mattp

Just as whether or not he was posting anonymously five pages ago, the question whether two tree ledge has a couple of bushes on it or whether brts has in fact climbed ALL the routes to the right of The Fault is a bit of a distraction here. We were talking about ETHICS, including questions like: Whether you love 'em or hate 'em, are bolts the only issue that matters in rock climbing or the most important issue or one of several issues that we should be concerned about? or Is ground-up exploration and establlishment of new routes the only valid means or the best means or one way to do it? or Is the idea of developing or managing a crag for other climbers inherenly wrong or is crag development like every thing else something that can be done well or poorly? or Are there any circnumstances under which it would be valid to add a bolt to an existing climb or is the creation of the FA sacrosanct and, if so, does this apply in reverse so that bolts installed by the FA should not be removed?

I bet there are plenty of faces in the Saint Elias and Fairweather ranges that are larger and at least as steep as Johannesburg, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were plenty of them in the Coast Range somewhere.

I'll be interested to hear how easily you can find the old holes. Last time I went out looking for a hole that had been left empty, it was quite hard to find even though I knew within three feet where it had been placed! (That was on less steep rock, though. Maybe holes on "phone calls" do not fill in with lichen and dirt as readily 'caus it is kind of steep there.)

Holly Beck is giving a slideshow that will be mostly video footage of climbing on El Capitan, including video proof that despite the rangers claims, Bear 46 does exist! Most of the footage is from immediately after the disasterous storm of last October during a late season climb of "Lost in America". The show is Thursday, Sept 8th at 7 pm at the Mountaineers building in Seattle. Free admission.

Right on, Geek. Bolting is the most divisive thing in climbing today, and those who focus solely on this one issue or cluster of issues often distract us from many many other concerns that are at least equally important when it comes down to ecological, aesthetic, athletic, and even adventure values. Bolting and climbing styles are very important – but so are some other things: vegetation impact erosion wildlife impact parking safety public image police problems etc. It is relatively rare that we have any serious discussions about "ethics" in relationship to these other issues even though they are in general higher on most non-climbers' list of concerns and have long lasting and significant affects on climbing and crags. I don't think they were even mentioned in the recent "ethics issue" of Rock and Ice.

Interesting quote, but once again it sounds to me as if you are holding your own sense of what is right and wrong above others, and I’m afraid this tends to relegate your opinion to – how did somebody put it? – the rantings of the old guard (or something like that)? Do the guys who develop modern sport crags believe they act in an ethical manner? Yes. Are they thinking in their mind that they are merely “surfing the edge?” No. They believe that it is ethical to establish safe climbs that thousands of climbers can enjoy. Many climbers agree – and in fact many climbers believe it is selfish and unethical to establish or jealously defend traditional climbs if that means what they perceive as runout scary climbing. Did Frost and Chouinard and their buddies, when they readily used pitons and even a couple of bolts while they picked the early plums on ElCapitan feel they were being “ethical?” Yes. I know, at least some of them were trying to outdo Warren Harding with some kind of better style but in large part it was "outdo" as in competition, and this included using pitons and bolts and even chipping where that served their immediate goals. (Maybe they did, but I am not aware of any of them starting up the big stone only to rap off because they were going to have to use a couple of bolts in the middle of the NA Wall or something and, as I noted already, I believe they even chipped holds in a flake on that particular climb.) Were they “surfing the edge” when they came out with a clean climbing manifesto after they had picked these plums? Their presentation of the clean climbing message certainly reflected the ecology movement in popular culture at the time. Did they have some epiphany or was it, maybe in Chouinard’s case at least, in part a marketing campaign? I think it was a combinatin of factors, and I have great respect for those climbers and for the clean climbing movement but I don't think they all turned into saints -- and I think some of DCramer's discussion here has been in response to a feeling that you might be portraying them that way -- and that you are saying "I stand with them whereas nearly everybody involved in putting up crag climbs these days does not." The thing about ethics is that, more or less by their very definition, they are highly subjective and involve one’s personal relationship with moral standards that are shared in their peer group. Where you say “some climbers these days have no ethics” or where Pope posts that stupid picture of a via ferratta, discussions like this become even more irrelevant than they already are because it more or less devolves into a big joke – or at least the irrelevant rantings of some old guard. As I asked pages earlier in this thread, I agree with you that times ARE changing. Recognizing the reality of where we are in climbing today, with ever-increasing numbers of climbers shaking their heads in confusion or maybe even contempt when they are confronted with the ethical rantings of some guy who is old enough to be their father or maybe even grandfather (yes, I know – there are some younger climbers who remain “pure” as well but it tends to be us older guys who do the ranting and raving), how do you want to proceed? I believe it is a losing proposition to proclaim that climbers who don’t emulate MY style have “no ethics” or that modern sport climbing is less worthy than “real” climbing as practiced by the great climbers of thirty years ago.

