Situational Ethics?

[Dane]

I would really like to know what the general consensus is today on some ethics questions. Would these tacics be tolerated on this side of the mountains at The Chief, Index, or Si? What do you think should be done with these climbs?

 

 

Dishman- 4 routes with a total of 6 chipped holds.

One bolted trad crack.

Limestone crags- 2 routes with total of 3 chipped holds

Banks Lake-1

 

How about routes with artificial gyn holds bolted to natural rock?

 

Here is the original thread. What do you think?

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/363588/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1

[rat]

dane's post from the spokane area thread (copied below) pretty much says it all. and according to early poll returns, it looks like there'll be a lot of burning and hanging going on---about fucking time.

 

 

 

Marty sadly you don't get it.

 

I guess the discussion isn't going to get us far. May be it will mean something to others who read this and climb in the area.

 

The problem is, and this is going to sound trite, but it is about "fear".

 

I climbed 5.12 and soloed 5.11 to see if I could actually do it. But you don't have to climb 5.9 or solo 5.6 to care about what happens at Dishman. All you have to do is climb to figure out what has happened at Dishman is wrong.

 

I stayed off things that scared me, like the Bachar-Yerian or Super Crack at Midnight. I lowered a number of climbs to my level by hanging on them and beating them to death. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Adding permanent additional pro to acknowledged climbs that were done years ago is FLATLY unacceptable by any modern standard, at any level.

 

Do I need to comment on the ethics of chopping holds or adding artificial holds to natural climbs? I'll make a statement on that when I get back to Dishman shortly. They'll all be gone when I am done.

 

No one can justify adding pro on long standing climbs and bolting trad routes as acceptable for any reason. The only reason I see is fear. Fear is a good thing right up to the point where you allow your fear to define how you treat our enviroment.

 

quote box added by off white for clarity, no editing done

Edited June 24, 2004 by Off_White

[LUCKY]

Every route is a different situation and must be judged separately and if you have not or can not climb a route how can you make a judgement.

The majority of climbers don't look at the First assent list and don't care about an individuals hurt ego , the quality of (A) route is more important than the individual that climbed it.

Example a run out test piece is exactly that, a run out choss climb climb sent from the ground up with a bad walk off and rock fall and a bad belay should not be saved in it's present form just for someones ego.

A group of out of control crow bar climbers is just as scary as A group of out of control battery powered rotodriller climbers.

I know high end NW climbers that have added bolts on some of their old runout climbs so they and others could enjoy them to only have the bolts chopped that is ridiculous.

You guy need to chill and think of what is best for the crag and your fellow climbers and put the ego down.

 

NEW POLE

Should we all head to the MUD PILE ( SMITH ) with crow bars and epoxy putty, there are many more retro jobs and manufactured holds there to be fixed?

[fenderfour]

I don't think that this is about ego, but ethics (as the poll says). People's ethics are different which is why (I think) Dane started this poll.

 

You're right Lucky - Routes are different. Some are run out. If you don't want to climb a runout, don't climb the route. Some are 5.14. I'm not going to chip holds to make it a fun route for me, I will respect the others who can climb it.

 

I agree that a group of out of control crowbar climbers is scary. Are these guys really out of control?

[MCash]

Just as a point of clarification: There is more than 1 traditional route at Dishman that was turned into a sport climb. In addition to Klingon, The Force (10A) has bolts right next to the crack. There is atleast one more, the name escapes me. In addition to this, there are several routes that utilized natural protection and bolts in different spots. The points of natural protection are now bolted. It is my opinion that all bolts that fit into the above categories should be removed.

[LUCKY]

Royal Robbins and Waren Harding

history repeats itself

Don't think you know a climb or what it is about till you have done it.

I have not climbed at Dishman and I have no judjement at this time, later this year I could give you my opinion on each route separately .Like I would not presume that ALL the climbs need to be retrobloted I would not presume all the retrobolts need to be chopped with out ever climbing there, unlike some that want to jump on the band wagon here.I personaly am not a retrobolter or a bolt chopper,I have fixed hardware and added anchors as a community service,I don't know how I got into this and wish I hadn't

If you don't think EGO does not enter into climbing and is not present here your not paying attention. If everyone would chill and do what is best for the crag we all would benefit.

[RuMR]

Every route is a different situation and must be judged separately and if you have not or can not climb a route how can you make a judgement.

The majority of climbers don't look at the First assent list and don't care about an individuals hurt ego , the quality of (A) route is more important than the individual that climbed it.

Example a run out test piece is exactly that, a run out choss climb climb sent from the ground up with a bad walk off and rock fall and a bad belay should not be saved in it's present form just for someones ego.

