When did the Gunks become a single-pitch crag?

SethG wrote: Come to the Gunks for the climbing.... stay for the deli?

I think we can all agree that if one thing about the Gunks has gotten worse over the years it is the deli.

Heard that Seth. That deli is like climbing High E, get there AT 630am or it ain’t worth the wait. And even then it’s a little underwhelming.

I think one of the issues with the Gunks is if you go to the deli you can't walk far, or climb too hard right away... You might get too scared and shit yourself, or otherwise need to be close to the uberpooper ;)

Maybe that is why the first 1/4 of the cliff's G/PG moderates are such a cluster... It was the deli's fault the whole time.

Climb at night.

Seth Wilkinson wrote: Climb at night.

Preserve lands close 1hr after sunset.

Marc801 C wrote:

Preserve lands close 1hr after sunset.

Ah, well that's no good, then. It's a decent option in some areas, though. People tend to disappear once the sun starts to dip.

I think there are two threads in the posts on this topic that deserve to be untangled.  One thread confronts the lack of consideration or sense of entitlement or cluelessness of people who monopolize the first pitches of multipitch routes.  The other thread mentions how to avoid these issues by finding other routes to do or other areas to go to or special times to climb.  This is all fine and dandy, but the folks posting the second thread seem, at least in some cases, to be discounting the concerns of first thread.  If so, then they are saying, just trade the experience of a four-star classic for a zero, one, or two-star option (some of which are in fact quite good).   And sure, that works---it's certainly what I do---but it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the concerns of the first thread.

I think it is generally a good thing if people who, either consciously or unconsciously, are behaving like assholes hear about it, especially in a forum like this removed from the actual scene.  Some of them, especially the ones who really just don't know, will alter their practices as a result, and every little bit helps.  What is not helpful is to end up enabling inconsiderate behavior by saying it is easy to work around it.

Cpn Dunsel wrote: NOLS was famous for Top Roping the first pitch of EL MATADOR at The Tower.  They will put a rope on the 5.8 section and spend all day allowing fools that pay their price to flail on the first pitch while blocking all attempts for someone to actually climb one of the most iconic routes in the nation.

It's not a Gunks issue.

It's an entitled asshole issue.

The best thing is to climb it anyway. Start right up the thing while they are in between changing out their Gumbos.

A few months ago I witnessed a NOLS group on the first pitch of Ragged Edges in Red Rocks all day. It was June so chasing shade was a must. The NOLS party refused to let a guide lead his client up the route. Words were exchanged but the NOLS group prevailed.  My partner and I were also blocked by that group. The guided group and my partner and I intended to also do the second pitch.

We did other routes instead but I was very concerned about the “ethic” NOLS is teaching their clients. I thought it might have just been that particular NOLS group but perhaps it’s the norm for them.

As others have pointed out, the big advantage of the Gunks is if there is a long queue for a particular climb then it won’t take more than a 5-10 minute walk in either direction to find something good. Regardless of grade. I climbed there for years and even on the busiest of weekends never felt shut-down due to crowds. Not as easy at other climbing areas. I have been shut down due to crowds at Rumney.

Of course the real issues aren't just about the Gunks and aren't restricted to first-pitch top-roping.

https://www.climbing.com/skills/crusty-corner-three-simple-tips-to-be-a-better-custodian-of-crowded-cliffs/

rgold wrote: I think there are two threads in the posts on this topic that deserve to be untangled.  One thread confronts the lack of consideration or sense of entitlement or cluelessness of people who monopolize the first pitches of multipitch routes.  The other thread mentions how to avoid these issues by finding other routes to do or other areas to go to or special times to climb.  This is all fine and dandy, but the folks posting the second thread seem, at least in some cases, to be discounting the concerns of first thread.  If so, then they are saying, just trade the experience of a four-star classic for a zero, one, or two-star option (some of which are in fact quite good).   And sure, that works---it's certainly what I do---but it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the concerns of the first thread.

