UKC

The Bunker

so a new sport crag has. Web devloped on beinn an lochain, and while I appreciate this is only 15 minutes from the road side, it's also at 500m on a mountain face and generally not a candidate for new bolting. I have no general beef about sport climbing unless they crop up without general consultation. Was MCOfS and BMC consulted? Local clubs? Was permission obtained from the landowner? 

Any thoughts?

Don't be an old fart....looks good....MCOFS what a joke they are...

It is absolutely right and proper that the proliferation of bolts is always questioned.

I'm not saying it's inherently right or wrong in this case. I have my own opinion but I think it's right to at least discuss it. 

There's a whole TON of potential for sport climbing around Arrochar on cliffs that don't have any trad on them at all. Beinn Narnain has loads of cliffs with no options for trad protection but with nice looking lines and decent rock.

Part of me doesn't want sport climbs in the mountains but every time I look at some of these cliffs with decent lines but no trad interest showed at all it makes me wonder of the possibilities.

What you're describing is essentially an advocation for proliferation in the arrochar area whether it was intended or not. If acceptable here than why not there? 

I'm concerned less by the absence of trad and more by the bolts in a mountain face itself. It's not about the trad.   

I agree entirely (though I havn't formed an opinion in this case yet).

Not a local to the area but here is my 2 pence worth.

There seems to be a view held by some in the british climbing community that if a crag has no trad potential then it should just be left alone as we need to 'protect the rock' as we have so little etc etc. However surely the fact that we have so little rock (compared to france, spain etc.) is precisely the reason why we should develop as many venues as possible and utilise the resources we have available to us.

I am not advocating going about bolting every single mountain crag in the uk, but surely if there is a decent venue that can't be developed as a trad venue due to lack of natural protection etc. then why not have it as a sport venue?

I understand our history and ethics but as british climbers I feel we sometimes would rather have a stiff upper lip and have less climbing when in fact we should become more open minded and develop more venues and expand and utilise the rock we have available to us.

I understand it is not as easy as this due to a consesus needing to be met and consultation with our governing bodies and that in fighting within the community will never go away with regards what should and shouldn't be sport or trad.

I get that there is a fine balance and I do worry that as time moves on the demand for sport venues will increase and bolted lines will start popping up more and more on established trad venues. This is something I am dead set against, however where is the harm in opening up new sport venues that won't be used as a trad venue?

It's not just about the trad, it's about having our mountain environment as close to natural as possible. It's always been generally accepted by everyone that mountain crags are off limits for bolts of any sort. This is a general conservation, and responsible access view, rather than one of a disgruntled trad climber. It's an area I'd be unlikely to every climb at in any form, but that should not be an automatic permission to bolt, should it? 

How many people have driven up the rest and be thankful (which is arguably "roadside" given it's a high mountain pass) and thought about bolting it in decades past? Aside from the car park at the summit of the road I drove up there just on Friday on my way to Islay, and the moment I get past the summit and drive past that lochain I get a feeling of solitude and isolation. It feels high and doesn't feel like a road side crag. 

drove up there just on Friday on my way to Islay, and the moment I get past the summit and drive past that lochain I get a feeling of solitude and isolation. It feels high and doesn't feel like a road side crag. 

You get a feeling of isolation from your car? Lol, you need to get out more....

Re Trad, I climb more Trad than sport, but find the attitude of some Trad climbers that if it's possible to do Trad routes no bolts should be allowed as quite elitist and  must be annoying for those who just wish to climb sport. A lot of younger climbers just do sport nowadays, so I imagine things will change in due course when all the old farts die....

My partner only sport climbs and she finds it quite limiting in the UK.... 

Again, this isn't about trad climbing. It's about permanent bolts being places in a high mountain environment. 

Not if us young trad heads have anything to do with it! We're not a dying breed you know

And yet the footpath up it, complete with crampon scratches, does nothing to detract from thisl 

And the constant noise from the road doesn't detract from your feeling of "solitude and isolation"? 

So you're saying that if there's crampon scratches there, we're OK to get the bolts out too? Sounds like a solid argument (not)

Nope, I'm just laughing at the statement about "having a mountain environment to be as natural as possible" - with a great ruddy path up it.

At the side of a road.

With a chuck wagon at its base.

And a car park.

I think Trad climbers leave more garbage on the crags than sport climbers, going by the amount of tat and other stuff I found on Recess route the other day...I agree with your comments about the absurd posts above from Milesy who complained about the bolts because it affects his feeling of isolation when sat in his car, he must have good eyesight to see bolts from his car....just another anti bolt poster...

Fair enough. It's not all or nothing though, is it? Every activity has an impact...we should try and minimise that impact and make reasonable compromises that maintain the beauty and "wild" nature we have.

If all areas near a road or a path were fair game to any development on the basis that they're "not wild", we'd be in a sorry state.

Disclaimer: I don't know this area and therefore don't have an opinion on the bolting there.

It's a logical fallacy called a whataboutism. I suspect it won't be long until someone mentions driving cars, petrol use and starving African children as a reason to invalidate the argument. 

My point about solitude is in context with the surrounding area. The cobbler would be like Glasgow city centre but Beinn an Lochain is almost guaranteed to be a quiet hill in that context. 

I'd rather find a nice bolt on a route then a mangled old cam or old MOAC with naff tat to clip, that's coming from someone that prefers long multipitch trad routes in the high mountains.

I'm all for bolting in the mountains, but only on the belays or where crucial pegs have rusted away like in the alps and yosemite. It would mean routes would see more traffic, get cleaned and be enjoyed more (i.e. more likely to try, can bail from easily due to rain, etc.) Certainly would help some neglected routes in the lakes. 

A few bits of abandoned gear is a small price to pay for maintaining our priceless trad ethic and traditions.

So basically you're in favour of a sort of consumerist dumbing down of the mountains. Oh dear........

I think the addition of bolts to a crag won't really change that. I've climbed abroad a fair bit and lots of mountain crags are bolted and the bolts really are not visible unless you're very close up and intentionally looking for them. Chalk is far more visible, though I don't particularly see that as much of a problem either.

I think it's more of a historical, cultural thing than anything else. It's not absolute and for most of the rest of Europe, in fact the world, bolting new routes is a complete non issue.

Yes, of course it is cultural/traditional/historic.

And of course the rest of the world does not have the same approach to bolting, but to me and many, many others that makes our trad ethic in this country all the more valued and worth preserving and defending.

Absolutely!

"The rest of the world bolts with impunity, so we should too" - more whataboutery. There's a danger there will be no trad left globally if attitudes/arguments like this prevail.

