The other day I watched a video which is about a giant rope swing somewhere in the desert southwest (a "secret spot" dude!) and which culminates, if that's the right word, with a young woman being pushed off the edge of the cliff after hesitating for a while about jumping herself. Adventure Journal commented, a bit callously IMO, in a post called, "How to Lose Your Girlfriend in One Easy Push." In another response, from Expand Outdoors, the author stated, regarding this kind of pressure, that NO means NO and I think the implied comparison to sexual assault is not out of line. I have seen this kind of pressure put on women by their partners before and it's ugly and stupid.
But setting aside the incredible callousness of the individual who pushed the woman off the edge, I was struck by the unbelievably stupid and callous nature of the whole production. The disregard for the environment was everywhere. No mention was made of whether this was public or private property, whether they had permission to place fixed anchors, whether they were going to clean up the site, whether they had trampled on desert ecosystems to get there, and so on. Throughout the video, repeated plugs for commercial interests involved popped up, narrated by an oblivious yet gregarious "host" who was hyping the whole production. Ignorance and fakery permeated the whole thing.
If the term doesn't already exist, let call it "bro-media" and be grateful that for the most part it doesn't exist in climbing. Though the internet seems ready-made for jackassery like the video described above, climbing has resisted the siren call of mass publicity (Bear Grylls are you ready for your close-up?) and avoided making silly videos like this. Way way back in the dawn of sport-climbing history in the US, we met the Rock Warriors but, bless their hearts, we never heard from them again.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Friday, March 8, 2013
Taking Risks: A Question
Just caught this on Facebook this morning and it's well worth a read. Climbers are always debating whether risk is worth it but I wonder if we really get down to the heart of the problem, which is why are we actually climbing?
There is a situation on Broad Peak right now where the first winter ascent of this 8000er has been marred by the likely demise of two members of the team. Read Simone Moro's take on it and ask whether his final claim makes sense:
"Man wants to be where his thoughts drive him. On the moon, Mars, Venus, in the oceans, caves, abysses, deserts and mountains. This is what winter mountaineering is all about. The desire to be and go where man has not yet succeeded, and it is because of this that one day Nanga Parbat and K2 will also be attempted, and climbed, in winter."
At what point does this drive to "succeed" ultimately become self-defeating?
There is a situation on Broad Peak right now where the first winter ascent of this 8000er has been marred by the likely demise of two members of the team. Read Simone Moro's take on it and ask whether his final claim makes sense:
"Man wants to be where his thoughts drive him. On the moon, Mars, Venus, in the oceans, caves, abysses, deserts and mountains. This is what winter mountaineering is all about. The desire to be and go where man has not yet succeeded, and it is because of this that one day Nanga Parbat and K2 will also be attempted, and climbed, in winter."
At what point does this drive to "succeed" ultimately become self-defeating?
Friday, February 22, 2013
What's Next? The Video Chipping Scandal and its Aftermath
The climbing interweb universe shook with Richter-scale intensity after Deadpoint Magazine posted a news item and accompanying video that appeared to show a climber hammering and prying on a steep roof somewhere in a snowy wooded area, likely in the Northeast but unidentified. Within minutes of the video going up, people were naming the climber and the area in the comments section and elsewhere. (I won't do that here or link to the sites involved until that climber opts to come forward or the makers and/or presenters of the video state in public who they saw in action. Despite this lack of identification, at least one major climbing publication has already gone so far as to name that climber.)
The justification for this presentation was laid out in the DPM article and I was able to confirm the basic sequence of events via conversations with people at DPM and the Access Fund. The latter was consulted, after the video had been taken, about releasing the video owing to the obvious threat that rock alteration can pose to continued access and the possibly even greater threat that the video posed if it came to the attention of land managers. The climbing community is still waiting for a response from the climber in the video and it is worth mentioning from the start that DPM did not offer that climber a chance for comment prior to their releasing the material. DPM has stated that they opted not to initially identify or contact the climber in order to avoid him being singled out as a target.
According to my understanding of the situation, the video was taken (without the climber's knowledge) because there was a strong feeling by area climbers that the climber, having been confronted about chipping boulders multiple times in the past, could only be stopped by the recording and release of irrefutable evidence of this activity to the public. The videoographers have so far refused to identify themselves, perhaps out of a fear of retaliation by the subject of their video, or to positively identify the subject of the video, leaving that to the viewing public to do. This identification happened in short order, along with literally hundreds of comments on various internet forums, many of which used physical threats and profanity to express their anger and disgust. Within hours a major climbing brand published a comment on their Facebook page that they were dropping all association with the climber they believed was depicted in the video, though it should be repeated that no positive ID was made in public by the video makers or by the climber himself.
