway, I've seen photos of your headbands - and then you talk about the aesthetics of the way we climb!

I haven't climber in the States, but I have climbed in the UK and in other countries for nearly 30 years, so my opinions are not without some context, including seeing ethics develop in different countries beyond my own.

But if nobody is going to clean up the litter (no one else on this thread seems to think that getting rid of both the bolts AND the insitu non-drilled ab points at Diabaig is the answer) perhaps how visually intrusive the litter is, becomes more of a concern than how easily it can be cleaned up - because, again, no one is doing that.

Have you ever heard of a non climber objecting to tat? Even if not, it should, of course, be tidied up as far as is possible.

My headbands are an entirely practical matter. 

I remember the US National Parks bringing in, or at least proposing, a law that nothing unnatural should be left in place there and climbers were worried that this would included all abseil points, even rope round a tree for example. But surely setting a good example is a consideration too.

It is true that some years ago the NPS proposed rules so draconian that anything left in place would be a violation.  Nothing like those proposals ever went into effect though.  As far as I know, the one restriction in effect is a ban of motorized drills.

Things like tat on a climb are probably immeasurably far down the list of impacts the national parks, forests, and monuments are concerned about.  Fecal pollution is becoming a serious problem is a number of back-country areas, with regulations requiring that all poop be packed out in some places.

Frankly, I think that chalk constitutes a far more visible and extensive type of defacement, one that there is no hope that climbers will ever abandon.  I know that at my local crag (the Gunks), there have indeed been complaints from non-climbers about chalked boulders.

Some complaints from non-climbers over chalk here get mentioned as well from time to time, fortunately in soggy Britain all but the most overhanging of bouldering traverses tends to get a wash once in while!

That's good to know, and in fairness to Gary he's probably done climbers a service with the Brute abseil point. I do worry about the Diabaig example though. It's really not that much of a pest to abseil as others are climbing (moving the line as required), certainly far less of a pest than finding your ropes stuck. And trad in-situ is always going to slowly degenerate, and there's no shortage of crags where you could apply such reasoning.

At the moment (today) you can just spot the tat on the Old Man of Stoer if you know it’s there and look hard. So not an eyesore.

Unlike the in-situ Tyrolean which has been left to rot over the winter.