In reply to Rampikino & Rob Davies:
I can see both sides. I agree that if it is quarried and fits into the local ethos then fair enough.
However I do not agree with a blanket "find a crag bolt it" approach without any regard to:-
a) Its place in the environment
b) Its place in climbing history
C) The consideration as to which is appropriate trad or bolt
a) We have no God given right to climb on a particular piece of rock and the argument "if it wasn't bolted no one would climb there" is not an argument to bolt. It may be a good thing that no one climbs there (Lud's Church) for the sake of the plant and animal life that lives there. Also most land is privately owned and access can be a sensitive issue, nothing announces your presence like a bolt and land owners can be twitchy about such territorial markers. The decision to develop a crag bolted or otherwise has to take the above into consideration.
b) To some it is a given that venues that are historically trad should not be bolted but not everyone holds this view so it is worth discussing. I believe that where historically trad areas are under bolting discussion then weight should be given to the historical context and a consensus of the majority sought. It should be born in mind that bolting or even freeing a crag will change the nature of the climbing there.
C) and finally what is appropriate. Sport climbing originally developed in this country in order to give some protection on (mainly limestone quarried) crags that either offered no natural protection or such protection that existed was on loose rock and dubious at best. At first it seemed that we might go the way of Europe and bolt everything but then a growing awareness of our unique tradition of leader placed protection kicked in and the climbing community as a whole rejected the notion of bolting natural crags, especially on gritstone where due to the nature of the rock bolting would not be appropriate (ie break the surface and it weathers very quickly any bolts placed would become unsafe in a very short time). Previously bolted routes were freed (Big Issue) and things settled down.
But what is appropriate? For me I do not believe that a natural or a heavily naturalised crag should be bolted. If it is abandoned and over grown, leave it to the solitude and the lives of the creatures that live there. If it is too bold leave it for the next bolder generation.
Messner in his famous article spoke of the "murder of the impossible" however when one gets to the stage of bolting a perfectly protectable crack then it is the "Disneyfication of the possible". The moment you bolt a rock you create something artificial. It may be fun, it may give a moments sweet pleasure like a fast food burger, but it will be the lesser path taken. I have climbed many bolted routes on holidays abroad, I have enjoyed the climbing, but it is only the trad climbs I did (abroad) that I can remember the names of. I was thinking of this recently and realied that it was because these were the ones where I really had to concentrate on the rock, where it was run out, where gear might go, thinking and planning all the time. With the bolted routes I was always looking to the next bolt and however interesting the climbing that was always the upper most thought. Rather than a painting it was just a join-the-dots problem.
BUT Hey each to their own, if that crack is in place that is already well bolted then it would be inconstant not to bolt it.