Discretionary Ethics at Cathedral

To bolt, or not to bolt, that is the question:

Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer

Through slings and cams and un-roped traverses,

Or to take arms against a sea of Trad Dads

And by opposing, anchor them. To climb – to Rap,

No more and from a Tree. To say, we end 

The heart-ache and the thousand Future Shocks

That North-End is heir to: ‘tis a consternation

Devoutly to be squashed. To climb, to send;

To send, perchance to flash! Ay, there’s the rub;

To lower off They Died Laughing, Bird’s Nest, or Slot

(When we have shuttled off this last rope coil)

Must give us pause – there’s the respect

That makes climbing so difficult to learn.

For who would bear the whips and fright on gear,

Th’belayer’s slack, the proud man’s sprayed beta,

The pangs of dispriz’d skin, the nail’s decay,

The insolence of boulderers, and spurn

That patient merit of unnecessary takes,

When they themselves might just quietus make

A trip to Salt Pump? Who would fardels bear,

To grunt and sweat beneath a weary crag,

To see the dread of someone too soft,

The undiscovere’d tourist, who’s placement

No camalot returns, puzzle the wall,

And make us bear the hangers that they need,

Rather than build anchors they know not of?

This conversation doth make cowards of us all,

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o’er with pale people’s thoughts,

And enterprises of great strength and movement

With this long thread their currents turn awry

And lose the name of action.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Ethics at Cathedral have always been situational and mostly about Who you were and who you hung with. The cool kids got away with whatever they wanted and the not so cool kids got chopped. 

Ha, I have always loved a good tradmanclimbs cold-hard-rain-of-reality post.

Hope you are well over there (still?) in VT, Nick.

DaveP, aka perswig

I'm late to the party here, but this thread has been on my mind for a while. I learned to plug gear at Cathedral and Whitehorse over a decade ago and have climbed at many traditional crags with various ethics over the years since. It is not a matter of ethics here, in my opinion. It's just a touch of gatekeeping masked by the argument that the gear is adequate enough. I say that, because this anchor is not a challenge for me to build, but, I do have to do some shenanigans because I am too short to reach the crack at the top and have to yard up on gear every time to get my 3-4 pieces tucked in. I am not a 6-foot-tall dude like most of the people in this thread defending this tiny .3-.5 small crack. Does it work? Sure. Is it a bit silly? Absolutely. My experience on this climb would be a completely different one if I could reach the gear, so I can definitely see why the guys in here think fixed gear is superfluous. 

But here's my two cents:

Adding a single anchor station doesn't alter the value of Cathedral as a place to learn how to place gear and build anchors. It is one route. There are plenty of cracks to learn and get humbled by. I learned here too. A bolted anchor wouldn't take away from anybody's learning value. In my mind, that's a pretty narrow argument. 

What adding an anchor station here DOES do, is remove a significant amount of risk for cleaning and descending the crag. It makes traffic on the route more efficient. As the closest crag to the road, user groups like climbers with disabilities would finally be able to enjoy these classics. And I'll argue, adaptive access is a big reason why I'd like to see an anchor added here and why I'm chiming in many months later. My friend here in Bethel has climbed El Cap as a paraplegic climber, but can't climb They Died because if you don't have legs (or you're my height) you can't reach the "adequate" anchor crack. And no, I don't believe accessibility looks like fixed gear everywhere. But bridging access where it makes sense and on a route the majority of the community would be psyched to see it, is sensical.

I hope folks can see beyond their own climbing experiences and acknowledge how some perspective shifts could enhance the climbing community instead of threatening it. The community has grown beyond the demographic that pioneered this area. Shouldn't that be celebrated?

I think this is an important dialogue to engage with and continue and appreciate chatting about it. 

alive and well in the NEK... 

Thank you for reigniting this thread.  I think the plausible and sensible shift in perspective is what scares the few who gatekeep the many. Climbing is a activity that’s growing increasingly popular…why not make it safer and more efficient and accessible for all?

Amy B wrote:

I'm late to the party here, but this thread has been on my mind for a while. I learned to plug gear at Cathedral and Whitehorse over a decade ago and have climbed at many traditional crags with various ethics over the years since. It is not a matter of ethics here, in my opinion. It's just a touch of gatekeeping masked by the argument that the gear is adequate enough. I say that, because this anchor is not a challenge for me to build, but, I do have to do some shenanigans because I am too short to reach the crack at the top and have to yard up on gear every time to get my 3-4 pieces tucked in. I am not a 6-foot-tall dude like most of the people in this thread defending this tiny .3-.5 small crack. Does it work? Sure. Is it a bit silly? Absolutely. My experience on this climb would be a completely different one if I could reach the gear, so I can definitely see why the guys in here think fixed gear is superfluous. 

But here's my two cents:

Adding a single anchor station doesn't alter the value of Cathedral as a place to learn how to place gear and build anchors. It is one route. There are plenty of cracks to learn and get humbled by. I learned here too. A bolted anchor wouldn't take away from anybody's learning value. In my mind, that's a pretty narrow argument. 

What adding an anchor station here DOES do, is remove a significant amount of risk for cleaning and descending the crag. It makes traffic on the route more efficient. As the closest crag to the road, user groups like climbers with disabilities would finally be able to enjoy these classics. And I'll argue, adaptive access is a big reason why I'd like to see an anchor added here and why I'm chiming in many months later. My friend here in Bethel has climbed El Cap as a paraplegic climber, but can't climb They Died because if you don't have legs (or you're my height) you can't reach the "adequate" anchor crack. And no, I don't believe accessibility looks like fixed gear everywhere. But bridging access where it makes sense and on a route the majority of the community would be psyched to see it, is sensical.

I hope folks can see beyond their own climbing experiences and acknowledge how some perspective shifts could enhance the climbing community instead of threatening it. The community has grown beyond the demographic that pioneered this area. Shouldn't that be celebrated?

I think this is an important dialogue to engage with and continue and appreciate chatting about it. 

There is a spot to build an anchor behind this crack at waist level. It takes 2x 3's and a 2. Just move a step right and walk 5 feet. The bong anchors used to be here.  

Spencer Ralston wrote:

There is a spot to build an anchor behind this crack at waist level. It takes 2x 3's and a 2. Just move a step right and walk 5 feet. The bong anchors used to be here.  

Yes, I am aware. The place you are describing doesn’t run a very clean line for a TR unless you bring a static to extend the master point.

Again, not arguing there isn’t gear to finagle up there, it’s just a bit silly and none of it is really ideal for the kind of traffic this route sees. 

I've tr'ed off the waste-level anchor many many times.  didn't think anyone built the anchor where the bong was anymore?  I always hated cleaning the anchor if you put it at the bong. 

Rob D wrote:

I've tr'ed off the waste-level anchor many many times.  didn't think anyone built the anchor where the bong was anymore?  I always hated cleaning the anchor if you put it at the bong. 

Just think if you had used the waist level one

The waist level anchor is on a huge ledge.  Most people walk around on that ledge unroped when they're breaking down everything.  It's like, 8 feet wide or more, right?  

I'm not a local, a new anchor wouldn't impact me, but I don't really see how adding bolts a few feet closer to a natural anchor is really going to help make it more accessible.  If anything, you can easily get to the ledge and set a TR off the natural spot and then you never have to lead anything, which makes it more accessible than much of the most accessible wall I can think of cathedral. 

Accessiblity is really important and I'm glad we're talking about it.  It makes no sense to keep certain boundaries in place that are disproportionately affecting one group of people.  At some point, it's a thing we as a community really need to discuss openly and NOT in semi-private forums or using big broad stroke terms or knee jerk reactions.  However, in this case, the climb is one of the more accessible in the region with an approach that is reasonable, natural anchors that you can easily access, and a descent route in place.  If the barrier between someone feeling safe and feeling unsafe on TR is owning 20 feet of static line, my suggestion would be:  if you are planning on doing a bunch of TR'ing anywhere, you should probably be carrying some static as part of your daily kit.  It's a no brainer for TR sessions. 

Rob D wrote:

The waist level anchor is on a huge ledge.  Most people walk around on that ledge unroped when they're breaking down everything.  It's like, 8 feet wide or more, right?  

I'm not a local, a new anchor wouldn't impact me, but I don't really see how adding bolts a few feet closer to a natural anchor is really going to help make it more accessible.  If anything, you can easily get to the ledge and set a TR off the natural spot and then you never have to lead anything, which makes it more accessible than much of the most accessible wall I can think of cathedral. 

Accessiblity is really important and I'm glad we're talking about it.  It makes no sense to keep certain boundaries in place that are disproportionately affecting one group of people.  At some point, it's a thing we as a community really need to discuss openly and NOT in semi-private forums or using big broad stroke terms or knee jerk reactions.  However, in this case, the climb is one of the more accessible in the region with an approach that is reasonable, natural anchors that you can easily access, and a descent route in place.  If the barrier between someone feeling safe and feeling unsafe on TR is owning 20 feet of static line, my suggestion would be:  if you are planning on doing a bunch of TR'ing anywhere, you should probably be carrying some static as part of your daily kit.  It's a no brainer for TR sessions. 

Grant Simmons posted about how they held a in person group discussion at Cathedral. Go back in this thread and read about that. He posted the meeting notes about it.  

2022 Meeting summary

Chris Duca wrote:

2022 Meeting attendees.  Skewed cross section.

Chris,

Thank you for editing your post to remove the disingenuous statement "Skewed cross section."

I organized that meeting, and I helped write that statement along with 18 other attendees. Those opening paragraphs were included in the interest of transparency. Folks should read the entire meeting summary here, if they're interested.

Though imperfect, the 2022 bolt meeting was much more representative of the climbing community than a semi-anonymous MP forum. 65 climbers of almost every age and experience level had a three hour discussion face-to-face. 19 of those people collaborated on the document you cite, going through three rounds of edits. 

You may disagree with the consensus points, but don't try to suggest the meeting itself was meritless.

I am all for bolted anchors and I am also all for handy capped access in most parts of life but climbing is a dangerous adventure sport. Not everyone can or should do it.  saying that we have to make climbing handicap accessible is  pretty much the end of climbing. might as well take up golf.  I had a crazy interaction with the forest service  over trail maintenance at deer leap. they closed the climbers trail and claimed that if was too expensive 150k for 1/8th mile of trail to rehab the trail  because if they built it, it had to be handy capped accessible. its a 4th class climbers trail fer Christ's sake.  Yes its awesome when people with disabilities can participate in adventure sports but if you regulate  adventure sports to be all inclusive they are no longer adventure sports. See Everest... perfect example of a handicap accessible mountain that is a complete shit show. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I am all for bolted anchors and I am also all for handy capped access in most parts of life but climbing is a dangerous adventure sport. Not everyone can or should do it.  saying that we have to make climbing handicap accessible is  pretty much the end of climbing. might as well take up golf.  I had a crazy interaction with the forest service  over trail maintenance at deer leap. they closed the climbers trail and claimed that if was too expensive 150k for 1/8th mile of trail to rehab the trail  because if they built it, it had to be handy capped accessible. its a 4th class climbers trail fer Christ's sake.  Yes its awesome when people with disabilities can participate in adventure sports but if you regulate  adventure sports to be all inclusive they are no longer adventure sports. See Everest... perfect example of a handicap accessible mountain that is a complete shit show. 

This comment is a really harmful and disturbing representation of the climbing community. Holy cow. People with disabilities belong. Look up some info on the paraclimbing community in this country. It is substantial, and none of them will ever want to climb here with a local attitude like that one.

All that over two bolts? Yikes dude. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I am all for bolted anchors and I am also all for handy capped access in most parts of life but climbing is a dangerous adventure sport. Not everyone can or should do it.  saying that we have to make climbing handicap accessible is  pretty much the end of climbing. might as well take up golf.  I had a crazy interaction with the forest service  over trail maintenance at deer leap. they closed the climbers trail and claimed that if was too expensive 150k for 1/8th mile of trail to rehab the trail  because if they built it, it had to be handy capped accessible. its a 4th class climbers trail fer Christ's sake.  Yes its awesome when people with disabilities can participate in adventure sports but if you regulate  adventure sports to be all inclusive they are no longer adventure sports. See Everest... perfect example of a handicap accessible mountain that is a complete shit show. 

Imma just quote this for posterity and leave this here.  Also, the Deer Leap story smells like rotten cheese and unlike any discussions I've had all over the country about accessible trails with governing groups. 

Amy B wrote:

Look up some info on the paraclimbing community in this country. It is substantial, and none of them will ever want to climb here with a local attitude like that one.

I see adaptive climbers at Cathedral quite a bit actually. A few locals have put in considerable time and sweat to facilitate the effort.

DGoguen wrote:

I see adaptive climbers at Cathedral quite a bit actually. A few locals have put in considerable time and sweat to facilitate the effort.

Yes! Exactly! They are there, that’s the point. 

They are there and they are welcome but should  rock climbs really be changed to become handy cap accessible. The deer leep story is absolutely true. the forest service told me that the trail had to meet specifications  that would require blasting rock.  We had discussions for a full year and then a trail meet up. They shut me down . Funny thing is that in the end we found out that the forest service dosen't even own the land. Its on the Inn @ Longtrail property.  What I said seems harsh but   often the truth hurts.  its absolutely amazing that some para climbers are able to  participate in climbing but where do you draw the line . does every climb need to be  handicap assessable? and what does that mean?  I suspect the folks with disabilities appreciate how rad it is that they can do something like climb a cliff but do they really want the route to be changed for them?  wouldn't that take away some of the accomplishment? Seriously.   I am all for trail work to get them to the cliff as long as it is not mandated as that would cause access issues for everyone but changing existing climbs to make them handicap  assessable seems pretty out there.  If your going to play that game then I know a shit ton of climbs I am going to add bolts to just so that I can still climb them in my old age which is now...  

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

They are there and they are welcome but should  rock climbs really be changed to become handy cap accessible. The deer leep story is absolutely true. the forest service told me that the trail had to meet specifications  that would require blasting rock.  We had discussions for a full year and then a trail meet up. They shut me down . Funny thing is that in the end we found out that the forest service dosen't even own the land. Its on the Inn @ Longtrail property.  What I said seems harsh but   often the truth hurts.  its absolutely amazing that some para climbers are able to  participate in climbing but where do you draw the line . does every climb need to be  handicap assessable? and what does that mean?  I suspect the folks with disabilities appreciate how rad it is that they can do something like climb a cliff but do they really want the route to be changed for them?  wouldn't that take away some of the accomplishment? Seriously.   I am all for trail work to get them to the cliff as long as it is not mandated as that would cause access issues for everyone but changing existing climbs to make them handicap  assessable seems pretty out there.  If your going to play that game then I know a shit ton of climbs I am going to add bolts to just so that I can still climb them in my old age which is now...  

I said word for word in my original comment that access does not looks like fixed gear or bolts everywhere. The point of this dialogue is to assess the traffic this route sees and discuss ways to maintain it in a way that meets the need of today’s climbing community.

That said, the level of ableism here is alarming and a good learning opportunity for you and those who read this thread so I appreciate the discussion.