|
|
|
|
allan_thomson
Nov 28, 2004, 8:50 PM
Post #1 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 596
|
I wondered if maybe someone could explain something for me please.
In Britain, our Trad ethic states that you do not use bolts where other forms of natural protection is available (whether that be the more preferable removable items such as Cams, Tricams, or nuts + Hex's, or permanent protection inserted into natural features (such as Petons). Any other placement of bolts is unnaceptable, and unethical.
I understand that in America your trad ethic dictates that it is only acceptable to place bolts on the lead. In order to do this, there must be some decent placements which can be reached nearby, and then the gear placed must be safe to hang on while the bolt is placed.
That being the case, if nearby the bolt there are decent placements, then surely there is no need for a bolt? In the UK this would contravene the Trad ethic of the crag.
Could someone explain to me, what exactly the American Trad ethic is (if I'm mistakened), and what the justification of placing bolts next to perfectly decent gear placements is? It just doesn't make sense to me, though obviously I'm looking at it from my ethical perspective. I can understand bolt belays (though they're a rarity over here), but placing bolts on the lead, just doesn't make sense to me. Can someone enlighten me please?
(This is not a troll, or an ethics flame fest, just from what I have been told of American Trad, it doesn't make sense to me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
allan_thomson
Nov 28, 2004, 9:05 PM
Post #3 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 596
|
Thankyou.
I could understand that from looking at your picture, (wouldn't feel very secure hanging from sky hooks) it's just I saw in a book, a picture of Lynn Hill placing a bolt hanging from two Bomber (or so they looked to me) Cam placements, which made me wonder what was the justification? It didn't seem to make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
Nov 28, 2004, 9:12 PM
Post #4 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: I could understand that from looking at your picture
In reply to: I saw in a book, a picture of Lynn Hill placing a bolt hanging from two Bomber (or so they looked to me) Cam placements, which made me wonder what was the justification? It didn't seem to make sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
allan_thomson
Nov 28, 2004, 9:19 PM
Post #5 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 596
|
Must admit I can't off the top of my head. It was a basic instructional book I was flicking through in a bookshop. I'll have to check the name of it, next time I'm in the shop. It's just it made me wonder if maybe what you called Trad is vastly different to what we call Trad, or whether removable protection is the preferred option in both countries wherever safely and practically available. (Though in the British Isles, most people would say if you can't climb it without bolts, then don't go near it, but then we probably have less crag space, so there is more competition, and not as much scope for hard trad routes).
|
|
|
|
|
hema
Nov 28, 2004, 9:27 PM
Post #6 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 251
|
The American Trad Ethic is easy - there isn't any :lol: They even seem to bolt perfectly good cracks, if that crack just happens to be near bolted sport-routes (an be at a designated "sport-sector"). Your (British) ethic is much more nicer, me thinks (bolt only when nothing else works). Ours here in Finland is quite a bit like yours, so no bolts unless nothing else works.
Of cource I won't go into ethics on Grit, as it is complitely different story.
|
|
|
|
|
spectreman
Nov 28, 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #7 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 9
|
The American trad ethic USED to be that a bolt was only placed when no other gear was available. It has now degraded to the point where bolts are placed everywhere and anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Nov 28, 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #8 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: The American Trad Ethic is easy - there isn't any :lol: They even seem to bolt perfectly good cracks, if that crack just happens to be near bolted sport-routes (an be at a designated "sport-sector"). Your (British) ethic is much more nicer, me thinks (bolt only when nothing else works). Ours here in Finland is quite a bit like yours, so no bolts unless nothing else works. Of cource I won't go into ethics on Grit, as it is complitely different story.
Wait, what?
So while Grit (which tends to cover entire areas or "sectors") can have different ethical standards than say slate if its in England, we here in the states can't have differing ethics based on the local populace?
I'm confused. Seriously, the bolted cracks in America tend to be at little, chossy, "desperation crags" and NOT part of the vast majority of climbing areas. Moreover, it makes no sense to me, a predominantly trad climber, to have "mixed" routes of 10 bolts and one cam. Throw in the 11th bolt and be done with it. Chances are it was bolted on rappel, so you're not impressing anybody if the route needs trad gear too. That's all it comes down to really. Ethics are the degree to which ones ego controls ones climbing style. Eldorado Canyon, in Colorado, has a long standing bold (eg egocentric) ethic. It leads to a lot of very interesting, difficult, and pschologically intimidating routes. The Sport Park of Boulder Canyon, in Colorado, has a long standing ethic of "anything goes." Here the draw of putting up routes over rules the draw of putting up routes worth doing. Everything's bolted, everything's overrated, and several routes are chipped.