And here we are. At least one individual has posted publicly on DPM asking for information about the specific location where the video was filmed. Hundreds have posted threats and insults on various message boards. The climber identified by the public has probably received piles of hate mail and I am sure that the people at DPM are not totally satisfied about how this has gone down. I have been told there is no financial gain for DPM from any potential increase in readership and there has been a lot of headache-inducing stress for the editor and publisher. Indeed, I think it was a risky step to take for them. I am also sure that many developers of boulder problems and routes are glad they have not been filmed in the midst of the process. Like the making of sausages, cleaning and prepping a route is not the most aesthetically pleasing sight. For many in the climbing public the case is a slam-dunk, with an open-and-shut verdict of guilty, and they feel that justice has been served. However, I am not so sure about this, even if the behavior apparently shown in the video is inappropriate and harmful not merely to the rock but potentially to the whole community.
I want to suggest that this has created many more problems than first suspected, and for a number of reasons. DPM has stated that the video is analogous to a TV station posting security camera video of a crime to catch a perpetrator. I think this is not entirely accurate since the video was recorded by actual people who staked out the scene for hours and who knew very well who the climber was while seeinghim at work. The motivation therefore was not just to catch a criminal but to expose him publicly, since catching him could have involved having law enforcement present (apparently the spot is on public land) to apprehend and charge the climber. This may not have been easy to arrange and the argument could be made that it would create an even worse situation. Even hindsight is not going to be 20/20 in analyzing what happened here.
DPM was approached by the video makers with the idea that their website would be a suitable outlet for the video, ensuring credibility, source anonymity and presenting a well-written accompanying story with the video. The simple enough tactic of a relatively anonymous Youtube account being set up for this video seems to have been passed over and this may have been a good thing given the fallout from the DPM presentation. According to Matt Stark, there was extensive discussion at DPM about how to handle this, including whether it was even appropriate in the first place, especially given any possible personal connection with the climber who may have been filmed. The climbing world is a small one. Looking at history, I am not surprised by these conflicted feelings since it really has been a long time, perhaps going back to the days of Ken Wilson and Mountain in the 70s, since the editorial staff of a climbing journal has acted in this fashion, presenting a particular climber's conduct for review by the public, especially without that climber's prior knowledge or opportunity to respond.
The involvement of the Access Fund is complicated, as more typically the AF works behind the scenes to minimize exposure of conflict and misbehavior in the hopes of bringing parties together and resolving conflict. Again I cannot think of a single incident where a climber's "outing" as a bolt-chopper or hold chipper or whatever, involved in any way the Access Fund, implicitly or explicitly, whether in order to prevent further damage to a cliff or maintain access. Conversation with the executive director revealed that, as with DPM, this situation was not taken lightly and was discussed only in the context of preventing further damage to the resource. In other words an extreme situation appeared to call for an extreme remedy. It is worth stating that the AF had no part in the actual creation of the video and did not endorse its creation in the first place. According to the executive director, they only acted to advise the video makers about potential fallout from releasing the video and do not encourage or will ever solicit gathering evidence like this. And for the record, I wholeheartedly support the Access Fund mission.
As I said questions remain. Is it ever appropriate to use hidden cameras and anonymous internet posting to discipline alleged bad actors? Is there the possibility that apparently incriminating video can be carefully edited or manipulated to create the appearance of wrongdoing where none exists? I submit that it may be much easier than we give credit and that promising careers can be ruined as a result. As Mark Twain famously said, a lie travels round the world before the truth can even get its pants on. I believe the video makers acted with the best intentions but not everybody may be motivated for good reasons in the future. Is it appropriate to insist that climbing media that provides a platform for such material do so only with the guidance of ethics policies that insist on transparency and accountability? Should advocacy organizations like the Access Fund simply steer clear of such tactics, neither accepting nor rejecting such evidence, but leaving it to others to make the call? And should sponsors be careful about accepting such evidence at face value without a considered approach that takes into account the possibility that they may be wrong? A representative for the major climbing brand that disassociated itself from the climber in the video stated in correspondence with me that, though they deplored the acts depicted in the video, the fact is " the whole *****-bashing' will not prevent future manipulation of rock, but make ***** a scapegoat for something which has been going on in the climbing world forever." In this case, does the punishment, which has been very real, actually fit the crime? What should that punishment be?
