Sport Ice Climbing - to bolt or not to bolt!

[dan_e]

Yes, bolts on ice routes! I have heard and seen this for sometime now, but it has been mainly done to protect sections of rock with no ice, usually where a section of rock leads to a hanging icicle, ect. I have more recently seen and heard of climbers placing bolts right next to sections of ice, because it was thin, hard, or impossible to protect. I think this is a disturbing new trend. To me ice has always been a risky affair, trying to make it 'safe' like sport climbing makes me ill. I say if you can't lead it with traditional protection (screws, hooks, tie-offs, ect.) than leave it to someone who can. If I found one of these offending bolts in my home territory (NH), I would remove it. I hope that I am not in the minority on this issue. Thanks for you constructive opinions (pro or con) in advance.

[Rodchester]

While I tend to agree with you...why not just not use the bolt?

If you want to use it, if you don't, don't.

Let everyone choose for themselves?

------------------

Have a nice day.

[Guest]

This is my first reply ever and it is to agree with dane on the sentiments of placing bolts for ice climbing. I find it ridiculous to think that anyone would what to dilute the purity of this sport by trying to make it safe and sensible. If you want to do that go out and find something you can top rope and then you are not spoiling the freedom of the route finding aspect which is unique to ice climbing. Conditions also make this special and because they are rarely in, it makes those days you go out and find climbable ice that much better!

[Eddie]

I agree with dane .

[Alpine_Tom]

Dane's attitude seems kind of one-sided to me. For one thing, ice is much less predictable than rock: if a rock route is rated 5.10, you know (approximately) whether you belong on it or not; it’ll be 5.10 from one day (or year) to the next. Ice is much less predictable, from one day (or hour) to the next. Removing a bolt that’s there to provide safety, and maybe save a life, because it doesn’t mesh with your personal view of what ice climbing ought to be is pretty irresponsible. If you don’t like bolts, don’t use them, and don’t place them.

At the same time, having a bolt there might make the difference between an inexperienced ice climber (like me) trashing the ice trying to get a good ice screw placement, (and taking half the morning, holding up everyone behind him) and using the bolt and cruising on up with a minimum of muss and fuss. So, that bolt might mean more ice for more climbers to enjoy.

I’m guessing that there are a lot more inexperienced ice climbers here than in New Hampshire, so you’re more likely to be offended more here than back east.

 

[Eddie]

If the routes been done without bolts don't add any. If you can't handle it stick to a toprope.

[CascadeClimber]

Following this line of logic, it seems like you would say that today's high-standard rock climbers are spoiling hard aid lines in Yosemite by freeing them, instead of climbing them on aid, like they were originally put up.

Or that retrofitting a 1/4" Leeper with a new 3/8" rawl is wrecking the climb because you know the hanger isn't going to fail.

If the line was first led with terradactyls, flexible crampons, and Chouinard screws do you use the same?

I realize this is a slippery slope, but technology has changed and continues to change climbing. Test pieces of the past become moderate trade routes as our tools become better and our sense of what is possible changes.

My two cents-

CC

[chriss]

The question is whether or not the bolt should be there.

Is it right to permantly alter the rock (and route)?

If we use "safety" as the decision, everyone will say yes. But is safety the reason we are climbing?

Look at all sport climbing has given us; more bolts than ever, crowds, etc. Do we really need more bolted routes?

 

chris

[pms]

I'm with Rodchester. "just let everyone choose for themselves", and please do a thoughful job when bolting, & thanks for placing it.

Jim Nelson

[dan_e]

Interesting responses so far. I don't agree that placing a bolt next to ice is similar to freeing an aid route, since freeing that route would be harder. We are supposed to be moving forward not backward. Some reasons why these aid routes existed is because they could not be climbed free, for whatever reason, being it equipment, skill, or strength. Let me clarify that I am not against bolting, but should we bolt next to a crack because it could make it safer? How is this advancing climbing? As far as new tools go, they might make you climb better, but they do not climb for you. You can get pumped and fall of a grade 5 ice climb even if you are using Cobras, mono-points, and express screws. These things have helped push the limits of climbing when in the right hands.

