UKC

A recent survey by Mountaineering Scotland fielded the climbing community's opinion on a proposed clean-up of old ropes and slings from the Old Man of Hoy in Orkney. The results suggest that 92.5% of respondents are in favour of both a clean-up and replacing the existing abseil bolts.

The announcement of the results and proposed film project about the clean-up sparked a long thread in the UKC Forums, with contrasting opinions on bolting ethics and the motivations behind the survey. We asked forum user and Scottish climber Grant Farquhar, and Hoy climbing guide Sam Percival - the individual who proposed the project - to write two opinion pieces on the subject, while Mountaineering Scotland and filmmaker Christina Shaw also provided statements.

Read more

Thanks UKC for making the survey results available, and for obtaining this statement from Sam. There are two major issues with the whole thing.

Although MS tried to help, unfortunately the consultation questionnaire was really poor. They started by setting out their own position of being in favour of the clean-up. A lot of info was given about possible advantages, with no reference to possible disadvantages. There was not even a "Why? / Explain your position" question. All of the above bias made the whole process deeply flawed. A real pity, as it would have been interesting to know how the climbing community felt about the proposal, if only one could have any confidence in the results. 

Secondly, what results there are seem to have been mis-interpreted. After a really poorly designed consultation, over 90% were in favour of a clean-up. Sam did not make clear that the proposal was specifically for new bolts. Given this was not made clear, it's disingenuous at best to suggest that over 90% are in favour of bolts. Quite simply, the question was not asked. 

Absolutely agree. The MS survey was so poorly done that the results, or at least how they are reported is completely inaccurate. Of course the majority of climbers agree with a clean up.. but 93.4% weren't in favour of retro bolting the belays/abseil points.

Thank you for submitting a summary Sam, but I have to admit it's a little ambiguous as you say that you will look at whether a separate abseil line is possible/feasible, and then near the end indicate that you won't be putting in a separate abseil line despite looking into it's feasibility! So which is it? 

I'm still not sure what you propose to bolt, you sort of say you are replacing bolts then say you aren't but I probably need to re-read your statement! Sorry Sam but to me you give conflicting information in your post about what you are actually going to do aside from taking out all of the old rope/slings/software (which is positive). 

What a mess MS made of the whole thing.

The badly flawed consultation, if anything can be concluded at all, seems to suggests that there is a clear desire for the tat to to cleared up but preferably not at the expense of having bolts. It is not obvious what the way forward is from that.

Given that this could lead to an important departure from MS's own bolting guidelines and a potentially far reaching precedent being set, I would have thought it obvious that MS should start again and have a properly thought out and fully transparent consultation; something like this really ought to be done right.

Seemed to me that Sam was pretty clear that he will not be installing any new hardware on the stack. He's going there to clean out the existing rotten tat and look at whether an alternate abseil line is actually possible so it can be a better-informed debate, not necessarily saying that he thinks that is the best option.

Personally I agree with Sam that a lot of the noise around the plan is a bit silly - why should a set of new, safer bolts take away from the adventure of the place any more than the old bolts that are already there? As he says, it has already been 'sanitised', so I don't really think that it sets any kind of new precedent for Scottish sea cliffs to replace them with something simpler and safer. Can you really 'retro bolt' a route that has already been retro-bolted twice?

He mentions getting someone else to put in titanium bolts? That's why I got a bit lost in his statement. It was good to have it, but I found it contradictory, but I am a bit autistic, so maybe that's why I struggled with it (I need something to be clearly stated - which this isn't)!?

(still personally don't understand why you'd look if a separate abseil line is feasible if not doing it.. it just adds to the annoyance to a lot of climbers as this shouldn't even be considered).

Thanks for answering Brendan, I just want a clear idea of what the F is going on with it  

Sanitising of the climb, well, see above. The abseil could be seen as being sanitised if all anchors were replaced by bolts, But I'm the one headed up in the autumn and I'm not doing that, even if the community decide they want a separate abseil line or all the abseil bolts reinstated, it'll be someone else that marches that flag forward.

seems quite clear to me, he's going to replace the existing rotten bolts/pegs anchor mess (photo in other thread) with Ti bolts. He's not going to retro-bolt all of the anchors. He will investigate the off route piste feasibility (and presumably report back) without action.

Sorry to labour the point...  just so it's clear, they are cleaning the tat/old fixed slings/ropes etc from the whole stack, but just replacing bolts at one belay stance?

Usual rabid anti bolt nonsense on display here. You can't get up this route without competence at placing gear etc and cleaning up the abseil anchors just saves a lot of litter (aka tat). Any nonsense about first ascent ethics needs to take account of the fact that the first ascent was bankrolled by the BBC and wathched by millions, with numerous bolts being placed to make the whole thing viable.

I don’t think the argument that Sam stands to make some kind of financial gain from bolting the descent really stacks up (ahahah…). He mentions he guided it four times last year. Is the abseil descent being marginally easier to set up, saving him a grand total of a couple of mins four times a year going to make any difference to his earnings. Obviously not.

That wasn't the first ascent.

edit FA was 1966. BBC broadcast was 1967.

To head somewhat deeper into pedantry, the first ascent of a number of new routes on the stack were bank rolled by the BBC during the outside broadcast. Haston and Crew placed a number of bolts on their route which relied heavily on aid. Am not sure about the Brown/MacNaught Davies line. 
 

James

It's been good to read through all the information on this issue and cut through the hysteria. It seems to me that the real pertinent facts are :

The Old Man Of Hoy *is* bolted and has been for decades.

In order to climb the OMOH, you must descend by abseil on an anchor consisting of at least one bolt, plus pegs, fixed gear and tat.

Cleaning up the tat and replacing the *existing* bolts with more suitable bolts that will last in that environment and do away with the need for piles of tat and other decomposing rubbish on the stack, seems like an eminently sensible idea.

I do not understand what precedent is supposedly at stake here. The OMOH is already bolted. This is maintenance.

Grant says

It's important to point out that the Old Man can be descended in 2 x 60m abseils, and both of those anchors are natural, can be made with rope without relying on any in situ metalwork, and a titanium chain could be installed, if deemed necessary, without any drilling for bolts required.

On that basis I don’t really understand why you would want new bolts? Other than for ‘convenience’. Given that for most people climbing the Old Man is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime adventure, I doubt convenience is much of a consideration.

It's a Scottish sea stack, it shouldn't be bolted - end of. If the current fixed gear is coming to the end of it's lifespan, it needs removing, yes and I commend anyone who uses their own time to do this. It shouldn't be bolted just because it has been before - this isn't a valid argument. It is an opportunity to fix the wrongs of the past, not update them. If you bolt it again then these new bolts will be used as weapons the next time there is talk of anything on The Old Man or similar (the same way the current rotting bolts are being used as an excuse to put new ones in now).

Pegs are dissolving on the culm and the ethic is that they should be left to and not replaced, whether that makes the routes significantly more dangerous or not. 

Cornwall should have no new fixed gear, even though people argued for convenience, safety and environmental reasons otherwise. 

We need to be careful we don't use safety, as emotive as it is, as an excuse to do it. We don't put bolts in routes to make them safer; if they're dangerous, they're dangerous. On Czech sandstone they have rules and they stick to them, even if it significantly increases the danger.

Ethics are ethics and everyone knows what they're getting into. Don't continue to muddy the waters just because they're already murky.

I won't say 'read the other thread' because that has become a tall order...there are two things to know about abseiling in 2×60s.

1. You only reach the lower anchor on stretch, it's marginal.

2. It has been reported by one other person who has done this that the (overhand) knot in their ropes got stuck higher up and was fortunately freed by another party. It's not clear if they were just very unlucky or if this is something that would be likely to happen frequently if abseiling this way.

