Gatekeeping in the community

Is the lack of permadraws on sport cliffs and traditionalist’s refusal to bolt cracks a form of gatekeeping in climbing? Are less financially able people being intentionally kept from climbing by the high cost of gear required by first ascentionists who refuse to properly and permanently protect “their” climbs?

No

Jack V wrote:

No

How can you possibly justify this? If FAs really do have dominion over “their” routes, then they also have the responsibility to make them accessible to anyone who wants to climb them regardless of financial means, especially routes on public land.

ryan climbs sometimes wrote:

So weak zzzzZzzz

Fair enough. Can’t blame a bored unemployed person for trying though.

John Clark wrote:

How can you possibly justify this? If FAs really do have dominion over “their” routes, then they also have the responsibility to make them accessible to anyone who wants to climb them regardless of financial means.

What bullshit. How goddamn entitled can one be as to think that another person is responsible to make protectable features ’safe’ (safety lies with the climber, not the gear, just check out how many accidents occur on ‘safe’ sport climbs) for ‘poor’ people. A lot of ‘poor’ climbers put them up in the first place. You have really embarrassed yourself.

John Clark wrote:

Is the lack of permadraws on sport cliffs and traditionalist’s refusal to bolt cracks a form of gatekeeping in climbing? Are less financially able people being intentionally kept from climbing by the high cost of gear required by first ascentionists who refuse to properly and permanently protect “their” climbs?

Why are you focusing on those who choose to bolt certain climbs and choose not to bolt other climbs? Why is this post not focused towards gear manufacturers that continually raise the price of new gear? Additionally, these manufacturers have the funds to maintain liability and safety standards. To assume that first ascensionists and those maintaining crags, such as climbing coalitions who are typically non-profit organizations, have the same ability, physical and, mainly, financial, to not only create but maintain the safety of every route and every crag to allow for complete access like a gym, is naïve of you.  

Quit making me miss Trevor with posts like this. But also, I’ll play along….per the 8a threads; climbing as a whole is gatekeeping against those who are weak and unmotivated. 

John Clark wrote:

Is the lack of permadraws on sport cliffs and traditionalist’s refusal to bolt cracks a form of gatekeeping in climbing? Are less financially able people being intentionally kept from climbing by the high cost of gear required by first ascentionists who refuse to properly and permanently protect “their” climbs?

No because it takes more than draws to climb. Who should supply the ropes, harness, shoes, helmet? Who should supply the packs, water bottles, etc. Who should supply the ride? There are many organization that help facilitate people getting out. Just as there many organizations that help facilitate people doing many other activities.

John Clark wrote:

How can you possibly justify this? If FAs really do have dominion over “their” routes, then they also have the responsibility to make them accessible to anyone who wants to climb them regardless of financial means.

No

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and buy a cam

Traditionalists "refusal" to bolt cracks, lol. Why in the F would you bolt a perfectly good crack line? Learning trad climbing technique involves learning how to place protection effectively, they go hand in hand. If trad gear is too expensive, go bouldering. 

Cosmic Hotdog wrote:

Traditionalists "refusal" to bolt cracks, lol. Why in the F would you bolt a perfectly good crack line?

Cause it’s limestone   

Peach would like to speak to John Clark's manager. This is the place to lodge complaints of this sort, correct?

Meh, no povvos allowed. If you can't afford solutions and a trad rack then you don't deserve to climb.

John Clark wrote:

Is the lack of permadraws on sport cliffs and traditionalist’s refusal to bolt cracks a form of gatekeeping in climbing? Are less financially able people being intentionally kept from climbing by the high cost of gear required by first ascentionists who refuse to properly and permanently protect “their” climbs?

Yes. So?

John Clark wrote:

How can you possibly justify this? If FAs really do have dominion over “their” routes, then they also have the responsibility to make them accessible to anyone who wants to climb them regardless of financial means.

An FAist is not responsible for the experience of those that follow them. Period. They "should" care about that because it's nice, but that "should" stops short of a "responsibility" at the point where subsequent followers have the the ability to determine if an experience is worth their own risk. Economically, the the FAist is not responsible for creating equity either. They "should" I suppose if there is a way because it's nice, but your hypothetical of the bolted crack effectively gatekeeps FAing to those that can afford consumable bolts and hammer rather than just a set of reusable nuts and cams. In areas with shorter routes, shall we posit that an FAist that bolt 30' problems (requiring the purchase of harness and draws to engage in that experience) instead of establishing them as bouldering problems (requiring only shoes and dragging whatever bedbug infested mattress is on the sidewalk to the crag) are gatekeeping?

Even the idea that an FAist individually has dominion over their route is an oversimplification that denies the dominion of an area's overall community ethic. As an example, any would be FAist that tries to rap bolt a new line in the Pinnacles NP will find that their "dominion" will end up being chopped by the faceless community in the area. 

It makes sense that there be an exception made for areas where climbing real estate is in extremely short supply, but that decision is entirely up to the whims and will of the community immediate to that area. 

Holy cr@p.  Based on replies alone he gets at least a 3/10 

All for practically zero effort.  

John Clark wrote:

Edit 2: Have I been out of the game long enough that people forgot who I am and think I’m serious?

No

very funny

F r i t z wrote:

Peach would like to speak to John Clark's manager. This is the place to lodge complaints of this sort, correct?

My manager says I need to stop trolling. Cheers.