Animal, Clear Creek Canyon

Posted on 09. Dec, 2010 by in News

A while back I posted about an often climbed problem called Mongolian Cosmonaut, on Flagstaff Mountain.
Another problem with a similarly confusing past is the low roof Animal in Clear Creek Canyon. Animal is often climbed from a number of starts and given a number of grades and it would be nice to set the record straight as to what constitutes an ascent of the climb.

Animal is named for the red spray painted letters A-N-I-M-A-L at the base of the overhang. It sits at the base of the Little Eiger, adjacent a roadside parking lot. This overhang was originally climbed by Marcelo Montalva. He named the climb Fiesty. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), Marcello started with his left hand on a low undercling, and his right hand on the lowest usuable sidepull. Oddly, he used a separate block at the base of the cave for his feet, which made the climb about V7.

Daniel Woods came along in 2005 and climbed the roof, starting with his left hand on the lowest undercling and his right hand on the lowest useable sidepull (not the higher “jug”). This forces the climber to move left hand first to a small flat edge. At the time, a larger dab boulder was in the way out left, and it was hard to climb the roof with out dabbing. In the video below, you can see me pound my fist on the dab boulder in frustration. This dab boulder also forced a hard sequence, and the line was V10. Daniel named the problem Truly Scrumptious, although that name is rarely used, (but it should be) and it is now known as Animal. Here is video from 2006 of Brian Capps and yours truly climbing the line in this manner, starting on the proper starting holds and narrowly avoiding a dab.

Animal V10 from Jamie Emerson on Vimeo.

Video courtesy of Ryan Olson.
A year or so later, the dab boulder was moved out of the way. This opened up a new sequence, although the start didn’t change. This brought the grade down to V9.
A number of climbers have started matched on the good undercling, which is in reality three moves in. While this start is more obvious, it exemplifies why it is imperative to start where the first ascentionist began. Not only is this not Animal (Animal starts on the lowest left hand undercling and the lowest useable right hand sidepull), it is much easier, perhaps V7. Starting in this fashion and claiming to have done Animal is simply not accurate, as the climber has cut out three moves. Animal was defined as a boulder problem by first ascentionist Daniel Woods.

Here is video of what I would consider an invalid, although common, “ascent” of Animal.
Certainly people are welcome to climb the rock in this way. As a matter of fact I would encourage it if it inspires them in this way, however claiming that this is the same problem as Daniel climbed is inaccurate.

If there is any misinformation in this post, or additional accurate information anyone would like to provide, I would be happy to correct my mistakes. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Having the best ethics all the time is not easy. We all want as much as we can earn, and sometimes want more. I’d like to share two stories from my own climbing about this very topic. Earlier this year I received an email from a friend of mine Max Zolotuhkin. He informed me that I started the problem Busted Shadow, in CT two moves higher than the first ascentionist. He also told me that every single subsequent ascentionist had started where I started and that the first ascentionist even acknowledged he had started in the “wrong” spot. I don’t think herd morality ever justifies any action and I took the problem off my scorecard immediately. Not only did it take a very nice V11 off my ticklist, it means I’ll have to make it back to CT someday to get that elusive V10 tick. I thanked Max in response.

And finally, I climbed The Worm Turns in Joe’s Valley, starting matched at the base of the tufa in 2006. In 2009, on a climbing trip to Joe’s Valley, Flannery Shay-Nemirow informed me that the first ascentionist, Jason Kehl, had started one move lower. This fact I knew but chose to ignore. She said I hadn’t done the problem and that it was lame to start higher than the first ascentionist and still have it on my scorecard. She was right, and I went back and climbed it again from the same place as Jason. I am thankful that I have friends to call me out when I am wrong and make me the best climber I can be! W3rd.

41 Responses to “Animal, Clear Creek Canyon”

  1. Mathieu

    09. Dec, 2010

    Keep up the good work Jamie!

  2. peter beal

    09. Dec, 2010

    Saint Augustine has nothing on you Jamie:)

  3. B3

    09. Dec, 2010

    Thanks guys!

  4. James

    09. Dec, 2010

    Why is the “herd” name okay, but not the “herd” start?

  5. joe

    09. Dec, 2010

    This isn’t something I would typically comment on, as it is semantic and maybe a little trivial. But you seem to welcome discussion about these fine details.

