UKC

I removed the chockstone from Right Eliminate this evening -but in the spirit of compromise I will replace it in six months time if the majority opinion is that this is the right thing to do - ascertained from a UKC vote on a thread next March.

The chock lifted out without effort because it rested on (and blocked) a jug - so I dont expect there to be any increase in grade.

I will happily lend my Friend 5 & 6 for a day to anyone who wants a go at the route over the next 6 months (feel free to email me). I will approach Outside in Calver after I get back from Yosemite on 28th September to see if they would be willing to keep them under the counter . History should record that the FFA went to Paul Mitchell years ago.

I hope all this debate raises the profile of this great (and now greater) route so it gets loads of ascents.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You've done the wrong thing there and I at leastt disapprove of your unilateral and selfish action.

In reply to Simon Lee: Must say I havnt done the route, but Im not sure I agree with anyone other than the FA guy altering the character of the route. I know freinds may be used, but a chock is safer isnt it, they are a reminder of the history of the climb.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Have you still got the chock?

It seems a strangely selfish thing to do?

In reply to Simon Lee: ). "I will approach Outside in Calver after I get back from Yosemite on 28th September to see if they would be willing to keep them under the counter "

how will climbers know its no longer there, and then know that they can go to the shop?

In reply to Fiend:


Why 'selfish' exactly?

In reply to tobyfk: well he didnt see the need for the chock so noone else should, and hes got cams so every one else should.

Its like people who remove the lower bolt hangers, why?
Its a sport climb anyway so you know its not going to be a mental game, if you want that do trad?

In reply to Simon Lee:
This is gonna be a fun game, will be at curbar in the next few days and have already packed a bag of rocks to see if i can lead Right Eliminate on site with rockchocks as pro, if i use the house brick i will remove it but the rest are gritstone cobbles and they will be left in!

In reply to Simon Lee:
So votes on UKC and Rocktalk become the consensus of opinion in the United Kingdom?
Bizarre!

Enty

In reply to Simon Lee: Look it was aid, cheating, unethical. Do people still think it o.k. to use a shoulder for aid on Boggart Right Hand. People still claim to have "done" Everest when using bottled O2, but we rock climbers have better developed ethics don't we?

p.s. can anyone now claim to have "done" The Nose if they pull on gear, since it has been done entirely free?.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I applaud your actions, so long as you replace the chockstone later or get a proper concensus. At least this will lead to a proper debate as opposed to the midnight remblings of a few computer geeks on RT. It is a BIG mistake to confuse RT votes with a concensus of British climbing.

I am sceptical of the relevence of the first ascentionist's role in setting in stone (sic) the ethics for the future, other than in resisting a degredation of the purity of ascent (eg retro bolting). I suspect thet JB has too much of a life to get upset either way, or even care on this issue.

I find it amazing that the most virulent supporters of ethics throw everything out of the window for the sake of history, climbing is all about progression.

In reply to Enty:
Its all ok though because he's done 8a+ and E6 so he didn't need it anyway.

Enty

In reply to Enty:

Totally agree, but then the OP didn't even bother to wait for a consensus to emerge from his intial post before doing what the hell he wanted in the first place. It's totally against the spirit of the way climbing in this country generally works - consensus and communication. Trying to claim some kind of validity from the 200 or so people who post here is nonense - most people are here for the trolls and humour, not to sit on some kind of kangaroo ethics court.

Bloody tool.

In reply to Simon Lee: It's no worse than the selfish bastard who removed the pegs from Pex Wall at Pex Hill on his own, without consent from the local majority.

Andy F

In reply to Enty: That's pathetic. Advances in ethics will inevitably mean that in the short term some routes will be denied to some climbers. That doesn't mean that we should avoid them, just improve or move your goals elsewhere.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You sir, are a knob of the highest order.

P.s - Can I have your big friends?

In reply to Pedro50:
Seems to me like Simon is imposing his ethics on me.
I don't want an 8a+ climber to dictate to me how to climb a route which is E3, I want to make my own mind up.
For gods sake we aren't taliking about bolting the thing up are we.

Enty

In reply to Simon Lee:

Oh well you know my opinion from the other thread... it might well be better out, but you are one arrogant f*cker, to not even raise this at an area meeting.

I'm disappointed you weren't prepared to consult anyone other than the few who saw your thread over a period of a whole 3 days!!!! Regardless of whether UKC gives you any legitimacy, that short time between suggesting and doing clearly demonstrates how objective you really were.

I read through your original thread and I reckon 7 people agreed (take it out) 8 objected, I said wait and get more feedback, and a few made relevant points but didn't state their opinion. That's quite a mandate you have there!!!!

With that as a precedent for listening to the rest of the climbing community it's A good job nobody wants to bolt it isn't it?

As for "ascertained from a UKC vote on a thread next March" plenty of climbers don't read these forums.

I'm quite upset about how you chose to do this...

In reply to Simon Lee:

I note that the BMC Stanage guide says that it is a classic route becoming damaged and polished because of the insertion and removal of cams behind the flake. Is making climbers have to use a cam, where once there was a chockstone, a forward progress?