Last but not least, England is at most half the size of Wyoming. Its small enough that the climbing community is very tightly knit. Even in Wyoming, a lot of different climbing communities exist wholey seperate from each other. Now consider how big the US is. Hardmen in the Shawanagunks of New York may never climb in Southern California. Why should they follow the same ethics?
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Nov 28, 2004, 11:22 PM
Post #9 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Trad climbing ethics in the US do NOT involve placing bolts next to good cracks - that's sport climbing ethics.
If you're not trolling, you're just confused. Think of it like when you hear Americans accuse all the Brit hardmen of being wusses because they "all top rope everything to death before soloing."
However, if you want to attack Americans who do place bolts next to cracks, then attack "American Sport Climbing ethics", and you'll have tons of US trad climbers on your side.
On another point you cover, I should note that in many places in the US, the use of pitons for protection is now rejected since they wreck cracks. If you need a fixed piece of metal in the rock to protect you, it makes more sense to use a bolt - which can be easily removed in the future - than to use a piton, which damages the crack. You can't repair a pin scar in a crack, but you can patch a little round hole no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
celticelement
Nov 28, 2004, 11:51 PM
Post #10 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 205
|
In reply to: Hardmen in the Shawanagunks of New York may never climb in Southern California. Why should they follow the same ethics?
What is rational and of good ethical standing in New York is not just as rational and good ethical standing a couple of thousand miles away? If I move around will what is right and wrong or ethical and non-ethical change?
What is the basis for the ethics? Is it Democratic, whatever the most people say is therefore ethical? If so, how do you decide who has a say in the ethics for any particular area? Is it historical, whatever the people who opened the area or got the FA think/thought is ethical is ethical? If so, if the person who made the FA changes his/her mind about the ethics of climbing does their climb or area get a change of ethics as well? Is it locational? Should it be different by route, by area, by state, or by nation?
I think the climbing community has a pretty good idea of what we mean when we talk about what is ethical or not, but I think it would be good for the art of climbing if we develop a well articulated and logical system of ethics, so that as more and more people get involved they will not just feel that they can fill the apparent ethics vacuum with whatever they want. As more people get involved with everyone basically doing their own thing, it is very likely to damage the art of climbing if we cannot speak clearly about what is ethical, and why it is ethical.
To start off there needs to be a satisfactorily stable base for our ethics off of which we build our system of logic to explain why specific actions may or may not be ethical. It is necessary that we agree on a solid base to stand our system of ethics or soon we will see the consequences as people destroy the art with things like bolt wars, litigation, government involvement, and serious access issues.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 28, 2004, 11:58 PM
Post #11 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: ... I think it would be good for the art of climbing if we develop a well articulated and logical system of ethics, so that as more and more people get involved they will not just feel that they can fill the apparent ethics vacuum with whatever they want.
I think this would murder the rebelious spirit of climbing. We don't need no thought control.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Nov 29, 2004, 12:07 AM
Post #12 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
the type of rock, availibility of natural protection and the history of an area all help form the ethics of each area. If you don't like this system just stay in one place and you will only have to deal with one set of ethics. that Lyn hill shot may well have been from a sport crag?
|
|
|
|
|
moeman
Nov 29, 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #13 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 1417
|
In reply to: the type of rock, availibility of natural protection and the history of an area all help form the ethics of each area. If you don't like this system just stay in one place and you will only have to deal with one set of ethics. that Lyn hill shot may well have been from a sport crag?
Perhaps she was putting in bolt rappel anchors at the top of a trad route. Bolt rap anchors, even when they are next to cracks, were generally considered to be ethically sound last time that I checked.
As for the original query, there is a time and a place for everything. This country has much rock and so many different types of it, often in isolated climbing communties, that it would be absurd and impractical to apply one ethic to everything. It would clearly be a travesty is every route in the country, protectable naturally or not, was bolted. But it would be no less absurd if no bolts were allowed under any circumstances either. There is a time and a place for everything, and it is often nice to have the variety and flexablility of being able to climb in a diverse selection of styles. For every Rifle or Sport Park there is an Eldo or Gunks. This way, people who like thier bolts close together have an area to suit them, and people who like mid bending runouts off of RPs have their area as well.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Nov 29, 2004, 12:56 AM
Post #14 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: However, if you want to attack Americans who do place bolts next to cracks, then attack "American Sport Climbing ethics", and you'll have tons of US trad climbers on your side.
