UKC

Good day everyone,

I live near Nesscliffe in Shropshire, where the famous Nesscliffe crags are situated. I've looked around the crag with great interest, climbed a few of the routes too, but I see some areas where there are no established routes and have presumed that because of the lack of protectable rock and the dirty look they give, there are no routes to be found in the two guide books and over the 12 years I've been visiting, I've never seen anyone even bouldering in those particularly obscure and unsavoury looking sections.

There are other sections, near to established routes, where bolted routes are possible, yes, they are blank of protection and are of a sandy/dirty nature, but have potential all the same.  

I'm a mid grade climber and because I live near the crag, I'd like to establish and bolt only a few routes, which would provide some sport climbing, not just for me, but for others, who otherwise might never climb in Nesscliffe. I'm not being selfish or a 'do gooder', I merely see an opportunity and wish to explore the ethics and more importantly, ensure that I am not going to risk the wrath of others. 

Please, my fellow climbers, try not to engage in subjective reasons not to bolt, I merely wish for an objective reason not to bolt, apart from doing anything illegal of course.  

April 1st isn't until Sunday...

The only alarm bell for me is when you say "near to established routes". How near?

Other than that, I'll leave it to the crag regulars to voice an opinion.

As an objective view, I think its not that difficult to turn up and rig a top rope setup with edge protection to protect the top of the crag, providing the ability to try stuff whatever and wherever you want, and then when you go nothing is left behind.

I'm personally open minded to the idea of bolting, I don't agree with a blanket no bolts policy. However,I think in the case of Nesscliffe could potentially be a slippery slope. It would be interesting to know which sections of rock/routes in particular you are talking about??

Thanks Ed

Assuming you’re not doing this to get a rise out of people:

I think you need to be very specific about what precisely you’re proposing to get anywhere near a measured response. I would take Ed’s word as carrying far more weight than mine, particularly his observation that almost everywhere at Nessie has excellent top rope potential, so if you see unclimbed lines why not top rope instead of bolting? I think you really need to establish a good case for bolts as opposed to top roping, especially given that there are some local notables who may be willing to lead it in short order.  

Assuming this isn’t a troll...

Firstly, it’s a relatively soft sandstone. I’m not convinced conventional bolts would actually hold or last a long time.

Secondly, are there really any unclimbed mid grade lines which are actually worth climbing, given there are some very strong climbers regularly visiting the crag? I’d have thought anything below about 8a would have been done by now!

No bolts please - if something looks too hard to lead leave it or top rope it.

Contentious OP? Check

Not replied? Check

New user? Check

I'm thinking: Troll, but one lacking imagination

Not while Nick Dixon’s alive - check out his history on bolts.

Since your reasons for wanting to bolt are purely subjective (personal preference and desire) it's hypocritical to disallow subjective reasons for not bolting. 

Exactly my thoughts. There is no need to bolt - presumably Nesscliffe being soft Sandstone is a similar scenario to Southern Sandstone where there is a ban on bolting other than for providing fixed belays for top roping? The reasons why top bolting here is tolerated is a) to protect trees which have suffered from rope scarring in the past, and b) to reduce damage to the tops of the climbs caused by ineptly placed belay set ups.

Totally agree.

[To the OP]

Unless I'm missing something (always possible!) climbing ethics are de facto subjective. People forget - or maybe never knew - that, 50 years before 'bolt wars' began, we had 'peg wars' (e.g. Munich Climb, FA 1936). And, lo and behold, the same issues rumbled on and on, ironically only finally dying out in time for the 'bolt wars' to begin!

Apropos of the 'peg wars', someone once remarked how arbitrary it was that pegs were allowed in certain counties in England and not in others.

So it's subjective... always has been.

Now, either you're a troll or you're not. Your post was quite considered so I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt (though you do need to respond to people's contributions). Even if you are trolling, there may be lots of people (mostly who've never been to Nesscliffe) who may be wondering, 'Why not here?'  or 'Why not somewhere else?'

So here's how it works. You propose a list of routes/lines which you'd like to see bolted, at a BMC local area meeting, giving your (subjective!) reasons. And there will be a vote. Abide by the result. 

Canvassing opinion here is a blunt instrument. The most informed debate invariably comes from people who know an area intimately and understand its history and culture, yet also have wide experience elsewhere. I gather the habitues of Nesscliffe are eminently qualified on both counts.

Mick

The answer is to go out and top-rope or boulder the lines - once you've proven they're do-able then get them in a guide as toprope problems. At some point someone will come along with the balls to lead them or not as the case may be. At some point a load of people will say 'this line has really good moves and should be bolted' or 'this line is rubbish, don't bother with it'. It's only at that point that the proposal to bolt should be considered, bolting stuff of unknown quality is a waste of time.

Maybe he's just a top-roper who's been getting abuse from the local hard men.

Now he can point them to this thread, and go happily about his top-roping.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that (as I understand it) - bring your proposal to a meeting to be discussed, it can then go on the agenda for the next meeting. This is to prevent a large group arriving at a single meeting and steam rolling through a vote on a contencious issue (eg bolting). 

This seems a strange comment. The obvious answer is surely because people prefer lead climbing to top roping. Top roping has never been very popular, except for beginners. Sport routes don't exist merely because it's hard to set a top rope up.

