|
cloudbreak
Jan 10, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #51 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Oh, and don't forget that cleaning a route would also be "unnatural" as well. So should we stop cleaning lichen off the rocks, even if it is just around the holds? Right!!! What about the gravel and leaves and pine needles that build in cracks, flakes, and other holds. You'd better leave that there too, cause it would be unnatural to remove it. You know, environmental groups that get climbing areas closed are looking for a few good men.....maybe you should join them.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jan 10, 2003, 9:56 PM
Post #52 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Well, I think there are good reasons why many climbers adhere to and promote some sort of minimal ethical standard, and religion has nothing to do with it.
Granted, some climbers just don't care (seems like there are more and more of you these days), and they would say "do whatever you want, it's just rock for Christ's sake". That lame mentality is what gets access to climbing areas shut down.
It's not only about what climbers think of what those guys did, it is also about what the non-climbing public thinks about climbers in general. What those guys in the video did might never cause any access issues in that area (I don't know what the regulations or land ownership situation is there), but their actions contribute to a continued lowering of ethical standards. Their actions can also contribute to a negative perception of climbers by land managers in other areas, and by citizens who might lobby against our access (other users of the land or environmental advocates, for instance). This makes it more difficult for climbers who are trying to keep access open because we have to convince the land managers and other interested parties that we are not a bunch of rock-defacing punks.
Religion? No.
Doing what is in the best interest of all climbers and what will help maintain a positive perception of us in the general public thereby helping keep our access priviledges? Yes!
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 10, 2003, 10:00 PM
Post #53 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
cloudbreak--youre an idiot too...exactly how does removing pine needles from a crack alter the rock?? and, uhh, for the record, when i do an FA, it doesnt get cleaned. holds break naturally, and i deal with that. lichen may rub off from my smearing a foothold, but i dont remove it.
my personal cleaning ethic--if it cant be removed with a nylon bristle brush, leave it the %@#$ alone. i DO NOT advocate prying loose flakes off to prevent injury. i do not advocate "speeding up nature" just for safety reasons. you either climb it and take that chance, or you dont climb it...or you buy a mebership to a gym.
please, STOP trying to retort with absolutely ridiculous statements such as this. they only make you look un-intelligent.
"Uhh...so by your theory, we cant clean the mud from the ground around the boulder?" dumb...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-10 14:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jan 10, 2003, 10:02 PM
Post #54 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
Marc,
Do you know what a post is? Do you know the title of this post? Do you not conclude with logical reason that this post would generate such a conversation?
Then why my friend, do you waste your time and energy to write a reply that disses anyone that has made a valid argument on the topic?
Everyone so far has done a great job of continuing a very interesting subject. If you are too good for this thread then don’t come reading. Head your own advice and start your own lonely cult.
Gabe,
your points are well noted. But this isn’t about whether or not you should climb a bolted route or not. This is about whether or not it is against climbing ethics to glue or chip. No one is saying you can’t climb a bolted route. No one is trying to tell you how to think.
The only objective here is to not encourage anyone to do yet more chipping or gluing. To encourage them to try as best as they can NOT to leave an impact.
Because the day you say that it is ok to do so.. is the day you say goodbye to all that is good about this sport.
Be an influence to your buddies about what you know is ethically and morally just.
off subject..
Ken,
Killing is wrong and everyone knows it. every culture knows this... the death penalty? surely you see the flaw in this argument?
the death penalty is a punishment... you know? where you want something BAD to happen to the guilty. so therefore the death penalty is BAD also. no one is saying it is right. you don’t get the death penalty because they want something good for you.
you can bring up as many right and wrongs as you want.. it doesn’t change what they are.
p.s. well said Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 10, 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #55 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
boulderingmadman, you said: "placing a bolt in a piece of un-protectable rock is vastly different than chipping a hold, gluing on a hold, and anchoring a flake through the use of bolts and glue."
I thought about this statement. I know perfectly well that it is generally felt to be true. In this particular case, I think it is also _wrong_. Bolting is a form of permanently altering the rock that is generally accepted because it does not alter the physical sequence needed to lead a route, it simply adds a degree of safety.
Am I mistaken, or is this not _exactly_ what they did to that boulder? Because they used glue, it's unacceptable? What about glue-in U-bolts? Think about it - the sequence of moves was the same before and after they got to the rock - the only difference was that it was safer. I'm not saying this should be accepted practice on _your_ home crag. But it's no different than bolting.
Look at it this way - on some trad climbs, say on an R rated route in the Gunks, adding a bolt for the sake of the safety of the leader would be an inexcusable breach of ethics. In many other places, it would be considered inexcusable to not place _enough_ bolts. So much for the argument that any of this is about more than anything but local ethics.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jan 10, 2003, 10:16 PM
Post #56 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Hey Chris, why don't you re-read my post(s). You've got my point backwards Bro!!!
Why do you talk so much smack to everyone?
[ This Message was edited by: cloudbreak on 2003-01-10 14:31 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dekenstructor1
Jan 10, 2003, 10:23 PM
Post #57 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 115
|
Killing is wrong and everyone knows it. every culture knows this... the death penalty? surely you see the flaw in this argument?
the death penalty is a punishment... you know? where you want something BAD to happen to the guilty. so therefore the death penalty is BAD also. no one is saying it is right. you don’t get the death penalty because they want something good for you.
you can bring up as many right and wrongs as you want.. it doesn’t change what they are.
ts5-
The death penalty is killing. Thus the term "death." I would take your condoning of the death penalty to be yet another admission of a situational ethic (although you again mistakenly believe it to be a universal). This is simply inconsistent, faulty logic. Whether or not you call it punishment does not change the fact that it is killing.
-Ken
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 10, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #58 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
cloudbreak--first off...i talk smack because its fun...dont take it personally...its funny(at least to me). come out here and ill still be a very accomodating host. im a pleasant guy in real life, honestly .
secondly--about the bolting thing. re-read my post and youll see where i stated the same thing as you. bolting is susceptible to the area ethics, as in the gunks. i still say that bolting DOES NOT alter the actual rock, aside from micro-fissures that may some day (thousands of years from now) expand. bolting is a local issue. rock deformation and comfortization is a different thing. thouroughly different. i cannot condone the use of ANY materials to make a route safer, easier, or more obtainable if these materials cause deformation of the rock. (for the record, i have never placed a bolt, and dont plan on doing so. my personal ethics wont let me. but it doesnt stop me from using bolts that are already there...)
speaking of the gunks, have you done Gelsa? as an example, when i did Gelsa for the first time (about 4 yrs ago) there was a HUGE "stairstep" block towards the top of the third pitch that was deadly. instead of gluing or pulling the block loose, it was marked, with chalk, in a big "X". when i got to the block, i re-marked it for the enxt party, and so on. in other words "DONT TOUCH THIS BLOCK!!!" was the clear point being made. it actually happens on alot of routes at the gunks...
my bottom line is the rock needs to be left alone, in its natural state, regardless of the reasoning behind the alteration. IMHO--it is just as wrong to say "I glued and bolted the loose flake so it would still be climbable" as it is to say "I chipped out the hold because otherwise it was unclimbable." there is a definite alteration to the rock being made. a definite alteration that isnt so definite with bolting a sport route. my problem is not with the possible "local ethics" in this particular area. my problem is with the rationalizing of the act itself. this rationalization can and will eventually lead to the rationalization of many different aspects of comfortization. and that is something i do not think the climbing community should condone...regardless of the reasons for it...
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jan 10, 2003, 10:41 PM
Post #59 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
Ken
Do you seriously believe that condoning something, means that it is suddenly right?
Dude, I said killing is wrong much as I say chipping is. It is unethical, against morals of society.
To condone something you: pardon or overlook voluntarily.
Not once does it mean that it is suddenly right.
Dude, I never gave you my opinion on that subject because my opinion doesn’t matter. Facts are what we are arguing over.
Ethics are universal. There is no argument that can prove otherwise.
If you do not follow the ethics of a certain culture or society you will not be accepted in that society. How Universal can you get?
