An argument against stick clips

Jake Jones wrote:

To whomever sees me out and about:  My stick clip is up for grabs any time you want, for pretty much whatever reason.  Even if it's a low first bolt, even if you want to presto extendo your TR to third bolt or stick your way to the anchors.  I don't want anyone to get hurt and ruin their day, and selfishly I don't want mine ruined.  So please, if you need a stick and don't have one and there are parties nearby, I'm pretty sure everyone feels the same way I do, just ask.  I'm more than happy to keep someone safer if I can.

^^^Same here^^^

Muir Valley in RRG (pay to park/play) there is a garbage can in the kiosk of stick clips you can use for the day, honor system. They are probably ones that got left behind by other climbers. But there wasn't one crag at Muir Valley where there wasn't at least one stick clip, and everybody is cool about borrowing. The Zoo was the same way, ton of strong kids willing to share, one even offered to hang the first hard to clip draw for us old guys.  

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Bolts can be wherever people want to put them, bro. I've never found a route that I wasn't chill with climbing a bit runout at the start cause I didn't have a clip. My point wasn't to put extra bolts in so I don't have to use a clip - I'd rather have a little scary start than spend some cash on a clip.

And it was a flippant joke in the first place.

You know what's more expensive than a stick clip? A broken ankle.

Mark Paulsonwrote:

If you happen upon "stick-clip-intended" first bolt, you can:

-Use a stick clip

-Borrow a stick clip

-Clip it with an actual stick (which I've done hundreds of times)

-Ask someone stronger to hang the first draw

-Traverse in from a easier route

-Get stronger

-Be careful

-Just climb a different route

Yeah, I agree. My argument is primarily against routes that just have bad or lazy bolting. You and I both want routes to be safer. You said yourself it doesn't make sense to have a route with a dangerous start when a high first bolt is such a simple solution. We agree that starts with significant groundfall potential are dumb and unnecessary. I just also think one should develop routes with how they will be climbed in mind. A lot of people here are saying that stick clips are extremely common in their areas. If that's the case then developing with them in mind makes sense. I rarely see them at the crags I frequent and I think at a crag like that it wouldn't be wise, but it seems that's rather unusual. 

You're pretty much advocating that "more bolts" is preferable to all the perfectly reasonable options listed above, which isn't a sentiment that's gonna get a lot of support around these parts. Not every 10a needs to be a candidate for everyone's first 10a.

Firstly, I find it strange that you think I'm in favor of baby-fying routes. You're the one arguing for normalizing top roping the starts. I'm not arguing that the routes should have bolts every 8 feet the whole way up. Run it out if you want to if it's a clean fall, but a route with significant groundfall potential is lazy bolting and a hazard to the community.

Secondly, why isn't that a reasonable option? Many modern sport climbing crags do exactly that. It seems to be a very popular idea. The Owen's River Gorge community has gone so far as to  retrobolt your route if they think you've done a poor job of it and the guidebook has a warning to not bolt that way there or you can expect your route retrobolted and looked down upon. Loads of sport climbing places bolt how I'm talking about and it works out very well. I'm not calling for some revolution in bolting practices, I'm against lazy and dangerous bolting which unfortunately is predominately what I encounter when I go sport climbing. That's region-specific of course, though, and if I could climb 5.12 I wouldn't experience it even here since hard climbs are well-bolted here; developers choose to bolt climbs that aren't interesting to them poorly here and protect the climbs that they like well. So I wouldn't have anything to say if route developers around here put as much effort into 5.10s as they did 5.11s.

I think that unless guidebooks make it clear that many routes exist in that area that were intended to be climbed with stick clips that you can't expect people to understand that. If you were to do a poll of people sport climbing at Castle Rock State Park or some small Bay Area crag then you would find sport climbers that own stick clips to be in the minority, and you certainly would not find that sport climbers think that stick clips are intended.

