Ethics questions...

[billcoe]

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."

 

I've done that route, have to disagree with you on that one Matt.

 

I'm looking at Josephs rack of sh*t at the base of the route Joseph later named "Lost Warriors" and as we were racking for it I note that one of the little peckers is bent: so I ask him what happened to that one. "Oh", he says, "30 footer. Held." (maybe he said 20 footer, it's like a car wreck with me, kind of vague). Having followed Joseph up that pitch on the route you refer to, I can assure you that he does shit with a crack N' Up which many of us do not want to think about. In fact unaware that JH had solidly fixed one of his bomber crack N Ups for the following parties, I worked on it and and pulled it out blissfully unaware that he wanted it fixed. Anyway, once you do the route, perhaps you may re-assess your statement.

 

Realistically the skills Joseph exibits in spades can be duplicated by anybody to get up his route, and most routes like it in fact.

 

1st) Tenacity.

2nd) Intellegence.

3rd) Strength.

4th) Little bit more Tenacity.

 

However, there is a learning curve to all 3 of those. The easy way to shortcut all that "crap" like the 3 "skills" noted above, would be to toss a bunch of bolts in. Then you don't need vision or be tenacious to even think of getting on Lost Warriors, or most routes for that matter. No need to learn anything: mindlessly clip and go. Then people like Joseph and I get the shaft.

 

 

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?

 

Should they be held to a standard at all? Is that your question matt? Or can we dispense with learning, thinking, practicing, working, striving and yearning? Can't we just forgo all of that and make it easy and safe for begineers and experts alike? The technology does exist. Fu*k all, can't we just put in metal ladders with auto belay devices on every climb everywhere so that we can fix the risk for all climbs, for all climbers, at all times - at zero? Make climbing them in an unsafe manner at all - illegal, with serious reprecussions like fines and jail time for those who stray from the true path and choose to free solo or not clip the devices: like seatbelts in a car?

 

That IS the question.

 

I generally agree with Joseph and try to stay traditional. I, however, have plenty of shit under my bed so I can't really be too sanctimonial about all of this. But Matt, people can choose NOT to climb "Lost Warriors", or TO climb it. Hell, one look at it is reason enough not to go up there. Think of it, every climber who has climbed at Beacon Rock has walked by that line. It shoot right up, WAAAYY THE F*K UP THERE, past the sky, right over some huge scary, pants peeing, ball shrinking, blocks and overhangs.

 

No one had the cajones to take a shot till Joseph stepped up to the plate. Using the 3 skills, and with a dash of vision: JH cranked it and cranked it in solid style! Hey, he's older than me too and I'm 50!

 

It is to be commended and praised, not put down and told it was not in "good style". Commended Sir. No one even had the vision to take a shot at it, even to get up there an try to make it a bolt ladder.

 

My next example is a glaring "rat turd in the sugar bowl" exemption, Beacon is a steadfast Trad area. 200-300 foot cracks abound. Bolts are used very sparingly, but there is some cognitive dissidence and grey areas here and there. As part of that idea: Joseph has been replacing many bad/old bolts, primarily at anchors, at Beacon. (Working tirelessly and paying for it with his own money in case you are curious).

 

In fact, 2nd huge rat turd in the sugar bowl: there is a route I did 2 first ascents of just 40 feet to the right of Lost Warriors. It's currently a total clip up now. 1st time I led it, climbed the 70 foot route with like 2 or 3 small wireds with a piton I fixed for pro, scraping moss and tossing rocks as I went. A fall would have done me in. Opdycke belayed me.

 

2nd ascent like 14 years later, I've totally forgotten about doing the route the first time. I do not think anyone has climbed it since I did the FA. Kelly Warden and I show up, bolt it, we were going to call it 2nd ascent due to a rusty mystery lost arrow piton I embarrasingly found (and clipped) in the middle of the climb. Later, after running into Opdyke, he tells me that I did that route already and relays the whole story. He had named it "Rythem Method", cause there was no pro. So choice is available right there. Not climbing "Lost Warriors" is a definate option.

 

 

Lets see, too much rambling and not enough points, Hmmm... how to finish?

 

Ahhh: old standby, Gotta go:

 

By by, see you out there!

 

Bill

[DCramer]

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.

