"To Bolt Or Not To Be "by the UIAA Mountaineering
Commission

Foreword
Most mountaineers and climbers regard our activity as a freedom sport, in other words it isfree of rules and regulations, we are free to do it where we like, when we like and withanyone we choose. But this is not quite correct. We have a code of ethics and behaviour inmountains involving respect for the natural environment and consideration for others involvedin our sport.. Although strictly speaking these are not rules but concepts that have been
accepted by most of us for many years and largely they are respected and work well.
Debates between mountaineers and climbers about the ethics of the use of protection
techniques have been continuous and I am proud that the UIAA Mountaineering Commission
together with the German and Austrian Alpine Clubs have clarified these concepts on theiruse. We hope that this will find a common ground between climbers who want most climbs
bolted to climbers having a more purist approach discounting any use of bolts.
We are a tolerant society and I hope that these suggestions offer an acceptable compromisethat we can all use in the future.
Good climbing.
Ian McNaught-Davis, UIAA President 1995-2004

Preface" You, who are on your roadmust have a codethat you can live by
and so become yourself
because the pastis just a goodbye. "Graham Nash

The message of the popular Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song “Teach” could provide asuitable background for implementing this document. The "Recommendations for theredevelopment and first ascents of rock climbing routes in alpine regions" are based on theprinciple of voluntary participation. They represent a compromise between the factions
supporting and opposing the use of bolts and are meant to be future-oriented guidelines for
dealing with the resource "mountain".
The following people cooperated on this project:
Stefan Beulke, German Mountain Guide Association
Alexander Huber, professional climber
Nicholas Mailänder, DAV
Andreas Orgler, climber and mountain guideRobert Renzler, OeAV
Karl Schrag, DAV
Pit Schubert, DAV-Sicherheitskreis
I would like to thank them for their enthusiasm and perseverance during the extensive
discussions - especially Nicholas Mailänder, who served as the " spiritus rector " in our workgroup. Many thanks also to Michael Olzowy, chairman of the DAV-section Bayerland, fororganising two public discussions on the topic which brought together leading climbers fromvarious countries and included such celebrities as Reinhold Messner.
Robert Renzler, President of the UIAA Mountaineering Commission, project-coordinator

CONTENTS
CHAPTERS

Page

1.

Introduction

52.

Preamble

5

3.

The Redevelopment of Rock Climbing Routes

6

4.

The First Ascent of Rock Climbing Route7

Discussions
Comments from “Overseas” – articles and comments

Page
8

Recommendations for redevelopment and first ascents of rock climbing routes inalpine regions
1. Introduction
This document was produced in response to requests from national mountaineering
associations for advice on the use of fixed equipment. The views held on this subject arestrong ones (see UIAA Bulletin 3/98 "Mountains in Steel and Iron"). Some organisations were
becoming concerned that without a clear consensus between climbers and mountaineers,
other institutions would attempt to impose regulations on our activities. In some alpine
regions major disputes arose between "plaisir " climbers and "purists", climbers favouring a
traditional style of mountaineering and climbing. The dispute sparked off a vicious circle ofbolt chopping, retrobolting and repeated chopping on certain routes.
At the request of the UIAA Moutaineering Commission, in 1998 the Austrian and German
Alpine Clubs, who were already discussing the topic, set up a work group to a draft position
paper. A wide range of views were considered by the group. Also, information was presented
at meetings like ENSA in Chamonix on November 12-13, 1998, about the use of bolts in theMont Blanc range.
The document was then presented to the 1999 International Winter Climbing Meet and
Seminar in Aviemore, Scotland. This meeting was attended by over 100 climbers from 28
countries, who unanimously supported the paper. It called on climbers world-wide to consider
the paper in detail so that a firm consensus based on good practice could be established andthe freedom to pursue our activities protected.
The document was finally adopted by the UIAA Council in May 2000, during the meeting in
Plas y Brenin, Wales.

2. Preamble•

Climbing is a popular lifetime sport, characterised by lasting human relationships,
direct contact with nature and the intensity of the physical activity. Climbing is astabilising factor for many people providing a sense of meaning. From thesociopolitical point of view, climbing contributes to public health by counteracting theeffects of a lack of physical activity. In addition psychologists and educationalists
have recognized that climbing in the outdoors promotes positive character traits likereliability, a sense of responsibility and the ability to work in teams.

