The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors.

With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route.

Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there,
Brad

On a less articulate note..drop the fucking ego. WAHHHH! Some 5.8 climber is TRing the line I want to lead! How dare they! That rock is reserved for elite douches such as myself!

Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please.

They aren't interfering with your opportunity to experience the climb as the FA did by adding bolts or anything of that matter, we're talking about setting up a TR. How does that "undermine" your lead of the climb?

Your position that a 5.8 climber should not be TRing something harder bares a striking resemblance to the Appalachian Mountain Club's early policy that climbers had to be certified route by route...

On a less articulate note..drop the fucking ego. WAHHHH! Some 5.8 climber is TRing the line I want to lead! How dare they! That rock is reserved for elite douches such as myself!

(Sidebbar) You do bring up an interesting point though. Is it wrong to cut the slings?

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics.

First come, first serve, if you don't like crowds..don't climb at the Gunks.

You sir, are nearly completely out of touch with the larger commumity that uses that climbing resource. As a genuinely intended suggestion, move somewhere that the climbing community is more aligned with your beliefs.

I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof.

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors.

With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route.

Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there,
Brad

Also, those who havent climbed at the Gunks on a busy fall weekend may want to stay out of the conversation.
Ross

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors.

With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route.

Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there,
Brad

Personally, I always thought it odd that the Preserve itself didn't just replace the webbing on those anchors that need it once or twice a year and let people know what color is current to prevent the buildup of tattered old shit. But they don't, or didn't when I last climbed there regularly two years ago.

You want to remove an eyesore? Take down the crap on Horseman where the two pins overhang the trail.

So basically you are saying you would rather have a bunch of climbing injuries that will definitly effect access issues, as opposed to people who are learning, and keeping our sport alive, being able to practice and enjoy the sport???? that makes absolutly no sence to me.

.........

As for cutting down the anchors, they were put there for the convience and sharing of all climbers. By removing them you are going to make everyone elses lives more difficult.

Sweet jesus, I just took a minute to reread your posting, and honestly, a more putrid wad of elitist bullshit I have never heard. Congratulations, you're the reason people talk shit about the Gunks.

So basically you are saying you would rather have a bunch of climbing injuries that will definitly effect access issues, as opposed to people who are learning, and keeping our sport alive, being able to practice and enjoy the sport????

I'll stick to the peace and quiet of the free endless possibilities of wilderness climbing in the Adks where arbiters of style don't play because it might actually take a few hours of shwacking with a map and compass to get to.

But slings added for the convenience of individual climbers? Nowhere that I know has it ever been a feature of climbing practice that such things become somehow inviolate once placed. Climbers have always placed and removed gear, and no one has a "right" to expect to find a pile of slings somewhere. The sling messes in the Gunks and elsewhere are ugly and fundamentally a source of danger. Cleaning them up is appropriate and, in my opinion, a public service, but that is beside the point. Removeable gear left in place has been, well, removeable for as long as there has been climbing.

Personally, I think folks who create a top-rope anchor ought to do it with their own gear and remove the anchor when they are finished, and anything they leave out of laziness is totally fair game for cleaning; no one should expect to find such anchors in place any more than they should expect to find a stuck nut or cam to be in place forever. And if, in some places, slings appear and disappear and reappear, so be it. This is still better than ratty old litter nests of dubious safety and execrable esthetics.

how do you want to deal with the issue that the worst offenders are not groups of yahoos with no traditional ethic (yes, these folks are there too), but guides who perhaps know better, but it is their livelihood on the line? Granted, most of the guides have a good attitude and are fairly apologetic about it, but they're still tying up beautiful multipitch lines like Hawk for half the day.

BS. First come, first serve. That said, one shouldn't hog route. It happens and can lead to frustration...we've all been there, but saying that TRing is "bad" goes a bit too far; "Top roping into submission..." give me a break! Get over yourself. Style is a personal thing, and if you climb in style that justifies your own point of view, who cares what someone else is doing as long as they aren't having a negative effect on the enviroment ( chipping and/or bolting like crazy) or jeopradizing access. The OPs post makes it seem like he feels threatened by TR climbers, which is an ego problem and not a ethics problem.

