The Ethics you wish everyone knew...

Benjamin Chapmanwrote:

Use a Wag Bag

I require coffee in the morning. 

For your own safety.

H.

Pnelsonwrote:

This is an interesting ethic that honestly I've never seen acknowledged anywhere without tons of qualifications, even at a place like the Gunks where the guidebook explicitly says "topropers should yield to leaders."

In most climbing areas I can think of, it would be a bit over the line for a climber to ask topropers to pull their rope so he can lead it. Less over the line if you were at a trad or headopint area where a lead effort is legitimately more badass than a toprope sesh, but if you think that leading a sport line gives you more stylistic points than toproping it, you're pretty clueless.

Whomever gets to a route first gets to do it, toprope, lead, pinkpoint, whatever. If someone is walking around to the clifftop to set a TR and a leader shows up at the bottom, sorry, the leader got there first. 

It was always my assumption that the top ropers yield to leaders in Gunks guidebooks was referring to things once in motion.  Ie: should a leader and top roper come close while in the act of climbing on their routes, that the leader has right of way.  

jmswrote:

It was always my assumption that the top ropers yield to leaders in Gunks guidebooks was referring to things once in motion.  Ie: should a leader and top roper come close while in the act of climbing on their routes, that the leader has right of way.  

this sounds reasonable.  

if i understand michael catlett correctly, he was saying that a top rope climber should let a lead climber, climb the route first.  i don’t agree with this ethic. 

There are some people flying their damn drones; in a protected nature area, with marked off areas for nesting protected birds, in a no-fly zone near an airforce base. How many hints can you miss. 

The community has an obligation to remove hazards whenever possible.

I was once on a route at a popular sport crag and came across a microwave sized rock hanging on via friction alone just to the right of the route. It was easy to avoid, technically it was off route, but I could easily imagine a novice climber going that direction and grabbing that rock because it's easier terrain. When I mentioned this to groups below me, most people said "it's fine, leave it." I was very uncomfortable with doing that, the thing was an accident waiting to happen, but obviously I couldn't just yeet the rock off without everybody clearing the area. There wasn't a lot I could do up top to convince people to clear out. The only one who was actually looking at the hazard(me) was quickly shut down by a bunch of people who were not.

Happily, a seasoned climber from way down the crag caught wind of all this and scurried over. They took charge and said "Hazards should be removed, everybody finish up and let's move to the other side of the gully to take care of this, it's a 5 minute inconvenience." I'm really happy they jumped in, took charge, and pushed everybody in the right direction, because I rapped down to kick the block and it went with a *very* small shove and landed exactly where a belayer would have been for my route, confirming my assessment of it being a hazard.

Thank you to the person who set literally a dozen other people straight. We all have an obligation to keep ourselves and our crags safe, for the sake of the community. If somebody wants to remove a hazard, you have a duty to respect that process and allow for a short interruption in your climbing, because the worst that could happen is that you miss out on 10 minutes of climbing, and the consequence of NOT taking that time might end up being that somebody gets seriously injured or killed.

BryanOCwrote:

this sounds reasonable.  

if i understand michael catlett correctly, he was saying that a top rope climber should let a lead climber, climb the route first.  i don’t agree with this ethic. 

I agree with you. Your style of climbing should not dictate priority. To claim otherwise is to say that stronger climbers(i.e. climbers willing to lead a route that others are interested in TRing) are more important and that their time is more valuable. It's not the case. Climbers that want to TR routes have JUST as much right to be at the crag and enjoy their climbing than the most seasoned crusher working on their 5.13d project. Of course there is something to be said for hogging a route for long periods of time having 10 people TR, etc. but in general the idea that TR climbers should hurry up and get the hell out of the way simply because somebody showed up who wants to lead climb is ultimately a crappy value judgement. Anybody that gets annoyed because people who got there first are TRing the route they want to lead is not a person I really want to climb with or be around.

Share the crags, share the stoke, be a nice person. The best climbers at the crag are the ones having the most fun, TR or lead.

LL2wrote:

but I still say I've never felt a need to bring out a leaf blower, nor do i feel like I screwed any of my routes up with a broom.

Probably cause you live in NM and Trevor lives in the PNW. I've never had to clean anything since I moved to the Four Corners, other than a light soft bristle brushing to get the sand off. On the other hand I'd say half of the climbing in western WA wouldn't exist without aggressive cleaning tactics, even stuff that's now well trodden and classic. 

Matthew Tangemanwrote:

Probably cause you live in NM and Trevor lives in the PNW. I've never had to clean anything since I moved to the Four Corners, other than a light soft bristle brushing to get the sand off. On the other hand I'd say half of the climbing in western WA wouldn't exist without aggressive cleaning tactics, even stuff that's now well trodden and classic. 

QFT. climbing in the PNW pretty much requires a full time cleaning commission.  it is quite different than climbing in most other areas i have experienced.  it's crazy how even one or two years without cleaning can pretty much bury a route.

BryanOCwrote:

this sounds reasonable.  

if i understand michael catlett correctly, he was saying that a top rope climber should let a lead climber, climb the route first.  i don’t agree with this ethic. 

As written, Michael stated more of a personal grudge than an “ethic”.  

Cherokee clarified the “ethic” part, which is really just common courtesy.  If you are toproping laps with many people, and still plan to continue past say a couple more laps, it is ethical to allow a team to quickly lead through when approached and politely requested.  It goes without saying that this team had better have their shit together and execute in admirable style and efficiency.   It would be the height of hubris to lead thru and then subject all to a shit show....however entertaining it may be.  

Mark Pilatewrote:

As written, Michael stated more of a personal grudge than an “ethic”.  

Cherokee clarified the “ethic” part, which is really just common courtesy.  If you are toproping laps with many people, and still plan to continue past say a couple more laps, it is ethical to allow a team to quickly lead through when approached and politely requested.  It goes without saying that this team had better have their shit together and execute in admirable style and efficiency.   It would be the height of hubris to lead thru and then subject all to a shit show....however entertaining it may be.  

I would agree with this; it seems less like "ethic" and more like common sense/courtesy, as you noted, but then why bring up style at all? Of course if you have a bunch of people lapping on TR, it's polite to take a break from the route and let an efficient team lead it, but that's not "right of way" or "yielding to leaders", it's just not being a jerk and hogging a route.

In fact, the same thing is true in the the opposite scenario: you are lapping on lead and somebody wants to TR it. It's nice to share. Leading vs. TRing has almost nothing to do with that, which is where I think this discussion its getting some back and forth. You can talk about the ethics and courtesy of sharing a route without mentioning style at all, but this conversation has to do with the idea that leaders get some kind of priority simply because they are leading.

slimwrote:

QFT. climbing in the PNW pretty much requires a full time cleaning commission.  it is quite different than climbing in most other areas i have experienced.  it's crazy how even one or two years without cleaning can pretty much bury a route.

Same in new england. it's a constant fight.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

You have no right to be mad if you leave your food accessible to scrounging dogs, even if they show up after youre on the wall. Keep it sealed in your bag, or even better, hang it out of reach in a tree or on the wall. I dont own a dog, but id never be mad if I left one a treat and they did what any dog would do.

Disagree big time.  Control your dog

SinRopa wrote:

100% agree with controlling the dog, but leaving food out and accessible is asking for trouble.  Dogs aren't the only animals out there...

I should be able to put my sandwich down for 30 seconds to spot my wife without a dog scarfing it down. I don't think that's asking too much. But yeah, if I leave it for there for 5 or 10 minutes that's a different story..