•

Climbing in the mountains provides a chance – especially for young people – todevelop their sense of responsibility. This aspect is more or less pronounced,
depending on the style of climbing involved. The degree of responsibility called for
during a climb depends on the amount of protection on route: rock climbing routes
with little protection require an especially high measure of accountability by the
climber for his own safety and that of his partner.

•

Coupled with respect for natural surroundings, free access to the alpine wilderness
areas is a fundamental right. Sufficient possibilities to exercise the sport of rockclimbing can only be guaranteed if this right to freedom of movement remains intact
and is restricted only in isolated, well-founded cases when agreed as being
absolutely necessary.

•

Like hiking, rock climbing in Europe is a significant economic factor in the low and highmountain ranges. Because of the economic nature of many of these regions, climbers andthe family members travelling with them, are often an essential source of income, both forthe catering trade of the areas visited and the accompanying retail businesses.
•

In this document redevelopment measures refer to the placement of fixed protection
on rock climbing routes according to current technical safety standards.

3. The redevelopment of rock climbing routes
In the evolution of climbing in low mountain ranges as well as in the lower areas of the highranges, many climbers have developed a liking for well-protected sport climbs or fun routes.
A large number of alpine climbers prefer having good bolts on the pitches and on belays on
popular rock climbing routes.
On the other hand, a good number of the climbers who frequent the mountains are interested
in retaining the original character of rock climbing routes and areas. They prefer to do withoutbolts, either partially or entirely.
The extent and quality of the equipment of a rock climbing route with fixed protection is aneffective instrument for influencing its popularity: well-protected routes are done more
frequently than poorly protected ones. Thus, in ecologically sensitive areas permanent
protection should be reduced to a minimum. On the other hand, in less sensitive areas
possibilities for the climbing activity of a greater number can be created by the developmentof well protected rock climbing routes. Climbing areas developed along these guidelines
pose no threat to the natural environment.
A pluralism of the various climbing games is desirable and is welcomed as an
expression of the legitimate individual preferences of climbers. To permit this kind ofpluralism we make the following recommendations:a) The redevelopment measures should be limited to a selection of frequently climbed
routes.
b) Certain alpine areas, mountains, or parts of mountains can be excluded from thesemeasures in order to retain their original character.
c) Rock climbing routes that represent particular milestones in alpine history (for example,
the North Face of the Eiger/Heckmair-route, Lalidererverschneidung, Marmolata SouthSpur, Pumprisse, Grandes Jorasses-Walker Spur, Dru North Face, Traverse of the
Grepon or Meije), must be left in their original state. This principle also applies to rockclimbing routes with local significance (e.g. Gelbe Mauer Direct on Untersberg, Battert
Crack on the Gehrenspitze).
d) A basic principle of the redevelopment of rock climbing routes is that the character of theroute remains intact:
1. The line of the first ascent is not to be altered.
2. Routes and single pitches done “clean” on the first ascent (using only nuts, friends,
threads, etc.) should not be retrobolted.
3. No bolts will be placed on sections of routes that may be done clean by climbers of
the grade of that route.

4. Runouts may not be neutralized by additional bolts (don’t take the edge off arunout).
5. The difficulty of a route should not be altered through redevelopment measures. Aidpassages left by first ascensionists should be aidable after redevelopment. The
amount of permanent protection in a redeveloped route should be less than theoriginal number of pieces. For example, several regular pitons can be replaced by asingle bolt.
6. For all redevelopment measures, only material that fits European and UIAA
standards should be used. The redevelopment is to be to carried out at recognised
standards under the auspices of the responsible stewardship organisation.
7. A route should not be subject to redevelopment against the will of the first
ascensionist.
e) The valid mode of the redevelopment in a climbing area is defined – on the basis of theserecommendations – by the locally knowledgeable climbers together with the local
climbing groups, if necessary, in cooperation with the responsible authorities. Decisionmaking power on the local level guarantees every area its own independent character.
The activities of the local stewardship organizations will be coordinated by asupraregional committee in order to guarantee the horizontal and vertical flow of
information and to ensure a uniformly high quality of stewardship. The committee
mediates in case of conflicts.
4. The first ascent of rock climbing routesa) In alpine regions, first ascents are to be done exclusively on lead (no prefixing fromabove).
f)

In the areas excluded from redevelopment measures, bolts should be limited to an
absolute minimum, otherwise it is up to every first ascensionist to set the standard ofprotection on his/her own route.

g) There should be no detraction from the independent character of adjacent routes.
d) Particularly in zones close to the valleys or in other easily accessible parts of themountains special sport climbing areas can be established – insofar as this can be donein an ecologically sound fashion and without obstructing other existing climbing areas.
These measures need to be approved by the stewardship organisation responsible forthat area.

Discussions regarding this paper:
COMMENTS FROM "OVERSEAS"
Steve Davis
Director (Alaska), American Alpine ClubI have read the paper “to bolt or not to be” and found it to be consistent with the guiding
principles of the AAC, the Alaska Section of the AAC, and most importantly the Alaska
climbing community. It describes an international policy that I whole-heartedly support. These
guiding principles are being used both in Alaska alpine ranges as well as the local sport
climbing areas. Our congratulations go to Robert Renzler and the other UIAA Mountaineering
Commission members who developed this position paper over the past few years and got
contribution from climbers such as Reinhold Messner and Alex Huber.
Yvon Chouinard
I have read over the paper and it looks fine to me. More than that - it looks great! Good work.
I want to thank you for all the good work you are doing for climbing. I know how much timeand effort this takes.
John Middendorf
I got the piece on bolting, and it looks good. It is interesting because John Bachar wrote a
piece called “Coexistence Rules” way back in 1987 or so and it is similar statement ofrespecting the past as well as specific areas of ground-up climbing. I applaud the efforts at
maintaining a “traditional” standard, and it is a good distinction to make about sport climbs
having a certain place.

Letter from Ian McNaught-Davis, UIAA President 1995-2004
On 1st July 1936 a strong party of German climbers set out to climb on the east face Tryfan,
a mountain in North Wales. Finding the routes rather below their standard they were pointed
out a blank section of rock that had not been climbed. That day Hans Teufel and Heini
Sedlmayr with J.R.Jenkins made history in British climbing. They put up a new and, at thetime, quite a hard route which they named the Munich Climb, but to get up it they placed
three pitons they had brought with them. This was regarded as quite unacceptable behaviourby the British climbing establishment who, up to that time, had avoided the use ofironmongery in their exploration of crags. When a plainly visible bronze karabiner and piton
was pointed out to Menlove Edwards, a member of the Climber’s Club, he could only see it
as a challenge. Two weeks later he lead the climb without artificial aid and the offending
pitons were extracted using a poker from a nearby Climber’s Club hut. They have never been
replaced despite the fact that, for many years, it was the hardest route on the mountain andthere were a number of fatal accidents at the spot until modern protection techniques weredeveloped.
This attitude of rejecting the use of pitons and bolts on high mountain crags has largely been
accepted in Britain and there are few to be found in place today. The acceptance of this, as
the standard of difficulty of climbs increased, is quite remarkable and it has resulted in manyheated debates on where fixed equipment can and cannot be used. On most high mountaincliffs it is possible to climb in Britain and find very little trace that anyone else has done theroute. There is no line of pitons to follow, no handy bolts at the belay stances and no fixedabseil points. It is as near a natural experience as is possible with the large number ofclimbers active today.
There were two consequences of this ethic. Firstly other forms of protection had to be
developed that neither damaged the rock nor were left in place. At first these were pebbles orsmall pieces of rock that were slipped into the cracks and threaded with a nylon line. Thiswas clumsy and time consuming and during the 1960’s and 1970’s chocks were developedthat could be threaded on slings and finally the wired nuts and ‘Friends’ that are a normalcomponent of a climbers rack today. Much of the rock was a hard granite or quartzite withfriendly cracks that would allow good protection. This didn’t work too well on softer rock suchas limestone or sandstone, nor did it give experience of climbing Alpine routes which seemed
to be unclimbable without pitons. The technique there for impoverished British climbers was
to do classic routes and extract as many pitons as possible, these would then be used on
harder or even new routes and also for abseil points on the descent. A hammer was an
obligatory tool for the aspiring alpinist if for no other reason than to replenish his stock ofironmongery.
Debates on these issues have rumbled on for the last sixty years and have become moreaggressive during the past five years with the pressure to conserve our mountains from theincreasing damage being done by hikers, scramblers, climbers and mountaineers, (not tomention skiers)..
The issues are far from simple and the questions that need debating are many.
• Have climbers the right to bang in pitons or bolts wherever they choose on any crag,mountain or national park irrespective of the environmental damage they cause?
• Should popular and classic routes be fully equipped with bolts, pegs and stanchions, etc.
under the excuse of greater safety or to make it easier and faster for guided parties?

