SOUTHERN ARIZONA CLIMBING ETIQUETTE - XXX - January-------Subtracting bolts (Chop Chop)

Everything we do as climbers exists in the context of access. Each decision we make and action we take have potential impacts, positive or negative, on our most important issue. We should tread lightly and err on the side of caution instead of taking heavy-handed approaches to dealing with issues that potentially threaten access. Without communication to from land managers, we have no way of knowing if we are teetering on the brink of losing our precious privilege. If we were to indeed lose access, it seems we have no way of knowing it was going to happen until it was too late. Certainly, threads like these don't portray the southern Arizona community in a positive light.

For these reasons, I stand by my premise that the way the issue of the chiseled holds on Rockfellow Dome was handled is a potential serious thread to access. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I believe the chiseled holds are/were a threat to access and should have been filled in. With that said, I can't imagine any way that land managers would find out about these holds other than exactly what is happening. I think the most fitting metaphor is we are cutting of our nose to spite our face.

For those of you, Eric Rhicard and Ryan Dillon, and any others who think I am being hypocritical by bringing up these issues, the cat got out of the bag long ago. Any land manager competent enough to do a google search has access to information on the Orifice Wall and all of its' potential threats to access. Geir's initial publication of the route with chiseled holds, including photos of the holds, in addition to Jimbo's 'Breaking News' photo, and the mountainproject threads (this thread) set that ship sailing.

In an attempt to minimize my part in perpetuation of these issues, I recently sent Geir a lengthy email regarding the potential impact on access of the chopping and other aspects of his actions as they effect the southern Arizona climbing community. Geir refused to read beyond the first two paragraphs of my email, the first of which was about access issues. He repeated, as he has accused me of this multiple times, the insult that I am a proxy for Scott Ayers.

The idea that there was an open invitation to have input into the decision-making process that resulted in the chopping is simply not true. I, for one, did not find out about the chopping until after the date of the chopping, 12/20. I am not aware of any invitations to eh discussion posted on mountainproject. Furthermore, mountainproject represents only a fraction of the climbers in southern Arizona. While it is impossible in practical terms to discuss the chiseled holds with every climber in southern Arizona, the bare minimum that could have been done to be inclusive would have been to use the Tucson climber's meetup email list, which includes a few hundred people, and to make an announcement at Rocks 'n Ropes to all those concerned. Neither of these options were done.

The idea that community consensus was reached is absolutely false as well. According to Geir, there were 18 votes to chop the fourth pitch and above, (according to Geir, Geir and Jimbo decided after the vote, on-the-fly to chop the third pitch as well). I estimate there are 300-400 climbers in the southern Arizona climbing community. Considering that the geographical range of voters extended around the country, any potential voters should be included as well. 18 of 350 is approximately 5%. 18 out of what I imagine is several thousand people, is nowhere near 1%. Niether 5% or 1% are anywhere near community consensus. There was no community consensus. The chopping was a vigilante action based on extreme and hard-line ideology, instead of empathy and compromise.

Furthermore, Geir extended a vote to at least one person, Jon Ruland, who had previously expressed his desire not to "take a side in this conflict." While I believe is it impossible to not take a side on these issues, as the great thinker Noam Chomsky said, "you can't be neutral on a moving train," Geir praised Jon Ruland for not wanting a take a side, saying "it takes balls to not take a side Jon." So, Geir praises Jon for not taking a side, and of course would praise Jon for voting, but I present any dissent any am quickly dismissed. The bias is about as obvious as it can be.

While I realize that Jon was referring to the topic of the switched bolt hangers in Cochise route chopped, take 2, that issue as well as the current one are clearly two manifestations of the same issue, the anti-Scott Ayers vendetta. The existence of this agenda has been confirmed multiple times, most recently by Jimbo's recent post "The fact that Scott as a long established history of hypocrisy and obfuscation was also a contributing factor in our decision to not let him dictate the end result of his actions." In Jimbo, Eric Rhicard and Geir's mind, there is a history of hypocrisy. However, hyprocrisy requires someone to say one thing and do another. The ideas that Scott has been a hypocrite is based off of things said between these guys and Scott years ago in a personal context. Scott has not addressed the mountainproject users on this forum, so the "long established history" is purely hearsay and lacks any credibility without proof.

The idea that "all diplomatic options were exhausted" (a direct quote from an email I received after the chopping") is absolutely false as well. The first diplomatic option would have been to privately contact Scott via telephone or email. If for some reason, that failed, the second step would have been to contact someone close to Scott, perhaps a some of his friends. If that failed, the third option would have been to take the issue to the community, in the aforementioned methods of the Tucson climbers' meetup and an announcement for a meeting at Rocks 'n Ropes. None of these steps were taken. Instead, an email went around to a select group of people, of which I was excluded and not aware of until after the chopping.

I want to reiterate the fact that I attempted to address these points with Geir privately but was promptly dismissed.

Erik M, I will respond to your words later. Right now I have to leave for work.

Any other points, I'll review later and address.

Dan, Geir posted a message on the route page on Nov. 16 clearly stating "Folks- there is a lot of email going on among some of the locals to try to resolve this issue. If you want to be a part of this PM me." It's still there. A couple comments down, your comment of Nov. 17 reads "Comment removed by myself, as the discussion has moved to private email."

So, I'm baffled by your statements that you and other people were deliberately excluded, not invited, etc. I don't know Geir personally, but I sent him a message and he copied me to the list. Scott Ayers was copied to every email. Others who were very much against chopping were copied to the list and expressed their opposition heatedly and at length.

If you felt strongly about this one way or the other, the opportunity to get involved and say your piece was there--first on mountainproject (there's 250 people in the tucson partner finder alone, plus the many who are on mp but not in the partner finder, plus many who aren't on mp but lurk), then by private email. The "consensus" was among self-selected, strongly interested parties. The idea of getting a consensus of every climber, or a majority of climbers in southern Arizona is absurd. Most people have better things to do with their time, and good for them.

