To post or not to post?

What criteria (if any at all) do you think through before posting a new area or route on MP

Ask the golden question - is there any reason for posting this information that doesn't include my ego? (the answer will be no)

At the risk of getting drawn into "arguing on the internet", which benefits nobody, I'm going to contribute my 2 cents. There's 3 primary elements that interact to create what we observe out in the world of the outdoors right now: Commercialism, information/communication, and population.

A good friend who has been climbing since the '60s calls the commercial nexus the "climbing-industrial complex", which I like to distill down to the 3 Gs - Gyms, Guides, and Gear manufacturers (he also cites festivals, which are usually promotional from those sources) -- entities that benefit commercially from maximizing the total number of climbers in the world. The cynical interpretation is that turning a recreational activity into a career for-profit is selling out. Mostly I'm looking at the big manufacturers and big gym conglomerates moreso than the community gyms and smaller boutique gear makers. BKB, EarthTreks/Touchstone, CRG, Momentum, etc, are all trying to be the Vail Resorts of climbing, replete with Gym-to-Crag courses and trips for $$$. I won't mention gear manufacturers by name, but suffice it to say that founders selling out to private equity or IPO is exactly the behavior I'm talking about. They now make products in sectors they never did before, and often they aren't particularly good at it, but it's just another market for expansion.

I find it hard to criticize the individuals like guides because the vast majority are awesome, hyper-social athletes, teachers, and mountain technicians - and definitely are living their best lives in that context. But it also seems like a form of selling out your passion, and helping to make the outdoors unbearable for nature-loving introverts. I tend to see guides as least-culpable, but I decided not to personally go in that direction with my career (and it's not even clear that I would have been good at it). Another [guide] friend made the argument that the 3 Gs are just filling a market demand, and commercialization of the space was inevitable.  Arguably advertising, gym promotions, and festivals are the practice of inducing demand and intentionally creating new customers, which is the beast of capitalism itself -- somebody would inevitably do it in the name of profit.

And the last point: I think a lot of it circles back to overpopulation, plain and simple. More precisely, the relatively recent intersection between long-ballooning global/US population and sudden information availability (i.e. social media, including MP). Population growth has been high and steady for many decades to the point where humans are outstripping the planet's resources. The environmental impact has been occurring in the background the whole time, but it took social media and connectivity to point that impact at our recreational activities. Nothing is secret for long, and a feedback loop between self-promotion and FOMO stirs up the hordes -- like the desert monolith art fiasco. 21st century humanity is an endless queue of tourists waiting for their IG photo turn at Trolltunga, The Wall St Bull, and Angel's Landing. Frankly, it's hard to stomach the fact that it wasn't like this only a few decades ago, and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. At least I don't care what happens to the bull. 

I don't have a solution because it's obvious that we're going to run out of appealing, less-populated places to move to -- and SOON. "Nature abhors a vacuum", and big city people will move to interesting places with outdoor recreation, just as people from nations of extreme density, high birth rates, and poverty will immigrate (to places like the US) for economic opportunity. Someone from NYC, LA, or Houston would think Boulder is a low-density, small-town, with a slow pace of life. There's WAY more people in big cities, who are acclimated to insane density, than the small cities near mountains can support -- and they usually make more money than you do. The cat's out of the bag, and posting or not posting is not going to have much of an effect. The only way the planet gets more habitable long-term (both socially and environmentally) is if the global average birth rate drops below 2 kids/couple, full stop. Since global capitalism is a pyramid scheme requiring perpetual growth and new consumers, I can't imagine any government anywhere promoting that idea.

P.S. I read an account of an early Indian Creek FA in the 80s or 90s that described the moment as (paraphrasing) "in the geological blink of an eye between when the formations were created, and when humans overran the earth". Reading that really cemented the fact, for me, that population is absolutely the problem. But it's taboo to talk about for a variety of reasons.

P.P.S. There were "only" 2.5 B humans in 1950 vs 3x that number today (and 150M in the US vs. >320M now). In the 21st century there's like FIVE BILLION people in developing countries alone - maybe 2/3rds of the world's population - and they don't travel anywhere for recreation. Think it's crowded now? Wait until more of them end up in the global middle class. You'll have to get a permit to visit Yosemite or Zion for a 15 minute photo-op, 3 years in advance.

