Mountain 131 (Jan/Feb 1990) | Magazine

More

• Change Log
• Threads

Rowland Edwards, from page 49:

Sir,

Could I please reply to some of the remarks you have recently been making in issues of Mountain concerning the vandalising of routes in Cornwall and the use of bolts in the area.

Your editorial did not explain more fully the vandalism which had taken place on Mark Edwards' route Red Rose. This route initially had three bolts, and was given a grade of E7 7a/ b. This route had obviously raised a lot of ‘anti’ due to the placement of bolts in the Pednmen-du cliffs. It also raised a lot of eyebrows because of its grade Mark took over 20 visits to finally do the route free (no falls etc.). This route was done completely independent of myself, so there is independent verification of its ascent and unchipped state. What has happened since has been very sad. Mark had always intended removing the bolts from this route due to it being on an old established crag and also with regards to my own views that such a prominent crag should not be at the leading edge for this type of route. Time would see if they were accepted. He only managed to remove one of the top bolts, the others had become fixed by rust. During this year someone had smashed off the eyes of the hangers leaving behind the broken stubs. There had also been extensive chipping and drilling on the whole of the route. This has now lowered the grade to about 6b. Andy Pollitt top roped it in trainers. Mark later repeated it in bare feet. Previously Mark had failed to repeat the route.

This is not the first time that this has happened to Mark's routes. Demolition was chipped after the first ascent (verified as being unchipped on the first ascent by the second ascentionists). 29 Palms was also vandalised in a similar way. Andy Pollitt and Chris Hamper took two days of practising and top roping to finally climb Rats in a Rage on Chair Ladder. Pat Littlejohn also failed on the same route. Both Andy and Chris failed to lead one of his latest routes, Hell Hath No Fear (E7 6b). Chris also failed to lead the start of Rats in a Rage saying it was too unprotected and loose. This team also failed to climb Tears of a Clown at Sennen. This is in no way disparaging their fine efforts but is meant to show that if Mark could climb such high standard routes surely he would have the judgement to assess the standard of his climb Red Rose. The vandalism which has taken place is so obvious that to have done a route like this would be totally mindless. All of Mark's established routes have been proven over the past years although many have still not received repeats.

This vandalism distresses both Mark and myself but does not surprise us. Over the past years we have received some very strange letters and phone calls, even suggested blackmail from one local climber. It is obvious to me that there is someone around who wishes to destroy or implicate (mud always sticks) Mark's efforts to produce hard routes in this area. An example of such an uncompromising attitude was the comment from one of the leading activists of the area. "You have no right doing such hard routes in Cornwall. This area just does not lend itself to such routes, it does not have that sort of tradition like up north." What answer can one give to that. The continual pettiness which has insidiously crept into some British climbing magazines has not been helped by the commercialism of some magazines' continual seeking of unfair reporting (witch hunts towards certain climbers) and seeking of sensationalism. The selective reporting of the removal of the pegs and bolts which has taken place recently is another example of this witch hunt (whoever made editors or their selected correspondence 'God'). The justifiable removal of the bolt in Immaculate Arête was fair game as this bolt needed to be removed. Something which I didn't do as I had put the route up. Incidentally when it was first climbed it was with a peg (which was later replaced with the stainless steel bolt). All the protection which has now been found has been cleaned by the repeated ascents of the route. The pegs on Perfect Lady and the threads were not drilled by a Bosch (we didn't have one at that time). I also do not think that climbing one third of Yankee Doodle to place side runners was the route I intended to climb. The route starts well to the right of Yankee Doodle's crack and cannot be reached if done correctly. Both routes had been soloed in the past by Mark and myself, we left the gear in for others if they wished to use them; perhaps we are paying the price of having a social conscience. We did not have anything to prove anyway.

Another example of selective reporting is that of Steve Monks 'Clean up of the South West'. Whilst on this clean up he also removed the bolts from Burning Gold on Paradise Wall. Of course this wasn't reported as it would have implicated one of Mr. Monks mentors. Although not reported in Mountain, Monks later said that he was sure Pat Littlejohn, who had done the first free ascent, had not put these in and that they were not on the original ascent, thus implying that someone else had placed them in the route after the first free ascent. I am certain that the Editor is well aware of the history behind Burning Gold. There were four bolts and three pegs in the route when it was put up, these were omitted from the route descriptions in the guide book, although in that same guide book I was criticized for the use of the bolts on Atlantic Ocean Wall, which had in fact been climbed 'on sight' and with pegs. I later replaced them with stainless steel bolts. To my mind this route is just as adventurous as any of the routes being done on Cilan Head in Wales. The bolts on Burning Gold were the first to be used and left in place on a free route in the area and were in fact the main inspiration on my own later developments. One wonders if all this will be recorded in the forthcoming guide book for no one has ever asked us about the true ascents of any of our routes.

The scaremongering reporting of the over-use of bolts in West Penwith is completely unjustified. It would seem from all the flak that Mark and I are receiving from the Editor of Mountain that we are trying to drown Cornwall under a sea of bolted routes. This is far from the truth. Over the past years we have had the good fortune to climb on over fifty thousand feet of new rock, producing many outstanding routes which I am glad to see have given other climbers great pleasure (a word which is greatly underused). In all of this exploration we have used 20 bolts, most of which are in belays or to replace hard steel pegs. That makes one bolt per 2,500 ft. of climbing. Except for the Red Rose bolts, none are in the traditional areas. Most of the others are on remote outlying crags. No one, least of all myself and Mark, would wish to see the traditional routes of this area (or anywhere else) having bolts used on them, or on routes which do not justify them. This is easily put right by their justifiable removal - not through petty glory seekers. Note that the bolt still exists on Rats in a Rage because climbers have not managed to climb the route without it. There is always a fine dividing line between anarchy and freedom.

Magazines have considerable power (which should not be abused?) to influence the attitudes and actions which prevail in our sport, but I am also sure that like the mass media they will say that they have little effect (which usually allows them to justify their excesses). By the glorification of the climbers who are de-bolting some of the routes it is only one step further for others to think they are acting in climbers' interests in destroying those same routes. It's so easy to encourage a vigilante mentality.

We can be criticised for using bolts on our sea cliffs and I will accept this criticism. But I wonder if any blame can also be levelled at the door of Mountain or other magazines. Chalk was never heard of by the average climber until it was publicised so extensively in Mountain's pages. The same can also be said in the spread of bolts. I do not wish to be seen as laying the blame for all climbing ills at the climbing media's door but perhaps unconsciously they can influence the spread of different modes of climbing. Would the spread of chalk have been so fast or the increase in bolted routes been so positive if they had not been accepted first by magazines.

In Mountain 127 out of a total of 17 rock climbing (not mountaineering) photos and adverts there were 10 in which bolts were being used. Its cover shot, and what a photo, is of a climber protecting himself by a bolt on what can only be called easy ground. There is obviously adequate protection below and above his moves. I am in no way criticising this particular climber. The climb is in his country and the standards they set are theirs. What I do suggest is that its publication in Mountain has encouraged others in that area to do the same. Constantly we hear from the editorial of Mountain that they are against the use of bolts, even discouraging their use in other areas of the world, and I may agree with their views, but the publication and glorification of this bolting will do little to stop it. There is not an issue of Mountain goes by without some major article or large adverts glaring out the use of bolts, chalk or bright clothing. Truly lets ask ourselves does this not have some influence on the spread of their use? Somehow it seems the height of hypocrisy to decry bolts and then accept them for adverts and articles.

As with all newspapers the Editors will say that they do not create news or influence ideas. I really do not see how this can be so. What would one say to a newspaper that constantly preached against pornography and then filled its pages with such material and even encouraged its use in advertising?

Yours sincerely, Rowland Edwards

See the letters section of Mountain 132 for replies from several of the people mentioned above.