Controversy surrounding the new route Epitome. Loose rock ethics

There has been extensive email discussion regarding matters arising from the new route Epitome. It is probably too lengthy for anyone to be insane enough to read it all, but I included here as a reference as the issues touches affect all new routers on the pipes. I emailed contributors a few days ago suggesting this ultimately should go online - no one objected.  A couple sections have been removed for discretion and brevity! HJ

hmmm. Interesting discussion.

It very much raises the question about what is a new route and the motivation of climbers who climb and then publish their ascent - thus becoming proponents of said new route. At what point does it become a "new route"? When it is first climbed, either by top-rope or led, or when it enters the public domain? It seems to depend generally on the local ethic. I acknowledge that on the Organ Pipes we generally regard this as having occurred when it is first led. However, at least one exception comes to mind: Doug Fife's Rebel Without Claws to the right of Chancellor on University Buttress. Never been led, even by some of our young hotshots (that's not a putdown, BTW) at least not led and published as having been led. 

I guess my take is that, as far as an accessible crag like the Organ Pipes is concerned, if a route is established and published it becomes very much in the public arena. And, although lots on new routes are being unearthed - sometimes literally - the Pipes, unlike The Tasman Peninsula, is a pretty finite resource. Most - but not all - of the new climbs going up are in spots readily accessible via our wonderful new network of trails/access routes. The traffic on the Pipes is i ncreasing all the time. (On two out of the three occasions I've been up there so far this month the carpark has been full.) All this suggests to me that within reason climbs should be made safe - if of course they are going to be publicised. On this note it was heartening to see that Tim, after going back and repeating Spice Trade and looking at it with a bit of time and space between then and his "first ascent" has said that he "misjudged the key piece of pro and it's really not that good", that the runout is probably more like 6/7 metres and that although he doubts it's really worth a bolt "but if someone felt the urge then go for it". 

This epitomises the discussion for me. We have this wonderful shared resource. Why should it be cast in stone that a route first led in a certain style - no matter by w hom and how well they climb - should remain ever thus? With a 6 - 7 metre runout on the arête if you fall off you will hit the ground. No question. If you climb 24+ you won't fall. If you climb 20 you could well do. Putting at least on bolt on that lovely little hanging arête means that people climbing at or about that grade are far more likely to have a go at leading it. And that tends to be the benchmark for climbing on the Organ Pipes about whether you've done a climb - unlike somewhere such as Devil's Lake in Wisconsin where quite a lot of the climbing is done via top-rope.

Yes, the nature of the Organ Pipes - being alpine, subject to huge variations in temperature, high rainfall, frost wedging, etc - means th at there is always going to be movement. One thing we need to bear in mind though is that when a new route is "opened", if it gets much traffic may, depending on how stable it is in the first place, change more rapidly than a long established classic that gets lots of traffic. Back to Phil's reference to Suicide Sadness, having climbed it again yesterday I think the rock is actually pretty stable in terms of what is or isn't likely to come out or even move merely by being climbed  as opposed to sustaining the forces applied by a piece of gear being fallen on (and even then I think that most if not all of the hollow sounding - as opposed to stacked and keyed in, etc - blocks and flakes would hold gear, if you choose the right gear. There is only one block - the one that Phil alluded to that's just a little before the crux - which actually moves. Despite there being about 18 metres of rock that is not all one solid mass before you reach the crux we all seem to agree that Suicide Sadness is one of the great classics of the Organ Pipes. Why? Because of the climbing of course. When you add the spice of the slightly  uncertain nature of some of the rock - although the crux itself is very well protected - another dimension is added making something special. 

So, back to my main point. If we are going to publicise routes on a crag like the Organ Pipes, why wouldn't we want subsequent ascensionists to feel confident that the climb is safe? Especially if the route in question is at about the grade they are climbing? I'd suggest that for most of the folks who use a guidebook to find climbs on the Organ Pipes, attempting something at or around their limit is an adventure in itself and that adding the uncertainty about the quality, location and quantity of loose rock on a given route takes away f rom rather than adding to the experience.