Alexander Blumwrote:

Oh, a scary start is okay? What about a dangerous start? Is that okay?

if 5.12b is your limit, the first twenty feet are a long V4, and the landing is rocky... what makes more sense. This scenario is extremely common at many sport climbing areas.

a. Stick clipping a high first bolt. Simple, effective, requires a $50 tool (or a stick and some tape).

b. Three bolts in the first twenty feet. If you blow clip two or three you’ll deck and likely break an ankle.

If there are actually three bolts in 20 feet and there's groundfall potential you're either used to awful belaying or awful bolting. 

Also, in solution A, how many people actually use the stick clip? People keep on bringing up how many people own stick clips and how many you see at the crag. That isn't the metric to care about. If 30% of parties at a crag have stick clips you'll see a shit ton of them and yet they at that usage level they aren't anywhere near prevalent enough to assume that climbers will use them when developing a route. How many parties that climb any given route brought a stick clip or commonly use one? 

Because again, if you go with option A then you've now made the route more dangerous for all the people that don't own them, which is a factor everyone here seems happy to overlook. Why would you create anything without thought into how it will be used and taking that into consideration? If the vast majority of people own stick clips and there is an understanding between developers and climbers that stick clipping is not just OK but intended then this all makes sense. I don't think climbers think that around here at least. So this part is very region and community specific. If that's how things look in your area than option A sounds great. If it isn't then you've just made the route more dangerous for most people that will climb it. 

Further, I think the MP community self selects for people that think a lot about climbing and care about it a lot. There are an awful lot of sport climbers that just go sport climbing and don't think about it too much. Unless there's some education campaign or if guidebooks start talking about how stick clips are intended to be used I don't think it's reasonable to assume that climbers will know that. It certainly isn't a common idea around here (perhaps in Tahoe, it sounds like that area has a lot more stick clip usage). 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

 

Because again, if you go with option A then you've now made the route more dangerous for all the people that don't own them, which is a factor everyone here seems happy to overlook.

Ok, perhaps.  That is certainly a hyper-philanthropical way to look at it, and good on you for doing so.  I want to underline that I don't fault you for wanting to keep people safer, as it is a noble position.  It's the implementation and the actual logic behind it that gets to me.  Let's further push this everyone-must be-safe-at-all times and developers are responsible mantra/philosophy that keeps being declared here.  Why even lead at all then?  Why aren't developers responsible for setting every route up as a top rope and attaching via feratta up the walls so that the anchors can be accessed from above?  Surely that would keep the staunch "no extra holes in the rock" old school orthodoxy dicks like me happy, and also eliminate much more risk of injury.  Where is the line drawn between what a developer is responsible for and what they are not?  Distance between bolts or a high first bolt just seems sort of an arbitrary line to draw.  It's like you and others are saying "I want everyone to be safe, but only under these rigid, arbitrary standards."  The truth is that climbing isn't safe.  The truth is that the same lack of knowledge about sticking high first bolts can be extrapolated to misuse of a GriGri and regardless of bolting, a climber can be decked- which has nothing to do with bolting.  It's miseducation issue.  The risk and the "financial barrier" that's often cited are why more people don't climb- and most climbers prefer less climbers at the crag rather than more- but that's another discussion.  It is dangerous, and you can't protect people from their lack of education and their lack of motivation to seek out knowledge that would increase their margin of safety.  To be clear, I'm not saying that every sheer face or overhanging sport route should have 50' whipper potential.  But not every route has to be a three-move-then-clip romp through the beginner park either.

In the same vain, just as the "accepted" method in *most* places (your area seems to be in contention with what I've seen at virtually every other climbing area I've been to, except for primarily traditional areas) is to lower off anchors.  Furthermore, it is increasingly becoming a front-facing issue that routes should be developed in this way and maintained this way via various climbing orgs throughout the country.  Yet I see the same kind of cognitive dissonance in folks that still insist on rappelling off anchors.  Sure, you can do either and be completely safe, but one is simply more inherently safe (based on method alone) than the other and for what anyone more than 3 months in knows to be obvious reasons.  The same is true of bolting.  One is just more safe, if proper methods are employed.  The physics of it is simply not arguable.  What we're arguing here is the level of education that should be obtained before venturing out, essentially, and the willingness to spend $4 to $50 in order to keep from altering your life permanently with fused ankles or worse. 

