Discretionary Ethics at Cathedral

your the one that pulled the disability card. that climb most likely would benefit from a bolted anchor for all the folks who climb it. your line of thought sounded like you feel every climb should be for everyone which is not how the sport works. 

Chris I agree with you and the anchor 100% that is not how the other poster presented it.  My reaction is obviously  influenced by my very frustrating  experience trying to work with the forest service on the Deer Leap climbers trail.  its rock climbing not a boat ramp. there are going to be serious challenges and it is not going to be set up for everyone. . 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

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...  

The conundrum of first world problems is an issue now Nick. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

your the one that pulled the disability card. that climb most likely would benefit from a bolted anchor for all the folks who climb it. your line of thought sounded like you feel every climb should be for everyone which is not how the sport works. 

Again, Nick, you are not reading the thread correctly.  I’d suggest going back and re-reading how the thread unfolded.  Your comments are, as stated before, a bit alarming, near-sighted, and insulated.  

Please keep in mind, no one is suggesting homogenizing this activity, as you’re making it out to be.  The inclusion of people with disabilities will not take away from the adventure of climbing. Have you seen what any of the para-climbers have been accomplishing as of late? What is being discussed is the placement of a two-bolt anchor over a very popular route to accommodate for the increase in user traffic, which happens to includes all types of climbers.

Does it also possibly have to do with guides making more money? Lets not hide all the reasons under "access"  if true.

Chris Ducawrote:

Please keep in mind, no one is suggesting homogenizing this activity, as you’re making it out to be. 

Yeah, they kind of are. We can discuss that that's an appropriate and reasonable thing, but there's no point in being dishonest

As usual we have many tangents in this tread...

Chris you are describing a homogenizing of the sport if everything becomes a two-bolt anchor. The beauty of climbing in NH is the diversity of climbing that we have.  You can go to Rumney clip bolts with the crowds and lower of a two-bolt anchor. You can go to Cannon, and climb splitter cracks to horrifying choss.  You can come to Cathedral Ledge and climb amazing routes, have cool adventures and use your mind to problem solve. Thats just the tip of the iceberg with all the backcountry cliffs and ice and snow climbing to had. If you want more bolts head to Western Maine too.    

 I also don't appreciate you using the first two paragraphs of two-page document to fit your narrative.

"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. summed it up very well here. 

Some peoples theme in this thread seems be that if you have a dissenting opinion, you are a gatekeeper, which in this case as Rob D. said doesn't add up. If you want an anchor of convenience, just say it, you don't need to call people names.   

Sam

I don't understand how adding a bolt anchor will make a route more accessible to anyone than it would be without it. In climbing, being able to build an anchor with gear is an integral, fundamental climbing skill, really not any harder than equalizing 2 bolts or tying off a tree. How is any climber limited in this case by not having bolts? The argument that "without bolted anchors on the north end disadvantaged groups are marginalized" doesn't hold water in my mind. The bolts would be added for convenience's sake alone. Which is a valid argument but come on, just say that. 

samuel von hammerstienwrote:

As usual we have many tangents in this tread...

Chris you are describing a homogenizing of the sport if everything becomes a two-bolt anchor. The beauty of climbing in NH is the diversity of climbing that we have.  You can go to Rumney clip bolts with the crowds and lower of a two-bolt anchor. You can go to Cannon, and climb splitter cracks to horrifying choss.  You can come to Cathedral Ledge and climb amazing routes, have cool adventures and use your mind to problem solve. Thats just the tip of the iceberg with all the backcountry cliffs and ice and snow climbing to had. If you want more bolts head to Western Maine too.    

 I also don't appreciate you using the first two paragraphs of two-page document to fit your narrative.

"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. summed it up very well here. 

Some peoples theme in this thread seems be that if you have a dissenting opinion, you are a gatekeeper, which in this case as Rob D. said doesn't add up. If you want an anchor of convenience, just say it, you don't need to call people names.   

Sam

Well-stated, Sam, and apologies if the screen shot of the lopsided demographic of the attendees accidentally insinuated anything.

 In the end, this banter is harmless and meaningless.  Things won’t change, unless…

These days, "rock climbing" is really a constellation of activities that take place on cliffs. It's kinda like saying you do sports that take place on fields.

The goals and unwritten rules of bouldering, gym climbing, sport climbing, trad climbing, and multipitch climbing are just as varied as the goals and rules of baseball and football. (this is a really rough comparison so - for the love of god - please don't start arguing about the rules of football!)

Convenience is definitely an important goal when establishing a route at a sport crag, or in a gym. And I take full advantage of that convenience when I'm sport climbing or at the rock gym. 

In my opinion, convenience is not a major goal when establishing (or in this case retrofitting) a route at a traditional and historical crag like Cathedral Ledge. I think that the goal of trad climbing at a place like Cathedral is to ascend a route with as much self-reliance as possible. On a trad route, the 1-millionth climber can have almost the same experience as the first ascentionist. Many of us derive great joy and satisfaction from placing our own gear, building our own anchors, and as Sam said, problem solving.

At a traditional cliff like Cathedral, I'd be opposed to adding bolts for the sake of convenience or to "make traffic on the route more efficient" as Amy B said. I agree with Sam that we should be more honest with our arguments for-or-against adding bolts to routes, because it seems like people will say almost anything to avoid saying "I wish this climb were more convenient." 

