Mountain Project Logo

Avalon- Poached Routes

frankstoneline · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 30
1Eric Rhicard wrote: ...I just think it is interesting that you and possibly others think Steve has a right to a crag and all the route possibilities when he was not even the first to discovered it. Mine mine mine...
I'm not saying he has the right to all of the development, but as I understand it he had put anchors in on the line. If anchors are in it seems courteous to at least find out whose they are before you finish the rig. Same thing with long term red tags. It is courteous to ask the developer before getting on the line. I'm glad to hear you've invited Steve along to play nice, however the discussion wasn't regarding whether or not the people involved in the issue were good or bad people fundamentally, but about the questionable ethics of bolting onto anchors someone else put in.
1Eric Rhicard · · Tucson · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 10,101

I agree with you about seeing and using a set of anchors that are already there. I believe they were not sure they were going to be used as we have left more than a few anchors behind thinking we would get back there and retrieve them at some point.

They have communicated and it appears no ones tires will be slashed. Both parties are great people and contribute a lot of new routes to the area. Don't guess this will have any long term negative affect.

I have enjoyed the discussion and finding more to the story than I first thought.

IF YOU FIND A CRAG THAT I HAVE DEVELOPED OR STARTED TO DEVELOP FEEL FREE TO CLIMB WHAT YOU LIKE. JUST LET ME KNOW SO I CAN GET IT IN THE NEXT GUIDEBOOK.

Jefe Bret Harte · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 35

Like

Steven W. Johnson · · Tucson, Arizona · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 0

Thanks for the discussion. My main purpose for posting was to findout who finished the routes so that I could ask that in the future as a courtesy to contact or other FAist in other areas. I am not into route establishment for the glory but the adventure, creativity and the benefit of the climing community. Avalon is a community crag with fourth-fifths of the monetary expense coming from the Tucson climbing community; Thanks Tucson. I establish easy to moderate routes with a few harder here and there; no glory in that. I finished the last project at Avalon this Sunday and climbed both of the routes that were the topic of this discussion. They are good routes and good additions to Avalon; and, Mt. lemmon. The right one is a hell of a lot harder than I had hoped it would be; solid lead and on very solid rock. Mentioned in the threads above were comments/questions about people being to Avalon previously and putting up three routes. This is true, estimated that they are thirty years old. I did research the history of the rock and those routes. I was not and have not been able to get information as of yet to who put them up. My thanks to Geir for replacing the two bolts on one route; three more bolts to go between two routes. Also, thanks Geir for your your post.

1Eric Rhicard · · Tucson · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 10,101

Thanks, Steve. Let me know if you want to get to the Boyscout Wall this weekend.

Eric

Geir www.ToofastTopos.com · · Tucson/DMR · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 2,751

Hey Steve, I am back in town. PM me your number and I'll give you a call this week.

After some thought on this, my personal feeling is that if a project is equipped, red tagged, and being actively worked, then other climbers are obligated at ask the FA before taking runs on it. Otherwise things get a little muddy, and contacting the other party becomes a courtesy rather than an obligation. As a few have pointed out here, a little communication could have avoided some hard feelings.

jbak x · · tucson, az · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 4,626

Well...okay..., but what does "actively worked" mean ?

For example: what if the FAist intends to work it once it's back "in season", but is not currently working it because it's too hot/cold/whatever ?

I'd say... ask first. If they say "go ahead and do it", try to talk them out of giving it to you. If they INSIST, then go do it.

Jimbo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,310

I have never felt ownership of any crag we have developed. Indeed this feeling of ownership is what bothers me most about this whole affair. In my heart of hearts I feel we had no moral or ethical obligation to give you a courtesy call. (In retrospect we obviously should have called before we drilled, but the ongoing debate here on MP has been fun to read!)

I am, however, curious about what you might have said? “The route on the left is mine but you guys can do the one on the right”? Like I or anyone else in the world needs someone’s permission to climb something on public land. When you walk down a sidewalk do you stop and ask the homeowners if it’s OK for you to walk in front of their house? Of course not it’s public property.

I do owe you an apology for perhaps under estimating your climbing ability. The two routes we bolted would have been the first things we bolted at this crag had we started development. Most of the routes you had done at this crag were moderates. The one that did look fairly hard had had the two bottom hangers missing for over a month. The routes we bolted looked harder than that one so I assumed you had popped in some anchors top roped them and couldn’t do these two routes. (I have told you I will give you an anchor set up for the one we used at the top of these routes.) I haven’t done the one you were working so I can’t say how hard it proved to be, but congratulation on the send.