I hope it's clear that this isn't a diatribe for bolting the heck out of everything on the Organ Pipes. For me the benchmark of Organ Pipes climbing is Skyrocket. Apparently Louise Shepherd climbed it recently and told Tony that she thought it might have been the best grade 20 she's ever done, anywhere, anytime. She absolutely laced it up (I think Tony said she used 25 pieces of gear - which was how many pieces I used yesterday on SS doing it as one long, stunning pitch) and didn't seem to think that loose rock was a problem. It has been suggested in the past that a bolt would be a good thing on Skyrocket. I'm pretty sure that the bloke who suggested that feels differently now. Apparently, Louise, even with her wealth of experience climbing at a much higher level found it quite an adventure, even with all the gear she placed.

Cheers

Doug

Doug - while I can see a logic in your comment, and respect your careful qualification that you are not proposing a sanitising bolt raid, but I have to say I completely disagree with your position!!! I think it is extremely worth while that dangerous climbs exist - no one is forcing you/anyone to climb them. It is not a gym - not all climbs have to be popular. The finite resource issue does not mean all climbs must be partially or wholely ‘domesticated’ - quite the opposite in my view... 

I believe it is very important we maintain diversity to account for the differing views that exist now and will persist among climbers. Not all climbs have to brought into line with your views, or Roger’s, Phil Robinson’s,  or mine... such is the joy of having different activists on the same crag - as long as they respect each other and don’t impinge on each others new routes. The grey areas or style should be broad on mixed crags like the pipes - clearly some things are unacceptable - blatant chipping for example. But not cleaning a climb thoroughly because the team thought it part of the character of a climb?? -  I would say this is inside the grey zone of acceptability. Otherwise - the question would be how much should one clean? Says who? Over cleaning and over protecting represent irrevocable change, usually without consultation, and this potentially degrades our shared environment - I believe this is a much more important issue than under protecting, under cleaning.... that’s how all the virgin rock is already after all!! 

If a climb is dangerous it should be mentioned in the description, but it is not the responsibility of the first ascent team to uphold some certain level of safety - that will always will be up to each climber as they come. 

One of my favourite one pitch climbs on the pipes is Spitters - a very dangerous climb, rarely repeated. Loose flakes are part of the experience. Doug left them there, so have subsequent ascent teams - they are part of the character of the route. I’ve done it twice but am very unlikely to do it again - it is too dangerous for me now! 

Hamish

I hasten to add that I am obviously not stopping anyone who wants to clean loose rock - I do it too when it seems like the right thing to do... I would think it shame if someone levered off the great flake just to make the area safer... same with Spitters. 

 Tim Smith says:

I have sympathies both ways a little like Hamish. Climbing should be safe from a practical sense for the second and/or ground based spectator as much as the leader however there is very much a place for accessible “scary” or “insecure” climbs somewhere like the mountain with such a rich mix of styles. I agree with Hamish in that not all routes are (or should be made) suitable for all people. It is important to resist the temptation to sanitise cliffs to the point that they are accessible to all, both as a homage to climbers past and in preserving opportunity for climbers future.

I thought you’d appreciate my concession Doug ;) I had sandbagged someone else onto Spice Trade and then had to do i t again myself after they backed off. I think I was a bit more “in the zone” when I first did it!

Tim Smith

Dougs reply:

Great to see your input here, Tim. Hamish, you say that you "completely disagree" with my position. I'm not surprised, although you have not addressed all of the points I've made. It appears that you are looking at this issue solely from one point of view: yours. Not trying to offend, BTW, just saying. I'll come back to that.

Yep, there is a place for accessible "scary" or "insecure" climbs on somewhere like the mountain with such a rich mix of styles. (Though hopefully they will be a small footnote here and there.) Not sure about "dangerous", though. I repeat: not sure. However, my inclination is away from outright "dangerous" if it i s a factor of very dodgy rock or a certainty that you will hit the ground - or the equivalent in the form of a ledge - if you come off towards the end of a runout section. I have to come back to the motivation for claiming/creating such routes and who they are meant for.