I don't have easy answers to these questions and in no way am I questioning the motives of any of the parties involved in this episode at DPM, the Access Fund, or among any climbers who were clearly deeply concerned about where things were headed in one area. In this case, I am satisfied that everyone acted out of the best intentions. However I am not satisfied that justice has truly been served yet or that such tactics will always be used in the future with good intentions. Judgments rendered in the court of public opinion have not always been proven to be accurate in the end. Perhaps we will hear from the alleged chipper in the video and from the video creators themselves in a public forum. I am more than happy to offer this blog as a space for that dialog, especially since I do not have any personal stake in the outcome, only the desire to see as open a conversation about a sport that I have devoted much of my life to for over 35 years.
The justification for this presentation was laid out in the DPM article and I was able to confirm the basic sequence of events via conversations with people at DPM and the Access Fund. The latter was consulted, after the video had been taken, about releasing the video owing to the obvious threat that rock alteration can pose to continued access and the possibly even greater threat that the video posed if it came to the attention of land managers. The climbing community is still waiting for a response from the climber in the video and it is worth mentioning from the start that DPM did not offer that climber a chance for comment prior to their releasing the material. DPM has stated that they opted not to initially identify or contact the climber in order to avoid him being singled out as a target.
According to my understanding of the situation, the video was taken (without the climber's knowledge) because there was a strong feeling by area climbers that the climber, having been confronted about chipping boulders multiple times in the past, could only be stopped by the recording and release of irrefutable evidence of this activity to the public. The videoographers have so far refused to identify themselves, perhaps out of a fear of retaliation by the subject of their video, or to positively identify the subject of the video, leaving that to the viewing public to do. This identification happened in short order, along with literally hundreds of comments on various internet forums, many of which used physical threats and profanity to express their anger and disgust. Within hours a major climbing brand published a comment on their Facebook page that they were dropping all association with the climber they believed was depicted in the video, though it should be repeated that no positive ID was made in public by the video makers or by the climber himself.
And here we are. At least one individual has posted publicly on DPM asking for information about the specific location where the video was filmed. Hundreds have posted threats and insults on various message boards. The climber identified by the public has probably received piles of hate mail and I am sure that the people at DPM are not totally satisfied about how this has gone down. I have been told there is no financial gain for DPM from any potential increase in readership and there has been a lot of headache-inducing stress for the editor and publisher. Indeed, I think it was a risky step to take for them. I am also sure that many developers of boulder problems and routes are glad they have not been filmed in the midst of the process. Like the making of sausages, cleaning and prepping a route is not the most aesthetically pleasing sight. For many in the climbing public the case is a slam-dunk, with an open-and-shut verdict of guilty, and they feel that justice has been served. However, I am not so sure about this, even if the behavior apparently shown in the video is inappropriate and harmful not merely to the rock but potentially to the whole community.
I want to suggest that this has created many more problems than first suspected, and for a number of reasons. DPM has stated that the video is analogous to a TV station posting security camera video of a crime to catch a perpetrator. I think this is not entirely accurate since the video was recorded by actual people who staked out the scene for hours and who knew very well who the climber was while seeinghim at work. The motivation therefore was not just to catch a criminal but to expose him publicly, since catching him could have involved having law enforcement present (apparently the spot is on public land) to apprehend and charge the climber. This may not have been easy to arrange and the argument could be made that it would create an even worse situation. Even hindsight is not going to be 20/20 in analyzing what happened here.
DPM was approached by the video makers with the idea that their website would be a suitable outlet for the video, ensuring credibility, source anonymity and presenting a well-written accompanying story with the video. The simple enough tactic of a relatively anonymous Youtube account being set up for this video seems to have been passed over and this may have been a good thing given the fallout from the DPM presentation. According to Matt Stark, there was extensive discussion at DPM about how to handle this, including whether it was even appropriate in the first place, especially given any possible personal connection with the climber who may have been filmed. The climbing world is a small one. Looking at history, I am not surprised by these conflicted feelings since it really has been a long time, perhaps going back to the days of Ken Wilson and Mountain in the 70s, since the editorial staff of a climbing journal has acted in this fashion, presenting a particular climber's conduct for review by the public, especially without that climber's prior knowledge or opportunity to respond.
The involvement of the Access Fund is complicated, as more typically the AF works behind the scenes to minimize exposure of conflict and misbehavior in the hopes of bringing parties together and resolving conflict. Again I cannot think of a single incident where a climber's "outing" as a bolt-chopper or hold chipper or whatever, involved in any way the Access Fund, implicitly or explicitly, whether in order to prevent further damage to a cliff or maintain access. Conversation with the executive director revealed that, as with DPM, this situation was not taken lightly and was discussed only in the context of preventing further damage to the resource. In other words an extreme situation appeared to call for an extreme remedy. It is worth stating that the AF had no part in the actual creation of the video and did not endorse its creation in the first place. According to the executive director, they only acted to advise the video makers about potential fallout from releasing the video and do not encourage or will ever solicit gathering evidence like this. And for the record, I wholeheartedly support the Access Fund mission.