 

On my first ever lead I placed a Crack-n-Up.[edit]ok now I remember it was somethign else so ignore this first sentence - getting old is tough[end edit] Once while aid climbing on a seaside cliff (with only clean gear if you can imagine)I had to lead to the top on my haul line via a 30' runout and my last piece was a crack-n-up. In the right conditions (basalt in this case) they worked ok. Of course then I was young and wanted different things out of climbing. I wouldn't say that those goals were better or worse than today. Just different.

Edited August 26, 2005 by DCramer

[billcoe]

I think we can dispense with the whole ethics debate right now with a few thought changes. If we could all just say to ourselves "I'm right" (regardless of what that viewpoint is), "and everybody who thinks differntly is wrong" there would be no need for discussion.

 

Wait, I think that IS whats being said by all of us.

 

Nevermind, pointless post. If this keeps up I'm turning into Dru in a year or so.

[DCramer]

That is not what I am saying Bill. What I am saying is that we all have different values and goals related to climbing. We as climbers need to develop a system for gettign along that actually works. Or at least one that isn't based on a "my dick is bigger than yours" approach. Something better than a "Locals Only" philosophy.

 

The way JH has become the subject of the thread evidence of a poor system of thought. Personalizing these discussions seems simply a way to avoid talking about the real issues.

Edited August 26, 2005 by DCramer

[Hanger]

As far as I’m concerned, the locals are usually the ones responsible for developing and maintaining their “home” crags. As a visitor, I respect their ethics and offer to assist in preserving those ethics to show my appreciation for their work.

 

I would hope that they would do the same for me and mine.

[JosephH]

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.

 

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.

[JosephH]

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.

[JosephH]

As far as I’m concerned, the locals are usually the ones responsible for developing and maintaining their “home” crags. As a visitor, I respect their ethics and offer to assist in preserving those ethics to show my appreciation for their work.

 

I would hope that they would do the same for me and mine.

 

On this we can certainly agree...

[JosephH]

What I am saying is that we all have different values and goals related to climbing.

 

I agree with this...

 

We as climbers need to develop a system for gettign along that actually works.

 

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...

 

Or at least one that isn't based on a "my dick is bigger than yours" approach.

 

again I agree...

 

Something better than a "Locals Only" philosophy.

 

What would that be other than government intervention...?

 

The way JH has become the subject of the thread evidence of a poor system of thought. Personalizing these discussions seems simply a way to avoid talking about the real issues.

 

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.

[DCramer]

Cramer, 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.

 

Hmm now just who is being political….

 

First it seems as fairly straight forward that hangdogging, preinspection, pre-protecting bolts are not really features of “clean” climbing. All were ridiculed in the ‘60s and perhaps earlier. I would note that the first 5.10 in the Valley had a rap placed bolt.

 

It seems we all have ended up agreeing that “clean climbing” (me for the sake of argument)in the ‘70s meant using pins and bolts as a last resort. Matt and I noted that that is what people are doing now. From that position calling “clean climbing” in the 70’s as something distinct from the 05’s seems to be an incorrect assessment. I would note that while the results may differ the climbing ethic remains the same regardless of the boldness or timidness of the climber making the decisions. The problem isn’t so much the ethic changed as much as more climbers are free to be wimps now. You frankly have not created a good counter argument to this.

 

In the broader context of hanging preinspection, pre-protecting…if the leading lights of rock climbing bend the rules when they see fit why can’t the grubby masses? Is it so hard to understand that basic concept?

 

By the way just to clarify I am not arguing that climbing ethics are the same today as they were in the 70s. I do think that the ethics in the 70s were vastly different than the way you present then. And by the way you are presenting them for express political purposes here in this thread. I leave it to any interested readers to go to the Mountainers library and read the Mountain magazines of the day, read the Climbing mags and decide for themselves just how unified climbers were around ethics.

Edited August 27, 2005 by DCramer

[DCramer]

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.

 

As I said in my first post..

 

Two things have really changed in climbing: 1) the number of climbers has increased greatly and 2) people have become more honest over the years.

 

I also said later I wasn't saying anything about "group responsibility" or bolting existing routes but merely arguing against what I thought was a poor argument infavor of effort to develop a better way of relating to each other.

 

You are basically wanting the government come in and protect your preferences. I admit I am suspicious whenever anyone advocate that. Matt will verify once I was complaining to him about too many bolts at a local area and when I felt he was saying that we needed a group to make those decisions my reply was that I would rather every one of my routes be bolted to death.

