Erik Sloan’s Latest Victim – Ten Days After

fivethirty said:

"As a "young" climber, I have yet to hear a compelling reason why the FA party should blanket own the route."

This is an honest and appropriate question from a poster who's been consistently positive and upbeat on this site. He's clearly an actual climber and is also the type of poster that makes Supertopo better.

So here's my stab at answers:

1. This ethic avoids chaos:

If the decisions made by the first ascent party aren't to govern the route after the first ascent, then what will govern it? It bears repeating - what "rule" would apply if it isn't this one?

It seems obvious that if any climbing party could add bolts to any route, total chaos would result. To an extent, the same result would follow if any party could subtract bolts from a climb, too.

There's no way that all climbers will ever agree on what is the higher value as between safety and risk. Parties will (and do) disagree on what makes a good route. They disagree on what makes a fun route, and they disagree on what makes a challenging route. There won't be agreement on this subject in general and there won't be agreement on it as to various, specific climbing routes. And so, if there is no "rule," no strongly held consensus of whether a route can be "changed" after it's first ascent (especially by the addition or subtraction of bolts), parties will add bolts and they might also subtract them at will. 

In short, total chaos would result. Neither the rock itself (which is highly worthy of respect) nor the climbing community would benefit from such chaos.

A hard and fast rule (especially one steeped in tradition and history; see below) is one very good way to avoid such chaos. It may be the only way.

2. This ethic is clean and easy to apply:

Again, if the decisions made by the first ascent party aren't to govern the route after the first ascent, then what will govern it? What rule will apply?

If this rule isn't valid, then can a route be changed after the first ascent by consensus? If so, how strong a consensus, and who decides? How is a consensus to be formed? Would a consensus to make a route more dangerous require a stronger consensus?

What about leaving such decisions in the hands of the "best" climbers? Would that work? As an exercise, find me five climbers who can agree on what makes up the "best" climber. Just five who agree. Not likely?

Am I a "better" climber because I handle risk better than my buddy who climbs only on "safe" routes? Or is he the better climber because he leads 5.12s, while I max out on 5.11s?

I can't imagine a different "clean" rule, one that's easy to apply and is thus likely to be followed by a vast majority. Can any other climber here plainly and clearly describe such a rule?

3. This ethic has a strong tradition:

This argument in favor of letting the first ascent party "own" a route - "tradition" - is the best known and most frequently made. And it's a damn good argument to many. It's especially a good argument to those who enjoy the history of our sport. After all, what place in history would routes like Bacher Yerian (in Tuolumne Meadows), or Conduit to the Cosmos (at Pinnacles) have if they'd been dumbed down by subsequent ascents?

4. This ethic would prevent the "dumbing down" of all routes:

I, for one, value risk as an essential element of climbing. I'm glad that I'll never exist in a climbing world where all routes are "safe." I even resent those who try to make all routes "safe." Should all routes be safe? Aren't there plenty of safe routes around? Or should all climbs be gym-like so that injury is factored out and climbing becomes an exercise in outdoor gymnastics?

The question is phrased in a way that makes my answer to it clear. Is there really any climber out there who wants all routes to be equally safe? And, in the unlikely event that anyone can truly answer "yes' to this question, don't we circle back to the question: "then who gets to decide what "safe" means?

5. This ethic shows respect for others:

So, a clear and easy to apply "rule" prevents dumbing down every climb; it prevents chaos. What other value does such an ethic have? It fosters respect for others, respect for other people; in this case other climbers who came before us.

The older I get, the more that I value respect and kindness toward other people. In climbing and in life in general, discounting other people's values can be insulting and disrespectful. In this sport, there's tons of safe climbs out there, and tons that aren't safe. Is it really ever necessary to "tell" the first ascent party that their decisions were "bad" decisions by altering what they did?

I don't think so. As demonstrated in other threads on this forum, other climbers are willing to do that (and, ironically, the "other," disrespected climbers are then willing to be jerks to the original offenders and thus perpetuate a vicious cycle).

I, along with many others, are sick of seeing routes getting "Nannoked". That is what happens when Erik Sloan climbs a route. He brings a power drill, then proceeds to drill the piss out of the hard sections to make it "user friendly" and then lies about it or says he did a "public service".

The Valley is a 7 by 1 mile ditch and is the geologic equivalent of a small town.

Thanks for the sage advice, donini. Here's some advice for you: If you don't like a conversation, STFU and stay out of it.

what we need is to get hold of a bit a'crystal, from the best source of the Bay Area, and dose nanook

confine him to a Federal Prison.

I just did a really hard Layton Kor route on the East Face of the Washington Column. I'm bitchen as hell. I'm as cool as Layton Kor. Wait! I'm better than Layton Kor, because I post my Selfies on Facebook. I rule! I'm as bitchen as Kylie Jenner. Whoa, brah, check me out, and then Friend me, and then Like my update!

He's used a power drill in the National Park wilderness