UKC

In reply to Si Witcher:

Are those bolts?

Or stakes placed in drilled rock placements? 

Not that it makes much difference.

In reply to Si Witcher: I suppose it is something that should be agreed at local area level. My view is that they are not necessary, there are belay placements available, just takes a bit of looking. The bolt(s) although not necessary was pretty discreet, whereas these are very visible (and could be a trip hazard). 
if you can climb mask of the red death or wild rover you should have the skills to find a natural belay at the top.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

If only there was an upcoming BMC North Wales meeting .....   Tomorrow would be perfect ......

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/wales

In reply to Si Witcher:

This is pretty weird.

Natural anchors are sparse at that crag, but they are available, and no harder to find than at a great number of other crags. Given most of the routes are graded E1+, you would think most people wouldn't have trouble building a safe belay on gear.

I'm not offended by drilled holes at trad crags in all cases, but I'm a bit bemused at who's actually motivated to do this? Like, why bother?

You won't get an answer on UKC, obviously, but that's my 2 cents for the public purse.

In reply to Andy Moles:

I've just dropped a note to the BMC Cymru Facebook page to see if this can be raised at this evening's area meeting (short notice, I know) to check for any further info and any landowner involvement. I see Andy Boorman has prepared a coastal crags access update for the area meeting so this could potentially be tagged on to that.

In reply to Si Witcher:

I don't know the crag well enough to comment on the actual placement but come on, it's stretching the definition of a "bolt" quite some way to include these.

Whether these cemented stakes are good/bad/unnecessary can be decided locally, but let's call a spade a spade.

I would be wholly unsurprised if the intention of these was as much to stir controversy and get a "bolt war" flaming as for their utility. 

In reply to Si Witcher:

Oh dear, these look terrible. The painted pegs are a far better solution. Struggle to find them even when looking!

In reply to Andy Moles:

This pretty much summarises my own thoughts on the matter.

Just like the bolt that came before it, these are exclusively there for convenience, but much like you I'm just confused about why someone would do this?! Whilst I'm aware it's not the easiest place to setup a belay, it's far from impossible, and should be within the skillset of anyone that's able to climb there. It's not like it's used for groups either, because - like you say - it's too hard for that sort of use. As such, I'm just a bit confused...

I suspect it's simply an act by a single person, attempting to be benevolent, by making the crag 'safer'. Whilst I'm all up for safety, I think the safest thing people can do is equip themselves with the skills to assemble a decent belay. If they can do that, then it's not about safety - it's about convenience.

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes back from the North Wales Area Meeting tonight.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Wow, how bizarre. I'm really struggling to agree with you here.  Unless I've misread the picture, or looked at the wrong picture, you've got this completely wrong.

Have I got this right:

Someone has used a power drill to drill a hole into the rock.

They have inserted a metal bar and then glued/cemented that in.

It is intended for people to fix themselves to to protect the climber ( and belayer)

And your conclusion is that they are not bolts....just because they didn't bend the end into a closed eye loop.

Eh?

In reply to TheGeneralist:

Agree

They have inserted a metal bar and then glued/cemented that in.

Agree

Agree

They're not bolts... They're cemented stakes. They're basically the same thing as a stake driven into the earth. 

If you dug a hole in the soil, put in a metal bar then filled the hole with concrete, would you call it a bolt? 

None of this means I agree with the actions BTW, I just don't think it helps the discussion to call it something (IMO) that it's not. Maybe the majority disagrees, who knows. Happy to agree to disagree. 

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I would make the point that they are essentially just bolts without the hangers? So depending on whether your definition of bolt requires a hanger they are something in between the two.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I don't think it matters what you call them. The important point is that the rock has been drilled.

I think a lot of people would make a distinction with a stake driven into soil.

In reply to james.slater:

Shall we just call them 'artificial anchors' and be done with it...?

They look more stake-y than bolt-y to me, due to size and angle...

In reply to captain paranoia:

My bet is that they are decoy bolts.

Put something in to cause a multi faceted outcry, the good bolts are hidden

In reply to Si Witcher:

Possibly someone who want to go shunting lots?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Disagree, but I'm a pedant.

Agree.

As do I, hence the use of:

"Cemented Anchor", "Glued Stake" I don't care. But they're not bolts.