If there's no gear at all on the routes in question then bolting them seems like a good idea. By making them safe it will encourage traffic that will keep them clean. And for those who don't wish to to clip the bolts they can simply solo them since there will be no point in towing a rope up anyway.

Good point re. keeping them clean.. I’m off to Wimberry with my drill! 

Glad to hear it.

There is a long history of top roping at nesscliffe, where i’ve always found it to be a widely accepted alternative if you don’t want to accept the risks associated with nessy trad (soft rock, pegs etc.) 

Given that, your comment seems rather strange i.e if you don’t want to top rope or lead on trad gear then knocking in bolts on soft sandstone is a better option..?

My point is that it would be very very dependant on what sector/ line this person was suggesting and as a default the ethic at nesscliffe is to top rope if you don’t want to lead/ headpoint. Where the line is drawn regarding pegs and also whether bolts are an acceptable alternative is the grey area, which can only be decided on a case by case basis. 

Another three days, that's all is is, another three days! 

Or a uni student looking for essay quotes?

Ah, my apologies. I think I've only been to three such area meetings, all about bolting and, if I remember correctly, in each case the business was done on the spot. Mind you, the first two meetings were 20 years or so ago. I was covering both for a climbing magazine. I went to the third one mainly to try and stop two mates killing each other. Amazingly peace broke out and hands were shaken. It was brilliant!

Am in complete agreement that safeguards should be available to ensure that things don't get steamrollered through (one way or the other). Certainly in all my three meetings, democracy wasn't just seen to be done - it was done. Everybody got a fair and courteous hearing. In two cases, bolts were rejected; in one, they were allowed.

Currently we seem to inhabit a political era where democracy is flouted at every turn. That's no reason why, in our little climbing world, we shouldn't insist upon the highest standards possible. We're custodians of the rock, no more. We need to pass on to future generations rock worth climbing and 'a game worth playing'.

End of rant!

Mick

Well, a few years ago, I ended up being given the job of writing the fixed gear policy for Devon and Cornwall (except West Penwith!). Lengthy consultations and plenty of opportunity for everyone to have their input before it was agreed.

An excellent sentiment beautifully expressed. Nice one, Mick.

... and who cares about the sad, unimaginative troll who started this thread. If it throws up a useful discussion and lovely quotes like that, not only has it failed in its trolling objective, it's also served a useful purpose!

Well on a blank, protectionless wall bolts would stop neither top ropers nor soloists. They'd just provide a third style of ascent: the most popular style for most in fact. That's important on dirty or vegetated rock as more traffic keeps the routes clean.

Though I'd agree the bolts would have to be safe in the rock. Glue ins of a decent length usually suffice for soft sandstone.

If the dude wants mid-grade sport then llanymynech is 15 minutes down the road. The ethic at nesscliffe is to top rope if you want to climb totally safely or lead (often with pre-practise) if you want the ‘full experience’. In principle, I don’t see how sticking a line of bolts up the crag will be any improvement on that ethic. The popularity/ ‘can ignore them if you want’ could surely apply to numerous routes at nesscliffe.

Were the prevailing ethic for the crag to change so dramatically the guy needs to say what line they’re on about, find out if it’s been climbed before etc. Then a dialogue can begin that establishes if this is a good idea for the specific area and crag as a whole. I’m struck by Mick’s notion of looking after the rock and leaving something for the future generations. Potentially unclimbed lines at nesscliffe are surely a very finite resource and need to be looked after and not just bolted up without thought. 

Given the lack of response from the OP I would guess there is no piece of rock matching this at nesscliffe but it has stirred up an interesting debate. 

The '80s bolt wars focused on routes of high technical difficulty at the cutting edge at that time. Recent comments on here suggest that there's an attitude favouring bolting lines not because they are too hard and dangerous to justify leading on leader placed protection, but because more people would do them if the protection was better and there's a dearth of sports routes at that crag/region. 

'Twas just a  jest, however weak ffs! 

Agreed. I would go further: climbers are not just custodians of the rock for future generations of climbers, but also custodians of the rock per se, i.e. for the entire outdoor environment including all its "users". I am sure there are non-climbers who are baffled when they see bolts in cliffs and think "who are these people who think they have the right to stick shiny bits of metal in that piece of nature?"

I see where you're coming from but I think it would take a rare circumstance for that concern to be significant - and often the kind of circumstance where climbing itself is likely to be prohibited. Generally bolting affects mainly the 'rules of the game' and, to a lesser but still significant degree, the aesthetic impact as perceived by climbers.

Just what are you on about?

If you don't go there or aren't going to go there please don't waste your time giving an opinion, it was an empty opinion anyway, but thanks.

But if the route to the 'edge' is extremely dodgy one has to fathom another way to get to it. So bolting on the lead is the other way.

See my reply to Ed. No, assuming that this is a serious site, why would I be so immature in trying to get a rise of of people, that was a typically 'social media' type of response from you. Please, give me objective reasons to botl or not to bolt.

Please! Give me an objective reason, not just subjective matter like your '8a' suggestion.

Also, no this is not a 'Troll' immature social media post, please get serious.

So how come there are other bolts in Nesscliffe? Please give objective and not subjective reasons. 

Andy, you're a social media type, so it seems, so please, mature resonses only.

Nick is not the authority here, as the post requests, objective reasons only.

