1st pitch TR on multi-pitch routes (Gunks)

This is an interesting discussion. I have to say, as someone who likes to do multipitch routes in the Gunks, that I have not experienced this top-rope scourge the way so many of you seem to have experienced it. It is an absolute epidemic at sport climbing areas... a whole wall will be strewn with ropes for every noob in the group of ten to try, and only one person in the group knows how to lead anything. I seldom see this happening in the Gunks.

Which multipitch routes get blocked by top-ropers? I can't think of very many. Snooky's. Feast Of Fools. Stuff at the Arrow Wall, maybe. (You can lead a different first pitch and get around them; the second pitches are the good ones anyway.) Birdland? What else? This is a serious question. What routes are we talking about? Stuff on the Frog's Head wall? Jackie? The Guide's Wall? I think of these as beginner walls anyway.

I'm not sure so much energy should be expended on trying to educate people not to TR the first pitch of multipitch routes, when that doesn't seem to me to be the biggest problem.

I would be all for trying to educate people not to block routes or walls for too long, or with too many people.

SethG wrote: This is an interesting discussion. I have to say, as someone who likes to do multipitch routes in the Gunks, that I have not experienced this top-rope scourge the way so many of you seem to have experienced it. It is an absolute epidemic at sport climbing areas... a whole wall will be strewn with ropes for every noob in the group of ten to try, and only one person in the group knows how to lead anything. I seldom see this happening in the Gunks.

Which multipitch routes get blocked by top-ropers? I can't think of very many. Snooky's. Feast Of Fools. Stuff at the Arrow Wall, maybe. (You can lead a different first pitch and get around them; the second pitches are the good ones anyway.) Birdland? What else? This is a serious question. What routes are we talking about? Stuff on the Frog's Head wall? Jackie? The Guide's Wall? I think of these as beginner walls anyway.

I'm not sure so much energy should be expended on trying to educate people not to TR the first pitch of multipitch routes, when that doesn't seem to me to be the biggest problem.

I would be all for trying to educate people not to block routes or walls for too long, or with too many people.

Hey Seth! 

The write-up I am developing will be included in the new print guidebook and I want to be able to lay out a convincing argument that supports Dick Williams' "Leaders' Rights". What Dick did not specfically address was something of a rarity when he wrote it: the tr of 1st pitch multi-pitch routes. I think it was assumed that no one would be doing this on ultra-classic 2 and 3 pitch routes.

Here is what Dick Williams has to say on the topic: "Leaders' Rights: Nowadays many climbs are frequently both led and toproped. It happens sometimes that parties using each of these styles arrive on the scene simultaneously. Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing the route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it." ~Dick Williams 2001

When I started climbing (80's) no one was top-roping the first pitches of Betty, Jackie, or Frog's Head. (Maybe I'm wrong someone can jump in and correct me) Now it is common to see people top-roping the first pitches of these climbs. There has been a shift towards acceptance of this practice and the climbs affected are growing. You asked for examples and pointed to Snooky's, Feast of Fools, Arrow Wall, and Birdland but the problem is greatest for the the multi-pitch climbs closest to the Uberfall: Jackie, Classic, Betty, City Lights, Frog's Head, Sixish, Morning After, Bloody Mary, Arch, Ribs, Strictly's, and High Corner.

Without a dialogue about what Williams refers to as "Appropriate Behavior for Gunks Climbers"  we will as a community risk overturning historical precedence and tradition. I'm appealing to invested climbers to push back. This is only one of many issues facing Gunks climbing and it may not be the biggest problem, but it is one that I feel deserves energy as well as debate.

Hi SethG,

Yes, yes, and yes as to the areas you mention.  Even if Frog's head is "beginner," think about being some poor sob new-ish climber who reads the grey dick and drives 4 hours to climb it in preparation of Thin Air up at Cathedral only to find....the toprope cluster**** jamming up the wall.  

