|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 25, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #1 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
From reading this board for several years, it seems to me that the consensus of the users is that the first ascent party must be consulted before altering a route. For a long time I subscribed to this philosophy as well, but now I am having my doubts.
Why does climbing something first give someone lifelong "ownership" of it, even if it is on public land and gets climbed by many other people?
What if the route was put up illegally?
If a first ascentionist leaves a certain climbing community or quits climbing all together, do they still maintain this ownership?
What if the first ascentionist did a blatently bad job of opening a route or did it in obviosly unsafe and poor style? Do they still retain "ownership"? Do we as a community still need to get their permission to fix it?
Shouldn't this "ownership" at some point get transferred to the climbing community? Shouldn't the route become "public domain" of some sorts?
Isn't this really the responsibility of the actual land manager or owner, or whoever they designate as such? After all, there are REAL legal and ownership issues. It the manager/owner feels that a route is unsafe or just illogical, doesn't s/he have the right to change it without consulting the first ascentionist?
I don't think I buy the first ascentionist as authority philosophy anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 25, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #2 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
To me, it's not a matter of "ownership," it's a matter of respect. The FAist spent the time to climb virgin rock and develop the route in the way they imagined it should be developed, and I'll respect their views and effort. To change someone's route, pull someone's bolts, add more bolts, etc. is like a slap in the face, not like a theft or vandalism.
But then some people just have no respect.
|
|
|
|
|
euthanasia
Aug 25, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #3 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2004
Posts: 127
|
seems logical
|
|
|
|
|
euthanasia
Aug 25, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #4 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2004
Posts: 127
|
I can see both sides though
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 25, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #5 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
when i climb routes, i climb them expecting to climb it (hopefully) in near the same condition the FA'ist did it. This not only falls in line with leaving the rock as you found it but also leaving the boldness and the adventure intact.
It really isnt about checking with the FA- it's about keeping it in the spirit of things. So, if you check with the FA- you have the opportunity to gain perspective on the route and the context.
Personally, i've had the opportunity to put up some first recorded ascents that we're postive were climbed by a previous pioneer- but it never crossed our minds to alter the routes (even though many who followed us would have appreciated it...)
anyway, my thought is- leave it be or check with the FA or the 'locals' before you touch anything. just because its 'dangerous' for you doesnt mean it is 1) dangerous to others and 2) needs to be made safe.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 26, 2005, 1:30 PM
Post #6 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: anyway, my thought is- leave it be or check with the FA or the 'locals' before you touch anything. just because its 'dangerous' for you doesnt mean it is 1) dangerous to others and 2) needs to be made safe.
Scenario:
What will our community's response be when land managers get more involved in this. If climbing use continues to grow, I'm sure we will see more of this. More people climbing will mean more accidents. This in turn will result in more land managers looking closely at climbing to see what can be done to reduce that risk.
They see a route that has had a few accidents on it as being dangerous. We as a community see it as being bold. Over the years, the land manager has been friendly with climbers and does not want unnecessary conflict. After all, part of the land manager's budget is dependent on numbers of users and a sizeable number of users are climbers. THe land manager does not want to ban climbing and face a budget reduction. Furthermore s/he does not want the hassle of having to close a few routes in particular and try to enforce it.
The land manager wants to add bolts to it so that climbing can remain open. Climbers protest saying that that is not how the route was intended, saying we have to go find joe smith who did this route 20 years ago and ask him if its ok.
The land manager's response: Joe Smith?? Who's he? I've never met him, and I know a lot of you climbers. Besides this is my park, why do I have to get permission from some guy who spent a little time here 20 years ago? This isn't an issue of style; this is a safety issue. You people are getting hurt here because he did not design this route safely. If you keep getting hurt, I'll have to stop the climbing. I'm going to do what is within my power and add some bolts to this thing.
What will our response as a community be?
I believe a similar situation is in place at Castle Rock in Idaho. I also really believe that we will see more situations like this in the future.
Wouldn't it be better if we as a community could recognize a situation that is dangerous and fix it ourselves BEFORE the land manager gets involved, even if Joe Smith who no longer lives around here doesn't want us to do it?
This is preventative medicine, folks.