Hey, this is my post, if you were to request a response and in a way that assists your question, I would respect it, so please be respectful.

No mate, there are other reasons to bolt, is there a book on bolting ethics and techniques that covers every site? I've not seen it.

Hi Mick,

Eloquently written, but you're not the arbiter of what should or should not be written or how rapidly I should reply to responses. Biggotry over how, where and when or who can and cannot bolt on your terms is purely subjective. I don't suppose I should be telling you what 'objective' actually means but its about the object, not about the person, if I wanted someone's personal reasons not to bolt, I would ask for it, so the above responses have been applied with a blunt weapon, I'm merely asking a straight question. In addition, its up to me to decide when I reply to a response, not for you to tell me how expedient I should be. Thanks for your time, Teacher. 

Thank you for your time, but please, but having balls is a subjective matter

JCD

Hi Stevie, this is a serious issue, you're just wasting time mate. Please don't abuse the site by isssuing immature and empty statements. 

You may want to look up a working definition of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ before you crack on. Objective reasons stated above include: aesthetic impact; potential impact on the soft rock; change to existing ethic setting a precedent that could impinge on existing routes and future development (murder of the impossible etc.) 

if you want to engage in constructive debate then maybe pick one of the numerous points raised above, if you want to continue with facile name calling then please don’t bother including me!

The only reason I commented, probably the same as everyone else on this thread, is because nesscliffe is a place that I really value and enjoy spending time in. If you have a serious proposal then by all means follow the advice given: enquirie as to its existing status/ history/ go to a local area meeting and discuss with other locals.

Hi Mark, 

Thanks for your kind response. It makes absolute sense to bring the issue to a meeting, for one it might induce the total ban of bolting, which in my view would be a positive thing if it prevented damage to the environment, but also help prevent the over use of bolting, that is, if bolting ever was allowed. 

Hi STP,

Thanks for your response, my sentiments entirely, although I didn't voice them in my post. 

Ollie, use Facebook for your comments mate.

John,

You've just reduced a polite response and thread to the low life gutter crap you've served up all on your own. I'm not a troll, so please keep your stupid childish thoughts for facebook or twitter.

Thanks STP, good thought and one for the 'committee', should one ever be brought to task.

Can I recommend this book to you? https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814

Hi Tom (notice I didn't say 'Dude',

I'm not a 'Dude', but perhaps this is food for a guide book or rule book on how and where to climb depending upon who you are and what type/grade you wish to climb.... Up to you...

I'm talking about objectivity, not subjectivity, will it harm the environment or not? Will it provide safe activities or not? Again, if there is a committee that decides to bolt or not to bolt, we will all comply with the rules. 

Also, I don't have to mention 'lines', there's pleanty of places Tom.

I'd agree there Stewart, so 'objectively' the rock would see a lot of traffick and then perhaps it would see a great erosion of the rock, which is already very fragile in places. Thanks for your comment.

Good and valid point in my view John. Thanks.

Good point John.

I don't see any of these as objective. Climbing ethics and rules are by their very nature subjective. They're arbitrary and made up by people.

aesthetic impact: Aesthetics are subjective. What one person likes is not the same as another. Bolts don't necessarily detract from a place. They also add, in this case the creation of new routes and the cleaning dirty walls.

potential impact on the soft rock: That's hypothetical anyway and there's no reason to think it can't be mitigated with the right gear.

change to the existing ethic: This again depends upon how one looks at it. Rather than changing the existing ethic it could be augmented. Rather than saying bolts are now allowed at Nesscliffe a rule could be added: bolts are permitted on blank protectionless face climbs, or even just on certain specific faces.

This debate reminds of Alex Honnold's comments when he climbed over here. He thought it was better to bolt stuff making it more accessible to those who want safe routes, whilst for those want more risk they can solo the routes.

In a country with as little rock as here I think we should make the most of what we've got. Putting up new routes is giving to future generations. Leaving walls dirty and unclimbed is not.

No you can't Andy, please go to Facebook for idle and immature chat.

I agree entirely STP.

Are the generally belligerent tone of your responses to people here a sign of maturity then?

Assuming this isn't the massive pisstake it appears to be:

You've given your own entirely subjective reason for adding bolted routes "*I* want more routes to climb here" - sorry you've waived any right to demand objective reasons in response, your 'argument' doesn't deserve that. 

Hypothetically, and regardless of the subjective/objective wool-over-eyes tangent, the problem with adding sport routes to unclimbed areas is that it would very likely be the thin end of the wedge: Lots of people would climb those sport routes because they would be easier, less bold, more accessible (rather than putting the effort into getting good enough to onsight the trad routes), and at some point would start wondering why the other, relatively less popular trad routes aren't bolted.... And then the bolts would spread. This has happened all over Peak and Yorkshire limestone, and slate, and dolerite quarries... 

Unless, of course they arrive at a conventional sport lower-off with no viable top exit.

The number of French, Italian, Spanish routes I've soloed whilst towing a rope behind me just so I can get down again.......

Unless the landowner objects and it causes loss of access there are no objective reasons not to bolt.  Just as there are no 'objective reasons' for not chipping holds or fixing a ladder to the crag for the blank bits.

It is all subjective; but no less important for that.