The first pitch tr log jam is especially prominent at the Trapps.  At the risk of giving away trade secrets and making the situation worse, it's everywhere you mentioned and more.   Airy/Carbs, Bonnies (where an "anchor" seems to annually grow and get chopped), Morning After/Bloody Mary (on a dying tree that also gets chopped periodically), Splastic, Snooky's, Spring (although this is easy to get around by leading adjacent routes), etc.

Back to general remarks.
Seen it all.  Memorial Day weekend with a big group linking Arrow as two consecutive topropes, hammocks "climbing" Mother's Day/MF for several hours, ad nauseam.  Maybe I'm an entitled local who can just come back another day for any given climb, but the way I see it is that no group of 2 or 5 or 11 is in the right to dominate any route under any circumstance for anything close to most of the day - especially when the climb is a destination worthy route that someone else based a weekend on traveling here to climb.  Sharing the stoke means sharing a route, which means do your business and get out of the way if someone else is trying to play too.  Situtions matter.  Leads take time.  Cleaning stuck gear takes time.  Things happen.  Of course there's a time and a place for every kind of activity from rope soloing to aid and onsight.  Uberfall is a separate reality, and tr'ing laps for 9 hours on an uncrowded day anywhere at the Gunks is generally a-okay by anyone's measure.  Just be aware.  Taking it back to the OP, if you're gonna drive 60 (or 76 if you're south of Harriman Toll), get out of the left lane if there's other traffic.  

We all gotta share this place, and it's special to each of us.  Like Thomas Paine said back in 1776, Common Sense ain't so common these days.  Given that Gunks App is the only real chance to define basic etiquette let's hope we get it right because that app is the guidebook of record these day and the rapid growth of our sport means that we can't count on mature mentoring to teach the finer points of climbing etiquette.          

David L.

That Dick Williams quote is interesting.  Do I read it right, that he suggests that a leader “leading thru” to upper pitches would take precidence over another leader leading the first pitch of the same route, to set up a TR on an adjoining route?  Seems like a very specific scenario, but maybe more likely than I would initially think.  That being said, if the leader heading up to set a TR can do so in a non-interfering manner (i.e. extend from bolts/chains so as not to interfere with the next party leading thru), why would the party leading thru get automatic precedence?  Sounds more like a roshambo scenario to me... what am I missing??

Gunks Apps wrote:
When I started climbing (80's) no one was top-roping the first pitches of Betty, Jackie, or Frog's Head. (Maybe I'm wrong someone can jump in and correct me) Now it is common to see people top-roping the first pitches of these climbs. There has been a shift towards acceptance of this practice and the climbs affected are growing. You asked for examples and pointed to Snooky's, Feast of Fools, Arrow Wall, and Birdland but the problem is greatest for the the multi-pitch climbs closest to the Uberfall: Jackie, Classic, Betty, City Lights, Frog's Head, Sixish, Morning After, Bloody Mary, Arch, Ribs, Strictly's, and High Corner.

I guess when I think of top roping as a "problem" I think of people hogging a route for longer than they ought to. This tends to happen when you go at it with a large group or when you are able to set up a TR on something that is way out of your league.

If you want to set a TR on Strictly's, you have to lead it. Is it wrong to stop after pitch one and to let your partner(s) climb it? I don't think so. This will prevent someone else from doing Strictly's to Shockley's, but this is the way it goes. It only becomes sucky when the party doing this stays forever. So again I think the real problem is large parties and their obliviousness about hogging a site for an extended period.

SethG wrote:

I guess when I think of top roping as a "problem" I think of people hogging a route for longer than they ought to. This tends to happen when you go at it with a large group or when you are able to set up a TR on something that is way out of your league.

If you want to set a TR on Strictly's, you have to lead it. Is it wrong to stop after pitch one and to let your partner(s) climb it? I don't think so. This will prevent someone else from doing Strictly's to Shockley's, but this is the way it goes. It only becomes sucky when the party doing this stays forever. So again I think the real problem is large parties and their obliviousness about hogging a site for an extended period.

