pigsteak wrote:Ian while your goal seems admirable, you are missing the first and perhaps foremost reason it will not work...you do not understand the climber psyche...we like to feel like we are a "no rules brah" society of misfits, and any attempt at codifying behavior is doomed to fail.
my advice....just chalk it up to a lesson learned and move on.....keep your partners safe as best you can and don't worry about the masses.
Good point Kipp. It would be much easier join the "no rules brah" society and just work on my next project. It must be the social upbringing being Canadian that makes me actually care. In 17 pages, I have looked for a counter argument to the proposed ethics as to why we shouldn't adopt these ethics. So far, IMO, the only argument that held any water was don't tag project draws as it may imply some degree of safety. I appreciate that Kyle took time to thoughtfully weigh in.
Of course Dr. Bob weighed in and felt that he would have to close his property if such voluntary ethics were put in place. Looking at the KY Recreational Statute, I have a hard time swallowing that. We have a set of rules we follow at Muir Valley and in the NFS already. Torrent is unique in that is sees a very small volume of traffic and is difficult to project at unless you happen to have an open invite from Dr. Bob. I guess I would respond that if these voluntary ethics save someone's life someday, then not climbing at Torrent would be a small price to pay.
There really isn't much point to debate it. People will either choose to follow it or not. I have heard that "it will never work as we can't get everyone to follow it". I would contend that culture change is not instantaneous and that it takes time and a committed effort. Regarding the actual ethics... I could see narrowing it down to 4:
1.) Be responsible for the gear you climb on. Any left gear is considered abandoned. Do not assume it is safe.
2.) Do Not "donate" any new a1uminum gear to act as f1xed gear for any route. DO pull any mank gear as you encounter it.
3.) Limit fully equipped stee1 gear to the very steep and chains/cleaning biner to moderately steep.
4.) Promote education and awareness of these ethics in the community.
This removes the ethic about limiting time on project gear. In reality, that should be covered by an ethic of not donating a1uminum gear to act as f1xed gear. While you are projecting, you should be inspecting and replacing your own gear.
I view these 4 ethics as a "hypothesis". The way a hypothesis is strengthened is by challenging it, and being unable to provide evidence that it false, or incorrect. To that end, no one has yet to propose a specific reason why any one of these ethics would not improve safety for all of us. If you can provide as specific counter argument to why any of these would not improved safety, then please share.
Many have brought up "policing" and "rules" as if it was a bad thing. While what I proposed was neither, I would contend that that perhaps it is not such a bad thing. We don't have these "drawma" debates going on at Muir, Torrent, or on NFS. That is because we have a land manager that sets the rules.
But time to stop this nonsense on RRC.com Too much time wasted on empty words.
Hope you all had a Happy Thanksgiving,
Ian
Wise not to get involved.