UKC

After a long a complex debate about the nature of fixed gear in climbing my partner threw a spanner in the works of my well crafted arguement (it was a very long discussion).

After establishing that "fixed gear" is anything that is left in a climbing route by man [and therefore not something that is placed on lead and removed on second] she retorted with this arguement:

What is someone (hypothetically) planted a tree in a crack so that they would a tree to sling thus enabling them to complete the route, but only 20 or so years later (as the tree was fully grown and weight bearing). Would this tree be regarded as fixed gear?

Personally I'm undecided as to what it counts as, but I think it could provoke an interesting discussion.

In reply to mlmatt:

It depends on what species of tree it is.

In reply to mlmatt:

I'm going to take that as a serious point. And I think you're right. What if someone had planted a non-native species in grow there. Is that not the same as someone using a different rock type as a chock stone? Say like a chunk of rhyolite jammed in a gritstone crack?

In reply to mlmatt:


a) They would need their head examining

b) The tree would almost certainly damage the rock as it grew, thus it would be unethical

In reply to mlmatt:

What if someone pulled on a root (sic) to enable them to do a move on a new route, but then snapped the root off so that no-one else could follow for years until the root had grown back? Pat Ament (I think) did this in the States somewhere. Many years later, the second ascensionists worked out what the ploy was and did the same. I don't think it's had a third ascent yet.

In reply to mlmatt:

A grey area. It is exactly the same argument as placeing chockstones. Does it really matter ?

In reply to nniff: I think John Redhead was accused of something similar in Ogwen, but IIRC he was innocent.

In reply to 999thAndy:
I think that the accusation was pretty much the exact opposite

In reply to mlmatt:


I'm not sure it will - too unlikely and inconsequential

In reply to Andy Say:

I meant he was accused of being a lumberjack, (like Pat A in the post I replied to) not that he was accused of planting trees.

In reply to mlmatt:

I am very aware of that happening at the top of at least one crag in the North East that did not have good belay points! The method being to relocate a few saplings to locations more suitable for belaying to.

On routes the roots would damage the climb. See the thread on Castle Rock to see what sort of damage trees even on top of the crag can cause over time!

It is not a good idea!

In reply to GrahamD:

No, it doesn't really matter. In fact climbing itself doesn't really matter, but that's beside the point really isn't it. I asked a perfectly fair questions in a effort to start a debate about the ethics behind and the attitudes towards fixed gear and you felt the need to comment that it doesn't really matter.

If it doesn't matter than:

a) why did you bother to post a reply to the question
b) why did you bother to point out that it doesn't matter.

And point of fact, it is not exactly the same arguement as chockstones. Chockstone are not hypothetical arguements.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Possibly if you tried to add to the discussion instead of trying to point out it's weaknesses.

What is you're view point on this matter?

In reply to mlmatt:

Would it help if I re-phrased the terse reply of "does it matter ?" to "how much does it matter ?" you would be happier.

FWIW I think stylistically its exactly analagous to placeing a chockstone but less practical(the ethics question is more about whether we have any business altering the crag at all, not about what style of ascent we chose to claim - or the ethics of lying about style)