These days I don’t get to spend as much time on MVM as I would like, however when I received an email from a reader alerting me to a possible ethical lapse in one of their latest videos I was sure to check it out.
What I found was a video featuring Isaac Caldiero bouldering outside of St. George, UT. He had scoped out a nice new line coming out of a very low cave, but he felt like it could start lower in the cave if only there was more room underneath the roof. In order to create more room underneath the boulder he dug out the base of the boulder with shovels (see below):
With all the problems that climbers already cause at climbing areas with erosion simply from moving around and using pads, digging a large hole in the ground seems a bit excessive. I assume that this wall is probably in the middle of nowhere and a certain amount of manicuring of boulder landings takes place all the time, but how much is too much? What does everyone else think? Take the poll and leave your comments.
[poll id=’72’]
This is just plain wrong, Leave No Trace people!
loading...
the grey zone here will ensure the perpetuity of arguments on either side!
seems like the ‘dead’ nature of this desertscape makes the act less of a concern than where life is more abundant, or is that exactly wrong? hard to say.
if presence of life is the measuring stick, is it not horrible to remove carpets of moss from yosemite granite or BC granite, or is it less of an issue since such plant life is sooo abundant?
maybe juxtapose this story w/ that report on frb linking to some 10k project to remove trees, dirt, and ecosystems from a moderate multi-pitch in squamish.
or maybe compare w/ that bouldering joint in venezuala [i spell like an amerikan!!!] that raised eyebrows from dosage….
or compare that with having a road and toilets next to the mushroom boulder.
or compare that with widening the road to bear lake in rmnp.
or compare that with coal and oil mining throughout the west.
etc
loading...
Here is the link to the situation in Squamish
loading...
@ Sock Hands, You do make a good argument but, because its already being done in other locations makes it ok? I think no! The problem with people is that if its something is being done worse than what they are doing, they think that they don’t make as big of an impact, true, but it all adds up.
loading...
ok so the specific question was is it ok to dig out a bad landing. i think getting into the widening of roads being equal is getting a bit out of hand but…to dig out a bad landing and make it flatter or more suitable to fall on is yes, against good ethics in my eyes. but to dig out a freakin hole under a boulder like you’re gonna live in the fucker is absurd. why dont we all go dig holes under the sit starts of other problems. im sure we could start another 3 moves lower at least, maybe start on the footholds. laaaaaaaame. take what you’re given with these boulder things, they are what we live for arent they?
loading...
i guess the reason for pointing out the larger scale impacts of humans is to try to put everything into context. frankly, i don’t think i’d ever want to expend the effort to excavate some problem, but i’m getting sick of land managers approaching climbers as the devil. every time a certain practice is questioned, i think it needs to be questioned in a larger context.
does it change one’s stance if the “digging out” is of solid rock in a talus field versus dirt and sand?
do issues of non-endangered biological presence and/or drainage patters influence the decision of right or wrong in each cricumstance?
what if the issue is not so much digging out a problem as it is ‘landscaping’ a landing?
when is landscaping right? when is it wrong?
every single instance of ethical inquiry blends in to larger questions.
are we enterring a time when ‘working’ on landings, etc, is an issue that should require permitting to ensure it is done in such a way as to help minimize erosion and impact, similar to how certain areas require permits for bolting?
i realize that you feel this is outside the scope of the original question… but i’m slowly circling back… ?
suffice to say that in 15 years i’d rather our fragile bouldering areas be criscrossed with established foot paths and with neatly terraced landings, resembling a meticulously maintained zen garden, rather than being widely trampled for fear of ‘making a trail’ like seems to be occuring currently.
my point is that the impact of digging out this problem is, in my mind, substatially less of an issue than the impact of the next few decades of keen boulderers visiting it. how they get to it, assemble around it, and enjoy themselves in the vicinity is a much larger issue. if no one ever returns to this problem, wind and water will eventually deposit the sand back where it wishes to be.
i just typed myself out of another lunch. back to work.
loading...
Please refer to the Mushroom Boulder in Hueco.
loading...
It’s probably not a good idea to ever dig out a landing with a shovel (surely you can take this as sign of a problem’s low quality 100% of the time–if you won’t, then I will).
But more importantly, it’s not a good idea for MVM to show climbers digging out landings with shovels. It’s irresponsible of MVM.
Of course, the construction and deconstruction of boulder landings happens and continues to happen. Often though, one simply can’t tell the difference afterwards. This is a good thing, because impacts are pretty much invisible. But when MVM films climbers doing this–no matter where the piece of land is, no matter who owns it–the difference is unmistakable. The impacts, along with who exactly is making them, are highly visible. If depicted positively, there may even be implicit condonement, and other climbers who hadn’t thought of it will start doing it. All this is a very bad thing, ‘bad’ as in area-closing bad.
For land managers, a video like this can create the worst kind of perception of climbers. That the digging took place in a seemingly innocuous place like a desert doesn’t really matter. The video is what matters here. The video shows possible climber behavior; for land managers, that possibility is enough to make management decisions. (Where I live in western NC, something like this would easily shut down multiple bouldering areas.)
And if you wanted to take one more step down the rabbit hole, the analogy between chipping and landing-modification could be explored…weeeee!
loading...
good points/well presented, sir. i agree that folks [young and old] are stupid and videoing certain practices may be interpreted by fools as being ok under all circumstances.
interestingly, you never see video footage of folks repairing trails, water breaks, picking up non-climber trash, or other often embraced activities… and those photos are the ones we skip over in the access fund pamphlets to get to the wicked action shots… maybe there’s something there…. video of sharma at trail day? re-planting trees to arguably offset destruction of the same?
but wait, there’s no time for that, just heard word of a SUPERSIKK NEW PROJECT YONDER!!!
no mistake, i’m as guilty as the next.
loading...
