Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
Climbing is a tribal culture. Think of bolt chopping as counting coup.
|
|
Euroford
Trad climber
chicago
|
|
hanging out with some Europeans I've found it interesting how some of them are mentally tied to the organization and structure provided by the alpine clubs which seams to be much more prolific over there. seamed kinda of an odd mindset for a climber to have.
|
|
Chewbongka
climber
लघिमा
|
|
Start rap bolting in the Gunks today, then get back to us on this "climbing has no rules" bullshi!.
Or are you all talk and no action?
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 7, 2008 - 10:17am PT
|
Gunks has rules - set by the land owners.
Oh, yeah. And P2 of Arrow was put up exactly like that.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
This idea will go nowhere fast, like trying to herd a bunch of cats.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 7, 2008 - 11:01am PT
|
I guess radical has the keys to the medicine locker.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
TiG - you are trying to frame this issue in terms of "the individual" vs. "the community", a theme that runs through a lot of your contrarian rhetoric on the ST Forum. Contrarian thinking plays an important role in debate and discussions, as a rhetorical technique it works well with US audiences because of the proclivity to support the apparent "underdog," a strong archetype of US story telling which probably dates back to the Revolutionary War where legend has it that a band of farmers ("The Colonials") overthrew a world power (Britain).
Of course, contrarians have no more legitimacy than anyone else, you have to earn you points by argument arraying facts and constructing logic.
Natural resources, and I will posit that the cliffs of Yosemite National Park are such an example, are treated as a common, that is, something that is not owned by anyone, and stewarded by the state (in this case, the U.S. Gov't by way of the NPS). In this construction consider the essay by Garrett Hardin: "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science 162 1243 (1968) (since you might not have access to Science online, you can find the article here). Essentially the argument goes that unrestricted demand for finite natural resources leads to over-exploitation of that resource. An example is the Grand Banks fishing grounds off your side of the country, and the apparent collapse of the Salmon fishery off my side... essentially these fishing grounds where fished out of existence because they were a "commons" and the fishing was essentially unrestricted.
Russ threw in an idea on the Growing Up which most people didn't believe or choose to ignore: that the number of lines on the SFHD were few. Even Doug Robinson states that they searched for some weakness and found none. The point is the number of climbable lines is limited.
Now this may sound a bit trite, as the style in which a climb is done may seem to matter little to most climbers visiting Yosemite, there are a group of climbers who author climbs and who provide a standard, or sorts, to climbing. They don't do this through a set of rules, they do this by making the climb. It has been known in the Valley from the "Golden Age" that you could force your way up anything, get out the bolt kit and drill your way to the top. This was not considered acceptable style simply because it was also realized that as climbing developed there would be climbers with the technique and ability to climb the proposed lines in a better style.
The ideal style being one of minimal alteration of the route. Bolts are an alteration, at least for the purpose of climbing.
The alteration, in the case of bolting, is not irreversible. The bolts can be removed and the route "restored" to near its original state. I'm not advocating this, I'm just stating fact. In it's purest form this ideal would have us not bolt anything. In fact, that style of climbing was exemplified by Bachar, and others, in the late 70's early 80's with bold on-sight-solos of lines in Tuolumne Meadows. These lines are controversial today because some in the community would have them bolted so that they could enjoy them. Seems a strange turn of events, and the Vietnam War error logic, "we had to destroy the route in order to save it," oddly operative here.
The point is that route lines are a limited resource, and that the number of climbers is increasing, and with that increase the number of climbers doing FAs is increasing and makes competition for the "commons," the number of lines (which is a limited resource) even greater. Since the "commons" are a community entity to steward, it makes every sense that the discussion be engaged. Since the acts of individuals working with only self-interest in mind can eventually eliminate the "commons" by using it up, it is essential that the "community" exercise its role as the steward of the "commons" and impose some restoring order to preserve the "commons," and yes, that might mean limits on personal liberty, if only through moralistic means (the creation of "ethics" by discussing style).
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
B.C.
|
|
Amen Ed. TiG is saying that climbing is like skateboarding, a non-regulated personal activity done by those who don't live in 'the system.'
You point out Ed that climbing has expanded, and now that we are reaching the end of our once-unlimited rescources, we must realize that climbing is now a mainstream activity that will be dumbed-down for us in the future if we don't look at the big picture.
I see TiG as being correct - if it was 40 years ago and there was no more tommorow. I see Ed stepping back and looking at the big picture.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 7, 2008 - 11:28am PT
|
Nice points, Ed.
So in this whole discussion, you punt, it seems to me on who sets the rules for the commons. Most "commons" are regulated for better or worse, by a body appointed or elected to do so, at least in most of the modern world.
It is true that climbing is growing. Some seem to want to restrict that, perhaps to keep there small iconoclastic communities.
The question I raise is really fairly simple. If you believe that any rules should apply, what organization should have the privilege of setting them and enforcing them? There certainly is no such organization today, if you exclude the land managers. In cases where the land is privately owned, this question has essentially been answered already.
