rcpt
Those two guys removed an established easement. Sure one
can argue that it should never have been installed in the
first place, but it was and apparently it became widely
used. They had no business taking it down.
|
> _vertigo
Rock climbing ethics is more complicated and dramatic
than that.Applying this logic about easements doesn't
really capture the whole picture, because you're
considering people only, not considering the
mountain. I think some people who support chopping
those bolts would argue that this is like restoring
the Mona Lisa after some random guy painted their own
painting over it. Yes, removing that guy's crappy
painting is technically a destructive act and removes
the world's ability to see that painting. But net-net,
things have improved, even though there will always be
some signs of the damage done by a fool.
|
> > modo_
Exactly right. Climbers care a lot about the
ethics of an ascent. It's interesting how much
those ethics have changed over the history of the
sport.One of the core ideas is that later climbers
should respect or improve upon the style of the
first ascensionist. e.g. if a climb was first done
using siege tactics, then doing it in a single day
is celebrated. But making a climb easier or safer
after the fact is much more controversial, because
it can feel like changing the nature of the route
itself.Snake Dike is a good example that's flared
up recently in the climbing world. It's a classic,
relatively easy route up Half Dome, and many
climbers free solo it. But because it's a face
climb, protection mostly comes from bolts drilled
into the rock. The first ascensionist placed very
few bolts, which left long runouts and real
consequences if you fall.To many old school
climbers, adding bolts to Snake Dike is
disrespectful because the risk is part of the
route's character. Their view is basically: don't
bring the mountain down to your level. The new
generation of climbers don't seem to feel that way
at all - they think you shouldn't have to take
unnecessary risk to climb a classic
route.https://gripped.com/news/first-ascentionist-
pushes-back-on-h...
|
> > > butlike
I agree with the old school climber's
philosophy. It's almost like the old school
emphasizes the sense of adventure, and the new
school emphasizes the sense of experience via
touring (which in my mind are two different
things).
|
> > riffraff
I think the point is they had no authority to do
that.Michaelangelo's Last Judgment had exposed
genitals that were covered with draperies by
Daniele da Volterra later.Then at some point they
were removed again to restore the original, but
some remain.It would not be reasonable for _me_ to
step up and erase the remaining ones, even if it
would be a restoration.
|
> > > bluebarbet
To which the obvious rejoinder is that Maestri
had no authority to put them there in the
first place.
|
> > > > margalabargala
To which the obvious rejoinder is that two
wrongs do not make a right.At the end of
the day, it's sort of a "might makes
right" situation. If someone with the
means and inclination to add bolts exists,
it is hard to stop them. If someone with
the means and inclination to remove bolts
exists, it is hard to stop them.At the end
of the day, climb your own climb. If you
take actions that affect how others climb,
what you're calling ethics is in fact ego.
|
> > > > > butlike
The bottom line is the mountain didn't
have bolts from the get-go. You're
still free to climb it, and if you
can't; you won't.
|
> > > > > > margalabargala
Unless you opt to be the next
person to hike a 150kg gas
compressor up there to install
them.
|
> > > > > bluebarbet
>what you're calling ethicsI wasn't
calling anything anything. I was just
putting the obvious counter-argument
on the table. You make a fair point.
|
> > > > > > margalabargala
Sorry, the "you" there (and really
my whole last paragraph) is
addressed at the climbers with
strong opinions about how other
people climb, not you personally.
|
> butlike
Mountain didn't come with the easements at first and
it was still possible to summit. It should be possible
to do it without them again. The bottom line is
anything else besides that is lazy. As the article
says, there's many alternate mountains for more
inexperienced climbers.
|
> kakacik
Indeed, they were visitors and were given no
permission to alter mountains in such ways. If it
should have been done, it should have been done by
owners of that terrain - I presume Chile /
Argentine.The arrogance of this... I see no difference
between Maestri's act and their. Arrogance of fanatics
who think they stand above others, their cause is
righteous and so on.I love mountains, I love climbing
to the death, but there is nothing respectable in
these actions. Also, if they could climb it without
using bolts, it was hardly 'forever erased for future'
even though I get that route was probably permanently
altered. In same/similar way that tens of thousands of
other routes have been altered in similar way by
placing permanent stuff in the wall - in all of
European Alps, Yosemite, Himalayas and so on. I do
find various old to very old equipment in main routes
or just climbing crags all over French and Swiss alps
for example. At that point its part of mountaineering
history. Sometimes, even a specific famous name is
assigned to given piece by those who know its story.
|
liversage
Maestri's claimed first ascent and his compressor route
made the history of Cerro Torre controversial, and the
later removal of the bolts added to this controversy.
