Route Ownership and Style

Over at splitterchoss.com (a great name), I made a long-winded response to what I think is a misguided editorial on route development, and the issue of ownership of routes or crags by first ascentionists. Here's what I wrote:

Ultimately it comes down to the end product versus the style? Like the super-duper bottom-line? Like this is the end of the discussion? Thank God then for this contribution. The issue is settled.

Nah, I’m kidding.

This essay’s topic is relevant and interesting, but the essay is pitifully argued and, for the future of climbing culture, extremely unimaginative.

Pitting 'style’ versus ‘end product’ is a lame distinction when you don’t clarify what these terms really mean to you. Not that it’s not obvious where you stand, and what your preferences are.

Since you’ve conflated the questions of route authorship and ownership with questions of style and community rules I’m going in the direction of questions of style and rules.

It’s not that I have a problem with one style or the other. In fact, I climb and establish well-bolted, well-planned sport routes, and I climb and establish ground-up, protected-on-the-fly traditional routes. I enjoy both! On one day I’ll be thankful for a well-placed crux clip that saves my redpoint and gets me to the chains. On another day I’ll relish the fear, inefficiency, and spontaneity it takes me to grovel to the tree anchor on a traditional climb.

On no day however will I enjoy or agree with the view that all climbs must be established one way.

What befuddles me is the strong, righteous feeling people have that it must be one way or the other. I take as a starting point that there are some people who like to climb one way, and other people who want to climb another way; since that’s the case both have to be okay with me because who am I to decide which style is better?

So show more of your cards before you use a weak distinction to dump on a style that you just don’t like. You’ve loaded your essay ahead of time with a bias which seems to be for one area and one region’s route development preferences. Will you just dismiss others’ preferences to do it a different way, or will you make an genuine attempt to allow for other methods?

(Of course, this is all besides the direct question of ownership. My brief reply would be to start by saying, when climbers talk about ownership they don’t mean it legally. So it doesn’t really help to remind us that such-and-such public entity is the real land owner and therefore route development and ownership is really decided for and by the public, not the individual who created the route. This take on the matter doesn’t even really hold up or settle anything anyway since in the case of privately owned climbing areas the question of ownership still remains a hot topic.)

Here's what splitterchoss.com said in a thoughtful reply:

@climbingislove Thanks for such a well thought out comment. I do have to say you wrongly assume I have a problem with other styles, or believe that every area should adhere to the same set of “rules”. This discussion was started based on the comments of old route developers who regretted having put up these runout routes in the South Platte because no one climbs them anymore. So my point was that if these routes were not being climbed, is it ok to upgrade them in a way that kept them adventurous but made them more accessible to the masses, like a bolt every 15 feet instead of 30 or 40? And who decides that, the FA or the community?

I also enjoy a variety of routes, from safely bolted local choss to the adventure climbs of the Black Canyon, and I’m fortunate to live in a place with so many different styles of climbing close by.

Perhaps I should have been more clear about the end product being most important. In that regard, I am referring to routes that are currently being established, not climbs that were opened up in the 70’s. I can think of several major climbing areas out there with “sport” routes that are really lame because they were put up ground up, to adhere to some “climbing ethic”, and the end result is a crappy route with poor bolt placements, bad falls, etc. For those climbs, yes, I would say if they were put up instead with the end product in mind, they could have been much better routes. I’m not saying don’t put up more adventurous climbs, I’m saying when a route is established, it should be done in such a manner that it offers the finest experience it can. So if it’s a sport route, that means good clipping stances, safe falls, etc. If it’s a runout trad route, that might mean that where you need it the gear is good, and the rest is thoughtful and committing.

And as for your last comment, here in the West there are VERY few private climbing areas, so it really is the community who should be deciding what is and isn’t ok at a local area, not a couple lone wolf first ascentionists. This hasn’t been a major issue so far in the history of climbing, but as more and more restrictions are placed on bolting (and they will be), the community will have to come together more so than ever to present a unified stance to land managers, and show that we can indeed police ourselves.