You can bolt a route but you can't un bolt it...the hole will always be there and the route will never be natural again.

I agree, no sports routes on mountain crags. I feel like someone might be along shortly to chop them off  

Why would they ask the BMC about bolting in Scotland?  Might as well as the FFME or DAV.

The thing is it's not OUR trad ethic is it, it's your Trad ethic and it's being imposed on others who would like to see more sport climbs and more bolts on some routes...I can see why some sport climbers are getting annoyed at being sent off to the rubbish crags...don't think that's really going to last....

This sort of policing of the crags has got to the stage now where some people think they can tell others which crags they can climb on in the winter in  the Lakes, ...glad to see that hasn't happened in Scotland so far, but will we see a white guide to Scotland soon?

I think a more relaxed approach to bolting would be good. I climb in the Dolomites quite a bit, and you often find bolt belays on classic routes, and sometimes a t the hard bits, it doesn't bother me at all, quite like it actually...especially as I'm getting older....

It's sad, but there is always going to be an ongoing argument about bolting crags. Bolting and snipping have been going on for decades now, and there is no easy answer.

In my heart of hearts, I can't support bolting on a Scottish mountain - it takes away some of the character of the routes and the environment, and makes Scotland a little less special as a climbing region. But at the same time I can see how the UK generally, and Scotland in particular, aren't the best place to be if you're a sport climber. There's no easy answer, but personally I wouldn't have bolted it.

It's not your rock. Under access laws im allowed to climb there, and access it but I don't have rights to insert bolts by drill. So the law of this country currently "imposes"

Perhaps those on here who clearly wanted it to be a "trad" crag should have got off their computers, gone out to find it and then put in the hard graft to clean it. Sitting at home preaching to others about how it should have been left unclimbed for future trad wads doesn't impress anyone these days.

How do the Glen Ogle crags fit in with the "mountain" viewpoint? Or Tunnel Wall? Or the Camel? 

Thinking about heading up with drill in next couple of days to add my tuppence worth...

Bolts don't wash off in the rain.

I suppose the same old for/against arguments will be trotted put over the next week or so and if people are sufficiently outraged someone will strip the crag.

While I find it depressing that a mountain crag is being bolted it won't be me, I don't regard myself as a climber any more. That doesn't mean that my heart didn't sink when I saw the thread title. I still love the the hills in Scotland and the feeling of "naturalness" that they have for me and that is diminished with every wind turbine, with every track and yes, even with every bolt. Save your time and don't bother reminding me how tiny a few bolts are, in my mind and in the minds of many of us size is not the issue.

It is OUR trad ethic in the sense that it has been arrived at by a broad concensus over many years. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it or that it might not change in the future if the consensus changed - but I can assure you it won't change without a fight.

I don't think that is true. The sport climbers doing the bolting are (as far as I am aware) also trad climbers who see crags such as this as being better suited to sport due, I presume, to the protectionless nature of the rock. Many superb trad crags would make rubbish sport crags and many great sport crags would make very mediocre trad crags. I think that, up to now, most of those doing the bolting in Scotland understand this and do their development accordingly. However, the worry for me is that, as bolts creep further up into the mountains, others who have little understanding or appreciation of these nuances take it as a green light for wholesale proliferation.

Fine, go and climb in the Dolomites then. I love sport climbing too, but I mostly do it on the continent (Spain, for example, has a much higher proportion of rock than Scotland which makes for high quality sport climbing). I also enjoy routes with bolted belays that I've done in the US. However, most of all I absolutely love the climbing and the purist trad ethic of British mountains and sea cliffs. The great thing about rock climbing these days is that we can all have our cake and eat it

Sorry mate, but there are bolts on sea cliffs and in the mountains, and the, 'fine bugger off and do it in the Dolomites,' is exactly why people don't bother to ask before bolting....The Gower saga is a good example of why people just give up and bolt....

Why is it ok for some people to bolt on the Buchaille? Where does that fit in with your alleged ethic and tradition? Is that not a good example of elitist bolting?

It depends who else happens to be using the crag. I'm sure the RSPB might have some issues if we were to start bolting lines up sea cliffs all over Scotland (for example). Just because there are no trad lines doesn't mean that the climbing community has carte blanche to do whatever they want.

Above what altitude does a crag qualify as a mountain crag?  At 436m a.s.l. this crag seems to towards at the upper end of what has been tolerated so far, but not way above: c.f. Rockdust, Glen Ogle, Creag a' Bhanchair. 

It EnglandandWales this would be in remit of the BMC local area committees: we could really do with equivalent bodies in Scotland. 

I think the bolting guidelines and accepted procedures are far vaguer and open to abuse and stretching than in England and Wales and I can see this leading to problems in the future.

It is an example (as with some particular sea cliffs) where the nature of the rock has, by some sort of consensus, though not without some, at least initial, controversy, been seen as best suited to sport climbing. Having said that, I'm personally still a bit uneasy about it.

Eh? So it is elitist not to bolt and now it's elitist to bolt. You seem a bit confused!

I don't think altitude is a good criterion. A valley crag in Strathspey might, at the same height be well up a mountain in the west. Though obviously less quantifiable, I think it is better to judge by general ambience.

I love trad climbing and I love sport climbing. However the presence of bolts on UK mountain crags doesn't sit well with me. Personally I wouldn't have bolted these routes. I have never climbed in Scotland so perhaps my opinion is invalid, but if this bolting had happened on a similar unclimbed roof near Cloggy or Scafell I would be aghast.

As to what happens now its done...who knows? How does one canvass opinion on this? 

I don't think this is the same as bolting a route at Scafell or Cloggy. There are no trad routes to be found here, and there is a lot of rock in the region that is unclimbed and indeed unsuitable for trad. 

It's not me that's confused! Without giving you a history listen, you mentioned the tradition of no bolting in Scotland, but actually there is a tradition of the hardest routes in Scotland getting bolts, e.g. Arran and the Buchaille. So those that support the no bolts in Scotland actually mean no bolts unless the route is too hard for me to do it without them. For the same people to say no bolts on other easier routes is hypocritical and elitist. So it can also be elitist to place bolts, e.g 1 bolt on a route with a potential large ground fall for a less able climber. 

If a crag is bolted it should be bolted properly, I think now that a lot of youngsters sport climb unsupervised  it's even more important.

The odd rogue historical bolt on Arran and a sport wall by consensus in Glencoe does not amount in any way to any sort of tradition of bolting the hardest routes in Scotland. If anything these exceptions confirm the very opposite.

Nonsense. If you look through the SMC sport guide you will find loads of easier routes on presumably accepted sports crags.