Yes.

Can I propose a solution here?

Sam & Team go with a few go-pros this summer and do the bulk of the "clean up", and at the same time take a thorough inventory of what the existing fixed gear is, what's been removed, what's left and how the abseil looks. 

I think a lot of noise and argument on here has been various factions arguing for against things that are not even reflected in reality. I.e. the existence of existing bolts on the abseil.

After that, say next autumn, we can have another open, honest and well defined consultation as to what the "final touches" should be for leaving it in a state that best reflects everyone's wishes? 

Incorrect statement here. (I wrote the current fixed gear policy for the Culm following wide consultation some 15 years ago, it was agreed at the BMC area meeting, it probably needs to be reviewed, I was also lead author of the Culm guide.) The agreement is no drilled gear (although if you read the guide carefully there is one obscure old bolted route). The recommendation on new routes is that any pegs placed should be removed and a note of what was used included in the description. It is fine to replace existing pegs where that is possible, Crimtyphon (E2 5c) for example where the pegs often get replaced, but it is not always possible as the rusted stub may fill the only available placements eg Harpoon (E3 5b).

Edit for typos 

Thanks UKC for providing these perspectives (and to Grant for initiating the conversation, and to Sam for putting his position in words (maybe about time..). I voted no in the original survey, from memory quite angrily (apologies MS..). As Mike Barnard points out, the survey was unashamedely biased, and written in such a way that supporting a clean up of tat also supported the possibility of bolting the anchors. It wound me right up (perhapse unduly).

The 93% in favor of bolts quoted above so many times is to me a total misrepresentation of the responses. I think that all that can be taken from the survey is that 93% are in favour of some form of improvement of the situation on the old man, whether that be a proper clean up, strops, or bolts. Based on the strength of feeling of responses on the threads here, I would strongly encourage MS and the guides involved to re-appraise what the consensus is for the old man of hoy, before doing anything other than a thorough clean-up and replacement of threads.

Its easy to dismiss the responses in the other thread as those of a certain group of climbers, but i dont think thats entirely true. To me it looks like a wide spread of folks operating regularly in Scotland whos views deserve consideration. It will be really nice to see the anonymised responses to the MS survey, as I think that has the potential to be an even broader spectrum of views, and possibly less off putting for some than posting on these forums.

After all this, and having not (yet) been to Hoy. My vote would be for a full clean up, replacement of the threads with static or more permanent strops, and a requirement that I bring 70m ropes. Anything more still seems to me to be convenience driven, and steps over those fragile lines of adventurous tradition.

These discussions always leave a slight sour taste in the mouth, but I guess that reflects the depth of passion on each side for the subject. The perspective articles do a lot to clear up and counter the sometimes dehumanising effects of internet forum discussion. Full credit and good luck to Sam for his tat and metal clean up trip. That sounds really worthwhile. And its positive to hear that this is being done in conjunction with the RSPB. If one other positive comes out of the discussions in the other thread, its the seeds of conversations around seasonal bird restrictions on these cliffs and others like them in Scotland. That, Sam, would be a true legacy to be proud of. 

In reply to Ennerdaleblonde:

No, I think you are well wide of the mark in your characterisation of the situation. Yes, MS should have been a bit more clear on a few things but I don't think your comments are fair.

I can see a nice little business opportunity for someone hiring out 70m ropes in Stromness.

I'd guess Sam feels he has already done the survey. Up to date pictures would have been helpful in illustrating the text he supplied stating what he think needs done but I think we can all imagine things haven't improved from the past photo that are kicking about the threads.

Another thing which is a bit annoying about 'percentages in favour of' is that it is naturally biased. I'd wager the % of climbers capable of climbing TOMOH if it was stripped of its fixed gear would be <10%, so of course the % in favour of bolting is higher. Yes there will be people who wouldn't be able to do it and still would be against it on principal but a lot of those responses may be coming with their own goals in mind. Walk into a climbing wall and see what % of people are in favour of grid-bolting Cloggy; doesn't mean we should do it! Any time there is a video of a bold ascent, half the comments will be people arguing (often Americans, to be fair) for bolts to be installed to make it safer and so other people can climb it. 

