Ethics questions...

[JosephH]

800 feet of protect-able cracks with one section of X climbing because someone didn't place a bolt is seems pointless to me.

.

.

.

Why would you put yourself in extreme peril? I'm not talking a simply risky situation where a fall could do limited damage - I'm talking falls with badly broken bones and dying as consequences. Why? It makes no sense. Very few climbers are in the sport to cheat maiming and death. That's not proud that's stupid. (Note here: I am NOT a product of the gym although I am not "old" either. I started in the Gunks pre gyms and apprenticed etc etc. No I don't think climbing should be a "safe" sport - Hardly in fact.) What I see as the issue is those that hold onto old "questionable risk" ethics...

 

"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 civil war, they all lined up in a row and got shot. Only later did tactics include "defilade" to preserve troops. Looking back we wonder - why the hell did they line up like that?

 

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.

[bwrts]

vantage bolter going drill crazy= pogue

[gosolo]

"Now climbers think that they have a right to climbanything and if it is too scary then they think they should add a bolt. Bullshit. Sack up or keep off. Pretty simple huh? Do you want your generation of climbing to take the risk away? Wow, what a proud concept, to stand up and say, "My generation of climberrs took the gym outside and wee retrobolted old routes to make them safer" Proud indeed...."

 

With respect to prose styles obsuring one's points - what exactly is yours? I am honestly not sure why you bothered to post anything to this thread at all, but for the chance to chime in with the - cough - trademark - cough- snarky/passive agressive one-liner, usually some variant on the "strawman" standby, and to provide a vague bit rhetorical applause for anyone who articulates positions that you seem to agree with but never manage to state directly some reason. To be clear - what I am talking about is statements/arguments where the central claims are that bolts/sport-routes/sport-climbing are for pussies and/or have lead to a progressive degredation of a sport once reserved for a select few.

 

I've always taken issue with these arguments for a variety of reasons, but at least guys like Pope and others will actually come out and say what they think instead of giggling in the backround and playing rhetorical towel-boy for those that do.

 

I hope my flowery hyperbole in this post did not impair your ability to comprehend what I wrote.

 

JayB, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. Not all climbers think it is their right to bolt routes for safety, but some do. My position is that risk is a relative thing and is inherent in all climbing. I have seen these debates all across Utah and in Cali and I responded so sharply because I am tired of it.

 

My position is that if a dangerous climb is too dangerous for a climber, no matter what grade, then that climber does not have the requisite skill base for that route. What I am saying is that the ability to climb runout rock is as impoortant to me as the ability to climb 5.whatever is too someone else. Retrobolting a route to make it safer changes the difficulty of the route. It may not be reflected in the rating. Many climbers disagree with that, to them the difficulty of the moves is when there is adequate pro. My position is that there are more climbers expecting a danger free experience. What I find unacceptable is:

climbers bolting next to cracks that take pro,

climbers retrobolting a route that has been done many times,

and climbers who think that it is their godgiven right to climb any piece of rock.

 

I believe that my position is also similar to most other climbers. My position is that if the true standard of rock climbing is 5.15a then why the hell can't people sack up and climb a 5.10, 5.11 whatever...without additional hardware? To me the person that adds bolts to a classic route because they fear a fall is every bit as bad as someone who chips a hold. They are performing the same deed: dropping the climb to their level. Rock is a finite resource, use it wisely.

 

BTW, after about 30 years of climbing and having done some of the things I have done, I do not need anyone else to help me with my ethics opinions. They have been formulated in about 18 States with about 100+ new routes, both sport and ground up. Not once did I say sport climbing was for pussies, you somehow perceived that.

 

The strange thing about many of these debates is that often they are centered around a route that wass done 20 plus years ago. And we cannot accept them the way they are? JH said that all climbers are advancing on the shoulders of others. I believe that is true. I also think it is important to acknowledge that by leaving them the way they are. People get real pissed when someone chops bolts. To me, that is an act that says the chopper does not respect that climb. By adding bolts the bolter is doing the same thing as the chopper. The rock suffers and the climmbing community suffers. Some are just not smart enough to understand that yet....

[Hanger]

I find it entertaining that some climbers believe that by being the first person to ascend a particular line on a rock…they have somehow staked their claim on that line.

 

To most folks…including many climbers…this is as ridiculous as surfers staking claim to their local breaks.

 

Climbing areas are becoming increasingly regulated by forces outside of the climbing community. Perhaps after all of the popular areas have been regulated, these arguments will subside. FA’s will become less of a guide by which to maintain established routes.

Climbing “boards” will be created to handle development disputes and requests will be made to increase the safety of popular routes.

 

More than a traditionalist…I am a realist.

 

The problem with the traditional bold style of climbing is that bumblies are going to get on my 5.8x death route and die…when that happens, undesirable attention is going to be drawn to that climbing area and the way bureaucracy works is that instead of coming up with a solution to the problem…they’ll just get rid of the problem.

 

No climbing area/ no climbers/ no climbing-related deaths.

 

The answer…compromise.

 

All I had to do to avoid the situation was slap a 5-piece in the middle of the 20’ runout between the terminus of the crack and the slung tree.

 

Climbing is no longer limited to the stoney-eyed, hairy-chested warrior…these days, she’s clothed the latest in Prana-wear and whatever style shoe five.ten has come out with for the Spring season.

If I want to help protect climbing for future generations…I have to take into consideration the future generation of climbers.

[mattp]

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?

[sexual_chocolate]

 

The problem with the traditional bold style of climbing is that bumblies are going to get on my 5.8x death route and die…

 

So when's the last time this happened?

 

This thinking is folly, an attempt to legitimize the sanitation of a sport that has ALWAYS had potential dangers. For some, it's an appeal, a decision of sorts regarding whether or not they live or die (the ultimate decision perhaps).

 

I can't believe this argument really. Let's make climbing adhere to OSHA standards, is what it amounts to, a bureaucratic sanitization of a sport born of individual vision and attainment.

 

Sad, and unacceptable.

[mattp]

Let's make climbing adhere to OSHA standards, is what it amounts to, ...

 

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 ...

[Hanger]

 

... a bureaucratic sanitization of a sport born of individual vision and attainment.

 

Sad, and unacceptable.

 

It's already happening...

 

Resource the Access Fund ...the Nelson Rocks Preserve...Friends of Joshua Tree...etc

 

Rock climbing is one of the fastest growing sports in the world... along with it comes the good and bad.

 

It may be time to take up a less popular sport like tazer-tag

[Geek_the_Greek]

Another day, another string of windy ranting by the old guard on the ethics thread....

 

"Gee, I sure hope all these rules get sorted out soon, 'cause I was hoping to do some climbing, and I wouldn't even think about it without knowing the proper etiquette and behavior! Hasn't climbing always been about respect for the rules and knowing one's place?"

 

...meanwhile, back at the crag, the climbers were doing their thing, enjoying themselves whilst putting up their new creation "I dream of shiny fins". It was all going swimmingly, and they didn't even notice when they placed the bolt beside a protectable (if you had the right size LoweBall) patch of crack on the third pitch. THE HORROR! Where was JosephH when they needed him?? The purity of the ascent was lost! LOOOOOOOST!

 

[Hanger]

/giggles like panda

[JosephH]

...meanwhile, back at the crag, the climbers were doing their thing, enjoying themselves whilst putting up their new creation "I dream of shiny fins". It was all going swimmingly, and they didn't even notice when they placed the bolt beside a protectable (if you had the right size LoweBall) patch of crack on the third pitch. THE HORROR! Where was JosephH when they needed him?? The purity of the ascent was lost! LOOOOOOOST!

 

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...

[RuMR]

fuck joseph...go to bed already...jeez...

[SemoreJugs]

Say that you are the first ascenionist, and you want to add a retro bolt or pin to your route.

Do you have to ask a bunch of ingrates? or do you just do what the good lord intended...

fell outta my chair in that one

[JosephH]

fuck joseph...go to bed already...jeez...

 

Working nights this week...

[mattp]

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?

[Hanger]

A pure ascent is leaving your helmet, harness, and rack in the truck.

Everything else is compromise.

[RuMR]

fuck joseph...go to bed already...jeez...

 

Working nights this week...

 

same here..dayz too...f-ing deadlines...

[JosephH]

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?

 

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.

[Off_White]

Joseph, I'll say it flat out, your gear skills are impressive. If you had the time to write up an article (with photos, illustrations?) about the use of Crack'N Ups, Skyhooks, and Ball nuts as free climbing protection, along with a diagonosis of ball nut design degradation, we'd publish it here on the site as an "article" and I bet you could also get it published (for $) in one of the print rags.

 

I can easily imagine how the gear skills you've developed contribute to confidence when heading into unknown onsite steep terrain, since those things are going to be faster/easier to set up than bolts. If you'd like to see that approach to new routes expand, you're going to have to sell it to the climbing world at large. It's easy to sneer about "marketing" but without promotion your protection concepts will wind up as no more than betamax or some other outmarketed protocol.

 

Have you actually taken falls on skyhooks?

[mattp]

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.

[JosephH]

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).

[mattp]

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?

[JosephH]

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. I don't think it is the fundamental concept of development that is bad so much as that other guy's vision that I don't happen to share.

 

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

[Hanger]

 

P.S. Parallel discussion on RC.com

 

Damn it...there goes my "cut & paste" routine

[DCramer]

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.

 

Matt I couldn't agree more. Perhaps the biggest problem with the whole (I believe mythical) "70's Ethos" is that in practice it becomes nothign more than a self-serving method of controling others whose actions you might not like. As with most controling myths it cannot be rationally argued. It gives those judging others a platform to feel superior and a justification of appealing to a greater authority. The myth contains the seeds of its own destruction.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2005 by DCramer