JosephH

=================== Beacon Rock Update - 8/28/05... =================== Free Parking Area - Yet again, please do not park parallel to the road in the free parking area East of the main lot, park diagonally facing the SE - Saturday was a complete parking disaster with all the first arrivals parking parallel sending later arrivals spread down the road. If authorities continue seeing cars spread down the road beyond the pullout we will be in very real risk of seeing this free parking area closed. It is small so please park diagonally and please leave notes for anyone you see who isn't. Flying Dutchman Rap Anchor - And another reminder that these are currently gone and we will finish replacing it asap; darkness and reason intervened in the middle of the operation. The original anchors are still up and to the right and remain serviceable until we can get back to it; either that or simply walk 60 feet to the right and use the main SE rap. If you have any questions about the status of anchors email Beacon.Rock@AvaSys.com That's it for this update - park considerately, have fun, and play safe... Joseph Healy Beacon Rock Climber's Association P.S. It would really help if everyone would printout the slips below and leave them on cars they find parallel parked in the free pullout...thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parking in this free pullout is at a premium and we need to make the most of it, especially on weekends - so please, don't park parallel to the road - park diagonally, head-in, pointed to the Southeast. We risk losing all these free parking spaces if the authorities keep finding cars spread along the road beyond the pullout where it makes getting on and off the road that much more dangerous. Also, if the pullout is full, please bite the bullet and pay to park in the main lot and not along the road, otherwise we'll lose this resource. Thanks for your help... Beacon Rock Climbers Association Beacon.Rock@AvaSys.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parking in this free pullout is at a premium and we need to make the most of it, especially on weekends - so please, don't park parallel to the road - park diagonally, head-in, pointed to the Southeast. We risk losing all these free parking spaces if the authorities keep finding cars spread along the road beyond the pullout where it makes getting on and off the road that much more dangerous. Also, if the pullout is full, please bite the bullet and pay to park in the main lot and not along the road, otherwise we'll lose this resource. Thanks for your help... Beacon Rock Climbers Association Beacon.Rock@AvaSys.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parking in this free pullout is at a premium and we need to make the most of it, especially on weekends - so please, don't park parallel to the road - park diagonally, head-in, pointed to the Southeast. We risk losing all these free parking spaces if the authorities keep finding cars spread along the road beyond the pullout where it makes getting on and off the road that much more dangerous. Also, if the pullout is full, please bite the bullet and pay to park in the main lot and not along the road, otherwise we'll lose this resource. Thanks for your help... Beacon Rock Climbers Association Beacon.Rock@AvaSys.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some guys don't have ethics, they have a nose for the cutting edge of what is happening socially and surf that edge and that is their deal. Again, the examples you sight as a percentage of the total routes that went in clean in the 70's is small by comparison. There were exceptions to the rule in almost every area and there were always discussion about where the edge was and people that didn't agree. Again, I have no problem accepting maybe you just didn't experience it, but I and others did at all the places I've named so far and seems you have a hard time accepting that we did. I know I was far from alone in my approach to climbing - in fact there was nothing special about it or me relative to all the folks I climbed with in those days.

DCramer, I'm not advocating government as the mechanism, I'm just saying the only places I've seen protected from bolting were places protected by the government or an active owner (the gunks). I don't agree at all with you #2 statement - "people have become more honest over the years" - I personally have witnessed no change whatsoever other than the introduction of a lot of self-serving and less than honest "rationale" for sport climbing and bolting when they really should just openly say we want to take the risk out of climbing and make it "safe". I'm guessing we must just fundamentally disagree about the impact of bolting and the ideas that grew up around putting the rock first. To put my side in some perspective relative to LNT, I didn't use any chalk until my first trip to the Valley in 2000 and in fact fought against the use of chalk when it was first introduced before I ever fought against bolts. In the [crackless, edgeless, sandstone] hollows of Southern Illinois half our game was simply seeing and being able to sequence each other's routes and that was completely destroyed by the use chalk. I'd give more on the issues if I thought there was a possibility that "bolt creep" wasn't going to keep happening (if not accelerate everywhere). I also don't see a mechanism by which we are really going organize effectively either. But hey, I would still like to climb at Index some year and you sound like just the guy to show another old stranger around...