I have been known to place bolts next to perfectly good cracks on trad climbs.
Regge Pole, Little Slide Canyon, I placed a bolt halfway up a sweet 5.10+ or 5.11 crack. Seems none of my Big Bros would work, and the crack was wider than my biggest cam... a #6 Friend at that time. Placed two more at the top of the pitch for belay anchors, supplemented by 2 #4 Big Bros inside the crack. The rock inside the crack was so soft that I used the ends of the big bros to gouge craters to set the pieces. Talk about scarring the rock!
On other climbs I have used duct-taped skyhooks and copperheads for free climbing protection rather than sink a bolt.
Then again, as far as the sport climbs I have helped establish, more often than not they require gear as well as draws.
My ethics are dictated by the situation and the climb. But Sport OR Trad, I don't drill when I don't need to (usually)
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 29, 2004, 1:58 AM
Post #15 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: ... I think it would be good for the art of climbing if we develop a well articulated and logical system of ethics, so that as more and more people get involved they will not just feel that they can fill the apparent ethics vacuum with whatever they want. I think this would murder the rebelious spirit of climbing. We don't need no thought control. DMT
I know that you can cite some exceptions, but we did pretty much have a decent set of free climbing ethics in the United states until the mid 1980s or so. I don't think this constituted "mind control" but rather reflected the generally accepted idea that striving for improvements in climbing style was just as important as striving for improvements in climbing difficulty.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 29, 2004, 2:13 AM
Post #16 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I know that you can cite some exceptions, but we did pretty much have a decent set of free climbing ethics in the United states until the mid 1980s or so. I don't think this constituted "mind control" but rather reflected the generally accepted idea that striving for improvements in climbing style was just as important as striving for improvements in climbing difficulty. Curt
I agree that was not mind control. More like indoctrination. I think that for a short time, the 70's basically, there was something of s super majority in terms of ethics, frayed on both ends of course.
No matter, there are plenty now, and perish the thought perhaps the majority, who will place improvements in difficulty ahead of improvements in style most every time.
Do you want these folks drafting this manifesto? Will you submit?
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
celticelement
Nov 29, 2004, 3:38 AM
Post #17 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 205
|
It need not be a manifesto.
For starters all we need is a basic principle clearly defined by which we derive our ethics, and against which we weigh the ethics of other people.
I do not like grid locked laws, I don't think that kind of thing works. I want a basic principle from which we get specific ethical principles, so we can have some sort of rational explanation for the person who wants to know why he can't put bolts 3 inches from a easily protected 5.9 crack.
In reply to: I think this would murder the rebellious spirit of climbing. We don't need no thought control.
Actually I would contend you do need thought control - well maybe not 'need' - but you will 'get.' Either you will rationally control your thoughts, or your emotions, desires, and fears will control you. You are at the end of the day controlled by something.
As for being rebellious, I think more of freedom when I think of climbers general attitudes. If you really want to be rebellious in your climbing then by all means continue as before and you will soon have plenty of laws to rebel against. If though, you would rather just climb free then we need to clean up the act ourselves.
We are in a unique position here as a community. We have a chance to be self-governing and fix our own problems before someone tries to intervene and fix them for us - namely the government and the larger litigational bureaucracy of our convoluted society. To me the greatest potential harm we face for the art of climbing and our climbing culture is that people who are not climbers see the need - for whatever reason - to try to help us fix our problems - namely with legal "assistance."
|
|
|
|
|
allan_thomson
Nov 29, 2004, 5:07 PM
Post #18 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: Trad climbing ethics in the US do NOT involve placing bolts next to good cracks - that's sport climbing ethics. If you're not trolling, you're just confused. Think of it like when you hear Americans accuse all the Brit hardmen of being wusses because they "all top rope everything to death before soloing." However, if you want to attack Americans who do place bolts next to cracks, then attack "American Sport Climbing ethics", and you'll have tons of US trad climbers on your side. On another point you cover, I should note that in many places in the US, the use of pitons for protection is now rejected since they wreck cracks. If you need a fixed piece of metal in the rock to protect you, it makes more sense to use a bolt - which can be easily removed in the future - than to use a piton, which damages the crack. You can't repair a pin scar in a crack, but you can patch a little round hole no problem.