@ Mark, thanks for clearing up about the culm, I was wrong on that (for some reason I had in my head that it was working towards being fixed-gear-free).

It's good to hear the views of Sam, MS and the film makers. I do think it's justified for people to be upset and want to be heard, but it would be nice to avoid toxic character assassination and wild speculation about people's motives. It seems this is inevitable and the fact of unkind criticism shouldn't be used to close down or delegitimise debate, but the climbing community really needs to keep working on developing a democratic culture and decision-making process without turning this into a pile on.

I think this broad process of consultation is exactly the direction we should be be going in, but it was a bit flawed and the presentation of the results has so far only been in vaguely summarised form. It will be great to get a more thorough presentation of the data, although this will be a bit problematic as reading through 900+ responses is onerous, but a lot of credibility has been squandered by the original summary seeming to lack transparency, which means any future summaries will also be viewed skeptically. Along with doubts about how questions were asked, this means the significance and legitimacy of this consultation is still in question for a lot of people. I also think that decisions shouldn't be made simply on the basis of majorities: real democracy means also seeking to address the concerns of those who don't agree, as far as possible.

One issue which has muddied the waters is trying to ascertain facts about the Old Man of Hoy. Some have presented an existing decaying bolt belay as integral to the decent; others have suggested there is no need for this; some have brought up the spectre of an "abseil piste" (a new concept to me!), whilst others have insisted that is not what is being proposed. Having a really clear understanding of these realities is important because, for example, it is completely possible for someone to be in support of one bolted belay if it makes the difference between being able to decend or not, but against this bolted belay if 60m ropes make a decent viable on traditional protection.

I would suggest that there is still a bit of work to do on clarifying these facts, the precise proposal and demonstrating support for this. But, I think climbing has always relied on passionate volunteers, and Sam should be commended rather than criticised for giving time to this. I don't think this debate is over, though, as frustrating as that might be. MS need to provide some leadership in taking it forward in a constructive way.
 

"Abseil piste" is an unfortunately loaded term, conjuring up images of a groomed, man-made track where once may have been unspoilt terrain.

I can see the reason for people choosing such an emotive term but I think it's notably unhelpful, when "Abseil line" is really all that's needed. The nature of the anchors used for it is a separate issue from the path it takes, and is the same issue regardless of whether the existing abseil line or a new one is used.

I think that abseil piste is a good name for this sort of thing. It reflects the contrived man-made way that bolts can be placed pretty much exactly so as to maximise convenience. A completely spoonfed descent.

An abseil line to me would be more like a good climbing line; exploiting and linking natural features to make a descent. It would be ideal if one could be found on the Old Man that did not need unusually long ropes.

The proposed film is a massive red herring, but unfortunately the filmmakers have made some claims which probably aren't correct and which have fanned the flames as well as caused confusion.

What this seems to boil down to is whether a very small number of existing bolts in poor condition should be replaced.  Sam argues that the current Scottish bolts policy allows this. Others have argued that the bolts are not necessary and should not be replaced. Frankly, I don't know the answer, but it would help if the argument could be focussed on the essential points and not get distracted by exaggerated and possibly irrelevant issues.

It seems obvious on any climb anywhere that it would be preferable for the abseil descent to follow a different line where possible. To argue against it because it might make life easier for professional guides seems ridiculous to me. However the same ethical considerations should apply, and an ab line should certainly not be bolted simply to create a descent line away from the climbs. However if a separate ab descent can be established using ethically acceptable anchors, why not?

I think the argument goes along the lines of... If the ab descent passes over unclimbable rock then a stuck rope could spell disaster. At least if you are abbing the climbing line you have a better chance of climbing back up to free your rope.