I agree with this... The only protection from bolting I've seen be effective over time so far is government intervention. Maybe that ultimately is the only available system... again I agree... What would that be other than government intervention...? I did inject the example of one of my routes, but I'd like to think some of my ideas and positions are what are being discussed and not my personality per se. Again, as I stated on RC.com - the sheer numbers of "cats" and their expectations that need to be herded as Dingus would say is the real problem today. How "safe" climbing should be used to be a matter of personal responsibility - the profound change today is that "modern" climbers increasingly view it as a "right" and a group responsibility.

On this we can certainly agree...

Bill, Thanks for the kind words of support! I would be completely remiss, now that he's outed himself, in not acknowledging Bill as who I did the FA of Lost Warriors with. And damn if he wasn't completely enthusiastic and fearless about it to boot leading the final and very scary pitch. Jim Opdyke and Marco Fedrizzi also provided great belaying support on pitches 2 and 3 repectively. Karsten (Texplorer) did the FFA with me a couple of weeks later.

DCramer, I have to say this is a pretty effective [political campaign] strategy for discrediting something or someone - first cast doubt as to whether anything really did happen or not happen and call it a "myth", then discount it out of hand. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree as there was nothing "mythical" about it at Eldo, Devil's Tower, Devil's Lake, So. Ill., Gunks, Canon, etc. I can't speak firsthand to the West coast area in JTree, Valley, Smith, Index, and Squamish - but it certainly existed at Beacon. "Controlling" and "Judging" are about people and the issue was always one about the rock - and that's a big difference today where climbing is all about the people and way less about the routes and rock. Now you can argue all you want about the travesty and horror of the role of ethics and style in "managing" the definition of climbing then and now - but as far as I'm concerned you are badly manipulating past and present reality, thought, and intent in the quote above to make your point. So let me be crystal clear and unequivocal - when it comes to grid bolting, the extermination of all X-rated routes [on popular crags], and "development" - I have no problem whatsoever saying I have strong opinions against them and those that implement or advocate for them. I also have no problem with "fighting", "controlling", or even "judging" against their advance in the context of what I believe they do to the soul of climbing as I have experienced it over the years and make no apologies for it at all.

Matt, I should have been clearer by what I meant by "development". By that I mean putting up routes for the express purpose of "developing" a crag where the emphasis is more on the crag than on the routes. That, as opposed to doing routes exclusively because each and every potential line speaks in some personally compelling fashion to you. People simply bolting lines so that an area is climbable [for others] out of some perverse form of "community service" is simply ego-stoked coursetting escaped from a gym and is repugnant to me as I take it as a complete waste of the spirit and opportunity presented by the rock. The route we put up at that was retro'd was on a very, very mature and limited crag that supports a tight-knit group of locals and is under very close supervision by engaged land managers. Currently, no has been up there since to my knowledge and I didn't retro it because I think it is a "good" route so much as if it is repeated it wasn't unreasonable that folks should expect to find something roughly in keeping with the rest of the routes out there. P.S. Parallel discussion on RC.com

Off White, Thanks, I'm not sure at this point that I haven't given myself over to being a Betamax guy as no one listened to the few of us talking up this gear in the '70s let alone now. Malcolm and Seth at Trango are an exception though, and they have a detailed list of a dozen or so [subtle] design changes that are needed on the next rev of Ball nuts that I put together and passed by Middendorf. They would restore the capabilities of the original Lowe units and it sounded like they may take a fresh look at them sometime after the Max Cam mania dies down. P.S. I have taken falls on Skyhooks - fortunately two of them hooked in opposition from opposite sides of a large, sharply pointed granite flake. But again - I'd rather fall on Skyhooks than thin air. Skyhooks in particular are also fabulous for opposition placements where they are keeping stoppers or cams in place or guarding against rotating. Crack'N Ups in opposition on either side of a block resting on a slab are also completely bomber. Matt, I think our personal visions for the sport are only right for ourselves, and then only until you start altering the rock, at that point you are forcing your "vision" on the rest of the world with all the messy consequences that entails. Again, a trad FA's vision is personal, and respecting it should be a matter of respect for the traditions and history of the sport and self-respect and awareness of one's own abilities within the community at large. Once the rock gets altered with fixed pro there is room for some legitimate discussion within the context of [local] ethics, style, and tradition. And even much more discussion is warranted when you are talking rap bolting routes and "development" (a concept I despise).

