Flat Rock Route Ethics Summary

I am blown away by our climbing community. The feedback and comments generated by the post on bolting ethics was great. I had no idea my post was going to generate the discussion it did.

I am going to attempt to summarize some general points that were made but also add my own 2 cents.

Top Bolts: There was good agreement that top bolts on single pitch climbs would be a benefit for the community. It will improve access to routes for top roping and prevent some uncomfortable top-outs or awkward raps. David made a very good point of assuring that routes that get new top bolts are cleaned of choss as some trad routes don't see much travel.

 Mixed Routes: This was a bit of a polarizing topic. There was some strong opinions as to whether a routes should be fully bolted, use natural protection when available or keep as traditional as possible. Regardless of opinion, everyone emphasized that they wanted safe route setting. There were some good points made about the benefits of having a variety of route styles; sport, mixed and trad. For example, Candy is a great route to plug your first piece of gear.

Noel's 2 cents: The developing ethic of Flat Rock has been established. It includes all styles of routes and we should be grateful for that. It used to be more hardcore trad but many routes are sport over possible features which could take pro. Whatever is developed in the future, regardless of style, should be able to be safely protected. Dave stated that he will fully bolt a route if less than 1/3 relies on natural pro. My cut off is about half the route. Manuels was established with a different ethic. Some say it is over bolted but I set it for something between the gym and Flat Rock. I will likely continue to bolt Manuels in the same manner.

Developing for the Community: Everyone felt that  further development should have the community in mind. There isn't room for big egos and setting deliberately dangerous climbs is not appreciated. This topic was interesting in that it seemed that when people spoke of the climbing community, they were not necessarily thinking inclusively. The some pro-trad comments didn't consider the challenges of a new climber having to depend on one piece of pro.  The some pro-sport comments didn't consider the benefits of learning to place that one piece of pro. It was great to see a number of comments which considered both sides of the equation.

Noel's 2 cents: I think most importantly we need to be inclusive as a community and this should be reflected in our climbing areas. There should be something for everyone. I love a day of just clipping bolts but there is so much to be appreciated with trad climbing. There is a place for mixed routes as well. Most important is that we are responsible for our own safety. On every piece of gear we buy, there are obvious warnings about how climbing being inherently a dangerous. It is our own decisions and actions that put us at risk. It is up to the individual to skip bolts or to climb a trad route with only a set of nuts. Darwin was on point with natural selection.

Noel's 2.00$: Route authorship. Route authorship is a pretty well accepted concept nationally and internationally. This is different than  a first ascent. The author is the person who cleaned and bolted the route. It is not uncommon for the FA to be done by someone other than the author (ie: open projects).

The amount of time and effort that goes into a route is significant, but it is more than that. This sounds cheesy, but it is kinda like a piece of art. A lot of time is spent visualizing the line, deciding where to put bolts to guide the climbers direction, seeing what features are available for pro. It is the developers creation, their art or their 'story' (hence being referred to as the author). I develop routes for very specific purposes. It maybe to force a run out but above a very safe fall. I deliberately want it a bit spicy. Sure that route belongs to the community, but it is that 'spiciness' that also belongs to the community. Some may love it and others may hate it. It is their choice to climb it or not. As far as altering it to make it more acceptable to some in the community yet ruining it for others, that is not okay unless the author of the route agrees. Imagine grid bolting Maggie or Yellow Fever. The route may be in open climbing area but the spirit of the climb will always be the authors.

With that rant out there, things change with time. Beaches wash out, rock fall occurs, what was once
safe is no longer. As well, authors of long established routes may no longer be available or they set a routes in a manner that is no longer acceptable. There are times when consulting a route author is neither required or possible. If a bolt I placed was damaged by rock fall, please replace it. If someone were to chop my bolts on German Engineered, I will so angery. When ever considering altering a route by placing permanent protection, please make every effort to discuss that with the route author. If someone went around changing the routes I bolted, I would not be bolting much longer.

I think it all comes down to common sense and being inclusive. We need to use common sense when approaching route development and when climbing. Variety is important. We have a growing community and it is great to have something for everyone. Main Face is pretty much played out but there is still other faces that could be developed. My 'take-away' is that Flat Rocks ethic really is inclusive. I am confident now that if I set a new route, I can set it in my preferred style and the community would respect it.