However, the unfortunately now deceased climbing prodigy
David Lama also had his own scandal on the compressor
route while sponsored by Red
Bull.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lama#Cerro_Torre
|
> butlike
It reads like the scandal was only from the first
attempt at the free climb, where a bunch of belays and
bolts were left behind. He since went back and on
attempt 3 was able to free climb the compressor side
completely. This was after they removed the 120 bolts.
|
matheusmoreira
> police arrested them and confiscated 102 boltsThat stood
out to me... I understand that rock climbing is Serious
Business to its practitioners and people on internet
forums, but these two guys actually got arrested for
removing those bolts, which is a whole new level of
serious.Was it really some kind of crime to do that? What
happened to those guys after that?
|
> brian_spiering
In the USA, there was a person who was traveling
around removing bolts. The person showed up in our
local area. A couple of members of the climbing
community had a conversation with the local police.
The police had a concern about him creating a
potentially dangerous situation of people trying a
climb and expecting to find bolts only to find the
bolts missing. The police went out of their way to
arrest him. They got him on probation violation and
had him extradited to his home state. The climbing
community replaced all the removed bolts, and people
went back to enjoying the rock climbing.The local
climbing community chose to take care of this quietly
without media or internet drama.
|
> > butlike
Why not just install ladders at that point so
everybody can join in and climb. Or maybe a ski
lift system to the top? Where's the cuttoff? When
it becomes personally too hard for you, the tool
that assists you is allowed? Someone else's bolts
make it easier. It's a shame the local community
chose this route.
|
> > > snypher
You don't have to use the bolts if you don't
want to.Also, the local community can make
whatever decisions it wants, not decisions
that satisfy 'whoever' else.
|
> Yossarrian22
I can't find many details, but I had heard Hayden's
name before, he sadly died of suicide after losing his
partner in an avalanche (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayden_Kennedy_(climber)
). Jason Kruk appears to still be climbing to this
day, so neither appeared to wind up in significant
legal trouble after rightly or wrongly damaging a
tourist destination.
|
> snowwrestler
I think you'll be sad if you look up Hayden Kennedy.No
serious legal consequences to them from this climb,
though, and the route remains clean. There was a
wonderful film in this year's Mountains On Stage film
tour called Patagonian Chimeras, about a team of women
who climbed the new variation by fair means.
|
> > rurban
The route is not clean, the Red Bull film team
added more bolts, when Lama did his climb there in
2010.https://web.archive.org/web/201
90530021810/http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web10x/new
swire-lama-speaks-comp...This couldn't happen in
my climbing area, the Saechsische Schweiz, famous
for creating the first Climbing regulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Switzerland_cl
imbing_reg...
Police will arrest you for putting bolts in there
for sure.
|
> liversage
I've heard a variation of the story where the police
took them away (i.e., "arrested" them) to protect them
from what was becoming an angry mob.
|
> > ibotty
Hayden Kennedy said that on the enormocast.
|
> tclancy
I want to know why they left them with some.
|
> > riffraff
I imagined those just fell down while they were
taking them out so they didn't took out 125, lost
20+, and got caught with 102.
|
joshcramer
If you like this story, I highly recommend "The Tower", a
book on this topic by Kelly Cordes. This book, although
history, reads like an outdoor adventure mystery
thriller.Check out Kelly's intro on his blog, where he
also shares his famous Marg recipe:
https://kellycordes.com/2014/11/26/my-cerro-torre-book-and
-m....I can personally attest, that Kelly makes the best
Margs.
