Rather than painting it as a black and white, all or nothing argument that seems to be going on here, it seems to me that the "bolt or no bolt" is really a land use issue. For instance, I love mountain biking...and I love some of our national parks, but I can't ride my mountain bike on the trails in our parks. There is, however, plenty of great riding in land that is outside of the parks. I'm fine with this. Same with bolting: If the goal is to keep an beautiful area pristine and wild, I sure as heck don't want to see a bolt ladder going up the side of some rock face... I have no problem with a trad climber climbing it with removalable/not destructive aid. On the other hand, I don't see any problem with bolts in areas that are not designated to remain pristine and are for recreational use. Of course, if you love a non-protected climbing area that is in risk of getting bolted up, you better work on getting it officially designated to save it rather than starting a war with people who want to bolt it.