In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:
And to finish, a heartwarming (or not) tale from the Lake District.
There was once a little crag in the woods. Covered with vegetation (though not completely) and surrounded by trees. It stayed ignored by climbers for years and years until one day, not too long ago it was 'discovered'.
Now, as we know, climbers like to climb nice clean rock. So, like busy little bees they beavered away at the crag, and cleared most of the vegetation off. It was pronounced a 'classic find' and behold! there were uncovered a fine collection of low-mid grade classic routes. Nice and soft touch too with plenty of gear and a handy tree at the top (because the only thing wrong with the crag was that the descent was just a teensy difficult, and took five minutes).
Not surprisingly our crag grew in popularity very quickly. Sadly the tree died. Perhaps because of the climbers. Perhaps it might have died anyway. But the climbers certainly didn't help it. Now the tree dying caused agreat fuss. What was to do? The walk off was clearly unthinkable for those who wanted to do as many routes on a sunny June evening as possible and the tree had been so handy.
But somebody had a bright idea! If a bolt anchor were placed then everyone could abseil off and be happy. There was just a leetle problem. The pesky local ethics were quite clear. NO BOLTS ON LAKELAND MOUNTAIN CRAGS they said. Very clear (though not always in capitals like that). So there was a big argument. Well quite a big argument for the Lake District. Lots of people got very shouty. Those that didn't like to shout in public shouted on t'interweb instead. And the shouting went like this:
Bolts are good: we need the anchor because walking off damages the environment!
Bolts are bad: Cobblers!
Bolts are good: Tis so!
Bolts are bad: Tis not!
(this went on like that for a little while).
Then one of the bolts-are-good-gang had a brainwave. He'd ask an expert. The National Trust no less! They owned the crag. And they were undoutedly environmental experts. And do you know what they said? That's right they said, 'Walking off this crag won't cause any harm but we'd like you to stay away from that wet gully on the other side (silly them, imagine a modern climber in a wet gully!). Further,' they added, 'we've had to cut down that damned tree now you've told us it's dangerous and furthermore it's cost us quite a bit to chop it down and get someone to do an environmental survey done. So if you could just get on with things sensibly in future, we'd appreciate it. Oh, and don't place none of them bolt things on that crag neither'.
This was a sad thing for the bolts are good gang. And even sadder, when there was a big shouting match about bolting the crag in Keswick, the bolts are bad gang shouted louder and longer. So they won.
And you know what happened next? Everyone sat down and became friends again and everything was lovely. Except somebody put a bolt lower off in the crag anyway. And it stayed there for a bit. And then some of the bolts are bad gang took them out (which was VERY NAUGHTY). And now everyone's cross again. But not in a shouty way this time, just gentle seething so far.
All this might not be strictly relevant to Chee and High but there is no doubt that things are changing. In truth I don't give a stuff about limestone or grit. Bolt the lot if you want. But I do care that the erosion of ethics is affecting places that I do care about. I'm sure most folk on this thread are very reasonable folk. I think there needs to be a balance. If fixed anchors are necessary then by all means let them be bolts. But balance it by making the 'trad' routes 'proper' trad. remove the tatty threads and in situ wires, maybe even the in situ pegs (and if you recoil from that, ask yourself why exactly that is). That'd be compromise. And isn't that fair?