A group of out of control crow bar climbers is just as scary as A group of out of control battery powered rotodriller climbers.

I know high end NW climbers that have added bolts on some of their old runout climbs so they and others could enjoy them to only have the bolts chopped that is ridiculous.

You guy need to chill and think of what is best for the crag and your fellow climbers and put the ego down.

 

NEW POLE

Should we all head to the MUD PILE ( SMITH ) with crow bars and epoxy putty, there are many more retro jobs and manufactured holds there to be fixed?

 

uhhh lucky, you are in error...there are actually very few (i can think of two or three routes in the WHOLE park) that have been retro'ed at smith...

 

Rudy

[cj001f]

If everyone would chill and do what is best for the crag we all would benefit.

Are you going to decide what's best? That's what these arguments are all about...

[Dane]

A group of out of control crow bar climbers is just as scary as A group of out of control battery powered rotodriller climbers.

 

Amen to that and why it is easier to walk away from a mess like this than do something about it. I have been on both sides of the issue at different times. By far the worse of the two normally is the chopped mess. But this isn't normal. Now we have a line of bolts beside a perfectly good crack and gym holds bolted to some pretty good routes. I'd rather see a covertly chipped hold that that kind of ugly, shenanigan.

 

And yes there are egos involved for better or for worse. I'd say Marty (who isn't the guilty party on all of this) and I are about par on ego.

 

The dirty bastards who did bolt the trad lines...I would like to have a little chat with. Amazing how they haven't popped up here admitting what they did.

[slaphappy]

The dirty bastards who did bolt the trad lines...I would like to have a little chat with. Amazing how they haven't popped up here admitting what they did.

 

***NEWSFLASH***

 

Most climbers don't read this crap!

[Off_White]

I think Marty should be commended for debating here, most sport route developers wouldn't bother, and I very much appreciate the line both he and Dane draw between opinions and the person who holds them. Passions run high on the topic, and being able to argue in a civil manner calls for committment from all parties. to you all.

 

Myself, I feel rather conflicted on the subject, and I like Lucky's case-by-case approach. On the one hand, the trad end of Dane's poll: No chipping, no holds added, no bolts next to natural protection, and no messing with someone else's creation have pretty much been ground rules since I started climbing in 1973, and I've always believed in them. The thing is that life is rather more gray, and I find I've engaged in some of these things.

 

I own a crag, as in it's on my property, and legally I could grind it flat and show movies on it if I wanted. The rock is an old sandstone quarry, so it was man made, but it sure feels like you're climbing when you're on it. There is a route I bolted four artificial holds on. It provides access through a band of bad rock so you can get up to a pretty damn good route. It doesn't matter how much you scrub this bad section, shit just keeps coming off. Now, it's possible to scrabble through the crap in an unpleasant and sketchy manner, but after I pulled a briefcase size chunk off onto my leg, I decided it was just bullshit, and if I didn't do something different the route just wouldn't be worth the hassle. Consequently, I put the four holds on through the most solid section of rock, which did not otherwise offer access to the route. Sometimes I feel a little silly, because even with the holds it's still easy 5.10 to get onto the route, but given that the crux is middling 5.11, it's not inappropriate. It's not beautiful, but it does make the route worthwhile. So, am I in the wrong?

 

Down at the far end of the crag there is a 5.9/10a fingertip lieback in a corner. It's the easiest and most straightforward route on the crag. I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of the stone to hold small nuts and tiny cams and the position of the route makes the placements difficult to achieve and inspect, so I put four bolts on the face to protect the 50' long route. It would seem silly to me that the easiest route at the quarry would be the one most likely to kill you, and I really don't want any dead bodies on my property. I was the first to clean and climb the corner, so I am the FA as well as the legal owner. Am I in the wrong?

 

There's another route, a great 5.10c outing, which also is one of the easier lines here. A significant flake that plays a big role in the climb was somewhat loose. If I pried it off, it would leave a scar, and make the route notably harder. Instead, partly from an agenda of wanting to have a few moderate routes here, I carefully used backer rod to create a dam and filled part of the back of the flake with construction epoxy. If you look closely, you can tell the hold has been reinforced, but it's neither obvious nor messy. If I had pried off the flake one of the few 5.10's at the quarry would be gone. Am I in the wrong?

 

Now, I understand, this is a bizarre case given the ownership of the crag. It wouldn't occur to me to do these things at Leavenworth, Darrington, Tieton River, or even Vantage because I wouldn't feel empowered to make that decision. None of those places are "home" even in the sense that I climb there a whole bunch. But I can imagine the decision process that led me to my actions being applied by someone else at another crag, and so I feel conflicted by the whole thing.