Charles Vernon wrote:Dan, Geir posted a message on the route page on Nov. 16 clearly stating "Folks- there is a lot of email going on among some of the locals to try to resolve this issue. If you want to be a part of this PM me." It's still there. A couple comments down, your comment of Nov. 17 reads "Comment removed by myself, as the discussion has moved to private email." So, I'm baffled by your statements that you and other people were deliberately excluded, not invited, etc. I don't know Geir personally, but I sent him a message and he copied me to the list. Scott Ayers was copied to every email. Others who were very much against chopping were copied to the list and expressed their opposition heatedly and at length. If you felt strongly about this one way or the other, the opportunity to get involved and say your piece was there--first on mountainproject (there's 250 people in the Tucson partner finder alone, plus the many who are on mp but not in the partner finder, plus many who aren't on mp but lurk), then by private email. The "consensus" was among self-selected, strongly interested parties. The idea of getting a consensus of every climber, or a majority of climbers in southern Arizona is absurd. Most people have better things to do with their time, and good for them.

+10

Looks like we got to this guy Vernon and caughtinside too. We are good at converting them. All must be assimilated. Haha.

Hearsay is not first hand information. If I said someone heard Scott said... that would be hearsay. I actually heard him say things. That is first hand not hearsay. By the way I would be happy to swear under oath to anything I have said Scott Ayers said. Bet Scott loves that you keep bringing this stuff up.

Dan, the route is gone. Get over it.

I'll address the recent posts and Erik M's post tomorrow.

For the moment, I'd like to offer a passage from a Mark Twain novel that struck me as appropriate.

Does anyone have any thoughts on it?

"Well, there were sixty-eight people there, and sixty-two of them had no more desire to throw a stone than you had."

"Satan!"

"Oh, it's true. I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don't dare to assert themselves. Think of it! One kind-hearted creature spies upon another, and sees to it that he loyally helps in iniquities which revolt both of them. Speaking as an expert, I know that ninety-nine out of a hundred of your race were strongly against the killing of witches when that foolishness was first agitated by a handful of pious lunatics in the long ago. And I know that even to-day, after ages of transmitted prejudice and silly teaching, only one person in twenty puts any real heart into the harrying of a witch. And yet apparently everybody hates witches and wants them killed. Some day a handful will rise up on the other side and make the most noise - perhaps even a single daring man with a big voice and a determined front will do it - and in a week all the sheep will wheel and follow him, and witch-hunting will come to a sudden end.

Charles, you bring up a good point. Honestly, I barely remember seeing Geir's comment. This is probably because the comment was, at the time I posted, 1 of 62 (yes, I counted them) comments on the thread. While I should have taken Jimbo's threats to chop more seriously, I didn't really grasp that it would lead to a vigilante chopping of multiple pitches of natural climbing. While ignorance and naivete are not valid excuses, I am being truthful. The old cliche that hindsight is 20/20 applies here, and I wish I had paid more attention to the post.

So you understand my reason for deleting my post, I did it for the sake of access. I did not want to contribute to the climbing community tattling on itself. Since then, I have realized that in order to protect access, and since Geir refused to even read my private email, I have to post on these threads.

While the fact that I did not understand the implication of Geir's post is surely my own fault, the onus to be as open and inclusive to all viewpoints falls on Geir, which he intentionally failed to do.

Charles Vernon wrote:"The "consensus" was among self-selected, strongly interested parties."

This is an important question: did every person who was given a vote ask to be included (like Charles), or were some selected based on their relationship with Geir? If the former is true, for the sake of transparency, Geir should provide us with the emails and private messages showing that each and every voter asked to be included. If the latter is true, the entire voting system is fundamentally flawed and based in Geir's bias.

Regardless of the truth of that matter, it is very important to differentiate between the a voting process and a jury selection. If the voting process had reached anywhere near average voter turnout, which according to wikipedia, in the United States, on average is 50%, then the process would have resembled a vote. Instead, Geir and Jimbo decided this would be too much trouble or it would take too long, and the process resulting in 18 people out of the geographical range that includes thousands upon thousands of climbers resulted in what is more like a juror selection.

In our legal system, the prosecution and defense spend much time weeding out those who display any bias one way or the other. In our case, those who would vote for chopping the entire route, or leaving the route untouched would be removed from the selection pool.

Geir and Jimbo did exactly the opposite. To illustrate the colossal failure to be inclusive of any voice or opinion, especially those of a moderate nature, and their success in selecting voters with an extreme ideology, I point out the inclusion of Rickd. He is a twisted soul who has professed his personal hatred for Scott, repeatedly calling for the chopping of each and every one of Scott's routes.

I recently was forwarded Rickd's contribution to the emails, which of course you saw, Charles, and didn't have anything to say about:

"You have got to be kidding me.

I promise to remove 10 scott ayers routes if this is done.

You want a war you can't win- I'm that guy fellas.

Scott get your fat ass up there and remove that thing (all of it) by the end of this holiday.

(Assholes kissing SA's butt, fuck)Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry"

Rickd had nothing to contribute to the discussion other than vile speech and threats to the other voters and Scott.

Here is another idea to ponder: Imagine if Geir, Jimbo, and Scott Ayers (the prosecutors and defense) were to have selected the jurors, instead of only Geir and Jimbo. Would the result have been the same or would a more moderate verdict have been reached? The biased nature of the jurors who were selected is reflected in the verdict to chop the route from the offending fourth pitch up, instead of filling in the offending chiseled holds.

This brings up another point, the reason for chopping the bolts on the offending fourth pitch as well as the third pitch (despite was eMurdock thinks and believes he saw, the third pitch was chopped by Geir and Jimbo's own admission) was purely punitive. To anyone willing to talk to Scott, he has made it clear that he is very remorseful and deeply regrets chiseling the holds. Geir admits this:

Geir Hundal wrote:"I am told that the Scott Ayers we know today would have never chiseled that route to begin with, and that this was an honest lapse in judgment that humans are all prone to. I believe that."

There is no need to punish someone who is expressing genuine remorse. The punitive nature of the chopping suggests that Geir and Jimbo did not want any capable amount of Scott's perspective to be heard, so they could dictate the result to Scott to satisfy their personal agendas.

Charles Vernon wrote:Most people have better things to do with their time, and good for them.

