|
|
|
|
nika
Nov 30, 2004, 6:02 PM
Post #26 of 37
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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
(4862 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! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