As I said questions remain. Is it ever appropriate to use hidden cameras and anonymous internet posting to discipline alleged bad actors? Is there the possibility that apparently incriminating video can be carefully edited or manipulated to create the appearance of wrongdoing where none exists? I submit that it may be much easier than we give credit and that promising careers can be ruined as a result. As Mark Twain famously said, a lie travels round the world before the truth can even get its pants on. I believe the video makers acted with the best intentions but not everybody may be motivated for good reasons in the future. Is it appropriate to insist that climbing media that provides a platform for such material do so only with the guidance of ethics policies that insist on transparency and accountability? Should advocacy organizations like the Access Fund simply steer clear of such tactics, neither accepting nor rejecting such evidence, but leaving it to others to make the call? And should sponsors be careful about accepting such evidence at face value without a considered approach that takes into account the possibility that they may be wrong? A representative for the major climbing brand that disassociated itself from the climber in the video stated in correspondence with me that, though they deplored the acts depicted in the video, the fact is " the whole *****-bashing' will not prevent future manipulation of rock, but make ***** a scapegoat for something which has been going on in the climbing world forever." In this case, does the punishment, which has been very real, actually fit the crime? What should that punishment be?
I don't have easy answers to these questions and in no way am I questioning the motives of any of the parties involved in this episode at DPM, the Access Fund, or among any climbers who were clearly deeply concerned about where things were headed in one area. In this case, I am satisfied that everyone acted out of the best intentions. However I am not satisfied that justice has truly been served yet or that such tactics will always be used in the future with good intentions. Judgments rendered in the court of public opinion have not always been proven to be accurate in the end. Perhaps we will hear from the alleged chipper in the video and from the video creators themselves in a public forum. I am more than happy to offer this blog as a space for that dialog, especially since I do not have any personal stake in the outcome, only the desire to see as open a conversation about a sport that I have devoted much of my life to for over 35 years.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
About That UIAA Policy Position Paper
Just as I was casting about for something interesting to write about, Rock and Ice came up with the goods in the form of an editorial denouncing a "bizzare (sic) indictment of sport climbing." Duane Raleigh inveighed against this newly released document (available here in PDF) as reading like "a room of sweaty men drafting legislation for women's reproduction rights." I was struck by the vehemence of the commentary (as well as some feedback I got on Facebook) so I thought I would read the document more closely and see if it justified the attack. I think that in the end, close readers of the paper will be reassured that this is not an indictment of sport climbing but instead a reasoned and thoughtful call to consider the consequences of that approach and a useful prompt to reconsider the reasons that we climb.
In essence the UIAA is revisiting the issue that it had addressed in 2000 in a paper entitled "To Bolt or Not To Be." This document looked in large part at the emerging phenomenon of "plaisir" routes, essentially long multi-pitch sport routes with reliable fixed protection on alpine limestone faces as well as rebolting old classics with improved protection. The objections raised about this style of climbing have never been fully resolved, particularly as climbing has increased in popularity and a more democratic attitude about access to routes has emerged. As Jürg von Känel noted, climbers seem to vote with their feet in this regard, creating an apparent justification for this style of route. This of course comes up against other climbing values such as self-reliance and leaving the cliff as you found it and not altering rock to suit climbers. This conflict undermines one of the later points in the R&I piece, that "You shouldn't apply sport climbing tactics to an alpine climb, and you shouldn't apply alpine standards to sport climbs." Yet this is exactly what has happened in a number of areas in Europe to a degree rarely seen in this country.
Anyway, the UIAA committee preparing this document is concerned that the balance is tipping in favor of pre-protected climbs, stating (but sadly without documentation) that in Hungary, for example, "all available rock for climbing has been drilled and bolted to make sport climbs." Now I agree that this is unlikely but there is little question that Europe has embraced a bolting ethic so widespread as to make traditionally protected rock-climbing something of a curiosity, found in relatively few areas, again something that is not so much the case in the US. So in essence the UIAA is asking local federations to seriously consider the ways in which they can maintain and promote the values of ground-up traditional climbing.
This statement by Duane Raleigh made me wonder a bit what the angle was.
"I was quickly taken aback, however, by the UIAA's opening statement which included, 'Despite earlier attempts by the UIAA to offer guidance on fixed equipment and the conservation of natural rock, bolts continue to be placed in areas where many climbers wish they were not.' Once again, sport climbers had been singled out as vandals."