Matt, "good style" is definitely in the eye of the beholder, but I think you probably need to be a bit clearer as to how what [clean] pro I choose to use relates to style. I've been free climbing on Crack'N Ups, Skyhooks, and Ball nuts since they first came out and I love them in that role. Their strength and versatility [for free and aid] have always been widely underestimated and their proper use misunderstood. Not many folks ever stopped to really figure out Crack 'N Ups and Ball nuts in particular - both were saddled with market perceptions of ineffectiveness and welding soon after they came out because folk by and large used and placed them badly and innappropriately (again this relates to craft). They also need to be set up differently for free climbing than aid ( see gear mods ). But I'll take Lowe/Byrne Ball nuts over today's "mircocams" any day, it's not even a contest in the comparison. The Ball nuts on the market today have unfortunately suffered several subtle and inadvertant design degradations at each change in licensees that accumulated to the point where I probably wouldn't use them for free climbing - you pretty much have to watch ebay to get the real deal. As for "scare yourself" and "good idea", well, they are also pretty subjective. I personally feel way, way more secure having them on my rack when I'm heading into the unknown on an FA as I know I'll be getting something in the rock if the going gets thin when otherwise I'd have to run things out. I've taken multiple [free climbing] falls on Crack'N Ups including a thirty footer in Eldo once. I've taken endless falls on Ball nuts and never had one pull or be even the slightest problem cleaning after repeated falls on the same placement. Using these things in these ways is a matter of thoroughly understanding their capabilities, nuances, and limitations. I don't scare myself with them and I just happen to think using them is a better idea than not using them or bolting when in reality it isn't necessary if you're simply equipped right.

Working nights this week...

Ah, no doubt they couldn't figure out how to run a hammer and don't trust pins. But you just did do a fabulous job of summing up difference between the windy olde days and the rampant cluelessness of today. But, to be faire, Crack'N Ups and Ball nuts scared the pisse out of most folkes back then too... P.S. "I dream of shiny fins" - now I remember the route; it would have been a heinous 5.8-X if they hadn't plugged a five-piece in the middle of that 20' runout - whew, thank god cooler heads prevailed or climbing would have been lost at that crag a week after the first gym climber got on it and put the entire sport at risk with their untimely death...

Eric, Bill Coe suggested doing a big soil haul job up to the tree from the ground and it's a great idea. The BRSP Staff and Jim Opdyke are on board so we'll get ahold of you when we get around to doing it - probably late fall. A sling will probably be going in on the tree soon and we'll see how that goes. Thanks for the suggestions...

"questionable risk" - hmmmm, this is where DCramer's monster of subjectivity raises it's head... It's back to who decides? Are you saying Dean Potter or Hans Florine are unsafe? My main partner did his Master's thesis on the perception of risk [in climbing] - fascinating topic really. It's easy for me to believe a long crack system somewhere has a lone X-rated slab runout because it's no different than sport climbers arguing it's stupid not to bolt the lone pro placement on an otherwise entirely bolted route - it's exactly the same reasoning and logic in reverse. Why screw around with all that shit for one bolt, and why blow the "purity" of the route for one bolt? What about chimneys instead of slabs? Bolt them too? Slippery slope as most slabs are... But again, perception - individual and group - changes across geography and generations and that's part of the heart of this discussion. Lot's of climbs at Whitehorse in NH are runout by most other area's standards, but they aren't by theirs. I was basically horrified on 5.9 and 5.10 slabs there let alone even trying to see/perceive one of their 5.11's (especially since any five square yards of it looked exactly like the next let alone decide some specific part of it might be a "route"). To be honest, what you say in this quote above does sound a bit strange coming from the Gunks where there are an endless number of way bold and desperately runout routes and no shortage of groundfall, ledgefall, and bad roof juju potential. But again, you are probably representing a majority sentiment of today's climbers - definitely a generational change and I just don't necessarily agree it is a good one. In the Revolutionary war most smart folks hid behind trees and fought dirty - maybe the question is how were succeeding generations so misled as to believe that their "modern" style and ethics were so much better and effective than those used by the folks that founded the country. Who knows? Could have been because there were so many more of them, that they assumed far less personal responsibility for their own safety, were far more socialized than earlier generations, and had very different perceptions of risk.

