Talking Point
The State of Scottish Climbing
Dave Macleod takes stock of the MCofS consultation and AGM Debate on the issue of Bolts in this article first written for Climber magazine and kindly reproduced here:
The Scot's are well renound for their love and ability to argue themselves round in circles and find fault in each other while the world passes them by. So the arrival of a long overdue revision by the MCofS of its code of good practice on the use of bolts in Scottish climbing provided an excellent opportunity for activists and outside observers (I would say from the armchair, but these days it's more likely the computer chair) to exercise the lungs. The MCofS consultation of its members and the Scottish climbing community at large kicked off 18 months ago with a live debate at the Ice Factor and progressed through the gathering of written comments from climbers, published in Scottish Mountaineer magazine. A second debate at the MCofS AGM at Glenmore Lodge last June had the aim of airing all the issues raised and formulating a code of good practice that took account of all viewpoints.
The scope of the debate covered all aspects of sport climbing in Scotland, summer and winter. The contentious issue of the day was clearly going to be a discussion of winter 'sport mixed' climbs in the Scottish Mountains, made all the more timely by the equipping and climbing of Scotland's first route of this type; Crossroads on Ben Udlaidh by Scott Muir last winter. The MCofS national officer and well known Scottish climbing activist Kevin Howett set the ball rolling by providing a historical summary of Scottish sport climbing and asking the audience where they felt the situation was today with respect to summer sport climbs. A sense was returned that any controversy that did exist had died down considerably and that choices which had been made by activists to bolt many new crags seemed to make sense and few had lingering serious objections. Even two of the most controversial developments in recent times; the 'beginner's' crag of Benny Beg and the dry tooling routes in Birnam slate quarry which caused a wave of criticism just two years ago seemed to be broadly accepted. Maybe Ian Smith in his recent 'Climb' editorial titled "Controversy - it'll pass" was on the money? Ian suggested that where previously contentious issues caused major stand offs between opposing groups, "pragmatism has taken over" and compromise has allowed things to move forward.
The new draft code for sport climbing prepared by the MCofS certainly seems to have pragmatism as its central theme. The code recognises that all disciplines have a place in Scottish climbing and that our resources (the cliffs) should be used in a way which not only has respect for traditions but also takes into account the character of the particular cliff and which discipline it would be best suited to. In this way, space is made for all quarters, sport, trad, mixed etc to practice their chosen climbing disciplines, and to do it on cliffs which are appropriate for that discipline. This concept was labelled the 'feel factor' of the crag, taking into account many ingredients such as the length, steepness, situation etc which combine to produce the subtle quality, difficult to pin down, of inspiring the climber to adopt a certain style on a given crag. Dave Cuthbertson, who played a pivotal role in the advancement and development of Scottish climbing since the 70's and was one of the first Scottish climbers to get involved in sport climbing (not to mention previous landmark 'developments' like chalk and cams!) points out that a deep appreciation of all styles of climbing is needed to arrive at a well rounded view and this can only come from a long apprenticeship of participation in all styles of climbing both at home and abroad.
Such a well rounded apprenticeship is lacking in many of the older generation of climbers who have yet to experience the enjoyable and beneficial aspects of sport climbing. Yet ironically it is often this group who accuse the younger generation of this ignorance of climbing's different styles because they started climbing through indoor walls. For me, the 'feel factor' has been used with surprising success over the years in Scotland and there are very few sport routes around which I feel should not have been bolted (or trad routes that should have been bolted). My experience as a prolific new router in all disciplines and in speaking to fellow new routers is that the 'feel factor' is indeed a subtle quality which is difficult to define but one which is easy to use in practice and causes few arguments among new routing activists themselves.
Cubby also brought into question the whole concept of having 'guidelines' at all, a view echoed by many including myself. In an article on his website, Cubby underlines that for him and many others, climbing provides an escape from the rules imposed on us in 'real life' society and for climbers to start dictating to each other what should and shouldn't be allowed in our mountains is an anathema and in conflict with one of the core values of active climbers; freedom. This aspect of the argument, applied to the question "should space be made for limited sport mixed routes in Scotland?" which would necessitate bolts appearing on mountain cliffs in order to be high enough to come into winter condition, was where the debate became quite interesting.
It was clear from comments on the internet that some climbers felt decisions on questions like the one above should be made based on a majority consensus of the climbers around at the time, as in a political democracy. However, a democracy is defined as recognising the rights and privileges of all groups, not just those in majority. One commentator pointed out that there were certain privileges of minorities that were disregarded even in a democracy if it was clear those privileges had negative consequences for all. For example, Scotland is next year to ban the privilege of smoking in public places. Creating sport climbs on Scottish mountain cliffs is classed by some as a negative development as they feel it will begin a process of erosion of highly regarded ethics of adventure, leader placed protection and maintaining the mountain environment as a 'special' place which should be free of visual impact of our activities.
This is arguable, as the debate has shown. However, many currently see it this way and as such believe that a minority who want to see sport mixed climbs in the Scottish mountains should accept the majority's rejection of their wishes out of respect. In the political field, democratic theorists accept that this aspect of practice in a democracy has the side effect of "bearing down individuality and circumscribing the exercise of human faculties" (Anschutz, Participation and Democratic Theory, 1970). In the end, Cubby answers his own question nicely by suggesting that guidelines might work if they are merely suggestions for good practice rather than dictatorial. The former is indeed the line taken by the MCofS, who make it clear that they only take an advisory role with the objective of protecting and improving Scottish climbing, not forcing it down a particular route.
It seemed that many MCofS members found this a disappointment, asking "if the MCofS cannot enforce their own guidelines, then what are they there for?" As freedom, diversity and individuality are all aspects of climbing culture that are highly valued by many, the MCofS would clearly be undermining rather than upholding these core values by enforcing guidelines on ethical styles.
So, who should decide where bolts go into our cliffs? The majority can stifle individuality and therefore progress, the climbing community as a whole may have significant groups who lack the experience to make an informed judgement and the elite individual activists may not have respect for the traditions of the past and consequences for the future resulting from their actions. One suggestion from the debate was to collect a group of highly experienced climbers with a good range of viewpoints and for activists to seek their opinion and advice when considering developing a new sport crag. Just like the written guidelines, the group would not dictate, just advise. This idea merely formalises a process which has been going on for a long time - discussions between experienced and devoted local climbers as to how to proceed with developing new climbing areas. The choosing of a formal group dedicated to this purpose offers the opportunity to make the process more balanced and open, but is also open to abuse. Indeed there is evidence that the outcome of arguments of the styles of new routes or crags has often been based more on the personalities of the activists involved than the arguments at hand. In the case of Scott Muir's route Crossroads, many have openly admitted this! Added to this is the problem of how to set up such a group. Cubby, Guy Robertson and others have also pointed out that we have self-regulated our own ethics remarkably well over the decades and have no need to move towards a more formal version of it. Scott Muir would certainly disagree as this self-regulation (in the form of removal of bolts from Crossroads by Dave McGimpsey) has left him and others unable to practice their own version of climbing in their own country. Satisfactory? Clearly not.
The outcome of the Glenmore debate was, as with many debates, to go away and think a bit more and then have another debate. So was it worth having? Well I do believe that the pertinent issues were laid more clearly on the table and that some common ground was found. What everyone seemed to agree was that the ideals of Scottish traditional climbing were worth defending. What remained contentious was where the threats to these ideals were coming from and how to move forward in protecting them.
A personal view
After participating in the whole process of the formal debate over the past 18 months and the informal one over years as a new route activist, I cannot see an easy way forward. I feel that self regulation can work well among well rounded activists who generally show a great deal of mutual respect for each other and the crags. But I also share Cubby's view that certain quarters of the climbing fraternity who lack experience in all aspects of climbing, yet feel in a position to dictate (both verbally and directly by removing bolts) what the rest should do present the true threat for the future of the sport in Scotland. I also detect an even more worrying trait in some climbers; an often hypocritical superiority complex in those who subscribe to a view that trad climbing is inherently more worthy than sport climbing because of the risk factor in trad, and therefore there should be an automatic preference for creating trad climbs on our cliffs, especially in Scottish winter climbing. I find this trait utterly pretentious and when I encounter it, it often makes me ashamed to be part of the sport. The reality is that 99% of trad ascents are scarcely more adventurous than getting lost in the aisles of Ikea. Adventure happens when the outcome is uncertain. It has nothing inherently to do with grade, style of ascent, or means of protection, it has to do with doubt. Climbing a trad route which you know is within your ability, even a bold one, is not adventurous in the slightest. The adventure only happens when you don't know you can do it and there are serious consequences if you can't. This type of adventure doesn't happen as often. That is why it is special and why it 'separates the men from the boys'. You can't become an adventure climber purely by participating in trad climbing. Only when this pretentiousness is dropped can the sport of traditional climbing become truly progressive.
I do not share the view of many that having sport mixed routes in the Scottish mountains are necessarily a negative development. The main issue raised has been a worry that bolts will spread from the limited places at first and become accepted on more traditional venues. However, this clearly has not happened in summer sport climbing over several decades. Simon Richardson asks "what incentive would there be" for future climbers to continue climbing on-sight on trad gear in winter if sport mixed climbs also existed? Well, surely it would be the inherent value and enjoyment of this type of climbing? The values of adventure, risk and onsight climbing are well understood and highly regarded by all climbers in this country, even those calling for the addition of some sport climbs. Indeed, advocates of sport mixed climbing see a way in which these routes can pave the way for a clean up of traditional Scottish winter climbing ethics. These ethics are the "envy of the world" according to many commentators and are built up into something they are not in my opinion. The widespread use of pegs which still exists in Scottish winter climbing for me negates the adventure ethic to a certain extent. The basic ethic is: if you cant get anything in, weld in a peg. Thus, there are only a tiny percentage of Scottish mixed routes which are truly bold and committing. Anyone can hammer in some ironmongery when they get scared and if they fall onto it, it gets left there for the next attempt. So it's very rarely that climbers tolerate any 'real' danger. The mountain crags are presently littered with the rotting, messy in-situ gear which is results from the status quo that we are supposed to be so proud of. The existence of some sport mixed routes paves the way for a change in attitudes where we can say "if you want something safe, go and clip bolts. If you want a traditional experience then use less or no hammered protection and remove any in-situ rather than just clipping it". In this way, there can be progress, not only in standards, but also in purity of style. Dave Hunter argues that those wishing to go and clip bolts can do so in other countries, especially in the advent of cheaper flights. However, sport climbs in this country make for a more diverse and ethically cleaner climbing experience here in Scotland and I believe there is nothing wrong with making your own local climbing better, especially when there is such a huge resource of untouched rock in Scotland.
When Stevie Haston famously declared that "Scottish [mixed] climbs are not just off the pace, they're off the fucking planet" he may have been referring to the technical standard compared with continental style dry tooling routes - a spurious comparison to Scottish winter climbs given the style in which they are approached and the risks involved. At the other end of the spectrum, to say that Scottish mixed climbing is leading the world is also quite frankly rubbish. Scott Muir, often just about as outspoken and blunt as Haston pointed out in criticism of Scottish winter traditionalists that "head up arse = darkness". In my view, both the traditionalists who think that Scottish mixed climbing ain't broke and doesn't need fixing, and Stevie who saw only the advance of standards as being important have their heads in a dark place. This is not to say I think Scottish winter climbing is lacking in any way, just that it is a good thing that could be made even better. In response to my own statements in favour of sport mixed climbing as a route to higher standards, several people have appealed to my ascents of routes like The Hurting XI,11 in an argument that climbers like myself are doing OK without sport mixed existing in this country. That maybe true, but that is despite a lack of facilities to experience hard mixed moves in safety on sport climbs. If we had more sport climbs, we would have a higher top standard in traditional on-sight mixed climbing. We would also have a more diverse and rich resource of climbing. The climbers of the younger generation value traditional bold climbing and sport climbing and recognise the massive complimentary effects of having both existing together. While Scottish winter climbing continues to be crippled by lack of imagination, misplaced arrogance, and fear of change and of being left behind by a bolder and stronger youth, it will be not the envy of the world but the embarrassment of even its own protagonists like myself.
Dave MacLeod
Letters:
Dear MCofS
I would like to make the following points: Why do we need to find a way of agreeing 'exceptional' venues? What appears to be happening is that a consensus is reached, then individuals overstep the boundaries, and the policy is remoulded in reaction to these deviations. As a result, any policy becomes worthless. I have the impression that the majority of climbers feel that bolts should not be placed on mountain crags. However, the proposed panel to decide where bolts can be placed does not reflect this. In fact, I see no evidence that views expressed on the MCofS website have been considered in developing the current proposal; I would have expected some comment on the level of support from the internet or by mail.
Whilst under no obligation to police the sport, the MCofS should comment on the recent bolts placed on Beinn Udlaidh, and this should be based on the current accepted policy. It appears that the MCofS is condoning bolting of mountain crags by not commenting, and by publicly supporting the people involved through sponsorship and publicity.
Rather than setting up a panel which might not be trusted to be unbiased and representative, it would be better for climbers to self-regulate. Therefore, the MCofS should continue doing the great job it is currently doing, encouraging debate and facilitating consensus through meetings, articles, internet forums and correspondence with clubs.
I do accept that bolts have a place in Scottish climbing, even if it is not my personal preference. However, surely no mountain crag in Scotland has the 'feel' of a sport crag, in summer or winter.
Robin Whitworth
Dear MCofS
As we know "PANTA REI" is part of the process of evolution. Dry tooling stretch[es] the limits. The new evolved disciplines should always [be] supported.