My first question was, who else would place the bolts? The second was, where did the UIAA call anyone vandals? A simple statement of fact was made about disagreement regarding bolt placement. Nowhere is it implicit or explicit that climbers have a God-given right to place bolts wherever they like and it makes sense that some climbers might disagree. I did find it curious that in claiming the UIAA was ignoring the voices of younger climbers, Raleigh cited only climbers known as sport climbers. Names such as Tommy Caldwell, David Lama, Hayden Kennedy or Sonnie Trotter come to mind as perhaps more representative of all-around climbers whose published comments on these issues seem to mirror the UIAA position.
One tactic to discredit an argument is to dispute definitions, in this case that of traditional climbing which the UIAA doc describes as climbing in which "the leader places all the equipment necessary to prevent a dangerous fall. This equipment is then removed by subsequent members of the party."
Now it's true that bolts are commonplace in Dresden or that the Bachar-Yerian is mostly "protected" by bolts. Does this invalidate the point? Hardly. In both instances, the placing of the bolts is/was tightly regulated and would hardly compare with the average sport route here in the US where spacing of 4-6 feet is typical. It is worth pointing out that the "tradition" in many parts of the Alps was to leave pitons in place, a tradition that only began to change with American and English influence and the adoption of clean climbing technology. But the fact that Dresden has a tradition of bolts hardly justifies bolting everything else. Is the argument that traditional climbing is not definable? I think it's not that hard to put some parameters on the practice and work from there.
The next paragraph contains quotes that seem to be taken out of context. Here's the full text from the UIAA:
"Climbing thrives on diversity. It is crucial that a whole range of climbing styles are allowed to flourish and co-exist, so more than just one option is available. Climbers can choose between different styles depending on their tastes, moods, and life circumstances. Parents of young children or the elderly may have good reason to prefer sport climbing. Circumstances change, and having a variety of climbing styles to choose between makes climbing stronger. There are those who slot in a few hours climbing at the local indoor climbing wall or easily accessible crag between work and home, or at weekends between other sporting and leisure activities. Such climbers may have little knowledge of the traditions of climbing and its development nor of the debate taking place between sport and ‘trad’.
At the other end of the spectrum there are those who organise their whole life around climbing -- domestically, socially and in their choice of job. These climbers care passionately about the activity’s ethical direction since they eat, sleep and drink climbing."
There is nothing in here to suggest that only the elderly or parents of young children sport climb though the truth is, it works a lot better for many in this situation than traditional climbing. Nor does it say that only traditional climbers organize their lives around climbing. Instead, it argues that the UIAA paper represents the values of all climbers "who value the preservation of rock for adventure climbing– and whose voices are often not heard or articulated." I tend to agree and like to think that there are very, very few climbers who would argue that all rock should be bolted regardless of opportunities for natural protection.
I have certainly placed a few bolts. I have also had a few chopped by ethical purists. I have also done scary trad FAs. So I think I know all the sides of the argument pretty well. In short, I think the UIAA is doing a responsible thing by giving an official voice to a serious concern, that of whether the climbing experience is being homogenized by the widespread use of fixed protection, especially in alpine locales, something that is actually happening right now in Europe.
Here are some links to give an idea of the debate and the nature of the terrain.
http://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1999_files/AJ%201999%20157-160%20Wilson%20Values.pdf
http://www.outdoorresearchverticulture.com/2012/11/plaisir-climbing-in-the-swiss-alps/
http://www.summitpost.org/tonis-lust/715771
To conclude, far from being an indictment of sport climbing, the UIAA statement encourages a more self-reflective awareness of the impacts of fixed anchors and their uneasy relationship with a climbing ethic of individual responsibility and heightened environmental awareness. While traditional climbing is hardly immune to charges of serious environmental impact, the UIAA is right to be concerned about the encroachment of fixed anchors across all climbing sectors. I very much respect Duane's work at R&I and think a good debate over these issues is always fruitful, especially given the rapid rate of change in the climbing world today.
In essence the UIAA is revisiting the issue that it had addressed in 2000 in a paper entitled "To Bolt or Not To Be." This document looked in large part at the emerging phenomenon of "plaisir" routes, essentially long multi-pitch sport routes with reliable fixed protection on alpine limestone faces as well as rebolting old classics with improved protection. The objections raised about this style of climbing have never been fully resolved, particularly as climbing has increased in popularity and a more democratic attitude about access to routes has emerged. As Jürg von Känel noted, climbers seem to vote with their feet in this regard, creating an apparent justification for this style of route. This of course comes up against other climbing values such as self-reliance and leaving the cliff as you found it and not altering rock to suit climbers. This conflict undermines one of the later points in the R&I piece, that "You shouldn't apply sport climbing tactics to an alpine climb, and you shouldn't apply alpine standards to sport climbs." Yet this is exactly what has happened in a number of areas in Europe to a degree rarely seen in this country.
