Pinns, ethic question???

[Uncle Stinky]

There is no dobt that this one will go, a faily short climb, and moderate,  and you can scope it out from the bottom and a 3rd class gully, and  the top.  It  was  just so choosy, but I was 90% determined to do it all ground up now 100% determined. Thanks for all the input.

Looks like a nice route Stinky!  Be sure to leave a little munge for the SA team  
Plenty of munge to go around. (not sure how to use the quote thing.)

[MUCCI]

I agree with some of the above statements.  Yet I believe that MANY pinnacles classics were complete choss ventures in the beginning.  Over the years, the layers were peeled away and now we have solid, classic routes.   How different would our classic routes be if the FA's of the 50's, 60's 70's etc took the above approach?

I have never previewed, rapped down or pre cleaned a route.  It's just not my style.  However, I do believe  that the top down approach should be reserved until all other options are exhausted.  

Great discussion here, Karl thanks for the words.

[mynameismud]

Agreed, and some of those classics are still choss.  I do not think rapping to preview a route will become a standard practice.  I think most of the people posting on this have gone all ground up way more than they have previewed.  I think all the routes that I previewed I did by accident when rapping off another line.

[mungeclimber]

I really do think there is a philosophical conflict (not actual people conflicts) in the approaches when taken as a guiding principle to dictate behavior.  There's a hurdle to overcome for those that take a more strict ground up approach before they preview because it would taint the ascent and remove that unknown quality of adventure that is so cherished by those that go ground up. The byproduct of the ground up approach is resource protection by virtue of the fact that it is harder and time consuming, especially if you remove the motorized part of the equation. Whereas, I see the previewing approach (or modified ground up) as protecting resources by virtue of ones aesthetic of what is 'worthy' or to say it another way, the direct perception of the outcome of drilling.   

As seen from the above posts, there is compromise in action.  I think the likely outcome is this compromise just because of the conflict of principles (ground up vs. top down) in a principled approach.  What I see posted above is a pragmatic approach.  Both have value when taken in moderation but how we choose to apply it is the sticky part. 

 

[karl]

Well said!

I believe that most of the climbing at the Pinns can easily be envisioned from the ground and realized "on the ascent."  In addition, if the FA party is looking for the adventure of discovery, there really is no other way. 

I was merely mentioning that given the permanence of bolts and scarcity of rock, if there is doubt, we should error on the side of caution.  I feel that we need to remember that we are not placing removable protection and all of our actions have consequences.  That is unless you are a true Pinnacles god and only sling knobs, slip RP's into fragile flakes, and hope for the occasional bomber crack placement.

[karl]

Karl, where have you been??

Mostly JH, Donner, & the Red River Gorge.  I hardly ever make it out to the Pinns, but I keep it close to my heart.  I try to keep an eye on the forum to see what you guys are up to, but often have nothing to add.  I am always glad to see that there is still a core group of dedicated locals!

[F4?]

That is unless you are a true Pinnacles god and only sling knobs, slip RP's into fragile flakes, and hope for the occasional bomber crack placement.

Thank god for lycra and sticky rubber. Without such technological advances we'd still be slinging knobs and wiggling in RPs!

[Uncle Stinky]

Mostly JH, Donner, & the Red River Gorge. 

I hate to sound stupid but where is JH, I am drawing a blank?

[mynameismud]

It is an unknown location that can put you in a jail...

I hate to sound stupid but where is JH, I am drawing a blank?

[Uncle Stinky]

Got it.   

[joe]

Many good points Karl.  and it echos my sentiment that just because it can be bolted, doesn't mean it should.  I've been on too many chossy lines that I wouldn't recommend or repeat in the monument.  and often ask myself, 'what were they thinking?'

[mynameismud]

I think Munge brings up an interesting point.  Adventure/Ethics vs Aesthetics and a good line.  First of all what is a good aesthetic line?  I sometimes look at a line and think " I like that " when I know very few will echo my sentiment.  This is an internal argument that I have had many times when putting up routes.  What is good, what is aesthetic?

For me a line can be total choss and still be a good and aesthetic line.  An example, Feeding Frenzy, I have done it more than once and it just has a look.  Another route is Gutter dang I like that route, but it is awkward and a battle with rat poop.

Premeditated is a route that just draws me in but there is nothing solid about it.  I have been to the top of the second pitch which seems to be as high as it goes.  So, why go back?  I dunno, I guess because it has a certain aesthetic about it that just looks good.

Nexus is definitely a classic yet the top is not solid and most likely never will be.  Bachar Yerian has a reputation of spitting people off because of knobs breaking.  Yet looking at those routes makes a person want to climb.

With all that said there those routes that years later make me wonder.  The old stuff on Casino Rock, why did he pick the line that he did?  I will never know.  But that is also part of the allure. Why do obscure routes?  Either as first ascents or to just to have done them.

For the adventure, the numbers, to pass the time away, to get away from people, to fill up guide books?  In just about every place that I have climbed there have been routes where I have thought, "why did they put that up". 

What I have noticed over the years is the route that I wonder about sticks in my memory as well as the perfect route.  I will not trade one for the other.

[joe]

all good points DES

[Poppy]

Interesting that as of yet, most comments are focused on the impacts of top-down cleaning on our established ethical guidelines, rather than on the actual physical impacts of the proposed cleaning itself.  Minimizing physical/environmental impacts are an important reason that the ethical guidelines exist in the first place.

I agree with many of the points made about preserving limited resources, minimizing bolts, etc., but not being a cleaner myself, I would consider the details of the cleaning itself to be a more important issue that the manner in which the cleaning is performed.

To actually answer the specific question, in this case I would much prefer the quick rap to avoid (unnecessary) cleaning.  

Like most of you I would consider myself a stickler for ethics/tradition, and I occasionally need to remind myself of the reasons I value these guidelines.

[mungeclimber]

Poppy, fair point.  I think we're mostly talking about loose rock.  I have no qualms about cleaning the holds to make them climbable. I don't particularly want to take the earth digger just because I'm concerned about a loose chunk of rock being removed as an impact when it was already loose to begin with.

if you mean wholesale scrubbing, that's a different story, and indeed we should try to minimize impact despite our long dangerous tradition in climbing of pursuing the unknown.