Being a climber means not being an adult?

So I was having this discussion with my head setter last night after work. We were talking about why some climbers think that they have to be homeless, dirt-bag, live out of a truck, get high and eat beanie weenies type to be considered a climber, and to climb hard as well.

Yea, it'd be great if I could live out of a van in the hills around the New River Gorge and migrate to the desert during the winter, but I have a dog, a girlfriend, and an engineering degree that I'm still trying to find a job with. So maybe if I didn't have any of that going on, I could work just a few months a year and travel and live out of a tent and my VW.

But I have that stuff and still climb hard by most standards. I do want a real job so I can make real money and have the things I want. What I mostly want is to climb, but I do like shooting and have a terrible addiction to fine 1911 pistols. I don't actually like marijuana (all for legalization though), I cook fairly well, work extremely hard when I have a job and am working pretty hard to find one.

So why do so many climbers feel like they can't fit into society and still climb hard? The guys that don't get credit for what they do are the ones that work 40hrs a week and climb 5.13/put up new routes/climb big peaks/go on big missions and still have a family and a job and a dog.

Most of the guys I know who climb 5.13/bolt routes are working full time jobs and have families. In fact i'm the only one I can think of who lives more along the 'dirtbagger lifestyle', and I'm probably the worst climber/bolter of the bunch! I think it's an outdated idea that you have to dirtbag to be a 'climber' or to climb hard...

Twitching with Twight

"work 40hrs a week and climb 5.13/put up new routes/climb big peaks/go on big missions and still have a family and a job and a dog."

Not only does your description sound like more of a challenge than living out of a car (which has it's place, don't get me wrong) but many climbers consider it to also be a more balanced, dynamic, and fulfilling way to live life. Perhaps another way to think about what you are saying is - why do climbers feel like they have to be one dimensional? Singularly obsessed with climbing in order to climb hard? There are many examples of super hard climbers that were probably obsessed with climbing but did not allow that obsession to limit them to one realm. Pat Ament is one of the first hard core climbers I have come across in my readings that has pursued a myriad passions including rock climbing to their fullest. Just take it from Royal Robbins himself: "Pat continues to amaze me with the power of his mind, and the depth of his insights. I am also amazed by the breadth of his mastery of disparate disciplines."
patament.org/
One of the greats of our time has set an admirable example by being a person of great depth and breath.

Each their own. If your doing what is best for you why do you care?

Timmamok wrote:Each their own. If your doing what is best for you why do you care?

Because the continuous reinforcement of dirtbag-as-the-ideal is ingraining the notion that climbers are not answerable to anyone, not a boss, not a spouse, nothing, which in turn leads to deeply destructive practices by a group of climbers who honestly believe that they can live their life without in any way impacting others.

Nick Stayner wrote: maybe dirtbagging has appealing components that might not be related to "climbing hard"

Amen. Climbing hard is cool. I also like climbing all the freaking time.

Brian Scoggins wrote: Because the continuous reinforcement of dirtbag-as-the-ideal is ingraining the notion that climbers are not answerable to anyone, not a boss, not a spouse, nothing, which in turn leads to deeply destructive practices by a group of climbers who honestly believe that they can live their life without in any way impacting others.

You make it sound like an epedemic or some kind of conspiracy. Sure, dirtbags can be annoying, and the larger percentage of posing faux baggers are even more so. So what? I wouldn't call it "deeply destructive" any more than living any other lifestyle. People who think they have the inherent right to dictate what others' values should be scare me a lot more than some aimless vagabonds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing anyone. Just creating a dialogue. I didn't mean to come off as condescending or stereotypical.

Nick Stayner wrote: Wow, Brian. Don't you think this might be a little bit extreme? Care to provide some examples of "destructive practices"? And no, you can't use Alf as your example :). Who's more destructive in the bigger picture? The dirtbag who is entrenched, with or without a vehicle, for 2 months in Yosemite Valley or the Boulder/SLC types (sorry, couldn't help myself) who point their fancy sportmobiles to the Creek/Tensleep/Lander etc... every weekend? Who is this "group" you refer to with such disdain? And who's doing the reinforcing?

