Ethics Question

[David Trippett]

Say you put up a new multi-pitch trad route at your local crag....maybe you aided it first, cleaned it, checked out the pitches, decided it would go free and decided to redpoint the hard pitches. Say that the crux of the route was reasonably difficult for most folks....hard 5.11 on gear. The moves at the crux involved some substantial run-out on face moves between cracks(say 6-7m on steep terrain), but the falls, whilst long, are pretty safe, and instead of put in bolts you decide to red/headpoint the crux and leave it unprotected. If someone comes along later and puts a bolt or two in to make the run-out reasonable and the route a popular classic....what to do? Chop? Although I strongly believe in respecting the first ascent...I could MAYBE see their point... I'd like to hear other opinions....

[willstrickland]

Does it have other protection bolts on it? If no, then:

 

Chop it. Not every route is for every climber. If the author of the route was willing to put in the work to safely lead it (TR rehersal, or whatever), the falls are safe, etc, why let someone bring it down to their level?

 

In these discussions we hear alot about selfishness. But who is really being selfish? The author who took the time and effort to put up a new route with long but safe fall potential, or the sackless coward who desired to climb it but couldn't, so brought it down to his level? No different than chipping holds on a sport route IMO.

[corvallisclimb]

I'd chop it, if its your route. You aided and freed with out bolts, thats proud, leave it that way!

[JosephH]

My main ethics comments would be to skip all that red/heading business and just lead it ground/belay up and also clean it on lead, whether on aid or free. Leave all those manky sport shennanigans at home if this is a multi-pitch trad, not sprad, route.

[David Trippett]

My main ethics comments would be to skip all that red/heading business and just lead it ground/belay up and also clean it on lead, whether on aid or free. Leave all those manky sport shennanigans at home if this is a multi-pitch trad, not sprad, route.

 

I agree more or less with that... it's a nice ideal anyway....

 

I think most would agree headpointing is considered fair trad tactics, but maybe only if you're climbing on Grit, and maybe not on long routes. At any rate Sonnie Trotter's ascent of Cobra Crack could be considered a headpoint....he top-roped it for a couple years before the send.

 

Anyway....so then if you can't free it ground up.....leave it be?

[G-spotter]

Hypothetically which route are you talking about? At Squamish?

 

also did you climb Harvey today or not?

[pink]

i aree with jh. you did the route how you envisioned it. why would somebody come along and piss all over your route, that's not cool. eventually everything gets dumbed down so everybody can gain access. has a book on climbing ethics ever been published, it seems like most guide books have a small paragraph on ethics in that area. i guess it all depends on who was your mentor and the ethics system tat you learned.

[David Trippett]

Hypothetically which route are you talking about? At Squamish?

 

also did you climb Harvey today or not?

 

 

No Harvey today...unexpected meeting at the "office".....maybe I'll go on friday. If I do I'll let you know how the 'poon hunt goes.

[Off_White]

Will's point about what is the character of the rest of the route is a very salient point. Have all except life threatening bolt placements been avoided on the whole package? Then why change the crux? Can a strong leader at the relevant grade put together an onsight, or is it really a well rehearsed onanistic chestbeat?

 

Tradition says first ascent statement takes priority. Funny that "Traditionalists" deny that caveat to routes put up by people who's style they decry. There is no easy answer, but if you feel passionately and are willing to take whatever heat your actions may generate, then you should do whatever it is you're thinking about.

[alpinemorg]

Check out NECLIMBS.com...ongoing battles about this topic in New Hampshire given the large mix of sport v. traditional.

 

You could certainly get a mix of answers (opinions) to your question.

[David Trippett]

I'm not thinking about retro-bolting anything that was done by another.... if that's what you think I insinuated.... I'm quite contrary to that, personally.

 

Actually, my concern was what to do when a route that is getting put up DOES get retro'd for the reasons I stated. It's not too far-fetched that it will....there are a lot of folks who say that having mandatory run-outs on cruxes is tantamount to chest-beating....and would put in a retro justifying it with "safety" issues.

 

I've done climbs that, if the crux were bolted, and maybe not "SOOO" run-out it would have changed the character and commitment of the route considerably....and for me would have made the route a lesser experience...but a lot of folks are either unwilling or unable to accept certain types of risks...that's fine....

 

I'll play the devils-own here....Would you be willing to "let it go" if people really felt that strongly about it.....after all you don't have to clip the bolts....or put any gear in at all if thats what you like.

 

 

[NTM]

from a song i recently heard:

"meanwhile the wolfman's at roadside,

drunk, choppin' bolts on 'the return of Chris Snyde'

got a couple out but when he got to the third,

he chopped the bolt he was hangin' on and he hit the dirt.

A busted ankle, he hobbled back to camp,

fell down the hill, just lay where he land,

his story, as he passed out, see?

'man i ethics, i chop on lead'."

 

Made me laugh at the ethics discussions.

[JosephH]

My main ethics comments would be to skip all that red/heading business and just lead it ground/belay up and also clean it on lead, whether on aid or free. Leave all those manky sport shennanigans at home if this is a multi-pitch trad, not sprad, route.

