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.