A new low in climber vandalism hits the Gunks

Has anyone tried to remove the chalk yet? Get a drill motor , a wire wheel , and some water and see how hard it is to remove.

It's like graffiti, we can all talk about how much we dislike it, but eventually someone just needs to go paint over it (or clean it)

On removing sidewalk chalk:

http://www.crayola.com/support/stain-tips/sidewalk-chalk--sidewalk-crayons/sidewalk-chalk--sidewalk-crayons-on-asphaltconcretecementmasonry/

Who where the early adopters of gymnastic chalk?  Just saying....  Pots and kettles and all that.

Josh Janes wrote:

One option might be to say something to the climbers seen doing this then and there. Or, at worst, go back and climb this 150' long 5.3 located 10 minutes from the car with a brush and a water bottle and be done with it.

Another option might be to keep your mouth shut but take photos and complain to your friend. Then post a thread with a clickbait title on Mountain Project and watch it for days and weeks as it blows up.

I just don't get it.

Option 1 wasn't available, I already indicated that.

Option 2, which for all I know may have been undertaken, means that the person in question never hears anything about their actions.

Option 3 is misstated, see previous posts and again the Option 1 comment above.

The only way I could think to get some feedback back to the person who did this was to "post a thread with a clickbait title on Mountain Project and watch it for days and weeks as it blows up."  You really don't get that?

Of course, I didn't anticipate that there would be so many enablers.  Live and learn.

Eric Engberg wrote:

Who where the early adopters of gymnastic chalk?  Just saying....  Pots and kettles and all that.

I had a lot to do with the spread of gymnastic chalk to various climbing areas, something I deeply regret.  It went from an occasional dab on the fingertips from a tiny chunk in my pocket to the Yosemite introduction of chalk bags, and the rest is history.  And now I see an entire cohort of  people enabling further destructive behavior, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of those enablers will also live to regret their relativistic arguments.  In any case, I see no reason why my "original sin" should stop me from trying to mitigate what I see as a disasterous degradation of the natural climbing scene.

rgold wrote:

I don't care for even a single ticked hold on a trad climb, but purposely bringing sidewalk chalk to extensively tick the footholds---and they aren't small---on an easy trad climb constitutes, as I said, a new low, and I don't know anywhere where such a practice is "more or less accepted."  

I also don't buy the argument that because climbers inevitably cause some degradation, that it must follow that all degradation is acceptable and that it is hypocritical to oppose any of it, and I think that continually striving to reduce climber impacts is the very opposite of hypocrisy.

There are no climbing areas that I know of (in the United States) where chalk isn't used. Climbers there use chalk as a form of aid; a side-effect of chalk use is that holds are made more visible. In areas that receive little rain, entire cliffs can become discolored with chalk, which some people find unaesthetic. The picture that I posted shows some of the environmental/asthetic degradation that the climbing community seems to accept-- an entire wall in the background is dripping in chalk, and in the foreground, the cliff is grid-bolted and covered in perma-draws. 

If you agree with the above statement-- how can you argue that what this climber did with pink chalk is somehow outside the norms of climbing behavior? They are using a colored chalk as a climbing aid-- just like everyone else at the crag.  The climbing community is the pot calling the kettle black. 

rgold wrote:

I had a lot to do with the spread of gymnastic chalk to various climbing areas, something I deeply regret.  It went from an occasional dab on the fingertips from a tiny chunk in my pocket to the Yosemite introduction of chalk bags, and the rest is history.  And now I see an entire cohort of  people enabling further destructive behavior, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of those enablers will also live to regret their relativistic arguments.  In any case, I see no reason why my "original sin" should stop me from trying to mitigate what I see as a disasterous degradation of the natural climbing scene.

You know, that's a great point... It's easy to to throw out a "pot/kettle" comment, or the classic biblical "let he who is without sin throw the first stone", but is it not possible to regret your earlier transgressions, and try to warn others from making the same mistakes? I see my kids do boneheaded things all the time, that I myself did at that age... should I not warn them of the consequences I suffered for my actions? Or should I look the other way because of some adage about people in glass houses?

mpech wrote:

If you agree with the above statement-- how can you argue that what this climber did with pink chalk is somehow outside the norms of climbing behavior? They are using a colored chalk as a climbing aid-- just like everyone else at the crag.  The climbing community is the pot calling the kettle black. 

Are you really not seeing a distinction between rock chalking as a side effect of its use on hands and the outlining of entire edges or arrows (as noted last year 2+' on Beginner's Delight along with smiley faces)?

The trolling in this thread is lame. Rich was trying to post a (necessary, IMHO) alert to the community that a harmful practice is going on. He did this so we as a community could try to put a stop to it. 

The practice in question is not a part of accepted use of the resources in the Gunks. I don't think this is seriously in dispute.

Whether the practice is the only harmful practice that climbers engage in, in the Gunks or anywhere else, is not really germane.

Whether the practice is a "new low," or merely bad, is I suppose of some interest but is rather beside the point.

Thanks Rich, for spreading the word. I will be on the lookout for this.

mpech wrote:

There are no climbing areas that I know of (in the United States) where chalk isn't used. Climbers there use chalk as a form of aid; a side-effect of chalk use is that holds are made more visible. In areas that receive little rain, entire cliffs can become discolored with chalk, which some people find unaesthetic. The picture that I posted shows some of the environmental/asthetic degradation that the climbing community seems to accept-- an entire wall in the background is dripping in chalk, and in the foreground, the cliff is grid-bolted and covered in perma-draws. 