[highclimb]

I agree with Rodchester and Jim, let them choose for themselves. but i also need to say that i think the people who have replyed dont under stand the point. dane talked about bolting a route that is thin ice. the smallest screw is 10 cm. now thats thin. and if anyone is climbing of stuff that is thinner, they are wrong in the head. for example steve house climbed a pitch on Howse(sp)peak, he called WI6. it was thin ice that turned it to extremely thin ice at parts it went to the second tooth of his picks. now that is scary. and although he is an awsome climber, i think he was wrong in climbing the pitch. if he had fallen he probably would have died, or been seriously hurt. but back to the point. leave the bolts for the sport climbers. Reinhold Messner called bolts " the murder of the impossible". now if you ever encounter thin ice that cant be protected traditionaly (i.e. pitons, ice screws, cams etc.), then is wasn't meant to climb and you should back down and go find some nice fat plastic blue ice

Aidan

[J_Fisher]

My take on this is pretty context driven, and it's not exactly clear what situations Dane is referring to, but here's my take.

If we're talking about subsequent ascents, the style of the first ascentionist should stand. Period. This has been a long-standing concensus that I think must be preserved. The comments of "Cascadeclimber" are a bit backwards--it's always been acceptable to improve the style of the first ascensionist--placing fixed pro on clean routes is a degradation in style.

But I think Dane's query is really about new routes. In that case, I don't think you can say that using fixed pro on unprotectable ice is a new practice. That's been happening in the mountains since the dawn of time, and as for newer, shorter mixed climbs, I thinks it's been a pretty common practice to bolt sections where the ice is often thin or intermittent. For new climbs, I think bolting should be handled just like in rock climbing--it depends on the history and character of the area. Bolting at Vail of Haffner Creek is commonly accepted and fine.

It's also not clear if Dane is talking about bolting unprotectable lines (what I'm talking about) or bolting lines that take adequate ice pro. I do agree that bolting a route that would take screws is as deplorable as bolting a crack, but as a practical matter I don't see this happening much. If the ice is thick enough to take a screw, how are you going to get to the bolt?

All that being said, I would personally prefer that there be fewer bolts rather than more, but I think there's plenty of room for both styles of climb.

Cheers,

Jon fisher

[This message has been edited by J Fisher (edited 02-12-2001).]

[Eddie]

I guess my comments were more directed at anyone adding bolts after a first ascent. I also appreciate anyone replacing any rusty old 1/4 inch bolt.

[David_Parker]

THE BOLT SAVED MY FRIENDS LIFE!

There is a climb in Provo canyon that rarely forms. It appears every so often on the 3rd pitch of Stairway to Heaven. I'm not sure who did the first ascent, it may have been Alex. Regardless, when Alex came to do it, the dagger was not touched down. It required a delicate placement, followed by a one arm pull up, locking off and placing another tool higher until he could establish some feet (oh so gingerly). To protect these moves and the climb, Alex placed one bolt fairly high in the rock behind the dagger. There may have been another bolt from a previous attempt lower down. The climb was done without incident.

A few years later, my friend Cord decided to give it a go. He clipped the bolts and gunned for the top. Somewhere near the top, a tool placement fractured the whole thing and Cord and dagger came down hard. Fortunately Cord was NOT attached to the dagger with any ice screws. Had he been, I would not be climbing with him today as he would have been 3 pitches down at the bottom of the climb dead. He was seriously injured with a broken hip the worst of his injuries. I think there are times where good climbers are the unfortunate recipients of objective danger. Ice climbing is dangerous and just because we do it doesn't mean we have a DEATH WISH. Isn't that what bolts are made for??? DPP

PS. The climb's name is Prophet on a Stick. Alex's last name is Lowe.