And vilifying those you disagree with as "elitists" or "gatekeepers" isn't conducive to a real discussion. That's just a cheap way of devaluing another person's opinion.

Nick Awrote:

These days, "rock climbing" is really a constellation of activities that take place on cliffs. It's kinda like saying you do sports that take place on fields.

The goals and unwritten rules of bouldering, gym climbing, sport climbing, trad climbing, and multipitch climbing are just as varied as the goals and rules of baseball and football. (this is a really rough comparison so - for the love of god - please don't start arguing about the rules of football!)

Convenience is definitely an important goal when establishing a route at a sport crag, or in a gym. And I take full advantage of that convenience when I'm sport climbing or at the rock gym. 

In my opinion, convenience is not a major goal when establishing (or in this case retrofitting) a route at a traditional and historical crag like Cathedral Ledge. I think that the goal of trad climbing at a place like Cathedral is to ascend a route with as much self-reliance as possible. On a trad route, the 1-millionth climber can have almost the same experience as the first ascentionist. Many of us derive great joy and satisfaction from placing our own gear, building our own anchors, and as Sam said, problem solving.

At a traditional cliff like Cathedral, I'd be opposed to adding bolts for the sake of convenience or to "make traffic on the route more efficient" as Amy B said. I agree with Sam that we should be more honest with our arguments for-or-against adding bolts to routes, because it seems like people will say almost anything to avoid saying "I wish this climb were more convenient." 

And vilifying those you disagree with as "elitists" or "gatekeepers" isn't conducive to a real discussion. That's just a cheap way of devaluing another person's opinion.

And you are not devaluing the opinions of those that are different from yours? Because it certainly seems like a new perspective triggers quite an aggressive response about a topic that should be a conversation and not always end with “this is how cathedral is and will always be”

Personally, I feel like you and Sam have shut down the discussion as it does not align with your values. I would love to discuss more if you are truly both open to that!

Amy Bwrote:

Personally, I feel like you and Sam have shut down the discussion as it does not align with your values. I would love to discuss more if you are truly both open to that!

As you can read in previous posts, I'm the person who organized an entire meeting about this topic. Sam was also a participant. So I don't think that's a fair accusation.

Nick Awrote:

As you can read in previous posts, I'm the person who organized an entire meeting about this topic. Sam was also a participant. So I don't think that's a fair accusation.

It is when the attendees are people in your immediate circle, spread by word of mouth. I am advocating for a larger conversation with better representation of the current climbing community. Is that something you are open to?

Nick Awrote:

As you can read in previous posts, I'm the person who organized an entire meeting about this topic. Sam was also a participant. So I don't think that's a fair accusation.

A meeting with friends about a topic most of you already agreed on, no? 

Chris Ducawrote:

A meeting with friends about a topic most of you already agreed on, no? 

100% incorrect. Most of the people there disagreed with my views. But we still had a great debate and even found consensus on a few points.

Amy Bwrote:

It is when the attendees are people in your immediate circle, spread by word of mouth. I am advocating for a larger conversation with better representation of the current climbing community. Is that something you are open to?

I had never met about half of the attendees at the 2022 meeting.

I’m 110% open to a larger conversation, and I think that’s an excellent idea. Please let me know if there’s something I could do help.

Nick Awrote:

I had never met about half of the attendees at the 2022 meeting.

I’m 110% open to a larger conversation, and I think that’s an excellent idea. Please let me know if there’s something I could do help.

Great—let’s all go bowling and discuss it. 

Traditional ethics will only be held by force. Most “climbers” now are simple sport climbers and will continuously seek to erode the past for their convenience.

No amount of discussion will change their minds and the only hope will be to show them in person why more bolts aren’t necessary. Even then, people’s understanding of how difficulty equals rewards has been eroded by their entitlement.

Please hold the line at Cathedral and never, never, never give up.

Tradibanwrote:

Traditional ethics will only be held by force. Most “climbers” now are simple sport climbers and will continuously seek to erode the past for their convenience.

No amount of discussion will change their minds and the only hope will be to show them in person why more bolts aren’t necessary. Even then, people’s understanding of how difficulty equals rewards has been eroded by their entitlement.

Please hold the line at Cathedral and never, never, never give up.

(Cue dramatic music)

Amy Bwrote:

I am advocating for a larger conversation with better representation of the current climbing community. Is that something you are open to?

I don’t think that the entire climbing community necessarily will give better insights than locals to Cathedral - I would argue that someone who only climbs sport indoors will give a less insightful opinion on this topic than someone who has been climbing on Cathedral for decades.  

It’s also important to note that this is an open discussion. Anyone here can comment, that is a good thing. 

Ezra Hendersonwrote:

I don’t think that the entire climbing community necessarily will give better insights than locals to Cathedral - I would argue that someone who only climbs sport indoors will give a less insightful opinion on this topic than someone who has been climbing on Cathedral for decades.  

It’s also important to note that this is an open discussion. Anyone here can comment, that is a good thing. 

Great! I am local to Cathedral, and so are many other community members who were not included in the bolt meeting last summer - let's chat! I think every climber who regularly climbs in the area  holds valuable insight and a right to have a voice. Don't you? I'd argue this forum is not the best place for a discussion based on the anonymity and general hostility surrounding the conversation (like others have mentioned).