You guys didn't see that beard? No? What about his hat?

Hey, let's take bet's on whether or not dudebro had a cragdog.

While you might not honor the FA, many people do otherwise there wouldn't be such a bitch fest when someone adds or chops a bolt on a route that was put up by someone else.

I don't think where the notion of first ascencionist rights falls in the timeline of climbing is relevant either. It still exists and since enough people seem to honor the rights of the FA in the present I don't think it matters when the notion of those rights began.

Where am I off base? In asserting that people should take responsibility to things which they claim rights or pseudo ownership to or in asserting that a route equipper could lose a lawsuit if they don't regularly replace their fixed equipment? Enlighten me.

You can actually see a dog at the crag at some point. My only reason to doubt that it was his is that it was too well behaved. Although maybe it was just trained to play it cool while quietly filching gear from other people's packs.

While you might not honor the FA, many people do otherwise there wouldn't be such a bitch fest when someone adds or chops a bolt on a route that was put up by someone else.

I don't think where the notion of first ascencionist rights falls in the timeline of climbing is relevant either. It still exists and since enough people seem to honor the rights of the FA in the present I don't think it matters when the notion of those rights began.

Where am I off base?

I can't tell if you're saying your honoring of a FA is simply honorific or if there having done the FA entitles them to certain rights in regards to a route they put up.

I think that what he said is clear. He's saying the same I am, above.

Jay

Sunny,

I am confused about this sport climbing issues. That is why I am asking you. What constitute legitimate booty from theft? I thought you cleaned after you climbed on sport or trad, and not leave any gear for days.
The way I look at it the owners and qd thief are equally guilty.

It's a tricky question. Some people are very different with the interactions with dogs then with people. Maybe he's a great dog owner and it's very well behaved and waits patienly as his owner steals petzl spirits from the kakodemon boulder.

Majid, when you are in the Valley, do you routinely remove the fixed lines from El Cap? Say, for example, the ones at the base of the Nose or Salathe?

My personal belief is that if route equippers want to lay claim to the state of the route itself (whether bolts are added or removed, anchors moved, etc.) then yes I think they need to go back and maintain the fixed gear as long as they want sole say over the route.

If they want to bolt it, climb it, name it, and move on then no I think it then becomes community responsibility.

I don't believe you can argue some pseudo ownership of a route and then just deny any responsibility if your fixed gear fails. While I don't believe they should get sued for it that doesn't mean they couldn't be.

Now while what I said above does share a few of my personal beliefs it was more just pointing out the fact that assumption of risk is not full protection for route equippers even if climbers assume all risks. Keep in mind I'm probably not going to be on the jury should some route equipper get sued and most judges and jurors aren't going to necessarily understand or agree with a climber's perspective. It's like if I go install a swing in the park. If I donate it as a gift to the community then people probably aren't going to look for me if it breaks a few years down the road. If I say it's the "Jeremiah is Awesome" swing and people can only swing on it if they think I'm awesome and don't mess with the state of the swing and then some little kid breaks their neck when it collapses then I have no doubt that I'd be sued. Actually it's more likely that the manufacturer would get sued but you get the idea.

I only agree with you about the risk in part. I agree that if we climb we accept all the risks. It's necessary in our participation that we accept all those possibilities but I don't think equipment failure is something that we willingly accept. People know that it's possible that it can happen even if they do everything according to manufacturers recommendations but I don't think anyone would say that properly used equipment failing is something they're cool with. You'll never see a company succeed if people who use their equipment start dying.

My lack of placing bolts has no bearing on whether a court would decide a route equipper was responsible for equipment failure on a route they put up. While I was mostly playing devil's advocate I do myself believe some of the points I brought up.

If someone who has no business bolting routes starts putting up routes with bad bolts (overtorqued, placement in bad rock, whatever) then do you really think they shouldn't have a share in the responsibility if people get injured or killed on the routes they put up?

Two things:

1 - The thief was lying from beginning to end. I've little doubt that he will be more careful next time, but that there will be a next time.

2 - Outside of the narrow pissing match with Jay and Moose, I think the question of liability *is* an interesting one, and worth discussing.

Let's take the case that happened recently in Australia, in which a party equipped a route poorly, resulting in a bad accident. It was claimed that the party had been warned beforehand (by one of the most well-respected local developers) *not* to use the type of bolt they had in mind, and/or *not* to bolt the line they had in mind (because the rock was known to be poor).