[highclimb]

David Parker,

your right bolts do save lives

Aidan

[CascadeClimber]

I'm enjoying this lively discussion as much because it hasn't deteriorated into a flame-war as for its content. I'm posting this response to try to illustrate how gray an area this is, not because I disagree with the contrary posts.

That being said, I guess my point is that words like "improve", "better", "safe", "harder", and "style" are all subjective. Royal Robbins put up many first ascents in tennis shoes. If I repeat his routes in slippers that, in my book, is not the same style: His ascent was more difficult and employed less technology. He also chopped half of a Warren Harding route (the name escapes me) and later wished he hadn't b/c he came to respect the difficulty of the aid line and the work Harding did to place the bolts on lead. Becky put up first ascents for years without the North Cascades highway. Does it improve the style of those climbs to repeat them with the benefit of "highway aid"?

And just because someone can climb 5.13 free does not mean that it is easier for them to step into aiders and climb A4 or 5. So how do we define "harder" and "improved style"?

What about a 5.13 sport climber establishing a 5.11 route with groundfall potential at every clip? Are all subsequent climbers required to risk death to repeat the route just b/c the first ascensionist felt the route was too "easy" to need "safe" protection?

Don't get me wrong here, I don't really want bolts splattered all over the place, either.

But I think climbers tend to become very close-minded about the "right" or "proper" way to climb. Usually the right amount of protection is just enough for me to get a buzz without fear of imminent death. Your experience may vary.

;-)

-CC

[This message has been edited by CascadeClimber (edited 02-12-2001).]

[dan_e]

I know about that climb and that's fine for Alex, which no one will argue is a great climber, but if a climb is that unstable it's probably dangerous to climb it with or without bolts. I know for a fact there are climbers (not as well know as Alex) that have done climbs like this without any such protection and they don't "have a death wish".

[This message has been edited by dane (edited 02-12-2001).]

[erik]

"murder of the impossible"

quated by that ever uber climber messner someone

p.s. not that i can do the impossible, but you know.

[This message has been edited by erik (edited 02-13-2001).]

[J_Fisher]

I'm about to get off thread, but I feel I need to respond to where "Cascade Climber" wrote:

"What about a 5.13 sport climber establishing a 5.11 route with groundfall potential at every clip? Are all subsequent climbers required to risk death to repeat the route just b/c the first ascensionist felt the route was too "easy" to need "safe" protection?"

The answer is, yes. Without question. I'm gobsmacked that people have an attitude that they are somehow "entitled" to do routes with absolute safety. If you can't do a route safely, find another route. If CC's argument were to prevail, classic areas like Seneca Rocks, Eldo, Stone Mountain, Toulumne, etc. would be retro-grid bolted to make them friendly for the masses. That is not what climbing is about, and if that is what climbing changes into I'm going to need to find a new hobby.

If you need a bolt every 5 feet to stay happy, there are plenty of places where you can have that experience. But retro bolting established lines is desecration.

Cheers.

[Alex]

To expand..

As would be retro-bolting Wyoming Sheep Ranch

As would be placing bolts on Online, which despite having one bolt per pitch a la Yosemite and Tuolumne standards, is a very safe climb, for a 5.10 climber.

As would be placing bolts on established thin ice testpieces like Drowning, Burning.

However, that said there are alot of incindents where placing post-FA bolts have been accepted - Dana's Arch to preserve the rock from further pin damage, Stern Farmer to protect the hideous groundfall HB offset moves 30 feet up, the freeing of established hard aid routes in some areas, when permission by FA party is given....

I think its ultimately a judgement call, err on the side of respecting other's style over your own inadequacy.

[CascadeClimber]

Jon-

You are clearly very passionate about this issue and that is something that I respect. I don't have a firm opinion yet and that is why I am curious about what people are thinking. Again, I am not advocating bolts every five feet and totally "safe" idiot-proof routes. But I do wonder where the line is.

What if the route was originally soloed? Is it then only for soloists?

And do you believe that once the line has been freed, then it should no longer be aided? Even with "clean" aid? Should the ladder be removed from the second step now that Anker has freed it?

