I can understand ron’s point of view wrt urban ethics.

the extra bolt on hang ten is a bit different though…… and i would be dissapointed to see that one removed.

I agree Ron. In fact Urban Ethics has eluded me for many years even though I have climbed many other routes with harder moves. This year could be the one. In regards to Hang ten, I have led many times since the removal of dirt from the bottom of the climb before the additional bolt was added and still tend towards it being okay without the bolt as the clip is safe enough, and the given grade should warn off those that may not be able to clip the bolt safely. Have certainly boldered higher at castle hill which brings the thought of possibly using a boldering mat for safety. Would be interested in Rons opinion on this one. Good to hear from you too Ron. Wondered where you disappeared too.

Hmmm, this is a delicate one.

It is generally regarded as a no-no to retrobolt a climb but what if the climb was not bolted adequately to begin with, especially when the route was top-roped to begin with and bolted on abseil? Is it then acceptable to add bolts to make the climb safe, or make it consistent with regards to bolt spacing?

Urban Ethics is climbed on all fixed gear that was placed on abseil and, I assume, top-roped before bolting and leading. Each bolt / piton (now replaced) is spaced about every 2m, except for the 4-5m gap where the offending retrobolt has been chopped. This “run out” (this is obviously debateable) section is not difficult compared to the grade of the climb but still requires care. I’ve led the route on many occasions and each time I’ve passed over this section and seen the chopped bolt (it was retrobolted and chopped before) I’ve thought that a bolt here would be worthwhile. It would make the spacing between all the fixed gear consistent and in my view would not diminish or change the feel of the climb.

I’d like to hear the opinions of other climbers on this matter. Obviously this is a contentious issue and there are probably other climbs where you could make a similar case for retrobolting.

i think there are some situations where retrobolting is appropriate, despite what the ‘lady bird book of climbing’ might say.

maybe it was wrong to add the bolt on urban ethics, maybe not. its more shades of grey than a definite yes or no.

i think these two cases of retro bolting – urban ethics and hang ten, make an interesting comparison.

in the case of urban ethics, it could be argued that the extra bolt took something away from the climb, the so called “pucker factor” as one local has put it. hence some of the character and commitment has been lost. whether this has already been adversely impacted by the shot creating on some of the lower holds is a worthy point as well. and so the wall of confusion builds ever higher.

in hang ten’s case, the character of the climb (at least in my mind) has never relied on the run out to the first bolt. as the base has eroded over the years the situation has become worse. In my mind the additional bolt at the start has contributed to making the route “safe” (whatever that means) in the same way adding a 2nd bolt to the lower off has done.

…….its only rock climbing.

Urban Ethics – ethical dilemma

Hang ten – pure safety.

comon the dirt was removed AFTER hang ten was put up. The climb gets caked in dirt 1+1 = bolt

“… it’s only rock climbing”?! This didn’t stop you getting all rowdy about the retro bolt on vulture st 🙂

But yeah, hang ten is a (usually) grubby, but still fantastic, sport climb and its character is unrelated to the protection. The circumstances of the climb have been altered by the quarry works. Surely we should opt for a common sense approach and adapt to the changed circumstances? Ethical purity does not apply to Perth quarries. An inflexible application of Yosemite ethics in this context seems a bit try-hard.

For this reason, I wasn’t particularly miffed when I was clipping the new UE bolts but I can totally understand why Ron would want to remove the extra one. Although Ron, why aren’t you also peeved about the replacement of pins with bolts? Don’t the new bolts that replace the old pins also detract from psychological character of the climb? I used to crap myself each time I committed to climbing past those old things, and now I feel safe and secure when I climb it.

So what I am seeing here is that retrobolting is OK if it makes a climb safer? Does this mean anyone can throw a bolt in on a climb if it has a 4m+ run out? What if someone were only climbing 15s but thought they liked the look of a 20 but it was a bit scary? And what is with the comment that ethics do not count in Quarries? Surely a place as limited of vertical real estate as Perth should respect every bit of rock around? If the ethics don’t count in the quarry then theoretically I could go find a route that does not get that much attention a chip and rebolt it to something I like, ie make it easier or harder, safer or scarier etc…

While Perth’s quarries may have held testpieces of WA climbing 10 years ago, the processes of erosion and CALM’s liability-dodging have lowered their status to more of a user-friendly, unattractive bolt fest. Consider the shot-crete and 3m iron bars that hold Star Wars (and Urban Ethics) from falling on your car.

Folks, the people doing the route creation, rebolting and yes, some retro bolting are expanding the quarries and opening up many lines so poorly bolted they probably only ever had 1 ascent. The implicit “peer review” is that the quarries warrant a slightly reduced ethical stance relative to a “natural crag”. The reason is so we can pop out for a day or a morning and enjoy a bunch of routes with ease, so the quarries’ potential to provide a safe training ground regardless of your level is realised.

Pundits need not think that WA ethics are heading down the dunny. Only that a slight relaxation of ethics (with due regard) in the quarries is and has taken place. Remember, Hang Ten only sprouted a lower-off about 4 years after it’s first ascent – what i am talking about here has been happeneing for a while.

So folks take a step back and a deep breath, what youre seeing is not going to infect WA at large. To paraphrase Neil: It’s only climbing – in a quarry!

If Ron cares enough about UE to chop a bolt, that is his ethical right. But let he who has not sinned throw the first stone…. While he has his harness out and ethical fire in his loins, is he going to remove the glued on hold from Mt Randall?

oh emil, you stoop so low 🙂

look, for those in fear of a “retrobolt” onslaught i would say there is naff all chance of that.

retrobolting and dubious WA ethics have been going on steadily for over 15 years at more or less the same rate with nil escalation. its worth noting that these events do not occur very frequently and are equally balanced by a few ethically pure moments. by and large the greater good will prevail and its only natural that in the course of bolting new routes and retrobolting old routes the odd mistake will be made.

i see the same people out at the quarries most weekends – climbing these routes and talking about them. they are the ones doing the rebolting and new routing and they are the ones setting the WA ethic.

All right, I have always wanted to change a couple of the climbs I have played on in the quarries and now I can, apparently if i rebolt it I can change it too, brilliant thanks guys

Whats brilliant is gutless anonynous posters!!…….

I’m with Ron. Old bolts, if unsafe, need replacing, this is a no brainer but I suggest we don’t mess with character of existing lines to make them “safe”.

Nobody is forced to lead, if someone needs a climb to be more “safe” then why not toprope it? Where is the problem?

Or does the argument go: “I want to lead so I can be a brave hero but, geez, I better add a bolt because I am not THAT brave”. So we adjust the “bravery level” to suit ourselves. Welcome to the selfish world of ME climbing.

Truth is, toproping is the 2nd safest option. Watching climbing videos from your sofa is even safer. Mum will approve.