I think it is generally a good thing if people who, either consciously or unconsciously, are behaving like assholes hear about it, especially in a forum like this removed from the actual scene.  Some of them, especially the ones who really just don't know, will alter their practices as a result, and every little bit helps.  What is not helpful is to end up enabling inconsiderate behavior by saying it is easy to work around it.

With the exception of Moonlight, i'd say all the climbs on the OP's example list are meh. 4 stars a lot of time just mean "crowded".

Mountain proj says there are 211 routes between 5.2 and 5.6 at the gunks... instead of waiting around half the day and complaining, I'd encourage folks to get some mileage on the un-classics. Over time you *might* find yourself improving because you're climbing more/standing around less. Maybe you'll even have a better time. If the goal is convenience and you're headed anywhere near the uberfall, know what you're getting into or consider putting a rope on squiggles and have some fun.

Erase all star ratings from the guidebooks, easy peasy!

I suggest the admins start a complaint department sub forum. 

doligo wrote: With the exception of Moonlight, i'd say all the climbs on the OP's example list are meh. 4 stars a lot of time just mean "crowded".

De gustibus non est disputandum.  I'd give all of them 4-star ratings except for Betty, which is about as "meh" as it gets.

rgold wrote: 

The fact that you "keep seeing" such posts does suggest that, for whatever reason (I'd guess because of the level you generally climb at) there are some substantially different experiences than the ones you are having.  I don't think either you or all the others are making things up.  The Gunks are capable of serving up classic moderate and easy climbs, populated by people who are no doubt well-meaning but are also either clueless or oblivious or both.  Not everyone has to endure this, and it isn't all the time (yet), and some days are a lot better than others, but still there is a reality out there that you aren't seeing.

Personally, I know my way around the area and mostly avoid weekends, so I almost never have to deal with crowds and the problems associated with them.  When I do go out on weekends, I see plenty of things of the sort others have been describing.  Even so, I can usually avoid the worst situations by going somewhere else---I'm not about to assert any "leader priority" or anything like that.  But I do think that complaining about these things has the potential to inform at least some people and so change  at least some of the most obstructing behaviors at least some of the time.  The price to be paid is just the usual internet flogging and trolling that goes with the territory.

I think there are two threads in the posts on this topic that deserve to be untangled.  One thread confronts the lack of consideration or sense of entitlement or cluelessness of people who monopolize the first pitches of multipitch routes.  The other thread mentions how to avoid these issues by finding other routes to do or other areas to go to or special times to climb.  This is all fine and dandy, but the folks posting the second thread seem, at least in some cases, to be discounting the concerns of first thread.  If so, then they are saying, just trade the experience of a four-star classic for a zero, one, or two-star option (some of which are in fact quite good).   And sure, that works---it's certainly what I do---but it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the concerns of the first thread.

I think it is generally a good thing if people who, either consciously or unconsciously, are behaving like assholes hear about it, especially in a forum like this removed from the actual scene.  Some of them, especially the ones who really just don't know, will alter their practices as a result, and every little bit helps.  What is not helpful is to end up enabling inconsiderate behavior by saying it is easy to work around it.

I really don't think anyone disputes that the bad behavior exists, or discounts the concerns. I have no doubt the behavior exists and of course I have seen it myself.

I wasn't going to speak again here but I see no one doing it so I will make points here that I've made elsewhere. 

I think there is serious dispute among well-intentioned people surrounding what counts as bad behavior, and I think there are two primary points of contention:

1. Is it wrong to put a top-rope on pitch one of a multi-pitch climb? And
2. If a party already has a TR on a route, are they supposed to clear the way for a person who wishes to lead the route?

I think the honest answer to question 1 is "it depends," and there are lots of gray areas and variables. Unfortunately (IMO) the Gunks App has put a bright-line etiquette guide in the App, saying you just shouldn't do it. And this has led to actual arguments in which people have chastised others for top-roping, even when it was a weekday and no one was waiting behind the TR offenders to get on the climb in question. This sort of calling-out is not going to produce a change in behavior, will target the wrong people, and will lead to fights; indeed it already has. Personally I think a far better etiquette guide would tell people to limit the size of their groups & their time on any given route, and discourage people from "holding" a climb for people who are not currently ready to climb.

