A new low in climber vandalism hits the Gunks

The post right before his made that statement.

Tim Lutz wrote:

do you use chalk?

because it leaves a mark, just like a tick mark.  In a logical argument of 'ethics', there is no difference

This is the same type of reductivist argument that says sticky rubber is aid.  It consists of strictly logical deductions uninformed by the constraints and understandings of reality.  Logic is my profession, but it is of no use if we begin with artificial and unrepresentative hypotheses.

In the real world of climbing, there is a considerable difference between chalk and tick marks.  It is true that chalk can reveal where to go (but might lead you astray as well if the climber who chalked the holds was off-route or was grabbing holds that aren't optimal), but that is an unfortunate byproduct of chalk usage, as the primary purposes of chalk are to (1) reduce sweaty hands and (2) prevent skin-oil buildup on holds.   Tick marks, on the other hand, serve no such physiological purposes.  They do not accidentally point the way; they are specifically and quite consciously intended to identify holds.  They have nothing in common with chalked handholds except that chalk is used for both.

Of course, it is mighty hard to advocate LNT with a chalk bag hanging from your waist.  And I think that in some areas, chalk has become a horrendous scourge (one that could be alleviated by the use of chalk socks, but climbers as a group just don't give a damn).  Nonetheless, the slippery slope fallacy in evidence in this thread, an approach that enjoins criticism of anything that is in some abstract world a logical consequence of current practice,  ignores critical nuances of the real situation and, in my opinion,  enables polluters of the climbing environment.  The "click-baity hyperbole" of my title was meant to give gravity to the situation and not let vandals off the hook with specious "logic."

There's a lot of freedom in climbing, but that doesn't mean it is utterly devoid of norms.  Without voluntary restraint, there can't be any climbing, since it is only because climbers deny themselves certain possible aids that there is climbing as we know it.  In other words,  the very quintessential core of climbing is the idea that some things are ok, and some things are not. (This has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, although that term continually surfaces in discussions of the restraints climbers adopt.) Ticking an entire climb and leaving it that way is one of the things that should be an occasion for outrage.  Up until fairly recently, i think there would have been virtually universal agreement about this.

Adam Orton wrote:

I would be more accepting if it were cute little pink hearts! But I digress. We should debate this heinous act of pink terrorism for at least 5 more pages of posts. Annnnnnddddddd go! 

Almost to page 10 guys, we can do it!  This thread really makes me wish I were out climbing.

For the record, I'm more-or-less with rgold, but I feel sorta helpless in the face of the new waves of climbers.

Looking down on ablilities of others for what is acceptable is hypocritical. What if the person in question was progressing in muscular dystrophy and also partially blind, and wanted to climb as part of her bucket list before the disease progresses? That 5.3 would feel like a 5.13.

How come no one says a thing about tick marks except admiration when Alex Honnald ticks Freerider for his free solo? Maybe people get the idea tick marks are acceptable from his ticking. We all come with different abilities.

Tick marks are also around to mark loose blocks. How are people to know what is acceptable and not acceptable? Who decides these things, how did they get the power, and is codified? Why do people get to decide? Surely people do not find it acceptable to put a via ferreta up next to a route when people thought it was acceptable at one point to via ferreta anywhere . Maybe the inhabitants of a forest (animals, tribes) don't think it should be acceptable to raze a forest and make a concrete jungle.

The overarching problem is too many people in the world, and for this particular issue, too many people climbing. Our impact is dizzying.

On a less theoretical note, I personally agree ticking an entire route is an eyesore, reduces enjoyment of the route (the puzzle is half the fun) and ticking should not be the new standard. Maybe those that partake could arrange a cleaning afterwards, to not give others the same idea.

sherb wrote:

Looking down on ablilities of others for what is acceptable is hypocritical. What if the person in question was progressing in muscular dystrophy and also partially blind, and wanted to climb as part of her bucket list before the disease progresses? That 5.3 would feel like a 5.13.

How come no one says a thing about tick marks except admiration when Alex Honnald ticks Freerider for his free solo? Maybe people get the idea tick marks are acceptable from his ticking. We all come with different abilities.

It's a false equivalence, and not because of the difficulty of the climb. I feel certain that  if Alex Honnold had drawn large arrows in colored chalk to mark every hold on the entire climb, a majority of the climbing community would have a lot to say about it. On the other hand, if Betty had a few small tick marks made from climbing chalk at a few key holds, I doubt we'd be having this conversation at all.

