Another “to the party near us at the Gunks today...”

From a lot of the posts here it sounds like most of you would have been in favor of me screaming down from above at these people. To me, that’s also incredibly obnoxious. I generally am pretty good about confronting obnoxious behavior on the ground, if it is actively disturbing myself and others.

Seriously, if you were a pitch up and heard some idiots yelling about how they wanted to copulate in nothing but a harness, would you try and talk to them? I would’ve airmailed a paper airplane down at them with a message if I could have.

Why is it people have no problem expressing their perspective on a situation that makes them uncomfortable online but not so in person? Calmly provide your perspective and move on. You'll feel better about yourself, give them something to think about, and not have to get beat up online for having no backbone. 

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

Parachute Adams wrote:

Why is it people have no problem expressing their perspective on a situation that makes them uncomfortable online but not so in person? 

Hiding behind pseudonyms makes people say all kind of things..

Maybe one should bring their favorite Halloween mask to the cliff?

Bill Schick wrote:

So you pro-confrontation folks - are you an exception at 6’6 250 lbs of ripped muscle that scares people, or have you found like most of us adults - that confronting assholes acting like assholes has a 0% chance of success and a 100% chance of making you even more pissed off and matters generally worse?  Just leave.  You likely got out of bed too late and went somewhere convenient, easy and popular - do better next time.

If they could actually fight, they would realize height and weight have little to do with fighting ability.

It is all in the approach and if it leads to confrontation 99% of the time people don’t want to get physical. This is especially true in the climbing community and the gunks. 

I'm not hiding behind anything. My name is Andrew Bird. 

Halloween mask? No. Maybe a covid mask.

Using a real name online is a fools folly. No-one can prove it's your real name.

I would like to clarify what is meant by "top-roping" here. Were these two different parties of two? And the leader of each party led P1 of Baby/City Lights and then set the first pitch up for the second to follow? I'm guessing this is what we are talking about. 

If so, this is what many many people do. The upper pitches are good and I've done them many times! But I'm still a little mystified that demonizing this behavior-- stopping after the first pitch-- has become the new crusade, because I don't think it inconveniences anyone. Having the second follow the pitch and then clean it is hardly slower than bringing up the second and continuing upward. 

The real problem to my mind is "hogging" the pitch by setting it up for a GROUP to top-rope. If that is what was happening, then yeah I agree it sucks. But I wish we were focusing our reform efforts on avoiding large groups and/or hogging lines/walls for a long time, instead of the ambiguous concept of "top-roping." 

It helps a bunch to be a short old lady. I've flat out yelled at people before to stop what they're doing NOW. I was the one who could get away with it, none of the guys wanted to. But, I keep talking, nicely, and let them know the why of the thing. Especially if it's kids. They are a collective responsibility, if you grew up in my generation.

But, my partners and I have also intervened, anywhere from physically taking over (once), to just nicely offering help. The last, offering the use of anything from the  guidebook or stick clip to actually cleaning the route for them. 

We've also, at a crowded area like the back side of Bath rock at COR, just talked to people, see who is next on what. That has led to knowing if it's just better to move on, or, often enough, getting to know people enough that you end up sharing ropes and getting in more stuff than you would on your own. And rope guns running your rope up something you can't yet lead.

Not saying anything? Kinda cowardly. Understandable, but still.... that's how shit continues, decade after decade.

But hey, some of us are willing to speak up, get physical even....some aren't.

Guess you know which camp 4'11" 130 pounds is in, eh?

Best, Helen

SinRopa wrote:

Like you physically kicked someone off a climb?  Or they were struggling with something about you helpfully took over building the anchor, or whatever.

Two totally clueless kids showed up next to us at our local crag one day. Routes are close, so they were only a few steps away, and we could see and hear everything. The fearless "leader" a young teen (?) who thought he knew what he was doing, had brought out a preteen who clearly knew absolutely nothing whatever. Threw a cinch on, gave the poor kid minimal (and wrong) instructions, and proceeded to essentially solo to the first bolt while his friend stared down at the device in his hands. He then commented, "see? Its easy!", and gave his "belayer" completely incorrect instructions to lower him. My partner yelled at the climber to "STOP!!".  I was on our climb, on top rope, just grabbed something, told me partner I'm good, grab that quick, and he did. Physically took over. 

After I was back on the ground, and we had both boys on the ground? We let them know they had ZERO business climbing alone, not yet. Then we packed up and left.

I also yelled at some people to get a little girl down, NOW. Teens, in a family group of all ages, pushing a really young girl to scramble up the rebar route at Bath rock. The little girl was totally terrified. The people complied, and, I quickly shifted to quieter mode, and explained that they were teaching her to be terrified. Later on? The little girl was happily going up and down, all over the low angle stuff. My male partner leaned over and thanked me. He reminded me it doesn't always go over well for guys to do that, and he was thinking exactly the same as I was. As a parent. 

To the OP? Yeah, maybe I might have shouted something down, even just a "HEY, GUYS? REALLY??? Can that wait, please?"

Especially if both the women around were uncomfortable. Again, that's something I CAN do, as an old lady, much easier than younger women can, and yes, it is problematic for guys too. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, sadly. 

Its truly great to have no need to give a shit what anyone's opinion is, when it's time to do what's right.  Of course, the flip side, is that I have that freedom  because no one gives a shit what an old lady says, does, or is. 

H.

EDIT to add, another time, there was a group of four college age out, again, close by my group. Two guys, two women. Only one who knew anything at all. That started with me gently offering the use of the stick clip to a white faced "leader", gratefully accepted. Continued with talking his "belayer" along. Keeping an eye on everyone. And, last, climbing and cleaning the anchor for them. They'd never done that, either. Yes, I gave up my climbing day, but they were nice kids, and really appreciated that someone helped out. 

