Red tag routes

It doesn't happen often - but occasionally someone ignores a red-tagged project and claims a FA. 

As a guidebook author, I have an opinion, but I'm wondering how others feel about recording such ascents. 

Should the route-poacher be credited like a normal FA (and allowed to name the route), ignored, or publicly shamed?

Dave Binghamwrote:

It doesn't happen often - but occasionally someone ignores a red-tagged project and claims a FA. 

As a guidebook author, I have an opinion, but I'm wondering how others feel about recording such ascents. 

Should the route-poacher be credited like a normal FA (and allowed to name the route), ignored, or publicly shamed?

To me, at least, it doesn’t matter. In my area there are many climbs that had off the radar first free ascents of gear routes, but guidebook authors sometimes claim first free ascents regardless of the information available. I get where you’re coming from when discussing cleaned and bolted sport routes, but I can’t help to shine a little light on the slipperyness of authors and reality. Maybe just say who did the first free ascent but note who developed the climb. I’m fine with an entry like “climb poacher Harry Ballz, first free ascent; selfless developer Ben Evolent, cleaner and bolter”.  lol

Publicly shamed, not allowed to name, not credited with FA. Lots of work and expense goes into cleaning and equipping a new bolted route. Ignoring a red tagged route-in-progress is shitty behavior analogous to stealing. Unless tagged for an unreasonably long time (context dependent), climber's should respect the developer's project.

Jay Goodwinwrote:

Publicly shamed, not allowed to name, not credited with FA. Lots of work and expense goes into cleaning and equipping a new bolted route. Ignoring a red tagged route-in-progress is shitty behavior analogous to stealing. Unless tagged for an unreasonably long time (context dependent), climber's should respect the developer's project.

I hear what you’re saying but sometimes the drama adds to the spectacle and flavor of climbing. A good example of this is Darshan, aka ripoff at the ORG. Public shaming is appropriate and the developer gets naming rights but the first free ascent is what it is even if “stolen”. 

I don’t think this needs to be a particularly nuanced conversation.

If you find a wallet with an id and $500 in it, do you reach out to return the wallet and money or do you keep it all?

I know that might not be the best analogy but unless you’ve had a direct conversation with the developer and there is an agreement or understanding that the developer has relinquished it then stay off. Go find another piece of rock to climb.

Kinda depends.  Around here, red tags in the past have been like a flame to moths.  They attract attention.  And, some people can't help but giving those routes a go.  

I'd give credit for the route to the person who put in the work to establish the route.  Maybe:  "FA Ben Dover FFA Richard Cranium" would keep it simple.

Naming rights?  I'd say the person who established the route.  Not the person who poached it.

Historically, might not matter if the route isn't some standard setting climb or unique for the area.  In that case, maybe just credit the person who put in the line. 

I think for most folks, unless the route is so far above your ability...just don't tag it.  Then it doesn't matter who climbs it.  

It's interesting.  I know of a few crags especially in Europe that were developed and the first free ascents aren't really reported.  The developers are all of the credit and naming rights.  Granted...these aren't maybe historically important in terms of upper, cutting edge grades.  Maybe that makes a difference.

Could always go full disclosure as well.  "Line bolted by Phil McCracken and climbed without consult (poached) on the FFA by Mike Hunt."

In a more perfect world, folks would get along and the whole process would be friendly and agreeable.  Not reality sometimes.

If I remember correctly, Alan Watts had who bolted the route mentioned. Then who freed it. Which seems fare. I could be wrong though, as I am home high on Oxy.

I do believe if the first person who freed it, was a thief and stole the route without permission before the one who put the work into it does it. That thief should receive no credit.

Tom Horewrote:

If I remember correctly, Alan Watts had who bolted the route mentioned. Then who freed it. Which seems fare. I could be wrong though, as I am home high on Oxy.

I do believe if the first person who freed it, was a thief and stole the route without permission before the one who put the work into it does it. That thief should receive no credit.

If you’re referring to my example of darshan/ripoff, it was bolted by Slate, Rousek, and Leary. It was ripped off by Shipoopi. As an interesting side note, since it was bolted by 3 dudes, I wonder how they would decide who got to free it? Maybe Shipoopi saved some tension among the 3 bolters by snaking the first free ascent. 

I hope that you’re doing ok and feeling better soon.

Interesting topic. There are many ways the line could be blurry: face climbs that were free soloed, unrecorded natural pro ascents, minor variations, squeeze plays. 

Whoever writes the guide book has the last word.

The guidebook author does wield a lot of control.  The red tag is a plea for respect. Its mere presence does not guarantee that it was placed respectfully. 

Thanks y'all for chiming in. As a guide author, I don't relish the role of censor, but these days tend to downplay / ignore bad behavior rather than engage with it - like one might with a troublesome child. Shaming may well be warranted, but ultimately just fosters more bad vibes. So much depends on intent. Innocent exuberance is one thing, callus disregard for someones effort is another. But as most of you point out, snaking someones route is a poor choice for someone seeking fame. 

I think context is so important.  Obviously it’s poor form to climb a red-tagged pitch that is being actively climbed on, but I’d argue it’s equally poor form to red tag a route and let it sit untouched for seasons or years.  Many do this, and it just becomes a climber-enforced closure, which is stupid.  It’s also poor form to red tag a route that someone else is actively trying.  

The latter example gets to my main complaint with red tags: they’re effectively just climbers pissing on a piece of rock and ‘claiming’ it because they did the work to develop it. (which really isn’t really that hard to do) Personally, if I find a beautiful and challenging piece of stone, I share it with the rest of the climbing community by not red tagging it because getting the fa of anything less than 15c is basically meaningless in this day and age.  To me, the ego stroke of getting an arbitrary fa that others could have easily gotten if I hadn’t told them not to isn’t worth the shame of telling other people not to climb on a piece of public land.

I’m not arguing that we do away with red tags and haven’t ever poached one, but I think the dominant narrative that red tags are universally legitimate is really flawed. 

I feel that as a record of climbing in the area, guidebooks should be listing the actual FA to the best of knowledge. Otherwise, what is the meaning of "First Ascensionist"? Getting the FA "stolen" out from under your work sucks, and maybe is bad for the community. However, pretending the second, third, fourth... ascent was the "real" FA is bizarre. In the US, the most of the climbing is on outright public land, and the overwhelming majority of route developers are not working on land that is their private property. Courtesy to spend some time trying to free the line you put up is just that, a courtesy, not a right of exclusivity.

Related, for sport climbs that aren't cutting edge, I'm usually more interested in the developer than the FA, anyways. Taking City of Rocks for example, it's pretty reliable to assume that a Kevin Pogue route is going to be heavily bolted, while many of your (Dave Bingham) routes are going to be more committing. When using a guidebook, that is actually useful information for me.

It’s not 5.15, it’s just a rock. True and yes. The issue becomes one of character and integrity, my own. If I’m treated with deceit or lack of respect I need to examine the company I’m willing to keep.