|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Sport Climbing:
Re: [dingus] To retro or not?:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
May 22, 2007, 3:11 AM
Views: 5882
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
dingus wrote: fracture wrote: What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding. Defacto rule? You're high. The rule is, you want to bolt something, go bolt it. The other rule is, if someone else doesn't like your bullshit, they can chop it.
And the result of those two rules, coupled with human behavior in small social communities with their own culture and moral standards, results in something roughly approximating democracy.
There's a reason that established routes across the country are changing, often without FA permission, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't that single-handed bandit retroers (or choppers) are taking matters into their own hands without asking community members for input. There's been a change in zeitgeist, and those who feel strongly can get support from sufficient community members to feel justified with certain types of formerly-taboo route modification.
Of course there are rare (and sometimes loud) vigilantes, but both retroing and chopping are much more likely to be done with the support of the majority of the community than without. And no, it is not "only two people" that matter: the threat of a chopping (from any number of people) is just as relevant as an actual bolt being chopped.
A true democratic system is an improvement at many crags, but at others, it is actually worse than the de facto anarchistic mob rule that often works pretty damn well.
In reply to: In reply to: So, why not bolt all the cracks? Because some crags are frequented by a majority of climbers who do not want them bolted. Similarly, why bolt any cracks? Some crags (Potrero comes to mind) are frequented by a majority of climbers who want them bolted. Nice sleight of hand trick. In your search for this elusive ONE RULE TO BIND THEM ALL you've overlooked the obvious... we have more than one tradition.
???
You should know by now that I don't really value traditions; regardless of how many of them you have. (And what does that have to do with what I wrote, anyway?)
In reply to: In reply to: Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide. Actually I don't get all caught up in it. I suggest respect is the way for differing styles to coexist. You dream of a democratic utopia.
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
Democracy (maybe a kind of proportional representation or something) is probably in your interest, if you want to reserve some rock for the stupid routes.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 3:14 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on May 22, 2007, 3:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
