Southern Arizona Climbing Etiquette---Part I, September 2010

I hope you guy’s can keep it together down there.
Here in Boulder County people have been retro-bolting routes for years. Kind’a sucks…….
But really, what can you do?

Rick,
+1

I do not think we will ever all “git along.” If climbing is a microcosm of the world then one look at the mornings newspapers dispels this naivete. I do not think we ever have a unified consensus.

Are we not however, unified in our love of climbing?

For the sake of that love can we not (momentarily) put aside our fear and anger and rationally discuss the issues?

If we cannot---then I fear for the future of S. Arizona climbing. The future will only exit until we have to stand up for it.

Dissent is important. Outliers (thanks Eric D.) are important. They help us define who we are. JD Kendall asks me to think about my values. We may never convince him to change his views---but he forces me to explain mine, if only to myself. He forces me to remember when I clipped bolts on a line that was retro-ed and probably should have just run it out. His arguments are important.

I think they are wrong for several reasons:
1.) Respect for the first ascentionist.

2.) Do as you would be done by—JD would it be OK if we retro-ed your routes?

3.) Simple pleasure, growth and respect for myself.

Many years ago I climbed an old trad line and took a whopping fall. It seemed like 40 feet. It was probably 20. It was all air. I did not hit anything—but it scared me to death. I lowered off and went home. Swore off climbing until I forgot about the incident—at least til I got back to the truck.

A few years ago I happened to be in the neighborhood. The memory of the climb still scared me, but I thought I would give it another try. This time I could not even figure out why I thought it was hard—and folks, I am only a very mediocre weekend climber.

If I had added a bolt at the crux (which seemed a little run out at the time) then I would never have learned that with a little more experience and technique the route could be safe and fun.

I would never have learned that even I can climb some of those old gems—on a good day (without peeing down my pant leg).

I would have cheated myself out of something very important—self confidence and self esteem.

rick,

that was great man. :)

+2

JD Kendall wrote:I am saying nothing about a percentage of "climbers" that I know nothing about... I am just stating that you should also not make blanket statements of fact of which you have no basis for other than your opinion. Unless you have: 1. Talked to EVERY "climber" in S. AZ/ USA/ World... 2. Documented their comments regarding all the aspects of what you are talking about. 3. Also documented what the basis for their opinion is to quantify it... examples might include but are not limited to: years climbing, types of climbing they pursue, number & type of areas where they climb, etc, etc. 4. Taken this data and compiled it and presented the results and drawn conclusions of those results to others for review and critique. If you have done all of this described above (i.e. scientific method), then I would lend credence to your statements.

JD-

I don't think Eric D's comments were out of line. Eric has spent a huge amount of time climbing in southern AZ and knows most of the locals well. If he has noticed some trends among these folks I think it's reasonable for him to share them.

I do agree that we can't draw a valid conclusion about the majority opinion of climbers nationwide without some sort of valid polling. However, this thread is regarding southern AZ etiquette, which Eric is quite familiar with.

Eric D wrote:I agree, these forums are a great way to discuss these issues. But, the vast majority of the people that post here agree with the standard that you do not mess with established routes. The vast majority of climbers across the U.S. agree with that. But, there seems to be a tiny minority that ignores this established consensus and do what they want. I don't think that these forums are changing those people's actions, unfortunately. I believe that a shared southern AZ climbing etiquette already exists. But, how do you convince a tiny minority to acknowledge the wishes of the greater community? We can create a consensus all we want (we already have in my opinion), but how do you draw in the outliers?

+1

Scott,

Thanks for initiating this form.

Just a few comments/thoughts for the Southern Arizona climbing community. Climbing has pretty much always been a social sport and activity. In many communities, as in this one, it has a rich history. What I feel is important is that we as a community retain as much of our history as possible but understand that change is part of history. Years ago at a State of Arizona training that I attended I was asked to do a presentation on culture. My being Native American, the requester thought I would present on my Cherokee tribe. I presented on the Southern Arizona and national climbing community. The presentation was very well accepted and applauded because the climbing community fits the definition of a culture.

Our climbing community per Wikipedia has the longest running climbing festival in the United States and possibly the world: Beanfest. We have our documented traditions related to route establishment, maintenance and alteration of routes. We have our history of serious good routes with runouts, that I whine and snivel about all the time, but they are our history. In my more than sixteen years of climbing, I have watched and participated in the explosion of routes on Mount Lemmon and in the Stronghold. Yes, there is reason for concern but understanding that development is a fact of life across the board is important. Civilizations and communities that survive police themselves and are usually steeped in tradition and community preservation. As a community we need to be steeped in tradition and preservation to ensure our existence as a climbing community. We have no power as a divided community to defined ourselves from access issues and restrictions that always seem to be just around the corner.

