Hello everybody, by now you have surely heard the news about the CHS and Adam Ondra regarding magnesium.  This issue has sparked fierce debate both in Czech and wider Europe.

Once again we would like to state that this is not the first time the argument has come up; it is only one small chapter within a long saga.  It should be noted that Adam was made example not because he is among a minority, but because he is part of a large majority of active rock climbers who do not follow the rules dictated by the CHS.  The CHS wished to send a message to this majority by penalizing a high profile climber, and they were successful.  Now people are questioning the correctness of these rules.  But first some details should be known.


The CHS is a mountaineering union, and as such it has a broad range of focus which includes rock climbing, but it is not limited to it.  Ski touring, mountaineering, trekking, and expeditions are all included in the union.  This diversity means that active rock climbers are not the strongest voice within the union.  The union does several things within the sport of rock climbing.  Firstly, it negotiates the access to climbing within national parks.  Secondly, it provides rules of climbing for its members.  Thirdly, it promotes the sport and supports some of its top athletes.  Truly, the negotiation with the national parks is of service to the active rock climbing community.  The problem lies within the setting of rules for that community.  There is no outside group- no conservation group, for example- who forbids the use of magnesium within the Czech Republic.  The rules regarding chalk are made by the union itself.  The proof of this is the recent vote within the union to uphold the ban on chalk- if it weren't decided by them,
there would simply be no vote.

The argument against chalk is threefold: First that it is not part of tradition, secondly that it destroys rock, finally that it is ugly. It is certainly true that people had been climbing on sandstone for 100 years before the introduction of chalk.  It is also true that chalk- even against the rules- has been used in some Czech sandstone areas for over 20 years, mostly on more difficult, better protected routes. The conflict is between these two traditions. The second part of the argument- that magnesium destroys rock- is largely unfounded.  There is no conclusive scientific evidence that it is so.  Chalk is used quite extensively on sandstone elsewhere- Red Rocks, USA; Red River Gorge, USA; New River Gorge, USA; the Grampians, Australia; and The Peak District, England- without problems.  There are many things in climbing that have an effect on rock, but the highest impact is the act of climbing itself- pulling on rock with hands and pushing on it with feet.  So if there is worry about changing the rock then climbing itself should be banned, not only the use of chalk.  The third part of the argument- that magnesium is ugly- is it's strongest point.  Most people would agree with this; however, most people also think that roads and buildings in natural places are ugly- yet they remain and are not debated.


There remains a rift between the actions of the active rock climbing community and the rules governing climbing made by the CHS.  The ban on chalk is not required by any preservation group, only the CHS.  The reality is that chalk has been used in some Czech sandstone areas for over 20 years, and will continue to be used regardless of any rules.  The reality is, also, that in some areas chalk is never used, and probably never will be.  This is largely due to poor protection in the most traditional areas- they would never be popular even with chalk.  But protection is a whole different issue…