I didn't say I don't clip them, I said I don't like them. Like billboards, I don't like the sign that tells me there is a Wafflehouse at the next exit, but I pull over anyway.
Well, hmmm. You don't like them, but you clip them, I'm confused as to what everyone is arguing about! Is it that some climbers wish we could go back to having no anchors, bolts, signs of human passage on the cliffs? In which case, it is simply mental masturbation, and won't change a thing. Except use up the mental Kleenex box alot faster.
Debating the ethics of future ascents (FA's, mostly, I guess) could possibly lead to better understanding of what constitutes proper "crag etiquette", but that seems to be slightly locationally driven.
Since, Superchuffer, you utilize the anchors in question, I don't think it gives you a higher moral ground to talk about how much better the climb would have been without them. If you maintain that they are unnecessary (maybe that's not what you mean, I don't wish to misinterpret your messages), then you could set the example for others of how to complete these routes without needing to "deface the rock forever" or what have you.
In truth, I think whatever we might do to the Earth is pointless, as it will be here far longer than we will be, and Yosemite will one day be eroded away or ground down by glaciers again. The Tetons will be covered in miles of lava and ash when the supervolcano under WY erupts, the Gunks will one day be history, and even the remnants of our arrogant societies will be washed away by the winds and rain, covered by jungle, dune, or wave. (Wow, I'm an F-ing poet...)
Since, Superchuffer, you utilize the anchors in question, I don't think it gives you a higher moral ground to talk about how much better the climb would have been without them.
not a higher moral ground, just obviously more impact. the impact of trad climbing is something fellow chuffers are loath to admit.
I will admit it.... I also impact by driving to the crag or trailhead, hiking the trail or path, scrubbing away the new lichen/moss on a less-travelled climb. I figure I'm going to be impacting something, somewhere no matter how I spend my time.
I could be stomping over a golf green, injecting gasoline into a lake in search of trout, or using up fossil fuels via the power plant that send juice to power my TV and watch something inane and ridiculous that's designed to make me feel that I need to drive to the mall and part with hard earned cash for another useless product that will make me feel special and unique, just like the celebrity spokesmodel.
I think the relatively minimal impact that climbing has on the Earth is pretty damn cool. (I can be smug and kick back in my sandals and drinking something decidedly non-conformist later in the evening, thinking how nifty I am for loving the rock! Woo! )
Agreed, talking about the impact of bolts is stupid, for their impact is very littel compared to the impact of getting to the crag which all of us do. What I think is funny is how many of the people who would defend these chain anchors on trad climbs would be the same to defend the chopping of a bolted crack climb. Ethics? Morality? Neither? More like a dogmatic religion.
Since, Superchuffer, you utilize the anchors in question, I don't think it gives you a higher moral ground to talk about how much better the climb would have been without them.
not a higher moral ground, just obviously more impact. the impact of trad climbing is something fellow chuffers are loath to admit.
I think it's kind of scary when Jt is one of the most knowledgeable and balanced submitters on a question in the "trad" forum. Mr. Jt, the more I read your posts the more I respect you.
I think the major problem in the 'trad is rad' and all others are an abomination philosophy is that there is no pure tradition. Climbing methods, gear and ethics have always been changing. Just because something was done in the past does not mean that it is the right or best way, or that because something is new and convenient it is less worthy. LNT=/= traditional climbing. Trad vs sport is not about the gear, it's about the way the route was established. Here in the bow valley there are many long routes that are almost entirely bolt protected as they climb face features. I wouldn't call them either sport or trad, it's just whatever the first ascensionist deemed the rock required to climb successfully and with a relative level of security. I think a better definition would be ground up vs rap bolted. (just look at trad climbing in Britain, they sometimes rappel in to place gear, HERESY where are the trad cops!!!)
I enjoy sport climbing because (especially on limestone) i get to climb features that are unprotectable without bolts. But I also enjoy climbing routes that are protected with removable gear (which =/= trad) because the features are totally different again. Pocket pulling on bolts is fun, but so is climbing a splitter, but I wouldn't bolt one, or solo the other either. To say bolts are not traditional, but cams are is simply an uneducated stance that shows a limited perspective on the history of climbing.
19 /
59%
) 
