Genesis Wall - Murrin Park

[Optimally-Primed]

Thanks Paul.

Just a thought though. You climb 5.12. I know because I've watched you do it... If I recall, you blew through the crux of Sentry Box and ran it out above a tiny blue alien. See?

Don't take that the wrong way. I feel only admiration for your levels of skill, commitment, and guts. The photo and all is just an attempt to lighten the mood here... Only admiration...

That said, most of mortals are not up to your standard. Yet we still enjoy climbing and leading. We'd just prefer more regular pro.

Keeping that in mind, do you think a 5.10a leader would find Genesis "safe" without a bolt where it currently is?

[Tenn]

I'll join the chorus of folks who've climbed Genesis in the last 15 years. It was 7 years ago for me. Not terribly memorable to be honest but I do remember it was the right hand line and it was a bit dirty. I walked by there a few weeks ago and it looks much improved. Thanks.

I think I'll go cragging now...

[Anders Ourom]

Jeremy, thank you for your efforts. I'm simply suggesting that sometimes, however 'right' a solution seems to those on the spot, it's better that there be a healthy discussion before it's carried through on. As climbers, we tend to think that "we're" right, and know what should be done - but with growth in the numbers of climbers, and of regulation, our world has changed. Climbers need to be more aware that there may be other perspectives as to their actions, and act (and sometimes not act) accordingly.

I climb Genesis every four or five years, most recently in 2003 or 2004. Usually followed by Tourist Delight. Genesis hasn't "become" dirty - it was never particularly clean, and with debris washing off from above, and trees beside it, may not stay clean short of tactics that would be unacceptable in a provincial park.

The route to the left is named Geniside. In the 1985 Campbell guide, its FA is noted as unknown, and its FFA in 1982 by Rob Rohn. (Possibly Rob gave it the name.) The old pitons in it suggest it was aided in the 1960s - they were there in the early 1970s. The most recent McLane guide says "Left-Hand Cracks: Rob Rohn, 1981", but the date, and lack of route name, seem incorrect.

I favour healthy and inclusive public debate in our community about controversial, and potentially controversial, decisions. Restricting the debate to individuals who are "reasonable and thoughtful" tends to limit discussions, in the worst case to those who agree with you, and to exclude others. Better to discuss first, then decide, rather than the reverse. The increase in "convenience" bolting at Squamish, the growth in the number of climbers, and developments elsewhere confirm the importance of healthy discussion, even it it isn't always comfortable, and means we can't all do what we want.

At least one of those who first climbed Genesis as a mixed route in 1961 still climbs, and may have had something to contribute to the discussion.

On a nearby subject, there are some errors in recent guidebooks. The name of the so-called "Bog Wall" (right beside the parking lot at Murrin park) is a relatively recent invention. It historically was simply known as "the cliff by the parking lot". (Someone once suggested "Tourist Trap".) Most of the routes on this cliff were climbed in the 1960s, but no one bothered to give them names or claim credit for them. (The same could be said for many other climbs at Murrin.) I did the so-called "Up From the Bog", "Veils of Illusion"and "Black Butterfly" in the early 1970s, and they were well-established climbs at that time. Perhaps those route names will now stick simply from usage, but they are incorrectly credited in some guides, and a name for the cliff is quite unnecessary.

[Optimally-Primed]

I see that I'm under attack from many now. If this ends badly, I will likely quit doing retro work in Squamish. I have plans for an exciting 5.10 crack route up the Chief... so I hope that this goes well.

A little more context is in order. I added 3 bolts to the routes called Genesis and the double crack route (Jer Blumel calls it Genecide; Anders calls it Geneside; and I suggested a different name out of ignorance of these names... they were not listed in the 2005 guide.) A few points.

- I retract my suggested name of "Adam & Evening" and defer to the original name. No argument there... I apologize for not digging deeper than the comprehensive guide. So, is it Genecide or Geneside?

- I placed one bolt above the ledge at mid-height. If the 2005 guide is correct, this constitutes a *new, more direct* variation. The original line still steps way right and goes up a ramp that I cleaned. So this bolt should not be contested.