 

Does anyone know how you would fill in a chipped hold that wouldn't look worse than the original scar? I might have a few ideas, but they would be somewhat esoteric and require skills and materials not commonly accessible. I think chipping is even worse than bolting a hold on, since holes can be filled, but chipped edges don't disappear well. But even here there is a gray area. When does cleaning become chipping? In some of the FRAC (funky rock awesome climbing) areas that sport climbing has clasped to its bosom, the line can be a little blurry. Where one person thinks they're cleaning things up and making the route possible, others might think they're manufacturing holds.

 

Even well meaning upgrades can be botched and leave a worse mess than they intended to fix. The Dike Route on Pywiak Dome in Tuoloumne is a good example. The route is one of the earliest bolt protected climbs done up there, and was very run out because the leader was simply too terrified and unable to stop and drill. I think later on a couple bolts were added, but the route has remained a run out affair that requires a certain amount of poise. Nonetheless, it has been very popular, and sees lots of traffic. The last time I did the route (which was years ago, things may have changed) someone had upgraded the rusty 1/4" bolts with modern 3/8" and heavy stainless steel hangers. When you're 50 or 60 feet out, that sort of thing is appreciated. The problem was that instead of removing the old bolts, they simply placed new ones nearby, and I think there was a botched hole or two as well. The net result, while safer and done with good intentions, was rather ghastly and ugly. Replacing unsafe bolts is widely lauded as a community service, and yet this was wrong.

 

Can retrobolting be acceptable? I have a friend who put up stacks of scary routes in Tucson. He had an amazing ability to move slowly, securely, and slothlike over 5.10 face climbing with such confidence that protection wasn't that much of an issue. Drilling by hand is tedious and time consuming. Consequently, there are some great lines that see no traffic. My friend no longer lives down there, so he is generally unable to change things himself. He's open to the idea of making some of these routes safer for others, but the logistics involved in arranging for appropriate proxy retro-bolting coupled with the fact that others might be offended and chop the additions have kept anything from happening. If the FA party is willing to see things change, I think retro-bolting may be acceptable, but it does take effort and communication, and particularly when you throw in layers of different generations and folks who fade from the sport, it would take a determined effort to secure that approval.

 

Anyway, after all that blather, you can see where I'm going. In theory, I believe in the rules, but in practice I can see blurry edges that make the application more of a process than a binary operation.

[Dane]

***NEWSFLASH***

Most climbers don't read this crap!

 

Clue! I was thinking a chat in person...since I was at Dishman and later at dinner in Spokane and most of the folks involved knew I was there

[slaphappy]

***NEWSFLASH***

Most climbers don't read this crap!

 

Clue! I was thinking a chat in person...since I was at Dishman and later at dinner in Spokane and most of the folks involved knew I was there

 

Amazing how they haven't popped up here admitting what they did.

 

Oh yeh, that's clear...tool!

[Marty]

Hey guys. There's a big chance that the other parties have no clue that this chat is going on. And also it seems to me that only about 5 people are willing to coment anyhow showing just the level of interest at large.

[Marty]

But Rudy you'll have to admit that well be fixing a lot of chipped pockets and undoing a lot of glued holds. (I won't be because I'll be out climbing in my free time not messing with all this crap)

[Marty]

Dane, you're preaching to the choir on this website. I could have filled in you're poll results if you would have just asked me the questions.

The majority of climbers have never done first ascents and most begining climbers are spoon fed by the Mountaineers or some wise old climbing sage (They've never came upon 15 ft of blank rock in the middle of a prospective route and had to make a decision). Of course this clouds their objectivity so we both know the poll results before its finished.

Edited June 25, 2004 by Marty

[pindude]

Marty, You're even trying to rationalize away the results of this poll. Does the bullshit and ridiculousness ever end?

 

You have no idea what you are talking about, and you don't know the Spokane Mountaineers, who are completely autonomous and have no ties to the Mountaineers of the west side. The Spokane Mounties are a fiercely independent organization. Its individuals represent most every part of the INW outdoor community, and there are many different opinions depending on the topic. 99% of them don't read or post here, but the ones that have, and the ones I've spoken to, are unanimous about this issue and reflect what has been posted on this board and in this poll.

 

Many of my climbing friends do not belong to any organized outdoors club, and are too independent for that. From those I've spoken with, their opinions again are the same as the consensus being shown on this board.

 

So who exactly is the climbing sage you speak of?