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Aug 26, 2005, 3:05 PM
Post #7 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
Style and significant changes in the route (such as a flake or key hold braking off) should determine when altering a route is OK. Bridwell told me that the original experience should be kept when repeating a route, although as an example he used the Sea of Dreams, which is quite a different case from a route at a sport crag. When he originally did the route he said he only drilled 39 holes (I might be wrong here, but not by much), just when they were absolutely necessary. Now there are over 200. Is this OK? I can't know the situation of the people who drilled the extra holes, and if you're life is on the line I can't really blame you, but the experience now is definitely different.
When removing a bolt is OK: When it is no longer necessary on a trad route. When Outer Limits was put up at the Cookie Cliff, a single bolt was placed by a loose flake. The first ascent party deemed that it would be dangerous to place gear here, and placed a bolt on rappel, after climbing the route. The flake later broke off, and the bolt was chopped without contacting the first ascent party. Were they angry? No. It's purpose had passed.
When to move a bolt: I talked about this on an earlier thread. The route Totem Pile has a bolt placement that is now very bad thanks to a flake that is no longer there. What once was an easy clip is now difficult and dangerous. Should this be replaced? Well since I'm a 3 hour drive and 11 hour plane flight away I can't really do anything. But it looks like a fun route that I might want to try when I get back. Who knows, maybe having an adventurous route isn't that bad of a thing since there's plenty of other quality safe routes at Donner Summit.
When to do nothing: When the original style was perfect. Bachar Yerian. (sp?)
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 26, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #8 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
What to do if the first ascent party is opposed, but the greater climbing community is in favor? Who takes precident?
Do I have to stop thinking logically and start flaming to get people to post to this thread???
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Aug 26, 2005, 3:44 PM
Post #9 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: What to do if the first ascent party is opposed, but the greater climbing community is in favor? Who takes precident? Do I have to stop thinking logically and start flaming to get people to post to this thread???
The posters who start such threads very often do so, as you did, by posing their question in terms of "ownership" vs. "safety," so we know where they stand. Others, like Coldclimb and Vegastradguy on this page, suggest a different perspective, but that's hard to get across to new climbers who just wanna see more bolts.
Not that the FA ethic is absolute, by a long shot. Retrobolts go in every day, asking no one. But this leaky ethic is about all that stands between climbing traditions and the flood of consumer (not so much land manager) demand.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 26, 2005, 3:56 PM
Post #10 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jkarns, here's the real deal:
There is no 'approval' committee. What ever you do in climbing, you essentially do on your own. We are a few hundred thousand (a million?) individualists, a herd of cats.
All of the great things in climbing have been done by people who were willing to put their crazy notions into action. Except for a very few managed areas, things get done at crags one route at a time, one ascent at a time. Consensus, like you're referring to, is developed backwards in time, not forward. Tolerance is defined by what we leave behind and what we chop, not what we 'think' might be appropriate in a couple of years, or for future ascensionists who's behavior we may wish to influence.
But what does all that mean? Easy. You are essentially free to do any goddamned thing you want. I am perfectly serious about this, its public land and within the confines of rules of the land area, you can do anything you wish.
You can place a bolt on a new route. You can retrobolt an older route. You can chisel holds in the blank stone. Assuming you have a blasting permit, you could carve a set of stairs up the cliff I suppose.
I, as your citizen peer, am equally free to chop the living shit out of anything you do. I could make it my personal mission to follow you around and erase anything you did to the rock. Not that I would, but you get the idea.
We'd BOTH be on route. As individuals, we are free to do as we wish.
Thank god, that's how we climbers mostly are. Our decisions are not made by commitee, or etched in stone in Freedom of the Hills or in some climbing manual. Our decisions are made one climber at a time, one route at a time.
Its the wild west, in other words. And we like it that way.
Empowering isn't it, to know you can do any goddamned thing you want?
So how are we, a herd of cats naturally resistant to committees and rules and government intrusion, how are we to get along?
Well, our ethics have been developed over time, just as have our routes, one climber at a time, one route at a time. Each climber is sort of like a point on one of those mandlebrot graphs of chaos. You can never tell what each of us is going to do, but over time, if you plot our actions and plot our routes, an image of our ethics emerges like a beautiful graph, outlining the extremes of our behaviors as well as the mainstream.
THERE IS NO ETHICS RULE BOOK.
That might make it seem that to our herd of cats, anything truly does go.
But we both know that's not true. You can do things that will surely and quickly provoke a response. Add bolts to a classic trad route and watch them tumble to the ground very quickly. And you could do NOTHING to the person chopping the hell out of your work, nothing whatsoever. No one to appeal to, no Momma-may-I to intervene.
