Snake Dike and a Return to Risk
What is the principle by which you think Snake Dike should or should not be retro-bolted?

Oct 27, 2022 | Essays & Opinion

Snake Dike

The conversation about whether Snake Dike, a classic 5.7 route on the west face of Half Dome, should be updated with more bolts after a horrific accident earlier this year, has gone off the rails. I have yet to hear a bomber argument for why this route should be retro-bolted—nor have I come across a very persuasive reason for why it must stay as it is. Thus far, I’ve read nothing that manages to articulate a principle that would justify either why Snake Dike should or shouldn’t be retro-bolted, but also why and how this principle could apply to other routes like Snake Dike. Instead, I’m seeing low-grade arguments like this one, which instead of making a case just sloppily critiques superficial identity markers and tosses in the cheap trick of, “Trust me, I’m a doctor,” as if any of that is at all relevant.

What interests me about this discussion is that it highlights how climbing is in a very peculiar place at the moment. As a sport, climbing is old enough such that its long history, replete with many established ethics and precedents, is being challenged by a newer generation of climbers, most of whom were forged in the crucible of a gym culture that bears next to no resemblance to the one of their forebears. But it’s also still young enough such that the implications of those old ethics and precedents are still being pressure tested by real-world incidents, such as watching a young lady get maimed merely for falling in a place no one thought it’d be possible to fall.

On one level, these debates, as my co-host at the RunOut podcast recently pointed out, are moot. Either someone will take it upon themselves to add more bolts to the route; or, no one will bother—regardless of whether this discourse arrives at a consensus.

Moot or not, whether Snake Dike gets retro-bolted or we all just argue about it online for the next decade, I think the meta-ethical conversation is still worth having. To be clear, what’s at stake here is the establishment of a principle for updating old routes that have been climbed thousands of times. Should routes be retro-bolted to accommodate lower risk tolerances for newer generations? Does the grade or history matter? What purpose do such ethics serve?

Given that Half Dome is one of the most recognized formations in the world, a jewel of Yosemite, and that Snake Dike is one of its most famous routes, it’s reasonable to assume that whatever happens next will be used as a point of reference for other less prominent climbs—in Yosemite, and elsewhere around the world. That’s why it’s worth having this debate—and getting it right.

Anti retro-bolters invoke a kind of conservative / preservationist instinct that typifies our climbing ethics. (All climbing ethics are inherently conservative, after all—their purpose is to conserve the rock, the access, the history, etc.)

The other camp meanwhile believes strongly that the right “ethics” in this situation would demand we agree as a community to fix what could be called a pointlessly large runout on a relatively easy rock climb and hopefully prevent another similar horror.

It’s not hard to arrive at the limits of both viewpoints, however, in part because neither side has invoked a very compelling principle that could apply not only to Snake Dike but to any other climb around the world. Take this article featuring interview excerpts with some very well-respected names in the climbing world, for example. Despite the clickbait-y headline that seems to suggest at least two revered figures think it’s definitely time to retro-bolt Snake Dike, the content of their comments reveal far more wavering and conditional points of view.

I found this interview interesting because it shows that even some legendary climbers who have been wrestling with these questions for decades seem to be confused. They seem to endorse in the abstract such principles as “a 5.11 should be equipped with the 5.11 leader in mind,” but then they quickly change their minds or invoke new clever clauses when confronted with a specific example, such as retro-bolting the Bachar-Yerian in order to meet the needs of a typical 5.11 leader.

None of them want to see the Bachar-Yerian retro-bolted, of course. But why? The “point” of the Bachar-Yerian, they say, is found in its risk, danger, and history. For a reason that is not explained, however, the “point” of climbing Snake Dike mustn’t be found in overcoming risk or danger. They might not realize how paternalistic this sounds—that taking risks, weighing consequences, and overcoming dangers, all attributes we otherwise celebrate in rock climbing, should only be available to those who climb hard (at least harder than 5.7, apparently).

These kinds of conditional assertions and qualifiers—that it’s OK to retro-bolt Snake Dike, but don’t touch the Bachar-Yerian—give one the sense that they’re being pulled from the proverbial ass.

I’m not suggesting that these contradictions are reasons to dismiss their arguments. Rather, I’m trying to underscore the fact that most of us don’t have strong first principles about when retro-bolting is appropriate. And to the degree that we do, we are often quick to abandon them depending on the context. Risk is “good” right up until it’s someone we know, someone like us, or we ourselves who suffers its consequences.

