Big issues?

[fleblebleb]

I don't really buy that. Gym-to-crag is a pretty simple transition safety-wise. TR-to-lead and sport-to-trad are far harder, and getting into alpine is the really dangerous bit.

[Greg_W]

I don't really buy that. Gym-to-crag is a pretty simple transition safety-wise.

 

You're way off-base here, man.

[mtngrrrl]

I worked in a climbing gym for two years, and we always taught people that climbing outdoors is different and required more knowledge and training. Most gym climbers aren't eager to get into the backcountry for climbing. Exit 38 is a thrill and Smith is a HUGE deal to most of them.

 

Yes, we see inexperienced people at crags. I was an inexperienced cragger once, long before I ever climbed in a gym. I've also seen plenty of inexperienced people on multi-day backpacking trips, ill-prepared day hikers on Mt. Washington in N.H., uninformed snowshoers in avy territory and bicyclists on the STP who can't change their own flat tire.

 

Maybe the problem is more about store-to-activity transitions, that is, people who get the gear to do X activity, but don't bother to learn anything more about it. Think about REI's ad campaigns in recent years: "Gear you Gotta Have". That one really irked me. It's siren's call to the masses with cash to burn on things they don't even need.

 

As much as people like to bash the Mounties around here (I've done it too), most people take their classes to prepare themselves. It's great that there is a large organization out there that offers some training for people who feel responsible enough to learn something.

 

So to me, a big issue is people who are lazy and don't bother to learn about what they're doing. This trickles down into impact and access issues.

[fleblebleb]

I don't really buy that. Gym-to-crag is a pretty simple transition safety-wise.

 

You're way off-base here, man.

 

Why? You know how to back-thread, tie your knot and belay. A gym climber going cragging doesn't have to lead, or clean the anchors. Learning how to lead on bolts is a rather trivial exercise as well.

[selkirk]

On a safe bolted area it's probably a one day transition from gym to following at a crag. And maybe another day to lead easy bolted routes.

 

It's the transitions that involve an increase in experience to attain the required judgement that are the difficult ones. i.e. trad, alpine, mountaineering, anything backcountry. Seems like the best solution is that as a community whenever we introduce someone new to the support make sure that we teach them everything they need to know both safety wise and ethically/ impact wise.

[Greg_W]

I would posit that learning to lead is never a trivial exercise. These goofs figure they flash 5.11 in the gym, they surely can handle a little old 5.10b, and then they get in trouble. How does gym experience prepare you to set up an adequate, bomber toprope belay? It doesn't. What prepares them for multi-directional or equalized toprope anchors? Loading over an edge? I don't think so.

[fleblebleb]

Recipe for adequate, bomber toprope belay: Clip left bolt with draw. Clip right bolt with draw. Magic trick: Oppose gates. Magic magic trick: Use those nifty locking biners.

 

Gate orientation when clipping the lower bolts is not much more complicated. On the whole, leading on bolts *is* a rather trivial exercise. Cleaning the anchors is far more dangerous.

 

Anyways, enough thread derailment.

[RuMR]

Just curious, but how did you learn to climb safely?

 

Personally, i damn near killed myself for the first 2 years of climbing...there were no schools, guides or gyms to get even a smattering of help...just me and a buddy trying to figure stuff out...

 

by and large, i think a higher percentage of todays beginner climbers are better prepared and have better access to help/guidance than those of 15 to 20 years ago...and i think its due to the gyms...

[Stefan]

The ever-increasing desire to do things "in a day" as a show of "coolness". Tacking on "car-to-car" in every discussion of a climb. One begins to wonder about the motivations of some people to be out there.

 

The main reason I do car to car--I have to work. Not enough days to play. Work is a big issue!

[fleblebleb]

Right, work is definitely a big issue.

[mattp]

Good point, Rudy. Instruction and clinics and stuff are now offered in gyms where 25 years ago there was no such offering, or little of it, outside of climbing clubs and guide services.