    In the sentence prefacing the second video, you say, “Here is video of what I would consider an invalid, although common, “ascent” of Animal”. I would disagree with where you put the quotation marks in the sentence. Mr. Dreadlocks certainly had an ascent, what is questionable is whether or not he climbed Animal. More accurately, you could have phrased it, “…although common, ascent of “Animal””.

    Like I said, small point, but maybe worth noting. And thanks for the constantly interesting and motivating reading!

  6. Mark E

    09. Dec, 2010

    All of the above seems reasonable and well stated, but there’s an important addendum for many boulderers: If you’re not focused on sending the hardest, truest version of a problem as defined by the first ascentionist, it can still be a worthy goal to send an easier variation. Of course, this requires the honesty to report things accurately, by saying something along the lines of, “I couldn’t manage the established problem with the cruxy opening moves, but there’s an easier version that starts from the big jug and I was psyched to do it the easier way.” Many times, the easier versions of problems are athletically and aesthetically pleasing — but they’re not to be confused with a real ascent of an established line.

  7. Jacob

    09. Dec, 2010

    This problem is one of the most tainted problems I have ever encountered. Defined starts vary, the name vary and the problem, in a way, has been “chipped” since its first ascent by removal of the dab rock. It’s almost as if the only way to deal with its polluted history is to erase its past and start over.

    Animal, V8, start matched on the good holds and climb it however you want.

    Good job summarizing the history of this thing…

  8. B3

    09. Dec, 2010

    @joe I maintain that Mr. Dreadlocks climbed something, but what he climbed is not Animal. The grade is debatable, but it’s most likely V7.
    @Mark I agree. I am not trying to take away climbers rights to do as they please. If they are interested however in repeating specific climbs, and trying to make claims about those repeats and their ability, then there are parameters which must be met.

  9. B3

    09. Dec, 2010

    This is not an attempt to be holier than though, simply that I want to try and apply the highest possible ethics to my own climbing, and I would encourage others to do the same. Cutting out moves and taking the same name and grade does nothing to elevate our sport. Clearly.

  10. campusman

    09. Dec, 2010

    Mr Dreadlocks deserves a serious V8 for not using his feet

    drink up Mr Dreadlocks, its anti tumoral

  11. Jabronie

    09. Dec, 2010

    Though arguable as with anything related to philosophy, I tend to think of ethics is being related to the choices you make and how they affect the world around you. It’s pretty hard to equate a weighty moral and ethical decision to whether you record a V7 or V9 on your 8spray scorecard. It really doesn’t affect other people, other than those who spend too much time worrying about what others do.

    Rather, I think of what most people call ethics as style. Both people *climbed* the boulder or the route, but the one who dabbed; started two moves up; got boosted; or had an assisted dyno had poorer style. I agree your friends or other brave people should call you out on your style, but I don’t think it’s really ethics; save that appellation for when you decide whether to give that homeless guy your spare change, or blow the whistle on a poor work practice, or to deface public property…

  12. Nate

    09. Dec, 2010

    Same topic but different problem. What is the “official” start on Deep Puddle Dynamics in Lower Chaos?

  13. Chris

    10. Dec, 2010

    Nate, I’m under the impression that Dave Graham (was it Dave who FA’d Deep Puddle Dynamics?) started above the undercling, although others have asserted this to be the correct start.

  14. gregory

    10. Dec, 2010

    Jamie,

    as always great post. big fan of the blog. id like to kinda throw out my concerns regarding this post. it was a great post my only concern is for Kenyon. I know anything on youtube you may post a video to basically anything be it a website or a blog or what not but Kenyon is a really cool cat. He was a very kind guy that i had the pleasure to meet in Bishop. Maybe you know him? It kinda seems you threw him under the bus with this post. It sucks you kinda had to single his ass out on this post. Maybe it was the only video you can find to point out what you consider an invalid start to Animal. Which as it seems is true. he didnt start the problem correctly but i feel this kind gives him a bad rep. kid crushes and is a cool dood. maybe you had his permission? who knows its not like you needed it anyways but just wanted to throw my two cents on the table. Thanks again for the quality post/blog! keep it coming!

  15. RAG

    10. Dec, 2010

    In the interests of avoiding thread-drift, I’ll keep talking about this “Animal.”

    Feisty as described – invalid starting on the mountain

    Truly Scrumptious – this is the problem you & Brian do, yes? WTF is Animal then? Where’d that come from?

    I’ll argue that the true line, as it is today, starts matched in the undergrip.