In terms of making a compelling argument for their case, there is little work that needs to be done by the camp that wishes to see Snake Dike remain as is, since the inertia of climbing history is solidly behind them. A route that has been around for decades and has had thousands of ascents need not justify its existence as it has been and as it now exists. One accident out of a thousand is no reason to do anything. There are good reasons that we don’t create laws around single anecdotes that pull at our heart strings, and instead rely on cold, hard data at the population level to build policies. The numbers for Snake Dike suggest leaving the route as is.

Climbing used to be dangerous and sex used to be safe, goes the cringy Boomer mantra. There’s some truth to that, however, and it’s not a terrible argument to insist that the presence of real risk, whether in climbing or choosing a romantic partner, is valuable for a number of reasons. And further, that this value is so great that it justifies any consequences that naturally fall from contexts in which real risk remains salient. In other words, the risk has to be real for there to be value in overcoming and managing it, which means the consequences will also be very real for those who don’t.

Yet I also think it’s always worth questioning the status quo, as this is how progress is made. For instance, why are we so quick to accept this ethic that routes like the Bachar-Yerian or Southern Belle on Half Dome’s South Face ought to stay the same forever? Southern Belle, for instance, has only been climbed a few times in the past 40+ years. And what good is a rock climb if virtually no one climbs it? Who are the ethics serving on a route no one even does? Are they merely protecting the egos of a few people, some of whom are dead? Or are they doing something else that we have decided is valuable—that is to say, making that original experience, or something close to it, available to future generations who wish to have it?

These are questions worth asking if for no other reason than to sharpen your argument for why a route like the Bachar-Yerian should remain as is. Ask yourself what would actually be lost if the Bachar-Yerian became a standard clip-up climbed by lots of people. The stories and reverence for Bachar and his vision would continue to be honored, I’m sure, but just in a different way—not by freezing a route in time, but through written words and campfire stories and archival photography. Is this so bad? We do this all the time, every time we are asked to imagine what something was once like. For example, I can use the powers of my imagination to be filled with both true horror and awe at how difficult it was for early American pioneers to forge the Oregon Trail, even while blasting across the freeway in Idaho in an air-conditioned truck. We memorialized the courage and vision of those pioneers (murderous Indian-killing white folk, though they may also be) through an indelible floppy disk video game for 1980s kids rather than demanding that we all get dysentery and travel to Portland via horse and carriage. This is what we mean by progress! Dysentery is bad and highways are great. And if climbers decide that sport-bolted routes best serve the preferences of the community, all that’s lost is one guy’s vision, while what’s gained is a route that hundreds of people can now enjoy that they otherwise wouldn’t.

Again, I think people who are anti retro-bolting should be able to come up with strong arguments against this kind of thinking. What are the principles? The default position is that the first ascentionist has the final say, forever and even in death? But does that really make sense? Routes may be established by the vision of a single person, but at some point, that person grows irrelevant and the route belongs to the community. Is there a stronger principle for why routes shouldn’t be changed that scales from route to route, and area to area?

In the Climbing article, Peter Croft suggests that certain printed and online guidebook descriptions belie the seriousness of climbing Snake Dike, thereby enticing those who aren’t up to par into a potential death trap. But isn’t this an argument for better guidebooks and route descriptions rather than changing a route that had otherwise been climbed a thousand times without incident? Further, given the amount of attention this accident received in the climbing world, I think it’s rational to assume that the word is now out about Snake Dike, i.e., that it’s a serious undertaking in spite of its moderate grade. Change the guidebooks and route descriptions to capture the seriousness of the runouts accurately, of course, but in the meantime, don’t worry that climbers will hop on Snake Dike without understanding what they’re getting into. But even if they don’t, that ability to make prudent decisions—to down climb or even bail entirely, if necessary—is supposed to be part of the climbing experience! Perhaps instead of worrying about whether safety warnings and caution tape are adequately strung up around dangerous climbs, elders in our community could use this horrible occasion to reassert something important about our sport, something that is perhaps being lost: that rock climbing actually can be quite dangerous, and it’s up to you and you alone to make appropriate decisions at every stage of your progression.

After all, the only reason anyone is talking about retro-bolting Snake Dike, of course, is because of one accident. From that perspective, this whole discussion is a reactive one. This means that the principle being invoked by the pro retro-bolt camp is defensive, not offensive. If a bad-enough fall occurs, even if it’s one in a million, that and that alone should be all that we need to justify changing a route to make it safer.