• Is it critical to leave these routes alone to preserve, as much as possible, the first ascentexperience and the aura of drama and discovery that accompanies a generally unrigged
route?
• As much of the current installed equipment (which may be necessary to climb the route)is corroding away and becoming dangerous should it be replaced by corrosion free bolts
or should climbers endeavour to use nuts and ‘Friends’ wherever possible?
• Should mountain hut managers be allowed to fully equip classic routes to make the useof their huts more popular? (Who would stop them?)• Who is responsible if these artificial aids fail, the person that put them in, the sponsors or
the national federation that supported the policy of re-equipping?
• Is it possible to have an international policy that would work or should this be left to eachcountry to have their own standards?
These are some of the issues that we will discuss at the next General Assembly of the UIAA
in October. We may not find a solution to all our problems but I hope we make some
progress, however small, to protect our many activities for the future.
In the end, the quality of any climb is not doing it but how you actually did it.
I look forward to an exciting debate.

The Standing of Plaisir Climbing
An interview with Jürg von Känel, with an introduction from "Die Alpen" 4/1998", .the Journalof the Swiss Alpine Club. The Editor is grateful for the kind permissions of the SAC and Jürg
von Känel to reprint the article. It is abbreviated and translated by the Editor.
"Plaisir Climbing"1 has become a defined concept, at least in Switzerland. In othercountries (e.g. France) there are also climbing areas with fixed equipment placed byusing "Plaisir criteria", and they were started quite some time ago. They develop into
ever more popular areas and attract the great mass of men and women climbers, whoenjoy carefree, sport-type climbing in nature. Plaisir Climbing fills the needs of a
popular sport, and without any doubt will continue to increase in importance.
Different viewpoints
It is exactly this popularity of "standardised" safety climbing, which has brought opponents
into the arena. They complain, partly using arguments strongly reminding of the "heroic"
alpine philosophy of past times, that a pastime of a few "outsiders" has developed into a"standardised popular sport for the whole family".
From this viewpoint, a full-length and, from the safety point, indisputably equipped route will
become a mountain-ethical sin, and the used safety material, the bolt, an instrument at thedisposal of tourism and climbing sports businesses interests, and possibly even a risk for theenvironment.
Jürg von Känel - founder of the Plaisir idea
Jürg von Känel is mountain guide and author of guide books. He has achieved first ascentswith very daring belays. At the same time, he has been one of the first to recognise thegrowing interest in sports climbing and hence, the need for Plaisir climbing areas. In theframe-work of his selective climbing guide books he has created many new, perfectly safe
Plaisir routes and has helped with the re-equipment of many other routes. The success of his
guide books and the great interest of climbers in such routes is demonstrated in theenormous popularity of the Plaisir climbing areas presented in his books. On the other side,badly equipped routes are being climbed less and less. This may almost be called "Votingwith the feet".
Talking to Jürg von Känel
Demands on Plaisir Climbing
ALPEN: From the introduction we know what Pllaisir climbing means. What are the demandsof Plaisir climbing men and women with regard to the equipment , and the protection inparticular?
JvK: The demands have gone up in the recent years. But the decisive criterion is not thatmuch a demand for a large number of fixed protection points, it is more the way in whichthese points have been set and how reliable they are. What people want is bolts at a regulardistance corresponding to the grade of the route, and the bolts should be set in a way that
virtually excludes the risk of injuries in case of a fall. Finally they should be easy to clip in(also for smaller people) and there should be no unnecessary pull of the rope.