The reason I make the distinction is that bolts would have been a better choice if this were an "agreed" installation. Less impact, rated, safer.  

As I said, I suspect someone is either having a wind up, or thinks that these "don't count as bolts" as they're technically drilled/glued stakes. Either way, look forward to hearing back what the discussion is at the meet later. I suspect the stakes won't last long...

In reply to Si Witcher:

They look like a terrible trip hazard on a popular coastal footpath.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

And if you don’t have the right bit of gear, you can easily nip down to get it from your partner’s rack. 

In reply to Steve Crowe:

On the contrary, they are next to but not on the popular footpath. On the other hand I’ve seen climbers unable to find or equip a belay lay a rope across the path, through the wall to an anchor in the field.

The double standards rant against the convenience of the new anchors whilst accepting the mess of tat on the Strand belay to avoid the walk round is striking. In Pembroke belay stakes near to the popular path where natural belays or easier than above Llawder are acceptable. I’m a great fan of adventurous climbing on Anglesey with its absence of fixed protection but in this case I would be happy for the new anchors to stay

In reply to kevin stephens:

Having said all that the origin of the stakes puzzles me. The amount of work put in seems to be beyond that to be expected of an altruistically minded climber. The area has been subject to a boom in outdoor activity industries, particularly coasteering etc, often unregulated. The two stakes do seem ideally suited to abseiling and this is one of the few abseiling locations with a relatively safe access and egress?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I wondered this but I don't think so, getting out of there is a bit of a sketch by the standard of kids groups or whatever. There are existing friendlier abseil venues on Anglesey, just not on popular bits of climbing crag.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I don't think any of the above could be described as a 'rant' against these, nor has anyone stated approval of the Strand belay...

But I'll do so now to keep you happy, I've climbed the upper scrap and walked back around the top of Gogarth enough times to know it's less fun than already being started on another route (and it's not just the Strand btw, loads of the routes on Upper Tier are equipped for abseil)

In reply to Andy Moles:

Maybe it’s time for you to fess’ up?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/stakes-746782?v=1#x9625696
 

In reply to kevin stephens:

Just to be perfectly clear it’s those two new stainless stakes that I don’t like. I have no issues with discrete glued pegs or bolts, I think they were a better solution. The original bolt survived at least 20 years.

In reply to Steve Crowe: I agree with you on that

In reply to kevin stephens:

It is not double standards; you are just conflating two different standards. One is the presumption against drilled gear. Another is not liking a visual mess. Those who don't like these drilled stakes but accept the Strand belay are simply upholding the first of them. Others might reasonably uphold the second at the expense of the first.

In reply to Robert Durran: then there’s a questionable equivalence between drilled gear for leader protection on a climb and at the top of the cliff adjacent to a well used tourist path. I would argue that there is no equivalence 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Disagree. The top of Llawder is a royal pain in the *** to build a belay on, even more so if there's more than a couple of parties operating there. The old pegs were sensible and very discrete and should never have been removed. Why is it OK to have huge belay stakes all along the top of Swanage (for example) but not a couple of very discrete pegs above Rhoscolyn? Just leave them be and stop making everyone's life pointlessly complicated by trying to construct belays from the handful of marginal and faffy placements available.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Quite. If tRaD eFickS are so sacred, go and chop the belay of The Strand and make everyone climb the horrible second pitch. It's just the usual incoherent nonsense and double standards.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Total coincidence (nervous cough)

In reply to Paul Sagar:

What do you see as double standards?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Everybody agrees that drilled gear for runners would be wrong.

Some people believe this principle applies equally to a cliff top belay next to a tourist path, others disagree.

Some people believe that pegs in natural placements are fine on cliff top belays because they are not drilled, others disagree.

Some people believe fixed belays or abseil points for the sake of convenience rather than safety are fine so long as they are not drilled, even if they look a mess. Others disagree.

Some people believe drilled belay placements next to a tourist path are less intrusive and aesthetically superior compared to pegs and tat and there is no difference in ethics, others disagree.

Climbers believe that their ethical priorities trump those of other groups who may also wish to install fixed anchors in easily accessible locations at the cliff top. The other groups will disagree.

These arguments will be repeated but not resolved every few years. Fixed anchors will come and go.

