Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 13, 2009 - 01:38pm PT
|
In the Surprise bolt thread Clint suggested something really interesting to me that I wanted to pull out of that context:
"Secondly, I don't think the "FA principle" should allow the FA people to add/subtract bolts at any arbitrary point in the future. I feel that if a route has gotten a sufficient number of ascents (or been climbed for some number of years), a "statute of limitations" applies, and the route becomes community property. No longer "property" of the FA people. In a sense, it "belongs" to the people who have climbed it in the past and have shared that experience."
on the surface this makes sense to me, especially after an FA climber has passed away, their route belongs more to the community than to the legacy, but even then ultra classics seem like they shouldn't be re-touched.
but it occurred to me that this principle when applied to 'sport' areas (however we define that remains to be seen) the liberal use of properly added bolts is encouraged, such that the 'addition' principle is not revered in the same way that the 'subtraction' principle is. Adding a bolt to a sport area is not preserving something important like subtracting a bolt in a traditional area, namely the style in which the FA went up.
I'm kinda typing this up quickly at work, so I'll leave it at that and would like to hear what others think about the principle. Think about how the principle works in relationship to different areas and different styles.
Can rules about 'community ownership' be articulated in a way that makes sense?
M
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:47pm PT
|
To be accurate about sources, the concept of a Statute of Limitations to modify the "First Ascent Principle" (see Advance Rockcraft) is not my original idea. As I recall, I think I first saw it explained here in this forum by Karl [but see his post below - it was not Karl]. If we link to some of the original threads like "First Ascent Registry", we could probably find it and related discussion.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20192
|
|
Reeotch
Trad climber
Kayenta, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:48pm PT
|
The statute of limitations is a double edged sword. If a route becomes "community property" does that mean the community then has the right to add bolts?
No, I like the tried and true axiom of only the first ascentionist or their designate. If you don't like the way a route is protected, lobby the first ascent party, hopefully before they die, cuz then all bets are off . . .
I want people to enjoy my routes, so I usually listen when people tell me it felt a bit dangerous on one of my routes.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:49pm PT
|
Clearly if the FA party is no longer around a route does end up belonging to the community. Hopefully, the community is responsible and in most instances I have seen this is the case.
I would agree that over time, a route does end up belonging to the community especially if protection is an issue. We face this problem all the time with rebolting work at Pinnacles National Monument. Bolts have been added to a route after the FA and have, after thirty or forty years and five or six guidebooks, become part of the route. Removing those bolts could be a real safety issue and would alter the history of the route for the past thirty or forty years.
The issue of wether the FA party "owns" the route even while they are alive is pretty sticky. I don't know how to say this as PC as possible, but I have seen instances where climbers in their later years have become less bold and have gone back to their routes and added bolts. I am not sure that this is correct, especially if a long time has passed between the FA and the addition of the bolts.
Hey, maybe that is why you are asking about a statute of limitations. In that case, I would say three years, five years max.
Bruce
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:49pm PT
|
Reeotch,
No, no rights to add bolts or modify after the Statute of Limitations, by the FA party or any others.
The idea is that the route has "stood the test of time" (or seen sufficient ascents) and should remain the same.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:54pm PT
|
So you will have judge, and high court to interpret when black and white turn to shades of gray?
Rock police to keep them inline.
A religion, Sermon of the holy rock.
Sentence to death the radical extremist who says; "Fuk all you assho'les" and he blows up your crag.
Heh heh heh .......
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 01:57pm PT
|
One more thing to add. I think the rules are a bit different between ground up first ascents and sport routes. The thing I like the best about ground up first ascents is that, unless you are climbing way below your ability level, the rock really does determine where you go and where the bolts (well, protection for that matter) goes as well.
So, if you did a good job of putting up a FA, the bolts should all be there and the line should be natural. If you make a mistake or bypass an obvious place to put a bolt, then going right back up after the FA and correcting it seems to be pretty "ethics free." If you made a mistake and it took you a long time to go back up there, then, well, you are probably blowing it as a FA climber. If you really do make a mistake, go up and fix it ASAP.
As far as sport climbing goes and rappel bolting all bets are off. Putting up a runout route and/or leaving a mistake is pretty lame.
Bruce
|
|
LB4USC
Trad climber
Long Beach
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 02:06pm PT
|
I can understand the ethics of adding bolts to a route, but does it really matter at the belay? Does that really detract from the climb?
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Peenemunde
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 02:08pm PT
|
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 02:28pm PT
|
You aren't, of course, going to come to an agreement and there can be so many variation at play.
For instance, when replacing bad bolts, a bolt can be removed if modern gear now allows good protection. But what is "good enough".