1

Plaisir Climbing is done on routes fulfilling some criteria, which may not be defined precisely indetail: They are well equipped with fixed safety points (in most cases bolts), so that additional safetymeans (nuts, pitons) are rarely needed, the routes are in solid rock and the difficulty is in lower or
medium grade ranges

Plaisir Climbing: Importance in numbers and concept of adventure
ALPEN: Do you have an estimate of the number of Plaisir climbers with a preference of welland completely equipped routes in comparison with those climbers, who for the sake ofadventure are either accepting a higher risk, or even search for it?
JvK: From the fact that badly or inadequately equipped routes are being climbed less andless or even not at all any more, whereas Plaisir climbing areas are very popular, it may beconcluded that the share of plaisir climbers is very high. And in the higher grades, there arepractically only optimally equipped routes. I believe that 90 to 95% of all those who wish to
climb are preferring fully equipped routes. This is not necessarily the case for tours with only
passages to climb (in particular combined tours).
If we talk about the search for "adventure", we must state that this term may be defined andinterpreted in very varied ways. For some, it is already a gripping adventure to climb at a
distance of two meters from the last bolt, whereas others fail to feel the "ultimative adventurekick", even if they climb an unstable ice-column or an unsafe hanging stalaktite.
I believe that most of the Plaisir climbers are prepared to experience some adventure in thesense of a calculable risk, but they would not accept consciously the risk of injuries or the
exposure to a life-threatening situation - which may quickly happen in a route, which is notprotected optimally.!
Critical Voices
ALPEN: Repeatedly, there are critical voices on the development of Plaisir climbing, andquite different motives can be recognised. Criticism is mainly coming from rather "adrenalinfriendly" climbers who are looking for adventure for themselves and would like to have routes
with minimal fixed protection. They put climbing-ethical considerations first and see Plaisir
climbers in a certain sense as "mental cripples". Then, there are those who argue on
environmental grounds. Their main interest seems to hinder further growth of the number ofPlaisir climbers, if not to decrease it.
What do you say to this crticism, and how realistic are these demand in your eyes?
JvK: There is very little criticism from extreme climbers! They represent exactly those who
appreciate optimal protection, otherwise sport climbing would never have reached such a
popularity. A few "outsiders" seem to be the exception, they wish to keep the mountain world
and their climbing areas for themselves or, they would like to share the mountains only withthose, who are fully backing their idea of "adventure". By outcasting of Plaisir climbers or by,at least concentrating them on a very limited number of areas, they hope to keep theirhunting grounds for themselves.
In addition and particularly in Germany, there seem to be representatives of conservative
mountaineering, who are up in arms against good route protection. While whole parties are
dragged down to death by breaking old pitons, they are criticising the protection concept in
Switzerland as overdone and unnecessary and discuss at great length how to handle fixed
equipment in Austria. These vantage points, mainly based on self-designed "ethics", havealways existed in the mountaineering sports. With similar arguments, firstly the use of pitons,
then of bolts , then sports climbing were opposed.
And nowadays, optimal protection with fixed equipment has become a red rag for a few, whofeel they are the leading exponents of "true mountaineering".
I judge the environmental reasoning as very questionable. Only those who go out into nature,
will experience its beauty and will develop sensitivity. Nobody will protect nature who has noknowledge of it. Sometimes one cannot avoid the impression, that environmental concerns
are used as a means to at least make the access to mountaineering and climbing experience
more difficult for all those who have a less elitist understanding of adventure. If Plaisir
climbers could only be excluded better, the mountains would again belong only to ourselves a rather egoistic viewpoint. If this is of any help to the mountain areas, should be seriously
questioned.

