Are Mussy Hooks a Slippery Slope?

Jimmy Bricker wrote:

Moral decay of the youth most definitely. Certainly an advocate for safety, but everyone should be capable of dropping their rope in the mussys and then removing the TR anchor, biner, etc., without dying.

In Crofts post he talks about TRing through the mussys as lazy.  I guess i see it more as user/taker culture becoming the norm. At the end of the day if you are giving back to the community, donating to the bolt fund, mentoring, picking up trash, promoting good ethic, then i guess you can make a case for using the convenience of mussys however you think makes sense.

Most people i see at the crag that havent taken the time to learn how to clean safely also dont understand the work and resources that go into bolting a route. They often also dont know how to clean up after themselves, turn down the music or leash their dog.

Im honestly surprised at anyone advocating making the crag as safe as the gym or perpetuates the idea that we should wear out gear someone else kindly provided before we wear out our own. 

What about TRing off a top anchor makes it "safe as a gym".... could be a sketchy ride until the anchor. Feels like false equivalency.

My personal stance is you should go off your own gear whenever feasible, but if it's just a few lowers, that's not a huge deal. It's the TR party that's the problem. Regardless, I contribute to national and local bolting funds to ensure there's at least money for equipment. 

I think it should be like those old bathrooms where you have to put in a quarter to place your rope into the mussies. 

It'll make it more sketchy, for the crusty traddies.

It'll pay for itself for the people who are concerned about replacements. 

It's easier than hanging and cleaning draws for the lazy people like me. 

It's safer for the people who advocate for safety.

And holding the quarter between your butt cheeks is a good reminder to keep tension through your feet for those that need it. 

What isn't to love.

Peter Beal wrote:

... If a guide or group wants to set up a multi-person TR scenario, then sure, be polite and put in a higher point with a locker to lessen wear and tear. ...

Having mussy hooks pre-rigged with a carabiner higher has lead to accidents in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N_N4g2oK1E

Skip to 1:40 in the video if you don't want the preamble.

Not OP's question, but IMO the slippery slope started with the idea of lowering instead of rappelling.  If lowering the last person (or, apparently, any number of people on lead) is ok to prevent the last person from dying by a rappelling mistake, why is it not ok to have everyone TR through the hardware to prevent the last person from dying by a lowering mistake ?  Especially considering how hardware-dependent the process of setting oneself up for lowering is.

(that said, I once had a close call with a twisted rope unclipping itself from one of the mussies on TR. But recommendations for how to install mussies have been updated, so maybe that is no longer possible)

Jimmy Bricker wrote:

Most people i see at the crag that havent taken the time to learn how to clean safely also dont understand the work and resources that go into bolting a route.

That's because y'all made it too easy in the interest of safety. That's a laudable goal in and of itself but this is the side effect. Does the side effect of increased usage increase accident rates that ultimately cancel out, or worse yet, go beyond rates prior to installation of mussys?

I hope the ASCA is taking detailed records to answer this question.

For me, our crag is equipped with only hangers and rap rings. If you don't know how to clean and you get up there, you bail. Problem solved.

Alex wrote:

Having mussy hooks pre-rigged with a carabiner higher has lead to accidents in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N_N4g2oK1E

Skip to 1:40 in the video if you don't want the preamble.

I am assuming that an experienced climber would do the final removal but it's a good point!

J L wrote:

That's because y'all made it too easy in the interest of safety. That's a laudable goal in and of itself but this is the side effect. Does the side effect of increased usage increase accident rates that ultimately cancel out, or worse yet, go beyond rates prior to installation of mussys?

I hope the ASCA is taking detailed records to answer this question.

For me, our crag is equipped with only hangers and rap rings. If you don't know how to clean and you get up there, you bail. Problem solved.

Owens River Gorge is the proof that lower-offs are way safer. For decades, Owens has had by far the lowest serious accident rate of any major sport crag, even when most anchors were half-way-worn-through open cold shuts (often well more than half-way worn through...)