A) No B) Are you suggesting I change the language from don't TR 1st pitches of multi-pitch routes to don't hog the route? If so, people reading the etiquette section will be left with their interpretation of hogging a route. I think this would cloud the argument and become a slippery slope.  I agree with you but framing the argument that way might not get the message across. I think this is why Williams took the stance he did.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in! I'm rewriting the piece using the criticism and feedback here. Rgold is going to give it a final review and edit and then it will be included in the print book and app. In the app brief statements about top-roping will be added to select multi-pitch climbs and appear in the next update.

I'm hoping it will at least bring awareness to this shift in behavior even if it does not ultimately change behavior.

Thanks GA.  Looking forward to the new guide. 

Yeah I think a "don't hog the route" is a little easier to digest for a newb. You should specify what that is as with some more detail.
Blocking a multipitch route or hangdogging a classic line with a large party, or using a rap route to set up a top rope. Emphasis on weekends.
And a bit on local ethics like the gunks ground-up style. But if you feel you want to top rope Ant's Line to practice for leading it because you can get to the anchor's from sleepwalk, kindly do this on weekdays or at like 7pm.
But there is also other situations like setting up Ent's Line as a TR, but if you move your rope out of the way enough someone can lead Ant's Line.

I personally don't have a problem with people top roping harder routes after a send, but just be polite and get out of the way when you can.
I bet like half the people that climb Snooky's toprope Friends and Lovers and I find that fine, just get your rope out of the Snooky line. I'll share the anchor. But if you clip into the rap rings or god forbid thread your rope through them I'll bite your head off ;)

The density at the cliffs is what it is. I wasn't there in the 60's so I'm just another body there in the way. But some people really need to wake up and realize how much they are in the way.
There really was a little kid toproping Something Interesting on a holiday. I think I was so shocked that now I can't recall how he even set that up.

Hamish Malin wrote: That Dick Williams quote is interesting.  Do I read it right, that he suggests that a leader “leading thru” to upper pitches would take precidence over another leader leading the first pitch of the same route, to set up a TR on an adjoining route?  Seems like a very specific scenario, but maybe more likely than I would initially think.  That being said, if the leader heading up to set a TR can do so in a non-interfering manner (i.e. extend from bolts/chains so as not to interfere with the next party leading thru), why would the party leading thru get automatic precedence?  Sounds more like a roshambo scenario to me... what am I missing??

That's not how I interpreted it. I read it as "if someone is leading Sleepwalk with the intention of dropping a TR on Ant's Line, they do not have the right to preclude someone from leading Ant's Line".

Put it wherever you want.  Put it in a guidebook, on an app, wherever.  The problem is not availability of correct information.  The problem is people don't give a shit about that information enough to A) seek it, and B) adhere to it.  This applies to preeeettty much anywhere you go and find bolted anchors and rings at the top of anything in the 5.easy to 5.10a range- regardless of whether or not there's another pitch or 2 above it.  People are not going to wake up unless you wake them up, sadly.  People that gang-rope things all day are bad enough.  People that tie up the first pitch of a 3 pitch route is like showing up to an NFL game to watch it, but you can't because the local flag football team got to the stadium first and wants to use the field.  Or an even better analogy, two scooter kids want to use the big halfpipe at the local skate park to ride their scooters on the flat part at the bottom so no one else can use it to its fullest potential.  Would you tell the kids to move?  I would.  

The same could be said for shitting at the crag.  Do people know you're not supposed to crap on the ground next to the rock or trail and leave it there?  Sure do.   they do it anyway, despite this inherent knowledge that can be reinforced in guidebooks and apps and other online resources like this very one.

The problem isn't information.  The problem is this "grow the sport" mentality and the policy driven by every major climbing org out there, including the AAC and others that climbing must be all inclusive to everyone at all times.  Then this mentality gets conflated with "I can climb anything I want at any time".  So, if there's no one out there reinforcing the opposite, then this default entitled behavior that seems to be quite pervasive as of late will be perpetuated.