    If you start left hand in the nothing curve in back and right hand on the left-most portion of the undergrip, the first move is to match the undergrip. Both hands fit in the left-most side of the crescent-shaped undergrip fine. I’ve done this move, and I felt bad about myself afterwards because it’s stupid. You might as well do a one-hand start (right hand undergrip and left fist pushing off the ground, then match). It just feels utterly contrived to match hands for the first move, even if it is harder.

    You then do the cross-over move with your right hand, This begs the question of – if you have two handholds to start from, why not just put your left hand on the right hold, and dangle your right hand in the air? Or, since that feels like CATS, match. It is approximately .7 (+/- .3) V-grades harder to force starting on DW’s start.

    If you were the first person to ever try this line in the history of man, you would start matched, probably using all of the crescent. So that’s what I did.

    JJ has documented these issues well:
    http://vimeo.com/4945138

    So there’s no telling what I did is named, but maybe the guy that moved the rock and made it possible, did it first. Maybe he called it, “Animal.”

  16. B3

    10. Dec, 2010

    Truly Scrumptious – this is the problem you & Brian do, yes? WTF is Animal then? Where’d that come from?

    Yes this is Truly Scrumptious, but like I said, because of the obvious spray pain, this is known as Animal.

    I’ll argue that the true line, as it is today, starts matched in the undergrip.
    If you start left hand in the nothing curve in back and right hand on the left-most portion of the undergrip, the first move is to match the undergrip.

    If your right hand starts in the lowest part of the hold I don’t think you can match, if I recall.

    Both hands fit in the left-most side of the crescent-shaped undergrip fine. I’ve done this move, and I felt bad about myself afterwards because it’s stupid.

    When looking objectively, I don’t think you have the right to skip moves on a problem because you deem them “stupid” I could then simply add Animal to my scorecard or ticklist because I deem it “stupid” to drive all the way to Clear Creek. This kind of subjective thinking doesn’t provide any clear definitions for an ascent.

    You might as well do a one-hand start (right hand undergrip and left fist pushing off the ground, then match). It just feels utterly contrived to match hands for the first move, even if it is harder.
    You then do the cross-over move with your right hand, This begs the question of – if you have two handholds to start from, why not just put your left hand on the right hold, and dangle your right hand in the air? Or, since that feels like CATS, match. It is approximately .7 (+/- .3) V-grades harder to force starting on DW’s start.

    Again, the only way to eliminate subjectivity from the equation is by starting where Daniel started.

    If you were the first person to ever try this line in the history of man, you would start matched, probably using all of the crescent. So that’s what I did.

    Daniel was the first person in the history of man to climb the problem and he didn’t start matched. What is obvious to one climber is not obvious to another.

    JJ has documented these issues well:
    http://vimeo.com/4945138
    So there’s no telling what I did is named, but maybe the guy that moved the rock and made it possible, did it first. Maybe he called it, “Animal.”

    I think JJs video corroborates what I have been saying all along. “TJs method” is not Animal aka Truly Scrumptious. No one does a stand start to No More Greener Grasses. Can you imagine if someone started that problem three moves in and called it No More Greener Grasses? Again, what is obvious to you is not obvious to other climbers. The first ascentionist earns the right to define the problem. Most of the time people just justify what they’ve done in an attempt to earn more than they should earn. If someone can provide a logical argument as to how this is acceptable, I would love to hear it.

  17. B3

    10. Dec, 2010

    @gregory, I am sure Kenyon is a great guy. I have never met him and I have nothing against him. This shouldn’t be taken personally. If someone is confident enough in their ability and what they’ve done to put out a video on the internet and post something on 8a, in an attempt to earn the respect of the community, then they should be willing to back up what they’ve done, I think.

  18. gregory

    10. Dec, 2010

    Jamie,

    thanks for the quick response. touche! i agree with your statement. just a lil thought i had in the back of my mind! thanks for showing love to all who wish to comment in any regards to your posts.

  19. BC

    10. Dec, 2010

    I am going to put the dab rock back in there, that will solve all this.

  20. entropy

    10. Dec, 2010

    It would be nice to give Kenyon a chance to defend himself but I would guess he is actually out climbing somewhere. I can also guarantee you that if he knew he had “invalid” ascent, he would not have claimed it.

  21. B3

    10. Dec, 2010

    Again, I’m not sure why this is construed as a personal attack. I can understand that someone could take it as a personal attack, but that shouldn’t be the case. As is the case in almost any kind of academic critique, I am questions his methods, not his person. I am sure he is a fine person. Perhaps he doesn’t care, perhaps he was unaware of his error, but again, if you are going to try and take credit, either by posting a video on youtube or claiming an ascent on 8a, I think in some way you’ve opened yourself up for constructive critique. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding his ascent.

  22. RAG

    10. Dec, 2010

    The matching does force you to not optimize the grip, but as you can see in JJ”s video, it’s clearly possible. This issue boils down to whether it’s legit to start literally 2″ to the right or left side of the left-most part of the crescent hold. The crescent has another hold option further to the right which you could also start on. Results may vary.

    This isn’t the “correct” start if you want to claim Truly Scrumptious at V10 +/-1, which I believe is your contention. I don’t claim this higher credit nor the name; what I do claim is to have started matched on the crescent in the hole by the side of the road on a line referred to as “Animal.” To me (and possibly me alone) this is The Line.

    Defining a Line is subjective. Defining “Truly Scrumptious” or “Animal” is objective. I still gotta call what I did something, so I just call it, “Animal” and then qualify that claim by stating where I started. Nobody cares about my meager ascents, so I feel no responsibility to do “official” versions or eliminates – I only climb the Lines as I see them.

    I believe a “Line” cannot be objectively defined, but often we call all reach an agreement on subject. The problem is that you either make up a new name for your personal variant (Bleagle) or just say you did X line, and qualify it by stating that you used Y start/end/beta. And then take the credit you really deserve for what you really did.

    I think you take this further and claim to have done nothing at all (apart from working the beta) if you don’t do the “official” version.

    Perhaps the real difference is whether a person makes public or private claims of ascents.

    Daniel & I started in different places and thus did different problems with different grades. I agree that lotsa people would take the higher credit while doing the higher start, and they will all burn in eternal hellfire.

  23. slabdyno

    10. Dec, 2010

    fu andy salo, for making me read this.

  24. Harvey

    12. Dec, 2010

    As a heads up, I just checked Kenyon’s scorecard, and there are no ascents recorded for Clear Creek Canyon at all.

    I know him pretty well. He’s not one to upgrade things or take ticks that he doesn’t deserve. I’ll let him know about this post regardless.

    Good article none the less. I agree that if you want to claim an ascent of a particular boulder problem, that you should do it from the same starting holds.

    That being said, if a problem has a weird or contrived start, I’ll usually skip it, downgrade the problem accordingly and move on. I only keep a personal ticklist, so 8a.nu scorecard isn’t an issue.

    I do propose a question though. The climbing community generally accepts a sit start being added on to an existing problem, which is often accompanied with a new grade AND a new name. Is it much different to skip the sit start (or simply start on better holds) of an existing problem and downgrade the variation accordingly? I mean, you never hear anyone saying “I added a stand start to that problem.”

  25. crash

    12. Dec, 2010

    I think this poses a really important question in the definition of what a “problem” is on a conceptual level. One of the fundamentally fascinating aspects of rock climbing is that a route is inherently different the instant a different climber steps on it. Differences in mechanics will make the moves between the same holds harder or easier based on individual differences in the climbers physiology; so this creates a problem for defining a route based purely on the holds being used.

    I think there is definitely a lot of weight to the argument that a FA determines the canonical version of a route; someone who does it differently therefore, has done a different route.

    But I think we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss a route as a “line”; an open ended “problem” with different possible movement “solutions”. In this way, after a lot of different climbers have done the same line consensus will give a distribution of scores that represent a range of subjective interpretations describing the routes difficultly. However, we cannot treat the average of a number of subjective interpretations as a purely objective assessment of how difficult a route is.

    But I guess the question then becomes, “Okay guy, how do you suggest we score problems?” Unfortunately, I don’t have a revolutionary idea, but I think that this kind of discourse is important. Jamie and I would probably disagree on a lot of things, but through precisely that kind of disagreement and debate we keep each others bias in check.

    In the same way, disagreement and debate help to keep ratings some-what objective. If someone starts Animal on the under-cling I would agree that this is not the Animal (aka Truly Scrumptious) done by Woods… but this shouldn’t stop us from using “Animal” as a useful term for the line and if someone gives it a V9 rating, we can see how that stacks up with consensus. This approach has problems, but is superior to the alternative: where each unique variation to a problem becomes its own problem and then we would need to develop consensus ratings on each of those problems individually…

  26. Kenyon

    13. Dec, 2010

    When i saw your comment on my video I didn’t even know if you were talking about animal or dark waters stand… I didn’t have the official rule book for clear creek or the bouldering police to spray me down… I saw videos of people doing it the same way I started so I assumed that was the start. I feel you could have set everone straight on the official start and grade without singling me out and questioning my character. I can’t help but take it personally when you put my video on your site without so much as contacting me first.