And will you accept liability for any injuries to climbers who haven't seen your post who take a fall at the place where they expect to be a chockstone - and have geared up appropriately - only to find that someone has unilateraly decided to remove it?

In reply to Enty: No we are not talking bolting. We are talking about an overdue IMPROVEMENT in ethics. Forget the history, the identity of the 1st ascentionist etc. Inertia has allowed the status quo to remain for too long.

In reply to Pedro50:

It's 'inertia' that means there are enough unbolted crags for us to even be able to debate the merits of removing it.

Give it ten years, and I'm willing to bet there will be people rediscovering the use of 'natural' protection such as wooden wedges and chock-stones, just as part of the process of rediscovering the history of climbing.

In reply to Paul Saunders:

My earlier use of the word selfish was perhaps unwarranted; self centered is probably more accurate.

Why not just take the thing out?

In reply to Dominion:


By this logic the relatives of the second killed on Central Buttress by the leader pulling out the "crucial" chockstone could sue the descendants of the first ascentionist, Siegfied Herford in 1914, who may or may not have placed or used the impermanent device. Climbers are responsible fot their own safety and actions. Caveat Grimpeur.

In reply to all:
Do not fear i will leave some!If i don't someone will surely borrow cams on extended loan!

In reply to Simon Lee: I just can't believe you had the audacity to do this. What is your next step going to be, to remove all the stones from cracks that you think are unethical? Why are you so bothered about it anyway as youv'e already done the route? Have you proof it was inserted I doubt it? How many times are you going to do the route again? Why don't you chip some holds on another route to make it more astheticaly pleasing for you its pretty much the same thing.

In reply to Fiend:


well its all your fault for coming out the other day don't you see its inspired mass hysteria....pot, kettle, grey area.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Wrong thing to do, I assume you removed the chock while leading the route?

In reply to Simon Lee:


What an interesting thing to do.

I wonder how long it will be before someone replaces it?

Isn't English climbing very odd?

Mick

In reply to Paul Saunders:



There is no mandate and nor should he claim any. Has he claimed any mandate has he?

It was a personal decision surely and an action carried out by one?

In reply to Dominion:


Stanage guide? Presumably you are confusing Right Eliminate with Right Unconquerable? Right Eliminate is a straight-in crack as well-suited to cams as anything on grit. Get you facts straight before criticising people.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

That doesn't add up to 'selfish'. As far as I understand, Simon seems to have done this because he believes it will improve the quality of the route for anyone with the ability to climb it. He hasn't done it purely for his own benefit.

In reply to tobyfk:

For goodness sake, read what you wrote. So if I think that removing or improving holds on a climb to make it a better climbing experience I should do it? That in effect is what you are saying.
If he really wants to do some cleaning up He could remove some of the rotting wooden chocks from some of the old aid routes. That might be more altruistic rather than the egotistical shenanigans he has done,

In reply to Simon Lee: I think you have absolutely done the wrong thing. I have a very low opinion of you and your actions and look forward to meeting you one day so I can tell you to your face.

Nothwithstanding this, quite how you think rock talk offers a consensus of climbers I don't know, some of the posters don't even know what route you are talking about.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Frankly I find your attitude disgusting and your actions appalling. You are SO rude, I'm having difficulty finding the words. I am praying that you are a hideous little troll, otherwise, you are just a hideous little man.

In reply to sutty:
Not sure you have. Read the whole thread for context. I originally asked why Fiend though Simon was 'selfish'. Someone else replied to that, to which I replied again.

>So if I think that removing or improving holds on a climb to make it a better climbing experience I should do it?
No. But that's an irrelevant point.

In reply to Alsion Bnod:

Alison. Pardon my scepticism, but do you actually know what a chockstone is, ever seen Right Eliminate or could name any other offwidth crack in the UK?

In reply to Alsion Bnod:


Errr... he's hardly burning down villages in Darfur is he? He did say he'd lend his big friends to anyone who wants ago as well. You might disagree, but try and keep some perspective.

In reply to tobyfk:

How is it irrelevant, that is exactly what Simon claims to have done. Removing a chockstone to 'improve the experience', and using cams instead to scar the rock even more. Tosser of the first water.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Firstly i'll admit that I have never done this route and i'll probably never me able to! But if everyone's going to use metal cams as aid in place of the chockstone, which was taken out because it was not "proper" aid was was there any point in taking it out? Does that make sense?! I know what I mean!

In reply to sutty:

Whoa, hold tight sutty.

Have you seen anyone climb RE recently? The usual way is with ONE big cam - moving it up above you after every few millimetres of grunting progress.

The destruction wrought by doing that is completly unreleated to the presence (or absence) of the stone. Which by the way, grated round in such a way as to at least equal the damage caused by a friend.

The "damage" argument is a red herring. This is more about how we mix respect for the past with our current definition of what's acceptable and our ideas of route quality.

In reply to sutty:

"removing or improving holds" is what you said. We are not talking about that. So it was irrelevant.

In reply to TimB:

Thats not leading it, that is bottom roping it. Do they have no scruples, well no they mustn't have. I failed on it and left it for better people. Found Elder much more reasonable.
Of course, there was only a couple of chocks to thread then on RE. Perhaps we need a moratorium on cams on some routes.