OP needs to cite data supporting how the end times are here, otherwise you're spraying like any other rando

This has been discussed ad nauseam before, use the search function.

Tim Stichwrote:

Why'd ye spill yer beans, Tommy?

There’s a man who could hold his crag secrets and scare off the riff raff.

Tim Stichwrote:

Why'd ye spill yer beans, Tommy?

Just watched this movie the other day, so much meme material. Keep it coming!

This is me when I encounter bolted choss:

C Gwrote:

With every post of a problem or area on social media the sense of adventure that climbing used to offer fades a little more for me. Does anyone else feel this way? 

I suppose one could not look at mountain project or a guidebook and go for it. As for the finite-ness of climbing. There is sooo much rock out there, if you come to Washington I can show you more unclimbed rock than climbed. If you go to a place like pawtuckaway that has 600 routes on mountain project if you just bushwhacked you could probably find 1200 more. The adventure is just harder to find if that’s your jam.

What criteria (if any at all) do you think through before posting a new area or route on MP or sharing your weekend send on Instagram?

I think In most cases it’s a non issue. Smith, the red, rumney, front range of Colorado, one more route in a heavily trafficked area is just dispersing the crowd that already there. As for delicate alpine climbs, I don’t know but there should be consideration there. 

Trevor Taylorwrote:

I suppose one could not look at mountain project or a guidebook and go for it. As for the finite-ness of climbing. There is sooo much rock out there, if you come to Washington I can show you more unclimbed rock than climbed. If you go to a place like pawtuckaway that has 600 routes on mountain project if you just bushwhacked you could probably find 1200 more. The adventure is just harder to find if that’s your jam.

How many of those routes are well-protected, moderate classics on clean, superb-quality rock? How many are 5+ pitches? 10+ pitches? 25+ pitches? How many of those are reasonable day-trip driving distance from a place where jobs can easily be found and housing is affordable? There is a finite, and even tiny quantity of truly great rock out there. Maybe you're not at all picky. Maybe you climb really hard. Maybe you're content to boulder or climb diminutive single-pitch routes. For people who want to climb big, safe, classic routes at a lower difficulty, there's usually a lot of competition.

I think it's worth re-evaluating assumptions about the quantity of climbing. For some, it's limitless. But not everyone is after the same thing.

CDubwrote:

How many of those routes are well-protected, moderate classics on clean, superb-quality rock? How many are 5+ pitches? 10+ pitches? 25+ pitches? How many of those are reasonable day-trip driving distance from a place where jobs can easily be found and housing is affordable? There is a finite, and even tiny quantity of truly great rock out there. Maybe you're not at all picky. Maybe you climb really hard. Maybe you're content to boulder or climb diminutive single-pitch routes. For people who want to climb big, safe, classic routes at a lower difficulty, there's usually a lot of competition.

I think it's worth re-evaluating assumptions about the quantity of climbing. For some, it's limitless. But not everyone is after the same thing.

Well you should look at the “newest” climbs under index (70min from seattle). The main issue in Washington is alpine wilderness tends to be a barrier but beyond redlinning/other climbs in vesper area are new and classic on good rock with an easy approach (90 min drive from seattle). There has been new development in Leavenworth for bouldering (almost roadside 2:20 min drive from seattle) and alpine recently. Washington isn’t the exception.

New Hampshire there is an entirely new climbing area in a historic climbing state near a popular ski area.

In BC there is that river valley with Yosemite size walls up for development.

Sinks canyon seemed to have a lot of new routes when I was there.

People here assume the best stuff has been done but you would be surprised what I find just wandering in the woods like a weirdo.

But for what it is worth I am not picky at all and would rather climb hard choss than classic multipitch but most my examples are on good rock (except sinks).

Boulder might be the exception but I think I have seen a few new cool routes out that way in recent years.

CDubwrote:

How many of those routes are well-protected, moderate classics on clean, superb-quality rock? How many are 5+ pitches? 10+ pitches? 25+ pitches? How many of those are reasonable day-trip driving distance from a place where jobs can easily be found and housing is affordable? There is a finite, and even tiny quantity of truly great rock out there. Maybe you're not at all picky. Maybe you climb really hard. Maybe you're content to boulder or climb diminutive single-pitch routes. For people who want to climb big, safe, classic routes at a lower difficulty, there's usually a lot of competition.