In reply to kevin stephens:

The gist from the area meeting last night was;

It's unclear where the bolts/stakes have come from, potentially it's another user group. (Slack line/Tyrolean stuff, commercial or unknown). Like other people have said unlikely to be installed for a group abseil, the bottom isn't exactly beginner friendly.

There is a newish fixed gear policy which is what they will be "judged" by, but it was too early to have any real discussion due to the short notice.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Example 1: You get up the first pitch of The Strand, but it's a right faff to do the crappy second pitch, so other climbers have left some fixed gear, allowing you to abseil off conveniently to get on with your day. This is fine.

Example 2: You get to the top of The Sun, and it's a right faff to find gear placements because they are few and far between and another team is already belaying on what little is available. Some other climbers have put some discrete pegs down, allowing you to bring your second up conveniently to get on with your day. This is not fine.

Eh?

Example A: You get to the top of Questor on Wynd Cliff. There are no natural belays so you clip in to the 6 manky pieces of tat rubbing around the old Yew Tree, pushing the 3 rusted mailons to one side. You bring your partner up and then both abseil off the tat after leaving some more there as back up because the old stuff looked dodgy. This visible-from-the-ground mess is fine.

Example B: You get to the top of The Sun, and it's a right faff to find gear placements because they are few and far between and another team is already belaying on what little is available. Some other climbers have put some discrete pegs down, allowing you to bring your second up conveniently to get on with your day. These pegs are 'intrusive and ugly', even though you have to be actively looking to them to spot them, and are not fine.

Eh?

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Why don't you just walk down the path and steps ??

In reply to kevin stephens:

So people disagree on their standards. That does not mean that anyone has double standards. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't think you understand what the phrase 'double standards' means.

In reply to fred99:

Because I don't want to die?

In reply to Robert Durran:

But to spell it out really clearly for you

The Strand: the fixed gear is there purely to aid convenience

Rhoscolyn: fixed pegs were placed there purely to aid convenience

To say that one of those things is fine, but the other is not, is to apply two conflicting judgements to cases that are the same. This is called 'having double standards'.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I do, of course, agree that that is an example of double standards. But objecting to these drilled stakes while being ok with the fixed gear on the Strand is not necessarily so (which is what was being claimed).

In reply to Paul Sagar:

What? Die walking down the steps?

In reply to Paul Sagar: Paul, I’ll have to disagree with you on this.I have never had a problem finding a belay at the top of Llawder, even when there are other teams around. Takes a bit of hunting around but there are good placements.The old discreet bolts seemed to gain reluctant acceptance and provide extra belay points that can save a bit of time. However these stakes are an unnecessary eyesore, are not in keeping with the local ethics, are a trip hazard, are definitely the “thin end of the wedge”, and haven’t been agreed at local BMC meetings. I’m struggling to see why anyone would put these stakes in, I’m hoping it isn’t climbers. 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

[Klaxon Sounds]

42 Posts!  Must be some kind of record no?

In reply to Iamgregp:

I thought it looked a pretty thick wedge end...

In reply to Si Witcher:

Could a large boulder be placed at the top to belay to? I'm sure this was done in North Pembroke (can't remember what crag but it works a treat)

In reply to Andy Hardy: That’s what they have for some of the Ab points at Fairhead.

You would need a really big boulder and it would be difficult to get it there. 

In reply to Paul Sagar:

A friend of mine once led warpath which is given E5. This ‘should’ show he is a competent climber. He then failed to find a belay up there and I found him belaying me stood behind the wall using the wall as a brace. I was not happy! I say this to agree with you. Most climbers would clip what they can find up there including pegs or stakes……although most would do better than my friend if they could find nothing. 

He did tell me he had also run out of gear so had no other option and probably could not be bothered returning to base for more gear. 

In reply to The Grist:

You raise a fair point, plenty of people who are very good at the actual climbing have pretty shoddy all round trad skills (witness yet another badly equalised in situ abseil, etc).

And it's also a fair point that by the top of a route like Warpath you might simply not have the right pieces left on your harness.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

The last time I went down them they were suitable for an OAP.

In reply to Paul Sagar:

The fixed gear above the first pitch of Strand was left in after discovery as the top pitch is heavily vegetated and probably best left from an ecological perspective.
If there had been a preemptive vote on the placement of this fixed gear it's more than likely that it would not have been 'allowed' in the first place.
However, there have always been pegs up there and these we're rightly or wrongly replaced...there's history to this story.