[JosephH]

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...

[gosolo]

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.

 

Matt and DC. I happen to agree with many of the things youu guys say; however, I do really disagree here. First, DC calling this a myth. Wasant a myth for me dude. Maybe you only dreamed about putting routes up in good style but some of us (as evidenced by JH) haave actually succeeded at this stuff. I find your comments to be inferring that we thought those ethics up in our dreams and I caannot disagree m ore strongly. And Matt as far as vision goes. What better vision is there than minimum impact and adventure? In Big Cottonwood Canyon, Utah in the early 80's I put up about 30 new routes at a time when there were only 30 routes in that canyon. All were ground up without preinspection. I put in 1 bolt in thosee 30 routes. I think that was too bad but at least on those routes the rock is there as my partnerrs and I left it, in a natural state. It is not a myth, and it most certainly is the best style because manmade junk is not left behind. The original topic was retrobolting. Some want to retro thosee routes I put up, fortunately, the community agrees not too. At what point in the future will they decide oh F%%% it and bolt them? To me that will be a sad day for all climbers and will be a sign that climbing is no longer the sport I practiced....

[DCramer]

Matt and DC. I happen to agree with many of the things youu guys say; however, I do really disagree here. First, DC calling this a myth. Wasant a myth for me dude. Maybe you only dreamed about putting routes up in good style but some of us (as evidenced by JH) haave actually succeeded at this stuff. I find your comments to be inferring that we thought those ethics up in our dreams and I caannot disagree m ore strongly. And Matt as far as vision goes. What better vision is there than minimum impact and adventure? In Big Cottonwood Canyon, Utah in the early 80's I put up about 30 new routes at a time when there were only 30 routes in that canyon. All were ground up without preinspection. I put in 1 bolt in thosee 30 routes. I think that was too bad but at least on those routes the rock is there as my partnerrs and I left it, in a natural state. It is not a myth, and it most certainly is the best style because manmade junk is not left behind. The original topic was retrobolting. Some want to retro thosee routes I put up, fortunately, the community agrees not too. At what point in the future will they decide oh F%%% it and bolt them? To me that will be a sad day for all climbers and will be a sign that climbing is no longer the sport I practiced....

 

Gosolo -

 

By the way just to clarify I am not arguing that climbing ethics are the same today as they were in the 70s. I do think that the ethics in the 70s were vastly different than the way you present then.

 

As the above quote demonstrates I do think tht there have been change in "Ethics" I also never suggested that you or JH didn't adhere to what you say you did believe in. What I say is a myth is that everyone behaved in some noble manner or that everyone even believed in the same thing you do/did. I provided examples supporting that position. Simple. I suspect that already and even back in the day there were those who practised a different sport also called "climbing". That is exactly the problem - "climbing" is really a variety of sports. I do not deny that you left the enviroment close to spotless; however, you must agree that others did not hold as close to your ideal as you did? Certainly lots of bolts were added to existing El Cap routes in the '70s. Fully 25% of the new routes in the South Platte had bolts or pins. (mostly bolts) While you held tight to your style others abandoned it readily. One of the guys who made the second clean ascent of the Nose became a rap bolter. He got back into climbing when rap bolting became more acceptable. Here is a guy who at one point was at the cutting edge of clean climbing becoming excited about being able ot rap bolt. One of those New Hamshire FA guys was excited as hell about climbing Endliss Bliss. (By the way this is a route I have no desire to do) Where these guys card carrying members of the 70s club or just passing through.

 

And for the umpteenth time I have never said that someone should go and add bolts to any routes. I have never even said it is a goofy way to climb.

 

Is the only reason someone would disagree with you because they are a wimp?

Edited August 27, 2005 by DCramer

[JosephH]

Here is a guy who at one point was at the cutting edge of clean climbing becoming excited about being able ot rap bolt.

 

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.

[catbirdseat]

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.

 

You say they have no ethics, when in fact they do. It is just a different set of ethics from yours.

[pope]

Is the only reason someone would disagree with you because they are a wimp?

