Ethics

Being an armchair climber this winter, I've been following a few of the main climbing forums like supertopo, mountain project and rockclimbing.  One particular thread about what to do when a mainly bolted route crosses or encounters some good gear placements made me realize how much things have changed since I started climbing in 1990.

For example, the other day I mentioned to a friend who was very active in the park in the 80's that a few of the popular Bear's Hump routes now had bolted belay stations.  He was rather shocked.  New expectations, among some climbers, that every route have bolted belays is quite a stretch from the period when people were glad to find a pin or two at a belay.

This diaspora is really noticeable when people start talking about what to do when a route that requires fixed protection encounters a section with gear placements.  A few local places south of border have started bolting next to gear placements.  The reported reasoning via general forums is that:
1. it is not safe to give someone an expectation that a route is entirely bolted and then place them in a situation where gear is required, resulting in an increased chance that people will run it out instead of backing off,
2.  some people hate bringing lots of unnecessary gear just for one or two placements,
3.  it just doesn't fit a sport route's character,
4.  since rigid rules are impossible, do what you want.

The polemic, framing anyone who thinks gear placements shouldn't be bolted as an extremist, is rather unfortunate.  Of course framing anyone who thinks a bolt next to a crappy gear placement in a sport area as an extremist is also wrong.  I just can't stand pathetically obvious amateur hour rhetoric (in the formal sense).

Because Waterton has no sport areas, mixed rock lines will always be present.  Never assume a bolted line can go just on draws without having confirmed this via a guidebook or someone whose done the route.  Historically Waterton has favoured fixed pins over bolts, despite how the security of pins is generally uncertain.  My personal opinion is that pins just fit the character of the gear around here much better than bolted KB cracks.  Others differ.

One thing an odd gear placement does do, is create much more work for the FA in setting a route.  Bolting around gear placements requires significant changes to ideal bolt locations throughout the entire route.  I can see why some people bemoan this, especially when it makes a whole sport line in a sport area feel off.  Luckily around here, gear is king, so the issue is moot.

Ethics

There have been a number of interesting ethics discussions over at LVM as of late.  It is nice to see that site getting more active as of late.  I thought I would post some links to the more interesting threads.  I think having a clear set of ethics for an area is nice.  It allows different styles of climbing to remain without being watered down over the years.  So, with no particular comments, and no hidden purpose beside illuminating some interesting discussion, here are some local links for those ever wishing to think about long term communities.

What to do with bold routes whose grades are old school?

Adding bolted stations to fully trad alpine routes

When communication breaks down on rock ethics

The better way to communicate

Testing the water

The clean vs. the many

The world rarely is captured in terms of absolutes. Greys are the norm. The more I study culture and group dynamics, the more useful I find discourses about tension. Our neck of the Rockies has tremendously bad rock. Outside of Expert's choice, Wedge and Knob Hill, few areas don't have sizable amounts of choss. A recent revisit to the lower tier of Drywood brought up a tension that exists between route availability and route cleanliness.


The lower tier of Drywood is composed of a solid fossil algae limestone, well featured, but sandwiched between layers of less stable rock. Large ledges tend towards talus, and even solid faces still have some friable veneer.

Climbing in our neck of the woods rarely occurs without a few loose blocks or at least some loose rock on ledges. Because of this, I have never been too concerned over scrubbing routes crystal clean. Once dangerous blocks are removed, I generally figure traffic is the best way to ensure loose pebbles and veneer are brushed away. For instance, 20 years ago the information bureau had sizable amounts of gravel on the ledges. Increased traffic (and Duncan Mackey's broom) has made popular routes almost spotless. This cleaning really is more than any one person could have done (I, like others, have spent hours brushing off loose gravel from routes that are 40+ years old).

While everyone likes clean routes, cleaning up gravel on large ledges is an eternal process. More just pores down from above. Where does the balance lie between climber's responsibility for a route's safety vs. other's expectations? Do minimum cleaning codes make sense in our area? Should we really expect all established routes to be brushed and swept, or is removing obvious, unavoidable dangers enough? What about the book sized talus that is easily avoidable on ledges? What about loose rock which is slightly off route? What tensions come into play in this ethical conundrum?



Mr. Grimm. The large ledge below the roof is still home to some scree. Typically extra protection has been installed as rock quality lessens.