Climbing Ethics vs Climbing Fun

Last week I read the transcript of an interview with Jason Haas, who is writing a new guidebook to the South Platte in Colorado, and a certain quote really stuck out to me:

MB:  You were talking earlier about some of your routes.  Some of your routes could be said to be dangerous.  And therefore, a lot of people won’t climb them.  I interviewed a California first ascenter, and this gentleman came to the realization that he wanted people to climb his routes, so he started making them safer.  What’re your thoughts on that, Jason?

JH:  Well, I don’t have a problem with other people’s style.  Maybe I’m, perhaps, a little too lazy to bolt myself.  I just like the aspect of the unknown and the adventure side of things.  So, that’s what works for me today.  I’m a little bit younger and maybe, perhaps, a little bit dumber.  So, I’m willing to take those risks right now.  But, I’ve been climbing a lot in the South Platte lately, and replacing some bolts down there and working on a guidebook for there.  And talking to some of the old first ascensionists, they kind of regret their run-out routes, because people aren’t repeating them.  Looking back on that, 20/30 years later, [they] really wish that they had done them in a different style.  So, I think there’s something to be said for that, of looking back on your routes.

(Thanks to ClimbingNarc.com for the heads up on this one.)

Because people no longer climb their routes, these guys in essence are saying they wish they’d made them safer.  At some areas, old routes have been upgraded with better/more protection and have subsequently become popular classics, and I think this is a debate that’s going to come up more and more in the climbing world, especially as the old guard starts to fade. In some areas, like the South Platte & Tuolumne, you have massive resources of rock that are not being climbed, because the routes are simply too dangerous for the average recreational climber. Safer climbs at popular cliffs see lines on weekends, while these runout, usually slabby, affairs sit there fading into obscurity. And while there will always be a place for dangerous climbs that require you to rise to the occasion, the simple fact is that most climbers today pursue the sport as recreation, and as such are looking for safe venues in which to follow their passion.

My prediction would be that as this older generation passes on, at least some of these routes will be upgraded in a style that preserves the adventure aspect, but makes it more attainable to the climbing masses. Instead of a bolt every 30 feet, you might have them 15 feet apart, which is still plenty spicy by today’s standards, but would make the routes much more attainable. And guidebooks could even note the original style of the ascent, paying homage to a bygone era, so the masses could ponder those who had gone before and just how big their cajones must have been.

Now, I’m not saying I’m gonna go out and retrobolt anything, and I’m not endorsing the concept, I’m simply talking about a possible direction the sport could take, especially as it continues to become more popular and the need for more climbs increases.

What do others think? Am I way off base here? Will there always been staunch traditionalists who will defend these sacred testaments to climbing’s more dangerous past? Or will they remain obscure forever because most of them are slabs anyway, and slabs aren’t fun, or cool, and probably won’t be again any time soon?