CAWA

According to the Safer Cliffs WA rebolting database, Hang Ten has also had an extra bolt added to the start by an unknown person.

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 with Neil.

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.

Why are climbs being retro bolted? I can understand replacing dodgy bolts but there is no reason to start throwing extra bolts onto well established climbs that have had many ascents. if the first ascentionist wants to add or subtract anything it is fair enough but everyone else should climb it as is or leave it alone. let's face it there are many climbs with crap bolts that need replacing so perhaps energy should be focussed there instead. I mean what is next, chipping and gluing holds so that the climb is not quite so hard or scary?

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.

Perhaps person who rebolted this climb thought that the bolt that had been chopped previously was actually part of the climb and had sheared off or snapped etc... Case of mistaken identity maybe? Hope so anyway, otherwise it could set a nasty precedent.

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.

SCWA would like point out that these bolts (Urban Ethics and Hang Ten)were not placed by and/or supplied by SCWA.

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

Richard this is not castle hill, its a dirty, chossy quarry with a shit landing and heaps of abseiling bumblies. hang ten is a route.

"... 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.

You've been waiting to get your can opener out!, havn't you Owen:)

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...

Thanks Jeff! I have climbed in many locations, some of classic stature but don't believe in turning my nose up at our limited climbing climbing here in perth. Urban Ethics is a classic line as are others in Perth and should be considered more important than just a dirty quarry. Just remember some of us began our outdoor climbing here in Perth and talking for myself only holds many fond memories.

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?

Um emil, I think the climbs being discussed for their new bolts at the moment have had more than one ascent, in fact they have sat as classics and test pieces for the grade for many up and coming climbers for years. Hey aren't they both on the CAWA T shirt as three star must do climbs? Also if the test pieces are not the benchmark anymore then what are? Anyone can try to justify it anyway they want but once this starts where does it stop, what you think is within reason (retrobolting for "safety") other see as a breach of ethics. Who is to say that someone else won't see the need for an extra few bolts on some climb that you think does not need them? Will you then be having the arguement I am trying to make? I am all for replacing old bolts and pitons with new but you have to draw a line somewhere otherwise anyone can and will interpret the ethics of bolting however they want.

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.

Jeff - the limited vertical real estate in Perth is precisely what justifies what is happening in the quarries at the moment. The number of quality climbs has gone through the roof and those of us who get out there regularly are loving it.

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

Hey Owen, I get out regularly and love climbing whether it is in a quarry or a boulder or a pristine cliff, and though I can see the point of replacing old bolts for safety I do not agree that adding extra bolts makes a quality climb. Urban ethics and Hang Ten both three star routes apparently, do the extra bolts now make it four star? If all the climbers doing the bolting think the ethics don't count or are out of date then how about you put your heads together and create some new ones instead of just saying "in this instance" or "just the odd bolt won't hurt", because I thought SCWA were doing the rebolting and as far as I am aware they have followed the existing guidelines, what you think?

Whats brilliant is gutless anonynous posters!!.......

yay for the internet.

:-P

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.

Hi all

Wow, I must have felt my ears burning, the first time I log onto this forum (bored at work) and the old Urban Ethics debate is alive and well!

I was actually the one responsible many years back for the first retro bolt of this climb. My reasons were simple, good quality climbs in Perth were few and far between and UE had cobwebs on it. The only people climbing UE were the Masters and a few others who knew the climb intimately and it was my view that the climbing community at large were being denied the opportunity to experience a classic climb.

I harassed Ron a few times when we’d meet at the quarry about the state of the gear on UE and he laughed it off so I took matters into my own hands after my mate fell off a route at Churchmans, broke a rusty piton and decked out from 15m. The gear I pulled out was shocking to say the least. Yes I added an extra bolt which pushed the ethical envelope but in my opinion the climb was poorly established in the first place and didn’t “flow” and being that it was bolted already why not do it properly? For the first time in years the climb got some decent traffic and I had many comments how good it was that it’d been re-established. Ron didn’t take kindly to my efforts and chopped it, replacing the bolts with pitons again.