The tried and true solution to this anything goes atmosphere is 'respect the FA.' If you'd ever opened some new routes yourself you'd understand. There is a terrific amount of work to open new climbs, no matter the style. Most of us are simply not cut out for it, and that is a fact. If we had to open new routes every time we went climbing, there would be about 1% of the climbers there are now.
So who are these people that establish new routes? They're climbers, just like you and me. Usually better, but not always, some of them are clowns frankly. But they have this one unique quality that endears them to the rest of us... they TELL US about their routes.
Pretty cool, they not only spend the money and time and energy to open new routes, THEY TELL US ABOUT THEM.
Do you think they would be so eager to tell us of their routes if they were confident we'd go muck them up? Change them? Remove them? Perhaps retrobolt them? Would they be so eager the next time around to tell us about their work?
That's the framework and over time, this attitude has become firmly ingrained in many experienced climbers, though obviously not all. Anyway, that is the spirit of the FA and most experienced climbers do respec it, a lot.
We have to balance that common respect with the needs of our community of course. Sometimes, the FA is a dick or a biatch and does things just to piss people off. Our community can band together against such people (Ken Nichols is the poster child for this in one respect, and active retrobolters are another example).
In the end however, we are a herd of cats and our community actions STILL happen one climber at a time, one route at a time.
So MY take is:
1. You should always respect the spirit of the FA. You should respect it because the people who came before you respected it and they tauight you to climb. You OWE them.
2. You should be very, very, very reluctant to ever retrobolt someone else's route. It should be a painful action done only after much reflection.
3. If you don't involve the local community in some fashion, or consult the FA, you must NOT express dismay or anger when someone chops your retrobolt without so much as a glance in your direction.
See, if you don't consult anyone, no one will consult you. They will be all, "I'm gonna chope the FUCK out of your bolt and there isn't a single goddamned thing you can do about it, save replace it.
Soon it spirals out of control and well, it isn't good.
A little respect to your fellow climbers, a little acknowledgement to those who came before you, a little homework, and we cats can and do get along, famously actually, when you consider it. The 'system' (of chaotic individuals) works pretty good for the most part, as evidenced by all our shared routes and all the smiling faces we see at the crags.
It still comes down to YOU. There is no rule that says seek out the locals. You may not even know most of them. Its still up to you and you alone to seek them out (or not), to be with them or to do whatever you wish inspite of them.
And if you don't know who the locals are.... why would you be mucking with their routes to begin with?
There, an attempt at explanation, no edits, do not pass go, do not reread.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 26, 2005, 3:57 PM
Post #11 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: The posters who start such threads very often do so, as you did, by posing their question in terms of "ownership" vs. "safety," so we know where they stand. Others, like Coldclimb and Vegastradguy on this page, suggest a different perspective, but that's hard to get across to new climbers who just wanna see more bolts.
I hope you're not referring to me in the phrase "new climber"!! If I need to supply a resume, I will. Furthermore, I don't necessarily want to see more bolt.
Actually that's not true, I DO want to see more bolts: wherever they will improve environmental impact and safety, and can be legally placed.
I think that FAists can make mistakes. A route in an area with other safe sport climbs should also be a safe sport climb, even if an FAist saw differently. It is disrespectful of the greater climbing community to open a route that is out of harmony with the other routes in the area. I also believe that the majority of land managers would agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 26, 2005, 4:36 PM
Post #12 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Gotta ask… which route did your bolts get chopped on?
My take, “R” routes come with climbing…”X” routes in popular areas are unnecessary.
“Gymbies” have a lot to learn and the “old guard” has a lot to teach.
Compromise is key.
No chipping…no gluing
No bolting crack lines
Limit your impact on the rock…and only place bolts where a fall means hitting the deck/ ledge and there’s no natural pro available.
Life’s a contact sport…get a fucking helmet
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 26, 2005, 4:42 PM
Post #13 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Not to take anything away from Roberts good post, but Dingus pretty much nailed that accuratly and succintly for me.
Can we just copy and paste that post every 15 min when this topic comes up?
Turn it into an artical?
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 26, 2005, 4:46 PM
Post #14 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Oh yeah...and what DMT said
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Aug 26, 2005, 4:58 PM
Post #15 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
Wow, thanks Dingus, well thought out, well put. A herd of cats, brilliant!