As for question 2, I have heard people assert that this version of leader priority is the "rule" at the Gunks, and they've cited Dick Williams' guidebook as the source. Of course we know that isn't what Dick says. He says if a top-roper and a leader come to a climb at the same time, then the leader gets priority. He does not say that top-ropers should stop top-roping and clear out as soon as a new leader arrives. But some people hold this as the true rule regardless, and I've seen encounters that risked turning ugly because of assertions of priority by such people. In such instances, I think that finding something else to lead is definitely better than telling someone on TR that they have to get out of your way. If, on the other hand, the rope is just hanging there with no one on it... for whatever reason... then it makes sense for the leader to be allowed to lead through and in that case I could see why some speaking up and educating should happen. But again there are gray areas and I'm not sure the bright-line rule serves the interests of good climbing etiquette particularly well. Again, it seems to me, the best thing for everyone would be to encourage people to keep groups small and not overstay. 

As you put it, Rich, "monopolizing" the first pitch of multi-pitch routes is the problem. It is a real one. But simply deciding not to do pitch 2, having your partner (or two) TR the first pitch, and then moving on is not monopolizing, in my opinion. It may take the same or less time as going on to the upper pitches. We should target behaviors that actually monopolize: large groups and settling in for half a day. 

MKGreen wrote:

A few months ago I witnessed a NOLS group on the first pitch of Ragged Edges in Red Rocks all day. It was June so chasing shade was a must. The NOLS party refused to let a guide lead his client up the route. Words were exchanged but the NOLS group prevailed.  My partner and I were also blocked by that group. The guided group and my partner and I intended to also do the second pitch.

We did other routes instead but I was very concerned about the “ethic” NOLS is teaching their clients. I thought it might have just been that particular NOLS group but perhaps it’s the norm for them.

As others have pointed out, the big advantage of the Gunks is if there is a long queue for a particular climb then it won’t take more than a 5-10 minute walk in either direction to find something good. Regardless of grade. I climbed there for years and even on the busiest of weekends never felt shut-down due to crowds. Not as easy at other climbing areas. I have been shut down due to crowds at Rumney.

Thats fucked up. I actually came across a NOLS Intructor field book awhile ago and it explicitly said to let parties climb through and pull ropes if necessary. It cited maintaining positive public image of NOLS in the climbing community. I bet if you threatened to call up NOLS they would have pulled their ropes. 

Well Seth, I agree with at least 95% of what you've said (and liked your post to back that up).  Hard and fast rules don't really work for serious climbing considerations, much less etiquette, and a blanket statement about not top-roping the first pitch of multipitch routes is bound to run into situations in which it makes little sense.    In addition to the case when nobody is around anyway is the case that an efficient top-roping duo might be faster than an inefficient leading party. And I also agree that leading precedence "rule" that Dick advocated has been pushed way beyond anything he ever said.

If there was an effective way to target exhortations to the clueless and/or entitled  folks who are the basic source of the problem, I'd be fine with that, but I think the minute there is a laundry list of exceptions they'll all find a reason that the exception list applies to them too.  "Don't toprope the first pitch of multipitch climbs" is a basic declaration of considerateness in our crowded world.  It is right in principle, simple, understandable, and unambiguous.  It is based on a "do unto others" concept of common decency in sharing a crowded resource and not on some version of "trad ethics" that people may be unaware of or reject because they believe tradition has no place in trad climbing (!)  Even if there are situations in which it doesn't seem to apply,  I think it makes sense to put something like that in the Gunks App guide, as anything anybody says is going to be diluted in practice no matter what.