 

This thread began with a question about adding a bolt to an existing climb, at a point where previously men have ascended in the absence thereof. Yes, the adjective "wimp" appropriately describes the person who wishes to add such a bolt. Allow me to explain. A wimp is a person who cannot find the courage necessary to perform some task, somebody who avoids hard work, somebody who is lazy, somebody who has no respect for the courageous accomplishments of others, somebody who desires to achieve a goal but who refuses to risk failure, injury or just getting dirty when those who have previously achieved the same goal assumed that risking failure, injury and getting dirty were part of what made the goal a worthy objective. That's my definition of a wimp. No word better describes the selfish bastard who is willing to disrespect the wishes of previous ascenders and essentially neuter and sterilize an existing free climb with the addition of a bolt.

 

Let's suppose there exists a climb that has been free climbed without bolts (or with a minimum of bolts). Suppose there is a section that is difficult to protect and somewhat challenging relative to my free climbing abilities. Remember that others have negotiated this pitch but it is currently out of my comfort range. Here are my options:

 

1. Top rope the climb and be satisfied.

2. Top rope the climb until familiarity makes the difficult/dangerous section more reasonable.

3. Develop more experience/fitness to meet the challenge.

4. Find a more reasonable challenge.

5. Add a bolt and pretend I'm doing the community a favor.

 

Clearly only one of these options is wimpy. Old number five.

 

I appreciate the moderators who have allowed this conversation to evolve without editing.

[pope]

You say they have no ethics, when in fact they do. It is just a different set of ethics from yours.

 

Right. Each of us has his own set of ethics and I think we can all benefit from a little moralistic flexibility. Just ask this guy:

 

[EWolfe]

Sweet cabling! Rad Rebarring!

 

Where do I sign up?

 

(Vancouver seems too far )

 

p.s. I won't do it without kneepads! (he's so rad)

[DCramer]

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.

 

Well I think we have pretty much talked this one to death. I am surprised by the italicized quote above. After all I wrote this in my last post: "I also never suggested that you or JH didn't adhere to what you say you did believe in." Also your response regarding the Nose climber does seem a bit cynical.

 

In parting I offer the following comments.

 

The % of clean routes ascended is relatively meaningless. For example a simple reason for that might turn out to be that bolting was just too hard and not that anyone believed in clean climbing. Another explanation might be that with so many crack lines waiting to be climbed climbers just didn't need bolt when putting up FAs.

 

I was cleaning out my ofice and pulled two Mountain Magazines out at random. From their info section:

 

Mountian 70 New Hampshire Paul Ross reporting:

Late in the summer, Paul Ross removed the fixed protection from the Arete. The route had been established on rappel, worked out on top rope and then le by the first ascent party....Though some feel that the route should have originally been done in better style, many climbers who have done it feel that once done, it should have remained. It is not, however, inevitable that Cathedral's new lines will be bolted on rappel, as most locals are restraining themselves from this practice reserving it for exceptional routes.

 

This short report compeletely recapitulates what I have been saying. The last line, where I added emphasis, is particularly revealing.

 

Also same issue regarding Suicide Rock:

...the first pitch is flawed by a bolt that must have been placed on rappel.

 

Mountian 65 Yosemite Valley:

 

The first ascent party used a few points of aid for resting purposes!

Interesting sidebar the FA party was Peter Croft and friends.

 

Our views on bolting might not be as far apart as you think - consider Flashclimber's post regarding Phone Calls From the Dead elswhere on this site.

 

Anyway thanks for the discussion. I use to climb several times a year at Beacon so thanks for your efforts there.

[RuMR]

Is the only reason someone would disagree with you because they are a wimp?

 

This thread began with a question about adding a bolt to an existing climb, at a point where previously men have ascended in the absence thereof. Yes, the adjective "wimp" appropriately describes the person who wishes to add such a bolt. Allow me to explain. A wimp is a person who cannot find the courage necessary to perform some task, somebody who avoids hard work, somebody who is lazy, somebody who has no respect for the courageous accomplishments of others, somebody who desires to achieve a goal but who refuses to risk failure, injury or just getting dirty when those who have previously achieved the same goal assumed that risking failure, injury and getting dirty were part of what made the goal a worthy objective. That's my definition of a wimp. No word better describes the selfish bastard who is willing to disrespect the wishes of previous ascenders and essentially neuter and sterilize an existing free climb with the addition of a bolt.

