|
|
Post by tedwelser on May 3, 2016 10:22:27 GMT -7
I am looking for examples of strategies for organizing crag development. I am familiar with the lone wolf model, as well as the FA crazed gold rush mindset. I am looking for examples where folks have organized a reasonable development plan that balances individual motivations with working towards the collective good of a great climbing resource.
I know in some European countries the local Alpine Club is very strong and well funded, and they are able to orchestrate major resource development efforts. In other places, people just roll in from another country and start bolting things. It is also the case that new route development becomes a closed club, where the only folks with a chance of putting in routes are a small set of locals.
In academia we routinely do a bunch of unpaid labor on major collaborative projects. It seems that there must be better strategies for combining individual and collective motivations in ways that result in higher quality crags.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on May 3, 2016 13:43:36 GMT -7
I only have first-hand experience with the Lone Wolf model.  The thought of running something like crag development through a committee sounds awful to me. I'm currently a member of our new "Fixed Hardware Review Committee" and it's outright torture for me. Climbers just seem to want to argue for no good reason other than pride and entertainment. It's incredibly frustrating. I think the "best" approach would be a small group of hardcore developers who get along really well operating as a benevolent dictatorship. That way at least you have a few different viewpoints represented, but you can (hopefully) avoid some of the bureaucratic bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on May 3, 2016 20:00:41 GMT -7
Climbers just seem to want to argue for no good reason other than pride and entertainment. It's incredibly frustrating. "Climbers"? How about just "people"? I've been to enough meetings to know it doesn't just happen with climbers.   |
|
|
|
Post by tedwelser on May 3, 2016 20:39:52 GMT -7
I only have first-hand experience with the Lone Wolf model. The thought of running something like crag development through a committee sounds awful to me. I'm currently a member of our new "Fixed Hardware Review Committee" and it's outright torture for me. Climbers just seem to want to argue for no good reason other than pride and entertainment. It's incredibly frustrating. I think the "best" approach would be a small group of hardcore developers who get along really well operating as a benevolent dictatorship. That way at least you have a few different viewpoints represented, but you can (hopefully) avoid some of the bureaucratic bullshit. I certainly hear you on the avoiding a committee and avoiding people just talk to hear themselves talk and feed their ego. Definitely don't want that sort of thing. I get plenty of that in academic contexts. I was wanting to imagine a way to get a wider range of first ascentionists involved without the effort devolving into a headlong gold rush frenzy. I also want to imagine ways that the FA motive can be leveraged to generate collective value. What if each FA-ist was limited to 1 or 2 routes at the crag, or if the rights to attempt one of the potential routes required a donation of some amount to the land owning climbing coalition? Maybe that sounds crazy, but if the motherlode were to be discovered today, and it existed on land owned by the RRGCC, how could the coalition translate the inherently selfish desire to make first ascents into a more collectively spirited effort to invest in making the local climbing resources better? Often in new route situations the "exploitation of the great by the small" shapes outcomes where the folks who have the most potential to contribute and who value it the most end up putting in the vast majority of the effort and money. The majority are not involved in route creation, and they seldom have the chance or desire to be involved. But, is this the necessary state of the world? Is there some other way to organize this so that a wider range of somewhat invested folks invest a moderate amount? Potential FA-ists could work to collect a moderate mount of money to donate to the local access organization. Certainly climbing gyms in the region ought to be paying money to make the local climbing resources better (I know they do tend to donate money, but this would be a contribution that also pays them back in a direct way) One way would be a sort of crowd sourced fund raising scenario where a bunch of potential routes are identified. A small group of hardcore developers do the initial work by identifying the 40 or so likely lines, and putting in the top anchors. Then each potential route gets a number and a video presentation, and people can select the route that they would propose to either FA and name, or FA,name and equip if they have that expertise. So, for example, Vertical Adventures from Columbus could buy the rights to 4 new routes, and then their staff could come down do the first ascents. At a grander scale, Petzl could purchase the rights to one of the king lines, and send some of their elite athletes to compete to send it first, and perhaps make a video about it. The organizers could also invite people to come and contribute a route, people who might not otherwise have a chance to put up a route at the Red (of similar caliber) but for whom there would be a special significance to the route. For instance Mark Cole passed away recently, and he was a major mentor many of the climbers of a younger generation from the SE. It would be cool to get a couple of those climbers to come and put up a route in honor of Mark. Anyways, those are some of the crazy ideas that distract me from training. |
|
