A new low in climber vandalism hits the Gunks

Doug Hemken wrote:

Either it's pristine, or anything goes.  There is nothing in between.

Now I'm reminded of the phrase "tragedy of the commons".

Huh?  This is called discontinuous thinking.  As it turns out, between 0 and 100 lie 1 through 99.  

Rich, you came here with good intentions and a fairly simple message, don't be a dumbass, don't sh*t in your mess kit.  Per the MP norm, the concept is too difficult to comprehend. Thanks for the info.   

rgold wrote:

A false analogy aided by a misunderstanding of Abbey, who believed that the building of paved roads brought automobiles into the pristine desert and ruined it.  Abbey believed passionately in human-powered experience of the desert, it was the things that mechanized the experience he railed against.  So when you say "maybe the climbing route already trashed the spot," you've misunderstood Abbey's basic point.  I think Abbey would have fully approved of a trad climbing route as a natural feature utilized for human-powered exploration, so no, you can't get any help from Abbey in your attempt to enable massive ticking.

I suspect that Abbey would have viewed sport climbing, in which the routes are created by motorized drills, as a from of trashing the natural scene, the line of bolts replacing the ribbons of pavement he hated.  So tick the hell out of sport climbs, if your authority for such things is Abbey, but please leave areas like the Gunks out of it.

As for what you are or are not buying, we obviously totally disagree.  One could fill pages of examples from every aspect of life in which a little is ok and a lot is not.  It is your right and priviledge not to get that, but that doesn't change its universal appropriateness.

Your last point has some arguable content.  One of the ways progress happens in climbing is that people circumvent or outright break the conventions that govern the activity.  You have Honnold ticking the Free Blast, so why shouldn't Joe Crayola tick the Betty?  I think these are tricky issues that climbers have never managed to face with clarity.  Applying "cutting edge" techniques to "pedestrian climbs" might ruin the climbs and the experience of those who aspire to them, so that a vague sense, never clearly articulated as far as I know, of "proportional response"---the climber's version of not using a howitzer to swat a mosquito---has typically been applied.  I think one of the ways people have tried to cope with these philosophical inconsistencies is to say that if you aren't altering the climb or changing the experience for others, then go ahead and apply cutting-edge strategies to pedestrian climbs.  But the line is usually drawn at alteration, and within that restriction, it seems to me that extensive ticking of the footholds on a beginner-level trad route most definitely alters it unless or until the ticks wash off, and I don't see the that the long-term impermanence trumps the short-term degradation. 

I'm not sure you have a monopoly on Abbey understanding - but agree with you that we can't ask him.  Actually I am cynical enough to believe that thr primary motivation for writing the "Monkey Wrench Game" was $$$.  Certainly it was for "Hayduke Lives".  But I think in your rush to discredit me - you are being inconsistent.  We both say that Abbey (apparently) didn't like roads - yet when I say it its a misunderstanding? 

For all your "little is ok a lot is not" examples one could easily concoct counter ones.  Saying a little chalk is ok a lot is not - well who knows - its really not that big a deal. But certainly the trend over the last 50 years has been for more and more.   Certainly not enough to warrant "new low" status (antics on Twilight Zone on the 80's/90's anyone - but that boils down into who is performing the antics).

For the most part I am amused about how people get so worked up over trivial stuff and get tunnel vision trying to defend their positions without really thinking.  Just think if all this angst and energy could be used on important things.

Not sure why reading this thread made me think of this, but I was reading somewhere that when the beta chimp gets bitchslapped by the alpha chimp, he in turn gets a nice little rewarding jolt of dopamine by bitchslapping the omega chimp.

Maybe something to do with trying to create self-evident syllogistic propositions out of what is basically just a fairly petty power struggle.

Eric Engberg wrote:

But I think in your rush to discredit me - you are being inconsistent.  We both say that Abbey (apparently) didn't like roads - yet when I say it its a misunderstanding? 

Your misunderstanding of Abbey occurs when you equate a trad climbing route, which is just a natural path taken by people from bottom to top and so something Abbey wholeheartedly embraced, with a paved road, which is something unnatural added by some entity---in Abbey's case the government---in order to bring in people and machines that wouldn't otherwise have had access.