Anyway, the UIAA committee preparing this document is concerned that the balance is tipping in favor of pre-protected climbs, stating (but sadly without documentation) that in Hungary, for example, "all available rock for climbing has been drilled and bolted to make sport climbs." Now I agree that this is unlikely but there is little question that Europe has embraced a bolting ethic so widespread as to make traditionally protected rock-climbing something of a curiosity, found in relatively few areas, again something that is not so much the case in the US. So in essence the UIAA is asking local federations to seriously consider the ways in which they can maintain and promote the values of ground-up traditional climbing.
This statement by Duane Raleigh made me wonder a bit what the angle was.
"I was quickly taken aback, however, by the UIAA's opening statement which included, 'Despite earlier attempts by the UIAA to offer guidance on fixed equipment and the conservation of natural rock, bolts continue to be placed in areas where many climbers wish they were not.' Once again, sport climbers had been singled out as vandals."
My first question was, who else would place the bolts? The second was, where did the UIAA call anyone vandals? A simple statement of fact was made about disagreement regarding bolt placement. Nowhere is it implicit or explicit that climbers have a God-given right to place bolts wherever they like and it makes sense that some climbers might disagree. I did find it curious that in claiming the UIAA was ignoring the voices of younger climbers, Raleigh cited only climbers known as sport climbers. Names such as Tommy Caldwell, David Lama, Hayden Kennedy or Sonnie Trotter come to mind as perhaps more representative of all-around climbers whose published comments on these issues seem to mirror the UIAA position.
One tactic to discredit an argument is to dispute definitions, in this case that of traditional climbing which the UIAA doc describes as climbing in which "the leader places all the equipment necessary to prevent a dangerous fall. This equipment is then removed by subsequent members of the party."
Now it's true that bolts are commonplace in Dresden or that the Bachar-Yerian is mostly "protected" by bolts. Does this invalidate the point? Hardly. In both instances, the placing of the bolts is/was tightly regulated and would hardly compare with the average sport route here in the US where spacing of 4-6 feet is typical. It is worth pointing out that the "tradition" in many parts of the Alps was to leave pitons in place, a tradition that only began to change with American and English influence and the adoption of clean climbing technology. But the fact that Dresden has a tradition of bolts hardly justifies bolting everything else. Is the argument that traditional climbing is not definable? I think it's not that hard to put some parameters on the practice and work from there.
The next paragraph contains quotes that seem to be taken out of context. Here's the full text from the UIAA:
"Climbing thrives on diversity. It is crucial that a whole range of climbing styles are allowed to flourish and co-exist, so more than just one option is available. Climbers can choose between different styles depending on their tastes, moods, and life circumstances. Parents of young children or the elderly may have good reason to prefer sport climbing. Circumstances change, and having a variety of climbing styles to choose between makes climbing stronger. There are those who slot in a few hours climbing at the local indoor climbing wall or easily accessible crag between work and home, or at weekends between other sporting and leisure activities. Such climbers may have little knowledge of the traditions of climbing and its development nor of the debate taking place between sport and ‘trad’.
At the other end of the spectrum there are those who organise their whole life around climbing -- domestically, socially and in their choice of job. These climbers care passionately about the activity’s ethical direction since they eat, sleep and drink climbing."
There is nothing in here to suggest that only the elderly or parents of young children sport climb though the truth is, it works a lot better for many in this situation than traditional climbing. Nor does it say that only traditional climbers organize their lives around climbing. Instead, it argues that the UIAA paper represents the values of all climbers "who value the preservation of rock for adventure climbing– and whose voices are often not heard or articulated." I tend to agree and like to think that there are very, very few climbers who would argue that all rock should be bolted regardless of opportunities for natural protection.
I have certainly placed a few bolts. I have also had a few chopped by ethical purists. I have also done scary trad FAs. So I think I know all the sides of the argument pretty well. In short, I think the UIAA is doing a responsible thing by giving an official voice to a serious concern, that of whether the climbing experience is being homogenized by the widespread use of fixed protection, especially in alpine locales, something that is actually happening right now in Europe.
