Ethic

Red Rocks, Nevada

Regional Climbing Ethics

Today's 'Climbing Ethics' are generally a local standard as opposed to having a national governing body. Unique climbing ethics will be found in every climbing area. 'Climbing Ethics' are constantly changing and have adapted with the addition of new technology, techniques and individuals.

'Clean' Protection Ethics

'Clean' protection refers to protecting a route while:

- not altering the rock in any way

- not leaving anything on the rock

Non-clean protection are generally referred to as 'fixed protection'.

Bolting Ethics

What are bolts?

'Sport Climbing Ethics' versus 'Trad Climbing Ethics' are likely the most commonly discussed ethical issue in rock climbing today. The following presents common arguments about bolting in a neutral fashion. The primary argument against bolting is that it requires permanent damage to the rock. Bolting (generally) increases safety, decreases climbing cost, decreases required technical knowledge and permits new climbers to succeed at a faster rate.

Trad stands for Traditional. The interesting concept about this is that Trad climbing is far from 'traditional climbing techniques'. Climbing was originally protected by permanent (or semi-permanent) protection which also do damage to the rock. This included pitons and bongs which were slammed into the rock (often using a hammer). Pitons leave permanent scars. Non-permanent protection (i.e. stoppers) were also used.

Cams, ball-nutz, big-bros and other clean active protection are recent inventions. Therefore, the common argument that permanent protection is a new concept and therefore should not be used, is uneducated. A better counterargument to bolting is that gear is currently available to protect many climbs without doing damage to the rock and therefore we should make use of them. This argument is especially relevant in granite crags where cracks provide safe, clean protection.

Rock that do not accept active or passive protection are a more tempting candidate for bolting. Slabs are a primary example. Slab's featureless faces do not accept any form of 'clean' protection. Therefore fixed protection may seem like the next best solution. Two main counterarguments are created from this logic:

First Ascent tactics are often used as a standard for a given climb. This means that future parties may not add permanent protection to a climb. This ethic states that if the original climber choose to climb the climb boldly then future parties should also climb the climb boldly*. (*Any available clean protection may be used.) Certain areas are also renowned for a bold climbing style where injury or death can occur if the climber falls. Many climbers believe that it is important to preserve the climbing style of these areas and therefore will greatly oppose any action (i.e. adding fixed protection) that will decrease the boldness of a climb.

The other counterargument discusses if it is more important to climb a section of rock than protect it from damage. There are clearly various lines of thought regarding this subject. Most areas that utilize fixed protection argue that the protection we provide by climbing in an area (i.e. fighting against development, trash removal, etc) provides more benefits than the harm that is done. Many climbers believe that bolts damage is small compared to the impacts of other sports and therefore is acceptable.

When selecting to bolt an area or not, you should refer to your local ethics. A general rule of thumb is to not bolt until you have climbed for five years or more. Over-bolting is very easy to do and the removal of 'extra' bolts does not remove the damage. Retro-bolting is a more common practice and refers to replacing old or damage bolts (as opposed to adding new bolts).

Chipping

Chipping is when rock is modified to add features (hand / foot holds) to the rock face. Do not do it. Chipping is normally done when a climb is 'too hard in a section'. Another common excuse for chipping is that a 'climb is perfect expect this one section is impossible'. This logic is almost always seen as incorrect. Leave the climb for a climber who can do the climb without altering the rock.

Chipping has occurred in the past and most guidebooks mark which climbs have been chipped.

Gardening

Gardening is when climbers alter (or remove) vegetation on or around a rock face. Gardening should be kept to an absolute minimum. Always use environmentally safe techniques when gardening. Wire (for granite) and plastic (for sandstone) brushes are commonly used. Gardening is seen differently in each location so consider your local ethics.

No Chalk Ethic

Colored chalk / no-chalk Ethics are found in some areas. Chalk does discolor the rock. Colored chalk is designed to match the color of the rock you are climbing on. No-Chalk Ethic indicates that chalk should not be used in this area.

Access

Access is permission from a land owner to utilize an area for rock climbing. Access is not a right (even on government, public land). Access may be withdrawn at any time. Climbing is often viewed as a high risk, dangerous sport. Therefore land owners are very concerned about granting access. Many states do not permit individuals to sign away ignorance in a disclaimer. Therefore disclaimers cannot completely protect land owners from lawsuits. Climbing associations often help to pay for insurance of land owners.

The Access Fund, can help you gain and protect access to your local crags. Their website, accessfund.org, provides information about how to gain access, legal issues and their organization.

When attempting to gain access to an area, do not illegally trespass. Illegal trespassing can jeopardize any chance of obtaining legitimate access.

Related Pages

• Chalk
• Chop
• Clean
• Rock Climbing