The party was on a mission to do an FA each place they went, and they disregarded the advice that was given.

Let's say this happened in the US, and that both parties were US citizens. Wouldn't there be a good claim for negligence, even under Jay's more strict interpretation?

As a climber, I would strongly hope that we would police/look after our own. This means vilify the bolters so they could never develop another route, and raise the $$ to help out the fallen climber. It means keep it out of the court.

But in reality, I see no reason to think it *would* stay out of court. Further, I see no reason to think that the injured party wouldn't stand a good chance of winning. And if this happened, it could create a legal precedent that would be very damaging to further development.

GO

Sunny,

I am confused about this sport climbing issues. That is why I am asking you. What constitute legitimate booty from theft? I thought you cleaned after you climbed on sport or trad, and not leave any gear for days.
The way I look at it the owners and qd thief are equally guilty.

Two things:

1 - The thief was lying from beginning to end. I've little doubt that he will be more careful next time, but that there will be a next time.

2 - Outside of the narrow pissing match with Jay and Moose, I think the question of liability *is* an interesting one, and worth discussing.

Let's take the case that happened recently in Australia, in which a party equipped a route poorly, resulting in a bad accident. It was claimed that the party had been warned beforehand (by one of the most well-respected local developers) *not* to use the type of bolt they had in mind, and/or *not* to bolt the line they had in mind (because the rock was known to be poor).

The party was on a mission to do an FA each place they went, and they disregarded the advice that was given.

Let's say this happened in the US, and that both parties were US citizens. Wouldn't there be a good claim for negligence, even under Jay's more strict interpretation?

As a climber, I would strongly hope that we would police/look after our own. This means vilify the bolters so they could never develop another route, and raise the $$ to help out the fallen climber. It means keep it out of the court.

But in reality, I see no reason to think it *would* stay out of court. Further, I see no reason to think that the injured party wouldn't stand a good chance of winning. And if this happened, it could create a legal precedent that would be very damaging to further development.

GO

Two things:

1 - The thief was lying from beginning to end. I've little doubt that he will be more careful next time, but that there will be a next time.

2 - Outside of the narrow pissing match with Jay and Moose, I think the question of liability *is* an interesting one, and worth discussing.

Let's take the case that happened recently in Australia, in which a party equipped a route poorly, resulting in a bad accident. It was claimed that the party had been warned beforehand (by one of the most well-respected local developers) *not* to use the type of bolt they had in mind, and/or *not* to bolt the line they had in mind (because the rock was known to be poor).

The party was on a mission to do an FA each place they went, and they disregarded the advice that was given.

Let's say this happened in the US, and that both parties were US citizens. Wouldn't there be a good claim for negligence, even under Jay's more strict interpretation?

As a climber, I would strongly hope that we would police/look after our own. This means vilify the bolters so they could never develop another route, and raise the $$ to help out the fallen climber. It means keep it out of the court.

But in reality, I see no reason to think it *would* stay out of court. Further, I see no reason to think that the injured party wouldn't stand a good chance of winning. And if this happened, it could create a legal precedent that would be very damaging to further development.

GO

Jay worded it a little better than you. I get what you're driving at. So it sounds like in honoring or respecting the FA's style you're allowing certain rights, correct? The right to name it, the right to add or remove bolts, the right to fix draws on it, cut rings if people won't stop TRing through them, and so on?

It's not total control over the route but FA's maintain some minor control over that patch of rock that they climbed first. They can't sell it or anything but they have the right to make certain changes to it that others are excluded from making. These conventions of allowing certain rights, abilities, or honors, that aren't available to others is the basis of property rights. While climbing routes eventually fall under the umbrella of real property ownership be it public or private land those rights given to the FA's by the climbing community are a sort of possessory interest. So if you regard any FA as having rights to make changes (minor as they may be) then you're de facto allowing a possessory interest. Whether you like it or not I think that's giving them a claim of some sort of ownership.

Now if that follows then you either agree or disagree with what I said before about people who claim rights to a route needing to take responsibility for it and things that happen with it.