I completely agree that excess webbing is unecessary/unsafe, and if people are leaving their TR rigs up then they should be removed, but to equate the practice TRing itself as bad ethics is wrong. It may be bad style in your opinion, but your style may be bad in someone elses. As long as they respect others (not hogging routes, etc.) and the environment (no excess webbing, bolting, and all that crap), people can climb in whatever style they want.

There is no place safer to lead than the Gunks.Most of the time you can place more frequent gear than you get bolts at a sport area.The pitches are short and end on ledges.Many idiot proof anchors.Greatest selection of easy leads in the world.If you can't lead there....give up!!!

I've seen people that could not get up Thin Slabs Direct("it's these shoes")move over and start toproping Sente....WTF.

Are you kidding? Just because the place has a lot of people does not make it a gym. The preserve is not (and *should* not be) responsible for "maintaining" the cliff.

You want to remove an eyesore? Take down the crap on Horseman where the two pins overhang the trail.

Yeah, why is that crap there? I mean, aside from the folks who think they can make it down from the top with a single 60 and then realize the rope doesn't reach.

GO

I really don't have a problem with guided noobs taking half a day on Hawk. As long as noobs are learning to climb they will take a long time on whatever route they are on. Whether they hire a guide or climb with friend who is an established leader makes no difference to me stylistically.

You are not a climber if you go to the Gunks to top rope.

Look, In my opinion, the rock is there for those who want to climb it, just because person A has ethics that don't line up with person B doesn't mean person A should fuck off and stick to the gym. Everyone has their own ethics, but regardless of that, anyone can apperciate the style in which these climbs were established, es[ecially since there's not to many people who can actually measure up to it. That being said, I think leading is great, I love it, but if there's a route that looks appealing that I feel is above my lead ability, I won't hesitate to toprope it, sorry if that annoys all you "purists".

Then what, pray tell, are you?

Yes, noobs are always going to take a long time to climb. I agree, and don't have a problem with it either. But why is it right for a paid guide (with 5+ clients) to toprope the first pitch of a *** multipitch climb that is a perfect testpiece for a 5.5 leader? How is this any better than a non-professional party with one or two competent leaders tying up a route?

GO

Unfortunately it seems that the style of many Gunks climbers these days is to leave gobs of old manky webbing hanging around the cliff and TR off of it all day long.

Thus, the part of the OP where you rant about the style of climbing (TR vs lead) is kinda pointless.

The purpose of my stylistic rant was to give examples people doing amazing things at their limit and in good style, thus attempting to provoke the reader to go and do the same - whatever their limit is.

Often the greatest gains derived from climbing are achieved when one succeeds on a route at the brink of or slightly beyond their limit. It is a fantastic reward, and I wish others would feel compelled to climb this way.

No, I'm not kidding. You're dealing with a problem that right now has no solution. This is a potentially effective solution.

You say the Preserve is not, and should not, be responsible for maintaining the cliff. And if they aren't, and shouldn't be, then I extend your idea that no one is, or should be, responsible for maintaining the cliff and it should disintegrate into chaos.

My point is, it doesn't appear that you're proposing an effective solution; you just seem to be bitching that you don't like something and you want other people to be like you and believe what you believe. That's not terribly useful. Now if all you want to do is complain, well, ok, just let that be known in the future and I'll refrain from making any judgemental commentary.

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors.

With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route.

Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there,
Brad

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not "dealing with a problem." I disagree with you that there *is* a problem. You are the one who wants mommy to come and clean your room after you mess it up. Do you also think the preserve should be responsible for gluing on loose holds, trundling bigger ones, and maintaining every anchor? Never!!! The Gunks looks like a gym, but it is not!

And as for why it shouldn't be - you think the preserve fees are high now - how bad do you think they'd be if the preserve was responsible for maintaining a "safe" environment for the climbers? Holy hell, imagine the actuarial table needed to calculate the insurance required to cover all the New Yorkers with their potential lawsuits on a weekly basis! It's astronomical!


As far as fixed slings are concerned? Yup!


Huh? Where did you see that I'm complaining about anything? I agree that some nests of old tat are an eyesore, and maybe next time I go I'll bring some new webbing and do some replacing, or even just strip some. Though I'm not really enough of a local to have a good sense of what should be stripped. Which is why I phrased my question about the nest of webbing at the intermediate belay on Horseman as a question.


