IMO its probably worth considering putting in bolt anchors to avoid using those dead/almost dead trees and I'd be happy to help in that effort.
I didn't mean to start an ethics debate, so sorry about that. I basically agree with everything you said Brad, but there are some minor differences that may be simply generational. I agree with you if we set out to make all routes "safe" there's no end. Climbing will never be safe, and as you pointed out, the danger is literally an integral part of the route that must be preserved. But at the same time, I think there is sort of a slippery slope fallacy or you could call it the "Bachar Yerian Fallacy" with a comparison to that route /j . Just because some bolts are put in on some climbs doesn't mean they will all end up as bolt ladders, or ruin the integrity of the route, especially as conditions change over the years, because I would argue the real magic of a route is the movement the rock provides, not the danger, necessarily, although that can add to it. So I recognize your point, of course, but I think there's a realistic middle ground there where we protect history, but also make decisions democratically within the community if people want to add a bolt here or there. But your point also stands about how to make these decisions and what is a consensus/etc. So I think the best policy is no retrobolting. And the FA party must be consulted before any changes are made, if they want to put up a bold route that won't be repeated often, that's their choice. I'm probably just projecting my attitudes a bit too much which are, if I put up a route, I would want to make sure that it can easily be retreated from, and was generally well protected so that it's repeated and enjoyed by many. I wouldn't set out to create a test-piece or low percentage climb because I feel like that's not as much of a contribution to the greater population of climbers. Which Feather Canyon is generally well protected except for a few spots, which are easy climbing, and I think the retreating from a route part is just a difference in definitions. I think having to leave gear to retreat isn't really a desired outcome, especially from an environmental impact perspective. I think there's also generally problems with bailing leaving gear because the climber is inclined to leave as little as possible, and we all know the dangers of bad bail anchors.
On top of this I think that pinnacles is a unique climbing area in that there isn't much good gear, and there especially isn't that much good gear on Feather Canyon. So I certainly understand that it's like a high Sierra alpine route and I really enjoy that character of the climb, but we also have to keep in mind that it isn't high Sierra granite, so there's way less gear placements, perhaps putting a little more importance on developing routes that can be bailed from easily, even by those who have less experience, and not just say well they shouldn't be on it if they can't climb the grade. Because we all get in over our heads sometimes/get lost, off route, And personally if it was my route, I would want to make sure that if people are in that situation they can still get down safe to climb another day.
But thanks for all the comments, sorry to start a whole thing! No harm intended, I just wanted to ask a question and offer my opinion/help.
P.S. Brad, you also told me about Flying None when we met, I've climbed it 2x now, I love it! Thanks for the recommendation.