By adhering to these ethics we as climbers can continue to fight for the freedom to climb. By condoning immoral practices of chipping, littering, or defacing rock then we face punishment of having our right to climb taken away.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 10, 2003, 11:17 PM
Post #60 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
boulderingmadman - if you truly believe that bolting does not alter the rock, it is beyond my powers to convince you otherwise. Perhaps you wouldn't mind if someone came along and grid-bolted your favorite high-ball problem.
"Comfortize" I've noticed that when people use this word they mean "allowing this climb to be done in a way that does not fit _my_ ethics." It has no corolation to any particular set actions.
Gelsa - nice climb. I took a friend up as her first lead. The last pitch has great exposure and is beautifully protectable. Anyway, you realize of course that if it was Rumney, any obviously removable rocks would have been trundled in a heartbeat? Don't get me wrong, I think Rumney is a well cared for crag - just different ethics.
Anyway, you still seem to be missing my point. You claimed there was a vast difference between protecting a sports climb and this situation. I argue that in both cases the FA uses bolts and glue for the safety of those climbers who wish to repeat the route. In both cases the climb keeps the same character - the only difference is that the boulder is less likely to be f**cked up by following climbers.
Do you know the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire? It's practically the state mascot. It's a natural rock formation that looks like the face of an old man when viewed from the valley. It's also only held together by bolts and cables, as it would naturally slowly shed rock. Is it not the prerogative of the state of NH to protect it? What makes this different?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 10, 2003, 11:26 PM
Post #61 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
thrillseeker: I agree that access issues are at stake. But you know what a non-climber would think when confronted with the fact that a group of climbers pried a flake off a boulder, then glued and bolted it back on with such care as to make it look like it had never come off: they'd think "Those crazy MF's! All that effort! Couldn't they make up their mind if they wanted the rock on or off the boulder? Oh well - looks fine to me!" Only we climbers care about that sort of trivia. Off topic note - the exception is that many areas do not condone the use of power tools...
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 11, 2003, 2:00 PM
Post #62 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Just once I'd like to see someone make an honest attempt at stating why glueing is bad that also logically encompasses aid and sport climbing, aggressive cleaning and bolting. Can you do it? Can you give reasons, not rules? Can you hand me some logic, not editcs? I have never responded well to "Thou shalt not...". I always feel compelled to ask:
WHY?
Why is glueing bad? Why is glueing bad and strapping a boulder to the side of El Cap using a bolt not bad?
Please, I truly want to know.
Reasons mind you. There havn't been many offered in this thread thus far. And I presonally can't come up with many (any?) that do encompass the other forms of impact we as climbers inflict. So have at it if you will. In the mean time, I'm off for some in-between storms climbing. Ciao,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jan 12, 2003, 12:43 AM
Post #63 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
That glued 5.12 is that hot 9 year old kid in the gym's 5.15b, that's why glue is lame.
|
|
|
|
|
wv5ten
Jan 12, 2003, 1:21 AM
Post #64 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 671
|
Quote:hot 9 year old kid
umm...hot as in...good...right?
right?!?
|
|
|
|
|
ridgerunner
Jan 12, 2003, 3:13 AM
Post #65 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Good?
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jan 12, 2003, 3:19 AM
Post #66 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
well yeah, like hot shot, ewww gross!
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 12, 2003, 4:30 AM
Post #67 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
"...if you truly believe that bolting does not alter the rock, it is beyond my powers to convince you otherwise. Perhaps you wouldn't mind if someone came along and grid-bolted your favorite high-ball problem. "
actually, i did allow for a certain amount of alteration through the drilling process, ie: micro-fissure which can and will eventually expand, though the time frame would be thousands of years...i also stated that i personally have never placed a bolt. then again, i would never drill holes in a rock face and use birdbeaks and etriers to climb a rock face. its against my personal ethics...
the difference is, and again, this is personal, but that doesnt mean id like to see it adopted as universal...
