Dog tags

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Get a Life. It's sport climbing not wilderness climbing. 

Get a life. It's not that hard to find a route if you use your head a little.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Get a Life. It's sport climbing not wilderness climbing. 

You are dead wrong, Nick.

Whatever we want to call it, others use the designated public nature space that didn't sign up for letting a uniquely privileged group glue/bolt/attach signage of rock climbs all along the base wherever they alone decide.

If some coalition that owns the land wants to do this, np.

But if I ever saw signage like that on National Forest, BLM, National Monument/Park or State Park ie PUBLIC LANDS I would spend w/e time it took to remove it.

Why? Because it endangers our access.

Sep M wrote:

I’ve hiked with folks past tags in Europe, and they went unnoticed.

It suuure seems to me that the bad faith argument is that bolts and tags are different. “I can pretend a route someone else cleaned and bolted and told me all about is wilderness, but I can’t pretend anymore if there is a small tag.”

I don't like the vibe of tags either. (But in areas with tags I seem to get over it in a few weeks.) I think elevating my feeling of “eww” to a sound argument is pretending.

A lot of crags in Europe are in more heavily vegetated areas than a lot of US crags- I think this is largely a function of latitude. Ignoring this, the ethics in European wilderness do not always translate well to US wilderness, especially in the west where protections were put into place far earlier in their development. Again, not really the important part.

Dog tags and bolts are different visually and functionally. For one: large, flat surfaces don't blend in well to most places in the wilderness, especially if you're painting them with unnatural colors (pretty sure someone posted a yellow one earlier in this thread as an example); a shiny metal plate is less of an eyesore but often even more noticeable. Sure, they can be small, but I've rarely seen them smaller than a bolt, and never smaller than any flat portion of a bolt in one continuous plane. Seems like 2-4x as large is the normal range. And their locations are different. They are placed at or around eye level for the express purpose of being found while bolts are installed higher, and in well protected areas are often required to blend into the rock.

And the function part: the bolt is there to save your life. The tag? I've seen a few arguments in this thread, none of them very convincing.

its not that hard to not get pissed about every little thing you encounter  while rock climbing if you just take a deep breath.  as I said many times not every place is a good fit for tags but many places are.  much ado about nothing... 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

its not that hard to not get pissed about every little thing you encounter  while rock climbing if you just take a deep breath.  as I said many times not every place is a good fit for tags but many places are.  much ado about nothing... 

As the former Access Fund Representative for Yosemite National Park I assure you that things like this in the Public Space are not "much ado about nothing" when it motivates others to speak out against climbing and our privileges to alter the resource as they now stand. 

Land managers that are predisposed against climbing "love"attitudes like yours expressed here.

Fuel to the fire...
there are sings for trails to show you the way in wilderness areas, is this not the same-ish thing as tiny signs to show you the way for climbing? which have arguably less impact to the average person in the wilderness....
How about those little carabiner posts Yosemite puts up to keep yo ass on trail? Trash or helpful? Worse than Cairns?

This is playing devils advocate a bit, just to be clear.

Christopher Antimie wrote:

A lot of crags in Europe are in more heavily vegetated areas than a lot of US crags- I think this is largely a function of latitude. Ignoring this, the ethics in European wilderness do not always translate well to US wilderness, especially in the west where protections were put into place far earlier in their development. Again, not really the important part.

Dog tags and bolts are different visually and functionally. For one: large, flat surfaces don't blend in well to most places in the wilderness, especially if you're painting them with unnatural colors (pretty sure someone posted a yellow one earlier in this thread as an example); a shiny metal plate is less of an eyesore but often even more noticeable.

Bright paint and shiny metal are more noticeable than camouflaged paint or natural rock. That’s not about bolts vs tags, though. Either can be hidden or blazed.

Sure, they can be small, but I've rarely seen them smaller than a bolt, and never smaller than any flat portion of a bolt in one continuous plane. Seems like 2-4x as large is the normal range. And their locations are different. They are placed at or around eye level for the express purpose of being found while bolts are installed higher, and in well protected areas are often required to blend into the rock.

Climbers that are always looking up at the rock are ruined. We will always see the bolts before the tags. But there are lots of subtle ways to place a tag. And lots of not-so-subtle ways.

And the function part: the bolt is there to save your life. The tag? I've seen a few arguments in this thread, none of them very convincing.

Many of the dangerous situations I’ve found myself in have involved a wrong route or the wrong protection.

But if you’re unconvinced, that’s cool. Don’t spend your time and money (those things cost like 90 euros) adding tags. The argument you were making before sounded like you were saying OTHER people shouldn’t leave tags. That’s a different argument.

The much more solid point is hillbilly’s: “it doesn’t mater if there is a reasonable argument to be made, what matters is what the land manager is going to do.” I’m less convinced I know the mind of every such person at every level everywhere. But there are definitely places where tags are a no go, even if there’s not a real argument that tags are different from bolts.

hillbilly. I would never put tags on  routes in a national park. I absolutly would on a limestone quarry.  Both places that I have seen actual tags on one and painted names on the other were private  pay to play areas. Kamuraska in Quebec and snow canyon.  thought it was horrible in snow canyon because it was 2004 and I was a cocky young climber disgusted with the travesty. thought it was super cool in kamuraska as an old fart... 

Just hang the tiny tag of the climb's initials from the first bolt, and have climbers who give a bump, carry a small pair of binos. Easy peasy and solves both issues. (Presuming the first bolt can be seen.)

