I don't have any particular objection to via ferrata, and all of my first ascents have eschewed fixed protection. I'm pretty sure one's never seen a repeat beca

I don't have any particular objection to via ferrata, and all of my first ascents have eschewed fixed protection. I'm pretty sure one's never seen a repeat because of that. Its certainly worth pointing out that both Half Dome in Yosemite and Angels Landing in Zion feature VERY popular quasi-via ferrata as the primary descent route for famous and historic routes like the Regular Northwest Face of Halfdome, or Prodigal Sun on Angels Landing. And we're completely ignoring the role artificial holds play at Mesa Verde, both the ladders and hand rails installed by the NPS, and the surviving Anasazi installations. The environmentalist argument against fixed gear or chipping, or via ferrata, always seemed pretty hollow to me, given that not many people are objecting to the trail building to get to the crag, or the frequently heavy cleaning that happens to remove loose rock and lichen and things to make a climb safer during the development (which happens even with routes completely bereft of fixed equipment). Nobody complains about the establishment of descent trails, or leaving slings to strangle trees, even as those have a much greater impact on the environment than a few dozen bolts, or even a few hundred pounds of metal handles and steel cable. There's a fair argument, amongst climbers, about whether or not fixed anchors, or chipping, or via ferrata is sporting, but "sporting" is only a valid restriction for people playing the same game as you. But if there are no established routes on that rock, and you own the rock in question, who has a right to complain? I don't want to see them on public land, certainly, but on the continuum of human impact to rock faces, via ferrata is a lot closer to leaving only footprints than the roads through Zion or Yosemite, or Mt. Rushmore, or an open pit mine.