Mountain Project Logo

Pikes Peak climbing and defense of traditional ethics

Original Post — This topic is locked and closed to new replies
Bosier Parsons · · Colorado Springs, CO · Joined Jan 2003 · Points: 1,380

I have been climbing and skiing on Pikes Peak for thirty years and have climbed about fifty different routes in the alpine areas of the South Cirque, Bottomless Pit, North Cirque, and Glen Cove. I have skied about every couloir you can on the Peak. My love for the area is extensive and my passion for protecting the Peak’s climbing traditions and ethics runs through my veins.

I have never slandered anyone, called anyone names, told lies, or harassed anyone about their climbing choices. I have remained quiet and unengaged with social media commentary, as I was not wanting to promote, recruit, or specifically attack anyone personally, nor did I want people thinking I was doing this as a reason to become famous. However, after Phil Wortmann’s post on Facebook where he incited people to reach out to Brad Saren and myself, I have received several emails, messages, and Facebook posts from people expressing their frustrations with my actions. One person posted a verbally abusive and aggressive comment on my Facebook page, on my mother’s memorial comment page on Facebook, and on my daughter’s Facebook page, which we reported, and I consider harassment. I ask the community to consider this, and to please stop harassing me, my friends, and my family. I will not engage in back-and-forth social media commentary regarding this statement or my actions. Considering this kind of behavior, I must now give my statement regarding Pikes Peak’s traditional climbing ethics and my defense thereof.

Pikes Peak has been a traditional climbing area for fifty years or more. The tradition of the area has always been to share information, but not to publish a guidebook because of the difficulty with the toll road, parking, and fragile alpine tundra. Never once did I experience an elder not willing to share information when asked about climbing on Pikes Peak. I worked in the local climbing shop for about twenty years, and we would always share information with anyone that asked. This is how I was first turned on to the adventures of the Peak, by asking and receiving information and pictures from Steve Cheyney in his climbing shop, and just by looking up at the mountain, seeing rock, and going climbing, which is what he and others always encouraged. The experience of climbing things that you didn’t have information about allowed me to feel what a first ascent type of experience was like, even if it wasn’t a first ascent at all. As I have done with many people over the years, I brought Phil Wortmann up on the Peak for his first climbing experience, where I discussed with him the traditional ethics of the Peak, no bolting on rappel, and keeping the area as pristine as we could, so that others who come after us can also enjoy this kind of experience. The reason it has been so special is because of the wild and adventurous unknowing, which has allowed many climbers to gain valuable intuitive experience about how to travel and make decisions in the mountains, which they can then take with them to larger more remote venues. But now Phil is breaking these traditions. He asked my opinion about writing a guidebook almost two years ago, where I made my point that countless others could have written a guidebook, including myself. Why didn’t I? Because I wanted to respect and preserve the local tradition and the unique experience it offers for those who are willing to explore and simply climb what inspires them.

The other part of the tradition and ethics of Pikes Peak climbing is that it’s rooted in traditional style free climbing. That is using clean, passive gear placements to protect yourself, but with minimal impact to the rock and minimal impact left for others to notice in your wake. This is a huge part of our climbing history and evolution of gear in general. Yvon Chouinard and others challenged themselves to climb better and climb cleaner, inventing and evolving protection from soft iron pitons, which were so difficult to remove you had to bring dauntless sized racks with you, and then often had to leave so many fixed in place, to the steel chromoly pitons, which allowed them to be removed more easily because of the harder metal. But they soon realized these harder pitons also had their flaws, as they were damaging the rock from repetitive climbers hammering them in and out of the cracks on every ascent. Finally, with the invention of wired nut protection and spring-loaded camming devices, they were onto something important, the ability to climb a crack or face clean, with very minimal impact, and an ability to leave no trace that you were there. This is the ethic that the Colorado Springs local traditional climbers established on the Peak, Turkey Rocks, and the Black Canyon. It was shameful if you left even a fixed wire on a climb, and often if they had to retreat, they would do so by downclimbing and removing the protection as they went, trying to ensure that they were leaving a pristine experience for the next climber. That is what I am trying to do, to preserve and protect a pristine environment so that others can enjoy it as we have for so long. This battle did not just start last weekend. There have been conversations about this for years.