Here’s the thing I don’t get with this ethical debate, just because you’re the first to “establish” a climb on a piece of rock that’s been around for how ever many thousands? of years, how does that make you the custodian of that piece of rock? Surely it’s there for everyone and your responsibility as first acentionist is to make sure the climb is established in such a way as to benefit the community at large. Please note I’m talking about protection here not the technical climbing as I don’t support altering existing climbs to lower (or raise) the difficulty.

As the generations of climbers pass the sport naturally evolves and with it so do the accepted norms. I’d like to think that climbs I established in the past are subjected to peer review (if they’re considered worthwhile routes) and altered to suit the currently accepted standard if required. There was a lot of stupid bolting done in my time by climbers stoking their egos by top roping new routes to comfort and then manufacturing huge run-outs and calling it “sporty”. This has ruined many potential classics and I think the climbers of today have every right to right the wrongs of the past. Once that first bolt is placed the climb has lost all value as a “trad route” so making run-outs is just contriving the route to be something it’s not. Climbing is a very personal experience so those that get a rush from big run-outs have every right to enjoy that experience and can do so by not clipping bolts and those that just want to enjoy the climb for what it is should be given the opportunity to do so with sensibly equipped routes. Just to clarify I do believe routes done purely with natural gear should be left as is no matter what the runouts because that is the “spirit of the route” as discovered.

I don’t climb much anymore and being away from the climbing scene has given me a different perspective to the one I once had as you get caught up in all the BS when you’re amongst it. I found the most close-minded climbers in the WA scene were the ones who’d not traveled and climbed elsewhere much, it’s probably much the same now.

It’s awesome that some of the new blood are coming through and not just talking the talk (like we used to) but actually doing something to improve the scene and bring WA climbing into line with the rest of the world.

To the dinosaurs who’ve been spouting the same BS for the last decade or two, stop stoking your fading egos and listen to what new generation want for their sport, they’ll get their way soon enough anyway and you’ll be long forgotten

What retro bolt on Vulture Street?

puting a bolt next to an old piton without removing the piton to see if a small wire can go in its place is retrobolting.

i believe that was done on vulture st.

its very poor form on a climb that is 95% trad and in an area like WCH.

I see. That bolt.

When I first climbed Vulture Street, there were two pitons. Both rusty. Then there was one. I'm sure the second piton was installed for exactly the same reason the bolt was. The original mild steel piton had become untrustworthy. I was a member of the party that installed the bolt. The piton was left because the bolt was glued in and nobody could be sure there wouldn't be a climber on Vulture Street within hours of us leaving, clipping what they thought was a good solid bolt, climbing into the crux, installing the dodgy small wire, and falling ultimately onto a bolt that hadn't finished curing. As for pulling the piton in the chance there may now be a wire placement, maybe there would be, maybe not. It would certainly change the nature of the climb. The frst ascensionist was Mike Law who I understand is quite relaxed about his climbs' fixed protection being replaced with appropriate gear when appropriate. Vulture Street is only a 17, way below the grades he was and still is capable of and you would have to assume he was thinking about the climb, its grade and the people who would want to lead it. It is a great climb and its essential nature hasn't been changed. I think that is what anyone setting out to replace old fixed protection should be aiming at. For what it's worth, I'll be talking to Mac and replacing the rusted piton in Bootiful sometime soon, for exactly the same reason but I won't be putting another one in the scary bit below it.

Cheers,

Toc.

In the beggining of this thread I was really undecided about this chopped bolt dilemma. Today I led UE and found myself more scared at the top than the chopped bolt mid section. I think this 'run-out' has been exagerated. Its a little under a 2m gap with solid feet the whole way and a nice edge to clip off.