- I placed another bolt near that top. Again, if the 2005 guide is correct, this is also a *new variation* as it goes between the original finish and the Ostrander & Dancer 1988 direct headwall finish. So this bolt should also not be contested.

- The final bolt under fire is at the crux of Genesis. I placed this bolt to replace an old, rusty piton. I did replace it with another pin but then felt that a pin is not a permanent piece of protection. Therefore the bolt.

- I did not consult the FAist on this matter. For that, I am sorry. I should have. My reasoning was that the moss on the route and the branches growing onto it indicated that no one cared enough about it to keep it alive. I decided to invest a huge amount of time, effort, and money into bringing it back to life; and so took with it some license to leave it in a state that would get enough traffic to remain clean. But again, I erred.

- Does anyone have contact info for the FAists? According to the 2005 guide, I'm looking for Hamish Mutch and I. Kennedy. Are the FFAist still unknown? If I do not get the ok from the FAists, I will give serious consideration to removing the bolt I placed.

[hafilax]

I wouldn't say that you're under attack. Placing bolts is always going to ruffle some feathers. People are just offering another opinion on the matter. Your efforts are appreciated but some criticism is to be expected.

It's hard to imagine any kind of meaningful meeting place for route development. It would require writing up a proposal and probing the climbing community for opinions including attempts at contacting the FAs. I'm not sure how practical that would be.

[Optimally-Primed]

Hafilax, you raise a good point about "consulting the community". Anders suggests that I should have done that. But we don't know what that means, and struggle to even envision what it might look like. "The community" is an abstractions (like a centre of gravity). How do we consult an abstraction? What counts as "consulting the community"?

Regarding my use of the word "attack"... in a private email I received last night from what I would call an elite Squamish climber (whom will remain unnamed), he/she referred to my work on Genesis as "smelling of bad practice" and my adding bolts as "disrespectful". That sort of felt "attack-ish"... and Anders' lecturing has the same feel.

I appreciate all the positive comments that people have made on this forum. I hope that you enjoy the crag.

[paulc]

Hi Jer,

I think you have me confused with another Paul, however, I guess I climb 5.12 so that part is right. Funny enough I had to look twice because I pulled a blue TCU or something that size, purple perhaps off of Claimjumper, right in the same area last year.

I've taken 5.10 leaders to Genesis and while there was some sketch going, I don't think that they would have fallen there. We don't really seem to use R/X ratings to much, but perhaps this as I pointed out upthread should be 10a R in the book. It is typical of Murrin gear climbs, sometimes the gear takes skill to get right and then usually it is tiny. I think lots of the 11s fit into this catagory, but 10s are usually better protected. I also beta spray about the pro there, so people know what they are getting into if there is any likely hood of sketch.

Anyhow, I think you are taking a positive approach to the feedback, I think your efforts are worthwhile, but to your point, how do we setup a more useful feedback loop for this type of thing. Especially when the FAAists are long gone from the area? I would suggest the interweb, but that is a bit naive in a few different ways (perhaps worth another thread though). People with a long history are needed for this to work, but so are new climbers perspectives. All sports have to evolve to survive.

Good luck in your quest for the FAAists.

I wanted to check this out yesterday but came out at dark, likely will on the weekend.

Cheers

Paul

[paulc]

Also funny, I really don't like Sentry Box. I can't get my fingers to fit the upper crack and have to make a huge reach off bad crimps. Bah, I'll do that at Pet wall.

Paul

[Optimally-Primed]

Hi Paul,

Sorry about misidentifying you. Turns out we have not one but two strong Paul (C)'s in Squamish. Funny... I can't get my fingers into Sentry Box either. Just fingernails. Ouch.

So Genesis is a fairly serious climb for the 5.10 climber then... some sketch. That sounds about right to me. All else being equal from the FAists, the question then becomes "what do we want it to look like into the future?" Do we want it to be a less serious lead for the 5.10 climber? Or not?

I appreciate your taking a proactive look into possible ways that we can have community dialogue on critical issues. An online approach has the benefit of allowing anyone to be involved. Then again, some of the more seasoned climbers don't seem to be too well connected to the Web. Another idea is a representative, elected advisory committee.

