Southern Arizona Climbing Etiquette Part II October 2010 Publishing Routes

SOUTHERN ARIZONA CLIMBING ETIQUETTE—PART II—OCTOBER 2010

MY MAIN CONCERN
Are we not all unified in our love of S. Arizona climbing?
For the sake of that love can we not (momentarily) put aside our fear, anger, pride and rationally discuss these issues?
If we cannot---then I fear for the future of S. Arizona climbing. Our future will exit —only until we have to stand up for it.

THE EXPERIMENT
About once a month I intend to post a topic for discussion. If you have one you want discussed---e-mail me or mention it on this thread.

THE SCHEDULE
September—Adding bolts to existing routes mountainproject.com/v/arizo…

October-------Publishing routes
November--- Variations/Crossing existing lines
December----Proliferation of sport routes
January-------Subtracting bolts from existing lines

GOAL
My goal is to see if we can reach some consensus about climbing etiquette in Southern Arizona and thereby head off future problems. I use the word “etiquette” because we can (and should in my view) only gently suggest. I am probably guilty of as many breeches as anyone. And my goal in starting this series is to preserve that freedom we all feel when we climb.

METHOD
I intend to state a topic, present my thoughts AND HOPE FOR YOUR INPUT.

OCTOBER 2010---TOPIC: PUBLISHING ROUTES
Is it OK to publish (or not publish) S. Arizona routes by way of the Internet or Guidebooks?

S. ARIZONA HISTORY
Back when the earth was cooling, (and there were ten (10) or twenty (20) climbers in town) there was no guidebook nor Internet.
When you did a new route, if you wanted other than your friends to know about it, you went to Summit Hut and put the description in “the Book.” “The Book” consisted of two (2) loose leaf three ring notebooks with many (usually) handwritten route descriptions.
When you wanted to climb a new route, you went to Summit Hut and copied (by hand) the route description. It was cumbersome.

The first guide book appeared in 1985. climbaz.com/sabino_canyon/s…
Before it was published there was discussion about its probable effect on S. Arizona climbing.

If the story is true and memory serves me, a long time ago one prominent local wag wrote an article for a climbing magazine. He claimed that the only routes around Tucson were ten (10) miles walk and not really worth coming here to do. I think he may have even included pictures to back up his wild story—all the while---snagging many of the plums.

THE PRESENT PRACTICE
These days most people putting up routes in S. Arizona publish them on the Internet. And many who do existing routes add them to the data base. These will probably (eventually) get incorporated into new guidebooks.
On the other hand, several first ascentionists do not publish and do not want their routes ever published.

MY VIEW
Publish if you do not mind having crowds, want to share, or simply want the accolade. Be mindful of the impact it will create.
Do not publish (generally) if you know the first ascentionist opposes it. The first ascentionist has given us a gift. Refusing to honor his/her wishes seems similar to adding a bolt.

REASONS FOR MY VIEW
PUBLISHING
I very much like doing new routes, both sport and trad. I am a big fan of the local first ascentionists. When I read or learn about their new routes (if they are within my meager ability) I am usually first in line. I download whatever information I can get.
Posting routes creates impact.
But a friend of mine recently pointed out that it is not 1978 any more. Climbers are not getting fewer. Publishing routes also tends to spread the crowds out over bigger areas and consequently results in less impact.
Moreover, I am proud to say that [what I see as] the two (2) most popular climbing areas on Lemmon [Ridgeline & Munchkin Land] do not show anywhere near the impact that I feared. I think we have been better than average at picking up garbage and staying with one path.
Similarly, I am surprised at how quickly nature recovers—for example, I am aware of a once popular sport area that has fallen from favor that quickly returned to the wild. What I thought would be substantial impact turned out to be very temporal.

NOT PUBLISHING
Nonetheless, I also think publishing routes has some significant down sides:
1.) The latest greatest area usually generates lots of interest and consequently some environmental impact;

2.) Impact tends to get the attention of land managers i.e. trails, birds, cultural resources, endangered species;

3.) Rescues. A spectacular rescue occurred in the West Stronghold when snow birds from Michigan (who no doubt read about the great winter climbing) got caught out on something big, nightfall approached, they could not unscrew a locking carabiner.
mountainproject.com/v/arizo…
I fear it would not take too many of these type of helicopter/personnel intensive rescues before we have problems—take for example, the changes that rescues are causing in the Pacific Northwest.
I do not mean this cannot happen to locals. It has. Hopefully, locals know that the bigger routes (even the new densely bolted ones) are conservatively rated and demand respect. Hopefully, they carry appropriate gear.
One difference is that when snow birds leave, they leave behind any problems they created--- for us to sort out. For this reason I believe that locals always have the superior claim to information about new routes.

4.) Litigation. I wonder if a very poorly written route description (where someone gets hurt or killed) will result in litigation. I am aware of a hiking guide book author who was successfully sued.

In this same vein, I am very grateful that there are routes that never get published and the first ascentionists never want them published.

1.) These routes generally do not create much environmental impact since they tend to be mostly natural;

2.) These routes do not attract crowds and the environment impact that goes with them;

3.) Most people, including both land managers and climbers, do not even know these routes exist; and,

4.) These routes allow the climber to have the “first ascent” experience, at least unless he/she happens upon a fixed anchor. And it feels significantly different to start up on something and just not know---if it will go or if it has ever been done.

On the other hand, these kind or routes can create small problems. A long time ago I almost drilled, having run it out to what I thought were death defying heights (probably 10 feet), set up on a hook, only to look up and see a fixed anchor thirty (30) feet higher.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? HELP ME TO BROADEN MINE. POST YOUR THOUGHTS.

Maybe start by replacing the words etiquette or ethic with "style". Keeps it not as judgemental or right/wrong.

Hi WiledHorse:

I like it!

Instead of SACE it would be SACS.

Some of the old Grossman routes you really have to SACs up for.

Scott

Scott M. McNamara wrote:On the other hand, these kind or routes can create small problems. A long time ago I almost drilled, having run it out to what I thought were death defying heights (probably 10 feet), set up on a hook, only to look up and see a fixed anchor thirty (30) feet higher.

i am for the documentation of routes to hopefully prevent this very thing. many route that were done "back in the day" may look like they have never been touched especially if they were some S or X rated solos or something. or if the cracks fill in with dirt/vegetation.

Consider that the pioneers of the past most likely were not climbing the routes to share with the "community". I imagine that many of their climbing days were all about climbing new routes, and if anybody repeated them was an afterthought. Thats what climbing was to them. However, pioneers of today generally are "putting up" routes for others to enjoy. But it is a small percentage of climbers who are putting up new rotues compared to climbers repeated existing ones. Therefore, the majority of climbers like to know what they are climbing.

These same kind of issues pop up here in South Platte, CO. Cool that you are trying to capture some kind of consensus for your area, Scott. In fact i tried to do something similar a few months ago... Good luck!

Generally, I prefer that people publish their routes but I really do not care. However, if you do not publish your route and do not mark it with a bolt, do not be surprised or upset when someday somebody climbs the route and claims it as his own, possibly bolting your nice traditional line. This has happened to me in the stronghold. I know I climbed a route in the stronghold but assumed, then and now, that it had been climbed previously. Now there is a line of bolts and an anchor; oh well. Bolting often seems to me like a dog marking his territory.

Also I find the mention of the notebooks at summit hut entertaining. When I moved to Tucson in 1997 I went to summit hut and asked to see the notebooks. I was told I could not see it because of liability issues; kinda turned me off the local climbing community. I am much happier with published guidebooks and internet web sites which cannot limit access.

Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to bring up some important issues. If nothing else this forum allows people to share some insights on local history and tradition. It has been said that "without history we are nothing" which is why I take the time to respond to these threads. This post is going to go all over the place so hopefully you can bear with me.

My new route experiences over the last 18 years have primarily centered around the Flagstaff area (Northern Arizona), mainly on shorter one and two pitch routes and spires, but include a number of routes up to grade V / VI in length, indeed at least half of the climbing I have done over the last decade has been on new ground. During this time I feel blessed to have climbed and or visited with a number of significant pioneers in our very diverse sport. I add this information because it may lend some credibility to my position.