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Aug 26, 2005, 5:05 PM
Post #16 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
You can never repeat a climb and do it the way the FA did it. You are not drilling holes and placing bolts on lead by hand. There is no "do it in the style of the FA" on a bolted route (with the exception of rap bolted routes which don't count in this discussion).
Also, the FA may have been poor and could not afford more bolts and the route it runout because of that. So to repeat it in his style, you need to be too poor to place good protection. Not bold. Not brave. Just poor.
And perhaps the FA was stupid. She didn't have a family, just broke up with a guy, crashed her crap car. So she does a bold route out of stupidity and anger, not being bold.
All these things lead me to believe that the FA does not own the route or the rock or anything else any more than I own a road or can dictate how people drive it because of how I drove it first (and they sure drive it badly most of the time damn it).
But I still don't add bolts to bold or dangerous routes. If I don't like the route, I go elsewhere. I do not feel qualified to decide if the FA did it the "right" way and I certainly don't want to being a first ascent on something that's had a first ascent. If I want to bolot something, I'll take a long hike and find something of "my own."
And there is a bit of first-come first-served style in life in general. So it's okay to give these FA people a little bit of credit even if they did things wrong or were too poor or too stupid to bolt the route "right." Why not just leave it for now and move on? Maybe next year, it will not feel so bad running it out a few feet here and there. Maybe you will get more out of the climb the next time you try. Maybe the FA was bold and you need to be too.
Adding a bolt takes away from others who might feel different while not adding the bolt might only take away from you. Don't be selfish. If the community feels it's needed, it will show up one day.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 26, 2005, 5:07 PM
Post #17 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
bravo, dingus- well said.
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Aug 26, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #18 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Alpinism, rock climbing is, and born, as a dangerous activity. IT´S NOT A DAY IN THE PARK...
But the media convert anything in a possible thing. And now is when the stupid people comes and climb without the experience and the accidents arrive with them...
The thing is: IF YOU CAN´T, DON´T DO IT...
BUT DON´T TOUCH A ROUTE, BECAUSE THERE´S A BOUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO DO IT THE ORIGINAL WAY.
It´s called ETHICS...
BOLTING IS NOT THE SOLUTION FOR SECURITY. EXPERIENCE IS !!!
Vicente
Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
freeskicolorado
Aug 26, 2005, 5:18 PM
Post #19 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2004
Posts: 174
|
Somebody give dingus a trophy for me. Or three or four. That post ought to be immortalized somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
picaco
Aug 26, 2005, 5:21 PM
Post #20 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: BOLTING IS NOT THE SOLUTION FOR SECURITY. EXPERIENCE IS !!!
Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Aug 26, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #21 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: Can we just copy and paste that post every 15 min when this topic comes up?
I don't understand why NO ONE wants to discuss the issues I raised concerning Land Managers' roles in this issue. Having been a reader of this forum for nearly 3 years, I have never really seen this aspect of it discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Aug 26, 2005, 5:29 PM
Post #22 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Somebody give dingus a trophy for me. Or three or four. That post ought to be immortalized somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 26, 2005, 5:31 PM
Post #23 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: From reading this board for several years, it seems to me that the consensus of the users is that the first ascent party must be consulted before altering a route. For a long time I subscribed to this philosophy as well, but now I am having my doubts. |
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 26, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #24 of 89
(6644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Climbing is one of the fastest growing sports in the world…
Note: J-Tree ’85 vs J-Tree ‘05
Many of the folks that are climbing these routes haven’t gone through their paces. They haven’t developed their chops. Hell, many of them are walking directly from the gym out onto the rock.
In popular climbing areas (J-Tree, Gunks, Smith…) the risk isn’t just for the individual…it’s for the community. Because of this, we’re noticing a tightening bureaucratic grip at many of our local crags.
Which was the point of the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Aug 26, 2005, 5:41 PM
Post #25 of 89
(6589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: The land manager wants to add bolts to it so that climbing can remain open.
A land manager adding bolts to a route would face liability for any injuries that occured in the future on any and all routes in her jurisdiction. If someone gets hurt on the route she retrobolted, then she gets sued for not adding enough bolts. If someone gets hurt on a route that wasn't bolted, she gets sued for failing to add bolts to that route.
Land managers will be happy to leave protection to the climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