John Stainforth:

john arran:

Speaking as an access rep in the Peak that isn't my experience at all. Nowadays many of the crags are owned by conservation bodies - the National Trust, National Parks, Wildlife Trusts. I can assure you all of these landowners are very concerned about the visual impact of bolts. They can be pragmatic about it - for example they may allow lower-offs to lessen the of impact topping out on flora - but make no mistake, as a rule they want to see the crag in natural state: without bolts, tat or permadraws.

There is also a legal issue - most of these crags are also notified SSSIs. Any 'work' on them has to be agreed with the landowner and Natural England. Whilst removing vegetation may fall into that category too, depending on extent, bolting always would and it does raise a significant difference between trad climbing and sport in the eyes of conservation law.

In reply to JCD:

Back when I was a Nesscliffe regular in the nineties top-roping was the norm and many lines were unled. A couple of routes were bolted but neither the routes nor the drill became popular. Normal style at the crag has improved since in line with general standards and on-sight leads are now common. So in one sense this debate has already been done.

I don't see the big areas of blank rock as being under-used due to lack of protection. I think it's due to a combination of dampness and difficulty. New hard routes continue to appear through the established headpoint ethic. The crags have been well explored. If there were good routes to do only lacking in protection they would either be in the guide as 'not-led' or would have been bolted before now.

There is no way of judging how genuine you are. If you didn't live through the bolt wars first time round, do some research before posting what appears to be a grade A troll on here. 

Spot on, in my opinion

Don’t particularly want to get into a semantic debate, but:

Aethetics: putting a row of bolts up the crag will materially and objectively change the crag. Whether you think this is okay, or fine considering then use of chalk or relative to damage caused by bouldering is subjective, but the fact that sticking shiny metal up a crag changes the way it looks is objective. See Adam long’s comment for the subjective way this objective change can be interpreted by other stakeholders, as well as climbers

Soft rock: objectively the rock at nesscliffe is often sandy, soft and vulnerable once the patina goes. Making a route more popular and putting bolts in the rock (presumably to be fallen on) may, objectively, cause damage and problems. Whether you think this is mitigated by the the quality of the route, or the accessibility to previously not frequented parts of th crag, is subjective.

Ethics: have evolved in each specific climbing area through dialogue and conflict. See Adam long’s comment above for a good summary of how it is at nesscliffe. Ethics are value judgements and therefore subjective. Going to a pro-bolting ethic would objectively change this existing ethic. Whether you think this is a good move surely depends on the specific area/ routes and impact on everything else: this is subjective of course.

interesting debate anyway. I’m in no ways against development of the crag if it is done sympathetically and with genuine care for the place, but sticking bolts in one of the perma-damp ‘other quarries’ or the big wall under Northumberland terrace seems to me to require discussion! 

I agree with this sentiment. As I mentioned before similar arguments for bolts could be made for loads of routes at nesscliffe, so we have to be very careful about how it is managed. I personally can’t see the benefit of making it into a sport crag given that llanymynech is so close, and the visible deterioration of kynaston’s in the past few years suggests the rock is not up to it. I am open to other ideas/ opinions, but the OP seems more intent on discord or just finding people who agree with them

i think an Objective reason not to put bolts in at Nesscliffe, could be that they would get chopped.

I bow to your greater experience in such matters when dealing with bodies such as NT, Parks, etc. and clearly any crags in SSSIs deserve special treatment as well. But in general I still suspect that such visual sensitivities may be largely held by officials of such bodies to a massively higher degree than they would be by ordinary members of the public who may happen to chance upon a bolted crag. Even if they were to notice the bolts at all, I rather think that the typical response is likely to be curiosity rather than anything resembling outrage. No doubt there will be the occasional vocal exception, which I suppose is what the folk from the official bodies will be concerned to minimise.

Exactly. Someone earlier on this thread commented that Nick Dixon is not the authority for Nesscliffe. Well, actually he is. Leading activist, guidebook writer. And he won’t tolerate bolts. So all this talk is a waste of time. 

To be honest, in my view this entire debate is total nonsense and could only happen in Britain where we have this romantic, distorted view of the past and a weird set of fear-based, puritanical ethics.

The only reasonable and sensible answer to JCD's proposal is: yeah mate, go for it. If you can salvage some climbing out of some grotty quarried walls that no one else has the slightest interest in then good luck to you. If the routes are any good at all you'll be doing everyone a favour.

If we want objective truths then perhaps take a look at the history of British climbing. The entire trend from the very beginning has been from dangerous routes to safer but harder routes.  We started out with hawser laid ropes and no protection. Climbing for the leader was not much different to soloing. Then gradually we figured out how to make climbing safer. First it was threaded pebbles and engineering nuts. Then came purpose made nuts, hexes, wires, rocks, kernmantle ropes, microwires, high tech camming devices and bouldering mats. If climbers really wanted climbing to be a dangerous, high-risk activity then all these advancements should have been shunned. Sure there were some dissenting voices but the wishes of the majority ensured that the creation of purpose made protection became a viable business. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of climbers have no interest in risking serious injury or death every time they go climbing.