It’s not the worst argument, but there are obvious problems to it. For one it doesn’t scale. If “retro-bolt routes where accidents occur” is the principle, then this patchwork, reactive approach not only does nothing to prevent future accidents from occurring elsewhere, but it also misapprehends the role of sheer bad luck while also undercutting, in a rather infantilizing way, the ability for all climbers, even beginners, to make good decisions and own the responsibility of them.

You can make a route as safe as a route can reasonably get, and yet, at some point, someone will figure out how to kill themselves on it. Consider the fact that on the other side of Half Dome, there is literally a bolted stair case with guard rails on it, ensuring that anyone who can hike at a competent level can also reach the summit of Half Dome. And yet just a few years ago, a woman died falling down the Cables Route. Does this mean that the Cables Route is unreasonably unsafe? Should it be replaced by a gondola? Or does this accident, one in a million, say absolutely nothing about the safety or lack thereof of the Cables Route?

I must also observe that this reactive position that we should “do something where accidents occur!” is a very American one, born of a litigiousness that you don’t find in other areas around the world. Do you need guard rails and signs warning you of danger at the precipice of a popular scenic outlook with an obvious drop into a chasm? In America, the answer is yes—but go anywhere else and you’ll find plenty of examples where the public is entrusted by those in charge to understand that it’s not safe to walk too close to the edge.

Is it too much to ask the same of climbers?

I fail to understand what the point of climbing is if not to teach us, in sometimes brutally real ways, that risks exist and consequences arrive of them lest we voluntarily manage those risks through skill, competence, and a rational decision-making process, to the best of our imperfect abilities.

Anyway, I’m not sure what my personal feelings are about retro-bolting Snake Dike. As I said on the podcast, if someone adds a bolt or two to the route, I’m not going to throw a fit. But I also don’t think it’ll do much of anything. What I would like to see come of this discussion are sharper arguments, but also, perhaps, a renewed conversation about what risk means and why it’s important—assuming it still is.

Support independent media!

Evening Sends is committed to bringing unfiltered climbing media, ideas, and voices into the conversation. But it’s not possible without the support of our readers. Please consider joining our community to support more articles such as this one. With a subscription, you’ll get access to all paywalled content and help this project grow.

About The Author

Andrew Bisharat

Andrew Bisharat is a writer and climber based in western Colorado. He is the publisher of Evening Sends and the co-host of The RunOut podcast.

Comments

12 Comments

  1. Avatar

    As far as I can tell from the descriptions, the terrible accident that started this kerfluffle was the result of getting off-route (and possibly following subsidiary bolts heading in the wrong direction—but I’m not sure about that part). The irony is that putting more bolts on the correct route wouldn’t have prevented this tragedy at all unless bolts are now to be used to create a dotted line indicating where the route goes (something I think Croft might actually have suggested). So in addition to the questionable practice of building an outhouse every place someone takes a dump is the fact that more bolts wouldn’t have made any difference in the accident that seems to have motivated the discussion.

    The second point is that risk is an inherent feature of trad climbing and arguably constitutes the real difference between trad and sport genres. Risk is not simply some sort of inconvenience. Confronting and managing risk is an inextricable component of trad climbing, not some add-on that can just be thrown away—this is a case in which the baby goes with the bath.

    I agree with you Andrew that it is impossible, if there are any principles involved, to simultaneously argue for leaving the B-Y as-is while retrobolting Snake Dike. Both involve risks voluntarily embraced by those who attempt them; in both cases the challenge is to mitigate those risks with the physical, mental, and technological skills that are the essence of traditional climbing. The idea that the Snake Dike is more likely to be attempted by climbers who lack the range of skills needed to do it (a proposition that seems to me to be highly questionable in view of thousands of uneventful ascents), and that those lost incompetent souls need to be protected from themselves with an intervention at the tip of a drill, often by self-appointed guardians of public safety without anything resembling a consensus, seems to me to head, inevitably, toward the elimination of trad climbing as a genre.

    I might add that those who are equipping routes to satisfy the perceived needs of a perceived class of climbers don’t seem to care about that other class of climbers who aspire to find and attempt routes in their original state.

    Reply
  2. Avatar

    Did anyone else get the sense that John Long’s answers in the Climbing article didn’t exactly match the questions that were asked as if the questions were misheard or misconstrued? I find it hard to believe that John Long has such a reductive take, especially when he seemingly contradicts himself.

    In any case, I think the arguments for retrobolting Snake Dike are all in bad faith and as Andrew implied, clickbait. Almost any Yosemite climber or aspirant has an appreciation for the area’s bold history. It’s a hard place to climb. There are also hard places to surf or ski or bike—balancing risk and mastery is part of every adventure sport. I can’t help but wonder if this whole internet debate is just a byproduct of outrage culture.