I've got a 1:250,000 scale map that extends from Snoqualmie Pass to the Canadian border, released in about 1972, titled "The North Cascades 1955-1972." It was produced by the USGS. The contour interval is 200 feet and it is roughly 5 miles to the inch. I used to have one that was in meters, and released perhaps ten years later, that went from somewhere maybe a little south of Glacier Peak up a little way into Canada. I can't find it at the moment, but I believe it too was a USGS release. These are great maps to have when you are sitting on a summit somewhere, wondering what that thing in the distance might be.

Folks are forcing their vision upon the rest of the world whether they alter the rock or forbid others from doing so, Joseph. There IS an objective difference between altering the rock and not doing so; it is true that the installation of a bolt or a chipped hold or a pin scar is more permanent than most other impacts we place upon the climbing environment and many of us believe "clean climbing" has tremendous value. However, similar arguments might be made regarding other issues like removing vegetation or causing trouble with property owners, or any number of things -- our actions may have lasting impacts and some of those impacts may be negative. But anytime we say "my way is right and yours is wrong," we are seeking to impose our view on the rest of the world. I understand your criticism of "development" if by that you are saying that you do not approve of the manner in which some climbing areas have been developed. However, I don't see how you can say you are not undertaking route development where you climb a new route and then go back to retrofit it to make it more user-friendly because (presumably) you think it is a good climb that somebody might want to repeat. Is it the fundamental concept of development that is bad oro what you believe to be the predominant or all-to-common guiding vision for development?

Off White is right. This is sincere: if you can actually safely fall on those things your gear skills are very impressive. OK, so maybe they (crack-n-ups) are underappreciated marvels, but we're still left with "DCramer's monster of subjectivity" and the question "who decides," are we not? More or less by definintion we all think our own vision for the sport is the correct one, and we tend pretty much to get to the point where most folks are saying: "I decide (along with those who agree with me)." If I understand you right, you've said your own approach is more "valid" than others, not only because you may be leaving less hardware on the rock but also because your methods (not just the result) show "respect" for the rock. Isn't that a highly personal choice? Why should others emulate your style? P.S. I hope you're enjoying this discussion as much as I am -- in my view this has been one of the most interesting discussions we've had on some of these topics for quite a long time around here.

Just to recap: We've got the group campsite reserved. Come one come all. In the past, folks have set up and supervised some top-ropes for novice climbers, and others have paired up at the campsite to go climbing, while still others have spent the weekend just hanging out in the canyon. Expect some kind of a party on Friday and Saturday nights, with maybe a slideshow on Sat. Chime in here or contaxt Minx or Olyclimber with ideas.

I took one of my scarriest aid falls ever on those things (crack-n-ups). Using them for pro would be one aspect of your Beacon ascent, Joseph, that I think may not have been in "good style," or at least not what I would call a "good idea." Anyway, in the context of this discussion, it raises the question: whether it ever was universal nor not (we never resolved this question), should everyone else be held to your standard because you are willing to go out and scare yourself in the name of a "good time" and a "pure" ascent?