 Why would you create anything without thought into how it will be used and taking that into consideration? If the vast majority of people own stick clips and there is an understanding between developers and climbers that stick clipping is not just OK but intended then this all makes sense. 

I agree with both of these points.  The discrepancy lies in different areas and word of mouth mentoring and so forth.  If one learns from an old school person full of bravado and refusing to change, it's likely that they have the idea that stick clipping is cheating, or that you're less of a climber or your commitment level is suffering in some way.  I don't think anyone wants to go into why this is dumb, as that debate is more dead than this one, but most people agree that isn't the case.  So they're encouraging something that's dumb, serves no other purpose other than to satisfy some misplaced sense of worth with regard to ego.  The rapping off beefy steel rings or mussies makes a bit more sense, but not much.  At least there's some proclamation of "saving fixed" gear that's attached to that belief.  I think though, that rather than add exponentially to the number of holes in the rock (bolts per route) which will add undoubtedly to more access issues, more chopping, more infighting nonsense and ultimately much more maintenance and risk for future generations, we should focus more on education of proven methods (sticking a high first bolt from the ground) and decrying the "stick clip pussy" (I really loathe this terminology) and "saving fixed gear" ideas when they pop up.  That to me, is a more pragmatic and ultimately less impactful way of abating the problems that you bring up.  YMMV and thanks for the discussion.  I don't mean to be such a snarky dick, it just comes out that way sometimes, so my apologies.  Your heart is in the right place, and I should weight that more.

When I first heard about stick clips, I thought they were pretty lame.

When I started thinking about getting hurt or killed on a single-pitch sport climb, I thought that was even lamer.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Firstly, I find it strange that you think I'm in favor of baby-fying routes. You're the one arguing for normalizing top roping the starts. I'm not arguing that the routes should have bolts every 8 feet the whole way up. Run it out if you want to if it's a clean fall, but a route with significant groundfall potential is lazy bolting and a hazard to the community.

You haven't mentioned specific climbs, but as you referred to routes from the 70's and 80's,  it seems you may be conflating routes that were bolted on lead (by hand) with poorly rap-bolted routes. Advocating for developers to bolt new routes in a thoughtful fashion is a no-brainer.  Complaining about the spacing on routes that were hand-drilled from stances is a different issue, and would indeed likely be seen as advocating for "baby-fying".

The Owen's River Gorge community has gone so far as to  retrobolt your route if they think you've done a poor job of it and the guidebook has a warning to not bolt that way there or you can expect your route retrobolted and looked down upon. 

The RRG moves/adds bolts all the time, usually with the consent of the FA party. Many of these routes still essentially require a stick-clip.

I'm against lazy and dangerous bolting which unfortunately is predominately what I encounter when I go sport climbing. 

Predominately?  Where exactly are you climbing?? Perhaps you should seek out more modern crags...

Also, in solution A, how many people actually use the stick clip? People keep on bringing up how many people own stick clips and how many you see at the crag. That isn't the metric to care about. If 30% of parties at a crag have stick clips you'll see a shit ton of them and yet they at that usage level they aren't anywhere near prevalent enough to assume that climbers will use them when developing a route. How many parties that climb any given route brought a stick clip or commonly use one? 

You don't need a stick-clip. You just need a stick. They're everywhere. It's really easy, and free.

There are an awful lot of sport climbers that just go sport climbing and don't think about it too much. 

And -these- are the people developers should cater to? Forgive me if I want to see a little more buy-in from the next generation of climbers, whether in skill, ingenuity, or financial commitment.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Stick clips cost money though, fuck that.

Geez, yeah... screw those stingy route developers that expect US to pay for anything at all! 

All right, fine, you've convinced me! I'll go find a stick and never use it since I've never found stick-intended bolts in my area.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

All right, fine, you've convinced me! I'll go find a stick and never use it since I've never found stick-intended bolts in my area.

You're 17. If you keep climbing you will find places that the stick clip will come in handy.