You're right, most people probably do have better things do with their time. The fact that most people probably don't care too much about the chiseling shows what an overblown situation this probably is in the eyes of most people and that Geir's idea that this represents the community is false. It is worth repeating the potentially dangerous position we may be putting ourselves in with regards to access. So, it seems that at you (Charles), Geir, and Jimbo all have different reasons for taking part in this. My assumption is that you, as some others do (including myself) are adamantly against chiseling. Geir and Jimbo, on the other hand, have made it clear by their actions and words(Jimbo has been very explicit) that they have a personal vendetta against Scott in this. Perhaps you weren't aware of it, or were too caught up in the moment to understand it, or maybe just didn't care, but you should be aware of the acting out of a personal vendetta that you took part in.

Charles, do the ends (the chiseled holds being filled) justify the means (personal vendetta) for you? Do you object to the fact that Geir and Jimbo threw out the entire jury/voting process (which was already extremely flawed) when they decided to chop pitch 3 on-the-fly? Does it bother you that the process, which you put at least a little bit of time and thought into, was nothing more than a facade so Geir and Jimbo could exact revenge for whatever personal issues they have with Scott? Does you take issue that Geir and Jimbo used you?

To me and IMHO the most important part of this discussion is that the chipping of climbing holds on natural rock is wrong. This ethical judgment is doubly reinforced by the climbing area being solidly "traditional." Putting the two together the route was wrong.

What to do about the first wrong act, i.e., chipping, is a bit more problematic, but in this case my feeling is that Geir and Jimbo (and others involved) followed a reasonable process. I don't personally know all of the climbers and posters on this thread, but I know Geir and Marcy to be strongly ethical. I know Eric by reputation and his thoughts carry a lot of weight with me.

In contrast, some of the detractors appear to have gone more into the personal. And it seems to me that some of the fake accounts, even with real sounding names, are pretty suspect and probably reflect one or two of the regular posters (e.g., if the first act of an account created in January is to attack someone on this thread, I believe it to be someone who is already posting and attacking). It is not surprising that some recent comments have even been removed by the poster(s). That being said, parties on both sides are making some interesting points. I must admit appreciating Dan's literary flair and he makes some good points, although I do not think that any process will be perceived as fair by all, especially when they have emotion and personal relationships in the game.

The bigger picture to me is one of climbing access. Having worked a fair amount with land managers (and at times representing them as well), I can say that most land managers probably see rock climbing as something rather foreign and not necessarily consistent with their mission. We climbers need to engage in positive working relationships with those land managers.

Many of the land managers I know probably wouldn't mind if "climbing went away," and some may even look for excuses to limit this potentially risky and difficult to manage activity on their lands. That being said, I don't think many of those same land managers want to mediate or in any way be dragged into a "bolt war" or a "chip war." If the noise reaches them with sufficient crescendo, they probably will lean toward pulling the plug.

It's best to keep in mind that climbers don't own the land and/or carry relatively little weight with the land manager. And we must keep in mind, therefore, that climbing is a privilege, not a right.

"Charles, you bring up a good point. Honestly, I barely remember seeing Geir's comment."

YOU DID SEE IT THOUGH

"While ignorance and naivete are not valid excuses, I am being truthful. The old cliche that hindsight is 20/20 applies here, and I wish I had paid more attention to the post. So you understand my reason for deleting my post, I did it for the sake of access. I did not want to contribute to the climbing community tattling on itself. Since then, I have realized that in order to protect access, and since Geir refused to even read my private email, I have to post on these threads."

If they are not valid why are you using them?

It is also clear that you are NOT concerned about access. It now appears that your vendetta with Geir has caused you to throw the other 99% of climbers under the bus so you can attempt to win an argument.

ONE LAST TIME DAN, THE REAL FLAW IN THE PROCESS WAS THAT THE GUY WHO CHISELED THE ROUTE DID NOT CONTACT GEIR OR JIMBO TO DISCUSS THIS DESPITE BEING WELL AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

MAYBE NEXT TIME SCOTT AYERS WILL RESPOND TO THE THREADS OR EMAILS HE RECEIVED INSTEAD OF LETTING OTHERS DEAL WITH HIS CHIP FEST.

HE HAS CONTACTED AND PLANS TO MEET WITH GEIR. SO LET THEM WORK IT OUT, IT IS BETWEEN THEM.

ErikF, I absolutely agree with you in that the chipping of natural rock is wrong. I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with that. So you know, there are many bolted routes in the Stronghold in addition to many traditional and mixed routes. For me, it is a different experience climbing in the Stronghold compared to Mount Lemmon or anywhere else. I feel that every place I have climbed is unique in its' own way. With that said, it is not my, your, Erikm's, Jimbo's, or anyone else's place to claim a subjective viewpoint as universal and objective. We all have different experiences and though we can claim to have the same experience and perception, we have no way of knowing if this is true. The best way we can relate to each other is through empathy, which was sorely lacking in this whole process.

I was told of a woman a while back who didn't like climbing in the Stronghold at all. While I thought her take on the was silly and her distaste was more about her ego and not being a good enough climber to appreciate the Stronghold, her viewpoint is as valid as any of ours. Perhaps she likes Mount Lemmon more than the Stronghold and regards all of the chipping there in the same way so many of us feel about it in the Stronghold.

With all due respect, in the aforementioned juror selection process that takes place in our legal systems, your statement, "This ethical judgment is doubly reinforced by the climbing area being solidly "traditional,"" shows bias that would bar you from participation in the jury. This doesn't mean you have a personal vendetta against anyone, it simply means that your bias for the Stronghold would likely be reflected in your vote.

Though Jimbo either didn't understand or obfuscated the question(your favorite word Jimbo!) when I brought it up earlier, this is another hypothetical situation I think is worth repeating: Jimbo compared chiseling in the Stronghold to murder, and chiseling on Mount Lemmon to graffiti on a chain-link fence in an industrial area. Aside from the obvious bias that he shows, I pose this question: Is murder more acceptable in south Tucson than it is in north Tucson? For the Phoenicians, is murder more acceptable in south Phoenix than in Scottsdale?