 

I agree more or less with that... it's a nice ideal anyway....

 

I think most would agree headpointing is considered fair trad tactics, but maybe only if you're climbing on Grit, and maybe not on long routes. At any rate Sonnie Trotter's ascent of Cobra Crack could be considered a headpoint....he top-roped it for a couple years before the send.

 

Anyway....so then if you can't free it ground up.....leave it be?

 

avitripp, what follows is more of a generalized rant and not aimed specifically at your comments even if I use them as a leaping off point...

 

Headpointing on short, extremely stout climbs, like 13's and 14's can be argued as necessary in the same way as preplacing gear on insanely difficult lines can be. But the nature of climbing has always been one of mimicry and a complete lack of of moderation.

 

By that I mean techniques at first used only at the vanguard of difficulty have a peculiar way of trickling down to be applied to 5.7s in a hurry. That's how things end up being 'considered fair trad tactics' not just at the cutting edge and hard FA's, but at all grades of difficulty and on existing routes. Such mass wobbling has also led to '[trad] climbing' now often being referred to as 'adventure climbing' and for common ethics from back in the day to now be reduced to 'a nice ideal anyway'.

 

Hey, it's still how I put up routes and I don't consider it an 'ideal', unless of course you spell it 'I deal'. The whole notion of pre-cleaning, preview rapping, and rehearsing routes or dogging up them just isn't 'trad' in my book - far from it. You may be placing gear, but you're sport climbing with it and hence the designation of such routes as [bastard] 'sprad' routes. I just think employing 'sprad' tactics on a trad line under .13s is pretty much an attempt to do one thing and call it another. That or an insidiously unconcious and viral spread of gym tactics brought outside.

 

In general I think the very worst of the 'sprad' tactics is dogging/sport climbing on gear placements. Ethics aside, it's a dangersous practice and more accidents are happening every year from the practice. From my perspective as an old guy, the defining difference between trad and sport isn't gear vs. bolts - it's groundup vs. dogging. If you're ratcheting your way up a line you may be using gear, but you're sport climbing. I'd very much encourage trad climbers to not dog on gear, but in most cases go back to the belay, pull the rope and try again - reserve the gear strickly for falling and fall rather than hang if that's what it comes down to. My two bits worth anyway...

[JosephH]

Oh, and so long as this isn't the case:

 

...or is it really a well rehearsed onanistic chestbeat?

Then I think this is way off the mark:

 

Have all except life threatening bolt placements been avoided on the whole package?

I have no problem whatsoever with a hard and interesting trad route sporting 'life threatening' runouts or sequences. Sometimes that ends up what you're dealt and (given you're on a groundup lead) you just deal or you don't. If you aren't prepared to deal in a little spice and the odd 'R' or 'X' rated moves as trad grades get harder then you might want to reconsider what it's all about for you. Putting up FA's groundup onsight sometimes puts you in difficult circumstances and you have to be prepared to make do and survive.

[mattp]

Trip, if you can "maybe see their point," it sounds to me as if you may be weighing some of the questions Off White mentioned.

 

We could argue who is the hard man in the house or who is "old fashioned," or whether this or that style is respectful of nature, or whatever we want but at the end of the day nobody should lose sight of the fact that all of this is a game, and we are talking about what constitutes "fair means" toward playing that game.

 

Here's a piece I wrote in the Northwest Mountaineering Journal.

Historical Perspective

 

Most, though not all of us, will agree that as the first ascensionist you have significant rights to dictate whether added bolts stay or go.

 

[kevbone]

Headpointing on short, extremely stout climbs, like 13's and 14's can be argued as necessary in the same way as preplacing gear on insanely difficult lines can be. But the nature of climbing has always been one of mimicry and a complete lack of of moderation.

 

Opened up a can of worms did ya…..with another ethics question……

 

JH....I my mind head pointing has no grade attached to it. It simply put is climbing something that scares the hell out of you and you are too afraid to lead it. So you rehearse it on top rope then eventually go and lead it. This is an excepted practice in the climbing world and the majority of climbers use this tactic, from the best to the worst.

 

As far as the original question….. Your answer is simple….ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, respect thoughs who came before you. If it has been sent with no bolts, no matter how much of a death route it is or not, nobody gets to add ANYTHING. Unless you get permission from the FA team. That is a different story. You might even agree with the bolt…..but is not your place to add bolts.

 

Its all about tradition boys…..I believe it to be one of the worst crimes in the climbing world, to fuck with someone else’s route without getting permission.

 

If it is your route and you are on the FFA team, and someone added bolts, then you would be justified in chop, chop, chop. But you don’t really care the bolts are there…..then leave it.

 

[mattp]

As far as the original question….. Your answer is simple….ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, respect thoughs who came before you.

 

What if the first ascensionists bolted their way up a cliff that had what you deem ample cracks for pro?

[Drederek]

What if the first ascensionists bolted their way up a cliff that had what you deem ample cracks for pro?

Then you get bolt wars. When the trads who are all about respecting tha FA don't.

[dberdinka]

Doesn't "headpoint" mean to Top Rope The Shit out of something before leading it?