In terms of ethics I find it strange that top roping is seen as superior to lead climbing. To me, top-roping is what beginners do. And as for top-roping before leading well that was always considered cheating. Today we call it headpointing which is essentially just a way to legitimise it. It's not hard to see how and why this style originated. In a country gripped by fear of the evil bolt, no one was allowed to place bolts, not even in the blank, hard unprotectable face climbs. Saved for the next generation? Well, the next generation arrived and they didn't get bolder. They simply changed the rules so they could pre-practice those lines in safety until they felt confident enough to lead them. There's definitely still some risk in such ascents. But the risk of a bad fall was always preferable to the certainty of bad publicity if you placed a bolt.

So that's where we are today, the sorry state of British climbing: debating whether it's OK to place some bolts in some dirty quarried walls that no one visits. There's this romantic idea that in the future climbing standards will rise and the most talented climbers will want to climb these dirty bits of rock. To be honest I once believed the same kind of thing would have defended it passionately. But as an older climber, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'm willing to admit I was wrong. For me the future generation of climbers has already arrived. Most of the country's top climbers today weren't even born when I started climbing. The trend in climbing now is the same as it's always been, towards difficulty. The main focus for today's leading lights is in bouldering, Spanish sport routes and indoor competitions. In terms of boldness, I'm not sure there's been much, if any improvement, over the standards set by John Redhead back in the 80's. Sure, we've got higher grades now, but only by changing the rules. And there aren't exactly queues for Margins of the Mind.

Not totally sure you've got that one right?

Not sure the two sentences fir together all that well?

You've been to Malham?  Kilnsey?  I think there's a few spots further South as well where hard, unprotectable faces have actually been bolted.  With a consensus approval.

Yep.  I'd say you've got that right.

And that is what has happened.  Substitute 'limestone' for 'dirty bits of rock'?  Or 'quarries'?  Or boulders?

 > For me the future generation of climbers has already arrived.

Naah.  'Today's' generation has arrived; we still await the 'future generation'.  And somewhere along the way there might be some quantum leap in protection technology - think about the impact of cams.

We could maybe start a thread on recent hard, bold, trad routes?  There might just be a few.

Interesting points. I guess for me what it comes down to is without knowing what the OP was actually on about, on specific terms, it’s impossible to give a considered response. The absolute vagueness (some ‘blank piece of rock with an amenable sport grade somewhere at nesscliffe’ really is not that specific) means that my default position would be definitely don’t feel free to drill bolts with abandon.

My reasoning has precious little to do with fear of bolts or whatever else you were suggesting, it is to do with upsetting what appears to me to be a fairly well balanced situation where there is ample scope for safe climbing and also room for trad. Your ethic of bolting would, most likely, begin to creep into other routes in the area: there are hardly queues for my piano or gathering sun on most days, should we bolt them too? 

If you see top roping as beginners stuff, that’s your perception. Have you ever been to nesscliffe? There are trees along the top of almost all the quarries, it takes 5 minutes to get to the top and set one up and means you can climb quality routes without having to drill any bolts, in perfect safety and also leave the option for trad whether headpoint or onsight. Also, at nesscliffe the routes really get going around the e4 mark and most are in French 7s, so your repeated point about beginners is somewhat wide of the mark. 

Seems like you’re making general points without actually understanding the area you’re referring to. 

Sorry to addendum, but just needed to pick up on a couple of things I missed first time round. 

1. I never said top roping is superior to lead climbing. It is an alternative. Due to conditions/History, at nesscliffe bolt assisted climbing (for the purposes of safety) is made pretty redundant by the easy availability of top ropes. If there was a good argument for using bolts instead of top ropes it needs to be made pretty strongly.

2. You say a dirty quarry that no one visits. I see this as a lack of understanding for what is a cherished crag for many many climbers (see number of respondents on here) who would want to see it developed appropriately and not trashed for the immediate need to ‘exploit the rock we have’.

However, this is veering off into the perennial to bolt or not to bolt argument. Without knowing the specifics of what the OP was on about there is no point in me banging on I think. 

I think you’re doing today’s trad climbers a disservice by implying that no one does necky trad any more and it’s all about the sport and the bouldering. Actually, standards are being pushed in all disciplines.

Still, you have a point that if there is genuinely some unclimbed gearless rock, there may be a case for bolting it, especially if it’s dirty etc. Something to be discussed on a case by case basis through BMC area meetings etc.

However the OP hasn’t exactly chosen the best venue for this. Normal bolts would be a bad idea in sandstone, so simply bolting a line safely would be far from straightforward. I also don’t really understand the desire for some mid grade sport routes when there are already a fair few such routes in the area (at Llanymynech and on Clwyd limestone). Better spending the money and effort on rebolting existing sport routes as and when required.

As others have pointed out, the OP has not actually said which particular areas / lines he/she would like to bolt. The locals would then be able to comment in detail. 

Maybe you're exaggerating the importance of these threads to the state of British climbing?

Not that I'm really bothered about the state of British climbing, as long as the state of the rock and access & conservation issues are in a healthy state. If everyone else is weak as p!ss compared to rest of the world, and gets Elvis leg 4 inches above a bolt, it's not going to stop me having fun. So why worry?

Does anyone really want to see people pushing the envelope of boldness more than JR? He came pretty close to killing himself, as did JD.

??????Use glue-ins.  

