The Elbe Sandstone Mountains are known (and infamous) for their strict climbing rules, created to protect the sandstone and preserve the adventurous nature of the sport. Even today, these rules remain at the heart of the debate between climbing integrity and safety.
In the beginning there was sandstone
Climbing in Saxon Switzerland is legendary. In 1874, Otto Ufer and Herman Johannes Frick climbed the Mönch, a 60-meter-high sandstone tower near Rathen, via the southeast route (SX: III). Their ascent without artificial aids marked the beginning of a climbing tradition that would eventually make the Elbe Sandstone Mountains the cradle of free climbing.
The legend of Saxon climbing is also rooted in more than 150 years of strict climbing ethics. Some of the most demanding rules concern the protection of climbing routes. To protect the delicate sandstone, climbers are forbidden from using chalk or metallic mobile protection devices such as cams and nuts. Instead, they rely on slings, knots, and UFOs (unidentified rock formations) placed in natural features like cracks and hourglasses. Finding and placing these anchors is therefore an essential part of climbing in the region, adding a significant mental dimension to the physical challenge.
Nevertheless, many climbing routes are also equipped with fixed anchor points. These metal rings serve a similar function to bolts and can provide crucial protection on more dangerous and unprotected sections of Saxon climbing towers. However, their installation is strictly regulated, and the question of when – and even whether – a ring should be added has long been a subject of debate.
Ring or no ring
I remember the overwhelming mix of relief and fear I felt the first time I clipped a quickdraw into a bolt. I had climbed the first half of a sandstone tower up a crack, using knots and bolts for protection. When the crack ended, I traversed left and found the bolt. For the first time, I felt safe thanks to that solid anchor point firmly planted in the rock. But bolt placement is no small matter. In a region where climbers pride themselves on their traditions and technical skill, its presence can signal a difficult crux move, possibly with no other protection and a significant fall below. Bolts are invaluable in a place with sparse protection and fragile rock. Yet, on some routes, they are rare or entirely absent. The obvious question is: who decides when and where bolts are placed, and thus ultimately determines the safety of a climbing route?
Only the first ascensionists of a climbing route have the right to place its bolts. In Saxony, climbers establishing a first ascent must carefully consider the protection required against the physical and psychological demands of the route. Generally, a climbing route should have as few bolts as possible, maintaining a minimum distance of three meters between them, even though regulations recommend five meters. Furthermore, first ascensionists must establish routes from the bottom up and without prior practice, meaning that bolts can only be placed from a single climbing position.
Safety versus character
After a climbing route has been established, the first ascensionists have up to four weeks to install additional bolts (nR). This gives them the opportunity to reconsider the route's protection and adjust it if necessary. After this period, other climbers can apply for nR. However, any change to the protection of an existing climbing route requires review by a specialist committee within the Saxon Mountaineering Association (SBB): the nR Working Group.
The AG nR (Working Group for the Reorganization of Climbing Routes), active since 1997, reviews applications for additional or repositioned bolts with the aim of preserving the original character of climbing routes. This is a difficult balancing act. Adding protection points can reduce the danger, but at the same time, it can also diminish the psychological demands that are an essential part of many Saxon climbing routes. Therefore, an nR can not only change the safety of a climbing route, but also its character, creating something far removed from the route originally envisioned by the first ascensionists.
The scale of the process illustrates how frequently this issue arises. Since 2014, the AG nR (Working Group on nR) has received approximately 406 applications for the installation of new anchors or the relocation of existing ones. The annual number of applications varies, ranging from as few as 10 (2020) to as many as 43 (2019). A total of around 174 applications have been approved, either awaiting implementation or already implemented (i.e., new anchors have been added to or relocated on climbing routes), while 125 applications have been rejected. At the time of writing, 107 applications have been approved but are still awaiting a decision.
The method
Applying for a climbing permit is a detailed process. Applications can be submitted by mail or online and must include information such as photographs of the climbing route and the proposed bolt placement. Applications that are incomplete or have significant deficiencies may be rejected outright.
Once accepted, applications are reviewed by as many members of the AG nR (Working Group on New Routes) as possible, but at least three, and discussed and voted on at AG meetings. Applicants and first ascensionists can participate in the deliberations, but only AG nR members who have climbed the route, as well as the first ascensionists themselves, are entitled to vote. Decisions are made by simple majority. This can be a lengthy and time-consuming process, as each new route requires its own application and deliberation (even if they concern the same route).
Applications for proposed anchors to be considered must meet at least one of the six criteria established by the Swiss Climbing Federation (SBB). One clear criterion permits the installation of an anchor when a natural belay point is lost. Another, and potentially more difficult to assess, criterion concerns the level of danger. The regulations state: “Climbing is inherently dangerous. Therefore, this criterion must be handled with particular care. Under no circumstances should the most exposed routes be retrofitted with anchors. An anchor may only be installed if the climbing section is unpredictably difficult/fragile and unprotected. If retreat or other escape is possible, this argues against installing an anchor.”
The minutes produced after each AG-nR meeting provide insight into how these principles are applied. One example concerns a request for an additional ring on the Pillar Route (SX: V) on the Abandoned Wall. Climbers requested an nR on the right-hand slab, two meters before the chimney, arguing that the traverse could prove unexpectedly difficult and that the sling on the slab might not hold a fall.
The committee rejected the proposed change. Their reasoning was that the original upper traverse was not the only way to climb this section: from the pillar, climbers could instead use a lower traverse where the rock was better and natural protection was available. As one committee member put it, "When you're standing on the pillar, you can clearly see that the features below are better." The member further confirmed the reliability of this option, as he himself had fallen into the existing sling and it had held his fall.
The decision illustrates the philosophy behind the nR system. Instead of altering the climbing route by adding a safety anchor, the committee proposed an alternative that allowed climbers to manage the danger without changing the original line. The route remained physically and psychologically challenging, while offering climbers a safer option.
Beyond rings
A bolt in Saxon Switzerland is therefore more than just a piece of protection. Its position – or lack thereof – is part of the climbing route itself. The rules surrounding bolts and anchors reflect the attempt to preserve this character while simultaneously responding to actual changes in safety and climbing conditions.
Whether one agrees with this approach or not, it is precisely this tension between safety, tradition, and adventure that makes climbing in the Elbe Sandstone Mountains so unique. Here, protection is not simply something that is attached to a climbing route. It is part of the history, the difficulty, and the identity of the route.
That might interest you
+ + +
Credits Cover Image: Wilson Vieira
About the author: Wilson Vieira