Fair enough, I am confused about what American Trad climbing ethic states. That's why I was asking. I wasn't aiming to attack any climbers though, as they can do what they wish with their own areas, just as we do with ours.
As regards the placing of petons, you do have a point, but I was under the impression that the reason they are permissable is because they have to use natural features, rather than being capable of being placed anywhere (unlike a bolt), and so was in keeping with the (British) Trad ethic of using only the features on the crag for protection. Bolts are only placed wherever deemed necessary by the majority of climbers in that area (and even then controvesy still reigns).
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 29, 2004, 5:10 PM
Post #19 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Fair enough, I am confused about what American Trad climbing ethic states.
Well for starters you should come to grips with the notion that there is no such thing.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Nov 29, 2004, 5:49 PM
Post #20 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: Fair enough, I am confused about what American Trad climbing ethic states. That's why I was asking.
Dude, don't feel bad, most *Americans* don't know what the American Trad climbing ethic is either, if there even is such a thing anymore ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
allan_thomson
Nov 29, 2004, 5:53 PM
Post #21 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 596
|
LOL :-)
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
Nov 29, 2004, 7:04 PM
Post #22 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
Local ethics for local crags.
But within those defined zones, never break the ethic, if you have chosen to accept it, otherwise you're just weak and weiner-like.
If you epoxy new holds onto walls I will hammer them off.
I am Jack's self righteous indignation.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Nov 29, 2004, 10:22 PM
Post #23 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
The reason there is no consensus "ethic", and there never will be is because the current ethic consists of "what you can get away with". But what you can get away with really depends on how easily other climbers are offended. If people at a particular crag will chop a bolt placed next to a crack, then the local ethic for that crag is not to place bolts near cracks. The fact is, at "most" crags in the US, when a bolt goes in near a crack, everyone bitches, but nobody chops it. The behavior of those people "enforcing" the ethic will always vary because it is vigilaties who are the "enforcers". Therefore, there can never be a standard unless there is a uniform rock police to enforce the rules. And the day that happens, is the day I start skateboarding.
|
|
|
|
|
harihari
Nov 30, 2004, 7:00 AM
Post #24 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 182
|
To the Brit who wanted to ask about North American ethics...there's a good summary in Lyn Hill's autobiography. Basically, it started like this:
a) Mountaineering (and then more specialsied forms of climbing) were a mental and physical test, or challenge, and one mastered these by marshalling guts, phsycial skill, and fitness, nto by modifying the objective.
b) Back in the day, it was not feasible to get flown etc to the top of a mountain and then explore the climbing route by going down it, so all ascents had to be done from the ground up.
c) From (b) and (a) , the conditions of doing most mountaineering became a perscriptive guideline: "one begins routes on the ground and does not change the climb" This translated into ALL routes.
d) In early alpine days, falls were really really dangerous, and so to be avoided. Best style therefore became no falls. hence the early trad ethic of the yo-yo (still happening in Yosemite)-- if you fall, you lower, pull, and start again.
(e) with the invention of cams in the Valley int eh early '70s, a new dream was born-- climb it free, onsight, or yo-yo, but do not debase the rock or your "integrity" by exploring from the top down, or by hanging.
That's where (roughly) you get the start on the ground, natural gear only ethos. Of course, if you climb for other reasons-- like pure movement or technical difficulty-- these ethics don't serve. Luckily, in MOST places, sport climbs go where there's no real natural gear, and MOST people who drill respect cracks etc.
Although you are never going to make evrybody happy....one climber's death runout is somebody else's freesolo is somebody else's dream trad project, so there's no objective standard for what gets bolts and what doesn't. Luckily, MOST people respect first ascentionist style, and most people are also willing to talk before drilling, and we have been well isnpired by a generation of visionary hardmen and women who pushed trad way the hell out there, setting at least a standard that makes those of us who come after think twice about first-ascent style and ethics (to bolt or not to bolt). Anybody who has seen some of those sick lines in Eldo, or watched Dean Potter or Croft freesolo, won't just haul out their drilll...
