Climbing is one of the rare games that requires us to impose arbitrary limits in order to retain its essence. Using a stepladder to reach the top of a boulder problem would be silly; so would tagging the summit of the Matterhorn by helicopter. At the same time, few people wish to boulder barefoot, and I don't know anyone who has done the Matterhorn ropeless and naked.

	Don Mellor Don Mellor Don Mellor has been climbing, writing about climbing, and teaching climbing for more than 25 years. Meet Don Expert Answers

Thus, there will always be tension between what's fair and what's not. Oxygen, chalk, spring-loaded camming devices — these have been the some of the recent areas of contention. Many years ago it was rope, pitons, and crampons — items with full acceptance today.

Also, before I get to my own definitions, keep in mind that the debate mainly exists so that we can compare our achievements to those of other climbers. Were it not for this ego-centric competition, it would be irrelevant whether or not I used a carabiner for a handhold, stepped on a bolt, or inspected the route with a magnifying glass while standing on scaffolding, so long as I didn't wreck the place in doing so.

I define acceptable climbing practice in the context of two questions:
#1. Does the act damage the environment or interfere with the experience of others?
#2. Do the methods involved misrepresent the achievement to others?

Your three examples — bolting, chipping, and gluing — all exist within the context of #1, altering the rock and affecting the experience of others, and so each needs special scrutiny.

Bolting: Clearly, within local guidelines, this is an acceptable practice in America and elsewhere; however, it must be made clear that every bolt is a permanent fixture. The decision to place or not place a bolt demands sensitive forethought about local tradition, land-use laws, availability of clean forms of protection, and feasibility of simply going without. It's a serious issue that affects the rock, the right to use the rock, the safety of future climbers, the right of future climbers to find the landscape unblemished, and the respect for earlier climbers who might have decided to leave the climb clean.

Chipping: Bad news. No debate. No discussion.

Gluing: I can understand the rationale behind"repairing" a broken hold, but I fear the slippery slope that begins with a minor community service and ends with globs of glue dripping from behind every loose flake, or worse yet, the mysterious appearance of holds where once there were none.

Back to the question, introductory discussion aside: I have placed about 20 bolts (all but 2 on the lead, before I firmed up my own thinking on the issue) in almost 30 years of climbing and well over one-hundred first ascents. I've never seen the need to chip or glue. Adirondack rock isn't like the overhanging sandstone of the southeast or the limestone of the west. We don't have overhanging rubble heaps to turn into sport crags. We have lots of unclimbed, vertical to less-than-vertical rock, usually with good cracks. The ethical transgressions here are confined more to aggressive gardening of plant-choked cracks than chipping or bolting. I am happy to live in a deeply traditional area where climbers visit to escape the predictability of choreographed bolted sport climbing. (But I sure enjoy going on the road, climbing at places that take a whole different approach.)

Good luck,
—Don

Go to GORP Climbing Forum

Previous Expert Answers

Back to GORP Climbing

Return to Top