The top of The Sun is Quartzite pavement and people have belayed there for decades without the need for additional fixed gear, albeit a hard to find bolt which most people never find anyways. Ultimately if theres an issue I say take the bolt/peg out. 
As others have said, it maybe a bit of a faff but there are adequate belays at the top of Llawder.

Trad isn't meant to be about convenience. 

Our trad ethics are quirky and unique and a result of our rich climbing history which keeps things interesting.
If anything we should be looking to the future/legacy and reducing the fixed gear we use especially with the advances in this gear and the amount people now carry. 

If folk dont want the faff or the quirky ethics then go sport climbing. 

In reply to Andy Moles:

But it is easy enough to check what gear you will need for a belay there before doing a route - I'm not sure there is an excuse for not having an anchor!

In reply to Robert Durran:

I climbed with someone there once who had 7 bits of gear in the anchor including a thread...

In reply to Jon Ratcliffe:

Lots of countries have a rich climbing history, yet they don't have the same "quirky and unique" approach to ethics that we do.  Must be something else going on too?

In reply to Paul Sagar:

I'll try to make this simple

The top of the sun is on a path. You can pick up all the gear you used in the belay and walk away with it.

The top of p1 of the strand is not on a path. You cannot pick up the gear you abbed off and walk away with it.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder: but you can finish the Strand and walk back to the gearing up spot

In reply to Jon Ratcliffe:

Tosh, it’s just convenience and laziness. Plenty of other climbs at Gogarth require a similar exit without a convenient abseil

 

See above

In reply to Iamgregp:

Bit if they had the same "quirky and unique" approach it wouldn't be quirky and unique. 

Anyway, our particular quirkiness probably results from us having a longer history of rock climbing than other countries and on smaller crags; it evolved in a way to preserve the challenge despite their size.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Quirkily unique, or uniquely quirky? Or are they the same thing?! 🤷‍♂️

Yes I agree, I think out history of climbing plays a role, but the relative paucity of climbable rock is, perhaps, an even greater factor.

It’s not a huge leap to suggest that we we would be less strident about preserving trad routes if there were hundreds more just like it spread along a vast expanse of pristine crag like there are in many parts of mainland Europe.

That said, as I’ve made clear previously, I don’t think the current situation is sustainable in the (very) long term. We’re going to end up with the older generation protecting the majority of the rock, so that they can be enjoyed by the minority, whilst the majority of climbers have very limited to the type of climbing they wish to access.  I can’t see how that makes sense.

I know I’ll get a lot of dislikes for saying that, but I think it helpful to be honest about our opinions, and to discuss the future of climbing openly, honestly and above all pragmatically!

In reply to Iamgregp:

Christ, that's jumping the shark a bit! I'm not sure anyone was comparing these oddities to a whole scale retrobolting of Gogarth. Either way I think you are wrong, lots if younger people love trad (coz its ace) and there is also lots of sport climbing available in the UK. Almost all the keen climbers I know enjoy both (like me) and fortunately conflict seems generally limited to odd local things like these bolt/stake things.

In reply to ebdon:

Oh for sure, there will always be a demand and a place for trad in British climbing, from people of all ages.

Just wonder that if balance and supply of each is a bit out of whack. Given the way unloved and neglected trad venues often show a massive increase in traffic if retro bolted. 

You’ll certainly never hear me suggest we bolt Gogarth, there’s a couple of trad routes there that I’ve always wanted to do!

In reply to Iamgregp:

You, and some others in this thread, seem to have a concept of "No bolts = decision of Trad climbers; Bolts = decision of Sport Climbers" with a direct conflict / balance between these two aspects and NO other considerations. 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many walkers, birders, herpers, ecologists, conservationists, geologists etc who would consider drilling into the rock at such a sensitive site and glueing in a stake (whether visible /accessible or not) to be vandalism. 

And that's without considering the landowner's opinions. 

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Credit where it’s due, those are some decent points you’ve raised and I agree with you that it’s a much more complex question than my previous posts on this thread would have suggested I thought.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Another consideration is that for sport, someone has to take the time, effort (and £) to bolt the routes. For trad you can just turn up and climb.