Having said that there will, of course, be some correlation between rock that is protectionless and rock that is holdless.

Of course. Nobody wants dangerous sports climbs.

Thanks for the clarification. Are there other areas of mountain rock in Scotland that have been bolted like this (precedent?) or is this a one off then?

It is the trad ethic of the UK which is what makes UK climbing unique and challenging. I don't mind bolts in the places they are currently allowed but I am glad that they don't intrude upon the natural terrain as they do in Europe. I have climbed both trad and bolted climbs here and abroad and although the bolted climbing is pleasent enough it is a bit like a Big mac fast food outlet compared to a home cooked meal.

Arguing from the perspective of elitism is pointless as sport climbing is itself elitist. If you want to get rid of elitism then via ferrata everything and have paved access to the crags. But really it isn't elitism to insist on rules of behaviour in certain environments only to ban people from taking part. If you climb trad then when you are finished the crag is clean for the next ascent. Once you bolt it you dictate how people coming after you should climb it. It is practically impossible to stand below a bolted route and not pick out the line of bolts laid out for you like a carpet.

Don't get me wrong I like climbing bolts when I don't want to carry a big rack round or I'm feeling a bit lazy. But it would be a boring world if they were everywhere

I agree with you: each case needs to be considered on its merits. 

Mirroir d'Oc (6c+)

Perfect example of responsible bolting.

Whether that kind of bolting is acceptable within the UK context is the point of Milesy's thread and should indeed be discussed.

I personally don't want it, I can go to Orco or the US or  Annot to enjoy that. Meanwhile, I can go to beinn eighe and struggle to find the route because there is no chalk/ in situ gear and/or I am too blind to see the obvious and take safe-ish whippers Seeds of Destruction (E3 5c).

But that is just me, and if the democratic process went the other way I would have to bow to it yet make sure that it is done well.

Why the controversy, there are bolted schist crags around the banks of Loch Lomond, hundreds of routes in  Glen Ogle, Dark and sunny sides, very similar outlook/ambience, to the Rest and be thankful,  high pass above a road, they even got away with bolting a gniess crag( Goat crag) in Torridon, oh yeah but that was for the Wads (wink), am i missing something or is this just the usual, hot air and waffle being spouted here. 

you're missing the general consensus surely that mountain environments are inappropriate  

Sport climb development is covered in here  

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

Glen Ogle is as  near a mountain environment, purely semantics.

PS. i don't need to read hypocritical bollocks.

No offence but at 31 you’re not young! 

Firstly, one is developed by concensus. The other by stealth. Altitude is also important. By your logic glen Nevis is also a mountain environment right? 

If it wasn't for the efforts for the mcofs then you wouldn't have any access at all in many places. Sadly, attitudes like yours which is dismissive of history just hinders sport development.  

errr there is a bolted crag in Glen Nevis, again retro bolted by the elite, leopold saga etc..

That's the point I'm making but it's not considered a mountain environment. Neither is Glen Ogle. Beinn an Lochain almost certainly is. 

I'm inclined to agree - although I prefer this place, I can't see an obvious difference between this and Glen Ogle? As Milesy admits, although on a hill this is relatively low, and only 15mins from the road - a world of difference between this and high on the Cobbler. Although I'm not an advocate for the bolts on Creag a' Bhanchair, I don't think this is a worse example.

That is at most just your personal opinion, and certainly not widespread consensus. Upper Glen Nevis (Steall crag) to my mind is far more an 'out the way' place, and yes, mountain environment, than low on Beinn an Lochain with the cars racing by. 

And that is just your personal opinion..... This is the trouble with the MCofS guidelines - they are open to wildly varied interpretation and opinion, thus, with no clear line in the sand, almost inviting the gradual encroachment of bolts into ever more "mountainous" areas. I probably personally have no objection to both Beinn and Lochain and Steall, but I fear that accepting either might eventually lead to real problems in the future. I don't know what the answer is.

well opinion yes. What isn't an opinion is concensus. If the concensus agreed with it I'd grumble but I accept the democracy of it, but none was obtained or seeked. No consultations with the wider climbing community from the beat of my knowledge was carried out. At least in that way the sports can develop naturally and in some sort of agreement rather than through force. 

While I'm in no way against consultation, generally proposals like this would get voted down by people who really don't mind a great deal (such as myself, on both counts!). It's been said before that the only real way to tell if people care is to test the waters and see if anyone is strongly opposed enough to chop the bolts. I'm sure this would happen if anyone went near blank bits of the Cobbler (if they exist)!

Do you know for a fact that no consensus was established? 

How far do you expect a consensus to run? If everyone in the local Glasgow community was ok with it, but they hadn’t asked you, would you say there wasn’t a consensus?

like most of the Scots on here I see no difference between this and glen ogle... 

I suspect that is the only way.

Interestingly, Robbie Phillips has been canvassing opinion on FB about replacing rotten pegs on the Cobbler. It was shocking and depressing to see how many people supported replacing them with bolts. I just hope they were people from outside the UK with no understanding or knowledge of our ethics.

It's tricky since I'm not a great fan of pegs on rock routes. But yes, it probably says more about Robbie's FB friend set-up than being a reliable indication of opinion from Scottish climbers.

The make up of people in the "Glasgow climbers" who supported bolting requiem direct at dumby in a recent poll was also skewed in favour of people in the same circle as those who proposed the question. Almost exclusively most of them had bouldering or indoor climbing pictures and very little by way of trad. 

Do you not think you're getting a bit worked up about bolts, things that I think are shocking and depressing are stuff like domestic violence, racism etc, a few bolts, well, annoying might be as far as I could get about it. However, lack of bolts could be very depressing especially on Dalriada which is probably the route Robbie is on about seeing as nobody apart from him could do it on Saturday...

I cant see what the problem with bolts is, they're for safety in the end of the day.

You obviously knew the answer to the question about consultation in your original post so why weren't you up front about it and just post you're concerns without sneaking about?

What are you talking about? 

I'm tempted to take this as you conceding that you have comprehensively lost the debate, but instead shall just point out the blindingly obvious for you that the discussion is in the context of rock climbing, not serious social issues. FFS........

Oh dear, so you are now suggesting that people who fail on routes get depressed and want the routes bolted. FFS........

Really not worthy of a reply. FFS.........

Bolts are "not for safety at the end of the day". They are primarily for lowering the natural difficulty of the climbing problems presented by the "natural resource" (to quote someone above), which is rock - not rock plus conveniently placed steel - until that piece of crag is deemed safe enough to climb by the current generation of climbers.