Please read the web submittal below, sent by Phil to the PPCA Board and my response to that letter back in November 2020, since it was clearly a personal attack on me. My recent actions of removing bolts and fixed hardware on the Peak are simply a follow up on my communication from November and Phil just simply doesn’t like it. A new guidebook might bring more people to the Peak under the guise of inclusivity in climbing but publishing it in and of itself is breaking tradition. So, in case Phil tries to claim that the new ethics he and others are trying to bring to the Peak are acceptable, and because his guidebook release is now a surety, let me try to be as clear as I can: Rap bolting on the Peak is breaking tradition. Placing bolts next to perfectly good cracks with modern clean gear placements is breaking tradition. Actions like fixing a single pitch crack climb with 15 pitons and 4 fixed wires where clean gear can be placed and removed on each ascent, is breaking tradition. Installing convenience anchors and rappels on a cliff that you can easily walk off is breaking tradition. And adding fixed protection of any kind to a route that has been climbed clean for fifty years is breaking tradition. New ethics of climbing on Pikes Peak will not be tolerated by me or others, and I will continue to defend the wild, adventurous and minimalistic venue that Pikes Peak has been for fifty years before Phil and others have come along. If you want to sport climb or develop a sport climbing area, you should go elsewhere. If you want to trad climb in a pristine environment where risk is part of the adventure, feel free to come climb on the Peak. I will always be glad to share information and give you a little tour or overview, as that was what was done for me. The rest is for you to explore for yourself.

*** Referenced web submittal from Phil, and my reply from November are in the next two posts below.

Bosier Parsons · · Colorado Springs, CO · Joined Jan 2003 · Points: 1,380

From: "phil wortmann" <reply-to+961d65423181@crm.wix.com>

Subject: [ppca] Contact - new submission

Date: November 2, 2020 at 5:11:19 PM MST

To: pikespeakclimbersalliance@gmail.com

Reply-To: "phil wortmann" <46c355f3-67a9-4991-932e-a5692909b3bb@crm.wix.com>

 

 

phil wortmann just submitted your form: Contact

on ppca [links.crm.wix.com]

Message Details:

Name: phil wortmann

Email:  

Subject: Bo and Brad's Bolt War

Message: PPCA Board Members, First, I would like to thank each of you for volunteering for the seat you now hold. Your community needs good and reasonable folks to advocate for us and look out for our interests. The very real work of trail building and anchor replacement etc would not have happened without your efforts. I have always tried to be honest and open with what I’m doing on Pikes and have tried to include the community in my thinking on a guidebook. In doing so, I have put myself at a great disadvantage. I have given Bo many opportunities to learn the truth behind what I’m doing, but instead he chooses to spread false information, including to my publisher, in an attempt to discredit me. I would love to be able to talk about the progress that’s been made since our last meeting, but I know that information would be used by him to hurt my efforts. I’ve dedicated myself to this community for two decades, and care greatly about its future. Whether it's coaching a student climbing club, teaching climbing clinics, or mentoring new climbers, I have always worked for a more inclusive and open community that helps us all conquer our fears and challenge ourselves. Witnessing a friend achieve lofty goals should be an empowering experience, not an intimidating one. Your current president is actively starting and engaging in another bolt war (Yes, he’s done this before). He is unilaterally removing anchor bolts that can potentially save a life, without understanding why it is there (One particular anchor helps avoid a very dangerous slab move that would send you over a 150ft cliff just to access a crumbly gully). Not only does this put a person’s life at risk, but it possibly exposes your organization. It is time for us to get beyond immature machismo and move towards a more responsible and well thought development of our local crags. Unlike what has been said, I am mostly a trad climber, and the overwhelming majority of the routes I’ve done have been on gear. However, I don’t feel that I have to trash “sport climbers” or put people’s lives at risk in order to feel like a tough guy. Status Quo is not a proper replacement for safety and national forest regulations. As a “Climbers Alliance” you will all need to decide whether the PPCA is to be an advocate for all of us, or will continue to allow Bo Parsons to veto any attempt at unity. It has become very clear that he does not see the PPCA as an organization to advocate for climbers. Instead, he has always tried to use it to protect his small group of friends FROM climbers. Again, I think the work you’re trying to do is important, and I count you all as friends. I just feel that your efforts are being undermined by one individual. This community has given money and time to help grow this organization, and I’m only asking that it starts to treat us all with the respect and dignity that we deserve. Phil Wortmann

 


 

 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Bosier Parsons · · Colorado Springs, CO · Joined Jan 2003 · Points: 1,380

From: Bosier Parsons

To: Phil Wortmann

Cc: Andrew Reed; Ian Dyer; Ryan Chelstowski; Ama Dei; Bill Olszewski; Brian Shelton; Shane Leva; Stewart Green

Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020, 10:58:06 AM MST

Subject: Re: [ppca] Contact - new submission

 

Phil,

I just received this forwarded email last night from Ian, and feel I need to respond to you directly.

1) I am not spreading information to discredit you.

2) I am not spreading information to your publisher, nor have I communicated anything to your publisher or with your publisher.

