Forums: Climbing Information: Regional Discussions:
chipping acceptable in this area??
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Regional Discussions

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


kazu


Oct 15, 2012, 12:01 AM
Post #1 of 83 (12984 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4

chipping acceptable in this area??  (North_America: United_States: California: San_Bernardino_County: Frustration_Creek)
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…


kennoyce


Oct 15, 2012, 7:10 AM
Post #2 of 83 (12916 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [kazu] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kazu wrote:
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

No, it's not acceptable there. The route that you are talking about is now being affectionately called "Castration" by many of us locals. A little background on it, it was originally bolted by Louie Anderson several years ago and was thought to be about 5.14b. It was an open project, but nobody ever redpointed it, so a couple of weeks ago, Louie deided that he would rather have it be an easier route so that it would actually get climbed. He went back up and both chipped it and glued some additional holds onto it. I haven't climbed it yet, but Louie rated it 5.12a.

As someone who is doing some of that new development up at frustration creek, I am sadened that this happened, but at least all of the other developers that I know up there are also saddened by this act. While I do appreciate all of the work that Louie has done for the climbing community, I think that he has spent too much time at the quarry and really needs to think about what he is doing when he develops other areas.


Edited to add: I have no knowledge that the route would have gone at 5.14b. Louie says that it wouldn't have gone at all and was too blank, but I guess now we'll never know.


(This post was edited by kennoyce on Oct 22, 2012, 7:52 AM)


marc801


Oct 15, 2012, 7:32 AM
Post #3 of 83 (12908 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [kennoyce] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kennoyce wrote:
kazu wrote:
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

No, it's not acceptable there.
Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere. If anyone is doing that kind of manufacturing, they need to go back inside.


kennoyce


Oct 15, 2012, 8:23 AM
Post #4 of 83 (12892 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [marc801] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
kennoyce wrote:
kazu wrote:
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

No, it's not acceptable there.
Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere. If anyone is doing that kind of manufacturing, they need to go back inside.

It would probably help if you knew a little bit more about the local climbing areas here. The chipper is the main developer of a quarry that has a couple of hundred routes at it. Being a quarry, Technically all of the holds are man made, but a couple of the developers (mostely Gary Henning and Louie Anderson) have also done quite a bit of manufacturing further than what the quarying did.

Generally I agree with you that Chipping is never acceptable or appropriate, but in the case of the quarry, chipping has allowed the existance of routes that would never have been climbed at any grade on rock that has already been altered from it's natural state by human hands. In my mind, this is kind of a grey area, but on natural rock it's very black and white. The problem comes when these chippers decide that all rock should be treated like a quarry.

For an Idea of what I'm talking about check out The Fun Factory. All of the routes there are completely manufactured, pretty much none of them would have ever been climbed at any grade due to poor rock quality and a completely blank slightly overhanging face. Now the area offers around a dozen fun moderate routes on rock that was already "chipped" and defaced by man.


marc801


Oct 15, 2012, 9:39 AM
Post #5 of 83 (12839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [kennoyce] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kennoyce wrote:
marc801 wrote:
kennoyce wrote:
kazu wrote:
I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

No, it's not acceptable there.
Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere. If anyone is doing that kind of manufacturing, they need to go back inside.

It would probably help if you knew a little bit more about the local climbing areas here. The chipper is the main developer of a quarry that has a couple of hundred routes at it. Being a quarry, Technically all of the holds are man made, but a couple of the developers (mostely Gary Henning and Louie Anderson) have also done quite a bit of manufacturing further than what the quarying did.

Generally I agree with you that Chipping is never acceptable or appropriate, but in the case of the quarry, chipping has allowed the existance of routes that would never have been climbed at any grade on rock that has already been altered from it's natural state by human hands. In my mind, this is kind of a grey area, but on natural rock it's very black and white.
No, I'm not familiar with the area, but actually, I agree with you - quarries being a bit of a grey area where chipping could be acceptable. My objection occurs when it moves out of quarries onto natural faces.

kennoyce wrote:
The problem comes when these chippers decide that all rock should be treated like a quarry.
Precisely. The problem is compounded when newer or less informed climbers don't make that distinction and wonder about it on an internet forum. At least the OP was asking the right questions.


gratefuljoe


Oct 15, 2012, 10:16 AM
Post #6 of 83 (12806 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Posts: 27

Re: [kazu] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Louie Anderson has been chipping for years not just at Riverside Rock Quarry, look at apple valley,Williamson Rock, Keller peak,devils punchbowl and his new work at mount baldy and possible jtree. this in not new news just a new climbed that has been robed for all future and stronger climbers to get the FA. the sad thing is he has a cult like following with the younger climbers so they think this is acceptable to chip or glue lines that are over there climbing grade. he has given us a lot of good line over the years but chipping natural rock should be punishable by a good old fashion ass kicking just a thought.


kennoyce


Oct 15, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #7 of 83 (12783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [gratefuljoe] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gratefuljoe wrote:
Louie Anderson has been chipping for years not just at Riverside Rock Quarry, look at apple valley,Williamson Rock, Keller peak,devils punchbowl and his new work at mount baldy and possible jtree. this in not new news just a new climbed that has been robed for all future and stronger climbers to get the FA. the sad thing is he has a cult like following with the younger climbers so they think this is acceptable to chip or glue lines that are over there climbing grade. he has given us a lot of good line over the years but chipping natural rock should be punishable by a good old fashion ass kicking just a thought.