K hear me out; 

I really feel like OP should change the name of the thread to “the official stick clip fan club”

thoughts?

almostradwrote:

I really feel like OP should change the name of the thread to “the official stick clip fan club”

Where is the fun in that?

I have enjoyed reading all of the different perspectives and surprised how its mostly stayed on topic. 

I tried to divert it to ice lead climbing, but alas, no takers.   Maybe you just need a pick on the end of the stick clip so you can dry tool to the first bolt.  Like a long alpenstock.    Expand your horizons. :)

Ricky Harlinewrote:

If there are actually three bolts in 20 feet and there's groundfall potential you're either used to awful belaying or awful bolting. 

This just isn't true.

Let's say bolts at 8, 14, and 20 feet (so the first bolt can be clipped without doing any moves).

If I try and clip bolt two when I can just barely reach it (which most people will do), and blow the clip, I will deck. If I climb until the bolt is at my hips and clip, I have two feet of margin between me and the ground, ignoring rope stretch.

For the clip at 20 ft you probably won't deck in the same situation, but the margin is really really slim.

Alexander Blumwrote:

This just isn't true.

...

If I try and clip bolt two when I can just barely reach it (which most people will do), and blow the clip, I will deck. If I climb until the bolt is at my hips and clip, I have two feet of margin between me and the ground, ignoring rope stretch.

...

So youre saying the options are awful bolting, awful belaying or awful technique then (clipping with it above your head)?

I just put up a route last week. It starts with a high step over a void, then gets sustained. So I ended up putting in a low bolt just to get the first bolt on the sustained section higher up. Yeah, the first two bolts are only 4 ft. apart, but I don’t like setting up stick clip routes. The first bolt just gets you to the first bolt.

new yosemitesamwrote:

So youre saying the options are awful bolting, awful belaying or awful technique then (clipping with it above your head)?

No, I am not saying that. Could you point out there I said that? Have you climbed many sport routes at the NRG?

A bolt should be clipped at the point where it is easiest to clip it. Not always over your head, or always at your waist.

Go ahead and get on a hard 5.11 sport climb at the NRG and clip every bolt only when it's at your waist. Tell me how that goes for you.

What I am saying is that assuming every sport climber has a stick clip (or can make one from a stick) is a totally reasonable assumption as the route developer, with a few exceptions.

It is cheaper, safer than clipping many bolts close to the ground, and significantly cheaper for developers. Routes also flow better this way.

I totally get the stick clip argument. No argument or beef with stick clipped sport routes at all. Long live the stick clip! 

One situation to think about are areas that are historically more ground-up but perhaps a person wants to add in a top-down equipped sport route. Its often a disservice to the local community to have one or very small number of stick clipped routes. 

Then again, on the other hand, doing so would help keep the route clear of us punters (who didn't bring a stick clip with them).

Also, over the years have done quite a few ground-up FAs of bolted routes, both with hand and power drills, drilling from stances or hook-assist. In these cases where I was intentionally opening a sport-style clip up route (as opposed to runnout trad face climbing aka Tuolumne, etc) I would generarally space the first 3 bolts close enough together to prevent an outright ground fall. In my experience a stick clip lets one replace the need for 3 bolt with 1.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

All right, fine, you've convinced me! I'll go find a stick and never use it since I've never found stick-intended bolts in my area.

Maybe your bolder than me, but there are lots of climbs within driving distance of seattle I wouldn’t wanna do without a stick clip (5.11 in vantage, 5.11-5.12 in the exits not at world wall/nevermind, smith).

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Maybe your bolder than me, but there are lots of climbs within driving distance of seattle I wouldn’t wanna do without a stick clip (5.11 in vantage, 5.11-5.12 in the exits not at world wall/nevermind, smith).

I mostly climb at the Far Side at Exit 38, but my limit's about 5.10+ so maybe that's it.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

I mostly climb at the Far Side at Exit 38, but my limit's about 5.10+ so maybe that's it.

Well if you wanna push your limits right below eastern block there are 5.11s on mirror wall that do not need a stick clip and if you can’t get up them you can rappel off a tree on eastern block. I probably wouldn’t try the 5.11s at gun show without a stick clip.