In reply to tobyfk:


Yes, erm yes and Offwidth took me climbing when I was starting out so Yes.

In reply to sutty:


An interesting idea. Why don't you start your own thread suggesting that? I am sure you'll receive all sorts of well-informed, constructive comment .....

In reply to Simon Lee:

i think it's fair enough - you're all a bunch of bleating wingers. the climb is now as it should be a pure off width without a cheating chock stone and look forwad to doing it.

In reply to tobyfk:

Just for the record I applaud Simon Lee for sticking to his guns whether people think he is right or wrong.

The repeated assasination of his character on this thread, as a result of his action of moving an alien and insecure lump of rock from a cleft in a cliff, is laughable. You should all take a good long hard look at yourselves.

In reply to coconutter:


Could I be excluded? I thought I was defending Simon.

In reply to Alsion Bnod:

Hmmmm. I'm still sceptical.

Can you identify the odd one out in this list: butterfly, chicken wing, thumb sprag, heel-toe?

In reply to coconutter: While i totally disagree with Simon's actions I think rather than get to upset about this we should recognse that A. Simon has been honest enough to admit to his actions and give his reasons and B. There are more pressing problems facing the grit eg over brushing and chipping which seems to be almost de rigeur (and lets not get started on the over use of chalk and donkey lines).

AS for climbing Right Elimiate with big cams, what's wrong with some beveled severage pipe?

In reply to TobyA:

Now Toby, you know full well that citing a worse crime does not in any way diminish the validity of another.

(citing NotFoz on the Tibet thread"

"One of the laziest debating tricks in the book old chap.

Person A: Setting fire to puppies is bad.
Person B: Oh give me a break. Never mind puppies, what about Sudan/global warming/AIDs/price of fsih/toproping at Stanage.

None of these make canine immolation any less wrong"


Somehow I don't think lending friends makes it any less bad. I still think it's rude.

In reply to coconutter:
Just to add my 2p, I also support Simon Lee's actions - I can't see one good reason for leaving a loose, rattly, anthropogenically introduced gritstone block in an otherwise pure line. It's been a universally accepted paradigm (well, as universal as you can ever get)of UK climbing that it is a *good* thing to eliminate aid from routes as we are able to - I don't see how this is anything other than a natural progression.

In reply to sloper:

He's also said he'll replace it if necessary.

Although I don't like climbing on grit, I rather think that the removal of the chockstone makes ethical sense. If you think otherwise why not put back the other two chockstones that have been removed?

In reply to Alsion Bnod:
your comments were still a bit OTT - what's your objection to taking the chock out ?

In reply to Alsion Bnod:

If I find myself on Point Five again this year, I fully intend to strip the fixed tat from the belays. I might remove a few pegs too.

I don't think that Simon's actions (or my potential actions) are a crime in the climbing ethics sense. They have/will change the nature of the route to an extent but removal of fixed gear is surely a good thing in general?

In reply to sloper:

Completely agree, even if I don't necessarily agree with Simons action.

The chockstone could have been removed by anyone at any point without bringing it to peoples attention - it might even have been assumed that it had simply fallen out or disintegrated. At least he has been honest and stated reasons for doing it.

Bigger problems on grit than this...

In reply to tobyfk:
"Alison. Pardon my scepticism, but do you actually know what a chockstone is, ever seen Right Eliminate or could name any other offwidth crack in the UK?"

This is one of the most patronising, and I guess sexist, comments I've heard for quite a while.

In reply to Anonymous: time of the month, sweetie?

In reply to Anonymous:

Thanks. I don't accept the 'sexist' bit though.

In reply to Timbo:

Given the number of people you see queuing for RE, it's probably safe to say that noone would have noticed for quite a long time.

As for bringing it up here - Simon, I only know you by reputation.



Which you seem to be living up to!

In reply to Simon Lee: Thank you Simon for having the balls to remove the chock and own up to it. I look forward to enjoying the route without the unavoidable point of aid.

In reply to tobyfk:

<sotto voce> good job you removed the Vdiff comment! Otherwise we'd have Caldwell going off about his right to an opinion again</sotto voce>

In reply to Anonymous: is there really a university in halesowen?

In reply to TimB:

Well the inference still stands ... should anyone want to take offence.

In reply to tobyfk: I reckon it must be butterfly because you have stuck all the rest up your arse

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run: I know what your saying, but with chockstones how do you know whats preplaced and whats natural? especially on mountain routes, in the gullies which commonly recieve stone fall?

anyway I agree with Sloper, at least Simons had the goood sense to admit and offer solutions, so we shouldnt judge him as a bad person, I was harsh on him last night, i still think he was wrong, but thats just my opinion. Theres also, as sloper said, far more pressing issues at crags, but he didnt mention litter, its an absolute disgrace.

If i was a farmer and owned land with stanage or something on it Id be resentful about letting people come on and drop litter, and would seriously consider preventing access. I know it maybe a minority but this country is awful for it, on the roads its bad, at crags its bad.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

I think the point is that in this case we KNOW that it's artificial.

I agree about litter. I also think that some farmers are far worse offenders than the majority of hill goers.

In reply to rich: No .ac just stands for acadedemic establishment be it a college, School or University. It's a FE College by the way.

