Letter To The Editor - Retro Bolting

Since the demise of The Climber magazine and its Letter To The Editor pages, there hasn't been an official club forum for discussing the contemporary issues of climbing. As noted in the letter below, Facebook has become a default location for this, but is not necessarily the best place. For this reason, we've revived a Letter To The Editor location here on our website, where we hope to publish thoughtful letters from members on thought-provoking topics.

We welcome letters in reply to this one below from Alec McCallum, as well as letters on other topics relevant to climbing. For those who don't want to write a letter, there is the opportunity to leave short comments below. If commenting, please be polite and constructive. 

***

Retro bolting has always been a contentious issue in climbing. One which needs to be discussed more in our community. By retro bolting, I mean to add bolts to an already established climb. Not to be confused with re-bolting, which means to replace the bolts, without putting in any additional bolts. 

The latest and arguably juiciest drama in the Christchurch climbing community has been regarding the retro bolting of a number of traditional style routes at Gibraltar Rock in the Port Hills. This was done without first consulting the first ascentionists of the routes, or the wider climbing community. Almost immediately, the bolts were removed by another individual and a post was made to Facebook which sparked fierce debate in the comment section. This was eerily reminiscent of the Lyttelton Rock retro bolting—when multiple climbs at the crag were retro bolted in 2022 and a post made on the Christchurch Climbing Facebook page collected thousands of comments, in an explosion of vile internet debate. Before the recent Gibraltar Rock thread could reach the same infamous heights of its predecessor, it was removed by the admins. As with the Lyttelton Rock debate, while opinion was split on the matter, most seemed supportive of the retro bolting. The retro bolting, along with the perceived community perception on the issue, seems to me to represent a shift in climbing culture which is taking place in New Zealand, with less importance being placed on history/ethics and more focus on inclusivity/accessibility. 

What makes climbing so amazing is that there is something for everyone. There are so many different styles, with such a range of difficulty, that people can choose to push themselves as much as they desire, in many different ways. One way which some climbers like to challenge themselves is through bold climbing—pushing themselves mentally on climbs where falling off can hold serious consequences. Climbing these bold routes demands so much more from you than a well-bolted sport climb. They require a level of technique and control to execute safely. The satisfaction from completing these bold climbs can be immense and is entirely different from climbing a route which is solely challenging due to the physical difficulty. 

In most cases, retro bolting these old traditional style routes is very much a case of bringing the mountain down to the man. Instead of leaving them as climbs which force people to rise up to the challenge, they are brought down to a level that just about any climber can at least attempt. If more and more of these bold routes are retro bolted, climbers who would like to become more competent in that style would lose the opportunity to do so. The majority of climbers have no interest in climbing bold routes. Even the majority of “bold” climbers would prefer to climb safe, low stress routes most of the time, which is just as well, as the vast majority of routes in the Port Hills are safely bolted sport routes. The climbing community is losing so much more than they gain from having a handful of extra, well bolted climbs. While bold climbing is no longer as prevalent as it was in the past, it would be tragic if the community were to lose this aspect of the sport completely.

Many make the argument for inclusivity when it comes to retro bolting, saying that by adding bolts to these bold climbs more people will have access to more routes. However, in most cases people can access the anchors of these bold climbs to set up a top rope—either by walking around to the top of the crag, climbing an adjacent route, or sending up a more confident friend to set up the rope. This allows people to safely try these routes, without taking away the opportunity for others who would choose to try them in their natural state. The experience you will have top-roping a route will be fairly similar to climbing a route which has a bolt every meter, which many of the routes retro bolted recently do.

I have seen many comments on Facebook arguing that people should just skip the bolts on routes which have been retro bolted, and that if people would still like to experience the route in its original state they should just ignore the new bolts. I believe that having the bolts on a route, even if you choose to ignore them, completely ruins the experience of climbing a bold route. Having a safety line available throughout the climb removes a lot of the risk you take on when you embark on these routes, dramatically affecting the experience. It would be like arguing that we should chip jugs up hard sport routes to make them more accessible, and that people should just ignore them if they desire the original experience.

The bolts take away the natural beauty which a lot of these traditional style routes have. There is something amazing about climbing something using only what nature has provided, rather than using what nature has provided, plus whatever some old bloke with a drill has decided to put in the rock. 

When these old traditional style routes are retro bolted, our community is losing an important part of our history, as well as our ability to experience this history. Early pioneers of the climbing scene, such as John Allen and Dave Fearnley (whose routes were retro bolted at Gibraltar), paved the way for climbing in Christchurch. It feels vastly more meaningful when I repeat a route established by a legendary figure such as these. A big part of what made these routes groundbreaking achievements back in the day, wasn’t just that they were extremely difficult, but also very dangerous! It would be regrettable if we lose the chance to climb these routes in the same state they were first climbed in (albeit with much better equipment!).

In some cases I believe retro bolting can be appropriate. For example, if the rock on a traditional climb is too soft to safely take gear, and the crag is predominantly a sport crag, adding bolts could be suitable. I think this should be done on a case by case basis, with the main factors to be taken into consideration being the quality of the rock and the style of the crag. However, in most other cases I would still argue against retro bolting. I disagree with retro bolting a traditional route with good quality rock that can safely take gear, if the sole reason is that it’s one of the few traditional routes at the crag. If traditional routes are in the minority at the crag it should be all the more reason to keep those few routes, so those interested in climbing them do not completely lose the opportunity to do so. I believe adding bolts merely for the sake of convenience to be an unhealthy approach—one that will surely have a negative effect on the character of our climbing areas. 

If anyone would like to debate the matter with me, feel free to reach out, or talk to me in person when you see me around!

-Alec McCallum