ErikF, in light of the clear juror bias I illustrated, the fact that Geir and Jimbo threw out the verdict of the vote on-the-fly and chopped another pitch, the punitive nature of the chop, the overwhelming lack of transparency, the inability or unwillingness of Geir to respond to dissent and critique, the exaggeration of facts, and the different motives Geir and Jimbo had in chopping the route, does that seem like a reasonable process to you?

I do think that the overarching problem with unmoderated internet forums is the lack of accountability. This is why I advocate for a meeting at Rocks 'n Ropes or some other venue where people look each other in the face and we can empathize. Had this taken place in a live venue, I highly doubt the verdict would have been so drastic and heavy-handed.

If you are implying that I am posting under multiple accounts, you are wrong. I think it's clear that I am not going to be intimidated by anyone and have no qualms with posting under my real name. I can't speak for others, I can assure that I am not doing that.

Here is an interesting hypothetical to ponder: if some resolution were proposed that satisfied everyone's concerns and put an end to the whole conflict, would it matter if that idea came from an anonymous poster? While I think that anonymous posters shouldn't be counted in any sort of vote, if that poster presented a valid idea, concept, or viewpoint, why not consider it? Whether it be from me, you, my grandmother, my goldfish, or one of the many babbling psychotic people here on the streets of New York City, it origin of the idea doesn't matter so much as the content of it.

I absolutely agree with you that the bigger picture is one of access. I have stated and restated this point, yet it doesn't seem to gain much ground. The risk of losing access is not fear-mongering or a "boogeyman buzzword." The cold reality for us climbers is that we can have our privileges revoked at any time. The chopping and publication on the internet has served to turn a flickering flame into a raging bonfire.

Eric Rhicard, I admitted that I made a mistake. I didn't make excuses or try to deny it. Perhaps you didn't get it, but I was humbled by my mistake and certainly regret it. I explained my train of thought at the time, not as a deflection of blame.

The fact that you revel in this makes you look like a pig rolling in the mud.

Just so you understand what hearsay is, Eric, I'll explain how it works. If someone told you something someone else said, that would be hearsay. If you heard it yourself, it wouldn't be hearsay to you. However, if you tell us something that someone said, it is hearsay. Hearsay is dependent on the degree of closeness of the speaker of uncorroborated accusations to the listener.

Again, let me clarify: if the original speaker said it to you, it's not hearsay; if you passed on the words to me, it is hearsay. Hopefully you can understand the distinction.

Your assertion that the real flaw in the process is that Scott didn't contact Geir is one-sided. Why don't you place the same onus for contact on Geir and Jimbo? I think it is fair to hold them accountable for contacting Scott, considering they are conducting the trial. In an appeasement to fairness and impartiality, this would have been the appropriate step.

Considering the vile nature of some of the discourse among the voters, why would anyone expect Scott to respond? Geir and Jimbo put lipstick on their witch hunt to make it appear pretty. It was nothing more than a facade which they threw out when they were doing the chopping. So, why would you expect Scott to jump into a pool of sharks thirsty for blood?

Maybe this is too obvious to point out, but you are blaming Scott for not contacting Geir and Jimbo, yet for final paragraph begins with, "HE HAS CONTACTED AND PLANS TO MEET WITH GEIR." I don't know if it's necesarry to elaborate on that one...

As far as Geir and Scott working it out, that would be great. The fact that Geir escalated the issue beyond his relationship with Scott and involved the community shows it is solely between them. Geir involved the community. My point in all of these posts is to show how Geir and Jimbo sacrificed access and the community for personal vendetta.

If Geir understands the gravity of the situation he has created and shows us that he is humbled and apologetic for it, I have no problem. If he continues to ignore dissent and legitimate questions from me and other users, I will continue to make the nature and impact of his actions clear as I think is necessary.

Following this thread has taught me a lot about Tucson climbing community. So in the style of John Jay and Rich:

Jimbo - The one who wants to "educate" everyone into his way of thinking and can't grasp the concept that others may have an opinion of there own.

Eric - Mr. Ah Ha! I caught you. Thinks that if someone said something 37 years ago while waisted and then does something different today they are a lier.

Geir - Is so noble he would carry gear 5 miles into a climbing area so the girl he likes and her boy friend can climb.

Dan - Although he's a real person (I've met him) he has had Scott's brain implanted in him.

Rick D - Would rather see everyone take up needle point and stay off his rock. In his view, all of it is his rock.

Kimberly - A real sweety who will hike all the way up to Sheepshead and read a book while Daryl and Angel climb.

Daryl and Angel - Too busy climbing to care what you all do. Although if a route of their's were to get chopped it would be a matter for the police.

Scott - Won't put anything in writing for fear Eric will use it against him in a court of law 37 years from now.

Top Rope Princess - How can anyway not like her? She accepts everyone for who they are and truly believes to each his own. She can get along with anyone. She's beautiful down to earth a great mom and wonderful wife. I'm so lucky.

Me - Go ahead ...

This is all in fun so don't take it too seriously. :-)

Dan,

The murder analogy had nothing to do with the area. The point is that neither the murderer in South Tucson or the murderer in the foothills gets to decide what his punishment should be and when that punishment will happen. (In this case the murderer chose not to voice an opinion about his punishment at all)

You keep harping about the third pitch we chopped "on the fly".
That pitch crossed Lumpy Unmentionables an old scare fest which resulted in bolts and an anchor that you could climb to from Lumpy, this seriously changed the nature of that pitch.

As far as the top pitch goes, if you have two pitches of bolts then two pitches with no bolts, why would you leave a fifth pitch of bolts that no one will be able to get to?

Were we punitive, of course we were. The point was to make it totally understood by the next guy with a chisel bit that chiseling holds will not be accepted in the Stronghold. There will be a price to pay other than a few heated exchanges on MP.

You've obviously never climbed in the UK. If you put up a line a bolts in a trad area, there isn't a forum, or a jury selection. They get chopped, no discussion, done, and you don't get your hangers back. If you pull a stunt like that forfeiting your hangers is the price you pay for being stupid.