I have spent quite a bit of energy pondering the whole "should I print or online spray" about our routes and over the years have stood on either side of the fence. After going through the whole "hey, look at how rad we are, self praise and glorification" I am leaning more towards the belief that certain routes / areas should remain unpublished. I say this for a number of reasons, including access issues in sensitive areas and most importantly knowing how valuable an experience it can be to encounter the mysteries of the unknown and what a thrill it is to have an uncertain outcome for the day. Hopefully some folks can understand that for a small minority of climbers, the unknown is a strong attraction.

I have had heated discussions with a certain MP Administrator (a strong climber from the Boulder area with zero new route experience) who told me it was very selfish to do a new route and not publish the information. Recently read from another Administrator whining about people who publish routes with poor information. Also had people laugh in my face when I asked them not to publish information or a trip report if they did certain climbs in which I had been a part. For decades word of mouth seemed to work for climbers it has only been recently the internet explosion has made information so readily available. As a side note I am generally very willing to provide some information for people if they simply ask me.

It is shocking to see some of the posts on Mountain Project with people saying, "hey just found this awesome new crag / boulderfield with tons of potential, everybody come, bring crowbars, clippers and be willing to do some major 'work' to this area". I hope that everyone reading this message understands that land managers (law enforcement officers, biologists, etc) do read these forums, most all of these folks are good people and right or wrong it is their job to protect the resource.

I agree that if the first person to do a climb would prefer it not be published then this should be respected.
I'll end this rant for now and am curious to hear what DDC, SA, JMw, Rick D and many others from the south side and elsewhere have to write about this topic.

It is interesting to read what others think about this topic. Of course it would seem the individuals who don't want their routes to be published are even less likely to rant on a forum such as this.
Not to stir the pot, but I feel climbing is a very selfish act whether you are putting up new routes or repeating established lines. Folks "putting up" new routes are likely doing it first and foremost for themselves, sometimes the "community" is an afterthought.
Besides the mystery of the unknown there are many reasons we should not post every climb in every area. Perhaps there is a petroglyph 50 feet from the start, a Peregrine Falcon that occasionally flies near the crag, a sensitive plant species in the area, private property, whatever. Any one of these "issues" could, as history has proven countless times, get climbing shut down in an area. One of the legendary free climbing pioneers of this great state was quoted as saying, "it will be a sad day when the last guidebook to the last area is published." Think about that. Hopefully people reading this understand that not every climber (even some very talented individuals) want the accolades or publicity or fame or whatever it is associated with seeing their name in print.
Scott I am pleased to hear that some of the areas of heavy impact have recovered. The desert areas I have visited in SAZ tended to be overgrown with brush - some areas we climb do not have vegetation which is as resilient.
I like what Costas suggested about asking a number of elders or locals who are familiar with the area.
I don't understand what motivates individuals to post other persons routes on a site such as this - what's the reward? This is a serious question. Please, anyone out there reading this drivel if you do a route that I was a part of the first ascent, please, ask me before spraying about your accomplishment on MP or elsewhere. Thanks!
Long live the unknown and the freedom to climb and climb!

Albert Newman wrote: I don't understand what motivates individuals to post other persons routes on a site such as this - what's the reward? This is a serious question. Please, anyone out there reading this drivel if you do a route that I was a part of the first ascent, please, ask me before spraying about your accomplishment on MP or elsewhere. Thanks! Long live the unknown and the freedom to climb and climb!

I think the obvious answer is to make the information about the route accessible to other people so they can enjoy the route or have an adventure. The FAist owns neither the rock nor mountainproject. If I stumble upon a route (or certainly if it's already in some other published guide), I'll reserve the right to climb it and tell other people about it! Sheepshead is a good example of this--I'm glad that someone has made information about the many routes there available so that others can enjoy them, or bitch about them as the case may be. Another good example is Bob Kerry's book, which I understand was published over some objections (?). I moved to Tucson 2 years ago and this book has been an absolute treasure trove for me, both for time-honored Cochise classics and obscure choss adventures that may not have seen an ascent in 10 or 20 years.