 

Fleb, I think you oversimplify a bit, but I basically agree that following-to-leading or sport-to-trad are probably larger leaps than simply gym-to-exit-38. However, I think you discount some of the challenges you have learned to face. Even at Exit 38, the holds are not marked with tape (if it hasn't rained, they may however be marked with chalk). You gotta use more judgment to find a route. Even at Exit 38, there remains some danger of stonefall. You gotta use some judgment about where to sit while you belay. Even at Exit 38, there are places where the ground at the bottom of the crag is not flat and it is not covered with pea gravel. You have to be careful not to fall on your way to the first bolt. And, after that, there are places where you could get hurt in a leader fall -- you gotta use some judgment about where to just throw yourself at a move you are unsure of. You also may have to be able to get yourself out of a jam if you drop your rope from the top of a pitch when you are threading the anchors. Now that I think of it, we are some badass mofo's, climbing at such a terrifying place as Exit 38!

[Dru]

25 years ago it was 1979... .I have news for you but one of the hottest issues of the early 70's was the supposedly burgeoning population of outdoor enthusiasts crowding up the backcountry! Not that I recall it myself, probably unlike you, but one has only to read the letters columns or alpine journals of the day to see page after page of ethical yammering about the onslaught of "nature loving" hippies and the impact they were wreaking on crags and alpine meadows. Oh yes and guides and outdoor schools such as Outward Bound were taking the flak for putting these poorly trained n00bs out there.

[minx]

I don't really buy that. Gym-to-crag is a pretty simple transition safety-wise. TR-to-lead and sport-to-trad are far harder, and getting into alpine is the really dangerous bit.

 

i don't want to go into details here b/c perhaps the people in this story lurk here. there's lots of things to know that you're not going to learn in the gym. i'm sure the staff at most gyms emphasizes the differences between indoors and out. but lets face it a large percentage of people have little contact with the staff after their belay check.

 

anchors, even bolt anchors require some knowledge. last spring during a w/e outing at a crag we ran into a party that clearly didn't know this. bolts were on top of the ledge. they had set up slings from the bolts that were just long enough so the crossloaded carabiners had their gates right on the edge of the cliff.

 

one of the climbers was having a problem on rappell. she had no idea how to help herself. she couldn't go down any further and was getting tired holding herself there. neither she nor the other two people in her party had a clue what do. she got a quick lesson in back up knots and my partner was able to get her back on rappell safely.

 

obviously most of the time you're not going to have a problem with your atc at the crag. however, it's not uncommon to have to set your anchor from bolts that aren't on vertical face. i'm sure there's plenty of other examples of why it's not quite so simple to go from gym to crag.

Edited September 9, 2004 by minx

[Dru]

I ran into some kids at Lighthouse Park once trying to TR with rope running directly through slings, no biners.... I don't think they had ever been to a gym in their life... "Uh my big brother quit climbing and gave me all this stuff, I think I know how to use it"

[Squid]

Maybe the problem is more about store-to-activity transitions, that is, people who get the gear to do X activity, but don't bother to learn anything more about it. Think about REI's ad campaigns in recent years: "Gear you Gotta Have". That one really irked me. It's siren's call to the masses with cash to burn on things they don't even need.

 

[Divot]

True

[matt_m]

How about the sheer number of climbers today? Anyone got stats on the number of climbers by year since 1960. What would happen, hypothetically, if gyms and bolts disappeared and all that remained was trad climbing. I suspect we have generated our own problems (just the fact that there is something called the "American Safe Climbing Assoc (ASCA)" is probably highly indicative that we are responsible...).

 

What does the ASCA have to do with anything? They're sole purpose is to REPLACE old, manky fixed gear placed "back in the day". They're not putting in new routes that are tightly bolted. I don't want to hear any of that - manky bolts make it "real" climbing crap either. When they were put in, those bolts were SOLID (or as solid as 1/4in compression bolts could be) and the FAist climbed under that blanket - THOSE WERE SOLID BOLTS. 30 years later they're not and the ASCA is returning them to original condition. I STRONGLY think contrived danger (ie climbing a route that's dangerous solely because there are manky bolts) is one of the dumbest things going in climbing right now. If the route was bold, great - I've done HUGE run-outs on slab numerous times. If the route is bold because it has old hardware that's more than even the FAist was experiencing. The ASCA does the climbing community a valuable service, period.