Some of us started long enough ago to remember the similar debate with pegs, which basically got rejected by the climbing community as unacceptable, mainly from a climbing-logical point of view rather than an environmental one. Personally, I've always had a problem in seeing much difference between steel pegs and bolts, except that the latter tend to be more secure and more permanent.

I know several outdoor types who do not climb who really dislike seeing bolt hangers shining in the sun in the most pristine of natural environments. This lowers their opinion of the sport of climbing. It gives them the impression that climbers will stick anything in the rock to help them get up and leaves them confused as to what the "sport" actually is.

No, I was pointing out that if you get depressed about bolting, you need to get out more... the hysteria created by bolts is ridiculous....there's more to life than climbing....

Did you visit the doctor about your depression about bolting, "Hello doctor, I've come today because I got really depressed about some bolts on a cliff in Scotland...."

Or, were you just exaggerating in your post?

Somewhat ironically I think the more people that frequent and use a place, the stronger it's defence will be should a real threat come along, for example a quarry company, theme park developers, or new roads or railways. The wholesale bolting and climbing at Geyikbayiri in Turkey is what saved it from destruction by mining companies.

I completely agree. The only issue here is climbing ethics. Some people prefer trad and some people prefer sport. It's that simple.

The RSPB tend to care less about bolts because these small, inanimate bits of metal have zero effect on nesting birds. What affects birds, and hence the RSPB, is climbers. Whether they're clipping bolts or placing gear makes no difference. To a nesting bird it's the presence of a  large mammal approaching that is the potential threat.

In North Wales there are a number of bolted sea cliffs that are also used by nesting birds and monitored by the RSPB. The agreement reached is simply not to climb during the nesting season and it doesn't make a difference whether the routes are sport or trad.

Mate, that is a total misrepresentation. I personally know about 13 of those on the poll who are all keen trad & winer climbers, some are even SMC FFS!!!  Ad those who made comments, by and large commited trad climbers.

"Almost excusively" heh?

If they're resin bolts they're generally removed by breaking or cutting them off so there is no hole left there. And if they're not resin bolts then any hole can be filled in easily with some cement or filler.

In fact there have been a number of bolted routes that have had the bolts removed and the routes returned to their natural state without issue.

This, like most if not all concerns about bolting, are unfounded.

You appear from your last post to have run out of any ideas with which to attempt to continue the discussion sensibly.

I'll just say that the issue of bolts is crucially important in climbing simply because, as soon as one is placed, we are crossing a line from allowing the nature of the rock to determine the nature of the climb to allowing the owner of a drill to determine the nature of a climb. It really is that fundamental.

You must be joking??? A few bolts is nothing compared to the environmental ravaging of the hillsides of the UK that's gone on over the past 6000 years and continues to the present day.

It was really just an example to show that the presence or otherwise of a trad line is not the only consideration when deciding to bolt or not to bolt. I do however think it interesting that somehow a consensus was reached with the RSPB, who have nothing to do with climbing, to share use of those crags and yet climbers seem to have such difficulty making similar agreements among themselves.

I shared your outrage here and are people are now judged on pictures rather than their actions?

I think that is an extreme viewpoint, hence I was making fun of it, the viewpoint could apply to pegs, and is applied to pegs by some,  or any climbing equipment used for protection or safety. Some people consider use of axes and crampons to be aid, a similar extreme viewpoint, see previous thread about Bowfell Buttress. I just can't get worked up about these extreme viewpoints and prefer to live and let live.

I also think safety is an issues and that is why replacing old pegs with bolts on Dalriada was raised recently. It would appear that Dalriada could not have been climbed without pegs, (for safety), and they were not removed by the second, so what is the difference between them and a bolt? I personally can't see a difference, apart from the fact they may be worse as some cannot now be removed, and so prevent other removable equipment from being placed. So are you saying the pegs on Dalriada should not have been placed? Or if that was okay, what is the difference, ethically, between them and a bolt.

Plain wrong, I'm afraid. All other forms of protection than bolts exploit natural features of the rock. Clear cut, simple and obvious.

See above.

I've not said anything about pegs except to have pointed out that they are ethically quite different to bolts.

The concerns are only unfounded if you consider cemented holes every 4m "natural" (which I don't).

I do find the environmental arguments against bolts hard to defend but having chopped bolts/filled holes (and presumably the need to periodically maintain the fill, not to mention the rust streaks if some of the bolt is left in) would somewhat spoil a route for me.

This is largely a climbing argument as opposed to an environmental one, but as mentioned above, there are plenty of non climbers who don't like chalk/bolts/filled holes/rust streaks as well.

In what way is it extreme? It's neither a viewpoint held by a minority - in fact what Robert's describing is the basis of the UK trad ethic and why we have routes like Equilibrium or Walk of Life, nor is it particularly purist - there exist many more extreme viewpoints that would see every last bolt chopped from every last piece of rock in the UK.

As for "There are worse things happening in the world, like racism", that's just bollocks whataboutery.

I don't think it is clear cut and obvious about pegs, they are hammered in and do damage the rock, hence the peg scars, so unless you place the peg by hand it's not really exploiting a natural feature if it breaks or gouges a channel. I do accept your general point that bolts can be placed in blank rock and so change the character of a route. I think this is what you are getting at, and I think it is what Bonatti was also very passionate about.

Would it be okay to resin bolts into old peg scars then?

You can't place a peg without the existence of a crack, so it is always exploiting a natural feature of the rock. Repeated placement of nuts and cams also damage the rock - it is just a matter of degree.

Yes, I do see the view point now.... and it's not extreme...

Africans starving. Rhinos going extinct. 

Yeah yeah lots of shit happens in the world my friend, but one thing doesn't invalidate another. 

Bolting, hill tracks, rubbish, access, turbines, peat erosion, ski development, deer numbers. There's loads of issues that walkers and climbers can be passionate about, but it's a rubbish argument to try and invalidate an argument because something else happens. 

I have not had a look at the crag in question, so don't feel qualified to comment. However, as someone who has some experience of developing a sports crag, I feel that this may be an inappropriate place for a sports venue, based on general knowledge of the area, and the photos in the gallery . As Robert Curran said, the MCofS guidelines are a bit woolly, but my instinct is that it's *not* appropriate. Beinn an Lochain doesn't feel like Glen Ogle to me, but naturally that's a subjective view. 

Someone bolted a generally wet piece of rock that no was ever climbing on before, even though it is visible from the road.  And your first instinct is to complain?

Pathetic.

We should be saying well done, and thanks.

Intelligent and thought out response. I must commend you sir. 

Cheers, dude.

Except if you look at where the crag actually is you'll note that it's nowhere near the the actual Beinn an Lochain summit.

