What's wrong (or right?) with the Portland climbing community?

Nico S wrote:

If the people want bolts, then bolt it. Using the bolts are optional after all. Everything morphs and changes with newer generations. What a silly thing to get mad about

How do you decide which people make that decision? Can just one person decide it should be bolted? Should there be a minimum number of people voting for it? Do you need to include only locals?  Does there need to be advance notice of a vote about it? 

"If people want bolts" seems very vague.

FrankPSwrote:

How do you decide which people make that decision? Can just one person decide it should be bolted? Should there be a minimum number of people voting for it? Do you need to include only locals?  Does there need to be advance notice of a vote about it? 

"If people want bolts" seems very vague.

I agree with Frank.  The idea is vaguely worded to the point of lacking actionable content  

I have not read all posts here so far. But I did read the route comments.

And I’d pull hard in the other direction: Why do we think that in 2023 there are no others alive interested in the experience of the Fa-ist’s?

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Something that's coming up in this conversation that I would like to clarify is that the FA kinda sorta gets final say on everything with regards to their route but not always. Here's the deal with that: the FA gets final say, BUT the community gets veto power. If the FA puts up some bullshit that violates climbing ethics (and this is indeed an ethics conversation as we're talking about modification of shared public resources which is a serious thing to do) then some white knight will take on the crusade to right the wrong and chop the wrongly placed bolts, and most of the community will be behind the chopper. 

I don't particularly like this system and wish we could move to a more community-minded approach like what we do when the FA is dead, but we've arrived at the system we have after many hard lessons and much bolting drama. Our current system is highly imperfect and has much room for improvement, but it's way better than the no rules wild west and violating the wishes of the FA in such a stark manner is clearly a huge wrong. This kinda shitty system we have is truly necessary and prevents a lot of situations exactly like this from happening, as usually the one that wants to retrobolt isn't so stupid/bold to so flagrantly violate the wishes of the FA. 

Tl;Dr: FA right, retrobolter wrong 

LOL! So the truth finally comes out, the buck stops with the FA unless the “community” says otherwise?

If it’s a veto, how does the community cast their vote?

Tradibanwrote:

LOL! So the truth finally comes out, the buck stops with the FA unless the “community” says otherwise?

If it’s a veto, how does the community cast their vote?

It's always been this way, dude, and I haven't pretended different. Usually there will be a lot of community discussion among the core climbing scene in that area, same as what happens when these decisions need to be made when the FA is dead. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

It's always been this way, dude, and I haven't pretended different. Usually there will be a lot of community discussion among the core climbing scene in that area, same as what happens when these decisions need to be made when the FA is dead. 

That’s not a “community” decision, that’s mob rule.

It’s not about who the FA is, it’s about what the FA is. This is an anchor point for moving forward, without that it’s just a collection of opinions.

I currently lack the time to wade into this molten morass of mierde any deeper than these surface-level assertions, so here goes:

1) Per one of the oldest codes in climbing, the FA's route should not have been altered.

2) "Don't like it? Don't clip it" is a bankrupt line of reasoning.

3) Vilifying the FA for being a white male is poor form. 

Tradibanwrote:

That’s not a “community” decision, that’s mob rule.

Not joking or trying to be difficult here, but I legitimately don't see the difference. Occasional users of the area shouldn't get as large of a voice as the ones who frequent the area the most and are familiar with its history. If you were to poll every climber in the US on retrobolting Snake Dike you'd get a result that people overwhelmingly want it retrobolted, but 95% of that input would be from gym climbers who probably wouldn't climb it even if it was retrobolted as the approach is too hard and it would still be too scary. Clearly their input shouldn't be valued more than that of valley locals despite the locals being vastly outnumbered. 

What you're calling mob rule legitimately seems like the best solution to me and I can't think of anything that would lead to better outcomes than that.

It’s not about who the FA is, it’s about what the FA is. This is an anchor point for moving forward, without that it’s just a collection of opinions.