The fact is an anchor at the top of a rock is no different than a claim bolt at the bottom of a route. Neither means it’s yours so everyone else has to stay off it until you decide to finish the route. Be it in one month or one year. This is why we start and finish a route before we start another. This way we eliminate the use of claim anchors. Sure we look to the left and look to the right and think to ourselves “that one over there is going to be good”. What we don’t do is run over and bang in an anchor to claim it.
In fact if you or someone else showed up with drill and gear in hand I would gladly point out that line and say, “have at it and let me know if you need any help”. Also if we came back in a few days or a week to discover someone had done that cool line we were looking at I would say “cool someone finished that line, lets climb it”!! What I wouldn’t do is stomp around all mad and post up on MP how I have been wronged by some nefarious scallywag poacher.

Perhaps this is the real difference between you and me. You feel I owe you a courtesy to call before I do a line on some cliff your developing. While I don’t feel you owe me anything but to do a good job on the route you put up on a cliff I’m developing. All I want is more good routes you apparently need something more.

As I’ve said to you before, Avalon is a fun new area that many climbers have and will enjoy for years to come. Kudos to you for all your work and expense!

Anyway the offer for you to do new routes with us (or without us) on any cliff we are developing is still open.

Geir www.ToofastTopos.com · · Tucson/DMR · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 2,751
jbak wrote:Well...okay..., but what does "actively worked" mean ? For example: what if the FAist intends to work it once it's back "in season", but is not currently working it because it's too hot/cold/whatever ? I'd say... ask first. If they say "go ahead and do it", try to talk them out of giving it to you. If they INSIST, then go do it.
It is not theirs to give. People get way too terratorial about this stuff in my opinion. You are right that it is courteous to ask, and I think making allowance for seasons is reasonable if routes are tagged. A great example of this is Jailbreak; I think it was great that we gave Joe all the time he needed to snag it.

But to assume that people own a particular route or area that hasn't even been bolted is overboard in my opinon.

Overall, I am sorry that I upset Steve and never meant to offend him. And I certainly intend on talking with him to tell him that. What I want to avoid, however, is a system where people drill an anchor or a 1st bolt and then indefinitely think that they have claim to the incomplete route.
jbak x · · tucson, az · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 4,626
Geir wrote: It is not theirs to give. People get way too terratorial about this stuff in my opinion. You are right that it is courteous to ask, and I think making allowance for seasons is reasonable if routes are tagged. A great example of this is Jailbreak; I think it was great that we gave Joe all the time he needed to snag it. But to assume that people own a particular route or area that hasn't even been bolted is overboard in my opinon.
I was speaking of individual routes.

And my feeling is: error on the side of courtesy. I mean... why not ?
J Q · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2012 · Points: 50
Geir wrote: What I want to avoid, however, is a system where people drill an anchor or a 1st bolt and then indefinitely think that they have claim to the incomplete route.
Agreed. This would really suck if it becomes the "norm".
Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486
Scott M. McNamara · · Presidio San Augustine Del… · Joined Aug 2006 · Points: 55
jbak x · · tucson, az · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 4,626

Game and Fish hotline: 1-800-352-0700

Geir www.ToofastTopos.com · · Tucson/DMR · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 2,751

I talked with Steve on the phone today and we got things sorted out nicely. Thanks Steve!

Steven W. Johnson · · Tucson, Arizona · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 0

Had a good conversation with Geir a few days ago. Thanks for your contact and understanding.

Dan Cohen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 15

This is a stunning display of disrespect and political gamesmanship from Jim and Geir. Jim remains defiant and unapologetically defends their actions, using the incredibly cynical and mean-spirited excuse that Steven doesn't privately own the rock and cannot legally prevent anyone from poaching his projects. This is a dog-eat-dog mentality in which anyone who contributes first ascents to the public and community has to be concerned that these two will be waiting to poach their work. In this case, Jim and Geir marked their territory on a nearly fully developed crag.

Meanwhile, Geir conducts Public Relations and offers no genuine apology for poaching Steven's routes. Instead, he uses misdirection and straw man arguments to deflect criticism.