A more accurate description would actually be to call it a Loch Restil crag as it hardly constitutes being a mountain crag.

Thanks, I had a clear general idea of where it is.

This is getting a bit silly......... The Shelter Stone is nowhere near the summit of Ben Macdhui

And maybe The Shelter Stone should be called a Loch Avon Crag - does this stop it being a mountain crag?

The fact is that both crags are above lochs on the side of a mountain...............

It might be instructive to analyse what makes it feel different to Glen Ogle or Rockdust.  Better views? Surrounded by bigger, steeper mountains? 

Comparing a previously unclimbed 20m outcrop 15 minutes walk from the road to the 250m Shelterstone...

And you wonder why zealots like yourself aren't consulted about bolting it?

It was originally Carn Dearg...

It's not so much a case of safety (old pegs may well hold) as making it easier to assess how safe it is, well that and preserving the conditions in which it was first climbed. New pegs are not going to snap in a fall (unlike rotten ones), so it becomes just down to the placement and not the state of corrosion. 

"It would appear that Dalriada could not have been climbed without pegs, (for safety)"

Wrong. Without pegs it would be, say, E9? Much easier than Echo Wall anyway. 

"So are you saying the pegs on Dalriada should not have been placed?" 

The style of route was chosen by the FA. A stunning E7 vs an equally stunning E9? Can't say it's going to make a difference to me either way!   

Possibly. But then it also feels different to Creag a' Bhanchair and Steall crag, both of which trump it on the above.

Oh my. Reading this thread is like scooping up the mouldy sludge at the bottom of on old beer barrel and choking it down until you spew. 

Aaaanyway. 

It appears that many are arguing for and against based on the MCofS Guidelines. It might be an opportune moment to actually copy them here:

New Sport Venues:

The development of sport climbs is welcomed within the context of a clear overall ethical framework:

• Mountain and sea cliffs with a wild, remote character (also reflected in their surrounding environment) and adventurous nature are not suitable locations for bolts, either for the development of routes or their limited use in order to facilitate easy retreat: self-rescue and descent without fixed equipment are all part of the adventurous nature of traditional climbs
• Crags with good or adequate quality protection within strong natural lines (obvious routes) would be regarded as traditional venues. Crags where an overall lack of natural cracks for protection together with a lack of strong natural lines may be suitable venues for sport climb development as long as they could not be classed as wild mountain or sea cliff venues
• Sport mixed climbing (and dry-tooling i.e. climbing with ice axes on rock) has an important role to play in the future of Scottish winter climbing, but should not be at odds with these guidelines
• Those seeking to develop new sport mixed venues should enter into consultation with interested climbers at local or national level before taking action

To me it appears points 3 is not a concern in this case. Agreed?

Point 4 - I'd say this one is an abject failure. But it's done now, so if consensus can be agreed after the fact, then it's not a reason to chop.

Point 1  (and the last line of point 3) are where the biggest vagueries appear to be. Is it a "mountain crag"? What constitutes the "surrounding environment"?   Wild, remote character? 15 minute walk in flip flops, probably wouldn't even take a jacket or lunch with you. Nope

Adventurous? As adventurous as going to Tesco. Nope

If you try to rule it out on "height above sea level" then it's no higher than other sport crags. If you try to rule it out on "proximity to adventurous trad" then it's no closer than tunnel wall. If you rule it out purely because it's part of a big lump of rock that we call a mountain, then where do you draw the line? 

In my opinion the issue here is not with this crag, but it's with the outdated and vague guidelines. Maybe it's time for a refresh?

I think it was perfectly clear that I was merely commenting on location as a factor in crag type designation.

Have you actually read my posts in this thread? I havn't once complained about not being consulted and I actually said I was probably ok with the bolting in this case.

And my first post merely said that it was always best to question proliferation of bolting. It can only be good that this is being done in this thread and that arguments for and against in this case are being aired. I think the discussion about what constitutes a "mountain crag" is particularly interesting and worthwhile.

Ok well this thread isn't actually going anywhere so I think it needs to be clear that the rules we play by are far to vague up here. This would have never have happened south of the border. 

Can we also say the climbs from say the bealach na ba are also roadside? 

The only to make that decision in face of subjectivity which of course was bypassed is agreement, although likely now it'll fall to the other made point about wether anyone will be angry enough to chop them.

It's also no lower than other established mountain crags.....

I think that is certainly true.

I think what is needed are either much better defined geographical/rock type rules (but which then will often contradict subjective "feel" and probably lead to the odd bolt chopping war testing those rules) or else an agreed mechanism of consultation on a case by case basis based on more flexible rules closer to the current SMC guidelines.

Yes, though remoteness I would say plays a bit part in location, and sport venue suitability is probably in inverse proportion to this.  

Well point 4 says: "Those seeking to develop new sport mixed venues should enter into consultation with interested climbers at local or national level before taking action"

This raises the question of whether there are actually any interested climbers to consult with? From the comments above its sounds like trad climbers have shown zero interest in the place.

Looks a good crag from what I've seen, and from the photos, it does seem like its well suited to bolts. Well done to those involved!

As far as the debate about bolting consultation, I'm someone who has been strongly opposed to some instances in the past, like the retrobolting of Ratho for example. In my mind this is totally different. It seems to me good judgement has been used in recognising the crag as more suitable for bolting, and in my mind, the "no bolts in the mountains" argument needs to be flexible. We should be giving praise here, if we continue to criticise sport developers, they will just become even less inclined to seek "consultation"! Earlier comparisons to the Shelterstone Crag are just petty in my opinion.

Its obvious some give and take is needed when developing rock in Scotland, and if this is the kind of compromise that is to come, I'm happy with it.

Glutton Crag

I'm much more concerned about this sort of thing (although hypocritically I had a nice day there). Clearly not a sport crag, but seemed to slip under the radar...

Cheers

Trist 

I don't think "interested" here means "interested in developing as a trad crag". It could simply mean "interested in maintaining bolt free mountains" - not every bit of rock HAS to be developed. Even if nobody seriously objects to bolting this particular crag, I think this could very justifiably apply to, say, a little wall high in the Cuillin or a summit tor in the Cairngorms that has not had any trad development.

As someone who was very much on the otherside of that debate, I think this is the kind of sensible stance that will get us all somewhere reasonable together.  The hardliners (on both sides) just put off moderates; if hardliners argue against a very obvious bolting case like this new crag, the moderates will be less ready to see reason regarding bolting a decent, but bold, trad route.

And if it was a little wall on the Cuillin or the Cairngorms that nobody had ever looked at, despite decades and decades of climbers passing it, who could reasonably complain about it being bolted?

I maybe could have been clearer originally, but can I again say that I was in no way comparing the actual crag to the Shelterstone Crag (obviously that would have been ridiculous) - just the location in the limited sense of being on the side of a mountain and above a loch in order to make a specific point.

I think I would cautiously agree with that.

Definitely agree with that. Scraps of blank schist are very different from Torridonian sandstone. Some under the radar developments in the NW are very dodgy.

This. Couldn't agree more.

Typical ideologue; anyone that disagrees with you must be stupid.

Are you asking me to not bolt something because someone might trad lead it in 150 years?

I don't agree here really, see the Glutton Crag example. It would need to be more suited to bolts. As someone said earlier in the thread, the guidelines here need to be modernised for sure. I also thing a line should be drawn somewhere about bolting in the mountains, I just think a blanket ban is wrong, and that the crag in the OP should not fall into this category.

No, I just mean that there are some undefinable aesthetic things which some people "get" and others might not "get". Not a matter of being intelligent or stupid. More like appreciating a work of art. If the majority "get" it then it is probably, by consensus, worth preserving. And I think you'll find that the high Cuillin and Cairngorms come in this category. In the end, nothing about going climbing stands up to logical scrutiny (though there can be some internal consistency) - it all comes down to aesthetics of some sort.

Yes, in the case of areas or crags where the consensus is for a bolt free ethic.

I see where you're coming from, but my take on it is you need to consider the situation and the locals.  Torridonian sandstone is precious to us, because we don't live there and don't get frequent access.  A block of sandstone like that in the central belt would doubtlessly be jealously protected from bolts.

If you were to ask me, grid bolting Stanage would be ridiculous, but if the whole of Sheffield decided to do it, who would I be to object?

I happen to agree, but why Stanage and not the Cuillin?

Then you are a fundamentalist and are doomed to lose the argument by being ignored.  The wind does not break a tree that bends.

?Because I live far away from it.  If I lived in Sheffield I'd think bolting Agag's Groove, or Hammer, or Shibboleth would be ridiculous, too.  But my position would be the locals have the say.
 

Yeah I see that argument ( and thought about it a lot when I was at Glutton). I don't agree with it though...

I think bolting crags for convenience climbing is unacceptable. If I lived in London for example, I would accept that I have to drive (or fly) some distance to clip bolts. Thats just the nature of the beast! On the flip side, if I lived in El Chorro or somewhere like that, I wouldn't go chopping bolts to get a trad experience on my doorstep. I'd just have to accept that I would have to travel for that.

... Plus there are plenty of options in the North-West for bolting which would be much more acceptable, in my mind, than bolting Glutton.

No, I happen to agree with the consensus about no bolts in some areas and hope the consensus lasts.

The trouble with that is it isn't necessarily 'locals' as one entity (different viewpoints may be found within localities) and it isn't "the whole of" a climbing scene which decides to bolt something, but a few active individuals who hope that their actions will be accepted after the event. 

Anyway, how local is local? 10 miles? 50 miles? Scotland? UK? I think there are climbing areas of national importance worthy of some sort of national agreement and guidelines about development. I don't think grit ethics should just be up to Sheffield locals and I don't think the Cuillin should just be up to Skye locals.

True, and that's for the locals to sort out.  If someone has bolted in an unbearably unilateral fashion the bolts will be chopped and they will have to face condemnation in their local climbing circle.  Hand-wringing about bolting in far away crags will have the same affect as crying wolf.

Do you mean that no trad routes had been recorded? A bit hard to say that nobody has ever looked at this hypothetical Skye/Cairngorm wall, or even that nobody has ever climbed there.

As for who could reasonably complain, just about anyone would be my answer for places like those. Just because no climbing is known to have taken place, doesn't mean that it has to be bolted. 

Who are you to tell them what to do?

Shall we try and shoehorn a car into this analogy?  This is the internet, after all...

If we're going to descend into the underworld of hypotheticals lets put it this way; say there's a bit of rock (any type, length, protectability, situation, locality) which ever would offend your sensibilities the most.

No one discovered it before, or if they did, no one cared to record what they did on/near/under it.

If someone bolted it, and told no one, what harm is done?

If someone bolted it, told only their mates and they secretly climbed it, what harm is done?

If someone bolted it, climbed it with their mates, then told others about it, what harm is done?

A British climber who climbs widely throughout Britain, is pretty well informed about British climbing, greatly values British climbing and who has a personal stake and interest in the way British climbing develops.

Anyway, how about answering my question? How close to a crag do you think you need to live to have a say in its development?

Indeed, and why would anyone bother bolting it? 

Pick any distance you like, you'll disagree with it anyway.  What if I said 700 miles?  If you accepted that, it would mean I could start telling the French to stop using pof in Font, by your logic.

Ok, so you refuse to answer the question.......

I actually think that a say in climbing areas of real international importance, developed internationally should not be restricted to those of the nationality of the country in which that climbing area happens to be. Anyone with a stake should have a say.

Are you sure about that?  What if all climbers across the globe decided all UK crags should be grid bolted, and they were going to come here for their holidays?  It'd be good for the economy at least..

No, I just don't see the point in answering when I know you obstinately won't accept a number less than 12445 miles.

Whether or not I accept it is irrelevant. I'd just be interested in your answer.

I'm sure with someone careful thought, there'd be a subtler way to quantify it, but off the top of my head, I'd weigh the opinions of someone within two hours drive of the crag more than those further, and pretty much ignore anyone five hours drive away.

I think you need to get over yourself.  Nobody cares what you think.

"  Nobody cares what you think."

Wrong again.

These personal attacks do you, and your opinions, no credit at all. 

I also thought this debate was heading in a more constructive manner....

In practical terms if someone is angry enough to take the time and capable of chopping the bolts they have a veto.  As a result there's probably an equation for the expected time new bolting will survive with one of the main variables being number of trad climbers who can get there within a given time.   

This would mean that controversial bolting in a quarry near a big city is unlikely to survive as long as bolting half way up a mountain in the Highlands and as a result there would be more sport climbing development in remote areas.

I think it generally is, dude.  There's just no point talking to obdurate types who appoint themselves arbiter of all climbing.

To be fair to Gurumed, he was pushed to give a specific answer, said he wouldn't because The Durran would just disagree anyway, he finally gave an answer and bingo, The Durran took a swipe. Bit petty. 

Yeah, well people people will always disagree in a debate, but debates brake down when people start slinging insults.

Perhaps we could have a separate Gurumed vs Robert Durran thread, and the rest of us can start to come up with some positive ideas for modernising the bolting guidelines, without having to sift through all the handbags...?