Hooks aren't foolproof, but they are close to foolproof. And decades of accidents have shown everyone that single pitch anchor changeover screw-ups (and associated rappel mistakes) kill a lot of climbers.

Top-roping through fixed gear is always going to happen, I've replaced plenty of halfway-worn-through rings on a pile of tat webbing. Use your own gear when you can, but don't get bent out of shape if someone isn't doing that.

Greg, you're absolutely right. Mussies are definitely objectively safer, and any solution that removes the need to switch systems at all is better.

My doubt is not with the mussies themselves, but the opportunity it presents for anybody to use them with minimal-to-no guidance.

To take my example from above, at a crag with hangers and rap rings, you need to be taught (ideally beforehand) how to clean and set an anchor, even a simple one. This presents an opportunity for mentorship, or at least minimal guidance. Here, you don't climb unless you are with someone who knows how to clean and can pass on that info... and hopefully local ethic, etc.

OTOH, I worry that at a crag with mussies, what's to stop a well-meaning but ignorant gym crew from attempting something far past their grade, and not know how to bail, clean, anchor, anything? After all, that crag is now "just like the gym".

You can call me a crusty old fart, but this is just something that's been gnawing away at the back of my mind ever since the Sand Rock incident.

J L wrote:

That's because y'all made it too easy in the interest of safety. That's a laudable goal in and of itself but this is the side effect. Does the side effect of increased usage increase accident rates that ultimately cancel out, or worse yet, go beyond rates prior to installation of mussys?

I hope the ASCA is taking detailed records to answer this question.

For me, our crag is equipped with only hangers and rap rings. If you don't know how to clean and you get up there, you bail. Problem solved.

Dude are you talking about rattlesnake? I will make sure I bring some hooks next time I come visit home for ya.

Or do you also prefer when it used to be all silly top rope setups for a bunch of short, chossy shield limestone routes?

J L wrote:

Greg, you're absolutely right. Mussies are definitely objectively safer, and any solution that removes the need to switch systems at all is better.

My doubt is not with the mussies themselves, but the opportunity it presents for anybody to use them with minimal-to-no guidance.

To take my example from above, at a crag with hangers and rap rings, you need to be taught (ideally beforehand) how to clean and set an anchor, even a simple one. This presents an opportunity for mentorship, or at least minimal guidance. Here, you don't climb unless you are with someone who knows how to clean and can pass on that info... and hopefully local ethic, etc.

OTOH, I worry that at a crag with mussies, what's to stop a well-meaning but ignorant gym crew from attempting something far past their grade, and not know how to bail, clean, anchor, anything? After all, that crag is now "just like the gym".

You can call me a crusty old fart, but this is just something that's been gnawing away at the back of my mind ever since the Sand Rock incident.

Dearest Crusty Old Fart,

If you are indeed old enough to be truly crusty, you perhaps may also have been around long enough to understand that what them whippersnappers SHOULD do, and what their lazy ignernt asses ACTUALLY do, is a few epochal light years apart.

And.

That splat was someone's kid.....

Friend.

Husband 

Wife.

Father.

Mom.

Or a crusty old fart/fartess who finally had a bad day and messed up.

To answer the original question?

Are mussy hooks a slippery slope?

Yes.

So what.

There's what we all might understand as best practices....but people are people, and this thing we do is flat out dangerous, even if it has been made far less so by adopting some hardware changes.

No snark intended, I don't disagree. Dead is dead though, and I know dead people who did everything right.....and still, their kids are now without a father.

Will someone kindly jump in here, and pop in a link to ASCA?? 

Best, Helen

J L wrote:

Greg, you're absolutely right. Mussies are definitely objectively safer, and any solution that removes the need to switch systems at all is better.

My doubt is not with the mussies themselves, but the opportunity it presents for anybody to use them with minimal-to-no guidance.

To take my example from above, at a crag with hangers and rap rings, you need to be taught (ideally beforehand) how to clean and set an anchor, even a simple one. This presents an opportunity for mentorship, or at least minimal guidance. Here, you don't climb unless you are with someone who knows how to clean and can pass on that info... and hopefully local ethic, etc.