The carefree way to the top
ALPEN: Indoor climbing walls are mushrooming. More and more people learn to climb there
and this means, they will never familiarise themselves with the use of self protection means
as friends, nuts, pitons etc. What are your conclusions from this development?
JvK: It is exactly the fact that there is no need to carry own mobile protection means, whichallows the carefree way to the top: The pleasure experience comes from climbing without
friends, nuts and rucksack. Apart from the fact that the use of mobile protection meansdemands experience and in addition, will never offer the same degree of safety as a routeequipped with bolts.
In a route with fixed equipment, a beginner has the chance to concentrate fully on the
climbing moves. Later on, when he has acquired a better sense of safety, he may wish tolearn how to protect himself with his own means. There will always be a sufficient number ofroutes to do this. In the future, the Plaisir climbing guide books will include some routes,
where good additional protection can be achieved with mobile means. It will be interesting tofind out, if there is really a demand for this.
Final question
ALPEN: Would you like to add to the questions raised here or is there a special point which
you would like to emphasise in this context?
JvK: Of course, all viewpoints cannot be considered in an interview. There is still a lot to besaid, to be differentiated, and perhaps to be put in relation. In summary, it is my impressionthat the supporters of Plaisir climbing, which is bringing pleasure to more and more active
people, are not getting that much of a voice. A lot of room is being given to the critiques ofequipment with fixed means - people and there needs tend to be neglected. The enormous
popularity of Plaisir climbing areas is proving, that a vast majority is looking for their mountainand climbing experience in optimally safe routes with fixed equipment.

Plaisirtext 1530 W/7606 Z

The Rotting Peg and Bolt Syndrome
K:J: Wilson, Baton Wicks Publications, England
As I understand it, Pit Schubert and the UIAA are seeking a mandate to replace old gear for
better new gear, or at least to understand people's feelings before taking any action.
At first sight, the Schubert solution (already applied on crags in the Eastern Alps) seems
logical and responsible, but is it?
If we go for a regime of officially placed fixed gear we will, in effect, be encouraging climbers
to "unlearn" one of the key skills of climbing - that of taking responsibility for their own safe
belaying. The presence of any fixed gear (good or bad) tends to induce sloppiness in thisarea. Any sensible climber backs up fixed gear with other anchors and these days nuts andfriends are so quick to place that it is easy to construct one's own belays that are far morereliable. Obviously we could for a period, rig up the mountains and crags with safe stancesthat could be relied upon, but they would soon corrode.
In the short term a fixed gear regime would make for a superficial form of safety, but it would
not be real safety as we would be encouraging a generation of climbers onto the mountains
who would not know how to protect themselves.. In effect these people would not be real
climbers as they would be incapable of moving safely in the mountains in the mountains
without fixed gear.
This would in turn have serious implications for climbs in the newly developing ranges like
Greenland, Patagonia et. Where, having relied on fixed pro at home, European climbers
would then look to place it abroad.
In the past European climbers carried pitons and hammers and were proficient in their use
and thus able to look after themselves: now they do not - it is considered unstylish. In thisposition it seems to me that the UIAA should be very firmly encouraging climbers to take nuts
and friends with them in order to safeguard their progress. Probably a hammer and a few
pitons as well on really big cliffs.
It may be that the odd stance and key abseil points might have fixed gear but these should, I
believe, be the exceptions rather than the rule.
The real problem comes more from the waymarking than security. In the past, in the
Dolomites in particular, we used fixed gear as much to ensure we were on route as for pro.
Classic routes on big cliffs used by many nationalities are not like small British cliffs withhighly detailed guidebooks. Climbers unversed in their regular use (e.g. once a year
holidaying climbers) can easily loose the route. There may thus be a case for some sort ofwaymarking confirmation at stances (not paint but perhaps some sort of temporary metal
marker. These might be placed where lots of old trash has been removed and there are
perfectly good natural protection places. The flaw in this argument is the necessity in the
Alps to make provision for rapid retreats in poor weather which tends to support a fixedanchor solution ( in the past climbers would have relied on interlinking old pegs and tat).
This needs to be clearly thought through. Fixed abseil points on popular descent routes (e.g.
Dülfer Couloir, off the top of the Grand Cap) have long been the norm and it is clear that
repeat parties cannot reasonably carry enough gear to safeguard (and leave) on a longdescent. Possible abseil anchors off-line for convenient belaying might be a solution that stillencouraged self-belaying during the ascent. Nevertheless I am extremely concerned about
any official body taking responsibility for too many fixed abseil stations, particularly in thehigh mountains - it opens far too many grey areas - not least the risk of litigation should any
anchor fail. There may be a case for very selective gear replacement so that the odd key
point on a climb has it -but in this we are sliding into exactly the same sort of self-serving

justification used by the Swiss for the stakes on the Gallerie Carrel on the Zmutt (though thisis a mixed route and thus not quite the same). That argument sounds so reasonable, yet it
effectively draws the teeth of a great route (why not have a fixed rope on the Traverse of the
Gods? Should the fixed rope be left in place on the Hinterstoisser Traverse - without this how
many would have done the Eigerwand?).
I note that in your article you mention the "high mountains" and the "sports climbing crags".
These are, increasingly the only two types of climbing that Europeans know - and it is for thisreason that we now seek the high mountains to be rigged up in the same manner as what
they have always regarded as training cliffs. They should be encouraged to follow the British
example on all traditional (e.g. cracked and vertical or less) crags. They should treat them
too as places to be respected (rather than riddled with iron) and learn how to place protection
so that when they visit the mountains both their skills and ethics are well-honed. Sports
climbing should be a procedure reserved ONLY for steep and crackless cliffs used by topperformance athletic climbers already well-versed in the use of natural protection. Tit shouldbe frowned on as a technique for the masses. If we fail to point this out, the only result willbe that sooner or later ALL rock climbs will become bolt protected because the Europeans
are no longer toting hammers and pitons and will not know (or wish to know) how to usenuts.
I believe that a totally bolted mountain environment is indefensible on environmental grounds
alone (let alone the ethical concerns) - does the UIAA think its OK to bolt rig all mountains
and crags - surely not? Thus I believe that you and your British colleagues on the UIAA
should extol British leader placed protection techniques and draw them strongly to theattention of the others and commend them on environmental safety (a person who has
mastered them is clearly far safer), and ethical grounds.
It is time to stress the importance of the full range of mountain skills and to point out thatthose who cannot move in the mountains without the possession of a power drill or a prequipped route cannot really call themselves "climbers" or "mountaineers" in the full meaningof those titles. It therefore follows that - with the demise of piton methods - all have a duty tolearn and practise leader placed protection skills. We really have to start promoting the virtueof these techniques on environmental grounds alone. We can hardly proscribe the power drill
in the Greater Ranges without pushing nut techniques at home.

WilsonBolts 142 W/ 5392 Z

The absolute freedom of climbing
versussafety and prevention of mountaineering accidents
Every year at the end of August, European mass media present the body count of the„killing mountains“ and quote some famous elite climbers -usually without experience inrescue work- presenting their ideas about prevention of accidents in the mountains.
Whether or not climbing routes or classical climbs should be equipped safely with bolts (oreven fixed ropes e.g.Matterhorn, Eiger Mittelegi) is an ongoing and never ending discussion.
There are very good arguments for both sides and probably every mountain range has to findit`s own proper way of handling it.
The freedom of climbing
The absolute freedom of climbing consists of choosing to climb wherever you want and withwhatever technical help one considers as necessary.
Every climber is free to choose a mountain or a route according to his experience, training
and physical capabilities. In order to buy or rent equipment, divers have to present acertificate of training. For mountaineering there is no control at all. Every climber has the
freedom to get killed if he has not been trained according to the standards of alpine
federations and mountain guiding organisations.
Every climber (properly trained or not) has the choice to use fixed equipment or not.
Climbing purists propose a clean climbing with the help of removable belayings only. The
adrenalin seeking climbers have the freedom of ignoring all fixed belays or bolts.
The responsibility of mountaineering federations and the prevention of accidents
In the European Alps, most mountain regions live off the tourism and have a vital interest ofoffering safe routes and an efficient rescue system to their visitors.
Closing down mountain ranges for future preservation can add a maximum of prevention but
definitely destroys the freedom of climbing .
For the time being, there is no evidence of an increased rate of accidents in fixed equippedroutes. In contrary, the casualty rate has significantly decreased in the classical mixed climbs
of the Swiss Alps where fixed belays have been installed.
Most mountain rescuers in the Alps - the people which have to do the very often dangerous
dead body recoveries as well- propose a moderate number of safe belays for the classicalroutes.
The absolute freedom of climbing includes the need of having safe routes. In this regard,
elite climbers must be more tolerant towards the preventive activities of mountain regions
and rescue organisations.
Bruno Durrer
MedCom UIAA
28.6.1998