[korup]

I suspect that 15-20 yrs ago a large majority of climbers came to the sport from other outdoor pusuits (hiking, peak-bagging, rafting, whatever) and therefore had a large reservoir of knowledge (weather patterns, why a headlamp can be crucial, etc.). This meant there was already a good base of outdoor common-sense to build on. Today, there are huge numbers of climbers who have never encountered basic things (what a thunderhead looks like, the ability to judge how slippery a trail is, etc etc). There are folks that consider themselves climbers who have never even climbed outside on natural rock. WTF?

This leads to many of the epics and gaper situations all around. You can't just go to REI, plonk down the plastic, and "be a climber." At least stuff like diving and rafting have certification programs to keep the Darwin-ism to a minimum... not that I am in favor of this for climbing, but what happens when john-john high-powered lawyer sues BD or Metolius or Petzl or whatever because somebody goofs a belay and drops someone? I fear it could happen...

End-of-rant

[Guest]

the bottom line is we should all have an attitude that when we climb, no matter where, it's a big deal and someone can always potentially get hurt. look at that women that died on an inflatable wall. it seems pretty absurd. but that's the nature of our sport. if we set a good example in being serious about the risk of what we do for the benafit of the newbies, maybe lives will be saved.

 

sparky

[archenemy]

Bringing up a carnival accident to highlight the dangers of climbing might not prove to be the most powerful arguement...

[Dru]

especially on an inflatable wall. what if she'd been using crampons? pop!

[archenemy]

Crampons? She didn't even have a helmet on, did she? Of course, they are difficult to wear when you have your head up your ass.

[texplorer]

What does the ASCA have to do with anything? They're sole purpose is to REPLACE old, manky fixed gear placed "back in the day". They're not putting in new routes that are tightly bolted. I don't want to hear any of that - manky bolts make it "real" climbing crap either. When they were put in, those bolts were SOLID (or as solid as 1/4in compression bolts could be) and the FAist climbed under that blanket - THOSE WERE SOLID BOLTS. 30 years later they're not and the ASCA is returning them to original condition. I STRONGLY think contrived danger (ie climbing a route that's dangerous solely because there are manky bolts) is one of the dumbest things going in climbing right now. If the route was bold, great - I've done HUGE run-outs on slab numerous times. If the route is bold because it has old hardware that's more than even the FAist was experiencing. The ASCA does the climbing community a valuable service, period.

 

I would have to agree with the old bolts being replaced but the ASCA (also known as the American Sport Climbing Assn. ) has done more than take that role.

They use powerdrills placed inside of insulated haulbags to drill hundreds of bolts on tangerine trip's dowell ladders. Hundreds!!!! This is a national park where all bolts are supposed to be HAND DRILLED!!!

 

If your argument is for the "return" of routes to their original condition with better bolts then why don't you chop those fat belays and belay like the early partys did with RURP stacks!!! It is a good idea but the reality of the organization is that there are some bolt happy people under its guise.

[texplorer]

The biggest issues for me are the pussy bolters who can't put up a bolted route with more than 5 feet between draws. I hate how everybody thinks every climb should be "safe." This is climbing and there SHOULD be inherent risks. If I wanted safety I would go to an amusement park.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

The biggest issues for me are the pussy bolters who can't put up a bolted route with more than 5 feet between draws. I hate how everybody thinks every climb should be "safe." This is climbing and there SHOULD be inherent risks. If I wanted safety I would go to an amusement park.

 

Sadly, it's up to the FA how close the bolts should be. Your options are to either put up your own routes with widely-spaced bolts, to only climb routes with widely-spaced bolts, or to simply skip the clips you feel are unnecessary.