In reply to Anonymous: I'm ready for the piss taking of the typo.

In reply to Anonymous: Shurley that should be, 'I'm ready for some one to take this piss'? as any fule kno.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

so are you saying that if it's pre-placed it's ok but if it's not then it's not ok ? if so - what a load of pish ! it's a loose rock in an otherwise clear line it doesn't belong there - surely it doesn't matter how it got there !

In reply to tobyfk:


Yes I was. Sorry, silly, even stupid - but genuine - mistake.

However, the point about the guides stating that the chockstone is there to help/hinder is still valid, and since this thread isn't going to be seen by everyone attempting to do the climb, is Simon going to ask all the on-line guides to alter their description of the route to note that the chockstone has been removed by his unilateral action, and put a notice up at the approach to Curbar stating that anyone wishing to do Right Eliminate can borrow his large cams from the shop in Calver? And accept that someone may well decide to keep/steal it, so he'd need to keep replacing it everytime someone follows his advice and goes to the shop to borrow it?

ie Simon stated his intention to remove the chockstone, then did it. He's stated his intention to leave a cam (or cams) in the shop at Calver, so he needs to keep to this part of his "deal", too.

In reply to Bored: but on a mountain route where do you draw the line, whats too big to remove, many classic moves on mountains go about chockstones. In the hills loose rock is just part of the day.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Hi,

I'd like to apologise for being rude to you. My first reaction was not as considered as it should have been and some of the posts in defence of the action seem quite reasonable. I still don't know if I agree with it, but I've got somethings to think about, which is always good I think.

Alison

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
what ? it's not a mountain route - it's a gritstone crag !

In reply to Simon Lee:

Excellent idea, well executed. I look forward to trying the route without its artifical addition.

In reply to Dominion:

No, that point isn't valid either, as stated on the other thread, since you can see the presence/absence of the chock from below the climb. Have you stood below RE? In any case, the kind of climber who steps up to climb RE isn't going to feel sandbagged on finding that the chock has gone. This is a protectable route.

Further, even if you had been making a comparison with the damage done to RU, this doesn't get you very far because RE gets vastly less traffic (the problem with RU is that people dog it). I sincerely doubt the damage done by cams will equal that done by the chock rocking in the crack.

I support your action Simon.

In reply to all:
1 - Comments about the opinions of the FA are irrelevant - noone would check with a chipper before filling in the holds. The chock was artificial and may have been needed once, but times change and standards improve.

2 - Simon seems to have removed the chock without damage to either it or the rock. Fair play

3 - He has promised to replace the chock in six months time if that is the consensus. Since it's removal is not exactly going to make the route more popular, then I can't see the harm in having the route "au natural" for a trial period

4 - Quite why anyone would want to climb this route, with or without the chock, is beyond me !!

In reply to Simon Lee:
I thought it was the BMC/BMC Areas that reached a concensus on this sort of thing, not Rocktalk? Or has this changed?
Anyway, you removed it (if you indeed have removed it) on the basis of a thread which certainly did not show any clear majority in favour of the removal. So presumably March's UKC vote will be similarly ignored if it is in favour of replacing it.

In reply to TimB:
I have no opinion on this specific route, how could I.
The principle is the same on routes of any grade though, and all climbers will have opinions about the principle. Removing a chockstone from a route changes the route, how the stone got there is irrelevant (unless you'd also go round filling in all the holds that were chipped 100 years ago or more, researching which chockstones in other cracks might be artifical and removing those, not sure how you'd repair quarried rock though).

Once you accept that changing one route in this way is OK, then you'd be hard put top argue that similar changes elsewhere are wrong. Anyone fancy replacing the missing block on Pedestal Wall? That would restore the route to its original state and improve the quality of the climbing for a VDiff leader.

In reply to Stig:

You can't see whether the chock is there when you are setting off from home specifically with the intention of doing RE, planning to make use of the chockstone, as it is common knowledge that the chockstone is there - it's written in the guidebooks, and on the online route database on Rockfax.

However, it isn't common knowledge that someone has removed the chockstone, or agreed to lend anyone wanting to do the climb appropriate sized cams, for collection at the shop in Calver. Because these threads aren't common knowledge - yet!

Yeah, I'm aware of the difference between RU and RE, now... Should have picked up PGE first, and then checked - I only looked it up to get an idea of what the climb looked like so I could see what the fuss was abou, and then read about RU and how it is getting damaged by cams. And forgot to re-read the OP, where I would have noticed the climb was called Right Eliminate, not Right Unconquereable. I remember thinking that the shop in Calver was quite some distance away from Stanage, and I though that was an odd place to leave the cams - but it still didn't click. I blame senility and stupidity on my part. Is that enough of an apology for getting the routes mixed up?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

rubbish - each case is on it's merits and in this case it's very clear that the route is improved without the chock stone. using this case as a premise for general 'rules' and then siting rediculous examples is nonsense - it's all about this specific route - BTW I really hope that the BMC have more pressing issues to debate than this.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Or just as bad people who remove the higher ones - Again Why?

In reply to Dominion:

This is a terrible argument!



So what?

In reply to coconutter:
exactly, self relience is they key.

