Mountain Project Logo

Access Fund Responds to Ten Sleep Canyon


Original Post
Chris Blatchley · · Somerville, MA · Joined Sep 2016 · Points: 7
kevin deweese · · Oakland, Ca · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 526

Sad. Bothsidesism at its best

Jeremy Bauman · · Lakewood, CO · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 852

Thanks for sharing 

Chris Blatchley · · Somerville, MA · Joined Sep 2016 · Points: 7
kevin deweese wrote: Sad. Bothsidesism at its best

interesting, can you elaborate? i think it's hard for the access fund to take a different stance (even if say the president or CEO or whoever has different opinions) because their mission is specific to access. however, i do think that painting both the developers and the people chopping/locking/etc as ethically similar is inaccurate, at least from the stance of a fellow climber, and not a land manager.

Julian H · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2017 · Points: 5
kevin deweese wrote: Sad. Bothsidesism at its best

It looks like one side to me, it is in their interest not to have people chop bolts and have the same thing happening in other places. Makes them look bad and it is more work for them. 

JJK · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2016 · Points: 5

If this type of route manufacturing is happening on any public land, I hope the community can police itself by chopping the routes.  

Which way do you want it?  Community self-policing or government regulations?

amarius · · Nowhere, OK · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 20
JJK wrote: If this type of route manufacturing is happening on any public land, I hope the community can police itself by chopping the routes. 

According to the article, and all other information available on "The Ten Sleep Incident", manufacturing of routes stopped well before the chopping began. The time delay between chopping and manufacturing does indicate that stopping manufacturing by chopping was not the primary concern of choppers.

Ģnöfudør Ðrænk · · In the vicinity of 43 deg l… · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 2
JJK wrote: If this type of route manufacturing is happening on any public land, I hope the community can police itself by chopping the routes.  

Which way do you want it?  Community self-policing or government regulations?

It was the so-called "Community self-policing" that brought on the "government regulations".  

The problem now is not that routes were manufactured or routes where chopped - the problem is that the government  has been dragged into the battle.
Ezra Ellis · · Hotlanta · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 0

All of our online slander is readable by the powers that be,

Remember that please!

kevin deweese · · Oakland, Ca · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 526
Chris Blatchley wrote: 

interesting, can you elaborate? i think it's hard for the access fund to take a different stance (even if say the president or CEO or whoever has different opinions) because their mission is specific to access. however, i do think that painting both the developers and the people chopping/locking/etc as ethically similar is inaccurate, at least from the stance of a fellow climber, and not a land manager.

Julian H wrote:
It looks like one side to me, it is in their interest not to have people chop bolts and have the same thing happening in other places. Makes them look bad and it is more work for them. 

Elaboration from the perspective of land managers who have a responsibility to maintain the natural resources in their charge and the Access Fund's responsibility for retaining access.

First of all, you have to let go of the assumption that removing bolts is somehow inherently something that land managers are against. Sure it makes sense when it's presented in an article as the chopping of bolts angers the land managers, but when analysing an article's bias, you can't just use the words of the article lest your only information contain that same bothsidesism bias. 

So let's consider this. Find me ONE land manager that has any issue with any relatively recent bolts being removed from the natural resources under their management. No I'll wait.
Oh! you found one that doesn't like that there's studs sticking out of the rock or that there's smashed hangers on the rock walls now. Yeah that makes sense, except that's not chopping bolts as done by responsible climber. When I remove bolts (which I've only had to do a few times) it's a process of removal and patching. If someone is hammering hangers flat or leaving studs sticking out to the wall, let's be serious, those people aren't removing or chopping bolts, those people are retaining the destruction of natural resources and thus failed in the conservational effect of the act. But those are individual mistakes, not mistakes of the concept of removing bolts.

Now find me ONE land manager that DOESN'T have an issue with chipping and drilling holds into a natural face. Hell most of them hate the fact that we place bolts in the first place.

- - - 
Now let's look at the bothsidesism.

Every argument about the removal of bolts either has to do with individual ineptitude in individual instances or people getting rowdy online or in the parking lots which has nothing to do with the removal of bolts. Are some people that remove bolts assholes? Yes. Are some people in ANY gathering of any group assholes? Yes. The point is that's not the issue, if you want to fight to keep climbers from acting the fool in parking lots or online, more power to you, I think that's a great (and impossible but worthwhile) goal. But don't pretend that any of that has to do with the removal of bolts.

Every argument about chipping has to do with the destruction of both the natural resources and the natural quality of this "sport' There are no individuals who are chipping and drilling complete sequences into a rock wall that have a leg, a drill, or even a fixed line to stand on. They're agents of destruction.

When the act of one side is destruction and angry land managers and the other side is preservation and land managers that are basically unaware or pleasantly surprised. Bothsidesism is as disingenuous here as it is in most of our corporate news sources. 

- - - 
And of course it all comes back to this, whether land managers understand it or not, whether the media understands it or not, we understand it and that's what matters: When there are no consequences for route development that destroys both the natural resources AND kills the impossible, people will do it. Again, without consequences for behavior that destroys natural resources, natural resources will be destroyed.

Consequences are not being flamed online because those seeking some sort of glory don't care. Consequences are the removal or resistance of the offending act whether it be a drilled and chipped route, a fascist government, an asshole parked across three lanes in the parking lot, that kid who poked you with a pencil every day in Chemistry until you hit him in the head with the spine of your textbook. 
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Access Fund Responds to Ten Sleep Canyon"

Log In to Reply