I mean... That's not how climbing tradition has worked, ever. Again you're asserting what you want onto the world and being confused or frustrated that the world doesn't match up to your expectations. Maybe it will work that way in the future, who knows, but that isn't how it works now or has ever worked in the past. 

I don't understand why people are so keen to move away from the system that has led to a reduction in bolt wars. It seems incredibly naive to me and will almost certainly lead to more problems unless we're very, very cautious about what new system we move to. Further, it would have to be done with a great understanding of the problems we had in the past and how the current system addresses them, whereas most people who dislike the current system seem supremely ignorant on that front and suggest systems that will lead exactly to where we were with Robbins chopping Harding's bolts and there being no clear rules as to who was right and who was wrong. 

For the love of God please don't take us back there, y'all. 

F r i t zwrote:

I currently lack the time to wade into this molten morass of mierde any deeper than these surface-level assertions, so here goes:

1) Per one of the oldest codes in climbing, the FA's route should not have been altered.

2) "Don't like it? Don't clip it" is a bankrupt line of reasoning.

3) Vilifying the FA for being a white male is poor form. 

Mierde? I thought it was merde, oui? 

Tradiban wrote:

You don’t seem to know climbing history outside your fishbowl. Sport climbers already won the bolt wars and now people like me are trying to save them from themselves.

Oh get off your high horse. You annoy people on the internet as your hobby and you know it-- you're not attempting to save a goddamn thing.

If it’s not obvious that sport climbers will make up any excuse to bring climbing down to their level then all hope is lost.

Just grid bolt it all, you know you want to, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Drama llama alert, jesus theodore christ

Did anyone go climb today?

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Did anyone go climb today?

Yeah, but the FA of the route that I climbed was a white male, so the tick doesn't count.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Oh get off your high horse. You annoy people on the internet as your hobby and you know it-- you're not attempting to save a goddamn thing.

Drama llama alert, jesus theodore christ

Thank you, Admiral Obvious

John Clarkwrote:

Thank you, Admiral Obvious

I am glad I have been promoted to Admiral! 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Did anyone go climb today?

Oh yeah, and didn’t see a single bolt the entire time :sunglasses emoji:

Devin Hanes wrote:

The FA even commented only 3 people in 30 years have climbed it. Pathetic entitlement, replace the chopped bolts. It's a 55' 1993 climb that already had a few bolts even for the FA.

Devin, you're wrong.

"Pathetic entitlement".  One could easily say the same about the retro-bolter.   

"only 3 people in 30 years have climbed it".  So what.  This is an old trad route put up in good style that has been "rediscovered" just a couple years ago.  One of the recent ascents was just from last year (talking about "the Hunger", the trad route that was retro-bolted).  Who's to say the route won't see more trad ascents moving forward. 

Dan Booklesswrote:

EMPHATICALLY YES!  Same goes for everything in life, gay rights, women's rights, etc.  We live in the PRESENT!  The values of the CURRENT community far outweigh past users. 

Dan, you're wrong too...

Comparing retro-bolting a route to gay rights and women's rights is pretty weak.  Apples to Oranges.  No one's Rights are being violated because bolts aren't being added to an established trad route.  Yeah, we live in the PRESENT, and it's still ok to maintain some ethical standards from the past.

Please educate yourself.

ryan climbs sometimes wrote:

If your gonna bolt something Just do it . you don’t need validation or excuse to why. When you bolt something and the bolts get chopped that’s your answer. 

I'm just going to assume this is a poor attempt at trolling.

Kevin Rwrote:

Dan, you're wrong too...

Comparing retro-bolting a route to gay rights and women's rights is pretty weak.  Apples to Oranges.  No one's Rights are being violated because bolts aren't being added to an established trad route.  Yeah, we live in the PRESENT, and it's still ok to maintain some ethical standards from the past.

Please educate yourself.

Current climbing ethics > past climbing ethics.  Life is change.

They should chop Dracula as well.

Deven Lewiswrote:

They should chop Dracula as well.

digging deep!  In fact, I think three people have climbed Dracula on gear!