Indian Creek. We are losing that resource because every dumbass with dredlocks and a subaru thinks its his god-given right to shit all over somebody else's property despite repeated, loud reminders that their actions have consequences.

Ten Sleep. If we still have that free camping along the old highway in 10 years, it will be because Alli Raney has switched from leaving nasty notes on peoples' cars to hitting non-team players with a 2x4.

Red Rocks. You think the camp nazi started out so mean? I'd get irritated too when I'm tasked with enforcing rules that nobody in that campground seems the least inclined to follow, from trying to poach campsites to partying after quiet hours.

Roadside Crag, Red River Gorge. Closed, because we couldn't follow the rules of the area.

See the trend? I strongly doubt that Alf is the problem, its the thousands of climbers who have the means to pay for things but see what he's doing as the ideal, so they don't, to stick it to the man. And companies from 5.10 to Patagonia reinforce it. "Dirtbag Diaries" "Quit your job" "Climb now, work later". We've taken a group of social misfits, unable to keep a steady job, and made them into saints. Their example is unsustainable for more than a few hundred in the country, and even those few hundred MUST have be independently wealthy if they want to live that life in a way that doesn't specifically harm access by failing to pay for access fees, camping, etc, or stealing food off of other people's plates.

This libertarian, iconoclast, outsider climber as a workable, responsible way to live died with disco. We are a major user group now, with politics and culture as diverse as the rest of the country (although almost uniformly upper-middle class), so the expectation on the part of land managers that we will all act with the same respect and maturity as the few dozen who showed up every winter back in the 60s is a spectacular way to accelerate the destruction of irreplaceable resources.

If you're above college age, have a steady job, but still "dirtbag" while on climbing trips, you are the problem.

Old Custer wrote: ... the larger percentage of posing faux baggers are even more so.

These kinds of guys make me laugh. I met a couple of them in Maple last year. They drive around the country in the Subaru their mom bought for them, camp on the side of road, have dreads, smoke weed, and think they are dirt bagging it. I even bought it for a little bit, until they invited us to stay on their yacht in California sometime or to come visit them at their 2nd house in Park City and then decided spur of the moment that they were going to spend a month in India starting 2 weeks from then. Weird dudes.

Great post Brian!

Dirtbagging has been glorified in many forms in this country, from Thoreau, to riding the trains in the early 20th century, to the Stonemasters, to "backpacking around Europe", and beyond. It has its merits and I think some people (read: Alf) need to live that kind of lifestyle but it simply isn't sustainable for everyone to do it, and it definitely isn't as fulfilling and glorious as people make it out to be.

There's a spectrum of people that range from the full-time lifer dirtbags to the people who keep a $250,000 Earthroamer XV-LTS in their garage for weekend trips, but it does feel like people tend to associate "real" climbers as those who trend towards the lower end of the bunch. Maybe that's just our perception that we get via the magazines, videos, and the scene at the crags though; after all, there's nothing less newsworthy or more boring than a responsible yuppie. :)

It's funny to watch how some people transform as soon as they leave for a week-long climbing trip too. They go from a posh apartment and $8 six-packs of beer to extolling the virtues of ramen mixed with baked beans for 5 nights in a row, and won't think of drinking anything but High Life that they bummed from the guys in the next campsite over.

Sure it's nice to leave our day-to-day lives for a while, but I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't enjoy staying at the Palms Place spa for 2 nights the last time I was at Red Rocks instead of camping in the windblown dustbowl.

muttonface wrote:Aside from that, if some rich kid that can afford to live outside wants to lie to himself and others to satisfy some kind of trendy acceptance/image compulsion, he or she is really only hurting themselves.

If only it was just some rich kid who was otherwise following all the rules, then they'd only be hurting themselves. Unfortunately, its some rich kid who wants to be part of this mythical (as in fictional) climber tradition of sticking it to the man, and you can bet your ass that it only takes a few dozen of those (compared to hundreds of law abiding climbers) to really wreck a resource. For a small scale example, look at the damage 20 people cutting a switchback can do, despite the hundreds that don't.