Was Abbey tossing his empties to trash the desert or to trash the road?

Doug Hemken wrote:

Was Abbey tossing his empties to trash the desert or to trash the road?

He was using hyperbole - he wasn't tossing his empties.

rgold wrote:

Your misunderstanding of Abbey occurs when you equate a trad climbing route, which is just a natural path taken by people from bottom to top and so something Abbey wholeheartedly embraced, with a paved road, which is something unnatural added by some entity---in Abbey's case the government---in order to bring in people and machines that wouldn't otherwise have had access.

What is your opinion on ethics of refusing to add rappel anchors to the tops of some traditional routes while slinging and killing vegetation and contributing to hill top erosion?

Jared, I've done my best to give reasons for everything I've argued, and have made no attempts at referencing whatever experience or knowledge I have to justify what I've said.  And given that the reasoning is there for everyone to evaluate for themselves, it shouldn't matter, prince that I am, whether or not I'm a prick.

Even so, I've been surprised---even astounded---at what amounts to vigorous enabling of the ticking behavior I described.  Many people seem to be far more interested in arguing about the intensity of my characterizations than they are in condemning the behavior I've perhaps hyperbolically decried.

When such behavior becomes the subject for little more than a shoulder shrug, there will be a whole lot more in the days ahead.

Doug Hemken wrote:

Was Abbey tossing his empties to trash the desert or to trash the road?

He was doing it to express his disgust with the road, which in his view had "trashed" the desert.  Eric's analogy, which I have argued misunderstands Abbey, is that the route had "trashed" the cliff.  Of course, this would have meant that Mr. Crayola was not marking footholds for his partner, but was instead protesting the existence of (presumably) all climbing routes.

amarius wrote:

What is your opinion on ethics of refusing to add rappel anchors to the tops of some traditional routes while slinging and killing vegetation and contributing to hill top erosion?

And this is related to ticking the Betty how?

mpech wrote:

I'm saying the ugliness you're decrying (use of chalk, ticking holds, etc...) has been more or less accepted by the climbing community for a long time...

Much of the climbing community, yes, but not all accept its use everywhere. Certainly one should consider the location and what other users especially non-climbers will see/think of chalk. Remember chalked rock is not usually smiled upon by non-climbers. We want climbing access to continue and improve, and marking the bejeezus out of cliffs hinders that goal. 

What I don't get is Rgold using or appearing to use the grade as an integral part of the argument. And Rgold of all people doing it? I'm sure I missed something, hopefully?

So if I climb X, I can now go up to someone who's putting ticks on X-1 and say: "Hey asshole, I'm in charge here, and I've determined that you're not allowed to tick on X-1."

Christian wrote:

What I don't get is Rgold using or appearing to use the grade as an integral part of the argument. And Rgold of all people doing it? I'm sure I missed something, hopefully?

So if I climb X, I can now go up to someone who's putting ticks on X-1 and say: "Hey asshole, I'm in charge here, and I've determined that you're not allowed to tick on X-1."

 

Given the fact that it is a 5.3 with easily identifiable feet that are all cleary visible with nothing hidden or tricky about them

First of all, I'm not in charge anywhere and never claimed to be.  But the point of the grade is that the holds are huge and so by any ordinary standard ticking them is absurd. (How did Betty Woolsey ever get up this in 1941?).   

Moreover, I never said anywhere that the ability of someone to climb at a higher grade gave them the right to dictate behavior to people with less ability; that is something you have made up out of whole cloth.  It is true that others raised the specter of what is acceptable at the cutting edge may not be acceptable at the "pedestrian" level, and I tried to respond to that with the nuance inherent in the situation.

Thanks for the clarification. It's interesting how "it's a matter of degree" seems perfectly reasonable to me when it comes to size, color, and chalk type on the tick. But somehow the "it's only 5.3" part seems a little off - probably doesn't help that the picture makes the route look like a slopey mess.