I think it's worth re-evaluating assumptions about the quantity of climbing. For some, it's limitless. But not everyone is after the same thing.

Do you experience those issues in Boulder?

W Kwrote:

Do you experience those issues in Boulder?

I've experienced the issue of crowding on high-quality routes in every place I've ever lived or climbed, and I've lived in 4, climbed in about 20 different states. If something is high-quality and famous for good reason, expect crowds.

EDIT:

Trevor Taylor wrote:

Well you should look at the “newest” climbs under index (70min from seattle). The main issue in Washington is alpine wilderness tends to be a barrier but beyond redlinning/other climbs in vesper area are new and classic on good rock with an easy approach (90 min drive from seattle). There has been new development in Leavenworth for bouldering (almost roadside 2:20 min drive from seattle) and alpine recently. Washington isn’t the exception.

Honestly, I don't boulder. I would agree that there's a virtually unlimited number of small boulders and short, uninspiring, single-pitch climbs littered throughout the world. Some people like that stuff, but it's not for me. My preference is high-off-the-deck, safely, easy/fun/quality, and while spending the night in my own bed. I'm definitely willing to consider the point that Western WA has this stuff, but I'm a little skeptical.

New Hampshire there is an entirely new climbing area in a historic climbing state near a popular ski area.

Having spent a lot of time climbing in NH, I'd be curious to check it out. But "new" usually means chossier, smaller/shorter ("hidden" crags), longer approaches. It might be worth going once or twice, but is it better at a moderate grade than benchmark established classics, or is it a glorified road cut somewhere? How does it compare to Cannon and Cathedral? That's basically the crux of my argument - most of the truly great, moderate stuff of any significant height has been found, and it has the crowds to prove it. Is it great, high-quality rock, at a moderate grade, several pitches high, but uncrowded? Then it's usually a long drive from any major city, a long walk from the road, or has other notable drawbacks.

In BC there is that river valley with Yosemite size walls up for development.

Bad weather much of the year? Far from affordable population centers? Yeah, it's great that there's stuff out there somewhere. Hell, I'd love to spend time climbing at Cirque of the Unclimbables too, but I live in the lower 48 and get random single days off. If you can name a major US western city that checks all the right boxes, I'll legitimately move there, but my search indicates so far that all those places have been found, or come with significant drawbacks.

Sinks canyon seemed to have a lot of new routes when I was there. People here assume the best stuff has been done but you would be surprised what I find just wandering in the woods like a weirdo. But for what it is worth I am not picky at all and would rather climb hard choss than classic multipitch but most my examples are on good rock (except sinks).

I for one have no intention of climbing hard choss, don't like bouldering, and feel that higher is better. Wandering in the woods does not tend to reveal new Solar Slabs or Snake Dikes.

Boulder might be the exception but I think I have seen a few new cool routes out that way in recent years.

TBF, I wasn't necessarily talking about new routing, I'm just trying to make the [presumably uncontroversial] point that unless you're climbing really hard, doing weird/chossy/remote/cutting-edge FAs, or willing to live/drive/hike where nobody else is willing to go, it's not easy. You end up stuck with the same pool of popular-for-a-reason long, moderate classics that everyone else wants to do. And I'm admittedly overselling the point I wanted to make, but I get a little fired up when people suggest crowding isn't routinely a problem and there's plenty of rock for everyone to climb. I've done a lot of big moderate classics in the past couple decades, and I've suffered a lot of crowds doing it. In MANY cases it meant not getting to climb the route at all. It gets worse every year.

I want to climb the Casual Route, The Nose, Moonlight Buttress, Crimson Chrysalis, and Polar Circus someday, but I doubt I'll ever get to without the distasteful and disruptive experience of trying to compete with other parties for the route. It used to be enough to just go on a weekday. Then it was a weekday plus really early or really late in the day. These days it's like weekday + stupid-early + off-season. In some cases that's not possible, and in most cases it's not fun.

There is a lot of great climbing away from the crowds as long you are willing to drive and/or hike a significant distance. 