Hint, invest in futures for small binoculars now!!!  

Surely in the near future we'll have Shazam for climbing routes, if you're lost, you just wave your phone camera at the cliff and it tells you what climb it is?

Sam M wrote:

Surely in the near future we'll have Shazam for climbing routes, if you're lost, you just wave your phone camera at the cliff and it tells you what climb it is?

I give it 2 months till someone pushes this as yet another AI way to improve your climbing. 

Mr Rogers wrote:

Fuel to the fire...
there are sings for trails to show you the way in wilderness areas, is this not the same-ish thing as tiny signs to show you the way for climbing? which have arguably less impact to the average person in the wilderness....
How about those little carabiner posts Yosemite puts up to keep yo ass on trail? Trash or helpful? Worse than Cairns?

This is playing devils advocate a bit, just to be clear.

I mentioned this upthread, but there is logical consistency. Trail signs have the purpose of keeping people on trail to prevent erosion. The same way bolt anchors are made instead of tree anchors, to preserve the trees. Both are tradeoffs requiring some sacrificial impact to reduce impact as a whole.

There is no environmental tradeoffs with tags, it's just indulgence.

I sympathize with the desire of the artist to mark their work, but I just don't think that's the way to go when your canvas is nature. Just make a note of it in a personal notebook or virtual document, and share it if you like, or keep it private and pass it on only to your firstborn in your will.

I also think another issue could be tag wars, with people wanting to censor and rename routes that they are offended by. Better to argue it out virtually.

Redacted dog tags. Ferfuxsakes.

Sep M wrote:

Bright paint and shiny metal are more noticeable than camouflaged paint or natural rock. That’s not about bolts vs tags, though. Either can be hidden or blazed.

Climbers that are always looking up at the rock are ruined. We will always see the bolts before the tags. But there are lots of subtle ways to place a tag. And lots of not-so-subtle ways.

Many of the dangerous situations I’ve found myself in have involved a wrong route or the wrong protection.

But if you’re unconvinced, that’s cool. Don’t spend your time and money (those things cost like 90 euros) adding tags. The argument you were making before sounded like you were saying OTHER people shouldn’t leave tags. That’s a different argument.

The much more solid point is hillbilly’s: “it doesn’t mater if there is a reasonable argument to be made, what matters is what the land manager is going to do.” I’m less convinced I know the mind of every such person at every level everywhere. But there are definitely places where tags are a no go, even if there’s not a real argument that tags are different from bolts.

To be clear: I think that neither myself nor anyone else should be placing tags in public wilderness areas- that IS what I was arguing. I think we have both articulated our opinions sufficiently at this point so I'll leave it as is.

One more point: I still am highly opposed to your opinions regarding the impact of tags, but you seem to be arguing in good faith- I am sorry for suggesting otherwise. 

John Tuttle wrote:

All graffiti should be destroyed.

Petrogplyphs are just old graffiti.

John Tuttle wrote:

You are dead wrong, Nick.

Whatever we want to call it, others use the designated public nature space that didn't sign up for letting a uniquely privileged group glue/bolt/attach signage of rock climbs all along the base wherever they alone decide.

If some coalition that owns the land wants to do this, np.

But if I ever saw signage like that on National Forest, BLM, National Monument/Park or State Park ie PUBLIC LANDS I would spend w/e time it took to remove it.

Why? Because it endangers our access.

I'd love to hear the explanation how this is different from hanging chains, hooks and shit 4m apart across the cliff along with white chalk spots up and down every wall all spaced 2 feet apart.

Edward Smith wrote:

I'd love to hear the explanation how this is different from hanging chains, hooks and shit 4m apart across the cliff along with white chalk spots up and down every wall all spaced 2 feet apart.

If you take that attitude, where is the end? The idea is to find some aesthetic balance. Is the need for name tags high enough to outweigh detracting from being in a more natural setting without everything labeled? In most cases I don't think so.

what about cliff bases where no one but climbers ever go? like, the local hard sport climbing area that starts on a ledge 50 feet above the trail that you can only get to via some fixed lines, or even some beginner or moderate areas that are accessed via 40 minutes of scrambling gullies? what about non-wilderness areas, like a cliff next to an unused railroad bridge? 

M Sprague wrote:

If you take that attitude, where is the end? The idea is to find some aesthetic balance. Is the need for name tags high enough to outweigh detracting from being in a more natural setting without everything labeled? In most cases I don't think so.

That's exactly my point. There is no really defined line and it's all just vibes. A million trails in parks everywhere have varying degrees of signage that can easily be argued as unnecessary aesthetic intrusion or whatever.

It just amuses me to no end to watch people defend hanging hundreds of feet of 2inch chain off a cliff but then spray their diaper when someone suggests adding tags that aren't visible unless you're basically standing under the climb.

Edward Smith wrote:..It just amuses me to no end to watch people defend hanging hundreds of feet of 2inch chain off a cliff but then spray their diaper when someone suggests adding tags that aren't visible unless you're basically standing under the climb.

Are many people actually doing that? Seems a bit hyperbolic. Suggesting some aesthetic restraint while recognizing the plusses of sport climbing is not incongruous.Personally, I would like to see a lot of the extra stuff that is not really needed toned down, though if it is a heavily used area you need some more infrastructure to handle the traffic efficiently and to harden the area from wear