Chipping vs. Gluing

So both alter the stone, glue seems to be more "accepted". Why?

Because glue does not alter the stone

I think your statement is debatable. I'm not sure that holds true.

When cleaning a route you always need to remove some rock. One could call it chipping at some point, probably when it crosses from "I'm removing this because it's unstable" to "I would be so much better with hand/foot hold there". Nonetheless, the point I'm trying to make is that pretty all routes involve some degree of removing the rocks.

Whereas rather few routes actually need any gluing.

That and the gluing that tends to be accepted, at least in my neck of the woods, tends to be holds that were there historically but broke off, and the glue is an attempt to restore that state. I can't say I'm much for that, imo if the hold is gone it's gone but....

I have a 1:1 policy. Everything I chip off 1 route I glue onto another. #conservationist

Glue retains what was there to begin with (though people do straight up glue on new holds to make something go). But generally it is preservative.

Chipping creates holds where there was none before or enhances bad features into usable ones. Generally it is adding something that was never there.

I've used glue to keep something on that was big and seemed dangerously loose but was "keyed" in and I couldn't get it out. Glue made it safer, imo.

Chipping on a road cut (cough cough Donner) is hardly the sin that blasting the road was.

And every single "free" route on El Cap has massive chipping to go free, if by no other method than the old pin scars. Who knows if it was all bad?

Usually I've just seen glue in terms of reinforcing existing holds so they are less likely to pull off (like a small flake). Seems fundamentally different than chipping, which is the act of creating a new hold or removing an existing one. I would consider glueing on an additional hold to be essentially the same as chipping. As stated above, most new routes require some amount of cleaning, but this is usually considered different than chipping as you are removing loose rock with primarily regard to safety as opposed to creating some particular movement. Also usually this is just done with a wire brush as opposed to a hammer and chisel (big scary loose blocks might require other tools...)

The real debate might be the comfortization of holds common on hard limestone sport routes... :P

Ben Horowitz wrote:

 Also usually this is just done with a wire brush as opposed to a hammer and chisel (big scary loose blocks might require other tools...)

No, loose rock/flake removal is almost always done with hammer and/or crow-bar (or stronger, on something really big).  Wire-brush is primarily a tool for removing dirt/moss/lichen/etc from the rock, not for clearing loose rock itself.

1) Gluing to hold on a fragile natural feature is a-ok

2) Gluing a random rock onto a flat surface to manufacture a hold is not cool.  (Don't laugh, these sort of shenanigans were happening in Ten Sleep)

3) Cleaning loose stuff off a route and a small degree of "comfortizing" certain types of sharp rock (usually limestone) is ok

4) Crossing the line from "comfortizing" into chipping/hold-manufacturing is not cool.

The line between 3 and 4 is admittedly blurry and people can have have good faith, reasonable disagreements about where that line is.

Comfortizing is basically chipping IMO. Certainly way different from drilling pockets.

I've personally pulled off two pcs of rock that were glued on, one of them almost killed someone walking by. If its loose but not coming off just leave it IMO

Chipping holds makes a self limiting, sustainable resource unsustainable. It allows climbers to create routes anywhere and pack climbs in. It does not preserve the rocks natural ability to dictate where routes are possible and where they are not. Chipping holds vs cleaning - the developers should be able to know which activity  they are participating in. I have never been confused developing “am I cleaning or am I chipping a hold?”. Give me a break, such a BS argument.

So the answer for me has always been, how will the influx of routes in an area impact the natural resources? How much sense does it make to develop this route?  What legacy do I want to leave, will I be proud of what I created? I have felt pride and shame after developing routes. I have removed routes that did not go, did not make sense, where chipping or gluing would have set a really bad example.

Something to think about when glueing. If the hold does break off, there will be a big glue stain on the rock for all to see. What example does that set for the future of your area? Where does the long game timeline of these actions take your community in 10-20 years. If the answer is anywhere close to the outcome in Ten Sleep, which has created a national response from land managers, maybe think twice before altering rock?

Thoughful alteration by one person can inadvertently breed thoughtless alteration by many. The stories of development tactics spread through climbing communities and become common place, before you know it people are advocating for alteration. This is not the OG spirit of climbing, where at one point the rock was the primary decision maker, led the dance, and decided when you could pass or not.  

M M wrote:

Comfortizing is basically chipping IMO. Certainly way different from drilling pockets.

I've personally pulled off two pcs of rock that were glued on, one of them almost killed someone walking by. If its loose but not coming off just leave it IMO

You've obviously never done an FA on limestone pockets.

Gumby boy king wrote:

So both alter the stone, glue seems to be more "accepted". Why?

Go develop a few lines at a limestone crag and get back to us.

Chipping is not acceptable, ever. Put in a bolt ladder if you want, but don't make a new hold, EVER!

The only time I comfortize a hold is to remove a sharp feature, on or in a hold, that would ultimately slice open someone's finger. It's usually a little crystal, sometimes it's a razor edge. If a hold is just "sharp", I leave it and just expect my fingers to get trashed while im building the calluses up to not get trashed. 

I use glue to reinforce the bottom side of iron edges that would potentially break off, but only if it's a critical hold. I just add glue, and create a 45° angle from the front edge, back to the face. This is not intrusive, and it preserves the climb as it was initially without making anything better or easier.

David Gibbs wrote:

No, loose rock/flake removal is almost always done with hammer and/or crow-bar (or stronger, on something really big).  Wire-brush is primarily a tool for removing dirt/moss/lichen/etc from the rock, not for clearing loose rock itself.

I guess there could be some amount of rock dependency here... In my (admittedly limited) experience developing routes/boulders I've never used anything other than a wire brush; if the flake doesn't dislodge by hand, with rigorous wire brushing, and doesn't pose a serious risk if it falls off, I wouldn't remove it. Like I said in the first post, if it does pose a safety risk then use of those tools would be "justified." 

Lets just make the world an outside gym. Lets make it so everyone can climb anything!

Chippers and gluers SUCK!

RRR wrote:

Chipping is not acceptable, ever. Put in a bolt ladder if you want, but don't make a new hold, EVER!

This statement seems absurd. I'm NOT advocating for chipping, but how can you rationalize a shiny line of bolts up a blank section of rock while advocating for zero chipping EVER! They both reflect a "by any means necessary" attitude and they both create potential eyesores. 

If your response is going to be "well, the bolt ladder leaves natural free climbing potential for future generations" then that strikes me as flawed logic as well, especially given the extremism in your stance on chipping. Either way, you're altering the rock in order to make it passable; why does it matter whether you're pulling on bolts or pulling on a manufactured hold?

Mark, I know that you have been climbing a long time, but have you ever climbed limestone or volcanic tuff?  If so, I am certain that you have climbed a glued route and did not even know it. Glue reinforcement should be unnoticed if done appropriately.

In the mid 90s, a friend broke a key crux hold on a very popular route in Rifle. The developer made him glue it back on. To this day, most are unaware of the story or that they are yarding on a glued hold. 

I have climbed on lots of Limestone, I live in the land of Volcanic tuff. 

Mark Frumkin wrote:

I have climbed on lots of Limestone, I live in the land of Volcanic tuff. 

Owens, right?  That stuff is really bullet for tuff. I guess I meant choss that you would find in places like Smith, Enchanted Tower and Cochitti Mesa. 

X C wrote:

This statement seems absurd. I'm NOT advocating for chipping, but how can you rationalize a shiny line of bolts up a blank section of rock while advocating for zero chipping EVER! They both reflect a "by any means necessary" attitude and they both create potential eyesores. 

If your response is going to be "well, the bolt ladder leaves natural free climbing potential for future generations" then that strikes me as flawed logic as well, especially given the extremism in your stance on chipping. Either way, you're altering the rock in order to make it passable; why does it matter whether you're pulling on bolts or pulling on a manufactured hold?

I dont advocate for bolt ladders, but to me, it's acceptable. If someone wants to waste their bolts on a climb that cant be free'd, instead of looking for something better, then let them waste their bolts on a climb no one will ever get on. Bolts can always be chopped, fake holds cannot be undone. At least it doesn't deface the rock, and at least they aren't creating new, fake holds and setting a precedent of "ill do whatever I want to make climbs go". If you cant see the difference there, I dont want to continue this debate.

I rarely go down into the ORG. The entire Table Tops are volcanic tuff.  I've been to Smith, Ten Sleep & many more place around the world. 

The word Developer in climbing to me is revolting.