Apparently, the only value we as climbers can agree on is the veneration of the very behaviors that will cost us access to the locations where we practice our hobby.

Regarding Patagonia: I find a lot of their efforts, especially regarding conservation in the region for which they are named, to be a lot more about advertising and a lot less about doing what's best for the area. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

My point was that its deeply disingenuous to try to sell people a product by encouraging them to take up a lifestyle that specifically eschews paying for things. "Dirtbag" has become a marketing term.

I have an awful lot of respect for the folks who make an area their home and love it and take care of it like their home. I have no respect for the bastards who see that the real dirtbags climb everyday, apparently squatting, and figure that the real core of the lifestyle is taking what you want, when you want, because the world owes it to you. Those fuckers I have a problem with.

I haven't been to the Red, but based on the reports, it was a lot of self-styled outdoorsy iconoclasts who saw the signs covered in easily obeyed rules, and decided that somehow, those rules didn't apply to them. The veneration of the dirtbag is, I feel, at the heart of that position.

Funny story regarding Ten Sleep, by the way. The first time I visited, I ran into a woman from Laramie with whom I was (loosely) acquainted. She did the goddamn-greenies rant, then finished up with an observation that since she grew up in Thermopolis, she was a local.

The rest are just posers.

Being an 'adult'? Grab your lady and load up your vw and go climbing. Your dog would be stoked.

I blame the Occupy movement. BOOM, I just threw politics into the mix.

Ready, Set, Go!

One of the better debates of late.
I'd have to say that Killis put it best. The problem with climbing area resource management is those folks that coincidentally climb but head out on the weekends primarily to forget about their lives.
And as climbing becomes more and more popular this problem isn't taking care of itself anytime soon.

The Tensleep locals comment about the chick from Thermopolis cracked me up. I remember climbing at Tensleep when there were only maybe 20 people there for the 4th of July weekend celebration.
Watch Fight Club again and remember that you're not a unique snowflake... move on, be considerate of others and have fun.

First, the facts:

>Generalizations are only ever generally accurate.
>>Often, they hurt feelings, frustrate, and cause anger.
>>>>>Trying to start a productive discussion with them = failblog.

The OP's main concern seems to be:
When large numbers of people circumvent systems/infrastructure built to mitigate the negative effects of people in a given environment, the negative effects of their actions are magnified.

In this case, the group is dirtbags, circumventing systems like pay campsites designed to concentrate environmental impact, and their ostensible motivation is saving money. Adding to the sting of the whole thing is the suspicion held by many that many dirtbags are in fact just disingenuous sons and daughters of rich baby-boomers, donning the persona to assuage their collective race/class/colonizer guilt.

Again:
Trying to start a productive discussion based on hurtful stereotypes = failblog.

IMHO the OP is misguided. There aren't as many dirtbags out there as you think. Blaming them is like Europeans blaming "gypsies" for all their social ills. But what I have seen of people at climbing sites, the worst behavior comes not from cheapskates, but from people in a rush. To party, to 'scend, and to generally live it up before returning to the world to which they/we have committed the majority of their/our time.

In our haste, we conveniently forget our stated values, so we waste tremendous amounts of fossil fuels driving 12 hours for 10 or so hours on the rock, wake up sleep-deprived, skip the bathroom on the way to the crag (it's getting late!), pack stupid/inadequate gear and no map/topo, and neglect to set up reasonable systems of communication with our seconds before lift-off.

The result is that we shit at the cliff, need rescue way more often, and at best hang around the craig yelling at our seconds and occasionally getting dropped because we never took the time to figure out the rope communication for 'on belay.'
All because we were in a rush.

Bummer about our way of life.

MegaGaper2000 wrote:...The OP's main concern seems to be: When large numbers of people circumvent systems/infrastructure built to mitigate the negative effects of people in a given environment, the negative effects of their actions are magnified...

i thought the OP was just asking whether or not it was necessary to live in a van down by the river to be a hard climber.

MegaGaper2000 wrote:Again: Trying to start a productive discussion based on hurtful stereotypes = failblog.

Pretty much. There's absolutely no insight into anything other than some dudes hate some ill-defined group of people.