Given the variety of rock soundness, the reality of gravity, and the frailty of the human body, I'm not sure this would even be possible on natural cliffs and mountain walls. I doubt even Pope's via ferratta would comply in many locations ...

Many here and elsewhere make good arguments against bolting practices -- more specifically against overbolting, against bolted cracks, against adding bolts to this or that existing route, etc., but I think we need to be somewhat skeptical when we see folks invoke the "first ascent rule" in support of their position. I believe the "first ascent rule" is a generally good idea, but it seems it is frequently used as a one-way ratchet to argue against adding bolts or for removing them; rarely if ever is it invoked in the other direction. Take the retrobolting of Cunning Stunt at Index - a task undertaken by the FA and then chopped by some who felt he had butchered his own route. Might these same individuals or others who approve of their actions argue that for someone else to ADD bolts to an existing line nearby would show disrespect for the style of the FA and hence they should not add those bolts? I know little of that incident, but I believe this would be the "customary" way such discussions might proceed (the FA or those who think they are defending the FA have veto power over the addition of bolts, but the FA or those subsequently maintaining his route do not have a right to come back and add bolts). Has anybody ever said the "first ascent rule" means we cannot remove a bolt from someobody's overbolted atrocity? Having said that I am skeptical of many applications of the "first ascent rule", I don't endorse Hanger's proposed "compromise" or agree that we should abandon that rule if he or she means that we should not maintain any significantly run out routes. Most if not all bumblies avoid 5.8X death routes and in fact I cannot recall a single accident where some bumbly blindly failed to do so and this caused a serious accident. It could happen, I suppose ... we often see people venturing onto routes where they find themselves over their head and accidents do result from these mistakes in judgment once in a while, but does this mean that every route needs to be bolted into some ill defined standard of "safety" in the name of compromise?

The group site, which you guys have reserved, holds lots of people so it should be clear that nobody HAS to have their own site and no advance registration or reservation is necessary to attend. The Icicle Creek area offers a variety of climbing / hiking / etc. opportunities at pretty much all levels of ambition. The annual ropeups have offered a fun oportunity to get to know some of the faces behind the spray names and, for some, an opportunity to explore a new area or even a new sport. Make it happen!

Joseph, you certainly get extra points if you are putting up routes in that style. Especially if they turn out to be viewed as "good routes." In such a case, not only would you have had a great day or days yourself, but you'd have set a good example for "style" and you'd have created something that others can enjoy! Added on edit: Back on page 2 of this thread I thought you were arguing that one should put up routes however they want to with no regard for those who may follow, or something like that. Does your discussion with other climbers, and your immediate retrofitting the route with pins and (I'm guessing) bolts at belays, some of it in lieu of hardware that other climbers may not be carrying, indicate that maybe I misunderstood your position somewhat?

We have seen plenty of histrionics, Jay, but to be fair you'd have to agree that when it comes to bolts on crags there is a generally rising tide, no? Attitudes are indeed changing as fewer climbers are interested in risking serious falls and bolts are seen less and less as an anathema to be avoided if at all possible.

Chuck, I think that comes up as an example as how the "first ascent principal" has limits and maybe we shouldn't feel bound to preserve a climb that was developted by a butcher or a showoff or something, but I agree that I am not aware of a lot of this having taken place.

We may have difficulty agreeing upon how many of who were doing what in the ‘70's, but brts is correct that this need not prevent us from talking about today. I'd have to agree with you, Joseph, that times have changed. For example, few climbers think it is a good idea to develop crag climbs from the ground up these days and I can't remember the last time I saw someone who is actually putting up new routes suggesting it was a good idea to throw themselves at an unclimbed line, only to repeatedly fall and then pull the rope until they can fairly succeed in making a first ascent via a redpoint. Maybe you and your buddies are out there doing that, I don't know. Others are suggesting that a more careful, thought out and, yes, "engineered" approach to crag development is actually a GOOD thing. Also, undeniably, bolts are used more liberally today -- even at "so called" trad areas. But there are limits, no? Even at Vantage and Smith most climbers don't much go in for bolting the crack climbs to elimiminate the need for gear (much as some climbers might like to see this).