Lots of ifs and buts, but it is an argument.

I would argue quite the opposite. It covers known ground. You will have a good idea of anchors and potential jams and pitfalls. It would always be the default for me unless there was good reason to do otherwise and head off down unknown ground.

I guess it depends on the route. I've had too many situations of being abbed onto while on a climb, (and in fairness, me abbing onto others). Pehaps OMoH doesn't get enough traffic for that to matter, I don't know.

A well-chosen descent route should avoid potential jams and pitfalls, but perhaps that's an impossible ideal.

Where is your sense of adventure now?  

That's presumption on your part. There's no reason why a descent down a different line would need bolts any more that a descent down the climbing line (which apparently already relies on some). Indeed it is quite possible (albeit I would say very unlikely) that a descent may be found that doesn't need drilled equipment. Yes, it may well be that bolts are what is envisaged in the proposal but that was very notably not the point I was making, which was that objecting to a separate abseil line doesn't automatically follow from objecting to bolts.

To be fair, Robert has already mooted the idea of finding a new ab line that doesn't require bolts and super long ropes. Sounds like a long shot but not outwith the realms of possibility...

Fair enough, but would that also be a "piste" or just a different line to ab down?

Indeed. Still a pre-prepared line (presumably with static rope threads and rings), so I take your point that the word "piste" could equally describe any pre-prepared ab line so why single out bolted lines.

I agree that in the case of a popular established route there might be a case for preferring a separate descent.

I was more thinking of what one would do arriving at the top of a virgin summit or stack.

Hear hear! 

Rambo, what d'you think about titanium bolts on the Old Man?

Don't normally post on these forums, but I thought Sam's response was very reasonable, and only posting now to make this thread appear less like a load of old men arguing in agreement in the corner of a pub. It's replacing some existing crudy bolts with new ti ones.. ..that are used for an abseil.. get a grip

Yes, but that possibly misses some of the nuances of the situation.

I'm getting a bit tired of this 'old man' lazy cliche. Its pretty rude to actual old men and further more its rubbish. I'm not an old man nor are many posters who have expressed issues with bolts. Infact I note a few very vocal pro bolters are older. 

Keep it to the facts please.

I think piste is a useful term for a purpose-built abseil of maximum convenience. If you were constructing one on the Old Man, you would aim for it to take a straight line down the blankest vertical rock to avoid any complications pulling the ropes and with bolts used to allow the most convenient stances to be used irrespective of any natural anchors. It would almost certainly not take a line that you would take if you found yourself on top of something and had to get yourself off; it is an outsider's solution to make everyone else's life easy.

I actually thought the term was quite common. I've known faces in the Alps where multiple routes share a common piste down featureless rock nowhere near any routes. One even had bolted on footholds to avoid hanging and separate bolts to clip in to next to a huge abseil ring. I think we got down about eight abseils in about 40 minutes.

My preference, when abbing off something, is precisely to ab straight down the steepest, blankest rock I can find, as long as I can reach a ledge at the end of each ab to pull the ropes and arrange the next ab, and as long as I'm confident there'll be something to anchor to when I get there. Who would want to ab down a choss filled gully when there's a clean face next to it?

The idea that the need for fixed gear severely limits where you could ab is a bit of a red herring, as there's plenty of potential for good wire placements around. Of course you'd almost certainly need to leave something in place - I don't remember encountering threads or spikes on either of the new routes I've done on the OMOH but there are wires aplenty if you look around and if you're flexible as to precisely where you stop. Whether you end up abbing from fixed metalwork wedged or fixed metalwork drilled is the only question.