 

Let's suppose there exists a climb that has been free climbed without bolts (or with a minimum of bolts). Suppose there is a section that is difficult to protect and somewhat challenging relative to my free climbing abilities. Remember that others have negotiated this pitch but it is currently out of my comfort range. Here are my options:

 

1. Top rope the climb and be satisfied.

2. Top rope the climb until familiarity makes the difficult/dangerous section more reasonable.

3. Develop more experience/fitness to meet the challenge.

4. Find a more reasonable challenge.

5. Add a bolt and pretend I'm doing the community a favor.

 

Clearly only one of these options is wimpy. Old number five.

 

I appreciate the moderators who have allowed this conversation to evolve without editing.

 

just checked in...

yup...still a tool...

[RuMR]

Sweet cabling! Rad Rebarring!

 

Where do I sign up?

 

(Vancouver seems too far )

 

p.s. I won't do it without kneepads! (he's so rad)

 

oh...i heard you do it with kneepads on!

[mattp]

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.

 

Interesting quote, but once again it sounds to me as if you are holding your own sense of what is right and wrong above others, and I’m afraid this tends to relegate your opinion to – how did somebody put it? – the rantings of the old guard (or something like that)?

 

Do the guys who develop modern sport crags believe they act in an ethical manner? Yes. Are they thinking in their mind that they are merely “surfing the edge?” No. They believe that it is ethical to establish safe climbs that thousands of climbers can enjoy. Many climbers agree – and in fact many climbers believe it is selfish and unethical to establish or jealously defend traditional climbs if that means what they perceive as runout scary climbing.

 

Did Frost and Chouinard and their buddies, when they readily used pitons and even a couple of bolts while they picked the early plums on ElCapitan feel they were being “ethical?” Yes. I know, at least some of them were trying to outdo Warren Harding with some kind of better style but in large part it was "outdo" as in competition, and this included using pitons and bolts and even chipping where that served their immediate goals. (Maybe they did, but I am not aware of any of them starting up the big stone only to rap off because they were going to have to use a couple of bolts in the middle of the NA Wall or something and, as I noted already, I believe they even chipped holds in a flake on that particular climb.) Were they “surfing the edge” when they came out with a clean climbing manifesto after they had picked these plums? Their presentation of the clean climbing message certainly reflected the ecology movement in popular culture at the time. Did they have some epiphany or was it, maybe in Chouinard’s case at least, in part a marketing campaign? I think it was a combinatin of factors, and I have great respect for those climbers and for the clean climbing movement but I don't think they all turned into saints -- and I think some of DCramer's discussion here has been in response to a feeling that you might be portraying them that way -- and that you are saying "I stand with them whereas nearly everybody involved in putting up crag climbs these days does not."

 

The thing about ethics is that, more or less by their very definition, they are highly subjective and involve one’s personal relationship with moral standards that are shared in their peer group. Where you say “some climbers these days have no ethics” or where Pope posts that stupid picture of a via ferratta, discussions like this become even more irrelevant than they already are because it more or less devolves into a big joke – or at least the irrelevant rantings of some old guard.

 

As I asked pages earlier in this thread, I agree with you that times ARE changing. Recognizing the reality of where we are in climbing today, with ever-increasing numbers of climbers shaking their heads in confusion or maybe even contempt when they are confronted with the ethical rantings of some guy who is old enough to be their father or maybe even grandfather (yes, I know – there are some younger climbers who remain “pure” as well but it tends to be us older guys who do the ranting and raving), how do you want to proceed? I believe it is a losing proposition to proclaim that climbers who don’t emulate MY style have “no ethics” or that modern sport climbing is less worthy than “real” climbing as practiced by the great climbers of thirty years ago.

[pope]

Recognizing the reality of where we are in climbing today, with ever-increasing numbers of climbers shaking their heads in confusion or maybe even contempt when they are confronted with the ethical rantings of some guy who is old enough to be their father or maybe even grandfather (yes, I know – there are some younger climbers who remain “pure” as well but it tends to be us older guys who do the ranting and raving), how do you want to proceed? [/b]

 

You're absolutely correct. I don't think we should drive a wedge into what some perceive as a generation gap. Fact is, plenty of questionable bolting can be credited to climbers old enough to know better. The guys responsible for the dirty little secret up in Darrington are probably as old as MattP.

 

Best thing we can do is educate the youngsters. I took a sport climber out for his first bolt-free climbing experience Thursday and he agreed that it was the coolest climbing he'd ever done. Watch for his Gri-Gri to appear on E-Bay.

[RuMR]

damn...you have that tool thing down, don'tcha??

 

counting til clown post...1 2 3 4 5 6 . . . .