Matt, in this case I did put it up in my own style without regard for others which was free leading on Crack'N Ups and Lowe/Byrne balls, no pre-cleaning, and making do with some pretty lousy belays. But that's me and not the tradition of the area that's my adopted home, I retro'd the pins / anchors in line with local tradition and in consultation with long standing climbers from the area. I have a ton of respect for all those folks, the routes they did, and the style/ethic they put them up with. More an homage and contribution to their climbing legacy than my own after climbing and benefiting from their routes for so many years. It was a wild adventure I hadn't had in awhile on such initially raw terrain and am pretty damn grateful for the opportunity to have done it. Had I done it twenty years ago I'd like to believe I would have made exactly the same choices then.

I know of next to no one from Colorado to New Hampshire to North Carolina that took the clean climbing ethic to the extreme of meaning no fixed pro ever; in my experience it was always gear and judicious use of fixed pro only when absolutely warranted by an outstanding line. I did climb with Ken Nichols on a couple of weekends in CT and was witness to one of his [clever] hookfests, but Ken can be an extreme operator as we all know. That doesn't mean any of us climbed with a hammer or drill, it meant we might come back with one if a route we thought a route truly [if rarely] warranted a piece of fixed pro; again, I placed one pin and no bolts for protection in thirty years until last fall when I placed a couple of pins that were in keeping with local ethics and rock (and in consultation with long time folks, as while its my adopted home, it's not my original home area). "Judicious" is the operative word and one that humans in general have a hard time with as a species in most aspects of life, not just climbing. If chalk and fixed pro were used "judiciously", as in only when absolutely necessary, things would be a lot less complicated in general as far as I'm concerned. But there has always been a subjective personal and community give and take around the clean ethic both between individuals and different crags. Also, the "community" was significantly smaller then if you recall and some semblence of consensus did tend to emerge at each crag relative to a shared interpretation - next to no one operated under absolutes. Part of the problem to day is there are so many [different/gym] climbers, factions, commercial interests, etc. that consensus is now getting to be very difficult to reach without government intervention - which is pretty much the only way areas are currently being protected from bolting. Not at all, but to be completely blunt once again, I think the issue in reality is more about sheer population numbers and resource constraints than courage, style, or ethics. Before sport climbing and gyms somewhere between 50-70% of today's climbers wouldn't be climbers and the problem isn't really meeting the needs of those among them that become really skilled so much as providing "safe" [non-runout 5.8's] venues for the majority of these folks year in, year out, though bolting by talented sport climbers is not without issues when they come to trad areas. And again, I'm not sure that talking is necessarily a much of a solution beyond a sauve with the raw numbers we're currently dealing with. A certain percentage at this point are going to be dead set on recreating the gym experience outside regardless of what is said and damage will continue to be done. Witness "ignorance [is] bliss" up in your neck of the woods; a fine piece of work and a quite natural extension/expression of this trend and stats. That would be great, I've been pretty hyped up about that place since an article back in the late 80's. Obviously...

bwrts, The places you mentioned bolting it prohibited by government regulations and policing and all had their bolting skirmishes (I'd have to check with my DL buddies on that one as that shit is almost too hard to drill...).

DCramer, Thanks for TR'ing out at Banks - I haven't made it out there either but it's definitely high on the list. My partners and I are also pretty ardent about not bolting top ropeable climbs. I've never understood the hypocrisy of saying we bolt because we want to focus on the physical movement, and then bolt a topropeable climb that would have let them focus entirely on the movement without posing occasionally to clip a bolt.