|
NoboruWataya
Curious to know the basis on which they were arrested. I
guess it's something in the realm of criminal damage to
public property. But that would imply that Maestri's bolts
had become part of the public property that is the
mountain. I assume Maestri was not arrested for inserting
the bolts.Not being a mountain climber at all I don't
really have an opinion on this, but I do naturally
sympathise with the anti-bolt guys because I am fond of
the idea of leaving no trace.
|
> cjonas
They didn't remove the bolts for "leave no trace"
reasons. They removed them because the style they were
put up was considered "poor climbing ethics". They
felt it could go "free" and on gear.This would have
made the summit unobtainable to all but the strongest
climbers in the world... Which would have upset many
people who had traveled far and spent a lot of money
to attempt the summit.Alex Honnolds "climbing gold"
podcast has like a 3 part series on this history if
your interested to learn more.
|
> > butlike
Just goes to show you money can't buy everything.
Can't buy you being in good enough shape to climb
the mountain at the mountain's level.
|
> > kodt
I think the question here is: what is the specific
criminal charge or law that was broken to be
arrested?
|
> > > dfxm12
You don't have to be charged with anything to
be arrested. Kennedy's wikipedia page suggests
they were released from jail, implying LEO
decided they actually committed no crime (and
certainly weren't charged). If you're really
curious, maybe the jurisdiction has public
arrest records, but this assumes that the cops
were doing everything by the book, which is
not always an apt assumption.My guess is that
towns and leo get, let's say, passionate, when
a big tourism draw gets defaced, or when
something can get more dangerous, but cooler
heads eventually prevailed.
|
rob74
My first reaction to the title was "how can a mountain be
controversial?!", and, even after reading the article, the
title still sounds wrong to me. I mean, a mountain is a
mountain, it just... exists in a very undisputable way.
What climbers did or didn't do on that mountain can be
controversial, but not the mountain itself.
|
> decimalenough
Yeah, I thought this would be about a border dispute
or something.
|
mellosouls
Ofc we all know this but its nice to be reminded that
gatekeeping and nerdery is not limited to tech forums.
|
> alberto-m
Mountaneering nerdery is in some sense nobler, since
people practising it put their health and lives at
stake. Debates about C++ undefined behaviour would get
a different flavour if every now and then some
high-profile developer were killed by nasal demons.
|
> > butlike
if (undefined) { launchNuclearCache(); }
|
jandrewrogers
One of the things I appreciate about the Andes Mountains
is that in this age of social media ruining everything
most areas are still pretty wild. You don't see long
queues of people waiting to take selfies. You may not see
other people at all. They are second in height to the
Himalaya but in most other ways are more interesting.I
feel like the governments there low-key try to keep it
that way.
|
> RugnirViking
im sure that the Andes are far more remote and wild
than anything I have experienced in my life as a
European, and I would dearly like to be fortunate
enough to see them some day, but I would note that
"long queues of people waiting to take selfies" hasn't
been my experience in nearly every mountain or hill
ive been to save a couple extremely touristy spots in
the height of summer (uk examples: snowdon peak, mam
tor, stanage edge etc). Ive been able to go entire
days without seeing another group of hikers many
places in norway, sweden, uk, even while following
hiking guide books
|
> samastur
That's because there so much of them and most of the
range is not very comfortably accessible (you usually
need to endure some discomfort either getting there or
staying nearby).Where you can get nearby fairly easy
like base Las Torres, you'll have plenty of people
doing just that.I don't think this is by intent. It's
just that the countries themselves are relatively poor
and have higher priority projects for their limited
resources.
|
> > hvb2
> Where you can get nearby fairly easy like base
Las Torres, you'll have plenty of people doing
just that.Are you sure it's the accessibility or
the fact that Torres del Paine, which is very
famous, is next door?I get what you're saying
though, maybe you just picked a bad example
|
> casumel
I did Cerro El Plomo in January and it was a very
blissful experience. Barely any people and no phones.