I understand the point you are making but by definition, future generations of climbers aren't climbing today. If Kim and Trump keep their fingers off the button, there will be 100s or 1000s of generations of future climbers. It's a bit presumptuous to assume their interests will be those of present millennials, that no game-changing technological changes will come along and that they will consequently have no interest in what is now some dirty quarried wall. They may even want to clean it up with a local consensus to bolt it, which would be their prerogative. In the absence of such a consensus, it isn't ours.

So, even if they are bolted, how do you keep those dank and dirty areas clean.  Simple traffic isn't going to do it on a shady, damp sandstone crag. 

I’m always confused when people want Climbing to be safe. It is a pointlessly dangerous activity and long may it remain so.

Bloody hell, I only asked how near to existing routes you were looking at. That was a question, not an opinion! Care to answer it?

Don't think you've done yourself any favours by the way you've responded to folk in this thread (your original post, by comparison, was quite reasonable).

I didn't mean to imply no one is doing bold routes so apologies if it came out that way. The point really is that that kind of climbing is only small part of climbing practiced by a small minority of the climbing community. So it doesn't make sense to me that the wishes of that minority should be allowed to dominate everyone based on what are essentially arbitrary ethical rules.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this means every run out trad route can be retrobolted.  But if a bit rock is not being used by climbers and someone takes the initiative to turn it into a worthwhile route then what methods and gear they use is up to them. Which is really the way climbing was always practiced before the internet.  Before the internet it simply was not possible to have any discussion about what to bolt or not - except with your mates. So people just went and did what they thought was the right thing to do. Sometimes it didn't work out, bolts got chopped etc. but most of the time it worked out fine.

I suspect, based solely JCD's description, if he took this approach it would probably be fine. If climbers at the crag saw the route they'd more likely appreciate the fact there's something new to get on and try. But proposed on a forum like here this it just becomes a purely cerebral, ethical debate completely divorced from the rock and climbing generally.

It may be a small minority of climbers but in the case of Nesscliffe it is a small local scene with some very strong local and visiting climbers.

As mentioned further up the thread, an objective reason for not bolting here is that any bolts would get chopped pretty quickly!

It’s true that the web enables and encourages these discussions but the local BMC area meeting is the right forum for making decisions on what to bolt or not to bolt. Even then, of course some people might bolt on their own initiative - and others might chop bolts likewise.

When climbers do routes they tend to clean off the important bits as they need to. If there's moss or lichen on an important hold they'll brush it off. This is far easier to do if a route is bolted because you can hang on the bolt, haul up a brush and clean with ease. If a route has scant and/or dodgy gear this impossible to do and the only way to clean a route is by abseil. Whilst it's pretty standard to abseil clean and inspect a new line few climbers will bother to go to the trouble just to make a repeat ascent.

So I think bolts are ideal for such bits of rock. They both encourage more traffic and make it easier to clean the route when necessary. 

Well that's a hypothesis but assuming it's true then the question is why aren't those same climbers getting out there and doing those routes first? Why have these walls been left unclimbed? Do they really need an ethical cause to be encouraged to climb these walls? If so that seems rather sad and pathetic.

How many years is it now since the last known ascent of Indian Face? Surely by now this must qualify as a "bit of rock not being used by climbers"?

Even if there's never been a route up a face, encouraging its use as a sport route could easily starve trad climbing of future air.

This is not to mention the psychological impact it inevitably would have on the ambiance of an adventurous crag, which is often overlooked or dismissed as being not relevant as long as the bolts can't physically be reached from the trad lines. Apart from High Tor (which has very few sport routes and almost none on the main faces), I can't think of a single example of a mixed sport and trad crag where the interest in the trad routes hasn't faded once the sport routes have been added.

I'm all for new sport development on rock that hasn't been of interest to climbers before now, but I'd hope it would be suitably separated from existing and climbed-on crags so as not to interfere with the adventurous feel of the crag environment, not just the feel of the existing climbed lines.

And yes, I am aware that some trad lines were climbed at Portland some decades ago, and I'm fully supportive of the decision to bolt the rest of the routes there as a fantastic sport resource. But a balance has to be drawn, and in my view if a majority of potential lines on a crag have been climbed, or seem reasonably possible, in trad style, then adding bolted lines between them should not be accepted as reasonable.

I think Indian Face had a string of ascents not that long ago. But not a good example anyway. I don't think it's even a trad route - it's never been done ground up. It's high grade means it's only possible for a very small number of climbers so it's inevitable that there will be long gaps between ascents, just like any hard route.

Well that's an interesting observation. How would you interpret that? That most climbers now prefer sport routes to trad? I'm not even sure if the addition of bolts has anything to do with it. In the Peak District I've heard several people say how no hardly anyone climbs at Chee Tor any more. Chee Tor has to be one of the best trad limestone crags in the Peak. Maybe it will come back into vogue at some point but if it doesn't then what? Is it better to bolt it to make it popular again for climbing or just leave it to be reclaimed by the ivy and plant life?

That's just bollocks though. I've just had a quick look at the logbooks and the popular trad routes had loads of ascents on 2017. Not to mention all the times that the routes had been climbed/repeated/failed on and not put into the logbooks. Every time I've been to Chee Tor there has always been others climbing there. Not bad for a trad crag that you've got to wade across a river to get to. 

Absolute bollocks. Chee Tor gets climbed on the regular and in the last two years or so an enthusiastic little crew have been cleaning it all up, removing tat/knackered pegs and checking the in-situ bolts (what few there are!). 