DCramer, "You are clearly saying that it was the norm that people chose not to do FA if they would require a pin or bolt." I was responding to this statement which is not at all what I was saying... My point with regard to S. Platte, GOG, etc., is that if you look at the complete list of FA's put up from 73-79 you'd find that the number that were put up in a non-clean ethic were a distinct minority, but again that ethic never dictated that no fixed pro ever be used, but that it be used judiciously and only when absolutely necessary and the common interpretation of that ethic certainly understood that would mean many mixed routes for some rock/crags. I'm not and never was an extreme purist in the Jim Erickson or Chuck Nichols mold and there were never more than a handful that were. In thirty one years of climbing I've nailed only a handful of pins, drilled only a few bolts and those only for anchors never for pro on a route; we always put the rock first and only compromised it with fixed pro when we considered a line was way beyond simply worthy. And Matt, not only do I think that it's a good idea to "throw themselves at an unclimbed line, only to repeatedly fall...", it's my idea of a good time. Case in point, last fall we put up a mixed 5.11c-R five pitch route that was very much in keeping with groundup ethics, honored the rock, and kept with long-standing local traditions ( it's R rated as one crux is over a disconcerting, but basically safe flake that has to be "set" before being used, not because of runouts). It went up as a 5.10d C1 with three single points of aid, falls from loose blocks that cut, and several on an initial crux variation that will likely never go free; we did the FFA a couple of weeks later and had to come up with an entirely different crux variation. It also now "sports" several pins that were retro'd in after the the route was put up (and much discussion) because I put up several of the [free] pitches on a string of Crack'N Ups and #1/#2 Lowe/Byrne Balls. Neither of which is commonly available (the Camp/Trango ball nuts aren't near the tools the Lowe or Lowe/Byrne ones are) and after talking with other long time Beacon climbers (all with a clean ethic) we made the decision to put in several pins where the alternative was gear that is no longer commonly available. And last but not least it sports decent anchors as several of the belays were also pretty damn sketchy. It's now basically safe, but as far as I know no one's been back up it since. DCramer, I suspect we just had different experiences you out here and me further East. I've never had the priviledge of climbing in either JTree or Index but I have my suspicions you are probably one of the sandbagging bastards with stout runout routes we always heard about when talk did turn to Index and Squamish.

Dead serious. Most of your Cali and CO route examples are exceptions to the norm even in most of both states and as a percentage of the total FA's put up in that same time frame in both places. And I'm not saying people didn't put up mixed routes - I'm saying pins and bolts were absolutely pro of last resort. I sunk a soft spade pin on a roof where the crack died six feet short of the corner for one [very desperate] aid move because the overall free climbing up to and over the rest of the roof made it worth doing. Again, lots of mixed route FA's went up, but people tried everything else they could before resorting to fixed pro. You keep attempting to paint a picture where there was no baseline clean FA ethic and that is not at all accurate.

Again, clean climbing was the prevailing baseline ethic of the day - Harvey Carter would be a very large and quite notable exception to any discussion about clean climbing advocacy and again - the character of the rock wasn't excluded from rational thought - Garden of Gods, S. Platte, and J-Tree; bolts got used and in many case were entirely appropriate when they got used. Pins on desert towers - ditto. Harvey, clean? Never that I remember - a machine gun bolter by the look of Independence Pass in '79. Again, by and large every example of routes or crags you sight are exceptions to the prevailing norm and most based on the local character of the rock. Spout all the exceptions you want - taken all together they amount to a very small percentage of the climbing going on in the country at the time. Where rock took pro, pro was used; pins and bolts were considered pro of last resort; and FA's were done ground up with no dogging - period.