I promise that if I have a stroke tomorrow, I will only tick on 5.4s and above :-)

rgold wrote:

First of all, I'm not in charge anywhere and never claimed to be.  But the point of the grade is that the holds are huge and so by any ordinary standard ticking them is absurd. (How did Betty Woolsey ever get up this in 1941?).   

Moreover, I never said anywhere that the ability of someone to climb at a higher grade gave them the right to dictate behavior to people with less ability; that is something you have made up out of whole cloth.  It is true that others raised the specter of what is acceptable at the cutting edge may not be acceptable at the "pedestrian" level, and I tried to respond to that with the nuance inherent in the situation.

With all due respect, I don't think it's absurd for ticks to be on a 5.3, or any other grade. They are used to highlight and identify holds. Their use is dependent on the climbers ability to recognize said hold, and climbing ability, not the grade of the climb. On the harder routes where it seems to be accepted it's often used as a) to help visibility (you tick holds for yourself), or b) beta (you tick holds for others).

Of course, it's also considered good etiquette to scrub off your ticks when you're done, but I don't know how much that's really caught on with the greater climbing community.

This is clearly a case of "b". The issues presented are 1) ticks on a low grade climb, and 2) pink sidewalk chalk that's hard to remove

For 1) i have no problem. I envision a situation of a BRAND NEW climber coming outside to climb, and needing help identifying what's good to try and use. This makes their experience better (less flailing), and help's them learn features to look for in the future. Usually these climb clear themselves in the rain (not sure this specific route from this thread). Not everyone start's in the gym, or is as self motivated as others to "go for it".

For 2) I'm willing to allow the person may not have been aware of it's lasting effects, etc. and chose it for convenience knowing they would be ticking a lot of holds, and thinking it would easily wash away like the regular chalk we use (or didn't think of that at all, having seen ticks elsewhere). In cases like this I choose to believe in ignorance, vs malfeasance, as that seems to be the case more often than not. 

That said, I appreciate the sentiment of trying to raise awareness in the community, but I think the outrage and indignation presented in the OP is a bit uncalled for. Which it seems is what many responses are taking offense to.

Brian L. wrote:

For 1) i have no problem. I envision a situation of a BRAND NEW climber coming outside to climb, and needing help identifying what's good to try and use. This makes their experience better (less flailing), and help's them learn features to look for in the future. Usually these climb clear themselves in the rain (not sure this specific route from this thread). Not everyone start's in the gym, or is as self motivated as others to "go for it".

No. Isn't the entire point of an easy beginner climb to allow the brand new climber to build the skills to figure out the puzzle on their own? Perhaps a single tick on an obscure, hard to see hold might be reasonable for a specific climber on a specific climb, but it's sure as hell not reasonable for every foothold on the pitch. Particularly on a pitch where the footholds are big enough that they can accomodate a mountaineering boot.

Marc801 C wrote:

No. Isn't the entire point of an easy beginner climb to allow the brand new climber to build the skills to figure out the puzzle on their own? Perhaps a single tick on an obscure, hard to see hold might be reasonable for a specific climber on a specific climb, but it's sure as hell not reasonable for every foothold on the pitch. Particularly on a pitch where the footholds are big enough that they can accomodate a mountaineering boot.

Everyone is different, and it's not up to us to determine how steep their steps should be on their development ladder.

I see new climbers at the gym struggle every day on the easiest climbs they offer. They have trouble figuring out where to go on a climb I considered a ladder, that has multiple options for hand and feet at every move.

Take that same person outside instead of the gym and it's often even MORE challenging to start. If you're trying t encourage the person the start climbing, you want them to have a good time, no sitting on the wall, flailing and struggling. I can easily see ticking the holds as a teaching exercise.

The problem here is the permanence of the mark. The attitude that it shouldn't have been done at all is mostly elitism, IMO.

Brian L. wrote:

Everyone is different, and it's not up to use to determine how steep their steps should be on their development ladder.

The problem here is the permanence of the mark. The attitude that it shouldn't have been done at all is mostly elitism, IMO.

WOW

Via Ferrata it is.