I see we're getting philosophical. Ignoring whether the crag is harmed by having bolts drilled into it (since crags are inanimate objects), you could definitely argue that harm is done as soon as someone else spots the bolts. And possibly even before that, since taking a crime analogy, a crime can be commited without others ever knowing about it, and still be a crime.  

Yes, it was constructive, interesting and civilised until Gurumed came along with his childish personal grudge against me. I tried to engage positively with him, but I fear it was pointless.

I think that is unfair. I simply responded with a further question which I thought exposed his position as unreasonable. Rather than respond thoughtfully, he resorted to a personal attack.

No need for a separate thread. I think it is a genuinely good discussion that I would like to engage with. I'll just ignore Gurumed.

I think you'll find that, on the contrary, some of the places where bolts would last least time are high and remote!

Well that's true if the bolt was on something like Tower Ridge which gets climbed all the time but those routes, although geographically remote from the point of view of non-climbers are the climber equivalent of motorways.  So I don't think it invalidates the argument, just means the definition of remote needs to be more specific.

I imagine he’s more getting at the atmospheric influence on the fix gear, rather than traffic. I can’t  imagine being in regular freeze thaw patterns are very good for bolts.

No, not at all. I think that the strongest consensus and strongest opinion against bolts is in the high mountains (and most sea cliffs). Indeed, the vast majority of climbers probably feel there is something "sacred" about such places as far as bolting is concerned. Obviously bolts would be more quickly found and removed somewhere like Tower Ridge, but if someone, say, bolted a line up the north face of Squareface (or indeed on an obscure facet on the side of Tower Ridge) I don't think they'd last long at all once they became known about.

I'd reckon 95% of the routes I've climbed are Trad and a high percentage of that has been in the mountains. I can't think of one aspect of that experience that would have been adversely affected by either the replacement of a manky peg or the bolting of an unloved and unrecognised buttress half way up a hill.

I think there needs to be a universal knicker-unknotting about both these issues.

We'll have to, if we're going to invent a consistent rule set for bolting.

I think we'll all have to accept this as a given, nobody could seriously argue for bolting that causes the crag to fall apart.

Now we're getting somewhere we can build from.  If someone bolted a bit of rock, and no human ever saw it until the heat death of the universe would you conceed that no harm was done?

That's hilarious coming from the guy that thinks he should have a veto on how climbing is done across the globe.

Might I suggest that you don't bring ladies' lingerie into the debate?

Maybe, but the longer term consequences of the direction taken with bolting might directly affect your and othres' trad (or not) experience in the future; you currently enjoy bolt free trad in the mountains because of a consensus against bolting in the mountains. So I think it is reasonable to discuss any nibbling away at that consensus.

Time for some real talk.

I haven't read the whole debate as after an illness this winter I've been trying to keep the will to live, not lose it. Suffice to say that Milesy is entirely correct to raise the issue and Robert is entirely correct that bolting (outside of the most obviously suitable cases) should always be questioned.

Obviously the questioning should have taken place BEFORE bolting a potentially contentious crag, however, it can still take place afterwards and the result will likely be the same.

Facts:

The Bunker is at 350m ASL.

It is 20-30 minutes walk from and above a busy road. 

The rock is mostly vegetated schist that needs a fair amount of cleaning apart from the main roof.

Most of the crag is not suitable for standard trad, being completely unprotected or very overhanging or both. There is a potential undercut traverse below the 6c route that would need a lower-off as it finishes in the middle of nowhere, there is a very overhanging crack that might be a good E9/10, there are a couple of possible cracks on adjacent crags, but that's it.

The crag is of course very obvious from the road, along with numerous other buttresses and could have been developed trad before.

The nearest documented trad is a few miles away, either further north (I forget the name), or south in Glen Croe. There is no adjacent trad that the bolting / retro-bolting could spread on to.

(The situation is entirely different to retro-bolting good, established, protectable trad routes at Ratho).

Result:

Taken on a case-by-case basis, although this contravenes the useless and ignored MCOFS bolting guidelines, given that it's bolting a crag on a mountain (along with Tunnel Wall Glen Ogle Steal Hut etc), most of the reasoning supports allowing bolting (in this case).

HOWEVER. This is all likely to be a moot point. This crag may be bolted further, it might have the odd trad line on the fringes, and the main roof will probably get some ascents and some short lived acclaim (deserved, it is very impressive).

But, due to the nature of the rock, the surrounding environment, and the approach time (versus the inherent laziness of climbers), the crag will fade from popularity and the bulk of the routes will return to nature. Given that there are many 2-3 star mid-grade sport routes in Glen Ogle shady side (Galleon? Barrel? areas) that have been established for decades, are in a well known sport climbing area, are much closer to the road and overall much closer to the bulk of the central belt (and similar distance from Glasgow) that are now unclimbably filthy....The Bunker will almost certainly end up the same way.

I understand your point but I think there are two aspects: a. how many people people feel the bolts should be removed and b. how much effort it is to do something about those feelings.

Looking at the "Scottish Sport Climbs" guidebook it seems to me that there are a lot more sport crags way up north than there are in the central belt.  Which is the opposite way round from what you would think since there are far more potential sport climbers in the central belt and the ethics are supposed to be against bolting in remote places.   So I am postulating that empirically the most significant factor in whether sport climbs stay up is the likelihood that someone will chop them and that likelihood is proportional to the number of trad climbers who could do it without too much bother.

Good post. All of that is pretty much spot on.

Unless the routes turn out to be of the highest quality (like Tunnel Wall for example) I too doubt The Bunker will endure long in the consciousness of the lazy arse sport climber.

In the meantime, I'm happy for it to exist as an exception to the "mountainous area" rule due to its isolation from established trad.

There was one on Green Gully for years...

Honestly Robert I probably wouldn't mind all that much if some things we're bolted.

I've always viewed 'permanent' pegs as sub optimal bolts-of-convenience anyway, especially in summer. I've never understood the manky tat-station either. A bolt on the Scoop Pitch of Hammer is a different story but I can't see that happening.

For me the method by which I'm attached to the mountain is really a long way down the list of enjoyable or important factors in a mountain day.

I get that's not a hugely popular view and certainly differs from yours.

Bruce

I think there are two separate things going on. There would be such outrage at any bolting in the high mountains (high on Beinn Eighe say) that climbers from the Central belt would happily drive up there and flog up the hill and abseil in to chop them if the locals didn't get there first. But yes, I think that there possibly has been a proliferation of  bolting of outcrops in the NW (some, such as Glutton Crag pretty clearly inappropriate) which has got under the radar due to it's distance from large centres of population.

