Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 6 of 13 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 13 >
Topic Options
#45305 - 06/04/09 07:55 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: andrew]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2675
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Thanks for posting up Camhead. RR is well known for the occaisional cranky tirade and it is all good, for it keeps us all honest (most of the time).
My first few climbs at the gunks were with 5QD and 2 hexes and all pitches were less than 120 feet. We thought all those fixed pins were just fine.

Top
#45306 - 06/04/09 08:00 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: chip]
camhead Offline
stranger

Registered: 06/04/09
Posts: 10
hey, thanks for the well-wishes, everybody!

I guess that I shouldn't go out and booty those "abandoned" pins at the Co-Ex, crux, right?

Top
#45307 - 06/04/09 08:15 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: clausti]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Originally Posted By: clausti
Originally Posted By: Julie

Ethics aren't different if you're on a 5.12 or a 5.2 ... the only thing different are the egos or lack of humility involved. So yeah, bad on them for leaving it there, no matter who or what.

more people want to climb easier routes. that makes it different, because the chances of someone else's ascent being buggered by gear on a 5.12 at the notoriously-'sandbagged' gunks seems a lot less likely than on a 5.6.

You're still saying that different rules apply to you because you climb 5.12.

It's the symbolism that carries the insult to the huddled masses, not the gear. That's what ethics are about.

I wish you well too, but that doesn't change my mind about the ethics of it.

Top
#45308 - 06/04/09 08:46 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: Julie]
camhead Offline
stranger

Registered: 06/04/09
Posts: 10
Originally Posted By: Julie

You're still saying that different rules apply to you because you climb 5.12.

It's the symbolism that carries the insult to the huddled masses, not the gear. That's what ethics are about.

I wish you well too, but that doesn't change my mind about the ethics of it.


Sorry Julie, but even at a place like the Gunks, which prides itself as an ethically consistent place (and rightfully so), the ethics and style quite frequently change as the difficulty increases. High E, Foops, and Vandals went up in different styles from one another; ground-up onsight, projected, and hung dog, respectively. You can call it "insulting," or "elitist," or whatever, but the reality is that routes can be climbed in very different ways. I would be very interested to hear how much fixed gear was on Kansas City for the FFA.

Top
#45309 - 06/04/09 09:12 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: camhead]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2090
Loc: SoCal
Isn't it funny how when folks who climb high grades bring new ways to the cliff, it's visionary blazing of a new horizon that no one has the cajones to question ... but when ordinary folks bring new ways to the cliff (ie, more fixed anchors at Skytop, in the other thread) it's disparaged as the degeneration of climbing by the huddled masses?

Ethics, elitism, and money - more intermingled than advertised. So many things, masquerading as "ethics".

Top
#45310 - 06/04/09 09:14 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: clausti]
Chas Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 1754
Loc: Flagstaff
Originally Posted By: clausti
Originally Posted By: Julie

Ethics aren't different if you're on a 5.12 or a 5.2 ... the only thing different are the egos or lack of humility involved. So yeah, bad on them for leaving it there, no matter who or what.


more people want to climb easier routes. that makes it different, because the chances of someone else's ascent being buggered by gear on a 5.12 at the notoriously-'sandbagged' gunks seems a lot less likely than on a 5.6.

that being said, the gear was up for far less than the 24 hour "booty" "rule", more like less than 12 hours. it was still there when the OP was walking out a 7 because we were still climbing at 7, and camhead was gonna take one more run on KC.


In reality the Gunks aren't that sandbagged, and you'd be surprised how many people are climbing 5.12 trad, both Gunks resident climbers and those that are travelling. I just say that since it happens to me at my home crag all the time. And when I'm travelling to the Gunks, I'm usually out on business and I usually only have a day and to mess with other peoples gear is a PITA,....

Top
#45311 - 06/04/09 10:42 PM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: Chas]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Quote:
It's the symbolism that carries the insult to the huddled masses, not the gear. That's what ethics are about.

Ummm....when did ethics become about symbolism?

Top
#45313 - 06/05/09 12:58 AM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: Kent]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3764
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Camhead, sorry you didn't send the route. For what it's worth, I can't send it either. Andrew is right, if Eddie were around there would be no fixed wires on the route. My guess is that they have not been fixed all that long. I've aided it a few times, and never had more than one fixed piece on it, not including the pins. My point for the whole thread was that I think the local ethic here is that you don't prefix routes for a pink point, and then leave to give it a burn later. Whether it is 5 hours later, or 3 days later. It should be fully expected that the cliff scavengers will devour up your fixed gear. It's not considered stealing. More like....Manna from heaven. Now, if I had seen you and hid in the boulders waiting for you to leave, then scored your gear....that's stealing and I would deserve a good ass whipping. I didn't you, or anyone for several hours, and made sure it wasn;t the result of an accident. You prevailed though and got your gear before I got back at 10:30 to clean the route, so all is good. Were you and your group hanging out in the overlook parking after you cleaned your gear? My buddy and I pulled up to go in and there was a small crowd. I wondered if it was the KC climbers.

Just to be clear, I would never go to another climbing area and attempt this. I don't know the local ethic there, and it would be wholly presumptuous of me to strip a route before asking. If I wanted to climb it, the gear would be cleaned, and left at the base for the owner. Perhaps a nicer RR would do that here at the Gunks...but I'm poor, and this is how I supplement my rack!!

Top
#45317 - 06/05/09 01:45 AM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: Julie]
clausti Offline
stranger

Registered: 06/04/09
Posts: 6
Originally Posted By: Julie
Originally Posted By: clausti
Originally Posted By: Julie

Ethics aren't different if you're on a 5.12 or a 5.2 ... the only thing different are the egos or lack of humility involved. So yeah, bad on them for leaving it there, no matter who or what.

more people want to climb easier routes. that makes it different, because the chances of someone else's ascent being buggered by gear on a 5.12 at the notoriously-'sandbagged' gunks seems a lot less likely than on a 5.6.

You're still saying that different rules apply to you because you climb 5.12.


nope. i'm saying the same ethics apply- don't inconvenience other people with your shit. on a climb with a line, maybe that means you do a li'l "french free" so that you're not flailing for an hour on second. on a climb where it's unlikely to get more than one party on it that day... who the fuck cares if there is some gear on it for a few hours. and i didn't climb kc- i don't climb 5.12 trad. but there IS a difference between traffic on easy climbs and hard climbs.

Quote:
It's the symbolism that carries the insult to the huddled masses, not the gear. That's what ethics are about.


i really hope that was sarcasm, because it was definitely horse shit.

Quote:
I wish you well too, but that doesn't change my mind about the ethics of it.


i didn't wish you well. (though i don't wish you ill.) there are two of us replying.

edited to add: for what it's worth, i'm in favor of bolt anchors. it saves trees and clifftop environments in general.


Edited by clausti (06/05/09 01:53 AM)

Top
#45318 - 06/05/09 01:50 AM Re: Time for e climbing ethics debate [Re: RangerRob]
clausti Offline
stranger

Registered: 06/04/09
Posts: 6
hey chas- 'sandbagged' was in quotes for a reason. i actually thought everything up through mid 5.10 felt about on, though i thought 5.11s felt hard.

and rangerrob- that was the kc party, yes, plus some others.

Top
Page 6 of 13 < 1 2 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 13 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored