Chipping and Gluing

I read this article from Rock & Ice a week or so ago, and found it unsettling.

Making The Grade: Why You May Be Wrong About What's Right About Chipping

The author, Bill Ramsey (who is a climber and teaches philosophy at UNLV), presents a well thought out argument "that exposes hidden inconsistencies in our beliefs" about manufacturing holds on a climb.  Basically, that the majority opinion that chipping and gluing is wrong, is an arbitrary rule that is out of place taking into account what we consider acceptable or right.

Some of his philosophy is sound and he highlights some interesting evidence to support his thesis.  Yet, I (and I'm sure most of my 2 followers) see an obvious distinction between chipping holds, and cleaning/trundling/scrubbing.

Mr. Ramsey states:

(a) There are circumstances such that, in the preparation of a route, modifying the rock to make it climbable is acceptable.

(b) The set of circumstances in which rock modification is acceptable sometimes includes the manufacturing of holds.

(c) Therefore, the manufacturing of holds is sometimes acceptable.

"Modifying the rock to make it climbable" connotes intentionally making the route easier.  I have over 150 first ascents to my name, and not once did I clean with the intention to make it easier.  Once sand and soil are removed I often expected it to be easier, but those were not my motives.  Nor were they the motives of any of the 18 other people on those ascents.  Our objective is to at once remove (sand, soil, loose rock, vegetation, etc.) what is likely to come off from subsequent traffic up and down the climb, so that the route that remains for future generations is not changed from the route that was initially climbed and recorded as a first ascent.  In the wet woods of the Maritimes and along our freeze-thaw coasts, this scrubbing typically makes the route easier to see, faster to dry, and safer.  These are expectations, not primary objectives.  Cracks become better at accepting jams and protection.  In terms of difficulty, aside form the usually improved friction, features and holds that get pried or brushed off may expose more or less of a hold in their place.  Just as often as this makes it more climbable, or has no effect, or makes it less climbable.

Manufacture, by all definitions that I find, means to purposefully make something that can be used.  This is a more blatant flaw in Mr. Ramsey's argument.  Statement (a) only hints at intentionally changing a route, whereas statement (b) introduces a new term that expresses an intentional act.

So let's rewrite this in a way that doesn't endorse chipping:

(a) There are circumstances such that, in the preparation of a route, modifying the rock to make it climbable is acceptable.

(b) The set of circumstances in which rock modification is acceptable sometimes includes the manufacturing inadvertent modification of holds, surfaces and features.

(c) Therefore, the manufacturing of holds, which by definition is an intentional act to create, is sometimes acceptable not addressed in (a) or (b).