Etiquette Reminder

First off, it's ridiculous that a bunch of California climbers feel the need to come into this thread, create strawman arguments, and change the conversation from something helpful to our community into a circus.

Clearly there are ways of acting at the gunks that are respectful of the other climbers and there are ways that negatively impact others experience. Leaving unattended or underutilized topropes is one of the most egregious of the latter. By leaving a rope, you are creating convenience for yourself at the expense of others and its selfish and unnecessary.

In my several hundred days at the cliff I have never heard of a situation where someone was toproping and a leader showed up to exert their priority to climb a route. That is not my understanding of leaders have priority and is not the way I have ever seen it occur at the cliff. Leaders have the priority means that if you are not leading, you should do everything in your power to 1) expediently climb and remove your toprope when finished 2) not rappel in on top of leaders to set topropes and 3) not gang toprope the first pitch of commonly climbed multipitch routes.

None of these guidelines precludes anyone from climbing nor put unreasonable burdens on them. Its respectful and the right thing to do. Ignoring the guidelines changes the character of our cliff and the social scene that invariably exists at it. It simply comes down to giving more than you take and respecting and contributing to the health of our small community.

Good on Chris for using a glaring example, one that would have affected 100's of climbers who walked by on a busy fall day, to point out an example of what not to do. Nothing more needs to be said.

Jeffrey Dunn wrote: Nothing more needs to be said.

Well alllllllrighty then!

I would just like to ignore this advice completely and add that we live in a big world with a lot of rock. If jabronies are gumming up the works on a particular climb you could

1) Be sore about it and inform the internet of this.

or

2) Whip those gumbies into shape with a nice lecture on how low priority they are.

or

2) Go somewhere else.

Jeffrey Dunn wrote:First off, it's ridiculous that a bunch of California climbers feel the need to come into this thread, create strawman arguments, and change the conversation from something helpful to our community into a circus.

Dunn... I think your post pushes Guideline #1.... what you have a problem with my state?

Lots of others, from states all over the USA, have the right to jump in and have a say.

Jeffrey Dunn wrote:
change the conversation from something helpful to our community into a circus.

Jake Jones wrote: This happens in most threads.

Everybody loves a circus

Jeffrey Dunn wrote:First off, it's ridiculous that a bunch of California climbers feel the need to come into this thread, create strawman arguments, and change the conversation from something helpful to our community into a circus.

"something helpful to our community"
???

That's presuming something, isn't it.
A pretty high self-evaluation.

But to the point of other communities, yeah, people jump in on it.
I give it 5 more posts max before someone slams Boulder. After all, our community just had pretty much this same thread about CCC...

And guess what? There was no clear consensus.

camhead wrote:

Ill match that and raise you a steeper drop.
Norway has a similar problem...

Tony B wrote: "something helpful to our community" ??? That's presuming something, isn't it. But to the point of other communities, yeah, people jump in on it.

In hindsight, it would have been preferable if I hadn't referenced non-locals in such a specific way. Calling out CA was clearly not the intention of my post and was just based on a cursory review of the majority of the comments in the thread above. Beers on me for all CA climbers that can make it to the Adirondacks this weekend :)

It's really not a geography thing. Doesn't matter your location, seems like climbers are either fantastic people, or douchebags. There is no in-between.

Rob Davis wrote: The group (from West Point) showed up and told us they were going to drop top ropes on every route from the flake, down past harvard.

Do you know if it was just a group of students or if it was a school-sponsored trip?

I am USMA grad and I have friends there working as faculty. I can send them a note to pass on to any clubs or student groups that take trips there about etiquette.

I work as a guide for individual and group trips, and I've been a 'n00b' member of trips like that, so I know it's a challenge on both sides.

Adam Burch wrote:It's really not a geography thing. Doesn't matter your location, seems like climbers are either fantastic people, or douchebags. There is no in-between.

And the douchebags don't bother reading "etiquette reminder" threads on Mountain Project unless they're trolling.

If you don't like what somebody is doing at the crag, tell them. If they still don't care, nothing more can be done (unless they're actually breaking laws). Save your energy for the hike to another climb.

Jeffrey Dunn wrote:First off, it's ridiculous that a bunch of California climbers feel the need to come into this thread, create strawman arguments, and change the conversation from something helpful to our community into a circus.

This is a riduculous comment. The OP raised the issue specifically with reference to the Gunks, but clearly it's an issue that cuts across all areas, particularly in places where you can set up TRs on one pitch climbs. This is a very common problem at Joshua Tree for example. However, while ethics may vary somewhat at different areas, common courtesy has broader boundries.

I generally agree with the first come, first served concept, but times have changed somewhat. Whereas people used to show as a party of two or three, who would dispatch the climb and move on, the notion of gang toproping doesn't just make people wait for a route, it prevents them from getting on the route. That problem becomes exacerbated when the people setting up the TRs leave them unattended or, my pet peeve, when the people trying the route have a skill set so far below what's required for the climb, they really should be climbing elsewhere. Crags are not gyms. The notion that we need to accomodate people who want to make them so is wrong. The solution is simple. First come, first served does not equate to absolute ownership. Have at, but be accomodating to others who want to lead. If you're going to be there all day, what's a half hour of letting someone climb through.

