Some of the trad routes at High Tor are maybe the best of their type in the country - I'll never forget doing Darius and wouldn't tolerate it being bolted.

They have co-existed with the trad for (25?) years. There are some other established sport routes on High Tor already. Bolting clarion call and much of cheedale was and is a GOOD THING. We should be doing what is best for climbers of the crag in question as a whole. My main contribution to this debate is that I think the idea of first ascentionists having all the say (or indeed any increased say at all, once they are no longer active) is archaic and ridiculous. Look at the current state of bolts on lots of peak lime routes that need moving here and there to make the route better - there are 100s. It's not trad ascents, it's generally subsequent sport ascents. What happens is down to the random actions of individual climbers and what's acceptable is often just what best suits climbers needs.

Was Drummond's ascent ethically better than Redhead's? Of course not. John Redhead placed another on the same bit of rock and it was chopped a short while later by discarding the ethic of a ground-up ascent. Ed Drummond place a bolt on Cloggy and its been there ever since. There are no authorities and no fixed rules. Like it or not the climbing community is nebulous, anarchic and always changing. And what about those, like myself, who thinks that trying to decide things in such a way is futile and pointless waste of time? Do their opinions not count? And who is to decide? How are votes counted? Who's going to ensure fair play in counting the votes, stopping people voting twice under pseudnyms etc. That is what if 'we' doesn't reach a consensus? What happens then? Do we go with the majority? What is the majority, 50/50 or something else like two-thirds? And who decides that. If you get past that problem then there is likely to be a second problem. And what if my 'we' is different to your 'we'? Who then decides which 'we' is the right one?

So then you have to justify your 'we' against the other possibilities. 'We' could refer to any number of different discreet groups of people. The problem with this kind of thinking is this: who constitutes the 'we' you refer to? If you think you you've got an answer I suggest you haven't really thought about the problem. I think we need to get the battle lines clear here.

Raven tor meaning