[RuMR]

But Rudy you'll have to admit that well be fixing a lot of chipped pockets and undoing a lot of glued holds. (I won't be because I'll be out climbing in my free time not messing with all this crap)

 

You're right marty...but putting routes up at smiff requires EXTENSIVE cleaning...the routes are literally excavated out of the compressed peanut butter that forms the routes...the only really good virgin rock there is that red varnish/patina stuff...the rest is pure mud...so, when does cleaning becoming chipping???

 

...you have done more for putting spokane on the map than just about anyone...keep up the good work!!!

 

Peace out

 

PS: I busted your "off-route" hold off of chronic when cole showed me it... Justkiddin!

[EWolfe]

putting routes up at smiff requires EXTENSIVE cleaning...the routes are literally excavated out of the compressed peanut butter that forms the routes...the only really good virgin rock there is that red varnish/patina stuff...the rest is pure mud...so, when does cleaning becoming chipping???

 

The hammer test always has been my guideline at Smith, having put up a few routes there.

 

Tap it with a hammer, if it is solid, leave it.

 

If it is hollow, flip the hammer and apply reasonable amounts of pry-pressure to the hold with the claw.

 

If it still doesn't come off, leave it.

 

If it is a critical hold, consider reinforcing it with epoxy (I have never done this)

 

[backcountrydog]

Offwhite i think you bring up a lot of excellent points that MOST people who climb (and complain about climbs) dont consider. deciding what to do in certain situations is reserved for those that put up routes and maintain them, for the most part. and people who dont put themselves in the position of pioneering new routes, dont often understand the decisions faced in doing so.

and marty and lucky are pretty right on w what they are saying

[Dane]

MOST people who climb (and complain about climbs) dont consider. deciding what to do in certain situations is reserved for those that put up routes and maintain them, for the most part. and people who dont put themselves in the position of pioneering new routes, dont often understand the decisions faced in doing so.

 

Thanks...excellent example, for situational ethics. Some how you guys seem to think that it is OK for you but not OK for the climbing community?

 

Sadly the elitiest attitude is how we got here. I have actually put up a few routes myself and could have done exactly what Marty and friends choose to do at Dishman....could have done it 10 years ago and choose not to because the rock was more valuable to me that putting my name on another route.

 

Deciding what should be done on any routes is a privledge reserved for those that actually go out and do the climbs but those decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

[pope]

Thanks...excellent example, for situational ethics. Some how you guys seem to think that it is OK for you but not OK for the climbing community?

.......

 

Sadly the elitiest attitude is how we got here.Deciding what should be done on any routes is a privledge reserved for those that actually go out and do the climbs but those decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

 

In Off White's "situation", he's right that he can legally do whatever he wants (bolt a crack, attach a Metolius jug, etc.), since he owns the damn place. He only needs to convince himself that his modifications are superior to what Mother Nature has offered.

 

In a more public setting, we share the resource. Whenever you place fixed gear, clean a flake, or (Heaven forbid) carve a hold, you are modfiying the rock in such a way that every subsequent party will be denied the chance for a "pioneering" experience. I think an underlying assumption is that the rock should dictate the climbing and the protection TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. If establishing a route requires massive engineering that you know will be met with disapproval, maybe it's not worth doing. Maybe you aren't really interested in rock climbing but could find the kind of challenge you're seeking at McDonald's Playland.

 

If the majority of climbers do not wish to encounter plastic holds and bolted cracks, this needs to be respected in a shared space. The notion that we need "different ethics for different situations" is born of arrogance, an arrogance that says, "Screw tradition, screw the wilderness experience, screw what everybody else thinks..I know what's best for MY route."

 

Reading through this thread I'm reminded of an episode in Smith Rock ethics where some climber used a hammer to soften the edge of a sharp jug because his girlfriend had complained about it. In his mind, he must have been carefully weighing how HIS situation called for suspending traditional guidelines. He probably imagined himself wrestling in that ethical gray area described by Off White. Everybody else thought he was an a__hole.

[RuMR]

"If the majority of climbers do not wish to encounter plastic holds and bolted cracks, this needs to be respected in a shared space. "

 

This is the real crux of the issue...do you know the exact ratio of preference to non preference? YOU DON'T and neither DO I...

 

And, for me, it does vary with the place...i got no problems with the way little si was developed, but would hate to see the same tactics applied to the mountains or yosemite, or indian creek...Why can't there be a split in terms of areas?? Why does everything have to follow the traditional methods...shit, if that was the case everything would be pin protected...

 

I think its assinine to flat state that only ONE APPROVED METHOD exists for establishing routes...its shortsighted at best and beach-nazi at the worst...there is room enough to have both methods coexisting...

[Dru]

what is coexistence about retrobolting existing routes?

[LUCKY]

 

Edited June 29, 2004 by LUCKY