It's a totally different story if I participated in the FA with you, knowing your thoughts on the matter, or if you gave me a private topo that you did not want published. Then I might be violating your trust to put the route on mountainproject, even if I personally feel that it would be a good thing to do (again, so others could enjoy). It's also a different story if there's a genuine access issue or something like that. But just as a general principle, if I have no connection to you, I don't think you have any business telling me not to post your route that I discovered through other means.

Is there some ego involved in posting/spraying on mountainproject? Sure. Just as there's ego involved in putting up FAs--even the unpublished ones. In neither case is that inherently bad.

Charles,
Thank you for your response. I hope that more people, both highly experienced and beginners chime in on this subject.
I am grateful to have experienced what has felt like a life of discovery and adventure often times through the medium of rockclimbing. I have no children, but for some odd reason hope that future generations of explorers get to share some of those similar emotions, just as our elders enjoyed. Having spent decades scouting for new rock climbing areas or cool places to hang out, it may be difficult for some people to understand that "good" climbable rock is a very finite resource even in this wonderful land called Arizona.
I completely agree that there is ego involved with high profile sprayers and the silent ones. Just as there is ego involved with most anything any of us do.
And certainly none of us own the routes - even the land managers reading this bile I vomit. If anything, most all the life-long climbing pioneers I've met feel owned by the rock. It is the mystery of the unknown outcome, the uncertainty which keeps drawing them (me) back to those unclimbed walls.
I am most concerned with current and future access.
With an understanding that good rock is a commodity and that unknown outcomes are an important life tool for some individuals, it alarms me that we post so much on so many areas so quickly. Sadly I write the last sentence speaking from personal experience.
Thanks again for the wisdom.
Albert

Cool posts! Thanks everyone for posting. I really appreciate it.

Hey, Charles the argument that, “[t]he FAist owns neither the rock nor mountainproject” sounds to me very similar to another argument.

Why not add another bolt and make this route safe for the community? The first ascentionist does not own the rock.

Charles you mention, “But just as a general principle, if I have no connection to you, I don't think you have any business telling me not to post your route that I discovered through other means.”

In S. Arizona I think most first ascentionists would be grateful to have you publish their routes.

On the other hand, I think publishing routes, in the unusual circumstance where you absolutely know the first ascentionist does not want them published is simply a matter of respect. The first ascentionist expended effort and expense. Your connection to them is through their route and their vision.

It seems to me to be disrespectful to publish under these circumstances.

Thanks for the post Charles.

Scott

Scott, thanks for starting this, it's a fascinating topic.

Scott M. McNamara wrote:Cool posts! Thanks everyone for posting. I really appreciate it. Hey, Charles the argument that, “[t]he FAist owns neither the rock nor mountainproject” sounds to me very similar to another argument. Why not add another bolt and make this route safe for the community? The first ascentionist does not own the rock. Scott

I'm against adding bolts to established routes, but to me it has little to do with the first ascentionist--who has already had the good fortune to climb the route--but has everything to do with subsequent ascentionists. I see posting route info in the same light. I realize that not adding bolts (or removing them) from established routes is a custom that most people respect most of the time, and we need some sort of custom to avoid anarchy (or endless debate about specific routes in order to achieve case-by-case consensus). But not because of some inherent claim to that swath of rock on the part of the first ascentionist.

Scott M. McNamara wrote:Charles you mention, “But just as a general principle, if I have no connection to you, I don't think you have any business telling me not to post your route that I discovered through other means.” In S. Arizona I think most first ascentionists would be grateful to have you publish their routes. On the other hand, I think publishing routes, in the unusual circumstance where you absolutely know the first ascentionist does not want them published is simply a matter of respect. The first ascentionist expended effort and expense. Your connection to them is through their route and their vision. It seems to me to be disrespectful to publish under these circumstances. Thanks for the post Charles. Scott

Is it really an "unusual circumstance"? There are two prolific first ascentionists who between them have climbed literally hundreds of new routes in Cochise, and as I understand it, neither wants these routes published on the internet. So, whatever your take on it (obviously, we differ), it's an issue that affects other climbers on a fairly large scale. I respect FAists greatly and appreciate their work and vision, but I'm not willing to say that respect should entitle them to that level of control. (I should add that I have climbed a new route in Cochise with DDC--which was a great experience--with the specific understanding that it not be posted on mountainproject, and I'll honor that even if I don't agree with it).