In a country with loads of unclimbed rock it doesn't (really) matter if accessable location X becomes a sport crag because just down the road nobody can be bothered to equip the more difficult to access location Y (except for bolts/stakes at the top? 😁) so it remains a potential trad venue.

Just imagine how much effort would be required to turn Gogarth (or Carnmore) into a "safe" sport venue and to keep it "safely" equipped (!!!). Would anyone (or group) be bothered to do that as frequently as required by the sea air corrosion?

So in another country, their "Gogarth" would remain trad because just down the road they would have sport equipped their "Malham".

Not saying it would never happen but this factor would certainly greatly delay the "conversion" of many UK venues from sport to trad.

In the UK, we only climb on Gogarth because of the relative scarcity of rock which means that we've already developed as trad, the venues that are less convenient to get to.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Hmm, why the dislikes? Am I being multi-stalked or are people not reading what I wrote and thinking that I'm advocating bolting Gogarth 🤣

In reply to Michael Hood:

So Gogarth is a bit rubbish but we just have to make do with it?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Come on Robert, I never said that, just implied that access was a bit tricky.

If Gogarth was say only one cliff amongst 5 similar cliffs all fairly close together but the other 4 had much easier access, then which venue would be least developed?

(And hence least likely to end up as sport)

In reply to Michael Hood:

Really? Is it?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Now you're just being pedantic 😁. Depends what you're comparing it to, but definitely trickier than where most people's climbing is done.

Obviously, bit more difficult than say Stanage but easier than say Carn Gowla (not sure if this is good example).

In reply to Michael Hood:

To be clear,  I didn't dislike your post, but I did consider reporting it to the moderators for this heretical nonsense:

Gogarth is in my top three crags worldwide!

🙂

In reply to Michael Hood:

If by similar you mean major sea cliffs, then I'm a bit puzzled because access to most of Gogarth isn't exactly difficult by sea cliff standards. Hence why I think you are confusing people.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Amen...

In reply to kevin stephens:

Isn't the prime point here that the stakes are not needed. Adequate belays can be arranged without them.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Ermm them being other countries?

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think you are overlooking the point that people don't climb Gogarth due to scarcity of rock. They do it for the great adventurous climbs. I prefer Gogarth/Pembroke to Stanage but even if I didn't I would still want to climb there for the difference in experience even if we had ten times as much gritstone than we do.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

If you read the thread carefully you will see that that is not always the case and not always needed. If the farmer decided to replace the dry stone wall with steel railings then of course people would belay to it.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Although this does lead to a follow up question of just how "worldwide" have you gone Andy?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Indeed, this was kind of my point.  It's not just our long history it's also our Geography, our Geology, our Psychology and a great deal of other factors too, many of which have been mentioned upthread.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

To be honest. If Gogarth was a sport crag it would be a bit average. Certainly not the world class venue it is at the moment.

We need to treasure that.

In reply to Brown:

I think that's a key point with loads of top class trad venues, they would make, at best, mediocre sports venues.  I'm struggling to think of what of my favourite trad cliffs would make really good sports climbs (I probably dont climb hard enough trad compared to my sports grade though!)

In reply to ebdon:

Bits of Pembroke maybe? But yes, in general, the nature of a crag usually makes it naturally best suited to one or the other of sport or trad (and it would often be a bit rubbish as the other).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah some pembroke cliffs were the best I could come up with, greenham common perhaps. it would be an interesting thread in its own right!.

This is what gets me about a lot of the (in my view rather naive) bolts vs trad 'debate'. In the vast majority of cases trad climbs would make crap sports climbs. Retroed trad venues dont  become more popular because the are sport they become popular because the were crap E5 chop routes!

In reply to ebdon:

Indeed this was kind of my point upthread when I referenced unloved and neglected trad venues upthread.  I don't think even the most dedicated sport climber would try to suggest we ought to retro popular trad classics...

But a scruffy quarry or crag that someone put up some trad routes on decades ago, that have been rarely repeated since?

In reply to Iamgregp:

Personally, in such cases I think its a discision for local area groups/climbers and I have no problem when done in appropriately (hence my chossy E5 chop route example). I can think of many such venues that I have enjoyed such retroed trad. 

I'm not going to pretend it's always clear cut. I climbed at Farletter last year which I think was pretty controversial and could see the arguments either way but my point is we have these discussions in the uk and generally an accepted consensus is reached. I don't see a need to change the status quo.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm not sure if this is necessarily true - in Finland on the granite (and the few non-granite crags that there are) are generally mixed. Crack lines and reasonably well protected non-crack lines are trad routes, then unprotected or almost unprotected lines are bolted.  There tend not to be many very dangerous trad routes (sort of grit style horrors) although there are some fully bolt-free cliffs so they have a few.

In reply to TobyA:

I suppose you do get that sort of thing on some peak lime (and a few other crags). But I would argue this supports my point we have different range of rock types in the uk. Those sort of granite inland outcrops are quite unique in there featureslessness (if that's a word) so I can see how that approach might fit (note I have never climbed in Finland so this could be bollox).  I can see how you might equate this to grit but IMHO grit would make crap sport, it's just to short! I would imagine if grit crags were developed now  N America or Finland they might have a few bolts to tame the really dangerous routes but that's a different thing.

Actually in N America I imagine grit would be the preserver of highballers if developed now!

In reply to ebdon:

I tend to agree, however there are some issues with the status quo.

1. BMC membership and indeed the likelihood of those members taking an active part in meetings, surveys and decision making is skewed towards those in the older age brackets.  This means that those "consensus" decisions aren't really the decision of the consensus of climbers, just a subset.  This irony in that the older age groups tend to be less likely to be active climbers. 

For example look at the latest BMC organisational survey - the 2nd largest age bracket of respondents (and less than 1% behind the largest group) is the 55-64 year olds, yet less than 30% of that age group do any rock climbing.

Of course the solution is that the BMC needs to broaden its appeal to younger members and find ways to make them participate more in their activities.  I really do hope they are able to achieve this.

2. If a first ascensionists wish is that the crappy route they climbed trad decades ago remains a crap and rarely repeated trad route rather than become a mediocre but popular sport route that's how it stays (assuming none of the other issues that have been mentioned upthread are a factor or blocker to bolting)

Why?  What are we protecting here?  Climbers interests or an individual's ego? 

I appreciate that nobody would want to see their routes changed or altered in such a way as to completely change their character, but then I'd like to think that if I was in the same position I would behave altruistically and put the desires of the many above my own.  Perhaps some people do, others seem not to.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Interestingly in the Peak at least all the recent controversial bolting episodes have been done by older climbers, and I definitely get the impression nationally that most new low and mid grade development is done by older guys moving away from trad.

In reply to ebdon:

Yes I remember seeing a thread about that...  

Worth noting also that the U.K.'s most prolific new router, Gary Gibson, is not exactly a teenager himself.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Some cool stereotyping going on in this thread, either on is a faded retiree bolting easy crap (i.e popular) routes or an old fuddy duddy stopping the young having fun.

Me? I'm selective, some of my FA's I was only suprised it hadn't been retro-bolted and wondered why no-one had bothered to ask (an ivy filled crack surrounded by polished bolt routes in the Cuttings), other routes I'd chop the bolts as the protection difficulty is part of the challenge AND it's history.

A lot depends on how prolific one was, after a few hundred FA's a few routes one would prefer to keep original, others one couldn't care less, dangerous are people with only a few or those with "names" where the mass of their contempories are protective. Some live in the past, some think climbing is an evolving sport as are most sports. Bruce Springsteen has a song about this, "Glory Days".

In reply to jimtitt:

You may call it stereotyping if you wish, however having seen climbers on here threaten to chop bolts on their routes bolts before they've even been placed I'd say it's more of an observation of attitude of some of the climbing population.

And I emphasise some.  Some of the best days out sport climbing have been with retirement-age climbers who climb way harder than I do, and have a great time doing it.  Certainly wouldn't describe them as faded, climbers of crap routes, nor fuddy duddy.  I don't feel I have disrespected anyone based on their age.  I'm not that young myself Jim!

Appreciate your input re. you attitudes to your routes being retro bolted, and agree with you that some people live in the past and don't wish to see climbing evolve whereas others do.

What I would say is that proliferation of indoor walls over recent years, and the boom in people using them, we will see a change in the makeup, demographic and attitudes of outdoor climbers over the long term.