i do not think that we should interfere in the course of nature in those few places we have left that are wild. i believe that if a rock flake is going to break off, it is part of the challenge of that particular problem. i have had tons of holds break on me. most of them have been harmless, some have been quite painful. some that didnt break, but eventually WILL, no doubt, could have killed me. its part of the mindgame.
when i lead a trad climb, i follow the ethics of the first ascensionist(sp?). i dont retro-bolt, for any reason. i only clean what is absolutley necessay, and safely possible. i also use nothing more than my hands and a toothbrush to clean with. this holds true wether im bouldering, sportclimbing, or trad climbing. for reasons stated above, i dont aid.
this is why, IMHO, it is wrong to glue and bolt holds so they remain in place:
1) it is against the natural process of growth that the earth goes through. this is true wether you are a spiritual climber or just out to have fun. geology is an ongoing process, and in the very limited wilderness recreation space we have left, i believe that we should not interfere with the process.
2)dingus--chipping is wrong. i hope we all agree on this. why is chipping wrong? why is it unethical? these questions are posed mainly to dingus because you ask the same of me. it is impossible to give ultimate reasons why an ethical opinion is wrong. its a failure of the human language. we cannot give ultimate reason to a feeling. a difference of opinion, when it truly is an opinion as is wholeheartedly the case with ethics, will never be solved with reason because each opinion is based on feeling and belief. so your questions as to "why wont anyone give me reasons?' is simple to answer...there are no reasons that will convince you if you believe otherwise. thats definitive of an opinion.(valiant effort, again, however... )
3) with the above reasons stated, IMHO fixing a piece of rock to make it climbable is wrong...whether that fixing be maintaining holds that are about to break off, or creating holds where none exist.
next...
|
|
|
|
|
alpinelynx
Jan 12, 2003, 7:15 AM
Post #68 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 280
|
Hey, I don't know if this belongs under events and gatherings, but I was planning on going up and glueing the boot flake on el cap in March (if the weather is okay). Who's with me? I've already placed a special order with SuperGlue for .75 tons of glue, so I definitly need people to help haul and a few others to drill the rivet ladder on up there since I'm lazy.
[ This Message was edited by: alpinelynx on 2003-01-11 23:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 12, 2003, 7:20 AM
Post #69 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"IMHO fixing a piece of rock to make it climbable is wrong...whether that fixing be maintaining holds that are about to break off, or creating holds where none exist. "
Fair enough boulderingmadman.
Consider this... ethics are behavioral restraints employed by groups of people in the absence of laws. Laws are evidence of a breakdown in ethics. We have laws against murder because not enough of us can agree to not do this thing. If we all followe that ethic the law would be unnecessary.
Consider the Gunks... bolting and fixed pin bans imposed by the Preserve to force hordes of climbers with a variety of ethical systems to preserve the rock first. Rule are imposed when ethics break down. And ethics are simply tools used to help us all get along and in this case share the rock. If our ethics fail, we will have law imposed upon us in the anarchy that follows.
OK. That's what ethics are, or rather what they do. Upon what principles are most rock climbing ethics formed? Let's see, these are typical in the top 5:
1. Respect the FA party and the spirit of the FA? Why? Cause those people put a lot of work into the creation of their climb. Since only a few of us are actually bothered to establish new routes, the rest of us are beholden to first ascensionists for the work they do. If we crap on their work or otherwise deface it, they might not be so inclined to share their art in the future. And others may deface the work we do too.
2. Don't lie about how you climbed a route: Why? Huge issue here, that has both integrity and safety elememts. If we top rope and frig a route to death, then lead it with R or X pro, but fail to tell people we rehearsed it first, not only have we purposely misrepresented our accomplishment (integrity) but we may put other climbers in harms way who may be seeking to repeat a climb that "never happened that way."
3. Preservation - Why? Rock climbing, especially fine rock climbing, is a limited resource. We have learned that we must protect access digilently. We must not destory the very thing we wish to climb, with too many pins, trash, trampling, etc.