And before anyone else says it "climb harder, go elsewhere, etc etc." stfu.  That isn't the issue.  Not everyone climbs 5.11 and up and there are plenty of people that are working their way there, and have put in a lot of hard work to get there.  What are you just going to tell them- "here's your reward for trying to master your craft and putting a ton of blood, sweat and effort into doing so- go fuck off and go somewhere else because the local top-roping meetup group wants to ride the first pitch of this 3 pitch 5.9 for like 6 hours".  Say that aloud to yourself and put yourself in that position.  Ridiculous.

I hate gang-bangs as much as anyone, but I will say that people have the right to climb in groups, and they have a right to only want to do the 1st pitch of a climb.   Literally the only measure you can take is to remove all hardware anchors and make the 1st pitch a natural belay (to ensure you have to climb further).

SethG wrote: This is an interesting discussion. I have to say, as someone who likes to do multipitch routes in the Gunks, that I have not experienced this top-rope scourge the way so many of you seem to have experienced it. It is an absolute epidemic at sport climbing areas... a whole wall will be strewn with ropes for every noob in the group of ten to try, and only one person in the group knows how to lead anything. I seldom see this happening in the Gunks.

Which multipitch routes get blocked by top-ropers? I can't think of very many. Snooky's. Feast Of Fools. Stuff at the Arrow Wall, maybe. (You can lead a different first pitch and get around them; the second pitches are the good ones anyway.) Birdland? What else? This is a serious question. What routes are we talking about? Stuff on the Frog's Head wall? Jackie? The Guide's Wall? I think of these as beginner walls anyway.

I'm not sure so much energy should be expended on trying to educate people not to TR the first pitch of multipitch routes, when that doesn't seem to me to be the biggest problem.

I would be all for trying to educate people not to block routes or walls for too long, or with too many people.

I generally agree with this sentiment. Look, climbing is becoming more popular, and I think it's valuable for people of all abilities to have access to classics, whether on top rope or lead. If you want a classic moderate at the gunks on the weekend, you show up early. If it's taken, you move on. No one should have any more right to a route than anyone else, regardless of ability, style, or street cred. 

In general, people should have the decency to not clog up routes. But it's a 5.7 at the gunks on Saturday. You should know what you're getting into. I don't know if it's worth it - or the right ethical stance - to say that some routes should be reserved for multipitching/leading only.

That said, the gunksapp is amazing, and thank you for the all the work and thought you put into improving and protecting our climbing areas!

Russ Keane wrote: I hate gang-bangs as much as anyone, but I will say that people have the right to climb in groups,

Sure they do.  And those groups should break into smaller groups led by competent people that know they are a burden on the resource and to move expeditiously WHILE having fun.  It is possible, I assure you, as I have done it.

 and they have a right to only want to do the 1st pitch of a climb.

I bolded the operative word.  Yes, they have a right to want what they want.  The problem comes in when there is no pecking order in play because they've been told they not only have the right to want what they want, but to behave like what they want is the only thing that matters.  Half of the problem is a sense of entitlement, the other half is ignorance.  Not sure which part of the equation is worse.

   Literally the only measure you can take is to remove all hardware anchors and make the 1st pitch a natural belay (to ensure you have to climb further).

That's not the only measure you can take.  You can try to politely and tactfully explain to whoever is in charge of the goat rope that they are on 1/3 of a climb and try to work something out with them WHILE educating them.  Like I said, probably half the people out there don't know what a pitch is or that they're climbing the first of 2 or 3 and blocking anyone else from getting the full experience.  You may only get to 1 out of 12, but as long as you're getting through to someone, you're at least abating the stampede so to speak.  That one person that hears you out because you were polite and tactful might one day lead a group, or might one day adopt your role when he or she sees the same type of fuckery occurring, and they may get through to someone else that didn't know any better.  It sucks that that's where we're at, but it is nevertheless.

IMO, in the current state of things at the crags,if you're not willing to be an example of the behavior you find acceptable and even exemplary, and you're not willing to educate people in a polite and tactful way so as not to turn them off from your message, then you forfeit your right to bitch about crowds and behavior like this.  This last statement isn't directed at you specifically Russ, just at anyone in general.