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Nov 30, 2004, 4:44 PM
Post #25 of 37
(6084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
Ethics are not "local."
|
|
|
|
|
nika
Nov 30, 2004, 6:02 PM
Post #26 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
As an American sport climber transported to Britain for the year, I get questions along these lines all the time. People are right that there is no one American trad ethic, regardless of whether you think there should be one or not. Nor is there one sport ethic. Ethics vary greatly from area to area and from time to time in the U.S., and the much more geographically diverse area leads to a less tight-knit community than the British one.
That said, American ethics are reasonably consistent. I believe that most American climbers do not appreciate bolts placed next to easily protectable cracks. Similarly, most American climbers do not have huge problems with bolts placed on unprotectable sandstone face climbs. Disputes tend to arise in cases where the solution is less clear cut, understandably, but I do believe that most American climbers do have an underlying sense of what is and is not acceptable action.
If one accepts that the purest way to do a climb is ground-up, onsight, free solo, chalkless, shoeless, and naked, then I doubt many of us are truly pure climbers. So, in both England and America, we compromise this pure ethic. With the rise of headpointing in England, you see people rehearsing the crap out of hard climbs in order to eventually essentially solo them, just to avoid putting in bolts. This certainly compromises the "onsight" part of pure climbing. Meanwhile, with the rise of sport climbing in America, you see unprotectable (and yes, sometimes protectable) climbs bolted to make them more climbable, certainly compromising the "free solo" as well as the traditional gear ethic (a step down from free solo, but still closer to it than bolts). It comes down to what parts of "pure" climbing that you are willing to compromise, and I do believe that most of us are willing to compromise some.
Of course, my solution to all these problems has simply been to boulder more.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Nov 30, 2004, 6:24 PM
Post #27 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
As Nika's father I just want to assure everyone that Nika's solution of "bouldering more" while in England is only temperary. The ultimate solution will be to reindoctrinate her in the strict family climbing ethics the momemnt she gets off the plane. I may have to enlist her brother to help - provided I can get him away from his blowtorch long enough - dry holds are very ethical you know......
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Nov 30, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #28 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
Are pads ethical when bouldering naked and without chalk? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Nov 30, 2004, 9:46 PM
Post #29 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
An nice summary of North American ethics appeared in a new Vedauwoo guidebook (I usually tend to agree with its author):
“It is difficult in discussing ethics to not sermonize or be self-righteous. Even so, it would be remiss not to stake out the ethics of the area. Vedauwoo, an adventure climbing area with decades of history, follows what has become the North American Standard Ethic. Tread lightly. Don't bolt when natural protection is available. Don't bolt anywhere near a crack. Be modest in the use of bolts (Vedauwoo is not a bolt a meter area!), and make them camouflaged. Don't leave slings on the cliffs. Never chip holds. Retrobolting refers to the addition of bolts to an established line. Re-bolting refers to the one-to-one replacement of fixed gear that has become unsafe. Don't retrobolt other people's routes. Re-bolt only when the condition of the original equipment warrants it. When considering modifications to an established route, do everything possible to maintain its original character and integrity. …Gardening of routes is acceptable, but the chopping of trees is unacceptable. Visitors should consult with local climbers before placing bolts, since the line you're contemplating may have been climbed earlier without such hardware”
As pointed out in an earlier post, judgment calls can be required, e.g., when a crack turns into a chimney, say, bigger than a #5 Big Bro, a bolt may be warranted. The fact that are border line cases doesn’t vitiate the need for standards. I may not know when hot coffee becomes cold coffee, but I know the difference between hot coffee and cold coffee.
Cheers,
RobKelman.calm
30 November 2004 14:29 MST (-6 UMT)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Dec 6, 2004, 11:53 AM
Post #30 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
In reply to: Are pads ethical when bouldering naked and without chalk? :lol:
Only if I'm the one spotting you. By the way what kind of "bouldering" are we doing naked with pads? :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Dec 6, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #31 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: Ethics are not "local."
Actually, they are. Ethics are defined as a standard of behavior accepted by a particular group. To the degree that the local climbers in Yosemite, in the Tetons, at Vedauwoo, at Shelf Road, and at the Gunks are different groups, there is the likelyhood of different ethics. Since there are broad ideas that the groups of climbers tend to share, it's understandable many of the most fundamental ethics are shared as well. But there are plenty of differences in the fine points.
The difference between Trad ethics and Sport ethics is really just a matter of differences in local ethics. It all comes down to local climbing communities, their stewardship of their particular rocks, and the behaviors they're willing to tolerate or not. Some local communities allow only bolting on rapell; some alow bolting only on lead; some allow no bolting at all. What we call "trad" and "sport" are just broad categories for various types of local ethics.