Albert Newman wrote:I am most concerned with current and future access. With an understanding that good rock is a commodity and that unknown outcomes are an important life tool for some individuals, it alarms me that we post so much on so many areas so quickly. Sadly I write the last sentence speaking from personal experience. Thanks again for the wisdom. Albert

Hi Albert,

Can you say more about your personal experiences? I think it would help me better understand where you are coming from. Have you seen areas closed because too much info was posted--or something along these lines?

Also...just a thought. I've done some FAs, here and in Colorado, and enjoyed them. But at least for me--maybe because I'm scared and weak and can never seem to place enough pro to calm my fragile nerves--"unknown outcomes" seem a regular aspect of my climbing experiences. You can get plenty of adventure doing second, third, etc. ascents, and a lot of climbers do! For example, at some point I hope to climb the N. Face of the Leviathan, and despite the fact that I've read and re-read every word that exists about this climb on the internet, I can guarantee it will be an adventure with an uncertain outcome.

Hey Charles, think with me about one other aspect of publishing routes. Access.

Let me give an extreme example, in the December 2010 issue of Rock and Ice (#190) there is an article entitled "Defying the Red Rock Bolt Ban." This article leads with a full page photo of a climber clipping "an illegally placed bolt...." The title is “Despite a Complete Bolting Ban...Red Rock climbers Continue to Discover Adventurous climbs with a Touch of Punk.”

Coincidently, the Access Fund is having a national meeting for land managers in Las Vegas this month.

In my view we are near the end of a golden era of climbing. The days of putting up routes (without restriction) are simply coming to an end.

This article publishes routes that are not supposed to be there. They appear to have been put up with motorized drills. It tacitly approves of violating the fixed anchor ban. It encourages climbers to sample these illegal routes.

If I am a land manager and see this article then the temptation would be great to simply ban all climbing. It is a simple solution. It is an effective solution. It is much easier to enforce than a ban on bolting.

My concern with the Stronghold is similar. There are some very sensitive environmental and cultural aspects. When I think about major climbing areas across the United States most now have restrictions on first ascenting.

Let us assume that you are able to publish one hundred (100) new routes in the Stronghold. I am sure I will be using your directions to do some of them. Those routes will see a lot more traffic and presumably some rescues. But do you think your efforts will help or hurt future access? I am simply not sure about the answer.

Italic TextItalic Text

Charles, in reflecting about your post---I think you are absolutely correct. The Stronghold is different. The first ascentionists in the other areas are not so opposed to publishing their routes.

This makes me wonder, should there be areas that go unpublished? Should the Stronghold be different from Lemmon, Dry, Mustang, Homestead, and etc?

Scott M. McNamara wrote:Should the Stronghold be different from Lemmon, Dry, Mustang, Homestead, and etc?

Absolutely. People love climbing for many different reasons. The full-spectrum of reasons should be respected, and there should be different kinds of climbing areas for people looking to do different things.

Those that want bolted clip-ups should be respected and have their climbing areas. Like Mt. Lemmon and the Dry. Those that want adventure climbing in wilder locations should be respected. Certain destinations should have much fewer bolts, less beta, and bigger adventure.

It amazes me sometimes to talk to climbers that believe that everything should be published and well-protected. Let's respect the many points of view that make climbing special to different people.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone.

Scott:

A couple things. First, I think EFR put it aptly at one point that "there's enough steel in the Stronghold to build a small ship." Regardless of whether routes are published, that's something that can't be kept from land managers forever. Likewise, I think that certainly the Rock and Ice article was dumb, but the root of the problem in Red Rocks is that people are flouting the rules and that's going to come to light one way or the other.

Second, I just don't feel like I should have to check with DDC or SA every time I want to go climbing in the Stronghold. The funny thing is, I feel like the Stronghold is practically off-limits for new FAs unless you're with one of those guys. To oversimplify, you'd either be bolting over a DDC route or SA would come and bolt over your route later.

George:

I think visitors' comments are very relevant to this thread as you're the folks who are probably most dependent upon published route information. I'm glad there was published info available when I went to the Sandias; I had an incredible time there.