Speaking generally, possibly the following... the stuff that is bolted gets more attention overall, both from sport climbers and from those wanting to clip bolts on that particular day. Since they don't take much time and have little risk, even poor sport routes get plenty of traffic. Unless a top line, the trad stuff inbetween inevitably looks less attractive to justify the faff on what is now essentially a sport crag. Those wanting to climb trad go elsewhere. 

Totally agree with your post. Sure, crags go in and out of fashion (Avon, Tremadog, even Gogarth). I remember, twenty years ago, Chee Tor would often be practically deserted while the Cornice would have lots of people. But, certainly back then, most people on the Cornice would have done dozens of routes at Chee Tor and valued it highly as a trad crag.

These places just need some tender loving care, ideally from locals who can get there quickly and easily. And it's great to see this happening with Chee Tor and other venues around the country. It would be terribly wrong if it was ever bolted.

Mick

Quick question...

have you ever climbed at Nesscliffe?

I can think of a few off the top of my head.

The whole of Pen Trwyn

Castell y Gwynt

A small slate quarry opposite Llanberis you may have heard of with many hundreds of routes of both styles...

There must be others.

So including those and High Tor, not bad.. 

Objectively, it 'would' be possible to place completely safe and extremely long-lasting bolts in the sandstone found at Nessclife. This is objectively the case because it's already been done at a very similar sandstone crag - Frogsmouth Quarry in Runcorn - which used to have a similar style and ethics to Nesscliffe. Extra long 16mm glue-in stainless bolts have been placed to make good quality bolted routes.

Like Nesscliffe, Frogsmouth used to have an assortment of rotting metalwork hammered in on top-rope to protect pre-practiced 'trad' leads.. (warthogs, pegs, old bolts, nails, kitchen sink etc.).

The question of whether bolts would 'improve' some routes at Nesscliffe doesn't have an objective answer though - it's what feels right to those who climb there the most. Ed Booth (and obvs Nick Dixon) and crew have the best handle on what feels right ot them as they spend the most time there. And even they probably have days when they think one thing would work well and other days when they think something else.

Those from outside the area with the strongest opinions and loudest voices no doubt also feel they have a say in the matter. Even some people living in France..

Castell y Gwynt is a good counter example.

As far as I recall, Pen Trwyn is pretty well split into sport and trad sectors, so grouping it all together as one 'crag' isn't really fair. 

And Llanberis slate has always been an oddity, initially with very few genuine sport routes, as opposed to routes with occasional bolts. While there are some sport routes that intermingle with popular trad, most of the sport again seems to be concentrated in sectors that either weren't climbed on beforehand, or are rarely climbed on as trad any more.

I have no doubt that people will be able to pinpoint several more specific examples of coexistence of popular sport and trad in the same sector, but my point was that it is surprisingly rare.

Next weeks thread: Nessclifffe - to chop all the trees down or not to

Given the pedigree of the crag, I’m not convinced there are going to be any worthwhile unclimbed mid grade lines (which is what the OP alluded to). Stand to be corrected if the OP provides some specifics. 

I was in the area yesterday, it was damp and greasy, but, for example, there is an area just to the left of the stone steps that lead into Kynaston's Cave. I've noticed some tat up there in the centre of the wall, not that I've climbed on that wall, but it may be possible to top rope all sections, some investigation would be needed to determine if there is scope for pro in order to establish some more trad routes. If not, bolting might be the answer in order to provide some nice little routes on a wall that seemingly doesn't see any traffic. 

Thoughts anyone?

My sentiments entirely Sir, the normal bolts might not seem to be appropriate, but I was thinking on the same lines as you, longer bolts would do the trick, after all, there are some pretty old looking bolts in several routes already, which undoubtedly see much 'krab action', so replacements might be in order too. I've seen bolts in places where there is really no need for them, yet on the same route where there is need for them, there are none. 

Like Frogmouth, this is a quarry, is there really a big issue about bolting where there is definitely no natural protection? Merely a question to all who object.

I've been to the area many times, there are quite a few unclimbed routes that are worthwhile doing. It just takes a little time to spot them.

I am of the opinion that this crag/quarry has areas of trad, sport/trad and sport routes that co exist, this might be one of those rarities.

Michael,

Some people are just downright rude and its not for you to comment upon how I reply to those folk. You unfortunately are in the same pitiful bracket. 

Haven’t wanted to get embroiled in this thread as it seemed like the usual UKC hot air, but you seem to be serious so...

Do you have a copy of the 2007 Nick Dixon guide? It is worth checking out as you’ll probably find that those routes to the left of kynaston’s cave steps already exist, so it takes your proposal in to the realms of retrobolting -a new area of debate/controversy! Additionally, the area next to the kynaston cave steps is likely to be a bit sensitive from an access point of view as climbers have been asked to avoid the existing routes here (again, detailed in the guide). Bouldering is tolerated, but putting shiny new bolts in just a few metres away may not be!

With regards some of the other areas that appear to be unclimbed, I think you’ll find they either already have routes on; or are very very hard (like one that Caff’s been trying, so I’m told!); or have bands of rock so soft that they are pretty rubbish for climbing (let alone for gear/bolts!) The exception to this is Cads leap quarry, maybe? But even though there may not be many objections to bolting new routes in Cads leap, per se, it would be a big departure from the local ethic so I reckon it would still be pretty controversial. 