4. We must not alter the rock - why? Well, here we get to the crux of our little discussion. Why indeed? We can establish readily that this ethical standard has relaxed in recent years, and in the aid world it has always been a more ticklish issue. But with the advent of popular sport climbing I'm afraid whole segments of our climbing population no longer view this ethic as absolute. It's as though rather than a rule etched in stone, we have numerous lines drawn individually in shifting sand. Many of us would draw the line in nearly the same spot, making a fairly deep gash. But the winds of time blow the sand around, others put their lines to one side or the other and pretty soon you realize people are all over the map on this issue. The inescapable conclusion is "thou shalt not alter the rock for upward progress" is no longer a universal ethic (if it ever was). It really can't be argued, those are the facts ma'am. It comes down to a question of degrees.
5. Never use glue - goes hand in hand with #4. Why? Is it the glue itself, the molecular structure perhaps, that offends? Well, glue is used with bolts and the complaints about that application are few and far between. Nope, it ain't the glue, it's what it's used for: fixing holds to the rock. Now those holds might be insitu like the example at the beginning of this thread, or they might be totally new holds altogether.
6. We will not create or add new holds to make a route - again an extension of #4, but here we find many more people in agreement. This is still much closer to an ethical constant, more so than say the repair of a loose flake. Creating new holds is verboten in most areas.
At what point do #'s 3 clash or contradict with 4,5 and 6? At some point, does the need for preservation kick in?
It is my absolute sincere belief that fixing a loose hold is OK in certain limited situations. A key hold on a popular climb, a death block on the worlds most famous climb, a soon-to-be-departed block on a heavily traveled sport climb, I don't think such tinkering is a big deal. If the locals, primarily the most active and prolific climbers at a given area are OK with limited use of these tools to preserve the rock, I must admit, I'm OK with it too. So are a lot of people I know. I asked my climbing magte today and he gave me a funny look, like, whats the big deal. It never even occured to him that gule would be a problem in and of itself. We aren't for wholesale manufacter of routes and don't condone such things. WE certainly haven't forgotten the Jardine traverse on the Nose, even if the newer generations have. But we just don't get so caught up in the rigid application of rules that we forget that climbing isn't about them. It's about a lot of things, but not rules. Not for us anyway.
Rules that is. I am as big a fan of Warren Harding as I am Royal Robbins, perhaps more so in certain respects. A iconclast who was willing to make the case for his own rules. He did not appreciate others telling him how to think. The ethics we all enjoy today were largely codified by that generation, at least in the US. They taught us what was right and what was not. Much of what they handed down still retains the same value as it did when espoused around the camp fires during the golden age.
But even some of those men have come to understand that preservation is a huge issue.
Glueing on a hold is not an expression of the anti-christ. It is an expression of a difference of opinion. That difference is real, it's here and it has arrived. We are only left with "what to do about it."
What do we do? Fight, piss and moan, and eventually call in the land managers in a short sightedd attempt to impose our will and our ethics on unwilling subjects? Our ethics have failed so we impose the law to fill the void? Definitely one choice. I don't like that result, cause I basically don't like people, government people least of all, telling me what and how to climb.
So what is the alternative? Respect! Respect of the local ethics, that is the alternative! Understand that there will be difference of opinion, no matter how rigid of code you are. Sooner or later you will enounter something that outrages your sensibilities. Now you just may be a conservative nut with an ax to grind, a Ken Nichols with a huge chip on your shoulder. Or you may be a normal bloke with representative mores and principles. How are you to know?
Easy. By respecting the local ethics. By affording others the same right to climb and believe as they see fit, as you would have them afford you. Because without that mutual respect, without that latitude and understanding, we are left with either anarchy or the law.
THAT is why I hold the local ethic so dear. That is why I advocate respect. With an ever growing climbing population, law may be inevitable in certain places. I think of the Gunks and Boulder Canyon, two places where law was imposed when climbers failed to self regulate. Those failures arose out of a lack of respect when ethics could no longer sustain a single point of view.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Respect. It a cure, not a degradation.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
pheelin_alright
Jan 12, 2003, 6:26 PM
Post #70 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 5
|
i think it is cool when nature changes a route or problem. if it was naturally occuring, i would have let it go.