In short, please don't alter routes without the curteousy of asking, as someone did to one of my routes at the Steep. The routes history is that I put it up from the ground on lead on aide. The alteration was minor but no respect was given with a curteousy call.If something seems unsafe talk to the FAist, if they aren't around get a valid community consensus; elders in the community preferred. Over the years I have put a number of bolts in some of my routes that I agreed were unsafe. Curteousy makes a community.

Thanks

P.S. Jimbo gave me flashbacks to a blownout ankle and a tension-nemothorax from climbing.

Scott—I also respect what you are trying to do here and I know it’s already helped me to understand some of the opposing opinions to my line of thought, just when I thought I had it all figured out, too! I’m not sure how we can ever truly “reach a consensus,” though, for many of the reasons stated above. Hearing different points of view, however, can be a great benefit, especially if presented in a non-aggressive manner. Ultimately, people will do what they (we) want. If we can avoid more rules and minimize damage to the environment —that would be an ideal goal to me.

These are just my opinions … and they’ll probably be slightly different next week:

Is it ever OK to add fixed anchors to an established route without permission?

As a general rule, I don’t feel it is. That’s the way I was taught, that’s the basic “rule” I feel most of the Tucson locals I know have followed since I’ve been climbing here in the mid-eighties, and that’s the principle I encourage others to follow.

1. Rescues: If time is a life-safety factor in a rescue situation, I think anything goes to do it safely. There’s a whole range of “rescue” scenarios and the seriousness of each is decided by the rescuer—whoever that may be at the time. If they act in the best interest of the victim, I would find it difficult to find fault. I think any fixed rescue anchors placed on an established climb should later be removed, as a general rule.

2. Adding top and multi-pitch anchors: I don’t agree with this either, without permission of the FAists.

3. Replacing bad anchors: Absolutely. I would encourage anyone planning on this to consult with the FAist and then climbers who have been doing this for years so as to minimize the impact to the rock. As far as the pin discussion – each placement is unique, as many know. Even in the harder rock around here you’re always going to risk chipping out the rock. I think it’s impossible to gauge at which point it becomes cosmetically unappealing to anyone other than yourself (as with bolt replacement.) Once you’ve started tapping the hammer you’re “altering “ the rock. In my opinion, if a degraded pin can be easily replaced with a good one that can last another 10 years—why not? If the cleaned slot can take a good piece of gear, leave it for the gear. If the placement is ruined and no other “reasonably” close placement is available, replace it with a bolt. I would always get the blessing of the FAist. If they don’t agree, move on. Obviously, there are an endless number of “what if’s?” related to just this issue.

4. Permission: I would always ask permission from the FAists before adding or replacing fixed gear. I once asked Karl Rickson if I could add a bolt on a runout, dangerous, grainy section of one of his climbs --- ONCE! The colorful string of expletives that burst forth from his lips clearly illustrated his thoughts on the subject. The effort it had taken just to safely back off that climb was a great lesson in itself. It never crossed my mind to place a bolt to make it safer for me to continue OR to back off, without his permission. I’d love to get back out there and complete that climb someday, in the style he used. Until then I’ll climb routes I’m comfortable with. I would suggest always consulting with locals who knew/know any FAists that may not be around to talk to.

5. Permission given by the FAists: This shouldn’t be the only factor to base the decision on. Other opinions should be considered after permission has been given, in my opinion . Even when I think about adding a bolt to one of my routes I ask my buddies what their thoughts are and try to make the best decision possible. I’ve always felt I had carte blanche to add bolts to any of the climbs I’ve been involved with after talking to my partner(s) from the FA. I like to think I make fairly sound decisions, but in hearing the comments made here by several people I respect, I’ll think even more carefully about it in the future.

6. Statute of limitations: Same as above – ask the FAist. One would hope that if they’ve abandoned a project for any significant amount of time they have other priorities and wouldn’t care. If they still want to work it, hopefully your request would prompt them to re-address the project. Otherwise, I would leave it alone – plenty of other things to climb out there. If it is that important to you to pursue it, just be prepared for the possible consequences.

I’d like to think that most climbers try to keep an open mind to what the local consensus seems to be at the time, try to minimize the environmental impact out there, and try to have as much fun as possible every day they get to go climbing. It seems to have worked for me for quite a long time.

Jeff

unlike some other threads that are fueled by anger and frustrations, Scott's intentions are pure and his concerns are valid. we should try to put aside our emotions and egos and open our minds. lets take advantage of this resource and use it to all of our benefit. scott and many tucson locals have much experience and knowledge about the local history that has shaped our community. here's my take on the subject.