I’d like to highlight that I’ve no issue with you raising the topic, don’t take any of this personally, but I think you’ll find local consensus is very much against your idea. Much of the support for bolting ness in this thread seems to be from a couple of people who don’t seem to have climbed at Nesscliffe but, in the spirit of UKC, enjoy the debate anyway!

Cheers

Tom

OK. Try re-reading the long list of your earlier replies (or indeed the reply you just sent me) and see if you detect any rudeness on your own part. 

To all who very thoughtlessly applied their humour when they responded to the initial post, you seem to be up for an argument or even antagonising the OP and others in order to vent your disgust or unspent anger because you've been bullied at school or wherever; you might go to join your class mates in Facebook or Twitter for that sort of past time, I'm led to believe that this is for mature users only. 

ANYWAY....

To those who've never ventured to Nesscliffe or perhaps just don't know it that well, thanks for your input, I'm hopeful that for those advocates of bolting, this thread has given much food for thought from an outsider's point of view.

To those who know Nesscliffe and have contributed in an objective way, I thank you.

For the record, I am not an avid sport climber, my first love is ice followed by trad and then sport, I love the captivating experience of searching out ways of placing my gear, different ways of placing it, route finding, thinking about the what ifs.... not much of which one gets from sport climbing. But I can see where there is potential for improving the opportunities for others, not just improving the route in whatever way, but providing for others, not just keeping the crag as a 'hard man's' crag. I was once told that sport climbing and top roping was so that one can improve the skill of climbing, but for those who want the added thrill and adventure in climbing, choose trad. Given a choice, I'd have Nesscliffe and all of our UK climbs shrouded in thick ice for 6 months, belay chains or none, and be as dry as Joshua Tree for the other 6, bolted or not. 

One of my reasons for starting the post was that I rarely see mid or low grade climbers in action in Nesscliffe, several times I've been asked to instruct there but its just not a good area for introductory or mid grade teaching, be it trad or sport. The area has much to offer in my view, just as the first assentionists thought back in their day, when the whole of Nesscliffe was 'just fields' . No doubt they would have baulked at the idea of anyone applying bolts and leaving behind tat or pegs on their routes or other new routes and it seems that we are being left behind our foreign friends in our provision of opportunities for less able or less mobile climbers. We also seem reluctant to accept suggestions for change, with off hand vetoes like 'if it isn't broke don't fix it' and 'not in my back yard' sort of sketches. In my opinion (its mine to make), Nesscliffe is a gem largely uncovered, ripe for today's climbers, not just to be kept for 'our children's children'! If there is a guide book of current routes, great, perhaps it could be added to with some sport routes and some much improved routes, be the reasons objective or subjective, there is always room for improvement and, there is lots of rock to exploit, please pay another visit and see for yourself, but try venturing outside of the scope of the guide book and might I suggest not to second guess the author.

To all of you who think you could positively add to the quality of Nesscliffe quarry climbing scene by adding new routes, my guess is that they would be sport routes, I hope you manage to get together and prove those negative contributors wrong and make this a fantastic 'all comer's venue, not restricted to those who can climb E2 5b and above. 

Thank you all for participating and I wish you all a safe climbing future and fruitful current debate.

The Devil's Advocate

AKA... JCD

Michael, I really think you ought to drop this as you're out of order. I'm sure your comment might be appreciated in private, but this is a public forum, my replies are to those who abuse the system and as the regulators don't seem to be paying attention, I'm sticking up for myself. Now, you won't hear from me again, like so many others I've canvassed about this site who won't be back again and who think its got its fair share of antogonists...try Facebook or Twitter, as I previously suggested, you child. 

Thank goodness for that!

Why does it need to be an all comers' venue? What's wrong with having some crags that are only climbable by top climbers? I'm a punter so will never climb there, but so what, there are plenty of crags around where I can climb instead.

Indeed. By the same logic, we should bolt some mid E grade routes in Pembroke as there aren't that many trad routes there below E1. All those classic E2s will be more accessible once they've been turned into F6bs. If a crag only has harder routes and people want to climb there, what's wrong with trying to get better - or going somewhere else? For starters, there's nearby Llanymynech and Llangollen with a bunch of sport routes in the 6s and low 7s.

Does the world really need more mediocre mid grade sport routes?

If you know the cliff so well, you'll know that there is a starred HVS 5a (which I thought was actually rather easy for HVS). And I got up Red Square, onsight, OK, making it the only route I've ever done given E2 in a guide and making me suspect that old West Mids guide that had it in as E1 5b might have been more accurate.

But some crags just aren't "all comers' venues", you can go to Llanymynech just down the road or Pontesford if you want easy routes (sport and trad respectively).

F*** off

So you seriously intended this comment to be taken as not ironic?????

This is a bullshit manifesto; Nesscliffe is Nescliffe. It’s a crag with it’s own unique flavour and ethic. It’s not there to provide a service to all.

Never been to Nesscliffe, probably because I'm a crap climber, but, judging by the response to your original post, I think that people really don't want bolts installed. 

It's not that far away from crags that are bolted, why not just go to these crags and put up new routes if the ones there are not hard enough?

So after all that, your main idea was to bolt the wall next to kynaston’s? Nice one.