However what about some one pushing their lead grade on the route, really going for it and dashing for that gear placement on the chock, only to find nothing, and they have no gear to place.....

Could be a bit of a surprise.

In reply to Woker: well then they'd be daft for not looking up at the route b 4 they set off !

In reply to Bored:
can you see the whole crack (inside and out) from the ground ??

(I kind of agree with you but am playing devils advocate)

In reply to Simon Lee:
i agree with what you've done

fixed gear is fixed gear, whether its bolts, pegs or chockstones.

regarding chockstones in general, with the advances in removable gear in the last few years there is no reason to continue using them or for them to be on/in routes.

In reply to Woker: you can see if there's a chock in there or not yes

In reply to Bored:

A fair few disagreed with that in the original thread.


Why was that a ridiculous example? It's a route which has changed due to the actions of climbers and would be a better route if repaired.


Like bolting, fixed gear, etc?

In reply to Woker:

As pointed out, if you are dashing for the chock only to find it isn't there I would berate your guide dog for not pointing this out before you set off.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
>It's a route which has changed due to the actions of climbers and would be a better route if repaired.

The reason being?

In reply to coconutter:
It's currently hopelessly unbalanced - the start is too hard for a VDiff leader, the rest is too easy for a 5b leader.

In reply to Simon Caldwell: it's a rediculous example because you're talking about trying to reverse errosion (possibly from climing) - this is about removing a point of aid not altering the climb - it's rediculous comparision. have you actually got any valid reason why the chock should remain other than you want the BMC to say so ?

(and please spare us the 'the guide book's say it's there' nonsense)

In reply to Woker: Here's a (distant) photo of the route. It's the crack on the right:

http://www.thepeakdistrict.info/one/html/curbar.html


Phil.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
>In reply to Bored:

>> in this case it's very clear that the route is improved without the chock stone

>A fair few disagreed with that in the original thread.


Actually Simon, I don't think they did.

A few people suggested that it'd be a better route without the chcockstone.

A few people suggested that it should be left in for the sake of "tradition" and that without it, it wouldn't be the same route anymore.

No-one explicitly suggested that it would not be a better route without the chockstone.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Sorry I was referring to Right Eliminate, didn't realise you'd gone off on a tangent about a VDiff.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

It hasn't changed because that isn't the case in the first place. The above entities represent climbers. They don't issue decrees from on high.

I think it is important to understand that there never has been an official consensus on anything that happens out at the crags. People do something and people either acccept it or disagree with it.



No he didn't. He removed it himself. It's his action, his decision.


That part of Simon's rationale is bollox, I agree.

In reply to Bored:
The BMC point was that this has always been how opinion was gauged, not by listening (very selectively) to a few people on the Internet.

I've no idea what the guidebooks say, I'm not and never will be an E3(?) climber. It was someone else who made that point, not me.

My only concern is that an individual has taken it upon himself to materially alter a long-established route because he thinks it will improve it. He may or may not be right, but is that sufficient justification? In any case I do not believe that this action should have been taken without proper consultation.

In reply to Simon Lee:
I am disappointed with the action taken. I had intended to lead this route next weekend, and not having a large cam, was intending on using the choke for protection. I guess I will have to re-think my plans. Thank you Simon

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:
So why do the local areas waste so much time discussing ethics, bolting policies, etc? Or am I wrong and it's not the BMC areas but other local groups? If so, then replace 'BMC' with those local groups in my original point.


There is an unofficial concensus though (bolting etc). This action has not sought to reach any such agreement.


Yes, but he started the other thread (presumably) to gain clear support for his intended action. He didn't get that clear support but went ahead anyway.

In reply to WB:

You could borrow his large cams from Outside, as suggested in the OP

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:


Well said, Mick. Though I think that may be only 95% correct. Some of the 'bolt agreements' in the UK were I think coordinated by BMC groups, weren't they? Hard to imagine them doing more than expelling hot air on an issue like this one though.

In reply to WB:


Given the fuss that's been generated I'd imagine half of Sheffield will be there over the weekend with any number of large cams/ replacement chocks/ opinions ... so you should be fine.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:
I was assuming i could only borrow them after the 28th of september.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Concensus in the climbing world means little Simon, although it is talked of in romantic terms as if it has an influence. We are how we are because of individual actions.

For example....no bolting in Pembroke is enforced by prompt removal of any bolts. Individuals may place them if they like, then another individual removes them.

Another example. Retrobolting occurs on Yorkshire Limestone, at some cliffs. This is due to the action of individuals. It is accepted because no-one takes these bolts out.


I think he was after opinions. He certainly got lots of them. It may or may have not influenced his decision to do what he did.

It was his decision to do it, his action. No-one elses.

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

of course it remains to be seen whether a replacement chockstone will appear in this route

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

If you think its going to be replaced then I'll take your money in return for some very long odds. Deal?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Perhaps you could remove some of the rock either side and make it a chimney - that would improve the experience for even more people. How very odd.

In reply to Ian:

Any plans to remove the bolts from Appointment With Fear?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
A. Bolts on AWF are not used for aid.
B. They do not interfere with the climbing.
C. No one to my knowledge has done the route without them, therefore they are still crucial protection until someone climbs the route without them.
D. They are already very rusted and will soon be gone anyway.