We could, and obviously should have, just gone up and erased the whole climb. No discussion on MP, no email list. Nobody would have ever known who did it. But we didn't, we did bring it up for discussion. We didn't have to. There are no rules or laws on
this stuff. The fact is we were much more democratic about it than we needed to be.

The fact that now, after all is done, you have decided our methodology doesn't' meet with your approval is inconsequential.

Whether Scott gets his hangers back is between him and me and no one else.

The fact is Dan nothing you say now is going to change anything.

It's done dude!

We're done.

You should be too.

Dan Cohen wrote:Does you take issue that Geir and Jimbo used you?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Mike, you crack me up! That $hit was hilarious!!

Charles Vernon wrote: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Another empty insult? Bravo. I hope you have room left on your boy scout outfit for that pin.

My point in being so thorough is so you, and others, understand what you took part in. Maybe you did understand and had some masochistic fascination with being along for the witch hunt. In that case, I pity you.

ErikF wrote:That being said, I don't think many of those same land managers want to mediate or in any way be dragged into a "bolt war" or a "chip war." If the noise reaches them with sufficient crescendo, they probably will lean toward pulling the plug.

Erik,

Firstly, by "land managers" it seems fair to interpret that you mean "our public land managers?"

Secondly, you seem to have a clear view of how the public land managers in that area would act in this case? Do you have some basis of asserting that our public land managers would "[pull] the plug," interpreted I think fairly here as "permanent loss of climbing access," on US Forest Service (USFS) lands because of the actions of one individual on one climb, chipping in particular? Have the particular public land managers acted as so characterized before?

Could you please elaborate?

ErikF wrote: It's best to keep in mind that climbers don't own the land and/or carry relatively little weight with the land manager. And we must keep in mind, therefore, that climbing is a privilege, not a right.

I know you probably know this, but just to offer a broader view from the public land advocacy side, the area being discussed is US Forest Service property. Here's the very important and unwavering USFS mission statement related to our public lands:

• The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (source: fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.s…)

Furthermore, one of their "guiding principles" (same source) is:

• We follow laws, regulations, executive direction, and congressional intent.

Following the logic that "congressional intent" is the public's intent since Congress represents the public's interest, we individuals in the public do ultimately have a sort of ownership and right to discuss, gain access, and use the land. Just what form of use our ownership results in is a constantly changing landscape for various reasons whether it be for grazing, mining, recreational uses, etc. It's clear from history that access is indeed impacted by the behavior of the participants from time to time.

As you know, on some of our public USFS lands mining activities are restricted and even curtailed explicitly so that recreational activities may take place (campground areas for instance) and on some others recreational activities are restricted for mining purposes (public lands mined under claim but not patented). Regardless, most often the USFS appears to be attempting a balancing of priorities for the public as set by our three branches of representative government. So, indeed, as is well documented, recreational activities, including dispersed activities like climbing, do carry weight with our public land managers.

Also, I have most always found the public land managers to be very aware of the activities on the public's land that they manage. The depth of awareness of certain public activities varies from location to location sometimes, but generally I've always found them to be pretty sharp folks doing their best to follow through with the greater public's expressed interest. I have also usually found them pretty responsive to public input both directly and in the form of policies resulting from public input via the various branches of government.

Again, in any case, it seems pretty clear to me that the discussion in this forum is about our public lands and ultimately they are "ours." It's also clear to me that the undercurrent for most people posting here, aside from your view, regardless of the side, is an attempt to take some sort of responsibility directly related to their deeply held and felt "rights" to their public lands.

I think it's fair to say that for most of us who advocate for our public lands, that our USFS lands are ultimately truly "ours." Perhaps not exclusively, but rather inclusively of the greater public.

Just my view of course.

Fred

Dan; I know Geir quite well and can assure you that his part in the restoration of the rock had nothing to do with some imaginary vendetta against Scott. Enough already with your accusations of Geir’s bias, using people, and vendetta; it’s getting old and, more importantly, is incorrect.

Dan Cohen wrote: Another empty insult? Bravo. I hope you have room left on your boy scout outfit for that pin. My point in being so thorough is so you, and others, understand what you took part in. Maybe you did understand and had some masochistic fascination with being along for the witch hunt. In that case, I pity you.

Sorry for the snarky remark-should've thought better of it.

You asked me a series of loaded questions, and just to be clear, I have zero interest in answering or discussing any of them with you. I never should have responded to this thread at all, but I simply wanted to correct your false statements about Geir's efforts to seek input and open the discussion to whoever was interested.

I don't know Scott, Jim, or Geir and I don't agree with everything Geir and Jim did. All I know is someone apparently chipped a route up the proudest rock face in Southern Arizona-one that feeds my dreams, nightmares, and best days-and I'm glad someone did something about it.

Charles Vernon wrote: Sorry for the snarky remark-should've thought better of it. You asked me a series of loaded questions, and just to be clear, I have zero interest in answering or discussing any of them with you. I never should have responded to this thread at all, but I simply wanted to correct your false statements about Geir's efforts to seek input and open the discussion to whoever was interested. I don't know Scott, Jim, or Geir and I don't agree with everything Geir and Jim did. All I know is someone apparently chipped a route up the proudest rock face in Southern Arizona-one that feeds my dreams, nightmares, and best days-and I'm glad someone did something about it.

Charles, thanks for your apology. I appreciate the effort to be moderate.

While my questions are sharp, I do my best to not make personal attacks and maintain a respectful demeanor. I apologize if I have strayed from that.

If you don't want to have a respectful conversation, I can't make you. However, I do believe, that if you felt strongly enough to email Geir to be one of the voters, you should be held accountable for you actions. By this I do not mean that you should be crucified for taking part in it, but that you figure out where you sit with the whole thing, and given an ample opportunity to make amends.

The intent of my post was to make you aware of what you might not have known, and according to your words, there are at least some factors in the chopping that you were not aware of or missed. I encourage you to re-read my posts about juror selection, and tell me, privately if you prefer, if you still feel Geir exhibited no bias in the selection.

You and I agree that something should have been done, but it seems we disagree on what that something should have been and how it should have been handled.

With that said, I want to pose one of my questions again: do the ends justify the means?