    To be fair, I’d be kind of aghast if some safety vigilante unilaterally drilled Snake Dike into a clip up. But is anyone actually considering that? Or did Climbing just need a couple good headlines? Do we really need to pit moderate climbers and core climbers against each other? I know a lot of climbing dilettantes who are aware of and respect the old school ethics that characterize places like Yosemite. This seems like a non-argument to me.

    To that point, some bolts were added to the Regular NW Face very recently. The addition reduces a lot of the post-rockfall risk. No one made a noise about it and tbh, I’m pretty glad this one wasn’t opened up to all the keyboard warriors who watched Freesolo once and now have opinions.

    Reply
  3. Avatar

    Great article!

    I definitely agree there is a public reaction to this woman’s accident. You can pretty much compare it to a school shooting and people advocating for stronger gun control. Even changes in gun control doesn’t really change the real core of the problem: that is mental health, being prone to violence, lack of value for human life, and other reasons. However I would say there is also frustration on the part of the public feeling Snake Dike should be retro-bolted when met with the response “No”, absolutely not due to this or that. And how to define “retro-bolt” anyways is up for debate as well (like where and how many bolts). What I’m driving at is when something tragic happens, if it’s met with just discussion (or lip-service) and no sort of budge of change, I think that is what frustrates people, they feel powerless. But if some experienced climbers went in and say they analyzed the route, and decided to add a couple bolts, (hell, even just 1), (though a small gesture and wouldn’t ultimately mitigate all risk anyways), would the part of the public be somewhat appeased feeling that their voices were heard?
    Politicians and law-makers do this all the time: Change/adjust some law, as opposed to stress the importance of some core change on behalf of the people cause that’s where the real problem stems from.

    Reply
  4. Avatar

    Not sure if this is going to be totally on point here but I feel like the meta-ethical conversation you’re whishing for would benefit from the consideration of an “argument from diversity” that could go like this :

    IF we agree that climbing is a form of expression that benefits from the sheer diversity of mediums that are offered to the climber (from indoor boulders to trad big walls etc.), diversity that can be evaluated according to a number of different criteria including the exposure to risk (from safe to run-out to life-threatening, etc.),

    And IF we consider the fact that trying to systematically accomodate the “risk tolerance” of any given generation of climbers (be it the average or the median) is bound to standardize at least one parameter of this diversity of climbing forms,

    THEN we should oppose the systematic retro-bolting of old classics.

    Note that this argument is only valid in the case of a systematic approach. Therefore it is, at most, an argument AGAINST the adoption of a single principle legitimizing the systematic retro-bolting (which would be the case in the eventuality of the retro-bolting bolting of Snake dike creating a judiciary precedent then to be applied at every point of the future climbing history where this situation is again encountered). I’m not quite sure it could or should be used as an argument FOR the adoption of a single principle systematically opposing such retro-bolting either.

    Reply
  5. Avatar

    Hard to believe this is such an issue… Our ages and prime-time experiences in climbing seem very reflected here, to me. So be it; hard to get away from your own way of seeing.

    So, if the issue with this heartbreaking, tragic accident is about getting off route, then why aren’t many arguments/opinions talking about that? Why not, as some have said, make it clearer in route descriptions and guides? Slow process for sure, but online sites could instantly add warnings or attention-grabbing additions to their descriptions. If more bolting IS done, why not just a bolt (or two) that could make direction for the route clearer? What if a “sign” was added to the area most likely to find yourself heading off-route? (Think Black Velvet wall in RR, where Joanne Urioste put a very small tag on a bolt at a route junction that arrowed one way for Yellow Brick Road and another way for staying on Dreams of Wild Turkeys)
    Options do seem to exist for dealing with the actual issue here in the aftermath of this accident.

    Retro-bolt the route? NO. Make route direction clearer instead if changes must be made.

    Reply
  6. Avatar

    Agree with Richard that what doesn’t make sense is that more bolts was not really the solution to this horrible accident. They got off route and this was an unfortunate climber-error.

    I’m surprised one thing that wasn’t brought up in the greater conversation is that these climbs, esp. in busy climbing areas like Yosemite, are not frozen in time since FA. They are becoming more and more polished every year. The bolts are getting older and older and are not the quality they were at FA. In other areas, holds and chips are breaking off (less relevant to snake dike specifically). The risk is actually increasing. Just as the climbing difficulty is increasing, but the idea is that the FA is how it always is. For example: I don’t think that first pitch on Snake Dike was the slick-as-ice mini traverse when it was climbed the first hundred times. As a younger climber (in-age) I am frustrated at the lack of acknowledgment of the changing landscapes both from people and climate in how they are affecting our sport and making it more risky.