 

If thats the case then the lack of bolts is not really a statement of boldness. Should everyone else be expected to rap in and TR the shit out of to before leading it?

 

Seems like the route creator should equip a line in a way that they would be willing to lead it from ground up without preinspection.

 

 

[kevbone]

As far as the original question….. Your answer is simple….ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, respect thoughs who came before you.

 

What if the first ascensionists bolted their way up a cliff that had what you deem ample cracks for pro?

 

Well...that would be another shamefull onslot of bashing tradition.

[alpinemorg]

What if the first ascensionists bolted their way up a cliff that had what you deem ample cracks for pro?

 

That's a good question/side that trad climbers don't always seem to factor in. I think one would have to evaluate what the local custom of the site was, i.e. if it's a sport climbing locale then you just have to respect that.

 

But what if it's not a sport site, or what if bolts are only accepted if placed ground-up by hand?

[billcoe]

I can see this is the start of a 59 page collection of rantings.

 

I did a few routes last year rapped down to clean death blocks and shovel dirt. At the end of the day - out of lazyness of not wanting to walk around, I'd usually climb right out in my muddy tennis shoes and gradually sort of unintentionally wired the moves on a single line toprope. When I showed up in my climbing shoes, on the clean routes, a couple of times belayers, when following the route, noted that they wouldn't want that runnout on lead.

 

 

With that in my mind, these routes are single pitch and easily toproped, but if somebody wants to toss some bolts in to lead it whats the big deal, put them in. If you are going to do it, don't put in some weak-assed spinners or plated steel. Do it right or go home.

 

-so- to your question..

 

My thoughts on it is do your route ground up, and people should respect that and the pro. Otherwis you shouldn't get all pissy if someone else doesn't want to work the multiple pitches on TR - like the FA party, and puts in some bolts because THEY feel it's unsafe and wants to ground up it. My opinion only.

 

But I'm pretty flexible on all this kind of balony. My views have softened over time as well. I did a FA ground up last year that I would probably now do first on TR.

 

Getting some other viewpoints on THIS SPECIC ROUTE by others who have populated that specific area for years should get priority over a bunch of wankers like myself who may not have ever climbed at the area.

 

 

[montypiton]

Hey, this is fun! My thoughts? First, a disclaimer "opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all stink"

 

now for the meat:

 

1) if you die on a route, your ascent doesn't count

 

2) the climbing community would be better served if we could focus on "manners", or "courtesy" as opposed to "ethics"

 

3) none of us can prevent another from climbing in his/her own style, wo why make yourself and everyone around you miserable by trying?

 

4) hanging on gear, whether on rock, or on a tool (whether leashed or not) on ice, is aid. what aids a climber uses is a matter of personal style, and can't truly be labeled an "ethics" issue - this is PLAY, remember? we do it for FUN.

 

5) points for identifying the pioneering climber who asked

" Vy can't ve chust climb?"

 

 

 

[David Trippett]

Doesn't "headpoint" mean to Top Rope The Shit out of something before leading it?

 

If thats the case then the lack of bolts is not really a statement of boldness. Should everyone else be expected to rap in and TR the shit out of to before leading it?

 

Seems like the route creator should equip a line in a way that they would be willing to lead it from ground up without preinspection.

 

 

Exactly my point....what's to keep someone from slapping in a bolt on a pitch the FA'er headpointed? Can one really cry foul when the means of the FA were thus? The FA had the security of a top-rope to rehearse the route? Doesn't seem too sporting.

....This happens quite a bit I bet.

 

If we're to uphold the sanctity of the FA....then fine, ALL FA's should be respected regardless of style. Right? Even bolted cracks etc...? I don't really have too much problem with that. But, I do think that expecting someone to climb on mandatory run-outs(with, at least, the perception of a dangerous fall) that I headpointed is sort of dishonest...and I can't be too miffed if the pitch gets retro'd.

 

----Joseph----, firstly, I agree with pretty much everything you've said...but I'll play the advocate here again....in response to your comment about headpointing being reserved for "difficult" climbs....what does that mean exactly?....I think the idea of "difficulty" gets thrown around a lot without much regard to how relative the measure is. If climbing has an open ended grading system, and the periphery is always sliding up, dragging along the rest of us, and, what was deemed difficult yesterday is not today, is there much that can be said regarding "difficulty"? Is it just some arbitrary average? Is the essence really about "The Struggle", and how one goes about engaging in their struggle? Do you see what I'm saying?

 

Anyway...thanks for the responses....this has actually helped me to sort a few things out. Nice article MattP

 

 

[kevbone]

 

----Joseph----, firstly, I agree with pretty much everything you've said...but I'll play the advocate here again....in response to your comment about headpointing being reserved for "difficult" climbs....what does that mean exactly?....I think the idea of "difficulty" gets thrown around a lot without much regard to how relative the measure is. If climbing has an open ended grading system, and the periphery is always sliding up, dragging along the rest of us, and, what was deemed difficult yesterday is not today, is there much that can be said regarding "difficulty"? Is it just some arbitrary average? Is the essence really about "The Struggle", and how one goes about engaging in their struggle? Do you see what I'm saying?

 

Headpointing is personal. You could head point a 5.6....