I challenge EVERYONE to read the following through fully... then reflect on what is being presented... then make your own conclusion... then realize that is exactly what it is... YOUR conclusion... others have the same right to THIER conclusions...

Making The Grade

(Republished in Rock & Ice – Published in 2010 as Chapter 11 of “Climbing - Philosophy for Everyone: Because It's There”, By Stephen E. Schmid, Fritz Allhoff, Hans Florine)

Why You May be Wrong about What’s Right about Chipping

The Nose, Outer Limits, The Rose and the Vampire, Just Do It. These route names roll off the tongue. Each climb has a place in history, both for what it meant to the sport, but also because it has the characteristics of a climbing “classic.” All are singular lines that tackle stunning features in grand positions. Yet each of these grand climbs also share a trait you many not know about, or if you do you might choose to ignore—each was deliberately chipped to go free.
Most climbers are openly hostile when expressing their opinions about chipping, maintaining a dogmatic disdain, yet hold manufacturing is a practice as old as climbing itself, and it would be an understatement to say that climbers are a bit schizophrenic on the subject. Why?
This essay presents what most climbers consider anathema—a limited defense of chipping. It was excerpted from the new book Climbing—Philosophy for Everyone: Because It’s There.

Climbing and philosophy intersect with regard to the ethical behaviour of climbers. Some of the ethical issues in climbing involve a straightforward extension of more general moral principles. For example, it is wrong to lie about your climbing accomplishments because, more generally, it is wrong to lie. However, other ethical issues involve factors that are unique to climbing and cannot be resolved by invoking broader moral rules. Is it wrong, for example, to place bolts on rappel? Is it cheating to use pre-placed gear on a traditional pitch? For these sorts of questions, broader moral rules do not apply in a straightforward way, and we must work out for ourselves what is right or wrong within the context of climbing.
When doing this, we can tailor a form of practical ethics for climbing. Traditionally, practical ethics has been the search for rational solutions to important problems we confront like climate change. However, practical ethics can be applied to less weighty matters such as rock climbing. While each climber needs to decide for himself which rules to abide by, it doesn’t follow that anything goes or that a simple majority opinion is decisive. It is certainly possible for climbers, just like anyone else, to embrace rules that are ill-conceived or that don’t really make sense. Thus, by using practical ethics we can ask if certain longstanding rules or attitudes should be revised or even abandoned.
Here I’m going to do this with regard to the issue of hold manufacturing. By applying some of the same strategies that are common to practical ethics, I’ll show how popular attitudes about hold manufacturing are unreasonable and out of sync with other common attitudes and practices in rock climbing.
Practical ethics does not require an esoteric formula. Instead, like all good philosophy it simply involves thinking carefully about a topic in a critical and coherent manner. Yet it turns out that people aren’t very good at this. Instead, studies reveal that people reason in a manner that is driven by biases, embrace beliefs that are incompatible with other beliefs, fail to think about what their views entail, and endorse fallacious arguments. Consequently, good practical ethics can be both helpful and yet disturbing and iconoclastic, revealing how our ordinary views on a topic we thought we understood are mistaken. Practical ethicists often serve as social critics, challenging conventional assumptions and attitudes. One of the ways they do this is by revealing how some of our commitments conflict with other attitudes we hold. Practical ethicists often upset the applecart of consensus by constructing arguments that expose hidden inconsistencies in our beliefs.

To begin, let’s reflect on the nature of the hold-manufacturing controversy. Unlike most debates, this one is not fueled by two equally outspoken camps. With few exceptions, virtually no one openly defends hold manufacturing. In climbing literature there appears to be almost universal consensus that any form of manufacturing is bad. Indeed, even in one of the few defenses of manufacturing, a notorious 1990 essay, the practice is described as “fundamentally terrible” and “degrading.”

So given the apparent consensus, in what sense is there a controversy? The controversy exists because despite the open expression of anti-manufacturing sentiments, hold manufacturing occurs on many new routes. In other words, common statements are in conflict with common actions, resulting in a deep incongruity about the way some rock climbs are developed. This odd double standard is often reflected in popular descriptions of various routes.
Take, for example, The Nose as a free climb. It is generally known that, besides the various pin scars that make certain cracks free-climbable, there is a section of the free variation—what is often described as the “Jardine Traverse”—where the holds used by all free climbers have been chiseled into the granite. So, on the one hand, it is widely claimed that routes with manufactured holds are tainted and that manufacturing should never be done. Yet, at the same time, a route that is made possible with manufactured holds is widely regarded as one of the greatest free climbs in the world. And this is true of many routes throughout the globe, in many popular destinations. Le Rose et le Vampire at Buoux, Bronx at Orgon, or The Crew at Rifle, to name just a few, are generally viewed as classics or groundbreaking achievements, even though their existence depends, at least in part, on a style of route preparation that is openly deplored.

What should we make of this? One possibility is that manufacturing holds is indeed always profoundly wrong, and we often just choose to ignore this. But I think a more plausible diagnosis is that, despite the overt indignation over manufacturing, we really aren’t clear about what, exactly, is wrong with it. Upon deeper reflection, the popular arguments against manufacturing are unconvincing and don’t hold up to close scrutiny. In other words, the reason manufacturing still occurs is because the condemnation itself is not properly justified. Indeed, if we employ practical ethics with regard to hold manufacturing—that is, if we commit ourselves to careful and consistent reasoning—we wind up with an analysis that suggests, at least in certain circumstances, manufacturing should be regarded as acceptable.

How would such an analysis go? Replicating a common strategy in practical ethics, the first premise would express a general normative principle that most climbers believe about acceptable practices in route development. The second premise would claim that hold manufacturing is a legitimate application of this principle (and thus an anti-manufacturing attitude is in conflict with the accepted principle). The conclusion would be that manufacturing in some circumstances is an acceptable practice. Here is such an argument:
(a) There are circumstances such that, in the preparation of a route, modifying the rock to make it climbable is acceptable.
(b) The set of circumstances in which rock modification is acceptable sometimes includes the manufacturing of holds.
(c) Therefore, the manufacturing of holds is sometimes acceptable.
While (a) might initially strike some as implausible, I think it is easy to show that it is a principle that most climbers embrace. The more controversial premise is (b). Of course, (c) follows directly from (a) and (b), so if you accept those two premises, you need to accept (c).