    As for ethics, I think its ridiculous to say the FA is god for rock that belongs to all of us. If the first person solo’d the route, should it not have bolts? Was the bolt spacing a conscious decision or (arguably more likely) a result of the cost and weight of equipment? FAs often climb significantly harder than a moderate route, are they the best person to judge what the risk should be for a climb of that grade? Who is it serving besides someone’s ego to have climbs that no one ascends because of one person’s idea of an acceptable runout or circumstance?

    What do I think about Snake Dike? More bolts wouldn’t solve that incident, its not a good example. A much better conversation in my opinion are Tuolumne’s domes. In Tuolumne Free Climbs half of the moderate routes are R rated in the 5.7-5.9 range. Look at multi-pitches in Tuolumne on Mountain Project, it tells a similar story.

    Tired of crowds? Think of all the climbing experiences unlocked by some reasonable bolting. Could Snake Dike use a few more bolts, yes. Its kinda messed up there is one bolt between some anchors and introduces unnecessary risk. Just as putting the first bolt 20 ft off the ground or when clipping a second bolt means risking a deck. These are decisions by route developers that feel irresponsible and can often be avoided. Four bolts a pitch isn’t hurting anyone and still has significant runout.

    Reply
    • Avatar

      There is a bolt at the 5.7 traverse move. Which is also not the first pitch.

      Reply
  7. Avatar

    Very thoughtful article.

    While I’m admittedly a bit more in the “against” retro-bolting camp, it’s not for the sake of preserving the original experience. If that were the case, we’d still be climbing with hemp ropes and pitons on many classics.

    From a practical perspective, there’s the issue of risk compensation bias. The more safe and accessible something is perceived to be, the more people will attempt it or let their guard down; ultimately leading in increased accidents.

    I think it would also set a precedent for increasing “accessibility and safety” for the sake of inclusivity. If we retro-bolt snake dike, why don’t we put bolts on high-ball boulders? or put a railing around the entire rim of the grand canyon?

    One principle for bolting could be: “If it’s a) reasonably protectable with trad gear, and/or b) easy enough for a climber at that level to safely navigate, then don’t bolt.”

    To Andrew’s point, each climber should be the judge of whether they are in over their heads and need to either retreat, or not attempt the climb in the first place… While I try to stay away from X-rated climbs, I respect other climbers’ choice to go for them.

    Reply
  8. Avatar

    I’ve climbed for 30 years and have never clipped a bolt. My understanding of grading (British system) is that a given grade combines the technical skill and strength needed to make the moves and a subjective assessment of injury and death if the moves are not made. The climber makes a judgement whether or not to proceed according to their skills/courage.
    Bolting – in my opinion – diminishes the climb, reducing it to a simple gymnastic exercise.
    Bolting brings nature down to our level, rather than training and courage uplifting us to its level.
    Thank you Andrew for taking time and thought to raise this topic again – your efforts are appreciated. Many climbers, myself included, wrestle with these questions, look into the past for answers and still don’t find them. Articles like yours keep us all wondering and pondering and arguing, and that’s a good thing.

    Reply
  9. Avatar

    …. An edit to my previous comment…

    I just reread Angus Killie’s moving account of his ascent of Indian Face – posted elsewhere on this site. Only this time, I imagined it festooned with shiny stainless steel bolts and hangers. Bolting would have emasculated the route and diminished the climber.

    Reply
  10. Avatar

    I would be disappointed to see it retro bolted, but it’s certainly a dangerous route. I guess I feel like I got a lot of out of my traditional climbing background, and the classic routes that I did should be there for people in the future to have the same experience. There was a recent enormocast episode, the guess was an old book author talking about what climbing meant to him when he was young, and then was totally changed when he got back into it. I am the same way, and just want to use it to keep fit and have cool friends. When I started it was all about staring down death. Which I did on the Snake Dike, which I soloed on sight, and forgot about the traverse with the bolt and went hundreds of feet higher, off route until there were flakes breaking off and no idea where the route went anymore. That wasn’t supposed to happen and I could have died if I didn’t downclimb on crumbly friction to get back on route. I got scared shitless lots of times on El Cap, too. I don’t need this anymore, but won’t deny it made me who I am now.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send it! To your inbox 🤓

✅ Weekly newsletter

✅ Exclusive content

✅ 25% off an annual subscription

You have Successfully Subscribed!