I couldn't agree with you more.


USnavy


Oct 15, 2012, 2:57 PM
Post #8 of 83 (12662 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [marc801] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
kennoyce wrote:
kazu wrote:
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

No, it's not acceptable there.
Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere.
I am not so sure about that. Aid climbing is for all practical purposes chipping. Pounding pins into the rock and reinforcing hook placements would count as chipping IMO. Granted, the motivation is different, but the effect is still the same - damaged rock. I have encountered tons of manufactured hook placements on El Cap and there are pin scars on every route on El Cap. But yes, chipping holds on a free climb is silly.


marc801


Oct 15, 2012, 3:32 PM
Post #9 of 83 (12643 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [USnavy] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
I am not so sure about that. Aid climbing is for all practical purposes chipping. Pounding pins into the rock and reinforcing hook placements would count as chipping IMO. Granted, the motivation is different, but the effect is still the same - damaged rock. I have encountered tons of manufactured hook placements on El Cap and there are pin scars on every route on El Cap. But yes, chipping holds on a free climb is silly.
I think we were speaking in the context of free climbs. And let's not get in to the whole issue of climbs that are now free because they were aided at one time (Serenity Crack being the classic poster child).


kazu


Oct 15, 2012, 5:02 PM
Post #10 of 83 (12608 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4

Re: [kazu] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Kennoyce- thanks for the info about the route.

The issue I wanted to raise here was not actually “chipping”, but an extreme manufacturing of a route. If the chipping was done in a small scale just to fill up a blank section, it might have been understandable if not acceptable. At least I wouldn’t have raised an issue. What I was talking about is something like creation of an entire route from nothing like putting holds in a climbing gym. It was complete transformation of the natural wall and I had a very odd feeling when I was on the route, even though the climb was fun.


papapetro


Oct 15, 2012, 10:06 PM
Post #12 of 83 (12503 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2012
Posts: 14

Re: [kazu] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A lot of creativity goes into manufacturing routes. Michelangelo chizzed out a 20 foot piece of marble and I don't believe it has ever seen an accent ( the crux is leaving the pinch). A good climb is just that. I cannot judge an artist on his medium.


USnavy


Oct 16, 2012, 3:07 AM
Post #13 of 83 (12470 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not that I necessarily agree with chipping, but I have never really understood why it can piss some people off so much. What is the deal with it? Is it an issue of modifying the rock itself? Because if so, bolting modifies the rock, as does cleaning the route and an number of other things. If it is an issue of climbing on manufactured holds, how is that much different from the gym? Is it an aesthetics thing? Does chipped routes look bad? If so, one could argue that bolts and chalked up holds look a lot worse. Is climbing on manufactured holds in a gym okay because it is indoors? How is that relevant? Is it an ego thing? Do climbers think that if you are not "good enough" to climb the route at its current grade, you shouldent climb it at all? If so, couldent one argue that if you are not good enough to climb a route on trad you shouldent climb it at all (i.e. sport routes shouldent exist)?


(This post was edited by USnavy on Oct 16, 2012, 3:10 AM)


socalclimber


Oct 16, 2012, 3:59 AM
Post #14 of 83 (12461 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437

Re: [kazu] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kazu wrote:
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…

"Gluie" Anderson has a very long and very sordid history in the climbing community regarding exactly the behavior you speak of. No, it's not acceptable.

Big wall climbing is a whole other venture.


(This post was edited by socalclimber on Oct 16, 2012, 4:06 AM)


socalbolter


Oct 21, 2012, 11:04 AM
Post #15 of 83 (12276 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 796

Re: [socalclimber] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just got back from climbing in Yosemite and saw an email from a friend pointing me to this thread. I'm not really active on this site anymore and may have missed it otherwise.

What I did to establish this line (Groove Dynamics - 12a) was certainly heavy-handed, and I knew when it was done that some would respond this way. The truth is that this was always the intention for this particular route. The Upper Tier at Frustration is full of chipped holds and glue (from the hands of multiple people). The crag has had a history of this type of activity from it's first bolts. Does that make it right? I guess that's a question you have to answer individually for yourself, but it is certainly consistent with other development in the area.

As for the post upthread about me chipping at other areas: of the areas listed in that post I have only chipped here and at the Quarry. Some areas have a pre-existing tolerance of this type of action and others do not. I respect that line. The extreme chipping, etc. at Baldy is not my work - in fact I have placed no bolts there at all.