I think people generally are ignoring the fact that you need permanently in-situ gear to ab from, whatever it comprises and however it's attached. It's always going to be there. It isn't a convenience ab to save walking off; it's effectively mandatory. As I've mentioned before, there are comparable examples on top of some Peak District pinnacles that have been there for many decades without any wedge getting thicker as a result. Another pinnacle, another need for a way off. I'd actually favour ab anchors something like one big titanium staple in a place with no gear options, so noone would be tempted to leave half their rack by way of unnecessary backup. Ideally something very different visually from a sport double bolt and chain, to accentuate the uniqueness of the situation. And if it isn't down the climbing line, the climbing experience on the route itself could be substantially improved by getting rid of fixed belays.

I agree entirely that it is best to an down clean, steep rock to a visible ledge if possible. 

I suppose all I'm saying is that an optimised bolted abseil piste is probably unlikely to take a line that you would abseil without bolts and very unlikely to be the one you would take if you had no prior knowledge of the descent.

I climbed the Old Man in 1992 with my brother and a friend. We used fifty metre ropes and had no trouble descending. 

Can you remember the nature of the anchors you used?

Of course. That's not the point in question. The point is what ab options there are with what length ropes and what type of fixed gear in what location. It's about the confluence of those factors, not an assertion that abseiling the Old Man inherently requires long ropes.

I'm afraid that is total bollocks. The BBC DID do an outside broadcast extravaganza of three teams on the stack; but that had nothing to do with the first ascent.

Apologies, shouldn't have made that distinction

The cleanup/birthday hoy trip sounds like a brilliant idea & you should be applauded for it.

As does the original though for chains/wire loops on the top of p2 & summit. It is a mess. I pulled ~70m static off n-gaulton castle when I was there a few years ago (guessing it was the bbc who left it after filming), was needed.

Without joining the echo chamber too much. a new clearer survey would sort all this as it seems the ground shifted mid 1st survey which likely affected the output, no way 94% were up for adding bolts to such a classic & prob just were up for the cleanup part.

The FA was bankrolled by a national newspaper.

But hang on, I’m sure Bonington didn’t climb it because the press wanted him to do it, but because - ever commercially minded - he had approached the press because he realised it would make a great adventure story. Remember, he was the first truly professional mountaineer in the UK to make a comfortable living out of his climbing.

I’ve just looked it up in Wilson’s Hard Rock, where Bonington explains that it was Tom Patey’s project, and that Patey ‘recruited Rusty Baillie and myself for the attempt.'

And they were paid to climb it, the definition of " bankrolled".

I think bankrolled tends to come with a certain level of insinuation that the payer is the instigator. See also: foreign billionaires purchasing and bankrolling British football clubs.

No I don’t think it does.  It’s just a synonym for funded. 

You are of course free to think what you like and intepret the English language as you see fit, I find it easier to use the commonly accepted definitions, "to support a person or activity financially".

We abbed off bits of fixed rope and possibly one or two pegs. We certainly didn't see any bolts or drilled gear up there.

To be honest I'm surprised this is even a discussion. It's pretty straightforward to get down. Maybe the fixed rope slings might need replacing every year/few years but bolts are totally unnecessary. 

I was replying to:

"It would be ideal if one could be found on the Old Man that did not need unusually long ropes."

...which seems to imply that unusually long ropes are necessary. And they aren't. We hadn't been climbing for very long. In fact we stopped at Malham on the way home and my brother led his first f6a+ and I struggled up one of my first E3s. We weren't very good back then, but the descent of the Old Man was easy, without bolts or long ropes.

I’m not quite sure of the point you’re wanting to make. The fact is that because Bonington had just made the first British ascent of the Eigerwand he was able to get financial backing for the attempt. So what? Seems like a canny idea to me.

There have been bolts for decades I believe - so I'm not sure when you climbed it.

The issue isn't about the ease or ability to descend, it's the accumulation of rubbish that affects the route and an attempt to stop that. 

This is why just adding some static to the belays won't help because people will just back it up and then you're back where you were. You need something obviously bomber that people won't feel the need to backup (at least not to backup for the final person) like John Arran mentions above. 

Any solution that people will feel the need to back up will just mean more accumulations of tat. The only solution for this is to pay people to clean the route regularly (for some definition of regularly - my feeling is the tat accumulates really quickly so it would be a few times a year).

Are you sure you’re remembering correctly?

The get off the Old Man of Hoy, there is a mandatory 58m abseil from the top of pitch 2.

If you only have 50m ropes you can abseil from the pitch 2 stance to the pitch 1 stance but this requires a third rope (sometimes in situ) to handrail and pull yourself across with. 

Tom

I'm not making any point, someone else incorrectly remarked that the FA was paid for by the BBC and that the bolting was presumably tainted by commercialism, something which has come up in the discussion on the current proposal (that the proposal to bolt is influenced by commercial interests). I merely pointed out that the FA was also a purely commercial venture, Rustie Baillie only went there to climb it because he was paid to do so. He told us this sat around a campfire in Arizona where we talked about that part of his career.

It's 58.5m actually 🤣

Possibly. But that doesn't mean that the first ascent was bolted as part of a BBC broadcast. That's still bollocks.

There was an in situ short piece of rope that we pulled on to swing leftwards to the ledge at the top of the first pitch as we descended. We knew this was a thing and we were prepared to set up our own on the way up if it had been necessary. No bolts or extra long ropes were used. It's really easy to get down without.

So the bolts on I think the second ab point (in a photo above) weren't there when you did it?

OK so as every man and his dog has had they’re say I’ll add mine lol

I climbed the stack a couple of years ago. We climbed in 5 pitches and abbed off in 3 pitches with 60m ropes. 

The top anchor was static rope looped over a boulder/spike and drooped over the top to run nicely. This worked well with no need for bolts.

The lowest anchor was a giant thread with loads of tat round it which could admittedly do with a clean up but again worked well with no need for bolts.

However, the intermediate anchor (a few options actually) all rely on old shit bolts backed up with shit rusted nuts in a right mess. We backed this up with a cam for the first person down, but then removed it for second. (It’s not like a cam would last in the salt anyway!)  At the end of the day this is just a gamble which will eventually catch someone out!

Two good titanium bolts would be much better here! No question! 

No one should die abseiling do f@cks sake! 

Thankyou.

I’ve been following these threads and this appears to be a good clear description of the three ab points.

The crux of the matter does appear to be how you get rid of those old rusting stubs and bolt on the second abseil point without placing new bolts.

In around 500 posts in three recent threads on here I think you will find that there have been quite a few questions.

Two good titanium bolts would be much better than most trad anchors built on placed gear. Surely the end point of that argument is to bolt every stance, everywhere?

When people die abseiling, it is usually as a result of a lapse of concentration, or carelessness if you prefer.  Bolted abseil stations don't remove the human carelessness issue - if anything their convenience and their appeal to the inexperienced exacerbate it.

No question, you say ? I'll start with: who actually takes responsibility to pay for the work, undertaking the work, its ongoing inspection and maintenance ? you ?

I'd pay for it. I'd be happy to bolt it as well.. 

And as for maintenance, we'd use the same people who do it at the moment.. 

Well I'm happy to do it at the moment because I can.  I suspect very few climbers have the equipment, materials or expertise to maintain a titanium anchor.

But at least we can take funding off the table.

I'd like to offer a couple of opinions.

I believe that where possible we should seek to improve on the things we did in the past, so on sea stacks, mountain cliffs and crags capitalise on the fact that we have better equipment and greater knowledge, potentially by removing old rotting bolts and not replacing them. There are certainly places where this would work. 

I also believe there should be a concerted effort to change the behaviour of climbers and in doing so reduce the piles of rotting tat that are all over the place: add a piece of tat? Then remove an old piece.

I don't remember any bolts. I've asked one of the others that I climbed it with and he also has no recollection of any bolts. In his words there is "no need for fixed bolts".

