IS CLIMBING BOOTY “THEFT BY FINDING”?

prag·ma·tism
ˈpraɡməˌtizəm/
noun
1.
a pragmatic attitude or policy.
"ideology was tempered with pragmatism"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

Mathias: just as you and Em jumped on my example of a wallet, I could just as easily call BS on the scenario you described, and point out that most gear is bootied NOT out of fear of one's safety. But, in the spirit of addressing each other's points, let me ask this: how does the fact that the stuck gear is "in your way" somehow give you more entitlement to "owning" it afterwards? I can see how it entitles you to remove it, but it has nothing to do with what happens to it afterwards!

Alexey Dynkin wrote:Mathias: just as you and Em jumped on my example of a wallet, I could just as easily call BS on the scenario you described, and point out that most gear is bootied NOT out of fear of one's safety. But, in the spirit of addressing each other's points, let me ask this: how does the fact that the stuck gear is "in your way" somehow give you more entitlement to "owning" it afterwards? I can see how it entitles you to remove it, but it has nothing to do with what happens to it afterwards!

It doesn't. I haven't kept any gear I've found. May or may not in the future. That's not my point. This idea of retaining ownership of something you abandon willingly is stupid. It's not a car, you're not parking it.

Mathias wrote: This idea of retaining ownership of something you abandon willingly is stupid. It's not a car, you're not parking it.

And I wasn't arguing that, either. I was saying that our assumption of any and all gear that we come upon as being "willingly abandoned" is not necessarily based on full knowledge of the situation.

Alexey Dynkin wrote: And I wasn't arguing that, either. I was saying that our assumption of any and all gear that we come upon as being "willingly abandoned" is not necessarily based on full knowledge of the situation.

This is true. We can however make some assumptions.

If it is gear set up as to create an anchor from which a person could be lowered (one or more pieces are placed and a biner is attached at a master point that would allow for a lower) it can reasonable be assumed that the gear has been used for such a purpose. The act of doing so is willful or intentional. They knew they would have to leave the gear. The only exception to this would be if the owner of the gear was not present (I.e. loaned out the gear: be careful who you loan your things to) or was unconscious/incoherent/deceased at the time this decision was made.

If it's a single piece with no other attachments (all gear that could be removed, has been removed) it's reasonable to assume that whoever removed the biner (for example) knew the piece was still there and left it willingly. If the finder can remove the piece, it is removable and therefore not stuck. If they chose not to take the time to get the piece out, they willingly left it.

If half a rack is left in a pitch, it's reasonable to assume something unpleasant has occurred which forced the party (for their safety) to leave it all. This can be assumed because it's not necessary to leave all the gear in a pitch in order to lower off.

If a rope is stuck but is removable, it reasonable to assume that the rope was left by choice. The possible reasons for this may be many and varied, but it's still reasonable to assume it was left by choice.

If gear is left on the ground it's reasonable to assume it was either dropped from the route or accidentally overlooked during packing or prep for the climb. Which of these it is, could be narrowed down by the type and quantity of gear. A coiled rope was likely left. A random nut with a draw on it was probably dropped.

The nature of the situation will, for some, factor into their decision as to what to do (if anything) with the gear.

Mathias wrote: This is true. We can however make some assumptions. If it is gear set up as to create an anchor from which a person could be lowered (one or more pieces are placed and a biner is attached at a master point that would allow for a lower) it can reasonable be assumed that the gear has been used for such a purpose. The act of doing so is willful or intentional. They knew they would have to leave the gear. The only exception to this would be if the owner of the gear was not present (I.e. loaned out the gear: be careful who you loan your things to) or was unconscious/incoherent/deceased at the time this decision was made. If it's a single piece with no other attachments (all gear that could be removed, has been removed) it's reasonable to assume that whoever removed the biner (for example) knew the piece was still there and left it willingly. If the finder can remove the piece, it is removable and therefore not stuck. If they chose not to take the time to get the piece out, they willingly left it. If half a rack is left in a pitch, it's reasonable to assume something unpleasant has occurred which forced the party (for their safety) to leave it all. This can be assumed because it's not necessary to leave all the gear in a pitch in order to lower off. If a rope is stuck but is removable, it reasonable to assume that the rope was left by choice. The possible reasons for this may be many and varied, but it's still reasonable to assume it was left by choice. If gear is left on the ground it's reasonable to assume it was either dropped from the route or accidentally overlooked during packing or prep for the climb. Which of these it is, could be narrowed down by the type and quantity of gear. A coiled rope was likely left. A random nut with a draw on it was probably dropped. The nature of the situation will, for some, factor into their decision as to what to do (if anything) with the gear.

All reasonable points, and well-articulated. I agree that, in most cases, the intent (or lack thereof) behind the left-behind gear can be inferred based on in its nature. That said, there are still two things to consider:

1) Does every "finder" go through this type of thought process every time they find booty gear, and make a conscious effort to eliminate any reasonable possibility that the gear was, in fact, left unintentionally?