GO

There are values tied up in this too. The top-roping is endemic of the destruction of a system of ethics once held high. I for one would love to see the Gunks' historical values upheld.

Nice, the infantile remark that is. Great. Why does a legitimate discussion have to degrade into personal insults? If I insulted you somewhere, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.

I took this thread as a discussion about ethics and style at the Gunks, particularly toproping behavior and the accompanying effects, which include leaving behind undesirable evidence. I assumed that said discussion might also include some suggestions on how the negative effects of that behavior might be mitigated. So I threw out an idea. I expected that it might receive some criticism in an objective form that might lead to other discussion.

I think somewhere around Shockley's ceiling and there are pretty big pieces sitting around just waiting to crush people.

Oh well, I'll be back in a couple of years - I hope it'll still be a good place to climb.

Humidity, rain, heat, millipedes, stiff grades, lichen, dying trees - this has to be the worst good crag in America

...My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own.

I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it"

nuff said

This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own.

I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it"

nuff said

Instead of whining about it on RC.com, perhaps a bit of live education would have been more beneficial.

My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing....

To the OP:

Weekdays. Climb weekdays.

Climbed on Monday this week (10/1) beautiful day----saw only 2 other parties besides my self and partner until 12 noon, when a few other folks meandered in (BTW---to the 2 ladies on Betty----nice leads!) and had my choice of routes.

Agree with you re: toprope hogging of routes, but remember----there are only about 1000 other choices at the Gunks.

And: Get out early or get over it. Even on weekends if you're out early, you can get your route.

This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own.

I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it"

nuff said

Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s.

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics.

The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

i think there are many also.

If that's not enough for you then tough. We live here. In many regards we "write" the "rules", when they don't violate Preserve policy anyway. Get used to it. - Funnelator

Just say LOCALS RULE!, flick the long hair of your mullet, and squeal your tires as you pull out of the parking lot in your rusted out '87 firebird (don't forget to huck the beer can out the window too).

So much for thinking beyond your backyard.

PT

11s and up, here at the Gunks, are what most consider "necky". People leading trad at that grade here will sort it out for themselves no matter our disagreement. I'm getting sweaty palms just thinking about some of the 11s. More power to you Piton if you think they are well protected.

The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.

This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors.

With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route.

Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there,
Brad

funnelator,

Piton likes to pretend he's a hard man. Rich Goldstone, I am quite certain, will agree with you--since he and I have had that exact discussion before.

Curt

Greatest selection of easy leads in the world.If you can't lead there....give up!!!

No, you are correct, it isn't right. In response to the statements I made which you quoted, I was unaware that this was happening on 5.5s too. I suppose I should have inferred.

There are other chosspiles (with different values) to TR at. The Gunks isn't the place - 5.5 or 5.12.

This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own.

I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it"

nuff said

First come firt served is the case. It's Preserve policy. Their land. Their rules. Beyond that we should all share and be as courteous and as respectful as possible. Leaders do not have the right of way.

Joe, Alaska is a long haul from New Jersey. Just go down to Millbrook. None of these issues come up there. The walk is quite beautiful, especially now where in some places the trail through the lowbush blueberry is covered with a carpet of fallen deep red tupelo leaves.

If you are willing to go down to Millbrook what are you doing whining about crowds in the Trapps and Nears? If you choose to join the crowds on the weekends enjoy them for what they are or move along. Proselyitizing about what a stud you are and what noobs everyone else is really isn't going to do anything for anyone, including you.

And oh you ice climb!!!! Oooooooooohhhh!!
We're so impressed.

Most of the longtime badass gunks climbers, of which you are not one, are remarkably friendly and welcoming of others. New Jerseyites who feel a need to beat people up and spray about what hardons they are, give the Gunks more of a bad name than the crowds.

Maybe you were joking when you were threatening and spraying. If so I retract the above.

The Canadian thing is an atrocity. But tolerance must be practiced. It's kind of like EB (expedition behavior). In close quarters, with people you may not know very well, under trying circumstances, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt, and compromise, and relax, rather than allow yourself to become intolerant.