None of which can be said for the RE chock, apart from maybe C. which is due to B. not applying.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Yawwwnn..eh? Whassup? Is everyone still going on about this?

Oh all right, here's what I think:

I agree with the Bored/coconutter/tobyfk contingent that Simon has basically done A Good Thing. Or at least, he's been a Good Egg in being honest.

But on the whole, I don't really give a monkey's.

For what it's worth, when I encounter loose, wobbly chockstones that lift out easily (as he says this one did) I generally chuck them over my shoulder on the lead. Along with any other bits of the crag I can dismantle.

Yeah, that's right, you heard. So sue me.

In reply to Boy:
A. Chockstone on RE was not used for aid by anyone good enough
C. That's no argument, if no-one's good enough to do it yet then it won't get climbed until someone is born who is good enough
D. They didn't look too bad to me, if you want to see rusty bolts go to some of the North York Moors crags, I've seen stronger looking ringpulls on Coke cans.
E. I'm bored with this now, off to the Alps to remove the bolts from the Dri Hornli instead.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Although against your actions, I'm not particularly shocked by them, and think that you're just trying to wind people up. Well, you've certainly achieved that. Bravo.
Nevertheless, I was interested to read in your profile that you've recently become a 100% sport climber, with a growing predeliction for limestone, so wondered why you've also decided that now's the time to become a self-appointed avenger of trad gritstone ethics.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Of course it does. That is obvious. Anyone is free to do that.

In reply to Tom Chamberlain:


Are you sure that that is Simon's primary motivation or is it an indirect consequence of what he has done?

Cant people accept that routes will changed over time through use or by natural errosion this whole thing about returning routes to their "original" state is bollox. tampering with a route in anyway is vandalism even if you call it "restoration" just let mother nature take its course, even if it has been chipped theres no point chipping more or altering the damage as this will just increase the speedy erosin of the rock. as for removing chock stones- they were the protection at the time and although an "un natural" addition we should just leave them alone as they are part of the history of a route. blah blah shouldnt bother you'll do it anyway. its unfortunate but just accept it.

In reply to simon ashmore: So by that logic when great slab at Froggat way daubed in white gloss paint and a line of jugs chipped up Hairless heart, both should have been left to 'let mother nature take it's course', because 'tampering with a route in any way is vandalism'!!? And you've got the cheek to accuse others of talking bollox.

In reply to Boy:

How about the chipped holds on Black Chipper? Artificial Route at Widdop? Various routes at Ilkley, in fact all over Yorkshire? Would you have all these filled in, or leave them because they were done a century or more ago?

In reply to Simon Caldwell: Personally I'd be happy to see them all filled in. However I appreciate that a lot of nostalgic old farts are quite attached some chipped holds so would not wish to piss anyone off by filling them in. I beleive in taking each case on it's own merit, weighing up all the pros and cons and all that. Having weighed up the pros and cons, IMO removing the chock from RE seems quite clearly the best thing to do.

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

This is fairly obvious Mick otherwise he would have just done it and not said a word to anyone. I reckon he's loving all this now.

The Ent

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


A. Climbing past the chock without using it would involve not using the crack which rather spoils the point of the route IMO.
C. It seems a fair argument to me and is the way thing are done on most other routes with contenscious runners/holds etc. Eg Unjustified - Malham - Route done without glued hold, glue hold removed.
D. Would you happily take a fall on them? If a bolt is so weak it's going to break it doesn't make any odds whether its 3mm thick or 1mm it's still a shit bolt which is going to break.
E. Have a good trip

In reply to Enty:

Maybe. He reported what he had done on this particular climbing forum and I presume in person to others.

He has no control over how people react to what he has done.

Some may applaud him for his action, others maybe indifferent, others will disagree with what he has done.

Quite often as happens in climbing is that those who disagree with his actions will claim that there is a concensus of opinion against him.

Some may pat him on the back, some will say nothing, others will call him names and others will label him, selfish and self-centered.

But to say his motivation is to "wind" people up is pure guesswork. It may be correct, it may be incorrect.

He has presented a fairly solid argument for what he has done, even if you disgree with his reasoning or his action.

M

In reply to Simon Lee:


Hey Enty..

The above is one thing I really do question however.

He claims that if the majority opinion is against his actions he will replace the chockstone, and his gauge of opinion will be a vote on UKC.com.

That's bullshit. A vote against his action or for it, on UKC, means nothing.

M

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:


it must be quite interesting for you, as one of the people running UKC/rockfax, that the site has grown to have a perceived power to rival that of local area committees.

my twopennorth is that the action should have been discussed at committee rather than on here, but it'd be interesting to see responses over the six months - and when the chockstone is returned.

In reply to All:

Has anyone noticed that apart from the original posting, Simon Lee is noticably absent?

Chris Tan

In reply to Clare:
But only to UKC/Rockfax posters Clare.

The Ent

In reply to Anonymous:

People are allowed to have lifes you know.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Good one!

Personally I wouldn't have bothered posting about it on here though.

Hope your cams don't get pinched.