The Old Man is in a marine environment and so any bolts placed in the 90's should be regarded as suspect given the high potential for corrosion and erosion. Reading other posts about sports climbing abroad on sea cliffs particularly in Thailand and other places has shown that corrosion of the stainless steel bolts is a common and frequently occuring hazard. Consequently there is the Thaitanium rebolting project there, and why many cliffs here in Malaysia are being bolted with titanium bolts (most of our cliffs are well inland). On Tioman most of the recent routes are bolted or partly rebolted with Ti bolts because we've come to realise that even high quality stainless steel bolts just don't last in a hostile marine environment.  People have done pull tests on stainless bolts which have failed at well below the 22kN on Bukit Takun which is miles from the sea.

Pulling, removing and replacing stainless steel bolts with Ti bolts isn't difficult as the holes are already drilled and only require expanding and then the bolts glued in.  With a bit of attention to detail, there is limited glue smear around the new bolt. 

I think there are more people around who have the knowledge, equipment and materials to replace the stainless steel bolts with Ti bolts than Graham D thinks.  I would support him in his replacement but it's just a wee bit to far to travel to help!

Mountaineering Scotland's statement...

https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/a-statement-from-mountaineering-scotla...

Full MS survey results...

https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/OMOHConsultation-su...

No apology from Mountaineering Scotland for flawed survey and their deliberate lack of transparency regarding who the proposer was or at least their pertinent affiliations.  Which together indicated they were deliberately trying to skew the outcome.

They clearly are no longer interested in being a representative body and are not trustworthy.

I really hope the SMC members can put them back on course and remit (assuming they collectively support via a motion at their AGM); to represent us. It’s clear now that the SMC is the only organisation with likely influence. 

I wish we had some true competition to MS, but if you are a club member and want hut access you have no choice but to support them.

I think you mentioned this before. Is there any indication that anyone in the SMC intends to take it forward?

As mentioned before not an SMC member so can’t raise the motion myself. I am hoping some SMC members following thread might. I know a few members but will be quiet awhile before I see them.

There were no bolts when I did it in 1979, but there was the metal cable, left by the BBC, various pegs, wooden bongs, and threaded ropes and slings.  I don’t recall exactly what was on all the stances.  I’m not sure how long our ropes were - certainly no longer than 50m , possibly 120ft.

We left a rope in place from the first to the second belay ( the overhanging and sideways bit).

It’s so depressing that this is even being contemplated, let alone accompanied by some sort of propaganda film. I wonder what odds you could have got 20 years ago on the phrases ‘titanium abseil piste’ and ‘Old Man of Hoy’ appearing in the same sentence issued by some kind of official body.

Still, if it was going to be done, you couldn’t have got much of a price against the perpetrators being ‘concerned’ local guides who were writing from some trad venue and ‘absolutely love’ trad climbing. Wouldn’t ya just know it?!

jcm

On a happier and more coincidental note, though, I actually thought of the good doctor GF the other day, when travelling behind a car with the (personalised, I assume) number plate DR55OLO. Strange to click on a piece by him the next day. Perhaps it was actually the man himself?!

jcm

Did you actually read what Sam Percival wrote John? If so, I'm not sure how you come away with such a totally different impression to the one I got. Have you done the OMoH and if so, did you ab off the bolted anchor that is already there?

Not beyond the first paragraph. I feared for my lunch. Why, was there anything apart from the usual stuff?

I certainly used what was there. I don't remember a bolt.

jcm

I'm not sure what you consider the "usual stuff" but what I got from reading it was: an occasional guide of the stack (who isn't guiding anymore, he's a trainee paramedic), thought it was sad how much tat has been left all over the Old Man by other climbers. He was going to use his birthday party as an excuse to go with a few others and spend a day clearing up other people's left-behind tat, and wanted to leave the minimum new tat to be safe and long lasting. It sounded like the only bolts that he though might need placing are replacements for the unsafe ones already there, but he has never placed a bolt before in his life, so didn't really want to be in charge of that unless he got training first. I hope this didn't make you throw up today's lunch!