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jan 12, 2003, 8:02 PM
Post #71 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
I think I'm going to throw away my growing trad rack. And just move straight to bird beaks and pitons. climb on.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 13, 2003, 4:13 AM
Post #72 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
quote from mhr2000-"People have been modifying mother nature to meet their sports requirements since the first sport was created. Look at golf with all the terraforming they do and what about ski areas and all the prep work done to the mountain. What about all the basketball, football, soccer and baseball stadiums taking up acres and acres of land.
thousands of people were nazis, thousands of people are murderers, and thousands of years of hatred and brutality have been tolerated and even promoted in civilized society. frequency in no way equates to rightness. please try not to forget that, lest we all end up in a world of $#!&...
if nothing else, the purity of the sport should e;evate it above that. part of our "universal code" is to take on the rock as it presents itself to you, or train harder. those who dont follow this ethic are comdemned publicly, and privately, and usually dont get any respect from the mass media of colimbing or the interpersonal climbing community(at least in my experience). for proof of this, consider Akira. first route to claim the grade of 5.15a. why doesnt it count?? because it is a manufactured route...
in the original example stated to start this thread, it is now my personal opinion that the boulder problem in question is manufactured. thats my opinion. its not universal ethic, as i said earlier, though i personally would like to see it be so.
dingus--i agree with 99.9999% of your post. so much so that i see very little difference in our opiniuons. the only difference is in our assumption of the future consequences of these sorts of actions.
quote--"Laws are evidence of a breakdown in ethics. We have laws against murder because not enough of us can agree to not do this thing. If we all followe that ethic the law would be unnecessary"
i agree 100%, and it is for this very reason that i dont think the actions in question should be condoned by the general climbing public. actions like this will lead to more of it. more of it will lead, eventually, to the wrong people making a big stink out of nothing.
i dont think that what the guys did in the original dilemma was so much morrally wrong as it is consequentially wrong. the consequences of their actions may lead to unwanted and un-warranted reconsideration for the access granted in that particular area. it only takes one old-fart(no offense to oler people ) with a $#!&-load of cash to raise a local stink about it and get access severely limited if not stopped. its simply not worth the risk...
quote--"respecting the local ethics. By affording others the same right to climb and believe as they see fit, as you would have them afford you. Because without that mutual respect, without that latitude and understanding, we are left with either anarchy or the law."
again, i agree 100%. i always adhere to local ethics when climbing in an area, if the ethics are stricter than the ones i impose on myself. very rarely are they.
i didnt even watch the video, to be honest with you. i dont know where they were, and i dont know the local ethics. i certainly am not trying to say that a universal ethic handed down from some "higher power" should be followed at all outdoor climbing venues. i am merely stating my opinion of what i would like to see mutually and universally agreed upon in a sort of un-written climbing ethic, that does not get handed down to us from "up on high".
i am also merely stating my opinion of the situation as it has been described here in this thread. i would not have done it. i would not have been around when it was done, and if it was at all in power, i would have stopped it, or at least i would have tried. ive simply stated my opinion and given reasons and debate to support my thought process.(granted, i had to throw a few sticking jibes in there every once in awhile. what fun would it be other wise )
for the record dingus, next time youre out my way,m give me a shout, well pull down and have a good ol time...on some natural problems .
otherwise, its been a good conversation. im a bit bored with it now, but ill keep reading...
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 14, 2003, 4:17 PM
Post #73 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
boulderingmadman said: "again, i agree 100%. i always adhere to local ethics when climbing in an area, if the ethics are stricter than the ones i impose on myself. very rarely are they. "
So you refuse to adhere to local ethics if they are "less strict" than your own? You may not be a bolt-chopper yourself, but this is the attitude of bolt-choppers who get climbers into wars like the ones in CT and eventually screw up access. If you don't like the ethics of a particular place, too bad! Don't climb there. If you think the climbing style of a certain area will screw up access, please - talk to the local Access fund RC. Or better yet, talk to the climbers who set the scene there. Seriously, you might be right, but by going against the will of local climbers, you're just asking for trouble.
By the way, if you think I'm some kind of mad-bolter/gluer, you're wrong. I just think that too many people use their own "high ethics" to beat up on folks are "doing it wrong". Most often it's the rock itself, as well as climbers' access, that suffers.
GO
[edited for clarity]
[ This Message was edited by: cracklover on 2003-01-14 08:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 14, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #74 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
ok, so if i want to go to an area that is all chipped and glued to hell, because those are the local ethics, im supposed to follow in their shoes??? wrong. i follow my own ethics where ever i go, and i dont alter anything that was done. come on, read the whole post. i said that i have never placed a bolt, but that doesnt mean i wont clip one thats there. i said i cimb in the style of the FA or i dont climb. dont read into my posts, and try to make me look like some crazy tree-hugging hippie...im not. i just respect the land, the rock, and the people...
and i wasnt comparing murder and nazis to fixing a broken rock. i was comparing the idea that thousands of people make something right. they dont. just as being the most popular doesnt make you the most talented, being widely accepted by thousands of different people doesnt make something right. thats not a debateable theory, its a fact. theres millions of people evceryday that believe wholeheartedly in something that isnt necessarily right...
so according to you, if the locals in an area (take Santee, for an example) feel its OK to throw beer bottles and plastic bags around, i have to lower myself to their ethics in order to climb there?? youre making less and less sense. why should i lower my standards to the lowest common denominator? i wont. i refuse to. but i also wont interfere with the decisions that theyve made.
ive climbed grid-bolted faces. i dont agree with it, but if its a good route, ill climb it. ive moved my fair share of garbage from the bases of various problems in order to climb. i then pack out the $#!& thats left behind from others. do you mena to tell me theres something wrong with that??? maybe there something wrong with the locals, eh?
access is far more often restricted because of poor ethics and behavior...not good. youre using words in a literal sense to confuse the actual issue. i have never heard of an area being closed because land managers wanted people to be less responsible. thats a ridiculous statement.
as for bolt-choppers, they are as consequentially wrong as the dudes fixing the flakes. its not like i think someone should go and pull the flake off because they glued it on. leave it be, its done. as i said before, it wasnt morally wrong so much as consequentially wrong.
and to say that "if we hadnt been climbing on it, the flake wouldnt have become loose in the first place", is an absolutely ridiculous statement. its called geology. the effects of water, ice, heat, pressure, plate-tectonics, etcetcetcetcetc...those are the things that cause rocks to break. though there is a miniscule possibility that the flake in question may have maintained solidarity for a few more years, thousands of years of geological evolution are definately more impactive than even the heaviest and strongest of climbers. why was it a flake to begin with?? because it was a partially shed layer of rock that didnt slough from the surface when its nearest neighbors did...
and by your own declaration(being our inmpact from climbing) the situation is made worse by adding MORE microfissures)through drilling the bolts) and introducing unnatural cementing agents into the picture
|
|
|
|
|
oldskool
Jan 14, 2003, 6:46 PM
Post #75 of 127
(7207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 136
|
he...chek it:
i had not thought bouts it directly b4,
but any form of aid/sport climbing is damaging/changing the rock permanently. the way it would appear TO AN IMPASSIONATE OUTSIDE OBSERVER, the glueing/bolting-flake issue would b no difffernt then aid/sport climbing. it would b a matter of degrees, i think. the hole drilled for a bolt would be no differnt then a crimp that has been comfortixed to our IMPASSIONATE OUTSIDE OBSERVER in terms of damage to rock.
now, i think if anyone here has cleaned a FA, on semi-exfoliated granite like in many cali places, then you have:
1)pulled off exfoliating flakes of rock(its rather like peeling an onion).
2)scrubbed some lichen off some hold at some time.
it seems to me, that if you use no mechanical tools on the rock (traddy or boulder style) than you will still effectivley damage that rock by points 1 and 2 to some degree, which would be the same as purposely prying a flake or 'comfortixing' a hold by degrees to our IMPASSIONATE guy. n e wayz...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