3) I am not trying to tell you what you can or can't do regarding a guide book or placing bolts. I have always made it clear to you and everyone, that it's a free country and you are free to do what you want. If you provide more information to the PPCA regarding your progress, I would not "use that information to hurt your efforts."

4) I am not actively starting and engaging in another bolt war. And I have not actively started and engaged in a prior bolt war.

5) I have not removed any anchor bolts as you accuse me of. I did remove five bolts (on routes that had been climbed for forty years without bolts), some fixed wires (on routes that had been climbed without fixed gear for forty years) and about 5 total anchors (comprised of fixed pins, webbing, cordelettes, and biners) all on the Golden Wall, as this wall had been climbed for forty years without having any fixed hardware at all, and is an easy walk-off. If you consider this starting and engaging in a bolt war, I'm sorry, but I do not. If I find fixed gear on a traditional climb in a traditional area that has always gone clean and free, I will always try to remove it. I realize that sometimes people need to escape off of something due to weather or due to being uncomfortable with a descent, and therefore might leave fixed gear and anchors, but removing it should not be perceived as starting and engaging in a bolt war. If someone places a bolt on a traditional rock climb in a traditional area right next to traditional gear placement opportunities, who is actually the person starting and engaging in a bolt war? The person who places the bolt, or the person who removes it? Since the person who placed the bolt is the person who acted first, isn't that by definition the start of something?

6) I am not trashing sport climbers or putting peoples' lives at risk. I have worked hard and put in lots of time to protect our climbing resources, and I think it's just as important to protect ALL styles of climbing and ALL types of areas with different established ethics and traditions, not JUST those in the climbing mainstream. Climbing is dangerous, and each individual that decides to participate understands that they are taking a risk, and that they need to use their own judgment as to what risk to take, or how much risk to take. But if someone decides that placing a piece of natural protection is too risky and instead decides to place a bolt, is it wrong to try to protect the traditional ethic of an area by removing the bolt? I don't think so, because I believe that having at least SOME traditional areas are adding valuable experiential opportunities even to new climbers, in the potential for new climbers to have to think, use their instincts, develop a sense of what might be too risky and what might be acceptable risk. This includes a walk-off from the top of a traditional cliff that has been climbed for forty years without fixed gear and fixed anchors. There is value in someone having to make that decision for themselves, and if they decide to leave some gear and rappel off, that's certainly a decision they can make. And if the next person comes along and decides to remove that gear, that's also a decision they can make. Doesn't living in a free country allow for freedoms on both sides of this argument?

7) I have never used the PPCA to veto any attempt at unity. I have never used the PPCA for my own personal agenda. I have never used the PPCA to protect my friends from climbers. (What are you saying that I'm even protecting my friends from?). The action I took on the Golden Wall was my action as an individual expressing my right in a free country. Just as your action to place a bolt on rappel or to install a convenience bolt anchor is also your individual action and expression as is your right in a free country. The PPCA had nothing to do with my action as an individual. I am glad to continue to serve the community by continuing to serve on the Board if the PPCA Board wants me to. The Board makes decisions and votes on different things and each persons' vote counts. I have no unilateral power over the Board's decisions, nor do I have any veto power over the Board. I expressed to the Board last night that as I said to you personally when you attended that meeting, I cannot tell you what to do or not do. And at this point I am really fine with whatever you do. But I will continue to try to protect climbing and our climbing resources, including areas that have always been traditional areas with traditional ethics, as it is my opinion that these areas and ethics are equally important to protect as are sport climbing areas and sport climbing ethics, bouldering areas and bouldering ethics, and so on. If the Board considers my individual actions and opinions to be too extreme or too much in conflict with the Board's mission, I told them I am willing to resign or will be accepting of their vote to force me to step down.

8) You say you count us all as friends, but this email you sent is a very personal attack on me individually, especially considering some of the false accusations you made. I also noticed this morning that you have unfriended me on Facebook, so I guess you no longer count me as a friend. That's fine, but I'm sorry it has come to that, especially considering I'm the first person you ever climbed with on Pikes Peak. Our experience up there together was in direct alignment with the experiences I had with my elders when I first climbed up there, passing down the traditions and ethics of the area. My point is to say that you have been mentored, taught, and learned these traditions and ethics from the very beginning of your experiences up there. Your choice to disrespect those ethics and traditions, and disrespect me personally in the form of the email you sent to the PPCA, is precisely why I need to act to defend myself and the traditions and ethics of our local areas.

I hope that this response will help you understand my personal perspective, and that this is by no means the perspective of the PPCA as a whole. This response should also clarify my actions and reasons for those actions, along with the explicit clarification that I have NOT personally or otherwise taken any actions directly or indirectly that would effect your ability to publish a guidebook, as it is entirely your right to do so.

Bo Parsons

This topic is locked and closed to new replies.

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.