OTOH, I worry that at a crag with mussies, what's to stop a well-meaning but ignorant gym crew from attempting something far past their grade, and not know how to bail, clean, anchor, anything? After all, that crag is now "just like the gym".

You can call me a crusty old fart, but this is just something that's been gnawing away at the back of my mind ever since the Sand Rock incident.

People are going to die either way from accidents from lack of training, might as well reduce those with reliable, easier to use open systems.

People aren't checking if there are hooks or rings before they set off, and you think someone bailing on a route will be safer than mussy hooks? I have seen tons of sketchy shit been done by people trying to not lose a 5$ carabiner before.

Rap rings also slow a lot of shit down, especially at busy, moderate crags where it takes people a long time to clean. I would rather trade routes just have easy, fast cleaning anchors.

Unless money is a concern, there is no reason to use ring/quicklink anchor at a single pitch area. Period.
If you were only doing a lap warming up and intentionally keep your TR a bit loose, it’s not even that much extra wear and tear on the anchor on top of lowering. Full disclosure I am still 100% TRing through my steel insertion draws/lockers…
If anything, it’s better to put signs and ground anchor at the entrance of the crag to remind people TR through their own gear and practice, rather than gatekeeping using an outdated and less safe technology. 

As far as I know, the ASCA recommends lowering off their mussys. We've done a ton of replacement at our local crags, switching rings/carabiners etc with ASCA supplied mussys. I'd rather have to inspect these on a regular basis, and replace as necessary than scrape a broken body up from the base of the crag.

Complain all you like about training/ethics/blah blah. When my grandkids go climbing, I want them to come home.

Does everyone know that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy? 

Creed Archibald wrote:

Does everyone know that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy? 

No, I've heard this multiple times, but have yet to hear a close to convincing argument as to why. While not every 'slope' is a slippery one, and even on some that are, it is still possible to 'self arrest' before losing complete control, but both in the outdoors and in the rest of life, there are some situations where a downhill slide does become impossible to stop before 'injury' occurs.

While I personally don't consider the use of Mussey's to be particularly 'slippery'--or even a 'slope', there are other situations that very definitely meet the necessary criteria.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides. One that goes unstated is that safety attracts “gumbies,” removes the incentive to learn anchor/rope skills, and crowds the crags. I find myself sympathetic to this notion, but more sympathetic to the desire to see people lowered safely to the ground. 

This is similar to debates about bolting trad routes or bolting anchors at places like Devil’s Lake. For the more skilled, the option remains to do things the “right” way, just like you still have the option to use hemp ropes and hip belays.

Creed Archibald wrote:

Does everyone know that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy? 

I think the term slippery slope has kind of softened in meaning a bit, but is only a logical fallacy if you rest an argument on it.  Chains of events aren't guaranteed to happen, but they do happen. 

I think the ORG example is based on statistics. So many user hours vs so many mishaps. It's a heavy traffic area where sand degrades anchors rapidly. Rapping and threading is still discouraged. Metal can be replaced. 

Alan Rubin wrote:

No, I've heard this multiple times, but have yet to hear a close to convincing argument as to why. While not every 'slope' is a slippery one, and even on some that are, it is still possible to 'self arrest' before losing complete control, but both in the outdoors and in the rest of life, there are some situations where a downhill slide does become impossible to stop before 'injury' occurs.

While I personally don't consider the use of Mussey's to be particularly 'slippery'--or even a 'slope', there are other situations that very definitely meet the necessary criteria.

Because it’s an entirely hypothetical future prediction that (in the fallacy form) posits if X, then b will happen, then d will happen, then f will happen, then we all die; while it ignores a, c, and e and all the different permutations that can come from them. Basically, it’s almost always a more emotional argument then a fact based one. I don’t know what exactly qualifies something in the zeitgeist as an official “fallacy.” But, I think the above is an example of when it’s certainly a terrible argument for or against a course of action.