Joseph, you make a valid point that there was wide acceptance and general promotion of the clean climbing ethic in the '70's, but I think you are not completely correct if you suggest that clean climbing and ground-up ethics, as portrayed in many of the discussions on this board at least, were unversally practiced with only very rare exceptions. I climbed in the midwest in the '70's and at my home crag we did not much go in for pins or bolts, for sure, but I believe every single climb there was only first led after being fully rehearsed on a toprope. This is not exactly a "ground up" approach. I also climbed a couple of times at the 'Gunks in the '70's. Fixed pins were formally maintained by John Stannard (I may not have the name spelled correctly). Using pitons and nuts, most of the climbs there protect fairly well and they have avoided bolt protection, to be sure. but formally maintained fixed pins are not altogether different from bolts in how they affect the climber's experience though of course they could theoretically be removed with minimal damage to the rock. Also, they do maintain bolted rappel stations right next to or near trees that could take slings. In addition, I have read in more than one history of the place that hang-dogging and rehearsing climbs was accepted there before it became more generally accepted elsewhere with the advent of sport climbing in the 1980's. I agree with your statment that Chouinard/Robinson/Frosts/etc. were very very successful in promoting their clean climbing ethic and very few publicly questionned their ideas -- but I also think DCramer is right on in suggeting that things were not as "pure" as you seem to recall. As you note, every area had its peculiarities and eccentricities and I believe those often included deviations from the generally publicly accepted "norm" and that lots of people were in fact, as DCramer suggests, not willing to be completely honest about what they were doing. Also, I think we should not ignore the fact that, in the case of Chouinard, his campaign had a lot to do with marketting as well as with a sense of environmental ethics. I am sure he was sincere -- after all he started writing about these issues at least ten years earler. However, while I have ultimate respect for Mr. Chouinard, I believe he himself was not an absolute purist: didn't they chip holds up a flake during the first ascent of the North American Wall (maybe I'm mixing up routes here)? Does it matter? Perhaps not. In many respects we are splitting hairs here. However, I just get the sense from your posts that you are suggesting that climbers in the '70's were better more moral people than climbers are now. I'm not entirely sure that is a fair statement.

JZ, I have said that I realize that anonymous posting is the “norm” on this website, and I am not arguing that it is necessarily improper – only that some misuse their anonymous status. Several here have replied along the lines of: hey wait a minute, mattp, anonymous posting is fun. I agree. It has brought a lot of fun and liveliness to this website. Where you argue that people are not anonymous if you can play jr. detective for a year and eventually figure out who they are, I disagree. Where you argue that I cannot complain that some people abuse their anonymous status as long as some of the moderators remain anonymous, I disagree. Just say it: you like stirring the pot but would prefer not to use your real name and you don’t have to. You're a fairly tough guy, and I don't think this will result in your having been beaten into submission.

If there was an olive branch in your post, Fairweather, please accept my apologies for missing it. Care to repost?

Fairweather, re-read my original post to this thread: I believe the incident you are referring to took place two years or more ago. I agree that your anonymity may be "useful" and, as I've said, your ability to post anonymously may in fact add to the character or content of this site. However, where you engage in personal attack, I find it at least somewhat hypocritical.

Thanks for the compliment, Dred. In this case, I am actually stirring the "garbage" that you may have to wade through, but I hope that my point is coming through. Again: There is nothing wrong with posting anonymously. It is part of the whole setup here. But as off white put it: there is a fundamental difference between anonymous posturing and saying "this is what I think." err, dru... wtf?

Fairweather, I very much appreciate the fact that you are in many ways a lone warrior around here, and I not only enjoy sparring with you but I actually think I've learned a thing or two from you. I DO find it sad, however, that you protect your hidden identity while personally attacking others, including me. I will withdraw this statement the minute you start posting under your real name or providing links to your real identity in your user profile.