Following that, once the line has been soloed, should fixed gear, including bolts, be removed? I don't think anyone is saying this, but it is a reasonably logical progression to the line of reasoning and illustrates how we want absolute rules until we don't.

What about "other" installations, such as memorial plaques and monstrous bolt installations (for the purpose of instruction)? I'm thinking of Lundin in particular. Has that route been desecrated?

Maybe we need to start a new thread here, "Ethics"?

-CC

[J_Fisher]

This is an old, old subject, but I'll state my thoughts then get off my soap box for good . . .

I agree with Alex--retro-bolting with the FAs permission is fine, especially where you're replacing a manky fixed piece with a sound one.

I think the distinction CC is looking for is the one b/t "style," which refers to your personal experience on the route, and "ethics," which refers to actions that affect everyone's experience. People are sort of loose with the terms--myself included--but strictly speaking permanent alterations to established routes are questions of ethics. Retro-bolting or nailing on clean or free lines rightly incites condemnation.

Matters of style include clean aiding or dogging free lines, stickier shoes, nude ascents, or whatever, and most people don't give a hoot about it as long as your honest.

Later . . .

[Andy_Bourne]

This is one subject that I feel very strongly about. I would also like to express surprise and pride at the maturity in which people have been responding to this subject. Climbing still IS a noble sport.

J Fisher has hit it right on the nose and I don't think I could have put it any better, but I'll try.

A climb should only be altered with the first ascent party's permission. New bolts should only be placed where an old one existed before.

Follow the ethics of the particular area, if you don't know what they are, take the time to find out.

Placing bolts for the reason of "safety" is the decision of the first ascensionist and subject to the ethics of an area. My opinion is that it is a travesty to put a bolt on something that someone has climbed without it. There are millions of climbs out there, go seek those out that fit your climbing style and leave those be that don't. Some climbers seek out those climbs where the objective hazard, ground fall potential, run out factor, etc., is high. There MUST be routes that have these characteristics or we will have a world full of homogenous climbing.

Can you imagine if there weren't any climbs out there that when you spoke of them it sent chills down your spine to think that someone had actually lead it? Also, imagine how many more people will start climbing if everything is perfectly safe! These are the routes that we amateurs gawk at and hardmen drool at. This is an absolutely essential part of our sport, period.

[David_Parker]

I believe the thread was about bolts on sport ICE climbs. It appears to have crossed over to rock climbing. Ice is Ice and rock is rock and mixed is mixed. Lets try to keep things separate and particular to what we are discussing. I don't know of many rock climbers who head up expanding flakes KNOWING that it may have a distinct possibilty of falling off. If they did, they probably wouldn't want to be attached to it in any way....which was my point in my previous post. You can not make a general rule that pervades all. If you are ice climbing or doing a mixed route and come across a bolt, don't be offended by it! You may be better than the first ascentionist and if it is more sporting for you, don't clip it. But in ice and mixed, what you are climbing is probably a lot different than the 1st ascentionist or your friend who did it last week climbed. Also, bolting ethics seem to be different in different areas. Dan comes from NH, a VERY traditional ethics area. A bolt on the mixed pich of the Black Dike would be chopped in an instant! (The first ascent was soloed!) But if ice formed at Smith Rock, couldn't we expect to find bolts? Lets try to keep an open mind and not get so worked up and impose our personal ethics on everyone. Be yourself, lead by example, but don't expect everyone to follow.

[chriss]

In climbing any route (mtn, rock, ice, whatever), we should try to have as little impact as possible. 1st ascent or whatever, permanent alterations of the enviroment (rock, vegatation, etc.) should be minimized. At what cost is this route so badly needed? With all the advancements in gear, why not save the route until it can be done "cleanly"? Yes, we may be able to climb the features, but why scar the thing in the name of safety. Top-rope, solo, lead, do whatever you feel safe doing. But try to leave no trace, or just leave it alone.

chris