Starting with Spice Trade, it is a short link section that climbs really nicely before merging with Indian Summer/Cracked Pepper As such it makes an interesting alternative to either the first two pitches of IS or CP.(although I reiterate that I think CP should almost be regarded primarily as a single pitch. It seems a bit artificial to step left to the bolted belay. Although I haven't done it one pitch yet, it calls!). Spice Trade  is a little harder than the other two, but not much. Given its situation between/merging with two well-protected routes, it seems absurd to have it recorded as a potential death route that almost no-one will bother leading when one bolt - perhaps two - would pose an acceptable challenge for people climbing at about the grade. I am delighted that Tim has concluded that a bolt to protect against a groundfall wouldn't be a bad thing - although I reiterate that I don't believe a first ascent gives any individual, no matter how godlike, the royal right to decide how a piece of rock should be utilised for ever and a day (especially in a context like this).

Moving on to Epitome/e/e. What we are talking about is a grade 20 route opened by someone who climbs in the high 20's (what do you regularly onsight, Hamish?). Your second - Adam - said that he wouldn't have led it. Adam who? Donahue? The guy who has led Neon God on RP's ignoring all the bolts and giving it a grade 26? If so, what does that say about the climb? Who do you expect to climb it? Why do you want it recorded as a new route? Not trying to get personal, just saying. Your name could be Peter Croft - my idol - and I'd say the same. In your description you say "Get ready for the mountains". Which mountains? Tasmania's wilderness crags? Somewhere farther afield. And yes, I have climbed "in the mountains". Crap rock in New Zealand, crap rock in the Canadian Rockies, a few remote routes in the mountains in Idaho and Washington State with some scary loose rock. But those are multipitch routes in an environment that loose rock is the norm. On the Pipes? Well, we know that they are largely big stacked blocks that are keyed in amongst one another and gravity does us a favour by generally holding it all together. Ove r the years many routes have gradually had loose bits removed as they have become looser - from  irrevocable natural forces and human traffic. I reckon I'd climbed Digitalis 20 times before this summer and never had a worry about that loose block - as it was described in the guide before amendment - coming out. This summer I almost filled my pants as it shifted most ominously when I merely touched it. So it's gone. I could have left it - in its altered state - for others to experience but I would have felt ashamed had someone - especially someone new to the mountain who'd got on the route because it's rated a classic- had had a bad accident as a result of pulling off that block. And it was bound to happen eventually.

You say "overcleaning and overprotecting represents irrevocable change ... and this potentially degrades our shared environment". (There were a few who took this line when the new track network was proposed but I reckon all the naysayers are actually pretty happy using those tracks and in some cases finding new routes to climb as a result). Irrevocable change? Yes. In an environment that is in constant change. Potentially degrades our shared environment? Perhaps, perhaps not. And who has the right to say what is "overcleaning" and "overprotecting" (I presume you mean bolts, not whacking in a lot of gear because it makes you feel safer?) You put a bolt in Equipoise - why? And why just one? Because you felt safer? Was that all it needed to make it "safe"? Was it before or after a first lead? Wa s the route pre-inspected? The route has been given two stars, presumably after at least a couple of repeats, and it looks like a fabulous bit of climbing. (Nice one). But why have you made this route "safe" if that was your intention, and not make a route three grades easier "safe" by removing some loose rock? And now I gather you've opened another, much harder new route with multiple bolts: why?

It's certainly not obligatory for a first ascensionist to create a route in a particular style, but what I come back to is the motivation and then what hopes and expectations ensue - on the part of the first ascensionist and the climbing community. Is the ascent merely for oneself, or to share? If the second, how? Just by publishing a description? Is it incumbent on guidebook authors to replicate the original route description? Clearly not. Lots of worms in this big can.

The question of "how much do you clean" always comes up. How about what seems reasonable? If I'm doing a route, like I was today, and there's a loose bit of rock laying about that I can pick up and toss off it seems reasonable to me to get rid of it to remove the possibility that somewhere down the track some poor sod on belay could where it. That's not for me, I've already passed by this way. That's for someone else who may or may not appreci ate my irrevocable act.