DCramer, Well, most all of your examples are Cali where I didn't climb in the 70's so I can't speak to what went on there in first person. I should also clarify that in most all my post I'm talking about FA activity. My partners and I were pretty fortunate in that pretty much everything we touched was an FA, and we tried to put up FA's everywhere we went for more than a day or two. The FA ethic of the day was clearly clean, no bolting, no nailing, and no dogging. Does that mean no pins and no bolts were ever used by clean advocates - absolutely not. That's the definition of a baseline ethic, it's a default starting approach to putting up routes. That doesn't mean no mixed routes were established; it meant that everyone thought damn hard and long before pulling out a hammer or drill and that that fixed pro was a permanent decision of last resort - pro, pins, then bolts was the progression. My partners and I put up easily over a 150+ FA's with no bolts and one pin during that time. Again, I'm speaking of the FA ethic of the day, but that said, I saw almost no one dogging in any of the climbing areas that I climbed at during the '70s, people climbed until they fell and then lowered, and "falling" really was what you heard all echoing all day long. Most folks also pulled the rope and reclipped their pro, or at least all the folks I climbed with and around. And this has nothing to do with morality - but ethics and what climbers were and are striving for personally. If you want an brutally honest assessment of the 70's it was that only a handful of folks were really artisans with passive pro, about a third to a half were competent with it, and the last half or a third sucked at placing pro and were perpetually nervous - they saw pro as a necessary evil and were a ready made audience for sport climbing when it started to spread. Lack of craft and skill played a big role in feeding the growth of sport climbing behind talented guys like Watts who could lead trad with the best of them. With regard to John maintaining pins in the Gunks, "maintaining" is the operative word and folks weren't nailing on the majority of FA's going up there at the time. As for top rope rehearsing somewhere else in the Midwest, you don't say where, but no one I know or heard about top-rope rehearsed FA's in any of the areas I climbed at during those days. Again, I can't speak for the prevailing conditions in Cali at the time, or for the folks you hung out with, but everywhere I went East of Cali clean climbing was definitely the norm.

Again, I have no doubt you can name a long list of abberations and execptions to the rule - but the prevailing, baseline ethic of the day was clean, ground up, and no dogging. The assertion that it somehow wasn't is a pretty thoroughly revisionist view in my opinion - either that or you hung out with very, very different crews of folks than I did.

DCramer, Early 70's were a transition to a clean, ground-up ethics which were pretty firmly rooted when I started climbing in '74. Were there exceptions, you bet and you point some of them out. Were they in any way the norm? Not at all and in any place I climbed during those years. Now maybe you and your friends didn't adopt a clean, groundup ethic, but Colorado, Wyoming, the fledgling Midwest, the Gunks, Connecticut, and Seneca were all in full clean mode by the time I arrived at them in the mid 70's. The Valley is a universe unto itself you can find endless exceptions that occured both by circumstance and personality, but by and large the clean, groundup ethic swept the nation's crags fairly completely - no nailing, no bolts, no pre-placing pro, no previewing, and especially no dogging. It wasn't a gray issue at all except in a few places like Smith where the nature of the rock was an issue and with a few individuals - it was pretty much a clean sweep and universally adopted. Each area had it's pecularities and eccentricities like hooking in CT but the baseline ethic above ruled the day pretty much everywhere and anywhere I went during the '70s. I'd have to say again that earlier comments in the thread about not falling are a complete and utter mystery to me. No one I knew outside of Jim Erickson had any compunction about falling at all, certainly not Jim Collins - if anything we were all taking endless big plunges on stoppers and hexs with hip belays. Again, outside of Erickson I never met or even read about anyone with a "no falling" ethic and on the routes we were putting up or our friends were putting up in Eldo and the Gunks the odds of getting up most of those routes onsight was pretty damn slim. And Erickson was only against falling as an onsight purist - he was only interested in onsights and so a climb was "tainted" once he fell on it so he would move on - that more or less rated a universal "whatever, Jim" at the time.