Close in to population centers are always going to be cursed 

SteelRain 22wrote:

OP needs to cite data supporting how the end times are here, otherwise you're spraying like any other rando

Really.  I see one of these threads every week it seems.  I'm aware some crags are crowded to the point that getting on routes is hard, but other than the super-popular sport places and trad classics, I'm just not seeing it personally.  Hell, I went to Eldo last week and was greeted by 1-2 trad teams and some boulderers at Peanuts, non of whom where near the stuff I wanted to get on.

I am well aware that some areas are facing actual ecological impact from too many visitors, but IMHO trail work (and sometimes rap bolts) are a better solution than secrecy, since that's always temporary at best.

I just want Instagram acceptance in life so boo on you OP!!! If I'm on a good line or a real crappy one I want the world to know I'm having the best time ever!

Trevor Taylorwrote:

I think In most cases it’s a non issue. Smith, the red, rumney, front range of Colorado, one more route in a heavily trafficked area is just dispersing the crowd that already there. As for delicate alpine climbs, I don’t know but there should be consideration there. 

Hmm, I feel like the ecological impact angle is a little different than the crowding/annoyance angle.  I'd actually agree with avoiding posting fragile/sensitive places for that reason.  I recall seeing an Access Fund ad (IIRC) that had a before/after shot of a boulder with the landing cleared of vegetation.  That's sad, but is keeping that boulder secret the long-term solution?  If people climb it, the landing is gonna get cleared, secrecy just means it happens a little slower (unless one/a few climbers climb it and then never again).  I guess I don't really have a solution to the direct climber impact, but at least quality trails and rap rings (where applicable) can minimize erosion to some degree in the popular places.

People get salty because they plan a trip to the gunks trying to hit all the classics, and then when they get to High E at 9 in the morning there is a line. Like... no shit! There’s a reason for early starts. That’s how to avoid crowds.

I think posting on MP to claim a FA makes sense.

Otherwise, someone else will "discover" the cliff and claim an FA through MP.

It's all about the accolades.  

CDubwrote:

The New Hampshire stuff is in Waterville and it’s mostly mixed. I guess there is a large distinction in what we consider worthwhile climbs. Index defiantly has exceptional 5-pitch new routes. I would say there are some good new multi pitches I have seen in lower BC.  But obviously finding a Yosemite level area is unlikely.

I do think if you wandered around the cascades you could find something clean easy and accessible. The route true grit near vesper (5.8 trad) has a lot of rock near it that has few documented ascents.

I think we mostly agreement I do agree your not gonna find a mega classic 30 pitch route easily but I think it’s totally possible to put up great single pitch climbs.

Kevin Beverly wrote:

Obscurity through disinformation, might be better than not posting about it all.

Touche

Claudine Longetwrote:

There is a lot of great climbing away from the crowds as long you are willing to drive and/or hike a significant distance. 

Close in to population centers are always going to be cursed 

The older I get, the less time I want to spend driving + hiking to climbs. I mean, I love big alpine adventures, but you can't do them every day. Driving 2 hours each way used to be a routine day trip, but it gets really tiring if I do it all the time. If work forces you to live in a relatively major population center (as it does for most of us who physically can't work remotely), it feels like there aren't any places left that haven't been discovered, promoted, priced-up, and crowded-out. If you put any constraints on the what/where, choices get narrow really fast. Want bigger mountains, BLM/NF land, and open non-residential space in the lower 48? ~11 states. Need good access for skiing and ice? Vegas, all of AZ, and most of NM is out. Need semi-major cities for work? Cancel the vast majority of MT, ID, and WY, plus large, interesting parts of WA, OR, UT, NV and CO.

It's tough to strike a balance in where to live/work where the crags and slopes aren't stuffed with people every weekend -- and if your goals include routes that are bigger, safer, easier, and on higher quality rock, the challenges multiply. It used to be that weekdays were a partial solution, but that doesn't even really work anymore. Am I overemphasizing it somewhat? Certainly - I still get out and have fun, and occasionally it isn't too busy. But I wanted to refute the perennial argument of "there's plenty of rock in the world that hasn't even been discovered yet" -- that may be factually true but irrelevant to individual situations.

It's tough to be the kind of person who loves routes like Cat In the Hat in 2020.