Ardent followers of thesarvo forum may already have seen Gerry's thread on Headpoint Style On Potentially Dangerous Routes and the responses. I thought John Fischer's input was brilliant, and germane to our discussion.

Cheers and  goodnight!

Doug

Hi Doug and others who have contributed,

I thought many of your questions aimed at me had already been addressed in my original post? But to offer a reply: I support a degree of diversity on the pipes, at all grades. It’s my view and it dictates the way I put up new routes. I am not sure why you choose to question me so extensively? Do you object to this diversity - it is almost like you want me to be just a trad climber, or just a sport climber?? There are now both styles on the pipes so I have come around to this community position and try to stay within this code. 

When I put up a new route I first and foremost try to listen to the rock and try to interpret this into a creation that suits that piece of rock. I also tend to ask a few people if I have doubts. Hence I put no bolts in Spittoon as it was on a wall full of dangerous climbs of a similar, although slightly easier, style. I was trying to be consistent with my forebearers. 

I used to believe the pipes should be bolt free, as it was when I was a young sport climber (** strictly an error ** correction below) and we left the pipes alone... but that view has become virtually irrelevant today as the community seems to have moved on. Personally I still believe that use of bolts should be kept a minimum - most people i talk to seem to think this is reasonable. Do you have a problem with this??

Equipoise - I added a bolt for the mostly benefit of subsequent ascents, also to make it easier for me even though I’m sure i could have succeeded without it. Do you have a problem with that? I had doubts whether to put none, one, or 2, so I asked Dave James, Al Williams, Tim Smith and Jon Nermut for advice first. I personally would have been happy for someone to put no bolts in it if they had done the first ascent, but not lots of bolts as the natural gear is very good for most of the climb. 

The route R of Equipoise has virtually no natural gear - hence the bolts (except 2x natural where available at the top). We made sure the bolts we placed didn’t interfere with neighbouring routes.  It seemed we had been reasonable in our approach  - what exactly don’t you like about it? I thought you supported 'sport climbs' on the pipes. We will paint the bolts. All the bolts in my kit are already painted. 

You seem to have decided I only consider myself, but you must know that other people like doing a diversity of climbs too -see Simon Young’s response to the Spittoon controversy. Most climbers I speak to don’t want all the new climbs to be just sport routes, so I don’t feel I am on a selfish fantasy when I put up a trad route. I really don’t understand why you accuse me of focussing only on myself. I can detect that you feel because I can sometimes climb 25 plus I am stealing moderate rock away from you when I do a ground up run-out 20. To this I say consider the numerous other climbers who climb 22+ who like doing run out grade 20s sometimes!!

The examples I gave re: over-cleaning I would have thought clarify the meaning of my comment. I agree with your act of cleaning up Digitalis, by the way, and mention this to reassure you that I wasn’t making obtuse reference to that act in my comments about over cleaning. 

Regards

Hamish

 Doug says:

Hi Hamish

Thanks for your response. Glad to hear that you were largely thinking of others when placing the bolt on Equipoise. It sounds like a very good route and I hope it gets lots of repeats. If it's worth two stars that should be the case, so well done. If the single bolt's main purpose is to protect the leader from taking a massive, potentially very serious or even deadly fall if it weren't there then that's brilliant. However, you placed it largely to make you (a very accomplished climber who leads much harder than grade 20) feel a bit better, then maybe another bolt a little lower might have been advised - if you'd like to see the route get lots of repeats. That's what my questioning of your approach to establishing that route is all about.

Re the other route (which I don't know the name of but I gather is significantly harder), my query relates to the use of what apparently is more than just a few bolts. I have to admit that I'm only going on what others have said in this regard so pardon me if that is not the case. If it is I should have contacted you directly about it. However, I guess what I'm questioning is that you seem to think it's okay for you to put bolts on climbs you want to climb, the harder the climb the more the bolts, but question others doing the same thing (your words and actions on Flange Buttress come most readily to mind). And when you use multiple bolts on a route that is a little harder - well, what that looks like is what we see all the time from some activists: bolts close together on routes up around their limit and fewer bolts farther apart on routes that are well below their limit. Again, I apologise if that is an inaccurate reading of the situation on my part. 