Can highly recommend.
|
> AlotOfReading
The higher Himalayas are largely unpeopled as well,
especially above 4000m. The only time I met people
above those altitudes were at night in
camps/settlements. I'm sure the EBC route is more
crowded, but that's one very small trek in an enormous
mountain range.
|
> TFNA
The industry that has sway over the Andes is mining.
Against that, tourism income is negligible and in fact
more tourism could threaten the mining industry.
|
> kakacik
This ain't true, even in many cca popular places in
European alps you can be alone whole day. Just don't
go into most popular hotspots on busy holidays days,
traveling rule 101.People just taking selfies and
generally big crowds are not climbers/mountaineers,
its everybody else but.
|
htatche
Alex Honnold has a series about it on his podcast I'd
recommend listening to. (The Greatest Lie)
|
aaronrobinson
Nice read. Very interesting.
|
chabes
The mountain should have never been bolted in the first
place.The debate that it is an established route and thus
should be left up comes from a place of entitlement.If you
can't climb the mountain, what are you even doing there?
There are plenty of mountains in the area that can be
climbed instead.Same can be said about the Dawn Wall of El
Cap. Harding should have never bolted it. Removing his
bolt ladder was the ethical move by Robbins.
|
> ofrzeta
What kind of ethics is it to decide that these walls
must be free climbed? If you want to do that, fine, go
ahead and ignore the bolts.
|
> > dwd
There is the "Leave No Trace" principle where you
do not leave anything behind.This is why you see
in trad climbing the lead will place cams and
nuts, while the last in the group on that pitch
retrieves them.
|
> > > ofrzeta
Sure there's this principle but this just
moves the need for justification. Humans leave
their traces everywhere so why this principle
for mountains? There are many traces that
should be removed such as hydroelectric power
stations, river straightening and so on. Is
this whataboutism? I just think a few bolts in
a mountain don't do much harm and as a casual
observer of these mountains you won't even
notice. Also I am very much for "leaving no
traces" in the sense that everyone picks up
their trash.
|
> > > > chabes
> Humans leave their traces everywhere so
why this principle for mountains?It's
called conservation. It is why we have
these places to climb in the first place.
These are protected wild places.
|
> > > > > ofrzeta
I am all for free climbing. But I
don't really like this perspective
from a high horse. So it's fine for
comparatively rich people to fly there
by plane to free climb Cerro Torre?
|
> > > > > > chabes
My point is about letting wild
places be wild, not about the
environmental impact of climbing
as a whole.
|
> > > > > > dwd
It's about leaving it in the state
you would like to have found it.
No rubbish, no abandoned
equipment, no bouldering-style
puzzles already solved because
someone has stuck a bolt there.I
do wonder whether the boulderers
find it annoying when a boulder is
clearly already solved by the
worn, chalk marked hand holds.
Probably explains why many seek
out new untouched sites to solve
first.
|
> > butlike
Because it breaks down if we use another example.
Would you want to solve a rubik's cube that was
pre-turned so there were only 3 flips left to
complete the cube? Changing the state of the
activity (adding bolts/belays/ladders/etc.) is not
in the spirit of the event, just as almost
finishing a rubik's cube for someone else isn't in
the spirit of actual event.Put a different way:
the climb becomes the bolter's experience, not the
mountain's experience. It is no longer
intrinsically mountain climbing, it's hiking.
|
> > > snypher
>Would you want to solve a rubik's cube that
was pre-turned so there were only 3 flips left
to complete the cube?Well no, but I wouldn't
get mad if someone else wanted to.
|
> > arethuza
I don't think it's just a matter of ethics - some
legal entity owns these mountains (park authority
of some kind?) and drilling holes and placing
bolts done without the permission of the owner
sounds like vandalism to me.
|
> > blackjack_
If you are being serious; read the tower for much
more context.
|
> > chabes
I am of the belief that we should leave a place
better than we find it.When litter is in my path,
I remove it. To do otherwise would go against this
fundamental principle.Natural places should be
protected from the widespread exploitation by
humans. We are destroying the entire planet. Why
can't we protect the places we have long agreed
should be protected? Enough with the
anthropocentric BS already. We are a part of the
world, not separate.
|
anthk
Cerro Torre means "tower hill". Appropiate.
|