Jay, the actual heart of the matter isn't the use of ever-evolving technology at all - that has been a status quo forever, generation to generation. All climbs, climbing, and climbers stand on the shoulders of those that came before them whether they care to acknowledge it or not. What has fundamentally changed is twenty years of climbing gyms and the product they produce. In the "olde days" people learned to climb outside on rocks from experienced climbers. Gyms were originally conceived so we could have an acceptable approximate emulation of outdoor climbing indoors in inclement weather; the gyms themselves were enabled by several years of "sport" climbing and the bolting experience and gear it provided. The primary difference with gyms being that they were specifically designed as commercial ventures with marketing and insurance requirements that mandated climbing in them be an entirely risk-free clipping experience. The big generational change of note is that a very high percentage of people now learn to climb in these risk-free, indoor environments. What no one really considered in the beginning is how much of what kind of "product" or climbers these gyms would be cranking out and unleashing on the world twenty years later - and I'm not talking about the top 5%, I'm talking the staggering 95%. One of the real emerging trends that is easy to spot on-line is a growing collective sense of an entitlement or "right" to emulate and reproduce the risk (and gear) free clipping experience they have indoors outside on real rock. Being old enough to have watched this phenom unfold over the years I can tell you it is a profound and ironically perverse reversal of reality. This fundamental change in how people first experience "climbing" is nothing like any generational change that came before and is not without consequences. For every Rodden and Caldwell, there is now a very large, flat pyramid of mostly inexperienced and novice gym/sport climbers beneath them where in the past there was a small steep pyramid of mostly intermediate and experienced trad/sport climbers beneath every Hill and Kauk. The reason for that smaller, steep pyramid was that most folks quit after a couple of goes and didn't keep climbing (and to be completely honest, that has and will always be fine with me). It is this large well of inexperienced gym/sport climbers supported by gyms that increasingly are pressuring for more "safe" climbs and continuously spawn climbers with drills who can't quite grasp the startling difference between the paid "public service" of coursetting in a gym with the obsessively selfish pursuit of a [trad] FA (granted, a sport FA is a fairly gray beast). A second fundamental change is one that doesn't get talked about much and that is the evolution from hearing "falling" echoing off crag walls in the 70's to "take" echoing off them today. While many folks think trad vs. sport climbing is all about bolting I have a quite different perspective - that the real fundamental difference over recent generations (sport and trad) is the change from a ground-up ethic to a dogging/hanging one; and that's what bolts are really all about - not "safety" - but rather the ability to fall or dog your way up a route. This is a real change in mentality and one where I'd have to part with the other person here with thirty one years of experience - in the 70's we climbed roofs and overhangs almost exclusively and we fell in wild abundance, but never did hang. We always went for the onsight, but on the routes we were putting up that was incredibly rare so we fell, came back to the belay, pulled the rope, and went again. Ground up vs. dogging is the second fundamental change in climbing and what is at the real heart of bolting - hell, even modern "trad" climbers dog up routes today. One can certainly argue that dogging is a faster way to get "better", but that hardly seems to be what's happening when I watch folks dogging up sport and trad 5.8's, rather it simply seems to be the accepted style and a large majority of folks expect a bolt to be there every 6 feet to allow them to do it. So Matt, your question has merit - the gyms aren't going anywhere, so what's the right way to deal with the annual army of climbers they produce? One problem I have is population-based and that they simply just crank out such and large annual product and the "tidal flow" of "climbers" climbers flowing through today's "[commercial] system" borders on way too many for my taste; but hey, I'm an old guy that doesn't like crowds. Who knows, maybe climbing will fall out of favor and trendiness like windsurfing did with an attending collapse of folks that identify themselves as "climbers", but gyms now seem as deeply embedded in pop suburban culture as Chucky-Cheese so I doubt it. So I basically just trad climb and avoid crowds whenever possible; I also lurk around RC, supertaco, and rc.com as a lingering and occasional voice from the past; and last I've taken up with some other folks and am helping preserve a sense of tradition and history out at Beacon Rock by helping and informing folks that do make it out to trad climb. I'm personally not convinced that talk of any kind will change the initial "safe" clipping imprint on the vast majority of climbers who start climbing in gyms; but, I do try to welcome and communicate with those that decide to shake off those chains and learn to become trad climbers. P.S. With regard to your suggestion of having folks read inspirational works of great climbers; I typically shy way in the other direction of having folks simply start seconding experience trad leaders and learning to use the gear with an eye towards them building their own confidence and experience and explicitly ignoring what "better" or "great" climbers can do. I think the use of "icons" and "heros" can be counter-productive in the beginning as they sometimes just decide they could never do those things or become those kind of people - that the "image" is just too large and overwhelming at that point. I don't want anyone I'm teaching to become a Lynn Hill or Tommy Caldwell, I want them to become the best climber they can be.