SethG wrote:

I would like to clarify what is meant by "top-roping" here. Were these two different parties of two? And the leader of each party led P1 of Baby/City Lights and then set the first pitch up for the second to follow? I'm guessing this is what we are talking about. 

If so, this is what many many people do. The upper pitches are good and I've done them many times! But I'm still a little mystified that demonizing this behavior-- stopping after the first pitch-- has become the new crusade, because I don't think it inconveniences anyone. Having the second follow the pitch and then clean it is hardly slower than bringing up the second and continuing upward. 

The real problem to my mind is "hogging" the pitch by setting it up for a GROUP to top-rope. If that is what was happening, then yeah I agree it sucks. But I wish we were focusing our reform efforts on avoiding large groups and/or hogging lines/walls for a long time, instead of the ambiguous concept of "top-roping." 

this 100% 

SethG wrote:

I would like to clarify what is meant by "top-roping" here. Were these two different parties of two? And the leader of each party led P1 of Baby/City Lights and then set the first pitch up for the second to follow? I'm guessing this is what we are talking about. 

If so, this is what many many people do. The upper pitches are good and I've done them many times! But I'm still a little mystified that demonizing this behavior-- stopping after the first pitch-- has become the new crusade, because I don't think it inconveniences anyone. Having the second follow the pitch and then clean it is hardly slower than bringing up the second and continuing upward. 

The real problem to my mind is "hogging" the pitch by setting it up for a GROUP to top-rope. If that is what was happening, then yeah I agree it sucks. But I wish we were focusing our reform efforts on avoiding large groups and/or hogging lines/walls for a long time, instead of the ambiguous concept of "top-roping." 

Seth, I think you have a really good point here. I would hope that it's pretty obvious to most people that having someone lead, lower, and then TR belay the second who then cleans is a very reasonable thing to do. 

In the particular scenario that I witnessed, it appeared that the parties were going to be doing just that, but then the second began running hangdog laps that took exceptionally long. At one point the second appeared to be practicing placing gear on TR, (great! everyone new should practice this), but City Lights seems like a really poor choice of route for that given the long easy section that doesn't take much... Eventually the group they had been yelling to about microcams over on Baby came over and then (with their stuff all over the trail and unused rope hanging from the CL chains) they began their loud and lewd bragging. 

This month is the first time I've climbed in the Gunks since late 2019, so maybe I've just gotten used to the quite bliss of the High Sierra. Although, the Nears were super quiet yesterday!

Bill Schick wrote:

So you pro-confrontation folks - are you an exception at 6’6 250 lbs of ripped muscle that scares people, or have you found like most of us adults - that confronting assholes acting like assholes has a 0% chance of success and a 100% chance of making you even more pissed off and matters generally worse?  Just leave.  You likely got out of bed too late and went somewhere convenient, easy and popular - do better next time.

I don't think this holds up.

I don't think the point of any such interventions is to fix everything right away. But a few such intervention may spark some thinking on the receiving end. Even if it doesn't, a group containing some number of morons may not be comprised off 100% morons. Any non-morons present may be able to pick up on that, and that spark change from within.

Doctor Drake wrote:

Seth, I think you have a really good point here. I would hope that it's pretty obvious to most people that having someone lead, lower, and then TR belay the second who then cleans is a very reasonable thing to do. 

In the particular scenario that I witnessed, it appeared that the parties were going to be doing just that, but then the second began running hangdog laps that took exceptionally long. At one point the second appeared to be practicing placing gear on TR, (great! everyone new should practice this), but City Lights seems like a really poor choice of route for that given the long easy section that doesn't take much... Eventually the group they had been yelling to about microcams over on Baby came over and then (with their stuff all over the trail and unused rope hanging from the CL chains) they began their loud and lewd bragging. 

This month is the first time I've climbed in the Gunks since late 2019, so maybe I've just gotten used to the quite bliss of the High Sierra. Although, the Nears were super quiet yesterday!

it's pronounced 'the shhhhh' 

Doctor Drake wrote:

Seth, I think you have a really good point here. I would hope that it's pretty obvious to most people that having someone lead, lower, and then TR belay the second who then cleans is a very reasonable thing to do. 

In the particular scenario that I witnessed, it appeared that the parties were going to be doing just that, but then the second began running hangdog laps that took exceptionally long. At one point the second appeared to be practicing placing gear on TR, (great! everyone new should practice this), but City Lights seems like a really poor choice of route for that given the long easy section that doesn't take much... Eventually the group they had been yelling to about microcams over on Baby came over and then (with their stuff all over the trail and unused rope hanging from the CL chains) they began their loud and lewd bragging. 

This month is the first time I've climbed in the Gunks since late 2019, so maybe I've just gotten used to the quite bliss of the High Sierra. Although, the Nears were super quiet yesterday!

OK that does sound sucky although if no one expressed interest or was waiting I might be inclined to forgive them.

Again seth, 100% agree.  

If you want to climb a route, just ask.  It's rare that people are unwilling to accommodate but no one reads minds. 

And as always, if you really want to avoid groups in the gunks (or anywhere) climb harder, hike further, or climb scary.  There are no shortage of amazing classic climbs past frogs head that rarely have lines.  Even easy and moderate climbs down at slime/seasons/etc. were open last weekend and it was the busiest I've seen the gunks in a while. 

Should you gangbang city light?  nope.  Should you go to city lights expecting that it WON'T be gangbanged?  Well, probably not.  

cry harder