If you agree with the above statement-- how can you argue that what this climber did with pink chalk is somehow outside the norms of climbing behavior? They are using a colored chalk as a climbing aid-- just like everyone else at the crag.  The climbing community is the pot calling the kettle black. 

Your response doesn't address my arguments, it ignores them.  You're advancing the slippery slope fallacy that if something is bad, then we have to accept all possible consequences.  And you have missed the fact that there is no reason to apply the kind of degradation that has made some sport climbing areas so ugly to areas where nothing close has yet happend. Instead, you are advocating for a race to the bottom in which the worst examples, rather than the best ones, inform our actions.

rgold wrote:

Your response doesn't address my arguments, it ignores them.  You're advancing the slippery slope fallacy that if something is bad, then we have to accept all possible consequences.  And you have missed the fact that there is no reason to apply the kind of degradation that has made some sport climbing areas so ugly to areas where nothing close has yet happend. Instead, you are advocating for a race to the bottom in which the worst examples, rather than the best ones, inform our actions.

I guess i didn't make myself clear-- i'm not advocating a race to the bottom-- what I'm trying to point out is the incredible mental contortions our climbing community goes through to justify their own behavior

mpech wrote:

There are no climbing areas that I know of (in the United States) where chalk isn't used. Climbers there use chalk as a form of aid; a side-effect of chalk use is that holds are made more visible. In areas that receive little rain, entire cliffs can become discolored with chalk, which some people find unaesthetic. The picture that I posted shows some of the environmental/asthetic degradation that the climbing community seems to accept-- an entire wall in the background is dripping in chalk, and in the foreground, the cliff is grid-bolted and covered in perma-draws. 

If you agree with the above statement-- how can you argue that what this climber did with pink chalk is somehow outside the norms of climbing behavior? They are using a colored chalk as a climbing aid-- just like everyone else at the crag.  The climbing community is the pot calling the kettle black. 

No chalk allowed at Palisade Head in MN.

MojoMonkey wrote:

Are you really not seeing a distinction between rock chalking as a side effect of its use on hands and the outlining of entire edges or arrows (as noted last year 2+' on Beginner's Delight along with smiley faces)?

at the end of the day, no. 

they are both forms of vandalism that we commit on the rock. The difference is that you like climbing with chalk, and so you will create an arbitrary set of justifications and distinctions to defend your actions. 

Listen Rich - no harm intended in my posts. You've been around climbing for a long time and I'm sure you've seen it change (for better and for worse) over the years as much as anyone. Especially since your home crag is an hour and a half from NYC.

The information on what is appropriate behavior and  what isn't is out there. It's a shame that there are a few outliers out there like this guy who either don't get it or don't care - but I guarantee this thread isn't going to make a difference.

On the other hand, going out and brushing the chalk off would. The cliff would be better, YOU'd feel better, and, if you posted a thread about it, everyone else would be stoked about it as well (rather than feeling all grrr at the chalk bandit). If you feel guilty about introducing chalk to generations of climbers, this could even be your penance! I was at the Gunks last week but unfortunately I'm back home now - were I still there I would be delighted to help you - I've never climbed Betty but I've heard it's a classic.

Tradiban wrote:

No chalk allowed at Palisade Head in MN.

Depends on who you ask. MN DNR does not have a rule about chalk and the community is divided. Guidebooks were written stating "no chalk ethic" at the same time that routes were being developed with chalk use. It's a raging battle in MN that can't be won. 

Mpech why don't you start your own thread about the scourge of all chalk, rather than cluttering this thread, which is not about that?

mpech wrote:

at the end of the day, no. 

they are both forms of vandalism that we commit on the rock. The difference is that you like climbing with chalk, and so you will create an arbitrary set of justifications and distinctions to defend your actions. 

Maybe you'll find this less arbitrary - Mohonk Preserve Climbing Policy: "the Preserve views chalk as environmentally degrading and urges climbers to use it with discretion"

Can you agree that colored, foot long arrows and smiley faces are not exactly discreet?

mpech wrote:

at the end of the day, no. 

they are both forms of vandalism that we commit on the rock. The difference is that you like climbing with chalk, and so you will create an arbitrary set of justifications and distinctions to defend your actions. 

And so, by that logic, since many folks "like climbing with" metal hardware, it's appropriate to accept power drilled bolts every 2.5 feet up each and every route at any/all crags.  To do otherwise is, again by your logic, creating "an arbitrary set of justifications and distinctions".

To suggest that there is no difference between residual white chalk as it is commonly used, and this eggregious and unprecedented demarkation is either bone-headedly obtuse, or Grade A trolling.  I don't care which it is at this point; I won't be responding further.  But let me say this - NO ONE within earshot of me will ever use colored sidewalk chalk at the Gunks without hearing from me immediately and forcefully, with escalation as appropriate to their response.

Tradiban wrote:

No chalk allowed at Palisade Head in MN.

White chalk or any chalk which stains the rock is prohibited in Garden of the Gods, CO

rgold wrote:

Sam is a woman.

I owned up to my possibly unjustified assumptions, she ought to own up to hers.

Sam H wrote:

You're right, I jumped to conclusions, and I appreciate you making the change. 

I think there is a possibly different bit of sexism than a guess at relationship status.

Did the second request ticking all the holds or was it an assumption on the leader's part that she would need the tick marks 'cause, you know, she's a girl and all and can't possibly figure it out on her own?

Obviously we can't know this, but I strongly suspect that is what may have occurred.