Every climbing company has a beginner package consisting of a harness, a belay device and a chalk bag, as if chalk were as critical to success and safety as being roped up and able to belay.  The message from day one, before the beginner knows anything, is that chalk is one of the three essentials.  With that type of introduction, climbers are never going to give up chalk---they are "born" addicted---but they could mitigate the unsightly effects substantially by using chalk socks.  Unfortunately, efforts going back to Stannard's invention of the chalk sock nearly fifty years ago and his tests showing lighter chalk coatings actually increase grip have pretty much fallen on deaf ears. (The problem isn't helped by the fact that most companies offering chalk socks use material that doesn't let enough chalk through, except through the no-flap drawstring hole at the top of the bag, through which chalk continually leaks.)  

rgold wrote:

Every climbing company has a beginner package consisting of a harness, a belay device and a chalk bag, as if chalk were as critical to success and safety as being roped up and able to belay.  The message from day one, before the beginner knows anything, is that chalk is one of the three essentials.  With that type of introduction, climbers are never going to give up chalk---they are "born" addicted---but they could mitigate the unsightly effects substantially by using chalk socks.  Unfortunately, efforts going back to Stannard's invention of the chalk sock nearly fifty years ago and his tests showing lighter chalk coatings actually increase grip have pretty much fallen on deaf ears. (The problem isn't helped by the fact that most companies offering chalk socks use material that doesn't let enough chalk through, except through the no-flap drawstring hole at the top of the bag, through which chalk continually leaks.)  

Yup it's like an excuse to pause, like a cigarette lets you do something with your hands. If I didn't chalk up while resting, sometimes my ex-partner would start spraying beta.

I use a chalk sock, and refill by recinching with zip ties. If I see dumped chalk on the ground, I use that. I have also made chalk socks out of old pantyhose. 

Tim Lutz wrote:

Chalk is the elephant in the room for visual impacts of climbing.  It's use is almost universally accepted except for a very few areas. The cognitive dissonance it creates is fascinating because as climbers, we quibble about everything from how to clean routes and holds, bolt placement, comfortizing, gluing, permadraws, clearing landings for boulder problems, but all pale in comparison to the visual impact of chalk to those outside of climbing.  Sure, chalk isn't permanent, but in places like the desert southwest, it essentially is.  Layers of it, year after year, caked with sweat and tears, is as permanent as a bolt.  Yet, virtually no one is advocating not using chalk at all.

The visual impacts of climbing from chalk get pretty bad, pretty quick in a lot of places, but I'd say the real elephant in the room regarding chalk is just how dependent people are on it for 'by-the-dots' indicators for climbing. Not all that long ago I took a very talented climber who had about seven years under his belt up an FA project of mine (I don't use chalk). The first pitch was no big deal, but the second pitch roof approach and roof are. When he finally got up to the anchor after following the pitch he said, "man, I'm going to really have to pay attention to exactly what it is you're doing from now on because without any chalk on the pitch I couldn't do it until I really dug down to actually sorted it out for myself". He'd never done an FA and never been on anything hard without chalk already on it marking the way.

Healyje wrote:

The visual impacts of climbing from chalk get pretty bad, pretty quick in a lot of places, but I'd say the real elephant in the room regarding chalk is just how dependent people are on it for 'by-the-dots' indicators for climbing. Not all that long ago I took a very talented climber who had about seven years under his belt up an FA project of mine (I don't use chalk). The first pitch was no big deal, but the second pitch roof approach and roof are. When he finally got up to the anchor after following the pitch he said, "man, I'm going to really have to pay attention to exactly what it is you're doing from now on because without any chalk on the pitch I couldn't do it until I really dug down to actually sorted it out for myself". He'd never done an FA and never been on anything hard without chalk already on it marking the way.

Nice story! 

I find myself going the other direction. I notice where the chalk is, sure, and assume there's probably something there, but I don't assume it is useful to me at the moment. 

My 4' 11" height means I am constantly exploring where no one has poked around at all, because I need holds in between all that other stuff. It's been interesting to learn this way, and the climbing is much more fun, too.

FWIW, I don't much care for chalk and don't use it, inside or out. It just hasn't made much difference, for me, and it's annoying to have a foot peel off of something in the gym because that jib is buried in dust.

Best, Helen

What I want to know is....... is that blasted Pink Chalk still there? Did rgold go back and scrub? Did the rain take it away? Inquiring minds.....

BigNobody wrote:

What I want to know is....... is that blasted Pink Chalk still there? Did rgold go back and scrub? Did the rain take it away? Inquiring minds.....

This is why I am following this thread.  10 pages and no resolution?

This reminds me of when people complained about some chalk graffiti on Mt Sanitas in Boulder. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106272254/obama-written-in-chalk

 A month or two later, I went up there and it was still there.  It took about 10 seconds to clean.

Mark Roth wrote:

This is why I am following this thread.  10 pages and no resolution?

This reminds me of when people complained about some chalk graffiti on Mt Sanitas in Boulder. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106272254/obama-written-in-chalk

 A month or two later, I went up there and it was still there.  It took about 10 seconds to clean.