George.
(has anyone actually checked that the chockstone has been removed btw? Would be the daddy of all trolls though)

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I dont think it is irrelevant, if as I understand it the rock is a piece of 'placed gear' left in place then it is right that it is removed. The fact that it is natural rock does not change the fact it is placed gear. How about if someone placed a piece of gear a little bit more modern like a huge metal hex, would people except it if this was left in place.?

Is it just because this piece of 'gear' is rock some people object to its removal?

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

I don't know, but the route looked quite interesting this afternoon.

In reply to Clare:

In instances like this BMC Area Committees don't have any power. UKC can act as a litmus test to opinions, but at the end of the day, in this instance, it is the power of the individual we are talking about.



Mick

In reply to Kipper:


How so? Has the chockstone indeed been removed? Kinda hoped this was all a troll....

JAMIE B>

In reply to Simon Lee:
I can't say i know the route as i'm only an infreguent climber. But i must say - who gives you the right to go around removing bits of rock from anywhere. Aren't we all supposed to leave the countryside (which includes the bits with rock climbing in them) as we find them?

total arrogance.

In reply to the badger:

Not taking a side on this but clearly Joe Brown didn't (all respect to him, but it is a point).

In reply to Allan Thomson:

Actually as i only climb to about VS - I shall be removing a few pices of the rock in Right Eliminate for a trial period, so that i can get up this route. There will be about 7 or 8 'toes-sized' bits taken, only to re-appear in my back garden, nicely lined up around the pond. If they don't suite in a few months time i'll drop them off at the bottom of the climb. Mr Lee can then decide if they should be replaced or not........

In reply to Simon Lee:

On a related but random ethical note, I was bored at the Roaches the other day, and read some of the legal stuff posted up on the back of one of the signs, only to discover that it's illegal to sever and remove any part of a landscape - or to remove any part that has already been severed - it appears to technically be theft.

I'm not suggesting Simon would be guilty of it, but has there been any prosecutions for it (ie loading pebbles off a beach?) and where does adhering to the law fit into climbing ethics?

In reply to the badger: My thoughts on this is that if simon cares so much about the future of climbing and the environment, hed go to every crag with a bin bag and walk out with it full of cigarette butts.

Also when I started climbing, I possessed 4 Qds, a few slings and four nuts, we used aluminuim piping drilled through with rope ties through it, this was ten years ago, so we'd go along a crag looking at routes with stones in that we could lead, and if we thought we'd be able to get our limited range of gear in.

If everyone does what simon does Id be forced to top rope or basically solo routes until I could afford the gear to lead.

In reply to the badger:

I presume your inference is that removing a stone that somebody else put in equates to chipping. Would it also be as good as chipping if i took say an old bottle out of a crack someone had throw in years before? No? Whats the difference? Both are lumps of hard material put there by someone else? Is it the fact that the material was put there by a famous climber? Is it the fact that it's a rock and if so would it still be chipping if said rock was from froggat or yorkshire or a piece of limestone or a meteorite or a peice of rock that had been melted and made into a bottle? Or is it because it provides a useful hold and gear, if so would this still apply if the bottle had the same hold/gear value?

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Oh come on Iain - its been clearly explained why he's taken this specific chockstone out. Its an offwidth crack and the chock was artifically placed there. Nothing to do with litter at crags which everyone would agree is appalling

If you look at the previous thread you'll find that Paul Mitchell previously removed two other chockstones from it 10 years ago and he doesn't seem to be receiving any abuse for this. A simple argument of improvement in ethics vs leaving it there for the sake of tradition - since the other chockstones weren't left in I don't see the argument

In reply to Iain Ridgway: As I can't think of any other grit routes with potentially contentious chockstones in I wouldn't get too worried Iain. Also I suspect that given the time it takes most people to get up to the standard needed to climb RE they might have begged, borrowed or stole some gear by then. And then of course there's always Simon's generous offer to loan out his large cam to would be ascentionists.
As for collecting fag butts, he's not on bloody community service, that's got to be the most pompous thing i've seen written on this whole thread and thats saying something!

In reply to Boy: Ok but litter at the crag is my bug, f*cking hate it, everyone agrees but nobody stops people and bring them up for it.

its the same in cars, anyway we'll see think things should be left, and Im amazed he othered to go back for such a minor thing.

Cheers

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Im amazed he othered to go back for such a minor thing.

Not a minor thing if you're interested in offwidth cracks - personally I hate the things - as its pretty much the only one of its kind in the country

In reply to Simon Lee:

Well done. Don't worry about lending your friends. Instead, how about asking 'Outside' if they would curate the chockstone. I'm sure the paragons of ethical virtue spraying above will be happy to pre-place it prior to their ascents.

Have fun in Yosemite.

If its still missing by 16th October, it wont be come eveing

In reply to Simon Lee:

Having done Right Eliminate I’m sorry to here the chockstone has been removed. It gave you a target to aim for, a thank god hold to rest on and eye up the remaining crack as well as being something to thread.
A mate fell off the upper crack on his attempt and ripped the big cams from below the chockstone, the sling round the chock held stopping a ground fall.

What's next remove all chockstones from routes, tree's and there's a spanner at Running Hill Pits. If it fell out through a natural event then fair enough but to deliberatly remove it is a poor practice.

