How about reinforcing it ?

It took Jay 7 pages to finally give an actual reason for bolting that crack. If it's as bad as you say it is, it's probably justified.

And you're telling healyej that he's not answering your questions.

You sit here and make broad statements about ethics and how everything you do is right. The truth is that this is a rare exception that you blew to the maximum proportion sanity would allow. If I didn't know of your affinity to argueing (regardless of if you know you are wrong or not) I'd say you are strongly in favor of bolting all cracks. I don't think you are, you're just playing devils advocate.

Think before you post, think of who you could influence to commit a thoughtless bolting act because mr jt seemed to think it was ok.

So I take it that a flake that loose could have been cleaned? (Not that cleaning routes is low-impact either, but every new route gets cleaned.) Or is it a necessary feature to climb the route?

If it's not loose enough to be tossed, what evidence do you have that a cam will blow it out, besides just a bad feeling about it?

It could be cleaned. I don't know what it would leave, maybe a 5.12 dihedral.

Most rational climbers, if they knew the reasons why the crack in that picture was bolted, would probably agree that bolting was the best course of action. I'm tempted to explain the reasons to you, but I suspect that your religious ferver would blind you. You know, even the most fanatical religious believers usually agree that there are exceptions to some of the basic tenets of their religion: Thou Shall Not Kill, but sometimes it's okay in defense of others, for example. But from what I gather from your post history, you're worse, you won't allow even a single exception on the bolt issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that no bolt should ever, under any circumstances, be placed by a crack, right?

Jay

Given your suppor of FoWR and this is what they are about I suppose you find no ethical roots involved with this statement either. I would say somewhere between your signature and your posts you get deeply lost in the hypocrisy. And again, by your own logic there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with chipping or bolting on holds either...

Which is exactly equivalent to saying there are no ethics associated with bolting...

So the question remains - with respect, Healyje - I'd like to know whether you do believe that there is no circumstance whatsoever that would justify bolting. Thanks.

Well, how did someone clearly taking a stab at cogent analysis come up with the above question? At no point have I said there are no circumstances or justifications for bolting - quite the contrary. That would be as clueless as fracture and Jay's explicit and repeatedly stated claim there are no ethics associated with, and by extension, guiding the use of bolting (and by further extension, no ethics associated with chipping, bolting on holds, or chopping). How do you think Jay would respond to a line of gym holds bolted on right next to the crack to further spare the flake? It's just a bit of resin and they wouldn't have to use them...

If you trad climb and can't judge when a flake can't withstand a cam placement, you shouldn't be trad climbing.
Jay

I find both pious outrage and coy smugness exhausting.

If they could get past semantics and pride, they'd probably realize they're closer to agreeing than they think.

As far as bolting goes, you better have a pretty good reason if you're putting bolts next to gear placements. And no, the cost of a rack, and to "share" routes with people who won't learn trad are NOT good reasons.

People put bolts next to gear placements all the time. Sometimes (non-crack) sport routes have features like threadable huecos, slingable tufas (though falling on them would often be questionable), or slots that you can fit cams or tricams in. The reason to bolt is simply to allow a type of climbing where gear-wankery and concern over the consequences of a fall is minimized; to allow the climber to focus on the actual climbing.

In case you've been hiding under a rock for the past couple decades, it's called "sport climbing". ;)

I can appreciate bolting climbs that can not be protected any other way, but a users of what ever are we are in we have the shared responsibility of minimizing impact on the area and following a leave no trace ethic.

Bolting cracks unnecessarily increases impact on an area and as a result can make our sport more visible to non climber who may think that we are abusing our privilege to develop an area.

Leave no trace. It's that simple. Minimize your impact. The exact logic you use to justify bolting, would justify another to do whatever they want to the rock, just because they feel like it. Is that hold too sharp? go ahead file it down. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a foothold right here? let's just make one.

Seriously though, the bolt as little as possible ethic may have started out mostly as an elitist perspective, but it has evolved into a conservationist ethic. People don't like bolted cracks for many reasons, the most valid of which I think is the visual impact/LNT doctrine. It's about respecting the land enough that you impact it as little as possible, saving it for future generations.

On a more relevant path, the major reason "to bolt or not to blot" ever became an issue is that, early in days of climbing, some parks threatened to close down parks because of all the rock scaring that was occurring with pitons. Chocks and hexes replaced pitons and proved to be less damaging and park officials became more accepting of climbers. Over time people moved away from crack to the unexplored face routes which required bolting. Those who first started using bolts still had the same mindset--don't affect the rock by over-bolting. If people haphazardly bolted, you'd have the same issue piton scarring caused--loss of access.

So basically I think you should bolt where there is no other way to protect. If you can protect the climb using gear then do that

Leave No Trace is asymptotic: you can always get closer to leaving no trace, but you can never actually leave no trace.

And just because people do something "all the time", doesn't mean that they should.

The stuff you mention is pretty well accepted as the realm of sport climbing. I've got no problem with that. I'd like to think I'm pretty reasonable on this matter.

It took Jay 7 pages to finally give an actual reason for bolting that crack. If it's as bad as you say it is, it's probably justified.

And you're telling healyej that he's not answering your questions.

.My intent was to give people a chance to prove that certain climbing ethics have become mere religious dogma, and it worked beautifully.

Jay

I thought this was a reasonable question. Healyje responded with...

So the question remains - with respect, Healyje - I'd like to know whether you do believe that there is no circumstance whatsoever that would justify bolting. Thanks.

...every chip, every bolt, and every name painted on permanently alters the rock. Some bolts are arguably necessary and in some are areas many are necessary or no climbing would be possible. But the idea that there is some legitimate "cross-over point" at which it's fine to bolt protectable cracks will never be accepted by us....

Case in point, I was in Spokane this weekend and happen to drive by Dishman...[a] beautiful piece of rock in an suburban setting and I walked the length of it and was pleasantly surprised at the high quality of route after route. The rock is granite and most of the routes are entirely bolted as the rock has few cracks. Every bolt on it was legitimate except two. And those were glaringly inappropriate right next to bombproof easy pro in a deep hand size arching crack (I believe the climb was Klingon). There was absolutely no justification for them beyond not wanting to bother with a couple of cams.