The founding flaw of this thread is what appears to be an intrinsic assumption that all anchors are good and deserve to be upgraded when they deteriorate.
With some elbow tendonitis and a bit of free time I find myself once again sucked into the fray! Here goes:
Not all anchors are good, but if an anchor is fixed and used regularly it should be good and does deserve upgrading when it deteriorates.
The way it is now not everyone uses the preserve anchors to descend due to a variety of reasons. The other anchors are in a constant state of being cut and then soon replaced. As a result trees are dying and the anchors are often unsafe.
There was a college campus that built its campus without sidewalks. After a year of seeing where the students chose to walk by observing the matted down grass the sidewalks were built. The campus did not have the dirt pathways that appear on many college lawns.
In reading John Stannard's newsletter Eastern Trade I learned about the original dilemma of copious trails leading to the base of routes. After set trails were added this problem subsided. There were enough trails positioned and marked to establish a better way to approach the base. It didn't result in an infinite number of trails.
My point is that in order to save the remaining trees in the Trapps, the most commonly used rap stations should be replaced with bolts near, but off to the side of the trees and the ascending climb. They should be convenient.
The other option is to continue to argue that there should be no other fixed anchors besides what the preserve has installed and watch as the remaining trees die and perhaps have a few people die due to anchor failure.