It is common sense that you would never add fixed protection to a route, but the one thing that seems to have been missed is that; every situation has different mitigating factors and all of the factors contribute to the decision. some factors to consider might be;
what is the opinion of the first ascent party? what might be the opinions of the local climbers?( this is out of respect ). is the route visible to non climbers?! how well established is the route? would it really make the route better?
lets look at some local examples;
1 I mistakenly added a bolt to an undocumented route and I was informed of the fact, i offered to remove it, but the first ascent person said that it needed a bolt at that spot and told me to leave it. i'm glad because i've climbed the route several times since.
2 Of Mice and Men was mentioned, that route was one of kr's master pieces and he was very upset over that. Ben's route is the only route that i have wanted to chop, only because of my friend ship with KR.
3 Bloody Likely was bolted over, i don't know if BL was any good or if anyone ever climbed it, but i do know that the bolt line was good. too bad it got chopped.
4 when i was younger and bolder i thought that the second pitch of Cripple Creak did not need a bolt or piton. who knows, Ben may have saved someone's life.
5 there was a great undocumented trad line called black magnus that worked its way up sheepshead near Peace Maker, it was not obvious, dangerous and no one knew about it. the person that put it up, bolted right over it to establish PM. in this case the contribution to the community far out weighed consequence.
6 the last pitch of Modern Day Warrior was done on lead with one bolt drilled by hand. i had lead that pitch 3 times when, my friend said that he would not lead that pitch because of the runout. i added a bolt. it is my route i'm allowed.
7 i climbed Table for two in Mendoza before Jeff added some bolts. i on-sited the crux. when i lead it after the bolt was added, i cheated and grabbed it, to my satisfaction at the moment and to my disappointment later.
8 i was afraid to lead one of the other routes in mendoza until it was retro bolted. if it had not been retroed, i may have never got up the nerve.
9 the North Face of Leviathan; adding one bolt in 1000' of climbing would make that route do-able for the average climber. the fa team could'nt careless, in fact i doubt that many would object.it is an otherwise excellent and moderate crack route. i vote to add it, but i've already done the route so what do i care.
10 bolts are shown at the top of Single Lens Reflex in the guide book. they have been chopped. this could prove to be an inconvenience if not down right dangerous to a visiting climber, if for example, is wife does not follow 5.10. they should be replaced!

next issue, replacing pitons. pitons are junk and should not be left as fixed pro.
take for example Klingons in the Neutral Zone, the piton on the second pitch broke in my hand when i clipped it.
often times the old fixed pro is no longer need with modern gear. the first pitch of Cherry Jam. it is neat to leave the antiques as sort of a history lesson. i only hope that no one trusts those 40 year old pins to hold a fall.
if you replace old gear with new bolts it may erase the history of the route.
we choose to pry out the bolts on Coriolis and Wormsign ( that was hard work ), but we installed ASCA bolts to make those routes distinguishable from the two new routes to the left.

Please think about all of the factors before placing any fixed gear.

I have enjoyed reading the comments from the old school Tucson climbers as well as those newer to the sport.
In my 25+ years climbing, I have lead bolted, rap bolted, power drilled, hand drilled, sport routes to big wall aid and free routes. I regret more placing bolts than those I didn't and maybe should have. Instead of bringing the route down to my level, I have walked away from dozens of routes that I did not feel comfortable on.
Reading some of the comments on this site it is rather apparent some major ethical shifts are occurring as illustrated by the text below (which I absolutely disagree with and believe to be a construct of that authors imagination).

This is from wikipedia "rock climbing-vandalism" (emphasis mine).

"Typically in America, the first ascensionists decide where to place protection on a new route, and later climbers are supposed to live with these choices. This can cause friction and retro-bolting when the route is perceived to be dangerous to climbers who actually lead at the grade of the climb, since the first ascensionists often lead at a higher grade and therefore don't require as much protection. Failing to properly design a new route at its grade is considered arrogant and very poor form. Even in strongholds of rock-climbing tradition like Yosemite National Park, many routes are being gradually upgraded to safer standards of protection.

Another form of vandalism in rock climbing is pulling existing bolts and anchors. This often happens after retro-bolting occurs. Many climbers feel that if the route has been done without the benefit of protection, it should stay that way. However this argument only holds water when the first ascensionists were climbing at the limit of their skill—as in Yosemite's infamous test-piece, the Bachar-Yerian. In the case of first ascensionists failing to install adequate protection because the new route is below their leading standard and they didn't require it themselves, this attitude is harder to justify since the first-ascensionists are effectively imposing a higher level of risk on later climbers than they assumed themselves."

I know we as a group will never agree on the style in how a climb was established, yet feel we can agree on the history of our sport (which states we don't add hardware to existing routes).
My main concern for taking the time to respond to this forum is continued access to the climbing resource both presently and in the future.