Eric:

The irony of your comment is that one prolific FAist apparently believes in well-protected and un-published.

Eric D wrote: Absolutely. People love climbing for many different reasons. The full-spectrum of reasons should be respected, ...Let's respect the many points of view that make climbing special to different people.

Very well - stated, Eric. Some of my most enjoyable climbing was done on Chaktar with Mike Dudley where we just walked along the base for a few weekends looking for lines and following them to the top without any knowledge of grade, style, etc. On the other hand, I love sport-wankin' too.. diversity is good; it's one of the things I enjoy most about Arizona climbing.

Most of these undocumented, obscure lines either toe the line or even set the precedent for how truly bold back country climbing can be down here. SA hit me with a line that has echoed around in my head since he said it over a year ago. That was, "Whether or not I agree with what style someone puts up a route in [PG/R/X], I will defend their right to do so". Regardless of how contradictory that might sound to anyone familiar with the events down here, I understood his point and agree. I'm a long way from having the peaches to repeat several established routes down here that I would love to. The fact that these lines exist is part of what I love about our pastime. It lets me know where i stand in the grand scheme of things. The humbling nature of it all helps ground me and keep me focused.

As far as publishing, I think Eric nailed it. There is more than enough well - documented climbing down here for visitors to choose from and enjoy. Dave's bold, off the map lines, for example, should stay just that. If you happen to find one and are unfortunate enough to have installed gear on it before realizing it, do the right thing and remove it (or don't.. someone will). One day, when my parental obligations diminish and [God willing] I am willing/able to cry my way up some of the PG and R lines down here, I'll know first hand what I've been missing. Until then, I'll enjoy the history, mystery and lore behind them.

Scott,

Thanks once again for bringing forward good topics for us to discuss and for your well-thought-out ideas. Thanks to everyone else who's chimed in, too.

For those who don’t know me I am Geir Hundal, and I am working on a guidebook for Cochise Stronghold. There have been a few references to my work on this thread and I thought I’d make it clear what those references are about.

For the last three years I have been creating “Toofast’s Topos,” a series of free online topos, most of which are for Cochise Stronghold. For those who are wondering about the name, Toofast is my dog, the joke is that she draws the topos and I take credit for them. I have been working on these topos and a written guidebook concurrently, the latter I will publish once I have sufficient material. For the record, there are several times more routes in the Stronghold than I could ever hope to document, I believe the vast majority will remain unpublished in our lifetimes.

I believe first ascentionists can choose whether or not they would like to publish routes they have done. However, in my opinion, first ascentionists do not have the privilege of determining whether or not routes they have done are published by others. I also believe that locals and nonlocals should have equal opportunity to access route information.

Scott brings forward some very good concerns in that online information and written guidebooks could have an impact the environment and access. I think the way to deal with this is not by limiting publication but in providing the best information possible and by educating fellow climbers.

Rick - My comment in regards to posting others routes is more related to those folks who do the first pitch of a multi-pitch route, bail, and race home to whack a load on the MP. Or the Administrator and others who walk through a crag (without even roping up) then introduce the place to the world of the internet. I guess it is the race to be #1 on MP that I do not understand.

Charles - I am still obviously bitter over some incidents and don't want to go into detail here. Just let it stand that I've spent 30, 40, 50 days on a route, brought "friends" out there who went on to publish the area in print for their personal profit. It has taught me enough that if someone introduces themselves as a "professional" climber, photographer or guidebook author that I run like hell (sorry Geir).

Publishing is a slippery slope for sure and great to hear other peoples input. I know for certain that here in the northland there is retrobolting going on all over the place, both on published and unpublished routes.

As Eric said we all climb for different reasons and have different tastes. I prefer long trad routes, but have certainly rap bolted my share of silly 40' sport routes.

To me the coolest thing about MP is the ability it provides to discuss these issues.

Pat Gioannini wrote:Bolting often seems to me like a dog marking his territory.

That's the way I feel about perma-draws ... like at the Priest Draw, specifically climbs like The Joker that I know can be climbed without leaving defunked xmas decorations hanging from the bolts.

Routes in Cochise will remain elusive as the indians of the past and for a Guidebook?