The "debate" seems to remain only on public lands, where for the most part, the management of stone to climb has been relatively hands-off.
EDIT:
Just read that link. It seems to arrive at the same conclusion I do. Just appealling to "conscience" does not work. Coercion of a community seems to work. But this road leads inexorably to governance, does it not? Which leads to debate about and resolution of the issues I mentioned in the initial post. Governance can work only with legitimacy. Legitimacy is granted, not taken.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I don't punt, the community is having the discussion right now, partly on this Forum... you can ask the question why anyone has the "authority" to challenge or defend the route Growing Up, Sean Jones? Doug Robinson? wildone? coz? Bachar? Dominga? et al.
The point is the community is having the discussion. If you don't think that that results in action, I'd have to say I was moved and concerned that Doug described himself as being depressed over it. And people reading it think about the points made on both sides of the discussion. While there is no regulating authority in the climbing community of Yosemite Valley, we do depend on people making decisions about what and how they climb there, especially on FAs.
My point is that there is a discussion, and that is part of the stewardship of the resource. Ultimately, I believe people's self-interest in their part of history is an important director of people's actions.
If you want to make a bold climbing statement in Yosemite Valley climbing illustrating the power of your vision, then you must include the collective vision of climbing in the Valley. That collective vision is a product of history and tradition of that community as well as individuals.
I believe in the community stewardship of the climbs, and I believe in individuals. Part of the process of reconciling these two conflicting beliefs is in engaging in this discussion.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
I would argue that rules that limit a scarce resource to only being accessible to bold 5.12 climbers are not very democratic, and are in fact a pretty selfish use of those resources. We're not talking about the level of mt bikes vs. ATVs. This would be more like saying in order to preserve resources or uphold tradition, we're only going to allow double black diamond mt bike trails to be built that only the most skilled and boldest riders can do.
If you're going to do that, maybe better not to allow anyone to use the resource and have no impact.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
A lot of noise is made out of who can and who cannot do an FA, where, in fact, anyone can. The point is most people do not, and those who do are very thoughtful and respectful (for the most part) of what they are doing. First and foremost, the FA team doesn't want to botch the job, that is, try to do something harder than they can handle while putting up a lot of stuff (e.g. bolting) as evidence of their inability.
Secondly, you'd like to put a line up that is a good climb, but you actually don't know until after you finish it whether or not it is... so you might cut a few corners, push a bold lead instead of leaving a bolt, and stuff like that. Usually after you've done the climb you know whether or not it's worth putting any more work, like retro-fitting the pro so that it isn't a "death climb" (whatever that is). When Eric and I went up on Dream Easy the first time we didn't put in any bolts. That made it way too committing for most 5.8 leaders. After we saw how it was going to play out, Eric went up with Linda and finished off the route, adding the equipment. That's responsible climbing. Often we practice "catch and release," we do a climb that is not going to be notable and we don't go back and improve it...
You might also have an idea that the climb is a "break through" climb, a statement of something or another regarding the zietgeist or just climbing as hard and as close to the limit as you can, or anyone can. I don't think I'm in that league anymore... but that doesn't mean that I feel bad that someone else is, that someone else will put up climbs I will never have a chance of climbing, that's life.
No one is out there checking your "card" turning you away.
Fact is, the lines left require skills displayed by elite climbers. Bringing the climb down to the level of most climbers is not a new issue, but it is a part of our culture NOT to do it... I don't think it is elitist... except that what is left to do requires elite ability. Even Growing Up is not a climb accessible to most climbers in the Valley, most 5.11's aren't accessible... but they are more accessible today than the day they were put up.
The standards keep rising.
|
|
Dr. Rock
Ice climber
Castle Rock
|
|
You know whats weird, besides me, is that, in that 800 plus thread, not once does anybody quote the park rules on defacing national treasures.
Is it not illegal to drill holes into the Dome?
Actually, if you think about it, if we survive global warming long enuff to climb the Dome for the nexy 2000 years, most of the protection will be loactaed at the base of the rock in the form of exfoliated morain, what say?
|
|
Paulina
Trad climber
|
|
The first rule of climbing is: you don't talk about climbing.
Oh wait! Nevermind...
|
|
Dr. Rock
Ice climber
Castle Rock
|
|
Good kharma = safe climbing?
Only the Dali Lama knows fo sho.
|
|
Barbarian
Trad climber
all bivied up on the ledge
|
|
Climbing has rules...
Mine are:
1. Climb it from the bottom
2. Place no bolts
3. Pound no pins
4. Chip no holds
5. Leave no trace, no trash
6. If you can't climb it in style..leave it for someone else
These are the rules I've chosen to follow. I won't attempt to impose them on you.
My rules aren't better; they simply ensure that my climbing will have no impact on yours. Again, my choice.
Your rules? Your choice.
Peace!
|
|
Standing Strong
Trad climber
the secret life of T*R
|
|
it took me forever to click on this thread just becuz it has the word "rules" in the title
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Charter ratification and its amendment process
Let us know!