The Pipes were never bolt free when you were a young sports climber. Bolts on the Pipes since before your fledgling years include those on Chris Shephard's Vanity put up in 1984 (how old were you at the time?); routes like Ceci -n'est pas un Pipe - pure sports routes - date back to 1991. Furthermore, the bolted rappel station on Buttress Pinnacle has been there since something like 1967. There may have been some arguments against them at the time but I've never heard about them. For mine, one of the great things about the climbing community in and around Hobart is that sport and mixed climbing styles have been accommodated alongside pure trad, opening up the mountain for a far greater spread of possibilities than would otherwise have been the case. Have we swung a little too far the other way? I guess that my comments on some bolting practices suggest that we have. What we should be able to have though in terms of managing this wonderful resource that is a dialogue, and questioning of practices that are done unilaterally. 

You questioned the bolts Roger put in on Flange Buttress and it looks like that whole business is now in limbo as far as the guidebook editors are concerned; I'm questioning the bolts on routes you've recently established. I hear your comments about "listening to the rock" in relation to Spittoon, but can only think that you must not have been looking very carefully along with the listening. Tony and I had noticed for ages that someone - Roger as it turns out - had been cleaning that route. Along with Simon Young's ascent in your bold style it got lots of ascents as a sports route with folks generally singing its praises. Now I hear that a number of the exfoliation flakes have fallen off making it much more difficult, so much more likely that folks will fall off and possibly take a real winger. Maybe it could be recommended as a headpoint route, but that isn't generally the style of climbing that is employed on the mountain, so it would be basically a bit of a pain in the ass in the context.

I'm glad to hear your POV on these issues. Yes, it has seemed - to me at least - that have you only consider yours in reports you have published re your recent activities. It's otherwise hard to understand why you wouldn't remove loose rock on a route so far below your level of climbing ability to make it at least a little friendlier for folks climbing at about that level, especially when taken alongside what you reported about Adam Donohue's comments. Again, I apologise if I have got this wrong. I certainly don't want all the new climbs to be sports routes and I don't think anyone reading my previous email impartially would draw this conclusion from what I've said. I'd be the first to sing your praises if you found another Skyrocket for us!  

As far as me feeling that you are "stealing moderate rock" away from me, don't worry. I'm not fussed. if I find myself on your new loose route on Bulging Buttress and that it is easy to make it saner and safer by easily removing loose rock, I'll do it and report my actions on thesarvo - hopefully encouraging others to explore the route. This would likely lead eventually to a change in the route's description, not unlike the way many other route description have changed over time. One example that readily springs to mind is Raspberry Jam and Crackers. Quite different since the huge flake fell off the start.

One thing that seems to have got lost in this discussion is that the rock is always changing. When you mentioned Spitters earlier, I'd bet that it's significantly looser, scarier and harder since Doug led it way back in 1982 as the exfoliation flakes have loosened up in the meantime. The point is, loose rock becomes looser over time, especially in the mountain environment. I'm sorry - I can't recall the examples you gave of over-cleaning, just that you alluded to it. (BTW, in my book over-bolting is probably worse than over-cleaning.) In terms of the notion of "over-cleaning" I guess I would say that over-cleaning consists of significantly changing the nature of the rock environment. Is taking the big flake off Carpe Diem an example of "over-cleaning"? I'd say not, especially in light of Nic Dekka's efforts in trying to remove it prior to the first ascent and the fact that it was able to be shifted eventually. What I have observed and experienced over the past quarter of a century in regards to the former loose flake at the top of Digitalis adds to my conviction that loose rock should be removed if it's potentially dangerous. I'd never thought that flake was a problem before but perhaps due to the conditions I mentioned it had become extremely dangerous. The fact that is was described as "loose" was not a fulsome enough of a description and the fact that the route is given two stars encourages folks to climb it. Not a good combination. Your proposed route description for your new, loose route is the first time I can remember anyone suggesting stars be taken off or put on based on one's feelings about loose rock. I'm not sure I see it as a precedent that's useful to set. At least not on the Organ Pipes. Others might disagree.

So, there you have it. Nothing personal. My conclusions have been based on reading what you've posted on thesarvo, and no doubt I haven't seen the whole picture. We seldom do. Apologies if I've got something wrong. I'm sure we both have the best intentions at heart, but - although we are both involved in changing the landscape - a different perspectives on achieving the best outcome.

Cheers

Doug

 Hamish replies

Doug,

Your style of argument is indeed personal and moreover I think it very important that you establish the facts for yourself before getting stuck into these discussions. My reply here necessarily addresses personal issues arising in this discussion. You have a tendency to get very involved and authoritative on issues of which you have nofirst hand knowledge. This is not the first time we have all witnessed this. I suggest to you that such views are a waste of time and are actually damaging to the climbing community as they breed misconception and in no way 'improve outcomes’ as you claim. 

I have, somewhat begrudgingly, taken the time to set the record straight below and will post online also. 

1) It was me, not Roger, cleaning Spittoon. I checked over that section of rock in ~ 96, 99 and 2012/13 and can safely say Roger was not cleaning that route prior to my ascents. Climbing grade 24 on the pipes often involves using small flakes. I don’t believe in gluing them on as others are doing, and indeed with time more flakes develop.  I was quite entitled not to glue the flakes, and given they are still falling off even after a Roger cleaned then why comment that I obviously ‘wasn’t looking’ - this is just ad hominem nonsense.  Degree of cleaning on a first ascent is a grey zone and the prerogative of the first ascent team. 

BTW Tim recently repeated it and did not find it substantially harder - it is a great adventure route and if you repeat it as such then I’ll value your opinion of how we put up the climb. 

2) Re accusing me of hypocrisy when it comes to bolts.   

ER (ie Equipoise right variant - for the sake of reference) on bulging happens to be rather different to Spittoon on Flange. ER would be a death fall for the vast majority of the climb without the bolts. There is one substantial piece (at 15m) for the first 25 m which makes up the entire sustained crux section. Comparing it to Spittoon  - which has pieces of natural gear right from the start- is nonsensical. The bolts are spaced on ER stop the climber hitting ground and are put next to clipping stances. Adam actually bolted the route (with me present) and given our collective history I think that says something about the nature of the climb you are criticising out of hand. You have NO knowledge of your subject as you have not seen ER, nor climbed Spittoon! Finally, Spittoon was effectively retro-bolted as Roger knew that someone was trying it and was an experienced enough climber to recognise the natural gear placements had been cleaned and used (as Simon did instantly)...this has all been previously well covered on thesarvo... So again, your comparisons between the incidents is unfounded, and distracting to those trying to have productive conversations about our shared cliff. 

I will continue to criticise routes on the pipes that place bolts next to substantial natural gear placements - most of the local climbers I know think this is wrong as well. I am actually new routing in a way very consistent with the ethic of the cliff. You would be better off supporting me than incessantly pursuing my actions. 

3) Epitomeee.  As I keep saying, the point is that I felt that to remove all the the loose rock would be to substantially change the character of this section of cliff - which is actually in line with one of your stated views (although you do not seem consistent in this regard). If you climb Epitomeee and think differently from me, come and talk to me - I am open to substantiated views. 

In the mean time I humbly ask that you do not substantially change the character of Epitomeee, and this position is clear already in the way I have written the climb up. In doing so you would be denying other climbers, such as Danger Darren, Tim Smith, Simon Young, Dave James, Simon NiceGuyfromNAmerica, etc from their opportunities in partaking in a diverse activity. Of course I recognise I have no control over what you or others and what you decide to do...

4) It is quite clear from my behaviour that I am not a selfish climber as you seem to insist on, but rather someone who climbs differently to how you would like me to. 

For me to not place bolts on a slightly run-out climb is seen by you as selfish. Left Out is fairly run out - are you hassling Pete and Doug to place a bolt for you? Bismark is a bit loose and run out, Subterfuge is a bit dangerous, and so on.  The pipes has many slightly run out climbs as part of the culture but you just don’t  want people like me to keep doing them do you!  It doesn’t suit your current ethic or style. 

Let me make you aware that your views are out of line with majority view of the local active climbing community so perhaps you should consider presiding authoritatively over the ethics of another cliff instead? 

Doug - I will have to ignore your challenges from now on as long as they continue to be developed without a knowledge of the subject under scrutiny. I personally don’t enjoy being hounded with unsubstantiated, argumentative interrogations. It sounds like you might be an editor of the guide, indeed you clearly seem to enjoy a position of authority, but I put it to you that it is not your role to question routes that you have not seen and are unlikely to climb, especially if they don’t actually interfere with the climbs you enjoy. 

Hamish

And a reply to Doug from Tim

Doug I think that you miss the point in what Hamish has said in a few instances. The single bolt in Equipoise was placed after much deliberation and consideration of others, we considered that the gear below where the bolt was ultimately placed was good and the route could conceivable have been led without the bolt but it would have been intimidating with an 10+m potential fall and not at risk of hitting the ground given the position of the climb.  We placed the bolt so that it might be appealing to others who would appreciate that style of climb – somewhat atmospheric with a good head required. The key to this was that there was ample natural protection throughout the majority of the climb and with the addition of the bolt the climb is attainable, not for all climbers at the grade, but for most that enjoy that particular style.

The question about more repeat ascents is a distraction and ignores the nuance of repeat ascentionists, you may not get many repeats but you may get many repeats by those who wish to climb that style. You seem to suggest that all climbs of a given grade should be available to all climbers who can climb the grade.

The other unnamed route to the right of equipoise has no weaknesses for natural gear and given there was an anchor at the top of equipoise was a natural progression to add a harder companion route. It was only the fact that there was no opportunity for natural gear that the route was bolted. The suggestion that there are more bolts simply because it is harder is an absurdity. The climb is of a different style to equipoise (thin face with no natural gear vs arête with ample natural gear and one bolt that maintains the style and atmosphere of the climb) and the bolts are far from closely spaced (3+m between many) yes the bolts were shiny but that is in the process of being rectified. The reference to the harder climb with lots of bolts is somewhat irrelevant and seems deliberately inflammatory – regardless I am told that several/most hangers have been taken off the climb by the first ascentionists in response to the criticism

The Flange buttress debacle has been done to death but the point you seemed to miss was that there was ample natural protection on the route that allowed it to be climbed in a style similar to other routes on the wall albeit a grade or two harder. It does climb well on bolts, I have done it and it is still a lovely climb, but it is a truly memorable climb on gear. It is true that without the bolts it won’t see as many ascents but it would see many ascents by those who like that style. The only flake that I have seen that has popped off on that route was the hold at the lip that Simon blew some time ago. And when Hamish and I came to top rope inspect and clean loose flakes and scale off the routes there was little if any evidence of cleaning.

Doug I really have to pull you up on some of your comments around homogenising the climbing experience. There really does need to be a place for those who wish to practice a style of climbing that you may not relish on a mountain that supports diversity with the same accessibility. I am not saying that you should leave widow(er) makers hanging on climbs all over the place because you like an intimidating, serious or scary climb, nor do I believe that Hamish is suggesting this. But what I believe he is saying (and I agree) is that certain climbs have great value in not being pristine and available for anyone who can climb the grade. I also know that Hamish does not have a death wish and if the gear wasn’t there on his recent 20 episode then it is likely that a. he may have put a bolt or two in or b. he may not have done it. I personally like climbing that is a little more challenging emotionally and I believe completely in protecting the opportunity of others like me to be able to still climb this style at a readily accessible cliff like Mt Wellington, you may not, but your choice should be to not climb that climb (just as you may close to not climb something 4 grades harder than you are comfortable with) rather than to make the climb more accessible to you.