A new low in climber vandalism hits the Gunks

Um, my eleven year old can get up any 5.3 without chalk and if I let her without the rope.  I would be offended if someone was leading and pointing out the way to go.  Isn't that part of the fun, to solve the problem without help?  The leader was the problem IMHO and should be found and told not to baby people up climbs.

Everyone in this thread is talking past each other. Stop for a minute and try to actually see the other guy's perspective before tearing down yet another straw man.

Also I think this is the only MP thread I've ever seen where anyone has claimed a Gunks 5.3 is actually easy instead of a heinous sandbag...

Blakevan wrote:

Um, my eleven year old can get up any 5.3 without chalk and if I let her without the rope.  I would be offended if someone was leading and pointing out the way to go.  Isn't that part of the fun, to solve the problem without help?  The leader was the problem IMHO and should be found and told not to baby people up climbs.

Not trying to change this thread, but you really really shouldn't let your eleven year old free solo 5.3 in the gunks.  Like... really really shouldn't. 

So, just to recap:

Some guy climbs "Betty", a 5.3 at the Gunks, and uses pink sidewalk chalk to outline key holds for his female follower who is such a bad climber she apparently needs this sort of help to get up a 5.3.

An old-timey local posts photos of a pink tick mark and calls it a "new low in in [sic] climber vandalism". He didn't witness the event, but his friend did and told him about it - unfortunately he failed to clearly explain this little detail so he is quickly attacked by feminists accusing him of sexism for assuming the follower was female because a) she's a bad climber, b) she's following, or c) the chalk was pink.

Meanwhile, the original post turns into a debate about the ethics of using chalk, and the local is also accused of being a hypocrite for having once used chalk. In fact, the local admits regret over having introduced chalk (and the use of chalkbags) to the climbing community (single-handedly?)... back in the day.

The thread is peppered with technical information about how sidewalk chalk is different from climbing chalk (which in turn is different from paint) and lasts much longer, as well as helpful suggestions about how to remove graffiti.

And finally, somebody had better call child protective services on the father who allows, or doesn't, his 11 year old daughter to free solo 5.3 in the Gunks - and sans pink tick marks to boot!

I just want to say thank you Mountain Project. Thank you.

It's frustrating that no one has mentioned the obvious solution:

Subsequent ascensionists must tick the route using carefully planned shades of paint. Eventually, the paints will merge, returning the rock to its natural hue and allowing the beautiful process to start anew. It's the circle of life.

Just like that song from "The Little Mermaid."

i think the OP is raising a serious concern.

i believe that as a community, the expectation is that we ought to leave as little of a mark on the rock as possible. of course, if the objective requires it, we make admissions to the rules for the sake of safety (bolts, slings, pitons, "x's on loose blocks", etc.).

the introduction of chalk created a slippery slope in that we are marking up the rock not for safety but for pushing our limits. ticking feet and crimps isn't so bad as long as the climber brushes off his beta marks after he's done. but how often does the climber clean up his ticks? not often.

using colored chalk takes us further down the rabbit hole. if other folks who enjoy these natural places are sufficiently bothered by it, i think we could risk losing access.

then again, most climbers agree that the midnight lightning bolt shouldn't be scrubbed. it's a slippery slope.

However, if it's just chalk (of various sorts), probably we need to count our blessings.  Shakes head. 

Josh Janes wrote:

So, just to recap:

Some guy climbs "Betty", a 5.3 at the Gunks, and uses pink sidewalk chalk to outline key holds for his female follower who is such a bad climber she apparently needs this sort of help to get up a 5.3.

An old-timey local posts photos of a pink tick mark and calls it a "new low in in [sic] climber vandalism". He didn't witness the event, but his friend did and told him about it - unfortunately he failed to clearly explain this little detail so he is quickly attacked by feminists accusing him of sexism for assuming the follower was female because a) she's a bad climber, b) she's following, or c) the chalk was pink.

Meanwhile, the original post turns into a debate about the ethics of using chalk, and the local is also accused of being a hypocrite for having once used chalk. In fact, the local admits regret over having introduced chalk (and the use of chalkbags) to the climbing community (single-handedly?)... back in the day.

The thread is peppered with technical information about how sidewalk chalk is different from climbing chalk (which in turn is different from paint) and lasts much longer, as well as helpful suggestions about how to remove graffiti.

And finally, somebody had better call child protective services on the father who allows, or doesn't, his 11 year old daughter to free solo 5.3 in the Gunks - and sans pink tick marks to boot!

I just want to say thank you Mountain Project. Thank you.

Let's not forget, we got all of this in the first four pages of the thread! Who knows what the next ten will bring?

I'm not sure which is more surprising, that some choad actually ticked the hell out of a 5.3 trad route with pink chalk, or that there are actually people willing to defend what the choad did...

I have to imagine that the people defending ticking an entire 5.3 trad route with pink chalk are just trolls.  There's no fucking way anyone is seriously defending this.  I'm calling bullshit.

Asparagus for dinner and breakfast...drink 3 quarts of water in the morning...cruise around Trapps on a Saturday looking for backpacks at the base of routes where people are ticking holds.  

What amazes me is that so many folks behave and argue as if the rules and norms of climbing are somehow universal - if it's allowable in one place, then it has to be allowed everywhere, if it can be expected in one place, then is should be expected anywhere.

If it has to be all-or-nothing, then there are a lot fewer places that we should be allowed to climb.

I hope I didn't come across as supporting pink tick marks. I just don't think they really count as an outrageous "new low in climber vandalism."

I got a C in communications though, so maybe it's not surprising.

I don't get you guys talking shit on Rgold. He's consistently been a voice of reason here and a phenomenal source of information. If you think he's being over sensitive about these ridiculous tick marks on a 5.3 that's fine. But there's no need for shit talking. If any of you had climbed Betty you would realize how unnecessary any tick marks are, and at a place as trafficked as the gunks the potential for any poor behavior "trends" needs to be nipped in the bud or else a rainbow colored gunks isn't that far fetched.

I think we can all agree that using chalk on our hands is lame but necessary.

I think we can also agree that tick marks are lame but no big deal...then some dick has the audacity to use pink chalk! Over the line.

Josh Janes wrote:

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.

Thanks for the interlude of understanding Josh.   And also sorry you couldn't leave it at that and had to go back to mocking later.   If your guarantee that the thread will make no difference is true---and it may be---then I've really wasted my time, because my only motivation was to make some kind of difference, given that the opportunity for any direct discussion with the offending ticker did not exist.  

I'm sure you understand that I'm not free to just pop over at any moment to brush down a climb.  I certainly intend to have a look at Betty the first chance I get.  It is raining as I type this, so if the sidewalk chalk behaves as advertised, it may be gone.  Cleaning the mess up and then posting an account might have been a better way, but it wasn't one that was immediately available to me.

GilaShot wrote:

Asparagus for dinner and breakfast...drink 3 quarts of water in the morning...cruise around Trapps on a Saturday looking for backpacks at the base of routes where people are ticking holds.  

You're evil.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Is Old Lady H doing thread title writing services now?

Kyle, however much it floats your boat to find ways to insult me, would you please leave others, such as rgold, out of it? 

Thank you, sir.

Helen

for those ticks you *really* gotta see

According to the route page, the FA on Betty was in 1941.  It would suck to show up to do a classic 1950's 5.3 in Eldo and see this.  Not in the same ballpark as hand chalk.  Its hard to disagree with rgold on this.