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 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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_ 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

To which the obvious rejoinder is that Maestri had no authority to put them there in the first place.

▲

margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Unless you opt to be the next person to hike a 150kg gas compressor up there to install them.

▲

bluebarbet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>what you're calling ethics

I wasn't calling anything anything. I was just putting the obvious counter-argument on the table. You make a fair point.

	▲	margalabargala 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.