A route that has been climbed, and that you simply choose not to climb, is not then in any sense "unclimbable" because of your choice.

Nice one! Was it about those OK. routes Raleigh did back in the day? I suspect the 'limited resource' part of your thoughts comes to the fore if that is the case. I suspect if I lived and climbed there, I might take issue with the bulk of the climbing resources being locked up in death routes too.

Dingus, I'm a bit confused where you stand. On Sept 20th you wrote that HRB "never should have been retrod", then in your last post you said if you were going to climb it now you'd "sure as heck bring a bolt kit". So is retrobolting without permission wrong, or is it ok but only when you're seriously scared?

I agree with the writer who said it's time we heard from Vern and Tom, specifically, is it ok to take the X-rating out of HRB? I'd be willing to contact them myself if I had any idea how.

BTW: How come no one uses their real names on this site?

Lars

Yup, dingus, you're right - no one owes me a safe ascent. I won't argue that. I just agree with kalcario and fracture when they say that a route if it is going to be bolted at all, should be bolted well enough to prevent a lethal ground/ledgefall. Runouts higher up on the route where you might get a little scraped up and soil your panties if you fell - that's ok with me.

A route like the type he is describing was recently retro-bolted at one of my local crags. There was an editors' note in the last Rock & Ice (written by Jeff Jackson) complaining about it---it was a Duane Raleigh FA. (Of course, the note did not describe the retarded way the route had been bolted)

Hi Lars

Let me see if I can explain my thought process on this. I'll start with personal responsibility. As stated, no one owes me a safe ascent, period. They don't owe me any routes, any climbing time, a gym membership, nothing.

So when I start up a rock, any rock, I do so with the intention of assuming 100% responsibility my own ass. Now I compromise that ideal, often. I'll clip bolts I didn't place and then run it out above them for example. But when I choose to do that, I am still exercising my personal responsibility to protect my own ass.

As a leader, on any given piece of rock, it is up to me to safeguard my own passage or suffer the consequences. I can't cede the consequences so I won't cede the responsibility.

That's the basic framework of my thinking.

Now to retrobolting. I'm afraid I have no pat answer, no concrete position from which to assail those who disagree. I happen to believe in situational ethics in our sport. What would represent bad style retrobolting in one place would or could be a community spirited positive in another. I'm down with that.

For the eastern Californian crag in question, the location, the histories of climbing on the East Side, the FA party and their respective histories, retrobolting Hair Raiser Buttress was *nearly* as controversial as retrobolting Bachar Yerian would be... guaranteed to start a fight. I have to believe that the retrobolters either didn't know (stupid), didn't care (unaware) or did it in spite or to spite (likely a component of their decision).

It showed a complete lack of respect to retrobolt Hair Raiser. It set the stage for futher retrobolt intrusions, all in the name of good climbing of course. We NEED another 5.9 face climb, right? Desperately I guess.

Now back to the responsibility thing. As I said earlier, there isn't a committee and we can't (yet, thank god) appeal to the government. Our styles and ethics are displayed one climber at a time, one route at a time, one ascent at a time. Each is a singular event, and only becomes part of the community as a data point so to speak. Graph all the data points and you have a picture of the community... NOT the other way around.

In other words, you don't point to some mythical Climber's Town and expect beause people live in that place they will all act the same, think the same. There's no mayor or city counsel, its more a refugee camp than it is a town. Each climber/refugee has a different story to tell.

Higgins et al exercised their privilege to climb Hair Raiser Buttress in a style that suited their desires. One data point. Many people climbed the route in that form, it had freaking stars in thd oldest guide. I turned away from it personally.

Then you have the retrobolter(s), exercising their privilege to retrobolt. Remember, there's no mayor, or committee or rules, even, preventing them from doing this. Just our conventions as climbers. But just as clearly, they knew going in that others in their community would not approve.