Here are some links to give an idea of the debate and the nature of the terrain.
http://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1999_files/AJ%201999%20157-160%20Wilson%20Values.pdf
http://www.outdoorresearchverticulture.com/2012/11/plaisir-climbing-in-the-swiss-alps/
http://www.summitpost.org/tonis-lust/715771
To conclude, far from being an indictment of sport climbing, the UIAA statement encourages a more self-reflective awareness of the impacts of fixed anchors and their uneasy relationship with a climbing ethic of individual responsibility and heightened environmental awareness. While traditional climbing is hardly immune to charges of serious environmental impact, the UIAA is right to be concerned about the encroachment of fixed anchors across all climbing sectors. I very much respect Duane's work at R&I and think a good debate over these issues is always fruitful, especially given the rapid rate of change in the climbing world today.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Security Risk: What Does Safety Really Mean?
I have been reading more and more reports recently of experienced climbers winding up seriously hurt or killed because of basic mistakes they made while sport or gym climbing. First up was the Scottish tradmaster extraordinaire Dave MacLeod who was lowered off the end of his rope on a 5.11 slab that he had bolted earlier. His injuries were serious enough to warrant surgery and a lengthy rehab process. Then there was climbing legend John Long who decked from 30 feet up at a local gym on account of an unfinished knot. Both are not only serious experienced climbers, but they are authors of classic instructional texts on the sport. Saddest of the most recent reports was the death of a Swiss climber whose rope was cut due to an abraded/sharpened carabiner edge. Again the victim was a experienced and safe climber and also an author, that of the guide to the Ratikon, a place known for its heads-up serious climbing.
Now what all three of this incidents had in common was a failure of the one item in climbing that cannot fail, namely the rope. MacLeod's accident was caused by a short and under-attended rope on a long lower-off. A similar serious accident occurred a while back in Boulder Canyon to a friend of mine. Long's knot should have been completed but apparently wasn't. I have actually witnessed someone's knot come undone about 50 feet at Shelf Road (he clipped into a bolt, but it was close) and the aftermath of an accident on Primeval when a climber fell at the crux around 20 feet up and the knot didn't hold. In the case of the Swiss climber, it would have been better had the bolt or carabiner failed and broken.
What lessons can be drawn from this recent collection of incidents? First, we should remember that sport climbing is a lot closer to rappelling in that climbers must rely on their gear to work correctly at all times. Trad climbing is much less gear dependent in that falling is not seen as inevitable and lowering off is not necessarily part of the climb. One can trad climb all day and never test anything while even the easiest of sport climbs involves trusting the belayer and protection chain implicitly.
In other words, sport climbing exhibits what I might describe as binary safety. It's either all the way on or it's all the way off. Typically, if you have done something wrong, you will not get a chance to correct it, especially if the system is tested by a fall or lower-off. Trad climbing is more fuzzy and indeterminate with a reasonably protected route offering multiple redundancies and a constant feedback loop regarding exposure to danger. That feedback loop is getting more and more attenuated in sport and gym climbing, especially with auto-belays in rock gyms, which a remarkable number of climbers apparently forget to clip into and wind up stranded on top of a route. Fixed draws also enhance this sense of disengagement with climbing reality as climbers outsource personal responsibility onto someone else they probably don't even know.
What can be done to prevent these kinds of situations? While I tend to agree that a bowline as a tie-in is not the best practice, using figure-8s will not fix the problem alone. Technology cannot be relied on here. There is barely any technology involved in sport climbing to begin with. The solution instead begins with reactivating the feedback loop mentioned above in trad climbing, especially in physically verifiable ways. So every time you tie in, you pull hard on your knot in all directions while inspecting it. Eye contact with the belayer, maybe even a tug on the Gri-gri to confirm it's loaded correctly. Discussion about clipping strategies reawakens a sense of mutual responsibility. Clear communication about taking and lowering is a must. On longer pitches, tie a big knot in the end of the rope. Basically climbers should do things that interrupt the convenience-oriented cruise control "sport" mentality that too easily leads to disaster. A visceral awareness of the risk of the sport needs to be maintained if we want to remain safe climbers.
Andrew Bisharat wrote an excellent analysis of the safety issues linked with fixed draws in the most recent issue of Rock and Ice, making points that I entirely agree with. Laissez-faire crag maintenance is a relic of the past when climbers were few and perhaps more aware of the risks involved in trusting fixed gear. If the decision is made to fully equip a crag, then that comes with real responsibility for the lives of those who follow. Personally I am against fixed draws precisely because they distance climbers from looking after themselves. Bolts are relatively redundant but, as the Swiss incident makes plain, clipping-in points have lethal potential if they fail the wrong way, the way that we don't expect them to.