>=)

Good on ya Nick. As mentioned previously this was my original thoughts too. Thanks for the belay today Nick - it was great to finally tick it (with the chopped bolt!)

the FA of vulture street was not done by mike law.

the first priority should have been removing the piton to see if the climb could be all trad. the chance of anyone climbing it soon after the bolt was replaced was minimal (especially since you gave all our backpacks a lift back to the carpark !!!) and should not have driven the situation.

anyways... water under the bridge. just something to learn from next time. it seems worth seeing if the bolt really is needed next time someone is on the route though ?

i hope those glue capsules gave a better result than they did when used at stathams quarry.....

My mistake on Mike Law. There are climbers who get out to West Cape Howe, who knows, who may have been on their way out as we were leaving. Yes I hope the capsules hold but the piton is there at the moment until we are sure. At the moment Vulture Street is as I first climbed it in that there is a ring of some description at that particular point which protects the crux moves which as we know have one piece of dodgy natural gear. It's hardly overprotected but is also not underprotected. I'd be interested to know other climbers thoughts on this one.

Cheers,

Toc.

Some comments on Andy Corbe's contribution (my text in capitals, Andy's in commas.)

Here’s the thing I don’t get with this ethical debate, just because you’re the first to “establish” a climb on a piece of rock that’s been around for how ever many thousands? of years, how does that make you the custodian of that piece of rock? Surely it’s there for everyone and your responsibility as first acentionist is to make sure the climb is established in such a way as to benefit the community at large. WHO EXACTLY IS "THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE"? NOT RON? NOT THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENJOYED THE ROUTE AS IS?

Please note I’m talking about protection here not the technical climbing as I don’t support altering existing climbs to lower (or raise) the difficulty. MEANING THAT ADDING BOLTS DOES NOT LOWER THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY? DOES NOT MAKE THE ROUTE EASIER TO CLIMB WHEN YOU ARE LESS WORRIED?

Once that first bolt is placed the climb has lost all value as a “trad route” SO "THE NOSE" HAS NO TRAD VALUE BECAUSE THE LAST PITCH IS BOLTED? OR SKYWALKER WHICH HAS (HAD?) A PITON AT END OF TRAVERSE? I DISAGREE.

Climbing is a very personal experience so those that get a rush from big run-outs have every right to enjoy that experience and can do so by not clipping bolts. BUT THE BOLTS ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO BE CLIPPED IF ONE GETS SCARED, SO HOW IS THAT A RUNOUT EXPERIENCE? MY RUNOUT EXPERIENCES HAVE BEEN "CRAP, NOW LETS SEE IF I HAVE BALLS TO GET THROUGH THIS".

Just to clarify I do believe routes done purely with natural gear should be left as is no matter what the runouts because that is the “spirit of the route” as discovered. BUT ROUTES THAT HAVE 1 BOLT OR MORE DO NOT HAVE "SPIRIT OF THE ROUTE" WORTH PRESERVING?

I found the most close-minded climbers in the WA scene were the ones who’d not traveled and climbed elsewhere much, it’s probably much the same now. MANY OF US WA CLIMBERS HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE. WE CHOOSE TO HAVE THIS SET OF ETHICS, OTHERS CHOOSE THE SAME OR OTHERWISE. TRY REBOLTING IN JOSHUA TREE OR ON GRITSTONE.

IT IS TOO BAD YOU GAVE UP ANDY. DESPITE ABOVE COMMENTS, I REALLY MISS YOU, YOU LUNATIC. BE WELL AND DON'T GET TOO PISSED AT MY COMMENTS. THEY ARE NOT FOR YOUR EDUCATION (YOU DON'T NEED ME FOR THAT), BUT TO GET THE OTHER READERS THINKING.

AS KERMIT THE FROG ONCE SAID: "MANAMANA!!!"

Neil/Emil: I could not agree with more. We are not about to see an onslaught of diminished ethics, because we are pretty much already there (but really what does it mater?). Every couple of years a group of us get on the net, sit at the crag and talk shit in the gym about the state of WA climbing (you can do this, you can’t do that, we should respect the FA and the style it was done blah blah blah).

And really for all the talk and all the hype little (if anything) changes, refer to some of the bolting posts that were going around in 2005. Not a lot has changed since then on the standpoint of ethics but there has been an explosion in the number of new and renovated routes in the Quarry’s that have been created for the masses (sic).

Owen summed it up well, you need to put into prospective, what is being created is more quality routes for climbers to climb. And recently there has been an increase because of a more creative approach to these long standing ethics. In Perth the number of climbers is limited, those bolting even less and those replacing old bolts on the endangered list. So anything new should be welcomed and experienced before it is turned away. I’m just thankful that there are a dedicated few, that do go to the effort to create a climb that is something different for the rest of us.

Richard: Hmm classic statue I agree. It is however still in a dirty filthy quarry. I do not enjoy the mud / gravel / shotcrete combo and broken TVs at the belay stance but this is part of the Perth quarry climbing experience - Yee Ha saddle up.

Jeff M to quote: “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” Yeah why not? Checking with the FA is advisable but in the end it is up to you.

There always has and there will always be a varied opinion on what makes good ethics especially in Perth Quarries. I have come to the conclusion that in Quarries (I differentiate between natural cliffs and quarries) it is only your ethics that matter. If you feel to need to chip/glue/remove the bolt/add the bolt, go ahead and do it, no one will stop you, some will call for a lynching, others will call for a lynching and enjoy the climb and others will praise you for the vision/effort and just climb the climb, enjoy it and move on. Quarries are climbing gyms on natural rock. Especially crumbling ones like Perth. It is about time that the route setters changed Sweet pea and while they are at it Hang ten (and a few others) as they are getting a bit old and the holds need a wash….

As for natural cliffs around Perth who’s kidding who – There are no pristine natural areas in Perth. There is the same amount of chipping and gluing on our “natural” cliffs. I will not muddy the water further by bringing natural cliffs into my ramblings but they should on the hole remain unchanged (but there are exceptions to every rule).

Adding extra bolts does not change the climb, it makes it no harder or easier. It only changes the mental perception of the climb in the climbers mind. It has long been said that it is not the climb that needs the extra bolt it is the climber. What’s my point in all of this? I am just sick of people telling others how bad their ethics are. Look at all climbing around the world and it is the same every where. Ethics are clouded, changed, overlooked and in many places totally abused. WA is no different.

Happy climbing

B-

To Quote MARK - "about time that the route setters changed Sweet pea and while they are at it Hang ten (and a few others) as they are getting a bit old and the holds need a wash…." what a load of crap!

re: Mark - the words "harder or easier" as I use them are related to both: "mental perception of the climb in the climbers mind" and the (one could say) "physical perception on the climbers body"! So bolts do matter.

It is not semantics: I have witnessed a grade 28 climber backing off a semi-bolted/semi-trad grade 18 at West Cape Howe (Harry Humpkin+Exploding Pumpkin). I do not consider this a difficult climb and have seen many grade 20 climbers do it. But that one found it too hard (purelly mentally).

What some people need to get realise is that "mental difficulty" is just as valid as "physical difficulty", and many of us enjoy both, and the race to lowest common denominator is not to our liking.

The Perth ethic is one of respect: respect other people climbs and they will respect yours. Their ethics are not superior to yours, but neither are yours to theirs. There is a good mix of people and hence of climbs.

e.g.: I don't like Jim and Matt's bash-in carrots but I would not go pulling them out. I respect their work.

As far as for many alternations being made to natural crags - for every one example on the 30 natural crags I can give ten examples in the 3 quarries. 100:1 - simple, no?

Re: Mark You said "Ethics are clouded, changed, overlooked and in many places totally abused. WA is no different". That is because there are always people like yourself who think the ethics don't matter and will do what they want to a climb for their own benefit.