When we first began bolting at Frustration in the early 90's there was no one climbing there at all. A massive amount of work has been done to turn the area into a climbing resource and I'm happy to see it getting the attention it deserves. That said, I was very surprised when I returned this year after having not been there for some time and saw perma-draws on virtually every bolt on the Upper Tier. Every possible link-up and variation seems to have been bolted and I cannot think of a crag anywhere in the world that I have seen more grid-bolted. Seeing this transformation allowed the justifictaion (in my mind) for what I did on this new route. For those climbing on the Upper Tier, there is a huge jump in difficulty from climbing Deulsions to just about any of the harder lines. My goal for this route was to create another, slightly harder transitional warm-up for those wanting to project the harder lines. I think this new line fills that void nicely.

- Louie


newrivermike


Oct 22, 2012, 7:20 AM
Post #16 of 83 (12153 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 23, 2010
Posts: 36

Re: [socalbolter] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Seems like nature had provided a 5.14b and the 'harder lines' would have provided nice warm-ups for it. I can't believe this shit is still happening in 2012, a time when a 5.14b gets climbed everyday. Louie, your justifications are pathetic. Stop chipping.


socalbolter


Oct 22, 2012, 7:37 AM
Post #17 of 83 (12144 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 796

Re: [newrivermike] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

I did not clarify something in my original post, so I will do that here:

As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb.

To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.


kennoyce


Oct 22, 2012, 7:47 AM
Post #18 of 83 (12139 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [socalbolter] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

socalbolter wrote:
I did not clarify something in my original post, so I will do that here:

As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb.

To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.

As the person who said it would have gone at 14b let me just clarify that I personally have no idea if it would have gone at 14b or at all. I was just told by someone (I honestly don't even remember who told me) that some people thought it would go at around .14b.

Again, I appreciate all of the work that Louie has done over the years, I understand that chipping has happened at Frustration Creek in the past, but I think it would be nice if we could just leave natural rock natural regardless of what has been done in an area previously.


marc801


Oct 22, 2012, 8:26 AM
Post #19 of 83 (12113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [socalbolter] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

socalbolter wrote:
As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb.

To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.
And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.


ianmeister89


Oct 22, 2012, 11:20 AM
Post #20 of 83 (12055 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 140

Re: [marc801] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
"it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.


True, But in the case of this particular route, This portion of the wall was literally devoid of holds. If you don't like it, don't climb it.


hasbeen


Oct 22, 2012, 11:51 AM
Post #21 of 83 (12041 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 16, 2003
Posts: 543

Re: [marc801] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.

Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.


kennoyce


Oct 22, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #22 of 83 (12023 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [hasbeen] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

hasbeen wrote:
And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.

Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.


This isn't what we are talking about at all. When we are talking about glueing holds on to the wall we're not talking about reinforcing existing holds, we're talking about literally picking a rock up off the ground that was never a part of the route, and gluing it onto the blank face. When we're talking about chipping, we're not talking about cleaning loose rock off the face, we're talking about drilling new holds into the rock that were never there to begin with.

As I have said several times in this thread, I appreciate the work that Louie has done, but that shouldn't give him the right to manufacture routes on a natural cliff face.

Just an FYI, this past weekend I trundled 100's of pounds of loose rock off a route that I'm putting up at Frustration Creek, so I certainly understand the many hours that go into developing routes on junk rock.


marc801


Oct 22, 2012, 1:00 PM
Post #23 of 83 (12010 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [hasbeen] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

hasbeen wrote:
And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.

Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.

Reread my earlier comments up thread. I'm not talking about these specific areas since I've never even seen them let alone climb there - as such I'm not qualified to comment.

However, the bigger concern is that new and/or clueless climbers aren't necessarily making that distinction and arriving at the idea that maybe chipping/manufacturing is basically OK. Look at the post from USNavy which demonstrates a total lack of understanding of our impact on rock - not understanding that it is a continuum and that some impacts (chalk) are relatively fleeting while others (chipping) permanently impact all future generations of climbers.


kazu


Oct 22, 2012, 2:27 PM
Post #24 of 83 (11976 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4

Re: [socalbolter] chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Hi Louie,
First of all, I greatly appreciate what you’ve done for our climbing community as hundreds of local climbers do. Thank you.

What we are asking about chipping may not be a yes-or-no type of question. Cleaning rocks, installing bolts/permas, chalking up holds, all climbing activities more or less affect the nature of rock, hence the nature of climb. The question is how much we should try to minimize the human impact to the rocks. I don’t think there is a universal answer for that, but decision has to be made upon the nature and history of the area. This said, in my personal opinion, what you did to this particular route in this particular area was a bit too much.


hugepedro


Oct 22, 2012, 3:02 PM
Post #25 of 83 (11952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: chipping acceptable in this area?? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Chipping is weak and lame. If you CAN'T climb it you don't NEED to climb it. If nobody can climb it, then it doesn't need to be climbed. Simple.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Regional Discussions

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook