Last year, the WMS lost a member after a tragic rock climbing accident where she fell in a runout section with “poor to no protection”. First-hand reports of the incident indicate she inverted with a direct impact onto her head breaking her helmet and immediately rendering her unconscious. Despite immediate resuscitation by bystanders, she was pronounced dead at the scene. While the WMS community mourns her death and the climbing community reignites debates on helmets, risk tolerance, and bolting wars, I couldn’t help but ponder: are “old-school” bolting ethics harmful to modern climbers?
Bolting of climbing routes dates back to the 1950’s, when climbers first applied hardware store metal to rock. Bolts were expensive and heavy, and a ground-up approach meant finding stances from which to hang and drill. In “runout” sections with limited or no options for traditional protection, developers continued onward simply because they had to. Many of the routes in the 70’-80’s were developed in this style, with widely-spaced bolts and runout sections with significant consequences were a fall to happen. Modern-day protection ratings classify such routes as R or X due to the risk of serious injury or death, but they are often retroactively applied to such routes as those consequences were the expected norm during that “old-school” era of development. Now with modern bolting hardware and techniques, more climbing areas are being developed and frequented by climbers raised in the gym environment. The sudden realization that not all climbing grades or areas are created equal can be humbling, but also potentially dangerous to the unassuming climber.
I turned to ER physician, climber and modern route developer Michael Russo for his take. His climbing home is the Sandia Mountains “Sandias”, where mixed routes and wilderness climbing are the norm. His first consideration in route development is whether or not adding a route will add value to the area. In the Sandias, there is plentiful adventurous wilderness-style climbing, but not so much an area where you can crag and climb a lot of single-pitch routes back-to-back. Therefore, he hopes to develop an area that can serve as a bridge for climbers between the gym and the wilderness.
Understanding that gym-to-crag courses are expensive and hard to access for many a budding outdoor climber, he considers that making things as simple as possible will help avoid accidents. Notably, he thinks about what might happen if someone gets to the top of a climb and doesn’t have the gear to build a natural anchor or rappel, and tries to place clippable open anchors on the top of single-pitch routes to make lowering straightforward, knowing that most climbing accidents happen at anchor exchanges. In terms of developing mixed routes, he considers fall potential and route-finding into bolt placement and spacing. Even in easy or moderate sections, he tries to keep bolt placement consistent, as someone may be climbing at their limit on his route.
Russo considers himself as part of a modern generation of developers who develop for the masses. He wants his routes to be climbed, even if that means most of those who might get on them learned to climb in the gym environment or are weekend warriors. Climbing is now an Olympic sport, gyms are popping up seemingly everywhere, and crags are getting increasingly crowded. That means there are more climbers to “take care of”, in a sense. The same way he feels an obligation to his patients who end up in the ED, he feels the need to keep climbers safe on his routes. That’s why he invests his time, money, and physical effort into bolting. “I want to do things the right way and not take shortcuts,” he says, as he’s on a break from bolting due to the tendonitis he’s developed from hand-drilling. “It’s my duty as a doctor and developer, because now there are more people to care for.”
Climbing has changed since its origin in counterculture and rebellion in the 70’s. Bold first ascensionists (FAs) such as Royal Robbins, who established many routes in Tahquitz, Tahoe, and Yosemite, approached climbing as a challenge and expression of creativity. Robbins was pushing the boundaries of free climbing at the time, and his climbs are known for their boldness. In his time, FAs likely didn’t expect many people to repeat their climbing feats, and realistically may also have been limited in terms of time and money to fund their projects, with a goal just to finish each route for themselves. Developers from back then who are still around will adapt with the times, as well as for their changing climbing style. Climbing “purists” may revere the style in which a developer or first ascensionist climbed a route, believing that is the only acceptable way to repeat a route once established. However, many FAs usually don’t care about retro-bolting, especially if adding a bolt or anchor will increase the route’s popularity, especially in the context of other climbs in the area.
Russo himself has retrobolted a route with the FAs permission to turn a rarely-climbed route due to groundfall potential into a frequented well-protected moderate. He has also retrobolted his own routes after feedback from the community who felt that the easier parts of his climbs lacked solid protection. In his view, there has historically been poor communication between developers and the climbing community that impedes progress in modern day climbing development. Local nonprofits or volunteer organizations might not be able to achieve the same quality of route maintenance as areas that charge fees for climbing. Climbers at a crag will reasonably expect a higher level of route cleanliness than a wilderness area, but all outdoor climbers should be aware of how to inspect rock and bolts/anchors and learn how to bail if needed.
In truth, many bold climbs won’t be retrobolted, and there will be developers who emulate that style and climbers who seek the thrill of climbing such routes. However, budding outdoor climbers may not be privy to the difference between “bold” and “soft” ratings found in different areas of the country, or understand the gravity of severity ratings. Lover’s Leap is a very popular climbing area and Fantasia is a highly rated route that would reasonably attract someone who can confidently climb harder routes in the gym, or a viable alternate route to neighboring more well-protected routes that might be busy on a crowded day. This accident and other highly publicized ones on runout “old-school” routes opens the question of how we can better communicate the dangers of outdoor climbing. In Russo’s opinion, there should be a bare minimum of banners on MP routes (similar to where they post falcon closures) if someone has died. Physical signage at crags or approach trails, such as the type seen at backcountry access gates, can be a reminder that outdoor climbing has inherent risks and requires additional skills than those mastered in the gym environment.
Communication, both to the masses as well as between climbers, is the key to fostering safe climbing spaces. Russo cites mentorship, though hard to come by, as the fastest way a climber can literally and figuratively learn the ropes of outdoor climbing. Having more mentors or partners will help with the breadth of experience, as well as going out and climbing many styles of routes. Getting to the top of a runout pitch can be an exhilarating experience, but climbers should be well informed of the risks of attempting a feat, especially if the consequences are severe.