Frankly, I’m much more concerned with what large real estate developers are doing to our lands to turn a profit and split than what a few climbers do under a boulder. Minnesota’s beloved “Cave Boulder” on the Wisconsin side of Interstate had a ton of boulders excavated from under to make it climbable. That boulder has more problems on it than any other in the park. I think it was worth moving a bit of dirt and rocks around. I’m mean, seriously, we’re desperate for rock here!
loading...
The most important question to ask is: In the long-term is what I am doing the best choice for this particular environment/location? Obviously, Colorado’s alpine will have a different result from boulders use than Squamish’s forests. Does building a small terrance and a trail to a new problem prevent greater damage in the long run. Yes, for the most part it does. Does digging out a boulder prevent environmental degradation in the future. I cannot see how. New area/problem development does not have to be a bad thing, as long as it is done in a manner that will preserve this new place for the longest possible period of time. Locals are often criticized for keeping new spots a secret, but I would rather that happen until access/environmental issues are worked out then have a place for everyone that last six months before a spot is lost.
loading...
Thanks to everyone for the opinions. Based on the poll so far along with the comments everyone seems to be in agreement that the digging is not such a good idea.
Zach, I agree that putting this sort of video out for widespread consumption could send the wrong message to the people viewing it.
Definitely an interesting topic though with a lot of things to think about the next time you head out bouldering.
loading...
IT TOTALLY DEPENDS!!!!!! I voted “Yes” but with some caveats. -Is this boulder in the middle of nowhere? Not such a big deal……This of course begs the question, What is nowhere?-Is the improved line worth it? Will it truly be “classic”? What is “classic”?-How much digging? Several feet? A few inches?I guess I would defer to not digging when ever reasonably possible, but never? Probably not.
loading...
I think all digging out should be limited to what you can remove with your hands… without gloves. I don’t believe in shovels. I also don’t approve of kneepads. Or offwidths for that matter. Honestly though, digging out a waist deep hole? Hmm, this probably made the problem easier actually. So go figure.
loading...
i “made” a problem with shoe digging. the question of “escalation” notwithstanding, I did “make” a problem. in an era in which we will all likely see the total fukisization of humanity, i hardly think that clearing out the ground near a boulder problem is a real ethical dilemma. + food costs + + energy costs + enormous demand on resources = no monumental ethical problems in creating another boulder problem. chipping is different in that it changes the point of access to a problem. digging just makes more. the mo’ the betta’ imho.
loading...
i dont think removing the dirt made it any easier. just possible, instead of too low to the ground.
my vote was that it was OK for him to dig it out. honestly i dont find it to be such a big deal.
loading...
I personally feel that its ridiculous to do all that work for just one problem. I agree with the above post that a lot of problems could be extended by a few moves if we dug them out, but it is the ethics behind it.
loading...
i think the big issue here is making it public. many bouldering areas have had this kind of work done to them, but most folks weren’t there when it was developed and don’t realize what went into creating their favorite spot. It’s certainly way less egregious than building an interstate or housing development, but it’s these small actions the public and land managers see and like to latch on to. I don’t know why its so hard to keep this stuff under wraps, just use your heads people!!!
loading...
BJ Sbarra, thank you for bringing the discussion back to what I think is the most important point here. The big issue here is the public record and representation of climbers modifying a boulder landing.
If people aren’t aware, I would encourage them to learn some more about this issue. For climbers, it is an issue with real consequences. Public land managers and nonprofit land managers (the Nature Conservancy for example) are quite attentive to exactly the sort of land use (climbers, landing modification) we’re talking about. They pay attention to it for obvious reasons– they don’t like people damaging natural resources. On balance, climbers shouldn’t either. The more we climbers show genuine care for our impacts, the more we integrate natural resource management into our activity, the better.
I don’t mean to sound so terribly urgent or alarmist. But I climb in truly incredible areas with ongoing resource management issues, areas that are under the close watch of land managers. I also work for a local nonprofit conservation organization. Both of these things shape my perspective.
loading...
That’s a good point Zach. I think as climbers we think we operate in a vacuum where nobody is paying attention to what we are doing. Partly because climbing has sort of been a fringe activity and partly because we are used to doing as we please at a crag without repercussion.
Often times land managers know much more about what is going on than climbers give them credit for. Think of the pad stashing debate of last summer in RMNP.
loading...
I found a funny the video that quasi-relates to landscaping of boulder problems. it starts at 5:50 and goes till the end, but the whole video is worth watching I think.
http://www.43171.org.nz/blog/view/352
loading...
No one has weighed in on the issue for a long time but I thought it may be important to note that if anyone had been to the area they would understand the need and lack of harm done in digging the landing out. It is located in the middle of nowhere near the virgin river. Every winter when the river it reaches its high point it redistributes the sand. Every year the landings change a little but the river puts all the sand back under this roof. SO all the “damage” is repaired naturally every year. The problem has been dug out again this year but I anticipate this spring’s runoff to be high so it will no doubt be filled back in within the next few months.
Also you can compare this activity to a lot of others but it is a different situation. All the climbers involved in developing this crag also helped organize a movement to stop developers from taking over Moe’s Valley. Moe’s is now a protected climbing area thanks to them. If you mimicked this activity in your area and caused access issue you are an ass and should understand your own area better.
loading...