It is quite ironic that Geir feigns concern for territorial behavior while perpetrating just that. The supposed concern of creating a culture in which a climber leaving a bolt as an indefinite claim on a route has no relation to this situation; southern Arizona still has loads of untouched rock. Jim and Geir went to an obscure piece of rock that was 95% developed by one person, which they were aware of, and poached two routes that were already cleaned and apparently nearly ready. This is an example of adolescent and territorial behavior by two grown men who crave conflict so much that they no person or ethic will stand in their way. The fact that Jim and Geir remain defiant speaks volumes about their character.

They made an assumption that Steven had abandoned the routes, despite that, according to Steven, at least one of routes was marked with chalk and ready to drill. In a blistering display of arrogance, Jim has undermined Geir's pseudo-apology by remaining defiant and unapologetic.

Geir's misrepresentation of events is telling as well. An anchor was put into place, which is standard protocol when working a route. This serves to allow the climber to toprope the route in order to understand the movement and evaluate the best possible placement of bolts. This tactic maximizes the quality of the route, as it creates a safe route and minimizes unnecessary placement of bolts. Geir's portrayal of something as commonplace as use of an anchor as a territorial act is ignorant of this method, and is a misdirection from the Geir's own territorial behavior.

The excuse that the land is public is a straw man argument. No one made any claim of ownership to the land. To equate gently requesting that climbers to stay off of an unfinished route to a territorial demand is absurd. Considering the bounty of first ascent opportunities that exist in southern Arizona, it's shocking that this exists at all. To a climber who respects the physical labor, time, money that (quality) route development requires, as well as decades of established ethics, evidence of a route in progress would suggest that the interested party conduct a tiny amount of research. Jim and Geir apparently did not, and they failed to demonstrate basic decency towards Steven and the southern Arizona climbing community.

Perhaps most telling is the contrast between Geir's statements (one from above, and one from this route ):

"After some thought on this, my personal feeling is that if a project is equipped, red tagged, and being actively worked, then other climbers are obligated at ask the FA before taking runs on it."

"For everyone else, please respect the second pitch as a project until it has been completed. You can continue to the top via The Shmotem Pole or rap the route."

For Geir's friends, a simple request on Mountain Project is all that is necessary to keep people off a project. However, if the developer in question is not chummy with Geir, then the route must be equipped, red tagged, and being actively worked, or else anything goes.

If I had to praise Geir, I would say that he has an uncanny ability, that of a chameleon, to take strong ethical stances to defend his actions, no matter how conflicting or contradictory they are.

Looking ahead, what will this precedent of rejection of established ethics and human decency lead to? If route-poaching is acceptable, will it become acceptable to rename established routes? Will they see fit to make unilateral decisions to re-engineer routes to fit their personal preference of style?

What sort of community do we strive for in southern Arizona? One in which climbers elevate their perceived status by manipulation and tearing each other down, or do we want a community in which climbers support each other and can pour themselves into their craft without having to fear their hard work will be consumed by perpetual conflict?

Jimbo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,310

He's baaaack.

Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486

Steve's last post is a pretty good indication that he received a sincere apology from Geir. I agree that Jim's post was unnecessarily aggressive and a pseudo-apology, but you can't really force people to apologize if they don't want to. I don't think that's mutually exclusive with him maybe having learned something from the incident that will positively affect his future behavior in a similar situation.

The community needs to move on any way you look at it though.

Dan Cohen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 15
Christian wrote:Steve's last post is a pretty good indication that he received a sincere apology from Geir. I agree that Jim's post was unnecessarily aggressive and a pseudo-apology, but you can't really force people to apologize if they don't want to. I don't think that's mutually exclusive with him maybe having learned something from the incident that will positively affect his future behavior in a similar situation. The community needs to move on any way you look at it though.
It appears that you misunderstood my post. I did not say that Jim gave a pseudo apology; I said that Geir gave a pseudo apology. Jim apologized for underestimating Steve's climbing ability, which completely dodged Steve's complaint. Jim remains unapologetic for stealing routes.

How would we know if Jim has learned something? A genuine apology is a sure sign of this, but that remains to be seen. My point is not to "force" someone to apologize as it would be insincere, nor to mention that it is impossible. Rather I aim to hold people accountable for their actions. Without a genuine apology, or some symbolic gesture, how would we know that Jim has learned anything from the incident?

If Geir sincerely apologized to Steve, he would be at odds with Jim. Beyond that, what point would there be for Geir's mischaracterizations of the incident that I wrote about above (feigning concern for territorial behavior while engaging in it, etc)?
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Arizona & New Mexico
Post a Reply to "Avalon- Poached Routes"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.