In reply to craig h:

In the interests of balance I'll just reiterate that I and several others on this thread consider that Mr Lee has justified his actions well. And a big thumbs up for doing what you said you would do.

To those who would be arsed to put the chock back in (Mr Lincoln?), what is YOUR justification for that. It would be nice to have all our cards on the table.

To those who would abuse Mr Lee ("Bomb"), please would you do it in the privacy of your padded cell.

In reply to coconutter:
yes and before you put it back adam will you try and lead it without so you can fully ascertain what the best thing to do is, I mean if the removal has improved the quality maybe this is worth preserving rather than the history ?

In reply to Woker:

I don't know the fella, but I've heard nth hand stories on the grapevine about his crack climbing skills and as such I presume he's taking the piss about doing RE with or without its recently departed aid point!

In reply to coconutter:

Thanks Coconutter. You can laugh it off to begin with then it gets very wearing. I informed the moderators and they kindly removed 'bomb's' posting.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Not to worry. I think the moral of the story is to carry out such services without consultation*. People would assume it displaced itself naturally or in a fall and then they wouldn't give a flying one. In fact I suspect they would be vehemently against anyone who wanted to put it back in! You can't beat the mob.

*By 'consultation' here, I mean 'asking idiots on Rocktalk'.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:

I thought that Outside were no longer renting out (or even overseeing the free one-day loan of others') large cams on account of a fear of liability and safety blah blah. I was thinking of the practice some while ago of them running this service for attempts on Goliath.

In reply to Simon Lee:
If you really want to set yourself up as an arbiter of these things, how come you did'nt contact Joe Brown to ask his opinion of it ? Not difficult, he knocks about Llanberis a lot of the time. I reckon you did not/would not do this because you would feel like a right prat if you did, and in fact that is the case.

In reply to wire: Check original thread. I emailed Joe Brown but it bounced back. The only reason I now feel like a prat is trying to get sensible opinions on the subject in the first place.

In reply to Simon Lee:
A bounced email is here nor there. He is easily contactable. Last spoke to him about 10 months ago, and no, I dont have his email address. There is a sensible point in contacting him though. For heavens sake we're only talking about a small rock in another small rock, it really does not matter very much at all. Treating other people with some consideration & respect does matter a whole lot more, so I reckon you should have started with Mr Brown, out of common courtesy and worked from there.

In reply to wire: Talking of common courtesy how about an apology - name calling should stop at the school gate

In reply to Simon Lee:
Yes, fair point, I apologise for that.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Calm down dude.

You have not damaged the rock.

You still have the original chockstone.

You have said you may replace it.

There's no need to get "permission" off anyone.

You've sought the opinions of others, after the fact.

Some people support your actions, some people don't.

Sweat it out.

I personally think you have made an interesting move.

Mick

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA: I sought the opinion of others Before the fact

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA: I bet the people who said remove the choke had already done the route, and used it! And those that said don’t remove it, want to lead the route.

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:
I think it is banal. Why bother ? Lots of climbers feel as though they have a stake in what has gone before. Who cares about some rigid moral code setting out what can stay where ? Bolting Linden would be one thing but we're some way down from that.

In reply to WB: I did the route using the chock.I want to re-lead it more without. The chock blocks an aesthetically fine crack and is far better off without it.

In reply to Simon Lee: In that case, re-lead it cleanly without the chockstone.
That's the only way to ligitimately free aid from a route. At the moment all you've done is removed the aid point without freeing it.
If you don't free the route, put the chockstone back.

In reply to Phil West:

It has been freed previously by Paul Mitchell.

In reply to Phil West: I'm free tues and thurs pm if you are

In reply to coconutter: Paul said that one could have fun avoiding the chockstone. Why did it need to be removed?

In reply to Simon Lee: Sorry, I'm busy.

In reply to Phil West: Depends on your idea of fun. Artificially trying to avoid a chockstone in an off-width crack is an esoteric sub-sport

In reply to Simon Lee:
Out of curiosity, given the postings you have had on this, would you do the same again ?

In reply to wire: Good question. I would have just got opinions privately from climbers I know and respect then done it anonymously. The personal abuse got out of order and I am no doubt forever going to be collared at the wall and the crag by complete strangers who will ram their opinions down my throat on something which in the great scheme of things is pretty unimportant. It was the right thing to do. It has made the route better. It wasnt worth the hassle to do it openly.

ps Paul Mitchell. Stop sending me creepy emails.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Well, I dont agree, but it takes all sorts. Ever been into surfing ? Conflict politics is positively encouraged in it, so I am told.

In reply to wire: dont agree with what?

In reply to Simon Lee:
I dont think it was the right thing to do because I had always been used to it being there and quite liked the idea of using a chockstone from the old days, bit like driving an old motorbike. I dont think it is a particularly better route. I dont actually think that it is better using friends than some chockstones because Friends will often cause damage to the rock they are placed in, either in stopping falls or being taken out.
And, er, finally, if this soap box will last long enough, the 'rules' of climbing dont really bear scrutiny very much and taking unilateral action like this is pretty offensive to me certainly, and I suspect to other people.

In reply to wire: Well I don't agree but it takes all sorts