I was just thinking this...Maybe GunksApp might want to put something in the app or book, that there is a viable option less then minutes up the road that is not only cheaper per day (if not a member) but more conducive to top roping. I am helping to put together a group of newish climbers, plus there will be a kid or two, a dog or two, so planning on Peterskill. 

RichBeBe wrote: I was just thinking this...Maybe GunksApp might want to put something in the app or book, that there is a viable option less then minutes up the road that is not only cheaper per day (if not a member) but more conducive to top roping. I am helping to put together a group of newish climbers, plus there will be a kid or two, a dog or two, so planning on Peterskill. 

Peter’s Kill is not a top ropers Shangri La.  Traffic there is also very intense. Getting on a target route requires an early early arrival because there are far fewer routes and the issue of people hoarding whole areas for a group of top ropers is more common than in Uber Fall areas.  The frustrating thing there is seeing three rope hanging and no one climbing.   The alternative to an early start is asking to climb on someone top rope, which is usually agreeable.  Sending people down the road to Peter’s Kill is not a solution; it’s just a place where many less experienced climbers top rope. 

I get your point and respect it. But with only single pitch climbs (I think they are all single pitch, but not 100% certain) a limit on the number of climbers it is the perfect place to top rope. As far as sharing, that should come with common decency that is not that common anymore. People are going to top rope, it is how you get new climbers out to climb, people without the knowledge or gear to lead, so I think it is a perfect place to top rope. Now teaching them manners, climbing etiquette and the like is another issue and one that somehow needs to be addressed.
I am curious what you think would be a solution? 

Somehow this thread went a few days without my noticing it, so this is a bit "late to the party" but here's my thoughts (pardon if others have mentioned them)

I would add the bolded words to the opening line "The Gunks are one of the few places in the northeastern U.S. with extremely easy access that offer(s?)  a concentrated array of high quality multi-pitch trad routes in the lower grades. "  As someone said: making bold statements that have flaws weakens your argument.  There are lots of crags here in NH and ME that are a bit out-of-the way but have excellent 2 and 3 pitch climbs (although I'd admit not in the "olden days" lower grades of 5.2-5.5, but nowdays anything below 5.10 seems to be considered "easy".)  Just as, I'm sure, there are many crags in other parts of the country.  As for the "(s?)"...is "Gunks" plural or singular; I've always thought it to be a singular noun.

It isn't so much the practice of TR-ing the first pitches, as the attitude of those doing it towards climbers who want to lead the route. In "olden days" when someone had a TR on a popular route and someone wanted to lead it the TR-er's would (most often) move the rope aside. In turn, the climbers wanting to lead would wait for the current TR-er to finish the climb. Etiquette !  Today the attitude seems to be "We got here first, the climb is OURS !"  (Even, sad to say, the guides with guided parties....maybe 10-15 yrs ago I was told exactly that by a guide whose ropes were occupying BOTH P1 of Limelight and Arrow and none of his clients were actually climbing at the time.  It is very easy to move the ropes aside a few feet for either of these climbs.  I was so livid I couldn't believe he was actually a "real" guide and demanded he produce his NY State Guides license, figuring he didn't have one [at the time this was more common than you might think] and that I'd be able to have the rangers kick him out; but alas he did ! )

However, this "entitlement philosophy of life" seems to be more and more prevalent these days.  

So maybe THAT's the answer: Not to try to have the Preserve ban TR-ing the popular climbs, but to have an official policy that those TR-ing should "give way" to those wanting to lead    

Robert Hall wrote:
... those TR-ing should "give way" to those wanting to lead    

Some good comments thank you! The more I read through all of these comments the arguments range from There's nothing you can do about it or it's not that big of a problem to leaders have the right of way.  I know that there is a sense of hopelessness about all of this, but I still believe that teaching and practicing good etiquette is worth trying even if it only helps a little. My argument is shifting more to a right of way stance based on everyone's comments.

Chris I hope that isn’t a summary of my argument. My argument is that if we want to pound one message, the focus should be on limiting the size of groups so as not to hog anchors for hours on end.