I wholeheartedly agree that all sports have to evolve. With increasing user numbers and decreasing numbers of viable climbs due to vegetation encroachment, high-level discussions about the future will be critical. Applying the rules of the past to the new situation that we have inherited is bound to fail us. This issue is highlighted in the Squamish Climbing Strategy Report. I highly recommend that those interested in this topic have a good read...

I'm glad that the discussion has taken this productive turn.

Jeremy

[paulc]

S'ok, I had though you were Jer Blumel until now...

Say hi to Sar for me.

P

[Optimally-Primed]

I've sent a letter to one Hamish Mutch that lives in Nelson. I hope that the White Pages led me to the right one... I asked him what his preference would be: bolt or no bolt at the crux of Genesis? I'll post when I hear from him.

[Anders Ourom]

I sent Jeremy an e-mail and telephone number for Hamish. (If anyone wonders "who's Hamish?", try the left side of Yosemite Pinnacle sometime. Done in 1965. He's still active.) I may be able to get contact information for Rob Rohn.

The Campbell guide says the left hand route's name is "Geniside". Jim was careful with details like spelling. Perhaps the name was meant to meld "route beside Genesis" into "Geneside", but morphed or simply got misspelled into "Geniside".

Again, I applaud Jeremy (and friends) for his willingness to do the work, and talk about it here. It is a relatively minor (but accessible) cliff, so hardly a federal case whatever happens. We may have to disagree as to the quality of the protection at the crux of Genesis, but I've never worried about it, and am hardly the bravest climber.

Genesis (or the alternatives) form the first leg of what I sometimes call the Murrin Connection - Genesis, Tourist Delight, then Fist. Although Tourist Delight is rather exciting for 5.10a.

I don't know what the mechanism would be for "consulting with the community", but I do think that as time goes on we're going to need to do more of it. I know it means more than simply talking with one's homies - that's too easy. Climbers, and their organizations and discussions, need to be open and inclusive, and work out their differences - that's how democracy works. It better not lead to having to apply for a permit, although I suppose eventually it could come to that, with increasing pressure from climbing and other activities. Posting one's intentions on a bulletin board like this is at least a bit more inclusive, and it seems there are a growing number of readers if not contributors. It might at least generate some information and discussion, remembering the saying about horses, camels and committees. And it does allow reasonably open discussions, allowing for the limitations of the internet and forums.

I do plan to review and comment on the draft "Climbing Strategy" document. Perhaps I have something useful to add to that debate.

[gearheart]

I say thanks for the cleaning effort on this cliff.
I believe that in our tribe (as in life?) reputation matters and that previous good judgment tends to count for something. Although I have (as yet) not climbed any of your recent cleaning efforts (right wing, black dyke), I respect the amount of consultatation and general good work that has gone into them. On that basis alone, I am fully prepared to climb/reclimb the Genesis et al. routes at issue before imagining passing judgement.
I am quite certain that Murrin will benefit from more clean 5.10 cragging given the terminal popularity of sugarloaf right, brunser and up among the firs.
That said, Murrin is awesome for steep climbing and (sketchy) thin gear and I would not want to lose any part of that experience. Whether that happened here, I have no idea and choose to have a closer look before deciding.
Thanks for the cleaning work - and the sentry box photo.
Todd

[pinner]

[quote="Optimally-Primed"]From what some of the more seasoned climbers tell me, no one had climbed it in 15 years prior to me showing up.
[quote]

Surely even the most seasoned climber in the community cannot keep tabs on what every local, Vancouverite, and visitor climbs on any given weekday afternoon.

I spent years driving up from Van as a somewhat adventurous but misguided newbie, seeking out crags in the guide which I had never heard anyone talk about, to find some scary (for me) runout pitch covered in moss... but climbed on anyway.

At any rate, thanks for the all the recent (and past) work, and I applaud your efforts in seeking out concensus and approval from the community - never an easy task.

Especially in a matter such as this, when an apparently well-established climb appears overgrown, and surely sees far less travel than it once did.

It seems that despite the advances in protection, runouts were more accepted once upon a time than they are now (or perhaps because of these advances?).

In any case, thank you Anders, too, for your insight and vast knowledge, and it is encouraging to see a discussion here, rather than an argument, Climb on!

[J Mace]

Thanks for the great crag, Genecide was exceptionally fun.