I've never been that keen on the FA owning the route and I don't agree that a route should be "frozen" for all time.
For instance, say a run out route was put up on a slab 40 years ago on lead and it has seen so little traffic that nobody was ever motivated to replace the bolts that are now rusted out 1/4 inches that can be removed by hand. Anyone climbing it is doing a "first ascent" as far as pro is concerned and I don't really see why they should be forced to use only (and all) the prior bolt locations. If they want to make variations in the route and/or gear placements. Now few situations are this extreme and the FA owning the rock is perhaps the only way to prevent later grid bolting, but it strikes me as far from ideal.
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 05:13pm PT
|
No climbing party or FA owns a chunk of rock (unless they hold title to the private land on which the rock is located).
Any moral or ethical "ownership" an FA party has for a route (and the chunk of rock where the route goes) must be earned with a degree of respect for the community as well.
A 5.12 climber putting up run-out 5.9 routes and making an area effectively off-limits to 5.9 climbers is not a community-minded pursuit, and as such those first-ascentionists should not be accorded the community respect of leaving their routes intact.
Parties putting up run-out lines should be doing so at their leading limit, or the route should be declared something like "this is a 5.9 near free--solo for 5.12 climbers" and not be listed as a 5.9 climb.
The actions of the FA party have a cost on the community. It is the opportunity cost of another party not being able to put up a safe route for climbers who actually climb with that grade as their limit on that piece of rock.
Do we want to consciously have chunks of rock assigned ownership like the Oklahoma land rush, whomever gets there first plants their flag and it's off limits to other folks who don't want to use it the same way as the FA party?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 05:16pm PT
|
"To be accurate about sources, the concept of a Statute of Limitations to modify the "First Ascent Principle" (see Advance Rockcraft) is not my original idea. As I recall, I think I first saw it explained here in this forum by Karl (Baba / Bralich).
If we link to some of the original threads like "First Ascent Registry", we could probably find it and related discussion.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20192"
Nope, that statute of limitations didn't come from me. If the FA party of a route wants to add bolts in the future, I think it's fine. We get often get wiser as we get older, or at least have less testosterone and more money for community service.
Naturally, the real test, and the way the real world works, depends on the totality of circumstances including community opinion, the reputation, even popularity of the Fa folks, and a hundred other important and frivolous issues.
Somehow, somebody retrobolted a 5.6++ pitch on the Nose and the bolt has remained untouched for decades. We talk about these firm laws but always ignore them when we feel like it.
peace
karl
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Whuttiz that Monstrosicos Inferno?
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 05:35pm PT
|
Nothing's simple.
"First ascent principle" as first used is about not leaving fixed pitons,
so subsequent parties have the best shot at the FA party's experience.
On bolt-protected climbs, obviously, nobody will have the same experience
as the first ascent party.
From the point of view of subsequent parties, the experience to be held
as ideal (if you want to value the early conditions) is what the
SECOND ascent party found.
I'm speaking in the context of rebolting, retrobolting, that sort of thing. A party repeating the route in 15 years shouldn't be relying on
crap bolts if the 2nd ascent party had good bolts, and could climb with
confidence.
Another point to wonder about: do you honor the first ascentionist, or
do you honor the first ascent?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2009 - 05:55pm PT
|
WERNER!! Don't tell the end of the story before we get to it. ;)
Clint, I definitely remember a S.O.L. discussion of some type. Didn't find it in the first page results, I'll check the link later. thx!
Nutjob, you wrote...
"I consider it a cheap form of self-aggrandizement to put up run-out routes below your limit when it would be possible to equip it better. Or just state clearly what the game is and not set it up to be a "5.9" climb."
I've always been a little troubled by this type approach in some cases because my ground up FA limit is multiple grades lower than my current onsight or redpoint limit. It's hard to measure a "mistake" but I do know what you're saying.
What is interesting is that my top down FA limit is actually a grade or so above my current onsight limit. I'm almost incentivized to put routes in top down. Which btw, there is no excuse for an overly dangerous top down route. I agree in that sense.
Ok, so back to the SOL for me, is there no way to preserve the tradition if the forces of social community values are bent in a particular direction? Is there no trump card to play?
I think Karl's post alludes to this. A thousand frivolous factors seems almost right in the realm of the absurd. But some seem more important to me than others. The value of safety above all else is not an axiom that is worth it's weight because if that were the case we would all top rope.
Leading is valuable. That much we find to be fairly agreeable.
But as for bolting, given that rock is a limited resource, wouldn't a style that slows development be the most valuable, in that it retains the 'unknown' space for as long as possible? It will run out (no pun intended).