Wow, poor Mr. Goldstone.  What a poop storm over the proper venting of an ignorant climber.  I don't know whether the people making this into an ongoing kerfuffle really approve of marking holds with pink chalk or whether they are immature and just enjoy being contrary.  Having said that, Mark makes a valid point.  Sometimes it's easier to just remove the offending tick marks then try to preach to an unreceptive audience.  I make the same point to my kids when we're out, to pick up others trash rather than complain about it; to remove the often ridiculous tick marks that others seem to believe are a public service.  Just like some folks don't want people shouting beta about every move, some don't want or need tick marks to send a particular climb.  Finally, the fact that others engage in practices that seems equally visible (permadraws, etc.) does not make marking (and leaving) pink splashes acceptable.  If you want that experience, stay indoors.  

Anonymous wrote:

At one point I was wondering if there was a third option, so to speak, where people can leave tick marks, but it didn't affect the experience of others as much and was enviro-friendly so on and so forth. Partly why I asked about the PurChalk up thread. Instead of trying to stop this from happening -- knowing that it's going to happen more and more, with more and more people climbing, many coming out of the gym environment where it sounds like tick marks is a "normal" part of the experience -- maybe someone can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy but, still solves the issue at hand?

I realize stuff like this is going to happen no matter what but, maybe if there was a "tick mark chalk stick", one that was more appropriate for outdoors, maybe it could solve some of the issues. A "tick stick" that people could use indoors and take outdoors as well? (I don't climb in the gyms so nieve to that.) And this instead of sidewalk chalk? I also realize ash colored chalk on ash color rock, for example, isn't going to help much. But whatever, maybe there is a solution here someone smarter than I can come up with. Possibly a new company in the making? Or maybe it's a really stupid thought and a new can of worms I'm opening. I don't know. 

Ultimately, if tick marks have reached a point where it's an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" kind of thing then maybe that can somehow be turned into a win-win for everyone. Just a thought.

Nate, the routes are marked with colored tape, or the holds are all the same color, in a gym.

The colored chalk is to blend in when people use it on their hands, in areas where white is an issue.

The gym comments are more a general thing, not tick marks, I'd say. That said, I do not enjoy the amount of chalk piled up on holds inside. 

Best, H

There's a difference between tic marks and  pink arrows. At the risk of inciting the loathing of some of the more senior climbers here, I use tic marks from time to time on particualry difficult to see feet. Very few people would recognize them as such however, they're just a dab from a chalky finger above the foot. Most often removed by my shoe when I use it. Maybe not the best ethics but nothing you can see from the ground or see even if you're not looking. 

Ryan M Moore wrote:

There's a difference between tic marks and  pink arrows. At the risk of inciting the loathing of some of the more senior climbers here, I use tic marks from time to time on particualry difficult to see feet. Very few people would recognize them as such however, they're just a dab from a chalky finger above the foot. Most often removed by my shoe when I use it. Maybe not the best ethics but nothing you can see from the ground or see even if you're not looking. 

I'm 53 and so am not sure whether I fall into the "senior" set (sadly, I probably do).  It's not that "we" (you know, us old folks) disapprove of tick marks.  People have always used them.  The problem is there are so many climbers that percent of the population that feel the need to use them has increased as well, they've gotten less discrete and lots of people no longer erase them after they're done.  Despite the chalk, there was an effort to have more of a no trace ethic.  Clearly that's something of a fiction, what with trails, cleaning, chalk, etc.  Truste, there were fewer of us making an impact back then.  However, my personal experience is that there was more of an effort to limit one's impact.  While many newer climbers still follow that ethic, the sad reality is that many do not and expect the outdoors to look exactly like it does inside.  

Fat Dad wrote:

I'm 53 and so am not sure whether I fall into the "senior" set (sadly, I probably do).  It's not that "we" (you know, us old folks) disapprove of tick marks.  People have always used them.  The problem is there are so many climbers that percent of the population that feel the need to use them has increased as well, they've gotten less discrete and lots of people no longer erase them after they're done.  Despite the chalk, there was an effort to have more of a no trace ethic.  Clearly that's something of a fiction, what with trails, cleaning, chalk, etc.  Truste, there were fewer of us making an impact back then.  However, my personal experience is that there was more of an effort to limit one's impact.  While many newer climbers still follow that ethic, the sad reality is that many do not and expect the outdoors to look exactly like it does inside.  

You even sound like a senior! Those kids today, huh? (note: I am older than you) 

I was hoping to see pictures of a climber having been vandalized with spray paint... so much for the novelty of this thread. :)

EricL wrote:

I was hoping to see pictures of a climber having been vandalized with spray paint... so much for the novelty of this thread. :)

Haha! How the heck did this get to page 11 with that sliding by??

Well done, sir! OLH