2) The examples you listed are indeed pretty clear-cut, but there are others that are less so. A cam or nut with a sling on it, stuck in a crack: did the second give up trying to take it out, or did they forget it? Or, even a piece that's stuck with no sling, it's conceivable that, for example, it was placed by the leader who then decided the placement wasn't good, made a different placement and clipped that, and then forgot to remove the original one and/or didn't tell the second about. Far-fetched - maybe, but these things do happen. Again, not a huge deal, and honestly that leader should have paid more attention, but the point is, there's more than one way that "stuck" piece could have ended up there.

3) Even though all of your examples do constitute willing abandonment, there are still pretty substantial ethical differences between obtaining someone else's gear in these different scenarios. It's one thing to remove, through your own effort and skill, a piece that someone else wasn't able to. It's another to come upon half a rack's worth of gear that someone was forced to (yes, willingly) abandon in an emergency, and supplement your own that way - in this case, you're literally benefiting from someone else's misfortune due to the sheer coincidence that you happened to be the first person to come upon the gear (I don't mean you personally, but the "finder"). In this case, while the gear may be technically "willingly abandoned", I think it's absolutely the ethical thing to do to make a concerted effort to identify the previous owner and return it. Which, I think, most climbers would do.

Anyway, as you say, the situation usually does dictate what the right thing to do is. But, it's a good thing for us to think about from time to time.

Aaand...that's about as much as I have to say on this before we start getting into beating dead horse territory. Happy climbing!

Em Cos wrote:We've got three pages here of people clearly NOT refusing to have a conversation about it. Can we at least agree that a wallet and a piece of climbing gear are two very different things?

No, we can not agree because under the laws in acted in the US and some other countries regarding finding property it does not matter who, what, when, where, etc. If it ain't yours, you are required to turn it over so that it can be claimed by the owner.

Everything else after that is a practical matter and subject to personal opinion.

Alexey Dynkin wrote: or could it be there for some different reason - like, maybe it was just forgotten?

Inattention is also a choice. A choice to neglect steps that ensure completion is intent to risk the consequences.

There are multitudes of techniques to prevent "forgetting" things...

Alexey Dynkin wrote: Sure, someone might say that if it was forgotten it's fair game because of carelessness...but - would that also apply to someone who, say, dropped their wallet?

Yes, I would. If I dropped my wallet, I wouldn't expect it back. If it came back, that's a bonus.

Some of the many definitions of "careless":

adj. Taking insufficient care; negligent: a careless housekeeper; careless proofreading.

adj. Marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness: a careless mistake.

These imply responsibility on the part of the person who's careless.

That being said, if I find a wallet or expensive gear, I'd attempt to reunite it with the owner -- not out of ethical or moral obligation, but simply because it's a nice thing to do.

Kent Richards wrote: If I dropped my wallet, I wouldn't expect it back. If it came back, that's a bonus.

What you expect, and what is the legal/ethical thing to do, are not the same thing. 3 pages of this, and people are still getting the two mixed up...

Alexey Dynkin wrote: What you expect, and what is the legal/ethical thing to do, are not the same thing. 3 pages of this, and people are still getting the two mixed up...

Heh. We're going to argue semantics and get snide?

Ethics are subjective, based on beliefs about what's "right" and "wrong". The mixup appears to be confusing legal with ethical, and thinking that everyone has the same definition of right and wrong.

Kent Richards wrote: The mixup appears to be confusing legal with ethical, and thinking that everyone has the same definition of right and wrong.

If this is addressed to me, then I'm curious: where do you see me confusing them? I wrote that BOTH of them (denoted by the word "and") are different concepts than the expectation/responsibility you're talking about. But, OK - if you prefer, we can talk about three distinct concepts: what is legal, what is ethical, and what is a reasonable expectation. I still maintain that your expectation about getting your wallet, gear, or anything else returned to you is completely independent of both the legality and the ethical responsibility on the part of the person that comes upon that item. My comment was "snide" because the nature of your earlier remark made me truly believe that you don't see this distinction; however, if I'm wrong about this assumption than I apologize. On the other hand, I totally reject the idea that this distinction is "semantics", on the contrary, I don't see the value in even having this discussion without at least recognizing it.

Alexey Dynkin wrote: What you expect, and what is the legal/ethical thing to do, are not the same thing. 3 pages of this, and people are still getting the two mixed up...

Here's the confusion. "legal/ethical" makes it appear you believe them to be the same thing, in this case. As in, it's ethical to follow the law. If you believe that, that is YOUR ethical view point. You then go on to state your opinion that "people are still getting the two mixed up". The two what? Seems like you mean expectations and legalities/ethical responsibilities. I'm not being difficult, just explaining how I took what you wrote.

Mathias wrote: Here's the confusion. "legal/ethical" makes it appear you believe them to be the same thing, in this case. As in, it's ethical to follow the law. If you believe that, that is YOUR ethical view point. You then go on to state your opinion that "people are still getting the two mixed up". The two what? Seems like you mean expectations and legalities/ethical responsibilities. I'm not being difficult, just explaining how I took what you wrote.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I used the slash in a somewhat ambiguous way that could be interpreted to mean that I'm using them interchangeably or to mean the same thing. For the record - yes, I do recognize and understand the distinction between legal and ethical, and, yes, what I meant by "people get the two mixed up" refers to expectations (on the part of the "misplacer") and legalities and ethical responsibilities (independent concepts, but in this case both related to issues concerning the "finder").