A new low in climber vandalism hits the Gunks

chris_vultaggio wrote:

It's vile - and if the follower can't take directions from the belay or find her way up a 5.3 on her own then maybe she needs more time in a gym before heading outside. This sort of thing falls under the "lack of mentorship" headline that's been all too present lately - the leader should know better than to trash up a climb.

Agree with this... not really an argument here  this is just wrong and the community needs to hold the person accountable via education   

Marc801 C wrote:

You're evil.

Brutal! Lol

Of interest, spray paint had not even been invented when she lead it. 

Tradiban wrote:

I think we can all agree that using chalk on our hands is lame but necessary.

I think we can also agree that tick marks are lame but no big deal...then some dick has the audacity to use pink chalk! Over the line.

This is an argument by misdirection, as if the color of the chalk had anything to do with the issues raised.  An occasional tick mark is lame, but it must be obvious by now that I'm saying an entire 5.3 pitch with the footholds tick marked is a big deal, so sorry, but we cannot "also agree" about that.  The color of the chalk  has nothing to do with it, other than adding an extra dollop of ugliness.

Tradiban wrote:

I think we can all agree that using chalk on our hands is lame but necessary.

I think we can also agree that tick marks are lame but no big deal...then some dick has the audacity to use pink chalk! Over the line.

Actually, I don't think we can agree on that. I think what we should all agree on is that chalk use in climbing is ridiculous in the extreme and that it constitutes a level of social-training, group-think and contagious mass delusion on a mass scale. 

And tick marks are simply a natural evolution of the now normal by-the-dots experience at the core of modern climbing. And while the creeping nausea inherent at the prospect of climbing  rocks without pre-daubed and slathered route, foot and hand indicators is palpable, fortunately few folks ever experience this daunting prospect unless they happen to wander into the gym just after the holds have all been washed.

Such clueless dickery (I think that's going to have to be the name of my next FA) as this is getting to be more the rule than the exception these days.

"what we should all agree on is that chalk use in climbing is ridiculous in the extreme"

Not really.  It's a nice aid that makes it a more enjoyable sport.  Similar to taping hands for crack climbing perhaps?   

Can someone let me know when it washes off so I can finally go for my onsight attempt I've been training for all winter?

Every road I drive down has trash in the ditch...I suppose that means I can throw whatever I want out my window as I careen down the highway.   I mean, hell, what's a little more gonna hurt?

To be more accurate, if the road has an occasional bit of trash here and there and you continually throw crap out so that the road is fully lined with garbage, it's just not a big deal, because those occasional bits mean that trash on the road is an already-accepted fact of life.

Moreover, if there are roads somewhere that are lined with trash, then filling a relatively pristine road up with trash is no big deal because, after all, it's no different than the worst examples that already exist.

Why do I hear Arlo Guthrie's voice?

Russ Keane wrote:

"what we should all agree on is that chalk use in climbing is ridiculous in the extreme"

Not really.  It's a nice aid that makes it a more enjoyable sport.  Similar to taping hands for crack climbing perhaps?   

Obviously, the use of chalk is accepted by the majority of climbers today, but these two items are not equivalent.

Chalk use leaves visual and residue behind for the next climber, while tape leaves no trace (at least none that I have experienced).

Not arguing either pro or con on chalk use, just saying comparing it to tape is a non-starter.

Doug Hemken wrote:

Doug Hemken wrote:

Why do I hear Arlo Guthrie's voice?

Edward Abbey was  proponent of throwing beer cans out the window - seeing as the presence of the road has already trashed the spot.  Maybe the ptresence of the route has already trashed the spot.  Not really buying this a little is ok but a lot is not.  And what is acceptible for the elites on the cutting edge climbs is not allowed by pedrstrian cvlimbers on pedestrian routes.

'"What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Litterin'." And they all moved away from me on the bench there ...'

Eric Engberg wrote:

Edward Abbey was  proponent of throwing beer cans out the window - seeing as the presence of the road has already trashed the spot.  Maybe the ptresence of the route has already trashed the spot.  Not really buying this a little is ok but a lot is not.  And what is acceptible for the elites on the cutting edge climbs is not allowed by pedrstrian cvlimbers on pedestrian routes.

Either it's pristine, or anything goes.  There is nothing in between.

Now I'm reminded of the phrase "tragedy of the commons".

Eric Engberg wrote:

Edward Abbey was  proponent of throwing beer cans out the window - seeing as the presence of the road has already trashed the spot.

Remember that in his writing, Abbey was often intentionally extreme and inflammatory in order to force thought and discussion, not necessarily meant to be taken literally.

I say for $20 for a day pass at the gunks now the rangers I always see standing around can clean it off.

We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

Speaking of the rangers, how do you think they perceive this issue?  Surely they approve of excessive tick marks, and it's not like the government can close access or anything.

Eric Engberg wrote:

Edward Abbey was  proponent of throwing beer cans out the window - seeing as the presence of the road has already trashed the spot.  Maybe the ptresence of the route has already trashed the spot.  Not really buying this a little is ok but a lot is not.  And what is acceptible for the elites on the cutting edge climbs is not allowed by pedrstrian cvlimbers on pedestrian routes.

A false analogy aided by a misunderstanding of Abbey, who believed that the building of paved roads brought automobiles into the pristine desert and ruined it.  Abbey believed passionately in human-powered experience of the desert, it was the things that mechanized the experience he railed against.  So when you say "maybe the climbing route already trashed the spot," you've misunderstood Abbey's basic point.  I think Abbey would have fully approved of a trad climbing route as a natural feature utilized for human-powered exploration, so no, you can't get any help from Abbey in your attempt to enable massive ticking.

I suspect that Abbey would have viewed sport climbing, in which the routes are created by motorized drills, as a form of trashing the natural scene, the line of bolts replacing the ribbons of pavement he hated.  So tick the hell out of sport climbs, if your authority for such things is Abbey, but please leave areas like the Gunks out of it.

As for what you are or are not buying, we obviously totally disagree.  One could fill pages of examples from every aspect of life in which a little is ok and a lot is not.  It is your right and priviledge not to get that, but that doesn't change its universal appropriateness.

Your last point has some arguable content.  One of the ways progress happens in climbing is that people circumvent or outright break the conventions that govern the activity.  We have Honnold ticking the Free Blast, so why shouldn't Joe Crayola tick the Betty?  I think these are tricky issues that climbers have never managed to face with clarity.  Applying "cutting edge" techniques to "pedestrian climbs" might ruin the climbs and the experience of those who aspire to them, so that a vague sense, never clearly articulated as far as I know, of "proportional response"---the climber's version of not using a howitzer to swat a mosquito---has typically been applied.  I think one of the ways people have tried to cope with these philosophical inconsistencies is to say that if you aren't altering the climb or changing the experience for others, then go ahead and apply cutting-edge strategies to pedestrian climbs.  But the line is usually drawn at alteration, and within that restriction, it seems to me that extensive ticking of the footholds on a beginner-level trad route most definitely alters it unless or until the ticks wash off, and I don't see the that the long-term impermanence trumps the short-term degradation.