All I see is a bunch of people bitching about someone chopping their own routes to reduce the damage being done to an area of Franklin.

To set the record straight for the conversation, they were not all his routes. However, as I said before, there seems to be a method to altering some of the additional routes.

You are correct, most FA's were joint ascents but as you pointed out he did aid in putting up many of these routes. And I agree with you about the method. The small area from Castaways to the corner past Trident has been closed. This area has been a point of contention for Mike on trail destruction for some time now. I agree with you about why some of the routes were altered as well, dead trees and old webbing anchors needed to be removed. As well as any anchors/bolts of poor condition.

Mike has every right to chop routes he put up.

Is this really true? Does a FAist really "own" a route forever, or are they given to the climbing community? Some of these lines are obvious. Are we going to have different bolts or bolt holes for every person/city/club/whatever to climb on? If someone restores the routes will they be rechopped?

I only make this statement because in our community the FA is given the respect to make decisions on routes he/she has established. Now chopping a route may be a bit extreme, but where do we draw the line? As for the extra bolts, I see the point, but it's the same issue. It's all ethics, and how do we as climbers (not landowners) make the decision on what gets bolted and what doesn't?

Trying to respectfully discuss... lemme know what you guys think.