Ken, I said willingly accept. While I have certainly climbed above crappy bolts, pitons, gear, screws, etc. I didn't do it because I wanted to climb above crappy equipment, I wanted to climb the route and the risk I felt of falling was less than the risk I felt of the gear failing. If I had a rusty 1/4" bolt next to a bomber glue in I don't have to accept the crappy bolt. If there is only the crappy bolt my choices are to back off (which is not always easy or safer), just solo the route, or clip the bolt. I don't believe that a lack of desireable choices means we willingly accept the best option currently available. If someone robs you at gunpoint and they tell you to hand over your wallet or get shot in the face would you say either choice was willing?

As for the routes you've put up. While you desire that they stay the same you aren't checking up on them or bitching if someone changes them. I don't think all FA's do keep such interest in the routes they put up but I do know some FA's who do keep such interest, if not in all the routes they put up, at least some of them. I don't think a FA who puts up a route and leaves it to the masses is making any sort of possessory claim and therefore bears no responsibility for what happens after them. If on the other hand they do claim some sort of rights to the route then they can't shirk everything that I think goes along with that.

Maybe I am way off base. Maybe no route developers feel any interest in what happens to their routes. People don't bitch if someone adds or removes bolts from a route that isn't there's, and no FA tell people they have permission to add or remove bolts from a route.

Jay worded it a little better than you. I get what you're driving at. So it sounds like in honoring or respecting the FA's style you're allowing certain rights, correct? The right to name it, the right to add or remove bolts, the right to fix draws on it, cut rings if people won't stop TRing through them, and so on?

Two things:

1 - The thief was lying from beginning to end. I've little doubt that he will be more careful next time, but that there will be a next time.

2 - Outside of the narrow pissing match with Jay and Moose, I think the question of liability *is* an interesting one, and worth discussing.

Let's take the case that happened recently in Australia, in which a party equipped a route poorly, resulting in a bad accident. It was claimed that the party had been warned beforehand (by one of the most well-respected local developers) *not* to use the type of bolt they had in mind, and/or *not* to bolt the line they had in mind (because the rock was known to be poor).

The party was on a mission to do an FA each place they went, and they disregarded the advice that was given.

Let's say this happened in the US, and that both parties were US citizens. Wouldn't there be a good claim for negligence, even under Jay's more strict interpretation?

As a climber, I would strongly hope that we would police/look after our own. This means vilify the bolters so they could never develop another route, and raise the $$ to help out the fallen climber. It means keep it out of the court.

But in reality, I see no reason to think it *would* stay out of court. Further, I see no reason to think that the injured party wouldn't stand a good chance of winning. And if this happened, it could create a legal precedent that would be very damaging to further development.

GO

Why can't sport climber clean up after their climb ?

tell me, what is the logic behind leaving your sh*t hanging on the wall when you could easily clip and move on ?

Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses.

Jay worded it a little better than you. I get what you're driving at. So it sounds like in honoring or respecting the FA's style you're allowing certain rights, correct? The right to name it, the right to add or remove bolts, the right to fix draws on it, cut rings if people won't stop TRing through them, and so on?

It's not total control over the route but FA's maintain some minor control over that patch of rock that they climbed first. They can't sell it or anything but they have the right to make certain changes to it that others are excluded from making. These conventions of allowing certain rights, abilities, or honors, that aren't available to others is the basis of property rights. While climbing routes eventually fall under the umbrella of real property ownership be it public or private land those rights given to the FA's by the climbing community are a sort of possessory interest. So if you regard any FA as having rights to make changes (minor as they may be) then you're de facto allowing a possessory interest.

Wrong. The FA has no control over who climbs their route, they aren't going to "occupy" it, and they don't have a valid claim of ownership. The situation does not meet the definition of "possessory ownership" in any regards. Sometimes it's better to say nothing than pretend you know what you're talking about.

The law varies from state to state, but in most states this sounds like a viable claim as a matter of formal law. Under the most common version of the comparative negligence rule, the question would be whether clipping those bolts as they appeared from a climber's perspective was more negligent than placing them in their bad condition, having been advised that the bolts and the rock were unsound. People generally view climbing as crazy, so that is an obstacle for your plaintiffs, but I don't think the claim would be worthless; the plaintiff could probably obtain a reasonable settlement.

As I said above, the real reason you don't see these claims has nothing to do with the legal rules, but instead it is because most route developers don't have enough money to be worth suing.

And I also agree that courts are not the best place to handle problems like this.