Those two guys removed an established easement. Sure one can argue that it should never have been installed in the first place, but it was and apparently it became widely used. They had no business taking it down.
Applying this logic about easements doesn’t really capture the whole picture, because you’re considering people only, not considering the mountain. I think some people who support chopping those bolts would argue that this is like restoring the Mona Lisa after some random guy painted their own painting over it. Yes, removing that guy’s crappy painting is technically a destructive act and removes the world’s ability to see that painting. But net-net, things have improved, even though there will always be some signs of the damage done by a fool.
Michaelangelo's Last Judgment had exposed genitals that were covered with draperies by Daniele da Volterra later.
Then at some point they were removed again to restore the original, but some remain.
It would not be reasonable for _me_ to step up and erase the remaining ones, even if it would be a restoration.
At the end of the day, it's sort of a "might makes right" situation. If someone with the means and inclination to add bolts exists, it is hard to stop them. If someone with the means and inclination to remove bolts exists, it is hard to stop them.
At the end of the day, climb your own climb. If you take actions that affect how others climb, what you're calling ethics is in fact ego.
I wasn't calling anything anything. I was just putting the obvious counter-argument on the table. You make a fair point.
One of the core ideas is that later climbers should respect or improve upon the style of the first ascensionist. e.g. if a climb was first done using siege tactics, then doing it in a single day is celebrated. But making a climb easier or safer after the fact is much more controversial, because it can feel like changing the nature of the route itself.
Snake Dike is a good example that’s flared up recently in the climbing world. It’s a classic, relatively easy route up Half Dome, and many climbers free solo it. But because it’s a face climb, protection mostly comes from bolts drilled into the rock. The first ascensionist placed very few bolts, which left long runouts and real consequences if you fall.
To many old school climbers, adding bolts to Snake Dike is disrespectful because the risk is part of the route’s character. Their view is basically: don’t bring the mountain down to your level. The new generation of climbers don’t seem to feel that way at all - they think you shouldn’t have to take unnecessary risk to climb a classic route.
https://gripped.com/news/first-ascentionist-pushes-back-on-h...
The arrogance of this... I see no difference between Maestri's act and their. Arrogance of fanatics who think they stand above others, their cause is righteous and so on.
I love mountains, I love climbing to the death, but there is nothing respectable in these actions. Also, if they could climb it without using bolts, it was hardly 'forever erased for future' even though I get that route was probably permanently altered. In same/similar way that tens of thousands of other routes have been altered in similar way by placing permanent stuff in the wall - in all of European Alps, Yosemite, Himalayas and so on. I do find various old to very old equipment in main routes or just climbing crags all over French and Swiss alps for example. At that point its part of mountaineering history. Sometimes, even a specific famous name is assigned to given piece by those who know its story.