    Excuse my late reply, I am in Hueco climbing… not sitting on the computer watching youtube. Really looking forward to running into you in the future!

    Sincerely,
    Kenyon

  27. B3

    14. Dec, 2010

    Sorry for my delayed response, I have been busy myself, developing many new amazing boulders in the Poudre canyon.
    I’m sorry you feel singled out Kenyon, but yours is one of the only videos that comes up. The other one is rife with egregious dabbing and I didn’t want that subject to enter the debate. I posted a video of me climbing Busted Shadow in CT on youtube and Max Z. emailed me to tell me I didn’t start on the proper starting holds. I didn’t take it personally and simply took it off my scorecard. I think, in a general sense, that if you put a video on the web, or log an ascent in to your scorecard, then you should be willing to take the responsibility of someone questioning your ascent. Again, I didn’t take it personally, neither should you. Have fun in Hueco and if you ever run into me I would be more than happy to discuss this face to face.

  28. Matt

    14. Dec, 2010

    Animal: v8 from the matched undercling, definitely not v7. Thanks for clearing up the grade issue.

  29. bigpoppa chosscrush

    14. Dec, 2010

    ” I mean, you never hear anyone saying “I added a stand start to that problem.” ”

    i do. i do this. because i am man. and a hero to men.

  30. Lee

    19. Dec, 2010

    I hope Kenyon and Jamie indeed receive the opportunity to “discuss” this matter face to face. It seems that these blog discussions have a tendency too be passively negative. If these cyber jabs are followed by the same consequences as our face to face interactions, we wouldn’t be so brazen.

  31. Darjya

    24. Dec, 2010

    Umm dude, why did you put up a video of Kenyon as an example of this incorrectness rather than the one of you climbing Busted Shadow? If this is not personal and just for discussions sake, why would you call someone else out? I think you would agree that there is a world of difference in an email alert of “wrong doing” verses a blog post. Kenyon is an extremely ethical guy, it is a bit wrong to make him the face of your ethics discussion. I know Kenyon would not have claimed something he knew was done incorrectly and had he known how to do the original problem he would have done it that way.

    You talk about the ethics of claiming a problem with an incorrect start and yet I seem to remember that you had the audacity to finish The Nickness in Newlin in a different way from the FAist and then DOWNGRADE it. When someone called you out you defended your changing of the problem by saying something about the other way being contrived and the holds being wet if I remember correctly. Could we talk about the ethics of that?

  32. B3

    25. Dec, 2010

    Because the post wasn’t about Busted Shadow, it was about Animal, and it exemplified my point better than Busted Shadow. I thought that was obvious.

    This was in 2006. The holds on the arete were wet, so I topped out the easiest way. It could be argued that when I first went there I didn’t climb the line. I am fine with that. I’d be happy to go back and film it or climb it again (for what would be the 9th time at this point).

    Again, trying to discredit what I have done is an ad hominem argument, and in this instance, I don’t see the relevance. And again, I write my name on every post, you should do the same. Have we met? I’d be happy to talk to you face to face.

  33. Kenyon -aka "invalid example"

    26. Dec, 2010

    thanks everyone for getting my back… it seems some hypocritical douche bags don’t think very long before they post things that could have potentially dangerous consequences

  34. B3

    27. Dec, 2010

    Kenyon, I never called you a name. Sorry you felt you had to sink to that level.

  35. Yo Chi

    27. Dec, 2010

    Geez, people need to calm down. First of all, at no point in the body of the original post was Kenyon named. It seems like Jamie had no knowledge of him and simply chose a video that illustrated his point (contentious as that point may be). It’s unfortunate that offense was taken at that, but really, once something has been publicly (note publicly, not privately on Vimeo or password protected somewhere, but publicly) posted on the internet it’s kind of fair game for anything. And no, I’m not some apologist for Jamie, I’ve never met the guy, this is just my two cents. He actually seems like a pretty blunt guy sometimes, and could perhaps be a bit more tactful but maybe I’m just being a sensitive wuss.