So these others? They can't appeal to the mayor, the committee, the rulebook, or even their peers; no one has authority. Yet just as clearly, the conventional styles of the area were violated and tradition minded climbers had good reason to be alarmed over this encroachment.

So someone chopped it. That person exercised her privilege just as did the retrobolters.

Now old Dingus is standing at the base of this X route. If I were to launch out across that 40 foot run, I would do so with a bolt kit in hand at this stage in my life. When I was younger I might have been a bit more cavilier about my life to be honest. I might still, quien sabe?

But I might not. Its my life, this is the point I've been trying to make. Dying for some stupid principle of rock climbing, mostly the principles of others (!), is about the STUPIDEST THING ON EARTH.

I'll put a bolt in your great great grandma's headstone if I have to (no offence), if it means I live instead of die. Its MY responsibility. Its MY life. That consideration supercedes ALL DISCUSSION OVER STYLE, all respect for tradition, all ethics are wasted breath in the face of imminent death.

It is up to the leader to safeguard her passage. It isn't up to anyone else. She has the privilege to drill at any point.

Am I saying that I or anyone else should go retrobolt Hair Raiser again? No. What I am saying is no one owes any of you a safe ascent of the route. Period.

For the record, I have no intention of retrobolting this route. All I said was, I would take a bolt kit up that pitch, if I were to lead it. Its MY ass, no one else's. Fear not, I take a bolt kit up a lot of routes, both uncharted and well documented. I don't go up on a trade route wall without one for example.

I think we have lost, no wrong word. I don't think that sense of self-sufficiency in thinking and in deed, are well-developed in today's climbing masses. I think many climbers today would rail, impotently, at the evil-doers who chop, with nary a notion that is it up to THEM, and them alone, individually, to find their way in this sport.

I don't cede my right to drill to save my own ass to anyone, anywhere, anytime and I certainly won't die over a stupid principle. That's sorta a bottom line for me.

DMT

If the "retarded way" was old-style Raleigh, it probably involved protecting the crux if there was a stance, and running out anything easier.

Just friggin' ask. Did anyone bother asking could they please add bolts, on the "retardedly bolted" route you are talking about?

What's my point here? Simply this: Dingus, most of what you say makes sense, but I can find no convincing argument that a bolted rock climb should permanently be defined by the first ascent party.

Did they leave the rock the way they found it? Should they get to determine the way that piece of rock is climbed permanently simply because they had the historical fortune to be there first? Does anyone "own" a climb? Do we have to climb exactly like they did to be as good/worthy/valuable/admired as we percieve them?

A rock climb is no Mona Lisa, no work of fine art.

Third, I still don't see how it is an insult to FAs to add bolts to their routes - they still get credit for the FA. I have put up a route (woo-hoo! yeah, I know - a whole pitch even - I am so not a climbing god.) and, heck, I'd feel honored if anyone ever went and tried to climb it or cared enough to want to modify it. Anyone who wants to climb it the "old way" can skip the additional gear. I think it's just eletism and egotism to say "you have to climb it just the way I did - if you're not tough enough, piss off and find something else." Can't you disagree with someone and still respect them?

Lars

Yes, you can disagree with someone and still respect them - and, as Dingus keeps trying to explain, you show that respect by not retrobolting their routes...

but to be honest I don't really understand how he manages to preach the "wild west" while he simultaneously seems to be defending FA "ownership".

So how about having some of the old-school FA's respect some of the desires of new climbers---or other climbers who are smart enough to not want to die?

You completely mischaracterize my position.

I don't feel the FA owns the route. I just think retrobolters have even less a claim.

I understand this.

My view is that the FA'ist does not own the route, and that the retrobolters have an equal claim as everyone else who actually climbs in the area. If the FA'ist no longer climbs in the area, then retrobolters have an infinitely greater claim than the FA does.

FWIW.

And I reject the idea that this has anything to do with whether they respect the FA'ist as a person.

8^)