For the most part, the multipitch top roping problem has been manufactured by the Preserve's bolting program (in spite of voices raised for years about the unintended consequences of creating two-way traffic on routes). The conflicts and acrimony you allude to are side-effects of the bolted anchors that in most cases make the top-roping possible.  Over the past several years, I've floated a proposal which has (like most of my ideas vis-a-vis Preserve actions) gotten no traction.  Here it is: form a suitably representative committee to identify a set of ultra-classic multipitch to-the-top routes at all grade levels.  Strip those routes of all fixed gear, returning them to their original if no longer pristine state.  Do bit of trail work at the cliff top to connect the classic top-outs to suitable rap highways.  This will set aside a few genuinely trad climbs (an endangered species world-wide), where all anchoring is obtained from gear placed (and removed) by the climbing parties and there is no two-way traffic.  There will still be a huge number of routes in the current genre and there will be, as always, a host of top-roping opportunities, but a few ultra-classics will have been set aside for present and future generations to experience what it is like to climb unaltered rock and, coincidentally, the top-roping issue is eliminated.

rgold wrote:  Here it is: form a suitably representative committee to identify a set of ultra-classic multipitch to-the-top routes at all grade levels.  Strip those routes of all fixed gear, returning them to their original if no longer pristine state.  Do bit of trail work at the cliff top to connect the classic top-outs to suitable rap highways.  This will set aside a few genuinely trad climbs (an endangered species world-wide), where all anchoring is obtained from gear placed (and removed) by the climbing parties and there is no two-way traffic.  There will still be a huge number of routes in the current genre and there will be, as always, a host of top-roping opportunities, but a few ultra-classics will have been set aside for present and future generations to experience what it is like to climb unaltered rock and, coincidentally, the top-roping issue is eliminated.

This is the greatest idea I have ever heard (or in this case, read) on any topic regarding climbing in the Gunks. It sounds like it's most importantly doable and at least from my perspective fair to all types. 

rgold wrote: Well Seth, I agree with at least 95% of what you've said (and liked your post to back that up).  Hard and fast rules don't really work for serious climbing considerations, much less etiquette, and a blanket statement about not top-roping the first pitch of multipitch routes is bound to run into situations in which it makes little sense.    In addition to the case when nobody is around anyway is the case that an efficient top-roping duo might be faster than an inefficient leading party. And I also agree that leading precedence "rule" that Dick advocated has been pushed way beyond anything he ever said.

If there was an effective way to target exhortations to the clueless and/or entitled  folks who are the basic source of the problem, I'd be fine with that, but I think the minute there is a laundry list of exceptions they'll all find a reason that the exception list applies to them too.  "Don't toprope the first pitch of multipitch climbs" is a basic declaration of considerateness in our crowded world.  It is right in principle, simple, understandable, and unambiguous.  It is based on a "do unto others" concept of common decency in sharing a crowded resource and not on some version of "trad ethics" that people may be unaware of or reject because they believe tradition has no place in trad climbing (!)  Even if there are situations in which it doesn't seem to apply,  I think it makes sense to put something like that in the Gunks App guide, as anything anybody says is going to be diluted in practice no matter what.

For the most part, the multipitch top roping problem has been manufactured by the Preserve's bolting program (in spite of voices raised for years about the unintended consequences of creating two-way traffic on routes). The conflicts and acrimony you allude to are side-effects of the bolted anchors that in most cases make the top-roping possible.  Over the past several years, I've floated a proposal which has (like most of my ideas vis-a-vis Preserve actions) gotten no traction.  Here it is: form a suitably representative committee to identify a set of ultra-classic multipitch to-the-top routes at all grade levels.  Strip those routes of all fixed gear, returning them to their original if no longer pristine state.  Do bit of trail work at the cliff top to connect the classic top-outs to suitable rap highways.  This will set aside a few genuinely trad climbs (an endangered species world-wide), where all anchoring is obtained from gear placed (and removed) by the climbing parties and there is no two-way traffic.  There will still be a huge number of routes in the current genre and there will be, as always, a host of top-roping opportunities, but a few ultra-classics will have been set aside for present and future generations to experience what it is like to climb unaltered rock and, coincidentally, the top-roping issue is eliminated.

You just need to strip them of rap rings so people understand (slighty easier?) that they are in the road and need to pull over. 

I love the idea of 1 way climbing streets as long as they don't destroy existing trees in the process.  

It seems like other sports have broached this topic a little in recent years too. Such as Mountain Biking designating uphill or downhill only sections for the safety of all involved... Seems like we could make that work too as a community is many ways.