    Ultimately, I just don’t see what the big deal is about. We all climb rocks. Stop and think about that. The only significance that our shared pursuit has is what we choose to personally give it. To choose to get pissed off to the point of hinting at violence (because come on, what else would “potentially dangerous consequences” imply?) at some words on a random blog about climbing is beyond ridiculous. Additionally, we’ve all been “called out” at different points in our lives, so I repeat, what’s the big deal? Why is it that if, say for example, a friend calls us out on a dab that we laugh it off and joke about it, but if a stranger were to do it we might get pissy? We obviously shouldn’t because the act was the same.

    To sum up this entire post and its comments: a guy climbed a rock one way, and another guy climbed the rock another way. Multiple parties agreed to disagree, because the part of the beauty of being individuals is that we don’t have to agree with each other. The end. Jamie and Kenyon should just go get some brews and go bouldering together sometime, I bet they would both have fun and this ridiculousness could be buried.

  36. nicolas

    28. Dec, 2010

    is kenyon “mr dreadlocks” ? i thought hippies weren’t prone to resorting to violence? just in chosslorado?
    anyway, that problem looks to be about 1 or 0 stars. I would keep on walking past that lowball choss.

  37. DARJYA

    03. Jan, 2011

    No, we have not met. I am happily such a weak climber that you will almost certainly never meet me!

    You are right, your post was about Animal, not Busted Shadow, sadly you then included this line.

    “Having the best ethics all the time is not easy. We all want as much as we can earn, and sometimes want more.”

    Which implies Kenyon has bad ethics or at least that he sometimes has bad ethics, which he does not. And to make matters worse you then follow that statement up with two heart warming stories of your own ethical prowess.

    It was not my intention to discredit your climbing of The Nickness but simply rather to add to the ethics discussion that I thought was going on here. We were talking about the ethics of claiming a problem started incorrectly and I was striking up a conversation about the ethics of finishing a problem incorrectly, claiming it… and then downgrading it. I have no doubt that you could climb The Nickness perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of times. So I am sorry that you felt attacked there, it was not personal, just a really good example of an interesting extension of the topic…

    I think the heart of the problem here is that you called Kenyon out without attempting to contact him or give him a chance to defend himself and take Animal off of his scorecard. And had your post been strictly about Animal and how best to climb it correctly, there would have been no anger issues and I doubt anyone would have felt that you were attacking Kenyon. Unfortunately you then started talking about ethics and anyone who knows Kenyon knows that he is very careful about how he climbs his problems and which ones he claims.

    In short he is an ethical guy and it is terribly unjust to portray him as the antithesis of you (the ethical oak) in your ethics discussion.

    Signed,

    DARJYA

  38. Clear creek | Honeste

    08. Jan, 2011

    […] Animal, Clear Creek Canyon | B3bouldering.com January 8th, 2011 | […]

  39. sendann

    06. May, 2011

    easyv10s4LYFE, beachez

  40. dinomic

    09. May, 2012

    theyre all just numbers anyways. people just want to feel good about themselves!!!

  41. IG

    17. Jun, 2012

    To me, the best line starts matched on the crescent. I guess “Truly Scrumptious” didn’t. And that’s ok. Anyways I’m pretty sure another guy climbed the line from the crescent before Daniel Woods climbed his version, don’t remember where I heard that.
    One thing that I think is interesting is how much glory people give to the first person to climb something. Just because someone climbs a line first does not mean that anyone has to honor the way that person climbed it. In fact, if your goal is to do it just like someone before you, you could possibly be missing the hugely important creative aspect of climbing. It is a beautiful thing discovering YOUR way to get through a line, regardless if someone else has climbed the rock before.
    BUT- more important than the debate about whether or not to honor the big named, iconic climber’s contrivance as the “ethical” way to climb this boulder I think that there is a more pressing ethical issue that was very apparent to me at this boulder last week.
    The amount of trash under this boulder was ridiculous, and the spray-paint seems to be increasing over time (maybe not from climbers?). Sometimes I am ashamed to be a boulderer around here, as it seems that our kind is constantly making a large negative impact on things. Come on guys, If you can’t handle the responsibility of that comes with being in nature, then please go back inside to the gym, or stay at home and play video games. Our generation of climbers needs to be mindful, as our numbers grow, or we will be seen as destructive and disruptive to our environment, and it would be a shame to see authorities make rules against our presence, as I would then be forced to be an outlaw…..

    This post is extremely late and will probably never be read… haha. There are no bounds to where you might end up on the internet on a rest day.

Leave a Reply