Fat Dad wrote: This is a riduculous comment. The OP raised the issue specifically with reference to the Gunks, but clearly it's an issue that cuts across all areas, particularly in places where you can set up TRs on one pitch climbs. This is a very common problem at Joshua Tree for example. However, while ethics may vary somewhat at different areas, common courtesy has broader boundries. I generally agree with the first come, first served concept, but times have changed somewhat. Whereas people used to show as a party of two or three, who would dispatch the climb and move on, the notion of gang toproping doesn't just make people wait for a route, it prevents them from getting on the route. That problem becomes exacerbated when the people setting up the TRs leave them unattended or, my pet peeve, when the people trying the route have a skill set so far below what's required for the climb, they really should be climbing elsewhere. Crags are not gyms. The notion that we need to accomodate people who want to make them so is wrong. The solution is simple. First come, first served does not equate to absolute ownership. Have at, but be accomodating to others who want to lead. If you're going to be there all day, what's a half hour of letting someone climb through.

Great answer. The big thing I see is people posting and venting online instead of just asking another group. I can't even count the number of times that I've politely walked up to a group that had a top rope set up and asked them if I could pull it and lead as long as I re-set the rope for them. I can only think of one or two times that a group wasn't okay with it.

Christopher.D.Thomas wrote: Do you know if it was just a group of students or if it was a school-sponsored trip? I am USMA grad and I have friends there working as faculty. I can send them a note to pass on to any clubs or student groups that take trips there about etiquette. I work as a guide for individual and group trips, and I've been a 'n00b' member of trips like that, so I know it's a challenge on both sides.

I don't know if it was a group of students or a climbing club, but I know there were a handful of younger men and women, and one slightly older man and one slightly older woman. They told of us of their intention to drop the ropes over the slew of routes, we made it clear we were climbing the route and they were fine to take it after us. Then, what I posted above happened.

There are lots of people in here saying "Just talk to them!" and while that's absolutely necessary, I think that it clearly didn't get through to them when I was polite. Perhaps my southern demeanor does not lend itself well because I'm sure they didn't understand my complaints when I voiced them to their group leader.

Adam Burch wrote:It's really not a geography thing. Doesn't matter your location, seems like climbers are either fantastic people, or douchebags. There is no in-between.

I'm pretty in-between, actually. Normally I'm a nice guy. But today I just had to reply like this, which is pretty DB-y, right?
Can't help it - I live near Boulder.

I like climbing in the Gunks best when the temperature is like 30 - 40 degrees.

You see, at first I asked if we could climb through, and when I was met with resistance from the group leader, that is when I unloaded the polite, but curt, etiquette response. I completely understand the hang-ups both sides have regarding this debate, but I feel like I've been tolerant and lax for many, many years (and I still am--I climb at the Gunks a lot, how could I not be?!). I was taught to not be a disturbance at the cliff, nor to occupy a route for an exhorbitant amount of time when people are obviously wait/wanting to climb said route. It's common sense folks.

I can understand the first come, first serve ethos when leading/top-roping a route with a party of two, possibly three, but not when trying to accommodate for large groups--that's simply not kosher, which led me to trying to educate the group leader, in simple terms, how it is not OK to do this. I am careful to not bring up gym climbing because so many of us who climb inside follow the same rule, but it's not so engrained. Climbing outside at a crag is much different than inside, and anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed.

Yes, there are many routes at the gunks within close proximity that we could've gone to do (which we did, by the way), but when the route in question is being gang top-roped by individuals whose skill set is below that necessary, I most definitely think the TRers should let leaders climb through.

What's ironic about this whole situation is when we initially asked, the leader asked us if we'd be fast. I didn't respond that we would because it was friend's first time leading it. So, when they finally allowed us to lead through, after they were done flailing for a good 35 minutes (mind you, Ken's Crack is 40 ft.), we were both up and down within 15 minutes.

Yeah, it's interesting sometimes how some of the people newest to the sport tend to show the greatest entitlement. Maybe they're just insecure, naive, etc. Regardless, on some level they have to acknowledge that a little common courtesy goes a long ways to making climbing more fun for everyone. The whole notion of closing off entire stretches of a crag by monopoly seems like a pretty grim future for all. Frankly, while it's frustrating to get behind a new or slow leader, at least I give him or her props for trying and will do my best to be encouraging. However, I just don't see mass toproping as compatible given the number of people getting into the sport.

i just try to avoid areas conducive to douchebaggery.....or when i find myself in those areas, just talk to people. i've found it pretty successful to ask to pull a rope and offer to re-hang it after you lead. better yet, this kind of stuff seems to go down on 5.7-5.10 territory....offer to hang a rope on something harder and let them flail on that while you knock out what you want. if they are true gym climbers they won't be able to resist pushing a harder grade on a pre-hung tr so they can return to their gym and spray about this new outdoor route they're officially projecting now. if that doesn't work, don't be afraid to call out a flagrant dick move on their part.....and in this particular case of babysitting a route for a non-present climber, pull the rope and lead it anyway.

Once in a blue moon, the opposing side of the story shows up in one of these threads and says: "Sorry man, didn't realize I was being rude, I'll do better next time."

Much more frequently, they show up and conveniently remember things completely differently. For example, the "group leader" in this story might make an appearance and say something like: "This overbearing asshole came up and tried to force us to pull our rope."

For the record, I believe you were polite about it.

It's just that, as a famous scifi author once said: "Man is not a rational animal, he is a RATIONALIZING animal."

Jake Jones wrote:I think you would have gotten less shit (not that it matters much) had you divulged the entire interaction from the beginning. I can't say that I would have acted any differently than you did.

For the win...