One of the things that I find so interesting and compelling about climbing is this relationship between mind and technology. There is no question that gear can enable incredible athletic achievements on the rock. And very few enjoy entirely relying on their mental strength in potentially lethal situations. There is, or should be, a balance between the two extremes. When we let technology drive our actions too much, the chances are good that we will soon wind up in the ditch, or worse.
PS: I saw this note about a sport climbing crag in Japan.
Now what all three of this incidents had in common was a failure of the one item in climbing that cannot fail, namely the rope. MacLeod's accident was caused by a short and under-attended rope on a long lower-off. A similar serious accident occurred a while back in Boulder Canyon to a friend of mine. Long's knot should have been completed but apparently wasn't. I have actually witnessed someone's knot come undone about 50 feet at Shelf Road (he clipped into a bolt, but it was close) and the aftermath of an accident on Primeval when a climber fell at the crux around 20 feet up and the knot didn't hold. In the case of the Swiss climber, it would have been better had the bolt or carabiner failed and broken.
What lessons can be drawn from this recent collection of incidents? First, we should remember that sport climbing is a lot closer to rappelling in that climbers must rely on their gear to work correctly at all times. Trad climbing is much less gear dependent in that falling is not seen as inevitable and lowering off is not necessarily part of the climb. One can trad climb all day and never test anything while even the easiest of sport climbs involves trusting the belayer and protection chain implicitly.
In other words, sport climbing exhibits what I might describe as binary safety. It's either all the way on or it's all the way off. Typically, if you have done something wrong, you will not get a chance to correct it, especially if the system is tested by a fall or lower-off. Trad climbing is more fuzzy and indeterminate with a reasonably protected route offering multiple redundancies and a constant feedback loop regarding exposure to danger. That feedback loop is getting more and more attenuated in sport and gym climbing, especially with auto-belays in rock gyms, which a remarkable number of climbers apparently forget to clip into and wind up stranded on top of a route. Fixed draws also enhance this sense of disengagement with climbing reality as climbers outsource personal responsibility onto someone else they probably don't even know.
What can be done to prevent these kinds of situations? While I tend to agree that a bowline as a tie-in is not the best practice, using figure-8s will not fix the problem alone. Technology cannot be relied on here. There is barely any technology involved in sport climbing to begin with. The solution instead begins with reactivating the feedback loop mentioned above in trad climbing, especially in physically verifiable ways. So every time you tie in, you pull hard on your knot in all directions while inspecting it. Eye contact with the belayer, maybe even a tug on the Gri-gri to confirm it's loaded correctly. Discussion about clipping strategies reawakens a sense of mutual responsibility. Clear communication about taking and lowering is a must. On longer pitches, tie a big knot in the end of the rope. Basically climbers should do things that interrupt the convenience-oriented cruise control "sport" mentality that too easily leads to disaster. A visceral awareness of the risk of the sport needs to be maintained if we want to remain safe climbers.
Andrew Bisharat wrote an excellent analysis of the safety issues linked with fixed draws in the most recent issue of Rock and Ice, making points that I entirely agree with. Laissez-faire crag maintenance is a relic of the past when climbers were few and perhaps more aware of the risks involved in trusting fixed gear. If the decision is made to fully equip a crag, then that comes with real responsibility for the lives of those who follow. Personally I am against fixed draws precisely because they distance climbers from looking after themselves. Bolts are relatively redundant but, as the Swiss incident makes plain, clipping-in points have lethal potential if they fail the wrong way, the way that we don't expect them to.
One of the things that I find so interesting and compelling about climbing is this relationship between mind and technology. There is no question that gear can enable incredible athletic achievements on the rock. And very few enjoy entirely relying on their mental strength in potentially lethal situations. There is, or should be, a balance between the two extremes. When we let technology drive our actions too much, the chances are good that we will soon wind up in the ditch, or worse.
PS: I saw this note about a sport climbing crag in Japan.
"Rules and regulations: Climbers are not allowed to leave quick-draws hanging from the routes overnight. According to the priests in charge of the many shrines on Mount Horai, this would greatly upset the numerous spirits that visits the forest; therefore, all QDs have to be taken down before nightfall. For the same reason, stashing of ropes is frowned upon."
I think the forest spirits have the right idea
I think the forest spirits have the right idea
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
January First 2013
I find that the best conditions for climbing are often between 35 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit on a cloudy winter day. These are days where few others are out on the mountain and more often than not the session is stopped by a vigorous shower of snow coming down from Green Mountain. Though some may chuckle in disbelief, I have numerous uncontrived or minimally contrived double-digit projects up here and am looking for a break in the weather and an uptick in strength going forward in to spring. After a few weeks of lower intensity climbing, training in earnest begins tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