Before we evaluate premises (a) and (b) we need to clarify a couple of things. First, we should get a little clearer on what is meant by “hold manufacturing.” There is obviously a continuum of different rock alterations that have been described as hold manufacturing, including unintentionally creating holds with pitons, reinforcing existing holds with glue, “comfortizing” holds or aggressive cleaning, and of course, flat-out drilling holds in blank rock. Not much rides on how broad we make this continuum, so let’s stipulate that manufacturing includes deliberately drilling pockets to create climbing holds.

Second, we need to specify the sort of circumstances I have in mind when I claim that manufacturing is acceptable, as I certainly don’t believe it is defensible in every situation. Because so many climbers appear to have a zero-tolerance attitude, we can be fairly conservative while remaining revisionist. It is impossible to give a detailed description of all acceptable manufacturing scenarios, but we don’t need to. Instead, we can describe the prototypical scenario and later worry about how far it is acceptable to stray from that. Let’s say the archetype of acceptable manufacturing involves preparing an unclimbed sport route in a sport-climbing area that has mostly high-quality climbable sections but also segments of blank rock. To link the climbable sections a limited number of holds are manufactured in the blank sections. That is the paradigm the following argument is intended to defend.

The truth of (a)—rock modification is acceptable—is easy to see once we consider general attitudes about the removal of loose rock by the person who prepares the route. When bolting a route it is almost universally agreed that it is acceptable to remove any loose blocks, crumbly or muddy rock, creaking flakes, and so on. Indeed, the removal of loose rock is generally treated as obligatory. Route equippers who do not remove loose rock, especially on sport climbs, are often chastised. Since the removal of loose rock is clearly an instance of modifying the rock to make it climbable, then modifying the rock to make it climbable is something that practically everyone finds acceptable.

Premise (b)—acceptable rock modification sometimes includes manufacturing holds—by contrast, is something that, as noted, most climbers explicitly reject. Why should anyone accept this premise?
We know that a climbing-specific normative principle embraced by most climbers says it is OK to modify the rock to create a climbable route. The removal of loose rock is one such type of modification, and (b) claims that the manufacturing of holds is another. Someone who rejects (b) has the burden of presenting a compelling reason for thinking that hold manufacturing should not be treated as on a par with removing loose rock. Simply claiming it is wrong, and leaving it at that, won’t do. Below are four popular reasons that are commonly given for rejecting (b).

Reason 1: Rock Modification is Acceptable Only for Safety Reasons

Attitudes about the removal of loose rock stem in part from the potential danger it presents, and from a broader moral principle that you should not place others in unnecessary risk. The route preparer has an obligation not to expose subsequent climbers to unexpected hazards, and that’s why removing loose rock is acceptable. But this justification does not apply to the manufacturing of holds, and thus (it is claimed) (b) is false.

This initially seems like a good reason to treat hold manufacturing as different from removing loose rock. However, two points undermine the relevance of safety. First, not all forms of acceptable removal involve material that is potentially dangerous. Included in (a) is a general attitude that route preparers can and even should remove poor quality, flaky or dirty rock that may not pose any real hazard but that can nevertheless make the climbing unpleasant. A similar attitude applies to dirt, vegetation, lichen and weeds that might be found on holds or in cracks. Route preparers are described as having done a bad job if they leave obviously loose material on the route, even if the material can’t really hurt anyone. Consequently, it is widely acknowledged that acceptable modification of the climbing terrain extends beyond safety concerns.

Second, the main choice confronting the route preparer is not between ignoring a potential hazard to others and removing that hazard. After all, if no route is established, the loose rock will pose no real danger. The real choice is between establishing a route (whatever that requires) or simply walking away and establishing no such route. The upshot is that it really can’t be claimed that modifying the rock in this way is necessitated by safety concerns, since there are always other options available such as only establishing routes on solid rock.

Reason 2: Hold Manufacturing Violates Important Environmental Commitments

Most climbers have a perfectly legitimate concern for preserving the natural environment, at least as much as possible. Manufacturing is often described as environmentally unsound because it alters and “disrespects” the rock. Thus, it should not be treated the same as removing loose rock.

Respect for the environment is indeed good, but we already accept that our use of the outdoors involves changing the environment in various ways. Trails to the cliffs, bolts in the rock, permanent anchors for rappelling, and the removal of loose rock and flora all involve a widely accepted modification of nature so that we can go climbing. It is hard to see why an environmentally driven concern for the rock would distinguish between the removal of loose rock and removal of solid rock to make something climbable. Moreover, it is hard to see why the removal of lichen, weeds and grass isn’t more environmentally dubious than manufacturing, given that it involves killing a living part of nature (notice that, from an environmental perspective, killing a tree is considered more serious than smashing a rock on the ground).

Some agree that we sometimes need to alter nature for our purposes, but insist that there is a continuum and that hold manufacturing is at the extreme end of that continuum, beyond an acceptable level of environmental impact. I have no problem with the idea that there is a continuum of environmental impact, and that there is a line we should not cross. What I reject is the proposed ordering that places manufacturing further down the continuum than other things we find acceptable. In comparison to trails, bolts, chain anchors, chalk and the excavation of loose material, hold manufacturing on blank sections of rock is probably one of the least environmentally impactful aspects of rock climbing. You might be tempted to say that hold manufacturing permanently alters the rock, whereas things like chalk are only temporary. This is unrealistic thinking. Take a hike through Smith Rock, Eldorado Canyon, the Motherlode at the Red, or virtually any other popular cliff with darker rock, and from the trail you will see the obvious chalk on the wall that has been there for the last 20 years, and will continue to be there for several generations. In truth, it is easier to fill in a few drilled pockets than it is to wash all of this “temporary” chalk off the walls.

Reason 3: Hold Manufacturing Harms Future Generations of Good Climbers

Another argument that initially seems plausible is a forward-looking argument about the future of the sport. Here, it is claimed that by manufacturing holds to make a route possible today, preparers are robbing future generations of currently inconceivable natural lines. Had today’s 5.15bs been “chipped down” to mere 5.14s, the Sharmas and Ondras of the world would now have nothing to project.

A number of considerations undermine this reasoning. First, in our description of acceptable manufacturing, we stipulated that proper modification only applies to truly unclimbable rock, such that no future climber could ever climb it. In discussions of this topic, there is a lot of fretting about discerning what is and isn’t unclimbable rock. Statements like “Who’s to say what is unclimbable?” and “No one really knows what will be possible in the future” are commonplace. Nonsense. While it is indeed true that people are climbing things today that were once described by some as unclimbable, it doesn’t follow that unclimbable rock is impossible to detect. Unless you are completely ignorant of physics and human physiology, it is easy to recognize sections of rock that will never be climbed in their current form. If you think it is impossible to recognize truly unclimbable rock, let’s make a deal. I’ll pick out a 20-foot section of rock on a cliff somewhere and declare it unclimbable. If, in the next 15 years, it is actually climbed in its current form, then I will pay you $10,000. If it is not climbed in that form, then you must pay me $10,000. Any takers?

A stronger response to this concern is to recognize that a general acceptance of hold manufacturing will significantly help, rather than hinder, future generations of climbers. At any given point in time, including future points in time, there is a lot more unclimbable rock in the world than just barely climbable rock. Pick whatever grade you think might be the cutting edge for some future generation. 5.17d? Okay, there is a great, great deal more rock out there in the harder-than-5.17d range that could be converted into a 5.17d than there is rock that is naturally 5.17d. So, if your concern is that the future 5.17d climber won’t have enough routes to do, then you should endorse a pro-manufacturing attitude. Note, this point applies to any future grade and any future generation. While I’m not suggesting that this is an especially good argument for manufacturing, I am claiming that the concern-for-future-climbers argument is a bad argument for opposing all hold manufacturing.

Finally, this criticism of rock modification is partly grounded in the assumption that it is always done to make the climbing easier—to bring the rock “down” to a lesser climber’s ability. In truth, there are lots of climbs where holds have been chipped off a route to make it harder. Here again, rock modification beyond the removal of loose material actually benefits, rather than hinders, the top climbers.

Reason 4: This is a Slippery Slope; Any Acceptance of Manufacturing Will Lead to Abuses

A final argument against manufacturing (one that is also grounded in legitimate concerns) stems from the idea that any sort of tolerance of manufacturing can lead to all sorts of abuse: the destruction of great, natural, really hard lines, or the modification of existing routes.

The problem with this argument is that it has nothing to do with the issue. Of course, most things done badly are bad. But that has nothing to do with the propriety of the practice done responsibly. Note that few people think the existence of bad bolting entails the need to abolish all bolting. Route preparers who engage in irresponsible and gratuitous manufacturing await the same condemnation as those who engage in irresponsible and gratuitous bolting. Because my argument is a defense of the limited sort of manufacturing described above, the possibility of other kinds of manufacturing is largely irrelevant. Remember that irresponsible manufacturing sometimes occurs now; our current condemnation hasn’t prevented it from happening.

These four standard arguments for rejecting (b)—limited chipping is acceptable rock modification—are, upon reflection, not compelling and fail to support a case against manufacturing. The anti-manufacturing attitude does not accord with other things most rock climbers believe, like the acceptability of modifying the rock to make it climbable. Given that those latter beliefs are deeply entrenched, the former attitude should be abandoned. Our conclusion (c), the claim that the manufacturing of holds is sometimes acceptable, is the sensible view. Let me wrap up by considering a couple of other points.
First, isn’t there some sense in which a non-natural route is inferior to a completely natural route? Yes, I think that, all else being equal, a purely natural climb is usually better and more appealing. In most outdoor pursuits, the more that is provided by nature, the better. As with snowboard jumps, kayak runs, mountain-bike paths, and so on, a naturally occurring medium in rock climbing is superior to one that is contrived. But it is important to understand the sense in which it is superior. A route with manufactured holds is on a par with one that has, say, poorly positioned bolts or awkward moves or wildly inconsistent difficulties. In all such cases, we do not think the route preparer was being unethical to establish such a route. We just think that the route has some features that detract from its overall quality. This is the attitude that should be applied to routes with reasonably manufactured holds.

My final point is this. No doubt many of you are reading this and getting increasingly angry about my defense of manufacturing. You may be thinking, “Some yahoo is going to use this as a license for chipping holds.” But if you reflexively think that manufacturing is always bad, then you haven’t been paying attention. Given the deficiencies of the anti-manufacturing outlook, you should instead be considering the possibility that your outlook is more of a bias without proper support. Indeed, given how often an anti-manufacturing attitude is defended by appeals to nothing other than tradition, or that “it just is wrong” (with heavy foot stomping), it resembles other forms of dogmatic thinking.

Consider this: if you are a serious climber who climbs relatively hard sport routes, there is a good chance that you have done a route with at least a few manufactured holds. Moreover, there is also a good chance that despite the manufacturing, climbing the route was gratifying and rewarding. Now what should the appropriate attitude be toward the route preparer, who spent time, money and energy so you could have that experience? Does it really make sense to view the preparer with condemnation and scorn? That seems unappreciative at best, and at worst incoherent. Or is it instead more sensible to recognize that it is sometimes acceptable for preparers to modify the rock so other climbers can have the sort of experience you had? The latter position, I have come to appreciate, seems far more reasonable and philosophically defensible.

Bill Ramsey teaches philosophy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He has been climbing for 33 years, and while he has never chipped a hold, he has sometimes enjoyed routes on which others have.

Marcy wrote:Dan; I know Geir quite well and can assure you that his part in the restoration of the rock had nothing to do with some imaginary vendetta against Scott. Enough already with your accusations of Geir’s bias, using people, and vendetta; it’s getting old and, more importantly, is incorrect.

Marcy,

I am happy to respectfully debate this with you, as I am with anyone else. Just as I wouldn't expect anyone to take my words at face value, I won't do that for yours. My analysis of Geir's handling of the situation is backed up by evidence. If you would like to respond to my points, feel free. If you would rather do that in private, that is fine as well.