As a "trad" climber of some 40+ years living and working in the mountains of course I want traditional and historic venues respected. But, sport climbing has a place also and despite many folk disdaining it, its also a lead in to a new generation getting them out of the walls, and also fun for an older one.  If Scottish climbing isn't to become an anachronism it needs to keep up with developments and also make sure a sense of history is imparted about trad but it doesn't prevent sport.  I keep meeting fellow traditional SMC members enjoying the sport crags and pushing their grades many sporting Kalymnos suntans. The ethics if full of hypocrisy.  If you consider that many of the well protected "trad"routes bristled with rusty pegs now gone to give you a good nut slot or had wooden wedges or even a bike crank as belay that wasn't pretty either.  If a crag hasn't got good trad lines folk don't go there so these new routes open up new venues.  This type of talk puts the fear of bejeezuz into folk wanting to develop sport routes and drives it underground. It's just as meaningful to sport as trad and if folk want to they can do bold ascents of these often chossy crags in trad style and beat the sport climbers to it. But they don't, they just moan when someone creates a venue that wouldn't have existed without the sport route creators hard work. I think we should give some credit to these folks common sense. They are not going to rush up and bolt Shibboleth and are developing some esoteric venues where folk have a bit of fun. It's also fairly self limiting as I wouldn't walk more than 30 mins to get to a sport crag. I haven't put a height limit as the Tunnel wall is at 1,364 ft and 30 mins. Get a grip folks.

No, it's just an example of a high mountain bolt which was never chopped, it's the only high mountain bolt that I can think of, as opposed to an anomaly.

Good post, the whole issue is surrounded by hysteria on the Trad side...they seem to forget that some only climb sport routes and as such seem banished to awful crags, a very different outlook to that on the continent and other places where many good crags have sport routes.. I think Ailefroide is a good example of where Trad and sport co exist.

In other words......... an anomaly!

"the Trad side" ? seriously ?

I don't think I know anyone who exclusively climbs 'trad' these days.

That wouldn't fit Jim's divisive "us and them" narrative though, would it?

Off topic comments about mixed sport/trad crags and bolting the cuillin (gurumed) aren't helping either.

I haven't been advocating for that.  All I've been saying is whining about bolts on a crag that has been untouched, despite being known about for decades, will make it harder to rightly convince people to not bolt decent bold trad routes.

No one will consult if there's no compromising.

Judging by the opinions on this thread (for what they're worth) there does seem to be a fair degree of agreement that the MCofS guidelines are no longer working and that there they should be bent/compromised on in the case of this Beinn an Lochain crag. But I can guarantee that if the crag was in the Cuillin the bulk of opinion would be very different - location and rock type do matter and, as I said, some places are, and I hope remain, "sacred", the Cuillin and the Cairngorms being obvious examples. You may not like this, but I think and hope you would find it impossible to change this consensus in the foreseeable future.

No I know. Even the mention of it is bound to be divisive/inflammatory though (hence my grumble). I also don't think it's really relevant to this case what is done with a theoretical, unseen bit of the Cuillin. We already have a strong consensus that obvious wild mountain areas (such as the Cuillin) will not be bolted (not saying this will never change). 

Yep I agree with this (and I think plenty of the people in the thread do too), hence the talk about revisiting the guidelines and better defining "mountainous areas". If you look back at the comments I think you'll see that most people are not outraged/unwilling to budge when considering this specific crag. The Cuillin example is a poor one though, as agreement for *not* bolting (whether seen or unseen crags, not that I can imagine any "unseen" bits) is currently strong.

Agreed.

Which is why I think it should be left for the locals to deal with on an individual basis.  If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that a decent set of guidelines will never be codified.

I think mostly the guidelines are pretty clear. The one I think is vague, and open for debate, is the first one. What constitutes a wild environment anyway?

My sensible side would suggest leaving it as it is and going on a case by case basis with pre consultation, with the “locals”having the deciding say. Although the pre bolting consultation is really important here, otherwise we will just end up with another Farletter situation. And that’s not good for anybody at all.

As for how consultion happens, it’s clear to me that Internet chat forums are a bad place for it. Perhaps the BMC/MCofS could be more proactive here?

Also who is considered a “local” is really important in this regard. I’m totally with Robert on this, although I do concede that somebody has to cast the deciding vote! If it was up to the whole UK climbing community, nothing would happen ever!

(edit spelling)

I think that it would probably be possible to agree on areas of national importance which should be dealt with at a national level (Cuillins, Cairngorms, Nevis, Outer Isles sea cliffs etc) and one or two lesser designations (Southern Highlands schist, East coast sea cliffs, Central belt etc) which could be dealt with at a more local level (as seems to be happening already anyway).

Edit: And yes I know that some will complain that my suggested areas of national importance are all currently bolt no go areas and that I just want to keep them that way, but the fact is that Scotland is not Spain - most of the high quality stuff is simply much better suited to trad than sport. Unfortunately, however hard we look we are never going to find a Siurana or a Ceuse in the highlands

Agreed.

At the risk of repeating myself: the BMC has local area meetings in 10 areas of England and Wales which are the places where such consultation happens. I'm not sure how effective this is, but it must be better than nothing. The BMC does not have a remit to do this for Scotland, so I think it would be good if the MCofS took responsibility for setting up a similar structure. 

Yep. Agree with this.

Looks good!

Shows how out of touch you are...

Or you are.

And you smell.  Ner Ner.

Beinn an Lochain first demoted as a munro, then drilled & bolted causing much heat on UKC, but also backdrop to a grand music video youtube.com/watch?v=TodjkuTWUF0&

A true icon of 21st century scotland hills.

I have never sport climbed ever, neither abroad nor in the UK. Just has no appeal to me at present.

Good post Fiend. Unlike some who get a bit too defensive when the question is asked or opinion is aired, the purpose of this was just to raise a discussion among at least some interested parties. Debate helps reach consensus right?

Make that a count of one, in that case.  I still think its unusual for someone to be 100% trad.  'Trad climbers' putting the case for venues being appropriate for bolting or not are generally not doing it with a completely polarised view of the world.  At least not nowadays.

Presumably the nearest trad routes are the ones on the top of Beinn an Lochain? Maybe they never get climbed but I remember there being plenty recorded in the mid 90s guide.

It's mainly winter climbing nowadays. I thought the rock routes were in a similar place (i.e. high up), but no-one does them really.

I see they get lots of stars in the UKC entries but no recorded ascents! Most are rather hard though. I must admit I've only climbed there in winter.