The idea that ethics are about "mind control" tends to be popular with teenagers and other people who have yet to make the connection between freedom and responsibility. Climbing ethics are fundamentally about protecting a resource in the name of a particular set of values. If your community values the ground-up, lead-protected ideals that we typically call trad, then your resource (the local rock) will be ruined for you if people come in and place bolts, claiming all the first ascents that were still out of reach of your slower approach to developing the area.
The ethics are to protect the experience of your community, not to destroy anyone's free will or sense of self. If that's too much to handle, it might be time to start shopping for another planet--one that you don't have to share. Or at least another climbing area.
Ethics are fundamentally different from style. The style by which you climb is a personal choice. It typically doesn't affect anyone else (other than to give them the oportunity to be impressed or not).
The gray area concerns the style of a first ascent (especially in alpinsm--people get pissed when someone grabs a first ascent, but does it in a style that's considered below current standards. using bottled oxygen, fixed ropes, etc. won't physically affect future parties, but for those who were seeking that ascent by higher standards, they can consider the oportunity gone for good).
|
|
|
|
|
luisag
Dec 15, 2004, 8:31 PM
Post #32 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 3
|
... is there one?
dont think people are as caught up in ethics as brits
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Dec 15, 2004, 9:06 PM
Post #33 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
there's a decent trad lead in town that has one bolt above the crux but the crack in the crux in filled with strange crystalization, causing marginal placements. And to make things more confusing, there's like 20 feet of runout before your first solid placement so you're pretty much free soloing the start. If I was going to stick a bolt on that route, I'd have placed it near the begining where the runout is. There's no good crack to protect so it would have made sense there. But above the crux? I just don't get that...
Hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
dvlangford
Dec 19, 2004, 9:08 PM
Post #34 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: 15
|
Just for comparison. The Australian 'ethic' is similar to the British one. I dont believe there would be any direct influence there, as most early climbers in Australia were Australian or American.
Australia being as big as the USA does not have the same community feel in specific areas but has nationwide community 'ethic' that seems to be based simply on common sense and logic. OK and partially law! A lot of our climbing areas as in protected parks and we can only climb there if the natural rock is not damaged.
Locals do play a role in policing though. For example if you were caught at say Mt Araplies or Frog Buttress (Crack Heaven) with a bolt and no excuse you would be thrown from the nearest cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
chitowngirl
Dec 19, 2004, 10:28 PM
Post #35 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2004
Posts: 140
|
The USA is significantly larger than Australia, not only in terms of square mileage, but also in terms of population, in which there is a HUGE difference. Also, the USA is much bigger in terms of distance - from the eastern most point in Maine to the tip of Hawaii or the Aleatian islands, the distance spanned is vastly greater than Australia. Furthermore, the communities who inhabit these different places, such as Maine and Hawaii, are culturally extremely different.
I don't think the comparison holds up.
|
|
|
|
|
dvlangford
Dec 20, 2004, 1:02 AM
Post #36 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: 15
|
In reply to: The USA is significantly larger than Australia, not only in terms of square mileage, but also in terms of population.
Um, Thanks for pointing that out!
I was only referring to the mainland 48(?) states which is smaller than Australia by about 100000sq km. All this means is that we have a lot more rock to climb and discover plus less people to share it with. As a result this hopefully means we will not have to deal with bolting issues on such a large scale.
Wow that all makes a Trad trip to central Australia really appealing all of a sudden.
The cultural comment leads me to believe you have never been to Australia!
|
|
|
|
|
chitowngirl
Dec 20, 2004, 2:18 AM
Post #37 of 37
(4870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2004
Posts: 140
|
Hey, just for clarification, man. My point was that given the differences in size, population, and total distance from east to west and north to south, I'm not sure one standard of ethics is feasable or reasonable. One country may have one generally agreed upon ethics standards, and another may not, for reasons specific to that region. Which is why I still am not sure the comparison works. It's like comparing apples and oranges. If you have a set of ethics that everybody agrees on and everybody is happy with in Australia, then great! But, I don't think it'll work here in the USA for the reasons I stated, and I am not sure I would want it here in the USA for the reasons I stated.
In reply to: The cultural comment leads me to believe you have never been to Australia! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