Darko Spirovski
Dear MCofS
Referring to Dave MacLeod's extensive article examining the issue of bolts: He argues that, just as bolted summer routes have come to coexist with trad routes in Scotland, often on the same crag, guided by a so called "feel factor" the same could happen for winter routes. He challenges the traditional view that champions trad climbing as bold and adventurous, saying that with the prevailing ethic permitting pegs and hammered gear many traditional ascents are scarcely more adventurous than a trip to Ikea. Bolted mixed climbing should, he claims, be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. A choice; if we want bold climbing we go trad climbing and leave the pegs at home, if we want safe climbing, we go bolt clipping.
For me Dave misses the point. The argument isn't about whether or not climbing should be dangerous; it is a question of how we view unclimbed lines. This is central to the very spirit of winter new routing. Natural gear, whether hammered or not, is only available where there are cracks. You can only climb where the terrain is suitable to your ability given the protection opportunities. You are meeting the challenge itself, rather than altering the challenge to bring it within your own ability. Reinhold Messner famously called bolting "murder of the impossible". Winter mountaineering is a beautiful thing, and a big part of this beauty lies in the impossible. New routeing is most exciting when it is challenging perceptions of what is possible.
But the issue is more complicated than that. Crossroads doesn't represent "the murder of the impossible" at all. Not only is it not hard by Scottish or international standards, but it hasn't really robbed us of any great trad line either. He has deliberately chosen, presumably guided by this 'feel factor', a section of cliff that has never really been a target for trad routes. If bolted routes are kept exclusively to bits of crag that no one wants to climb trad, then I guess many people, really couldn't care less. The worry however is that bolts will then be used to solve those last great problems that the current generation deem too difficult (or impossible). What distinguishes things in summer is the dichotomy between mountain and non mountain crags. In winter, such a rule cannot exist because if you want your new M12 to ever come into condition it has to be on a mountain or semi mountain crag. The great unclimbed walls of the highlands are at the mercy of this "feel factor". I spoke to Dave about this, and he was confident that all the current activists promoting bolting wanted to keep it focused on bits of cliff that are undesirable as traditional venues but could make for fun days out as sport venues. If this remains to be the case then perhaps we have little to worry about.
What are the potential benefits of us adopting the limited use of bolts on winter routes? Much is made of the idea that Scottish routes are off the pace on a global scale. But to compare bolt protected, pre practiced sport mixed routes with the average hard Scottish mixed route is ridiculous. On this year's international meet I climbed with a young Slovenian climber, Primoz Hostnik. Despite being an accomplished M climber, with M11 redpoints to his name, he fell three times seconding the first pitch of Blood Sweat and Frozen Tears (VIII, 8)! It is no coincidence that the climbers that impressed the most on the meet, Bruno Sourzac (France) and Steve House (USA), were also accomplished mountaineers.
The big hard routes of Scotland are more mountaineering than M climbing. Primoz was impressed by the climbing on Beinn Eighe, raving about the quality of the route for the rest of the week. I doubt he would have been so impressed if I'd taken him to do Crossroads...
I just don't buy the idea that we are off the pace. Doing ground up trad protected short routes is a bit of a British speciality, but if you take the routes being climbed on sight in the mountains of other countries as comparable, then we compare well. Take for example Light Traveller on Denali, or No Siesta on the Grandes Jorasses. These routes feature crux pitches (led on trad gear) often quoted as M8. This compares favourably to some of our harder winter routes; visitors have suggested M7+ for routes such as Cornucopia and The Vicar and these are not the hardest in Scotland. Furthermore Scottish or Scottish trained climbers are climbing pitches of this grade on big mountain routes.
Another reason to develop bolted mixed routes would be to allow Scottish climbers to develop the skills to climb well on bolted mixed routes abroad. But hasn't Birnam quarry already done this? Already Scott and Dave have both climbed M12 abroad, at a time when M12 was the top M grade in the world. A few other Scottish climbers are not far behind. Birnam quarry is clearly a training venue for mixed climbing, the routes can be climbed at any time of year. Why will the addition of some proper bolted mixed routes,
that will only be in condition a small amount of the time, result in any further improvements? When I spoke to Dave about this, he admitted that it would probably have little additional benefit for those travelling abroad to climb M routes. Where he saw the benefits were in allowing more people to gain the skills to climb hard traditional Scottish mixed routes. Because these bolted routes will be snowed up, in mountain weather and actually mixed (turf, rock and ice) rather than 'dry tooling', they will offer a closer approximation to a hard trad mixed route.
My climbing has benefited greatly from the M climbing 'revolution' abroad. I now climb without leashes, with monopoints, use 'stein-pulls', tool swaps and other weird and wonderful techniques. I am even considering a few training sessions at Birnam but bolting Scotland's winter crags is one development I can't quite see the benefits of.
Es Tressider
