Climbing new rock routes is a major source of angst in the climbing community. With all the acrimony (mostly, but not all, to do with bolts) one could get the idea that there was no concensus of behaviour among the climbing community. This is far from true however as there are, in general, widely agreed standards. The following material breifly outlines these standards with the aims of:
Only the naiive would argue that ego doesn't play a part in first ascents. That is human nature. Sometimes ego encourages people to do ugly things: hurried sloppy jobs, lies about style, back-stabbing and other bitchy behaviour. Hopefuly you can reign your's in sufficiently to make a positive impact upon the scene.
Climbing new routes is about creativity. It's also about making a statement; a great route is something you can feel truely proud of. Conversely, climbing ill-conceived routes can reflect badly upon yourself.
There is no law stating that "every piece of rock has to be climbed on". Don't bother putting up contrived routes that are too close to existing lines to be independent. Ask yourself first whether the new climb would add value to the cliff or whether it would just detract from existing routes. If it shares holds think carefully.
Given that you've found an independent line, also ask yourself whether it is worthy of an ascent. If the resulting route isn't likely to appeal to other climbers maybe you should leave the cliff in its pristine condition?
In my experience, "finding" good new lines requires a kean eye and plenty of time a the cliff. It's best not to go specifically looking for them. Go climbing instead and, if anything appeals, check it out.
In Tasmania most routes need cleaning. Get the loose rock off, clean out cracks, remove plants and scrub off lichen. Tools of the trade often include: wire brush, hammer (an old alpine hammer is good), long piton or nut-pick. If you don't clean it, the route is unlikely to be worthy of a second ascent so, in my opinion, you're wasting your time climbing it at all. In a sense, un-cleaned ascents of otherwise good lines permanently spoil a cliff as noone will clean it later, without the reward of first ascent.
Even on un-bolted routes this neccessitates a top-down (ie rappel) approach. On big remote cliffs you'll be making do on lead.
Don't rush this one. You want to get it right first time. Broadly speaking there's two decisions to make: firstly how many (roughly where) and secondly the specific micro-location.
How Many?
Once upon a time the aim of locating placements was to use the absolute minimum
bolts. Bolts were placed as far apart as possible and nowhere near anything even
vaguely resembling a natural placement. While this is a laudible aim it can also be
stupid in some circumstances. Firstly, transforming a route from dangerously runout
to "scarey but safe" often only takes one or two extra bolts if the decision is
made before drilling (a small price to pay for a vastly improved route). Similarly,
the use of one or two natural placements can spoil the style of a route while only saving
one or two bolts (eg on In Flagrante Delicto, which has about 20 bolts, you have
to take a whole rack for the two or three natural placements available; I'm going to fix
that up one day!).
At present (as I perceive local attitudes) you can adopt either approach. You have to have the guts to stand by your decision though, as someone will winge whichever way you go!
Exactly Where?
Clipability is important, especially on harder routes. This is the main
reason why a top-rope inspection is virtually essential. Again this is a relatively
recent developement as it was once considered "against the rules". Sure,
the "first ascent" isn't being lead on-sight but the result is better placements
and less cock-ups and "moved" bolts. Put the environment, and your fellow
climbers, ahead of your wish to climb it "on-sight"; throw a rope down it before
drilling.
This could be a whole web on its own so I'm not going to go into all the details now (I'll put some links here later). A few pointers though are:
Some locals are using a piece of tape or webbing on the first bolt as sign that a project is being worked and is not complete. Stay off. Locals don't "steal" routes (it's a small scene!). If you climb a route before someone has had a fair time to climb it you're not just taking a first ascent off an individual - you're making new routing awkward for everyone.
Doing a bit of development work on a route doesn't give you exclusive rights in perpetuity. I don't know of any specific time limits but reasonable behaviour usually prevails; if you're not either doing work on a route, or showing progress towards getting up it, after a decent time then declare it open. When a route becomes "open" it's free for anyone to have a go; climbs are not tradeable commodities.
After all that, getting up the bloody thing can be a mere fomality! Tradition dictates that an ascent from bottom to top without rests is required before you can say you've climbed it. Beyond that, there are other subtelties which can be more contentious. The rules are always changing on this front but I've listed "OK" and "Not Allowed" practices below:
| OK: | Not Allowed: |
| pre-placing quickdraws on "sport" routes | pre-placing equipment on natural routes* |
| leaving the rope in the first quick-drawn between red-point attempts | not pulling the ropes (down to first anchor) before the final red-point |
| "bouldering" (ie working) moves off the rope | resting or pulling on any gear during the red-point |
| pre-top-roping to suss out bolt location | working moves on top-rope with the aim of spacing out the bolts unreasonably |
* If you feel you have to "climb" "natural" routes in this style then at least be honest enough to say so; it may be a good climb anyway.
You've gone to all the effort of doing a good route; you may as well let everyone know it's there and how to find it. Try to use very specific language (not "The obvious face beside the obvious gum tree"). Any special aspects should be mentioned. As a guideline think of the things you would tell a freind if they were wanting to climb it. If it's a difficult cliff to describe consider using discrete initials on the cliff; about 15mm high is sufficient, not the massive things you'll see at Fruehauf (take a film cannister of paint and a fine art brush; these are cheap). This web is one place you can get info published.
This tends to be contentious! Sometimes people will complain after a bolted route has been put up that such-and-such a cliff should have been left bolt free. Pretty pointless whingeing then! The important issue here is consensus among the wider climbing community. It's not something defined by an individual. For instance, personally I think some great bolted climbs could be added at Ben Lomond; I'm not going to do any though as the consensus appears to be to leave the place bolt free. So what is the current consensus?
| Area: | Current Attitudes: |
| Ben Lomond Cliffs | No bolts on climbs (although bolted rappels can be added) |
| "Established" Wilderness cliffs (eg Frenchmans, Geryon, Federation, PB) | Things are a little vague here. I know Geryon already has bolts and I think Frenchmans may have too (?) so presumably a bolting precedent is established. It's also true though that these cliffs, especially Federation and PB, have a strong "adventure climbing" tradition which should be respected. |
| Wilderness crags with no previous climbing | If you're the first to climb at any cliff then climbers aren't going to complain about placeing fixed anchors. |
| The rest (ie almost all the popular or accessible cliffs in the state) | Fixed anchors on new routes are OK (but follow the usual guidelines). National Parks deserve a mention as, in some, the managers have taken a hard line interpretation of the national parks act and descibe bolting as illegal. This is contrary to long established tradition and tends to be ignored by climbers. Keep a low profile. |
A recent example of bitching over this issue followed Sam and Stefan's climb "The Saphire Rose" at Fingal (incidentally, one of the State's best routes). Apparently, Robert McMahon thinks Fingal should have been left bolt-free, and has poured a fair amount of vitriol onto the pages of "Rock" magazine to that effect. Irrespective of the bolt versus no bolt arguments the fact is that Fingal never had a no bolting ethic; certainly not one that had any wide understanding in the climbing community. The complaints are all the more pathetic since the climb is a long way away from any existing route and it's not exactly "wilderness" since you can drive to the bottom. Some people are hard to please!