Or, here's an idea, can we strip old routes of all evidence of passage, and start over after 200 years of use or lack of use.
hrm, lots of ideas flowing now. sorry, just posting out loud.
:)
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 06:43pm PT
|
Actually, the concept is not really just (or even) a "Statute of Limitations" -- a term which provides an absolute time limit after which rights are lost (e.g.: the right of the FA party to change the fixed protection).
The concept is far more complex and subtle.
I view the loss of any perceived "right" of the FA party to charge fixed protection more akin to the legal principal of "laches."
Laches bars an equitable right when there has been both an inexcusable passage of time and prejudice to another party.
This is really a two-part test: (1) A FA party should act within a reasonable period of time, either directly or through surrogates (what is reasonable is subject to interpretation and should take into account the particular situation); and (2), There must have been a sufficient number of ascents by others so that the "community at large" has some say in the matter.
This excludes the neglected true "museum" climbs, the grossly under-protected moderates that discourage repeat ascents by anyone other than those capable of comfortably climbing many grades harder, and routes at areas long disfavored and now popular.
It is true that sensibilities change over time. And, we should not be slavish to the fashion of the moment (past or present). But, climbs are also testaments to climbers and times past and are often truly "touchstones" of our heritage.
Don't look for hard and fast "rules" (e.g.: a Statute of Limitations), which are often an anathema to the spirit of climbing. Rather take the totality of the climb, times, history and people in consideration.
Edited to add: One should also take into consideration how would the change (new bolts) would affect other nearby routes.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2009 - 07:06pm PT
|
really keen insight Sketchy! thx!
we may have just ended the thread tho. :)
I'll find another way to stir the pot if I have to.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 07:30pm PT
|
The "Steck Salathe" on Sentinel rock is a museum climb.
In the last year or so bolts have been added and are appearing where there have been none, I've been told, by a local who free solos this climb regularly many times during the season.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
|
Bolts will come and go but generally the climbs will remain the same. I would advocate not clipping a bolt if you don't like it, but usually I clip it if I happen upon it. I guess because I'm "safety minded", yeah thats it.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 08:24pm PT
|
Werner wrote
"The "Steck Salathe" on Sentinel rock is a museum climb.
In the last year or so bolts have been added and are appearing where there have been none, I've been told, by a local who free solos this climb regularly many times during the season."
Are you just trolling bro? We covered those bolts before, which were done with Steck's approval, and after appropriate discussion.
Peace
karl
from this thread
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=927893
Sometimes those Star-Dryvins are hard to pull, even when they are not broken off. Maybe when they were broken off, one of them became about impossible to pull. Strange that the replacement was not put next to the old hole, but on the other side of the crack?
I remember asking Bruce Bindner about it, as he did the initial replacement. At the time, he did not replace those on the 5.8 chimney. He felt a person could just lug a big cam up there to protect it. I remember clipping them before they were broken, and being glad I had them. Originally that pitch tunnelled deep inside at 5.4 or so. But then blocks shifted and people had to climb the 5.8 on the outside; that's when the bolts were placed. That seems original enough. It gets a little tricky when maybe they are not needed if you have a #5 Camalot.
Burt
Trad climber
Las Vegas, Nv
Aug 12, 2009 - 01:21am PT
it's everywhere, I know here in Red Rocks it's not the SS but a lot of our classics have been bolted into submission. Belay bolts added, protection bolts added, it's a disease, and a disgrace. Some routes had no climber impact, no slings, no bolts, it was great to take clients up them. A few are starting to restore these to the way that they should be and bless them for that.
Rankin
climber
North Carolina
Aug 12, 2009 - 05:21am PT
Yeah, I always love the rationale, "but it would be so inconvenient to have to carry that cam up there..." What a joke. When I climbed SS, I remember clipping a couple old creepy bolts. No big deal. You should carry a #5 friend on the route anyway to protect the narrows. The problem with bolting is, once some people start doing it, they like it. And I'm not talking about clipping the bolts, I mean placing the bolts. We'd be so better off if these people just got jobs in construction and took up bowling.
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Aug 12, 2009 - 06:14am PT
I think Brutus went back and replaced the chimney bolts later. The vast majority of maintenance of SS has been by him. I seem to remember bolted anchors before and after the narrows. Are you sure about saying there were no bolts there before?
Peace
Karl
Edit: Dingus is right. I remember. If there were any modifications from the original, Brutus discussed them in advance with Steck.
Dingus Milktoast
climber
Aug 12, 2009 - 06:35am PT
Well he did it with Steck's approval. He didn't need none of yalls approval. That pretty much closes this issue. Yall have no standing.
DMT
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
|
Apparently in Zonerland, FA-ers at times feel entitled to add bolts at twenty odd yr intervals....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!